Co-Authors: Dr. Morris Mottale & Dr. Yiorghos Leventis

At the end of the Cold War, in Washington and Western Europe there was a consensus that a new world order was coming around. Overlooked was the fact that an Islamic revolution in Iran led by an octogenarian Ayatollah brought a series of upheavals in the Islamic world that saw radical terrorism, revolutions in Africa, and civil wars that continue to this day. These events were capped years later by conflicts in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, North Africa, and Sub Saharan Africa and eventually a radical Islamic takeover in Afghanistan. In short, the end of the Cold War brought an endless list of conflicts of which the two outstanding ones are the war in Ukraine and the war within the Gaza Strip. There are at least fifty other wars in Africa and Asia but they do not make the news, including conflicts in Somalia, Central Africa Republic, Ethiopia, Sudan, Southern Sudan, and The Republic of Congo among many others.

The preeminence of international news networks such as CNN and the BBC along with social media brings the focus solely on the Arab-Israeli conflict and American politics. By the year 2000, there was a consensus that the new International System would see antagonism between China and the United States. By 2025, Chinese commercial trade preeminence was challenging the European Union and the North American free trade area. From 2000 onward, the Chinese set out to create a new economic block known as BRICS which is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, and by 2025 they included Egypt, Ethiopia, the UAE, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. The direct challenge to the US in many areas of the International System began with the challenge that Radical Islam, shaped and manipulated by the Ayatollah, posed against the US, France, and Great Britain. The outstanding tool for Islamic expansion was the Arab-Israeli conflict and more specifically the Palestinian issue. Within a few years of the establishment of what appeared to be peace treaties between Israel and some of its neighbors (Abraham Accords), the Islamic world and the Global South saw antagonism to the existence of the Jewish state, with regional conflicts in which conflicting parties took sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Interestingly, the same parties, with some exceptions including India, are also members of BRICS.

The preeminence of the United States – however much challenged by China, Russia, and Iran – did not decrease the importance of the United States presidential elections of 2024. For the world, the US election was bound to be a defining moment in international politics, regardless of the outcome. The outstanding elements in the International System are the resentment and imitation of American cultural trends, including US mass media. What passes for American soft power is affirmative action and the woke ideology. The US stands out as an agent of cultural change. The anti-women movement in Islamic society has been influenced by the globalization of American culture and the preeminent role of women in American and European society. Misogyny has become a political ideology in the Islamic world. The competition between the major powers is compounded by the rise of new technologies, shaped by electronic communication, artificial intelligence, and cyber technology.

In 2013, China proposed changes to global currency to bypass, if not outright abolish the US Dollar. The original BRIC group was dubbed very loosely the “BRICS,” including Brazil, China, Russia, India, and South Africa. In time, other countries also joined. Venezuela and Turkey are seeking entry to the trade group, which has gained momentum.

The official members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization are primarily Asian, Arabic and nations within the former Soviet Union, but growing interest across the Middle East and South America is notable. In 2004, the SCO officially established relations with the United Nations as an observer, in addition to other international bodies.

Two principle international conflicts, the Gaza War and Ukraine, along with conflicts in Africa and Asia have sped up the process of this new world order, where the Anglo-American ideal of a rule-based system is being challenged on the grounds that it is fundamentally pro-American, pro-Liberal, and pro-Capitalist. The rise of conflicts within the Islamic world and the widespread anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic positions of many countries from Latin America to Asia to Africa are adding another dimension to this new world order yet to come.

Rise of Islamic Politics in the West

The rise of Islamic politics in France, Germany, Belgium, Holland, Canada the United States and the United Kingdom has influenced domestic electoral politics. In Europe, for example, the rise of the so-called extremist parties like AfD (Alternative for Germany) or the Rassemblement National in France have given new weight to the idea that liberal democratic order, which has characterized the development of Western Europe and America in the post-war period, is not accepted by large portions of the population. Similar trends are evident across Europe, with the rise of Vox from Spain, 5 Stelle in Italy, and BNP in the United Kingdom.

Speaking of the latter, let’s take a closer statistical look at the upsurge of Islamic politics in the UK. There is an array of hard political facts: Muslims count for four million in a total population of 66 million in the UK. Yet they elect Muslim mayors in no less than nine major urban centres in the country, including the mayor of the capital, London, of the second largest city Birmingham and of the world-renowned liberal university city of Oxford. The other six Muslim-led municipalities are: Blackburn, Leeds, Luton, Oldham, Rochdale, Sheffield. There are now 3,000 mosques, (one mosque per 80 square kilometres roughly) 130 Sharia Courts and 50 Sharia councils in the UK. Seventy-eight per cent of Muslim women do not work and receive state support, 63 per cent of British Muslims are out of work and receive state support. UK Muslim families on the receiving end of state support and free accommodation have on average six to eight children. Every school in good old Christian England is required to teach about Islam. Under such circumstances, guess which is the most common name given to British boys nowadays. You guessed right: it is Mohammed!

Greece: Demographic Collapse

At the other end of the Old Continent, Greece, an ancient nation reborn in 1830, lying at the southeastern fringes of the European Union, has been in deep trouble for the past two decades. Endemic corruption and leadership incompetence brought up mounting external foreign debt. Greece’s government debt hovers around 160 per cent of the GDP. The country’s economic woes are compounded by the hordes of irregular migrants. Periodically, vulnerable segments of Hellas’ 15,000 kilometres long coastline get awash with hundreds of mainly sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern unsolicited destitute visitors. The Hellenic Republic currently hosts a large number of immigrants accounting for over a million or approximately ten per cent of the total population, a considerable proportion of whom are Muslim. Pew Research and other international reports estimate there are 520,000 additional Muslims in Greece who are refugees, regular or irregular migrants, or asylum‑seekers. This number is in addition to the indigenous recognized Muslim minority in Western Thrace numbering around 140,000 people. Sharia law applies for this minority, which enjoys a special status in terms of religious and cultural rights, in derogation to the Hellenic Civil Law, in compliance with the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 governing its status.

Greece’s Muslim immigrants are in the most part Albanians (over 0.4 million) who are not particularly devout Muslims given their socialization for over 50 years in a totalitarian communist regime banning religion. In fact, a number of them, in their everyday life, adopt Greek names – either ancient or modern.

However, what should be underlined, is that the rise in the incoming Muslim population in the Hellenic Republic comes on the sharp backdrop of the flight of an impoverished indigenous Greek Orthodox population. Young Greeks are forced to become economic migrants themselves in the more affluent countries of the northern tier of the EU, the UK, the US and Canada. A rough total figure of migrant Greeks for the first quarter of the 21st century is estimated to be around 1.3 to 1.5 million! This is definitely a generation lost for the country. Brain drainage ad nauseum.

To make things worse, Greek birth rates are falling rapidly. Though a small nation, or perhaps because of this, the sharp demographic decline of Greece, has not escaped the attention of Elon Musk. The flamboyant billionaire businessman reposted, on 2 September 2025, an article that reported over 700 schools in Greece were closing due to falling student numbers. He captioned the post: “The death of Greece.” The actual number of Greek schools shutting down because of failing to reach the threshold of fifteen pupils is 721. Conclusively, in the first quarter of the current century, the Hellenic Republic lost well over a million of highly qualified young Greeks only to be replaced by half a million of unskilled Muslim immigrants.

Development of communication technology, social media

The causes of such new developments have to be found in the development of communication technology and what we used to call rising expectations, which characterized the study of development in the 50s and 60s. Social media and international visual communications have fueled rising expectations in the 21^st century. This New World Order has also been characterized by large numbers of so called “illegal” immigrants from Africa, Asia, and Latin America moving to North America or into Western Europe.

In the case of Germany, for example, the growth of “extremist” parties has been fueled by the presence of illegal immigrants and the ease with which the German government has allowed real and imaginary refugees to move and enjoy the benefits of a welfare society in Germany under Angela Merkel. In fact, by September 2024, Germany had imposed passport controls on its borders, irritating some of its neighbors because this policy is against the idea of an integrated, borderless Europe. Both in Europe and North America, the rise of Chinese exports and the decline of local industries, ranging from the car industry to chemicals and steel, has led the traditional working classes to support nationalist and protectionist parties. American elections have seen both parties talking about protecting American industry. This also seems to be the case in Canada.

This new world order has also been propelled by the so-called “Woke Business,” the rise of racial identification, which has added to racial and identity politics all over the world. In Islamic countries, ranging from Pakistan to North and West Africa, this has meant the persecution of Christians and Jews, to the extent that women who do not wear the hijab face persecution. Paradoxically, Islamic society is also being threatened by radical Islamic societies. Al Qaida and violent subversive groups are propagating across Africa and Asia.

Leadership in Western Europe and North America has sometime faced this issue in response to radical terrorism such as 9/11 and Bataclan. More immediate political concerns and challenges see democratic political systems concentrating on jobs, education, human rights, immigration and, last but not least, climate change. Historically, from the Napoleonic period onward, world orders and balances of power never lasted more than a generation. For example, the Peace of Versailles world order lasted twenty years. The Cold War order in Europe lasted from 1947 to 1989. The relative peace that followed the fall of the Soviet Union lasted fifteen years at most, as NATO expanded into Eastern Europe and the rise of a new Russia set off a renewed arms race and added more weight to the developing BRICS.

The spectacular victory of the Ayatollahs in the Middle East and the rise of radical Shiite politics saw Iran waging ideological and international antagonism against Israel. This was historically due to the fact that Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers were violently opposed to the existence of a Jewish state and Zionism. The war in Gaza, while carried out by Hamas, has been instigated and pushed by the Ayatollahs of Iran, unhinging any attempt by the United States and Europe to bring some degree of a peaceful order in the Middle East.

An interesting facet of this new world order was how India, China, and even some Islamic countries such as the United Arab Emirates became interested in a race to the moon. The increasing competition for status and prestige saw an explosion of international sports. Countries such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar bought themselves international competitions and famous European players to attempt a change in global perspective towards them, with mixed success.

One approach to studying these new developments would focus on the idea of cultural and political resentment by non-European countries, which for the last two centuries have seen France, Britain and the United States shaping the international order and cultural and political values, ranging from the status of women to economic protectionism and the assertion of secular Euro-American values. For example, the decline of Indian socialism has meant the rise of a new Indian identity which focuses on Hinduism, and the reassertion of Indian heritage against Islam, creating further violent conflict with Pakistan. Cultural trends from the United States, such as radical feminism, transgenderism, the acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriages have added even more contentious issues characterizing this new world order. In Russia, Putin’s government has made clear that homosexual values and marriages will not be accepted, and this has of course been the case in countries in Africa and Asia.

An insight into the cultural and economic context of the rise of BRICS and the New World Order should not overlook the fact that many of the conflicts in the world are of cultural origins. At one time, one could have employed the term “ideological,” but culture and ideology overlap each other, as do religious attitudes. While Islam began as a religion, after centuries of theologically based governance, it has also become a foundational cornerstone of the political ideology of the Middle East. In today’s world order, Islam has taken on heavy political connotations and has been used by radical groups to unhinge societies in European and American states.

Trumps administration in Washington in 2025 was attempting to enhance American power and control conflicts in the name of an American regulated international system. Whether that idea was feasible remains to be seen. As it was of May of 2025, India and Pakistan were on a threshold of war in Kashmir. It added even more to the notion of civilization and religious conflicts that characterized the Islamic world. From the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean and from North Africa to the Cape.

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).

Much as there can be personal likes or dislikes between world leaders there is one prime factor that determines the level of bilateral relations between countries: this is the convergence or divergence of political and economic interests.

Harping on medieval history, the Turks claim that their Ottoman ancestors gave the French ‘the most privileged state’ status under the terms of capitulations as early as 1535. The same year, the French dispatched Jean de la Forest as their first ambassador to Constantinople. Nevertheless, it took almost two hundred years for the Ottomans to reciprocate with sending their own envoy to Paris: The Ottoman Empire government appointed its first ambassador Yirmisekiz Mehmet Çelebi to France in 1721.

Nowadays, economic relations between the two countries are not insignificant. Currently 1.366 French companies are operating in Turkey. France ranks 10th country in terms of number of foreign companies operating in Turkey. In the years 2002-2015, French direct investments to Turkey have reached 6.759 billion US dollars. France ranks 10th in terms of foreign direct investments.

Beyond trade, Erdogan envisions the biggest role for Turkey: to become the region’s ‘law and order provider’. “There are also measures that we can take together … against terrorist organisations” Erdogan told Macron at the said videocall (2 March 2021), insinuating at his fervent desire to eliminate the PKK freedom fighters. The Turkish President added that Turkey and France ‘can contribute significantly to stability and peace in Europe, the Caucasus, the Middle East and Africa’.

However, in practical terms Erdogan offered nothing: he did not mention anything on the fate of more than a dozen French teachers at Istanbul’s Galatasaray University whose work permits have been held up and who face the threat of expulsion due to last year’s diplomatic spat.

Recently, the Turkish leadership has been uttering some conciliatory words towards the EU in view of the latter’s summit later in the month. The European Council meeting is due to discuss further sanctions on Turkey as a reaction to Ankara’s provocative exploration moves in Greek and Cypriot waters. Such a big decision was postponed  at the last European Council meeting (10-11 December 2020). Erdogan’s overture to Macron targets at weaning France from the hardline ‘in-favour-of-sanctions club’ where Greece and Cyprus stand and placing it within the moderates’ camp where Germany, Italy and Spain exhibit reluctance on the prospect of further antagonizing Turkey. The latter block’s cautionary stance has been explained by their significant commercial interests in Turkey and its anticipation that any measures leading to a Turkish economic crisis would, in turn, severely harm the European banking sector.

To be sure, sanctions or no sanctions, the Turkish leadership has over the last few years shown excessive zeal in promoting an assertive and expansionist foreign policy aimed at establishing a regional Pax Turca in the entire region that Erdogan mentioned in his videocall to Macron. It is highly unlikely that it will back down, for whatever reason, from this long-term goal.

In the last couple of years of German occupation (1943-44) ELAS fighters’ numbers swelled tremendously. By the time of the Nazi withdrawal from Attica, the Greek partisans under ELAS command numbered around 70,000 men and women. In effect, this initially irregular force of guerillas, formed in 1942, was transformed into a formidable regular army, by the time of liberation.

The EAM cabinet members’ resignation sparked a demonstration at Syntagma (Constitution) Square in central Athens. This peaceful demonstration turned into a bloody affair with a high toll of casualties as snipers fired into the leftist demonstrators’ crowd. Soon after, Greece would plunge into the abyss: a full scale civil war between the leftists’ supporters of EAM-ELAS on the one hand and the ill-armed Rightists-Royalists on the other. The latter, though originally the weak side, would soon enjoy the unwavering support of the amassing British troops marching into Athens unopposed having landed at Piraeus.

But what was the chain of significant international events that catapulted Greece into an internecine war whilst the Nazis were still retreating from the millennia old country that gave birth to Western civilization?

As German defeat appeared increasingly certain, Churchill and Stalin were busy carving the freed-from-Nazi-occupation world into predetermined spheres of their respective postwar influence. The infamous percentages agreement with respect to Soviet and British influence in the Balkans was reached already in Moscow where the two Allied leaders met on the 9^th of October 1944. At this crucial Kremlin meeting, Churchill jotted down, on a single notebook page, his idea of percentages’ influence in each Balkan country. He passed it on to Stalin who nodded his head in approval. Winston appeared momentarily hesitant: “Don’t you think we are too cynical [to decide the political future of entire peoples in their absence]? I better tear off this [disgraceful] note?” he offered to his wartime ally, Joseph. The latter, true to his name, ‘Man of Steel’, without a second thought, dispelled Winston’s doubts: “Keep it!” The dice was thrown! Greece was going to fall ninety per cent under British, ten per cent under Soviet influence, no matter what the actual sympathies or loyalties were amongst the Greek population.

Stalin, betraying his nationally powerful but internationally weak Greek comrades for the benefit of winning over Bulgaria and Romania, would grant Churchill a free hand to disembark tens of thousands of his troops at Piraeus and march them on to prop up a pro-British royalist regime in Athens.

Nine days after the Moscow percentages’ deal, the Nazis evacuate Athens: the 18^th of October 1944 marked the liberation day. An ominous power vacuum ensued.

Five days later, on the 23^rd of October 1944, the first British troops enter Athens. They encounter a mixed, if not apprehensive, reaction by the Greek population. The Nationalists-Royalists welcome them as saviors from communist domination. The Leftist anti-royalist camp view them as the new occupation force. Indeed, whilst on the trouble spot, Churchill ordered Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald MacKenzie Scobie, Commander of British Forces in Greece, to ‘rule Athens as an occupied city, if need be’. Taking up battle positions, ELAS guerillas poised for another anti-occupation war. Ironically, this time in their homeland’s capital, against the very allies they, not long ago, collaborated with, to blow up German patrols in the Greek mountains to the north.

Strikingly, Hugh Seton-Watson, Special Operations Executive (SOE) and later MI6 officer, noted in stark frankness: Had the Communists wished to seize power in Athens at this time they could easily have done so. They chose otherwise.

In London, Winston Churchill having secured Stalin’s acquiescence, was contemplating taking on the Greek communists weeks before his urgent Christmas descend in Athens. The British Prime Minister wrote to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden (and his deputy in the Conservative Party) on 11th November 1944: I fully expect a clash with EAM and we must not shrink from it, provided the ground is well chosen.

Churchill spent his Greek Emergency Christmas at Hotel Grand Bretagne, Syntagma Square the very scene where the violent clashes first broke out on 3^rd December. ELAS Central Athens Command planted explosives all along the underground sewage canals to blow up the hotel, which served as the seat of the British Forces Command. Had they decided to detonate the explosives to eliminate Winston Churchill, they could easily have done so. They chose otherwise.

By 2020, the confrontation between Turkey and Greece in the Aegean and in the Mediterranean at large, saw the Greek Minister of Defense speak about possibility of military conflict with Turkey.(i) This statement by the Greek Minister of Defense came a few hours after the Turkish President held a press conference in Ankara with Fayez Al Sarraj, Prime Minister of the UN-recognized National Accord Government based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli.(ii) Erdoğan said that Turkey and Libya would proceed with oil exploration and drilling in Greece’s contested maritime space in the eastern Mediterranean(iii), adjacent to Crete and now claimed by Libya aided and abetted by Ankara as it kept challenging Athens. Turkey had begun its military and political involvement in the civil war in Libya while confronting the Saudi, Emirati and Egyptian involvement in North Africa against a Turkish presence and the ideological influence of the Muslim brothers and manipulated by Erdoğan’s Islamist ideology. Just a few weeks earlier, there had been confrontations between Greek and Turkish forces on the border in Thrace.(iv) Thousands and thousands of real and imaginary refugees and other irregular migrants from the Middle East at large, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, moved to Turkey and planned on entering Europe. Having encouraged them to move to the Greek border, Ankara is seeking to entice those manipulated unfortunate souls to step into the European Union. In its confrontation in Cyprus, Turkey paved over the entry point in northern Cyprus in favor of entering the republic to the south.

Some years earlier, the war in Syria had seen thousands of refugees going to primarily Germany and Sweden. This development gave Erdoğan a chance to blackmail Europe to receive aid and status recognition and drawing concessions regarding Ankara’s relations with the European Union. For decades, Turkey had tried to be admitted into the European club. The EU, in trying to avoid conflict with Turkey, had already admitted Greece in 1980 and promised future admission to Turkey as to avoid conflicts in the area. Both Athens and Ankara have been long standing members of NATO but that membership has not lessened the confrontation between the two countries. Neither has it mitigated Turkey’s contemporary attempt to revise power relations with its Greek neighbor.

The Arab-Israeli conundrum receives the bulk of interest in Europe and North America, and of course the Islamic world, as the Jewish state’s legitimacy has always been challenged at some level or another. The European, and especially Italian relations to North Africa and the Middle East and inevitably to Mediterranean security have been historically linked in the mind of the European public and political parties to the wars between Israel and its neighbors. What are overlooked in the European political world are the other conflicts in the Middle East. For example, the partition of Cyprus, the confrontation between Turkish and Greek worlds which overlaps with contentious maritime borders, potentially rich with oil and gas in the Aegean Sea and off the shores of Cyprus. Sectarian conflicts in the Middle East are also relevant, as Shii, Sunnis and other radical Islamists in the Sunni world challenge the social fabric and political systems of individual states such as Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria.

Italy with specific strategic interests is, arguably, the European country with the most important role in the Mediterranean. The fall of Gadhafi in 2011 after an internal revolt aided and abetted by France and other powers against the desires of the Italian government brought a power vacuum that allowed hundreds of thousands of African, Middle Eastern and Asian illegal immigrants moving successfully to the European continent through Italy. The Syrian civil war added even more impetus to these catastrophic migrations that have brought the European Union to a point of delegitimization in the eyes of many European citizens. In the recent past, the government of Silvio Berlusconi, had been successful in supporting the Gadhafi regime so as to stop illegal immigration in exchange for Italian development aid and of course purchase of Libyan oil.

Historically Italy’s main state-owned oil company, Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi, ENI, successfully entered the international oil and gas markets from the 1960s onward. Its total revenues never matched those of companies such as Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, Total or British Petroleum (BP); all the same, the company itself came to play a big role in Italian daily and political life. It does so to this day. It serves Italian strategic needs very well. The Italian gas and oil markets have always been characterized by long term national policies, because of the vulnerable economic position of Italy as it lacks natural resources. Following the Chernobyl disaster, Italy did away with nuclear energy in the 1980s. In this regard, the rhetoric about renewable energy in the country has not been matched by policies. By 2019, ENI was drilling offshore Cyprus for gas and oil, challenged by Turkey.(v) In early 2020, both Italian ENI and French energy giant Total announced the suspension of their drilling programme in Cyprus waters allegedly because of the corona virus crisis. However, not a few are those who believe that the real reason is the Turkish bullying.

The energy power game was also seeing at this time the entry of another player, Israel, with the plan to build a gas pipeline from the Israeli controlled seabed in the Eastern Mediterranean to Europe via Cyprus and Greece. The East Med pipeline has already received European support with the European Commission designating it as a project of common interest.

As in many European nations, Italy relies heavily on revenues derived from the taxation of energy consumption and highway tolls. The Italian transportation industry has been faced with a lot of challenges and its contribution to environmental degradation and pollution is not to be underestimated. In the last decade, the government has pushed forward policies to motivate the population to purchase more environmentally sound cars. However, it looks like it will take some generations before the adoption of non-polluting cars. All the same, Middle Eastern conflicts have influenced the price of oil in markets all over the world, and have been exploited politically by states in conflict such as Iran vs Saudi Arabia. As many oil producing nations encounter political problems, such as those in Venezuela, industrially advanced states – Italy is one of them – have to be very careful about managing and resolving international conflict. International conflict and instability in the eastern Mediterranean and the Aegean Sea present a challenge to any Italian government and even to the military organization to which Rome belongs, in this case, NATO. The politics of oil and gas, became less problematic as by 2020, the price of these commodities had collapsed in the international market while the United States had become the largest producer of oil. But in no way did this relatively positive development lessened the need for alternatives to fossil fuels for environmental considerations.

Whilst Turkey and Greece are members of NATO, the policies of the current Turkish government continue to be very confrontational toward Athens and Nicosia. Current relations between Washington and Ankara are becoming ever more problematic because of overlapping conflicts in the Mideast such as the Syrian civil war, the confrontation between Israel and its Arab neighbors and the rise of the Islamic State. A development that took important political significance was the acquisition of Russian anti-aircraft missiles S400 by Ankara over and above the objections of Washington.

Turkey’s acquisition of sophisticated Russian military hardware was, by 2020, an indicator of a successful Russian re-entry into the politics of the area, after the demise of the Soviet Union, as Moscow’s involvement into the Syrian and Libyan civil wars foreshadowed another chapter in the great power conflicts in the Mediterranean. While the United States, under the presidency of Donald Trump, had stated that the US administration was committed to withdraw from conflicts in the area, the reality on the ground showed that the US was still heavily involved in the security of the region. Among other reasons, was the decades old confrontation between Iran and the United States as the radical Mullahs of Tehran had successfully entered the Near-East, especially Iraq and Syria, directly challenging US interests in the area, threatening Israel with genocide and challenging very subtly both Russia and Turkey for hegemony in the region. (vi) In fact, by 2020, American military commanders involved in anti-Islamic terrorism campaign in Africa (vii) were mentioning the possibility and inclination toward an American involvement in Tunisia as its border with Libya was becoming even more challenging for international security.(viii)

The great power game was already witnessing the entry of China in the region through Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative that saw, on paper, a revival of the Silk Road and the systematic expansion of Beijing’s commercial interests in Africa, the Middle East and Europe.(ix) The entry of China added an ever greater dimension to the theory of the balance of power in the study of international relations. If anything, it confirmed and strengthened the ideas of neo-realism in international affairs and challenged idealism and globalization as harbingers of peace and conflict resolution in the world. What stood out was the inability of Italy to act as a great power in the Mediterranean and even more the European Union as its policies for peace and cooperation seemed to be totally irrelevant to the power conflicts in the region.

(i) Paul Antonopoulos, “Greek Defense Minister: Turkey’s behavior is aggressive but our powerful Armed Forces are deterrent,” Greek City Times, June 5th, 2020, https://greekcitytimes.com/2020/06/05/greek-defence-minister- turkeys-behaviour-is-aggressive-but-our-powerful-armed-forces-is-a-deterrent/.
(ii) Ibid.
(iii) Ibid.
(iv) Steven Brown, “Tensions soar as Turkish troops invade Greece occupying piece of land on contested border” Express, May 22, 2020, https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1285915/turkey-Greece-invade-contested-border- world-war-3-latest-ww3-news.
(v) “Our work in Cyprus,” ENI, https://www.eni.com/en-IT/global-presence/eurasia/cyprus.html.
(vi) Sina Azodi and Giorgio Cafiero, “Idlib is a stress test for Iranian-Turkish relations,” Atlantic Council, March 17, 2020, https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/idlib-is-a-stress-test-for-iranian-turkish-relations/.
(vii) U.S. Army Africa Public Affairs, “USARAF commander engages Tunisian Land Forces army chief,” United States Army Africa, May 13, 2020, https://www.usaraf.army.mil/media-room/pressrelease/29481/usaraf- commander-engages-tunisian-land-forces-army-chief.
(viii) Jared Szuba, “US commander suggests sending military trainers to Tunisia after Russia sends aircraft to Libya,” Al-Monitor, June 1, 2020, https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2020/06/us-commander-send-military- trainers-tunisia-russia-libya.html.
(ix) Andrew Chatzky and James McBride, “China’s massive Belt and Road Initiative,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 28, 2020, https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/chinas-massive-belt-and-road-initiative.

http://www.lifo.gr/articles/greece_articles/189834/giorgos-leventis-to-islamofasistiko-kathestos-erntogan-epivalletai-stadiaka-kai-stin-toyrkokypriaki-koinonia

The neo-nationalist partners of Turkey’s Islamist President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who played a key role in orchestrating the abortive coup of July 15 to benefit political masters now have a new plan in the works: belligerent posturing with neighboring Greece over disputed claims in the Aegean Sea.

The surprise visit of Chief of General Staff Gen. Hulusi Akar, an Erdoğan loyalist, to the Aegean islets of Kardak (Imia), accompanied by the commanders of the land, naval and air forces, has all the hallmarks of this sinister plot and has nothing to do with the Greek courts refusing to turn over soldiers who are alleged to have been involved in a coup attempt. This is much bigger than the court case, and I’m afraid the Turkish Islamists, in cooperation with neo-nationalists in the army and intelligence agency, are set to escalate the tension with Greece.

The main motivation for Erdoğan in this belligerence is to fish for nationalist votes ahead of a critical referendum in April that will likely give him sweeping powers and the opportunity to change the character of the secular parliamentary democracy in Turkey into an autocratic one-man regime that is rooted in xenophobic Islamist ideology. The Turkish president had already sent signals to deliberately stoke tension with Greece months before Turkey’s top generals staged a showdown in the Aegean near Kardak last Sunday. In a series of public speeches delivered in October 2016, Erdoğan opened the Lausanne Treaty, which delineated borders with Greece, among others, up to debate, questioned the handover of islands in the Aegean to Greece and even said Turkish mosques are still present on islands near Turkey as if they were the deed to Erdogan’s claim on the islands.

We have seen that playbook in the past. I wrote details of secret plans of the neo-nationalists in the Turkish military before, exposing how they plotted to bring Turkey to the brink of war with Greece over the Aegean with false flags in 2003. I will quote some of my earlier writings to shed light on what we’ll likely see in the coming months on the border with Greece. Some influential generals at the time thought it would be a good idea to raise the tension with Greece to strengthen their position domestically and embarrass the new government formed by Erdoğan, who they despised. Now, the same neo-nationalist faction has partnered with him after Erdoğan found himself in legal trouble in the 2013 graft probes and orchestrated the acquittal of these crazy guys in the military to enlist allies against his political foes. In a secret deal of clemency for convicted felons by Erdoğan, these generals walked free, in total disregard of the overwhelming evidence of crime we all saw in the indictment and evidentiary files.

The secret plan to stir up troubles with Greece is borrowed from the botched false flag of 1962 called Operation Northwoods, a plot planned by the US Department of Defense to trigger a war with Cuba. The plan was not put into action following President John F. Kennedy’s rejection of it but contained appalling scenarios such shooting down passenger and military planes, the harassment of US aircraft, the sinking of a US ship in the vicinity of Cuba, the burning of crops, the sinking of a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the US and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs.

The Turkish version of Operation Northwoods is called Operation Thunderstorm (Oraj), which was cooked up by neo-nationalist generals in the Turkish military as part of the plan in the Sledgehammer coup preparations. The plot was uncovered by investigators during the execution of a search warrant at the Naval Intelligence Department located at the Gölcük Naval Command, a major naval base located on the east coast of the Sea of Marmara. The plan sees an escalation of the crisis with Greece by provoking conflict in the air, at sea and on land borders.

The Oraj plan, dated February 2003, specifically asked for increased flights over the Aegean and ordered commanding officers to instruct pilots to engage in harassment maneuvers with Greek fighter jets. It wanted Turkish pilots to be more aggressive and even issued new rules of engagement allowing pilots to take shots at Greek fighters, albeit unofficially. The plan suggested reorganizing the special fleet with the specific objective of having a Turkish pilot shoot down a Turkish jet in his own squadron in the event all other efforts to provoke a Greek fighter to destroy a Turkish jet failed. Fabricated stories would then be planted in the media, saying that Greece intentionally shot down a Turkish jet.

To accompany the provocations in the air, both the land and sea forces would also be instructed to engage in hostilities. Tensions would increase along the Thracian border with Greece, with new guard outposts set up in the area. “The naval forces would continuously conduct training exercises in the Aegean Sea. Fighter jets would be kept on standby on the tarmac round the clock at the Balıkesir, Bandırma, Çiğli, Çorlu and Dalaman military airports, and they would be scrambled even if there were reports of minor infractions,” the plan explained.

Another document, dated December 2002, disclosed a secret meeting in Ankara about the Suga plan, where the issue of islands/islets whose sovereignty still remains disputed was discussed to provoke Greece. In a related memo dated Jan. 10, 2003, Navy Col. Mustafa Karasabun submitted plans to make changes in the rules of engagement in the Aegean, giving a free hand in provocations. Plotters debated different scenarios on how to best trigger a conflict with Greece, short of war. For example, one proposal envisaged creating the impression that the Turkish navy was about to conduct a major amphibious assault on the Greek base on Nisos Leros Island (İleryoz Ada in Turkish) near Turkey. Air assets were to be mobilized to boost that impression. The plan was intended to precipitate a change in the Greek navy’s level of alertness, resulting in a panicked response, stated Col. Murat Saka, the planning project officer, in a document submitted to a court.

Prosecutors believe the Oraj plan was cooked up by Bilgin Balanlı, who was air marshal at the time and in line to become head of the Turkish Air Forces before his dreams were shattered by his arrest in 2011. He was given orders to do so by former Air Force Commander Gen. İbrahim Fırtına, who was the commander of the War Academies in 2003.

The ringleaders were the heads of the three commands in 2003 — Gen. Çetin Doğan of the İstanbul-based 1st Army Command, Gen. Fırtına and Adm. Özden Örnek of the Naval Forces Command — all of whom were later convicted but saved by Erdoğan in a secret deal. Unlike Operation Northwoods, some parts of the Oraj plan had already started to be implemented. For example, a confidential memo written by Navy Col. Cem Gürdeniz in February 2003 discussed increasing flights over the Aegean Sea as part of the Oraj plan. It also said the harassment of Turkish fighter jets by Greek aircraft and their prevention from undertaking given tasks would be brought to the attention of the public through the media.

After reading the indictment, I checked public records to determine whether they matched the details of these plans, and it turned out the actual timeline of events corresponds with the steps explained in the Oraj plan. According to a January 2004 report in the Greek Eleftheros Typos newspaper, there was a huge spike in the number of alleged violations of Greek airspace by Turkish fighter jets in that period. In 2003, there were a total of 3,900 violations committed by Turkish aircraft, up from 3,200 in 2002. In contrast, the preceding years saw a lower number of violations. In 2000 this figure was 398 and in 2001 it was 957. In 2003, when the Oraj plan was active, 1,020 incidents of dogfights between Greek and Turkish fighter jets were reported.

From the press coverage back in those years, it was clear that Greece was understandably upset over the unprecedented number of violations, prompting Athens to raise the issue with Ankara.

Frustrated by the lack of progress on the issue, Greek government spokesman Hristos Proropapas in October 2003 said: “Many circles both in Athens and Ankara do not want the violations to continue. But there are generals sitting in Ankara.” He was pointing the finger at the untouchable generals who secretly launched the plans. Perhaps Greek intelligence was even made aware of the plots in the 2003/04 period by its allies or found out on its own.

All indications suggested Greece knew something different was in play and suspected foul play on the Turkish side. It marshaled its diplomatic corps, even instructing its ambassador Michalis Christidis to hold a press conference in Ankara in June 2003 to share his government’s concerns directly with the Turkish public. Stressing that Greece had taken note of an unusual increase in the number of violations over the Aegean, the ambassador underlined that there was a qualitative change in the way these violations had occurred. “Most of the Turkish fighters were armed. Two-thirds of the violations happened within six miles of Greek airspace, and some of them were committed very close to residential areas,” he said.

These conspiracy plans were eventually thwarted because one man, Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Özkök, was very much opposed to raising tension with Greece. He even gave an interview to Greek newspaper Eleftherotypia in October 2003 to ease Greek concerns. Erdoğan was weak in the government but was helped out by NATO, especially by the US, as well as by the European Union with the preparations of launching official membership talks with Turkey. Turkish media had been scrutinizing the actions of the military, and the judiciary was relatively independent with the rule of law still in place despite serious shortcomings.

Now the political calculations have changed dramatically. Erdoğan is leading the charge against NATO, bashing the allies all the time as if he were the unofficial spokesperson for Russian President Vladimir Putin to discredit and undermine the NATO alliance. His media machinery is busy making a case that Turkey should exit NATO and deny access to the US and other NATO allies to bases in Turkey including İncirlik, where the US-led anti-ISIL coalition is based. He thinks belligerence with Greece will secure him his imperial presidency by attracting more votes under a pumped-up nationalistic euphoria. The neo-nationalists in the Turkish military for whom there is no love lost with NATO have a completely free hand to do as they please. The EU is in disarray and lacks the political determination to really tackle Turkey. Brussels has been busy for some time now with appeasement rather than a real engagement that requires playing hardball at times, especially on economic leverage.

More importantly, the Turkish judicial and police investigators who exposed these conspiracies in the first place and prevented the plans from reaching full operation capacity have been purged by Erdoğan as part of his deal with the neo-nationalists, led by the staunchly anti-Western and xenophobic Doğu Perinçek. Tens of thousands of judges, prosecutors, military, police and intelligence officers were dismissed, and many were arrested on trumped-up charges. Checks and balances in Turkey’s security apparatus are completely gone. On top of that, the media is totally controlled by Erdoğan and his partners. According to a Stockholm Center for Freedom (SCF) report issued last week, 191 journalists have been jailed with additional 92 being sought for an arrest in Turkey. It is a world record by any measure. Close to 200 media outlets were shut down arbitrarily by the government as well. Therefore, no independent media is left to scrutinize government actions and expose these plots.

A more dangerously combustible mix is now seen in controlling the levers of power in Turkey, which is ready to engage in hostilities with Greece to gain favors on the home front. Greece has more reasons to be worried today about Erdoğan’s ambitions.

Source: https://abdullahbozkurtblog.wordpress.com/

Το 1949 βρίσκει τη Δεξιά και την Αριστερά στην Κύπρο να συμπίπτουν στην τακτική της απαίτησης του αιτήματος για άμεση Ένωση. Η ιδέα της συγκέντρωσης υπογραφών ως μέτρο πίεσης για την εφαρμογή του δικαιώματος της αυτοδιάθεσης γεννήθηκε στους κόλπους της Κυπριακής Αριστεράς. Η ηγεσία του ΑΚΕΛ σε ανακοίνωσή της τον Σεπτέμβρη του 1949 αναγγέλλει την πρόθεσή της να συγκεντρώσει υπογραφές υπέρ της Ένωσης. Η Εθναρχία υπό την καθοδήγηση του Μακαρίου Γ’, νεαρού τότε Μητροπολίτη Κιτίου και μετέπειτα πρώτου Προέδρου της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας, υιοθετεί αυτή την ιδέα και αναγγέλλει ότι θα ανελάμβανε η ίδια τη διοργάνωση του όλου εγχειρήματος. Το ΑΚΕΛ τότε, χάριν της ενότητας, ακυρώνει τα δικά του σχέδια και καλεί τα μέλη και τους οπαδούς του να ψηφίσουν υπέρ της Ένωσης στο ενωτικό δημοψήφισμα της Εθναρχίας Κύπρου. Η βρετανική αποικιακή διοίκηση απορρίπτει την πρόσκληση-πρόκληση της Εκκλησίας να αναλάβει αυτή τη διοργάνωση του δημοψηφίσματος (12 Δεκέμβρη 1949). Έτσι η Εθναρχούσα Εκκλησία προχωρεί στη διοργάνωσή του τον αμέσως επόμενο μήνα.

Στο σημερινό άρθρο εξετάζονται ορισμένες πτυχές της εκλογικής διαδικασίας του δημοψηφίσματος με βάση την έκθεση τού τότε Βρετανού διοικητή της επαρχίας Λεμεσού, Αrthur Frederick John Reddaway. Δέκα ημέρες μετά την ολοκλήρωση του δημοψηφίσματος, ο Αrthur Reddaway υποβάλλει προς τον Αποικιακό Γραμματέα του Κυβερνείου της Λευκωσίας δεκασέλιδη έκθεση, περιγράφοντας τα γεγονότα τα οποία διαδραματίστηκαν στην επαρχία του λίγο πριν αλλά και μετά τη διεξαγωγή του δημοψηφίσματος. Η εκτίμηση του κυβερνήτη Αndrew Wright, όπως διατυπώθηκε σε συνοδευτική τής έκθεσης επιστολή του προς τον υπουργό Αποικιών Αrthur Creech Jones, ήταν ότι η έκθεση του Reddaway εξέθετε με αξιέπαινη σαφήνεια τόσο την πραγματική αλληλουχία των γεγονότων κατά τη διάρκεια του μήνα όσο και τη στάση της Δεξιάς αλλά και της Αριστεράς σχετικά με τη συγκέντρωση των υπογραφών που ολοκληρώθηκε σαν σήμερα στις 22 του Γενάρη 1950. Αν και η έκθεση αναφέρεται σε γεγονότα που διαδραματίστηκαν στην επαρχία Λεμεσού, σημειώνει ο κυβερνήτης, μπορεί δίκαια να θεωρηθεί ότι αντιπροσωπεύει την κατάσταση που επικρατούσε σε όλο το νησί κατά τη διάρκεια του προηγούμενου μήνα (εμπιστευτική επιστολή τού κυβερνήτη, 13 Φλεβάρη 1950). Ας σημειώσουμε ότι ο Reddaway, απόφοιτος του Πανεπιστημίου του Reading, υπηρετούσε στην αποικιακή διοίκηση στην Κύπρο από το 1938. Το 1950 τον βρίσκει διοικητή της επαρχίας Λεμεσού σε ηλικία μόλις 33 χρόνων.

Στο διάστημα των δώδεκα πρώτων ημερών του 1950, η πόλη της Λεμεσού γνώρισε επτά και η επαρχία της 98 συγκεντρώσεις υπέρ του Ενωτικού Δημοψηφίσματος. Απ’ αυτές, 81 οργανώθηκαν από τη Δεξιά και 24 από την Αριστερά. Ενδεικτικά ο Reddaway αναφέρει ότι με βάση τα δεδομένα της Κύπρου ο τόνος των ομιλιών της Δεξιάς ήταν ήπιος και όχι έντονα αντιβρετανικός. Ενώ για τους ομιλητές της Αριστεράς σημειώνει ότι ήταν σαφώς πιο προκλητικοί και υβριστικοί, αλλά και πάλι δεν έφθαναν τα συνηθισμένα τους επίπεδα συμπεριφοράς. Ο Βρετανός διοικητής πρόσθεσε ότι δεν αντιμετώπισε επικρίσεις αναφορικά με την απόφασή του να μην επιτρέψει άλλες συναντήσεις μετά τις 12 του μήνα. Ανέφερε μάλιστα ότι αυτή του η απόφαση καλωσορίστηκε από τη Δεξιά και τη μετριοπαθή κοινή γνώμη και συνέβαλε στο να μειωθεί ο καλπάζων ενθουσιασμός. Ο Reddaway έφθασε μέχρι του σημείου να ισχυριστεί ότι επειδή η αποικιακή κυβέρνηση έδειξε να είναι διατεθειμένη να λάβει σοβαρά υπόψη την πιθανότητα προκλήσεως ταραχών με αφορμή το δημοψήφισμα η Δεξιά «συνετίστηκε» και ότι πιθανόν στο μέλλον θα σκέφτονταν λίγο περισσότερο τους κινδύνους που εμπερικλείονται πριν αρχίσουν διαδηλώσεις σε παγκύπρια κλίμακα.

Οι Συγκεντρώσεις

Μολαταύτα ο Βρετανός διοικητής παρατήρησε ότι γνωστοί εθνικιστές του Εθναρχικού Συμβουλίου παρευρέθηκαν σε εκδήλωση της Αριστεράς και επευφήμησαν τις ομιλίες τού αριστερού δημάρχου της Λεμεσού και του επαρχιακού γραμματέα του ΑΚΕΛ. Με σαφή ειρωνική διάθεση ο Reddaway διερωτήθηκε αν οι εθνικιστές ηγέτες Δρ Σωκράτης Τορναρίτης και Δρ Μάριος Τριτοφτίδης επεφύλαξαν τα θερμότερά τους χειροκροτήματα για την ακόλουθη παρατήρηση του δημάρχου Λεμεσού: Ξέρουμε ότι αν η Ένωση πραγματοποιηθεί σήμερα, εμείς (οι αριστεροί) θα είμαστε οι πρώτοι που θα εξοριστούμε, θα φυλακιστούμε και θα δολοφονηθούμε. Αν σκεφθεί κανείς ότι σύμφωνα με τα στοιχεία της Μητρόπολης Κιτίου το εκλογικό σώμα της πόλης της Λεμεσού ήταν το 1950 μόλις γύρω στα 13,000 άτομα (όπως θα δούμε παρακάτω ο ακριβής αριθμός είναι δύσκολο να εξακριβωθεί), οι 2,500 περίπου παρευρεθέντες στην ενωτική εκδήλωση της Αριστεράς αποτελούσαν ήδη το 20% των ψηφοφόρων. Η βρετανική έκθεση παρατηρεί ότι παρά το γεγονός ότι η συγκέντρωση ήταν οργανωμένη από την Αριστερά, υπήρχαν στο ακροατήριο αρκετοί εθνικιστές. Παρά την αναγνώριση του πηγαίου ενθουσιασμού, που ήταν άλλωστε πασιφανής στις πόλεις, και της σύμπνοιας που επικράτησε ανάμεσα σε Δεξιά και Αριστερά για το δημοψήφισμα, οι Βρετανοί αποικιοκράτες κατηγόρησαν και την Εκκλησία και την Αριστερά για άσκηση πίεσης στους ανυποψίαστους ψηφοφόρους της κυπριακής υπαίθρου. Ο Reddaway αναφέρει ότι όσοι από τους κυβερνητικούς υπαλλήλους της υπαίθρου, μουκτάρηδες (κοινοτάρχες) και χωροφύλακες των χωριών αρνήθηκαν να υπογράψουν βρέθηκαν σε αρκετά δυσάρεστη θέση, για να προσθέσει, φοβάμαι ότι αν δεν έχει πετύχει τίποτα άλλο με το δημοψήφισμα, η Εθναρχία έχει τουλάχιστον πετύχει να προκαλέσει έχθρα εναντίον ενός αριθμού ευυπόληπτων και πιστών υποστηρικτών της κυβέρνησης στην ύπαιθρο. Θα είναι απίθανο να αφήσουν οι ταραξίες στα χωριά τέτοια συναισθήματα να πεθάνουν.

Ο Ρόλος του Μακαρίου

Κάνοντας λόγο για τον Μακάριο, ο Reddaway ισχυρίστηκε ότι ο τριάντα-εξάχρονος τότε Μητροπολίτης Κιτίου επισκέφθηκε πέντε χωριά στις 15 του Γενάρη και ξέπεσε στο να εκβιάζει τους κοινοτάρχες τους να υπογράψουν υπέρ της Ένωσης. Επικαλούμενος τους πληροφοριοδότες του, ο Βρετανός διοικητής παρατήρησε ότι η διεξαγωγή του δημοψηφίσματος φαίνεται να ήταν κατά πολύ διαφορετική από εκκλησία σε εκκλησία. Παραδέχτηκε ότι οι περισσότεροι ιερείς κατέβαλαν κάποια προσπάθεια να περιορίσουν τη νοθεία, αλλά, παραπέμποντας και πάλι στους πληροφοριοδότες του, πρόσθεσε πως αυτοί γενικά συμφωνούν ότι:

(α) Οι ιερείς δεν ήταν και ιδιαίτερα σχολαστικοί στην εφαρμογή του ορίου ηλικίας των 18 χρόνων κατά την ετοιμασία των εκλογικών καταλόγων.

(β) Ένα μέλος μίας οικογένειας μπορούσε να ψηφίσει [υπογράψει] εκ μέρους άλλων μελών της ίδιας οικογένειας.

(γ) Επετράπη σε άτομα που ισχυρίστηκαν ότι ήταν γραμμένα σε ένα εκλογικό κέντρο να υπογράψουν σε ένα άλλο χωρίς να εξεταστεί επισταμένως η ταυτότητά τους.

Με βάση τα πιο πάνω, γράφει ο Reddaway, δεν ξενίζει το γεγονός ότι ο αριθμός των υπογραφών στην πόλη της Λεμεσού στην πραγματικότητα ξεπέρασε τον αριθμό των καταχωρημένων ψηφοφόρων στους εκλογικούς καταλόγους που ετοιμάστηκαν από τους ιερείς. Για να προσθέσει αμέσως συμπερασματικά:

Αυτό δεν φαίνεται στα δημοσιευμένα αποτελέσματα (του δημοψηφίσματος) και υποθέτω ότι αντιλαμβανόμενοι το παράλογο (της υπόθεσης), οι διοργανωτές γρήγορα διόρθωσαν τους αρχικούς καταλόγους με τέτοιο τρόπο ώστε να φαίνεται ένα λογικό περιθώριο. Ο αρχικός αριθμός των ψηφοφόρων στον κατάλογο ήταν 12,898, ο αριθμός των συγκεντρωμένων υπογραφών 12,991 και ο αριθμός των ψηφοφόρων στον αναθεωρημένο εκλογικό κατάλογο 13,235. Σε ένα χωριό, τα Αγρίδια, οι διοργανωτές προφανώς παρέλειψαν να διορθώσουν τον αρχικό κατάλογο, αφού συγκεντρώθηκαν 273 υπογραφές έναντι 269 εγγεγραμμένων ψηφοφόρων.

Όπως φαίνεται και από το αποτέλεσμα του δημοψηφίσματος, παρά τα φαινόμενα νοθείας που σε κάποιο βαθμό παρατηρήθηκαν, στην πόλη της Λεμεσού λίγοι, αν όχι κανείς, από τους μετριοπαθείς ή φιλοβρετανούς πολίτες απέφυγαν να υπογράψουν. Για παράδειγμα, ένας γνωστός φιλοβρετανός, ο σερ Παναγιώτης Κακογιάννης υπέγραψε εν μέσω επευφημιών το πρωί της 15ης Γενάρη. Δεν νομίζω ότι η κοινή γνώμη, της Λεμεσού τουλάχιστον, επικρίνει αυτόν και άλλους φιλοκυβερνητικούς γιατί υπέγραψαν υπέρ της Ένωσης εξηγεί ο Reddaway. Οι φιλοβρετανοί εξηγούν τη στάση τους αυτή με βάση έναν ή περισσότερους από τους παρακάτω λόγους σύμφωνα με τον Βρετανό διοικητή:

(α) Γιατί είναι ειλικρινά δεσμευμένοι με την «Ένωση» ως ιδανικό.

(β) Θεωρούν το δημοψήφισμα ως ένα ακόμη πολιτικό κόλπο και υπέγραψαν απλά για να αποφύγουν φασαρίες και γνωρίζοντας σαφώς ότι δεν σήμαινε τίποτα.

(γ) Θεωρούν ότι η κυβέρνηση μπορεί να μέμφεται μόνο τον εαυτό της διότι έχει επιτρέψει να φτάσει η κατάσταση σε τέτοιο βαθμό εκτός ελέγχου, που να μην μπορούν οι φίλοι της να διακινδυνέψουν τις συνέπειες μιας δημόσιας δήλωσης υποστήριξής της.

(δ) Σε συνέχεια του πιο πάνω λόγου, θα ήταν καλύτερα να έχουμε Ένωση και να τελειώνουμε, παρά να συνεχίζεται η σημερινή κατάσταση πραγμάτων. Η ελληνική κυβέρνηση θα έβαζε τους κομμουνιστές τουλάχιστον στη θέση τους και τα οικονομικά μειονεκτήματα θα αντισταθμίζονταν σε κάποιο βαθμό από τον τερματισμό της αβεβαιότητας σχετικά με το μέλλον της νήσου, πράγμα που είναι τόσο κακό για τη μακροπρόθεσμη εμπορική ανάπτυξη.

(ε) Όποιος αρνιόταν να υπογράψει το δημοψήφισμα θα μπορούσε βεβαίως να αποχαιρετήσει την οποιαδήποτε προοπτική πολιτικής ανέλιξής του στην Κύπρο, πόσο μάλλον προοπτική επηρεασμού των συμπατριωτών του υπέρ της συνεργασίας με την κυβέρνηση.

Μία εβδομάδα μετά τη λήξη του δημοψηφίσματος και αφού οι πανηγυρισμοί κόπασαν, γεννήθηκαν δύο βασικά ερωτήματα:

(1) Θα συνεχιζόταν η «εκεχειρία» μεταξύ Αριστεράς και Δεξιάς;

(2) Ποιες θα ήταν οι επόμενες ενέργειες αξιοποίησης του αποτελέσματος του δημοψηφίσματος;

Ο Reddaway εκτιμά ότι όσον αφορά το πρώτο ερώτημα, στη Λεμεσό κανένας δεν αμφέβαλλε ότι η απάντηση ήταν αρνητική. Αυτό επιβεβαιώθηκε από τον τρόπο με τον οποίο η Δεξιά αντιμετώπισε την πρόταση της Αριστεράς για συνεργασία στην αξιοποίηση των αποτελεσμάτων του δημοψηφίσματος. Η στάση της Δεξιάς ήταν υπεροπτική και προσβλητική απέναντι στην Αριστερά. Έτσι η τελευταία, μη έχοντας άλλα περιθώρια αντίδρασης, κατηγόρησε τη Δεξιά για ανειλικρίνεια στις προθέσεις της και δήλωσε αποφασισμένη να αναλάβει η ίδια την προώθηση των ενδεδειγμένων ενεργειών για την αξιοποίηση του αποτελέσματος του ενωτικού δημοψηφίσματος στο εξωτερικό.

Το γεγονός αυτό δεν ήταν τίποτα καινούργιο. Η Δεξιά ανέκαθεν επεδείκνυε δυσπιστία και καχυποψία σε προτάσεις συνεργασίας τις οποίες διατύπωνε κατά καιρούς η ηγεσία της Αριστεράς. Τρία χρόνια νωρίτερα, το 1947, η Δεξιά είχε και πάλι αγνοήσει τις προτροπές της Αριστεράς, εν όψει Διασκεπτικής, για από κοινού κατοχύρωση της αποχής όχι μόνον από τη συνταγματική διαπραγμάτευση αλλά και από κάθε συνεργασία με το αποικιακό καθεστώς. Τώρα προστέθηκε και μια σημαντική διαφορά εκτίμησης ως προς τον χρόνο και τον τρόπο παρουσίασης των αποτελεσμάτων του δημοψηφίσματος στον ΟΗΕ.

Η Αριστερά επεδίωκε την άμεση ανακίνηση του αιτήματος της αυτοδιάθεσης της Κύπρου στον διεθνή οργανισμό μέσω μιας σοβιετικής ή άλλης ανατολικοευρωπαϊκής πρωτοβουλίας. Αντίθετα, η κυπριακή Δεξιά τηρούσε στάση αναμονής μέχρι τη διενέργεια εκλογών στην Ελλάδα και στη Βρετανία. Κατόπιν θα κατέβαλε προσπάθεια να πείσει τη νέα κυβέρνηση των Αθηνών να εγγράψει το θέμα στην ημερήσια διάταξη της Γενικής Συνέλευσης των Ηνωμένων Εθνών. Σε περίπτωση που η ελληνική κυβέρνηση κωλυσιεργούσε, φημολογείτο στο νησί ότι θα προσεγγιζόταν είτε η Αίγυπτος είτε η Ινδία για αυτό τον σκοπό. Για την ώρα, όμως, η τακτική τής Δεξιάς περιοριζόταν στην παρουσία των αποτελεσμάτων του δημοψηφίσματος σε Αθήνα και Λονδίνο.

Είναι επιβεβλημένο να αναφερόμαστε στον Καταστατικό Χάρτη του ΟΗΕ, τις αρχές και τα ψηφίσματα του. Άλλωστε η διαδικασία επίλυσης του προβλήματος μας βρίσκεται υπό την αιγίδα του διεθνούς οργανισμού. Το γεγονός ότι είμαστε μικροί και αδύνατοι επιβάλλει ακόμη περισσότερο την αταλάντευτη προσήλωση μας στον ΚΧ του ΟΗΕ! Προσωπικά κατά την υπηρεσία μου στην Στρατηγική Δεξαμενή Σκέψης του ΟΗΕ (UNU) πυξίδα των γνωμοδοτήσεων μου είχα πάντοτε τον ΚΧ τις αρχές και τις αξίες της οποίες ο ΟΗΕ καλείται να υπηρετεί.

Ως προς το τρέχον καυτό θέμα της Συνθήκης Εγγυήσεως του 1960, όφειλε και δεν το έπραξε, άρα εξακολουθεί να οφείλει η πολιτική μας ηγεσία σε Αθήνα και Λευκωσία να αποτιμήσει την νομιμότητα της, ανατρέχοντας στον ΚΧ του ΟΗΕ, ως τον μοναδικό έγκυρο γνώμονα. Εξηγούμαι παραθέτοντας τα σχετικά εδάφια:

Κεφάλαιο 1: Σκοποί και Αρχές: Άρθρο 2.1

Ο  ΟΗΕ  βασίζεται  στην  αρχή  της  Κυρίαρχης  Ισότητας  όλων  των  Μελών του.

Κεφάλαιο 16: Διάφορες Διατάξεις: Άρθρο 103.

Αν  υπάρχει  σύγκρουση  ανάμεσα  στις  υποχρεώσεις  που  έχουν  τα  Μέλη  του ΟΗΕ σύμφωνα με αυτόν το Χάρτη και στις υποχρεώσεις που πηγάζουν από οποιαδήποτε  άλλη  διεθνή  συμφωνία,  θα  υπερισχύουν  οι  υποχρεώσεις  που  πηγάζουν  από αυτόν  το  Χάρτη.

Ερώτημα Πρώτο: Είναι ή δεν είναι η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία Πλήρες, Ισότιμο και Κυρίαρχο  Μέλος του ΟΗΕ; Η απάντηση βασίζεται σε πραγματικά γεγονότα: Η ΚΔ είναι πλήρες ισότιμο και κυρίαρχο κράτος μέλος. Μάλιστα την πρόταση ένταξης της στον Οργανισμό έκανε η πρώην αποικιοκρατική δύναμη Μεγάλη Βρετανία (μαζί με την επίσης πρώην αποικία Κεϋλάνη). Ο πρώτος μόνιμος αντιπρόσωπος της Κύπρου στον Ο.Η.Ε., Ζήνων Ρωσσίδης, εκφώνησε τον πρώτο λόγο του στη Γενική Συνέλευση στις 21 Σεπτεμβρίου 1960).

Ερώτημα Δεύτερο: Υπάρχει ή δεν υπάρχει σύγκρουση της Συνθήκης Εγγυήσεως με τις πρόνοιες του ΚΧ; Απάντηση: Ασφαλώς και υπάρχει. Εφόσον η Συνθήκη Εγγυήσεως 1960 προβλέπει επεμβατικά δικαιώματα και ακόμα χειρότερα μονομερή (αν και υπό προϋποθέσεις), αντίκειται στις υποχρεώσεις των Κρατών Μελών συμφώνως προς τον Καταστατικό Χάρτη, ο οποίος καλεί όλα τα Κράτη Μέλη να σέβονται την κυριαρχία και να τηρούν την ισότητα μεταξύ τους.

Κατά συνέπεια, εφόσον ο Καταστατικός Χάρτης του ΟΗΕ υπερισχύει οποιασδήποτε άλλης διεθνούς συμφωνίας γίνεται σαφές ότι η Συνθήκη Εγγυήσεως καθίσταται στην πράξη άκυρη, ως αντιβαίνουσα τις πρόνοιες του ΚΧ. Διότι αλλιώς η ΚΔ δεν είναι κυρίαρχη. Η κυριαρχία είναι έννοια απόλυτη. Ένα κράτος δεν μπορεί να είναι ‘ολίγον κυρίαρχο’. Όπως μια γυναίκα δεν μπορεί να είναι ολίγον έγκυος. Ή είναι ή δεν είναι!

Ως εκ των ανωτέρω προνοιών του ΚΧ, η ακύρωση της Συνθήκης Εγγυήσεως έγινε αυτόματα με την ένταξη της ΚΔ στον ΟΗΕ (Σεπτέμβριος 1960). Εδώ και 56 χρόνια. Ο Καταστατικός Χάρτης είναι σαφής. Δεν επιδέχεται άλλης ερμηνείας! Οποιαδήποτε επαναφορά καθεστώτος εγγυήσεων, με επεμβατικά δικαιώματα οιασδήποτε μορφής, καταστρατηγεί βασικές πρόνοιες του ΚΧ ΟΗΕ.

As these lines are dawn the TAF are pounding Kurdish civilian areas in Turkey itself in an apparent effort to deny the right of existence to an entire people: the stateless Kurdish nation.

International peace is built upon respect of norms: charters, conventions, treaties that constitute international law. Respect of international law forms the sound foundation for peace, respect and tolerance between nations. Make no mistake: Turkey resigned to any title and right to the island of Cyprus by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923, Articles 20-21). Ankara has not respected the Treaty. Aided and abetted by Great Britain in the mid-fifties (London Conference 1955) Turkey has ever since re-entered forcefully the Cyprus frame. The core of the Cyprus problem is the denial of the unadulterated implementation of the right of self-determination of the people of Cyprus at the end of World War II, which would have meant the cession of the island to Greece in accordance with the crystal clear political will of the majority of Cypriots. (For a detailed account see the author’s book: Cyprus: The Struggle for Self-Determination in the 1940s, Peter Lang, Frankfurt, 2002). The solution of vassal state independence struck Zurich and finalized in London (February 1959) did nothing more than to exacerbate the feeling of injustice and frustration among the Greek majority on the island forming eighty per cent of the Cypriot population. More so, if it is taken into account that the Cypriots were, however indirectly, promised Enosis at the end of the anti-Nazi war effort. The Greeks of Cyprus fought heroically within the ranks of the British Imperial Army. Ten per cent of the Cypriot population were involved in the war effort. Naturally, the Cypriot war veterans felt bitterly betrayed as London refused to proceed with the cession of their island to mother country Greece. Some of them rebelled while in duty service (see above book).

The constitutional order established in the stillborn Republic of Cyprus was a recipe for disaster: the prerogatives granted to the small Turkish minority were such that rekindled the deep rooted Greek Cypriot majority feeling of injustice. The Greeks offered tombs of sacrifices in  the defeat of Nazism and in the consequent armed campaign for Enosis (1955-58), only to be denied their inalienable UN Charter endorsed right of self-determination! Makarios had little other option than propose through a political process the amendment of the unworkable constitution. The Turkish answer was the insurgency, the arming of Turkish Cypriot militants by Ankara and their hot headed drive for geographical segregation. When the freshly formed Greek National Guard engaged in self-defence purging operations to protect the Greek civilians from the indiscriminate attacks of Turkish Cypriot militants Ankara answered sending its Air Force dropping napalm bombs on Greek villages (August 1964).

We ought to submit the significant point of historical continuity in Turkish policy: there has been little if no change on Turkish war practices: war crimes committed on massive scale against unarmed civilian population. What does this practice amount to other than genocide? (Compare for instance the stubborn Turkish governments’ denial of the Greek Pontiac or the Armenian or the Kurdish genocide)

Incidentally, let us make no mistake: the only time napalm bombs were used in the annals of modern military history before the TAF dropped them in Tylliria Cyprus, was by the US Air Force in their effort to eliminate the Greek Communist guerillas (Aug 1949). Ironically, it looks fatal for the Greeks to be on the side of the winners in both World Wars only to be … ‘awarded’ the extensive destruction and loss of innocent human life caused by the impact of napalm and other cluster bombs on the population dropped by their Allies (remember also RAF’s notorious pounding of the poor neighbourhoods of Athens in the early stages of the Greek civil war: December 1944: a direct consequence of Winston Churchill’s order to the British military commander to rule Athens as an occupied city)!

What are the true immediate consequences of the Turkish invasion of 1974, the so called ‘peace operation’ that once more will be celebrated in the breakaway “TRNC”. Let us take a quick rough quantitative assessment – without an estimate the immeasurable cost of loss of human life and property:

• 5,000 Greeks dead
• 1500 missing – after 42 years the fate of only one about one third of this number of persons has been identified, UN sponsored process of identification stalled by refusal of Turkish authorities to grant access to TAF military archives
• 70% of gross output lost
• 65% of tourist accommodation
• 87% of hotel beds under construction
• 83% of general cargo handling
• 56% of mining output
• 48% of agricultural exports
• 46% of plant production
• 37% of the total area of the island occupied in a country where 83% of private land is Greek owned.

The 42 year-old consequences are immense and the cost of compensation to the Greeks of Cyprus easily runs into tens of billions of euros. Sadly, the current talk of Cypriot government officials is for a substantial part of the proceeds from future sale of natural gas to finance an agreed political settlement including compensation. What a great idea! The aggressor gets away, the partly recovered victim is asked to pay the damages bill …

What sort of logic is that? Is that part of a new policy of appeasement of Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Are we standing here in this 3000 year old Greek island just to appease the neo-Sultan lest he unleashes an unprecedented and ferocity blitzkrieg on the remaining Greeks of Cyprus?