Even though Turkey and Greece were both members of the Western Trans-Atlantic Alliance after the War, relations between the two nations have been riddled with conflict. Recent disputes with regard to the Aegean Sea and Cyprus have led to continuous battles in the international arena, with each undermining the other by championing zero-sum agendas. In the past 40 years, the two nations have narrowly escaped War on a few occasions, such as in 1987 and 1996 (Dokos et al. 1). Greece reacted to aggressive Turkish behavior by applying its veto power as an affiliate of the European Economic Community to limit Turkey’s funding and association with the regional body. It is vital to note that the change in Greek strategy with respect to its Aegean neighbor was due to the European Union’s influence on its foreign stratagem, the opportunities accrued from European Union membership, and globalization. Despite Greece and Turkey’s attempts to resolve conflicts such as the Aegean issue, the Treaty of Lausanne continues to negatively impact relations between the two nations.

Negotiating the Treaty at Lausanne

The negotiations at Lausanne resembled a barter trade where entire populations and territories were set off against each other. The conference’s main aim was to terminate an era of geopolitical upheaval. The compulsory exchange of populations was particularly unpopular, with many of the Greek refugees expelled from Turkey hoping to return home (Pitsoulis 463). In addition, the Muslims in Greece feared the prospect of deportation to Turkey.

The Treaty of Lausanne was signed by the First World War’s winners and Turkey as a replacement for the Treaty of Sevres. The new treaty had significant diplomatic and human implications. The most significant was the bilateral convention regarding the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. The Greeks were forced to contend with the end of generations of Hellenic populations in Anatolia. In addition, it kick-started a period of persistent economic, cultural, social, and political adjustment. The mandatory exodus of Greek people from their ancestral lands meant the end of any irredentist policies aimed at Turkey. It is critical to note, however, that the exchange transformed Greece into one of South-Eastern Europe’s most homogenous states. The move was designed to Isolate Greece from Bulgarian ethnic territorial claims.

The new treaty defined the territorial understanding between Turkey and the surrounding countries. It helped quell War and animosities that were rampant at the time. The recognition of the agreement between Turkey and Greece meant that bilateral relations were largely affected by security and minority issues. In Turkey, the period after 1923 marked a transition from patriotism to the Ottoman Empire to a belief in Turkish ethnic nationalism.
The Aegean Sea

The argument concerning the Aegean Sea is linked to the projected impact of the regional waters and the associated geographical formations on the nations located in Eastern Europe. Greece is keen to emphasize and confirm that it is the unilateral owner of the sea in question, and Turkey must move its boundary eastward (Kutluk 320). The sovereignty of the islets, rocks, and islands in the region has been a contentious issue for years. The Turkish president has on numerous occasions voiced his opinion that treaties need to be updated over time. He proposed that the Treaty of Lausanne receives similar treatment in order to strengthen relations between the two countries. Erdogan is of the view that a thorough evaluation of the issues surrounding the islands is necessary. On the other hand, the Greek leadership does not feel that the treaty needs updating. These differences in opinion have contributed to the escalating tensions between the two countries.

The treaties signed between both nations highlight the fact that conflicts must be resolved through bilateral negotiations. Greece maintains that the predominant question in the Aegean problem involves the control of the continental shelf. In addition, it argues that the matter can only be resolved in the international court of Justice (ICJ) (Kalkan 170). Turkey is, however, hesitant to bring the matter to the ICJ because it favors direct negotiations for settlement. This is informed by the belief that negotiations would protect its rights as enshrined in the Lausanne Treaty. Turkey believes that settling all outstanding issues at once is the best course of action since it would foster the development of friendship between the two sides, which would allow certain compromises.

The political upheaval in Turkey has facilitated the creation of a foreign policy agenda that frequently alters the nation’s position in so far as neighboring states are concerned. The Turkish foreign minister outlined specific issues that contributed to the conflict revolving around the Aegean Sea. He argued that the ownership of some of the geographical formations and the borders had not been accurately defined by an international agreement. He emphasized the fact that the issue of ownership of the islands is a legal problem that is inextricably linked to the interpretation of specific articles in the 1923 Lausanne agreement and the 1947 Paris Treaty (Kutluk 317). In addition, the minister noted that his country was focused on pursuing the issues related to the Aegean Sea and that Greece’s activities in relation to the areas under dispute will not be accepted. He further insisted that Kardak falls under Turkish territory and that all issues regarding the Aegean must be resolved in the context of international law as long as its interests are protected.
Turkish and Greek Politics

Turkey has been governed by a single-party regime for a significant number of years. Since 2002 the political system in the nation has been streamlined by the ruling party, whose leader is the current president (Christofis et al. 3). The people’s hope for a democratic system of government was dashed when Erdogan opted to create a right-wing populist regime. He has used state machinery to fight opposition and ensure that his reign is unchallenged. The nation’s institutions have been progressively cleansed of dissident voices. It is vital to note that a number of Turkish citizens are fleeing to Greece and other European countries for fear of persecution by a tyrannical government. A vast majority of the migrants are applying for asylum, while others are purchasing property as a means of gaining residence permits. The official Greek reports indicate that an estimated 5000 Turkish citizens applied for asylum in the country after the coup attempt in Turkey (Christofis et al. 5). Many others have made attempts to gain residence in the UK, Germany, and other European countries.

The Turkish president delivered a memorable speech that highlighted specific issues regarding the National Pact. On the 10th of November 2017, the Turkish president noted that the borders established by the pact were under dispute, and his government’s interventions at Afrin and Idlib were designed to protect his country’s territory (Kutluk 317). The president also noted that Turkey’s security challenges at its southern borders were the direct result of the concessions made in the National Pact. This pact outlined the minimum requirements that must be observed to maintain Turkish sovereignty.

Turkish diplomats argue that there is a marked difference between the past and the present and that efforts must be made to adapt to contemporary conditions. They believe that the government’s ability to quash the July 15th, 2016 coup attempt was a demonstration of the new nation’s resilience in the face of adversity (Kutluk 318). In a speech delivered to the Police Academy on the 11th of November 2016, President Erdogan noted that approximately 780,000 square kilometers were left after negotiations at Lausanne, which denied Turkey control over territories located close to the mainland (Kutluk 318). He further stated that the partitioning of Turkey as outlined in the Lausanne Treaty was insufficient. International efforts to confine his country to the parameters outlined in Lausanne are, therefore, unacceptable.

The president is keen on ensuring that his nation maintains its sovereignty in the modern world. In a speech delivered on the 7th of December 2017, he noted that there were forces focused on ruling the world under conditions that prevailed in 1918 (Kutluk 319). He pointed out that the aforementioned forces were intent on seizing Turkey’s possessions and that the invasion of Syria and Iraq should be seen as an attempt to complete unfinished projects. The nation’s diplomats are keen to emphasize the fact that their nation has evolved over the years and is intent on keeping its gains and recovering its losses. The discussions of the Lausanne Treaty at the highest levels of government drew Greece’s attention. It is worth noting that the statements issued only served to heighten tensions between the two countries.

The turmoil experienced in Turkey has had a number of direct and indirect impacts on Greece. The country’s coalition government is feeling the pressure resulting from Turkish instability. The two coalition partners have different stances with regard to their neighbor’s issues which makes navigating the current political environment extremely challenging. The 2009 financial crisis plunged the government into confusion as the major political opponents proposed different techniques to handle the matter (Christofis et al. 6). The country’s leadership decided to restore sovereignty by settling on a deal with creditors. It involved the acknowledgment of the social ills occasioned by austerity, facilitation of economic growth, and assess the nation’s unreasonable debt burden. Political pundits in Greece offered a different perspective with regard to the nation’s conflict with Turkey. The Greek Supreme Court’s decision to turn down Turkey’s appeal for the extradition of military officers linked to a coup attempt worsened relations between the two countries.
Contemporary Greek-Turkish Relations

The relationship between Greece and Turkey is best described as fragile. The historical conflicts between the two nations must be considered, with the formation of the Turkish Republic being a major contributor to the problems witnessed over the past 100 years (Christofis et al. 11). Relations between the two nations have been likened to a volcano likely to erupt in warfare. Tensions between the neighboring nations were aggravated by the Turks’ incursion of Cyprus in 1974 (Christofis et al. 11). However, recent disasters in Turkey have forced the two nations to engage in diplomacy. Both parties simply avoided engaging in discussions revolving around issues capable of damaging bilateral relations. In addition, the conflict in the Middle East has occupied the Turkish leadership leaving little time for engagement in Greek-related foreign policy matters.

