Should Turkish violations of Greek Airspace be halted?
On the occasion of the shooting down of the Russian Su-24 jet by Turkey, there are quite some people – Greeks and expats living in Greece – wondering what it seems to be the obvious: why is not there has been downing similar airplane either from Greece or from Turkey during the 17-year long history of the famous Greek-Turkish so-called “dogfights”.
“Dogfights” describes the practice where Greek F-16 and Mirage fighter jets and Turkish mostly F-16s get involved in dangerous flight maneuvers chasing each other. The practice is to understand as tactical military provocations triggered by Turkish fighter jets to challenge Greece’s national and airspace sovereignty over the Aegean Sea. At times, the fighter jests are armed.
Greece and Turkey, both are members of the NATO, they are allies that are theoretically not allowed to shoot down each other’s airplanes.
Of course, there have been several conflicts between the two countries that brought them on the verge of a war (Imia/Kardak crisis in 1996) and it was then US-President Bill Clinton who personally intervened to diffuse the crisis. The previous serious conflict between Turkey and Greece was when Ankara invaded Cyrpus in 1974 and Greece sent armed forces to help the Cypriot brothers.
One more reason that Greek or Turkish air space violations are dealt with dogfights and not with shooting down each other’s planes is that Greece belongs to the European Union and that Athens can claim its right to turn a conflict with a non-EU member into a European one.
Not that Turkey would care much about such an issue. In recent past, Ankara had issued warnings of its airspace violations against flying patrols of the Frontex.
Turkish incidents with Frontex
1) In September 2009, a Turkish military radar issued a warning to a Latvian helicopter patrolling in the eastern Aegean—part of the EU’s Frontex programme to combat illegal immigration—to leave the area. The Turkish General Staff reported that the Latvian Frontex aircraft had violated Turkish airspace west of Didim.
According to a Hellenic Air Force announcement, the incident occurred as the Frontex helicopter—identified as an Italian-made Agusta A109—was patrolling in Greek air space near the small isle of Farmakonisi, which lies on a favorite route used by migrant smugglers.
Frontex officials stated that they simply ignored the Turkish warnings as they did not recognise their being in Turkish airspace and continued their duties.
2) Another incident took place on October 2009 in the aerial area above the eastern Aegean sea, off the island of Lesbos.
3) On 20 November 2009, the Turkish General Staff issued a press
Thank you for accepting the debate.
I'd like to say that I used that website as a starting argument and didn't just plagiarize.
Turkey should halt its' violations of Greek Airspace, not just because it's hypocritical, but because it is a danger to Greek national security. Airspace violations have become increasingly common in recent years. Greek military reports that over 2000 intrusions were made in just a month: [img]http://cdn1.theweek.co.uk...[/img]
Reminder that dogfighting also costs a lot of money that each country could've spent on other areas of defense, instead of useless spending on dogfighting. The two countries almost went to war [in 1987, 1996 and 2006 (casualties have existed throughout)] because of foolishness between the two sides.
Of course the Greek Defense minister has proposed the building of a NATO base in one of the Aegean Islands to closely observe the incidents. (http://www.ekathimerini.com...)
Turkey has always used the matter of "sovereignty" as an excuse for this, when nearly 95% of the Aegean Sea has been claimed by Greece: [img]http://lh6.ggpht.com...[/img]
Of course the dispute isn't just because of pride, the Aegean sea holds many valuable resources too. This should not be a problem though, since Greece and Turkey both have signed a treaty (http://www.nytimes.com...) with each other that prohibits the drilling of oil in the Aegean, but for some reason continues to make an issue of this. While Greece has little ways to import oil, when Turkey has direct access to the middle east (and there have been many accusations that it imports oil illegaly from ISIS).
Such provocations from Turkey must stop, not only because they're a threat and may cause a world-wide crisis, but because it brings instability in the region, especially for citizens living in Greek islands in constant fear.
One of the latest incidents in Imia, Greek and Turkish warships were in a very close distance from each other, close to the Turkish coast, that could escalate in a serious situation.
With that out of the way, I am glad to see my opponent has chosen to actually use his own words in this round. We now can begin this debate in earnest on this very interesting subject. Below you will find my response:
With all due respect to my opponent, his entire second round argument is based on a misconception. This entire controversy is the result of Greece's poor interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne. In it, Turkey gave up some of its islands to Italy (who later gave them to Greece). Greece seems to be under the impression that this includes the isles of Imia/Kardak.  However, one needs only to read article 15 of the treaty to find that these isles were NOT included among the ones surrendered by Turkey.  With this in mind, since Turkey still maintains sovereignty over them, it has every right to patrol them. This being the case, Turkey is NOT violating Greek airspace, and therefore has nothing it needs to stop doing.
With this in mind, the resolution has been negated since Turkey is not guilty of what the resolution claims its doing.
Thank you for replying.
