Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
SpringerLink
Log in

Détente

  • Chapter
The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean

Part of the book series: New Perspectives on South-East Europe Series ((NPSE))

  • 360 Accesses

Abstract

From the second part of 1999, there was a marked thaw in Greek-Turkish relations that has been characterised as a rapprochement or reconciliation.1 Although the thaw was tangible and proved to be far from ephemeral, détente is probably a more appropriate term to describe the period from mid-1999 until today.2 The decade of détente that followed (1999–2009) can be divided into two phases: its steadier and warmer period until the first part of 2004 and the more unsteady period thereafter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Ahmet O. Evin (2005), ‘Changing Greek Perspectives on Turkey: An Assessment of the Post-Earthquake Rapprochement’, in Ali Çarkoğlu and Barry Rubin (eds), Greek-Turkish Relations in an Era of Détente (London: Routledge)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ziya Öniş and Şuhnaz Yιlmaz (2008), ‘Greek-Turkish Rapprochement: Rhetoric or Reality?’, Political Science Quarterly, 123, 1, p. 123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Alexis Heraclides (2002), ‘Greek-Turkish Relations from Discord to Détente: A Preliminary Evaluation’, The Review of International Affairs: Center for Eurasian Strategic Studies, 1, 2 (Spring), pp. 17–18.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Heinz-Jürgen Axt (1999), ‘The Island of Cyprus and the European Union’, in Clement H. Dodd (ed.), Cyprus: The Need for New Perspectives (London: The Eothen Press), pp. 174–94

    Google Scholar 

  5. Christopher Brewin (2000), The European Union and Cyprus (Huntingdon: The Eothen Press)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Thomas Diez (2002), ‘Last Exit to Paradise? The European Union, the Cyprus Conflict and the Problematic “Catalytic Effect”’, in Thomas Diez (ed.), The European Union and the Cyprus Conflict (Manchester: Manchester University Press), pp. 139–62.

    Google Scholar 

  7. For attempts to explain the unexpected détente, see Heraclides, op. cit., pp. 17–22; Ayten Gündogdu (2001), ‘Identities in Question: Greek-Turkish Relations in a Period of Transformation’, Middle East Review of International Affairs, 5, 1, pp. 106–17; Bahar Rumelili (2004), ‘The European Union’s Impact on the Greek-Turkish Conflict’, Working Papers Series in EU Border Conflict Studies, no. 6 (January); Evin, op. cit., pp. 5–6, 8–10; Öniş and Yιlmaz, op. cit.; Kemal Kirisçi (2006), ‘Turkish Foreign Policy in Turbulent Times’, Chaillot Paper, no. 92, Institute for Security Studies (Paris), pp. 18–27, 100–3

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hakan Abaci (2004), ‘The Öcalan Affair and its Effect on the Turkish-Greek Rapprochement Process in 1999’, Turkish Review of Balkan Studies, 9, pp. 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  9. James Ker-Lindsay (2007), Crisis and Conciliation: A Year of Rapprochement between Greece and Turkey (London: I.B. Tauris).

    Google Scholar 

  10. Heraclides, op. cit., pp. 19–22; Evin, op. cit., p. 8; Kirisçi, op. cit., p. 20. See also the testimony of Cem, in Ismail Cem (2004), Türkiye Avrupa Avrasya [Turkey, Europe, Eurasia] (Istanbul: Istanbul Bilgi Universitesi Yayιnlarι), pp. 119–28.

