The Russian Foreign Ministry has warned Russian citizens about the dangers of buying land in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus. In a statement at the Interfax News Agency, Deputy Director of Press and Information Department Zacharova Maria, stated that the administration in the Turkish occupied areas of Cyprus, is an illegal state and property purchases should be avoided. She stresses that the so called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an illegal entity which was declared in the Turkish occupied areas of the independent and internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus. Zacharova underlines that UN Security has condemned this illegal action in its resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984).

”Buying a property in occupied Cyprus is illegal since several properties belonging to Greek Cypriots legally who fled their homes after the invasion of Turkish occupation troops in 1974. The property market is at great risk because under legal lawsuits filed by the owners, ”Zacharova warns. She also explains that under the Criminal Code of Cyprus any property without the consent of legal owner, is fraud and punishable by imprisonment for seven years. The Russian Foreign Ministry urges Russian citizens to be informed in detail about this issue.

UN resolution 541 (1983) adopted by the Security Council on 18 November 1983 considers the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 to create an independent state in northern Cyprus, as incompatible with the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. The UNSC, in its resolution deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus, considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal.

It also calls upon all states to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus, calls upon all states not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus and calls upon all states and the two communities in Cyprus to refrain from any action which might exacerbate the situation.

UNSC resolution 550 (1984) reaffirms its resolution 541(1983) and calls for its urgent and effective implementation. It also condemns all secessionist actions, including the purported exchange of Ambassadors between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot Leadership, declares them illegal and invalid and calls for their immediate withdrawal. UNSC resolution 550 reaffirms the call upon all states not to recognise the purported state in occupied Cyprus set up by secessionist acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist this secessionist entity.

Hits: 115

MEPs from Italy have called on Turkey to withdraw its troops from Cyprus’ occupied northern areas and to comply with the Security Council resolutions on the Cyprus problem. Speaking before the European Parliament on Thursday, following the approval of the resolution on Turkey by broad majority, EP vice president Roberta Angelilli said that Turkey’s approach is inconsistent, stressing that while the country wants to join the EU, it continues to station military forces on Cypriot territory. She also described as totally unacceptable the threats by Ankara that it will freeze ties with the EU Presidency in July, when the Cyprus Republic will assume the Presidency. Angelilli also called on Ankara to carry out more reforms especially as regards the human rights and the freedom of expression.

On his part, MEP Claudio Morganti expressed his deep concern on the fact that Turkey who aspires to become a member of the EU, has not yet withdrawn its troops from Cyprus occupied areas. He noted that although the EU keeps on calling on Ankara to comply with its obligations, the Turkish government ignores these warnings. Morganti also described as regrettable the fact that the largest recipient of EIB loans outside the European Union is a country that does not respect the sovereignty of Cyprus, an EU member state.

An EU rights group has accused NATO and Western coast guards of failing to aid a boatload of migrants adrift in the Mediterranean during the campaign against Libya. Only nine of 72 people on board the vessel survived after it drifted in open seas for two weeks when its engine failed, said a report by a Council of Europe committee. NATO, whose warships and maritime aircraft were patrolling the area, enforcing an arms embargo against Libya, rejected the accusations. Tens of thousands of people fled Libya to neighbouring countries during the war, many of them aboard rickety boats heading for Malta and Italy. They included a large number of Africans who had either lived and worked in Libya or were waiting for an illegal crossing to Europe. “NATO failed to react to the distress calls, even though there were military vessels under its control in the boat’s vicinity when the distress call was sent,” the report, published today, said.

The report said that a helicopter dropped biscuits and water to the migrants but never returned, while a large military vessel came into close contact with the boat but ignored obvious distress signals. The migrants eventually drifted back to Libya, but not before most of those aboard died of exposure or thirst.

The alliance rejected the accusations, saying its ships and aircraft assisted in the rescue of over 600 people, and helped co-ordinate the rescue of many others. “To help determine what happened, NATO provided a significant amount of information to the Council of Europe,” spokeswoman Oana Lungescu said. “We have no record of any NATO aircraft or ship having seen or made contact with this particular boat.”

The report also accused Italy and Malta of failing to launch search and rescue operations although their rescue co-ordination centres had pinpointed the position of the stricken vessel. “No one went to the aid of this boat,” the report said. The report, which took nine months to compile, recommended a review of all search and rescue procedures in the Mediterranean. It also called on Nato to launch an inquiry into the incident.

Other human rights groups have also criticised the failure to rescue the boat’s passengers, who were from Ethiopia, Nigeria, Eritrea, Ghana and Sudan. Amnesty International said it “expressed its disquiet that [the inquiry] has yet to receive satisfactory replies from key players, including NATO, countries involved in NATO operations, and European Union institutions.”

