The 2025 EU Non-Proliferation & Disarmament Conference was organised by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) of Rome. Remarkably, this year, the IAI celebrates its 60^th anniversary of existence. The Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI), an important think tank in Italy focused on international affairs, receives funding primarily from the Italian government through various budgetary allocations. As of 2025, its annual funding from the Italian state is approximately €4.2 million.

In sharp contrast, the International Security Forum Cyprus has, in the seventeen years of its operation, received zero funding from the Cypriot government. Nevertheless, ISF raises the security and foreign policy-oriented research flag of the Republic of Cyprus where there is no presence otherwise.

The Brussels EU Disarmament Conference is the annual flagship event that brings together experts from governments, international organizations and research institutions worldwide to discuss all aspects of the EU’s non-proliferation and disarmament agenda. Invariably, this agenda, includes arms control, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, space security and emerging technologies. Over two days, participants engaged in open and substantive discussions aimed at advancing global non-proliferation and disarmament objectives. The Conference also seeks to support the implementation of the EU Strategic Compass. It formulates policy recommendations to strengthen the EU’s role in these fields.

Global Stability in Focus: Disarmament, UN Reforms, and Pathways to Peace

The interview will also be published in the magazine Chinese Views on Non-Traditional Security. The full text of the interview can be found in the following link: 

https://www.spcis.org/post/yiorghos-leventis-global-stability-in-focus-disarmament-un-reforms-and-pathways-to-peace

Αμέτρητοι μύθοι γύρω από τη σπηλιά του Αγίου Μιχαήλ στο βράχο του Γιβραλτάρ. Κυριαρχεί όμως ο μύθος που υποστηρίζει ότι το συγκεκριμένο σπήλαιο ήταν οι πύλες του Άδη. Άρα και η είσοδος για τον Κάτω Κόσμο. Ακόμη ένας μύθος αναφέρει πως εκεί υπήρξε η μια από τις Ηράκλειες Στήλες, οι οποίες αποτελούν ίσως τις παλαιότερες φρυκτωρίες της Αρχαιότητας.

Οι αρχαίοι Έλληνες, πίστευαν ότι οι Ηράκλειες Στήλες βρίσκονταν στην Ιβηρική χερσόνησο, στο σημερινό Γιβραλτάρ. Εκεί θεωρούσαν ότι ήταν η άκρη του κόσμου. Δεν είχαν και άδικο.

Ο έλεγχος του Γιβραλτάρ αποτελεί και στη νεώτερη εποχή, κατά τους τελευταίους τρεις αιώνες, το Μήλον της Έριδος μεταξύ δύο αποικιακών δυνάμεων της Ισπανίας και της Βρετανίας. Η πρώτη έχει αποδώσει ανεξαρτησία σχεδόν στο σύνολο των αποικιών της. Η δεύτερη όμως, η κραταιά Μεγάλη Βρετανία εξακολουθεί να ελέγχει δεκαεπτά Υπερπόντιες Κτήσεις μεταξύ των οποίων και τις δύο πύλες της στρατηγικής Μεσογείου Θαλάσσης. Στο μεν δυτικό άκρο, τις Ηράκλεις Στήλες, στο δε ανατολικό άκρο την διαμελισμένη μας πατρίδα. Η Κύπρος ελέγχεται από το Λονδίνο όχι μόνο μέσα από την αμφιλεγόμενη – από το Διεθνές Δίκαιο – κυριαρχία των Βρετανικών Βάσεων αλλά και δια μέσου των εκτεταμένων διευκολύνσεων τις οποίες απολαμβάνει εκ γενέσεως της κολωβής Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας.

Η εξέλιξη του Γιβραλτάρ ως υπερπόντιας Βρετανικής κτήσης χρήζει προσοχής μιας και παρουσιάζει κοινά στοιχεία με την περίπτωση της Κύπρου. Υπάρχουν βέβαια και διαφορές.

