Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Sunday, January 30 2005 @ 06:09 PM Central Standard Time
An organization called Deutsche Bank Eurasia Group Stability Index (DESIX) have reported that "The biggest risks for Turkey in 2005 will be possible developments regarding the issues of Cyprus and northern Iraq."



An analysis released by the organization pointed out that the terrorist organization the Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK) continues to exist in northern Iraq and the situation in Iraq increases concerns that it might create problems for Turkey's security.

The analysis notes that despite little progress on the Cyprus issue, Turkey will start membership negotiations with the European Union (EU) on October 2005 as planned, but the Greek Cypriots are trying to get more sacrifices from Turkey. Indicating that international pressure will be applied to the Turkish government for the solution of the Cyprus issue, the analysis states: "Hawk-like attitudes of the Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA) will not facilitate Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's government's job. Inclusion of the Greek Cypriot side to the Customs Union signed with the EU without reaching a solution will cost the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government heavily." The DESIX report stressed as well that the Cyprus issue stands as the most crucial risk that Turkey will face in the short run during the EU membership process and asserted that internal political developments in France and Germany also necessitate Turkey to provide a rapid progress in the beginning phase of Turkey's negotiation process.

The DESIX report also said that the restriction of free movement of Turks by the EU and possible economic developments that Turkey accomplishes before membership might be enough to decrease European anxiety about immigrant flow.


http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=2 ... mode=print

[Saint Jimmy]

Insan, I'm reading this book now about the build-up and all the moves behind the curtain leading up to the war in Iraq, and it seems to me that the timing (that is, the coinsistence) of the preparation of the A-plan and the preparations of the States for the war were a huge advantage for Turkey, at least on the Cyprus issue (as it gave them leverage over the U.S. to push for favourable conditions in the plan, in exchange for logistical assistance...?).

Now, the more the new talks are delayed (assuming there will be any new talks, at all), the closer that war is coming to an end. Would you say that this is a factor leading to diminishing U.S. involvement in the Cyprus issue? I ask this because there is a practical certainty in the South, that American involvement is never good for us (therefore, less involvement=fairer terms - for us, that is...).

[insan]

Insan, I'm reading this book now about the build-up and all the moves behind the curtain leading up to the war in Iraq, and it seems to me that the timing (that is, the coinsistence) of the preparation of the A-plan and the preparations of the States for the war were a huge advantage for Turkey, at least on the Cyprus issue (as it gave them leverage over the U.S. to push for favourable conditions in the plan, in exchange for logistical assistance...?).

Hmmm... There are reasonable grounds for suspicion in your points but I don't think that a superpower like US needed such a scenario to kill two birds with one stone. Nevermore, it seems highly probable.

Now, the more the new talks are delayed (assuming there will be any new talks, at all), the closer that war is coming to an end. Would you say that this is a factor leading to diminishing U.S. involvement in the Cyprus issue? I ask this because there is a practical certainty in the South, that American involvement is never good for us (therefore, less involvement=fairer terms - for us, that is...).

Hmmm... Good question Jimmy... But I don't think that this is a factor leading to diminishing U.S. involvement in the Cyprus issue because for a while US insistently asks Ankara to endorse the US use of Incirlik, a key military base in southern Turkey. Furthermore, US started to talk about another military intervention to Iran. It seems to me that neither the war in Iraq is coming to the end nor the possibility of a military intervention to Iran...

And if we consider that there are some elements of truth in your suspicious point of view; this means as soon as US ensures the endorsement of Incirlik from Turkey, which seems to me almost impossible but who knows perhaps a strong promise and an action concerning the Cyprus issue, Turkmens and Kurdish issue, in favour of Turkey, most probably convince Turkey to endorse the Incirlik air base to US and give US a full military support intervening Iran.


Thus; according to this scenario, we can simply say that US will take side in favour of Turks to put pressure on Greek side to accept the Annan Plan with some little changes that won't bother Turkish side.


I don't think Hellenic ruling elite dwell upon this possibility or they are sure about that Turkey won't endorse the Incirlik air base to use of US and consequently the rest of the scenario won't come true.


In this case, US can use some of her strongest trump cards against Turkey in order to convince her to endorse the Incirlik air base.

Stongest trump cards of US against Turkey.

1- A seperate Kurdish State in Northern Iraq.
2- To take side in favour of GC solution thesis.
3- To stop giving support to Turkey's EU membership.


It seems things are moving in very dangerous zones, Jimmy

[Saint Jimmy]

Whoa, it's kinda spooky (I hope you're just a pessimist by nature )

By the way, this book is way more interesting than I thought, and it would probably interest a lot of people in here (well, those who care to follow things concerning Turkey): Cheney wanted this war like hell, and pushed hard for it. The original plan for military action was a major attack from the South, and a simultaneous minor attack from the North (through Turkey, at the borderline with Iraq - some 100 miles of it). This latter one was meant to be strengthened by stirring up the Kurds to act in coordination with US operations. To this end, 8 CIA agents were sent to Turkey in July 2002, entered Iraq escorted by 8 Turkish agents and began the operation as planned. I found this bit of information quite fascinating, because in my head, it seemed absurd that Turks would actually not just allow, but, what's more, help Americans collaborate with Kurds (even against Saddam)

As a sidenote, this book was written by Bob Woodward, who, along with Carl Bernstein, exposed the Watergate scandal... So, I guess the man ain't talking bullshit...

[Nickp]

If the US attacks Iran so soon after invading Iraq that will outrage me!!!
This is quite surprising as I love the US and go their regularly. Have they ever head of diplomacy and incentives for godsake!

What i find really sad about Iran is two thirds of the populations is under 30, which is huge. Meaning, i'm sure there will be a change in that country gradurally over time.

