Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

This article in the Sunday Mail today makes a very interesting read particularly for the more fanatic forum members. It’s comments on Turkey’s relationship with US and Cyprus being used as a sacrificial pawn by France and Germany to block Turkey from becoming a full member is particularly apt. The GCs were sacrificed in 74 by their friends, let’s see if they fall for the same trick again by even closer friends. Now with friends like that who needs enemies?

Turkey still important to the US

SPEAKING on the eve of Barack Obama’s recent trip to Turkey, House President Marios Garoyian said Cyprus needed to take the US President’s visit “very seriously”. “Turkey remains important as ever to US geopolitical interests, and it will take a lot of hard work, both by the Cypriot and Greek governments, to make the most of our influence within the United States,” he said.

Taking the advice, President Demetris Christofias managed to squeeze in a brief tête-à-tête with President Obama on the sidelines of the EU-US Summit in Prague last weekend. “I detected a sincere response from Mr Obama. I would like to say that on certain matters he complemented our positions. From then on, it remains to be seen how this will translate in real terms,” Christofias told reporters.

Perhaps suspecting that President Christofias’ admonitions might not do the trick, the Kyrenia Refugees’ Association staged a silent demo outside the US Embassy in Nicosia to protest Obama’s visit to Turkey.

Marios Garoyian is right to acknowledge that Turkey remains as important as ever to US geopolitical interests, and naïve to believe it could be any other way. To suggest as some in Cyprus have done that a more “demanding” political line could somehow yield results with the American administration is at best plain stupid, at worst a cynical manipulation of public hopes and fears.

Even if you accept the Greek Cypriot mantra that the Cyprus problem is a simple question of right and wrong, of invasion and occupation – which Washington does not – the fact remains that Turkey has a population roughly a hundred times the Greek Cypriot population, and has the second largest standing army in NATO (its million soldiers outnumbering the whole of Cyprus). Its strategic location places it astride the two great strategic challenges of the Middle East and the former Soviet Union. It is Muslim yet secular. By the standards of the region it is a beacon of democracy. And it has access and influence with all the powers of the region.

Does anyone honestly think that anything we do or say in Cyprus will change US policy on Turkey? Indeed, if anything, Turkey is more important to the US than it has been for a long time. For a President who has made no secret of his desire to heal the rift with the Muslim world, Turkey was always going to be a prized partner, and it was no surprise to see President Obama giving Turkey pride of place on his first overseas tour. Nor was it a coincidence that Turkey was the culmination of the new President’s European tour, and that not once, but twice did he insist on America’s support for its EU accession bid.

Some in Cyprus will have taken solace in the categorical reaction of France and Germany, which reiterated – stridently in the case of Nicolas Sarkozy – their opposition to Turkey’s accession. Such a reaction suggests that Cyprus may still have a role to play in the vast strategic game that is unfolding, but it is the role of a convenient sacrificial pawn, used to sink Turkey’s EU hopes.

We should be wary of such an honour, for while it may give us a certain satisfaction to drive the nail into Turkey’s EU coffin, it will also mark the end of any lingering hope of reunification by destroying the only realistic leverage on Ankara. It will leave us with a resentful Turkey across the barbed wire of the Green Line, more likely to retreat into the isolation of its twin temptations of nationalist Islam or nationalist secular militarism.

We may not like it, but the overwhelming global power of the United States is a fact, and the dominant strategic importance of Turkey is a fact. With no hope of driving a wedge between Washington and Ankara, our only hope is to engage with the United States. The government has got to wake up to this reality. It has got to shrug off its ideological fixations (if Russia and Serbia can sign up to the Partnership for Peace, why on earth can’t Cyprus?), it has got to desist from the reductionist slogans of evil imperialism. The President must realise that he cannot pat President Obama on the back at international summits, while his party officials back home echo the language of crude anti-American street demos for domestic consumption. It’s not as if our hand was brimming with trumps: what few cards we have, we must play with greater tact.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

This second article is equally revealing of the GC National Guard and its attitude towards the Turkish Army and its capabilities, even more relevant for the forum members who think that they have a military solution for the Cyprus problem and that this time it will be different.

Solider stole flag from Turkish post
By Alexia Saoulli

A GREEK Cypriot soldier could have provoked a military crisis when he foolishly crept across the buffer zone, tore down a Turkish flag and stole military equipment from an unmanned Turkish army barracks, the government said yesterday.

Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou was extremely critical of the act and said the soldier’s actions were “of concern” and “condemnable”.

The National Guard and Defence Military had reacted quickly to try and avert any repercussions by returning the items through the UNFICYP, Stefanou said.

“The government does not condone acts that overturn the state of affairs on the ceasefire line,” he said.

The solider, who has been arrested by military police, had been posted at an army barracks on the Green Line in Ayios Andreas in Nicosia when he decided to cross the buffer zone and enter the occupied areas to steal the flag, a bullet proof vest and a helmet.

Reports said the Turkish side did not man the post during daylight, which was likely why the young man had decided to abandon his sentry post on Thursday afternoon and sneak across to the unmanned barracks.

His superiors found out what happened when the National Guardsman bragged to his army friends about what he’d done. The soldier was promptly arrested and the issue was immediately brought to the attention of the NG and Defence Ministry leadership, who contacted UNFICYP.

“[Such acts] pose a lot of dangers. Dangers to the lives of National Guards and dangers to the area, and are a source of other possible consequences, so they have to be avoided,” said Stefanou.

He said soldiers were given strict orders about how to behave and uphold the current ceasefire, and that they were told to be “very careful to avoid unpleasant situations which we’ve unfortunately had in the past”.

The government congratulated the NG and Defence Ministry for its handling of the issue, which could have led to a repeat of “tragic past experiences involving the murder of National Guardsmen”.

Stefanou said all measures in line with standard protocols governed by such situations had been taken. He reassured the parents of conscripts and the area’s residents that the situation was under control.

Turkish troops have shot dead unarmed Greek Cypriot soldiers in the buffer zone in the past. In 1996 an unarmed 19-year-old soldier was shot when he entered the buffer zone when he was beckoned over by a Turkish solider. A similar incident occurred in 1993, when a Greek Cypriot soldier was killed approaching a Turkish army sentry post east of Nicosia. He was also unarmed, carrying a bottle of brandy to share with a Turkish soldier on the other side.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

[Lit]

Turkish Army and its capabilities,

I think we are fully aware of what the Turkish State is capable of ... All one has to do is look at recent events in Turkey's wild east. Here we see local residents and the State forces going at each other:



Turkey, a country with European values? nooooo, not quite.

[boomerang]

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam



Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:


A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

A freebie for the resident knucklehead...

[Floda]

U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s
DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

Fear of Iraq Collapse in Iran-Iraq War Motivated Reagan Administration Support;
U.S. Goals Were Access to Oil, Projection of Power, and Protection of Allies;
Rumsfeld Failed to Raise Chemical Weapons Issue in Personal Meeting with Saddam



Washington, D.C., 25 February 2003 - The National Security Archive at George Washington University today published on the Web a series of declassified U.S. documents detailing the U.S. embrace of Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's, including the renewal of diplomatic relations that had been suspended since 1967. The documents show that during this period of renewed U.S. support for Saddam, he had invaded his neighbor (Iran), had long-range nuclear aspirations that would "probably" include "an eventual nuclear weapon capability," harbored known terrorists in Baghdad, abused the human rights of his citizens, and possessed and used chemical weapons on Iranians and his own people. The U.S. response was to renew ties, to provide intelligence and aid to ensure Iraq would not be defeated by Iran, and to send a high-level presidential envoy named Donald Rumsfeld to shake hands with Saddam (20 December 1983).

The declassified documents posted today include the briefing materials and diplomatic reporting on two Rumsfeld trips to Baghdad, reports on Iraqi chemical weapons use concurrent with the Reagan administration's decision to support Iraq, and decision directives signed by President Reagan that reveal the specific U.S. priorities for the region: preserving access to oil, expanding U.S. ability to project military power in the region, and protecting local allies from internal and external threats. The documents include:


A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, "In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things," the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, "U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War," delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.

National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, "Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War," focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for "unambiguous" condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places "equal stress" on protecting Iraq from Iran's "ruthless and inhumane tactics." The directive orders preparation of "a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse."

U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran's 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq's chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq's requests.

The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini's refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, "The United States finds the present Iranian regime's intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims."

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm

A freebie for the resident knucklehead...

He might look at the picture but he will not read the words, OR, if he does read them, he will not understand what they mean.

[Bananiot]

Here you are YFred, you've got your paid response (so did treacherous Cyprus Mail).

[DT.]

Interesting fact about the soldier who crossed over. IN the 90's while doing service this was a very common occurrence for both turkish and Cypriot soldeirs.

It was considered a bit of a challenge for those thats served on the green line to sign in each others visitor book.

AKEL should have kept quiet about this just like it has been for so many years and leave it as what it is...a frowned upon moral boosting exercise.

[Paphitis]

Interesting fact about the soldier who crossed over. IN the 90's while doing service this was a very common occurrence for both turkish and Cypriot soldeirs.

It was considered a bit of a challenge for those thats served on the green line to sign in each others visitor book.

AKEL should have kept quiet about this just like it has been for so many years and leave it as what it is...a frowned upon moral boosting exercise.

Don't CNG and Turkish soldiers also play cards and Tavli on the Green Line?

[DT.]

Interesting fact about the soldier who crossed over. IN the 90's while doing service this was a very common occurrence for both turkish and Cypriot soldeirs.

It was considered a bit of a challenge for those thats served on the green line to sign in each others visitor book.

AKEL should have kept quiet about this just like it has been for so many years and leave it as what it is...a frowned upon moral boosting exercise.

Don't CNG and Turkish soldiers also play cards and Tavli on the Green Line?

No

[Paphitis]

Interesting fact about the soldier who crossed over. IN the 90's while doing service this was a very common occurrence for both turkish and Cypriot soldeirs.

It was considered a bit of a challenge for those thats served on the green line to sign in each others visitor book.

AKEL should have kept quiet about this just like it has been for so many years and leave it as what it is...a frowned upon moral boosting exercise.

Don't CNG and Turkish soldiers also play cards and Tavli on the Green Line?

No

Don't CNG soldiers skylark with their Turkish counterparts?

I think it is more widespread than what you are prepared to admit.

[DT.]

Interesting fact about the soldier who crossed over. IN the 90's while doing service this was a very common occurrence for both turkish and Cypriot soldeirs.

It was considered a bit of a challenge for those thats served on the green line to sign in each others visitor book.

AKEL should have kept quiet about this just like it has been for so many years and leave it as what it is...a frowned upon moral boosting exercise.

Don't CNG and Turkish soldiers also play cards and Tavli on the Green Line?

No

Don't CNG soldiers skylark with their Turkish counterparts?

I think it is more widespread than what you are prepared to admit.

No they don't
You need to do it to understand why it doesn't happen.

The only case was in the 80's when a CNG crossed over for cigarettes from the Turkish guard and the Turks officer shot the CNG soldier on his way back into our side.