Author: Basmajian Ani

Armenian Youth: "Turkey, Your Hands are in Blood"

PanARMENIAN.Net
22.01.2007 15:38 GMT+04:00

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Actions of Armenian youth organizations in
commemoration of Hrant Dink are going on in Armenia. January 22 members
of the Nikol Aghbalian ARF Dashnaktsutyun Youth Union and other 20
youth organizations gathered at the Yerevan State University and
then marched to the EU Office. The action participants were carrying
the Armenian tricolor and transparencies. "Turkey, your hands are in
blood," one of them said. The young people lighted candles at Dink’s
portrait and commemorated him with a minute of silence.

They called upon the EU to be more vigilant and reconsider its stance
on Turkey’s accession. Abram Gasparyan, member of the Nikol Aghbalian
Union said the Armenian Genocide is continued in Turkey. In 1915 the
Genocide was also launched with killings of intelligentsia. "People
are killed in Turkey because they are Armenians. Any of 80 thousand
Armenians living in Turkey may fall victim," he said.

The initiators informed that wreaths will be laid in Tsitsernakaberd
January 23 and a commemoration ceremony will be held in the Armenian
Genocide Museum. The Nikol Aghbalian Union is also going to organize
a collection of signatures condemning such crimes, reports IA Regnum.

A KOSOVO "PRECEDENT" CAN CUT BOTH WAYS
by Vladimir Socor

Eurasia Daily Monitor — The Jamestown Foundation
January 22, 2007 — Volume 4, Issue 15

Just ahead of Serbia’s parliamentary elections, which were held
yesterday, January 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin weighed in to
encourage Serb nationalist forces on the pivotal issue of Kosovo.
Putin reassured Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica in a
telephone conversation that a status plan for Kosovo that is not
accepted by Belgrade would not pass through the United Nations Security
Council — an oblique way for Putin so say that Russia would use its
veto to block such a plan. Any solution must stem from the principle
of territorial integrity, Putin said with regard to Serbia and the
eventual Kosovo status. Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei
Lavrov similarly declared that any status regarding Kosovo must be
"mutually acceptable" to Belgrade as well as to Kosovo’s Albanian
population (Interfax, international news agencies, January 16, 17).

With that position, Putin challenged German Chancellor Angela Merkel
and the European Union as a whole during Merkel’s January 20 visit to
Sochi. Addressing Merkel in her capacity as German holder of the EU
presidency, Putin asserted during the concluding news conference that
Russia would only support a Kosovo status that suits both Belgrade
and Prishtina (Interfax, January 20, 21; Kommersant, January 22). The
clear implication — so interpreted also by German commentators —
is that Moscow is positioning itself to thwart the EU’s common policy,
which is shepherding Kosovo toward independence. By the same token the
Kremlin challenges U.S. policy, which would prefer a somewhat faster
decision on Kosovo’s independence, albeit with mechanisms in place to
ensure democratic institution building and Serbian minority rights,
as well as a U.S. and NATO military presence.

Moscow, however, seeks to confer de facto veto power to Belgrade in
the Kosovo status negotiations and, in effect, delegate Belgrade’s
veto to Moscow to exercise in the U.N. Security Council. In Sochi,
Merkel stopped short of taking issue with Putin openly over Kosovo.
Instead, she pointed to the successful stabilization of Bosnia under
Western supervision and the similar prospects for Kosovo under the
status plan, soon to be submitted by the UN’s special envoy, Finnish
diplomat Martti Ahtisaari.

Ahtisaari is expected to present the status plan within the next
few weeks. Prepared in close consultation with the EU and the
United States, the plan is said to involve a monitored or supervised
independence for Kosovo, with the EU largely in charge. By contrast,
Belgrade only offers "broad autonomy" for Kosovo within Serbia —
a position clearly unacceptable to Kosovo’s 90% Albanian population.
Moscow currently backs Belgrade in order to drag out any settlement.
However, Russia’s position is far from final. After some decent
interval, Moscow could any time shift its position and tacitly accept
Kosovo’s independence — for example, by abstaining in the U.N.
Security Council. It could do so in return for a Western quid-pro-quo
in some other theater or if it decides that settling one or more
post-Soviet conflicts on Russian terms would necessitate a "parallel"
solution in Kosovo.

While Moscow threatens to block the expected Ahtisaari plan, the
EU is redoubling expressions of confidence in its envoy. On behalf
of the EU’s 27 member countries, German Minister of Foreign Affairs
Frank-Walter Steinmeier reiterated on January 18 that Ahtisaari has
the EU’s "full confidence and support." The EU is already preparing
to provide support in building rule-of-law structures and police,
once a decision has been made on Kosovo’s status (German Presidency
of the EU to the OSCE Permanent Council, January 18).

Moscow insists that any decision on Kosovo’s eventual status — whether
autonomy within Serbia or internationally recognized independence —
should constitute a "precedent" or "model" for the resolution of the
four post-Soviet conflicts (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia,
Karabakh). The implication is that any international recognition of
Kosovo’s independence would give Russia a free hand to "recognize"
the secession of its clients on the territories of Moldova, Georgia,
and Azerbaijan. By contrast, the EU and the United States underscore
the numerous features that differentiate the Kosovo conflict from
the four post-Soviet ones.

If Kosovo is to become a "precedent" or "general model" for post-Soviet
conflict settlement, then the countries targeted by Russian conflict
operations could effectively counter that argument. They can ask
for Western forces — or indeed predominantly civilian peacekeeping
operations — to replace Russian "peacekeeping" troops in the
post-Soviet conflict areas. International protectorates, administered
through the U.N. and the European Union, would replace the existing,
Russian-installed authorities in those areas. The ethnic cleansing
would be reversed as a first priority. The EU, OSCE, and Council of
Europe would supervise the introduction of democratic standards and
reform of the judiciary, replacing existing structures that operate
within the Russian special services’ chain of command. Such measures
in Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Karabakh would constitute
a real application of the existing Kosovo model or precedent.

–Vladimir Socor

Sunday Times (London)
January 21, 2007, Sunday

Marseille money man keeps Eriksson waiting

Ian Hawkey

Tycoon Jack Kachcar wants to waken the sleeping French giant -and
there may be a role for Sven-Goran Eriksson

JACK KACHKAR. Good name for football’s latest takeover king, sounding
like something between Jack Cash and the suspicious fans’ question:
"So, where’s the catch?" Kachkar is the Syrian-born,
Armenian-cum-Lebanese Canadian who has just completed the initial
formalities on a E115m (£ 75.5m) purchase of France’s Olympique
Marseille.

And if his is an entirely new name to the game, it is becoming
frequently associated with an old one: Sven-Goran Eriksson.

Introducing himself to Marseille fans in the city after lodging his
pre takeover guarantees, Kachkar distanced himself from the idea that
his first big appointment would be the former England coach. He
confirmed that they had met, but at a coaching conference where their
discussions had served merely to help the businessman to orient
himself around the sport in which he was preparing to make such a
substantial investment. Kachkar had sought information from other
coaches, too, he added, without actually naming them. "We want to
work with the present team," he insisted. The current OM coach is
Albert Emon, who reports to a director of sport, the ex-Marseille
coach Jose Anigo and to the president, Pape Diouf.

That trio have taken Marseille to third in the French championnat,
which is the minimum required by the end of this season for Kachkar’s
ambitions. He wants Marseille not simply to be in the Champions
League -France’s top three qualify -but to win it under his
patronage, a tall order for a club that is not even in European
competition at the moment and with a playing staff who include one
true superstar, the restless Franck Ribery, and their most potent
striker, Djibril Cisse, only there on loan from Liverpool.

Eriksson has made it clear that a requirement for his next job is
Champions League involvement, and he has certainly been watching
Marseille closely. A trip to Dubai he made this month coincided with
that of Marseille, on their winter break. The Swede found himself in
the same hotel as the team’s players and staff, chatted animatedly to
Cisse and some of his colleagues.

Kachkar is understood to believe that Eriksson is the sort of man to
guide Marseille out of a decade and a half of corruption scandals,
frenetic turnover and bad management and place them again among the
Continent’s elite.

Eriksson’s experience at Lazio, whom he took to the Italian league
title in 2000, counts as a recommendation. But his salary
expectations would exceed several times over the wages paid to
coaches in a French league in which Gerard Houllier’s Lyon are easing
towards a sixth successive championship with a lead of 14 points over
second-placed Lens and 17 points clear of Marseille.

For all that, OM are a tempting project. The topsy-turvy 1990s, a
period featuring a European Cup triumph, followed swiftly by
punishments -including relegation for domestic match-fixing and
further scandals and slumps in the past seven years – have not eroded
the club’s status as the best supported club in the country. Or,
better phrased, the French club with the widest support base.
Marseille’s fans have a reputation, as ex-players such as Robert
Pires would bear witness. When fortunes deteriorate, players have
been vulnerable to physical attack. Groups of fans have also, under
some of Kachkar’s predecessors, held considerable power over ticket
distribution and aspects of the club’s merchandising potential.

OM have great commercial potential. The value of all French clubs has
leapt in the past year, since the league signed a television deal
worth about E1.8billion over three years, and there is a logic,
outlined by Kachkar, tothe takeover scramble that is now extending
across the Channel. "I don’t have the money to bid for Manchester
United," he said.

Kachkar is not a sugar daddy, he added, but a businessman, expecting
to make something out of Marseille. He also fits the protoype of the
new football mergers and acquisitions man. He seems to have made some
of his initial fortune out of privatisation in the old Eastern Europe
-Hungary in his case -where he graduated in medicine. He heads a
pharmaceutical company based in New York, with satellite arms in
Britain and Canada. Kachkar assured Marseille fans that he is a
francophile, although he addressed them in English, and spoke of
falling for the club when it won the 1993 European Cup final, 1-0
against Milan.

OM have been drifting for most of the time since then, but they are a
dozing giant, an appetising challenge for any chairman. Or coach.

Journal of Turkish Weekly, Turkey
Jan 21 2007

Nicholas Burns: We will work hard to oust the PKK

Saturday , 20 January 2007

On the second day of his meetings in Ankara, US Under Secretary for
Political Affairs, Nicholas Burns had a working brunch with senior
journalists in Turkey. Burns also met with Under Secretary of Foreign
Affairs Ertuðrul Apakan, Secretary General of the National Security
Council Yiðit Alpogan and Vice Chief of Staff General Ergin Saygun.
Before leaving for Israel, Burns also met with Turkish Foreign
Minister Abdullah Gül.

Talking with senior journalists Burns evaluated US-Turkish relations
and said that the US relationship with Turkey was unique. Burns said
both sides had established a new `strategic partnership’ despite
diverging on policy on Iraq, Iran and the PKK. Burns called his
meeting with Prime Minister Erdoðan very productive and added that
the American side was in a listening mood and willing to take advice
from Erdoðan.
Burns said his meetings revolved around four interlocking crises in
the Middle East on the forefront of American interests. `The
extraordinary challenge we are facing in Iraq, the rise of Iran and
its continued efforts at Natanz, the reconstruction of Lebanon and
finally the continued efforts by Turkey and the US to see if we can
breathe new life into the future of negotiations between Israel and
Palestinians,’ were the four main issues on his agenda. `We also
spoke about bilateral issues like the Armenian genocide resolution
coming up in the US Congress’ added Burns.
Burns’ speech to the journalists was well informed on what the
Turkish public would like to hear. The Under Secretary used the term
`Strategic Partner’ more than any other American diplomat in the last
five years with regard to Turkey. `We have an enormous strategic
agenda with Turkey. I would just say this: we continue to be Turkey’s
foremost and strongest supporter for its future in the EU.

That began with President Clinton ten years ago. It is continuing
with President Bush. We have a very clear strategic interest in
seeing Europe open its doors and keep those doors open to Turkey. I
don’t need to get into details of that except to say `this is
important’ as we look at the future and the interests of my country
in this region,’ said Burns.
The Under Secretary also reasserted US determination to be hopeful
about a solution to the Cyprus issue. `We do believe you can never
stop trying to find a way forward to find a resolution to the now
nearly fifty-year-old problem,’ he said.

US needs Turkey for its new foreign policy orientation
The Under Secretary of Political Affairs also expressed US gratitude
toward Turkey for continued support in Afghanistan under the NATO
umbrella. Burns also hinted that with the melting snows in the
southeastern Afghan mountains, NATO forces in Afghanistan may need
extra help in this region and that the US was trusting Turkey.
Burns claimed that Turkey’s importance lies in the recent shift in US
foreign policy orientation: `One of the great shifts in US foreign
policy orientation is from an occupation with Iraq to an occupation
with the greater Middle East and Southeast Asia. And Turkey is the
one country that bridges both worlds.’

`We will oppose the Armenian genocide resolution’
Answering a question, Burns commented on the resolution due to appear
in the US Congress and Senate and said that the administration has
made it very clear to the leadership of the House and Senate that it
would oppose the resolution. Burns promised that he and Secretary of
State Condoleeza Rice would be actively involved with Congress in
order to prevent the resolution’s passing.
`We are on the record with Congress and we will continue to be on the
record that such a resolution will be harmful to our relationship
with Turkey,’ said Burns. However, he also reiterated that Congress
holds most of the cards on issues of legislation and apart from
persuasion there was nothing the Administration could do to prevent
the resolution’s passing.
`We believe that there are many experts in universities who can and
should discuss these issues; and that archives should be opened, as
the Turkish government made clear. There should be a debate about
this but we don’t think that the proper form should be a resolution
in the Congress,’ said Burns.
The Under Secretary was also promising on the PKK issue but with more
deliberate terms. Burns reminded that the US was unequivocally clear
about the PKK: `We banned it outside Turkey. We don’t recognize it,
we don’t deal with it as an organization. We have sanctioned it. We
have encouraged our European allies to sanction it. We tried to
convince our European allies not to allow political front
organizations of the PKK to have offices in their countries and not
let them make propaganda.’
Asked whether the US shares the views of the Turkish government
vis-à-vis the terrorist organization PKK, Burns said that the PKK
uses violence to attain political aims and that was a definition we
could agree on. According to Burns, US support to Turkey in its fight
against terror was essential. `We as Americans have been victims of
terrorism. Turkey is a victim of terrorism. We absolutely have to
stand by Turkey’ said Burns.
Burns argued that a major part of the problem could be solved through
cooperation between Iraq, the US, and Turkey. He saw no difficulty in
convincing Turkey to speak to the Iraqi authorities and vice versa.
`We are trying to find what can be done in order to stop PKK attacks
against the Turkish military and civilians. We believe that can
happen, that can work without any further resort to the use of force
and cross-border operations,’ said Burns, adding that the US
recognized Turkey’s right to defend itself, and that fighting the PKK
was not only Turkey’s responsibility but the Iraqi government and the
US administration held responsibilities too.

The offer to Iran still on the table
The Under Secretary of Political Affairs also evaluated the
escalating crisis with Iran and said that Iran would have accepted US
Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s offer for diplomatic
negotiations if Iran was not divided domestically. Burns reminded
that the US had formed a diplomatic coalition with Russia, China,
France and Germany to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear
crisis with Iran and that the coalition offered direct diplomatic
negotiations on every issue if Iran accepted to stop the uranium
enrichment project in Natanz temporarily.
`We offered to supply Iran with civil nuclear power, with economic
help, and to remove sanctions. Secretary of State Ms. Rice said that
she would personally join the negotiations. We all were convinced
that Iran would agree to these terms. We waited four and a half
months and in mid October they said no. And that is why we had to
turn to the other path, the Security Council sanctions,’ explained
Burns.
Burns also said that the US administration values Turkey’s
perspectives with regards to Iran. `We haven’t had an American
diplomat in Iran for 27 years. But Turkey has very active relations
in Iran and because of that it is very important to hear the advice
of Turkey and get a sense of the internal dynamics in Iran,’ said
Burns, adding that most of the time the Turkish position was
compatible with the US position. `On the nuclear issue; neither of us
want Iran to become a nuclear power. On the terrorism issue; neither
of us wants to see Iran foment instability in the Palestinian
territories, in Lebanon or in Iraq,’ explained Burns.
Asked about anti-Americanism is the Islamic World, the Under
Secretary said the unavoidable, criticizing the mass media. Burns
claimed that in some Muslim countries the picture of the US depicted
by the mass media was not accurate. He accepted that some public
sentiments were created by cataclysmic events in recent years and
that a rehabilitation of those feelings is a long term project.
Burns also claimed that responsibility in fighting anti-Americanism
was solely not on Americans. `I think it is important for Muslims to
remember that in Bosnia it was the United States that intervened on
behalf of a Muslim population that had been brutalised, 250.000 of
them killed, two million forced out of their homes in a four-year
war. And we stopped that war. It was the US that intervened on behalf
of a Muslim population to protect it from Milosevic in 1999.’ He said
he believes the US helped the Afghan and Iraqi peoples get rid of
their corrupt regimes despite serious difficulties in these
countries.

No `number one’ issue between Turkey and the US
Answering a question on what the number one issue was in Burns’
meetings in Turkey, the Under Secretary said: `The Turkish-US
relationship was one of those relationships that you cannot pinpoint
one issue. It is one of those relationships vast in terms of the
number of issues you deal with.’ Though refusing to single out one
issue Burns finished his answer by saying: `But certainly we want to
solve that PKK problem. I cannot predict when and how, but we need to
solve that problem and we will work very hard on that.’

By Ekrem DUMANLI and Kerim BALCI, Today’s Zaman

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTARIANS INDIGNANT AT HRANT DINK MURDER

Yerevan, January 20. ArmInfo. The European Parliament is indignant at
the Jan 19 murder of the Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in Istanbul.

Turkish Daily News reports the member of the Socialist group Jan
Viermsa to be shocked with the news though it is not clear yet if it
was a political murder. What happened is awful. Attacks on journalists
cannot and must not be justified, he says.

In his turn, the former member of the European Parliament, the
activist of Social-Democratic Party of Germany Ozan Ceyhun notes that
Dink was killed just because he was Armenian. This is a serious blow
on Turkey’s steps towards democracy. The people who killed Dink are
assassins who have strongly damaged Turkey’s reputation, says Ceyhun.

Turkish Press
Jan 20 2007

Turkish F M Gul Receives U.S. Diplomat Burns
Published: 1/20/2007

ANKARA – U.S. Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas
Burns has indicated on Friday that they were beside Turkey in its
fight against terrorist organization PKK.

After his meeting with Turkish FM & Deputy PM Abdullah Gul in Ankara,
Burns noted that the United States attached great importance to its
relations with Turkey, stating that the two countries have been
working together on solutions of several issues in the Middle East.

Underlining that Turkey was an important ally to solve several
matters in the Middle East, Burns reiterated that the U.S. was eager
to cooperate with Turkey and Iraq.

"We are beside Turkey and we are assisting it. We are against PKK,"
Burns stressed.

In regard to inspection in Mahmur camp, Burns said that they wanted
this camp to be closed down in the future, indicating that there was
a need for solution on the matter as soon as possible. Burns noted
that Turkey should extend support on the issue.

Indicating that Turkey and the United States had common views on
several issues including settlement of peace in Iraq, end of nuclear
program in Iran, assistance to Lebanese government and prevention of
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Burns stressed that the U.S considered
Turkey an important strategic partner.

Replying to a question on discussions over referendum which is
planned to be held in Kirkuk, Burns said that they held positive and
fruitful talks with Turkish authorities concerning Iraq, stating that
they appreciated Turkey’s assistance to the United States on the
matter. Burns indicated that Iraqi government and people would make
final decision on the matter (referendum).

In regard to U.S. President George W. Bush’s new Iraq strategy, Burns
noted that they believed that this new strategy could be successful
and it should be.

Replying to a question on killing of Hrant Dink, editor-in-chief of
bilingual Turkish-Armenian weekly Agos, Burns said that they felt sad
over killing of Dink, stating that Turkish Prime Minister Recep
Tayyip Erdogan made strong statements over the issue.

Asked whether killing of Dink would make an impact on U.S. House of
Representatives’ passing draft resolution on so-called Armenian
genocide, Burns noted, "I think that we should wait for the
investigation to be conducted by Turkish government. This issue
should not be connected with anything else. It was a tragic incident.
What we should do is to give Turkish government time to investigate
it."

U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Ross Wilson said that he was shocked by
killing of Dink.

Offering his condolences to his family, Wilson said that they hoped
that those who murdered Dink would be found as soon as possible.

RA PRESIDENT RECEIVED OSCE REPRESENTATIVE

Yerevan, January 17. ArmInfo. RA President Robert Kocharyan has
received today the Director of OSCE Office for Democratic Institutes
and Human Rights, Ambassador Christian Strohal. As the Presidential
press-service told ArmInfo, the prospects of further cooperation,
the issues of the coming Parliamentary elections in the country, in
particular, were discussed during the meeting. Robert Kocharyan noted
that the Armenian authorities are interested in organizing elections at
a high level. The interlocutors also touched upon the coming activities
of international observers during the Parliamentary elections.

ARE AZERIS DISCRIMINATED IN RUSSIA?

A1+
[07:46 pm] 17 January, 2007

The Azeri Organization liberating Karabakh has blamed Russia for
protecting Armenians. The organization has made a statement calling
on the Russians to cease discriminating the Azeris in Russia.

The statement claims that commerce centers in large Russian cities
belonging to Azeris are closed, and their owners are not granted
permission to open new ones. "The houses of our compatriots are
searched.

They are fined for no reason. It is not by chance that these steps
are taken on the eve of January 20 which testifies to the support of
Russia to hostile Armenia", the statement says.

The Organization calls on the Russian authorities to cease
discriminating the Azeris, otherwise they will have to close the
Azeri Embassy in Russia and evict all the Russians from Azerbaijan,
day.az reports.

ANCA CRITICIZES HOAGLAND’S RE-NOMINATION AS US AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA

Yerkir.am
January 12, 2007

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), today, voiced its
opposition to President Bush’s re-nomination of Richard Hoagland,
PanARMENIAN.Net reported.

In a letter circulated today on Capitol Hill, ANCA Chairman Ken
Hachikian called on US Senators to prevent Hoagland’s approval –
stressing that, " A genocide denier must not – and should never –
represent America in Armenia, a nation that rose from the ashes of
genocide." He also reminded recent poll of Armenian Americans shows
that 97% oppose the Hoagland nomination.

The Hoagland nomination faces bipartisan opposition and was ultimately
blocked by a parliamentary "hold" placed by Senator Robert Menendez. In
written statements, offered in response to questions posed to Richard
Hoagland during his confirmation hearing, he went far beyond the bounds
of the Administration’s already deeply flawed policy, actually calling
into question the Armenian Genocide in 1915 as a historical fact. The
day before Robert Menendez, after Hoagland’s re-nomination by President
George Bush, again blocked his approval as US ambassador to Armenia.

Turkish bid to join Europe was a train-wreck waiting to happen

By Quentin Peel, Financial Times
Published: Dec 05, 2006

Turkey’s relations with the European Union seem set to hit a new low
next week, when the 25 EU member states will be asked to partially
suspend membership negotiations because of their unresolved dispute
over the divided island of Cyprus.

This was a train-wreck waiting to happen, ever since Cyprus was
admitted to the EU in 2004 without any settlement between its Greek
and Turkish communities. The danger now is that what might have been
a dispute limited to the decades-old divisions between Greek and
Turkish Cypriots could become a much wider confrontation between the
EU and Turkey. It could sour relations for years.

In former times, such a stand-off might not have been too difficult to
manage. Turkey would simply have turned to its other western ally, the
US, for support. Indeed, Washington might well have put pressure on
Nato allies to compromise, and after a couple of bumpy years, normal
relations would have been resumed.

Today, however, Ankara’s relations with Washington are almost as
difficult as they are with Brussels. Tensions over the Iraq war, and
Turkish fears of rising Kurdish separatism affect- ing its own
Kurdish population, have caused a surge in anti-American feeling.

Turkey has never been a particularly easy ally, either for Europe or
the US.

But it has been one widely recognised as of vital strategic importance
– first as a front line with the former Soviet Union, and now as a
front line with a turbulent Middle East. Yet the latest deterioration
in relations with both Brussels and Washington owes far more to the
carelessness of the western allies than it does to the prickliness of
the Turkish government.

The EU member states have failed to find any way of containing or
resolving the Cyprus problem so that it does not affect wider
relations with Turkey. It was always assumed the prospect of EU
membership would galvanise Greeks and Turks on the island to see
reason and agree on a settlement to end their north-south division. In
the event, the Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of a settlement, while
the Greek Cypriots voted against, resulting in the absurd situation
where the Turkish Cypriots are still excluded and unrecognised, while
the Greeks gain all the EU benefits, and can veto any relaxation
towards their fellow islanders.

Perhaps understandably, the Nicosia government has exploited every
opportunity to do so, including vetoing direct trade links between the
EU and northern Cyprus – a decision taken by the Council of Ministers
before Cyprus joined, and blocked ever since. Equally understandably,
Ankara has therefore refused to extend its customs union with the EU
to include Cyprus – leading to the present confrontation.

Legally, Turkey is in the wrong: it has a legal commitment to admit
Greek Cypriot ships to its ports. Politically, the EU is in the wrong,
in continuing the trade blockade of Turkish Cyprus. Yet no member
state seems prepared to call Nicosia’s bluff. Some – such as France
and Austria – seem happy to see any reason to delay Turkey’s accession
ambitions. Other small member states are sympathetic towards little
Cyprus, if it were seen to be bullied by the strategic interests of
the big ones. Turkey’s traditional supporters, such as Britain and
Germany, seem paralysed by indecision.

Before Turkey’s membership negotiations with the EU were launched on
October 3 2005, it was widely rumoured that both the UK and US put
pressure on the Greek Cypriot government not to block the move, by
threatening to open direct links to Turkish Cyprus if they did so.

Because of the cooling in US-Turkish relations, there is little sign
of such a transatlantic tie-up today. Indeed, as Washington casts
round for a regional solution for Iraq, it may embrace old foes such
as Iran and Syria, but no one seems to be asking Turkey to help. All
the old words in Brussels and Washington about the vital strategic
partnership with Ankara seem to have been quietly forgotten. Short
memories will come back to haunt us.