Thursday, February 21, 2008
Γράμμα στον αγαπητό φίλο Τάσσο
Thursday, January 10, 2008
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:
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 The other applicants (three of whom have since died and been replaced by their heirs) are or were relatives of the men who disappeared.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).
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).
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Here We Go Again: Ancient church turned into ceramics factory
From the Cyprus Weekly:
(Click Image to Enlarge)
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Secretive visit inside the "forbidden city" of Varosha
UN Security Council Resolution 550
...Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations...
A Vlogger (video blogger), going by the name Dave Stuart, has posted new video footage of a visit to Varosha, a "ghost town" in Occupied Cyprus. The Turkish army took control of the city in 1974 and forced tens of thousands of Greek Cypriot inhabitants to flee their homes. Varosha is currently being used as a bargaining chip by Turkey and the Northern breakaway State as part of an overall settlement to the Cyprus problem.
The 15 minute film taken within the fenced off city is entitled "Return inside Varosha" and is divided in two parts. The videos have been placed on YouTube and can be viewed here and here.
Thank you Dave
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Bellapais Monastery Turned into a Garbage Dump
A sad pilgrimage that at every stop adds to one’s outrage and disbelief:
The historic Bellapais Monastery was turned into a garbage dump after Asil Nadir sons wedding.
Turkish Cypriot daily Afrika newspaper (25.09.07) writes that last Wednesday the 800-years-old historic Bellapais Monastery was turned into a garbage dump after the wedding of the son of Asil Nadir and Aysegul Tesimer.
The paper writes that the tourists who visited the Monastery next day in the morning, despite buying a ticket for the historic monument, they could not have a complete tour, a fact that annoyed them. Moreover, the paper reports that the night of the wedding no one could approach the area and state police was guarding the entrance to the village creating problems to the villagers and their guests from passing.
The music at the wedding lasted until 2:00 am, but the most ridiculous thing was until next morning when tourists visited the Monastery and faced a wreck, a rubbish dump, the paper notes.
Bilirakis Resolution on Cyprus Approved
The Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, by unanimous consent, approved a resolution on Cyprus. The resolution, introduced by Congressman Gus Bilirakis, expresses strong support for the immediate implementation of the July 8th agreement. The resolution calls for the US government to actively facilitate the implementation of the agreement in its entirety and without deviations from its content.
The President of the RoC said “today’s adoption of H.Res. 405 is a positive and significant development,” mainly noting the fact that it refers to the need not to deviate from the agreement.
More on this from the Hellenic News of America:
The President of the RoC said “today’s adoption of H.Res. 405 is a positive and significant development,” mainly noting the fact that it refers to the need not to deviate from the agreement.
More on this from the Hellenic News of America:
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE STRONGLY SUPPORTS IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JULY 8 UN-BROKERED AGREEMENT FOR CYPRUS
WASHINGTON, DC – [September 26, 2007] – Today the House Foreign Affairs Committee by unanimous consent adopted H. Res. 405, which expresses strong support for the immediate implementation of the July 8, 2006, United Nations-brokered Agreement as the way forward to prepare for new comprehensive negotiations leading to the reunification of the Republic of Cyprus.
On July 8, 2006, President of the Republic of Cyprus Tassos Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, agreed, under the auspices of the United Nations Under Secretary General Ibrahim Gambari, to a set of principles to begin a process of bi-communal discussions. H. Res. 405 calls upon the United States Government to fully support the immediate implementation of the July 8, 2006 Agreement in its entirety and without deviation from that process.
read more »
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.
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.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
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.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Cyprus President - UN SG Ban Ki-moon Meeting
From the Cyprus News Agency:
Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos plans to ask UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to go on with the implementation of the 8 July 2006 agreement reached between the two sides in Cyprus.
President Papadopoulos arrived Saturday night in New York and he is scheduled to meet Sunday the UN Chief. During his stay in New York, the Cypriot President will address the UN General Assembly on Wednesday, meet the representatives of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council on Thursday and have separate meetings with heads of state and government.