Θα κάνουμε παρακάτω μια πρώτη απόπειρα παρουσίασης του σύγχρονου πολιτικού καθεστώτος του Γιβραλτάρ στο ελληνικό αναγνωστικό κοινό. Ο Βράχος όπως είναι γνωστός στην αγγλική βιβλιογραφία (The Rock) περιήλθε υπό Βρετανική κυριαρχία με την συνθήκη της Ουτρέχτης το 1713. Το Λονδίνο διατείνεται ότι η κυριαρχία του επί του χερσαίου χώρου του Γιβραλτάρ αφ’ εαυτού εξυπακούει και την άσκηση κυριαρχίας επί των εκτεινομένων χωρικών υδάτων.

Απεναντίας η Μαδρίτη θεωρεί ότι με βάση το άρθρο 10 της Συνθήκης της Ουτρέχτης, έχει παραδώσει στη Βρετανία μόνο την πόλη, το κάστρο, το λιμάνι και τα οχυρωματικά του έργα. Η διένεξη είναι πολυεπίπεδη και πολυδιάστατη. Η Μαδρίτη οπλισμένη με το σύγχρονο Διεθνές Δίκαιο όπως αυτό διαμορφώθηκε με την ίδρυση του ΟΗΕ, προβάλλει το επιχείρημα ότι δικαιούται κυριαρχία επί του νοτιώτερου άκρου της Ιβηρικής Χερσονήσου. Ο λόγος είναι προφανής:

Το Γιβραλτάρ έχει περιληφθεί στον Κατάλογο των Μη Αυτοκυβερνούμενων Περιοχών του ΟΗΕ ήδη από το 1946 – ουσιαστικά δηλαδή από την εποχή έναρξης εφαρμογής του Καταστατικού Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ. Η διελκυστίνδα, δηλαδή, Βρετανίας – Ισπανίας βαίνει να κλείσει αισίως ογδανταετία: όσο υπάρχει ο ΟΗΕ, υπάρχει και το άλυτο ζήτημα του Γιβραλτάρ. Το ίδιο ισχύει και για την Κύπρο, όπου η αυτοδιάθεση δεν εφαρμόστηκε επαρκώς δηλαδή αδιαιρέτως, με αποτέλεσμα το νησί ουδέποτε να αποαποικιοποιηθεί συνολικώς παρά μόνο μερικώς – πράγμα το οποίο αντίκειται στο πνεύμα του Καταστατικού Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ (1945) αλλά του πρωιώντος Χάρτη του Ατλαντικού (1941).  Σύμφωνα με την τελευταία έκθεση της Ειδικής Επιτροπής ΟΗΕ Για την Εφαρμογή της Διακήρυξης Παραχώρησης Ανεξαρτησίας στις Αποικιοκρατούμενες Χώρες και Λαούς της 9^ης Μαρτίου 2023 (παρ. 8):

Το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο εξακολουθεί να πιστεύει ότι ως αναγνωρισμένη ξεχωριστή Μη Αυτοκυβερνούμενη Περιοχή, το Γιβραλτάρ απολαμβάνει τα … συλλογικά δικαιώματα τα οποία απονέμει ο ΚΧ του ΟΗΕ. Το ΗΒ πιστεύει επίσης ότο λαός του Γιβραλτάρ έχει δικαίωμα στην αυτοδιάθεση.

Ακόμη και στην χερσαία μικροέκταση ανήκουσα στην Υπερπόντια Κτήση του Γιβραλτάρ υπάρχει διαφωνία. Το Λονδίνο υποστηρίζει ότι είναι 5,8 τετραγωνικά χιλιόμετρα. Αντίθετα η Μαδρίτη υποστηρίζει ότι είναι ένα τετραγωνικό χιλιόμετρο λιγότερο, δηλαδή 4,8. Αξίζει να αναφερθεί ότι το Γιβραλτάρ, η στενή αυτή λωρίδα της στρατηγικής χερσονήσου, ενώνεται με την Ισπανία με ένα ισθμό 1600 μέτρων περίπου, ο έλεγχος του οποίου είναι επίσης διαφιλονικούμενος. Η Αφρικανική ήπειρος απέχει μόλις 32 χιλιόμετρα προς νότο.