“Everyone involved in this tragic incident must cooperate fully with this investigation,” said Nicolas Beger, director of Amnesty’s Brussels office. “Whoever is responsible must be held to account.”

NATO has failed to properly investigate or provide compensation for civilian deaths caused by its air strikes during the seven-month operation in Libya that helped bring about the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Amnesty International said on Monday, 19 March 2012. Echoing similar criticisms aired this month by Russia, Amnesty said scores of Libyans, who were not involved in the conflict, had been killed or injured in NATO bombings but there had been no proper investigations into their deaths. “NATO officials repeatedly stressed their commitment to protecting civilians,” Donatella Rovera, Senior Crisis Adviser at Amnesty, said in a statement. “They cannot now brush aside the deaths of scores of civilians with some vague statement of regret without properly investigating these deadly incidents.”

Inquiries should determine whether any civilian casualties resulted from a breach of international law, and if so, those responsible should be brought to justice, Amnesty said. The NATO military mission, authorized by the United Nations Security Council, began on March 31 last year with the aim of protecting civilians under attack or threat of attack. NATO forces carried out some 26,000 sorties including some 9,600 strike missions and destroyed about 5,900 targets before operations ended on October 31.

Investigators for the U.N. Human Rights Council concluded earlier this month that NATO had caused civilian deaths but had taken extensive precautions to ensure civilians were not killed.

Amnesty agreed NATO had made significant efforts to minimize the risk of civilian casualties, through precision bombing and warning where strikes would occur. However, the rights group said that did not absolve NATO from carrying out investigations into any deaths, or making reparations to victims or families of those killed. Survivors and victims’ relatives interviewed by Amnesty said they had never even been contacted by NATO.

Amnesty said NATO itself had documented 55 cases of civilians, including 16 children and 14 women, being killed in air strikes in Tripoli, Zlitan, Majer, Sirte and Brega, often in private homes with no clear evidence of any military purpose. Another 34 people, including eight children, were killed in three separate attacks on two houses in Majer with no explanation for why they were targeted, Amnesty said. NATO’s most recent response to Amnesty stated it “deeply regretted any harm” its air strikes had caused but said it no longer had a mandate to carry out any activities in Libya.

Two weeks ago, Russia criticized the U.N. investigators for failing to adequately probe civilian deaths caused by NATO during last year’s uprising, saying children and journalists had been killed. “In our view, during that (NATO) campaign many violations of the standard of international law and human rights were committed, including the most important right, the right to life,” said Maria Khodynskaya-Golenishcheva, a diplomat at the Russian mission to the U.N. in Geneva. Russia had criticized NATO action which it said should have been limited to protecting civilians and not helping the overthrow of Gaddafi.

*Source: Reuters, London

Hits: 2309

International Studies Student
written by Atul Menon, March 27, 2012

I am not surprised by this appalling behaviour and lack of responsibility being taken by NATO. To start of with, the framework under which the air strikes occurred, was done in a hurried and in such a fashion where the operational manner was not clearly defined in terms of targeting and extent of force. It is high time that NATO (which may have acted in a precautionary sense with regards to Gaddafi’s intentions)take responsibility for its course of actions. The truth is whatever the over all good of the air strikes,innocent people have also lost their lives and face years of anger, sadness and resentment. This needs to be addressed appropriately.

Research Associate
written by Zoran, April 03, 2012

NATO’s action should come at no surprise. It’s mandate was to enforce a no-fly zone not to intervene in the civil war that was happening in Libya.
NATO’s behavior and treatment of civilian targets could be seen in their intervention in the FRY in 1999 with no UN mandate. Cluster bombs and depleted uranium was used and there were many civilian casualties. The worst case was the bombing of the city of Nis where 36 loads of cluster bombs were dropped in the city’s centre.
The consequences of the use of depleted uranium can still be felt. After the bombing year by year the number of people suffering from leukemia and lymphoma increased drastically.
I expect, as is the case of the bombing of the FRY, the casualties and consequences of NATO bombing of Libya to be pushed under the carpet and forgotten.
[counterize collapsible=”yes”]

One thing is for sure: the Eastern Mediterranean is going through interesting times. Historically, I guess, we have always been living in such times. The Mediterranean, as the etymology of the geographical name denotes, constitutes the middle of the earth, the place where multiple trade routes meet and intersect. The battle for the control of such trade routes is perennial, from ancient to modern times. In modern times Cyprus’ political legacy stems to a large extent from its acquisition by the British Empire. Importantly, the Eastern Mediterranean Sea lies at the crossroads of three continents: Europe, Asia and Africa and as of recently at the heart of substantial natural resources reserves.

