Μετά από δεκατρείς γύρους συνομιλιών οι οποίοι διάρκησαν δύο χρόνια διαπραγματεύσεων και αφού προηγήθηκε προσφυγή του Μαυρικίου στο Διεθνές Δικαστήριο της Χάγης (International Court of Justice) οι νεοαποικιοκράτες Βρετανοί κατέληξαν σε συμβιβασμό ο οποίος προβλέπει τη παραχώρηση κυριαρχίας του Συμπλέγματος των Νήσων Τσάγος με αντάλλαγμα την μακροχρόνια μίσθωση – για 99 έτη προς 165 εκατομμύρια στερλίνες ετησίως για τα τρία πρώτα χρόνια -της αεροπορικής βάσης Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία (Diego Garcia). Η σύμβαση μίσθωσης προβλέπει δικαίωμα ανανέωσης της. Οι σχετικές διαπραγματεύσεις είχαν αρχίσει το Νοέμβριο του 2022. Κατέληξαν φαινομενικά – όπως προκύπτει εκ των υστέρων – σε αίσιο τέλος με την συμφωνία παραχώρησης της κυριότητας των Νήσων από το ΗΒ στον Μαυρίκιο.

Μολαταύτα, η μεταβίβαση της κυριαρχίας παγοποιείται λόγω αντιρρήσεων του Ντόναλντ Τραμπ. Άνκαι υπό αδιάλειπτη Βρετανική κυριαρχία η αεροπορική βάση Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία χρησιμοποιείται από κοινού από Μεγάλη Βρετανία και ΗΠΑ από το 1966. Στα πλαίσια της ειδικής σχέσης ΗΒ-ΗΠΑ και παρά την άρνηση συμμετοχής του ΗΒ στις επιθέσεις κατά του Ιράν, το Λονδίνο επιτρέπει την χρήση της βάσης Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία στον εν εξελίξει πόλεμο της Ουάσιγκτον κατά του Ιράν, καλύπτοντας την άδεια χρήσης υπό τον μανδύα των ‘αμυντικών επιχειρήσεων’.

Τον περασμένο μήνα, και συγκεκριμένα στις 10 του Απρίλη, η Βρετανική κυβέρνηση παραδέχθηκε ότι πάγωσε την συμφωνία μεταβίβασης της κυριαρχίας του Αρχιπελάγους Τσάγος. Βρετανός κυβερνητικός εκπρόσωπος δήλωσε από την μια ότι:

Συνεχίζουμε να πιστεύουμε ότι η συμφωνία είναι ο καλύτερος τρόπος για να προστατεύσουμε το μακροπρόθεσμο μέλλον της βάσης.

Από την άλλη όμως πρόσθεσε ότι το Λονδίνο δεν προχωρά σε κινήσεις που δεν τυγχάνουν της έγκρισης της Ουάσιγκτον:

Aλλά πάντα λέμε ότι θα προχωρήσουμε με τη συμφωνία μόνο εάν έχει την υποστήριξη των ΗΠΑ.

Ο πρόεδρος Τραμπ, απρόβλεπτος, όπως πάντα, άλλαξε την στάση του μέσα σε λίγους μήνες. Τον περασμένο έτος όταν ο Βρετανός πρωθυπουργός Στάρμερ επισκέφθηκε τον Λευκό Οίκο, ο Τραμπ, ακολουθώντας την τοποθέτηση του State Department ενέκρινε την συμφωνία ΗΒ-Μαυρικίου. Επανέλαβε την ευαρέσκεια του τον Φεβρουάριο λέγοντας ήταν ‘η καλύτερη συμφωνία που μπορούσε ο Στάρμερ να πετύχει υπό τις περιστάσεις’.

Μέχρι τον Απρίλη ο απροσδόκητος Τραμπ επανήλθε λέγοντας ότι ο Στάρμερ «κάνει ένα μεγάλο λάθος» στην παραχώρηση της κυριαρχία των νησιών στον Μαυρίκιο με αντάλλαγμα να επιτραπεί στο Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο και τις ΗΠΑ να συνεχίσουν να χρησιμοποιούν την αεροπορική τους βάση.

Ο Simon MacDonald, πρώην Γενικός Διευθυντής του Βρετανικού ΥΠΕΞ τοποθετήθηκε σε συνέντευξη του στο BBC: «Το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο είχε δύο στόχους, ο ένας ήταν να συμμορφωθεί με το διεθνές δίκαιο και ο δεύτερος ήταν να ενισχύσει την σχέση με τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες». «Όταν ο πρόεδρος των Ηνωμένων Πολιτειών είναι ανοιχτά εχθρικός, η κυβέρνηση πρέπει να το ξανασκεφτεί, επομένως αυτή η συμφωνία, αυτή η συνθήκη θα παγώσει προς το παρόν».

Βρηγχήθηκε, λοιπόν ο Θείος Σαμ, και ο Βρετανικός Λέων υπάκουσε στας εντολάς του.