Με βάση απογραφή του 2016 ο πληθυσμός του Γιβραλτάρ ανέρχεται σε 34,000 κατοίκους. Βρετανικός νόμος περί Υπερποντίων Περιοχών του 2002 παραχωρεί Βρετανική (Υπερπόντια) υπηκοότητα στους Γιβραλταριανούς.

Κατά την τελευταία σύνοδο της εικοσιεννιαμελούς επιτροπής του ΟΗΕ για την αποαποικιοποίηση τον Ιούνη του 2023 ο Πρωθυπουργός του Γιβραλτάρ Fabian Picardo δήλωσε εμφαντικά: Το Γιβραλτάρ Ανήκει στους Γιβραλταριανούς τελεία και παύλα για να προσθέσει σε όποιον δεν αρέσει, θα το ανεχθεί και θα πει κι ένα τραγούδι.

Two years back, in September 2019, Ankara first raised the issue of Kashmir at the United Nations General Assembly. What prompted Ankara to do so?

Since the British colonialists’ withdrawal and the partition of the Indian subcontinent in two states in 1947, part of Kashmir has stayed under Indian sovereignty. New Delhi had granted autonomy and a special status to the predominantly Muslim populated Kashmir. (In 2003, the percentage of Muslims in the Kashmir Valley was 95 percent and those of Hindus four percent). However, in August 2019, India passed a constitutional amendment revoking the special status and autonomy for Indian-administered Kashmir and absorbed it into the country’s governance mainstream. Since then, tensions with Pakistan remained high. (Note the parallel with Makarios’ failed attempt in 1963 to strip the Turkish Cypriot Muslim minority from its prerogatives through a raft of sweeping amendments of thirteen articles of the Republic of Cyprus constitution). Within a month after the Indians devested the Kashmiris of their autonomy, Ankara raises the issue at the foremost international forum.

Nine months later, on the 17^th of June 2020, the United Nations General Assembly elects Volkan Bozkir of Turkey, as President of its seventy-fifth session (Sep 2020 – Sep 2021). The seventy-year-old Volkan Bozkır is a veteran diplomat and politician. He served as Minister for European Union Affairs from November 2015 to May 2016 and previously held the same office from August 2014 to August 2015.

At the heels of his UNGA top job election – the first ever Turkish national to strike such a success – Volkan Bozkir visited Pakistan (August 2020). The following year, he paid a second three day long visit to Islamabad (26-28 May 2021) as president of the UNGA.

Erdoğan himself visited Pakistan in February 2020. Addressing the parliament in Islamabad, the Turkish president said the Kashmir issue was as important to Turkey as it was to Pakistan, recalling the help of the Pakistani people during Turkey’s War of Independence and stating that Kashmir would now be the same for Turks.

According to recent Indian intelligence reports the Turkish government has been trying to radicalize Indian Muslims and recruit fundamentalists. “Fronts for the Turkish government or the outfits it supports – some of them directly linked to Erdogan and his family – appeared to have made deeper inroads in India than assessed earlier,” the Hindustan Times reported. Much of the effort is directed via Turkish state media, educational institutes, the nonprofit sector, the NGOs.

The Indian daily reports that “Turkey has been providing lucrative scholarships and running exchange programmes for Indian Kashmiri and Muslim students to study in Turkey through state-sponsored NGOs. Once the students land in Turkey, they are approached and taken over by the Pakistan proxies operating there.” Moreover, Indians “who serve Ankara’s agenda are being sent to Turkey by the embassy on exposure trips and encouraged to speak against India.”

