Greece says Turkey must lift war threat to get access to EU defence funds
ATHENS, May 22 (Reuters) - Turkey must lift a 30-year old war threat against Greece if it wants Athens to consent to Ankara accessing European Union defence funds, Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis said on Thursday.
Greece and Turkey, NATO allies but historic foes, have been at odds for decades over a range of issues from airspace to the extent of their maritime boundaries and ethnically-split Cyprus.
In 1995, the Turkish parliament declared a "casus belli", or cause for war, if Greece unilaterally expanded its territorial waters beyond six nautical miles in the Aegean Sea.
"If Turkey wishes access into European defence financing tools, the legitimate concerns of both Greece and Cyprus should be taken into account," Mitsotakis said, referring to projects such as the EU's new flagship arms-buying fund, Security Action for Europe (SAFE).
"It has been 30 years since the Turkish National Assembly voted on the infamous casus belli. I think that 30 years later, the time has come to directly ask our Turkish friends to take it off the table," he told Skai radio.
Mitsotakis said he would convey the message to Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan soon, citing improved bilateral ties.
The Turkish government was not immediately available for comment.
Asked about Greece trying to keep Turkey away from EU defence projects, a Turkish defence ministry source said earlier that any attempts to disregard Turkey's importance for European security were bound to fail.
"Carrying bilateral disputes to multilateral platforms and putting forth an approach aimed at excluding our country is both a step that is not taken with good intentions, and not a smart one," the source said.
Ankara and Athens have been exploring whether they can start talks aimed at demarcating their maritime zones. Mitsotakis said that a high-level meeting between the two countries will take place in the coming months.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
9 hours ago
- The Independent
Hegseth jokes about US allies doing nothing in Afghanistan – despite hundreds losing their lives
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth appeared to make light of the contributions made by America's NATO allies during the war in Afghanistan at a Capitol Hill hearing on Wednesday. Speaking before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Hegseth attempted to make a point that the White House and President Donald Trump himself have frequently made: that other NATO member-states should increase their defensive capabilities to match the benchmarks laid out in the defense pact's charter. Instead, the secretary harked back to a remark he told Sen. Chris Coons (D-Conn.) was commonly made by US service members on the ground in Afghanistan during his time in the service. Hegseth said his fellow Army National Guardsmen would often joke that the ISAF acronym on their shoulder patches — which stood for International Security Assistance Force — really stood for, 'I saw Americans fighting.' 'Ultimately it was a lotta flags. Lotta flags. [But it] was not a lot of on-the-ground capability,' Hegseth continued in disparaging the NATO troops. 'You're not a real coalition, you're not a real alliance, unless you have real defense capability, and real armies that can bring those to bear.' His remark drew immediate rebuke from Coons, who noted the military and human contributions that America's allies made after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, when NATO's Article 5 was invoked for the first time. The Democratic senator launched into an explanation about how Denmark, with a population of just six million, suffered some of the highest losses per capita of any coalition ally, only closely trailing the United States. 'Let's just make clear for the record that our military partners in Afghanistan included many who served and died,' said the senator. But Hegseth wasn't finished. 'Don't try and make it look like I don't care about the investments of our partners,' said the secretary. 'Of course I do. I recognize that there were lives lost from other countries. But the bulk of the effort was Americans.' Alongside the US, 31 other countries participated in the war in Afghanistan and saw soldiers killed in combat and due to other circumstances. The U.S. lost 2,461 troops over the course of the longest military engagement in U.S. history, followed by the UK, which lost 457 service members. The final deaths of the war occurred during a chaotic withdrawal from the country in 2021, following the fall of large tracts of territory to Taliban militants the U.S .and its allies failed to dislodge over the course of 20 years. A blast attributed to Islamic State militants killed more than a dozen US service members outside of Kabul's airport during the evacuation, while thousands of desperate Afghans crowded the facility and sought exit on American planes. America's participation in the war grew unpopular as it dragged on, and the withdrawal of forces was ordered by Donald Trump during his first presidency. Completed under Joe Biden, the chaotic nature of the pullout and the speed of the collapse of Afghanistan's democratic government were points of soreness and contention in Washington, with defense hawks fretting that the Taliban takeover amounted to the country turning into a breeding ground for al Qaeda, the Islamic State and other terror groups once again. Britain's House of Commons library reports that the total cost of UK contributions to the war topped 32.8 billion pounds, adjusted for 2024-25 price levels. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugees were also resettled by the UK and other US partners. In 2021 and the two years following, Afghan refugees were the most common nationality accepted by the Home Office, according to the government's figures. The Trump administration in January froze a program allowing Afghan citizens who helped the US during the war against the Taliban, Islamic State and Al Qaeda to resettle in America.
