Category: Cyprus/TRNC

  • UN envoy cautiously optimistic on Cyprus peace talks_English_Xinhua

    UN envoy cautiously optimistic on Cyprus peace talks_English_Xinhua

    NICOSIA, Sept. 12 (Xinhua) — UN Secretary General’s special advisor on Cyprus expressed on Friday his optimism about the newly launched substantive negotiations aimed at reunifying the east Mediterranean island.

    Alexander Downer, the former Australian Foreign Minister, however, stressed that there was no doubt that this would be a very difficult process after all.

    “There has not been any successful conclusion to the Cyprus problem for many years, therefore it is not going to be a simple and easy process,” Downer told a press conference.

    He described the atmosphere of the first substantive talks on Thursday between the Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders as “good, friendly” and the negotiations are “productive.”

    Cyprus President Demetris Christofias, a Greek Cypriot, and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat met for more than four hours on the issues of governance and power-sharing.

    Downer added that he was encouraged by what he had heard not only from separate discussions he had with the two leaders and other political party representatives in Cyprus, but also from his meetings he recently held with officials in Greece and Turkey.

    UN envoy cautiously optimistic on Cyprus peace talks_English_Xinhua.

  • AFP: Cyprus rivals begin key phase of peace talks

    AFP: Cyprus rivals begin key phase of peace talks

    NICOSIA (AFP) — Rival Cypriot leaders began talks on Thursday on how to share power in a future unified state, their first substantive negotiations in a bid to end the Mediterranean island’s 34-year division.

    President Demetris Christofias and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat discussed power-sharing and governance during what UN envoy Alexander Downer called “productive and fruitful talks.”

    The four-hour meeting at Nicosia’s abandoned airport in the UN-patrolled buffer zone followed the launch last week of official negotiations seen as the best chance of peace for years despite entrenched differences.

    “We began negotiations on the substance of governance and power-sharing. The talks have been productive and… fruitful,” Downer said, adding that the leaders would meet again on September 18.

    “There are no particular timelines agreed, but the two leaders are doing what they can to push the process ahead at the appropriate speed. There’s a long way to go.”

    Afterwards Christofias was reluctant to comment on how the meeting went. “This is not the time to say whether I’m pleased or not.”

    AFP: Cyprus rivals begin key phase of peace talks

  • Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    Turkish Cypriot leader optimistic about reunification

    ELITSA VUCHEVA

    Today @ 17:27 CET

    EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS – Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat on Wednesday (10 September) expressed optimism about the in-depth talks on the reunification of Cyprus formally due to start tomorrow, saying he hoped that a solution for the divided island can be found at the latest by June next year.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it] by the end of this year,” says Mr Talat (Photo: European Commission)

     

    “My vision was to finish the negotiations by the end of this year and I believe it is possible,” Mr Talat said at a conference organised by the Brussels-based European Policy Centre think-tank.

    “All the elements of the Cyprus problem are known, so it is possible to solve [it]” by the end of 2008, or at the latest, “before the election of the European Parliament, meaning June 2009.”

    “Hopefully, we will do it,” he added.

    Cyprus – an EU member since 2004 – has been independent since 1960 and divided since a Turkish invasion of the island’s northern part in 1974, triggered by a Greek-inspired coup.

    Currently Northern Cyprus – or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – is only recognised internationally by Turkey.

    The Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders last week launched formal talks on reunifying their island, and good personal relations between them have prompted high expectations regarding the outcome.

    In-depth UN-mediated negotiations on power-sharing are to start tomorrow, but although Mr Talat has on several occasions expressed hopes that a deal could be reached by the end of the year, his Greek Cypriot counterpart has refused to commit to a timeframe.

    The EU’s role

    Mr Talat said the EU could also contribute to these talks and play a role for their positive outcome, as “ending this problem would contribute to the very meaning of the EU and European integration.”

    “We need technical assistance from the EU … to prepare a durable settlement within the European system,” he underlined.

    “Of course we cannot ask for political assistance, since the EU does not have – as the United Nations – a huge accumulated knowledge regarding the Cyprus problem.”