Περιττό να υπογραμμίσουμε ότι η αμφιταλάντευση της Βρετανικής κυβέρνησης στο ζήτημα της βάσης Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία θα πρέπει να ληφθεί υπόψη στην χάραξη πολιτικής απέναντι στις Βρετανικές Βάσεις Κύπρου. Μια πρόσφατη μας συζήτηση με πολιτικούς αρχηγούς δεν μας πείθει ότι υπάρχει συγκροτημένο σχέδιο πολιτικής για επαναδιαπραγμάτευση του καθεστώτος τους …

Θα ήθελα να σταθώ στο τελευταίο σημείο. Μια σχετικά πρόσφατη σημαντική εξέλιξη στις διμερείς σχέσεις Μεγάλης Βρετανίας και Μαυρικίου άπτεται και της περίπτωσης των διμερών σχέσεων Μεγάλης Βρετανίας και Κύπρου νοουμένου ότι η πρώτη κατέχει τρία τα εκατό του εδάφους της νήσου υπό το καθεστώς «Κυριάρχων Περιοχών Βάσεων» αλλά και σειρά άλλων περιοχών διακατοχής εντός της επικράτειας της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας – σημαντικότερη εκ των οποίων είναι η περίκλειστη με συρματόπλεγμα κορυφή του Ολύμπου προστατεύουσα πανίσχυρα Βρετανικά συστήματα παρακολούθησης τηλεπικοινωνίων με εμβέλεια μέχρι τα Ουράλια όρη. Η σημαντική αυτή εξέλιξη αφορά στην Μεταβίβαση Κυριαρχίας των Νήσων του Αρχιπελάγους Τσάγος από το Ηνωμένο Βασίλειο στο κράτος του Μαυρικίου. Το κοινό ανακοινωθέν της διμερούς πολιτικής συμφωνίας εκδώθηκε στις 3 Οκτωβρίου 2024.

Μετά από έντεκα γύρους διμερών συνομιλιών εντός δύο ετών διαπραγματεύσεων και αφού προηγήθηκε προσφυγή του Μαυρικίου στο Διεθνές Δικαστήριο της Χάγης, το Λονδίνο αναγκάστηκε σε συμβιβασμό: παραχώρησε κυριαρχία του Συμπλέγματος των Νήσων Τσάγος με αντάλλαγμα την μακροχρόνια μίσθωση, για 99 έτη, της βάσης Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία (Diego Garcia). Η σύμβαση μίσθωσης προβλέπει δικαίωμα ανανέωσης της. Οι σχετικές διαπραγματεύσεις άρχισαν το Νοέμβριο του 2022 και κατέληξαν σε αίσιο τέλος με την συμφωνία αποχώρησης των Βρετανών στα μέσα του παρελθόντος έτους.

Το κείμενο της τελικής συμφωνίας υπεγράφη μεταξύ του Βρετανού πρωθυπουργού Keir Starmer και του πρωθυπουργού του Μαυρικίου Navin Ramgoolam στις 22 Μαϊου του 2025. Δημοσιεύματα του Βρετανικού Τύπου αναφέρουν ότι η μίσθωση κοστίζει στο Λονδίνο 101 εκατομμύρια στερλίνες (117 εκ. Ευρώ) ετησίως.

Κακά τα ψέματα, τόσο η αεροπορική βάση Ντιέγκο Γκαρσία όσο και η αεροπορική βάση Ακρωτηρίου χρησιμοποιούνται από κοινού από τους Αγγλοαμερικανούς ως ορμητήρια στην επίθεση κατά του Ιρανικού καθεστώτος. Ο Μαυρίκιος, ένα αδύναμο κράτος στη μέση του πουθενά λαμβάνει ήδη 117 εκ ευρώ ετησίως. Τι αποκομίζει η Κυπριακή Δημοκρατία, πλήρες κράτος μέλος και προεδρεύουσα της ΕΕ από αυτό τον επικίνδυνο Αγγλοαμερικανικό τυχοδιωκτισμό; Δεν είδαμε άλλο όφελος εκτός από την διασπορά ανησυχίας και πανικού στους κατοίκους Ακρωτηρίου και των γειτονικών κοινοτήτων. Κανένα αντισταθμιστικό όφελος για τον Κυπριακό Λαό.

Συμπεράσματα

Πρώτον, η πρόσφατη συμφωνία ΗΒ-Μαυρικίου για επανένταξη του Αρχιπελάγους Τσάγος (Νότιος Ινδικός Ωκεανός, ανατολικά των Σεϋχελλών) στο κράτος του Μαυρικίου καταδεικνύει ότι οι δεκατέσσερεις Βρετανικές Υπερπόντιες Κτήσεις (ΒΥΚΤΗ), μία εκ των οποίων είναι οι Βρετανικές Βάσεις Κύπρου, τελούν υπό καθεστώς διεθνούς αμφισβήτησης της κυριαρχίας τους. Το κεφάλαιο της πλήρους αποαποικιοποίησης των Βρετανικών Υπερπόντιων Κτήσεων παραμένει ανοικτό. Είναι διαπραγματεύσιμο.

