Kikapu wrote:Piratis,
Once again you dive back to the past. I'm very happy to see one Cyprus for all to live in. The facts are, Turkey is not in Cyprus because of what happened before 1960, rather what has happened since.
In case there are naives left to believe that Turkey came and still is in Cyprus for any other reason, you are all making a fool of yourselves.
If you want to know why Turkey is in Cyprus, you only have to ask them and I believe they will have no problem giving you the right answer. In fact, they have already answered this question to you, before hand.
Read this article from Turkish Daily News, and you will have the answer you are looking for.
http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... wsid=41114
Read paragraphs 5 and 6, which I quote below:
The premier's Islamist and pragmatist selves
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
Burak Bekdil
Never mind if the premier's chief advisor advised the Americans “to use this man instead of putting him down the drain.” That reflects the old and very humane paranoia Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and his men feel about Washington's neocons -- the psychology of a man who fears those to whom he thinks he, partly or wholly, owes his rise. That's not new.
What was largely ignored about Cüneyd Zapsu's “very important” discussions in Washington was his suggestion (in defense of the Justice and Development Party [AKP] recently hosting the Hamas leadership) that governments should talk to terrorists when there is one-in-a-thousand chance for peace. That's new. Mr. Zapsu did not make it clear whether his assertion covers all terrorist organizations, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK), or only those to which his party bosses feel closer in ideology. Once again, the prime minister is squeezed between his ideological self and his pragmatist self.
Mr. Erdoğan's endless mental journeys between his two selves over the past few years have tired him. The “facts of life” have never allowed him to be himself and at the same time comfortably run the country. Instead of choosing between his two selves, he has tried to be both. The power fatigue is so visible these days that, recently, it even took the shape of a major gaffe that went unnoticed.
In subtle response to President Ahmet Necdet Sezer's warning of a systematic infiltration of radical Islam in Turkey and its institutions, the angry prime minister told an audience of conservative Muslim businessmen, "Let no one speak of the danger of (Islamic) fundamentalism.” In a democratic country anyone can say that, including a prime minister. But not Mr. Erdoğan.
Only a few months ago, Mr. Erdoğan signed Turkey's official threat paper, or the National Security Policy Document (NSPD), following several months of deliberations. The paper is a result of a thoroughly democratic process: a civilian secretariat at the National Security Council (MGK) drafted it; the members of the MGK, including Mr. Erdoğan, reviewed it, probably several times; it came to ministers' desks for governmental review and go-ahead; and, finally, to the prime minister's desk for approval.
The NSPD lists Islamic fundamentalism as the top domestic security threat (along with separatism and extreme leftist activity). Foreign security threats include Iran, Iraq, Greece and Cyprus. For example, the paper maintains “casus belli” in the event that Greece extends its territorial waters in the Aegean Sea to 12 miles. It also rules out a troop withdrawal from Cyprus, a territory the paper deems strategically important for Turkey's security.
Anyone can argue for or against the contents of the NSPD. But it reflects the Turks' democratic choice, as a democratically elected government and its leader have thought it appropriate. So far, so good. But there is something significantly wrong with what happened after.
When Mr. Erdoğan said no one should speak of the danger of Islamic fundamentalism, he ridiculed himself in many ways. He not only contradicted his own signature on the NSPD; he also implied that he did not take the threat paper seriously. Now he should ask himself tough questions.
If “no one should speak of the danger of (Islamic) fundamentalism,” why does the NSPD put Islamic fundamentalism as the top domestic security threat? Did the prime minister sign the top security paper without reading it? Did he not sign it? Is the MGK a worthless body that deals with “ghosts” and not threats? Which Mr. Erdoğan is telling the truth: the one who signed a document that sees radical Islam as security threat or the one who said that such a threat does not exist?
The NSPD is binding on governments after they endorse it. Governments (the Cabinet and the prime minister, separately or collectively) may revise the draft paper but are committed to it after they sign it. Mr. Erdoğan has introduced political jurisprudence: denying the contents of the country's most critical security roadmap after sealing it!
One wonders what will be next? Will Mr. Erdogan deny that separatist terror is a domestic security threat? Will his men in Parliament annul the casus belli clause vis-à-vis Greece? Will his government order a troop withdrawal from Cyprus? Of course not. Mr. Erdoğan does not have any “ideological problems” with these other “threats.”
Mr. Erdoğan's pragmatist self (and survival instincts) probably sent Mr. Zapsu into the heart of what radical Islamists often view as the "Satan," and on a mending-fences mission! Similarly, his pragmatist self put the final seal on the threat paper, probably to avoid fresh tensions with the secularist camp. In order to balance two moves hard to digest ideologically, his ideological self roared at the Muslim businessmen's gathering: “Let no one speak of the danger of (Islamic) fundamentalism.”
Mr. Erdoğan will not change. He will keep on sending “peace missions” to foreign capitals to maximize his survivability and also host the enemies of these capitals. Behind closed doors he will keep on talking differently to the generals and outside differently to devoutly Muslim audiences. He will keep on talking differently to the Syrians and differently to the Americans. That way, he thinks, he can remain a pious Muslim and in power. But Turkey's political wasteland is full of men who thought the same way.
Anyone still having any doubts?
Ah, Bananiot, did you say you thought that by voting "yes" on the Annan plan, you was voting for the Turkish troops withdrawl? Think again!
