By Theodosis Pipis
The European Parliament on June 17 issued its latest annual progress report on its relations with Turkey. Among others, the report highlights Turkey’s continuing occupation of Cyprus as an obstacle to Turkey’s EU accession and the clamping down of democratic freedoms in the country.
In a statement, the Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET) of the European Parliament said that it regrets that, despite the Turkish government’s repeated statements recommitting to the EU membership goal, “persistent and serious concerns raised in its previous reports regarding shortcomings affecting the accession process remain unaddressed”.
Nikolas Farantouris, a Greek member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (PASOK – S&D) tells en.philenews about the need for a strategic shift in Greek and Cypriot diplomacy in the face of Turkish revisionism, namely the “Blue Homeland” doctrine.
He argues that the two countries must utilise their presence in international organisations and leverage the Greek and Cypriot diasporas to strengthen their position against Turkish aggression.
Moreover, Farantouris stresses that Turkish actions in the Aegean Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean represent an attempt to unilaterally and illegally alter established boundaries, challenge sovereign rights and create a situation that directly concerns the European Union. He adds that the security of Cyprus is inseparable from the security of the European Union as a whole.
Mr Farantouris, you visit Cyprus frequently. This time, however, you are here in your capacity as a member of the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs and Delegation for Relations with the United States, following your appointment to PASOK’s shadow cabinet on foreign policy. How is Cyprus viewed from Brussels and Washington?
It is a great honour to visit my beloved Cyprus as a Member of the European Parliament, particularly in my capacity as a member of the Delegation for Relations with the United States. I am in Cyprus as part of the EU–US interparliamentary dialogue, during which issues of major importance will be discussed, including developments in the Middle East, trade agreements, security and defence, as well as developments in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Current circumstances confirm that Cyprus occupies a pivotal position of considerable geopolitical significance in all these matters. This is recognised by European governments across the board and, certainly, in Washington as well. My objective is to make it unequivocally clear that the security of Cyprus is inseparable from the security of the European Union as a whole. Full stop. No compromises, no caveats, no exceptions.
Since you mentioned security, how do you assess the deployment of Turkish F-16 fighter jets in the occupied territories under the pretext of the escalation of operations in Iran?
The deployment of Turkish F-16s was undoubtedly a provocative action by Ankara directed against Cyprus. Given the seriousness of the issue, I submitted an urgent parliamentary question to the European Commission and informed members of the US Congress in Washington, stressing that the transfer and deployment of military aircraft by Turkey to illegally occupied European territory raises serious concerns under European, international and US law, particularly as these aircraft constitute American military equipment.
The issue quickly gained traction on the other side of the Atlantic. Many members of Congress reacted strongly once informed, noting that the deployment appeared to conflict with US legislation prohibiting the use of American-made military aircraft in the territory of an unrecognised entity. I personally engaged with several American lawmakers, and we agreed to coordinate our efforts in defence of international legality and European security in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Nevertheless, Turkey excluded the Republic of Cyprus from preparatory processes for COP31, the UN Climate Conference to be held in Antalya this November. How do you assess this?
Indeed. Turkey will host the next United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP31) in Antalya. In recent weeks, it has adopted a broader practice of excluding Cyprus from preparatory proceedings by refusing to extend invitations to Cypriot authorities for important meetings and by ignoring requests for bilateral contacts submitted by Cyprus on behalf of the European Union in its capacity as holder of the Presidency of the Council of the EU.
Under these circumstances, we formally and firmly raised the issue with the European Commission, emphasising that Turkey is violating established UN procedures and failing to respect Cyprus’s status both as an equal member of the United Nations and as the country holding the Presidency of the Council of the EU. I also called on the Commission to take specific measures to ensure Cyprus’s equal and unhindered participation in the preparations for COP31.
As the Commission itself acknowledged, such exclusion is unacceptable and incompatible with Turkey’s responsibilities as host country of COP31. Cyprus will, of course, participate, but this episode demonstrates once again that our responses must be immediate and decisive.
Another controversial development is the anticipated institutionalisation of the “Blue Homeland” doctrine by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. How do you assess this development?
Based on the information available, the proposed legislation seeks to transform Ankara’s revisionist claims into domestic law, challenging sovereignty and sovereign rights not only in the Aegean Sea but also in the Eastern Mediterranean.
It is regrettable that Athens remains silent while Ankara pursues unilateral and unlawful actions. Let me be clear: this is not merely an internal Turkish matter. It represents an attempt to unilaterally and illegally alter established boundaries, challenge sovereign rights and create a situation that directly concerns the European Union.
Such challenges require determination, internationalisation of the issue through institutional channels and a clear strategic response. Policies of appeasement and the pursuit of “calm waters” have brought neither normalisation nor resolution. Quite the opposite.
Why did the recent European Parliament report on EU–Turkey relations provoke such a strong reaction from Ankara?
The European Parliament adopted the report by an overwhelming majority. It documents in considerable detail the contradictions of contemporary Turkey.
As I pointed out during the plenary debate, it is an unprecedented international paradox for a country to seek closer integration with the European Union, request participation in the Customs Union and European security and defence structures, while simultaneously refusing to recognise one of the Union’s member states.
The report records numerous violations of the rule of law, human rights, international law and democratic principles, including the imprisonment of political opponents and journalists, as well as the persecution and displacement of dissidents. Particular reference is made to Ankara’s challenges towards Greece and Cyprus, including the military occupation of Cyprus, the proposed “Blue Homeland” legislation and violations of the property rights of the Greek community of Constantinople.
It is important to note that these amendments were introduced at the initiative of PASOK’s Members of the European Parliament. As I mentioned earlier, the Greek government has in recent years invested excessively in a policy of appeasement without tangible results.
Naturally, we seek neither conflict nor escalation. However, PASOK has demonstrated throughout its history—from the era of Andreas Papandreou and the Joint Defence Doctrine to Cyprus’s accession to the European Union—that it is capable of conducting a responsible foreign policy, maintaining open channels of communication while making no concessions on fundamental principles.
Today, a different strategy is required: one based on outward-looking diplomacy, active engagement and intervention in support of peace and international law; a strong and assertive presence within international organisations; and the mobilisation of the comparative advantages of Hellenism, the Greek diaspora, Greek communities abroad and our global cultural and political presence.
Cyprus and Greece must serve as guardians of peace, stability and the rule of law. That is our vision, and that is what we are working towards.