Το ημερολόγιο έδειχνε Πέντε του Δεκέμβρη, το έτος 2024, εσπερινός του Αγίου Νικολάου στον ομώνυμο ναό στον Λυκαβηττό. Πώς περνά ο καιρός, πάει ένας ολόκληρος χρόνος … Συνάμα με τες ευχές μου για την ονομαστική του εορτή ενεχειρώ  στο Νίκο της διαρκούσης Προεδρίας ένα προσωπικό εμπιστευτικό υπόμνημα. Περί εξωτερικής πολιτικής. Αναφέρομαι σε ανέξοδους τρόπους ενίσχυσης του διεθνούς κύρους της κολοβής μας δημοκρατίας κτίζοντας σε διεθνείς πρωτοβουλίες της ανένταχτης – κομματικώς ομιλούντες – ταπεινότητας μου. Ένα κράτος κολοβό, όχι μόνο λόγω Τουρκικής κατοχής στον βορρά και Βρετανικής επικυριαρχίας στο νότο αλλά επιπροσθέτως από την αβελτηρία των ταγών αυτής. Ο Νίκος μού χαμογελά και ευχαριστεί.

Μια κουτσουλιά τόπος είμαστε. Πέντε μέρες αργότερα τον συναντώ εκ νέου στην διχοτομημένη πρωτεύουσα. Εκδήλωση διεθνούς κοινωνικού χαρακτήρα. Έχοντας γνώση της προτίμησης του στην αμεσότητα του ενικού και της πολύχρονης μας, αν και άκαρπης γνωριμίας – σίγουρα όχι λόγω δικής μου υπαιτιότητάς – χαιρετώ, ερωτώντας τον: «Νίκο τι θα πράξεις; Τα όσα σού προτείνω είναι προς δικό σου συμφέρον και του διεθνούς μας κύρους πάνω από όλα». Με ύφος απόλυτης σιγουριάς και εμπιστοσύνης μού απαντά κοφτά:

«Είπα του Κόμπου να σε δει…»

Επιτρέψτε μου να συνεχίσω την αφήγηση σε ύφος λαϊκό, κατ’ εικόνα και ομοίωση του Προεδρικού ύφους. Ο Κόμπος με … γκαστρώνει για ένα … εννιάμηνο. Η κύηση οδηγεί τελικά την συνάντηση μας στις 19 του Αυγούστου στο Υπουργείο. Παρατώ την επιστημοσύνη και την συγγραφή στη Βρετανική Βιβλιοθήκη (Λονδίνο, εννοείται) για χάρη της. Καταφθάνω στον ατημέλητο κήπο του κτιρίου του Υπουργείου. Ανεβαίνω με βάση το πρωτόκολλο στο γραφείο Υπουργού με συνοδεία νεαρού διπλωμάτη.

Το αποτέλεσμα της πολυπόθητης συνάντησης; Σκέτο … ανεμογκάστρι!

Πέραν της γλαφυρότητας και της χαριτολογημένης αφήγησης, η ουσία είναι πραγματικά δύσπεπτη. Ο Κόμπος φτάνει στο χτένι. Δεν θα ήταν δυνατό να κρατώ μέσα μου αυτόν τον Κόμπο … για χρόνια. Για να έχω ήσυχη την συνείδηση μου απέναντι στους ενενηντάχρονους γονείς, που με ανάθρεψαν με ιδανικά και αξίες, με σεβασμό στην πολυετή πορεία μου στα διεθνή ιδρύματα, κρίνω ότι οφείλω να εκθέσω σοβαρότατα ατοπήματα στην άσκηση εξωτερικής πολιτικής. Εξηγούμαι:

Βιέννη, Δεκέμβρης 2024. Οργανισμός για την Ασφάλεια και Συνεργασία στην Ευρώπη – ΟΑΣΕ.  Σύνοδος ΥΠΕΞ των συμμετεχόντων κρατών. Θέμα: Εκλογή νέου Γενικού Γραμματέα του Οργανισμού. Βαρύτατη η ευθύνη του Κωνσταντίνου Κόμπου: συναίνεσε αμαχητί στην εκλογή του Τούρκου βετεράνου διπλωμάτη Σινιρλίογλου στην κορυφή της ηγετικής πυραμίδας του μοναδικού πολυμερούς Ευρασιατικού Οργανισμού Ασφάλειας. Είναι η πρώτη φορά που εκλέγεται Τούρκος στην ηγεσία ΟΑΣΕ για τριετή θητεία. Με την σύμφωνο γνώμη του Κόμπου. Ο καθένας μπορεί να ανατρέξει στο διαδίκτυο και να μάθει ποιος είναι ο Feridun Sinirlioglu …

Χωρίς κανένα απολύτως αντάλλαγμα! Εκλογή του Τούρκου Εν Λευκώ!

Σε μια απέλπιδα προσπάθεια μου να λύσω τον επί χρόνια Άλυτο … Κόμπο υπέδειξα ότι είμαι εγκεκριμένος διαμεσολαβητής ΟΑΣΕ εδώ και μια δεκαετία, αποφοιτήσας της Διπλωματικής του Ακαδημίας προ εικοσαετίας (2003). Μολαταύτα ουδέποτε κλήθηκα σε αποστολή του Οργανισμού. Το γεγονός αυτό και μόνο οφείλεται στην ανεπάρκεια και αναποτελεσματικότητα του Υπουργείου των Εξω … φρενικών. Πού είναι το Γραφείο Προώθησης των Κυπρίων Ειδημόνων για Πρόσληψη στους Διεθνείς Οργανισμούς; Άλυτος Κόμπος! Πόσο μακριά θα φτάσεις με τους έξι άξονες της εξωτερικής πολιτικής; Και δεκάξι να ΄χεις αν δεν έχεις τους ανθρώπους σου στους διεθνείς οργανισμούς, πως θα ασκήσεις επιρροή; Εκατό τριάντα δύο εκατομμύρια ευρώ σού εγκρίνει η Βουλή για το Υπουργείο ετησίως, δεν μπορείς να διαθέσεις δύο, να παλέψεις τον διορισμό Κυπρίων προσοντούχων;

Αλλά είπαμε, χρόνια τώρα, συσκέψεις και συναντήσεις και ανεμογκάστρι! Υπέβαλα στο νεαρότερο Κωνσταντίνο Κόμπο ότι όφειλε στα πλαίσια της υπηρεσίας του προς αυτό το ημι-κατεχόμενο από την Τουρκία κράτος, να εξαργυρώσει τουλάχιστον την συναίνεση του στην εκλογή Σινιρλίογλου, με απτό αντάλλαγμα: την τοποθέτηση μου σε σημαίνουσα – τη βάσει προσόντων και αποφοίτησης της Διπλωματικής Ακαδημίας Βιέννης – θέση στη Γραμματεία ΟΑΣΕ, σφήνα στον Τούρκο διπλωμάτη. Εφόσον η συναίνεση του ήτο μονόδρομος, όπως διατεινόταν. Αυτό επέβαλλε η εξυπηρέτηση των Κυπριακών συμφερόντων. Αντ’ αυτού επέλεξε το μηδενικό για την Κύπρο αποτέλεσμα αφού η Άγκυρα μπλόκαρε την υποψηφιότητα του για την προεδρία του 2026 … Εύγε Άλυτε Κόμπε!

Είκοσι δύο χρόνια στην  αίθουσα αναμονής για μια θέση στον ΟΑΣΕ, κτίζω διεθνείς διασυνδέσεις για την Κύπρο μας  με έξοδα από την τσέπη μου. Σε διηπειρωτικές διαδρομές που με βρίσκουν από το Τόκιο μέχρι το Μπουένος Άιρες. Σε πέραν των εξήντα χωρών …

Ουδέν έπραξεν ο Κόμπος! Θέτοντας το σε πρώην υπουργό, μού  υπέδειξε με νόημα: Ουδείς πράττει ουδέν!

For several decades the international system has seen a concern about the so-called North-South divide. This divide encompassed a gap between the advanced industrial world and the so-called third-world that encompassed Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia. In more specific terms it was an economic gap, best indicated by a much lower standard of living outside of Europe and North America.

Even before the end of the Cold War, the Mediterranean saw increasing numbers of illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, and refugees from war zones coming from the Middle East, North Africa, the Indian subcontinent, and of course Sub-Saharan Africa. Hundreds of thousands of refugees began crossing the Mediterranean fleeing from war zones, civil wars, and of course last but not least economic conditions that were not acceptable anymore given the opportunities that people in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America saw in the advanced industrial democratic world. This gap was compounded by the fact that the demographic growth in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia was not economically sustainable. Rising expectations saw then millions of people trying to move into Europe. In 2019 alone, 2.7 million immigrants from non-EU countries entered the EU.

As refugee and immigration crises in the European Union have shown neither national governments nor the European Union institutions have been able to develop a systematic or coherent approach in dealing with constant conflicts in the Middle East or Africa. The end of the cold war had welcomed the idea of peace in our time, but as Samuel P. Huntington prophetically outlined in his essay and eventual book The Clash if Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, the international system was going to see a constant conflict between the secular democratic Euro-American world and as it turned out, the Islamic and Chinese world. The wars in the Persian Gulf, the Near East and the rise of Islamic terrorism in Africa, Europe and Asia followed the traumatic attack by a handful of radical Islamic terrorists on New York. By 2021 the consequences could be seen through the American retreat from Afghanistan. That country had been the breeding ground for the attacks on New York. The United States, Britain and other Western countries came to be humiliated by the Taliban’s victory. 

The Taliban victory in Afghanistan saw hundreds of thousands more refugees trying to enter Europe principally through Turkey and Belarus. Radical Islam wrote a new chapter in the history of the Islamic world. 

The constant international crisis that precipitated a flow of immigrants and refugees to Europe demonstrated increasingly the inability of the European Union and the United Kingdom to resolve an issue that challenged in the final analysis European culture, European economic wellbeing and societal sustainability. The rise of political parties that articulated the apprehension, fears and anxiety of widespread strata of the European population accepting non-European and Islamic newcomers, legal and illegal in France, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Germany for example, were symptomatic of future political instability. The inability of European countries to agree on common policies of protecting European borders and even developing a defensive mechanism outside the framework of NATO speaks of structural deficiencies in European strategic decision making.

Immigration was in the final analyses fueled by demographic growth in   Africa, the Middle East and South Asia. Governments in Europe were unable to respond to the increasing expectations of the populations of those regimes. The population of Egypt had reached by 2020 102.3 million, Pakistan 220.9 million, Bangladesh 164 million, Ethiopia 115 million, and Nigeria 206.1 million; these are examples of what Europe was going to face. Increasing mass communications and transportation allowed millions of people to enter Europe. 

European governments seem unable to coordinate a policy that could cope with the increasing movement of people from the developing world towards Western Europe and North America. The issue of illegal immigration was of concern to many societies in Asia, Latin America, and Africa to the extent that economic concern lead many people to move from one nation to another. For example, the case of Bangladesh stands out, hundreds of thousands of Bangladeshis were moving into India generating social, economic and social conflicts. And in the case of Africa, millions of people were moving across the continent with spill over into North Africa and Libya. In turn, hundreds of thousands of Africans were trying to cross the Mediterranean into Italy, Spain and Greece to reach the promised land: the European Union.

The sustainability of such movements did not and does not seem to concern international organizations and NGOs that were and are interested in bringing refugees to Europe. Inevitably, the issue of settling refugees, providing employment and preventing cultural clashes was the subject of much debate but with no solution in sight.

Critical debates on sustainability and climate change did not necessarily address themselves to the catastrophic problem of population growth and food supplies. In fact, the reluctance of some countries such as India, Indonesia and China to comprehend the anxieties of industrial states and European and North American activists was to be expected. Beijing, Delhi and Jakarta were by far more concerned with their populations and their standard of living. Rising expectations could not be postponed because they could be a cause of political instability. The demand for fossil fuels was not decreasing as energy was crucial to the creation of a higher standard of living for hundreds of people in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Immigration is bound to be the biggest challenge for the European Union and Britain. Illegal immigrants from the Middle East were coming to France to cross the channel as others were trying to come through the Italian peninsula to enter Switzerland and Germany. The soft underbellies of the European Union, Italy, Spain and Greece continue to be so. Countries such as Belarus and Turkey use the movement of immigrants into the European Union as a tool for gaining concessions from Brussels and individual European countries. The president of Turkey Erdogan had been successful earlier (in 2015) in gaining financial support from the European Union and Germany to stop the flow of Islamic immigrants into the continent. Hundreds and thousands of refugees from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan could become a great tool for gaining concessions from the European Union and single European states whose power is becoming ever more marginal. 

The trend in international conferences shaped by Western powers and NGOs on climate change, sustainability, energy and food security, and human rights should be understood in the context of an overwhelming demographic shift that does not seem to enter into the political calculus of Western decision makers and their constituents. 

Above all, Mavroyiannis’ election would have passed the message to the neo-Ottoman government of Ankara that the Republic of Cyprus is not only not ‘defunct’ – the Turkish government misses no opportunity to claim that it is – but that the RoC is instead alive and kicking, widely respected and powerful enough to lead international fora despite the neo-Sultan’s wish and steadfast policy of denying us access to such fora. Alas, this golden opportunity to slap Ankara on the face was missed! But why was it so? Who defeated us and why?

Let us look into the facts. Mavroyiannis candidature was fielded at an early day. Already two years ago, he started his campaign with the full support of the Cypriot Foreign Ministry. Human resources were mobilized and particular funds from the MFA budget were allocated to make sure his campaign is successful. At the time of the submission of the candidatures, not so long ago, more than 120 UN member-states signed up supporting him. President of the Republic Nicos Anastasiades has sent letters to all heads of state, members of the UNO. Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides and government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides rushed to Washington-New York to ensure full backing of Mavroyiannis. Hours before the vote the Cypriot delegation at the UN expressed optimism expecting Mavroyiannis to clinch over 100 votes in the ballot – while in Lefkosia presidential aides at the Palace even expected 120 – out of 193 eligible to vote. Yet he was defeated by a narrow margin of four votes: 90 against 94 for Peter Thomson of Fiji Islands – once known as Cannibal Isles – of South Pacific Ocean. Why was Mavroyiannis’ victory overturned and … ‘cannibalised’ by Cannibal Isles?

Nicos Emiliou, Cyprus’ UN Permanent Representative, publicly charged after the vote that the US, the UK and the Scandinavian countries, including Norway – home country of UN SG Special Adviser Espen Bath Eida – but excluding Denmark voted against. Clearly, the key policy notion of solidarity did not enter the minds of the diplomats of our rich EU partners of the European North. Where is the Common Foreign Policy of our club? Is the EU a single bloc on the international plane or an assortment of countries of all sorts of orientations and policies? What does Norway, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland have in common with … Fiji – Φύκι (Greek word literally meaning ‘seaweed’, metaphorically used to denote ‘triviality’ and ‘insignificance’). As the commonality of interests of our European partners with Fiji is absolutely insignificant (φύκια!) we are naturally led to the conclusion that they together with permanent Security Council members UK and US wanted to … cannibalise, i.e. is to launch a ferocious attack aiming at defeating Mavroyiannis, employing for this purpose the long neglected existence of the … Cannibal Isles!

The US-UK antiques can only be described as farcical: on the declaratory level they pretend that they uphold the sovereignty and international standing of the RoC; on the practical level they think of the … Cannibal Isles – of which only 100 out of 322 are inhabited – as of superior international standing and diplomatic capacity to that of the Republic of Cyprus!

By the way is Rick Todd’s, the – now erstwhile – British High Commissioner in Lefkosia, sudden departure related to the above debacle and souring of Anglo-Cypriot relations? We wonder …

As to US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland’s argument that Mavroyiannis better performs as Chief Negotiator in the Cyprus Talks, we have no comment: is there anybody out there who believes that the negotiations are getting anywhere? For the past forty years the negotiations have established themselves, under various names and guises, as our favourite pastime while the results of Turkish aggression are consolidated year in year out.

Fellow Cypriot citizens: please check on the list of the countries who voted for our candidate: it may get us some way ahead in identifying who are our true allies …

It seems that the Ukrainian authorities entertain an ulterior motive in their talk about UN peacekeepers and EU police mission. In the near future, on the initiative of Kiev (in all probability following US wishes), this issue will be discussed by the UN Security Council.

Russia, for its part, has already stated that the latest Minsk agreement should just be observed and made it clear that there is not much of a point in these missions. Moscow places utmost importance to the implementation of the painstakingly negotiated 12th February Minsk Agreement. According to the provisions of the ceasefire agreement, the self-declared republics of Donetsk and Luhansk are to create their own police forces. The OSCE will hold observation missions of the separatist area. Naturally, if some other schemes are immediately put forward, the question arises if the Minsk agreement is going to be implemented, Vitaly Churkin, Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, wondered.

What do the Americans and Kiev really seek? A repetition of the Kosovo model? A UN peacekeeping mission, even with the participation of Russia, as the first step to legitimization of foreign military presence in Ukraine? Then an EU police mission can become the follow-up measure designed to preserve the status quo and keep the national liberation movement in Novorossia within the borders of the ‘Donetsk People’s Republic’ and the ‘Luhansk People’s Republic’. If the Europeans balk at the consequences, the Americans will accuse everyone of unwillingness to settle the conflict and will continue to bolster up Kiev’s punitive forces with military counselors, mercenaries and weapons which Washington has long been supplying directly and indirectly through its NATO allies.

Interestingly, Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor is not keen in further militarizing the conflict by sending more weapons to the Kiev government. Sensing the distance Berlin keeps from Washington, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin stated that Germany should take more responsibility for the resolution of conflicts in Europe and monitor the compliance of the latest Minsk agreement. In other words Klimkin says that Europe should not allow the US to expose Europe as unable of solving problems of regional security.

Not without reason, Russia is watchful of the Western NATO-driven Kosovo model ‘peacekeeping ideas. The self-proclaimed people’s republics of eastern Ukraine do not put much trust to the current Kiev authorities, neither to the US nor to the EU. Naturally, the pro-Russian Easterners understand that their future depends on themselves including their resolve to fight for freedom with arms. And the number of such people in the East of Ukraine is growing.

The military approach in Ukraine offers no solution. The toll in loss of human life and human suffering is already high and only bound to rise if armed confrontation is allowed to continue. The government in Kiev claims that more than hundred twenty Ukrainian service personnel have been killed so far in clashes with pro-Russian separatists in the eastern provinces, scores of rebel fighters have also perished along with an identified number of civilians. The latter group, the civilian population is, as always in such civil war situations, caught in the middle of crossfire and tragically victimized. It is reported that the Russian speaking population of eastern Ukraine in fear of their lives flee into bordering areas of the Russian Federation thus exacerbating the humanitarian crisis.

The ferocity of the clashes in the eastern city of Luhansk is also reflected in the list of casualties among foreign media correspondents. Western and Russian reporters are treated alike by shelling and mortar fire. This is a worrying phenomenon: last month, an Italian photographer and his Russian translator were killed in the crossfire. A couple of days ago, a young Russian state television reporter was killed after his position was shelled in clashes between Ukrainian forces and Russian-speaking fighters near Luhansk while his sound technician went missing.

Violence leads to more violence and endless human suffering. It does not provide solutions but only complicates human reconciliation. Newly elected President Petro Poroshenko was ill-advised to order an attack by government forces on the rebels in the east in order to regain territory under the control of separatists. In this way the conflict is exacerbated and the loss of human life and suffering on both sides is mounting. Irrespective of the outcome of the armed conflict both the government in Kiev and the separatists leadership will have to eventually sit around the negotiating table to discuss the future governance of their country. They cannot escape from dialogue. When exhausted from fighting they will discuss. Common sense tells: why not cease fire and start the political process now saving lives of fellow Ukrainian people.

Thus a ceasefire agreement is a first and foremost prerequisite. At the same time it is a dire need in order to halt the unfolding humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine. President Poroshenko is best advised to order this ceasefire. Having earned a fresh people’s mandate to run the country he has to show leadership. Last month’s mandate is the source of his power but also the endorsement of the reconciliation process. Poroshenko was elected President of the Ukrainian people in their entirety. He constitutionally represents all Ukrainians of every hue, creed and mother tongue and not only a sect of them. Thus he should dispel sectarianism from his thoughts.

While ordering his troops to stop the attacks, Poroshenko needs to make a plea to the rebels to lay down their arms, guarantee safe passage out of their strongholds and above all offer a general amnesty. All the above are sine qua non conditions for consolidating the political dialogue which will determine the political future of the country.

In the current context of armed confrontation, the primary objective should be to seek institutional and political arrangements which contain, if not eliminate, the strife within the country as rapidly as possible. Ceasefire, amnesty and political dialogue is the order of today – not tomorrow!

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.

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…

On either side of the Aegean Sea a Greek tragedy, in its full sense and extent, is being performed before our eyes. As the whole world witnesses the unfolding multiple Greek tragedy – huge foreign debt leading to economic, institutional and above all moral crisis – Greece’s eastern neighbour, Turkey, shows clear signs that in taking advantage of the Greek predicament, is bent on performing a central part of the Greek tragedy: hubris.

No doubt the incumbent Turkish ruling elite seeking to resurrect (or enliven) the former ‘Ottoman space’ – eloquently described by Prof. Davutoglu, Turkey’s foreign policy boss, as ‘strategic depth’ – remembers too well the story of the modern Greek hubris, enacted at the dawn of the last century. The Hellenic Army’s Asia Minor expedition (1919-22), part and parcel of the Great Idea of the resurrection of the Byzantine Empire through the capture of the nascent Turkish capital of Ankara (the Greek vision of the creation of the Great Hellas of the two Continents and the Five Seas), ended up in the routing of the Greek Armed Forces and the concomitant disorderly expulsion of a million and a half Greeks from their millennia-old ancestral homeland. Naturally the whole sad affair did register in the Greek collective memory as Mikrasiatiki (Asia Minor) Catastrophe while on the other hand the Turkish official historiography registered the same event as ‘the Great War of Independence against imperialist aggression’.

Times have changed. Great ideas rise and fall. Today, the Ankara-based Turkish leadership exercising full control of the geostrategically located Anatolian peninsula, is presumptuously driven by the deceiving force of hubris, which the Greeks first experienced in ancient times, and sadly tasted its bitter fruits also in modern times.

What, then, is hubris? An excess of ambition transgressing into sheer arrogance. If the ancient Greek wisdom serves us right, such an excessive behaviour ultimately causes the transgressor’s ruin.

The list of Turkish instances of hubris is long, to say the least. The last hundred years have been littered with such incidents. The Turkish ruling elite have not reconciled themselves with their sinful Ottoman past, the bitter experience of which stubbornly refuses to weather away from the living memory of Albanians, Arabs, Bulgarians, Greeks, Romanians and Serbs alike. Instead of repentance, contrition and apology, the Gul-Erdogan-Davutoglu arrogant trio have been busy whitewashing the Ottoman (and Young Turk) record while continuing down the beaten path of bulling around, throwing their weight in every possible direction and coining the whole process as ‘zero problems with neighbours’.

What is the Turkish ruling trio record then? Let us briefly examine the latest developments in Turkey’s domestic and … pacifying neighbourhood policy. For what is worth, the much-trumpeted time-honoured Ataturkian slogan ‘peace at home, peace in the world’ resonates in my mind …

1. Turkish-Armenian Relations 

Ankara refuses to put an end to the historical row by offering a long due unequivocal apology to the Armenian people and their government on account of the 1915 Armenian Genocide; a move that, by all accounts, forms the linchpin of the normalization matrix in the relations between the two historical neighbours. Furthermore, opening of the sealed-off Armenian border would greatly help bilateral trade to flourish as envisaged in the relevant protocol signed between the two countries. Instead of doing so, Erdogan thunders against Nicolas Sarkozy, seeking to register on the Euro-Turkish agenda an examination of the wrongdoings in France’s colonial past. Is contemporary Turkish-Armenian history fabrication and the economic suffocation of Lilliputian, impoverished Armenia a dictate of Davutoglu’s zero-problems-with-neighbours policy?

2. Israeli Occupation of Gaza & Turkish Occupation of Northern Cyprus.

All of a sudden in the last couple of years, Tayyip Erdogan became very vocal championing the Palestinian refugee rights and challenging on multiple fronts the Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip, lambasting Israeli policies that suffocate the destitute and hopeless Gaza residents. An independent observer would ask the self-assertive Turkish PM: Erdogan-effendi, what about your powerful army’s 37 year-old occupation of two-fifths of Cyprus territory? What about the inalienable human rights of 160,000 Greek Cypriots? Are there no UN resolutions on Cyprus that Turkey has long been due to comply with? Such a selective sensitivity on human rights on your behalf.

3. Treatment of Minorities in Turkey.

In the space of this short article it is an impossible task even to list the sheer number, let alone to analyze the seriousness of flagrant violations of fundamental human rights of minorities in Turkey. Let us confine our reference on this vital issue to the latest developments on the front of the sizeable Kurdish minority. The Kurds form eighteen per cent of the country’s 79 million population – ironically of exactly the same size as the Turkish minority in the Republic of Cyprus for whom Ankara demands ‘political equality’ – loosely interpreted as sharing power with the eighty per cent Greek majority on a fifty-fifty basis. The number of internally displaced persons due to 27 years of fighting exceeds one million people, while around 30,000 lost their lives.

The Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan has been perishing in solitary confinement in a Turkish jail since 1999 while 3000 Kurdish activists continue to be under detention. The civil rights of 20 million Kurds have gradually been eroded. The novelist and Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was charged and tried for “public denigration of Turkish identity”, after mentioning in a 2005 interview that “30,000 Kurds and a million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it”. The EU has recently called on Turkey to bring its justice system into line with international standards and amend its anti-terrorism legislation. (The Guardian, 6 Oct 2011)

Obviously, the Turkish policy of suppressing Kurdish identity failed dismally. However, there are no prospects for a political settlement granting the Kurds the longed-for autonomy. On the contrary, in recent weeks the international community witnesses an upsurge in violent clashes between the TAF and Kurdish freedom fighters. Only yesterday (13 Oct 2011) a policeman and a Kurdish rebel were killed in yet another shooting incident in Iskenderun (Alexandretta).

4. Freedom of Expression: An Abominable Record …

Only this month The Guardian also reported that “the International Press Institute has expressed ‘serious concern‘ at the continued imprisonment of at least 64 journalists and named Turkey as the country with the ‘highest number of journalists in prison in the world’ – surpassing Iran and China”. However, a year ago, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, the well known Chatham House, London awarded Mr. Gul its annual prize in recognition of his role behind many of the positive steps that Turkey has taken in recent years and as a significant figure for reconciliation and moderation within Turkey and internationally. Laughing stock or thinly disguised quasi-official British aiding and abetting in state of the art Turkish hubris?

5. Escalation of Tension in the Eastern Mediterranean. 

Far from withdrawing its troops from the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, as stipulated in numerous UN resolutions, Ankara openly and audaciously challenges the sovereign rights of the RoC emanating from the Law of the Sea. To this day, Ankara failed to become a party to the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, Montego Bay, Jamaica, 10 Dec 1982). Nevertheless, Turkey has already extended its territorial waters into the Black and Mediterranean Sea to twelve nautical miles, a provision allowed to UNCLOS signatories. Both Cyprus and Greece signed and ratified UNCLOS. Yet neither have so far dared to extend their territorial waters to the limit allowed by the international convention, paying extra attention not to provoke non-signatory Turkey, which in its zero-problems-with-neighbours policy framework … threatens them with war in case they do so.

But that’s an old story from the eighties – not much has changed: the Fourth Turkish Army (Aegean Army) based on the Eastern shores of the Aegean Sea has since been in full swing with thousands of marines manning a well-equipped fleet of landing vessels ready to land, if need be, on the Dodecanese, Greece. (Interestingly the 40,000-strong occupation force in Cyprus forms part of the Aegean Army Command structure).

In the last eight years Cyprus signed Exclusive Economic Zone delimitation agreements with all its neighbours – save Greece and Turkey. Egypt (2003) and Israel (2010) ratified the EEZ agreements. The parliament in Beirut has not done so. However, the Lebanese Foreign Ministry is sending experts this week to Nicosia in order to iron out not-too-important differences in the agreement concerning the interface of the three zones (Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel).

In the last couple of months, sniffing the smell of the vast reserves of natural gas in Cyprus’ southern EEZ, the neo-Ottoman administration in Ankara is orchestrating a tension escalation plan in the Eastern Mediterranean. Having expelled the Israeli ambassador, on account of Israel’s refusal to issue a formal apology on the killing of nine Turkish activists aboard the ‘Mavi Marmara’, pay compensation and lift the Gaza blockade (September 2011), Ankara reportedly exercises pressure on Egypt and Lebanon to rescind their EEZ agreements with Cyprus.

A couple of weeks ago, Ankara sent out its own oceanographic vessel, the forty-year old ill-equipped Piri-Reis along with a commissioned more technologically advanced Norwegian vessel. Both are still meddling in Cyprus’ EEZ. Once more, this flagrant provocation is taken in contravention of international law and flies in the face of statements issued by the EU, US and Russia calling for respect of the Republic of Cyprus’ sovereign right to exploit its natural resources lying below the seabed of its EEZ.

In yet another act of defiance, according to the government-leaning Turkish daily ‘Bugun’, the Turkish Armed Forces General Staff have mapped out a three-stage patrolling plan of ten hot spots in the Eastern Mediterranean divided according to their TAF-inspired importance into blue, yellow and red categories. The first stage of Turkish navy muscle flexing in Mediterranean waters will reach its peak on 15 November 2011, the 28th anniversary of the ‘TRNC’s UDI. The second stage will last till May 15, 2012, while the third till August 15, 2012 marking once more the 38th anniversary of the Attila II Cyprus invasion operation.

Yet again, Turkey’s hubris appears limitless: Recep Tayyip Erdogan, in an authentic neo-Sultan fashion, asserts to dictate to the EU who among its own members, is entitled to assume the European club’s presidency, and who is not. The audacious Turk signaled that he would call off his country’s EU accession talks in case Cyprus takes the EU helm in July 2012.

For one, the international community of statesmen will need one day soon, to congratulate the neo-Ottoman trio for implementing the (originally Greek) concept of hubris in its no-limits contemporary version …

* Dr Yiorghos Leventis is the Director of International Security Forum

Hits: 4016

Comments  

Does Erdogan deserve to lead the arabic world?
written by Titou titos, October 15, 2011 

Leaders have many characteristics from wisdom to bravery. I dont see how Erdogan can possibly be one of the many worthy historic leaders of the Arabic world since he has been caught on video not only falling off his high horse but also being kicked in the balls – by the horse (pls search youtube: Erdogan horse falls). He should see this as a message and realize that he will be kicked in the balls if he climbs again on his “high horse”.

professor University of Belgrade
written by Darko Tanasković, October 16, 2011 
Excellent and acute analysis of the actual neo-ottoman case of the historically well known disease common to all subjects on the international scene that are at the same time challenged and conditioned by the insolent pride born out of some relative and fallacious successes on the path of an imaginary world glory.  

A nery nice article
written by Christos Alexandrou, October 17, 2011 

Dr Leventis wrote a very deep and serius article.That not because a brilliat academic but also because his Greek. That mean carry out and lives the historical experiences and evets.

turkey will not be dictated to either
written by kodlu, October 17, 2011 

.. strip away what erdogan writes for *internal* consumption, but there is no way a weakened EU and other institutions can take turkey for granted and dictate to her either, the leverage has disappeared since the man on the street in turkey can see that entering eu is no longer desirable. i do believe that erdogan is bluster to an extent, but not 100% bluster.

you can now return to your mutual admiration session, no it is not necessary to be a greek to write a nice article 🙂  

Journalist
written by Xenia Economidou, October 17, 2011

“Whoever wishes to foresee the future must consult the past; for human events ever resemble those of preceding times. This arises from the fact that they are produced by men who ever have been, and ever shall be, animated by the same passions, and thus they necessarily have the same results”.
Machiavelli

What is the USA’s part in this?
written by Benjamin Pomeroy, October 17, 2011 

It is a widely known truth that the leadership of powerful nations, and even those with little real international clout, suffers from hubris to a certain extent. In recent times, the country exhibiting arguably the most hubris with regard to global politics and getting away with it has been the United States of America. Indeed, especially since World War II, the USA has been known to throw around its economic, political, and military weight to get what it wants. With a multifaceted strangle hold on the Americas, a formidable presence in the Middle East, and Asia, among numerous (perhaps all) other points of the globe, the USA is no stranger to excessive arrogance in the global sphere.
With this in mind, an informed observer can see that fortune smiles on those nations which, by some stroke of fate or luck, have a beneficial relationship with the USA. Such a nation, protected by the USA, might easily conclude that it could exhibit a large degree of its own hubris; more so than it would without the comforting presence of the United States’ support. Turkey, at least until the Iraq War of 2003, has enjoyed exactly this type of close relationship with the USA, giving it a platform to stand on in defiance of the International Community’s calls for reform.
It will be interesting to see how the change in Turkey’s relationship with the USA post President Bush might affect the degree to which Turkey continues to exhibit hubristic behaviors vis a vis its neighbors. The USA has also historically supported Israel in a similar manner; a nation that repeatedly gets away with a large degree of hubristic acts. It is interesting to note Turkey’s sudden sympathy with the Palestinians; a new stance on an issue that is decades old. This (though less so now that the USA is more publically denouncing Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians) is a challenge to one of the USA’s close political allies, and is thus an indirect challenge to the USA itself. This might conceivably reflect the changing relationship between the USA and Turkey.

…
written by Athanasios Fragkis, October 18, 2011 

The recent actions of the Turkish leadership should be assessed as part of the global picture rather than as an attempt for local dominance.
The post Tohoku catastrophe need to a shift from nuclear energy dependency to alternative forms in the long run, and additional fossil fuels in the short run, taken together with the (not so recent) discovery of natural gas and oil in the eastern Med.on one hand. The change in progress in the last few years, that sees the centres of power moving from US/America to Asia,provide some clue as to who is pulling the strings of the later day sultan.

Government Employee
written by kate Sorokou, October 23, 2011 

It is an excellent article, full of truths and insights, as to what might happen further, in our country, in the near future. Unfortunately we the greeks never learn from our past or struggles against our enemies.

…
written by Lina, Vilnius, October 26, 2011 

Thank you. It is a very interesting article. I understand about the situation of Cyprus better now.

Dr. and Lecturer in British history and Literature, Ionian University
written by William Mallinson, October 26, 2011 

A pithy piece, reaching the parts that many pieces do not reach. Of course, much of the problem lies in the fact that the US, Britain and even the EU tend to turn a blind eye to Turkish excesses. Some years ago, the British FCO wrote: ‘Turkey must be regarded as more important to Western strategic interests than Greece and that,if risks must be run, they should be risks of further straining Greek rathr than Turkish rekations withb the West.’ Charming! Things are the same today,perhaps with different colours. I have one quibble, about the Asia Minor campaign. I have copies of documents from the British National Archives that betray considerable Foreign Office irritation with Mr. Venizelos for allowing the Greek army to advance further than had been agreed.It is a shame that a man who had done so much for Greecethen went and spoiled much of what he had achieved by over-enthusiasm.

…
written by Michael Olympios, October 31, 2011 

Very well written. I could add that Turkey’s economic prosperity and importance as a regional power has rendered its administration arrogant. Turkey’s foreign policy agenda went astray and growing skepticism in the west may hinder on its ambition to become a full member state in the EU.

…
written by Tsvetan Radev, November 03, 2011 

Good article. Turkish attitude towards its neighbours is a well discussed topic in Bulgaira too. Especially the attempts of interference in internal affairs and the Neo Otoman policy of Davutoglu, planning to restore Turkish influence in the previous Ottoman borders.

In politically unstable countries like Ukraine and Georgia, changes have ironic characteristics. They might often and suddenly change again. The reason for this might be the fact that both Ukraine and Georgia are substantial interest for much bigger political actors. Unfortunately their foreign policies are influenced by the global powers to a great extent. Nevertheless, at present, one might dare to conclude what NATO’s new strategic concept really means for those two Eastern European countries. It seems that after Lisbon NATO integration supporters in Kiev and Tbilisi have far less reasons for optimism than they did a couple of years ago.

Since the post-Cold War period NATO allies always have been sorting out membership applicant countries in groups. That was the case with the Visegrad Group, the Baltic, Eastern European and Western Balkan states. It is the policy through which NATO guides its enlargement processes. Therefore it is no coincidence that Georgia and Ukraine also have been put together in the same ‘enlargement basket’ since their peaceful revolutions in late 2003 and early 2005 respectively.

A lot of commonalities between Ukraine and Georgia designated this NATO decision. First and foremost, the peaceful nature of both revolutions, followed by quite swift reforms in a great deal of spheres. Importantly their official firm declaration on their NATO bid. This prompt shift in foreign policy of both states was met by a significant deterioration of their relations with Moscow. However, both the Yushchenko and Saakashvili governments firmly kept on their road towards NATO integration claiming that they were then ready more than ever for starting the Membership Action Plan (MAP), which constitutes the membership framework.

Although, before the NATO Bucharest summit in April 2008, Georgia and Ukraine were truly closer than ever for being granted the MAP, their chances were not that high. On the second day of the summit a group of member states led by Germany and France cut off all hopes for Georgian and Ukrainian delegations with regard to MAP. However, the most important and truly tremendous political achievement has been reached. The NATO member states agreed ‘that these countries will become members of NATO’. However, no specific time was voiced.

Later in the same year, instead of MAP, the two NATO aspirant countries were granted a new formal, however less significant, Annual National Programmes framework. The ANPs were meant to help ‘Georgia and Ukraine advance their reforms’. Then, notwithstanding a huge backing from George W. Bush administration, NATO allies did not take the risk of giving Ukraine and Georgia the MAP, which would be a clear message to Kremlin that NATO stands by those post-Soviet states and relations between the West and Russia would have suffered another extreme strain.

Now already having a new NATO strategic concept on the table, the situation is completely different. The Bucharest summit decisions marked a turning point in NATO-Georgia and NATO-Ukraine bilateral relations and paved the way for the Russia-Georgian war in South Ossetia in August 2008. To be more precise, the Bucharest decision stopped and afterwards reversed considerable progress made by Georgia and Ukraine during 2003-2008. The Lisbon summit was the first time when those two countries were treated separately. Moreover, despite the Bucharest summit promise of NATO membership in the unspecified future, after Lisbon, the Alliance is viewing their membership aspirations as a very long-term issue.

Opened Door for Georgia?

The new strategic concept reaffirms the pledge given to Georgia three years ago with all its provisions and ‘subsequent decisions’. This actually means that it will step in the NATO door sometime in the future when it is ready and meets all the requirements set in the article 10 of the North Atlantic Treaty. These criteria are quite indefinite and give NATO decision makers the possibility to politically interpret progress made by the applicant country. The Lisbon declaration actually quotes the meaning of the Washington Treaty’s article 10 and states that ‘NATO’s door will remain open to all European democracies which share the values of our Alliance, which are willing and able to assume the responsibilities and obligations of membership, which are in a position to further the principles of the Treaty, and whose inclusion can contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area’. 

Despite a lot of mistakes made by the Georgian young government mainly due to inexperience and fast forward reforms, the country achieved significant progress in terms of combating corruption and instituting economic, political, military and institutional reforms. However, when it comes to democratic values and foremost to the contribution to the security of the North Atlantic area, lots of question marks arise. Although, Georgia is one of the largest contributors (924 men) to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan (that is proportionate to its population), it is considered by the NATO giant members as a potential threat that will definitely emerge for the Europeans due to Russia’s strong opposition. The South Ossetia war in 2008 was an additional proof that Georgia cannot get closer to the Alliance as far as Europe and now even the United States, (which is the strongest supporter of Georgia’s NATO bid) will not sacrifice their cooperation with Russia in a wide spectrum of issues. This include non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, energy security and especially the global missile defence system that brings Russia in stabilising threats coming from Iran, North Korea and Middle East. All these problematic issues are the priorities of the new NATO strategic concept, which again puts the Georgian membership aspect in the second if not third basket of priorities.

The main obstacles for Georgia to become NATO member obviously are Russia’s severe and hysterical opposition, which could be also connected to the second big barrier – Germany’s and France’s categorical ‘no-go’. Since Russia’s military intervention in Georgia in 2008 and naming the NATO eastern enlargement as a national security threat in its new military doctrine adopted in February 2010, made clear that Georgia’s NATO integration will be very painful for all global and local actors in the South Caucasus region.

The third big problematic issue is Georgia’s internal conflicts. They continue to be the main obstacle for Georgia in the very long run. Russia unilaterally recognised independence of the two breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Inversely, the West unanimously supports Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, which also has been reiterated in the new strategic concept. In this respect, it is not likely that on the one hand, the US’s and the EU’s, and on the other hand, Russia’s interests will merge. However, even under these circumstances Kremlin definitely keeps de facto veto power over Georgia’s membership ambitions in NATO.

Will Georgia Continue Down the NATO Path? 

Under these circumstances for Georgia’s decision makers the question whether Georgia’s pro-NATO course is pragmatic and reasonable arises. However, the overwhelming majority of Georgia’s population (76%) supports not only becoming a part of the most successful political-military organization in world’s history, but also the country’s pro-European and pro-Western orientation perceptions.

Considering the new strategic concept’s character and goals, the future of NATO-Georgia bilateral relations will further develop, however, mainly confined within partnership frameworks such as the NATO-Georgia Commission and a bunch of annual bureaucratic meetings that are constantly assessing Georgia’s progress. In this regard, one should point out that if nothing significantly changes in the world’s political arena, particularly in the West-Russia’s relations, Georgia’s even most democratic reforms will not break the deadlock in favour of Tbilisi.

The Case of Ukraine

As for Ukraine, the Lisbon summit was much clearer. It was just a repercussion of the Ukraine’s non-block decision made soon after the new government of Victor Yanukovych took office in 2010. The Lisbon declaration states that NATO is ‘recognising the sovereign right of each nation to freely choose its security arrangements, we respect Ukraine’s policy of “non-bloc” status’.

It would not be an exaggeration if we say that first Ukraine itself and then the Lisbon summit cut all ties regarding membership. Only after five years Ukraine’s desperate sprint towards NATO’s ‘opened’ door has been stopped like it never existed at all. Following the Lisbon summit declaration and the new strategic concept it produced, it is not that hard to notice that the indefinite future ‘Bucharest promise’ of NATO membership vanished from the political agendas of NATO, Ukraine and even Russia. Now NATO talks just about further cooperation, deepening partnership and how important for NATO is to have ‘a stable, democratic and economically prosperous Ukraine’.

Such a U-turn in Ukraine’s foreign policy could be explained by a number of reasons. First of all, this is a country which has a big 45 million population and Russia cannot afford watching her going into NATO’s sphere of influence. It is too crucial for Russia. Kremlin’s growing ambitions will not let another loss of post-Soviet state happen. Under these circumstances, NATO does not have sufficient capacity and is not yet ready to fight for bringing Ukraine under its influence.

Secondly, the majority of Ukraine’s population, especially the Eastern part which is densely populated by ethnic Russians opposes country’s NATO integration.

Thirdly, Ukraine’s geo-strategic location affords Kiev (like Moldova) to counterbalance between Russia and the West without NATO membership, which is less applicable in Georgia’s case. However, with a sudden government change in Ukraine the Bucharest decision could be brought back.

The Lisbon summit and NATO’s new strategic concept separated the issues of Ukraine and Georgia in the Alliance’s political agenda. They are now treated much more individually than before. It is agreed by all stakeholders that Ukraine will not pursue the NATO integration process in this decade, which also makes the Bucharest pledge for Georgia look like a political dream. Nevertheless, the latter still continues its solid political course towards ‘NATO’s opened door’. The question is where and how can it be found.

Hits: 4094

Comments

Interesting reading
written by Nikoloz, July 10, 2011 

Thank you for sharing this. It was an interesting reading providing eloquent sum up of the most important past events and scathing realistic image of issue’s future development. Predictions for the both country’s cases were logical, loud and clear, too bad not very comforting to the people and government of Georgia.

Unreliable partner – Georgia
written by funtravelerss, July 11, 2011 

It is a very nice post, but too soft on Georgia. In my opinion, as long as the current Georgian President, who was truly responsible for starting the conflict with Russia by shelling his own citizens, in charge, Georgia shouldn’t be given any chance/consideration to join NATO. The Council of the European Union Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia (IIFFMCG) report stated that the Commander of the Georgian contingent to the Joint Peacekeeping Forces
(JPKF), Brigadier General Mamuka Kurashvili, stated that the operation was aimed at restoring the constitutional order in the territory of South Ossetia. Somewhat later the Georgian side refuted Mamuka Kurashvili’s statement as unauthorised and invoked the countering of an alleged Russian invasion as justification of the operation. The Georgian President not only attacked his own citizens and the Russian Peacekeepers, he also lied to entire world. He cannot be trusted as a reliable partner in any deal. He is a high risk for the world peace.