From: American Hellenic Institute
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE October 26, 2006
CONTACT: Georgia Economou
(202) 785-8430
No. 77/2006
Op-Ed on "The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey"
Washington, DC - The following Op-Ed appeared in the October 7, 2006 issue
of The National Herald, page 11 and the October 9, 2006 issue of Greek News,
page 44.
The State Department's Continuing Appeasement of Turkey
By Gene Rossides
The State Department's continuing appeasement of Turkey to the
detriment of U.S. interests is best exemplified by recent statements of
Matthew Bryza, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian
Affairs. He assumed his present position in June 2005. Prior he was on the
staff of the National Security Council (NSC) where he served from April 2001
to June 2005. On the NSC he served as Director for Europe and Eurasia, with
responsibility for coordinating U.S. policy on Turkey, Greece and Cyprus,
the Caucasus, Central Asia and Caspian energy. His areas of responsibility
at the State Department are similar. He joined the U.S. Foreign Service in
1988.
The policies he is pursuing are those set forth by former Under
Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. Grossman retired in
early 2005 and joined the lobbying firm, The Cohen Group, of former
Secretary of Defense William Cohen. In general the pro-Turkey appeasement
policies pursued by Marc Grossman have not changed, with one exception.
The present Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns, sworn in on May 17, 2005, authorized a speech in June 2006 by
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Dan Fried
which stated categorically that the U.S. recognized only one government in
Cyprus.
In a previous article I welcomed the statement by Mr. Fried because
there was a feeling that the U.S. under Grossman's policies was moving
towards recognizing the illegal regime in the occupied north of Cyprus.
However, in that article I also questioned the State Department's desire for
a settlement of the Cyprus problem because of the issues Mr. Fried did not
address, such as the removal of the 35,000 Turkish occupation forces
illegally in Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers (in violation of
the Geneva Convention of 1949) and the Turkish barbed wire fence across
Cyprus.
Members of the American Hellenic Institute (AHI) met with Under
Secretary Burns at his initiative on April 24, 2006 to discuss the Cyprus
issue and U.S. relations with Greece and Turkey. At a follow-up meeting on
August 28, Mr. Burns informed us that the views we expressed in April were a
key factor leading to Fried's June speech. Mr. Burns also stressed the
excellent cooperation of the government of Cyprus and the tremendous efforts
of the people of Cyprus in their important assistance in the evacuation of
over 14,000 Americans from Lebanon.
On secondary issues such as Greece, Turkey and Cyprus the views the
Under Secretary for Political Affairs, the highest ranking career official,
usually prevail. In our discussions with Mr. Burns we covered the topics
set forth in AHI's 2006 Greek American Policy Statements endorsed by AHEPA,
the Hellenic American National Council, the Cyprus Federation of America and
the other major membership organizations. He stated he would get back to
us.
At the NSC, Matt Bryza reflected a clear pro-Turkish attitude. He
supported the flawed, and indeed infamous, Annan Plan which was
undemocratic, unworkable, not financially viable and which absolved and
rewarded the aggressor Turkey and punished the victims the Greek Cypriots.
It actually required the Greek Cypriots to pay themselves for damages caused
by Turkey. The Annan Plan, as I have written before, would have, in effect,
made Cyprus a protectorate of Turkey and Britain.
Mr. Bryza, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State continues, in
effect, to support the Annan Plan. At a press conference on July 21, 2006
on his return from a ten day trip to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, in response
to a question on the status of the Annan Plan and whether it's off the
table, he stated:
"I would just repeat what I said, that the basic ideas that are - that
became known as the Annan Plan reflect wisdom and hard work and a spirit of
fairness, I would argue."
To suggest that the "basic ideas" of "the Annan Plan reflect
wisdom.and a spirit of fairness" is nonsense, is false, is misleading and an
example of appeasement of Turkey. I refer Mr. Bryza to Claire Palley's
book, An International Relations Debacle, on the Annan Plan negotiations and
to Greg Copley's and Nick Karambelas' book reviews of Palley's book and
AHI's
analysis (see AHI website).
Mr. Bryza did recognize the positive momentum of UN Under Secretary
General Gambari's visit to Cyprus and the establishment of technical
committees and agreement to exchange lists for substantive discussions.
The Turkish Cypriot isolation issue
Turkey has alleged that the Turkish Cypriots are isolated because of
actions of the government of Cyprus. The AHI and I have repeatedly pointed
out that this is false for obvious reasons, namely the Turkish government's
35,000 occupation troops illegally in Cyprus, the Turkish barbed wire fence
across the face of Cyprus, the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers/colonists
from Turkey in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949 and Turkey's
apartheid policy. The Turkish Cypriot isolation is caused solely by the
Turkish government's actions and not the rule of law actions of the Cyprus
government.
Former Under Secretary Grossman initiated the U.S. adoption of
Turkey's blatantly false isolation argument. Mr. Bryza is the current State
Department official voicing this erroneous view which is detrimental to the
negotiation process for a fair and just settlement of the Cyprus problem.
In his July 21, 2006 press conference, Bryza responded to a question from a
Turkish reporter from the Anatolia News Agency asking "what does the U.S.
government plan to help these people [Turkish Cypriots] end their
isolation?"
Mr. Bryza responded "that we have done a number of things..We are
providing $30.5 million in assistance.to the Turkish Cypriot community..So
we are already actively working to end the isolation of Turkish Cypriots-or
to ease the isolation of Turkish Cypriots."
Mr. Bryza's comments are a prime example of the State Department's
continuing appeasement of Turkey. His continuing adoption of the Turkish
government's argument and his failure to respond to those, including AHI,
who point out the real cause of the Turkish Cypriots isolation: the Turkish
army, the Turkish barbed wire fence and the illegal Turkish
settlers/colonists, is rank appeasement of Turkey. Further, it is a
deliberate effort to mislead the American public regarding the Cyprus
problem.
The opening of several crossing points in the barbed wire green line
fence two years ago has led to over 10,000,000 million crossings by Turkish
and Greek Cypriots without serious incident which destroys Turkey's argument
that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots cannot live and work together as
they did before Turkey's apartheid policy.
We are hopeful that Under Secretary Burns will have time to review
these and other matters of concern to the Greek American community in the
interests of the U.S.
Needless appeasement
Additionally it is important to point out, to stress that the
appeasement of Turkey by the U.S. is not necessary. Dr. Ted Galen
Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato
Institute, a leading conservative think tank in Washington, D.C., in remarks
at an AHI conference on Capitol Hill commemorating the 32nd year of Turkey's
invasion of Cyprus and occupation of 37.3% of Cyprus, stated the following:
"The United States in many respects is a fairly unique country in that
its always been a foreign policy challenge for America to reconcile its
moral values and its national interests. Moral values have always been for
the vast majority of Americans a very important consideration. That's one
reason why Henry Kissinger's brand of Realpolitik has never played very well
with the vast majority of Americans.
We've seen this desire to reconcile values and interests on numerous
occasions.. Just one example of the dilemma that we face, is that it is
necessary for the United States to cooperate with a variety of authoritarian
and at times unsavory regimes in the war against radical Islamic terrorism.
It's not much of a pleasure, and it's certainly not an honor to have to work
with the regime in Saudi Arabia for example or the military dictatorship of
Pervez Musharraf in Pakistan but given the enemy we face it is necessary.
****
But America really betrays its heritage when it needlessly compromises
important moral values. Washington's policy toward the Cyprus issue is
perhaps the most glaring example. The reaction to the 1974 invasion and
occupation, at the very least, the U.S. stood by and watched as a NATO ally
geographically raped a small neighbor. Gene Rossides, of course, makes a
compelling case that Washington was even more culpable- that U.S. officials
connived with Turkey in its aggression. (Emphasis in original)
In the intervening 32 years, the U.S. has acted with generalized
indifference as Turkey enjoyed the fruits of its aggression. Turkey brought
to Cyprus tens of thousands of Turkish settlers, and Ankara's repeated
defiance of rulings from the European Court on the rights of Greek Cypriot
property owners despoiled by the 1974 invasion was met with anemic and
pro-forma U.S. protests at Ankara's rogue behavior --when they were made at
all.
I am not suggesting that the U.S. should have used force to expel
Turkish forces from Cyprus. America does not have a vital interest at stake
in the dispute, and American military forces should be put at risk only for
the defense of vital interests. But Washington could have-- and should
have-- made it clear early on that a close, friendly relationship between
the U.S. and Turkey would be impossible as long as Turkey persisted in its
aggression. Even if U.S. leaders were reluctant to take that step as long
as they believed they needed Turkey in the struggle against the Soviet
Union, that justification no longer applied once the Cold War came to an
end. Yet, Washington's pro-Turkish tilt on Cyprus has persisted.
Washington's reaction to the rejection of the Annan Plan was very
telling. U.S. officials expressed annoyance with Greek Cypriot voters for
voting down that plan, despite its numerous unjust or unworkable features.
Even worse was embracing the doctrine of moral equivalence between aggressor
and victim. This involved placing the bulk of the blame on the victim. In
essence, U.S. officials seem willing to go along with Ankara's long-standing
position that the Cyprus issue is settled with the defacto division of the
island-- unless a new agreement can be reached on Turkey's terms.
What of the future? Washington is less fond of Ankara these days.
Primarily because of differences of Iraq policy and the signs of surging
radical Islamic and anti-American sentiment in Turkey. If relations between
the U.S. and Turkey cool further, Washington may alter its position on the
Cyprus issue to "punish" Ankara. Be watching for that development. Cyprus
policy has been a stain on America's honor for 32 years. It is time--indeed
it is long overdue-- to remove that stain."
When is the U.S. going to take a forth right stand on the basic
issues regarding Cyprus, namely Turkey's invasion and occupation;
"constitutional government based on majority rule, the rule of law and
protection of minority rights" as called for by former President George H.W.
Bush; the immediate removal of Turkey's troops, settlers and barbed wire
fence?
Call and write to President Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice, your two senators and your representative and ask them to stop the
appeasement of Turkey and double standards applied to Turkey and to stand up
for American values.
###
For additional information, please contact Georgia Economou at (202)
785-8430 or at
[email protected]. For general information about the
activities of AHI, please see our website at
http://www.ahiworld.org
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________
Changed Email Address
Please let us know when your email address changes so we can update our
records. For your convenience you can log on to
http://ahiworld.org/contact_change.html on our website to change your
address, phone or email address.
--
OXI ! NO ! to the Annan Plan
http://www.oxi-no.org/