    Google Scholar 

  11. liter Turkmen (2002), ‘Prooptikes gia tis ellinotourkikes scheseis’ [Prospects for Greek-Turkish Relations], in Thanos Veremis and Thanos Dokos (eds), I syghroni Tourkia [Contemporary Turkey] (Athens: Papazisis), pp. 636–7; Heraclides, op. cit., pp. 17–21

    Google Scholar 

  12. Tozun Bahcheli (2004), ‘Turning a New Page in Turkey’s Relations with Greece? The Challenge of Reconciling Vital Interests’, in Mustafa Aydιn and Kostas Ifantis (eds), Turkish-Greek Relations: The Security Dilemma in Aegean (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group), p. 95; Evin, op. cit., p. 8; Kirisçi, op. cit., p. 20; Öniş and Yιlmaz, op. cit., p. 127; Ker-Lindsay, op. cit., pp. 39–41. 9. Cem’s letter can be found at http://www.greekturkishforum.org. Date accessed 10 January 2002. Also quoted in length in Ker-Lindsay, op. cit., pp. 45–7, 123–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. David Mitrany (1966) [1943], A Working Peace System (Chicago: Quadrangle Books).

    Google Scholar 

  14. For the Steering Committee and Task Force, see Heraclides, op. cit., pp. 23–4. For the first CBMs, see Panayotis J. Tsakonas (2001), ‘Turkey’s Post-Helsinki Turbulence: Implications for Greece and the Cyprus Issue’, Turkish Studies, 2, 2, pp. 26, 29, note 109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Heinz-Jürgen Axt (2005), ‘Relations with Turkey and the Impact of the European Union’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 5, 3, pp. 366–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Costas Simitis (2005), Politiki gia mia dimiourgiki Ellada, 1996–2004 [Politics for a Creative Greece, 1996–2004] (Athens: Polis), pp. 92–3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. However, a safety clause was added at the end of the statement on Cyprus’s accession, known as the ‘Helsinki tail’: that ‘the Council would take account of all relevant factors’ in its future sessions. It was in the Copenhagen EU summit meeting (December 2002) that there was clear accession without any ‘tail’. See David Hannay (2005), Cyprus: The Search for a Solution (London, I.B. Tauris), pp. 112–13.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simitis, op. cit., pp. 99–101; George Papandreou (2000) ‘Ellinotourkikes scheseis, apo ti syngrousi sti synergasia kai tin oikodomisi tis Europis tou 21ou aiona’ [Greek-Turkish Relations, from Conflict to Cooperation and the Building of the Europe of the 21st Century], Anaskopisi Amyntikis kai Exoterikis Politikis, ELIAMEP, pp. 30–1 Resolution: Golbal.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See in particular the criticism of the main foreign policy spokesman of the ND, Moliviatis, in Petros Moliviatis (2000), ‘Protaseis gia tin exoteriki politiki’ [Proposals on Foreign Policy], Anaskopisi Amyntikis kai Exoterikis Politikis, ELIAMEP, p. 75 Resolution: Golbal.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Türkmen, op. cit., p. 638; Bahcheli, op. cit., pp. 100–1; Bahcheli (2003), ‘Cycles of Tension and Rapprochement: Prospects for Turkey’s Relations with Greece’, in Tareq I. Ismael and Mustafa Aydιn (eds), Turkey’s Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: A Changing Role in World Politics (Burlington: Ashgate), pp. 174–5

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ycel Acer (2003), The Aegean Maritime Disputes and International Law (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 58–9; Kirisçi, op. cit., pp. 20–2; Ker-Lindsay, op. cit., pp. 99–100.

    Google Scholar 

  22. For this aspect, see in particular Panayiotis Ioakimidis (2000), ‘The Europeani-sation of Greece’s Foreign Policy: Progress and Problems’, in A. Mitsos and E. Mossialos (eds), Contemporary Greece and Europe (Aldershot: Ashgate)