While were talking about the middle east. Don't you think a better temporary solution between Isreal and the Palestinean people is to build a big wall, let the Isreali's live on one side the palastineans on the other. Give it 30 years with no contact, then once they experience what peace is like, maybe they may want to talk endlessley about a solution in peace rarther than killing each other in a cycle.

[Nickp]

If the US attacks Iran so soon after invading Iraq that will outrage me!!!
This is quite surprising as I love the US and go their regularly. Have they ever head of diplomacy and incentives for godsake!

What i find really sad about Iran is two thirds of the populations is under 30, which is huge. Meaning, i'm sure there will be a change in that country gradurally over time.

While were talking about the middle east. Don't you think a better temporary solution between Isreal and the Palestinean people is to build a big wall, let the Isreali's live on one side the palastineans on the other. Give it 30 years with no contact, then once they experience what peace is like, maybe they may want to talk endlessley about a solution in peace rarther than killing each other in a cycle.

[brother]

Building walls will only encourage the extremists to point out how evil the people on the otherside of the wall are and further push them apart, at the moment the new palastenian president is showing a very mature attitude and doing all the right things to stop the violence and ensure security with the probabilities of peace almost certain are very encouraging signs.

As for the U.S they want incirlik base in turkey so WHEN they do hit Iran they will find it easiear to get in to iran, in short american backing of turkey will continue for the forseable future.

[insan]

Whoa, it's kinda spooky (I hope you're just a pessimist by nature )

Jimmy I just based my interpretations upon your reasonable suspicions.


What is your optimistic view in light of your suspicions?

[insan]

In short, the new European Union is forming itself smack in the cockpit of geopolitical danger. At the same time, it lacks either the material or the diplomatic wherewithal to deal with this danger in a forceful or unified manner. As the crisis of freedom in Ukraine developed this past November and December, and as Polish President Aleksandr Kwasniewski and Solidarity hero Lech Walesa headed for Kiev, the stance of the French government was, as a French commentator aptly put it, one of “embarrassment.” “It can scarcely be an accident,” the English columnist Philip Stephens dryly observed in the Financial Times, “that France’s Jacques Chirac and Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder have not missed the opportunity to keep quiet about Ukraine’s orange revolution”—an event of far greater consequence for them, and for the European Union at large, than anything the United States may or may not be doing in Iraq.

The plain fact is that, for 50 years, Europe enjoyed a privileged existence, relieved by the American deterrent of the need to defend itself against the Soviet Union. Those days are gone, but Europeans are only now beginning to understand what that means. “Europe is incapable of guaranteeing, on its territory, the security and freedom of movement of citizens and residents who wish to exercise their freedom of thought and free expression,” lamented the French leftist paper LibE9ration after the van Gogh murder. To which might be added that it is also incapable of guaranteeing its territory against foreign threats.

Unfortunately, many Europeans are still trapped in the old modes. A good example was a headline above a recent Financial Times editorial: “Iran’s Deterrent: Only the U.S. Can Address Teheran’s Nuclear Concerns.” Can that really be the case? Is not Iran a good deal closer to Europe than to the United States—and are not the Europeans currently carrying out an initiative of their own vis-E0-vis Iran that, rightly or wrongly, excludes the United States?

But there are other, more heartening signs as well. Just as terrorism has haltingly come to be addressed as a European problem, and not simply a byproduct of American incompetence or worse, so too are some Europeans beginning to contemplate defending themselves. The number of men under arms already exceeds that of the United States. The European Union has also started its own security program—so far, a minuscule one. Some 7,000 EU peacekeepers will go to Bosnia; a rapid-reaction force of 1,500, capable of moving on ten days’ notice, is in the works.

If the numbers are hardly impressive, that is partly because Europeans are not agreed among themselves about whether they really need a separate security organization. Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, for example, the secretary general of NATO, sees “no need to reinvent the wheel.” Nor is Europe necessarily willing to pay the freight. Currently, France spends $45 billion per year on defense, more than any other European country (the United Kingdom is next). The entire 25-member EU spends $208 billion. The United States alone spends $405 billion.

But here is a place where, inadvertently (or perhaps I should say dialectically), Washington may be playing a helpful role. To reduce matters to their most basic, the security of Europe is no longer an indispensable security requirement of the United States. Of course Americans have values and sympathies, which may eventually add up to interests, but in the most hard-headed strategic terms, now that the USSR is gone, and with a home-based American ability to destroy any target in the world, the details of what happens eight or nine hours east by air from Washington will usually turn out to be of far deeper concern to Europe than to the United States. If we were to wake up one morning and learn that the EU buildings in Brussels and Strasbourg had been destroyed, we would surely be shocked, but we would not in any way be under direct threat ourselves.

To this reality, too, more and more Europeans may at last be awakening.


http://www.commentarymagazine.com/artic ... 11902050_1


------------------


This is just a small part of the article that shed a great light for the things have gone in the background of the "alliance". For a better comprehension of the facts; a must read!

[Saint Jimmy]

Jimmy I just based my interpretations upon your reasonable suspicions.


What is your optimistic view in light of your suspicions?

OK, here goes: Bush realizes that this 'preemptive strikes' and 'if you're not with us, you're against us' crap has really gotten the whole world against them. He decides that the backfire isn't worth it and decides not to hit anyone else. Instead, he uses the diplomatic route, which, in the end succeeds in disarming both Iran and North Korea. He becomes best friends with Chirac and Schroder and they work together for world peace. After all rogue nations have been disarmed, America decides to disarm itself, too, of nuclear weapons, maintaining only conventional ones.

My optimism lies in the assumption that American rocket scientists will be able to create a pill that gives people actual brains, and that the attempt to spike Bush's bourbon with it will prove successful.