Excuse me for fueling more into the little side argument but perhaps I should make it clearer for the voters that you misunderstood what I said. I'm not denying that I plagiarized but I am saying that I used the site for my introduction for a personal reason, but certainly didn't pass it off as my work. Although, I agree I should've quoted it or use it as a citation and I apologize, but anyways:
"This entire controversy is the result of Greece's poor interpretation of the Treaty of Lausanne. In it, Turkey gave up some of its islands to Italy (who later gave them to Greece). "
Unfortunately, this is incorrect.
The islands that were given to Italy (specifically Rode and Dodecanese), weren't given by Turkey, in fact, a Turkish state didn't exist at that time(Ottoman Empire) and those islands were given to the Italians in the Treaty of Sevres.
And I would also like to state that the islands had significant Greek population.
Alongside with that Greece was given the regions of Smyrna and Thrace (which is lost afterwards in the Asian minor disaster due to other reasons).
However, one needs only to read article 15 of the treaty to find that these isles were NOT included among the ones surrendered by Turkey.
Article 15 states only the Dodecanese, which were ceded to Italy. (Might I add that Turkey has claimed sovereignty over these islands in previous disputes, but they've been turned into light demilitarized zones.)
With this in mind, since Turkey still maintains sovereignty over them, it has every right to patrol them.
This is blatantly wrong. Since even Turkish authorities have claimed that the areas, were in fact, never retained under Turkish sovereignty in 1923.
Adding on to this:
"[...] Except where a provision to the contrary is contained in the present Treaty, the islands situated at less than three miles from the Asiatic coast remain under Turkish sovereignty."
This is article 12 of the Treaty of Laussane. Imia/Kardak is situated right outside the 3 mile boundary.
Further on I'd like to mention that you are only focusing on the tiny islands of Imia/Kardak, which are, quite literally, empty. Thus, meaning that there is absolutely no population living there, neither any reason for both countries to claim them. This of course serves as a good excuse for Turkey to provoke Greece, as it always has (I believe its rather obvious that Turkey has an aggressive policy on its neighbours, as you've seen on the news these past few months). So, like I have said, it's quite foolish to use sovereignty as an argument since its clearly not the case. To expand on this, if Greece does indeed negotiate on these tiny rocks and maybe actually deliver them, who's to say that Turkey won't attempt to go after other, bigger pieces of rock?
But if you'd like to continue with this argument, there have been other, newer diplomatic dealings between Greece, Italy and Turkey regarding the Aegean.
As I have stated above, your one and sole argument is focusing on Imia/Kardak. Clearly those aren't the only islands/islets under dispute and definitely not the primary subject. (And I am pretty certain that 22 planes daily don't fit in such a small location).
So continuing on, I'm going to say that Turkey not only breaches national bounderies that have been set and agreed upon, but continues to violate Greek national airspace, which isn't just Imia/Kardak -as you've assumed- but other regions/provinces as well.
One of such examples being on the coast of Karpathos, in which Turkish military aircraft, which violated Greek airspace, and was not registered in the national FIR, engaged in a mock dogfight, resulting in the death of a Greek pilot and injury of the Turkish one.
I apologize for posting this late and for the lack of some sources(I'm certain books could make a legitimate source), but I'm currently on mobile posting this.
My opponent seems to waffle on his plagiarism in this round. On the one hand, he admits he plagiarized, but on the other hand, he claims he didn't pass it off as his own work. Maybe he isn't aware how the word "plagiarism" is defined. If so, I'm glad to clear up any confusion he may have:
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. 
This should settle the issue.
1. The vast majority of my opponent's argument in this round is based upon a logical fallacy, and as such, should be wholly rejected by the voters. The specific fallacy he is guilty of is one that is known as a "bare assertion". This happens when someone makes an argument, but doesn't support it with evidence.  In this case, my opponent argues Turkey has invaded Greece's airspace in places like Karpathos, for instance, but he offers ZERO evidence to support his claim. He also implies that Turkey violated the airspace of Rode and Dodecanese. He also says Turkey reonounced Imia and Kardak. Apparently, we're just supposed to take him at his word because he says so.
With this in mind, I ask the voters to reject such arguments as the baseless claims that they are.
Bait and Switch
2. My opponent also seems to have attempted a bait and switch. It is clear that when it came to my argument concerning the Treaty of Lausanne, I referred specifically to the isles of Imia/Kardak. I made no mention of any other islands. My argument is that Turkey never gave up sovereignty of these islands (see article 15) and therefore Greece has no right to accuse Turkey of violating their airspace. Unfortunately, my opponent has implied I was referring to some other islands, but I never did. Also, the three mile radius my opponent refers to in article 12 is irrelevant when it comes to the isles of Imia/Kardak since article 15 specifically says which islands Turkey renounced. Since Imia and Kardak were not specifically renounced, there is no reason to believe they were.
I now turn this debate back over to Pro. I look forward to reading his next argument.
JohnF.Kennedy forfeited this round.
I extend all my arguments.
JohnF.Kennedy forfeited this round.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||6|