Benjamin Disraeli got hold of our island in an effort to thwart the advancing Russian Empire from entering into the Mediterranean sea. That was the reasoning behind the British decision at the Congress of Berlin, 1878, of propping up the Ottomans, the collapsing empire of the time, described at the time as ‘Europe’s sick man’. Disraeli’s decision in 1878 was to be vindicated time and again. As oil started to be pumped out of the Middle East, Cyprus served as London’s outpost securing the uninterrupted flow of the vital energy resource for the formidable industrial machine of the British Isles. It is no coincidence that Sir Anthony Eden exclaimed in strong and unyielding words, the British government’s position in Cyprus clear and flat. Without bothering to clothe it in the familiar language of imperialistic idealism, Sir Anthony defined Britain’s stake in one word: oil. He stressed:

Our country’s industrial life and that of Western Europe, depend today, and must depend for many years, on oil supplies from the Middle East. If ever our oil resources were imperiled, we should be compelled to defend them. The facilities we need in Cyprus are part of that. No Cyprus, no certain facilities to protect our supply of oil. No oil, unemployment and hunger in Britain. It is as simple as that.[1]

Before the ink of the signatures under the text of the three Treaties (Establishment, Guarantee, Alliance: 1960) which established the Republic of Cyprus under the guardianship of the UK, Greece and Turkey, dried, Eden underlines: The value of the compromise will depend upon the spirit in which it is worked and upon acceptable arrangements for our military bases. (Anthony Eden: Full Circle, London, 1960) Once again, with his remark, the visionary British statesman places emphasis on the importance for his own country of the guaranteed, uninterrupted and unfettered use of the British military bases in order that Middle Eastern oil flows without disruption to the British Isles. To be sure, Eden’s emphasis on the Cyprus bases comes at a peak time of British decolonization.

December 2011: Discovery of Natural Gas Reserves – New Geostrategic Alliances

Source: http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/18/turkey-court-protects-journalist-s-killers

(Istanbul) – A Turkish court’s verdict on January 17, 2012, that there was no state involvement or organized plot behind the 2007 shooting of the Turkish Armenian journalist Hrant Dink is a travesty of justice, Human Rights Watch said today.

“The Istanbul court’s denial of the plot behind Hrant Dink’s murder flies in the face of evidence,” said Emma Sinclair-Webb, Turkey researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Five years after the killing, Turkey’s criminal justice system remains unwilling to probe state collusion in political assassinations.”

Istanbul Heavy Penal Court No. 14 acquitted all 19 defendants accused of being part of a criminal organization responsible for Dink’s murder on January 19, 2007. The court concluded that the crime was not the work of a criminal organization motivated by ideological aims and that there was no deeper plot behind the murder.

The court sentenced Yasin Hayal to aggravated life imprisonment, up to 40 years in prison, for planning and organizing Dink’s murder by 17-year-old Ogün Samast. The court also sentenced Ahmet İskender and Ersin Yolcu, as accessories to the murder, to 12 years and 6 months imprisonment and Salih Hacısalioğlu to 10 months for possession of unlicensed ammunition.

Erhan Tuncel, who faced the same charges as Hayal, was acquitted of any involvement and sentenced to 10 years and 6 months for an entirely separate crime in September 2004: the bombing of a branch of McDonald’s in Trabzon. Fifteen other defendants facing various charges in connection with the case were acquitted.

Samast, tried separately in a juvenile court, was convicted in July 2011, and sentenced to almost 23 years in prison for shooting Dink dead in the street in front of the Istanbul offices of the Agos newspaper, of which he was the founding editor. All the defendants are from the Pelitli district of Trabzon, in Turkey’s eastern Black Sea region.

“The court’s treatment of the murder as a straightforward crime committed in isolation by a few young men belies the evidence of their deep connections with the security forces,” Sinclair-Webb said. “It ignored the systematic failure by the Istanbul and Trabzon police and gendarmerie to take steps to try to prevent a murder they were repeatedly informed would happen,”

The final statement of the prosecutor in the trial pointed to the existence of a criminal network, with links to the ultranationalist Ergenekon gang, among whose alleged members are state officials and members of the security forces who are currently on trial for plotting a coup. The prosecutor indicated that the evidence to prove the Ergenekon gang connection had been destroyed. But the prosecutor’s investigation failed to follow many leads or to push for the inquiry to be broadened, Human Rights Watch said. The prosecutor, as well as lawyers for the Dink family, said they will appeal.

Tuncel had worked as an informer for both the Trabzon police and the gendarmerie. The Trabzon police and gendarmerie, and police in Istanbul, were repeatedly alerted to a plot to kill Dink, but failed to take measures to prevent it.

The prosecutor’s investigation failed to press for the prosecution of state authorities who repeatedly withheld evidence during the investigation and contaminated other evidence.  Both the prosecutor and the court in turn failed at every stage to use the authority of the criminal justice system to secure the compliance of state authorities in a criminal investigation and murder trial proceedings.

