The Turkish government considered the Russian military operation in Ukraine, which began on February 24, to be a "war." As a result, the transit of ships through the two straits was prohibited since the movement of warships as well as civilian and commercial ships, are under its full control. This was expected under the Montreux Convention, in which Ankara has been a major party since agreeing to it with other parties in 1936, namely Britain, France, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, Japan, Australia, the former Soviet Union and Yugoslavia.
Turkey's decision to close the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits leading to the Black Sea came after Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu had a phone call with his American counterpart Anthony Blinken, in which they discussed the developments of the Ukrainian crisis and efforts to organize a ceasefire between Moscow and Kiev.
The U.S State Department later announced that Blinken expressed his appreciation to Turkey for implementing the Montreux Convention and the statements of the Turkish Foreign Minister regarding it. The latter said in a press briefing after the Turkish government meeting earlier this week that "The Montreux Convention gives our country absolute powers to close the straits if it is a party to the war."
"But if Turkey is not a party to the war, it has the power not to allow the ships of the warring countries to cross their straits," he added explaining that "the Montreux Treaty does not prohibit the transit of warships returning to their bases in the Black Sea."
He also added that; "Turkey has notified all riparian and non-riparian countries of the Black Sea not to send its warships to pass through the Turkish straits," stressing "Ankara's commitment to all the provisions of the treaty," noting that "The Russians were wondering whether we would implement the agreement if necessary or not. We told them we would implement literally all of its provisions."
Commenting on Turkey's closure of the two straits linking the Black Sea and the White Sea, a political analyst specializing in international affairs stressed that "Turkey used the term ‘war’ and applied it to the Russian military operation in Ukraine, to determine its position on the issue of ships and warships transiting through its straits."
Aydin Sezer, a Turkish academic and expert in international relations, elaborated to Majalla that: “There is no other explanation for Turkey to consider the Russian military operation in Ukraine as a war than the issue of the Montreux Convention and how its provisions are implemented,” emphasizing that "all international parties to the Montreux Treaty cannot object to closing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, including Russia."
Here is the full text of Majalla's telephone interview with Aydin Sezer, the well-known international affairs analyst based in Ankara:
- Why did Turkey consider the Russian military operation in Ukraine to be a “war” and not just a military operation or invasion?
Ankara has used the description of the war around the Russian military operation in Ukraine, to define or indicate a great tension in the region, which was done to determine its position on the issue of closing the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits. In my opinion, there is no other explanation for Ankara's description as a war for the Russian military operation.
- Can Russia object to the closure of these two straits?
Russia is a party to the Montreux Convention relating to the Bosporus and the Dardanelles, so it knows all the protocols and procedures related to this treaty, and it is obliged to agree to the implementation of its provisions that gave Turkey the right to control the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, and therefore neither Russia nor any other country can object to the Turkish decision. By the way, Ukraine also became a party to the Montreux Treaty after the fall of the Soviet Union. Therefore, we cannot consider the closure of these two straits as a Turkish message to Russia.
- Do you mean by this that Turkey abides by all of the Montreux clauses?
Turkey is trying to implement the terms of the Convention regulating the traffic of trade vessels and steamers in times of peace and war. Ankara has exceptions under the Montreux Convention with regard to the passage of warships. For example, Russian warships located in the Mediterranean can easily pass through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, provided that they are registered in the ports of the Black Sea. This is in accordance with Article 19 of the Convention, which provides for the right of the warring countries to return their ships to their ports on the Black Sea.
- Are there other exceptions in transit that Moscow may benefit from?
Ankara can approve the passage of ships equipped by humanitarian organizations to provide medical and food aid, etc. There are also other exceptions, for example, if a member state of the United Nations Security Council demands that Turkey reopen the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits, this can happen if the member states vote by a majority vote.
- This is with regard to the passage of humanitarian aid, what about trade vessels and steamers, will they be stopped?
When it comes to trade vessels and steamers it is different. For example, if there is a war and Turkey is not a party to it, then all trade vessels and steamers from different countries of the world can cross through the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, but if Turkey is a party to it, it can prevent the passage of trade vessels and steamers belonging to the countries it is fighting against.
- Speaking of the conflict between Moscow and Kiev, where does Ankara stand?
From my point of view, Turkey was standing with Ukraine, especially in the past year and before that as well. It has military cooperation agreements with Kyiv, and it was strongly objecting and denouncing foreign interference in Ukraine, which it considered unacceptable according to international law, but since the start of the Russian military operation, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been trying to keep his country on the fence.
- Can Erdogan maintain this "neutrality"?
I believe that the Turkish president is trying to keep Turkey away from the negative frequencies of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, especially in terms of its repercussions on his country's economy, because the Turkish economy depends heavily on Russian energy sources and Russian investments. In addition, there are many Turkish companies operating in Russia, and therefore it seems that Ankara does not want to escalate with Moscow, because the economic consequences will be great if Turkey abandons its neutrality.
- In your opinion, when can Moscow consider that the closure of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles straits is used as a decision against it?
For example, let’s suppose that the United States of America or France decided to send their warships towards Russia and tried to pass from the Bosphorus to the Black Sea, and Ankara allowed this. In this case, Russia could consider it as a declaration of war against it, so Turkey should not allow the passage of the warships of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) into the Black Sea. This is the only thing that interests Moscow in terms of regulating the traffic and transit of ships and warships between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea.
* Jiwan Soz is a researcher and journalist who focuses on Syrian and Turkish affairs and minorities in the Middle East. He is also a member of Syndicat National des Journalistes (National Syndicate of Journalists [SNJ]). He tweets at @JiwanSoz1