It is highly likely that the Turkish leadership in lending a helping hand to Pakistani claims on Kashmir is expecting the return of the favour by Islamabad on the Cyprus front. Indeed, in international diplomatic corridors, it is rumoured that Pakistan may well be the first country – save for Turkey itself – to establish formal diplomatic relations with the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state.

We need to guard against such a negative development as well as draw the necessary lessons learnt from our failed campaign to get our own top diplomat Andreas Mavroyiannis elected president of the UNGA five years ago in 2016. Though the vote was close – Mavroyiannis lost for only four votes – the fact that he lost to the candidate of Fiji, a light weight in international affairs (who would doubt that?) is telling.

Fast forward four years, we witness the Turks winning the top seat we failed to secure in the biggest global multilateral organization. Incidentally, second largest after the UN, inter-governmental organization, is the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), (formerly Organization of the Islamic Conference) where we do not even have a say whereas Turkey in tandem with Pakistan may exercise much more leverage …

In fact, successive US administrations have been rating the Revolutionary Guards, Iran’s elite military corps and guardians of the Islamic regime, as a terrorist organization accusing it of meddling in other Middle East countries internal affairs. This forms a major source of friction between the two rivals as the West’s superpower jostles for regional influence with Iran’s mullahs. While the new American president Joe Biden has repeatedly stated that the US will return to the JCPOA deal, his administration imposed new sanctions on two members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and sanctioned Ebrahim Raisi, the new Persian president himself. Raisi, viewed in the West as a hardline nationalist, is due to take office on the 3^rd of August, replacing Hassan Rouhani, who has been considered a moderate and pragmatist. (Ironically, the date the Islamic cleric Hasan Rouhani steps down from the presidency in Iran coincides with the demise of our top cleric Archbishop Makarios and consequently his long and controversial involvement in Cypriot politics – 3^rd of August 1977).

In the last three years, America’s long list of sanctions sparked off Iran’s violation of the terms of the JCPOA. Tehran went on to test advanced centrifuges and accumulated substantial quantities of enriched uranium. The International Atomic Energy Agency, the watchdog organization assigned with the task of monitoring the implementation of the 2015 nuclear deal, estimated this spring that Iran had produced over three tons of uranium enriched up to five per cent purity. Moreover, the IAEA estimates that about seventy kilos have been already enriched to over twenty per cent purity. In other words, the international organization rates that Iran has covered most of the stages necessary to producing several nuclear bombs. Nevertheless, Tehran officially sticks to its position that it has no nuclear bomb ambitions and that its nuclear programme is geared only towards peaceful uses.

Talks on reinstating the original terms of the JCPOA have been ploughing on among the 2015 signatories in Vienna since April. It is widely rumored that the current month may be the last chance to strike a deal. Iran’s Deputy Foreign Minister stated after the last round of talks that ‘almost all the agreement documents are ready’. Equally, the EU representative spoke of optimism. Be that as it may, Tehran demands that the US removes all sanctions imposed by Donald Trump before returning to compliance with JCPOA provisions. Washington retorts that it will roll back only those sanctions explicitly stated in the 2015 agreement document.

Joe Biden has been fairly clear on his Iran nuclear programme policy: if Iran restored its compliance with the JCPOA, the US would do so as well as a starting point for further negotiations. Yet, half a year into Biden’s presidency, the deal is not secured. Washington may be starting to doubt whether Iran intends to restore its compliance with the accord. In fact, Reuters reported (1^st July 2021) that Tehran had restricted IAEA’s access to its main uranium enrichment site in Natanz. An attack took place at the Iranian site last April shortly before the talks resumed in Vienna. Tehran has blamed Israel for the blast and stepped up its nuclear activities. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement, but Israel’s public radio cited intelligence sources as saying it was a Mossad cyber-operation. Estimates of Israel’s nuclear stockpile widely diverge. The range is between eighty and four hundred nuclear warheads. Iran is deeply unhappy with Israel’s privileged status as the only nuclear power in the Middle East region and seeks to challenge Israel’s supremacy. Tough times lie ahead for the cause of nonproliferation!

The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO) formed in 1996, with the aim of limiting nuclear weapons tests, chronicles the first Chinese nuclear test as follows:

On 16 October 1964, the People’s Republic of China conducted its first nuclear test, making it the fifth nuclear-armed state after the United States, the Soviet Union, Britain and France. China had initiated its nuclear weapons programme in the mid-1950s, after the Korean war. At the outset, its efforts were backed by substantial Soviet assistance, including advisors and technical equipment. Research on nuclear weapon design began at the Institute of Physics and Atomic Energy in Beijing, and a uranium enrichment plant was constructed in Lanzhou to produce weapon-grade uranium.

With the cooling of Sino-Soviet relations in the late 1950s, the Soviet Union withdrew all assistance. In June 1959, Nikita Khrushchev decided to refuse the provision of a prototype bomb to the Chinese. This rupture prompted China to embark on its own nuclear testing project, code-named 59-6 after the month in which it was initiated.

Operation 59-6 was carried out at the Lop Nur test site in the Gobi desert of Xinjiang province, Western China, close to the ancient Silk Route. An implosion-type device was mounted from the top of a steel tower, producing a yield of 22 kilotons. It was the first of a total of 45 Chinese nuclear tests, all of which were conducted at Lop Nur. Twenty three of these tests were atmospheric and 22 underground, the yields ranging from 1 kiloton to 4 megatons. On 17 June 1967, just three years after operation 59-6 – faster than other nuclear weapon possessors – China detonated its first hydrogen bomb.

The effects of China’s nuclear testing on human health, animals and the environment are largely unexplored due to the lack of publically available official data. The Xinjiang region is the largest Chinese administrative division and home to 20 million people of different ethnic backgrounds.  A study carried out by the Japanese physicist Professor Jun Takada suggests that peak levels of radioactivity from China’s large-yield tests exceeded that of the 1986 Chernobyl reactor accident and seriously affected local populations.

In 2008, China started to pay undisclosed subsidies to personnel involved in nuclear testing. Compensation, however, has not been extended to civilian residents of the Xinjiang area, downwind of the Lop Nur test site.

China conducted its last test on 29 July 1996, only two months prior to signing the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 24 September 1996. However, it has yet to ratify the CTBT, a step that is mandatory for the Treaty’s entry into force. Ratifications of seven other nuclear-capable states are also missing: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, India, Israel, Iran, Pakistan and the United States.

[Source : https://www.ctbto.org/specials/testing-times/16-october-1964-first-chinese-nuclear-test/]

In the context of the nuclear disarmament it is interesting to note that in a few months, not later than April 2021, the NPT Review Conference is due to take place. The 2020 NPT Review Conference has been postponed due to the covid-19 pandemic.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons opened for signature in 1968. the The NPT Treaty entered into force in 1970. Since then, the NPT has been the cornerstone of global nuclear non-proliferation regime. 191 States parties have joined the Treaty, including the five NWS, making the NPT the most widely adhered to, multilateral disarmament agreement.

In a nutshell, there are two legs to the NPT: the first leg pertains to the commitment of the states parties not to proliferate NWs, the second leg asks NWS to take measures in order to decommission their nuclear weapons arsenal. In the past fifty years of the Treaty’s existence emphasis has been solely placed on the non-proliferation provision as NWS have generally failed to report on nuclear disarmament steps.

In the years between 2009 and 2011 the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) regularly conducted quarterly polls measuring the wishes of the people of Crimea. Those UNDP polls showed a steady pro-Russia trend: between 65 to 70 per cent of the 1200 voters polled favoured union with the Russian Federation. The ‘undecided’ block of voters ranged between 16 to 20 per cent.
The last such poll taken by the UNDP, in the last quarter of 2011, resulted in 67 per cent in favour of joining Russia, 20 per cent undecided and only 14 per cent opposed to joining the Russian Federation (RF). Therefore, it becomes abundantly clear, that despite Western claims challenging the validity of the 2014 Crimean referendum, the region expressed freely its will to form part of the Russian Federation. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the Crimean people felt that their interests are better served under the flag of the RF.

In the years that followed European delegates have been visiting Crimea despite the Western ban. For example, eleven conservative parliamentarians from France, including National Assembly delegates and senators, travel to Crimea for three days in July 2016. Thierry Mariani, MP of the party “The Republicans” and a former transport minister serving in the government of then-president Nicolas Sarkozy, headed the mission. Mariani had visited Crimea with a similar delegation for the first time in 2015. The return of the French delegation to Crimea the following year has shown a genuine desire to talk to the local residents and ascertain on the spot how they nationally-politically determine themselves. Mariani expressed understanding for the enosis of the Crimean peninsula with the Russian Federation.

To be sure, the recurrence of the French delegation Crimea fact finding mission has also gone a long way to demolish the argument floating in the mainstream Western media that Crimea, and by extension Russia, are isolated from the ‘international community that stands united against the annexation by Russia’. Such claims, clearly, do not carry any credibility.

More recently, the Third World Economic Forum (WEF) took place in Yalta, Crimea, RF (20-22 April 2017). The annual WEF was institutionalized in the spring of 2015. The Yalta WEF success is amply reflected in its wide international attendance: four weeks ago about 200 foreign delegates, including MPs, MEPs, politicians and businessmen, from no less than forty-six countries flocked in Yalta turning a deaf ear to the unfair calls to block the Russian Federation and its efforts for international peace and prosperity through dialogue, engagement and cooperation. Interestingly, the 200 foreign delegates in Yalta equally defied Poroshenko’s decision to declare them persona non grata and his regime’s subsequent launch of penal code court proceedings against them in the Ukraine.

It is worth noting the two Cypriot delegations participation in the Third Yalta WEF. For the first time, an AKEL party and Citizens’ Alliance delegation accepted invitations and attended. The two Cypriot party delegations were headed by their respective leaders Andros Kyprianou and Yiorghos Lillikas.

The International Security Forum, reflecting the genuine will of the Cypriot people, expresses the wish that the two Cypriot leaders who wisely accepted the Yalta invitation be admonished by the braveness of the Crimean people to determine their own future by their own free will. Self-determination is at the heart of both the Cyprus question and Crimea’s enosis with Russia. The Cyprus problem, has been an issue rooted in the denial of the inalienable right self-determination to the Cypriots. This fundamental right was enshrined time and again in international law; remarkably in the Atlantic Charter (1941) as well as the UN Charter (1945). The Cyprus problem started at the end of WWII, when the UK, the colonial ruler, refused to cede the predominantly Greek island to Greece at the Paris Peace Conference (1945) despite implicit and explicit undertakings by Winston Churchill during the war that he would do so. The Greek Cypriots, who like the Russian Crimean have always formed 80 per cent of the territory’s in question population, signed a plebiscite (1950) declaring their will that the island be united with Greece. The 1950 Cypriot referendum produced an identical result to the Crimean referendum:
Ninety-seven per cent of the Crimean people voted in favour of union with Russia. Their will was duly accepted. Moscow justifiably re-admitted the Crimean peninsula to the bosom of the Russian national family. Ninety-six per cent of Cypriots signed in favour of union (Enosis) of Cyprus with Greece (1950) (http://www.hellas.org/cyprus/dimopsif.htm). Was the Cypriot will ever accepted by the powers that be? Has Cyprus, a predominantly Greek island of 3000 years of Hellenic history and culture ever been re-admitted to the body of the Hellenic Republic? If anything the wrong-footed, ill-conceived and ill-conducted endless and futile Cyprus talks seek to drive the island into the bosom of the Islamo-fascist regime of Recep Tayyip Erdogan which muzzles descent and incarcerates its own Turkish dissidents let alone people of other ethnic, religious and linguistic background …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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