Dink, the founding editor of the bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper Agos, was a courageous champion of open debate, dialogue, and cooperation among all communities in Turkey, and was   committed to democratization and human rights. His killing was apparently politically and ethnically motivated. He was identified by his murderers as an Armenian who had been convicted in court for “insulting Turkishness.”

Dink had been prosecuted for an article in which he discussed Armenian identity. In July 2006, the General Penal Board of the Court of Cassation, Turkey’s court of appeal, upheld a six-month suspended sentence for that publication under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code that criminalized “publicly insulting Turkishness.” Dink was prosecuted again in September 2006, under the same provision, for using the term “genocide” in a statement made to the Reuters news agency to describe the massacres of Armenians in Anatolia at the end of the Ottoman Empire.

In September 2010, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a tough verdict against Turkey for failure to protect Dink’s life, failure to investigate his murder, and failure to uphold his right to freedom of expression.

“The government has a clear duty to implement the judgment of the European Court, to cooperate fully to ensure that the full circumstances of state collusion in Dink’s murder are thoroughly investigated and that state officials are not protected,” said Sinclair-Webb.

Dr Yiorghos Leventis, Director of the International Security Forum (ISF), participated upon invitation in the debates of the 25th Winter Course of the International School on Disarmament & Research on Conflicts (ISODARCO). The week long winter course held at Andalo – Trento, Italy, 8-15 January 2012, focused on the theme of Security in Cyberspace: Targeting Nations, Infrastructures, Individuals. Dr Yiorghos Leventis chaired a session of the course. Furthermore, he held discussions on future research cooperation with the Director of ISODARCO Professor Carlo Schaerf (Tor Vergata University, Rome), the course’s director Dr. Gianpiero Giacomelo (University of Bologna), Professor Alessandro Pascolini (University of Padova) and Dr. Steve Wright (Leeds Metropolitan University, UK).

Hits:741

It is common for candidates in presidential primaries to use bellicose language to prove their toughness. This kind of rhetoric is especially useful in Republican primaries, where audiences have a firm belief in the use of military power to solve problems. But toughness and wisdom are not the same thing.

The difference between the two was on display in the discussion of Iran that opened Saturday night’s Republican foreign policy debate, as it has been throughout the Republican campaign. Asked if he would consider a military option should current efforts fail to deter Iran’s work on developing nuclear weapons, Mitt Romney said, “of course you take military action, it’s unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon.”

Newt Gingrich echoed Romney’s call. Previously, Herman Cain called preemptive force against Iran his “option B.” Even Jon Huntsman, who has been the most sober of the candidates on foreign policy, suggested that “if you want an example of when I would consider the use of American force, it would be that.” Rick Perry let us know that he would support Israeli military strikes too.

The problem with these arguments is that they flatly ignore or reject outright the best advice of America’s national security leadership. Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, former congressman Admiral Joe Sestak and former CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zinni are only a few of the many who have warned us to think carefully about the repercussions of attacking Iran. Two months ago, Sestak put it bluntly: “A military strike, whether it’s by land or air, against Iran would make the aftermath of the Iraqi invasion look like a cakewalk with regard to the impact on the United States’ national security.”

While rhetoric about military strikes may work as an applause line in Republican debates, there is little or no chance that military action would be quite so simple. Quite the contrary. Defense leaders agree that the military option would likely result in serious unintended consequences.

Meir Dagan, the recently retired chief of Israel’s Mossad, shares the assessment of the Americans cited above. He noted earlier this year that attacking Iran “would mean regional war” and went on to say that arguments for military strikes were “the stupidest thing I have ever heard.”

To be clear: everyone can agree that Iran is a serious problem. The development of Iranian missile technology is credible enough that NATO is (smartly) working with Russia to develop a defensive missile shield. And the most recent report from the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear program should rally the international community to apply even more pressure.

But while Iran is a serious issue, it is equally true that they have been effectively isolated and weakened by the one-two punch of smart sanctions and the democratic winds sweeping through the region. The international sanctions have seriously damaged Iran’s economy and exacerbated a growing feud between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. It is important to avoid steps that would unite these political blocs.

Meanwhile, Iran’s most important regional ally, Syria, is struggling to avoid becoming the next regime toppled by a popular uprising. And given its own deep unpopularity with the Iranian public, the government may yet face a winter of domestic discontent. It has already had to face down strong segments of its population that want a less bellicose attitude toward the rest of the world.

We didn’t ask the tough questions in 2003 when America went to war in Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction. The security of America and the stability of a largely redrawn Middle East depend on our ability to continue to isolate and contain a weakened Iran.

Running for President means running for commander in chief of America’s armed forces. If the candidates favor military action, as is their prerogative, they should desist from peddling the false notion of a simple “surgical” strike and answer the hard questions. How would they contain a larger regional war? Would they commit to a ground invasion? How would they pay for it? What is their view on the implications of another major deployment for the U.S. military? And why are they ignoring the advice of some of America’s most experienced military leaders?

America ought not consider another war in the Middle East without a very serious discussion of the consequences. Political candidates should curb their jingoistic, chauvinistic emotions and temper their world view with a little reflective, rational thought.

*John H. Johns is a retired brigadier general. He served as a combat arms officer in the Army for over 26 years and taught national security strategy at the National Defense University for 14 years. The article first appeared in the New York Times, 14 Nov 2011.

Hits: 3079

Comments

…
written by Shota Shvelidze, January 16, 2012 

Thanks for uploading this nice piece. It is very useful topic at the moment for those who actively follow the primaries in US. It seems from the article that the republican candidates who are mentioned in this article are the most probable candidates from the whole party. However, it seems for me that majority of them do not understand the political situation in middle east in the world in general and especially lack understanding about the US foreign policy. The only politician from the republican camp who is wise, smart and honest is Ron Paul. I would suggest you to review his interviews and his vision of the US foreign policy. However, unfortunately he does not have chance to win the primary.

ross.romeo07@gmail.com
written by R2R London, March 04, 2012 

Nice blog, I am very impressed on knowing that this information is being shared here and actively discussed by these commentators here. I do want to know certain updates though.

Student of International Studies
written by Atul Menon, March 05, 2012 

This is in fact a very well written and intriguing piece. Especially with regards to Iran’s advancement in nuclear technology through the beginning of 2012 the tensions in the Middle East are continuously growing. It is of no doubt that Israel would have a ready plan of attack at a time or circumstance it deems fit. What is truly scary is what implications such an act of aggression would accomplish or even lead to. On top of this reports of Iranian nuclear scientist deaths as well as attacks on Israeli diplomatic missions in Thailand and India certainly do not help the nerves of Israel and Iran.
There is also a great deal of uncertainty regarding the depths of Iran’s nuclear program. The fact that Iran isn’t making its intentions any more transparent than it claims is not helping their position in the International arena either. It is certain that with all the violence being spread by the Arab spring already in the Middle East, any scale conflict between Iran and Israel is sure to draw in more security actors and cause a catastrophic amount of damage, deaths and destruction. At this point it is best to first determine the degree of Iran’s nuclear program and try to the best possible extent to bring about some form of agreements relating to curbing Iran’s “true” (it claims to need nuclear technology for energy and not weapons) nuclear intentions. At the end of the day the West would definitely consider nuclear weapons a threat in what would questionably be regarded as a rogue regime and if the West and/or Israel were to do something more militarily assertive a war would ultimately prove disastrous.

Nuclear Weapons in Middle East & Around the World
written by Rob Wheeler, March 05, 2012 

This whole issue and situation is ludicrous. We should not even be having the conversation. Here is the situation, the US and other nuclear armed countries are telling Iran that they should not even think about developing nuclear weapons. Israel, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons and there is no complaint and the nuclear countries are most resistant to getting rid of their own weapons. There is way too much hypocrisy going on in the world. If the West wants Iran to stop and eliminate their nuclear program then they need to work for a nuclear free zone in the entire region and endorse and work for the adoption of a global nuclear weapons convention to eliminate them. Now that would be an ethical position and make a lot of sense.

But can we expect the world’s leading powers to do something like this. Well, there has been very little evidence of it so far.

Rob Wheeler
US Citizen
World Alliance to Transform the UN

One thing is for sure: the Eastern Mediterranean is going through interesting times. Historically, I guess, we have always been living in such times. The Mediterranean, as the etymology of the geographical name denotes, constitutes the middle of the earth, the place where multiple trade routes meet and intersect. The battle for the control of such trade routes is perennial, from ancient to modern times. In modern times Cyprus’ political legacy stems to a large extent from its acquisition by the British Empire. Benjamin Disraeli got hold of our island in an effort to thwart the advancing Russian Empire from entering into the Mediterranean sea. That was the reasoning behind the British decision at the Congress of Berlin, 1878, of propping up the Ottomans, the collapsing empire of the time, described at the time as ‘Europe’s sick man’.

Disraeli’s decision in 1878 was to be vindicated time and again. As oil started to be pumped out of the Middle East, Cyprus served as London’s outpost securing the uninterrupted flow of the vital energy resource for the formidable industrial machine of the British Isles. It is no coincidence that Sir Anthony Eden exclaimed in strong and unyielding words, the British government’s position in Cyprus clear and flat. Without bothering to clothe it in the familiar language of imperialistic idealism, Sir Anthony defined Britain’s stake in one word: oil.

Our country’s industrial life and that of Western Europe, depend today, and must depend for many years, on oil supplies from the Middle East. If ever our oil resources were imperiled, we should be compelled to defend them. The facilities we need in Cyprus are part of that. No Cyprus, no certain facilities to protect our supply of oil. No oil, unemployment and hunger in Britain. It is as simple as that. (Conservative Party Convention, Norwich, UK, 11 June 1956)

Four years later with the Zurich-London agreements just reached and signed, Eden stressed: The value of the compromise will depend upon the spirit in which it is worked and upon acceptable arrangements for our military bases.

Now at the end of 2011, it is becoming clearer week by week that the Exclusive Economic Zone the Republic of Cyprus is entitled to, is blessed with substantial natural gas if not oil reserves. The outcome of the exploitation, the degree to which this vital natural resource will prove to be a blessing and not a curse will depend upon the spirit in which it is worked, to borrow the all-too-relevant Eden remark of 1960.

To my mind there is no doubt that the discovery of vital natural resources in the sea of the island may be a potential catalyst for a settlement. We may recall that the donors’ conference in Brussels on the UN plan in 2004 failed dismally to secure the necessary funds to finance the proposed settlement. A few years down the line, with the discovery and prospective exploitation of our natural resources, one can easily infer that the prospects are coming into place for Cypriots to self-finance a just and thus viable settlement of the intractable Cyprus problem.

Having said that, it is my humble opinion that the settlement of the Cyprus imbroglio hinges upon a constructive stance by Ankara, be it the rising regional power with high stakes in the island. At a time when efforts to reach a settlement are heightened:

i) through a more active involvement of the UN Secretary General: Ban Ki Moon appears to be fully engaged in the negotiating process: he has urged the two leaders to iron out their remaining differences, to use the UN jargon (New York meeting, Oct. 2011) and scheduled to meet them anew in January to take stock of the progress made.

ii) through a compromising stance of the RoC government pledging that any prospective proceeds out of the natural resources exploitation are guaranteed to be used for the interests of both Cypriot communities – a commitment, it should be noted, that comes on top of a raft of post-2004 measures in favour of the Turkish Cypriot community,

it is unfortunate, to say the least, that the Turkish President calls Cyprus ‘half a country’ and the EU ‘a miserable union’. Slipping tongue or truthful admission of perennial Turkish perception of our island? But then again slip of tongue tells the truth or is not so? Gul’s comments do not augur well, all the more so, having been uttered in London at the conclusion of an official visit to the UK (23 Nov 2011), the champion, par excellance of Turkish full participation in the European Union. Interestingly, David Cameron, the British PM steered clear of any statement on the Cyprus front avoiding at the same time a response to Gul’s arrogant remarks.

In the light of the increased UN efforts to reach a settlement and the compromising stance of the Greek Cypriot side, one would have expected at least the avoidance of derogatory if not inflammatory statements which are bound to be perceived as unacceptable interference in the internal affairs of the Union, if not by all certainly by the absolute majority of its member-states; more so by the two heavy weight Turco-sceptics. I would seriously doubt that Gul’s London remarks would gain any ground for his country’s EU membership chances in the corridors of power in Paris or Berlin.

It is incumbent upon Turkey as the rising regional power, already a major energy hub, member of the G20 (17th biggest economy in the world), staunch NATO ally with the second biggest army in the Alliance boasting a military manpower equivalent more or less to the demographic size of the entire Greek Cypriot community[1] to show a measure of compromising attitude if not straightforward magnanimity with a view to a lasting settlement in Cyprus. However, one would ask: what are Ankara’s objectives with respect to Cyprus? Are these related to the promotion of a solution to the benefit of the people of Cyprus, Greek and Turkish Cypriots or is Turkey seeking the perpetuation of the system of a vassal half-baked state, half-a-country, to use Gul’s expression?

Lest we forget, it is the whole of Cyprus that acceded by the Treaty of Accession to the EU in 2004 – implementation of the acquis suspended for the North pending the political settlement, that is to say the internal restructuring and re-distribution of power in the Republic of Cyprus.

International Law on EEZ

Let us examine the delimitation of the EEZ in the eastern Mediterranean littoral countries: under the law of the sea, an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) is a sea zone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marinere sources, including production of energy from water and wind.[2]

Now, what is Turkey’s posture on this crucial question regarding the agreed distribution of natural wealth in the eastern Mediterranean?

Ankara questions the right of the RoC to be entitled to an EEZ. Hence the overtures to Cyprus’ neighbours in the first instance not to sign and after the signature to repeal their EEZ delimitation agreements with the RoC.

Turkish maritime policy is that islands are entitled neither to their own EEZ nor to continental shelf. The Turkish argument has serious repercussions vis-a-vis the potential delimitation of both the EEZ and the continental shelf with Greece in the Aegean and the Mediterranean Sea (vide: Kastellorizo) and of course in the case of Cyprus.

Such an attitude clearly contravenes the provisions of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, signed 10 Dec 1982, Montego Bay, Jamaica – effective 16 Nov 1994, 162 signatories including the EU) to which Turkey is not a signatory.

As stated above, the law of the sea provides that every state is entitled to special rights over the exploration and use of marine sources in its EEZ.

Feeding Turkish Pipelines Carries Danger of Feeding Over-ambitious Ankara

Taken at its face value the Turkish argument implies that Cyprus is non-existent on the map of EEZ delimitations in the eastern Mediterranean. In other words, according to Ankara’s logic, the sea zones in the region for the purposes of exploration and use of natural resources should be divided between Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Israel.

Put this in the context of the rising ambitions of regional power – the neo-Ottoman grand scheme projecting a blend of soft and hard power from the Balkans to Western Asia to North Africa – it is not too difficult to infer what Ankara is driving at: in all probability to tap on the island’s sea and land resources – as this week’s Famagusta drilling agreement reveals – feed her own pipelines easily and cost effectively to become Europe’s unrivalled energy hub par excellance. What would such an ambitious Turkish scenario mean for Turko-European relations? Ankara will be holding so much leverage over the EU at a time of i) an ongoing and deepening internal European crisis ii) that fluidity and uncertainty about the political future rules supreme in the Arab countries of the region iii) pushing Europe in seeking to identify the most powerful West-oriented proxy, the region’s strategic ally that would field the model of western style democracy and stability. It is certain that Ankara fits the bill in the eyes of certain policy-makers in Brussels. Nevertheless, in the West’s designs for the Arab and Muslim world in the recent past, Ankara, time and again, proved how resistant it can be.

Feeding already ambitious Turkey with eastern Mediterranean energy resources, that mostly she is not entitled to, will run the risk of Ankara holding the EU hostage to its neo-Ottoman dictates since the former will be in control of the supply of a substantial part of Europe’s key energy resources. In such a Turkish-inspired self-serving scenario it is next to impossible to identify room for Cyprus to play a new important role in the EU’s energy security. Is that what we, Cypriots – of Greek and Turkish origin – want: an arrangement whereby Ankara already in serious violation of substantial inalienable human rights on the island, will be light-heartedly granted the upper hand in the exploitation of our island’s natural resources?

* Director of International Security Forum; Fellow of the United Nations University. Speech at a panel discussion co-organised by Friedrich Ebert Stiftung and PRIO Cyprus Centre, Chateau Status, Buffer Zone, Nicosia, 26 November 2011.

[1] Only this week the TAF announced for the first time in their history the size of their forces: the figure 720,000 personnel is quoted including the Gendarmerie, the Coastal Guard and the civilian personnel; excluding the Civil Defence Forces who are recruited among the population in Eastern Turkey and are engaged in combat action against the Kurdish guerilla separatists.

[2] Law of the Sea, UN, Part V: Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56.

Hits: 4355

Comments

…
written by Peter Droussiotis, December 04, 2011 

This is an excellent analysis albeit one that leaves little room for optimism that Turkey will ever work constructively for the reunifcation of Cyprus which is the aim of every Cypriot who truly loves this beautiful but long-suffering island.
I do find your pieces very well thought out and powefully argued.

…
written by A. Fragkis, December 06, 2011 

Excellent article.
The declaration of the EEZ of both Greece and Cyprus is a matter of top priority for both governments.It should be done now! This, not only will safeguard whatever energy resources exist in the Aegean and the S.A. Mediterranean sea for these two Countries, but also could provide the much needed energy self-sufficiency for the E.U. Turkey, only euphemistically European, should not be allowed by the European Nations, to become an obstacle to European recovery from the current financial stagnation.  

Ankara’s Energy Game
written by Petrus Berek Klau, December 16, 2011 

This is an amazing article worth to be read.

…
written by Kypros Zandis, February 13, 2012 

Very intelligent and thoughtful article on the role of Cyprus in conjunction with the past & current International interests in the region…

With the desperate bombing of Libya eventually petering out, I think it unlikely that the exporters and imposers of western freedom will try and attack Syria, for the following reasons.

First, Turkey will not countenance the idea, since its Kurdish population would immediately latch on to any action by the Kurds of Syria. Second, Turkey’s current policy is to support Syria and lambast (quite rightly) Israel for its massive abuses of the Palestinians. Third, the Syrian army would be a major problem, since it is better equipped and controlled than Libya’s army. Fourth, Syria is near the epicentre of the Middle East tinder-box, and a NATO attack could create more problems than it solves for the Jewish State. Fifth, Iran would undoubtedly exploit the situation to its advantage. Sixth, Syria (according to CIA figures for 2009), accounts for less than half a per cent of world oil production. Thus, the slavering majority shareholders would not benefit much, if at all. Libyan oil production is over four times as much as that of Syria. Seventh, Russia, having seen how the US, its keen-to-please Canadian proxy, Britain and France have abused the terms of the UNSC resolutions, will simply not allow an attack on Syria. The so-called opportunist rebels in Libya, having been illegally armed by the so-called West, are themselves killing plenty of civilians. As I have written in an earlier article, ‘Russia is watching carefully, and will act when necessary..’, I appear to have been proven correct so far, as we are currently witnessing some skillful Russian diplomacy, and not the empty braggadocio of possible war criminals like Sarkozy, Cameron and Obama.

Libya was selected by the ‘forces of freedom’ (and business) as a soft option. However unsavoury the Gaddafi system was becoming for some, abuses in Libya pale into near insignificance when compared to those of the Saudi regime, where the population is too frightened to even demonstrate, and where women are treated as hidden male property. They did not stone adulterers to death in Libya! Several other Middle Eastern regimes are worse than that of Gaddafi. Saudi Arabia is too important a customer of US, British and other arms companies to bomb!

It is important to consider the deeper historical causes of this whole farrago of hypocrisy: the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916, and subsequent ‘arrangements’, when Britain and France simply carved up the Middle East, creating many unnatural borders, which are essentially business borders (the primitive pseudo-science of geopolitics comes to mind, with its attempts to justify geostrategy). Libya falls into the same category, having also been subject to the imposition of unnatural borders, for which one can thank the Italians, French and British. Remember the two countries of Cyrenaica and Tripolitania? Imposing anything, whether ‘freedom’ or borders, is rarely a good idea. Yugoslavia was also an artificial creation. And look what happened.

So, in short, we should forget the humanitarian double-speak, and put our own houses in order before trying to create civil war in other countries.

As Einstein wrote in 1934:

‘The armament industry is indeed one of the greatest dangers that beset Mankind. It is the hidden evil power behind the nationalism which is rampant everywhere.’ Let me also add the oil companies, or at least their behaviour, to this. Einstein also wrote, fifteen years later: ‘The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil.’ Frankly, I put the whole dirty attack on Libya down to the basic human factors of insecurity, greed and ambition.

Hits: 4126

Comments  

Student of International Studies
written by Atul Menon, March 05, 2012 

It is true that Syria is definitely on a completely different level of human rights violations and dangers when seen in comparison with Syria. However the actions of NATO and the west on Libya has definitely left Russia feeling betrayed. The whole Syrian issue once again does bring to mind the aspect of whether there really is a R2P protocol necessary with regards to large scale human rights violations. While all the security actors who are currently deciding Syria have their own interests at heart, at the end of the day one has to decide between the lesser of 2 evils.
Russia may not want to act aggressively in Syria because Russia has a base there as well as arms agreements. As for Russia and China together, one could understand that if one day their respective regimes were to fall in political turmoil, they would not want outside interference as well. In the case of USA, I see their policies as very hypocritical world. While they were eager to act in Iraq, Libya and Syria on the bases of human rights..in Bahrain they recently concluded a multi million dollar arms deal at the end of 2011. When the revolution happened there and the Bahranian kingdom suppressed the peaceful demonstrators, USA did not have much to say and neither did the western backed news channels.
At the end of the day the International system does seem realist in perspective. Countries act largely according to where they see that they can benefit the most. The only thing that is left to choose is between the lesser of 2 evils. Would we rather see a Syria controlled or backed by the western ideals of democracy (that may or may not take root), or an authoritarian Syria backed by Russia and China where individual’s basic rights continue to be suppressed.

Director ISF Cyprus
written by Yiorghos Leventis, March 05, 2012 

Thanks for your comment Atul Menon. Could you please clarify how is the comparison between Syria and Libya in the first sentence of your comment? You referred to – by mistake it seems – to Syria twice …

Student of International Studies
written by Atul Menon, March 07, 2012 

Yes, I apologize for the mistake.I did in fact mean to refer to Syria and Libya. I do acknowledge that both Bashar Al-Assad (and Hafez’s regime) and Muammar Gaddafi over the last multiple decades would have no doubt had a deep hand in mass violation of human rights. By stating that there was difference in the level of human rights violations, i am referring to the most recent events that have been unfolding: Human Rights Watch and similar groups estimate that around 7000-8000 people have been killed as a result of the brutal crack down by the Syrian regime within the last year. Of course, as far as I know, I am not aware of Gaddafi’s hand involved in any such atrocity in the time frame that we are witnessing such in Syria. Once again I may be wrong, I am still a new student to the realm of International Studies but am still excited to express my opinion and allow it to be challenged to better my own understanding. One can also wonder what would have happened had NATO not interfered in Libya, perhaps we would have witnessed similar if not worse events unfolding there now, had nothing been done.