On February 28, the United States and Israel launched military strikes on Iran because of the parties’ fears that Iran possesses nuclear weapons that would threaten America’s allies and US national security. Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter prohibits the threat or use of force against other states. Such actions contradict the principle of respect for the sovereignty of states and non-interference in their
internal affairs. Clearly, the UN Charter disallows aggression.

This article highlights the effectiveness of China’s diplomatic efforts to de-escalate in order to preserve regional peace and
security. In this context, it is necessary to examine the effectiveness of achieving the goals of this diplomacy, which is a set of initiatives aimed at achieving sustainable peace and development for all without exception on the basis of living and common destiny. It is effectively linked to compliance with international law, the UN Charter and resolutions of international legitimacy within the framework of consensus.

The success of China’s diplomatic efforts and objectives in the Middle East region depends on the extent to which the regional actors cooperate with those efforts. In this context, the commitment to the effectiveness and governance of the international system in accordance with international law and the UN Charter is the compass of this dialogue.

In particular, the objectives of Chinese diplomacy are clearly defined and the directions are closely and firmly linked to what is stated by the law and international consensus, it emphasizes the need for dialogue and consultation to resolve any dispute by peaceful means; the rejection of the use of force in order to enhance influence, control or support allies at the expense of other parties.

On the other hand, the absence of a diplomatic solution and the failure of the current Chinese
diplomatic efforts to de-escalate the situation will be a prelude to the collapse of the entire international
system. In such a case, the Law of the Jungle will prevail, and then the region will witness more wars and conflicts that portend a total war whose end would be unpredictable.

The reason for this is that America and Israel are seeking to form allies in more than one place in order to provide support in various ways. If this happens, the future scenarios for the effectiveness of international relations will be ambiguous, then the prospects and
the future role of the UN Security Council as mandated by the UN Charter to protect the sovereignty of states, the security of citizens and their national gains will end up in sustainable deficit.

In this context, I firmly believe that the US, Israel and their Western allies have become firmly convinced of the need to build alliances, reshaping the region in line with their interests. For them this is an opportunity to reshape the international system in accordance with theirwishes, and to evade international legal obligations regarding the resolution of outstanding issues regionally and internationally, foremost of which is the resolution of the Palestinian issue.

Therefore, today’s situation requires active and balanced States. The Middle East region needs to cooperate seriously and responsibly with the efforts of Chinese diplomacy in order to achieve its goals, Namely, to stop the war and protect the security and sovereignty of states and the lives of citizens and their national gains, far from any bets on the American or Israeli side and their Western allies. Especially as the latter aim at more destruction in this region and the failure of sustainable development plans, and the aggravation of internal conflicts in order to hit the sovereignty and security of states, and also to control citizens, plunder their goods and destroy their national gains, thereby achieving their central goals by further embodying colonialism and strengthening control and influence in the expansion of one state at the expense of other peoples and states.

China alone cannot offer a magic solution to address the current Middle East destruction and bloodshed. China’s diplomacy stems from a culture of tolerance and coexistence and rejection of aggression or interference in the affairs of others. It is aimed at cooperation to
reach common good. Beijing offers initiatives and ideas that fit into the international system and the spirit of the UN Charter, based on equal rights for all member states.

The success of well-meaning Chinese endeavors means good and victory for all, stopping wars, protecting people’s lives and property, respecting the sovereignty and security of states, and achieving sustainable peace and development for all without exception on the basis of mutual respect.

Although I am not a Jew, I share the view of many thinking Jews that Zionism is essentially a warped ideology. Perhaps, and to their credit, some of the most powerful and persuasive arguments against the activities of the Israel lobby and Zionism have come from Jews. Some Jews cannot ‘stomach Zionism’. For those whose motives are purely spiritual, the Jewish state is at best an irritant, at worst a blasphemy, according to The Atlas of the Jewish World, published by Time Life Books in 1995. One of the most critical books about the excesses of Zionist fanatics against innocent Palestinians was written by an Israeli academic, Ilan Pappe. It details in precise terms the plan to expel hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their lands, even before the war of 1948, including how and when particular murders of civilians were planned to achieve maximum effect.

Were it not for one of my grandfathers, extreme Zionists would have killed my mother, and I would not be here writing this. Why? Well, between 1947 and 1949 my mother was interpreting for the United Nations in Rhodes (her birthplace), where various meetings were taking place to solve the Arab-Palestine-Israel problem. She even beat Moshe Dayan at table tennis. Her friend Ralph Bunch (Count Bernadotte’s chief aide) asked her to accompany Count Bernadotte to Palestine, where the two- state solution was being promoted. Luckily, her father did not allow her to go: thank God, since my mother escaped the murder of the count and his driver by those of Netanyahu’s ilk, insane Zionist fanatics.

Had the fanatic killers not succeeded, there would likely have been a two-state solution. When this possibility again became serious in the early 1990s, with the Oslo Accords, the fanatics again stepped in, murdering their chief architect, Israeli Prime Minister Rabin.

Since then, the fanatics have held sway: in September 2000, not long before he was elected Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (previously Scheinerman), visited Temple Mount, thus igniting the second intifada. Since then, every few years, thousands of Palestinian civilians have been killed, as well as a handful of Israeli ones.

One could argue that the root cause of all this horror began when Cain killed Abel. More recently and realistically, we can blame Herzl’s Zionist fanaticism, Britain (the Balfour Declaration and taking French leave of Palestine in 1948), and Bernadotte’s and Rabin’s murders. As for the latest round of slaughter, it is obvious that the trouble began when the Jewish state began the illegal eviction of Palestinians from their homes in Jerusalem.

Who won? Israel, because it killed many more children than Palestinian rockets did – only two Israeli children were killed. This is the evil logic behind the continuing theft of Palestinian land. As for the USA, the Zionist fanatics will not allow Washington to be an honest broker. Quite the opposite: Trump and his Christian Zionist friends have seen to that, by illegally recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state, even recognizing the Golan Heights as legitimate Israeli territory. Let us look a little more closely at what lies behind this.

The most recent critique of the Zionist lobby was written by respected academics John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in 2006, causing a furious reaction among extremist Zionists. The article’s main argument was that the power of the Israeli lobby had led to one-sided US support for Israel, which was inconsistent with its own interests and those of other states in the region. The US had become the de facto enabler of Israeli expansion in the occupied territories, ‘making it complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians’; the article highlighted US hypocrisy in this complicity, given that it presses other states to respect human rights, and that it condones Israel’s nuclear arsenal, while insisting that Iran and others must not have a nuclear capability. Perhaps the most recent example of US connivance in unacceptable Israeli behaviour towards the Palestinians was the US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton’s, comment that the building of settlements for Jews on occupied Palestinian territory was ‘unhelpful’, when it is in fact downright illegal, indeed criminal in terms of international law. In terms of euphemistic language, it reminds one of the phrase ‘collateral damage’ for killing civilians, or ‘awkward murder’ and ‘naughty rape.’ The extremist land-grabbers in Israel know that they can count on US support.

The influence of the Israeli lobby has indeed contributed to the US devoting one sixth of its foreign aid budget to the sixteenth wealthiest nation on earth. In addition to this, Israel receives 1.8 billion dollars a year in military aid. Clearly, the term ‘aid’ is in this context a euphemism for massive political, economic and military support. There is ‘little doubt that Israel and the lobby were key factors in the decision to go to war’, wrote Mearsheimer and Walt, who continue by demonstrating the power of the Israel lobby in pushing the US into attacking Iran, all with the full support of the ‘neo-conservatives’, as those Christian Zionists are also labelled. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) plays the leading coordinating role among the plethora of Jewish organizations in the US, and is a ‘de facto agent’ for Israel, with a ‘stranglehold on Congress’.  Although the Israeli embassy in Washington takes great pains to claim that it has no official policy-making contacts with the Israel lobby, the authors make clear that American Jewish leaders often consult Israeli officials, to ensure that their actions advance Israeli goals. Those critical of Israel keep silent, however, because they fear that the lobby will damage their careers. If there were no AIPAC, Americans would have a more critical view of Israel, and US policy in the Middle East would be different.

Zionist organizations in the United States have always been powerful, and the phenomenon of the disproportionate influence they wield has been suspected, but rarely enunciated fully, for a long time. Many who wish to criticize the less positive side tend not to do so, for fear of being labelled ‘anti-Semitic’, in itself an odd idea, since the Semitic peoples include Arabs, among others, leading to suggestions that the term ‘anti-Semitic’ has been hijacked.

Lest any of you readers are already smarting in fury and indignation at these daringly critical words, and preparing to apply your ‘conspiracy theorist’ label, consider that as early as 1972, the British embassy in Washington wrote a confidential paper on ‘Zionist Organizations in the United States’, part of a series for a proposed Foreign and Commonwealth Office paper on ‘the role and effectiveness of Zionist organizations in the United States and Western Europe’. A covering letter from the British ambassador in Tel Aviv stated: ‘I need hardly say that this is a subject on which the Israeli Government is very sensitive, because the continuing support of the Diaspora is an important element in their national security. They might well be suspicious of our motives if it comes to their knowledge that we were preparing a study of this kind […].’

The paper can be considered as a – perhaps subtler – version, in certain respects, of the recent Mearsheimer/Walt paper, remarkable in that it was written thirty-four years earlier. Had it been published, it could well have produced a Zionist backlash, just as the recent Walt/Mearsheimer critique did. The paper equated for its purposes the term ‘American Zionism’ with active support for Israel and its policies. Extracts from the paper speak for themselves, requiring little if any interpretation: ‘The well-organized lobby of Jewish organizations concentrates its activities on influencing congress. There is very little activity in State Legislatures, mainly because few issues arise affecting Israel or the Jewish community in those bodies. The obvious point of pressure must be Congress and there is little doubt that much of the active output of the Zionist organizations is devoted to that end […] whenever an important event occurs in the world at large or in this country, or whenever there is any public threat to Israel, a flood of letters descends upon the offices of Senators and Representatives throughout the country. Some, no doubt, are spontaneous, but the majority show unmistakable evidence of a careful orchestration.’

The paper devoted some attention to Zionist activity in the press, ‘which are [sic] in any case responsive to pro-Israeli articles, largely because a number of press magnates, editors and journalists are themselves of Jewish stock.’ An example of clearly illicit pressure is given: ‘A well-known columnist, who writes in the Christian Science Monitor, told us last year that, when he wrote an editorial which contained mild criticism about the intransigence of the Israeli government, he received a telephone call from the Israeli Embassy in Washington within the hour to express official Israeli displeasure. He was told that such judgements would not be well received by many of the big firms in the Boston area who bought advertising space in the paper and that the Israeli Embassy were confident that he would not wish to deprive his paper of much needed revenue. […] There can be little doubt that the Israeli Embassy discreetly passes on information to the Jewish organizations [my italics], but it would be difficult to point to a direct link’.

Other interesting observations emerge from the paper. For example, whereas Jews made up about 3% of the population, between 18 and 25% of faculty members at Ivy League universities were Jews, while 8% of the urban population of the US were Jewish, and 96% of Jews lived in towns. ‘There is little doubt that Zionist organizations and the Israeli lobby wield considerable political strength in this country, stated the paper, concluding that ‘support for Israel has a universal appeal, being quite distinct from the lobbying efforts of other ethnic minorities’.

And so it is today. The fanatic Zionists who control Israel and Washington will continue to try and obliterate the Palestinian presence. One can but hope that within a few years, to forestall more Palestinian anger at being robbed by Israel, the US, China and Russia will force a two-state solution on Israel. Failing that, shame on the world, and the likes of Cain.

I began this article by wondering if I could do this. All I wished to show is that Zionism and its fanatics are beyond the pale. I hope that I have succeeded.

European and American museums are confronted by requests of the return of artifacts bought or seized by colonial powers: Greece Presses for the Return of the Parthenon Marbles to where they belong: Athens Acropolis.

Researchers still looking for the Amber Room, Tsarist treasure allegedly stolen by the Nazi occupation forces and presumably destroyed or still hidden somewhere in Germany.

In 2008 a scandal hit the world of archaeology in Spain as it was reported that supposedly ancient artifacts were faked. In time the scandal became connected to the attempts to strengthen a real or imaginary Basque nationalist past. This episode in Spanish archaeology history is a modern example of how archaeology has played a role in shaping modern national identities and the creation of national myths.[1] In the Spanish case, Basque nationalism rooted in a very ancient language was one of the sources of conflict in 20th century Spain. It contributed to fueling the Spanish civil war in the 1930s and terrorism in Spain after the transition from Franco’s dictatorship to a modern democracy. Only in 2017 ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna – Basque Country and Freedom)[2] finally stopped fighting the Spanish state. Paradoxically, the end of this violent Basque separatism was followed in Spain by a Catalan separatism and the attempt of some Catalan parties to declare independence by arguing for a separate identity that set apart the Catalonian region linguistically and culturally from mainstream Spanish history.

The archaeological background to modern nationalism and conflicts is not new. In fact, in the earlier part of the 19^th century the Greeks, with great European support and sympathy, fought against the Ottoman Empire for a political and cultural independence that was stimulated by a connection to Classical Greece and of course the Byzantine Empire. By 1870, the German archeologist Heinrich Schliemann had begun discovering Homer’s Troy. His findings and the discovery of artifacts connected to ancient Greece stimulated enthusiastic interest in the near-Eastern archaeological and historical heritage.[3][4] Streams of archaeological discoveries reshaped a new Hellenic identity that shaped Greek politics and the conflicts with the Ottoman Empire, conflicts that saw the catastrophic Greek-Turkish war of 1922 and decades later the conflict in Cyprus between the Greek majority and the Turkish minority.

In Cyprus, the destruction of Greek archaeological sites was one of the subjects of the Greek-Cypriot political stance against the occupation of northern Cyprus by thousands of Turkish soldiers following the 1974 invasion of the island, when Turkey claimed it was protecting the rights of the Turkish-speaking minority.[5] The invasion followed years of conflict in Cyprus, ruled for decades by the British from 1878 until 1960[6]. The ethnic conflict was resolved through a compromise where the Greek-Cypriot desire to be reunited with Greece was set aside by giving independence to the island along with a constitutional compromise between the two ethno-linguistic groups.

Modern archaeology and the new scientific disciplines associated with it have now come to create greater knowledge and insight into the past of many regions across the globe.  They have also fueled value systems and political ideologies that have now come to spread increasingly across regions and nations, serving to bolster the perennial search for power and meaning in an international system tied by new economic realities and social mobility that challenges older historical and religious traditions. Some intellectuals and critics have used the encounter of the West with the non-traditional world, especially Islamic in the Middle East, as an example of cultural colonialism above and beyond political and economic imperialism. A classic case of the debate on the subject was the systematic work of Edward Said who wrote extensively criticizing western scholarship as being unable to truly understand the East – especially the Middle East – in his work Orientalism. His approach was very influential in the academic world, and continues being so, though his understanding of the Western-European insights into the Middle East especially are methodologically unsound and ideologically biased.[7]

Thus, archaeology comes to have even greater relevance in the reformulation of many aspects of international relations and ideological and civilizational clashes.  It then becomes even more incumbent on academics at large, especially historians, archaeologists, and ethno-linguists to dispel whenever possible the constant mythologizing and distortion of historical and archaeological scholarship.[8] The Americas were not exempt from these trends.

Across the Atlantic the mystification of new archaeological and linguistic discoveries became a systematic component of local nationalism, particularly when studying pre-Columbian civilizations in Central and South American states and Native American tribes in the United States and Canada. In Mexico, the Aztec heritage boosted Indianismo, which came to be one of the pillars of the new regime in Mexico after the epic of revolution that shaped a new Mexico after 1912.  From the 1920s onwards, the official historiography of Mexico emphasized Aztec civilization which had been systematically studied since the 19^th century by Western archaeologists and denounced the Spanish conquest as an assault on some past noble human experiment.  The reformulation of a new Mexican identity saw even a revival of attempts to remove the bones of Hernán Cortés, the Spanish conquistador who had been entombed in Mexico City. By 2020, the Mexican government, run by a progressive leftist president was seeking official apologies from Spain for the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, and for the violence involved in the establishment of Spanish cultural hegemony in Mexico.[9]

The reinterpretation of the past by now had come to see in both North and South America the denunciation of Columbus and the arrival of the Europeans. In some respects, it was a reassertion of the Rousseauian paradigm of the Noble Savage being overwhelmed by civilization. In fact, the reaffirmation of aboriginal rights in North, South, and Central America from the Arctic Circle to Patagonia, in claims to land and resources came to be often articulated through archaeological discoveries and the assertion of the parity of native languages with Spanish as in Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, or Guatemala.

Even in Europe, the creation of a pan-European identity seemed to have enhanced the reaffirmation of ethno-linguistic ideologies rooted in mythical pasts given some superficial credibility by archaeology and linguistics. Examples range from the Dardanian movement in the Balkans following the independence of Kosovo as Albanians and Kosovars reiterated their European roots by linking to classical Greek history and mythology, including the destruction of Serbian Orthodox religious sites to the revival of Celtic religions and outright paganism professing a return to animism and Norse religions in Scandinavia. In the United States within the last generation there has been a revitalization of Neo-Pagan religion and witchcraft, ranging from the Church of Satan as an established institution to Wicca as a legitimate religious experience.[10] New political movements, ranging from neo-Scandinavian nationalism to neo-Nazism have connected their political ideology to Old Norse religious mythologies.[11]

These new phenomena tended to have a more strictly sociological significance and had yet to develop a political relevance. The age of instant electronic communication lent itself to the mystification of archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics from Europe and North America to the rest of the globe.  Fueled by misperceived scientific and academic research, science fiction, UFO sightings, political propaganda, mysticism, religion, eschatology, and catastrophism gave rise to a vast body of literature, movies, and internet-propagated debate and speculations grounded in the outright mystification of science and racialism intensifying and legitimizing national conflicts and political violence.

Their interpretation of the past through archaeological discoveries and political influence in terms of modern ideological postures characterizes every area of the world, ranging from Latin America to Australia and Africa. [12] European and American museums came to be confronted by requests of the return of artifacts bought or seized by colonial powers. The British museum, for example, was going to return the Benin bronzes to Nigeria.[13] The bronzes had been seized by British troops in 1897 during the British conquest of Benin. Benin today is in modern Nigeria, and part of the federal state.

The Greek Cause for the Parthenon Marbles Return to Athens

In modern Europe one of the more chronic problems in archaeological politics is the pressing demand of the Greek state for the repatriation of the Parthenon Marbles, also known as the Elgin Marbles, from the British Museum to Athens. The Marbles were part of the façade of the Acropolis of Athens and were allegedly purchased by Lord Elgin, the British Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1807. The issue came up again following Brexit, as the Greek government pressed once again for the return of the Elgin Marbles.[14] The subject became part of the diplomatic bargaining between the United Kingdom and Brussels over the future of the political relationship between the European Union and London. The controversy has been going on for decades. In the same vein, stolen art from Italy is a subject of Italian international requests for return of what it considers to be Italian cultural patrimony.[15]

Last but not least, the Nazi German state’s looting of European art all over the occupied areas during World War II still stands out as an example of the role of war in the displacement of national art and culture. Researchers are still looking for the Amber Room, a Tsarist treasure allegedly stolen by the Nazi occupation forces and presumably destroyed or still hidden somewhere in Germany.[16]

Thus, one may conclude here by saying that symbolically archaeology goes beyond the mere study of the past through what remains of the past materially, but it also shapes how individuals and nations may see themselves in the modern age. As archaeological explorations expand, inevitably the reinterpretation of the past also takes place. This is especially relevant in the Middle East, which by many standards, is the birthplace of civilization. Arguably, the most important dimension of this past is a religious experience that has characterized the Middle East ever since the birth and evolution of Judaism, the rise of Christianity and the shaping of monotheistic belief systems.

Modern Re-Elaboration of Jewish Identity Through Rise of Zionism

Perhaps the most outstanding example is the modern re-elaboration of a Jewish identity through the rise of modern Zionism in 19^th century Europe and the creation of the modern state of Israel in 1947. In the 2^nd century AD, the Romans wiped out what had been a Jewish ethno-religious state in Judea along with the destruction of what had originally been the Temple of Solomon in 70 AD. Judea became a Roman province and hundreds of thousands of Jews were enslaved and deported throughout the Roman Empire, though the territory still held a considerable population of Jews.

Some decades later, in 132 AD the Jews rebelled again. This revolt saw Emperor Hadrian raze Jerusalem and rename it Aelia Capitolina. To add insult to injury, Judea came to be renamed Palestina with a reference to one of the peoples in the area, the Philistines mentioned in the Bible. From then to modern times, Palestine was a common name for a territory that eventually became the state of Israel and came to be seen by Jews scattered across the world as a land to return to with the coming of the Messiah. Herein lies an added Christian dimension to the religious and cultural relevance of the Jewish historical linkage to a lost state, to be restored with, by a coming Messiah for Jews and the second coming of Christ for all Christian denominations.

The rise of Islam in the 7^th century and the conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims in southern Arabia added a third monotheistic appeal to the city of Jerusalem which came to have historical and cultural consequences for centuries for the people of the region, Europe, and in time for international relations from the 19^th century onwards. By the 18^th century, there was already a historical and archaeological interest in the Middle East and the biblical connection was the most relevant aspect of it. In the development of modern states in the Middle East, whether Turkey, Iran, Egypt, or as a matter of fact anywhere else in the world, reconstructing the past through archaeology and other disciplines such as linguistics was not a new phenomenon, and continues to be ever more relevant. Paradoxically, in an ever more globalized world, national identity becomes ever more relevant for domestic political purposes. The reconstruction of the past through archaeology to enhance modern national identity becomes ever more interesting in terms of ideological, economic, and international premises. Thus, tourism, education, propaganda, articulated through mass and social media come to stand out and add to an even greater dimension to the models developed in the theories of international relations and conflict.

[1] Ashley Cowie, “Archaeologist Busted for Faking Artifacts Showing Jesus Crucifixion,” in Ancient Origins, 8 February 2020. https://www.ancient-origins.net/news-history-archaeology/iru-veleia-artifacts-0013266

[2] Claude Canellas, Sonya Dowsett, and Isla Binnie, “Basque militants ETA surrender arms in end to decades of conflict” Reuters, April 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-spain-eta-idUSKBN1790YK

[3] Caroline Moorehead, Priam’s Gold: Schliemann and the Lost Treasure of Troy (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2016).

[4] Robert Payne, The Gold of Troy: The Story of Heinrich Schliemann and the Buried Cities of Ancient Greece (Dorset: Dorset Press, 1990).

[5] Lefkios Zaphiriou, Costas Nicolaides, Miltos Miltiadou, Marianna Mammidou, Van Coufoudakis, “The Loss of a Civilization; Destruction of cultural heritage in occupied Cyprus” Government of Cyprus, 2012.

[6] For a Turkish perspective, see Ozmatyatli, I. O. & Ozkul, A. E. “20th Century British Colonialism in Cyprus

through Education.” (Egitim Arastirmalari-Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 50, 1-20. 2013).

[7] Morris Mottale, “Book Review: Orientalism and Islam: European Thinkers on Oriental Despotism in the Middle East and India.” (Canadian Political Science Association, 2010).

[8] See Also: The MESA Debate, 22 November 1986. Cf: Robert D. Kaplan, “Remembering Elie Kedourie: How One Analyst Spoke Truth to Power in the Middle East.” (The National Interest, 25 April 2020)

[9] “Mexico demands apology from Spain and the Vatican over conquest.” (BBC, 26 March 2019). See Also, Renzo Pipoli “Spain denies Mexico apology over 1521 Spanish conquest.” (UPI, 26 March 2019)

[10] See for example Jessica Bennet “When Did Everybody Become a Witch?” (New York Times, 24 October 2019). See also; David Brooks “Commentary: Witchcraft enjoying a surge in popularity” (New York Times, 13 June 2019).

[11] Samuel Sigal “What To Do When Racists Try To Hijack Your Religion” (The Atlantic, November 2, 2017).

[12] Paul Daley “There’s a new push for the return of looted Aboriginal artefacts – in the name of ‘truth telling’.” (The Guardian, 1 December 2019). See Also; Geoff Gray “A Cautious Silence: The politics of Australian anthropology”. (Aboriginal Studies Press: August 1, 2007)

[13] Kieron Monks “British Museum to return Benin bronzes to Nigeria.” (CNN, 14 December 2018). See also: “The British Conquest of Benin and the Oba’s Return”, Art Institute of Chicago (2013).

[14] Ian Wishart “EU Brings Greek Demand for Elgin Marbles Into Brexit Talks.” (MSN, 19 February 2020).

[15] See for Example “Italian Court Orders Getty Museum To Return Statue To Italy”. (NPR, 5 December 2018).

[16] “Amber Room: Priceless Russian treasure stolen by Nazis ‘discovered by German researchers’” (The Independent, 19 October 2017).

In his intervention during the consultation session, 12^th December, 2019, Dr. Leventis stressed the role of the International Security Forum as the leading Cypriot think tank promoting the cause of peace and disarmament in the region. In this context he emphasized that the island republic of Cyprus, being the south easternmost gate to the European Union but at the same time enjoying friendly bilateral relations with the Arab world as well as Israel and Iran offers the perfect venue for reconciliation and disarmament efforts promoting much needed peace and stability in the turbulent Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region.

In the margins of the three-day Brussels conference, Dr. Leventis held private meetings and consultations with a large number of delegates, including officials of the European External Action Service, discussing ways the International Security Forum, Cyprus can contribute to the network’s stated goals.

Navel gazers and insular islanders as we mostly are, we tend to forget that neighbours civilians – citizens of Syria – including a baby were killed. Many cynically noticed that the Syrian authorities needed to be more careful when using their anti-aircraft missile systems. Is this is possible when we speak about the lives of innocent people? Apparently, the crew of the Syrian Air Defense systems defended their own people from the missile attacks of the Israeli Air Force. Had they not reacted, there could probably be more civilian casualties. Shouldn’t those who use lethal weapons causing inadvertently collateral damage of unnecessary human suffering, be more humane and considerate? As the Israeli authorities offered no comments, the international community apparently followed suit.

It is noteworthy that the air raid of the Israeli Air Force was carried out from the airspace of Cyprus and Lebanon. It is rather odd in this respect that the Israeli Air Force should use the Cyprus airspace to launch an attack on the soil of a third friendly country and not the national airspace of Israel. The Cypriot leadership considers Israel a friendly country, the main regional partner and protector of Cyprus interests. But let us stop for a moment and ponder: in the worst case scenario of a further Turkish advance, will Israel really come to our rescue? We are of the humble opinion that the strategic alliance with Israel, however expedient it may be at the current juncture, has to be more balanced in order to avoid unpleasant consequences which potentially damage Cyprus’ friendly relations with other immediate neighbours to the east.

Faisal Al-Mikdad, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister declared his country’s readiness to change its response to Israeli aggression. In other words, it looks like that the era of Syrian restraint in the face of Israeli Air Force raids on Syrian territory is coming to an end. In the light of the new Syrian assertiveness, no one can guarantee that in the course of repelling the next attacks of the Israeli Air Force, another load of lethal ammunition will not land on our island. Nobody, in his right mind, wants chance to become a regularity.

Like any other unilateral actions, such Israeli air attacks carry the danger of regional destabilisation. In such conditions, the national security interests of none of the Eastern Mediterranean states can be reliably ensured. We are in dire need of a truly comprehensive and multilateral approach to be adopted by all parties in order to achieve stability and security in the region.

With the forty years free ride on Northern Cyprus and a sea incursion of Southern Cyprus clearly in the making, it is high time we carefully examined the war crimes committed: transplantation of tens of thousands of settlers into the occupied foreign territory has been a palpable fact, a liability for which Ankara so far paid no price. By so doing Turkey destroyed the fabric of Cypriot society, be it Turkish or Greek Cypriot.

The Cypriot President has been too complacent in his approach. He patiently waited for the first Turkish sea incursion (October-December 2014) to pass by reiterating his resolve to return to the talks for a comprehensive settlement in Cyprus. Bowing to an inexplicable UN envoy proposal (and/or US pressure?) to discuss sovereignty over natural resources in the talks before settling the bounds of sovereignty of the state-to-be, President Anastasiades conceded to discuss the issue of hydrocarbons, whilst it is the RoC’s sovereign inalienable right to exploit them as the government of Cyprus deems appropriate.

Anastasiades’ thoughtless concession was immediately met by another big brother type provocation: Barbaros, the Turkish seismic research vessel – which, it should be noted, never left Cypriot waters, only docking once more unlawfully in the closed port of Famagusta pending orders from Ankara – returns to incur in the sea zones overlapping the internationally recognized Cyprus EEZ as close as seventeen nautical miles south of Limassol! The new incursion, announced by big brother Ankara, will last for three months, exceeding in length and intensity the previous one (see our analysis above: ‘Warm Waters: 70 Hot Days Ahead’).

How do these Turkish actions translate in the wider context of energy resources exploration in the Levantine basin and the much debated European energy security? It becomes abundantly clear that Ankara acts as the big brother and is bent on exercising the upper hand on the Eastern Mediterranean hydrocarbon reserves irrespective of the provisions of the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Ankara appears disrespectful of multilateralism whereas the Republic of Cyprus has painstakingly over the past ten years entered into negotiations and arrived into negotiated sea delimitation agreements with most of its neighbours.

Put simply, Cyprus acts within the framework of international law and multilateralism, the principle that should guide international relations. Turkey, on the opposite end violates international law and continues to act outside its framework.

The Turkish policy record, a short illustration of which is offered above, should sober down all those who ponder over emboldening Ankara even further by suggesting the construction of gas pipelines from the Eastern Mediterranean sea to the Turkish mainland.

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 explained 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 underlined: ‘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.

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

Time honoured Eden’s assessment of the strategic value of Cyprus and his determination to maintain strategic control over it as an indispensable station post towards the energy rich Middle East is proven true. In fact fifty five years after the creation of the Cyprus British bases, the island’s geo-energy value received an extra boost: at the end of 2011, it became clear that the Exclusive Economic Zone the Republic of Cyprus is entitled to, is blessed with substantial natural gas if not also oil reserves. On November 15, Noble Energy of Texas US, under license to drill for gas in both Cyprus and Israel’s EEZ announced that Cyprus’ Block 12 has estimated gross mean resource range of 3 to 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and a 60% probability of geological success.

To put matters into perspective: three trillion cubic feet (tcf), which is the lower estimate, is enough gas to cover the needs of the one million or so islanders (on both sides of the island) for over hundred years (some energy analysts argue for two centuries). However, exploitable gas reserves may actually stand at the upper end estimate of 9 tcf for block 12 while the Cyprus government, as these lines are being drawn, is auctioning the remaining twelve parcels calling for interested parties to submit tenders within ninety days. Already drilling, Noble Energy announced that it is keen to bid for a second block.

Fifty kilometres away from Cyprus’ Block 12 lies the rich Israeli gas field Leviathan carrying an estimated sixteen tcf of gas which is also drilled by Noble. The importance of the gas reserves in the Cypro-Israeli maritime interface is underlined by the first ever visit of an Israeli Head of Government to Nicosia. Benjamin Netanyahu paid a day visit to the Republic on 16 February 2012. Energy cooperation was at the top of his agenda whereas some political observers talk also about a burgeoning but rapidly expanding defence cooperation in the face of Turkish threats.

In September 2011, two Israeli Air Force (IAF) fighter jets flew conspicuously along the south coast of Turkey, at the northern limits of the Nicosia FIR as recognized internationally – save for Ankara. The two fighters flew through St. Andrew Bay of Mersin and from there to Phoenicia, near the Greek island of Kastellorizo, in some cases approaching the Turkish coast at a distance of fifteen miles. The control tower of the Ercan (Tymbou) airport (recognized only by Turkey), tried to contact them, but the Israeli pilots ignored their attempts showing that they recognize the sovereignty of Cyprus in the entire Nicosia FIR.[2]

In January 2012, both the Commerce and Industry Minister and the Defence Minister of Cyprus shuttled to Tel Aviv. The much acclaimed at the time of its construction in the late 1990s Andreas Papandreou Air Base, Pafos, on the southwest coast of the island, fell into neglect as the Greece-Cyprus Defence Pact degenerated. Apparently, the air base will come out of its disuse with Israeli fighter jets using it on the basis of a ‘touch and go’ arrangement.[3] Furthermore, according to some Israeli sources, Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defence Minister, has asked the Cypriots [Republic of Cyprus] to allow Israel to station military aircraft at the Papandreou Air Base.[4] As defence cooperation got off the ground the two countries are expected to engage in regular exercises.[5]

From now on the question is whether Christofias and Netanyahu will go the extra mile to agree on the stationing of a squadron of Israeli fighter jets at the Pafos Air Base. Lacking an Air Force, the National Guard, Cyprus’ Armed Forces, have had to make operational defence plans bound in the limits of this serious handicap, for half a century. In the past, within the space of ten years, they bitterly learnt twice (1964 and 1974) that they had to put up inferior land forces resistance while the Turkish Air Force, practically unobstructed, pounded their positions whilst also dropping on Cypriot land hundreds of airborne troops.[6] Naturally, Cypriots have today, all the reason to seek to reverse the air superiority of the Turkish Air Force by entering into an air defence pact with Israel, the region’s heavyweight and latter day bitter adversary of Turkey.

The final 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 remark of Anthony Eden half a century ago. There is little doubt that the discovery of vital natural resources in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea is already producing far reaching geo-political consequences. In the limited space of the current paper, let us examine the main ones:

First, as soon as Texas-based Noble Energy announced the discovery in November 2011, the US State Department of State created the Bureau of Energy Resources (ENR) reflecting the emphasis the US places on energy in the wider region in general and in Cyprus in particular. Karen Enstrom, the regional officer of the new ENR, is now assigned to establish her headquarters in the US Embassy, Nicosia, for the diplomatic involvement of the US in energy developments in the Mediterranean, South Europe and North Africa. The US Bureau of Energy Resources is headed by Carlos Pascual, State Department’s Special Envoy and Coordinator for International Energy Affairs. Mr. Pascual is former US Ambassador to Mexico and Ukraine.

Enstrom’s mission will, reportedly, be to help facilitate and manage geopolitical developments as regards energy by enhancing diplomatic relations with the main energy producers and consumers in the region and by promoting US access to energy in developing countries. She will also be expected to boost the energy market forces by differentiating the current policies concerning alternative energy, electricity and energy development.[7]

Second, the gas bonanza may potentially be a catalyst for the settlement of the sad political-cum-geographical division of Cyprus, a result of the Turkish invasion and continuing occupation of the northern third of the island since 1974. We may recall that the donors’ conference called in Brussels in order to voluntarily finance the UN plan of 2004 failed dismally to secure the necessary funds to finance the proposed settlement. The so-called Annan plan was in any case rejected by an overwhelming majority of the Greek Cypriots – 76 per cent was the vote against. Seven years later, with the discovery and prospective exploitation of 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 so far 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, the rising regional power with high stakes not only in the island but in the region at large.

On the one hand, efforts to reach a Cyprus settlement are heightened. First, we witness 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, in two recent meetings in New York, the first in October 2011 and the second in January 2012. Second, we equally witness an all too compromising stance of the Cyprus government: the Christofias administration despite the internal opposition criticism that he comes up with premature offers to the Turkish side, has pledged that any prospective proceeds out of the natural resources exploitation are guaranteed to be used for the interests of both Cypriot communities – a promise[8], it should be noted, that comes on top of a raft of post-2004 measures in favour of the Turkish Cypriot community.

On the other hand, Turkey, in the guise of a ‘hydrocarbon hegemon’, issues threats and provocative statements regarding not only the Republic of Cyprus, which she stubbornly refuses to recognize, but also vis-a-vis the European Union, the very club that Ankara seeks to join in a futile effort that dates back to the 1960s. Abdullah Gul, the Turkish President calls Cyprus ‘half a country’ and the EU ‘a miserable union’. Slipping tongue or truthful admission of Turkish steadfast perception of the island? Even, if we accept that that was Gul’s slip of tongue, it tells the truth. Gul’s comments do not augur well, all the more so, having been uttered in London at the conclusion of an official visit (23 November 2011). For long time, the UK has assumed the role of the champion, par excellance, of Turkish full participation in the ‘miserable’ European Union. One wonders why? To make the EU even more miserable? Interestingly, David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, steered clear of any statement on the Cyprus front avoiding at the same time a response to Gul’s arrogant remarks on the EU.

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 European Union, if not by all, certainly by the absolute majority of its member-states; more so by the two heavy weight Turco-sceptics, Germany and France. 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 (16th biggest economy in the world), staunch NATO ally equipped 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 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 beneficial to 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 derogatory remark?

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 communautaire suspended in the northern part of the island pending a political settlement: that is to say the internal restructuring and re-distribution of power within the Republic of Cyprus.

Treating UNCLOS A La Carte: Turkey’s Double Standards 

Cyprus has reached and ratified EEZ delimitation agreements with its eastern and southern neighbours: Israel and Egypt. Agreement with Lebanon has also been reached, pending ratification before the Lebanese parliament. Under the provisions of the United Nations Convention Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) III, an EEZ is a sea zone over which a state has special rights over the exploration and use of marine sources, including production of energy from water and wind.[9]

What is Turkey’s posture on this crucial question regarding the agreed distribution of natural wealth in the Eastern Mediterranean? Steadfastly following its consistent yet unproductive, if not provocative, policy of non-acceptance of the undeniable fact of the internationally recognized state status of the Republic of Cyprus (full member of the UNO and of the EU and a signatory to UNCLOS to which Turkey is not) Ankara effectively questions the Republic of Cyprus’ entitlement to drill in its own 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.

It is worth noting in this connection the importance of the afore-mentioned agreements on the delimitation of the EEZ between on the one hand Cyprus, an island state, and on the other hand, Egypt, Lebanon and Israel which are coastal states in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. Importantly, these treaties send certain signals to Ankara.

First, the concluded EEZ bilateral agreements prove that a fundamental and principled practice forms their basis: namely that the coastal states south and east of Cyprus treat the latter as an equal and equitable partner in the delimitation of their respective EEZs, exactly as the UNCLOS III provides regarding the regime of islands: ” … the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, the EEZ and the continental shelf of an island are determined in accordance with the provisions of this Convention applicable to other land territory.[10] It is abundantly clear that the UNCLOS does not differentiate between ‘colossal’ coastal states and small island states with regard to their maritime rights. Accordingly, the EEZ boundary with Cyprus was delimitated along the median sea water line. This is particularly significant in the case of the conclusion of the bilateral EEZ delimitation with Egypt. The Arab Republic of Egypt (ARE) has over a million square kilometres of territory, 2450 kilometres of coastline of which roughly 900 kilometres lies on the Mediterranean Sea and a population of 84 million.[11] Cyprus has 9,251 square kilometres of land, a total coastline of 648 kilometres of which less than half forms the south coast facing Egypt and a population of just a million.[12] In other words, Egypt is the region’s top heavyweight – surpassing Turkey itself in all three counts of sizes – next to which Cyprus is dwarfed. However, the ARE abides by international law and treats the RoC as an equal partner delimitating their respective EEZs equidistantly.[13]

Second, of even more importance is the fact that Israel, another of the region’s heavyweights, in terms of economic might and military strength, also concluded an EEZ with the RoC on the basis of equality of rights. Once more the median line was the yardstick. Israel, Turkey’s rival for regional influence, like Ankara, has not signed the dotted line on the internationally agreed text of UNCLOS III. However, the recent (December 2010) conclusion of an agreement for the sea demarcation line between Cyprus and Israel[14] constitutes on the one hand corroboration of the RoC’s sovereignty while on the other hand shows that in practice Israel, though a non-signatory, abides by the UNCLOS provisions.

The above two discussed EEZ agreements, along with the third one agreed yet to be ratified agreement of Cyprus with Lebanon have far-reaching implications for the stability and the rule of international law in the turbulent Eastern Mediterranean region. If anything, the provisions of UNCLOS increasingly become customary international law for state signatories and non-signatories alike.

Nevertheless, Turkish maritime policy seeks to limit the islands’ entitlement to their own EEZ, territorial waters and continental shelf.[15] The Turkish line has serious repercussions vis-a-vis the potential delimitation of all three zones with Greece in the Aegean and the Mediterranean Sea (vide: the case of Kastellorizo) and of course in the case of Cyprus. Although entitled to do so under the UNCLOS III provisions, Athens refrains so far from claiming its own EEZ – to which is a signatory – in the face of Turkish threats on Greece’s right to extension of territorial waters to twelve nautical miles (22 kms). Turkey has yet to lift its casus belli issued against Greece if the latter goes ahead with extension of its territorial waters. In a remarkably hypocritical and pharisaic fashion, Ankara has extended its own territorial waters to the limit allowed by UNCLOS in the Black and in the Mediterranean Sea.[16] Yet successive Turkish governments refuse to sign up to UNCLOS III preferring to treat international law, as in the case of Cyprus, as an a la carte menu.

As stated above, the UN Convention Law of the Sea provides that every state, island or coastal, is entitled to special rights over the exploration and use of marine sources in its own EEZ.

Feeding Turkish Pipelines Carries Danger of Feeding Hydrocarbon Hegemony

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. Thus Ankara seeks to exclude Cyprus and Greece, the southeastern most island of which, Kastellorizo, with 430 inhabitants lies 170 miles west of Cyprus but just one mile off the Turkish coast. However, under UNCLOS provisions, any populated island with human economic activity on it, is entitled to full rights in its own EEZ.[17]

Some Turkish Cypriot analysts argue that the Turkish position vis-a-vis Cyprus, at least, stems from Ankara’s policy of non-recognition of the RoC. That it is a by-product of the protracted non-settlement phase of the Cyprus conflict.[18] This may be true. However, it is equally true that the RoC is a fully-recognized state that exists under international law and as such exercises its sovereign rights, one of which is the demarcation of its sea borders with neighbouring states and the subsequent exploitation of its bilaterally demarcated EEZ natural resources.

Given the limited confines of this short paper, suffices to state that the RoC is recognized by all UN member-states save for Turkey. And more central to the debate on hydrocarbons and regional politics, to which this paper aspires to contribute: it is of great significance that the sovereign status of the RoC is not a dead letter as far as its neighbours are concerned – save once more for Turkey. Israel, Egypt and Lebanon, as amply explained above, have entered negotiations and concluded EEZ agreements with Nicosia, demonstrating in practice that they abide by international law – in this case UNCLOS – and respect the sovereignty of the RoC. In order to conclude the region’s EEZs picture: discussions have also been under way for the sea demarcation with Syria. However, as the country is increasingly plunging into the abyss of civil war it is unlikely that these will continue until Syria pacifies and a freshly legitimized regime comes into place in Damascus. As for Greece, as explained above, Athens has not yet entered into the phase of negotiating the EEZ demarcation line with Cyprus for the Turkish casus belli is still holding. Heavily struck by the worst debt crisis in its modern history, Athens, naturally, keeps the lowest possible profile on any issue that may exacerbate confrontation with its eastern neighbour.[19]

Turkey’s hegemonic approach, bypassing international law, may be explained 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 last December’s Famagusta drilling agreement reveals – feed her own pipelines easily and cost effectively in order to field herself as the region’s unrivalled hydrocarbon hegemon. What would such an ambitious Turkish scenario mean for Turko-European and regional balances in turbulent western Asia? If Turkey gets away with devouring the Eastern Mediterranean basin energy resources, circumventing international law, Ankara will be holding a disproportional leverage: a) over the EU at a time of an ongoing and deepening internal European crisis b) over its regional rivals at a time of enormous fluidity, instability and uncertainty about the political future in the Arab countries – and exceptionally in Syria with which it shares a 900-kilometre long common border. Moreover, it will empower Ankara to manipulate Europe and the West as they are always engaged in a rather endless search for a powerful, purportedly West-oriented proxy, who would be willing to perform the role of the region’s strategic ally, the western democracy and stability model exporter. Probably, in the eyes of certain policy-makers in Brussels and Washington, Ankara fits the bill. However, we should remind ourselves, that in the recent past (for example: US invasion of Iraq in 2003) Ankara proved to be a recalcitrant partner – if not an altogether independent player – in the West’s designs for the Arab and Muslim world.

Feeding an already hydro-cum-hydrocarbon hegemon Turkey with the prospective Eastern Mediterranean energy resources, which, in any case, mostly, she is not entitled to, will run the risk of Ankara holding both the EU and the wider Western Asia and North Africa hostage to its neo-Ottoman designs since the former will be in control of the supply of probably the greater part of the region’s energy resources. In such a Turkish-inspired self-serving scenario it is next to impossible to identify room for small regional partners like Cyprus to play a new important role in the EU’s and Western Asia’s energy security.

In such a hydrocarbon hegemon scenario where Turkey gets the upper hand in the exploitation of our island’s natural resources, the indigenous Turkish Cypriot community, eager to free itself from the chronic patronization of Ankara stands little chance to achieve this noble emancipation goal. As attested by the UN Secretary General as well as Turkish Cypriot press reports Ankara has effectively turned northern Cyprus into its largest military base to the dislike of the autochthonous Turkish Cypriot population. Last year, in repeated mass demonstrations in North Nicosia, the Turkish Cypriots demonstrated in their thousands, their fervent desire to throw away the yoke of Ankara.

* The above text is the full version of the paper presented at the FES-PRIO Cyprus Centre Conference: Cyprus Offshore Hydrocarbons: Wealth Distribution and Regional Politics, Chateau Status, Nicosia Buffer Zone, 26 November 2011. The collective volume of the conference proceedings, sponsored by the German Friedrich Ebert Stiftung, is in print, expected to be circulated in English, Greek and Turkish in June 2012.

[1] Conservative Party Convention, Norwich, UK, 11 June 1956.

[2]ΟΦιλελεύθερος (O Phileleftheros), Greek Cypriot daily, 29 Sep. 2011.

[3] Conversations with a former Cyprus Minister of Defence and the Israeli Ambassador in Nicosia, January to March 2012.

[4] http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/02/israel-to-station-fighter-jets-in.html (accessed 23 March 2012) Nevertheless, confidential information obtained from Dr. Hubert Faustmann, University of Nicosia, alleges that Papandreou Air Base has yet to be used by IAF fighters (to touch down and/or refueled at the base). On the other hand, some other Greek Cypriot source who did not wish to be indentified told the author that Netanyahu touched down at the Pafos base before officially landing at Larnaka International Airport.

[5]http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/MOI/pio/pio.nsf/All/7B6E8CBF2B8CE13EC2257981002F8CC0?OpenDocument: The press release issued by the Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office after the conclusion of Demetris Eliades’, the Cypriot Minister of Defence, first official visit to Israel talks of the signing of “two agreements for defence cooperation and for protection and exchange of classified information.” (accessed 23 March 2012)

[6] Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) Attila I & II Operations of invasion of Cyprus, 20 July – 16 August 1974. Earlier, in the first incursion of August 1964, the Turkish Air Force dropped napalm bombs causing Greek Cypriot civilian casualties in the northwest part of the island.

[7] “US Appoints Energy Officer to Nicosia Embassy to cover the region”, Cyprus Mail, 9 February 2012, page 5.

[8] Today’s Zaman with Reuters, 22 September 2011, Istanbul (Constantinople): http://www.todayszaman.com/news-257606-greek-cyprus-promises-to-share-gas-proceeds-with-turkish-cypriots.html (accessed 23 March 2012).

[9] UNCLOS III, Part V: Exclusive Economic Zone, Article 56.

[10] UNCLOS III, Part VIII, Article 121: Regime of Islands (emphasis added to illustrate this crucial point).

[11] CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/eg.html (accessed 27 March 2012)

[12] CIA Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cy.html (accessed 27 March 2012).

[13] The Cyprus-Egypt EEZ delimitation agreement was negotiated over a period of some years, signed on 17 February 2003 and ratified on 7 March 2004. (Amb. A. Jacovides: Some Aspects of the Law of the Sea: Islands, Delimitation and Dispute Settlement Revisited, Rhodes, Greece, 9 July 2004, p. 26)

[14] Cyprus and Israel sign deal demarcating sea borders: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/cyprus-and-israel-sign-deal-demarcating-sea-borders-1.331160 (accessed 27 March 2012)

[15] The Turkish position, reportedly, supports that negotiations on the delimitations need to take into account the particular geographic and demographic circumstances. The clear implication being that Ankara claims a larger share both in the Aegean and the Mediterranean Sea on the basis of the argument that it has an extensive coastline and a large population size (80 million: est. July 2012, CIA Factbook). If the international community accepts such a dangerous argument, the world will no doubt experience more, possibly armed, conflicts than solve the existing ones on a global scale. For instance, China, which is ten times larger than Japan in population size, will be seeking to ‘devour’ the natural resources of the Sea of Japan which divides the two Far Eastern giants.

[16] CIA Factbook asserts that “the Turkish Navy is a regional naval power that wants to develop the capability to project power beyond Turkey’s coastal waters; the [Turkish] Navy is heavily involved in NATO, multinational, and UN operations; its roles include control of territorial waters and security for sea lines of communications”: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tu.html (accessed 26 March 2012)

[17] UNCLOS III, Part IV, Article 121: Regime of Islands makes clear that only ‘rocks which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no EEZ or continental shelf.’

[18] Discussion with Dr. Ayla Gurel, PRIO Cyprus Centre, March 2012.

[19] However, Greek New Democracy leader Antonis Samaras in a recent visit in Nicosia (February 2012) stated that Greece should follow Cyprus’ path in delimitating its EEZ. According to the most recent polls Samaras is widely expected to win the forthcoming elections in May and take power.

Comments  

A few observations
written by Dean Plassaras, April 06, 2012 

1. Turkey is not a rising regional power in the context of Europe. The European regional powers are: UK, France, Germany, Italy and Russia. Turkey is a regional power in the part of Middle East where every country is a regional power: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey are all regional powers. However, Turkey can not surpass Israel’s regional power status which has both nuclear and the full support of the US defense mechanisms.

2. Regardless of the pipelines designed to pass through Turkey the fact remains the same. Unless such pipelines can carry reasonably priced natural gas there is no obligation for the EU consumers to buy such gas. As things stand – with the abundance of shale gas and US discoveries on American soil – natural gas is only at 1/3 of the price that could make it viable and marketable as pipeline gas for a European destination. The completion of Nord Stream has put an end to Nabucco.

3. On the key issue of the EEZ. Both Israel and Cyprus, as well as the applicable EU law guidelines recognize the median line as the only acceptable form of EEZ delineation; and as such they have pretty much settled any EEZ disputes in practical terms. Greece can not arbitrarily define her EEZ for the benefit of Libya, Egypt and Turkey. Greece has to follow European Law and European custom. As Mr. Nikos Lygeros keep saying the next step for Greece is “thespisis” (adaptation of the EEZ methodology). Oriothetisis (delineation) follows but it does not mean that those resisting the median line concept will ever prevail. It only means that the outcome is inevitable, however it may take a few years to carry through and get to the final destination.

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.

As it is known, the Turkish-Israeli relations are in deep crisis, as a result of the implementation of the neo-ottoman theory of the Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davoutoglu which wants Turkey to take sides with the Arab world. In actual fact, Turkey strongly condemned the Israeli bombardment of Gaza, received the leader of Hamas in Ankara, conducted common military exercises with Syria, arch-enemy of Israel, while refusing to do the same with Israel in accordance with their Treaty of Military Co-operation of 1996, supports Iran, accused of its nuclear ambitions and lastly tried to break the embargo on Gaza with the known results. The purpose of all these actions is to project Turkey as the big Islamic power which is capable of creating problems to Israel, more effectively than Iran. In doing so, Turkey asserts that she is not counting political cost and alliances.

Israel had, therefore, to deal with this situation and it was only natural to turn towards Greece and Cyprus with which it entertains excellent relations. On their part, the two countries took advantage of this opportunity, with a view to promoting the goals of their foreign policy, a diplomatic tenet under the circumstances.

The visit of Netanyahu to Athens, a month after Papandreou’s visit to Jerusalem, is the first official visit of an Israeli Prime Minister to Greece and is expression of the mutual will to bolster the ties between the two countries. The visit afforded the opportunity to exchange views on a variety of issues of bilateral co-operation. The discussion, inter alia, covered military co-operation, security, armaments, economy, tourism, energy, know-how, joint ventures, etc. As a concrete result came the decision to establish a Joint Committee with a view to identifying sectors presenting real prospects of rapid development and intensive co-operation.

Netanyahu’s visit upgraded the role of Greece in the region of the Middle East, where peace is of vital importance. In this respect, Greece’s traditional friendship with the Arab world can be of help, as it enjoys the trust of both parties. Papandreou put particular emphasis on this point by saying that Greece wants to be useful to the Israelo-Palestinian rapprochement, as well as that of the Arab world with Europe.

In view of the above, a reasonable question was put by journalists to the two Prime Ministers: Whether the relations of strategic importance between Greece and Israel are competing those with turkey. The answer of both was “no”, but the Greek P.M. stressed that Turkey has to show respect to the peoples and the countries of the region.

The Foreign Minister of Israel, Avigdor Lieberman visited Cyprus at the invitation of his Cypriot counterpart, when P.M. Netanyahu was in Washington for the direct talks with the Palestinian leader. It should be noted tha Lieberman and Kyprianou met several times this year in an effort to strengthen the relations of their countries. Their discussions covered a variety of issues among which prominent was the joint proposal of Greece and Cyprus for transporting humanitarian aid to Gaza. The reasoning behind this proposal is Cyprus’ proximity to the region and its excellent relations with the parties concerned. Lieberman described the proposal as very positive, adding that it is on the discussion table. In this respect the possibility is being explored of putting the project under the E.U.’s umbrella, with a view to giving more substance to its role in the region.

The relations of Israel with the E.U. was another issue which was discussed. For Israel Cyprus represents the closest gate to the E.U. Co-operation, therefore, in as many as possible fields is helping Israel’s European perspectives. In this respect, it should be mentioned that now, as compared to the past, Israel is willing to enter into dialogue with Cyprus for the delimitation of the boundaries of the Exclusive Economic Zone between the two countries. Moreover, after the deterioration of its relations with Turkey, Israel believes that Cyprus together with Greece, Bulgaria and Romania could become the bridge towards Brussels, which fits Cyprus’ ambition to become the bridge between the E.U. and the Middle East. Mention should be made that in the E.U., Israel has a strong ally, France. President Sarkozy speaking in the Knesset, in June 2008 confirmed that Israel can count on Europe for help in finding a final solution to the problem of the Middle East and that France is also committed to this goal. However, Israel is not focusing its interest only on E.U. Versus the Davutoglu doctrine, Lieberman has his own doctrine, according to which Israel should become a dominating power in the Mediterranean, member of the E.U. and NATO with influence in Africa and special relation with all those Balkan countries despising the neo-ottoman model of Turkey.

Concluding, we observe that the need to deal with the new situation created by the neo-ottoman ambitions of Turkey in the region of the Middle East, which consequently led to the deterioration of the relations between Turkey and Israel, prompted the Israeli diplomacy to seek new balances so as to secure stability in the region. In order to achieve it, Israel decided to strengthen its relations with Cyprus and Greece, taking also into account the curtailed powers of the Turkish army, champion of the alliance with Israel, after the victory of Erdogan at the 12 September 2010 referendum. If, therefore, the strengthening of these relations could be considered as creating a new triangle Athens-Nicosia-Tel Aviv, it is a matter of interpretation of the data analysed above.

Hits: 1570

Lecturer
written by Dr. William Mallinson, November 06, 2010 

Good analysis, Andrestino Papadopoulos. However….,whenever Turkey is friendly towards Israel, Greece turns up its nose. Whenever Turkey is unfriendly towards Israel, Greece dances with the latter, thinking that it can gain something. In fact, IMF-controlled Greece is simply doing the US’s bidding, to put pressure on Turkey to keep the Israel-Jordan-Egypt-Turkey military axis in place. Note, readers, that the deep Turkish state, the Bozkurt et al., is still very much with Israel’s military, whatever the temporary contractual PR-pride problems. Greece is playing a dangerous game, rather naively, as is Cyprus. Behind this whole round of pseudo-diplomatic empty back-slapping gestures lies the US’s and its British foreign policy poodle’s fears that Russia is slowly but ineluctably increasing its influence in the Eastern Mediterranean. Cyprus, by indulging in too much dancing, and slavishly following Greek (US) policy,is in danger of losing Russian support.
Anyhow I like the retired ambassador’s analysis, as it leaves space for speculation, and is not overly rigid. Enjoy, therefore, this piece I wrote some time ago, and ask yourself if things can really move so fast… .

TURKEY AND ISRAEL: MORE THAN A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE

The more scorned a country feels, the greater the tendency for it to seek out other scorned countries to see if it can find “common denominators”. Thus Germany, humiliated after the First World War, co-operated with the Soviet Union, first with secret military agreements, and then more openly after the Treaty of Rapallo in 1922; both countries also disliked the same country, Poland. Both were considered international pariahs at the time, whether rightly or wrongly.
Israel co-operated closely with South Africa when the latter, under its apartheid regime, was internationally blackballed, with most of the balls being black. The co-operation was largely military, overt and covert. Links between the countries’ external security services, Boss and Mossad, were close. Both countries ignored numerous UN resolutions.
The most recent example of the scorned seeking the scorned is, or course, that of Israel and Turkey, who revived a military co-operation agreement in 1996, that goes back to the late fifties. Again, both states are hardly a paragon of international virtue, supported only consistently by the USA and its strategic acolyte, Britain, although most countries are friendly towards them, for the sake of decorum, courtesy and peace. Both countries ignore numerous UN resolutions; both fear Russia; their respective security services exchange information on Syria and both have a common enemy, also Syria. Both countries occupy parts of other countries, illegally. An interesting quirk is that Syria has territorial claims on its former coloniser, Turkey: with the connivance of France, Hatay (Alexandretta) was stealthily “acquired” by Turkey in 1939, despite the fact that Syrians were in a majority.
The question is whether this is just another ephemeral unholy alliance, an alliance of pure self-interest, that works in spite of deep-seated historico-cultural differences, or something more significant. The evidence suggests that it is more than a simple marriage of convenience. Anyone who knows about the plethora of secret meetings between the two states, that has gone on for years, of the deep-seated mutual disdain between much of the Arab world and its former coloniser, Turkey, will realise that the military co-operation agreement is but the tip of an iceberg, an iceberg being pushed by hoards of American frogmen, with the avowed objective of achieving firm control over the Middle East, in the interests, naturally, of peace and security. In this way, Russian influence in the Mediterranean and the Middle East can be controlled, and Israel can be subtly inserted into the NATO fold, with Jordan perhaps being brought into the equation for good measure, to divide the “evil Arab world”, and control terrorism, just so that the Turks can continue to slaughter those awful Kurds and Israel conveniently forget some of the Oslo accords.
The US Embassy in Athens has justified Israeli Turkish co-operation with the following words: “US military co-operation with Turkey and Israel is a matter of long-standing policy and practice. As a NATO ally and friend with Turkey and as a special ally with Israel, both democracies and key regional players, the United States shares core values and mutual security and political objectives in the Eastern Mediterranean. Israel and Turkey have likewise found that they share common objectives, in part from confronting the same set of neighbours which have pursued weapons of mass destruction programmes, have been sponsors and supporters of terrorism, and which have been inimical to democracy, the rule of law and regional stability.”
These neighbours are not actually named, but are obviously Iran, Iraq and Syria, not to mention some others! There is no mention of Israeli terrorism at home and abroad (vis. Vanunu) or of the treatment of innocent and unarmed Kurdish villagers, no mention of Israel’s nuclear arsenal and chemical and biological weapons programmes, nor of its disregard for international law. How different are they from Iran, Iraq or Syria? Above all, what exactly are the core values and political objectives shared by the USA, Turkey and Israel?
Lest the reader thinks that this is an angry, unbalanced article, then consider that the essentially pro-American “Economist” has written that Syria’s concerns about Turkish-Israeli military co-operation are “fairly well grounded.” The article undoubtedly embarrassed the Pentagon and angered the Turkish and Israeli governments. It represents one of those occasional but authoritative “Economist” warnings that things have gone too far. The last time the “Economist” said anything so risqué was just after the abortive American attempt to rescue the American hostages at the US Embassy in Tehran, by printing a front-page cartoon of President Carter dressed as a cowboy, with his six-guns at the ready. Cruel stuff, and exaggerated criticism, maybe unjustified, even, yet nevertheless telling.
Turkey has in the past threatened to attack Syria. Syria may well be offering support to the Kurds in Turkey, but then other countries also support the Kurds, depending, of course, where they are. So far, the published Israeli-Turkish military co-operation involves a 1998 $ 700 million contract for Israel to upgrade 54 Turkish F4’s, a $70 million one to upgrade 48 F5’s, and joint manufacture of 1000 tanks and “some helicopters.” Israel also hopes to sell Turkey an early warning system; and also uses Turkish territory for low-flying exercises.
This may well be but the thin end of the wedge. The Arab League condemned the pact as “exposing Arab national interests to real danger and bringing the region back to the policies of axes and alliances.” Greek objections are too well known to enunciate here.
At the moment, it is unlikely that Turkey will attack Syria; nor will the USA allow it, since it is trying to solve the Israel-Palestine problem, albeit somewhat less adroitly than the Norwegians managed, with their landmark Oslo agreement. The Turkish threats are merely a testing of the waters and a flexing of the muscles; yet it is unlikely they would have been made so blatantly without the unholy alliance and American suggestiveness. The objective is to simply warn Syria, Libya, Iran and, more indirectly, Russia, that Israel is no longer alone in the region.
For Greece, the unholy alliance could become more than an irritant, because of Cyprus. However far- fetched it may sound, Turkey could easily encourage the Israeli air force and navy to train in occupied Cyprus, with the Pentagon publicly tut-tutting, but privately sniggering. It could even offer a home in northern Cyprus to would-be Jewish immigrants, as it did in the sixteenth century, to “counterbalance” the Greek-speaking Christian population. There is even a small minority of extreme Zionists in Israel that claims Cypriot territory as part of the Jewish heritage. Thus, an already overcrowded Israel could find more Lebensraum. When one looks at the extremist elements in Turkey and Israel, such plans are not beyond the bounds of possibility.
One can only hope that the mature elements of the Pentagon bury their differences with the generally less idealistic career diplomats of the State Department and turn increasingly to international law to solve disputes, rather than to dangerous policies of regional axes and international armchair tele-chess. Will the Obama factor prove to be no more than a childish dream?

Dr. William D. E. Mallinson
Athens, 14 November 2008

…
written by Andreas Evriviades Louca, May 19, 2011 

It was inevitable that Turkey’s decision to upgrade its political status amongst the countries of the Middle East would cause repercussions from its allies in the western world, as well as in the Eurasian region. While the U.S.A simply expressed some mild annoyance among diplomatic circles in regard with Turkey’s new direction Israel’s moved in a more dynamic way.
Netanyahu’s first official visit to Greece and the various meetings with the Cypriot government angered Turkey’s political elite, its disputes and problematic relationship with these two countries have been going on for decades. Tel Aviv’s strengthening of its relations with Greece and Cyprus can be interpreted in different ways. It can either be seen as a response towards Turkey, a message that shifting its allegiance towards anti-Israeli countries such as Syria and Iran will not be tolerated. On the contrary it will be met with an identical shift of its own towards countries that Turkey is facing problems with. A different interpretation of these events, and one that both the governments of Greece and Cyprus must take under consideration, is that Israel is simply seeking a way to discipline Turkey temporarily before reenergizing their relationship as allies, sending Greece and Cyprus back to their original position as friendly states instead of strong allies and partners.
Indeed an alliance with a powerful country such as Turkey would endear many countries in Eastern Europe, the Mediterranean and the Middle East, also there is no doubt that Israel can benefit significantly from agreements and joint military operations with Turkey. However if there is one thing that Israel must take under consideration is that Turkey’s neo-Ottoman plans and ambitions extend beyond the measly status of a regional power in the edge of Europe. In order for Turkey to strengthen its relations with the Arabic states and eventually assume leadership over them, it must abandon its strong relations with Israel. Additionally attempts will be made to undermine Israel’s influence and power in the area of the eastern Mediterranean. A turn towards Greece and Cyprus might benefit Israel long-term in regard of security matters as well as short-term in regard with economical growth. The newly discovered deposits of natural gas in the area of Cyprus could very well bring these countries together and change the map of interests in the area

The Israeli submarine patrols, albeit in a negative perspective, perfectly illustrate the inter-connectivity between the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea. Today, it is in the strategic theatre of the Indian Ocean that intertwines the two big conflicts which can alter global order: the tension between China and India for energy supplies and that of the USA and the Islamic world over the control of energy production.

In fact more than 15% of the world’s oil supply is transited through the Strait of Hormuz. Furthermore, the Strait of Hormuz serves the increasing Chinese energy demand. No wonder that the Strait plays host to the American fleet, the Indian aircraft carrier and, now as we also know, the second submarine of Israel.

However, the Indian fleet, not only monitors Hormuz, it also navigates around the Strait of Malacca where all the Chinese exports exit, destined to Europe and strategic parts of Africa. The relationship between China and India is now oscillating between tension and indifference, while that of Iran and China is improving and that of the USA and Israel is worsening.

In the global strategic context the military relationship including technological assistance between India and Israel, should not be underestimated in as much as they are mutually opposed to the Islamic coalition. Quite openly, the Dolphin-type Israeli submarine of the Persian Gulf had accomplished its training in Indian territorial waters in close collaboration with the Indian Marines.

The geopolitics of oil flow concerns an array of countries: from the Mediterranean Rim to the Gulf and further to Central Asia and China. We are increasingly becoming sea-dependent. The new geo-strategic aim of the Israeli Marine Corps confirms this statement. It seems that for Israel, it is no longer the Mediterranean Sea but the Strait of Hormuz, from where to launch a potential offensive.

Rising China & India Puts Control of the High Seas in Sharp Relief

Today’s advanced capitalist development of China and the concomitant international labour division, structured as it is, on the coherent manufacture-distribution world network based on the low Chinese wages and the making of high profits among occidental and Chinese multinationals alike, imposes an increasing occupation of the high seas.

The strong appearance of China in the first, and of India in the second place on the international scene, has opened a new phase of destabilization of the prevailing model of Anglo-Saxon supremacy as constructed by the UK and the United States. Most, if not all, the major ‘check and control points’ in the global seas controlled by the US fleet in unfolding its capacity of emergency intervention to protect and promote the American interests, were previously in the hands of the British Empire.

In such ‘check points’, together with an excessive strong tension, in fact, emerge the same small “strait”, the passage of oil or the export of the merchandise which are both the result of the new delocalization in Asia and in particular in China.

China and India have become huge importers of oil. For that matter there is increasing tension in the areas of strategic networks: at the Straits of Malacca and of Hormuz, as well as at the Suez and the Panama Canal.

As a consequence, the areas surrounding these Straits solidify the stronger tension emanating from the new delocalized industrial order and also from the capitalistic model based on the oil-transport axes. The immense growth of Chinese manufacture in the last decade has led to great energy demand by Beijing for internal consumption. Both of those processes have been boosting tremendously maritime transport of oil and commodity containers. The number of oil tankers and container-carriers ploughing through the oceans saw steep increase.

In fact, the first Chinese super oil tanker capable of surpassing the Strait of Malacca and using the passage of Lombok is already active. The Strait of Malacca is a strategic passage of Japan as well as of China for oil imports on the one hand and for manufactured products exports on the other.

The Strait of Malacca dividing the peninsula of Malaysia on the east from the island of Sumatra (Indonesia) in the west isbecoming increasingly security sensitive. This all-important Strait in Southeast Asia emerges loaded with ‘goods’ but also tension, as it becomes a prime target for the new piracy activity, boasting record attacks in the South China Sea. The area is equally exposed to tensions between China, Japan and USA for control of access to Taiwan and also between pirates in the Strait of Malacca and that of military-diplomats in the Paracel Islands and Spratly between China, Vietnam, Philippines and Taiwan.

The US and China vie also for control of the narrow seawater passageway between Singapore and Batam: the Straits of Singapore. Baptised by the French geographer Yves, as the “Asian Mediterranean”, the Singapore Straits encapsulate once more the problems derived from the redesign of the international division of labour leading to new issues regarding energy supply and consequently unresolved knots in the global geopolitical game.

‘Mare Nostrum’: A Vision for the Mediterranean Sea

It is indeed the “sea”, together with the “freespace”, where the industrial and energy courses are hindered making the sea a place more sensitive to climatic changes and bio-ecologies. For this reason, the moment the Mediterranean Sea will get congested by worldwide naval traffic on the east-west network it will become either the next ecological disaster or the space for a dimension totally new to the sea: the Mediterranean as a “common good”, as a patrimony to the humanity.

Contrary to the vision of a purportedly “free sea” for the Transatlantic “Sea Power” which is subject to tensions and conflicts, like in the Indian Ocean, we should propose a “mare nostrum” as a common good for the citizens of all of the coastal states. Our closed sea, the Mediterranean can again play its central role, like the original one at the start of civilization: a “free and common sea” where freedom conjugates with peace and with the common interest in the preservation of our precious environment and biodiversity.

We can think therefore of a step forward, perceiving of the Montego Bay 1982 Convention of the Law of the Sea, not only as rules and regulations for navigation but as an “ecological patrimony for the humanity”.

The Mediterranean can be the model of harmonious cohabitation of diversity at the biological as well as the cultural level. For this reason,with the challenge of standardization that the United States in competition with China are engaged in, the Mediterranean should open a new space and new possible dimension of living in harmony with nature and with diverse cultures.

The Mediterranean, therefore, as a “depository of biodiversity and multi-culturalism” becomes a new centre, a new distributor of culture and of healthy patterns at a world-wide level.

*This article is published in memory of our deceased colleague and dear friend, Oscar Marchisio, the prolific Italian intellectual, author and practitioner, who died in Bologna, 7 August 2009. The brief analysis above formed part of a grand project in pursuance of peace, tolerance, cooperation and creativity in ‘Mare Nostrum‘ , ‘our Mediterranean Sea’, that we agreed upon with late Oscar (Bologna, January 2009). Oscar Marchisio called for our cooperation. We swiftly responded positively. The sudden death of Oscar left this tall task unfininished. We, at the International Security Forum vow to strive for the implementation of the noble goals late Oscar dedicated his life to. Caro Oscar, riposa in pace! Dr Yiorghos Leventis 

Hits: 2948

Comments

no israel
written by arabmuslim, November 03, 2010 

There is no democracy in Israel as a state is illegitimate and illegal and not recognized
Evidence of this if anyone wanted to write a comment in the Israeli websites
Does not allow him or be there are many obstacles to prevent him from writing a comment The reasons for Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation of Palestine in 1948.
Palestine Arab Islamic state like the rest of the Arab and Islamic states surrounding
Them. Means that there are Jews and Zionists in Palestine a big mistake, because this entity
Zionist is not consistent with the surrounding area (such as language, customs, traditions and religion)
The only solution to end the Arab-Israeli conflict is the expulsion of Jews from Palestine
All of Palestine. The Jewish people will not rest and will not feel comfortable and stability
But if it gets out of Palestine and the Middle East completely. If people continue to
Jews in Palestine and the Middle East, the death and destruction will continue.
Palestine Arab Islamic state and will remain

wholesale new era hats
written by red bull hats for sale, September 23, 2011 

A cheap snapbacks that was when termed as scary and daunting has now turn into an emblem of attractiveness and trend. You might typically see iconic individuals including celebrities sporting leading wholesale snapback hats and almost certainly you are going to really like it. Considering the fact that a major hat of any type, Emotionis not reserved for that rich and innovative society, you could possibly acquire it and put on it. http://www.cheapsnapbackshop.org It isn’t even reserved for theater actors who after wore it with tap sneakers and suspenders. There several best hats for sale around the Internet so you need to vigilantly pick the most beneficial retailer.