    “[Additionally], Greek Cypriots are members of the EU and Turkish Cypriots are out, so the EU cannot be impartial. This is a matter of fact. [But] we need technical assistance from the EU,” Mr Talat said.

    Turkish Cypriots are also hoping the EU can “encourage Greek Cypriots towards a solution, because there are actually very few incentives for [them] to solve the problem.”

    After they joined the EU, “they lost their incentives,” unlike Turkish Cypriots, who need the solution “deadlily,” the Turkish Cypriot leader pointed out.

    Negotiations on the table need to be ‘off the air’

    From the Turkish Cypriot point of view, any kind of agreement – possibly setting out a substantially decentralised state – should reflect the fact that “Cyprus is the home of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots” and highlight the “political equality” between them as a “crucial” point.

    It should also include safeguards that “neither side can claim jurisdiction over the other” and be put to separate but simultaneous referendums in the two parts of the island.

    For his part, Demetris Christofias, the Greek Cypriot leader, would prefer to have a more centralised federation, worried that substantial autonomy for the north could leave the door open to partition.

    But Mr Talat expressed confidence that through negotiations, they “will be able to succeed in really bridging the different views and solving the problems.”

    He also appealed to his Greek Cypriot counterpart to be more moderate in his comments to the media, insisting that what is still a matter of negotiations should be discussed privately.

    “Exchange of views or negotiations through media is an impossible task … I know that leftists speak too much, so they may not be able to stop talking,” he said jokingly referring to Mr Christofias – currently the only communist president of an EU member state.

    “But please, try. Don’t put your views through the media,” he added.

  • TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS – BIR BUYUKELCIDEN ORHAN PAMUK MISALI BIR DIPLOMASI

    TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS – BIR BUYUKELCIDEN ORHAN PAMUK MISALI BIR DIPLOMASI

    TURKEY SHOULD APOLOGIZE TO ARMENIANS
    Volkan Vural, who was the Turkish Ambassador to the USSR during the years of collapse of the latter announced during an interview by Turkish “Taraf” newspaper’s correspondent that Turkey should apologize to Armenians for the incidents of the past.

    He mentioned that Turkish President’s visit to Yerevan at the invitation of the Armenian President contains big political risk to both the leaders of the two countries.

    Vural said that ex-President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosian fell a victim to the initiatives in improving relations with Turkey.

    According to Volkan Vural, none of the historical commissions can solve the Armenian Question. It can only throw light on some incidents facilitating the process.

    “Though Turkey is hardly to recognize the Armenian Genocide, anyway, it should apologize to Armenians and other ethnic minorities – Greeks, Assyrians and Kurds for eviction and massacres. It should let their descendants return to the residences of their ancestors and grant them citizenship of Turkey”, he said.

    To the question about the issue of return of the Armenian properties and riches, the Turkish diplomat answered, “Those are questions under discussion. Return of properties and material compensation is a difficult task. Anyway, there may be a symbolic compensation. At the same time, Turkey should apologize to Armenians and other ethnic minorities for causing them pain. It is a necessity for a country like Turkey”.

  • France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    France is Faced with its Genocidal History

    Currently holding the EU Council Presidency, France, which assumes it as a duty to give human rights and democracy lessons to the world, is now being accused of genocide.

    Because of its role in the events that occurred between two tribes in 1994 and resulted in the death of 800 thousands of people, France is officially accused of genocide with a report declared by Rwandan government on August 5th 2008. In the report prepared by the Rwandan Investigatory Committee, it is mentioned that “The support of France had a political, military, diplomatic and logistical nature”.

    In the 500-pages report of the Commission, it is stated that France was aware of the genocide arrangements, took part in these arrangements, and played an active role in the murders. France is also being accused of providing intelligence, strategy and military support to the perpetrators of genocide, contributing to the determination of the list of people to be murdered, providing weapons, being directly involved in the killings. The commission suggests Rwandan government in its report that “Formal allegations against the French government should be submitted to the international institutions, legal action should be brought and 33 French political and military officials should be brought to trial”.

    The Investigatory Committee also makes heavy accusations against French soldiers who were on duty during the military operation carried out by France in June-August 1994 under the guise of “humanitarian assistance”. Rwandan Ministry of Justice tells in its statement on the issue that “French soldiers were also directly involved in the genocide, they killed Tutsis and those Hutus who had been blamed for hiding Tutsis, and they raped many Tutsi people who survived”. The Ministry of Justice emphasizes that “France’s great support for, decisiveness in and insistence on the murder policy in Rwanda prove that French military and political officials were accomplices in the execution and arrangement of Tutsi genocide in 1994”.

    Among the French officials who are being accused in the report are the President of the time Francois Mitterand, Prime Minister Eduard Balladur, Foreign Affairs Minister Alain Juppé, his former chief of staff Dominiques de Villepin, Elysee Secretary General Hubert Véedrine.

    As is known, the downing of the French airplane aboard which Rwandan and Burundian presidents were traveling in 1994, resulted in the incitement of massacres in Rwanda. It had been found out that the missiles used in the sabotage against the plane had come from the arsenal of the French army. All of the three French pilots had died in this sabotage.

    According to the United Nations, the genocide that resulted in the death of so many people in April-July 1994 had been “planned” for the annihilation of Tutsis by Hutus. In the statements made by the UN at different times, it was told that French companies had continued to supply weapons to this country even after the UN imposed arms embargo to Rwanda and that the UN had been warned about the massacres three months ago, but the initiatives for a resolution to be taken by the Security Council for tasking the UN troops in order to prevent any massacre had been hindered by France.

    Despite all these developments, French administration insistently continues to avoid making any explanation showing repentance. It is reported that in the course of the preparation of the report, France has been making efforts to prevent genocide allegations from getting official recognition by pressuring Rwandan government through a variety of means, Rwandans did not yield to pressures, and they opted for the truth to come to light.

    When the report was announced, France strictly rejected the accusations against its former political administrators and military officials and Romain Nadal, the Spokesman of the Foreign affairs Ministry, told that there were “unacceptable” accusations against French political and military leaders in the report prepared by the Committee; and this stance of France is accepted as an example of typical “French custom of denial”.

    Rwandan genocide is unfortunately neither the first nor the last damage to the humanity caused by France with its wars and intrigues. Despite all its denials, the dark past of France is full of serious crimes against humanity.

    This decision on genocide is not the first accusation against France in the international arena. In June 2006, French State and Railway Company “were convicted of playing a role in the transportation of the Jews to the concentration camps during the Second World War” and were ordered to pay compensation. The French Railway Company also had similar convictions previously.

    It has been already written in the pages of history that France subjected 1 million people in Algeria to genocide with its attacks directed at innocent civilians during the Second World War and that it attempted to annihilate Algerian people by torturing 25.000 people and with the extrajudicial killings of 3.025 persons. In the course of the investigations into what happened in Algeria, it was established that in the murky operations of certain Algerian terrorist groups, there was a forth individual, mostly a police officer or a military security officer who accompanied them and that these terrorist groups confirmed that the police, military security or SDCE (French Secret Services) and a subordinate secret service called GIC gave them information slips and thus indicated their targets; in short, it is known they carried out the filthy activities on behalf of the police and the republican army.

    In that period, the Algerian Muslims called Harkis, who were conscripted in the French army, were disappointed with the result of their attempts to take refuge in France after the independence of Algeria. Only for 42 thousand of them, they had provided homes. Upon the request of De Gaulle in 1962, they were housed behind barbed wire deep in the French forests in small uncomfortable barracks constructed hastily. This is an interesting example of what has happened to the collaborators of the French against the independence of their country.

    Turkey is also one of the countries that have been targeted by France for her obscure policies. During World War I, France had occupied Ottoman territory and massacred millions of innocent civilian people. As a result of “the friendship ties that had strengthened for centuries” between the Armenians and France, the Armenian gangs were provided with arms in the end of the 19th century and provoked to rebel against the Ottoman Empire. Part of the members of these Armenian gangs who did not succeed to pull away territory from Turkey at the end of World War I, fled to France.

    These Armenians, who went to Marseilles, were brought together in the Oddo camp which had extremely bad housing conditions. The Oddo camp was officially closed down in 1928, but actually in 1935. Not any Armenian could leave the camp without a working contract. The authorities treated these Armenians like stateless people, but when France fought with Germany they were sent as soldiers constituting another hypocrisy in history that the French have to account for.

    It is still fresh in our minds that – until it caused harm to the country with the Orly attack – France did not show any reaction for years against the terrorist organization ASALA, which came into existence in the 1970’s and was known for its attacks against Turkish targets especially diplomats, and that France felt sympathy for the Armenian terrorists and adopted a tolerating attitude.

    In the 1980’s, the Armenian terrorist organizations changed their tactics upon the reactions they received from the world’s public opinion and resorted to cooperation with the terrorist PKK. The PKK was known for its attacks against Turkey and became now affiliated with ASALA which killed diplomats. These facts were stated many times by the relevant experts and supported with evidence. In spite of this, France did not take any measure against these terrorist organizations that were hostile towards Turkey and refrained from cooperation. This was extremely meaningful….

    When talking about “France” and “terror”, one of the names that comes up in our minds is Mitterand and his wife who are also accused for the genocide in Rwanda. The Turkish public opinion knows these two very well. The support provided by France to the PKK has increased considerably due to the foreign policy understanding of Mitterand and maybe also a little bit due the effect of the “special protection” shown to the PKK by First Lady Daniella Mitterand as a result of her “personal friendship” with Head of the Paris Kurdish Institute Kemdal Nezan. Consequently, France has become one of the most important bases of this terrorist organization in Europe. And it appears that France still continues to welcome terrorist groups that have no other aim than being hostile to Turkey.

    However, the Armenian diaspora in France as well as the terrorist organizations, that are striving against the independence and/or territorial integrity of other countries, are collaborating with France without foreseeing what will happen to them by trying to understand what has happened to those who betrayed Algeria, Rwanda and the Ottoman State. In the future, as it has happened before, France shall push aside the traitors in accordance with its own interests or shall, instead of her own children, send the traitors to other wars to die.

    As a matter of fact, it is not a coincidence that France is pronounced whenever we talk about a massacre, war or genocide at any place of the world. While she has a history of colonization, she continued her aggressive, expansionist policies in the 21st century. She holds control of an important part of the world’s arms trade. Her national income is bolstered with the blood shed in other countries darkly shadowing world peace. Every year, more than 300 thousand people are being killed on the world with conventional weapons. Even more people are being wounded, violated in their rights, forcefully deported and left helpless. In 2005, 82% of all the arms transfer on the world was realized by five countries. One of these countries is France. Thus, France has an important portion in the world’s arms trade. A war that is staged at any place on the world is sustaining the French economy.

    In France there is still a longing for colonization and laws that praise the era of imperialism and slavery are still in force. Although these raise some doubts about the long-term foreign policy goals of France, at present they talk about a “French crisis” on the world. Certain historians say that the “regression process” of this country started with the Prussian-French War in 1870. Although France won in World War I on paper, this was actually the beginning of the end. World War II followed by the Cold War era caused polarization between the USA and the USSR as a result of which France regressed even more and in the international arena this country was not taken so seriously anymore.

    The time has come for France to refresh her memory and encounter her past not only because of its inhuman acts in Rwanda, but also in the territories of the Ottoman Empire, in Algeria and in the other colonies.

    France should accept the role that she has played in the genocides throughout her history and apologize for that. French politicians and military officials that are responsible for the genocide in Rwanda should face trial in the international court for war criminals.

    In spite of everything is there still freedom, equality, brotherhood?…

    The Organization for the Commemoration of the Genocide Victims

    (SKAO)

  • Should Russia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

    Should Russia recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

     
    19:00 | 25/ 08/ 2008
     

    MOSCOW. (Fyodor Lukyanov for RIA Novosti) – The Georgian-Russian conflict has dramatically changed the position of the self-proclaimed republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The idea of recognizing their independence has been put to the vote in Moscow.

