Are the waters of NATO and the EU heating up in the Mediterranean?

Egypt's new maritime jurisdiction agreement with Greece is, quite plainly, a move that seeks to choke Turkey in the Mediterranean and to invalidate the maritime jurisdiction agreement Turkey concluded with Libya some time ago. Turkey had in fact already taken its step against what President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan described as "a greedy division, made unilaterally, so that we cannot even cast a line to fish off our own shores in the Mediterranean."

In the maritime jurisdiction agreements made among Egypt, Greece, the Greek Cypriot Administration and Israel, they divided up the sea in such a way as to leave no space at all to Turkey, the country with the longest coastline on the Mediterranean. The party that joined these agreements on behalf of Cyprus was only the Greek side of the island, and it took part in this division without leaving anything to the Turkish side.

In this respect, the maritime jurisdiction agreement Turkey made with Libya was an important step on the road to defending its own rights. To describe this step as aggressive is to ignore the utterly unjust and hostile division carried out by the others. Those who, in the name of the AB and NATO, describe what Turkey has done as aggression evidently regard what the others have done as normal.

Then one will have to ask what the function of the AB and NATO is. After Turkey made this agreement, it began drilling and exploration work. Thereupon German Chancellor Merkel telephoned President Erdoğan and proposed halting these activities for a while. Her justification was that she could persuade the Greek side to accept a more reasonable solution. Erdoğan told her that Greece had little intention of keeping its word and that he, for his part, could not persuade it. This agreement with Egypt has once again demonstrated that Erdoğan was right.

Turkey's maritime jurisdiction agreement with Libya means nothing other than Turkey defending itself. It is a defensive move aimed at regaining Turkey's usurped rights in the Mediterranean. The agreements between Egypt and Greece, on the other hand, are extremely aggressive. Let us see how those within NATO who hand out report-card grades to each country will interpret this stance.

Moreover, as to who this hostile alliance against Turkey is formed among, perhaps NATO has no concern for democracy, human rights and the like, but for the AB, looking at it should be an existential matter. For all the countries that represent coups and hostility to democracy against Turkey, which represents democracy and human rights in the Islamic world, take part in this alliance, in which Greece, as an AB country, is also included. Egypt is ruled by a bloody-handed coup-making general. During the coup he committed a massacre, a crime against humanity, in which thousands of his own people were slaughtered. Even now it holds close to 100 thousand political prisoners, with torture and human rights violations that are no less than those of medieval dungeons. The reports of Amnesty International are there for all to see.

In the midst of all this, the Foreign Minister of Saudi Arabia has visited the Greek Cypriot Administration and declared that he is concerned about what Turkey is doing. Thus Saudi Arabia, which committed the century's savage murder, which tries to strangle every democratization movement in the Islamic world, and where human rights are not even mentioned, has declared its side in the Mediterranean dispute.

Did anyone actually ask? What could be the reason for the officiousness of SA, a country with no coastline on the Mediterranean and therefore no place in this dispute, in declaring its side?

I think it is not we but the AB that should answer this. In these disputes everyone rushes to take a position on the side nearest to itself. Should the AB's preference in the Islamic world be democracies, human rights and good governance, or anti-democratic, coup-making, massacring, torturing dictators?

Should it be the prop of the piratical policies of NATO members? And as for the support France gives to the war criminal, coup-making Haftar, let alone any sanction by the AB, will it not even raise a question? Evidently France's historically savage colonial character has resurfaced, and it has begun to play again the roles of its dirty past. Will the AB have no sanction, or any ethical norm, against its members for these savage colonial practices?

Are these even questions? The AB has come to the end of the line. Turkey finds itself obliged to be strong and to take the initiative in order to protect its own rights.

If Turkey says the agreement between Greece and Egypt is null and void, then it is null and void.