He told reporters on his arrival in New York that this was his first meeting with the UN Secretary General since the latter’s election and he was going to brief him on developments in the Cyprus problem.
Among those to meet in New York is US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicolas Burns, who had announced his intention to visit Cyprus soon.
Asked to comment on a recent statement by Burns that he was optimistic that substantive progress could be reached by the end of 2007 in efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, President Papadopoulos said “it is our desire to use the period of time until the Presidential elections in Cyprus (February 2008) and I remind you that the latest UN Security Council resolution refers to preparations of negotiations. Every assistance in this direction is welcome.”
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
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?
Monday, September 17, 2007
The reason why there is no solution to the Cyprus problem
I’ll tell you what the real reason is ... but, before I get into that ... let me first take the time to welcome back one of my warped media friends, you know who you are. Yea, I know I’ve taken a bit of a hiatus but I’m back much to your dismay! Well, maybe for a short period of time. A little tip from me to you...
Keep checking back at this site, you just may learn a thing or two.
Where was I, ohh yes, the reason why there is no solution to the Cyprus problem. Here 'tis:
There is no solution due to the fact that Turkey refuses to comply with UN resolutions, but also due to the international community's unwillingness or inability to impose them. I know what some of you are thinking--but Konstelion, Turkey is a NATO member and a strong reliable US ally. Nevertheless my friends, Turkey must be made to comply with international laws and obligations. That is the only way to resolve the Cyprus issue.
Negotiating with intransigents.
Check this video out and see the word games being played by Mr. Talat who in the video is being interviewed by a reporter. Cyprus, for example, has no refugees. That’s right, Mr. Talat stated that “They're not anymore refugees...” The warped media out there reading this should take note ... the politically correct term now is “displaced.”
Apparently, a lot of things are “not fair” in the breakaway North.
Why can’t our breakaway State have direct trade with the EU, it is not fair! Giving back a ghost town? Why that’s not fair! Let’s see, refugees forced to evacuate, their legal rights continue to be disregarded and Talat says “of course it is not fair to ask for Varosha (back).” Can you believe this hypocrisy? Even the reporter is taken aback by the interview, lowering his glasses to look at Mr. Talat as if to say ... are you for real?
Ever read stories coming out of the occupied North like--Why cant little Tunc Ozgurgun’s Turkish Cypriot football team play internationally? It is not fair! Silly articles written by silly folks. I’ll tell you what’s not fair ... using Varosha as a bargaining chip by Turkey and the Northern breakaway State as part of an overall settlement to the Cyprus problem. We are talking about thousands of lives who would like to return home!
When asked about sending the Turkish occupation troops back to Turkey; Mr. Talat is quick with his pre-rehearsed response. Why, it’s a matter of security. Security, yes, even at this very moment the Greek Cypriots have triangulated our location. You see, we fear their military. Are these logical responses by Mr. Talat? No? Well that’s why the Cyprus issue is not resolved today.
Keep checking back at this site, you just may learn a thing or two.
Where was I, ohh yes, the reason why there is no solution to the Cyprus problem. Here 'tis:
There is no solution due to the fact that Turkey refuses to comply with UN resolutions, but also due to the international community's unwillingness or inability to impose them. I know what some of you are thinking--but Konstelion, Turkey is a NATO member and a strong reliable US ally. Nevertheless my friends, Turkey must be made to comply with international laws and obligations. That is the only way to resolve the Cyprus issue.
Negotiating with intransigents.
Check this video out and see the word games being played by Mr. Talat who in the video is being interviewed by a reporter. Cyprus, for example, has no refugees. That’s right, Mr. Talat stated that “They're not anymore refugees...” The warped media out there reading this should take note ... the politically correct term now is “displaced.”
Apparently, a lot of things are “not fair” in the breakaway North.
Why can’t our breakaway State have direct trade with the EU, it is not fair! Giving back a ghost town? Why that’s not fair! Let’s see, refugees forced to evacuate, their legal rights continue to be disregarded and Talat says “of course it is not fair to ask for Varosha (back).” Can you believe this hypocrisy? Even the reporter is taken aback by the interview, lowering his glasses to look at Mr. Talat as if to say ... are you for real?