Οι ΒΥΚΤΗ είναι κατάλοιπα της Αποικιοκρατικής Βρετανικής Αυτοκρατορίας. (Mέχρι το 1981 τα εδάφη αυτά ήταν γνωστά ως Αποικίες του Στέμματος. Αποικία του Βρετανικού Στέμματος είχε ανακηρυχθεί και η Κύπρος το 1925). Σήμερα, οι ΒΥΚΤΗ έχουν κατά προσέγγιση έκταση 1.727.570 τ.χλμ. Καλύπτουν δηλαδή περισσότερο από επταπλάσια έκταση αυτής του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου (Βρετανίας και Βόρειας Ιρλανδίας) η οποία είναι 244,000 τ.χλμ. Μεγαλύτερη εξ αυτών, η Ανταρκτική.

Δεύτερον, η πολιτική της ΚΔ απέναντι στο κεφαλαιώδες ζήτημα της ατελούς αποαποικιοποίησης το οποίο μας αφορά άμεσα, μόνο σπασμωδική, αποσπασματική και ως εκ τούτου άτσαλη και αδύναμη μπορεί να χαρακτηριστεί.

Επτά χρόνια πέρασαν από την απόφαση ορόσημο του Διεθνούς Δικαστηρίου της Χάγης. Στις 25 Φεβρουαρίου 2019, η Χάγη γνωμοδότησε απεριφράστως ότι κατά τον χρόνο της αποσύνδεσής του από τον Μαυρίκιο (1968),  το αρχιπέλαγος Τσάγος ήταν σαφώς αναπόσπαστο μέρος αυτής της μη αυτοδιοικούμενης περιοχής και ότι η αποκοπή δεν βασιζόταν στην ελεύθερη και γνήσια έκφραση της βούλησης του ενδιαφερόμενου λαού. Η Λευκωσία έστειλε στην Χάγη τον τότε Γενικό Εισαγγελέα ο οποίος έλαβε μέρος στην ακροαματική διαδικασία (3-6 Σεπτεμβρίου 2018). Φυσικά πήρε το μέρος του Μαυρικίου.

Από τότε η Κυπριακή κυβέρνηση ουδέν έπραξε για να εξασφαλίσει το συμφέρον αυτού του λαού που κατοικά σ’αυτή τη γη, καθ’ ην στιγμήν η ίδια η Βρετανία κάμπτεται και πληρώνει τους Μαυρίκιους αλλά όχι τους Κυπρίους …

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.

Ο συνάδελφος αναλυτής Κώστας Βενιζέλος απηχώντας ομοίως την πιο πάνω θεώρηση των πραγμάτων, σε πρόσφατο άρθρο του στον «Φ» (24/7/2021), αναφέρεται σε πληροφορίες για επανασύσταση από την Κυπριακή κυβέρνηση δύο επιστροπών [μελετών] του 2007 για τις Βρετανικές Βάσεις. Τον Οκτώβρη του 2016, το άρθρο μας υπό τον τίτλο «Βρετανικές Βάσεις εκ Νέου στο Προσκήνιο» χαρακτήριζε την πολιτική μας απέναντι στις ΒΒ ‘περιστασιακή, αποσπασματική και ασπόνδυλη’. Πέντε σχεδόν χρόνια μετά, δυστυχώς, δικαιωνόμαστε. Θα επανέλθουμε με περισσότερα στοιχεία σε βάθος παρελθόντος χρόνου για την εγκαταληφθείσα διαπραγμάτευση με την Βρετανική κυβέρνηση. Για την ώρα παραθέτουμε το άρθρο του 2016 αυτούσιο:

«Θα έλεγε κανείς ότι η απασχόληση μας ως πολιτεία και δη πλήρες μέλος του ΟΗΕ και της ΕΕ με το θέμα των Βρετανικών Βάσεων (ΒΒ) είναι περιστασιακή, αποσπασματική και ασπόνδυλη. Αντικατοπτρίζει προφανώς τον τρόπο με τον οποίο χαράσσουμε ή ίσως δεν χαράσσουμε καν πολιτική, απλά αντιδρούμε περιστασιακά στις αυθαιρεσίες των όσων έχουν φροντίσει από δεκαετίες βάσει σχεδίου να διαμελίσουν αυτό τον τόπο για να τον κρατούν υπόδουλο προς εύκολη εξυπηρέτηση των συμφερόντων τους.

Έτσι και τώρα βρεθήκαμε για μια ακόμη φορά εν όψει μιας νέας αυθαιρεσίας των Βρετανών οι οποίοι αποφάσισαν και διέταξαν εν κρυπτώ την αποψίλωση του δασυλλίου Ξυλοφάγου επικαλούμενοι λόγους ασφάλειας λόγω παρακείμενου πεδίου βολής αλλά και πατώντας πάνω σε ασύγγνωστη, ανάρμοστη και βάναυση συμπεριφορά σε βάρος αθώων … πτηνών από μέρους μερίδας ασυνείδητων Κυπρίων αγροτών.

