| July 12 , 2001 The Honorable George W. Bush Re: The maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey Dear Mr. President: The maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey is clear and has been established for over 60 years by international treaties and agreements, including the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. The relevant treaties and agreements regarding the Aegean maritime boundary between Greece and Turkey are the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, the Italy-Turkey Convention of January 4, 1932, the Italy-Turkey Protocol of December, 28, 1932, and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, under which the Dodecanese Islands and adjacent islets were ceded by Italy to Greece. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty and is thus obligated to carry out its provisions under U.S. and international law. There is no competent legal authority that believes that the maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey remains open. Mr. President, I bring to your attention H.Con.Res.97 which sets forth the legal basis for the maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey. H.Con.Res.97 was introduced on April 4, 2001 by Representative Robert E. Andrews with bipartisan support. A copy is enclosed. There are currently 35 co-sponsors. During the islet of Imia crisis in the Aegean Sea in late January 1996, the U.S. played a helpful role in preventing an armed class between Greece and Turkey. However, the Clinton administration, with Assistant Secretary Richard Holbooke in the lead, failed to recognize and state that under the treaties and agreements involved, including the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, the maritime boundary in the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey was clear and long-established and that the islet of Imia was sovereign Greek territory. Instead, the previous administration chose to appease Turkey by suggesting that the Imia issue be referred to the International Court of Justice at the Hague (ICJ) for binding arbitration. If Canada had made a unilateral claim to sovereignty over Long Island, would Mr.Holbrooke have suggested that the matter be referred to the ICJ for binding arbitration? At one point, the Defense Department spokesman, in response to a question, acknowledged Greece's sovereignty over the islet of Imia. Two hours later the spokesman recanted and said that the U.S. position was the State Department's position that the issue should be referred to the ICJ. The failure of the previous administration to apply the rule of law to Turkey regarding Turkey's claim to the islet of Imia created the Aegean issue for Turkey, put Greece's sovereignty in the Aegean Sea at risk, and is the cause of Turkey's continuing claims to Greek islands in the Aegean Sea and, indeed, to Turkey's claim to one-half of the Aegean Sea. U.S. interests would be very well served by disposing of this issue. A sensible step would be for the U.S. to state publicly that (1) the aforementioned treaties and agreements delineate the maritime boundary between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea which is clear and long-established, (2) the islet of Imia is sovereign Greek territory and (3) if Turkey disagrees, she should take the matter to the ICJ for binding arbitration. Such action by the U.S. is required under the terms of the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty to which the U.S. is a signatory. Such action by the U.S. would eliminate a major source of tension between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea. We urge your administration to uphold the rule of law and state the obvious. There are a number of vehicles to uphold and enforce the rule of law in this matter in addition to a public statement. For example, a letter from Secretary Colin L. Powell to Representative Robert Andrews stating that the State Department supports H.Con.Res.97. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully, Eugene T. Rossides
Enclosure cc: Vice President Richard B. Cheney |
|
07-12-01 Letter to President George W. Bush
|