The purported EEZ negotiations between Ankara and Damascus underscore Turkey’s intent to reshape the East Med

By Euripides L. Evriviades

The East Med is increasingly becoming a geopolitical battleground, where competing claims over maritime rights, energy resources and regional influence converge. The Republic of Cyprus (RoC) faces escalating challenges from Turkey’s irredentist and Neo-Ottoman agenda, epitomised by its proclaimed “Blue Homeland” (Mavi Vatan) doctrine. This concept underscores Ankara’s ambition to assert and maintain maritime dominance in the region.

Ankara arbitrarily claims vast swathes of the East Med as Turkish (approximately 462,000 square kilometres of maritime territory) and seeks, among others, to undermine the legally established maritime agreements of the RoC, flouting the principles enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Unclos). The distinguished Turkish journalist Cengiz Candar has aptly described the “Blue Homeland” as a recipe for “perpetual conflict” in the East Med.

In certain ways, the doctrine also echoes aspects of the Nazi concept of lebensraum, particularly in its territorial expansionism and its use of historical narratives to justify far-reaching claims. This alignment is further underscored by Ahmet Davutoglu’s book Strategic Depth.

Over the years, Cyprus has delineated its Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) under Unclos, signing agreements with Egypt (2003), Lebanon (2007) and Israel (2010). Yet, Turkey refuses to recognise these agreements or Unclos itself, engaging instead in arbitrary and destabilising actions. Recent press reports that Ankara plans to negotiate an EEZ agreement with the de facto Syrian regime that grew out of Al-Qaeda and not the people of Syria and whose forces Ankara armed and trained – through the well-known “Turkish Jihadist Highway” – mirror its arbitrary 2019 Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with Libya. These Turkish manoeuvres are part of an aggressive strategy to marginalise Cyprus, disrupt regional energy initiatives and assert dominance over the East Med.

Turkey’s pattern of expansion

The Turkish MoU with Libya established an arbitrary maritime boundary that disregards the rights of Greek islands such as Rhodes, Crete and Karpathos. While legally invalid, the agreement sought to preempt a potential delimitation between Greece and Libya, redefine the maritime geography of the East Med in Ankara’s favour and disrupt the natural alignment of EEZs between Cyprus and Greece – alignments essential for regional energy projects.

Ankara now seems intent on replicating this Libya strategy with Syria. By pursuing a potential EEZ agreement with Damascus, Turkey aims to preempt a Cyprus-Syria delimitation, thereby undermining the legitimate maritime rights of the Cypriot state. Moreover, Ankara seeks to elevate the status of the Turkish-occupied northern part of Cyprus, the so-called “TRNC” which the European Court of Human Rights has described as its “subordinate local administration”. These nebulous tactics are designed to legitimise Turkey’s occupation of northern Cyprus. One of the goals of the Erdogan regime is the signing of a maritime agreement with Egypt that would effectively “erase” the Cypriot state as a player in the East Med.

Turkey’s broader geopolitical strategy

The hydrocarbon reserves of the East Med are not only vital for Europe’s energy diversification but also crucial for regional economic stability and cooperation. As Europe seeks to reduce its reliance on Russian gas, these reserves offer a critical alternative that strengthens energy security while fostering partnerships between producing and consuming nations.

Turkey’s unpredictable behaviour and its aggressive policies, often at odds with Western interests, threaten to derail these efforts. By contesting existing maritime agreements, fostering instability and attempting to deter vital investment in energy infrastructure, Ankara undermines both the energy goals of Europe and the East Med’s regional economic potential. Its attempts to dominate transit corridors risk positioning Turkey as an energy gatekeeper, granting it disproportionate control over the flow of energy to Europe – a scenario that would compromise regional and global energy security.

The hydrocarbon reserves of the East Med, therefore, represent more than a path to energy independence. They offer an opportunity to establish a framework of regional cooperation rooted in mutual benefit and adherence to international law, in analogous ways coal and steel did for Europe. In stark contrast, the irredentist policies of Ankara, point in the opposite direction. Allowing Turkey to become an energy hegemon in the East Med would be a clear recipe for instability and conflict. It behooves Europe to resist the retrograde ambitions of Ankara.

Turkey’s expansionist agenda violates established international legal norms, bypasses multilateral frameworks, and relies on bilateral agreements with client states like Libya – and potentially Syria – to establish supremacy in the region.

Additionally, the occupation of northern Cyprus provides Ankara with further leverage. By exploiting its “subordinate local administration”, Turkey attempts to justify unauthorised drilling activities within the EEZ of the RoC. However, under international law, the RoC encompasses the entire island, including the occupied north, with the exception of the two British bases. Turkey’s actions not only violate the sovereignty of the RoC but they are inherently destabilising the region.

The stakes for Europe

The expansionist agenda of Ankara challenges not only the RoC but also the fundamental principles of international law that govern maritime rules. Regional energy initiatives are vital for the economic stability of countries like Cyprus, Greece, Israel, Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority and Lebanon, as well as for the broader energy diversification and ultimately the security of Europe. By disrupting these efforts, Turkey undermines regional cooperation and weakens the ability of the EU and the US to stabilise the strategic region of the East Med.

Beyond the region, the behaviour of Turkey, sets a dangerous precedent. If left unchecked, it could embolden other states to disregard international norms, fostering instability in maritime regions across the globe. The consequences extend far beyond the East Med, threatening the global maritime order that underpins peaceful cooperation and security.

Cyprus’ strategic response

In response to Turkish irredentism, Cyprus is implementing a comprehensive strategy that integrates regional partnerships, international engagement, legal action and investments in energy and security. Strengthening ties with key partners such as Egypt, Greece, Israel and Lebanon, Cyprus leverages frameworks like the East Med Gas Forum to foster regional solidarity and cooperation on energy development. The forum welcomes all Mediterranean states willing to accept the relevant established norms.

On the global stage, Cyprus utilises its positions in the EU and the UN to protect and advance its legitimate interests, pushing where appropriate for targeted sanctions against Ankara’s arbitrary policies. Nicosia also engages with the US, the UK, France and other states in highlighting the strategic importance of the East Med for regional stability and the energy security of Europe.

Cyprus continues to assert its maritime rights under Unclos and stands ready to challenge any Turkey-Syria agreement that violates international norms, politically and through legal channels. At the same time, it remains open to diplomacy with Syria, emphasising the long-term benefits of cooperation rooted in in the rule of law and in the long standing and amicable relations between the two states.

The RoC is also reinforcing ties with energy companies operating in its EEZ to ensure continued investment. Simultaneously, Nicosia is accelerating the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities, providing alternatives to contested and monopolistic pipeline routes and positioning itself as a reliable and predictable supplier for the energy diversification efforts of Europe.

The purported EEZ negotiations between Ankara and Damascus underscore Turkey’s intent to reshape the East Med in its favour, employing a zero-sum approach. For Cyprus, this is not merely about defending its maritime boundaries; it is an existential struggle about the core of its sovereignty and its legitimate standing in the region. But it is also clear that the stakes extend far beyond Cyprus.

If the actions of Turkey succeed, they will embolden other states to flout international treaties and agreements, undermining the global order that safeguards peace and security. The challenge posed by revisionist states is not new. But the critical question remains: how will the international community respond to such arbitrariness and defiance of established norms? Cyprus, for its part, refuses to become the satrapy of any power, standing firm in defence of its sovereignty and the principles of international law.

Euripides L Evriviades is a former Cyprus ambassador to the US and a former high commissioner to the UK