Leader Live
10 hours ago
- Leader Live
Denmark approves US military bases on Danish soil as Trump eyes Greenland
Critics say the vote ceded Danish sovereignty to the US. The legislation widens a previous military agreement, made in 2023 with the Biden administration, where US troops had broad access to Danish airbases in the Scandinavian country. The new parameters follow Mr Trump's coveting of the strategic, mineral-rich Arctic island even as the US and Denmark are Nato allies. Danish foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, in a response to politicians' questions, wrote that Denmark would be able to terminate the agreement if the US tries to annex all or part of Greenland. Ninety-four politicians voted for the bill, with 11 against. The legislation now goes to Danish King Frederik X for his signature. Greenland's prime minister previously said US statements about the island have been disrespectful and it 'will never, ever be a piece of property that can be bought by just anyone'.
Telegraph
10 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves may have just killed Nato
There will be a moment, some time in the next few years when the US will genuinely consider leaving Nato. And if it does, we should not be surprised. It wasn't as if they didn't warn the rest of us. About the only thing Donald Trump and Barack Obama ever agreed on was that Europe must make a much bigger financial contribution to Nato. In 2014 at the Cardiff Summit, the Treasury furiously resisted the demands. All sorts of tricks were pulled and definitions were stretched to get the UK to 2 per cent of GDP. The Americans, in their polite way, asked nicely. They've been asking ever since. Because as they command all Allied forces in Nato they knew the truth about the state of everyone's forces. While public scrutiny was kept at bay using secrecy and 'operational reasons', SACEUR – Supreme Allied Commander Europe, the military boss of Nato and always an American – grew increasingly concerned as Russia got more and more aggressive. And still European capitals, including London, carried on cutting. Not until 2019 and Boris Johnson did the Ministry of Defence turn the corner with real money and real reform. Previous Conservative and Labour governments had used the Red Arrows and Trooping the Colour to pretend that all was well. But Ukraine found us out. Nato and the international community needed to act: and as we examined our inventory ministers could see just how weak we had become. I remember when we debated gifting the AS90 155mm long range artillery to Ukraine I was informed that while we had 73 guns on the books only 19 worked! Or when I tried to increase the number of tanks to be upgraded to Challenger 3s I was told it was impossible because so many of our tanks had already been stripped of parts to keep others running. You might say that I should have known all that detail on day one. But you'd be surprised how well the services can hide bad news when they want to. Last week we witnessed Labour's first defence review for more than 20 years. It was heralded by re‑announcing many Conservative procurements. As a review it was weak: clearly budget-led not threat led. The big decisions had been made beforehand, and without 3 per cent by 2030 the review would clearly be hollow at birth, as it was. It was also an insult to the men and women of the Armed Forces and the equivalent of sticking two fingers up to the White House. Today's spending review confirmed what we all feared. Rather than making tough decisions on public spending priorities, Rachel Reeves chose to use Treasury tricks to deceive us all. The Government has folded in intelligence spending, Ukraine spending and even Foreign Office money to the notional 'defence' figure. The result is that core defence spending will not even be 2.5 per cent as promised: not even close. There was no path to 3 per cent either. It was just a con all along. If John Healey spent as much time battling the Treasury as he did repeating my government's plans or deceiving the public with spin then he might have had some success. But it is clear he is Labour first and UK defence second. How dare this Government avoid the solemn duty to defend our shores and properly equip the men and women of the armed forces. Labour was the government that sent our troops to war in Snatch Land Rovers and they are destined to repeat that betrayal. Next week Donald Trump will arrive in Holland for the Nato summit. He will bring with him a message that we must all spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on actual defence, not counting spies or diplomats. The Donald will not be bought off with Treasury tricks. I was in Washington last week and some very senior people in the White House and the Pentagon genuinely believe Trump may leave Nato in two years. They are serious. So we need to either demonstrate we are pulling our weight or we need to compensate for the 70 per cent loss to Nato capability if the US leaves. Based on Rachel Reeves's efforts we will do neither. History may point to this as the moment when the UK surrendered its place in Nato and triggered its demise. And all the while, Putin and Xi will be licking their lips. Waiting for their moment. For that little bit of Estonia or Finland. The best Donald Trump can do next week is say that Nato is a club with a subscription. No money should mean no entry.
