A line of common sense is developing in the Eastern Mediterranean

After Egypt announced some time ago that it would respect the continental shelf declared by Türkiye in its oil and natural gas exploration activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias made a hurried, sudden visit to Cairo and met with Egyptian Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry.

The matter is, of course, to head off the losses that a possible Türkiye-Egypt rapprochement could cause them. These losses actually stemmed from the excessive profit arising from Greece's existing agreement, but this profit was also causing great harm to Egypt. It appears that during Dendias's contacts in Cairo this profit-loss situation was in some way reviewed and reassessed again, and within this framework the doors of negotiation were opened for redetermining maritime boundaries.

In the same days came statements from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that talks with Türkiye in the Eastern Mediterranean are useful and necessary.

From whichever side you look at this activity in the Eastern Mediterranean, it is clearly a good omen. This activity is the proof that everyone has clearly understood that the agreements all parties previously made among themselves in the Eastern Mediterranean, neglecting and even excluding Türkiye, have no validity or applicability whatsoever. Had Türkiye remained silent to the end against this unjust and denialist partition, things would have been presented as a fait accompli, and Türkiye, as the country with the largest land border in the Mediterranean, would have been made unable to cast a fishing line off its own shores.

Yet with Türkiye's reaching an agreement with Libya, all these calculations had to be reviewed afresh. In seeking its own right, Türkiye of course does not disregard the rights of others. It only wants and takes its own right.

Because it did this, there were those who described Türkiye as an aggressive actor that disrupts the stability of the region. No one doubts that these characterizations are made by those who have their eyes on this unjust gain. By using the advantage of Greece's EU membership and obtaining the blind support of EU countries, this perception operation against Türkiye also finds many buyers. But at the end of the day, when all the accounts are laid out, Türkiye, with all the strength that being in the right provides, has ensured that the balance is re-established.

Thus, the search for a new equation in the Eastern Mediterranean is nothing other than a new partition in which no one's right is lost and everyone gets their right. Disregarding one party makes the healthy, efficient and safe production and transport of the hydrocarbon resources of the Eastern Mediterranean impossible. The Eastern Mediterranean does not allow excessive greed, and this is Türkiye's thesis, whose ethical foundations are extremely solid and which no one can object to.

The activity we are witnessing these days from Egypt, Greece and Israel increasingly shows that everyone is approaching this point of common sense that Türkiye has defended.

When this point of common sense is reached, a line of rapprochement and agreement among all the countries of the region is destined to form. With Israel following Egypt, which announced it will respect the continental shelf declared by Türkiye, it is inevitable that Greece too will sooner or later come to this line of common sense. Türkiye neither demands more than its own right nor favors anyone's right being lost.

Egypt's attitude of respect expressed toward Türkiye on this matter in fact opens for itself a new area in which it will make up for its loss under the agreement it made with Greece. Thus Egypt is not merely respecting Türkiye's boundaries; it is also remembering and looking after its own benefit.

But those who see even this as a new page in the problematic relationship that has existed between Türkiye and Egypt for 8 years cannot be considered very unjustified. The logic of international relations does not work with the same logic as personal relations. A cooperation in which common interests are looked after on any given subject does not require thinking and acting together on every subject.

We had stated before that Türkiye and the USA are in almost diametrically opposed approaches, especially on the Syrian front. Unfortunately, the USA, which is Türkiye's ally in NATO and with which it cooperates in many areas, is in open cooperation, in Syria and Iraq, with the PKK, known for its terrorist activities against Türkiye, and its extensions in these countries. Türkiye from time to time conducts operations against these groups that the USA openly and officially supports. Yet this confrontation does not prevent the two countries' cooperation and dialogue in some other areas.

In the same way, Türkiye can find itself facing Russia in both Syria and Libya, but this too does not prevent working together for a solution in Syria, nor Türkiye's buying some defense technologies from Russia and Russia's selling them to Türkiye. We can apply this logic to Iran too, with a larger number of examples.

Relations with Egypt too need to be rethought within this framework. After all, the common interests of the two countries should not be sacrificed to some differences of opinion between them that cannot be resolved, or perhaps will not be resolved.

The positive replies from Turkish government officials to this first statement from Egypt are, within this framework, a harbinger of a relationship advancing on a new and realistic line.