Q & A by the President on his meeting with Talat

The President of the Republic took questions from reporters after his meeting yesterday with Turkish Cypriot leader Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat:

Question: We heard a general comment by Mr. Moller following your meeting with Mr. Talat. Can you tell us something more?

Answer: First of all, let me say that the meeting took place in order to facilitate the 8 July process and not in order to start exchanging arguments though the Press, with a longer and more enlightening communiqué. This was not the purpose of the meeting. We discussed mainly, we only discussed, I would say, the 8 July process, which was the issue at hand. We insisted on its speedy and unconditional implementation because we believe it is a process than can positively push forward the talks for a comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem on a new basis. And we believe that our suggestions would have shortened the time needed leading to substantive talks and to the solution of the Cyprus problem. We insisted a great deal that the Committees should seriously prepare the ground and, according to the Gambari process, if progress is achieved at the level of the Committees, the leaders of the two communities will meet periodically to negotiate the points of dissent which the Committees will point out. Mr. Talat wanted changes to be made to the Gambari process. He wanted immediate talks without the work of the Committees or he wanted the role of the Committees to be restricted only to a technical level of noting down the topics to be discussed. This could not have accelerated the process but, on the contrary, it would accelerate finalizing the fact that there is a deadlock. Nevertheless, the meeting took place in a constructive spirit. We shall continue the contacts through the United Nations to find a way to overcome the present difficulty. Mr. Talat also raised, of course, the usual issues they raise, not as part of the agenda but during the discussion.

Question: The procedure will continue the same way as before, with Mr. Tzionis and Mr. Perter, or is there a change?

Answer: First, there will be contacts through the United Nations. We insisted this was the correct procedure, not outside the United Nations framework, and we believe that the proposal we made is both practical and effective. It is not easy for the two leaders to meet on a daily basis, within a specific period of one or two months. One has to evaluate, however, whether this procedure alone could yield positive results or, reversely, whether it would lead to finalizing the fact that there is a deadlock.

Question: How do you address the fact that there is no time table for the beginning of the talks?

Answer: I don’t think that the talks should be defined in terms of dates. They will be defined in terns of the progress that will take place. In other words, if you set a date, in a month's time let's say, the point is that there must be adequate preparation beforehand in order to make sure that a substantive discussion can take place between the two leaders. And that was the point on which we insisted. On our part we don’t talk about discussions which will be extended indefinitely or in the depth of time. Simply, the course of the discussions itself determines the time framework. Since the two leaders will be meeting to supervise the work of the Committees, to give instructions, to negotiate the points of dissent pointed out by the Committees, this can be done in a month, in 15 days, in two or three months, depending on the pace of the work of the Committees. It is, in addition, an incentive for those who will participate in the Committees to really produce work in a positive spirit, to point out points in dissent, perhaps to submit alternative suggestions, so that the two leaders can have a political discussion.

Question: Is there a risk that the other side will bide for time?

Answer: There is always this risk. In other words, if you set the 15th of September, for example, as the starting date for the talks, won’t the risk still be there? Is there any assurance that the two leaders, meeting on their own, will reach an agreement?

Abandoned Airport

Airport lighting in the UN buffer zone leading to the now abandoned Nicosia International Airport. The closure of Nicosia airport was brought upon by the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Nicosia International Airport (IATA: NIC) lies directly in the UN controlled Buffer Zone which separates the Republic and the occupied North.

Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat’s Fallacy

The United Nations force in Cyprus was today putting the final touches on the arrangements for tomorrows scheduled meeting between the President of the Republic, Mr. Papadopoulos, and the Turkish Cypriot leader of the breakaway Northern Cyprus Statelet, Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat. The meeting will take place inside the UN controlled Nicosia International Airport Zone around 4:00 PM (+2 GMT) Cyprus Time.

For those that are not aware--Nicosia International Airport (IATA: NIC) is an abandoned airport that lies directly in the UN controlled Buffer Zone which separates the Republic and the occupied North.

The pre-meeting statements:

Mr. Papadopoulos said that he looked forward to the meeting with Mr. Talat and stated that “our purpose is to break through the deadlock and expeditiously move forward with the implementation of the 8 July process.”

Let's move on to what Mr. Talat had to say, shall we?

“Turkish Cypriots have ruled themselves since 1963. Today, they are the owners of a state, a fully functioning administration. They will not sacrifice this,” and went on to state that “apart from marginal groups, not a single Turkish Cypriot sees the Turkish army as an invader.” What was that, Mr. Talat? Marginal groups that make up less than one person? It shouldn’t take you too long to realize the fallacy of it all. Are we to expect any progress from this meeting? No.

Jewish lobby changes stance on Armenian genocide

From the Cyprus Weekly:

Jewish lobby changes stance on Armenian genocide

But group stands against Congress resolution

By Philippos Stylianou

THE Anti-Defamation League (ADL), representing the powerful Jewish lobby in America, has taken a sudden, albeit reluctant, step towards recognising the 1915 Armenian genocide by the Turks.

But it stood firmly against a US Congress resolution to that effect, fearing repercussions on the Jewish community in Turkey and on the relations of the United States and Israel with that country.

Although watered down, the ADL move has met with fierce reaction from Ankara with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan complaining to Israeli President Shimon Perez over it.

According to Anatolia news agency, Erdogan said that the ADL had sent him a fax retracting the genocide statement and admitting they had made a mistake in changing their stand on the issue.

"They said that they share our sensitivities in particular on account of this statement regarding us, and they expressed the mistake they had made in the written fax they sent us," Erdogan is said to have told the press.

Confront past

Asked if the retraction would be limited to the facsimile message or the ADL would "declare it to the world", Erdogan said that it had already been posted on the ADL website.

But only the statement on the recognition of the Armenian genocide, dated August 21, 2007, appeared on the ADL webpage and no retraction had been posted on it.

The Cyprus Weekly has sought to clarify the issue with the Israeli Embassy in Nicosia but without success.

In its surprise statement of August 21, the Anti-Defamation League said that they had all along described the 1915-1918 events perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenians as massacres and atrocities.

"On reflection – the statement added – we have come to share the view of Henry Morgenthau (US Ambassador to Turkey at the time) that the consequences of those actions were indeed tantamount to genocide. If the word genocide had existed then, they would have called it genocide."

Urging the Turkish nation to "confront its past and work to reconcile with the Armenians over this dark chapter of its history," the ADL concluded as follows:

"Having said that, we continue to firmly believe that a Congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between the Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States."

Dramatic U-turn

The development, described as a dramatic U-turn by influential Jewish circles, came only four days after the Anti-Defamation League sacked its New England Regional Director, Andrew H. Tarsy.

According to the website "Ynet - Jewish World", Tarsy blasted the organisation for failing to recognise the Armenian genocide, pointing out that this position was "morally indefensible."

Tarsy’s dismissal caused tension among American Jews and forced the ADL to issue the genocide statement. An ADL official source stated afterwards: "We changed our position and we hope the Turkish government doesn’t take it out on the Jews." The source was also revealing about the position previously held by the Jews on the Armenian genocide issue.

"The ADL has always sought guidance form the Turkish Jewish community, which told us to back the Turkish government on this. So we have always backed Turkey’s stance," the source said.

The Jewish community in Turkey was established 500 years ago and today numbers 27,000 people, of whom 24,500 live in Istanbul. Another 2,400 live in Izmir (Smyrna) from which the total Greek population was expelled or slaughtered in 1922.

The Armenians, one of the ancient indigenous people of Asia Minor along with the Greeks, numbered several million until 1915. Taking advantage of the World War I upheaval ally enemy Turkey proceeded to exterminate more than 1,5 million Armenians through mass deportations, called "death marches", forced labour, executions and other privations

To date, Turkey refuses to admit its responsibility for the genocide, despite calls by Europe and the international community at large.