i preferred to not go into detail since you thought in 2023 turkey will cease to exist more or less.
i mentioned "over some parts of waters" en passant because i thought i'd just be giving a bit of additional information. the main point was to explain what the - to you unknown - terms of the treaty were about.
my general knowledge on this topic doesn't come (just) from the news as I've followed the subject since I was a child as we (romania) are equally affected by both lausanne and bosphorus. neither with nor against turkey. just as a participant. we share waters, we share straits, including bosphorus bridge.
I am aware that this doesn't mean anything, I could also claim that I am Taehyung who learned english. but I am gladly sharing the facts below.
before you attack me laughing and saying i only know the tip of the iceberg, at least in this case i say again - your information is wrong.
it's not just a propaganda to make turkey and a dictator like erdogan look as the victim, it's one that scares me in the way to see this islam propaganda focuses on nothing but implanting evil thinking against or about the entire world. because the accusations in regards to the treaty as well as you this second post on the subject do indeed make erdogan a victim and the rest of the world mercenaries controlling turkey and him, taking away everything he's got.
in the end it's about money, power and for some religion. why else does noone intervene in those countries where muslims are killing people of other religions? as a matter of law? because they are more interested on the deals those countries can offer.
turkey closed hagia sofia. putin is still working with him on the 2nd bosphorus bridge (down below). i am sure turkey did this as a sign to show who's the boss to putin in the first place. the second reason - because russia is playing both fields on bosphorus - on turkey's side to build a second one, against turkey on other issues with bosphorus in general.
it's always more than a newsmedia article. when you know some facts.
i was the one emphasizing 911 being used as an excuse, but please, don't think that muslims were the only victims of such an excuse to invade a country.
NATO did the same to us in 1989 and now we don't have ownership over anything anymore not even our own vassal.
bin laden was still a terrorist and erdogan a maniac of a dictator.
if you study those subjects, on such a broad area, with all due respect, but how the hell does this work? you seem to understand the issue, because from your perspective everything was very clear and logically explained and displayed, many don't have even this, but the base is absolutely madness propaganda. indifferent of religion. it's the same madness of the leftist press around the globe. everything they say makes sense, except it's the total opposite.
that's a propaganda. no matter if it is a pro-erdogan, pro-turkey, pro-leftist insanity.
a claim it's a claim. propaganda is propaganda.
please feel free to attack me again, no problem, at least i get the chance to correct whatever wrong information you were offered.
here are simply the facts:
1) meis, dodecanese, bozcaada and imbros are items on the treaty, do not belong to turkey.
erdogan has no business, no matter how far or near, to claim ownership over those
it's like germans saying - we want half of europe back, since we had it in WW2.
me saying in jest "over some parts of waters" was equally referring to the recent attacks, which relate to"some parts of the waters" highly disputed, rich in natural resources surrounding kastellorizo
turkey hasn't signed any of the agreements available while greece has, and greece claims sovereignty over those "some parts of the waters" disputed. (the events over the past months)
2) UN convention insignificant
what you gave as an example has no meaning in the discussion, the UN convention doesn't have any effect on the treaty, nor is related to turkey who isn't even on that list as part of the agreement.
meis is nearer to turkey. it still belongs to greece.
do you know what else (island) is very far from land but still belongs NOT to the country nearest? Greenland.
Canada is only 25 km far away. greenland belongs to denmark. denmark is 3000 km far away.
UN convention doesn't apply here either.
Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to exist. Greenland lives off the fishing’s export in Disko bay.
short version:
Lausanne treaty - war agreement. same as with any country that has had to pay damages by giving up territory.
UN (UNCLOS agreement) - one of the multiple agreements which don't affect war agreements.
otherwise everyone could come up with the same claim as erdogan.
expanded version:
erdogan tries different approaches to void the terms of the treaty, it doesn't work this way. by the way - the treaty? made by UN? who was turkey's president at that time ? NATO backed dictator kenan evren. naturally they used a language so that turkey can try to void the contract.
it just doesn't work that way, can't just make a international agreement that gives germany the power to void war agreements, or russia, or iceland, greenland, etc.
if you understand what i mean from a legal point of view.
i could arrange as a NATO backed dictator for ex that romania takes back control of the former territories we lost in war or don't belong to us anymore, by having UN creating a similar agreement, then 50 years later a new romanian dictator comes in and uses the legal language of the agreement in order to avoid a WAR agreement as a consequence of war crimes committed, agreed upon by all parties involved.
now, if you can distance yourself from whatever was told to you and what you want to believe - the lausanne treaty is valid. yes, those kind of agreements can occasionally be changed, but turkey already disputed the terms of the 1st agreement (which they went to war against after just ending one), the 2nd gives them a lot of benefits and next to nothing damages for them to pay which was the reason of the treaty's existence. many of the land they returned didn't belonged to them eitherway.
for him to use the UN agreement..i don't know. he failed multiple times. maybe he should try something else. the problem is that he's a maniac and it's one thing to want to have a little thing back, but he wants basically the most important things on that treaty to be voided and that's too much.
the lausanne treaty is very clear on those territories and turkey cannot have them back, nor drill in their waters (there’s gotta be an agreement as to how close to their waters they can drill), not without a war, or consequences, which is what is happening now.
i've randomly opened right now articles on the internet which put greece in a bad position and erdogan raging against it, how they are a threat to turkey for sending military to meis, how they breach convention agreements - all a propaganda to make erdogan as the victim.
it doesn't matter now to put the links , just saying as an example of propaganda. none of his accusations are correct, on the contrary his actions were breaching the agreement.
a proof of propaganda as the source of information, or how propaganda works nomatter the subject? the picture you've uploaded from the turkish navy, together with what was told to you. it looks like meis belongs to turkey, including the surrounding waters.as per whatever new agreements are out there which are perfectly logical except- it doesn't.