The elements of conflict between the two nations have multiplied over the years. For instance, the parties have often disagreed on territorial waters, the continental shelf, and the Aegean airspace (Dokos et al. 19). The 1923 accord signed at Lausanne, which demarcated the current boundaries in the area, has been questioned repeatedly by the Turkish institutions whose leaders argue that Turkish minority factions in Greek soil receive little protection (Dokos et al. 19). The animosity between the two nations is often fueled by catastrophic events that affect both territories. In an attempt to avoid persistent conflict, Turkey and Greece constantly engage in supporting interest-based relations. In addition, they have attempted to prioritize cooperation in energy infrastructure such as the Trans Adriatic Pipeline. It is worth noting that the past decade has witnessed an increase in bilateral trade initiatives, demonstrating the nations’ interest in peaceful and mutually beneficial coexistence.
The complex relationship between the two nations was tested recently after a coup attempt in Turkey. The July 2016 debacle unfolded when Greece offered asylum to eight escaped Turkish soldiers (Dokos et al. 20). The Greek’s refusal to extradite the individuals coupled with the attempted murder of Erdogan in Athens is, according to Turkey, the main reason for the two nations’ deteriorating relationship. It is worth noting that the territorial dispute was witnessed in 2017 when Erdogan questioned the Lausanne accord while on a formal trip to Greece (Dokos et al. 20). His utterances led to a cascade of events which included the Turkish Coastguard’s refusal to allow the Greek defense minister from accessing islets in Turkish territory. In addition, Athenian and Turkish military aircraft engaged in dogfights over the Aegean region while the Turkish armed forces blocked exploration vessels attempting to find hydrocarbon deposits (Dokos et al. 20). Several confrontations between the two nations have led them to the brink of armed conflict.

Greece’s integration in the EU gives it leverage when interacting with Turkey. It is essential to note that Greece actively blocked Turkey’s dealings with the EU in a bid to force it to accept the Greek claim over the Aegean territory. It purposely resisted efforts to grant Turkey a full EU seat and vetoed the Custom Union Agreement (Kalkan 170). Turkey’s interaction with the EU significantly impacted its foreign policy measures towards Greece. In order to achieve its Custom Union, Turkey submitted to international pressure and resolved to bring the Aegean issue to the ICJ if bilateral negotiations failed to reach an amicable agreement. However, Turkey adopted a hard-line stance with regard to the continental shelf territory and the Kardak islet (Kalkan 171). It stopped all its political interactions with the EU, which heightened tension in the region.

On the one hand, Turkish officials have pointed out that Greece is recruiting settlers to occupy some of the islets and rocks, which completely disregards the fragile ecosystem in the Aegean Sea. This, they believe, is evidence of Greece’s desire to expand its territory beyond the areas stipulated in the Lausanne accord of 1923 (Karakasis 455). On the other hand, the Greek officials are quick to highlight the fact that the prevailing legal framework solved issues of autonomy in the area after the world wars. They emphasize that the Lausanne Peace accord is crystal clear and that article 15 stipulates Turkey’s renouncement of titles and rights of a number of islets to Italy (Karakasis 455). This argument has caused significant strife between the two nations concerning the ownership of the geographical formations in the Aegean Sea.

The Greek position concerning sovereignty remains unchanged despite numerous attempts to solve the matter. The fourteenth article of the Paris Peace accord delineates how Italy ceded full autonomy of the Dodecanese Islands and islets next to Greece (Karakasis 455). Greek officials also highlight the fact that article twelve of the Lausanne accord confirms their nation’s autonomy over the Eastern Mediterranean islands (World War I Document Archive). However, exceptions are made for islands located three miles from the Asiatic coastline, which are considered Turkish Territory (Karakasis 455). Therefore, because the uninhabited geographic formations lie 3.8 miles from the Turkish coast, they are, without question, Greek territory (Karakasis 455). They maintain that the treaty was the result of rigorous discussions and compromises that must be respected.

The Turkish position aims to allow the nation to region control of lost territory. For example, they argue that article fourteen of the Paris Peace accord excludes the Kardak islets because of the form of their geography (Karakasis 455). They argue that the area under contention is made up of two rocks that do not fit the description of islets as outlined in the treaty. Athens has pointed out on numerous occasions how Ankara has failed to ground its claims on legal arguments. Greece believes that Turkey has embarked on a mission to change territorial borders that are clearly outlined in international treaties. They further note that the “Grey Zone” argument proposed by the Turkish leadership is a re-interpretation of the treaties in a bid to deny Greek sovereignty in the Aegean Sea (Karakasis 455). The endless claim of ownership of the islands and islets has contributed immensely to the worsening tensions between the two nations.
Methodology: Explaining the Conflict

A number of factors have been evaluated as potential causes for the escalated tension between Greece and Italy. It is believed that Turkey was incentivized to claim sovereignty over the islets because, in 1996, the nation saw an opportunity to fabricate a case claiming ownership of sections of the Aegean Sea (Karakasis 456). The concept of evolutionary game analysis reveals how the parties involved in the crisis embraced fixed strategic viewpoints. In essence, key policymakers in both countries built on policies they inherited from their predecessors and focused on incremental rather than revolutionary changes.

The rational actor model has been applied by diplomatic researchers to explain governmental decisions on foreign policy. This perspective treats states as unitary actors that speak with one voice regarding engagements with foreign entities. There are similarities between the aforementioned model and neo-realism, which highlight the ability of sovereign states to exert significant control over their inhabitants (Karakasis 459). The forces associated with an internationally competitive environment forces the nations to prioritize the maintenance of security. As a result, individuals tasked with safeguarding the state’s interests act in unison for the sake of internal security. Therefore, the rational actor theory envisions a scenario in which a country’s policymakers are undeterred by domestic issues or political pressures and are free to make risky decisions regarding foreign policy.

Greek and Turkish policymakers have often applied rationality in their attempts to define foreign policy measures. The concept is defined as the ability to make value-maximizing choices within a constrained environment (Karakasis 459). In essence, clearly defined intellectual processes guide foreign policy decisions. The leadership evaluates the potential consequences of their decisions before implementing proposed changes. The rational actor theory helps explain persistent Turkish insistence on ownership of several Aegean islands. Greece’s defense appears to be guided by rational ideas regardless of variations in motives and domestic preferences.
It is vital to consider the connection between domestic and external factors when evaluating foreign policy decisions. The two-level model proposed by Robert Putnam posits that every national political leader must appeal to national and international forces (Karakasis 459). It further proposes that domestic groups apply pressure at the national level to prompt the government to employ favorable policies while politicians work to create coalitions with influential movements. In addition, governments focus on satisfying domestic needs while limiting the adverse effects of international engagements. Some leaders may opt to use force when dealing with domestic pressure and foreign policy challenges. Others may pursue adventurous foreign policy initiatives in an attempt to draw attention away from domestic problems.

The use of diversionary tactics and calls for national pride inform the interactions between Greece and Turkey. Turkey’s recent actions with regard to Greece’s refusal to extradite military officers involved in a failed coup attempt must be evaluated closely. The extradition process would satisfy Turkey’s public opinion demands for justice. In addition, Turkey’s politically charged atmosphere prior to the referendum aimed at overhauling its constitution contributed to its persistence with regard to matters relating to the coup. The proposed changes would significantly increase the president’s power. Despite the fact that a majority of political parties opposed the move, the ruling party’s alliance with the leading nationalist movement popularized the initiative. The insistence on the need to prosecute the military officers served to detract the citizens from the unfolding constitutional changes. Turkey has persisted in its attempt to alter the balance of power in the region. Its discontent with the Greek Supreme Court’s decisions to offer the military officers asylum was part of a larger scheme to assume control of the islets in the Aegean Sea. Its actions are a reflection of the rise of strongman politics across the globe.
The Lausanne Problem

The Greek government has had to contend with challenges occasioned by the signing of the Lausanne accord. The installation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 saw the nation’s elite define the country’s national goals by considering the requirements of the Kemalist project (Christofis et al. 14). The project prioritized the development of a Western-oriented state that adhered to the National Pact’s demarcation of national borders. The treaty was officially signed on the 24th of July, and it was the final piece that solved the conflict between Britain, France, Japan, Greece and Italy, and the Ottoman Empire. In addition, it was the foundation upon which Turkey’s new government was formed after years of armed conflict.

The conflict between Baghdad and Ankara regarding Turkey’s role in Iraq’s liberation resulted in extensive Turkish irredentism, which inadvertently led to the involvement of the Greek government. The Turkish president is on record for criticizing the treaty because he believed it gave his country a small territory. He further argued that his country is still struggling with the ownership of the continental shelf and other borders. His sentiments came as a shock to many Greeks who were reminded of the Turk’s aggressive and expansionist motives. The discussions that resulted from the aforementioned sentiments created a problem for the Greek government as it struggled to strike a balance between its leftist agenda and public opinion.

The statements revived discussions on unresolved issues plaguing the two nations. For instance, the challenges involving the rights of the Greek Orthodox minorities in turkey and the general challenges experienced by minorities in the country resurfaced. It is worth noting that opposition parties in Greece attempted to use such grievances to gain a political edge. Statements from the leadership of both countries have polarized the society and prompted the re-emergence of negative stereotypes such as the belligerent nature of Turks. It is vital to note that a chronic divergence of ideas between the two parties involved has persisted for years. The Greek foreign office constantly refers to Turkey’s involvement in Cyprus in 1974, while Turkey insists that Greece’s claim over the Aegean Sea would restrict its coastlines (Dokos et al. 23). The situation remains volatile as each party sees the other as a direct threat.

The Greek government’s concern over the persistent Turkish threat remains a central foreign policy issue. It has expressed concern over its ability to protect all the islands under its territory should the Turks launch a military assault. As a result, the Greeks have spent millions of dollars over the past 40 years to secure their borders against potential invasion (Dokos et al. 26). The Greeks are increasingly concerned about Turkey’s increased military spending, as evidenced by the acquisition of F-35 fighter jets and advanced air defense systems (Dokos et al. 26). The government is keen on avoiding armed conflict with its neighbor at all costs. Both nations have expressed little interest in resolving their issues, given the fact that each is grappling with serious domestic issues and vital external challenges that require the use of extensive diplomatic and political capital.

The Turkish leadership insists that the treaty needs to be updated for a variety of reasons. For instance, the education sector has been adversely affected, given that the bilingual primary schools in Western Thrace face challenges related to the admission of books sent from Turkey (Kutluk 321). In addition, Turkish and Muslim families are forced to send their children to Greek kindergartens, given that no bilingual institutions exist. With regard to religion, the Turkish authorities highlight how Muftis were chosen through elections until 1985, after which they were appointed by the general administration (Kutluk 321). It is vital to note that the Mufti’s office represents unity, religion, and solidarity. The Turkish leadership argues that it is astonishing for a commission devoid of Islamic representation to appoint clerics to specific mosques.

Another contentious issue with regard to the treaty is the fact that it stipulates how the Turkish minority’s educational and social activities are catered for by revenues collected through the foundations. It is worth noting that these organizations are managed and operated by appointed Muftis. Therefore, appointed muftis deny the minority their freedom of religious expression. Various social and religious contentious issues that can be traced to the treaty have impacted dealings between Greece and Turkey for decades.
The Potential for Cooperation

Despite the prevalent disputes between the two nations, cooperation remains a viable option for future relations in the region. This is because keeping the tensions high is cumbersome for both countries. The Aegean crisis, for instance, is a significant burden to Turkey’s defense resources which have almost been depleted as a result of the Syrian conflict. The Greeks have also overburdened their taxpayers as they compete with Turkey’s more robust economy. Neither of the countries would benefit from escalating the situation. This is because the military characteristics and topography of the Aegean region and Thrace make it particularly challenging for either party to achieve a decisive win over its rival in the event of prolonged conflict. Contemporary advancements in military technology are making stalemates exceedingly costly.

Armed warfare between the two nations would result in a catastrophic decline in the NATO Alliance. This, therefore, means that the transatlantic community would work hard to safeguard its interests by preventing the dangerous escalation of tensions between the two neighbors. It critical to note that the Aegean issue has become increasingly complicated over the years. Issues such as human trafficking and the migrant crisis have drawn significant international attention to the matter. Some of the drivers of the conflict include the Cyprus situation, the state of EU and Turkey relations, challenges in the American-Turkey relations in addition to domestic events dominated by nationalist rhetoric (Dokos et al. 32). Some serious local challenges such as the Kurdish question and economic turmoil have affected the relationship between the neighbors. In addition, the political instability in the region has contributed to growing distrust between nations as each side works to fortify its defenses and protect its territory.

The lack of trust between the two neighbors is rooted in historical events. Their rivalry should be used as a lesson to teach the world’s communities that people must never be prisoners of the past. The rapprochement process, which began in 1999, has had some significant successes (Dokos et al. 25). For instance, the neighbors have witnessed an increase in bilateral trade and tourism. Energy issues have promoted interdependence and corporation in the region despite the prevalence of conflicts.
The Future of the Aegean Neighbors

The Eastern Mediterranean’s absence of governance has created an extremely turbulent security environment in the region. This distinct geopolitical construct has specific characteristics, interests, and needs. The European Union and NATO play a critical role in the interactions between Turkey and Greece. The EU is focused on preventing further escalation in the region. It has resorted to threats such as the potential cancellation of the readmission agreement. The deal between the EU and Turkey with regard to refugees puts Greece in a dependency scenario in view of Turkey’s irregular control of refugee movement and containment.

Despite the fact that most Greek policymakers have abolished views on a “Zero-sum” proposal, skepticism and distrust are persistent in the region. It is critical that the warring parties focus on managing political relations and improving the economic interactions between the two nations. It is critical to keep tensions low by engaging in fruitful dialogue, which will open channels for the formulation of a permanent solution. Pragmatism plays a critical role in the EU’s relationship with Turkey. It is essential that both countries consider the potential benefits of the alliance as opposed to continued squabbling over the dictates of the Lausanne Treaty.
Conclusion

The Treaty of Lausanne is important to both Turkey and Greece in view of the fact that it defines their national existence and future. Contemporary relations between the two nations are still affected by the treaty, which impacts a variety of new international developments. Turkey’s authoritarian behavior is affecting its foreign policy initiatives with regard to Greece. Athens is also undergoing a diplomatic transformation as it responds to Turkey’s claims regarding revisions to the Lausanne Treaty and ownership of the Aegean Sea. The political problems affecting Turkey are spreading into Greece at a time when the former’s leaders are championing for a re-evaluation of international boundaries. It is evident that the historical tensions between the two countries have infiltrated contemporary political discourses. In addition, each of the nations raises issues such as the Lausanne Treaty when they feel it offers them a political edge. The multifaceted nature of Turkish-Greek relations highlights the complexity of matters relating to the treaty in informing modern foreign policy strategies. Greece has had to adapt to its neighbor’s changing antics as nationalist rhetoric, which references historical treaties, is used to legitimize unpopular policy decisions.
References

Christofis, Nikos, et al. “The View from Next Door: Greek-Turkish Relations after the Coup Attempt in Turkey.” International Spectator, vol. 54, no. 2, Routledge, 2019, pp. 67–86. Web.

Dokos, Thanos, et al. “Turkish Relations and the Cyprus Dispute : Impact on Turkey-EU Scenarios.” The Future of EU-Turkey Relations: Mapping Dynamics and Testing Scenarios, no. 27, 2018. Web.

Kalkan, Erol. “The Longstanding Dispute Between Turkey and Greece: The Aegean Issue.” International Journal of Economic and Administrative Studies, vol. 28, 2020, pp. 167–74. Web.

Karakasis, Vasileios P. “The 2017 Incidents in the Aegean and Turkish Foreign Policy: Using Q-Methodology to Examine Greek Viewpoints.” Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, vol. 19, no. 3, 2019, pp. 451–72. Web.

Kutluk, Ersoy. “Actual Perspectives on Lausanne: Some Predominantly Discussions in Turkish Political Atmosphere and Media on Current International Relations Course.” The Journal of International Social Research, vol. 11, no. 61, 2018, pp. 315–23. Web.

Pitsoulis, Athanassios. “Greece, Turkey, the Eastern Question and the Treaty of Lausanne 1923.” Contributions to the Legal History of Austria, vol. 9, no. 2, 2019, pp. 456–70. Web.

World War I Document Archive. “Treaty of Lausanne.” The Treaties of Peace 1919-1923, Vol. II, 1923. Web.
This essay on How the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne Shaped Turkey’s Engagement with Greece in the 21st Century was written and submitted by your fellow student. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. [1]