Το θέμα των ΒΒ εκτείνεται σε βάθος χρόνου εξηκονταετίας και επεχειρήθη από μέρους των Βρετανών να καταστεί περίπλοκο και δυσεπίλυτο μέσα από την Συνθήκη Εγκαθίδρυσης (ΣΕ) της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας (ΚΔ). Η ΣΕ είναι αυτή κάθε αυτή βεβαρημένη με πολλές σελίδες λεπτομερειακής κατοχύρωσης των δικαιωμάτων πρόσβασης, χρήσης (αν όχι και κατάχρησης) του εδάφους, εναερίου και θαλασσίου χώρου της ΚΔ τόσο εντός όσο και εκτός ΒΒ. (Η τελευταία αναφορά μας παραπέμπει στις διαβόητες περιοχές διακατοχής και άλλες εγκαταστάσεις οι οποίες αποτελούν αναπόσπαστο μέρος της ΣΕ). Οι δεκάδες σελίδες των Παραρτημάτων της ΣΕ καθορίζουν με σαφή τρόπο αυτά τα δικαιώματα. Το ίδιο το κείμενο της ΣΕ στα δώδεκα του άρθρα δίνει το στίγμα της ύπαρξης της Συνθήκης ως διακρατικής συμφωνίας διασφάλισης της μονιμότητας της Βρετανικής στρατιωτικής παρουσίας επί της νήσου.

Η εξασφάλιση άτεγκτων όρων μόνιμης Βρετανικής στρατιωτικής παρουσίας στη νήσο μας γίνεται με ένα κεκαλυμμένο και ύπουλο θα έλεγε κανείς τρόπο. Από την μια αναφέρεται στην ΣΕ ότι δεν είναι πρόθεση του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου να ιδρύσει ‘κράτος εν κράτει’ έχοντας εξασφαλίσει την παρουσία των Βάσεων του στο διηνεκές. Από την άλλη όμως, η δεδηλωμένη άρνηση τέτοιας πρόθεσης αυτομάτως αναιρείται από την φύση και την δομή την οποία οι Βρετανοί επιδίωξαν να δώσουν στις Βάσεις τους. Τις ονόμασαν και τις δόμησαν ως ‘κυρίαρχες’. Ο όρος ‘κυρίαρχος’ αποδίδεται μόνο σε κρατικές οντότητες. Αν και κατά το γράμμα της ΣΕ οι ΒΒ δεν αποτελούν κράτος, επιδιώκεται κατ’ ουσίαν, να είναι μέσα από την λειτουργία μιας ολοκληρωμένης κρατικής διοίκησης η οποία εμπερικλείεται στην όλη δομή της ούτω καλούμενης Διοίκησης των Κυριάρχων Περιοχών Βάσεων – ΔΚΠΒ.

Έτσι η ‘ΔΚΠΒ’ διαθέτει Πολιτικό Διοικητή (πέραν του Στρατιωτικού), Αστυνομία, Δικαστήρια, Ακτοφυλακή και Τελωνεία. Δεν διαθέτει, βέβαια, Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο διότι υπεύθυνη για την χάραξη πολιτικής είναι η κυβέρνηση του Λονδίνου και οι καθ’ ύλην αρμόδιοι Υπουργοί της, ‘Αμυνας και Εξωτερικών. Μολαταύτα γίνεται αντιληπτό ότι οι Βρετανοί δια της εγκαθιδρύσεως καθορισμένων Περιοχών Βάσεων, από το 1959 και έκτοτε, έχουν προσδώσει και διατηρήσει απαράλλακτες κρατικές δομές στις Περιοχές των Βάσεων τους. Η ‘ΔΚΠΒ’ είναι δηλαδή στην πράξη προτεκτοράτο του Ηνωμένου Βασιλείου. Άλλωστε οι ίδιοι οι Βρετανοί ονομάζουν την διοίκηση αυτή και λοιπά άλλα απομεινάρια της άλλωτε κραταιάς τους Αυτοκρατορίας (δεκαεπτά στο σύνολο), ‘υπερπόντιες εξαρτώμενες περιοχές’.

Το ζήτημα των ηθικών, οικονομικών αλλά και ιστορικών ευθυνών των Βρετανών για το παραστράτημα από την οδό της εφαρμογής της γνήσιας αυτοδιάθεσης στην περίπτωση της Κύπρου είναι τεράστιο.

Στο παρών σύντομο σημείωμα αρκεί να αναφέρουμε ότι η πρόθεση των Βρετανών να συνδράμουν οικονομικά την ΚΔ ως αντίδωρο στην απρόσκοπτη λειτουργία των Βάσεων τους – η οποία κατά καιρούς μπορεί να μην συμπίπτει με τα καλώς νοούμενα Κυπριακά συμφέροντα –  έχει παραμείνει γράμμα κενό εδώ και πενήντα τρία χρόνια.

