Economic interests, political intrigue, or both? This question may be the key to the answer to the great controversy sparked by Egypt's signing of the maritime border demarcation agreement with Greece, which harms Turkey and detracts from some of Egypt's rights in the energy-rich region.

Last week, Egypt and Greece signed an agreement in Cairo, after long rounds of negotiations that included 12 technical rounds, reflecting Cairo's reluctance to designate the exclusive economic zone between the two countries in the eastern Mediterranean, an area that includes promising reserves of oil and gas.

The Turkish Foreign Ministry considered that the agreement has no value, adding, "As if it did not exist because there is no maritime border between Greece and Egypt, and Turkey will act according to this concept in the field and on the table."

The interesting thing is that the Egyptian media's handling of the agreement was characterized by a language of gloating and political spite towards Turkey, as news headlines, reports and articles came such that the agreement ends “Turkish ambitions” in the eastern Mediterranean region, and that it “nullifies the Ankara agreement with the Sarraj government in Libya,” and that it is a “strong slap.” To Erdogan. "

The media coverage avoided explaining and comparing scenarios for the economic and political gains and losses for Egypt in the event of maritime borders being demarcated according to the Greek or Turkish vision. This prompted some to say that the agreement was primarily a spoiler in Turkey and not for the sake of Egypt's economic interests.

Interior recommendations

The proponents of the political spite theory rely on the fact that Egypt's rights according to the Turkish vision are greater than what it obtained in the Greek agreement, but the Egyptian authorities say that international law is on the side of the Greek vision, not the Turkish vision.

Last month, the Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin revealed that his country had invited Egypt and Greece, in addition to Libya, to demarcate the maritime borders in the eastern Mediterranean.

In November 2019, Turkey and Libya agreed to demarcate the maritime borders between them, and were rejected by Egypt, Greece and Cyprus, and Cairo described it as illegal and in violation of international law, but it recognized that it did not harm Egypt's rights.

Last June, "Mada Masr" website said, "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Egyptian General Intelligence Service are pressuring the Egyptian president to quietly accept the maritime agreement between Turkey and Libya, as it would grant Cairo a huge maritime advantage in the stalled maritime negotiations with Greece."

And last December, Al-Jazeera Mubasher published exclusive documents revealing that Sisi ignored the Egyptian Foreign Ministry’s recommendation to reject the Greek proposal to define the maritime borders, especially that Greece’s adherence to its vision leads to the loss of 7,000 square kilometers of its economic waters, and also affects Egypt's eligibility to determine the borders in the future. With Turkey.

In previous statements to Al-Jazeera Net, Egyptian academics criticized Egypt's wasting of its wealth by demarcating its maritime borders with Cyprus and Greece, as the MIT lecturer, Nile El Shafei, believes that demarcating the border with Greece means "Egypt ceding a large strip of water in favor of Athens." .

The Undersecretary of the Industry and Energy Committee in the previous parliament, Mustafa Muhammad Mustafa, expected at the time that Egypt would not respond to Turkey's call to demarcate the maritime border between them, saying, “The demarcation of the maritime border with Athens according to the Greek vision will result in great losses for Egypt, while its demarcation with Turkey will bring it great gains By granting it more marine areas in areas rich in natural resources. "

Target Turkey

Former member of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Egyptian Parliament, Muhammad Imad Saber said, "It is clear that the agreement targets Turkey in the first place, and an attempt to disrupt the maritime border demarcation agreement that Turkey signed with Libya, block the road to gas exploration, deduct from its rights, and anticipate its supposed dialogue with Greece." ".

In his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, Saber considered that the agreement is an Egyptian response to developments in Libya and a pre-emption for the Turkish-Greek dialogue, and a Greek power card.

Saber stressed that the geopolitical fact says that the interest of Egypt is in its agreement with Turkey, and that the Turkish-Libyan agreement is in the interest of Egypt, but the signing of the coup regime, the agreement with Greece, is further evidence of presenting political disputes and intrigues on vital interests and Egyptian national security.

He pointed out that the sharing of the Mediterranean waters by Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and Israel means, in short, the siege of Turkey and leaving nothing for it, indicating that all of this increases the potential for tension and escalation in the eastern Mediterranean. Therefore, it is difficult to expect a solution soon in light of the accumulation, complexity and overlapping of the controversial files.

Provocation and inattentiveness

For his part, the Turkish economist and member of the Turkish Businessmen Association Yusuf Kateboglu said that Turkey cannot be removed from the eastern Mediterranean region. It is a major and major regional player compared to other countries, and there can be no understandings in demarcating borders without it, as it is the second largest army in NATO, and it has military and economic weight, and it has not signed the 1982 Law of the Sea, and therefore it is not bound by it because Unjust in the issue of water quotas.

In his speech to Al-Jazeera Net, the Turkish expert blamed the Egyptian regime for trying to inflame the situation, saying, “Egypt’s disregard for Turkey is completely clear, not as a state but as a president and government, as it is preparing Turkey, and fabricating crises, whether in Libya or in the eastern Mediterranean, and therefore we find it trying to demonize Turkey. In the media and politically, I expect that the Egyptian regime aims to obstruct the Turkish-Libyan agreement in order to inflame the situation, given that it gave Egypt about 28 thousand square kilometers in its economic zone.

He concluded his speech by saying that we must say there are those who want to ignite crises and may reach the point of military confrontations and ignite the fuse of the war in the Eastern Mediterranean, which includes a huge stockpile of oil and gas, indicating that Israel is the beneficiary of these agreements because it wants to export natural gas to Europe By penetrating the Turkish-Libyan territorial waters, Ankara will not allow an encroachment on its sovereignty and borders.

Between supporters and opponents

On the other hand, former Egyptian Oil Minister Osama Kamal praised the agreement with Greece, saying that "based on this agreement signed, Egypt and Greece can carry out all search and exploration operations, each in his exclusive area, without problems."

In press statements, Kamal pointed out the possibility that international exploration companies would pump investments in these areas after they gained the legal status, and were proven to be subject to the state that has the right to search and explore for wealth, which is not a right for Turkey, he said.

On the other hand, Egyptian opposition figures abroad declared their total refusal to recognize the maritime border demarcation agreement that Egypt signed with Greece last Thursday, describing it as a "crime", considering the agreement and nothingness the same.

They accused the Egyptian regime, in a joint statement, of neglecting Egypt's rights, starting with the signing of the maritime border demarcation agreement with Cyprus in December 2013, then announcing the principles of the Ethiopian Renaissance Dam in March 2015, and ceding the Egyptian islands of Tiran and Sanafir in April 2016.