Ever read stories coming out of the occupied North like--Why cant little Tunc Ozgurgun’s Turkish Cypriot football team play internationally? It is not fair! Silly articles written by silly folks. I’ll tell you what’s not fair ... using Varosha as a bargaining chip by Turkey and the Northern breakaway State as part of an overall settlement to the Cyprus problem. We are talking about thousands of lives who would like to return home!
When asked about sending the Turkish occupation troops back to Turkey; Mr. Talat is quick with his pre-rehearsed response. Why, it’s a matter of security. Security, yes, even at this very moment the Greek Cypriots have triangulated our location. You see, we fear their military. Are these logical responses by Mr. Talat? No? Well that’s why the Cyprus issue is not resolved today.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
An enemy of Cyprus
Tuesday night’s televised press conference by President Papadopoulos has been met with angry reaction from the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Turkish Cypriot leadership—ok, so what else is new?
Turkey strongly criticized Mr. Papadopoulos who said in a televised press conference that the Turkish occupation army “was an enemy of Cyprus.”
More on that statement a bit later ... let's focus on the part of the press conference that I found interesting, shall we? The President stated that during his meeting last week with Mr. Talat ... the Turkish Cypriot leader actually revealed that a majority of Turkish Cypriots do not support a federal Cyprus, no kidding. Instead, they favor a two-state solution. Another statement that was made by the President which really surprised me was that Mr. Talat didn't even know that Cyprus is actually an EU net contributor. Mr. Papadopoulos stated that...
"He (Mr. Talat) did not know that Cyprus is among the few countries which is a net contributor, that is we give the EU more funds than we take."
Interesting indeed. Now, let’s get back to that statement by Mr. Papadopoulos where he referred to the Turkish army occupying Cyprus as an “enemy” and the subsequent predictable response from Ankara.
This is what the Turkish Foreign Ministry had to say:
“It must be remembered that the declaration of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) as an enemy serves peace by no means. It is unacceptable that the TSK is turned into a target. Papadopoulos is supposed to understand that.”
The Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr. Levent Bilman, went on to say that...
“It appears Papadopoulos forgot the fact that Turkey is a guarantor country on the island together with Greece and Britain and that the presence of the Turkish armed forces on the island legally stems from international agreements.”
Mr. Talat, who is a strong supporter of the TSK, parroted the Turkish Foreign Ministry by stating the main obstacle to a peaceful solution was the Greek Cypriot tendency to treat the Turkish troops stationed on the island as an occupation army. Honestly, an argument this weak and absurd doesn’t even deserve a response.
In a statement before his departure to New York to address the UN General Assembly, the President of the Cypriot Republic responded to the rhetoric coming out of Ankara by stating:
“Our view is well known, the presence of the Turkish occupation forces and the Turkish invasion, cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee, and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.”
More on all this in the video below.
Take a look at this video which starts off with the Government Spokesman Vassilis Palmas reaction. The video also focuses in on the political leader of EDEK Mr. Yiannakis Omirou. Omirou’s response is priceless (ha).
Turkey strongly criticized Mr. Papadopoulos who said in a televised press conference that the Turkish occupation army “was an enemy of Cyprus.”
More on that statement a bit later ... let's focus on the part of the press conference that I found interesting, shall we? The President stated that during his meeting last week with Mr. Talat ... the Turkish Cypriot leader actually revealed that a majority of Turkish Cypriots do not support a federal Cyprus, no kidding. Instead, they favor a two-state solution. Another statement that was made by the President which really surprised me was that Mr. Talat didn't even know that Cyprus is actually an EU net contributor. Mr. Papadopoulos stated that...
"He (Mr. Talat) did not know that Cyprus is among the few countries which is a net contributor, that is we give the EU more funds than we take."
Interesting indeed. Now, let’s get back to that statement by Mr. Papadopoulos where he referred to the Turkish army occupying Cyprus as an “enemy” and the subsequent predictable response from Ankara.