    By trying to use military force to restore the country’s territorial integrity, Tbilisi has killed the last hope of a political settlement to the conflict. The return of the breakaway republics to Georgian sovereignty, unlikely before Mikheil Saakashvili’s ill-advised adventure, is now completely impossible.

    But this does not mean the future is predetermined. There are two precedents that developments may follow: that of Kosovo or that of Cyprus. Russia must be very careful when choosing between them.

    The Kosovo scenario seems to promise more lasting results. Judging by the sixth paragraph on the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan, or at least its Moscow version, which provides for international discussion of the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the Kremlin would prefer the Kosovo scenario.

    But it can only be implemented if the UN Security Council approves a relevant resolution, similar to Resolution 1244 adopted in June 1999 after the end of NATO’s air raids on Yugoslavia.

    The international community already knew then that Kosovo, which had refused to bow to the central authorities long before the Yugoslav army pulled out, would never accept the sovereignty of Belgrade. However, it was impossible to announce this publicly, as this could have provoked unpredictable developments in Serbia and would amount to the crude dismemberment of a sovereign state.

    The issue was put on hold, and at Moscow’s insistence a clause was added to the resolution affirming the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia.

    This did not save Belgrade, but Russia and Serbia doggedly quoted that clause when contesting Kosovo’s unilateral proclamation of independence and its recognition by several Western countries.

    The Russian leaders only state the facts when they say that Saakashvili has dealt a deadly blow to Georgia’s territorial integrity. Yet the Security Council cannot approve a document that does not affirm it. Not only the West, bent on supporting Tbilisi, but also most other countries, would oppose it.

    It is one thing when some states act illegally, as when Kosovo’s independence was legalized. But it is quite another matter when the international community approves a resolution sanctioning the dissolution of a sovereign state. No country, including those that will never experience such problems, could approve it.

    On the other hand, Moscow will find it extremely difficult for domestic reasons to tolerate any mention of Georgia’s territorial integrity in a UN resolution. It has made quite a few public statements and pledged to pay for the restoration of South Ossetia. Besides, it will be impossible to explain to the public why a military victory has not translated into a political win.

    It will take refined diplomatic skills to formulate ideas in such a way that all sides can interpret them as victory. Otherwise, the danger is that developments in Georgia will follow the Cyprus scenario. Russia would unilaterally recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia according to the formula that has linked Turkey and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which only Turkey has recognized, since 1974.

    This would create new problems without solving old ones.

    If Russia opts for that scenario, the position of the breakaway republics will not change in terms of international law, even though many countries have lately been violating it. It should be said, for justice’s sake, that Moscow is not among the leaders in this ignoble race.

    The practical situation will not improve either. The United States encouraged a score of influential countries to recognize Kosovo’s independence, but Russia is unlikely to convince even one country to follow its example. International support for Russia’s actions, or rather lack thereof, became apparent during its clash with Georgia.

    Unilateral recognition of their independence will not help Abkhazia or South Ossetia to break out of international isolation, but will put powerful pressure on Russia. Moscow could not be blamed for its stance on Kosovo because it acted strictly according to international law, while Western countries appealed to expediency. The situation can be reversed this time, with Russia’s actions losing consistency and integrity.

    It would be extremely difficult to follow the Kosovo scenario even if the Security Council approved a resolution on Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Their new status can be formalized only if the process becomes international, whereas Moscow and the two breakaway republics would like to decide the matter without international involvement. Unfortunately, they cannot do so, because Russia lacks the political resource.

    The issue of Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s status will take some time to decide. It took nine years for Kosovo to gain independence, and even then only part of the international community recognized it. Northern Cyprus has been demanding independence for nearly 34 years.

    Hasty moves motivated by a desire to score political points at home or demonstrate Russia’s ability to disregard the opinions of others would seriously damage the Kremlin’s prestige. But hard daily political and diplomatic efforts will eventually bring about the desired effect.

    Fyodor Lukyanov is editor-in-chief of the Moscow-based magazine Russia in Global Affairs.