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."

Air raid sirens sound across Cyprus

(Famagusta Gazette) - Air raid sirens sounded across Cyprus at 5.30 this morning to mark the 35th anniversary of the Turkish invasion.

Today in 1974, a Turkish armada of 33 ships, including troop transporters and at least 30 tanks and small landing craft, landed on the northern coast.

Confusion reined across the island 35-years ago, as more than 4,500 Britons and other foreign nationals were moved to the safety of army bases and others have been airlifted to safety in specially-chartered planes.

The invasion forced 160,000 Greek Cypriots homeless, and Turkish forces advanced to take control of nearly 40% of the island.

A number of observances will be taking place today to mark the anniversary, including a service officiated by the Archbishop and in the presence of the President.

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.

Turkey has to allow Christians to repair their destroyed churches

(Cyprus Weekly) - Church opens Brussels office

If Turkey wishes to have a European future, it has to allow Orthodox Christians to repair their destroyed churches and give them the opportunity to visit them whenever they wish, Archbishop Chrystostomos said in Brussels this week.

Speaking at the inauguration ceremony of the Office of the Representation of the Church of Cyprus to the EU, in the heart of the Belgian capital, Chrysostomos said the Church has the obligation to inform its EU partners about the continuous destruction, looting and desecration of the Greek Orthodox religious sites by the Turkish army in the Turkish-held north.

“Our churches have been looted and destroyed and despite everything, our efforts to be allowed to repair them at our own expenses have been fruitless. On the contrary, their own holy sites in the government controlled areas have been maintained by our government. And they are allowed to use them whenever they wish,” Chrysostomos said.

The Archbishop stressed that 50,000 icons, frescoes, religious mosaics and other religious relics have been stolen from the places of worship in the occupied areas, since the 1974 Turkish invasion.

Some have been located in European and other auction houses and coordinated efforts by the church and the government have led to the repatriation of some of them after paying huge amounts of money.

Chrysostomos warned that the Church of Cyprus will go to the European Court of Human Rights and claim all legal remedies.

The office is headed by Bishop of Neapolis Porfyrios who also represents the Church in the EU.

Present at the inauguration ceremony were European officials including EU Health Commissioner Androulla Vassiliou, MEPs, ambassadors from various countries, various representatives of Orthodox Churches and Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou.

Marios Matsakis on Turkish Troops (Video)

A brief speech by Cypriot Member of the European Parliament Marios Matsakis on the role of NATO in the security architecture of the EU (transcript below):

Marios Matsakis: Madam President, NATO is the backbone of European defence, and we do rely on NATO forces for the security of our Union. But NATO forces in Cyprus – Turkish NATO forces – are not a force of freedom, but one of occupation: occupation of EU territory. These Turkish forces not only have they caused death and destruction to the island when Turkey invaded in 1974, but they today continue to keep an EU Member State divided, causing fear and oppression to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots and obstructing the current negotiations between the two Community leaders on the island.

So, in discussing NATO’s important role in European defence, it is fair to remember that the EU has not yet put the necessary pressure on Turkey to get its NATO invasion army out of Cyprus unconditionally and immediately. Don't you agree with me, Mr Solana? Perhaps he is not listening. Don't you agree that the Turkish army should leave Cyprus immediately, Mr Solana? Thank you.

A Killer is a Candidate in the Upcoming "TRNC" Elections

Turkish settler, Kenan Akin, who killed Greek Cypriot Solomos Solomou during an anti occupation buffer zone protest back in 1996 said he would not hesitate to shoot him again. In an interview to a Greek daily, Akin said he would not travel abroad as he won't do anyone a favor and get arrested.

The Turkish settler currently has Interpol and Cyprus police warrants pending against him. He further claimed that the Republic of Cyprus does not have any credible evidence against him, suggesting that his bullet wasn't the one that killed Solomou.

Akin is a candidate in the upcoming illegal parliamentary elections which are to be held in the occupied areas. His running for "parliamentary elections" was mentioned in the Kibris Gazetesi, a Turkish Cypriot newspaper.

An English translation of the relevant excerpts from the Kibris Gazetsi:

KENAN AKIN now ORP candidate: Kenan Akin once a Democratic Party (DP) Minister of Agriculture, is once more in the political arena now. But this time running for parliamentary elections not from DP (Democratic Party) list, but competing at the 5th row from the Freedom and Reform Party (ORP) Magusa (Famagusta) list. According to sources of information, ORP President Turgay Avci is in the 1st row , followed by Deputy Erden Ozaskin in the 2nd row, and ORP Secretary-General Baghdad Sinan in the 3rd place. 4th row in the list is vacant yet while Kenan Akin is at the 5th row. Undersecretary of the Ministry of Economy and Tourism Hasan Kiliç's is also reported to be candidate for ORP's Magusa list, while there are talks about Nazmiye Çelebi, a teacher, also running for candidacy from Magusa list. Ministry of Foreign Affairs Coordinator Alper Zorlu's is also rumored to be ORP candidate from Iskele district.

Olgac is being investigated for the killing of 10 Greek Cypriots

An investigation into claims which were later retracted by the Turkish actor, Attila Olgac, that during the 1974 invasion--he personally executed 10 Greek Cypriots in cold blood has been launched by the Istanbul public prosecutor.

The prosecutor has asked the Kanal Turk TV station to hand over the original footage of the talk show interview in which the actor made his claims.

It’s also been disclosed that the public official is planning to subpoena as witnesses the show’s presenters as well, with the outcome of the investigation determining whether or not Attila Olgac will be referred to the Hague war crimes tribunal for trial.

A parallel investigation on Attila Olgac’s actions during the 1974 invasion of Cyprus is being carried out by Turkey’s military.

Legal problems with Northern Cyprus property

(Times Online) - Following a ruling by the European court, British owners face huge damages

Kasia Maciejowska

Britons who bought holiday homes in Northern Cyprus may be forced to pay thousands of pounds in damages to the original Greek Cypriot owners of the land, following a ruling by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. The judgment, expected later this year, will conclude a case that began in 2005, when a Cypriot court ordered a British couple, Linda and David Orams, to demolish their villa to pay compensation to Meledis Apostolides — the Greek Cypriot legal owner of the land. Like many other Britons, the Orams bought the land from Turkish Cypriots who took ownership illegally following the Turkish invasion of 1974, when an estimated 170,000 Greek Cypriots fled their homes. The case was referred to the EU court after the Orams opposed the ruling. The Advocate General, whose opinion is usually followed, has backed the Greek Cypriots. If this opinion is upheld, damages to the dispossessed population could be enforced against any assets owned elsewhere in the EU by non-Greek property owners.

Utter shock at Turkish star's Cyprus revelations

(Famagusta Gazette) - A popular Turkish television star has revealed how he personally shot dead ten Greek Cypriot soldiers during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974.

The star, Attila Alkac, made the disturbing claims while being interviewed on a television show in Turkey.

The revelations have sent public opinion in both Cyprus and Turkey reeling, in particular the actor's graphic and clear recollections have left many in shock.

The actor said he first shot dead a 19-year-old prisoner of war, then another nine POWs.

He said said since the killings he has “not been able to stand the sight of blood or eat meat.”

It is thought that he may now be called before the missing persons committee, who describe the revelations as “shocking'.

ECHR Finds Turkey Guilty (Yet Again)

(The following article is reproduced for fair use and educational purposes)


The Online Newspaper of Romiossini:

European Court today: Turkey is guilty!


Brussels, 24/06/08:- Turkey was today found guilty in the European Court of Human Rights, in two cases of young Greek Cypriots who were murdered in 1996.

1. Anastasios Isaak was lynched by a mob of Turkish soldiers and Turkish Cypriot "policemen" and other Turkish and Turkish Cypriot extremists belonging to a nationalist group called "Grey Wolves". It happened in the buffer zone separating the turkish army occupied northern part of Cyprus from the southern part of the island.

2. Solomos Solomou was shot dead at short range, by Turkish soldiers when he attempted to climb up a Turkish flag pole in the buffer zone.

The Court unanimously ruled that Ankara is guilty of violating Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the killing of Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou.

The Court also ruled that Turkey is guilty of violating Article 2 in respect of the failure to conduct an effective investigation into the circumstances in which Anastasios Isaak and Solomos Solomou were killed.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded 80,000 euro to Anastasios Isaak’s widow for pecuniary damage. In respect of non-pecuniary damage, the Court awarded 35,000 euro each to Anastasios Isaak’s widow, his parents, and to Solomos Solomou’s father, and also 15,000 euro to each of Anastasios Isaak’s and Solomos Solomou’s siblings. The applicants in both cases were also awarded 12,000 for costs and expenses.

The two applications were filed to the Court by the families of Tasos Isaak and Solomou Solomou, both of whom were murdered by Turkish or Turkish Cypriots during demonstrations in 1996.

Click here for the judgment in the case of:
ISAAK v. TURKEY (Application no. 44587/98)
SOLOMOU AND OTHERS v. TURKEY (Application no. 36832/97)

ECHR Judgment: Varnava and Others v. Turkey

Turkey violated the rights of nine Greek Cypriot nationals who went missing when detained by the Turkish Army during its 1974 invasion of northern Cyprus, Europe's top human rights court ruled Thursday. The seven-judge panel said the case filed against Turkey by the families of 18 people who were originally captured and nine of whom remain missing after they were detained by Turkish forces was justified, and awarded representatives of the nine 4,000 (US$5,872) each in damages to cover legal costs and expenses. The court said it had accepted witness testimony "to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974." The body of one of the nine was found in 2007, but the other eight remain missing.

Below is the judgment in its entirety:

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

10.1.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT
VARNAVA AND OTHERS v. TURKEY

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment1 in the case of Varnava and Others v. Turkey (application nos. 16064/90, 16065/90, 16066/90, 16068/90, 16069/90, 16070/90, 16071/90, 16072/90 and 16073/90).

The Court held:

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of nine of the applicants, who disappeared in life-threatening circumstances;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the Convention concerning the remaining nine applicants, relatives of the nine men who disappeared;

· by six votes to one, that there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 (right to liberty and security) concerning Turkey’s failure to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, concerning whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance; and,

· unanimously, that no violation of Article 5 had been established concerning the alleged detention of the nine men.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court held, by six votes to one, that the finding of violations constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicants, and awarded them 4,000 euros (EUR), per application, for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)

1. Principal facts

The applicants are or were 18 Cypriot nationals, nine of whom disappeared after being captured and detained during the Turkish military operations in northern Cyprus in July and August 1974. The other applicants (three of whom have since died and been replaced by their heirs) are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.

The applicants are or were: Andreas and his wife Giorghoulla Varnava, who lived in Lymbia; Andreas and his father Loizos Loizides (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Philippos Constantinou and his father Demetris Peyiotis, who lived in Nicosia; Demetris Theocharides and his mother Elli Theocharidou (now deceased), who lived in Nicosia; Panicos and his mother Chrysoula Charalambous, who lived in Limassol; Eleftherios and his father Christos Thoma (now deceased), who lived in Strovolos; Savvas and his wife Androula Hadjipanteli, who lived in Nicosia; Savvas and his father Georghios Apostolides, who lived in Strovolos; and, Leontis and his wife Yianoulla Sarma, who lived in Limassol. The applicants were born, respectively, in: 1947, 1949, 1954, 1907, 1954, 1929, 1953, 1914, 1955, 1935, 1951, 1921, 1938, 1938, 1955, 1928, 1947 and 1949.

Witnesses have testified to seeing eight of the missing men in Turkish prisons in 1974; they have been considered missing ever since. A number of the applicant parents also claimed that they had identified their missing sons in photographs published in Greek newspapers showing Greek-Cypriot prisoners of war. The body of the ninth missing man, Savvas Hadjipanteli, was discovered in 2007.

The applicants made the following claims:

Varnava and Sarma

In July and August 1974 Andreas Varnava and Leontis Sarma’s battalions was stationed in the vicinity of Mia Milia to man the Cypriot outposts. On the morning of 14 August 1974, Turkish military forces, supported by tanks and with air cover, launched an attack on the area. Cypriot forces retreated and the surrounding area was captured by the Turkish military forces.

Loizides

In July 1974 Andreas Loizides was serving in a battalion which was moved to the Lapithos area to support Greek Cypriot forces there. The soldiers were split up into various groups and the applicant was in charge of one of those. On 5 August 1974 they were over-powered by Turkish forces and ordered to retreat. Since 6 August 1974 none of the members of his group have seen Mr Loizides.

Constantinos

Mr Constantinos was posted with a section of his battalion to Lapithos. Following a full-scale attack from the Turkish Army on 6 August 1974, the group split up.

Theocharides

At about 04.30 hours on 26 July 1974 Mr Theocharides’ company came under attack from a Turkish paratroops battalion, with 20 tanks, who broke through Greek Cypriot lines, infiltrating the right flank of the applicant’s company. When his company was regrouped, he was missing.

Charalambous

On 24 July 1974 Mr Charalambous came under fire from Turkish soldiers while searching buses in the Koutsoventis Vounos area with two or three other soldiers. He was wounded in the right hand and on the left side of his ribs. After his wounds were cleaned and his gun loaded, he went back. He has not been seen again by his unit.

Thoma

On the morning of 20 July 1974 Eleftherios Thoma was involved in trying to prevent Turkish military forces landing in the area of "Pikro Nero", Kyrenia. At around 12.00 hours on 21 July the Turkish military forces which had landed, supported by tanks and with air cover, attacked Cypriot forces defending the area. The applicant’s battalion was ordered to retreat. After the battalion had been regrouped the applicant was missing.

Hadjipanteli

On 18 August 1974 Mr Hadjipanteli, a bank employee, was taken for questioning by Turkish soldiers. According to the applicants, representatives of the International Red Cross in Cyprus visited Pavlides Garage in the Turkish occupied sector of Nicosia and on 28 August 1974 recorded the names of 20 Greek Cypriots held there, including the applicant.

On 27 August 1974 a group of Turkish Cypriot civilians went to a bank where they emptied two safes and ordered a third to be opened, but they were told that the keys were with the applicant. Subsequently they returned with the keys for that safe, which the applicant always carried with him.

In 2007, in the context of the activity of the United Nations Committee of Missing Persons (CMP), human remains were exhumed from a mass grave near the Turkish Cypriot village of Galatia in the Karpas area. The remains of Mr Hadjipanteli were identified and several bullets were found in the grave. Mr Hadjipanteli’s medical certificate indicated a bullet wound to his skull, a bullet wound in his right arm and a wound on his right thigh.

The Turkish Government disputed that the applicants had been taken into captivity by the Turkish army during the military action in Cyprus in 1974. They considered that all the alleged "missing persons", except for Mr Hadjipanteli, were military personnel who died in action in July-August 1974. The Government noted that the International Red Cross had visited the Pavlides Garage, where Mr Hadjipanteli had allegedly been held, but his name did not appear in the list of Greek Cypriots held.

The Government of Cyprus submitted that the nine men went missing in areas under the control of the Turkish forces.

2. Procedure and composition of the Court

The nine applications were lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 25 January 1990. They were joined by the Commission on 2 July 1991, and declared admissible on 14 April 1998. They were transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1999.

The Cypriot Government submitted observations on the merits of the case.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Boštjan Zupančič, (Slovenian), President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström, (Swedish),
Alvina Gyulumyan, (Armenian),
Egbert Myjer, (Dutch),
David Thór Björgvinsson, (Icelandic),
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, (Monegasque), judges,
Gönül Erönen, (Turkish), ad hoc judge,


and also Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar.

3. Summary of the judgment2

Complaints

The applicants relied on Articles 2 (right to life), 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), 4 (prohibition of forced labour), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial), 8 (right to respect for private and family life), 10 (freedom of expression), 12 (right to marry), 13 (right to an effective remedy) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination).

Decision of the Court

Article 2

The Court noted that the fate of the nine missing men, and whether they had been unlawfully killed, was largely unknown. While Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains had been found very recently, the circumstances surrounding his death remained unclarified. The Court recalled that it was established in its Grand Chamber inter-State case Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94 of 10 May 2001) that the evidence showed that many people who went missing in 1974 were detained either by Turkish or Turkish-Cypriot forces. Their detention occurred at a time when the conduct of military operations was accompanied by arrests and killings on a large scale which was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The clear indications of the climate of risk and fear at the time, and of the real dangers to which detainees were exposed, was found to disclose a life-threatening situation. The nine missing men in the applicants’ case disappeared against that same background. The Court noted that the eight combatants were last seen in areas surrounded or about to be overrun by Turkish forces, one of them, Panicos Charalambous, in a wounded condition. Statements from several witnesses attested to seeing Mr Hadjipanteli being taken away by Turkish-Cypriot fighters. Given previous findings and the circumstances of the disappearances at a time and at locations which were, or very shortly thereafter were, under the control of Turkish forces or those acting under their aegis, the Court considered that an obligation arose for Turkey to account for their fate.

While it might be noted that in the context of the individual cases arising out of events in south-east Turkey and the conflict in the Chechen Republic, where there were, at the relevant times, numerous reported instances of forced disappearances, individual applicants had nonetheless been required to give an evidential basis for finding that their relatives were taken into some form of custody by agents of the State, the Court considered that the situation in the applicants’ case was different. A zone of international conflict where two armies were engaged in acts of war was per se life-threatening for those present. Circumstances would frequently be such that the events in question lay wholly, or in large part, within the exclusive knowledge of the military forces in the field, and it would not be realistic to expect applicants to provide more than minimal information placing their relative in the area at risk. International treaties imposed obligations on combatant States as regards the care of wounded, prisoners of war and civilians; Article 2 certainly extended so far as to require States which had ratified the Convention to take reasonable steps to protect the lives of those not, or no longer, engaged in hostilities. Disappearances in such circumstances were therefore protected by Article 2.

The Court recalled its previous finding that, whatever its humanitarian usefulness, the CMP did not provide procedures sufficient to meet the standard of an effective investigation required by Article 2, especially in view of the narrow scope of that body’s investigations.

While it was true that the remains of Savvas Hadjipanteli had recently been discovered, that did not demonstrate that the CMP had been able to take any meaningful investigative steps beyond the belated location and identification of remains. Nor, given the location of Mr Hadjipanteli’s remains in an area under the control of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus3” after a lapse of some 32 years, had that event displaced the Turkish Government’s accountability for the investigative process during the intervening period.

The Court concluded that there had been a continuing violation of Article 2 concerning the failure of the Turkish authorities to conduct an effective investigation aimed at clarifying the whereabouts and fate of the nine men who went missing in 1974.

Article 3

The Court recalled, in view of the circumstances in which their family members disappeared following a military intervention during which many persons were killed or taken prisoner and where the area was subsequently sealed off and became inaccessible to the relatives, they must undoubtedly have suffered most painful uncertainty and anxiety. Furthermore, their mental anguish did not vanish with the passing of time.

The Court observed that the Turkish authorities had failed to undertake any investigation into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of the missing persons. In the absence of any information about their fate, the relatives of those who went missing during the events of July and August 1974 were condemned to live in a prolonged state of acute anxiety which could not be said to have been erased with the passage of time. The Court recalled that the military operation resulted in a considerable loss of life, large-scale arrests and detentions and enforced separation of families. The overall context had still to be vivid in the minds of the relatives of persons whose fate has never been accounted for by the authorities. They endured the agony of not knowing whether family members were killed in the conflict or were still in detention or, if detained, had since died. The fact that a very substantial number of Greek Cypriots had to seek refuge in the south coupled with the continuing division of Cyprus had to be considered to constitute very serious obstacles to their quest for information. The provision of such information was the responsibility of the Turkish authorities.

The silence of the Turkish authorities, in the face of the real concerns of the relatives of the nine missing men, attained a level of severity which could only be categorised as inhuman treatment within the meaning of Article 3. The Court therefore concluded that, during the period under consideration, there had been a continuing violation of Article 3.

Article 5

The Court found no violation of Article 5 concerning the alleged detention of the nine missing men as it had not been established that, during the period under consideration in the applicants’ case, they were actually being detained by the Turkish or Turkish Cypriot authorities.

However, there had been a continuing violation of Article 5 because the Turkish authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the whereabouts and fate of the nine men, in respect of whom there was an arguable claim that they had been deprived of their liberty at the time of their disappearance.

Articles 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 13 and 14

The Court did not consider it necessary to examine further the applicants’ other complaints.

Ad hoc judge Gönül Erönen expressed a separate opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

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.

Ομοιότητες ευρώ και νέας Tουρκικής λίρας

Η νέα Τουρκική λίρα έχει κυκλοφορήσει σε κέρμα στο ίδιο ακριβώς μέγεθος με το κέρμα των 2 ευρώ και με τα ίδια ακριβώς χρώματα και ως εκ τούτου με την επικείμενη εισαγωγή του ευρώ παρακαλείσθε να είσαστε προσεκτικοί στις συναλλαγές που θα γίνονται σε ευρώ. Ενδεικτικά να σας αναφέρουμε ότι 1 νέα Τουρκική λίρα ισούται περίπου με σαράντα σεντ του ευρώ.

Για σύγκριση των δύο κερμάτων επισυνάπτεται εικόνα του κέρματος αξίας 2 ευρώ και εικόνα του κέρματος αξίας 1 Τουρκικής λίρας.

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?