The state officials who forgot Montreux!

The NATO Summit was held in Washington from July 9-11. Our country was represented at the summit by a large delegation led by Erdoğan. So much so that they traveled with 4-5 planes.

The pro-government media presented this summit as a victory/success. According to them, many issues that Turkey attaches importance to were reflected in the final declaration. The source of this information, they claimed, was "diplomatic sources."

Who would say, "My buttermilk is sour?"

One of the 10 points they presented as a victory for Turkey was the reference to the Montreux Convention. When we looked to see "What is this reference?", we saw that they had written nothing more than this:

"It was decided that non-monetary contributions to Ukraine would also be recognized by NATO as a result of Turkey's implementation of the Montreux Convention and its diplomatic initiatives."

What does this mean? Nothing!..

Honestly, the statement made by the Presidential Communications Directorate regarding the final declaration, while still not very clear, was slightly better than what the media members reported.

It was stated: "In the declaration, by also making a reference to the 1936 Montreux Convention Regarding the Regime of the Straits, support was reaffirmed for the Allies' efforts to protect the security, safety, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea region."

There is a catch

Fortunately, a week after the summit, Turkey's former Permanent Representative to NATO, retired Ambassador Ünal Ünsal, discussed the issue in detail on T24, and we understood what was going on.

Ünsal first wrote the English version of Article 31 of the NATO declaration regarding Montreux, and then translated it into Turkish as follows:

"We continue to support the Allies' efforts aimed at maintaining security, safety, stability, and freedom of navigation in the Black Sea region, including by using the 1936 Montreux Convention as appropriate (when appropriate)."

Ünsal continued by summarizing his assessments as follows:

"I was stunned when I saw this sentence in the text. Its meaning was: 'We support the efforts of the allies who are working to ensure security, stability, and so on in the Black Sea region, by using the Montreux Convention when necessary.' Whoa! Why when necessary? There must be a catch here. Because we knew that the US approached the Black Sea with special interest due to its great importance for Russia. We also knew that they were not pleased with the restrictions in Montreux and the authority and discretion Turkey possesses regarding the implementation of the convention. The expression in the declaration was aimed at restricting Turkey's authority and discretion. Why? Because it was normal for the allies to prioritize NATO's interests by taking the Russia factor into account in their work to ensure security, etc., in the Black Sea. However, if Turkey were to implement the Convention honestly and correctly, this might not have been possible. In summary, I concluded that the expression in the NATO document is a warning made in the direction of restricting Turkey's discretion and ensuring that Ankara does not hinder the arrangements that the allies will make on their own to ensure NATO security in the Black Sea, which naturally prioritize NATO's security concerns, by interpreting and implementing Montreux as required. There is an obvious question: who wrote this document like this?"

One day after retired Ambassador Ünsal, Mehmet Ali Güller from Cumhuriyet drew attention specifically to the phrase "freedom of navigation" and noted the following:

"However, the Montreux Convention is precisely the convention for limiting 'freedom of navigation' for warships for the security of the Black Sea. There is no 'freedom of navigation' for warships in the Black Sea; there is 'navigation restriction.' Of course, the one who knows this best is the US, which wants a 'free/open Black Sea.' For 75 years, the US has been looking for 'open doors' to enter the Black Sea 'without limits'."

Mehmet Ali Güller also reminded that the NATO declaration dated June 14, 2021, included the article: "NATO should have a greater presence on land, at sea, and in the air as a whole in the Black Sea region."

It is clear that what is being told to the nation as a "success" is, in reality, another hook into Montreux.

Who Wanted NATO to Come to the Black Sea?

Retired Ambassador Ünal Ünsal asks, "Who wrote this document like this?"; even if we don't know who wrote it, we know the government's view on Montreux.

For example, it was Erdoğan who made the following speech at the 10th Conference of Balkan Countries Chiefs of General Staff on May 11, 2016:

"Stoltenberg was in our country a short time ago, and I told him during his visit; 'You are not visible in the Black Sea, and your lack of visibility in the Black Sea is almost turning the Black Sea into a Russian lake.' Here, as littoral countries, we all have to do our part. As NATO members, we have to take the necessary steps together in all areas, whether air, sea, or land. If we don't, history will not forgive us... I would like to take this opportunity to express that we will share our concrete proposals on this issue with the littoral countries of the Black Sea in the coming period."

Anything else?

It was also Erdoğan who, when 104 retired admirals wanted to protect Montreux in 2021, declared them coup plotters and said the following:

"Undoubtedly, this convention, which leaves the control of the straits to Turkey, albeit with many limitations, instead of an international commission, is an important gain under the conditions of the period. Despite everything, we see the gains that Montreux provides to our country as important and we continue our commitment to this convention until we find the opportunity for something better... We currently have neither any work nor any intention regarding withdrawing from the Montreux Convention. But if this need arises in the future, we will not hesitate to review every convention to bring our country to an even better position."

They Could Have At Least Celebrated This Year

Here is the point we are coming to:

This past July 20 was the 88th anniversary of the Montreux Treaty, which is considered the title deed of Turkey along with Lausanne.

That day, Ankara was in full force in the TRNC for the 50th anniversary of our Peace Operation.

But being there was probably not an obstacle to celebrating the anniversary of Montreux, even with two lines.

Unfortunately;

They celebrated the anniversaries of Hatay's joining the Motherland and the Erzurum Congress three days later;

They celebrated the anniversaries of Lausanne and the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque four days later, but they did not remember Montreux!..

Okay, one might say, "They never celebrated it any year anyway."

However, when that article was included in the NATO declaration in Washington and the war drums in the Black Sea were approaching this closely, they should have at least remembered and reminded us of Montreux this year, even if it were a lie!..