Καταλήγοντας να ευχαριστήσουμε την εφημερίδα Ο Φιλελεύθερος για την δημοσίευση των συντετμημένων αναλύσεων μας και να υπενθυμίσουμε ότι άρθρο της αρχισυνταξίας επί του θέματος, εννέα χρόνια πριν (Οκτώβριος 2007), υπό τον τίτλο Το Δεύτερο Μέτωπο Έχει Ήδη Ανοίξει κατέληγε με την εξής σοφή φράση: όπως υποδείξαμε πολλές φορές, δεν θα ανοίξουμε δεύτερο μέτωπο γιατί από δεκαετίες αυτό υπάρχει ως Βρετανική επιλογή.»

In the Rimland Theory, the renowned American political scientist Nickolas Spykman introduces the Inner Crescent Theory. The theory’s introduction forms the basis of America’s geopolitical thought and in extension the practice of the Western World. The Inner Crescent Theory is a worthy mention in this article owing to the importance of the contents contained therein. However, such mention will be brief as this article’s main intention does not lie in making a detailed reference to the previously mentioned theory. Instead, the objective is to understand it through perceiving the world as a competitive environment between land and sea forces.

Sir Halford John Mackinder was Nickolas Spykman’s mentor. Sir Halford helped shape his perception. In his work The Geographical Pivot of History Mackinder discusses the importance of the World-Island, which comprises the interlinked continents of Africa, Europe, and Asia. These are the most populous and richest land combinations possible. He also traces the Pivot Area, which consists of the territories of the earth’s centre. His idea is that the alliance between the two would lead to domination resulting from abundant population as well as natural resources. Mackinder published his book Democratic Ideals and Reality in 1919. His perceptions can aptly be summarized as follows: “whoever rules East Europe commands the Heartland; whoever rules the Heartland commands the World-Island; whoever rules the World-Island commands the World.”

In his essay “The Geography of the Peace” (1944) Spykman revised Mackinder’s work. He sought to correct Mackinder’s geopolitical perceptions regarding the primary geopolitical importance of the Pivot Area. Instead, he shifted focus to those states that formed a circle around the Central Earth, also known as the “Heartland” or Russia. These are the countries surrounded by the Atlantic, Indian, and Pacific Oceans and also the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. An alliance of the states found in that common area would effectively strangle the Heartland’s land forces and deny them access to both the land and sea trade routes.

Maritime isolation, viewed as a disadvantage can be reversed into an advantage by controlling the sea trade routes. The US, UK, and Japan as maritime powers have been utilizing this advantage to the present. Control of the Crescent of Containment is more significant in geopolitical terms than a grip on the Heartland. Failure to control the former, allows the land forces to decisively turn the global balance of power in their favor.

Climate Change & Ice Melting

The Rimland Theory has for a long time persisted with much prevail even as it is in support of the plan by the West to impose a chokehold on the USSR and subsequently to its heir, the Russian Federation. An interesting dynamic has since occurred that Spykman could not have foreseen in 1944: ice melting in the Arctic Circle has opened up the possibility of a northern sea trade passage. Such an opening will effectively weaken the level of importance that the Crescent carries.

The melting ice introduces a significant shift in power dynamics strengthening the RF over its rivals. Such melting eases the extraction of energy resources in the AC. Moscow gets into position to gain maritime advantage in addition to the immense land power that it already has. One could suggest that EU and UN member states turn to green growth does not only pertain to the need to channel capital into a new investment area in an effort to protect the environment from the long term deleterious effects of fossil fuel consumption. Climate change moves centre stage in geopolitical competition.

Opening of the northern sea passage weakens maritime trade through the Suez Canal. This is the desire of both Russia and China, but also India, within the framework of the Polar Silk Road (PSR) project. The PSR project is seen as a less costly alternative for merchant shipping from East to West. Implementation of the PSR has been met with US hostility. Washington has taken both diplomatic and military steps to frustrate its development. The EU, on the other hand, has not taken any aggressive stance. Brussels is rather defensive in its approach. China tends to become the most significant trade partner of the Union. (It is now closely trailing in second place behind the US). After US President Donald J. Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TTP) negotiations (2017) this trend became more accentuated.

Both positive and negative attributes accrue from every phenomenon. It would be wrong to assume that only either of the two should be expected. Predictions thus become difficult to make. A most appropriate example: as the EU turns increasingly to Renewable Energy Sources (RES) thereby diminishing the importance of Russian natural gas imports, Gazprom’s Nord Stream 2 pipeline is coming to fruition. Nord Stream 2 pipeline will establish an energy link between Russia and Germany which will, in turn, weaken the Western Bloc’s attempt to secure alternative routes mainly through the EASTMED and TAP pipelines.

A developing phenomenon is in the making whose consequences will climax in the next twenty to thirty years: Russian acquisition of the Crimean, Syrian, and Libyan ports has cracked the Crescent. However, the opening of the northern passage would create a different dynamic as the Russian merchant fleet develops, with ports and shipbuilding industry within Russian territory.

With the ice melting, Russian access to the Arctic’s mineral wealth is expected to further increase:  a phenomenon already witnessed in Stalin’s era. Yet Russia is in a unique position of strength over the Arctic Circle contestant countries due to its technological know-how in icebreaking technology and pumping of mineral wealth from soils with such characteristics. In addition to maintaining its military superiority over the US, Russia is also renovating its ports on the icy northern shores of Arkhangelsk and Kronstadt.

The EU and the UN on Climate Change and the Dilemmas of the States

The Paris Climate Agreement, of which the US is a member state, aims at a global temperature reduction by two degrees Celsius in comparison to the pre-industrial levels. Reducing pollution by 55 per cent by the year 2030 is an objective of the UN encapsulated within this framework. Additionally, 2050 is the year within which the UN hopes to achieve the first climate-neutral world race that would have zero greenhouse gas emissions and would also disassociate growth from the use of resources.

Despite the effort being made to achieve the goals, the EU report on the participation of RES in total energy consumption for 2019, reveals that the Union is just 0.3% behind the 20% goal. Greece and Cyprus have managed to achieve the national goal they set but are slightly behind the goal set by the EU. It is necessary to mention at this point, that the up-to-date studies regarding the results of the development of RES are not sufficient to determine whether the rate of environmental recovery – and therefore the reversal of the ice melting trend – is higher than its rate of environmental deterioration.

Achieving the Arctic Route remains a big dream. Its operation will, no doubt weaken the significance of North African ports and the Eastern Mediterranean as the initial reception points through the Suez Canal. This will make Russia a remarkable global power with the ability to dynamically project power at sea.

In conclusion, the adaptation of a state’s international alliances must take such tendencies into account, but it does not cease to be shaped based on the respective nation’s advantages. A sober study of the unfolding trend is necessary even as we see its co-existence with compensatory trends. The melting of the ice will strengthen the Russian naval force at the expense of the US bringing a relative balance in this area. At the same time, the RES weakens Russia’s “Natural Gas” superpower weapon as an exportable product to the EU.

*Elias Hadjikoumis is Foreign, Security & Defence Policy Expert and a member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS).

However, since the NPT entry into force, fifty years ago, the world moved in the wrong direction: India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the list of recognized NWS. In addition, Israel is widely believed to possess 90 plutonium-based nuclear warheads and to have produced enough plutonium for somewhere in the region of one hundred to two hundred more weapons. Further, Israel’s possession of NW has triggered a serious response from Middle East arch-rival Iran. Tehran’s nuclear programme has sparked a huge international controversy. In the summer of 2015 the UN Security Council (Resolution 2231: 20 July 2015) endorsed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) reached between the P5+1 (the five permanent UNSC members plus Germany) and the regime in Tehran that placed Iran’s nuclear programme under the monitoring conditions of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). As Donald Trump withdrew the US from the deal, Iran resumed its programme unchecked. For what is worth, Joe Biden, the new US president committed the US to re-engage with Iran re-entering the JCPOA that his predecessor called a bad deal. However, at the end of February Tehran clearly indicated it is unwilling to resume talks with either the US or the Europeans unless the former lifts all sanctions imposed, crippling its economy over the last few years.

In the run-up to the 50^th anniversary NPT Review Conference tentatively scheduled to meet 2–27 August 2021 in New York (postponed from its original dates 27 April–22 May 2020 due to the covid-19 pandemic measures the noble cause of nuclear disarmament received another blow: this time from the UK. The British government in its Integrated Review announced it will increase its nuclear weapon stockpile cap to 260 nuclear warheads. On March 16th, the United Kingdom announced that it would increase its limit on its nuclear arsenal for the first time in decades. Instead of decreasing its nuclear stockpile to 180 warheads – which is still a far cry from zero – in the mid-2020s, the UK will increase its stockpile cap to 260 warheads which represents a 40% increase.

The Geneva-based International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) deplored the British government’s colossal reversal of its decades old policy of reducing its nuclear arsenal, calling it ‘shocking’ and ‘unacceptable’. The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (2017) organization stresses in its relevant statement:

While most of the world’s countries have declared that nuclear weapons are illegal, the United Kingdom is moving in the wrong direction to increase its stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom is currently engaged in a costly and lengthy project to build new nuclear-capable submarines, which it bases off the coast of Scotland, despite Scottish resistance to the bomb. In 2019 alone, the United Kingdom spent $8.9 billion on its nuclear weapons. This decision to increase its nuclear weapons stockpile, announced as part of its Integrated Review, flies in the face of UK promises under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to disarm.

In what concerns Cyprus, the UK’s Integrated Review envisages an upgraded role for the British military bases and other surveillance installations on the island: Significant investment in the Sovereign Base Areas in Cyprus will assure our ability to contribute to security, with allies, in the Eastern Mediterranean, the 100 plus page strategy, Global Britain in a Competitive Age, states.

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.

Idlib is bleeding. Radical Islamists, who lost the war in Syria, are trying to retain power in the country’s north-western province at the cost of civilian lives. This is the final obstacle to attaining peace in the country.

Brett McGurk, US Special Presidential Envoy to the Coalition fighting the Islamic State speaking at the American Institute of the Middle East, three years ago, said: Idlib Province is the largest Al-Qaeda safe haven. It borders with Turkey and it is Ankara whom we should talk to about it.

McGurk was as much right as he cut corners: he is perfectly aware how the Islamists found themselves in Idlib. It all began in 2011 with the attacks of Al-Qaeda terrorists on Syrian government forces which held the line in the northern part of the province next to Jisr ash-Shugur. The Syrian-Turkish border existed then only on paper. In fact, it was utterly permeable resembling a block of Swiss cheese. Uncontrolled crossing points were a common occurrence. The most important of which was located near the Turkish border town of Reyhanli. Over time, this porous border turned into a real transit camp, through which Islamic militants from all over the world penetrated into Syria. Moreover, loads of weapons were supplied via the ports of the Hatay Province, also on Turkish soil.

A year later, the US entered the frame under the CIA operation codenamed Timber Sycamore. The Americans, supported by the special services of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Qatar and Jordan, illegally sent military advisers, equipment and funds to Syria – with the consent of neither the Syrian government nor of any body of the international community. By 2013, Washington satisfying, inter alia, the wishes of Tel Aviv, gave the go-ahead for the supply of weapons to several thousand Islamic militants. The latter operated under the clear order of overthrowing the Syrian government.

Throughout this time we have been reading reports in Western media calling those Islamic militants ‘rebels’. It was clear to everyone, however, they were just abandoned villains planning to turn Syria into a theocratic state. They set up their training camp between Mount Zāwiya and the small town of Maarrat al-Nu’man, south of Idlib. From there, these atrocious jihadists penetrated into other parts of Syria.

In the following couple of years, 2014 and 2015, the Islamists, who by now possessed state-of-the-art weapons including anti-tank missile systems, pursued a hard-fought offensive on the province’s capital, the very city of Idlib, which was then controlled by the Syrian government forces. Alas Idlib fell. Damascus troops sustained losses. They retreated far inland. At this very moment, Bashar Al Assad sought military aid from Russia.

After the fall of the province’s major city, thousands of militants of the Islamist Army of Conquest aided by Turkey and the Gulf states advanced further, to Aleppo. They were stopped by the Syrian Army at great sacrifice of life. The turning point of the war occurred in late 2016 with the complete liberation of Aleppo from the armed gangs. The scattered militias made their way back to Idlib: first from eastern Aleppo, then from the Damascus suburbs of Ghouta, later from Yarmouk and Al-Hajar al-Aswad located further south, and finally from Daraa and Quneitra. All the survivors flocked to Idlib – groups of foreign mercenaries and a metley of local jihadists from the ranks of Al-Qaeda and Jabhat al-Nusra.

Meanwhile, a new bloody drama was unfolding in Idlib – a struggle for power between various gangs. The “moderate Syrian opposition”, closely connected with Turkey and the Gulf countries, started creating its own political structures – the “Salvation Government” with its own security services and police. Those “moderates” decided to establish a new command system to dismember the country and cut off Idlib from Syria in the future.  In turn, Jabhat al-Nusra jihadists, renamed by that time Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), suggested that the new territory be under their patronage. Nobody wanted to share power. Quite a natural thing, because at stake there was money, weapons, assistance from the allies, control over pivotal routes and border crossing points. By the beginning of 2019, HTS militants managed to resolve the conflict for their own benefit.

The US, Great Britain and Germany took a wait-and-see approach. As for Syria itself, its government troops had planned a military operation to liberate Idlib since the summer of 2018, but calls coming from the West “to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe” forced Assad to postpone the offensive. French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian made clear what Europe really feared. Many militants in Idlib have European countries’ citizenship. In case of a military operation, they would flee to Europe posing a threat to the entire continent. In this context, Le Drian confirmed McGurk’s words about Idlib’s becoming a haven for al-Qaeda’s international recruits.

At this point, we need to revisit Turkey’s role. Already a year ago, in September 2018, an agreement was reached within the Astana process on a ceasefire in Idlib coupled with the creation of a twenty-kilometre de-escalation zone. The Russian military police prepared humanitarian corridors for all those civilians wishing to leave the province. Moreover, under Turkish supervision all heavy weapons had to be taken away from the area.

Ankara had six months to fulfill its part of the deal. Things turned out in a different way. Before the Turkish military’s very eyes the HTS militants intruded the buffer zone with weapons consolidating their position. They increased the number of attacks across the dividing line, including the shelling of populated localities. The Russian Khmeimim military base in Latakia suffered drone attacks. But the Turkish military command on the ground condoning of the new militants’ intrusion turned into a boomerang: at the end jihadists attacked the stronghold of the Turkish Army itself, forcing the latter to ask for Russian air power assistance. Like the sorcerer’s apprentice from Goethe’s ballad, the perfidious Turks had to admit their blunder: Wrong I was in calling spirits, I avow, for I find them galling, cannot rule them now.

Obviously, the problem of Idlib requires an urgent solution. The situation is rapidly deteriorating. Both sides are already preparing for an offensive. The Syrian Army against the militants who took refuge in Idlib and the militants against the government troops’ positions. A compromise can be found only by means of joint action guaranteed under the Astana process parties with the involvement of those Western countries whose citizens are fighting in Syria on the side of jihadists. Then the question arises: does such a big number of players have enough political will to reach an understanding?

Sadly, as long as this issue remains unresolved, Idlib will maintain its status of the new-found haven for terrorists. In such a case, Syria will continue to be in the state of endless war.

The recent UNGA Chagos resolution forms a landmark. A serious blow was dealt to British neocolonialism. It may herald the sunset of such era. The Cypriot President reacted warning the British to be more careful in their statements about sovereign rights of the Republic of Cyprus. On the contrary, the Cypriot Foreign Minister adopted a rather submissive attitude on this crucial matter. Christodoulides referred to inexpediency to discuss the issue of legal regulations of British military bases in Cyprus. But when if not now?

The recent provocative statements of Sir Alan Duncan, the British Minister for European Affairs, about “disputed areas of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Cyprus” force us to reflect once again on the role of the British in the history of our long-suffering island and their true goals in Cyprus. Their meanness and indifference towards the Cypriot people began to manifest itself from the very beginning of their arrival. Even then, they tried at all costs to gain a foothold on the island. They were prepared to do anything, including organized torture of the Cypriot people, to maintain their military bases in Cyprus.

In the 1950s, when London’s position in Cyprus was seriously shaken, the British skillfully metamorphosed the conflict from the format of the metropolis-colony to inter-communal confrontation. The colonial authorities, resorting to the tactics of “divide and rule”, maneuvered between the two communities of the island, deliberately inciting discord between them. From this early stage, the British colonialists realized that only the constant tension in relations between the majority Greeks and the minority Turks will allow them to maintain their military presence on the island. In order to implement this plan, the British leadership has periodically added oil to the fire. Alan Duncan’s statement is another cunning move aimed at aggravating the already difficult situation on the island. All of this is nothing more than another form of British neo-colonialism. When we talk about the British involvement in the settlement of the Cyprus problem, we must be clear that their objectives have remained unchanged for many decades – to maintain their presence and decisive influence on the island. Only the ways and methods of achieving these goals are changing. Therefore, there should be no illusions about the constructive contribution of London to the Cyprus settlement.

The reaction of our leaders to such provocative British actions must make us seriously concerned. Their timid statements are perceived in London with mockery. It is high time we called things with their real names. In order not to be confused as to who are our friends and who are our foes. Our leaders ought to stop paying homage to the Queen of England the very days the Cypriot people celebrate honor the memory of the heroes who gave their lives in the fight to throw the colonial yoke. Instead the Cypriot leadership should rebuff the British neo-colonialists. Even the leadership of the Lilliputian Mauritius with perseverance and dignity defends the interests of its people in the struggle for full sovereignty over the territories illegally maintained by the British colonizers. The success of this just struggle has already been consolidated by the relevant decisions of the International Court of Justice in The Hague and the UN General Assembly.  Despite this, we continue to sit out and wait … we are seized by inertia.

The British do not treat only such small states as Mauritius or Cyprus in such a condescending way. The British think they can do everything themselves, or with the help, in subordinate roles, of their former colonies. They do not think they have anything to learn from strange foreigners they know little or nothing about, who do not speak English and whose politics do not follow the British line.

They persist in imposing their neo-colonialist interests on the world through an active propaganda campaign. More specifically, it is revealed that the so-called Integrity Initiative project was founded in the UK in 2015 with the goal of interfering in the internal affairs of various European countries. The masterminds behind this project wanted to undermine any attempts that EU states could take at seeking rapprochement with countries such as Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela. The documents leaked on the internet indicate that Britain’s Foreign Office would launch subversive activities in Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Greece, The Netherlands, Lithuania, Norway, Serbia and Montenegro. For instance, it turns out that the Konrad-Adenauer Stiftung operating in Germany was among the beneficiaries of the Integrity Initiative, which in turn is accused of sponsoring the fascist coup d’état in Ukraine (2014).

It is curious enough that the Integrity Initiative was founded by a man called Christopher Nigel Donnelly who occupies the position of the co-director at the Institute for Statecraft. In Ukraine, Donnelly’s affiliates are known for conducting seminar on ‘the Orthodox Church as a weapon of war’. Moreover, the practical implementation of his circles’ ideas, advanced in their sermons, is the most recent provocation in the country that resulted in a split within the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In this regard, a recent Bloomberg analysis emphasizes a “visible fatigue from Anglo-Saxon lecturing” observed all across the globe; which is a sign that the English-speaking world is losing intellectual legitimacy. British propagandists would be better off getting their facts straight while they still have some readers to fool.

Another powerful tool of British neocolonialist policy is the Commonwealth. Hardly anyone can name the true goals of this organization. Only London knows them. In this regard, we would like to know what specific benefits the Cypriot people have in participating in this unipolar organization. It is worth mentioning in this regard that Ireland, which geographically forms an integral part of the British Isles, has long ago stepped out of the Commonwealth.

The full text of the open letter to the FCO Secretary is as follows: