 |
May 2006 2006 Greek American Policy StatementsThe policies set forth herein are based in each case on the sole question of what is in the best interests of the United States. Table of ContentsSection I POLICY STATEMENTS AND THEMES1. The U.S. Should Establish a “Special Relationship” with Greece
4. Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 5. Turkey’s Suppression of the Religious Freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
6. Critical Review of U.S. Policy Toward Turkey Needed
7. Compensation to Turkey’s Victims 8. Albania Section II LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES EXHIBITS Exh. 1 Turkey’s Collaboration with the Soviet Military During the Cold War Exh. 4 “‘No’ to Islamist Turkey,” by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., Washington Times, 9-27-05; Commentary. Exh. 5 “Islamofascist Coup?,” by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. Washington Times, 3-14-06; Commentary. Exh. 7 The Annan Plan Needs Serious Changes in the Interests of the U.S.Preliminary StatementThe U.S. has important and vital interests in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. These include the significant energy, commercial and communications resources that transit the region. These policy statements deal primarily with U.S. relations with Greece, Cyprus and Turkey as they bear on overall U.S. interests in the region. The U.S. should look to Greece as an immensely valuable link in the region. We have stated for decades that Greece is the strategic, political and economic key for the U.S. in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean and a proven and reliable ally. We call for a special relationship between the U.S. and Greece for the mutual benefit of both countries. Cyprus is an important nation for U.S. interests in the Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East. The so-called “Sovereign British Bases” on Cyprus and the British listening posts on Cyprus are on Cyprus territory and have been of significant importance to the U.S. Cyprus is a member of the European Union (EU) and a western-oriented country. It is important to U.S. interests that it remain so. We support a settlement of the Cyprus problem through negotiations based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a state with a single sovereignty and international personality, incorporating the norms of a constitutional democracy embracing key American principles, the EU acquis communautaire, UN resolutions on Cyprus, the pertinent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and of other European Courts. We specifically endorse the following statement by Vice President and Presidential candidate George H. W. Bush made on July 7, 1988 in a speech in Boston:
Turkey is the main cause of the problems in its region, the northeastern Mediterranean, the Aegean Sea and in the southern Caucasus. Turkey is hardly a model for the Muslim world or for anyone. Turkey is a proven unreliable ally who refused to allow the U.S. to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against the Saddam Hussein dictatorship because she wanted $6 billion more—in addition to $26 billion irresponsibly offered by the Administration through then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz—for a total of $32 billion. An administration official called Turkey’s negotiating tactics “extortion in the name of alliance.” Turkey’s unreliability is not new! During the Cold War Turkey actively aided the Soviet military to the serious detriment of the U.S. (See Exhibit 1) The U.S. in its own best interests should critically review and reassess its relations with Turkey. In addition to economic sanctions and an arms embargo, the U.S. should consider removing trade and other benefits if Turkey refuses to:
1. The U.S. Should Establish a “Special Relationship” with GreeceThe U.S. has important and vital interests in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean. These include the significant energy, commercial and communications resources that transit the region. The U.S. should look to Greece as an immensely valuable link in the region. We have stated for decades that Greece is the strategic, political and economic key for the U.S. in Southeastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean and a proven and reliable ally. The U.S. should do more to capitalize on Greece’s location and close cultural, political, and economic ties to the Mediterranean countries, Western Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Middle East in advancing U.S. interests. We call for a “special relationship” between the U.S. and Greece for the mutual benefit of both countries. On March 20, 2005, President Bush met with Prime Minister Konstantine Karamanlis at the White House. The following are their welcoming remarks from the Oval Office:
On March 23, 2006, Secretary Rice met with Dora Bakoyannis, the newly appointed Foreign Minister of Greece, and reiterated her views on the strategic partnership between the U.S. and Greece. Their press conference remarks after their meeting are as follows:
In World War I, Greece sided with the allies and played an important role in the Balkans, while Turkey fought against the U.S. as an ally of Germany. Greece’s actions also prevented Turkish troops from reaching the Western Front and saved many American and allied lives. In World War II, with Europe under the heel of Nazi Germany and with Britain fighting the Axis powers alone, Greece’s courageous reply on October 28, 1940 of OXI (No!) to Mussolini’s surrender ultimatum echoed throughout the world and give support to Britain and the forces of freedom. The defeat of Mussolini’s army by Greek forces, actually pushing them back into Albania, gave the first taste of victory to the allies against fascism. Greece’s success against Mussolini forced Hitler to change his plans and divert valuable troops, arms and equipment to invade Greece. Hitler’s invasion of Greece delayed his invasion of the Soviet Union by several weeks, from April to June 1941. That delay has been credited by military experts and historians as one of the main factors that prevented Hitler’s defeat of the Soviet Union. Karl E. Meyer, in a New York Times editorial footnote, stated that Hitler believed that the several weeks it took Germany to subdue Greece was responsible for his losing the war against the Soviet Union. (April 16, 1994, A20, col.1) In 2001 the American Hellenic Institute Foundation published Greece’s Pivotal Role in World War II and its Importance to the U.S. Today with an introduction by General Andrew J. Goodpaster, USA (Ret.), the former Supreme Commander of NATO. General Goodpaster has characterized Greece’s actions in World War II as a turning point in the war. But the glory of Greece’s actions in World War II did not end there. During the harsh Nazi occupation, Greek resistance activities forced the Germans to retain a large number of troops in Greece, which otherwise would have been deployed to the Eastern Front and in North Africa, and could have tipped the balance in both of those campaigns. Six hundred thousand Greeks, 9 percent of their population, died from fighting and Nazi Germany’s starvation policy. In contrast with Greece, Turkey failed to honor its treaty with Britain and France to enter the war, remained neutral and profited from both sides. In fact, Turkey supplied Hitler with chromium, a vital resource to Nazi Germany’s armaments industry and war effort. Albert Speer, Hitler’s armaments chief, wrote in November 1943 that the loss of chromium supplies from Turkey would end the war in about 10 months. See F. Weber, The Evasive Neutral 44 (1979) and A. Speer, Inside the Third Reich 316-17, 405, 550 n. 10, (1970). While the rest of Europe was rebuilding following World War II, Greece was involved in a civil war from 1946 to 1949 against communist forces supported by Stalin and Tito and supplied by them from the Skopje area of Yugoslavia. Greece’s defeat of the communists, with Greek blood and American military aid provided under the Truman Doctrine (but without American combat troops), was an historic turning point in the post-World War II Cold War period. Stopping the communist takeover of Greece, including Crete with its Souda Bay naval base, prevented Stalin’s domination of the Aegean Sea and Eastern Mediterranean and the strategic encirclement by the Soviet Union of the Middle East oil resources including the Persian Gulf area. In 1998 the American Hellenic Institute Foundation published The Truman Doctrine—A Fifty-Year Retrospective with the distinguished Academy of Political Science. In that volume General Goodpaster called the Truman Doctrine and Greece’s role a turning point in world history. President Bush’s comments and Secretary Rice’s comments give hope that finally the U.S. recognizes the full value of Greece to the U.S. for their mutual benefit. Words are important, but need to be followed by action. Secretary Rice can give meaning to her words by positive action on the key issues: Cyprus, the Aegean, FYROM, the Ecumenical Patriarchate and Halki Patriarchal School of Theology and Albania. Greece is a vigorous and stable democracy with a rapidly modernizing economy that serves as a stimulus for regional growth. It is also the only Balkan country that can boast membership in the EU and its European Monetary Union (EMU) as well as NATO. In combination, these factors make Greece a regional force for political stability and democracy-building and a sensible partner for U.S. strategic interests, economic cooperation and investment. Greece hosted an exceptional 2004 Olympic Games, which enhanced Greece’s visibility worldwide. The 1999 Kosovo crisis confirmed Greece’s leadership role in the Balkans and its utility as the U.S.’s pivotal partner in the wider region. Greece coordinates the administration of EU aid to the Balkans and is itself a source of developmental capital, private investment, and know-how in the newly emerging Balkan economies. The 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Iraq War confirmed that the Souda Bay, Crete naval base and airbases in Greece are the most important Eastern Mediterranean bases for the projection of U.S. power. There is clearly nothing remotely comparable in Turkey. In 2005, there were approximately 11,000 visits by U.S. military ships and planes to Souda Bay and its adjacent air base. The U.S. should establish a “special relationship” with Greece by broadening and deepening its relationship through a coordinated program in the strategic, political, military, commercial and cultural fields. Establishing such a relationship with Greece will allow the U.S. to capitalize on Greece’s unique assets, thereby increasing the prospects for achieving the U.S.’s long-term goals of political stability, economic progress and democracy in Southeastern Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.2. The Cyprus ProblemBackgroundThe U.S. failed to take advantage of at least three factors since 2003 which presented the U.S. with opportunities for positive movement on the Cyprus problem. The first factor was that Operation Iraqi Freedom demonstrated (1) Turkey’s unreliability as a strategic ally when it counted most when Turkey refused on March 1, 2003 to allow up to 62,000 U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship; (2) that Turkey is of minimal strategic value for U.S. interests in the Middle East, since the defeat of the Saddam Hussein dictatorship without Turkey’s help and the availability of military facilities elsewhere in the region; and (3) that Turkey is an “extortionist” state who tried to get for its cooperation $6 billion more over the $26 billion offered, a veto over U.S. policy on the northern Iraq Kurds and access to northern Iraq oil. (N.Y. Times, Feb. 20, 2003; A1; col. 6.) Turkey's unreliability as an ally is not new! There is a history of Turkey's actual support of and assistance to the Soviet military during the Cold War to the serious detriment of the U.S. (See Exhibit 1) The second factor was Cyprus’s accession to the European Union (EU) on May 1, 2004. This is a seminal event. It gives Cyprus permanent status as a state of the EU. The third factor which surfaced fully in 2005 is the virulent anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism in Turkey today. On February 16, 2005 The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) carried an editorial page article (A14; col.3) “The Sick Man of Europe—Again” by Mr. Robert L. Pollock, a senior editorial page writer at the WSJ. Finally a mainstream journalist, and a conservative one at that, has given the U.S. public the real picture of Turkey’s virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes. He tells it as it is. (See Exhibit 2 for a copy of Mr. Pollock’s article.) On March 8, 2005, the noted journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International, in an article titled “Cold Turkey” (Washington Times, Mar. 8, 2005, A17, col.1) pointed out that “Turkey, an erstwhile ally, nabbed the gold medal recently in the global anti-American stakes” citing a BBC world survey. (See Exhibit 3 for a copy of Mr. de Borchgrave’s article.) On September 27, 2005, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., in an article in the Washington Times titled “‘No’ to Islamist Turkey” highlighted why Europe should not accept Turkey into the EU. (See Exhibit 4) On March 14, 2006, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., in another article on Turkey, this one titled “Islamofascist Coup?” details Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s “creeping Islamofascist coup against the country’s secular institutions and traditions.” (See Exhibit 5) In February 2006 a new Turkish film “Valley of the Wolves: Iraq,” a virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic film, was released to record breaking audiences in Turkey. On March 18, 2006 another article on Turkey by Robert L. Pollock was published in the Wall Street Journal titled “After Ataturk: The Weekend Interview with Recep Tayyip Erdogan.” It was based on Mr. Pollock’s interview with Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan and, in effect, is just as disturbing as his first article. (See Exhibit 6) In 2006, the U.S. can still take advantage of these three factors and should do so in the interests of the U.S. There is no need now, if there ever was, for the U.S. to continue its harmful policy of double standards for and appeasement of Turkey on Turkey's invasion of Cyprus, its occupation of 37.3 percent of Cyprus, its violation of human rights in Turkey and Cyprus , its outlandish claim to one-half of the Aegean Sea and its disdain for the rule of law. The U.S. should alter its harmful “double standards” policy on the rule of law for Turkey and Turkey’s aggression against Cyprus and occupation of 37.3 percent of Cyprus, now in its 32nd year. On July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded the Republic of Cyprus with the illegal use of U.S.-supplied arms and equipment in violation of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, the UN Charter article 2 (4), the preamble and article 1 of the NATO Treaty and customary international law. Turkey occupied about four percent of Cyprus during the initial phase of its invasion. Turkish pilots flying American planes dropped American-made bombs (including napalm bombs), terrorizing and killing innocent Greek Cypriot civilians in Nicosia, Famagusta, Kyrenia, and elsewhere. Turkey’s invasion had the support and encouragement of then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger who knew in advance Turkey planned to invade Cyprus and refused to use the U.S. Sixth Fleet or otherwise act to prevent the invasion, as requested by U.S. Ambassador to Greece, Henry Tasca. Kissinger refused to denounce Turkey's aggression, as Britain and most other nations did, and he refused to enforce U.S. laws requiring an immediate halt in U.S. arms to Turkey, though he had the statutory obligation to do so. He also violated his oath of office by failing to do so. On August 14, 1974, three weeks after the legitimate government of Cyprus was restored, Turkey launched the second phase of its invasion of Cyprus. This was also encouraged by Secretary Kissinger, who the day before had authorized a statement by the State Department's spokesman, Ambassador Robert Anderson, that the Turkish Cypriots needed more protection. He failed to denounce the second phase of Turkey’s aggression and failed to uphold U.S. laws requiring an immediate halt in U.S.- supplied arms. In the second phase of the aggression, Turkey grabbed another 33 percent of the island, expanding its land grab to a total of 37.3 percent of Cyprus’s sovereign territory, killed innocent civilians, raped women from the ages of 12-71, forced 180,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property and committed massive destruction of property including churches. The European Commission on Human Rights issued a report on July 10, 1976 on the charges made in two applications by the Cyprus government. In the report the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:
On January 23, 1977, the London Sunday Times published excerpts of the report (page 1, col.1) and stated: “It amounts to a massive indictment of the Ankara government for the murder, rape and looting by its army in Cyprus during and after the Turkish invasion of summer 1974.” The Turkish army has continued to occupy this territory ever since. It is an affront to the international legal order and a continuing threat to regional stability. The invasion and Turkey’s continuing occupation have drawn universal international condemnation, as reflected in UN resolutions, statements by members of Congress and from many nations, and various court decisions in Europe, but not from the Executive Branch of the U.S. government. Turkey contributes over $350 million annually in direct economic support to the regime in the occupied parts of Cyprus, and it is estimated that the total cost to Turkey of its illegal occupation amounts to one billion dollars annually. To secure its land grab of Cypriot territory, Turkey has illegally settled northern occupied Cyprus with one hundred twenty thousand Turks from Anatolia in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, art. 4, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. These colonists are beholden to their Turkish sponsors whose heavy annual outlays subsidize them. As money is fungible, U.S. economic aid subsidized Turkey's occupation of Cyprus for decades. There is no legal distinction between Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus and Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. The Cyprus problem is one of invasion and occupation by Turkey. Viewed objectively, Turkey in 1974 committed war crimes in Cyprus in view of the evidence presented to the European Commission of Human Rights and upheld by the Commission in its report referred to above. Then Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger bears the major responsibility for the Cyprus problem in 1974 because he encouraged and supported Turkeys invasion of Cyprus, violated his oath of office by failing to halt immediately arms to Turkey as required by U.S. law and refused to denounce Turkey's aggression. The U.S. bears a moral responsibility to redress the situation. Britain also bears a major responsibility for Turkey’s invasion of 1974 and for failing to meet its responsibility under the Treaty of Guarantee to warn Turkey against invading and to take action to repel the invasion on July 20, 1974, and to have rejected Turkey’s ultimatum on August 13, 1974 during UN negotiations and to have acted on August 14, 1974 to oppose Turkey’s renewed aggression. We support a settlement of the Cyprus problem through negotiations based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a state with a single sovereignty and international personality, incorporating the norms of a constitutional democracy embracing key American principles, the EU acquis communautaire, UN resolutions on Cyprus, the pertinent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and of other European Courts. President Tassos Papadopoulos’ new initiative with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan praisedCyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos initiated a meeting with Secretary-General Kofi Annan on February 28, 2006 aimed at reviving talks to achieve a settlement of the Cyprus problem. In 2005 President Papadopoulos had submitted extensive material to Mr. Annan regarding a renewal of discussions following the overwhelming rejection of the UN Annan Plan by a vote of 76 percent, by the Greek Cypriots on April 24, 2004. Messrs Annan and Papadopoulos issued a joint statement and held a press conference following their meeting. The UN press release dated February 28, 2006 follows: Joint statement readout by UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric:
U.S. Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) praised President Papadopoulos for his initiative in remarks on the Senate floor on March 9, 2006 which follow:
On March 18, 2006, Congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), at the American Hellenic Institute’s annual awards dinner congratulated President Papadopoulos as follows:
Annan Plan “not a viable solution to the Cyprus problem”The Annan Plan-5, submitted by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan as the basis for a settlement in 2004, was undemocratic, unworkable, not financially viable and not compatible with American principles, the EU's acquis communautaire, UN resolutions and the European Convention on Human Rights. Congresswoman Illeana Ros-Lehtinen, a senior member of the House International Relations Committee, in a March 12, 2005 letter to President Bush called the Annan Plan “not a viable solution to the Cyprus problem” and further stated: “The Annan Plan in its present form is unsuitable for a successful resolution of the Cyprus problem and needs major modifications to be viable.” Mrs. Ros-Lehtinen detailed the reasons why the Annan Plan was not a viable solution: “the continuing presence of Turkish troops;” “Turkish Cypriots and mainland Turkish settlers” keeping “Greek Cypriot homes and other property that they seized following the Turkish invasion of Cyprus” and “not have to reimburse the owners of the property;” Annan requires “the Greek Cypriots to be reimbursed by the federal treasury which is funded overwhelmingly by the Greek Cypriots” which means “the Greek Cypriots would be reimbursing themselves.” (See Exhibit 7 for a detailed analysis of the Annan Plan’s many obvious shortcomings. Exhibits 1-7 may also be accessed at AHI’s Web site at ahiworld.org.) The Congresswoman also referred to “the unwarranted criticism and attacks on the Greek-Cypriots for their ‘no’ vote of 76 percent,” and stated that: “The public has been misled by claims that Greek Cypriots were the ones responsible for the ultimate failure of the unification plan.” In the letter to President Bush, she also stated: “Perhaps it is now time for a new approach to the issue.” She urged the President “to remain engaged in efforts to resolve the conflict in Cyprus, and to continue the search for a just and lasting reunification that will promote peace and stability.” Dora Bakoyannis, Greece’s new Foreign Minister, has stated, most recently on April 4, 2006 in Cyprus that the UN Annan Plan was “history.” “‘The Annan Plan, as it was submitted for approval by the Cypriot people, was rejected. From the moment it was rejected, it is history,’ Bakoyannis said.” (National Herald, April 8, 2006, page 13; col.1) With the State Department’s new political leadership of Secretary Condoleezza Rice and the new career leadership of Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns there is an opportunity to redress the situation. Syrian Troops Out of Lebanon—Turkish Troops Out of CyprusIn March of 2005 President Bush called for the immediate removal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. Last year the U.S. actively supported UN Security Council Resolution 1559 which called for the removal of all non-Lebanese forces from Lebanon, in effect telling Syria to get out of Lebanon. Getting Syrian troops out of Lebanon is in the best interests of the U.S. Getting Turkish troops out of Cyprus is also in the best interests of the U.S. The failure to call for the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus is a striking example of the double standard in Turkey’s favor. It is particularly distressing as the Turkish troops which invaded Cyprus caused substantial loss of lives, 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees and huge destruction of property. The reasons to call for the removal of Turkish troops from Cyprus are as compelling, and more so, than getting Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, in a speech in Washington on March 5, 2005 at the American Hellenic Institute’s annual dinner, called for an end to “the continuing presence of Turkish troops on the island. They’ve got to go,” she said. Removal from Cyprus of Turkey’s 120,000 illegal colonists/settlersPresident Bush should also call for the immediate withdrawal of Turkey’s 120,000 illegal colonists/settlers in Cyprus in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949. Tear down Turkey’s barbed wire fence across the face of CyprusThe removal of Turkey’s troops, colonists and barbed wire fence would end the Turkish Cypriot’s economic isolation and go a long way to solving the Cyprus problem because the Greek and Turkish Cypriots could then work out a fair and effective agreement. Why hasn’t President Bush called for the removal of Turkey’s illegal troops and colonists from Cyprus and the tearing down of the Green Line barbed wire fence (as President Reagan called for the Soviets to tear down the Berlin Wall)? The answer is that he has followed the failed State Department policy of a double standard on the application of the rule of law to Turkey. That policy started in 1974, when Turkey invaded Cyprus with the illegal use of U.S. arms, and has continued to the present time. The person who led the effort in promoting the double standard this past decade is former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Marc Grossman. Mr. Grossman retired on February 25, 2005 and has been succeeded by Nicholas Burns, former State Department spokesperson, U.S. Ambassador to Greece and U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO. Hopefully Mr. Burns will initiate a review of the U.S.-Turkey policy, a review which is long overdue. Instead of calling for the removal of (1) Turkish invasion and occupation troops from Cyprus, (2) the illegal colonists and (3) the Turkish barbed wired fence across the face of Cyprus, the State Department says they are part of the negotiations, which means, in effect, the State Department’s support for Turkish aggression. The State Department’s “double speak” on Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974 compared to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 is right out of George Orwell’s 1984. A review of U.S. policy towards Turkey should begin with the Eisenhower Doctrine: “There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.” Eisenhower applied that doctrine to halt and reverse aggression by Britain, France and Israel against Egypt in 1956. A top UN official informed Syria that the UN would consider “wide punitive sanctions” if Syria did not comply with UN SC Res. 1559. The U.S. should also consider such sanctions against Turkey if Turkey does not get out of Cyprus now. To achieve a Cyprus settlement, the U.S. should apply forceful economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Turkey, including sanctions and the withdrawal of trade benefits if necessary, to get Turkey to remove its 40,000 armed forces and its 120,000 illegal colonists from Cyprus, and to tear down the Turkish barbed wire fence across the face of Cyprus which are the causes of the Turkish Cypriots isolation. The limited opening of the Green Line in Nicosia in April 2003 resulted in thousands of peaceful daily crossings by Turkish and Greek Cypriots and has demonstrated beyond a doubt that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live and work together peacefully as they did before. It destroyed the propaganda of Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, that they could not live together and needed to be separated. NATO’s toleration of Turkey’s aggression against Cyprus in violation of the NATO Treaty and the UN Charter is evidence of a double standard and a stain on NATO’s record and honor. NATO should call for the immediate removal of Turkey’s illegal occupation forces and settlers from Cyprus and the demilitarization of Cyprus. If Turkey refuses to cooperate, NATO should consider appropriate action to bring Turkey into compliance. We call on the U.S. to encourage NATO members to apply pressure on Turkey to abide by the clear requirements of the NATO Treaty, to desist from aggression against other states and to reform the constitution of Turkey to reflect Western standards of civilian democracy. The U.S. should make the search for a just solution to the Cyprus problem a foreign policy priority and should expand its economic, political, diplomatic, and security relations with Cyprus. The U.S. in its own interests should support amendments to the Annan Plan to make it democratic, workable, financially viable, just and compatible with American principles, EU democratic norms and human rights standards. Reunification of the island on just and viable terms and the nation’s membership in the EU as an integrated whole are worthy goals. They will benefit all parties concerned and will advance the U.S. interests in regional stability and adherence to the rule of law. To promote these interests, the U.S. should more forcefully exert its influence with Turkey, including the Turkish military. The Greek Cypriots worked hard to recover from the devastation of the Turkish invasion and adhered in all their efforts to the rule of law. They achieved an economic miracle. Yet when the Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly voted no by 76 percent to the flawed Annan Plan, the State Department, led by then Under Secretary Marc Grossman, attacked them for exercising their democratic right to vote and personally attacked Cyprus President Tassos Papadopoulos. The Cyprus problem is the central issue of U.S.-Cyprus relations, but it is not the only component of the relationship. Cyprus is within the U.S. strategic perimeter in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Cyprus is a strategic key for U.S. interests in the region. It is a stationary aircraft carrier in the region and its mountains provide areas for the most effective listening and transmitting devices in the region. We suggest that the Administration increase efforts to deepen its relations with Cyprus by ensuring regular visits to Cyprus by senior officials whose responsibilities are not directly related to the solution of the Cyprus problem.3. Aegean Sea BoundaryTurkey has made an outrageous claim to one-half of the Aegean Sea and refuses to take its maritime boundary claim to the International Court of Justice at the Hague for a binding ruling. The U.S. should publicly state that it accepts as final the treaty-defined demarcation of the maritime border between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea. The relevant agreements are the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, the Italy-Turkey Convention of January 4, 1932, the Italy-Turkey Protocol of December 28, 1932 and the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty, under which the Dodecanese Islands and adjacent islets were ceded by Italy to Greece. The U.S. is a signatory to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaty and is obligated by U.S. law to carry out its provisions. The State Department has refused to declare publicly what the law is and should do so now. The U.S. should also vigorously repudiate any challenge to the treaty-defined boundary and should urge Turkey to submit its claim to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for binding arbitration. 4. Former Yugoslav Republic of MacedoniaWe call on the U.S., in its own self- interest, to strongly support a name for this former Yugoslav republic that does not include the word “Macedonia.” Since antiquity, the name Macedonia has referred to a geographical region, not to a nationality. When Marshal Tito fashioned the puppet “Socialist Republic of Macedonia” from the southern Yugoslav province of Vardar-Banovina in December 1944, he did so to foment disorder in northern Greece in furtherance of his plan to communize the Balkan Peninsula and gain control of the key port city of Salonica. “Macedonian” nationalism was a product of Tito's fabrications. In December 1944 the U.S. vigorously opposed the use of the name Macedonia by Tito. Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., in a Circular Airgram (Dec. 26, 1944) stated:
Our policy was valid then and it should be valid now. The Truman Doctrine and massive financial aid under the Marshall Plan foiled Tito’s hopes for communizing Greece. The State Department’s reversal of policy on November 4, 2004 by the recognition of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) as the “Republic of Macedonia” was an act of disgraceful proportions as it relates to our staunch ally and supporter in the Balkans, Greece. This act is harmful to U.S. interests in the Balkans. We call on President Bush to reconsider this misinformed and ill-advised policy and to tell the State Department to withdraw recognition of FYROM as Macedonia as in the best interests of the United States. We call on President Bush to inform FYROM to continue in good faith its diplomatic dialogue with Greece on the name issue under UN auspices. The State Department stated that this decision was made with the purpose of providing “stability” in “Macedonia,” regarding the November 7, 2004 referendum in FYROM on the law giving the ethnic Albanian minority greater local autonomy. We disagree strongly with State’s position. On the contrary, recognition does not help to facilitate stability in the region. Consideration needed to be given to the sensitivities by this decision and how it would potentially impact all of FYROM’s neighbors, especially Greece. Yet, State Department Spokesman, Richard Boucher, during his press briefing on November 5, 2004 stated that he wasn’t aware of any consultations by the U.S. with FYROM’s neighbors prior to recognition. If the United States is interested in promoting peace, democracy, stability and economic progress in the Balkans, our main ally in the region in promoting these goals is and has been Greece. In announcing the recognition of FYROM as Macedonia, the State Department is thumbing its nose at Greece and the Greek American community. By it’s actions, the Administration is in effect disregarding the approximately 1,500,000 Americans of Hellenic descent as a non-entity in the formulation of U.S. policy since we are not consulted on decisions that impact Greece. This action sends the wrong message to Greece that could be construed as dismissive of her sensitivities and concerns in the region. Further, regarding Mr. Boucher’s comments, he attempts to justify that since the name “Macedonia” is the name “that the government and the people of Macedonia have chosen for their country, and that’s the name we will recognize them under.” This premise is false. There is no unqualified universally accepted rule of international law that authorizes a state to name itself anything it wants. There are two examples in the 20th century. Following WWI, Austria wanted to be known as “The German Republic of Austria.” The victorious allies objected to the designation “German” and Austria has been known since as the Austrian Republic or plain Austria. In the second instance, Great Britain was denied the right to be admitted to the European Union with the name Great Britain. France objected that this name could imply that the French province of Brittany belonged to Great Britain. The objection was accepted by the then European Union partners and Great Britain was admitted to the EU as United Kingdom. The Macedonia issue stems from the 1991 secessionist Skopje regime’s naming itself in the most provocative way possible as the so called “Republic of Macedonia” and requesting worldwide recognition. It is not proper for a country, which is part of a region to define itself in an official manner as representing the whole region. Macedonia, like the Americas, Europe, Scandinavia, and the Balkans, is a region. Just as no country in North and South America would call itself the “American Republic,” and no European country would call itself the “Republic of Europe,” FYROM in naming itself cannot assume the mantle of Macedonia. Greece and FYROM had increased their dialogue recently on strengthening bilateral relations, including the name, and this unexpected and sharp shift in U.S. policy is counter-productive. For our Government to be a party to this only serves to create instability in a volatile area of the Balkans and thus threatens our interests there. We find incomprehensible the advice from the State Department and the National Security Council to President Bush, which, in effect, equated the FYROM, a nation of only 14 years, of little, if any, strategic, economic or political value to the United States, with Greece, a long-time important strategic, political and economic ally of the United States, who fought as allies with the U.S. in 4 wars in the 20th century, whose defeat of Mussolini’s forces in 1940 was a turning point in World War II, who gave the communists their first defeat by arms (1946-49), who is an important partner in the war on terrorism, and who is the strategic key for the United States in the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean.5. Turkey’s Suppression of the Religious Freedom of the Ecumenical PatriarchateTurkey’s restrictions on the religious freedom of the Ecumenical Patriarchate and its brutal assaults against its Kurdish minority reveal that democratic norms have still not taken root. In view of Turkey’s horrendous human rights record, U.S. policy toward Turkey should be driven by forceful incentives for democratic reform. These include an arms embargo, economic sanctions and the withdrawal of trade and other benefits. His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese in North America led a panel discussion at the U.S. Helsinki Commission on March 16, 2005 which presented “a clear picture of how religious human rights violations by the Turkish government have been working to exterminate the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Christian community in that country.” The panel briefing “highlighted Turkey’s systemic efforts to undermine the Orthodox Church, violating numerous international treaties to which it has agreed.” U.S. Helsinki Commission Co-Chairman Congressman Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ) stated: “The concern of this Commission is the protection of religious rights and freedoms. Turkey’s treatment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate violates its obligations under international human rights law.” Mr. Smith blamed Turkey for systematically attempting to prevent the activities of the Patriarchate by disallowing the opening of the Halki Theological School forcibly closed in 1971, destroying churches by creating hurdles preventing their repair, denying the Patriarchate the opportunity to purchase and or sell property and not recognizing the Patriarchate’s “Ecumenical” status, in effect, denying its universal status. We commend the Bush administration for its prompt and full support of the universality of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Archbishop Demetrios and Dr. Anthony Limberakis “detailed the severe restrictions on property ownership which have allowed the government to confiscate nearly 7,000 properties from the Ecumenical Patriarchate since 1936. Behind them stood placard-size photos of the most recently seized property, an orphanage on Buyukada island which once housed hundreds of homeless children.” We condemn Turkey’s toleration of assaults against its Greek Orthodox religious minority, its continuing illegal closure of the Greek Orthodox Halki Patriarchal School of Theology in Istanbul and its illegal seizure of Greek Orthodox Church property. We call on the U.S. to press Turkey to enforce strictly the guarantees of religious freedom set forth in the Treaty of Lausanne, the UN Charter, and other international agreements. In accordance with U.S. law expressed in Section 2804 of the Omnibus Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998 (PL 105-277), initiated by AHI and introduced by Congressman Mike Bilirakis, we urge the U.S. government to use its influence with the Turkish government to safeguard the Ecumenical Patriarchate, its personnel, and its property, and to reopen the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology. The language of Section 2804 states: “It is the sense of Congress that the United States should use its influence with the Government of Turkey to suggest that the Government of Turkey-
Turkey has a notoriously dismal human rights record, which is well documented in numerous credible reports. Of special interest is the November 1999 report “Arming Repression: U.S. Arms Sales to Turkey During the Clinton Administration,” produced jointly by the World Policy Institute and the Federation of American Scientists. Other reports by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and successive State Department Country Reports on Turkey have stated that “extrajudicial killings, including deaths in detention from excessive use of force, ‘mystery killings,’ and disappearances continued. Torture remained widespread.” Thousands of political prisoners cram Turkish jails. Dozens of journalists have been assassinated, and many others are in jail. Presidential actions under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998 (22 USCA § 6441, 6445)Under the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, the President is obligated to oppose violations of religious freedom in any country whose government “engages in or tolerates violations of religious freedom and promote the right to religious freedom in that country”. The Act further obligates the President to take one or more of 15 enumerated actions with respect to any such country. The following are among those enumerated actions under 22 USCA § 6445:
6. Critical Review of U.S. Policy Toward Turkey NeededTurkey’s “No” vote on March 1, 2003Dramatically changed circumstances since the end of the Cold War and Turkey’s refusal on March 1, 2003 to allow U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a northern front against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship when it counted most, its “extortion in the name of alliance” negotiating tactics to get $6 billion more for its cooperation over the $26 billion offered and its virulent anti-American and anti-Semitic attitudes, warrant a wholesale review of the U.S. policy toward Turkey. It should also be noted that earlier, during the Cold War, Turkey actively aided the Soviet military to the serious detriment of the U.S. (See Exhibit 1.) The Turkish military and the Erdogan government were key players in the “no” vote which put U.S. forces at risk. They thought we needed Turkey and that we would give Turkey more dollars, a veto on policy regarding the Iraqi Kurds and access to Iraqi oil. They miscalculated the U.S. reaction. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, on March 20, 2005, the second anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, in two TV appearances, blamed Turkey’s refusal to permit the U.S. Fourth Infantry Division to use its territory to open a northern front against Iraq with preventing the capture or killing of future insurgents hardest and reducing their number. If that had happened, he said “the insurgency today would be less.” It follows that if that had happened fewer American soldiers would have been killed by the insurgents. Among U.S. policymakers, decades of Cold War reliance on Turkish military and political cooperation (together with an effective Turkish public relations initiative) gave rise to the largely unchallenged perception that Turkey was an indispensable military and political ally in the Eastern Mediterranean. Accordingly, when colliding Greek and Turkish interests required U.S. intervention, the U.S. usually accommodated Turkey, while publicly denying any policy “tilt” in Turkey’s favor. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Islamic fundamentalism took the place of Soviet communism as the region’s major geopolitical threat, reinforcing among U.S. policymakers the perceived value of a cooperative Turkey. More recently, global terrorism directed at the U.S. has continued the perception that Turkey’s goodwill must be preserved. The views of Turkey's alleged importance have been propagated to the detriment of U.S. interests by a handful of U.S. officials, think tank advocates and Turkey's paid U.S. foreign agents registered with the Department of Justice. Leading the pack have been former Defense Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defense Under Secretary for Policy Douglas Feith, former Defense Advisory Board Chairman Richard Perle, former State Under Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Grossman, and U.S. registered foreign agents for Turkey, former Congressmen Bob Livingston (R- LA) and Stephen Solarz (D-NY) who are paid $1.8 million annually by Turkey. Mr. Feith, an assistant to Mr. Perle at the Defense Department in the 1980’s, is a former paid agent of Turkey who headed International Advisors Inc. (IAI) from 1989-1994 and received $60,000 annually. IAI was registered with the U.S. Department of Justice as a foreign agent for Turkey. Mr. Perle, who initiated IAI and its contract with Turkey, is a former paid consultant for Turkey in his capacity as a paid consultant to IAI at $48,000 annually from 1989-1994. The U.S.’s successful prosecution of the war against Iraq without access from Turkey proved Turkey’s marginality as a strategic military resource in the region. Over the years, other actions have raised considerable doubt over Turkey's reliability as a strategic ally. Today, the U.S. has access to alternative military facilities in the region including countries in the Middle East, Central Asia, Afghanistan and in Iraq itself. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld stated on April 18, 2003 that the Incirlik Air Base in southeast Turkey is no longer needed to patrol the northern Iraq "no-fly zone" and that the U.S. has withdrawn nearly all the 50 attack and support planes from Incirlik (N.Y. Times, 4-29-03, A11, col. 6). Incirlik should be closed and U.S. taxpayer money saved. The military’s notorious influence over the Turkish government, traditionally tolerated by U.S. policymakers for perceived strategic reasons, is increasingly being recognized as an impediment to Turkey’s successful democratization, its EU aspirations, and the reform of its economy. The transformation of Turkey into a politically stable, fully democratic, and economically sound nation, whether or not she accedes into the EU, is in the interests not only of the people of Turkey, but also of Turkey’s neighbors (especially Greece and Cyprus) and of the U.S. It is by no means certain, however, that Turkey will complete this desirable process quickly, or at all. “Turkey’s Dream of Democracy,” Eric Rouleau, Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2000Expressing considerable doubt, France’s former ambassador to Turkey, Eric Rouleau, concludes that one of the great challenges facing Turkish reformers is “to convince the Turkish military to relinquish its hold on the jugular of the modern Turkish state.” (Eric Rouleau, “Turkey’s Dream of Democracy,” Foreign Affairs, Nov./Dec. 2000, pp 100-114, at 102.) He refers to Turkey’s National Security Council, established by Article 118 of the Turkish constitution, as “a kind of shadow government through which the [military] can impose their will on parliament and the government” (page 105). He describes “Mercantile Militarism” under which the Turkish military draws up its own budget, controls substantial industries through OYAK, “a vast conglomerate comprising some 30 enterprises,” and an arms production company, TSKGV, which also “comprises some 30 companies and generates tens of thousands of jobs. More than 80 percent of its revenues go into a reserve fund estimated to reach tens of billions of dollars” (pages 109-110). OYAK and TSKGV, he reports, are very profitable and for a good reason—they are exempt from duties and taxes (page 109). Turkey and the EUTo achieve EU accession, Turkey, like all other candidate states, must meet the Copenhagen criteria, the EU acquis communautaire, and the specific criteria set by the EU if accession talks beginning on October 3, 2005 are to proceed. This also includes a settlement of the Cyprus problem and recognition of the Republic of Cyprus and the obligation of Turkey to treat Cyprus as Turkey treats other members of the EU, i.e. Cypriot flagged ships to use Turkish ports and Cyprus Airways to use Turkish airports and air corridors, in accordance with The Ankara Protocol signed by Turkey as a condition for the start of EU accession negotiations on October 3, 2005. Further, EU accession conditions in the interest of the U.S. must include Turkey’s recognition of the maritime boundary in the Aegean set forth in the relevant treaties, full religious freedom for the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the reopening of the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology and restoration of the church properties taken by the Turkish government. Achieving the goals of genuine democratic freedoms, political stability and economic progress, whether through EU accession negotiations or otherwise, will require fundamental changes in Turkey’s governmental institutions. The U.S. should be pressing for fundamental changes now. Such changes include reducing the military’s traditionally pervasive role in all aspects of national life and placing it under civilian control. Turkey must also reverse its historic intransigence to a reasonable and just solution to the Cyprus problem, must conform to longstanding international agreements concerning Aegean Sea boundaries, and must significantly improve its human rights record, particularly regarding its 20 percent Kurdish minority. The U.S. supports Turkey's territorial integrity but should also adopt in its own best interests a policy of political, cultural and human rights and local autonomy for the Kurds in Turkey. We will continue to urge the Executive Branch and Congress to engage in a critical review of U.S. policy towards Turkey and to acknowledge that the foregoing changes are desirable U.S. policy goals. Turkey’s Human Rights Violations Against Its Kurdish MinorityThe suppression of human rights by the government of Turkey has been particularly brutal against Turkey’s twenty percent Kurdish minority and amounts to ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity and genocide. The Kurds have a unique language and traditions. Mostly Sunni Muslims and numbering 15 plus million in Turkey today, they have been settled for more than two millennia in a broad arc spanning southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran (7 million), and northeastern Iraq (4 million). They have traditionally resisted subjugation, but history has consistently denied them a national homeland. They are therefore political and ethnic minorities wherever they live, the easy target of majorities casting about for targets to attack and divert attention from domestic issues. In Turkey, the abuses against Kurds by the government have been chronic and genocidal. In the past two decades, the Turkish military and mercenary groups have killed, either by direct military intervention or assassination, tens of thousands of Kurds, over ninety percent of whom have been innocent civilians. It is also well-documented that since 1984, the Turkish military’s genocidal policy has destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish villages (some in northern Iraq outside of Turkish territory), creating over 3 million Kurdish refugees. France’s former ambassador to Turkey, Eric Rouleau, detailed Turkey’s massive killing of Kurds between 1984 and 1999:
In view of Turkey’s horrendous human rights record, U.S. policy toward Turkey should be driven by forceful incentives for democratic reform. These include an arms embargo and economic sanctions. Turkey’s Armenian GenocideWe support the Armenian American community's efforts to secure full recognition, proper commemoration, and a just resolution of the Armenian Genocide. In 2006, the 91st anniversary of the Genocide, the Administration should, for the sake of U.S. interests and American values, finally bring an end to all forms of U.S. complicity in Turkey's denial of this crime against all humanity. The President, in his annual April 24th remarks, should properly recognize the Armenian Genocide as a clear instance of genocide, as defined by the United Nations Genocide Convention. In addition, the Administration should refrain from taking punitive actions against diplomats, such as U.S. Ambassador to Armenia John Evans, who have spoken truthfully about the Armenian Genocide. The U.S. Congress should adopt legislation both recognizing the Armenian Genocide and urging the American people to apply the lessons of this tragedy to the cause of preventing future genocides. Finally, Turkey must be pressured to acknowledge its genocidal crime against the Armenian nation, to come to terms with this chapter in its history, and, consistent with the Genocide Convention and other relevant international legal instruments, to make full reparations to the Armenian people. We also support efforts to press Turkey to lift its illegal blockade of Armenia and to end the mistreatment of the Armenian population in Turkey. We refer readers to Professor Peter Balakian's recent book The Burning Tigris, a remarkable history of the Armenian Genocide by the Young Turk government in Turkey. Professor Balakian includes the details of the humanitarian movement of leading American public citizens and ordinary citizens to save the Armenians. Turkey’s Greek Pontian GenocideWe support
the Pontian Greek American community’s efforts to secure full recognition,
proper commemoration, and a just resolution of the Greek Pontian Genocide
of 1914-23. No Economic or Military Aid or Arms Sales to Turkey, Economic Sanctions and Withdrawal of BenefitsThe U.S., in its own best interests, should not give any further economic or military aid to Turkey until Turkey ends its occupation of Cyprus, now in its 32nd year and removes its 40,000 Turkish armed forces illegally in Cyprus and 120,000 illegal settlers/colonists from Turkey; halts its suppression of the religious freedom and its persecution of the Eastern Orthodox Christian Ecumenical Patriarchate; halts its actions suppressing the ethnic Kurdish minority in southeastern Turkey; halts its illegal incursions in northern Iraq; and recognize the Armenian Genocide. The U.S. should stop further sales or transfers of arms and military technology to Turkey and should continue an arms embargo until Turkey supports a democratic, workable, financially viable and just solution to the Cyprus problem and demonstrates significant improvement in its human rights and religious freedom record. Ceasing U.S. arms supplies will contribute to a more rational allocation of Turkey’s resources, thereby bringing about badly needed economic reform. Halting further arms sales or transfers will also eliminate a stimulus for the regional arms race. The U.S. should also urge the termination of the Turkey-Israel military cooperation understanding because of its adverse influence on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and road map. Since the 1980's Turkeys brutal suppression of its Kurdish minority has been accomplished with U.S.- supplied arms as documented in reports by the State Department, the World Policy Institute, the Federation of American Scientists, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The grant and sale by the U.S. of arms to Turkey these past decades has made the U.S. an accessory to Turkey's horrific human rights record against its Kurdish minority. Similarly, Turkey's illegal use of U.S.- supplied arms in its invasion and continuing occupation of Cyprus, and the U.S.'s failure to immediately halt arms to Turkey as required by U.S. law, and the failure to denounce Turkey’s aggression, as most nations did, made the U.S. an accessory to Turkey's invasion of and occupation in Cyprus. Despite the end of the Cold War, Turkey has a military inventory far beyond its legitimate defense needs. Who is threatening Turkey? Each year Turkey spends a disproportionately large amount of its resources on its military. This not only reflects the military’s deeply entrenched influence over Turkish society, but also drains away resources better spent on economic reform. The result is chronic financial distress necessitating periodic requests for emergency assistance from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank and the U.S. taxpayer. The IMF and World Bank should insist on Turkey getting out of Cyprus now as a financial factor and make it a condition of any further assistance. Additional Reasons Not to Give Economic or Military Aid to Turkey and to Apply Sanctions and to Withdraw Trade and Other Benefits from Turkey
Turkey in Violation of U.S. Law and its Agreement by Transfer of U.S.-originTanks to CyprusTurkey is presently in violation of U.S. law by its transfer in 2005 from Turkey to Cyprus of 12 U.S. –supplied M-48 tanks and other arms. The State Department spokesperson, Adam Ereli, erroneously stated at the time that the transfer is not in violation of U.S. law because the tanks transferred to Cyprus are under the control of the Turkish military. The State Department official who advised Mr. Ereli on the answer was in error. Since December 22, 1987, 22 U.S.C. § 2373 absolutely prohibits the transfer of U.S. supplied arms to Cyprus by Turkey without regard to whether the arms remain in the control of the Turkish military. Subsection 2373 (e) (1) reads as follows:
Further, subsection 2373 (e) (2) requires the President to report to Congress any violations. It reads as follows:
Turkey—a major drug trafficking nationA number of other examples of actions by Turkey that are harmful to U.S. interests could be listed. One of the most serious is Turkey's breaching its understanding with the U.S. by lifting the ban on opium cultivation in 1974 and tolerating the use of its territory for major drug trafficking to the present time. __________ For all the above reasons, we believe that a critical review of U.S.-Turkey relations is long overdue by the Executive Branch and Congress. We urge the Bush Administration to conduct this review so that it can engage Turkey more effectively on the Cyprus and human rights issues and on Turkey’s indefensible Aegean Sea territorial claims. A critical review of U.S.-Turkey relations should include: Hopefully the State Department, with its new political leadership in Secretary Condoleezza Rice and its new career leadership in Under Secretary for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, will initiate a critical review of U.S.-Turkey policy, a review which is long overdue. 7. Compensation To Turkey's VictimsWe cite the compensation paid by the government of Germany to holocaust victims and to the state of Israel and the government of Japan to the victims of its actions in Asia before and during World War II. We call on the U.S. government to press Turkey to pay compensation:
8. AlbaniaAlthough some improvements have been made lately in the conditions and treatment of the Greek minority, continuing acts of discrimination and persecution tolerated by the government of Albania against the nation's ethnic Greek minority constitute subtle ethnic cleansing aimed at making ethnic Greeks feel isolated, powerless and vulnerable so that they will abandon their homes and move south to Greece. The personal safety of ethnic Greeks in Albania is also at risk by reason of direct intimidation by security forces and the burning of schools, churches and businesses by lawless bands that the police allow to operate with impunity. Nowhere are ethnic Greeks given a fair deal or even a fair count. Although Albania successfully sought a census to measure the Albanian minority in neighboring FYROM, its government resists the demand of the European Union to measure its minorities, so it can continue to claim that the Greek minority is small when it constitutes at least 10 percent of the country's 3.5 million population. We call on the U.S. government, in its own interest and the interest of maintaining peace and stability in the southern Balkans, to undertake an intense diplomatic dialogue with the government of Albania to ensure that the rule of law is observed and minority and basic human rights are protected. The U.S must make clear that Albania must treat its minorities fairly and humanely the way it wants Albanian minorities in neighboring countries to be treated.9. Policy ThemesSince its founding in 1974, AHI has consistently advocated the following policy themes as in the best interests of the United States:
“There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of international conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends.” President Dwight D. Eisenhower, condemning the invasion of Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel in his October 31, 1956, television and radio report to the nation. President Eisenhower’s actions halted and reversed the aggression. " We are united in the belief that Iraq's aggression must not be tolerated. No peaceful international order is possible if larger states can devour their smaller neighbors. * * * * * [W]e are determined to see this aggression end, and if the current steps fail to end it, we are prepared to consider additional ones consistent with the U.N. Charter. We must demonstrate beyond any doubt that aggression cannot and will not pay."Joint Statement by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev on September 9,1990 condemning Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and declaring that "aggression cannot and will not pay." “We have before us the opportunity to forge for ourselves and for future generations a new world order, a world where the rule of law, not the rule of the jungle, governs the conduct of nations.” President George H.W. Bush, on January 16, 1991, the day the Persian Gulf air war began against Iraqi forces. “Most Americans know instinctively why we are in the Gulf. . . . They know that we need to build a new, enduring peace based not on arms races and confrontation but on shared principles and the rule of law.” President George H.W. Bush’s January 29, 1991, State of the Union address. “This is a victory for the United Nations, for all mankind, for the rule of law and for what is right.” President George H.W. Bush’s February 27, 1991 announcement to the nation that “Kuwait is liberated.” “We seek for Cyprus a constitutional democracy based on majority rule, the rule of law, and the protection of minority rights…. I want to see a democratic Cyprus free from the threat of war.” Presidential candidate Vice President George H. W. Bush statement on July 7, 1988 in a speech in Boston. “A Cyprus settlement should be consistent with the fundamental principles of human rights and democratic norms and practices.” Statement by presidential candidate Governor Bill Clinton in 1992.
Section IILegislative PrioritiesTo give legislative effect to the policies set forth in the 2006 Greek American Policy Statements, we will work with the Congress to pass:
H. Con. Res. 137 was introduced by Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) on April 21, 2005 with four co-sponsors: Michael Bilirakis (R-FL); Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY); James P. McGovern (D-MA); and Diane E. Watson (D-CA) and was referred to the House International Relations Subcommittee on Europe. There are currently 27 co-sponsors. H. Res. 603 in which Congress:
H. Res. 603 was introduced by Robert E. Andrews (D-NJ) on December 14, 2005 with Michael Bilirakis (R-FL); Brad Sherman (D-CA); Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY); Barbara Lee (D-CA); Frank Pallone (D-NJ); Shelley Berkley (D-NV); Diane Watson (D-CA); Linda T. Sanchez (D-CA); and Dennis Kucinich (D-OH). There are currently 12 co-sponsors.
Exhibit 1Turkey's Collaboration with the Soviet Military during the Cold WarHow many readers are aware that Turkey actively aided the Soviet military during the Cold War! The Turkish Parliament’s vote on March 1, 2003 not to allow U.S. troops to use bases in Turkey to open a second front against Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship is not the first time Turkey has double-crossed the U.S. Let us look at the record. As long ago as 1974, Edward Luttwak, the noted strategic analyst, discussed Turkey’s cooperation with the Soviet military during the Cold War. He wrote at that time the following
Examples of Turkey’s disloyalty and unreliability over the past decades as a NATO ally for U.S. strategic purposes include:
Exhibit 2U.S.-Turkey RelationsWall Street Journal February 16, 2005 article, “The Sick Man of Europe—Again” by Robert L. Pollock, a senior editorial writer (A14; col. 3.) THE WALL STREET JOURNAL The Sick Man of Europe—Again That exhibition came to mind amid all the recent gnashing of teeth in the U.S. over the question of "Who lost Turkey?" Because it shows that a 50-year special relationship, between longtime NATO allies who fought Soviet expansionism together starting in Korea, has long had to weather the ideological hostility and intellectual decadence of much of Istanbul's elite. And at the 2002 election, the increasingly corrupt mainstream parties that had championed Turkish-American ties self-destructed, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the subtle yet insidious Islamism of the Justice and Development (AK) Party. It's this combination of old leftism and new Islamism—much more than any mutual pique over Turkey's refusal to side with us in the Iraq war—that explains the collapse in relations. And what a collapse it has been. On a brief visit to Ankara earlier this month with Undersecretary of Defense Doug Feith, I found a poisonous atmosphere—one in which just about every politician and media outlet (secular and religious) preaches an extreme combination of America- and Jew-hatred that (like the Turkish artists) voluntarily goes far further than anything found in most of the Arab world's state-controlled press. If I hesitate to call it Nazi-like, that's only because Goebbels would probably have rejected much of it as too crude. Consider the Islamist newspaper Yeni Safak, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's favorite. A Jan. 9 story claimed that U.S. forces were tossing so many Iraqi bodies into the Euphrates that mullahs there had issued a fatwa prohibiting residents from eating its fish. Yeni Safak has also repeatedly claimed that U.S. forces used chemical weapons in Fallujah. One of its columnists has alleged that U.S. soldiers raped women and children there and left their bodies in the streets to be eaten by dogs. Among the paper's "scoops" have been the 1,000 Israeli soldiers deployed alongside U.S. forces in Iraq, and that U.S. forces have been harvesting the innards of dead Iraqis for sale on the U.S. "organ market." It's not much better in the secular press. The mainstream Hurriyet has accused Israeli hit squads of assassinating Turkish security personnel in Mosul, and the U.S. of starting an occupation of Indonesia under the guise of humanitarian assistance. At Sabah, a columnist last fall accused the U.S. ambassador to Turkey, Eric Edelman, of letting his "ethnic origins"—guess what, he's Jewish—determine his behavior. Mr. Edelman is indeed the all-too-rare foreign-service officer who takes seriously his obligation to defend America's image and interests abroad. The intellectual climate in which he's operating has gone so mad that he actually felt compelled to organize a conference call with scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey to explain that secret U.S. nuclear testing did not cause the recent tsunami. Never in an ostensibly friendly country have I had the impression of embassy staff so besieged. Mr. Erdogan's office recently forbade Turkish officials from attending a reception at the ambassador's residence in honor of the "Ecumenical" Patriarch of the Orthodox Church, who resides in Istanbul. Why? Because "ecumenical" means universal, which somehow makes it all part of a plot to carve up Turkey. Perhaps the most bizarre anti-American story au courant in the Turkish capital is the "eighth planet" theory, which holds not only that the U.S. knows of an impending asteroid strike, but that we know it's going to hit North America. Hence our desire to colonize the Middle East. It all sounds loony, I know. But such stories are told in all seriousness at the most powerful dinner tables in Ankara. The common thread is that almost everything the U.S. is doing in the world—even tsunami relief—has malevolent motivations, usually with the implication that we're acting as muscle for the Jews. In the face of such slanders Turkish politicians have been utterly silent. In fact, Turkish parliamentarians themselves have accused the U.S. of "genocide" in Iraq, while Mr. Erdogan (who we once hoped would set for the Muslim world an example of democracy) was among the few world leaders to question the legitimacy of the Iraqi elections. When confronted, Turkish polls claim they can't risk going against "public opinion." All of which makes Mr. Erdogan a prize hypocrite for protesting to Condoleezza Rice the unflattering portrayal of Turkey in an episode of the fictional TV show "The West Wing." The episode allegedly depicts Turkey as having been taking over by a retrograde populist government that threatens women's rights. (Sounds about right to me.) In the old days, Turkey would have had an opposition party strong enough to bring such a government closer to sanity. But the only opposition now is a moribund People's Republican Party, or CHP, once the party of Ataturk. At a recent party congress, its leader accused his main challenger of having been part of a CIA plot against him. That's not to say there aren't a few comparatively pro-U.S. officials left in the current government and the state bureaucracies. But they're afraid to say anything in public. In private, they whine endlessly about trivial things the U.S. "could have done differently." Entirely forgotten is that President Bush was among the first world leaders to recognize Prime Minister Erdogan, while Turkey's own legal system was still weighing whether he was secular enough for the job. Forgotten have been decades of U.S. military assistance. Forgotten have been years of American efforts to secure a pipeline route for Caspian oil that terminates at the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Forgotten has been the fact that U.S. administrations continue to fight annual attempts in Congress to pass a resolution condemning modern Turkey for the long-ago Armenian genocide. Forgotten has been America's persistent lobbying for Turkish membership in the European Union. Forgotten, above all, has been America's help against the PKK. Its now-imprisoned leader, Abdullah Ocalan, was expelled from Syria in 1998 after the Turks threatened military action. He was then passed like a hot potato between European governments, who refused to extradite him to Turkey because—gasp!—he might face the death penalty. He was eventually caught--with the help of U.S. intelligence—sheltered in the Greek Embassy in Nairobi. "They gave us Ocalan. What could be bigger than that?" says one of a handful of unapologetically pro-U.S. Turks I still know. I know that Mr. Feith (another Jew, the Turkish press didn't hesitate to note), and Ms. Rice after him, pressed Turkish leaders on the need to challenge some of the more dangerous rhetoric if they value the Turkey-U.S. relationship. There is no evidence yet that they got a satisfactory answer. Turkish leaders should understand that the "public opinion" they cite is still reversible. But after a few more years of riding the tiger, who knows? Much of Ataturk's legacy risks being lost, and there won't be any of the old Ottoman grandeur left, either. Turkey could easily become just another second-rate country: small-minded, paranoid, marginal and—how could it be otherwise?—friendless in America and unwelcome in Europe. Mr. Pollock is a senior editorial page writer at the Journal. Exhibit 3U.S.-Turkey RelationsColumn titled “Cold Turkey” in the Washington Times, (March 8, 2005, A17; col. 1) by Arnaud de Borchgrave, editor at large of The Washington Times and United Press International. COLD TURKEY Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of United Press International. Exhibit 4Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.’s ArticleColumn titled “‘No’ to Islamist Turkey” in the Washington Times, (September 27, 2005, Commentary Page) by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. 'NO' TO ISLAMIST TURKEY By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. On Oct. 3, representatives of the European Union and the Turkish government of Islamist Recep Erdogan will meet to determine if Muslim Turkey will be allowed to seek full membership in the EU. It will be best for Turkey, to say nothing of Europe and the West more generally, if the EU answer under present circumstances is: "Thanks, but no thanks." The reason Europe should politely, but firmly, reject Turkey's bid should be clear: Prime Minister Erdogan is systematically turning his country from a Muslim secular democracy into an Islamofascist state governed by an ideology anathema to European values and freedoms. Evidence of such an ominous transformation is not hard to find.
At the very least, over time, the cumulative effect of having the conscript-based Turkish army obliged to fill its ranks with products of an increasingly Islamist-dominated educational system cannot be positive for either the Europeans or the Free World beyond. Especially as Mr. Erdogan seeks to put into effect what has been dubbed a "zero-problem" policy toward neighboring Iran and Syria, the military's historical check on the gravitational pull toward Islamofascism is likely to recede. Consequently, the EU's representatives should not only put on ice any invitation to Turkey to join the European Union next week. They should make it clear the reason is Mr. Erdogan's Islamist takeover: The prime minister is making Turkey ineligible for membership on the grounds that the AKP program will inevitably ruin his nation's economy, radicalize its society and eliminate Ankara's ability to play Turkey's past, constructive role in the geographic "cockpit of history." It is to be hoped this meeting will serve one other purpose, as well: It should compel the Europeans to begin to address their own burgeoning problem with Islamofascism. Both Europe, Turkey and, for that matter, the rest of the world, need to find ways to empower moderate Muslims who oppose Islamists like Turkey's Erdogan. Oct. 3 would be a good time to start. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. Exhibit 5Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.’s ArticleColumn titled “Islamofascist Coup?” in the Washington Times, (March 14, 2006, Commentary Page) by Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. ISLAMOFASCIST COUP? By Frank J. Gaffney Jr. Arguably, among the most pressing questions of our time are: Can Islamic nations enjoy the benefits of secular, tolerant and accountable government—and will they be able to do so in the future? A bellwether may prove to be Turkey, the modern and very secular state created some 80 years ago by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk on the ashes of a theocratic Ottoman Empire defeated in World War I. His legacy has been one of the best hopes for believing Muslims could practice their faith without being subjected to the dictates of repressive theocracy. It is important to note that the guarantor of that secular government in Turkey—sometimes at the expense of democratic rule—has historically been the country's military. For this reason among others, the armed forces remain Turks' most highly regarded institution. Ending Ataturk's experiment and restoring the Muslim caliphate it supplanted has long been a goal of Islamofascists, adherents to a dangerous political movement whose global reach and terrorist methods have largely been enabled by decades of investment by the world's repressive Islamist regimes, led by Saudi Arabia. The rise of Islamofascism has prompted some in the West to hope Turkey would continue to serve as a model for the Muslim world even after an avowed Islamist named Recep Tayyip Erdogan in 2002 parlayed a minority of votes into a monopoly of power. This delusion contributed to the European Union allowing its negotiations for Turkish accession to the EU to be skillfully used by Mr. Erdogan to checkmate Turkey's military. Thus, had the armed forces acted to prevent Mr. Erdogan's creeping Islamofascist coup against the country's secular institutions and traditions, they would have been blamed for keeping Turkey "out of Europe." Six months ago, this column documented the comprehensive nature of Mr. Erdogan's takeover. To recap:
First, a local prosecutor, clearly acting on orders from higher up, indicted a prominent secular academic—a university rector named Yucel Askin—on preposterously trumped-up charges. Their subsequent dismissal by a court has only intensified Mr. Erdogan's determination to subvert the judiciary. Tens of thousands of Koranic school graduates are being appointed as judges, assuring they will increasingly serve as instruments of Sharia religious law. Worse yet, Mr. Erdogan has lately demonstrated that when he does not get his way in court, he is prepared to dispense with the judiciary altogether. This was the upshot of another government-inspired assault on the country's secular universities, a case brought before the European Court of Human Rights by a female student who insisted on wearing a prohibited hijab (headcovering) to class. When this appeal was rejected, Mr. Erdogan angrily declared, "The court has no right to speak on this issue. That right belongs to the ulema (clerics)."
Emboldened by the success of this gambit, Mr. Erdogan has now gone after one of Turkey's most highly regarded generals, Land Force Commander Gen. Yasar Buyukanit, who is widely expected to become the head of the Turkish military this summer. He is a courageous and outspoken anti-Islamist and the regime clearly views his ascendancy as a threat and had the same local prosecutor who went after the university rector file no-less-absurd charges against Gen. Buyukanit. Fortunately, the cumulative effect of Mr. Erdogan's Islamofascist assault on Turkish democracy is becoming more apparent to his countrymen and opposition appears to be rising at home. It behooves the European Union to reinforce the political effect of such sentiment by making clear that Islamofascist behavior will preclude Turkey from membership, not efforts by the Turkish military to counter the Islamists' takeover. And the U.S. and other freedom-loving nations must make it clear they view an Islamist Turkey as no model for the Muslim world and a threat to Turkey's standing as a valued member of the Free World. Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is president of the Center for Security Policy and a columnist for The Washington Times. He blogs at www.WarFooting.com. Exhibit 6Robert L. Pollock ArticleColumn titled “After Ataturk” in the Wall Street Journal, (March 18, 2006, A8; Commentary) by Robert L. Pollock THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW ANKARA—"They might ban you from re-entering the United States," Tayyip Erdogan says with a smile. I've just told him I've been to see the anti-American, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian Turkish blockbuster "Valley of the Wolves—Iraq." And the Turkish prime minister deflects my follow-up about whether he's seen it as well. "What did you think of the movie?" he says, turning interviewer himself. To which I reply that it made me sad. While there are many things one might criticize about U.S. policy in Iraq—and I do go out of my way to concede this point—the suggestion that U.S. troops are murdering and dismembering Iraqis to facilitate a Jewish organ-selling scheme isn't one of them. "Maybe they made this movie without going and living in Iraq," Mr. Erdogan replies. "Because it's very important to live the country to experience the country. That's why I saw the article you wrote about us in this manner. Because it was an article written without knowing Turkey and without knowing us. I was very sad when I read that." The exchange is typical Erdogan—clever, confident and, although obviously evasive, also human. Put these traits together with a roaring economy and an utterly hapless opposition and it's pretty obvious why the prime minister is the most popular Turkish leader since Turgut Ozal and has no serious rival ahead of elections due by next year. As for that "article" he's talking about, there's a story there. Only a year ago many intellectuals and politicians in Turkey seemed to be in the grip of anti-American madness. Headlines calling U.S. soldiers "Murderer Johnny" were the norm atop newspaper articles describing imagined atrocities such as the use of chemical weapons—and, yes, organ theft—committed against civilians in Iraq. Turkey's opposition leader accused the CIA of plotting an internal party coup against him. And there were reports that secret U.S. nuclear testing had been the real cause of the Indian Ocean tsunami. Needless to say, this wasn't exactly becoming behavior for a NATO ally—and I said so, in a February 2005 op-ed piece on these pages (available here) that might be described, fairly, as having pulled no punches in its account of Turkish anti-Americanism. I suspected that for most Turks—on average the best-mannered and most civilized people one will ever meet—the mere realization that the world was actually paying attention to this ridiculous discourse would have a curative effect. And it did. "I cannot remember any instance of so powerful a public outcry generated by a newspaper article, not by me, not by any others in Turkey," wrote a veteran Turkish columnist of my op-ed. But it also generated a fair amount of honest soul-searching, and a vast improvement in the content and tone of public debate. And yet...a year later I am sitting in the prime minister's office and organ-selling is being discussed again. Although most writers and intellectuals disavow "Valley of the Wolves" and profess not to have seen the film, it was surely last year's headlines that inspired it. To his immense credit, Mr. Erdogan does not himself traffic in anti-American rhetoric. And he reaffirms the value of Turkey's "strategic partnership" with the U.S. But neither will he just come straight out and condemn this movie, which is probably the most religiously and racially divisive film to reach mass audiences in Europe since World War II. "I believe the people who made this movie took media reports as their basis...for example Abu Ghraib prison—we have seen this on TV, and now we are watching Guantanamo Bay in the world media, and of course it could be that this movie was prepared under these influences," Mr. Erdogan says. "Of course," I reply, "but do you believe that many Turks have such a view of America, that we're the kind of people who'd go to Iraq and kill people to take their organs?" Mr. Erdogan: "These kind of things happen in the world. If it's not happening in Iraq, then its happening in other countries." Me: "Which kind of things? Killing people to take their organs?" Mr. Erdogan: "I'm not saying they are being killed.... There are people in poverty who use this as a means to get money. But of course the things portrayed in the movie are different things." Well, thanks for clearing that up! I am a little disappointed. Mr. Erdogan tells me he wants an "alliance of civilizations, not a clash of civilizations." He tells me he wants Turkey to be a "bridge" between East and West. But that role would seem to require a little more leadership on such obvious cases of defamation. I move on to the issue of what America can do to improve its image in Turkey. Mr. Erdogan cites "developments in Iraq" as the main source of the problem. I ask if he's uncomfortable with the U.S. strategy of promoting democracy in the region. He tells me that "As Turkey, we are trying to convey our own deep experience with democracy to the region. That's why we have taken part in the [U.S.-backed] Greater Middle Eastern project.... We're working on democracy, human rights and the rule of law." But he stresses that "we believe that all problems can be solved and should be solved at the negotiating table" and that "pushing, pressuring is not going to give any results." The bottom line: "We have the same idea as the United States regarding the goal of the project but maybe the method which should be used is different." One specific area where the U.S. and Turkey now differ over method is the Israeli-Palestinian issue. The U.S. and Israel have sought to isolate Hamas diplomatically until it renounces violence and recognizes Israel. But in February the Erdogan government invited Hamas to Ankara for a high-profile—and controversial—visit. What did he hope to accomplish? "There was an election in Palestine and there was a result of this election," Mr. Erdogan says. "This is the choice of the Palestinian people. And isn't it respecting democracy when you respect the wish of the Palestinian people? After the election has been done we cannot say the result was not as we wanted so we are not going to accept it." He continues: "So what we have to do here is support these people, to make them give up their arms and also make them accept that Israel and Palestine have a legitimate right to exist." He adds, finally, that "maybe even my friends have told them things that no other country could tell them." These arguments are not without merit, although his government certainly might have displayed more confidence in them by not dissembling about the visit until the day it actually happened. I want to give Mr. Erdogan an opportunity to explain his undeniable domestic achievements. What has he tried to accomplish? He tells me about tackling the "three Ys": The letter "y" begins the Turkish words for corruption, poverty and prohibitions. Let's start with the latter. It's worth recalling that Mr. Erdogan was initially unable to claim his election victory after falling afoul of Turkish laws banning overly religious political expression. That needed to change, and Mr. Erdogan can justly brag that "no person has entered jail for expressing their thoughts during my term. Turkey is a country of freedoms." On poverty, too, there is little doubt Mr. Erdogan is making much progress. I comment on how much richer Turkey seems since I first started visiting in the late '90s. Mr. Erdogan boasts that growth over the past three years has averaged 8 percent annually, and that per capita income has risen to about $5,000 (it's much, much higher, of course, in cities like Ankara and Istanbul). A major factor here has been that Turkey has finally beaten inflation, which was down to 7.7 percent at the end of last year from more than 30 percent before. This has fueled an unprecedented expansion in consumer credit and some Turks believe it's a "bubble." But I think they're more likely witnessing the real and permanent benefits of a stable currency. Another factor is that Mr. Erdogan has helped make Turkey much more friendly to entrepreneurship. He tells me that the corporate tax rate has dropped to 20 percent from 33 percent, and that the top personal tax rate has fallen to 35 percent from 45 percent and "it will go down" further. And when I ask about his hopes for a legacy, it is interesting that he answers first in economic terms: "At the end of the next [government] term—2012—a Turkey which achieved $10,000 per capita income." He sounds like a fervent supply-sider! But time is running short, and I can't let him go without asking about Iran. Is he worried about the nuclear program? "Why should we be scared? As you know we are a member of NATO. And as well we were neighbors of the Soviet Union for a long time. We weren't afraid in those days, why should we be afraid now?" In other words, you've got our backs. It just so happens that during the middle of this exchange one of the prime minister's advisers receives word that International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei wants Turkey to play a mediating role on the issue. As we take photos and exchange pleasantries at the end, Mr. Erdogan asks about my marital status, and then my prospects. I'm told he asks that of a lot of people. It is a revealing habit. Ever since Mr. Erdogan's Islamic-oriented Justice and Development Party swept to power on 35 percent of the vote in 2002 elections (amazingly, only one other party passed the 10 percent threshold for parliamentary representation), people have questioned whether his smooth manner wasn't cover for a more radical agenda to fundamentally change the secular character of the Turkish Republic established by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. I see no reason to believe this is the case. Socially, Justice and Development might be best analogized to "family values" conservatives here in the U.S.—albeit a bit extreme, perhaps Mormonesque, in their dedication to clean living. (No alcohol, obviously, and smoking, too, is frowned on.) Economically, Mr. Erdogan would fit comfortably into the mainstream of American conservatism. His is the most effective government to lead Turkey for more than a decade, and he has used his large majority in Parliament to pass the hard but necessary reforms needed to prepare Turkey for membership in the European Union and in the modern world generally. No, if there is any cause for concern here, it would be the undeniable fact that Turkey's first successful overtly Islamic prime minister has cultural and foreign policy compasses different from those of earlier Turkish leaders, who have inclined steadily toward the West. I sense a deeper estrangement at work than mere disagreement over Iraq, and whether or not to use force to remove roadblocks to democracy in the Middle East. "When we took office there was a Turkey which was not having talks with its neighbors. Now Turkey is having a dialogue with all of them. That's why we don't want any bombs to fall anymore in our region," Mr. Erdogan says. But can he really believe this saccharine rhetoric, and that "all problems" can be solved at the negotiating table? (It's been less than a decade since Turkey nearly invaded Syria.) Or is it mere cover for the theories of advisers who believe that Turkey can be a bigger player on the world stage by distancing itself from the U.S.? And does he not recognize the import of the concession that his somewhat cavalier confidence on Iran is possible because NATO (i.e., the U.S.) ultimately stands behind Turkey? After all, such "strategic" alliances are not written in stone. They are dependent over the long term on public attitudes in the countries involved. As I leave his office I wonder how carefully he has thought through what would seem to be a most pressing question: Of what value will Turkey's opinion really be in a world of increasing or unresolved tension with the U.S. and where, God forbid, the mad mullahs next door have nukes? Mr. Pollock is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. Exhibit 7The Annan Plan Needs Serious Changes In the Interests Of The U.S.The Annan Plan, originally submitted in November 2002, was regarded by Cyprus, Greece and the international community as a basis for negotiations. The Annan Plan has gone through several modifications. Annan Plan-5, was the version submitted for separate referenda votes by the Greek and Turkish Cypriots on April 24, 2004. The Greek Cypriots overwhelmingly voted “no” by 76 percent and the Turkish Cypriots voted “yes” by 65 percent. Modifications in the Annan Plan-5 are needed to make it democratic, workable, financially viable, just and compatible with EU norms and the EU acquis communautaire, the emerging European constitution, UN resolutions, American principles and human rights standards. The Annan Plan submitted in the fall of 2002 by the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan for negotiations for the settlement of the Cyprus problem is a more complicated version of the 1959-1960 London-Zurich agreements imposed on the Greek Cypriots by the British during the Cold War. As currently written the Annan Plan is undemocratic and unworkable and needs serious changes in the interests of the U.S. as well as those of Cyprus, the UN and the European Union (EU). It also violates key UN resolutions and the EU’s democratic norms and acquis communautaire. The British had the primary influence in drafting the proposal with Lord David Hannay being the chief British interlocutor. The U.S. acquiesced and aided the British. The Annan Plan-5 perpetuates the undemocratic features and ethnic divisions of the London-Zurich agreements. The Cold War is over yet the British continue their policy of setting one ethnic group off against another. The Annan Plan-5 is harmful to U.S. efforts to build democratic institutions in Iraq. The U.S. should in its own best interests be the champion of democratic norms throughout the world, not obvious undemocratic constitutions like the one proposed. The U.S. should support changes in Annan Plan-5 to make it democratic, workable, financially viable and just. Annan Plan-5 fostered division and strife. Secretary-General Annan himself should seek changes in the plan in the interests of the UN to have a democratic and viable plan. The proposal is undemocratic.The parliamentary system under the Annan Plan creates a minority veto for the 18 percent Turkish Cypriot minority. The following key legislative matters among others would be subject to the Turkish Cypriot veto:
This arrangement is clearly undemocratic, a recipe for stalemate and harmful to all Cypriots. The minority veto is also present in the Presidential Council which exercises the executive power of the component state. Political paralysis in the exercise of executive power will be the result. The Annan Plan vetoes exceed the minority vetoes of the London-Zurich 1959-1960 agreements, which vetoes led to the breakdown of the Cyprus constitution. Is the U.S. prepared to propose the Annan Plan’s minority veto provisions for the 20 percent Kurdish minority of 15 plus million in Turkey? Is Turkey prepared to give its Kurdish minority rights it seeks for the Turkish Cypriots? What about the Arab minority in Israel, Turks in Bulgaria, Albanians in FYROM, Greeks in Albania and minorities in Africa, Asia and North and South America? The U.S. position in support of the British maneuvered Annan Plan is, frankly, an embarrassment to our foreign policy. Rather than supporting undemocratic norms, the U.S. should promote with vigor the democratic policy espoused for Cyprus by Vice President George H.W. Bush on July 6, 1988: "We seek for Cyprus a constitutional democracy based on majority rule, the rule of law, and the protection of minority rights;" and by presidential candidate Governor Bill Clinton in 1992: "A Cyprus settlement should be consistent with the fundamental principles of human rights and democratic norms and practices." The proposal is unworkable.It is useful to recall that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research called the 1959-1960 London-Zurich agreements dysfunctional. It predicted the problem areas. The Annan Plan is even more complicated and creates conditions for continuous squabbling, disagreements and deadlock. The proposal violates key UN resolutionsThe proposal violates on its face important UN resolutions which guarantee the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus. The proposal subverts property rightsOne of the most pernicious effects of the illegal Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus is that the rightful owners of real property there continue to be excluded from their property by the Turkish military. The Annan Plan proposes a highly complicated, ambiguous and uncertain regime for resolving property issues and is based on the principle that real property owners can ultimately be forced to give up their property rights which would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and international law. And the Greek Cypriots would be reimbursed from the federal treasury which is funded overwhelmingly by the Greek Cypriots who in effect would be reimbursing themselves. The proposal fails to fully demilitarize CyprusThere is no need for Turkish soldiers to remain in Cyprus. How could such a proposal be made by the UN? And, unbelievably, Annan-5 provided for increased intervention rights. The U.S. should insist on full demilitarization now. The proposal does not provide for the return to Turkey of the 120,000 illegal Turkish settlers in the occupied area in violation of the Geneva Convention of 1949Central to a proper solution is the return of the 110,000 illegal Turkish settlers to Turkey. The proposed territorial adjustment is clearly unfairThe two proposed maps—A 28.6 percent and B 28.5 percent reward Turkey, the aggressor and penalize the Greek Cypriots, the victims. The Turkish Cypriots comprise 18 percent of the population and have title to about 14 percent of the land. A map proposal should provide for no more than 18 percent under the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish government is absolved for its invasion and aggression against CyprusThe Turkish government is absolved for its invasion and aggression against Cyprus, the enormous destruction it did to Cyprus, the killings on a substantial scale of innocent civilians, rapes of women from 12-71, the large scale looting and destruction of churches. The U.S. should seek changes in the Annan Plan to reflect U.S. values and interestsThe Cold War has been over for more than a decade. Turkey’s March 1, 2003 "no" vote against helping the U.S. did occur and we should not forget it! And Turkey’s attempt to extract more billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, a veto on U.S. Iraqi Kurdish policy and access to Iraqi oil also occurred! As one senior administration official said, Turkey’s actions are "extortion in the name of alliance." The U.S. aided and abetted Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974 and its renewed aggression on August 14-16, 1974 through the actions of then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger by his unlawful conduct in refusing to halt immediately arms to Turkey as required by U.S. law and his oath of office. The U.S. should be seeking changes in Annan Plan-5 to make it democratic, workable, financially viable and just. The U.S. bears the major responsibility for Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus and should now be willing to stand up and hold Turkey accountable for its aggression by calling:
The Annan Plan contains elements contrary to the policy enunciated by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Helsinki on September 9, 1990 when they condemned Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait and declared "that aggression cannot and will not pay." The Cyprus government has long advocated the demilitarization of the island. The U.S. should support the demilitarization of Cyprus and the inclusion of Cyprus in the European Common Foreign and Security Policy. For demilitarization to succeed Turkey must withdraw all its armed forces from Cyprus. It is inconceivable that Turkey, a non-EU state can maintain troops and have intervention rights in an EU country. |
Search our Site:
AHI News Flash:01-21-09 AHI Executive Director Interview with the Greek News Letters to the Editor:08-07-09 AHI Letter to the Editor of the Washington Post 08-06-08 The Washington Times Prints AHI Letter Regarding Cyprus |
THE AMERICAN HELLENIC Institute (AHI), was founded on August 1, 1974, following Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus with the illegal use of American-supplied arms in violation of U.S. laws and agreements. The AHI initiated the rule of law issue in the Congress in the interests of the U.S., thus changing the face of American politics. <<<Continue>>> © 2006 American Hellenic Institute |
||