This is what the Turkish Foreign Ministry had to say:
“It must be remembered that the declaration of the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) as an enemy serves peace by no means. It is unacceptable that the TSK is turned into a target. Papadopoulos is supposed to understand that.”
The Turkish Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mr. Levent Bilman, went on to say that...
“It appears Papadopoulos forgot the fact that Turkey is a guarantor country on the island together with Greece and Britain and that the presence of the Turkish armed forces on the island legally stems from international agreements.”
Mr. Talat, who is a strong supporter of the TSK, parroted the Turkish Foreign Ministry by stating the main obstacle to a peaceful solution was the Greek Cypriot tendency to treat the Turkish troops stationed on the island as an occupation army. Honestly, an argument this weak and absurd doesn’t even deserve a response.
In a statement before his departure to New York to address the UN General Assembly, the President of the Cypriot Republic responded to the rhetoric coming out of Ankara by stating:
“Our view is well known, the presence of the Turkish occupation forces and the Turkish invasion, cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee, and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.”
More on all this in the video below.
Take a look at this video which starts off with the Government Spokesman Vassilis Palmas reaction. The video also focuses in on the political leader of EDEK Mr. Yiannakis Omirou. Omirou’s response is priceless (ha).
Friday, September 07, 2007
Mr. Talat, the Annan Plan is Dead...
And there is no chance of resurrecting it.
Further more, all five United Nations Security Council permanent members have endorsed the July 8th agreement as the only process now on the table for a Cyprus settlement.
Why are you trying to dilute this agreement?
You state there is nothing in the July 8 agreement prohibiting time frames. Why all this sudden talk on time frames? For the past 14 months, you have done nothing but drag your feet with regard to the implementation of the agreement that was reached between you and Mr. Papadopoulos on the 8th of July during the Mission of Under-Secretary-General Ibrahim Gambari.
The president of the Republic has extended his hand and offered to meet again with you soon to proceed forward with the peace process. Why have you turned down this invitation?
(Cypriot media coverage below on the failed meeting)
From the Cyprus Weekly:
Further more, all five United Nations Security Council permanent members have endorsed the July 8th agreement as the only process now on the table for a Cyprus settlement.
Why are you trying to dilute this agreement?
You state there is nothing in the July 8 agreement prohibiting time frames. Why all this sudden talk on time frames? For the past 14 months, you have done nothing but drag your feet with regard to the implementation of the agreement that was reached between you and Mr. Papadopoulos on the 8th of July during the Mission of Under-Secretary-General Ibrahim Gambari.
The president of the Republic has extended his hand and offered to meet again with you soon to proceed forward with the peace process. Why have you turned down this invitation?
(Cypriot media coverage below on the failed meeting)
From the Cyprus Weekly:
No breakthrough
Not clear when leaders will meet again
By Menelaos Hadjicostis
HOPES that the Papadopoulos-Talat talks would deliver a needed breakthrough putting the July 8 agreement on track faded as fast as it took to read a terse, three-sentence wrap-up statement pronouncing the process comatose.
It’s unclear when the two will meet again and indications are that the Turkish side wants to dilute the agreement and render it inert so that it can be supplanted by direct talks on a resurrected Annan Plan, Nicosia charged.
"Mr Talat wanted changes to the Gambari process. He wants immediate talks without the committees, or for the role of the committees to be limited to a purely technical level of listing the headings to be discussed," President Tassos Papadopoulos told reporters after the three-hour meeting.
The rationale behind the Nicosia-inspired, twin-track procedure (a.k.a. Gambari process) that both sides signed off on last year is to task committees with discussing day-to-day and core Cyprus issues so as to adequately prepare the ground for full-fledged negotiations.
Grapple
The two community leaders would get together periodically to grapple with major sticking points officials would point out.
But the Turkish Cypriot leader sought to "re-arrange" the agreement by setting a two-month deadline on committee talks thus "accelerating" what he said was an open-ended process that "would last 14 months, 14 years, or 140 years.
"We observed that there was no psychological preparedness for the opening of comprehensive negotiations," said Mehmet Ali Talat, who also wanted a reunification deal by the end of 2008.
"Our proposal was aimed at accelerating the July 8 process, disciplining it and turning it into a process that can yield results. How is this moving away from the July 8 process?"
Nicosia’s unequivocal reply was that comprehensive negotiations without due preparation free from time constraints are doomed to failure.
Such a failure could raise the spectre of permanent partition as the international community’s post-referendum disenchantment could coalesce into the belief that there can be no Cyprus settlement.
Papadopoulos said diminishing the role of the committees would "not have accelerated the process, but on the contrary, would have expedited the realisation that there is deadlock".
Strident
Papadopoulos rejected both the notion of open-ended talks dragging on indefinitely as well as setting time constraints to negotiations.
He said slapping a deadline on the process cannot guarantee there would be adequate preparation for substantial talks to take place on the leadership level.
"We’re not talking about discussions that would carry on indefinitely or over the long term, simply the course of discussions themselves would dictate the timetable," said Papadopoulos.
Government Spokesman Vassilis Palmas said Talat was so strident in his positions that he turned down a Papadopoulos invitation to meet again on Monday for another try at a deal.
Papadopoulos proposed an October date for another face-to-face sit-down but Talat was non-committal.
"We’ll make yet another effort to implement this process…the President of the Republic tried to convince Mr Talat to implement the agreement and Mr Talat tried every way to free himself from it," said Palmas.
Palmas said the Talat’s pitch for regular meetings with Papadopoulos intended to railroad the process back to directly negotiating the defunct Annan Plan, irrespective of whether the committees had marked progress.
"President Papadopoulos rejected carrying out negotiations based on the Annan plan as Mr Talat insinuated…the agreed-upon procedure is the July 8 process which foresees the basis for a settlement arising from the implementation of the agreement," said Palmas.
All five UN Security Council permanent members have endorsed July 8 as the only process now in play that could lead to full-fledged settlement negotiations.
Nicosia’s sees July 8 as a vehicle to shift the basis of a Cyprus settlement away from the Annan Plan that Greek Cypriots voted down for fear that it would put the entire island under Turkey’s thumb.
Unready
Analysts suggested this failure could mean Ankara is either unready or unwilling to get the ball rolling on Cyprus on the belief that continued stalemate won’t hurt its EU accession prospects.
The only glimmer of hope for resuscitating July 8 lies in the fact that both leaders agreed to keep the process going by meeting again.
"Mr Papadopoulos and Mr Talat held their discussion in a constructive atmosphere," said a sombre Moller, reading from a prepared statement.
"They agreed on the need for the earliest start of the process, and discussed other issues, leading to a comprehensive settlement. They agreed to continue their contact through the United Nations and to meet again when appropriate."
Despite a shared understanding of the need for "the earliest start," the obvious problem with that statement is when the two leaders would meet again. The vague "when appropriate" leaves the process hanging in the air for at least until late autumn.
Thursday, September 06, 2007
Cyprus to seek ancient shipwrecks
Here's an interesting article from Reuters:
Cyprus to seek ancient shipwrecks
By Michele Kambas
NICOSIA (Reuters) - Cyprus is to launch sea surveys in an area where dozens of vessels led by warring successors to Alexander the Great are believed to have sunk in battle for control over the island in 306 BC.
Encouraged by the discovery of one wreck from a later Roman era, the survey slated for the summer of 2008 will extend into deep waters from the south-east tip of the island, known as Cape Greco, the island's Antiquities Department said.
"Cyprus is a crossroads and is very rich in ancient shipwrecks," said Pavlos Flourentzos, director of Cyprus's Department of Antiquities.
Historical accounts suggest that the Cape Greco region -- a rocky outcrop between the now popular tourist resorts of Agia Napa and Protaras, saw one of the biggest naval battles of the ancient world.
According to the ancient Greek historian, Diodorus of Sicily, in 306 BC Demetrios the Poliorketes (Besieger) triumphed over Ptolemy I of Egypt in a naval engagement off Cyprus, with dozens of vessels sunk as the result of combat.
"It is well known that there was a naval engagement in the region in 306 BC, so there is a potential of finding wrecks, or parts of wrecks, in deeper waters," Flourentzos told Reuters on Thursday.
Ptolemy I, one of the generals of Alexander the Great, lost control of Cyprus for a period of 10 years after his defeat at the hands of Demetrios Poliorketes. Demetrios was son of Antigonus, a Macedonian nobleman who later ruled Asia Minor
read more »
Politicians from across the political spectrum gave their reaction to the Papadopoulos – Talat Meeting
Politicians from across the Cypriot political spectrum gave their reaction to the Papadopoulos – Talat meeting. The following video is a sampling of early reaction to that meeting:
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?
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?
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
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.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
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.
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.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
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.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Greece Declares a National State of Emergency
Cypriots were glued to their television sets today as the awful news reports coming out of Greece had people shocked by what they were hearing. Many shaking their heads in disbelief as the death toll from the forest fires rose to at least 53, and the number is expected to rise given that a large number of people are currently missing.
Video below begins with the words "Greece in the mist of a disaster..."
Video below begins with the words "Greece in the mist of a disaster..."
Friday, August 24, 2007
The Preplanned Invasion of Cyprus
"The Turkish fighters have pledged to fight on until the realization of partition. The attitude of the Turkish minority has been admittedly one of provoking division and instigating armed conflict with the aim of partition."--Halkan Sesi, mouthpiece of Turkish Cypriot leadership, 29 February 1964
Turkey had been threatening to invade Cyprus throughout the 1960’s. Turkey did more then just threaten; this “guarantor power” used its Air Force to bomb several Cypriot villages in August 1964. Listen to this 1974 report. The reporter actually stated that “the Turkish Government has been working on plans for an invasion of Cyprus for the last 10 years.”
Turkey had been threatening to invade Cyprus throughout the 1960’s. Turkey did more then just threaten; this “guarantor power” used its Air Force to bomb several Cypriot villages in August 1964. Listen to this 1974 report. The reporter actually stated that “the Turkish Government has been working on plans for an invasion of Cyprus for the last 10 years.”
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Nicholas Burns: Need for Justice in Cyprus
From the Cyprus Weekly:
Need for justice in Cyprus – Burns
By Demetra Molyva
US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns yesterday urged ``the need for justice in Cyprus,'' and called for a US-backed initiative for the reunification of the island in a federal form.
"We cannot forget the need for justice, the need to resolve the conflict that has gone on for too long and we need to put the determination and strength of the United States as well as Europe behind a fresh and new initiative by the Secretary General of the United States for peace for Cyprus.
“I think our policy has been very clear. The United States supports one government on Cyprus and we recognise only one government on Cyprus that is the government of the Republic of Cyprus,'' Burns said.
He was addressing the Nicosia conference of Overseas Cypriots in a video address from Washington. He expressed his intention to visit Nicosia in the autumn.
He stressed Washington's desire to improve relations with Cyprus saying that, "I want to express a commitment by the United States to improve our relationship with our friend, the Republic of Cyprus...We've had our share of disagreement over the past few years particularly over the Annan Plan of the United Nations.
Friendship
“But I think what we have to do is put those disagreements behind us, we know we have a friend in the Government of Nicosia, the Republic and we have to honour that friendship. And that would be the basis of our trip. We will elevate this relationship to a new level and will put our energy behind the effort to support a settlement for Cyprus.''
He went on to declare that "we know the Cypriots are friends because we have been friends since the beginning of the state. We know they are friends because the Cypriot American community, which has been such a strong and vibrant community, throughout the United States. We certainly felt that friendship a year ago now, during the horrible war in Lebanon when 15,000 American citizens were evacuated from the war zone in Beirut and they managed to get to Cyprus by ship and all of them were greeted there by the Cypriot people. They were put up, they were fed, and they were clothed.
“They were received very warmly and then managed to get on their way back to the United States. We'll never forget that act of friendship of the government of the Republic of Cyprus and the people of Cyprus."
Burns gave examples of the US and Cyprus working together in a practical sense, for peace in the world and the maintenance of stability.
"I know all of you are concerned, as you should be, about the lack of peace on Cyprus, the lack of justice, the fact that the island was occupied by force and that the island has been divided for so long.
“I know that many of you have lost your homes, many of you have had families divided, this is a great tragedy and we Americans cannot and should not forget about this tragedy.
"I know that Cyprus has been divided and Nicosia has been divided longer than Berlin was divided. So it seems to me and it seems to our government that we need to make a renewed effort now to try and resume the international negotiations, led by the United Nations to seek a just resolution of the Cyprus problem.
Need for justice
"As you know, we work with the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community as part of our efforts to promote a settlement but that does not in any way shape of form signify diplomatic recognition.
“We only recognise the Republic of Cyprus. It's been our long standing policy to support a bizonal, bicommunal federation. Cyprus must be in our view one country, structured to recognise and to protect the rights of all the communities on the island.
"Some polls say the Greek Cypriots may prefer a unitary state, meaning a multi-ethnic state in which there is no separate governing entity for the Turkish Cypriot community. Other polls show that there is a sentiment among Turkish Cypriots to break away and have a separate state on the island of Cyprus. Our policy is federalism, and that is also the policy of the European Union and that is also the basis of what the United Nations are saying on Cyprus."
He referred to the success of the federal system in the US.
"Our view is that we should have one Cyprus, on a bizonal, bicommunal basis and we hope that progress can be made on that basis.
"We were encouraged a year ago in the summer of 2006, when President Papadopoulos and Mr Talat met when they agreed to establish technical committees and working groups to discuss day-to-day and substantive issues.
"It was a positive step forward. This kind of spirit can lay the ground and we believe that this kind of spirit of working together could lay the groundwork for a re-engagement of the United Nations in Cyprus for negotiations.
“So we will support this process, we will use the influence of the United States to encourage the United Nations to re-engage.
"And when I make my trip to Nicosia, this autumn, it's one of the leading issues that I will talk about with the government of Cyprus. And this is how we will be supportive in a renewed effort for peace, in a renewed effort for justice.
"We know the situation is difficult for families, for all the Cypriots who now live apart from their country, all over the world as distinguished citizens of democratic nations.
“We hope that the future of Cyprus will be one, of course, of democracy and freedom and justice on a bizonal and bicommunal basis for the peace that must come to the people on the island."
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
The US State Department rejects Turkey’s threats on Cyprus oil
The European Union and now the US State Department have rejected Turkey’s threats on Cyprus oil. Turkey has threatened military action in order to prevent drilling off Cyprus southern cost. These threats were made as a response to the Republic of Cyprus decision to grant drilling rights to foreign operators. Yes, this is the same Turkey that aspires to join the EU club as it actually sees itself as an island of civilization in an ocean of backwardness and deprivation. Funny stuff. Here is what the US State Department had to say:
Question: The Republic of Cyprus has recently announced a partnership to obtain oil and gas exploration licenses in the Mediterranean Sea. What is the United States’ position on Cyprus’ request for bids? Is a US-based company among the bidders? Does the US company need to consult with the U.S. government before submitting its bid?
Answer: The Republic of Cyprus (ROC) has announced the results of bids to obtain oil and gas exploration licenses in Cyprus' exclusive economic zone. An American firm is among the bidders. The ROC is a sovereign nation with the right to request bids for oil exploration within its own economic zone. The involvement of U.S. firms in such investment is a business decision.
2007/707
Released on August 21, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
SECRET/EYES ONLY
The recent release of official State Department documents on Cyprus has sent the Cypriot media a-buzz with none stop talk of Kissinger’s role in the Invasion. I bet the release of these State Department documents barely made coverage in the US media; but here, the topic of discussion on TV, in the press and at the dinner table is the talk of the United States and its backing of the Turkish Invasion. The video clips below are this weeks MEGA documentary on Kissinger's role in the Cyprus invasion. I may, in the near future, update the videos below to include English subtitles; but before I can do this, I need to first familiarize my self with video editing software.
MEGA Documentary Part One
MEGA Documentary Part Two
MEGA Documentary Part Three
MEGA Documentary Part One
MEGA Documentary Part Two
MEGA Documentary Part Three
Saturday, August 11, 2007
US gave full backing to Turkish invasion of Cyprus
I truly enjoy visiting the States as each trip brings new sights and experiences. If you ever planned a trip to the Southern part of the States, then you are familiar with Southern hospitality and the generally friendly people who love to “small talk.”
Southerners love to talk, you will always find at least one person (at the mall, the café or even when you are at a table enjoying the Southern cuisine) that comes up to you and offers that cheerful hello.
I recall a brief conversation with one particular lady who wanted to know why there was such a high level of hostility to the US. “The people there don’t like us” she said.
“That’s not true,” I said. “You shouldn’t believe everything you read in the press.”
Who was I kidding? As much as I hate to admit it, there is strong resentment against the US here in Cyprus.
Where is this resentment born from in the first place?
The resentment stems from the perceived support of the Greek junta and for the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.
Are these perceptions accurate? Well, take a look below at what the press has recently reported and decide for yourselves.
The United States gave full blessing to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, even assuring Turkey that it would "get them a solution involving one third of the island.''
This cynical US involvement is revealed in the latest batch of secret official State Department documents released for publication under the 30-year rule.
The American stand has long been known, but this is the first time that it has been confirmed so completely by an official State Department document.
This is clarified in the very first paragraph of the document which is stamped ``SECRET/EYES ONLY.''
It declares that the only conceivable settlement of the Cyprus problem "will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form."
While admitting that the United States ``has the clout'' to prevent the invasion, the document nevertheless advises against doing so "before the fighting stops."
The document is dated August 14, 1974, the exact date of the second massive wave of the Turkish invasion of the island. It is headed: ``Memorandum for the Secretary - Cyprus Actions'' from Helmut Sonnenfeldt, one of the top State Department officials dealing with Greco-Turkish affairs.
The document even includes a map detailing the plan of action of the Turkish invasion force. This is headed ``Map done by the Bureau of Intelligence and Research projecting Turkish moves on Cyprus, August 13, 1974.''
It is worth noting that this plan was the one followed exactly by the Turkish troops, a further proof of the close American involvement in the Turkish invasion planning.
THE COUNSELOR
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
WASHINGTON
August 14, 1974
SECRET/EYES ONLY
MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY
FROM: Helmut Sonnenfeldt
SUBJECT: Cyprus Actions
You wanted some brief ideas on what we do next.
Nothing I can think of will stop the Turks now from trying to secure by force what they demanded in their ultimata. In fact, as has always been true, the only conceivable modus vivendi will have to rest on a de facto division of the island, whatever the form.
If the Turks move fast and can then be gotten to stand down, it may pre-empt Greek counteraction and then give us a chance to try for a deal. (It may also save Karamanlis).
While the Soviets can serve as a bogey, we must keep them at arms length. They cannot become the arbiter between US allies. Their interests differ drastically from ours: we want a modus vivendi between Greece and Turkey, they want a non-aligned Cyprus, preferably with Greece or Turkey or both disaffected from NATO.
Thus, we should
urgently try to contain Greek reaction; 24 hours at a time;
bluntly tell the Turks they must stop, today, tomorrow at the latest;
warn the Turks that Greece is rapidly moving leftward;
send high-level US man to Athens to exert continuing direct influence on Karamanlis;
assuming the Turks quickly take Famagusta, privately assure Turks we will get them a solution involving one third of the island, within some kind of federal arrangement;
assure Greeks we will contain Turk demands and allow no additional enclaves, etc.
You should not get involved directly till the fighting stops; then you must since there is no alternative and only we have the clout.
I do not think Brussels/NATO is the place to use when the time comes. The Greeks are probably too sore at NATO and the vehicle of a ministerial meeting is awkward. Anyway, you need Ecevit and Karamanlis.
London may be unacceptable to the Turks because of Callaghan’s blast at them.
You should not shuttle.”
This may mean Geneva. Washington, at the President’s initiative, would be all right but hard to get the parties to come to.
Also provocative of the Russians. New York would make it difficult to keep the Russians away.
You could also try Rome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)