Because -let me say it also in jest - some law and agreement or eea or others don’t stand above a war agreement.
Similar : a store can have its own rules, but they never overthrow a governmental law. I mean they can on some occasions if the law is capricious, but they can’t build an atomic bomb in the underground of a McDonald’s just because they rent the space.
I am aware over some rules of the eez (I thought it’s eea - europeean economic area ) because of our waters. We call it SEE.
this is not my personal or subjective claim. this is a fact.
look at the picture again - there is nothing correct about it, nor your information.
it looks and it sounds as per your very good explanations, as if the UN agreement + eea (or as per the picture eez) speaks for his case and how the mean world doesn't allow him anything and they're taking away his property, but he's simply using an agreement that does not apply to war treaty, which i suspect was done in the hope to help turkey at a later point since it doesn't apply in sooooo many other cases who aren't even problematic, and wants to show to the world how UN and the others are against him.
war treaty is one thing. that's lausanne. can't come with an agreement created how many decades later..?, unrelated to your cause and pretend you have the right to void a war agreement.
add to that how erdogan claims ownership and depicts himself as the victim of a vile attack from greece because they precautionary sent troupes to meis to defend the island.
a thought...for a penny or a penny for your thoughts, like they say - everytime erdogan (who controls like every other communist dictator the media) claims with passion injustice and something bad about the other party involved, and the media is explaining it as logical and simple as you did, be sure the truth it's the opposite.
that's how leftist propaganda works. no matter the country. leftists/communists/dictators control the media
why else would you believe probably from the bottom of your heart everything you've presented so nicely, but have a hard time believing what I've wrote..
3) bosphorus
again: the treaty has no connection to any boarders, nor territorial limitations.
the treaty doesn't have any connection to bosphorus either, by the way.
Lausanne treaty allowed Turkey to exist with those borders. Doesn't take anything back, erdogan WANTS everything that turkey agreed to give back regarding independent territories , or to the original inhabitants/colonies.
lausanne is related to previous crimes committed by them. they went to war against the initial agreement and this was the second one.
he now wants to annul it and take back everything.
the expiration of the treaty means the expiration of the economical and diverse others tactical limits exercised over turkey. on various levels.
NOT territory. again, he isn’t loosing anything in 2023, he wants to expand the territory by taking back what turkey agreed to give up.
bosphorus treaty in the first place is related to the montreux convention, which is a international one, related to the canal/bridge/general limitations on all countries, etc.
now, the lausanne treaty's expiration means - turkey's drilling limitations expires, so once the treaty expires, he will be able to drill in that area extensively + other benefits. ( an entire list)
the lausanne treaty doesn't affect bosphorus, it affects the economical limitations imposed on erdogan until 2023. he's free to shit as much as he wants on bosphorus after 2023.
montreux convention amongst many other definitions, limits turkey receiving fee for the international passage from ships through the bridge (the bosphorus bridge). the montreux convention doesn't directly limits turkey on purpose, but allows free passage to all international ships.
he wants to build a second one (the Turkish whatever, I called it bosphorus2 because he literally wants to build the same bridge only to ask for money amongst others), to have total autonomy over the passage which is the bridge between europe and asia and to collect benefits from drillings, fees and all other activities such as exploration. also claim ownership over some findings or whatever other issues surround that area. I won’t go into detail now. he wants total autonomy of the bridge making the connection between two continents.
Which, by the way, he never had.
That’s the magic of wrong propaganda.
Can’t loose something your never had.
the advantage that he has and why someone would rather pay, than using a free bridge is due to montreux convention limiting the number of vassels that can entry the canal.
not because of any treaty with erdogan. or turkey. for security measures and other reasons. There has been a lot of accidents due to the numbers of ships passing the bridge.
russia wants to join erdogan in building the bridge, for the same reasons.
and like i've wrote at the beggining, he's with erdogan on the second one and against him on his claims over the at now present bridge.
the propaganda here? you thinking turkey is the victim once the treaty expires and looses something he never had. full control over the borphorus fees and all other activities.
A new one like the one mentioned, planned in cooperation with Russia, would give him this opportunity but there is a plethora of issues with legal international Law.
I briefly read some of them but it’s not the point right now.
If they want to reject him, it’s not because of whatever propaganda you’re being told.
He’s not building a second one because the mean mean west after the treaty expires, takes away his toys.
There is a worrisome difference between the facts on this topic and the information that was given to you which naturally have an effect on your general opinion.
After I’ve explained Lausanne you could have thought about it and maybe simply ask - what about Bosphorus?
Instead you hang on the same propaganda dismissing the terms of the treaty.
I knew Erdogan is working with Putin on Bosphorus 2 because I am following other dubious “friendship” deals they’re occasionally cooking. affecting Romania or Germany/USA/north Korea/ triangle.
Again, we’re in the middle. Gas, waters, drilling, straits.
compare the facts with what you've been told.
it is on you to decide if you want to keep on going believing in a propaganda, whoever is feeding you this information, or consider the truth.