    Google Scholar 

  23. Spyros Economides (2005), ‘The Europeanisation of Greek Foreign Policy’, West European Politics, 28, 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Rumelili, op. cit.; Rumelili (2003), ‘Liminality and Perpetuation of Conflicts: Turkish-Greek Relations in the Context of Community-Building by the EU’, European Journal of International Relations, 9, 2, pp. 213–48; Ker-Lindsay, op. cit., pp. 115–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Panayotis J. Tsakonas (2010), The Incomplete Breakthrough in Greek-Turkish Relations: Grasping Greece’s Socialization Strategy (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  26. Dimitris Keridis (2001), ‘Domestic Developments and Foreign Policy: Greek Policy Toward Turkey’, in Dimitris Keridis and Dimitrios Triantaphyllou (eds), Greek-Turkish Relations in the Era of Globalization (Herndon: Brassey’s), pp. 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  27. H. Tank Oguzlu (2004), ‘The Latest Greek-Turkish Détente: Instrumentalist Play for European Membership or Long-term Institutionalist Cooperation’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 17, 2, pp. 338, 347–9.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Türkmen, op. cit., p. 637; Cem, op. cit., pp. 82, 91–2, 120; Erol Kurubaş (2002), ‘Türk-Yunan Ilişkilerinde Neo-Detant Dönemi ve Ilişkilerin Geleceği’ [The Period of New Détente in Turkish-Greek Relations and the Future of the Relationship], in Birgül Demirtaş.-Coşkun (ed.), Türkiye-Yunanistan, Eski Sorunlar, Yeni Arayιşlar [Turkey-Greece, Old Problems, New Quests] (Ankara: ASAM), pp. 1–2, 15–24; Birgül Demirtaş-Coşkun (2002), ‘Ankara-Atina Ilişkilerinde Son Dönem: Değişenler ve Degismeyenler’ [The Last Period of Relations between Ankara and Athens: The Things That Change and the Things That Do Not Change], in Demirtaş-Coşkun (ed.), op. cit., pp. 202–6; Gülden Ayman (2004), ‘Negotiation and Deterrence in Asymmetrical Power Situations: The Turkish-Greek Case’, in Aydιn and Ifantis (eds), op. cit., pp. 227–34; Bahcheli, ‘Turning a New Page in Turkey’s Relations with Greece?’, op. cit., pp. 98–101, 115–16

    Google Scholar 

  29. William Hale (2002), Turkish Foreign Policy, 1774–2000 (London: Frank Cass) pp. 258, 355; Kirisçi, op. cit., pp. 12, 19, 29–38; Acer, op. cit., passim.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Melek Firat (2006), ‘Soguk Savas Sonrasι Türk-Yunan Iiskilerinde Degişim’ [The Transformation of Turkish-Greek Relations in the Post-Cold War Era], in Mustafa Aydιn and Çagrι Erhan (eds), Bes Deniz Havzasιnda Türkiye [Turkey and the Five Sea Basin] (Ankara: Siyasal), pp. 271–3.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ziya Öniş (2003), ‘Turkey and the Middle East after September 11: The Importance of the EU Dimension’, Turkish Policy Quarterly, 2, 4, pp. 84–5.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Heraclides, op. cit., pp. 20–1; Gilles Bertrand (2003), Le conflit helléno-turc: la confrontation des deux nationalismes à l’aube d XXIe siècle (Paris: Maisonneuve & Larose), pp. 273–310

    Google Scholar 

  33. Bahar Rumelili (2005), ‘Civil Society and the Europeanization of Greek-Turkish Cooperation’, South European Society and Politics, 10, 1, pp. 45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Eugenia Vathakou (2009), ‘Greek-Turkish Peace Processes as Autopoietic Systems’, in Constantine Arvanitopoulos (ed.), Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy (Berlin: Springer), pp. 133–46. On the rising role of civil society in Turkish foreign policy, see Kirisçi, op. cit., pp. 38–49

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  35. Thomas Diez, Apostolos Agnantopoulos and A. Kaliber, A. (2005), ‘Turkey, Europeanisation and Civil Society’, South European Society and Politics, 10, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Maria Ververidou (2001), ‘I ellinotourkiki oikonomiki synergasia: provlimata kai prooptikes’ [Greek-Turkish Economic Cooperation: Problems and Prospects], Agora horis Synora [Market without Frontiers], 7, 1

    Google Scholar 

  37. Dimitris Tsarouhas (2009), ‘The Political Economy of Greek-Turkish Relations’, Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 9, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Ernest B. Haas (1964), Beyond the Nation-State (Stanford: Stanford University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  39. L.N. Lindberg and S.A. Scheingold (1970), Europe’s Would-Be Polity (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall)

    Google Scholar 

  40. For a crisp overview of neofunctionalism, see R.J. Harrison (1990), ‘Neo-functionalism’, in A.J.R. Groom and Paul Taylor (eds), Frameworks of International Co-operation (London: Pinter Publishers), pp. 139–50.

    Google Scholar 

  41. For a thorough presentation of the activity of the GTF see Özel, op. cit., pp. 269–90; and Costas Zepos (2003), ‘Intervention’, in Stelios Perrakis (ed.), Aigaio: exelixeis kai prooptikes epilysis ton ellinotourkikon dienexeon [The Aegean: Developments and Prospects for the Resolution of the Greek-Turkish Disputes] (Athens: Sakkoulas), pp. 144–5. Also based on discussions of the author with ambassador Costas Zepos and Paulina Lampsa.

    Google Scholar 

  42. GTF participant Paulina Lampsa provided me with this vignette. Apparently Papandreou had in mind the conflict resolution workshops involving private individuals that are distant from their respective governments, a procedure adopted by conflict analyst Herbert Kelman and others (see e.g. Herbert Kelman (1976), ‘The Problem-Solving Workshop: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Resolution of International Conflicts’, Journal of Peace Research, 13, 2). But if one was to follow the original more ambitious version of a problem-solving workshop introduced by John Burton in the mid-1960s, then the GTF is clearly Track 2. Burton’s workshop involves personalities on either side that hold no official position in the respective governments but are very close to the top leaders and their views regarding the ongoing conflict (the first such workshop by Burton was on the Cyprus conflict in 1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. See John W. Burton (1969), Conflict and Communication: The Use of Controlled Communication in International Relations (London: Macmillan)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Burton (1972), ‘Resolution of Conflict’, International Studies Quarterly, 16, 1.

    Google Scholar 

  45. For a thorough presentation of various aspects of the Turkey-EU debate, see Hakan Yιlmaz (ed.) (2005), Placing Turkey on the Map of Europe (Istanbul: Boğaziçi University Press)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Hakan Yιlmaz (2009), ‘Europeanisation and its Discontents: Turkey, 1959–2007’, in Constantine Arvanitopoulos (ed.), Turkey’s Accession to the European Union: An Unusual Candidacy (Berlin: Springer). See more generally other chapters in Arvanitopoulos (ed), op. cit.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ziya Öniş, and Şuhnaz Yιlmaz (2009), ‘Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism: Foreign Policy Activism in Turkey during the AKP Era’, Turkish Studies, 10, 1, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Alexander Murinson (2006), ‘The Strategic Depth Doctrine of Turkish Foreign Policy’, Middle Eastern Studies, 42, 6, p. 946.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. See Ahmed Davutoğlu (2001), Stratejik Derinlik: Turkiye’nin Uluslarasι Konumu [Strategic Depth: Turkey’s International Standing] (Istanbul: Kure Yayιnlarι). For succint presentations in English of Davutoğlu’s approach, see the following: Murinson, op. cit., pp. 946–53, 960–1; Öniş, and Yιlmaz, ‘Between Europeanization and Euro-Asianism’, op. cit., pp. 9, 12–14

    Google Scholar 

  50. Pinar Bilgin (2007), ‘“Only Strong States can Survive in Turkey’s Geography”: The Use of “Geopolitical Truths” in Turkey’, Political Geography, 26, p. 749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Greece

    Alexis Heraclides (Professor of International Relations and Conflict Resolution)

Authors
  1. Alexis Heraclides
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2010 Alexis Heraclides

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Heraclides, A. (2010). Détente. In: The Greek-Turkish Conflict in the Aegean. New Perspectives on South-East Europe Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230283398_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation