Turks figured out that they invaded wrong geographic region of Cyprus

No hegemonic peace in Cyprus by Marios L. Evriviades

If NATO today trots out the principle of Ukraine’s territorial integrity and sovereignty to condemn Russia, how come it doesn't condemn Turkey when it comes to the territorial integrity and sovereignty that Cyprus is equally entitled to? Professor Marios L. Evriviades revisits the Turkish plan and analyzes where it went wrong.

Almost forty years to the date, the Turks finally figured out that they had invaded the wrong geographic region of Cyprus. Cyprus’s power wealth, its hydrocarbons, have been found to be located in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off its southern shores and not in its northern ones, where the NATO-trained and US-supplied Turkish army attacked massively in 1974. Since then and for decades the Turks persistently and stubbornly insisted that whatever the Cyprus problem, it was permanently solved in 1974. These days they are not so sure. And they have turned peace advocates. Or so it seems.

The double irony is that if one were to believe Ankara’s 1974 propaganda, namely that they were not “invading” but that they were merely launching a “peacekeeping operation” to secure the safety of their coreligionists, who were allegedly under threat of instant massacre by their blood thirsty compatriots, then it was the southern part that they should have attacked in the first place! For it was in the southern districts of Limassol and Paphos that the vast majority of the allegedly threatened 100,000 or so Turkish Cypriots lived. They did not live in the Kyrenia district and the Karpass or Morphou regions, that were the targets of the 1974 attack by Turkey.

In fact the autochthonous Greek Cypriot population in the presently Turkish-army occupied part of Cyprus numbered close to 200,000 souls. This is a figure that is twice as large as the total number of Turkish Cypriots who, prior the 1974 invasion, were intermingled with the Greek Cypriots throughout the island but, significantly, constituting nowhere a regional majority (except in a very few villages) . And in July 1974, when the Athens junta- organised coup occurred against the legitimate government of the Republic, they were hardly under any threat, lest one of massacre (“genocide” is Ankara’s favorite term).

read more »

President Demetris Christofias in New York

(Photos Of the President and his wife Elsi
at the Terrace on the Park in Queens, New York
September 26, 2009. Click on images to enlarge.)

Last night, the President addressed an event organized by the Cyprus Federation of America to honour veteran Greek Cypriot community leader Hambis Nicolaou with the “Justice for Cyprus” award. During his address, the President touched on the Cyprus issue. He mentioned that "we are struggling to persuade the world that the international law, the United Nations Charter, European Union values and all human rights conventions, international or European, are violated in Cyprus".

Christofias said that the paradox is that Turkey which is the perpetrator in the case of Cyprus, appears, with the support of its powerful friends, to be the victim “and us, who we are the victims, appear to be the perpetrators”.

He also stressed that the fact that the Greek Cypriot side accepted the bizonal, bicommunal federation as the solution to the Cyprus problem has been a historic compromise and expressed regret that "many of our interlocutors ask from us to make more concessions."

Referring to the Annan plan he said that the Greek Cypriot side had to reject it even if it was prepared by the former UN Secretary General, noting that the plan was not fair or balanced and the solution would not be viable and functional.

President Christofias reassured that he will continue his struggle for the vindication of the people of Cyprus.

The 'Cyprus Problem,' 35 Years In

(National Journal) - Q&A: ANDREAS KAKOURIS

The 'Cyprus Problem,' 35 Years In

On The Anniversary Of The 1974 Turkish Invasion, Cyprus' U.S. Ambassador Makes The Case For Reunification


When Turkish military forces invaded the island of Cyprus on July 20, 1974, Ankara argued that it was defending the status quo and heading off the forced annexation of the island by a military junta in Greece. Yet today, on the 35th anniversary of the invasion, Cyprus remains the only forcibly divided country in Europe, and one of the continent's most intractable problems. Recently, National Journal correspondent James Kitfield spoke with Andreas Kakouris, Cyprus' ambassador to the United States. Edited excerpts from their interview follow. Visit the archives page for more Insider Interviews.

NJ: After decades of United Nations resolutions and mediation on Cyprus, why is the island still divided?

Kakouris: We've been unable to move forward on a solution to the Cyprus problem because, quite frankly, Turkey hasn't accepted the solution of a bizonal, bicommunal federation that is the framework of countless United Nations resolutions. [Cypriot] President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat recently reiterated their support for that framework, with a single citizenship and political equality for everyone. Successive Turkish governments, however, have pushed instead for a solution based on a weak confederation of two distinct states.

NJ: What exactly is meant by a "bizonal" and "bicommunal" republic?

Kakouris: Within Cyprus you would have two areas, one of Greek Cypriot constituents, and the other of Turkish Cypriot constituents, but both parts of a federal republic. So there would be only one state and a single citizenship. By contrast, today 43,000 Turkish troops occupy 37 percent of the sovereign territory of a member of the European Union. In that occupied area there are 85,000 Turkish Cypriots and 160,000 Turkish settlers who have come since the invasion. There are 200,000 Cypriot refugees who remain displaced by the invasion. There are also problems of economic displacement, human rights violations, and the destruction of cultural artifacts.

NJ: Many observers put high hopes in the peace settlement proposed by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan in 2004. Why did the Greek Cypriot community overwhelmingly reject the Annan plan in a referendum?

Kakouris: In my estimation, the Annan plan had more to do with offloading the problem from the shoulders of Turkey than it did with solving the problem in a way that reunited the people and institutions of Cyprus. When you look closely at the elements of that plan, for instance, it included the continued presence of Turkish troops on Cyprus with a right to intervene in our affairs. Would anyone in the United States accept the idea of foreign troops on your soil, with the right of intervention? Cyprus is a member of the European Union. We don't need guarantor powers or the presence of foreign troops on our soil, with the exception perhaps of a continued United Nations force that might be included in a solution.

NJ: So the continued presence of foreign troops was the main sticking point in the Annan plan?

Kakouris: The plan also lacked functionality. In essence, it would have established parallel civil services. Nor were the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees to return to their homes guaranteed. They would have become second-class citizens in their own country under the Annan plan. The 160,000 settlers that Ankara has brought to Cyprus would also have remained on the island, by and large. The Annan plan would also have superseded as law Cyprus' rights as a member of the European Union. As an equal member in good standing of the European Union, that was something that we could not accept.

NJ: If the Annan plan was so flawed, how did it get all the way to a referendum?

Kakouris: When Annan invited the leaders of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to... discuss his plan, many issues were glossed over. The tight timelines for arbitration meant that both sides never really engaged in serious negotiations, producing a disastrous plan that would essentially have endorsed two separate states on the island. So the Annan plan was someone else's interpretation of what was in our best interest as Cypriots. By contrast, the current negotiations between President Christofias and Talat are exploring solutions for Cypriots by Cypriots. That's far preferable to solutions designed to serve the best interest of other parties, including Turkey.

NJ: Yet don't you need Turkey to embrace any ultimate deal?

Kakouris: To be frank, yes, we do need Ankara to be more constructive and supportive. It's not enough for Ankara to say they support a solution to the "Cyprus problem." We need them to embrace the framework of a bizonal, bicommunal federation. After all, it should be remembered that Turkey is the aggressor and occupier here. Turkey is the only country that recognizes the so-called Turkish Republic of Cyprus, which was created by an act of secession that has been condemned by multiple U.N. resolutions. I recognize Turkey as a state, yet Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus.

Having said that, in a way it doesn't matter how good relations are between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders -- and those personal relations are quite good. The key to the solution remains in Ankara. We just hope Turkey will give Mr. Talat the room to negotiate in earnest without imposing its will from the outside.

NJ: Doesn't the fact that you are a member of the European Union since 2004, and thus hold a veto over Turkey's entry, give you significant leverage with Ankara?

Kakouris: You say Cyprus has a veto over Turkey's accession into the EU, but 26 other countries also have that veto. You might even assume that Cyprus opposes Turkey's membership in the EU, but in 2004 and 2005, when we could have exercised such a veto over Turkey's accession talks, we did not. We believe Turkey's European orientation is a positive for both Turkey and Cyprus. And we continue to hope that the EU can be a positive catalyst for a resolution to this problem.

NJ: So you firmly support Turkey's membership in the EU?

Kakouris: Cyprus supports Turkey's accession, but that is not a blank check. Turkey has obligations. In the past, Turkey has blocked Cyprus from joining international agreements. It continues to occupy the land of an EU member and refuses to recognize that state. Certainly under those circumstances, Turkey will not be able to join the EU.

NJ: What role would you like the United States to play in solving the "Cyprus problem?"

Kakouris: Well, if the United States wants to see Turkey anchored to the West through the European Union, Washington needs to realize that path runs through Cyprus. A solution to the Cyprus problem that reunifies the island and the social fabric of its people is also a "win-win" for Turkey. It finally gets rid of this Gordian knot in EU-Turkey relations.

I would also stress that Cyprus serves as Europe's lighthouse in the Eastern Mediterranean. We are a half-hour flight from Beirut, Damascus or Tel Aviv. When there was a crisis in 2006 because of the war in Lebanon, 60,000 foreign nationals evacuated to Cyprus, including 15,000 Americans. So there is a value added for both the European Union and the United States to Cyprus' position in that part of the world.

NJ: Yet hasn't Washington been reluctant to press the Cyprus issue in a way that complicates the United States' already difficult strategic relationship with Turkey?

Kakouris: No one has convinced me that Turkey's continued occupation of Cyprus either benefits Turkey or serves U.S. interests. Quite the opposite is true. At bottom, this issue is about principles and values that the United States holds sacrosanct: democracy, the rule of law, human rights. The Obama administration has already talked of the importance of finding a solution to this problem based on a bizonal and bicommunal federation, and I hope the United States will try and convince Turkey that is the right thing to do. There are many ways for the Obama administration to convey that message, and it doesn't have to be in public or through the press.

NJ: How are relations today between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots?

Kakouris: Since 2003, the restrictions on crossing the ceasefire line were partially lifted, meaning Greek and Turkish Cypriots could cross the line for the first time going back to 1974. Since then we have had 15 million incident-free crossings. That debunks the myth spread by some in Turkey that the 43,000 Turkish troops on Cyprus are needed because the two communities cannot live peacefully together.

NJ: Do you worry that the lack of tension puts the issue of Cyprus on the back burner in international forums?

Kakouris: Yes, because this problem is urgent. The passage of time doesn't improve the prospects for a solution. The older generation that lived together on a united island as part of intermingled communities, for instance, is getting older. The settlers that Turkey has brought to Cyprus put down deeper roots. In that respect, each day that passes solidifies the effects of the invasion and separation. So we want a solution to this problem yesterday, not today or tomorrow. And for those who see the relative peace of Cyprus and are tempted to accept the status quo, we say that peace is not the absence of war, but rather the presence of justice. And justice cannot exist in the midst of occupation.

NJ: Has the Cyprus problem defied solution, in part, because the Greek Cypriots are overwhelmingly Orthodox Christian and Turkish Cypriots are overwhelmingly Muslim?

Kakouris: Well, the Cyprus problem has never been fundamentally a religious issue. But if we find a solution that involves Cyprus' Christian Orthodox community and its Muslim community negotiating their common future together on a single homeland within Europe, it will certainly provide a poignant counterpoint to talk of a "clash of civilizations."

Obama's Man for Europe Views on Cyprus, Patriarchate, Armenia

(Greek News) - Exclusive: Philip Gordon’s reply to 28 questions by Senator Robert Menendez.

Washington.- By Apostolos Zoupaniotis

Assistant Secretary of State Designate Philip Gordon’s confirmation is expected to move into the Senate floor for a vote very soon, a very well informed Congress source told the Greek News. Gordon’s confirmation although passed through the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee in early April, it was held up by Senator John Ensign, a Republican from Nevada who has co-sponsored a congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide in the past.

Ensign represents the State of Nevada in the U.S. Senate along with Majority Leader Harry Reed, who is expected to have a tough reelection in 2010. Although political pundits and some Armenian Americans were predicting Ensign’s position to force Reed to withhold Gordon’s nomination for some more time, it seems now that the junior senator from Nevada will step back, for unknown reasons, opening the way for a full Senate vote, as soon as the end of the week. According to political sources, Ensign’s hold happened just before Obama’s Armenian Day proclamation and was just a warning to the Obama Administration and the President himself to put pressure on Ankara during its negotiations with Armenia to settle their disputes.

The fact that the Armenian government agreed to the process didn’t leave much alternatives to anyone in the Senate”, the same sources told the Greek News.

Gordon’s position on Cyprus and the Armenian Genocide during his confirmation hearing, on March 26, 2009, left many unanswered questions about his objectivity.

Although he is the translator of the English edition of French President’s Nicola Sarkozy book “Testimony”, he criticized France for criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide. “Genocide Denial” is a crime in many countries, including the United States in the case of the Jewish Holocaust.

Gordon, a former director of the Brookings Institution was author of many pro Turkish books and article. He was very critical of the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan and suggest the reward of Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots.

According to figures released by Brookings Institution and provided to the Senate by Philip Gordon, since 2006 Brookings has received $200,000 from the Turkish Industrialists’ and Businessmen’s Association, $200,000 from Sabanci University, $150,000 from the Eksiogullari Group (a construction company in Turkey), and $100,000 from the Dogan Yayin Holding Company, a media-entertainment conglomerate.

Brookings, in a note attached to the spreadsheet listing the donations, said that the "primary funding for the work of Philip H. Gordon in 2006-2007 was provided by the Smith Richardson Foundation. From 2007-2009 primary funding was provided to Mr. Gordon by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Brookings Endowment."

The question about Gordon’s funding was asked by Senator Robert Menendez (D, NJ) along with 27 other questions, seeking clarification on his positions regarding Cyprus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, Turkey’s compliance with the Copenhagen Criteria, the Armenian Genocide and the Turkish-Armenia dispute and Ukraine.

According to sources close to the Greek Lobby in Washington, although during his confirmation hearing he denied to say if he agreed with Obama’s statement about “the Turkish occupation of north Cyprus”, Gordon’s written answers (to Menendez questions) regarding Cyprus and the Ecumenical Patriarchate were satisfactory, reflecting the change of tone in Washington in these issues. But, some of his answers about Armenia left a bitter taste in many Armenian-Americans.

“Greek News” is publishing exclusively all his answers to the questions regarding Cyprus and the Patriarchate and some of his replies to the questions regarding Armenia.

ON CYPRUS

Question: In the case that negotiations between the parties in Cyprus break down in the next four years, what are your views on how one achieves a settlement on Cyprus? Specifically, what role would the United States play in Cyprus negotiations and what would you advocate as a U.S. policy towards Cyprus?

Answer: If confirmed, I will vigorously support the direct negotiations between the parties that began in September 2008 under the United Nations Good Offices Mission, and do everything possible to prevent the breakdown of those talks. The only way to achieve a just and lasting settlement is for the Cypriot parties themselves to negotiate their own solution, with strong support from the international community whenever the parties seek such support. If confirmed, I will continue to support the reunification of Cyprus under a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, which has been the longstanding policy of the United States, supported by United Nations Security Council Resolutions.

Question: Would you promote the equivalent of the Annan Plan in the current context if negotiations were not moving forward?

Answer: If confirmed, I will continue to support a resolution of the Cyprus Problem through the reunification of the island into a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. While it is important to build on those areas of convergence reached during four decades of negotiations under UN auspices, the Annan Plan was rejected by Greek Cypriots in a referendum; I respect that democratic decision. The current leaders, Demetris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat are to be commended for taking the initiative in starting negotiations on September 3, 2008 under the auspices of the United Nations Good Offices Mission, and for conducting those negotiations in good-faith. If confirmed, I will support this Cypriot-led process and assist as needed, in consultation with the parties.

ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE

Question: If confirmed, would you urge that the Government of Turkey respect the rights and religious freedoms of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the Orthodox Christian Church?

Answer: Yes, if confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkish officials to recognize the ecumenical status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, to continue allowing the Holy Synod to select its members regardless of whether they are Turkish citizens, restore confiscated religious property and prevent spurious legal challenges to Patriarchate property, and to reopen the Halki Seminary. The United States considers Ecumenical Patriarch Batholomew a religious leader of global standing, a position with which I agree. Like the administration, I share deep respect for His All Holiness, and concern for the continued existence of the Patriarchate, which for centuries has been a part of the rich tradition of religious diversity exemplified in Istanbul.

Question: If confirmed, would you advocate that the European Union focus on the elimination of all forms of discrimination in Turkey, particularly with regard to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while continuing accession negotiations?

Answer: Yes. It is the policy of this Administration to promote religious freedom and human rights worldwide, including in Turkey. If confirmed I would strongly support this policy with our friends and Allies in the European Union. Turkey has taken many steps toward improving its overall record on human rights and religious freedom, and has committed to implement further reforms, as desired by Turkish voters and in line with the European Union accession requirements. The United States fully supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage progress on these reforms and will keep the issue of expanding religious freedom in Turkey high on our bilateral agenda, which, in turn, will advance Turkey’s efforts to meet the criteria for EU candidacy.

Question: If confirmed, would you advocate that the Government of Turkey remove an obstacle in its relations with the United States Government by taking positive steps to provide full religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Answer: If confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkish officials to respect the ecumenical and legal status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Turkey, continue allowing the Holy Synod to select members who are not Turkish citizens, and to restore confiscated religious property and prevent spurious legal challenges to Patriarchate property. If confirmed, I will call on the Government of Turkey to reopen the Halki Seminary.

The United States Mission in Turkey regularly promotes religious freedom for all faiths and advocates for legal reforms to lift restrictions on religious minorities as part of our efforts to advance human rights. If confirmed, I will continue to support our Mission’s engagement with the Government of Turkey on religious freedom issues, advocate for continued outreach and engagement with Turkish religious leaders, and further our policy of active engagement and consultation with religious minority groups, including those in the Greek Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Syriac Orthodox, Protestant, and Jewish communities.

Question: If confirmed, would you advocate that the Government of Turkey recognize the right to the title of `Ecumenical Patriarch,' grant the Ecumenical Patriarch appropriate international recognition and ecclesiastic succession, grant the Ecumenical Patriarch the right to train clergy of all nationalities, not just Turkish nationals; and respect property rights and human rights of the Ecumenical Patriarchate?

Answer: If confirmed, I will continue to urge Turkish officials to recognize the ecumenicity of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, reflecting our view of the Ecumenical Patriarch as a religious leader of global significance. If confirmed, I will also urge Turkish officials to reopen the school at Halki to ensure ecclesiastic succession. Just as we encourage the Turkish Government to continue allowing the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Holy Synod to select members who are not Turkish citizens, so do we hope the Patriarchate will have the right to train clergy of any nationality. On Patriarchate property, the recent amendments to the Foundations Law should help advance intensive U.S. efforts to elicit the return of the Buyukada Orphanage and other properties to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Though the new Foundations Law is a step in the right direction, it does not include a provision for compensating original owners of property seized by the Government of Turkey and then sold to third parties. The law also did not rescind the authority of the government to expropriate property. The 2008 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom underscores the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the legal challenges for property ownership and, if confirmed, I will continue to strongly urge the Turkish Government to restore confiscated religious property and prevent spurious legal challenges to Patriarchate property.

TURKEY – EU

Question: Is it your view that the Government of Turkey should move expeditiously to meet the criteria set forth by the European Council in Copenhagen?

Answer: Any country seeking membership in the European Union must conform to the conditions established by the European Council in Copenhagen. Turkey has taken many steps towards improving its overall human rights and religious freedom record, and has made a commitment to implement further reforms desired by the people of Turkey and in line with the European Union accession process. The United States supports Turkey’s accession to the European Union. As it fulfills the EU’s accession criteria, Turkey will become an even stronger and more valuable partner of the United States and the entire Euro-Atlantic community. If confirmed, I will continue to encourage progress on these reforms and will keep the issue of expanding religious freedom in Turkey high on our bilateral agenda.

ON ARMENIA

Question: Does your record also include speaking out to have Turkey come to terms with its legacy of genocide and its denial of genocide? Have you spoken out to ensure that Turkey open the border with Armenia, which it has illegally kept closed for the last 15 years and is required under treaty obligations? If so, please provide documentation of such writings.

Answer: I have repeatedly encouraged Turkey to come to terms with its past and allow for an open and honest internal dialogue by expanding freedom of expression, especially on this particular issue. I have also advocated that the United States and Europe actively encourage Turkey to normalize its relations with Armenia, re-open the border, and allow open dialogue about the mass killings and forced exile of 1915. Turkey and Armenia have sought U.S. support for their reconciliation efforts, and following the lead of the President, if confirmed, I will give mine fully. Resurrecting Turkey-Armenia relations and reconciling with both peoples’ shared past is critical to fostering peace and stability in the Caucasus region and beyond.

In my monograph Winning Turkey, I wrote that:

The West should “press Turkey to repair its relations with the Republic of Armenia and to allow open debate within Turkey.”

“Although such a sensitive matter must obviously be handled by the Turks and Armenians themselves, their American and European friends should actively encourage a solution, which should begin with Turkey’s allowing more open research and debate about the subject. Turkey’s contention that ‘history should be left to the historians’ is fine as far as it goes, but it would be more convincing if Turkey actually did that, rather than prosecute historians and others who reach the conclusion that genocide took place. This is another reason why Article 301 should be repealed.”

“…the Erdogan government needs to be more vocal in its support for freedom of speech on the Armenian question. […] It is also time for the Turkish government to take more constructive and creative steps toward political and psychological reconciliation with Armenia. […] Ankara and the Turkish public need to understand better the trauma of 1915 for the Armenian people and the Armenian diaspora.”

In that study and in public interventions in Turkey, I have suggested that Turkey offer “an olive branch to Armenia in the form of a presidential letter of sympathy to commemorate the tragedy” which would “bring a human dimension to relations between Ankara and Yerevan.”

I also called in Winning Turkey for an acceleration of diplomatic efforts “to resolve the bilateral conflict between Turkey and the Republic of Armenia, which has for too long blocked peaceful developments in the Caucasus and complicates Turkey’s accession to the EU.”

I wrote that “The United States should encourage Turkey to pledge now that if Armenia shows a real commitment to a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Turkey would reestablish diplomatic relations with Armenia, end its blockade, and open the land border between the two countries. Such steps not only would be in the interest of both countries but also could create the climate for a long-term solution in Nagorno-Karabakh as well as much better relations and open trade between Turkey, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.”

Question: Given some of your public statements, how can you assure me that you will be sensitive to preventing future genocides and combating denial of the Armenian Genocide by Turkey?

Answer: I have strongly encouraged Turkey to come to terms with its history and believe that an honest dialogue within Turkey on historical events would help facilitate Turkish democracy and reconciliation both within Turkey’s borders and in the region. Such a dialogue would help promote prosperity, peace, and stability in the region and would contribute to a full understanding of these terrible events. If confirmed, I will continue to strongly support this effort, and in particular will emphasize its importance to bilateral relations.

The Obama Administration is fully committed to preventing genocides. If confirmed, I will work diligently with my interagency colleagues, this committee, our European allies, and our partners to prevent genocide anywhere in the world.

Questions for the Record Submitted to Assistant Secretary - Designate Philip Gordon by
Senator Robert Menendez (#4C)
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
March 26, 2009

Question: A 1951 U.S. Government filing with the United Nations stated that “The Genocide Convention resulted from the inhuman and barbarous practices which prevailed in certain countries prior to and during World War II, when entire religious, racial and national minority groups were threatened with and subjected to deliberate extermination. The practice of genocide has occurred throughout human history. The Roman persecution of the Christians, the Turkish massacres of Armenians, the extermination of millions of Jews and Poles by the Nazis are outstanding examples of the crime of genocide.” Do you agree with this U.S. Government filing?

Answer: The United States has long acknowledged the horrific tragedy that 1.5 million Armenians suffered mass killings and forced exile by the Ottoman Empire. I, too, recognize and mourn the loss of so many innocent lives. This tragedy should be the focus of an open and honest dialogue among civic leaders, scholars, and the societies at large. If confirmed, I would strongly support Turkey and Armenia’s reconciliation efforts, including confronting their shared history. I believe the United States must do all it can to prevent such tragedies from ever happening again.

Question: In October 2006, you published “Why France Shouldn't Legislate Turkey's Past,” in regard to the French push to pass a law that punishes the denial of the Armenian Genocide. You wrote that this vote in Parliament “is a dangerous step down a slippery slope,” adding that “the new French legislation is just the latest illiberal policy in Europe masquerading as liberalism.” How do you seek to reconcile your criticism of France with the blind eye you turn towards Turkey?

Answer: I have stated with regard to the proposed French legislation in question that it is dangerous to criminalize the free expression of views. I also strongly believe in, and have publicly called for, a more open debate about the past in Turkey. I have encouraged Turkey to repeal article 301 of its penal code, which can be used to constrain free expression, and I have supported an open dialogue between Turkey and Armenia. If confirmed, I would continue, along with the Administration, to strongly encourage Turkey to come to terms with the dark periods in its history.

Question: Do you agree with the characterization by President Bush on April 24, 2004, when he stated “On this day, we pause in remembrance of one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century, the annihilation of as many as 1.5 million Armenians through forced exile and murder at the end of the Ottoman Empire.”?

Answer: Yes. I acknowledge and mourn as historical fact what President Bush described as one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century, the mass killings and forced exile of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire.

Question: Do you agree that the use of the words “ethnic cleansing” would include the deliberate inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part?

Answer: I do not believe that there is a universally accepted definition of “ethnic cleansing” under international law. In the Bosnia v. Serbia case, the International Court of Justice described the phrase “ethnic cleansing” as being in practice used “by reference to a specific region or area, to mean rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area.”

Question: Do you acknowledge and agree with the following facts of the events that occurred between 1915-1923 as reported by American officials at the time?

1. Where U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau wrote on July 16, 1915, “it appears that a campaign of race extermination is in progress under a pretext of reprisal against rebellion.”

2. Where U.S. Consul in Aleppo, Jesse Jackson, reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on June 5, 1915, "It is without doubt a carefully planned scheme to thoroughly extinguish the Armenian race."

3. Where U.S. Consul in Harput, Leslie Davis reported to Ambassador Morgenthau on July 24, 1915, “It has been no secret that the plan was to destroy the Armenian race as a race, but the methods used have been more cold-blooded and barbarous, if not more effective, than I had at first supposed."

4. Where U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1916-1917, Abram I. Elkus, telegrammed the Secretary of State on October 17, 1916, "In order to avoid opprobrium of the civilized world, which the continuation of massacres would arouse, Turkish officials have now adopted and are executing the unchecked policy of extermination through starvation, exhaustion, and brutality of treatment hardly surpassed even in Turkish history."

Answer: I acknowledge the fact of the mass killings and forced exile of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. I do not dispute that Ambassador Morgenthau, Ambassador Elkus, and other diplomats during that time period reported on what they described as an attempt to destroy the Armenian population.

Question: Would you agree that Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, of which the United States has both signed and ratified, where it states:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Answer: Yes, that is what Article II says

Question: Do the events that occurred during the period of 1915-1923 meet the definition under Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?

Answer: I acknowledge and mourn the mass killings and forced exile of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. I feel very strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people both at that time and today as they remember this dark chapter in their history, mourn the loss of so many innocent lives, and rightfully expect their pain and loss to be acknowledged and the victims to be honored. It is the prerogative of the President to determine the policy on how the Administration characterizes these tragic events. If confirmed, my focus will be on promoting Turkish-Armenian reconciliation and as part of this an open and honest dialogue about the tragic events of 1915.

Question: How does the non-use of the genocide term, as you have advocated, advance U.S. efforts to promote Armenian-Turkish reconciliation?

Answer: I believe the United States should strongly support Armenian-Turkish reconciliation and avoid steps that could derail that process or discourage either party from participating in the ongoing dialogue. Ultimately, Turkey and Armenia are the owners of their historical reconciliation process, and I have been encouraged by the bold steps taken recently in this direction by Turkish and Armenian leaders to reconcile their countries with each other and with their shared and painful past. I also believe the steps Turkey and Armenia are taking towards normalizing relations and opening their border will foster a better environment for confronting their shared tragic history. Turkey and Armenia have sought U.S. support and encouragement of their reconciliation efforts, and following the lead of the President, if confirmed, I will give mine fully.

Question: Do you believe there can be reconciliation between Turkey and Armenia without an acknowledgment of the genocide by Turkey?

Answer: The Turkish and Armenian governments have already started taking courageous steps toward reconciliation, including by Armenian President Sargsian and Turkish President Gul, who met in Yerevan at President Sargsian’s invitation to attend a World Cup qualifier soccer match on September 6, 2008. I welcome the efforts by individuals in Armenia and Turkey to foster reconciliation and peace, and to come to terms with their shared past. I look forward to full normalization of Armenia-Turkey relations, after which genuine reconciliation – including through an open and honest dialogue of the tragic events of 1915 – can occur. If confirmed, I will strongly support ongoing efforts between Turkey and Armenia to open their border and re-establish diplomatic relations.

Question: Would you visit with government officials from Nagorno-Karabakh, if they requested such a meeting?

Answer: As Co-Chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, the United States has played an active and important role in efforts to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The U.S. Co-Chair, in addition to trips to Yerevan and Baku, often travels to Stepanakert to meet with de facto N-K authorities. The Obama Administration has stated that it is committed to achieving a breakthrough on Nagorno - Karabakh, and I look forward to assisting in this important effort if I am confirmed.

QUESTION: Would you permit USAID personnel, who are not Armenian nationals, to visit Nagorno-Karabakh?

ANSWER: As the United States continues to work toward a settlement of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, the United States Government is striving to use their assistance to address the genuine humanitarian needs of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh in a spirit of cooperation and friendship. What matters most is that we design and implement these programs properly, to have the greatest possible positive impact in addressing urgent needs. At this sensitive point in negotiations on a peaceful settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict under the OSCE’s Minsk Group, the Administration believes it is prudent to avoid significant changes in the modus operandi of our assistance efforts, especially in ways that might incorrectly imply that the United States has formally recognized Nagorno-Karabakh as a government, which neither the United States, Armenia, or any other country has done. That said, U.S. assistance to Nagorno-Karabakh, focused on improving the conditions of those living in the area, is essential to building trust and confidence in our negotiating efforts. U.S. assistance is doing critical work in demining and providing potable water to the residents there. United States-based NGOs have traveled to Nagorno Karabakh to provide humanitarian assistance. Additionally, as you noted, USAID personnel visit Nagorno-Karabakh to oversee and evaluate projects, conduct needs assessments, and consult with both “officials” and ordinary residents.

Question: Would you advise President Obama to in any way weaken or retreat from his clear pledge to the American people to recognize the Armenian Genocide? Why or why not?

Answer: If confirmed, I would advise President Obama to do everything possible to encourage Turkey to come to terms with its history and honor the victims of these horrendous events, and to help Armenia and Turkey come to terms with their shared and painful past. I will faithfully support whatever policy is decided by President Obama. If confirmed, I will strongly encourage Turkey and Armenia to deepen their efforts in this regard, and to normalize their relations and reopen their border.

Question: Then Senator Obama urged U.S. recognition of the Armenian Genocide on numerous occasions:
• On July 28, 2006, in a letter to Secretary Rice concerning the firing of US Ambassador to Armenia John Evans, he wrote, “The occurrence of the Armenian genocide in 1915 is not an ‘allegation,’ a ‘personal opinion,’ or a ‘point of view’ . . . . [I]t is a widely documented fact.”

• On April 28, 2008, in a Senate floor statement in remembrance of the Armenian Genocide, he stated, “It is imperative that we recognize the horrific acts carried out against the Armenian people as genocide and I will continue to stand with the Armenian American community in calling for the Government of Turkey to acknowledge it as such.”

• On January 19, 2008, Obama stated that “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides.”

Do you disagree with any of the above statements? If so, please explain?

Answer: Policy on this issue is determined by the President, and, if confirmed, I have a duty to faithfully represent the policy of the President. I recognize the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced exile of 1.5 million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. I feel very strongly about the great suffering experienced by the Armenian people both at that time and today as they remember this tragic chapter in their history. I fully respect that the Armenian-American community and the Armenian people want their pain and loss to be acknowledged. If confirmed, I will do everything I can to encourage Turkey to come to terms with this dark chapter in history, including through an open and honest dialogue with Armenia and within Turkey on these events. These efforts would help facilitate reconciliation, economic prosperity, peace, and stability in the region and would help encourage a full understanding of these terrible events. If confirmed, I am committed to do everything possible to ensure such horrors never recur.

Question: Do you dispute that U.S. diplomats serving in the Ottoman Empire during the Armenian Genocide documented a systematic, government-sponsored campaign "with intent to destroy, in whole or in part" the Armenian population?

Answer: No. I have read many of the historical records from 1915-1916 related to U.S. diplomatic reporting on these events, and I do not dispute that Ambassador Morgenthau, Ambassador Elkus, and other diplomats during that time period reported on what they described as an attempt to destroy the Armenian population.

You have written articles opposing resolutions recognizing the Armenian Genocide. If the Republic of Turkey ended its denial of the Armenian Genocide, would you no longer counsel against using the term “Armenian Genocide?” Why or why not?

Answer: I recognize and mourn the mass killings, ethnic cleansing, and forced deportations that devastated over one and a half million Armenians by the Ottoman Empire. The United States considers these events to be one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th Century, the “Great Calamity” as many Armenians refer to it. It is the prerogative of the President to determine the policy on how the Administration characterizes these tragic events.

I have encouraged Turkey to come to terms with its past and if confirmed will continue to do so. That will not be easy, just as it has not been easy for the United States to come to terms with dark periods of our own past. I firmly commit to supporting Turkish-Armenian reconciliation, if I am confirmed. I believe a successful reconciliation will not only need to include normalization of relations and reopening the border, but also an open and honest dialogue about the tragic events of 1915. Turkey and Armenia have asked for U.S. support and encouragement of their efforts, and following the lead of the President, if confirmed, I will give mine fully.

Question: Who was responsible for the death of over 1.5 million Armenians during WWI?

Answer: This administration, like those before it, does not deny the facts –1.5 million Armenians were murdered, starved, or deported by civilian officials and soldiers of the Ottoman Empire, some of whom were sentenced to death for committing these crimes. The United States mourns this terrible chapter of history and recognizes that it remains a source of pain for the people of Armenia and of Armenian descent, and all those who believe in the dignity and value of every human life.

Question: Despite the painful and ongoing legacy of the Armenian Genocide, and the continued illegal, Turkish blockade, Armenia has, repeatedly, offered to open diplomatic and economic relations with Turkey without preconditions. Do you believe Turkey should accept Armenia’s offer to establish full diplomatic and economic relations without preconditions?

Answer: Turkey and Armenia have sought and received strong U.S. support for their reconciliation efforts, and, if confirmed, I will give mine fully. I welcome these efforts by individuals in Armenia and Turkey and look forward to the realization of a fully normalized Armenia-Turkey relationship. If confirmed, I will strongly support ongoing efforts between Turkey and Armenia to open their border and re-establish diplomatic relations. I am encouraged by the positive developments toward normalization, including commercial flights, considerable trade, and rapid visa issuance, as well as the courageous steps by Armenian President Sargsian and Turkish President Gul to improve bilateral relations, including through their historic meeting in Yerevan last September. The Administration welcomes the plans of both presidents to meet again in Ankara this October, and hope that by then, the Turkey-Armenia border will be reopened.

GORDN’S/BROOKINGS FINANCIAL COMPENSATION

Philip Gordon Payments Received from EUR Countries 2006-2009

Payee Country Date Amount Purpose

Encompass Publications Belgium 11/08 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 9/08 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 7/08 $400 article
Financial Times UK 7/09/08 $500 oped
US-Spain Chamb Commerce Spain 6/05/08 $2,500 speech
Foreign Policy France France 5/15/08 $10,000 speech
Encompass Publications Belgium 5/08 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 3/08 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 1/08 $400 article
Financial Times UK 1/04/08 $500 oped
Financial Times UK 12/05/07 $500 oped
Encompass Publications Belgium 11/07 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 09/07 $400 article
Norwegian Foreign Ministry Norway 08/07 $2,500 report
Encompass Publications Belgium 07/07 $400 article
Financial Times UK 7/25/07 $500 oped
Encompass Publications Belgium 05/07 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 03/07 $400 article
Encompass Publications Belgium 01/07 $400 article
French Foreign Ministry France 2006 $7,000 translation

Corporate Donors with Foreign Addresses

Constituent Name Country Date Fund Description Cash Received Reference

Eksiogullari Group Turkey 3/5/2008 Turkey 2007 $75,000.00 Supported research activities and conferences of Brookings Turkey project
Eksiogullari Group Turkey 9/29/2008 Turkey 2007 $75,000.00 Supported research activities and conferences of Brookings Turkey project
Hedef-Alliance Holding Turkey 1/17/2007 Turkey 2007 $30,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Nurol Turkey 2/6/2008 Turkey 2007 $30,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 3/8/2007 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 6/8/2007 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 10/5/2007 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 4/22/2008 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 7/8/2008 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 2/27/2009 Turkey 2007 $25,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Turkish Industrialists' and Businessmen's Association Turkey 2/6/2009 Turkey 2007 $50,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Dogan Yayin Holdings/Hanzade Dogan Turkey 2/16/2007 CUSE $30,000.00 Support for Turkey 2007 initiative (project run by former Ambassador Mark Parris)
Dogan Yayin Holdings/Hanzade Dogan Turkey 2/16/2007 $70,000.00 Membership on Brookings' international advisory committee
Sabanci University Turkey 6/27/2006 CUSE $2,500.00 honorarium to Strobe Talbott for participation as judge in research award
Sabanci University Turkey 9/12/2008 Turkey Sabanci Lect T2 $9,673.21 travel costs for Sabanci delegation
Sabanci University Turkey 6/27/2006 Turkey Project $45,530.81 travel, conference, and administrative costs for annual Sabanci lecture
Sabanci University Turkey 7/5/2007 CUSE - France Activities $49,588.75 travel, conference, and administrative costs for annual Sabanci lecture
Sabanci University Turkey 11/25/2008 Turkey Project $85,000.00 travel, conference, and administrative costs for annual Sabanci lecture

*** NOTE: Primary funding for the work of Philip H. Gordon in 2006-2007 was provided by the Smith Richardson Foundation. From 2007-2009 primary funding was provided to Mr. Gordon by the Norwegian Foreign Ministry, the Carnegie Foundation, the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, and the Brookings Endowment.

Lobbying Arm for the Turkish Government

I have received this email from the Cyprus Action Network of America and will post it verbatim:


cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org
reply-to cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org

date Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:55 AM
subject WASHINGTON POST COVERS TURKISH EMBASSY CORRUPTION AND MANIPULATION


WASHINGTON POST COVERS TURKISH EMBASSY CORRUPTION AND MANIPULATION
For Immediate Release: July 7, 2008

Contact: Nikolaos Taneris, New York, Tel. 1-917-699-9935


NEW YORK—The Washington Post reported in its Saturday edition on the ongoing corruption and manipulation of American scholarship by the Turkish government, Susan Kinzie’s article “Board Members Resign to Protest Chair’s Ousting Leader in Georgetown-Based Agency Encouraged Scholars to Research Mass Killing of Armenians” details the most recent scandal surrounding the ITS (Institute of Turkish Studies) founded with a $3 million dollar grant paid directly by the Turkish government.

Beginning in the 1980s, in response to the Congressional arms embargo of the 1970s following Turkey’s criminal military invasion of Cyprus, the Turkish Embassy in Washington DC, under the leadership of then Turkish Ambassador Sukru Elekdag, initiated a far flung campaign in America to whitewash Turkish criminal history. The practically non-existent ,apathetic community of Turks in America, was reorganized with the help of millions of dollars of funding-- buying high priced advisors to set up such Cyprus Invasion denying entities as the Washington DC-Based “American Friends of Turkey” the ATC (American Turkish Council) recently reorganized under the new name “Turkish Coalition of America” ,the ATAA (Assembly of Turkish American Associations) and the New York-New Jersey-Based FTAA (Federation of Turkish American Associations) whose job was to organize a “Turkish-American” parade to counter the decades long parade by Greek-Americans on New York’s Fifth Avenue.

The Parade like the funding of Turkish ‘academic’ institutes was set up for the dual purposes of Genocide denial and Cyprus Invasion denial. According to the Turkish Daily News ( May 21, 2007) “In the 1980s the parade was a platform where Turkish Americans tried to draw the attention of American public to some of Turkey's international conflicts such as those with Armenia and Greek Cyprus…The first official Turkish Day Parade in the city was held on April 23 1980. Those who attended that parade remember vividly that there were only two flags in the 150 people cortege. The FTAA could not get a permit for the parade in 1981 either. In 1982 however, with support from Ankara FTAA was able to get the permit to organize first official Turkish Day Parade. It was decided that the parade would take place on the weekend that is closest to May 19th,” (NOTE: May 19th is the day in 1919 that Turk leader Mustafa Kemal landed in Pontus to perpetrate the Pontian Genocide, In Turkey this is celebrated as “Turkish liberation day”)

Greek-American scholar Speros Vryonis wrote the first detailed academic study of Turkish government manipulation of American scholarship in his monumental work “The Turkish State and History: Clio Meets the Grey Wolf.” Vryonis documents the ITS (Institute of Turkish Studies) attempt to manipulate American scholarship, and in turn US public opinion, with the granting of monies to Genocide deniers, activities that question the objectivity of this group and its role in essentially lobbying on behalf of the Turkish Embassy.

Turkey has also bankrolled the establishment of endowed Chairs of Turkish Studies at various American universities, at least one such Chair, the endowed Chair of Turkish Studies at Portland State University , paid for directly by funding from the Turkish Embassy, is involved in actively producing Cyprus Invasion denial literature, and is home to the “Cyprus Peace Initiative”. The “Cyprus Peace Initiative” actively lobbied for the discredited, so-called Annan Plan, which made provisions that call for Turkish military to remain and intervene over all of Cyprus.

The Washington Post article follows on the heels of a long list of credible news outlets that have reported on Turkey’s false historical revisionism and the Turkish Embassy’s morally bankrupt attempts to present a distorted image of Turkey’s true face to the American public.


(Article is reproduced for Fair Use and Educational Purposes)


Board Members Resign to Protest Chair's Ousting
Leader in Georgetown-Based Agency Encouraged Scholars to Research Mass Killing of Armenians

By Susan Kinzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 5, 2008; B05



The issue that has roiled U.S.-Turkish relations in recent months -- how to characterize the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 -- has set off a dispute over politics and academic freedom at an institute housed at Georgetown University.

Several board members of the Institute of Turkish Studies have resigned this summer, protesting the ouster of a board chairman who wrote that scholars should research, rather than avoid, what he characterized as an Armenian genocide.

Within weeks of writing about the matter in late 2006, Binghamton University professor Donald Quataert resigned from the board of governors, saying the Turkish ambassador to the United States told him he had angered some political leaders in Ankara and that they had threatened to revoke the institute's funding.

After a prominent association of Middle Eastern scholars learned about it, they wrote a letter in May to the institute, the Turkish prime minister and other leaders asking that Quataert be reinstated and money for the institute be put in an irrevocable trust to avoid political influence.

The ambassador of the Republic of Turkey, H.E. Nabi Sensoy, denied that he had any role in Quataert's resignation. In a written statement, he said that claims that he urged Quataert to leave are unfounded and misleading.

The dispute shows the tensions between money and scholarship, and the impact language can have on historical understanding.

Hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed when the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I. Armenians and Turks bitterly disagree over whether it was a campaign of genocide, or a civil war in which many Turks were also killed.

In the fall, when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) championed a bill that would characterize the events of 1915 to 1917 as genocide, the Bush administration fought it and several former defense secretaries warned that Turkish leaders would limit U.S. access to a military base needed for the war in Iraq.

The Turkish studies institute, founded in 1983, is independent from Georgetown University, but Executive Director David Cuthell teaches a course there in exchange for space on campus.

Julie Green Bataille, a university spokeswoman, wrote in an e-mail, "we will review this matter consistent with the importance of academic freedom and the fact that the institute is independently funded and governed."

The institute's funding, a $3 million grant, is entirely from Turkey.

A few years ago, Quataert said, members of the board checked on what they thought was an irrevocable blind trust "and to our surprise it turned out to be a gift that could be revoked by the Turkish government."

Quataert, a professor of history, said the institute has funded good scholarship without political influence. The selection of which studies to support is done by a committee of academics on the associate board, he said, and approved by the board, which includes business and political leaders. Never once, he said, did he think a grant application was judged on anything other than its academic merits.

He also noted that during his time there, no one applied for grants that would have been controversial in Turkey. Asked if any of the research characterized the events as genocide, Cuthell said, "My gut is no. It's that third rail."

Roger Smith, professor emeritus of government at the College of William and Mary, questioned whether the nonprofit institute deserves its tax-exempt status if there is political influence -- and whether it is an undeclared lobbying arm for the Turkish government.

Cuthell said none of the institute's critics ever bothered to check the truth of Quataert's account with the institute: It does not lobby, Cuthell said, and "the allegations of academic freedom simply don't hold up."

The controversy began quietly in late 2006 with a review of historian Donald Bloxham's book, "The Great Game of Genocide." Quataert wrote that the slaughter of Armenians has been the elephant in the room of Ottoman studies. Despite his belief that the term "genocide" had become a distraction, he said the events met the United Nations definition of the word.

He sent a letter of resignation to members of the institute in December 2006, and one board member resigned.

But in the fall, around the same time that Congress was debating the Armenian question, Quataert was asked to speak at a conference about what had happened at the institute. He told members of the Middle Eastern Studies Association that the ambassador told him he must issue a retraction of his book review or step down -- or put funding for the institute in jeopardy.

His colleagues were shocked, said Laurie Brand, director of the school of international relations at the University of Southern California.

Ambassador Sensoy, who is honorary chairman of the institute's board, said in a statement this week, "Neither the Turkish Government nor I have ever placed any pressure upon the ITS, for such interference would have violated the principle of the academic freedom, which we uphold the most. The Turkish Government and I will be the first to defend ITS from any such pressure."

Since the May 27 letter from the scholars association was sent, several associate and full members of the board have left. Marcie Patton, Resat Kasaba and Kemal Silay resigned; Fatma Muge Gocek said she would resign, and Birol Yesilada said his primary reason for stepping down at this time is his health, but that he is concerned about the conflicting accounts of what had happened. "It's a very difficult line that scholars walk," Patton said, "especially post-9/11, especially because of the Iraq war."


========================
Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA)
2578 Broadway #132
New York, NY 10025
New York: Tel. 917-699-9935
Email: cana@cyprusactionnetwork.org
www.cyprusactionnetwork.org
========================


The Cyprus Action Network of America (CANA) is a grass-roots, not-for-profit movement created to support genuine self-determination and human rights for the people of Cyprus.

President Papadopoulos Speaks to the UN General Assembly

PRESIDENT PAPADOPOULOS:

Mr. President,

Before I begin, I wish to indicate that my statement is complementary to that delivered yesterday by the Prime Minister of Portugal on behalf of the European Union, to which Cyprus fully subscribes.

At the outset, I would like to congratulate you on your election as President of the 62nd Session of the General Assembly and express my sincere gratitude to your predecessor, Her Excellency Sheikha Haya Rashed Al Khalifa on the successful completion of her tenure.

As this is the first general debate after the election of the new Secretary-General, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Mr. Ban Ki-moon on his appointment to this crucial post and wish him every success. His Report on the work of the Organization demonstrates not only the broadened spectrum of issues dealt with by the United Nations but also the comprehensive character and vast potential of multilateral diplomacy. Among the aspects of the Organization’s work that present particular interest, we note the disconcerting developments in the Middle East, the modest progress made with respect to the development agenda, the effects of the Organization’s involvement in different crises, particularly in Africa and the increasing impact of its humanitarian contribution.

We also maintain our focus on the outstanding aspects of United Nations reform and particularly on those pertaining to the Security Council. As a crucial pillar of the Organization whose activity and output have grown exponentially in recent years, the Council’s effectiveness and legitimacy should be enhanced. Moreover, we consider as an integral part of the reform process, the creation of a culture of permanent mutation of the Organization through which the latter will adapt to future developments as they occur.

A necessary building block towards ensuring the continued relevance and legitimacy of the work and decisions of the Organization is to guarantee that these decisions are compatible with, and even emanate from, the will of the membership as a whole, in particular through the General Assembly as the universal organ of the United Nations. Being a staunch advocate of the enhancement of the role and authority of the General Assembly, my delegation is particularly pleased that one of the most pressing issues facing the international community today is being addressed in this framework with a view to elaborating policy.

Mr. President,

To date, we have ample scientific data and other overwhelmingly convincing evidence suggesting that world climate is changing at the detriment of human and ecological systems as a result of human activity. Thus, our response to this alarming phenomenon should be the focus of our debate rather than the extent to which it exists.

We believe that it is important for us to define, from the outset, the scope of the response we are seeking to formulate. In the face of the quasi irreversibility of the damage done thus far, we should at least put the necessary focus, resources and energy in curbing the galloping deterioration of the situation and urgently decide the first steps to protect our societies from large scale future climate change.

In realizing this task, an integrated approach is needed. We must account not only for the future environmental impact should current trends continue but also evaluate the projected consequences in other areas likely to be adversely affected such as security and development.

All of us, Governments and individual citizens alike, are stakeholders in this endeavor. We must act jointly to codify binding commitments, ensure that these are quantitatively and qualitatively adequate to address the problem effectively, and attach to them a firm implementation monitoring mechanism and timeline.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has suggested a number of technological and policy instruments that are available to Governments for mitigation action. We stand ready to support the adoption of a number of sectoral policies and measures the Panel has deemed effective like the use of renewable energy, the use of technology to produce energy cleanly, improved waste and waste-water management and the use of alternative technologies in exploiting human systems like forestry, fisheries and agriculture.

In deciding and enforcing our response, we see no plausible framework other than the United Nations. Aside from its unique position to address the issue because of its global character, its success in confronting a threat with such massive potential as climate change will be a litmus test for the relevance of our Organization. One could say that climate change is the modern day equivalent of the security threat that necessitated the establishment of the Organization in 1945. It remains to be seen whether our system can be effective in dealing with contemporary threats to humanity as it has been in dealing with more traditional security deficits.

Mr. President,

Let me now turn to an issue which the United Nations has had a long involvement with and which we aim to keep within the Organization’s priorities until it has been definitively resolved within the framework set out in numerous relevant resolutions of this Organization.

Cyprus, like the majority of member states, gained its independence after the Organization’s inception. It has relied, since then, on the United Nations to uphold the principles enshrined in its Charter and it has always considered this system of collective security as the only legitimate means to counter acts that are inconsistent with the Organization’s purposes.

For many years, the United Nations has made strenuous efforts in trying to broker a solution. It might be that the task has been so arduous because the truth remains that the Cyprus issue, when stripped of niceties of diplomatic terminology, is a question of foreign aggression and continuing occupation of a significant part of a sovereign state, entailing enclaved and missing persons, refugees and massive and enduring violations of human rights.

Cyprus has survived the most difficult circumstances created by the many facets of the problem and has primarily insisted on one thing vis-à-vis the involvement of the United Nations in its resolution: the full application of the values this Organization was founded on and has worked so hard to promote.

So, why does this problem persist after so many years during which the national, regional and international political landscape has undergone dramatic changes? Certainly, it is neither for lack of political will nor for lack of effort on our part.

Rather, the occupying power has not displayed any motivation to solve the problem and this has only been reinforced by the Annan plan which satisfied all Turkish desiderata, thus being readily accepted by the Turkish side. Instead, Turkey has used its dominant position to command trade-offs of all sorts.

Secondly, Turkey’s long-standing objective of gaining political and military control over Cyprus remains unchanged. Despite declaratory remarks of willingness to solve the Cyprus problem, its actions confirm its dedication to its ab initio pursuit of controlling Cyprus through partitioning it geographically in two ethnically clean parts, with Turkey securing rights of suzerainty and the “right” of intervention in Cyprus.

Thirdly, efforts to solve the Cyprus problem have not been filtered through a system of values and norms of international law. They have not been tailored to the roots of the problem or even to the problem itself; rather their centre of gravity seems to have been the kind of solution the occupying power would want or could, at least, tolerate. In fact, it is clear through the conduct and negotiating positions of Turkey that it has not contemplated a solution outside the boundaries of the status quo, with the exception of partition.

Fourthly, shifting the problem from the context of its origin has led to a problem-solving methodology that divides the distance that separates the parties, caving to the demands of the most powerful party and making its success conditional upon the latter’s magnanimity.

Fifthly, the occupying power has insisted on discussing elements to the problem that form neither part of its genesis nor of its solution. The Cyprus problem is not a derivative of bad community relations but one of outside intervention. Persisting, therefore, on a constitutional arrangement, set-up primarily on the basis of ethnic origin - without due respect for the overriding democratic principles of liberty and equality of all citizens - insults their dignity and condemns the viability of any settlement.

Mr. President,

We currently find ourselves engaged in an effort to implement a process consisting of an Agreement concluded and signed by the two communities in Cyprus on 8 July 2006 and complemented by letters exchanged between the leaders of the two communities and the Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs of the United Nations on 15 November 2006. The surprising laboriousness in implementing this carefully crafted Agreement, the purpose of which is to prepare the ground for subsequent negotiation and is intended to lead to a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue, is not inherent to this particular process and we should thus persist on implementing what has been agreed. The pace can only be determined by progress, and as needed, culminating in full-fledged negotiations. Sidelining or circumventing stages of the process will only lead to expediting not the solution, but the confirmation of deadlock.

So what does the future hold for the mission of good offices entrusted to the Secretary-General by the Security Council? On our part, we remain fully committed to it as it is clear to us that we cannot sustain the status quo and must insist on a meaningful and forward-looking process that can elicit concrete results leading to a settlement of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, with the correct meaning of each of these terms. The only process that can take us forward is that established by the 8 July agreed process I outlined above. This process is anticipated to test suggestions, ideas and alternatives at expert level, adequately prepare the ground and submit to the leaders, points that warrant political compromise or agreement. Though the last meeting with the Turkish Cypriot leader did not signal the beginning of the implementation of the Agreement as we had hoped, we will not rescind our efforts to put the 8 July process back on track. The element of time is very important; however only progress through preparing the ground can bring us sooner to an agreed settlement.

On the other hand, we have never viewed our relationship with Turkey as a zero sum game. To the contrary, we consider that a solution to the Cyprus problem and good neighborly relations between Cyprus and Turkey are a sine qua non for the stability of both countries and the wider region. An opportunity to put this doctrine to practice has arisen as a result of Turkey’s aspiration to join the European Union. However, the catalytic effect of this accession negotiation process, has not thus far helped relieve the Cyprus problem of artificial and unfounded Turkish concerns and unrealistic policy considerations that have, in any case, been rendered obsolete by the emerging political environment. It seems that not even the allure of accession to the European Union can supersede Turkey’s policy objectives regarding Cyprus. We, like others, have linked our endorsement of Turkey’s European endeavors with the fulfillment of its European obligations.

Turkey’s intentions are not only manifest in the non-resolution of the Cyprus problem after all these years. They transpire from all its actions: the non-normalization of its relations with Cyprus as a first step to becoming an EU partner, the non-removal of any of its troops from Cypriot soil as a confidence building gesture, the intensification of efforts to project a secessionist entity in Cyprus and its systematic violations of our sovereign air and maritime space and of the military status quo. This was recently confirmed by explicit statements of its leadership at the highest political level referring to “a settlement based on two peoples, two democracies, two states and two religions” (sic).

Over the past year, we have also witnessed repeated attempts by the occupying power to illegally explore my country’s natural resources and to sabotage our sovereign right to explore and manage these resources. It has carried out unauthorized demolitions of Greek Cypriot houses in the areas it occupies and it continues to destroy cultural and religious heritage. It has intensified the large-scale illegal exploitation of Greek Cypriot properties in the occupied part of Cyprus, not least because this will skew the terms of a future settlement.

At the same time, Turkey pursues its own strategic objectives in Cyprus at the expense of re-unification and is only guided by its own interests and not those of Turkish Cypriots. It has ascertained over the years that the occupied part of Cyprus would come completely under its political, economic and military control. We regret to note that Turkey has been trying to involve our friends and neighbors in this ill-conceived effort. Underpinning this strategy, is the intent to legitimize the faits accomplis of the invasion and attribute political status to its results. Such strategy could not have been achieved without presenting the Turkish Cypriot community as victims, not of Turkish aggression as is really the case, but of Greek-Cypriots for resisting this fait accomplis. A prime example of these tactics has been the ongoing campaign to deceivingly suggest that the Turkish Cypriot community is economically disadvantaged because it is isolated. Considering that the per capita income of Turkish Cypriots has doubled over the past three years to the extent that they now enjoy the 59th highest per capita income in the world, one can easily detect the political agenda behind the attempt to link their economic development with the fate of the illegal regime.

Mr. President,

For years now we have been advocating that the road to solving the Cyprus problem is not via the exclusion of the inconvenient truths that underlie it or the by-passing of principles that are, for us, the guarantee that the settlement of the Cyprus problem will continue to be valid and relevant in a constantly changing world.

We insist that a functional and enduring solution is not one that flows from a simplistic formula that merely reflects the power balance of the parties. We are convinced that reaching a settlement well above the lowest common denominator is feasible and the creation of a unified, democratic, inclusive and forward looking society fully assuming its place in the European Union is within reach. We are also convinced that a settlement in the form of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation can be truly comprehensive and need not sacrifice justice for the sake of peace. Lasting peace is elusive without the notion of justice being firmly embedded in its foundation. Justice should be intrinsic in any political settlement package as a natural consequence of striving to preserve the universal values, which this Organization is the Guardian of.

Equally importantly, we regard the preservation of our interests and those of Turkey in our region not as mutually exclusive but as complementary and interdependent. Our vision must be to inherit to future generations the legacy of friendship, co-operation and good neighborliness. We are afforded the opportunity to prevent eternalizing this feud and we should seize it.

Thank you, Mr. President.

Gul’s statements show Turkish incompatibilities vis-à-vis Europe

Mr. Gul’s divisive statements made on his trip to the Northern breakaway State should remind us all that Turkey does not abide by the most basic norms expected, indeed required, by the European Union. Take a look at this statement:

"There are two realities on Cyprus, two democracies, two states, two languages, two religions." President Abdullah Gul, at a joint news conference with Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat, went on to say that "One has to accept that a solution must be based on these realities." Yes, like the Annan Plan you wholeheartedly endorsed?

He notes religion as an issue to the Cyprus problem. Why? Is he telling us that those with different faiths cannot live side by side, together in brotherhood? If so, then why does he seek Turkish membership in the EU? The British high commissioner in Nicosia, Mr. Peter Millett, reacted strongly to Mr. Gul’s remarks by stating that involving religion in the Cyprus issue was unacceptable. Feel free to watch the video below to hear more of what Mr. Millett had to say on the recent remarks by President Gul.

The spectacular Turkish transformational act?

Commentary from certain politicians and (warped) media keep stating that Turkey's EU accession will set the country on a course of dramatic transformation and that Turkey is a bridge between the East and the West. Has this dramatic transformation begun?

Mr. Talat, the Annan Plan is Dead...

And there is no chance of resurrecting it.

Further more, all five United Nations Security Council permanent members have endorsed the July 8th agreement as the only process now on the table for a Cyprus settlement.

Why are you trying to dilute this agreement?

You state there is nothing in the July 8 agreement prohibiting time frames. Why all this sudden talk on time frames? For the past 14 months, you have done nothing but drag your feet with regard to the implementation of the agreement that was reached between you and Mr. Papadopoulos on the 8th of July during the Mission of Under-Secretary-General Ibrahim Gambari.

The president of the Republic has extended his hand and offered to meet again with you soon to proceed forward with the peace process. Why have you turned down this invitation?

(Cypriot media coverage below on the failed meeting)




From the Cyprus Weekly:

No breakthrough

Not clear when leaders will meet again

By Menelaos Hadjicostis

HOPES that the Papadopoulos-Talat talks would deliver a needed breakthrough putting the July 8 agreement on track faded as fast as it took to read a terse, three-sentence wrap-up statement pronouncing the process comatose.

It’s unclear when the two will meet again and indications are that the Turkish side wants to dilute the agreement and render it inert so that it can be supplanted by direct talks on a resurrected Annan Plan, Nicosia charged.

"Mr Talat wanted changes to the Gambari process. He wants immediate talks without the committees, or for the role of the committees to be limited to a purely technical level of listing the headings to be discussed," President Tassos Papadopoulos told reporters after the three-hour meeting.

The rationale behind the Nicosia-inspired, twin-track procedure (a.k.a. Gambari process) that both sides signed off on last year is to task committees with discussing day-to-day and core Cyprus issues so as to adequately prepare the ground for full-fledged negotiations.

Grapple

The two community leaders would get together periodically to grapple with major sticking points officials would point out.

But the Turkish Cypriot leader sought to "re-arrange" the agreement by setting a two-month deadline on committee talks thus "accelerating" what he said was an open-ended process that "would last 14 months, 14 years, or 140 years.

"We observed that there was no psychological preparedness for the opening of comprehensive negotiations," said Mehmet Ali Talat, who also wanted a reunification deal by the end of 2008.

"Our proposal was aimed at accelerating the July 8 process, disciplining it and turning it into a process that can yield results. How is this moving away from the July 8 process?"

Nicosia’s unequivocal reply was that comprehensive negotiations without due preparation free from time constraints are doomed to failure.

Such a failure could raise the spectre of permanent partition as the international community’s post-referendum disenchantment could coalesce into the belief that there can be no Cyprus settlement.

Papadopoulos said diminishing the role of the committees would "not have accelerated the process, but on the contrary, would have expedited the realisation that there is deadlock".

Strident

Papadopoulos rejected both the notion of open-ended talks dragging on indefinitely as well as setting time constraints to negotiations.

He said slapping a deadline on the process cannot guarantee there would be adequate preparation for substantial talks to take place on the leadership level.

"We’re not talking about discussions that would carry on indefinitely or over the long term, simply the course of discussions themselves would dictate the timetable," said Papadopoulos.

Government Spokesman Vassilis Palmas said Talat was so strident in his positions that he turned down a Papadopoulos invitation to meet again on Monday for another try at a deal.

Papadopoulos proposed an October date for another face-to-face sit-down but Talat was non-committal.

"We’ll make yet another effort to implement this process…the President of the Republic tried to convince Mr Talat to implement the agreement and Mr Talat tried every way to free himself from it," said Palmas.

Palmas said the Talat’s pitch for regular meetings with Papadopoulos intended to railroad the process back to directly negotiating the defunct Annan Plan, irrespective of whether the committees had marked progress.

"President Papadopoulos rejected carrying out negotiations based on the Annan plan as Mr Talat insinuated…the agreed-upon procedure is the July 8 process which foresees the basis for a settlement arising from the implementation of the agreement," said Palmas.

All five UN Security Council permanent members have endorsed July 8 as the only process now in play that could lead to full-fledged settlement negotiations.

Nicosia’s sees July 8 as a vehicle to shift the basis of a Cyprus settlement away from the Annan Plan that Greek Cypriots voted down for fear that it would put the entire island under Turkey’s thumb.

Unready

Analysts suggested this failure could mean Ankara is either unready or unwilling to get the ball rolling on Cyprus on the belief that continued stalemate won’t hurt its EU accession prospects.

The only glimmer of hope for resuscitating July 8 lies in the fact that both leaders agreed to keep the process going by meeting again.

"Mr Papadopoulos and Mr Talat held their discussion in a constructive atmosphere," said a sombre Moller, reading from a prepared statement.

"They agreed on the need for the earliest start of the process, and discussed other issues, leading to a comprehensive settlement. They agreed to continue their contact through the United Nations and to meet again when appropriate."

Despite a shared understanding of the need for "the earliest start," the obvious problem with that statement is when the two leaders would meet again. The vague "when appropriate" leaves the process hanging in the air for at least until late autumn.

Papadopoulos Interview with L΄Express

Here is the full transcript of the President's recent interview with the French periodical L'Express.

California State Senate - Resolution on Cyprus

From the Press and Information Office (PIO):

California State Senate - Resolution on Cyprus

The California State Senate adopted Resolution 24 on the Cyprus problem on 15 March 2006, which was introduced by Senator Alquist. The Resolution states, inter alia, that “a lasting, just, peaceful and mutually agreed upon solution to the Cyprus problem would greatly benefit the security and the political, economic and social well-being of all Cypriots”, and notes that it could contribute to improved relations between Greece and Turkey, and would serve the interests of the United States interests in the region”. The Resolution makes reference to the Annan Plan, and notes that it “was rejected by an overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots in a free, democratic and fair vote, since it did not sufficiently address their basic concerns”. It states also that the Republic of Cyprus took together with other EU countries the decision in December 2004 to permit Turkey to begin EU accession talks in October 2005, recognizing that Turkey must abide by the EU principles and that “this will significantly contribute to the development of a secure and economically robust Eastern Mediterranean and offer the prospect of providing a new context to resolve the longstanding division of Cyprus”. It notes that Cyprus has announced and is implementing a series of economic and other measures “to reach across the island’s internal division and benefit the Turkish Cypriots living in the Turkish occupied areas of the Republic” and points out that Cyprus “has as a goodwill gesture unilaterally initiated a program to clear more than 2,300 mines in eight minefields in the buffer zone dividing the island”. Commending the people of Cyprus for their continued efforts in search of a just resolution of the Cyprus problem, the Resolution calls on the President and the Congress of the United States to continue their historic support for the reunification of Cyprus, while fully respecting that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is the only legitimate sovereign authority for the entire island of Cyprus. - 19.04.2006

Cyprus in NATO?

The title of this post seems pretty implausible to me, but then again, I am not the one who had the meeting with the U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns. Take a look at this article from GreekNews and decide for yourselves.

Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, and Assistant Secretary Daniel Fried, Meet with Greek American Leaders --
Washington, D.C.- Leading members of the Greek expatriate community ascertained that the United States is determined to inaugurate a "new beginning" in efforts to solve the issue of Cyprus, following a meeting they had at the State Department with Assistant Secretary of State Nicholas Burns and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Dan Freed.
read more »

What kind of Justice is this?

Below is an article (05.03.06) by columnist Sener Levent from the Turkish Cypriot daily AFRIKA. The translated English version was found on the Cyprus PIO website. An exceptional article worth reproducing it here in its entirety. The following is the full text of the translated English version with original spelling, grammar and punctuation:

In fact the tragedy of the Greek Cypriot community is graver than the tragedy of the Turkish Cypriots.

Just think about it

This country is under occupation for the last 32 years and unfortunately they (Greek Cypriots) were unable to explain this occupation to the world. They were unable to force neither the UN, nor the EU and nor the other International organizations to take strong and effective sanctions against the occupier.

On top of it after so many years of occupation the Greek Cypriot side was put on the accused and guilty chair.

The occupier was declared innocent and those who were under occupation guilty.

For this an Annan Plan and a referendum was enough

All of a sudden the occupier was declared favoring peace and settlement and those who are under occupation against peace and solution

What kind of Justice is this?

Do you know the biggest opponents of the settlement in Cyprus?

The biggest opponents of the settlement in Cyprus are those who say that the obstacle for the solution is Tassos Papadopoulos.

This is an understanding that totally denies the political will of the Greek Cypriot community and it is a propaganda that for a long time now is being systematically injected to everybody. And unfortunately some Greek Cypriot intellectuals are being knowingly or unintentionally became an instrument to this propaganda. The peoples will expressed during the referendum totally are ignored and huge 76% no is attributed to Papadopoulos. It means that Papadopoulos `no´ had no effect. In fact it had harmed the Greek Cypriots. I wish he would have said `yes´ during the referendum. Because at that time peoples `no´ would have been better understood.

He then comments on a recent poll that 48% of the Greek Cypriots said no to living with the Turkish Cypriots. Sener Levent justifies the Geek Cypriot no and says that if he was a Greek Cypriot his answer was not going to be different when the Turkish Cypriots brand the 20 July invasion as liberation and keep silent when return of Varosha is in question or when they usurp immovable property that belong to the Greek Cypriots and sell them with illegal title deeds to foreigners in the north.

Survey Conducted by CyBC

The Greek Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Dora Bakoyannis, on Tuesday said the Annan plan is history and any new initiative would have to be within the European Union framework.

Ms. Bakoyannis, who is currently on a 3-day official visit to Cyprus, said "The Annan Plan, as it was submitted for approval by the Cypriot people, was rejected. From the moment it was rejected, it was history." She went on to say "(The Cypriots) desire a fair and viable solution within the EU framework and we should work toward this direction."

The foreign Minister’s visit coincided with the publication of a poll that was conducted by the CyBC showing most Greek Cypriots have doubts that reunification will occur any time soon. The poll showed that an even greater majority reject the Annan plan. Some 50 percent want a completely new plan while 34 percent favor drastic changes to the Annan plan. The foreign press, however, will be focusing on this part of the poll ... given the chance, 48 percent of Greek Cypriots would rather live separately from the Turkish Cypriots compared to 45 percent who back coexistence. Beware, the pro-Turkish foreign media will not miss a chance to castigate the Greek Cypriots. Allow me to give you a preview ... Shame! The Greek Cypriots do not want to live with the Turkish Cypriots. This is Tassos doing with all his rhetoric; the Greek Cypriots don’t want peace. Some reading this post may say where is your proof of this so called biased foreign media? When was the last time you read an article on Cyprus that mentioned the previous rejections of UN plans by Turkey and the occupied North? When was the last time you read an article on Cyprus that mentioned Turkey’s violation of UN and Security Council resolutions regarding its occupation and colonization of Cypriot territory? There is your proof. If this survey was done in a period where Cypriots believed the UN plan was actually workable with a strong central government ... then the poll results would have been completely different. Now, take a look at this snippet from a recent report by the BBC:

Some wonder quietly if the threat of formal recognition of the north could push the Greek Cypriot side back to the (Annan Plan) negotiating table.

No need to wonder anymore, the CyBC poll results tell us it would have quite the opposite effect. Are the polling results good news for the Turks? Hardly. Cyprus support for Turkey’s EU accession is based on reversing the crimes committed by Turkey and allowing refugees the right to return home. Turkish columnists love to point this out ... those wily Greek Cypriots are using the EU to corner us! Notice how the Turks do not mind how they use their troops to force their own compromise on us but complain when the government of RoC seeks EU help for a compromise to reunite the war divided island nation. If Turkey’s stance leads to separation of the two communities then there is no reason for the Cypriots to support Turkey’s EU accession. The reaction to this by some Turks may be ... If EU talks are suspended over Cyprus, then so be it. I think it is fair to say that Turkey’s EU membership bid means a lot more to a Turkish Kurd than it does to a Turk. Recent reforms were granted to the Kurds in order to appease the EU. I would like to ask Mr. Semih İdiz what the current riots in Turkey’s south-east would look like if Kurds knew that Turkey was not going to be a part of the EU?