AnalysisAsiaDiplomacyEuropeFeaturesMiddle EastPoliticsWorld

Turkey does not bluff; what do we do, however?

Recent developments, by Erdogan's word of mouth and actions, confirm, once again, that Turkey does not bluff. Instead, it implements its long-term goals one by one.

Let us stop going blind voluntarily to believing that Turkey can become prudent and accept that its own interests can coincide with ours and accept a viable solution; those who do blind themselves, that is, because many of us often rang the alarm bell, only for our voices to reach deaf ears.

Our diplomatic corps, against British intrigue, succeeded in achieving a non-negative Presidential Statement at the UN Security Council (UNSC).

Well, very well done; the appeal to the UNSC and it is good to have this statement which theoretically contradicts the intrigues of Turkey.

However, we must realize that Turkey does not quail with such things. Over time, it has learned from experience that this will not incur any costs if it is ignored; Çavuşoğlu has already stated so! How does it achieve this? They are very good at diplomacy by the Turkish Foreign Ministry, and they know how to take advantage of the interests of countries important to Turkey. They are well aware that their country’s proximity to Russia and Iran puts it in a position that is considered a necessary buffer for NATO. And they know that by playing this card they can reap the benefits of both their NATO partners and their adversaries Russia and Iran. So, one way or another, they make demands that, no matter how absurd they may be, are accepted.

Here, one can distinguish the main difference in “mentality” with Greece: it is not just that it obviously has a more favorable geostrategic position that facilitates favoring its demands. Turkey has a vision and a long-term strategic plan to realize it. All its tactics, over time, are in line with this plan, oriented towards the realization of the vision of Turkey as a Regional Superpower. And as far Erdogan and the neo-Ottoman islamo-fascists are concerned, in conjunction with the restitution of the Ottoman Empire. The partial goal about Cyprus is achieved through the implementation of the Cyprus Recovery Plan established in the 1950s in cooperation with England. In juxtapostion, Greece has no vision and therefore neither a strategy to achieve it nor tactics to annul Turkish plans that harm its interests. The same or even worse, apply to Cyprus. The governments in both countries present their membership to the European Union (EU) as a defense strategy. They assume that their own problems are – consequently – European problems as well and therefore expect the EU to defend them. However, the EU members do not have common positions on foreign policy issues. This is not a United States like the USA. On the contrary, it is – despite all the fanfare about principles and human rights – a club of traders. Therefore, only if their commercial interests are affected will they react substantially against Turkey. In addition, both in Greece and in Cyprus, the Retailers Capital dominates. So, the national economy is not so national. In contrast, traders succumb to what international (or rather Western) Capital demands. In other words, the governments of Greece and Cyprus do not have their own will and policy but are almost completely dependent. The only thing that keeps them – especially the Cypriot one – from immediate and complete capitulation, is the possible popular reaction.

I base another view on the legacy of Nelson Mandela. In his autobiographical book “Long March to Freedom” – page 229 – he states:

“A freedom fighter learns the hard way that it is the oppressor who determines the nature of the struggle, and the oppressed is often left no resource but to use methods that mirror those of the oppressor. At some point, one can only fight fire with fire.”

So what are the methods of repression applied by our oppressor/conqueror, namely Turkey?

  • armed occupation
  • Violent demographic change/ethnic cleansing
  • settlers in the occupied areas
  • intrigues and hybrid warfare
  • separation of communities – isolation of Turkish Cypriots (T/C) from Greek Cypriots (G/C)
  • continuation of propaganda,
  • internally that the bloodthirsty G/C will slaughter the T/C if they live together.
  • abroad they promote the narrative that there are two separate parts in Cyprus, the Turkish North and the Greek South.
  • masterful exploitation of its geostrategic position in order to achieve consolation instead of punishment for its illegal actions.

How are the above methods dealt with? The actions that our government should be, but is not, doing. Given that our vision is the liberation and restoration of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus (RoC) throughout its territory in the first stage and the subsequent settlement of the so-called internal aspect, i.e. how to deal with our cohabiting element, the Turkish Community as defined by the 1960 Constitution.

  • the reaction to occupation is not capitulation and acceptance of the fait accompli of the invasion by military force, but LIBERATION. Liberation in all its broader nuances, this must be our vision, the vision of the entire Cypriot people, that is, of both Communities as defined by the Constitution.
    To those who assume that this implies war, I answer: It would be suicidal if we declared a war of liberation against Turkey at this moment. We do not have such a cabability. At the same time, however, I note that we must a priori rule out that we must strengthen our containment and deterrent potential. On the contrary, we must be prepared for any eventuality. The necessary conditions must be set and plans A, B and even more contingencies should be drawn up. Being prepared means as much fighting manpower with the appropriate military deterrent equipment as developing a culture of resistance and a willingness to struggle for the attainment of the vision. Freedom is not granted, it is won!
    Struggle means vigilance and readiness, active assertion of our rights. Unity aimed at the vision of liberation is essential.
  • the country’s demography will be restored after getting rid of the Turkish military presence. Many juxtapose the argument that most refugees are already dead. The issue is that every citizen should have the right to settle and work in any part of the territory of RoC. Especially the descendants of the displaced, both the G/C and the T/C, should have the desire to live and work in their ancestral homes. Somewhere here the problem of urbanism should be dealt with properly.
    It holds without saying, that the settlers and their descendants ought to return to Turkey at its own responsibility and, of course, at its own expense.
    Trust between separated Communities will only be restored when they live together in the same towns and villages, in the same neighborhoods. As neighbors in the same country, under the same government, and not as citizens of two separate states (zones, states, constituent parts, etc).
  • combating Turkey’s mass supply of all kinds of refugees, will be dealt with if the rest of Europe accepts or is forced to do so two things
  • each country to accept a number of immigrants/refugees proportional to its population
  • to stop providing funds to Turkey for the supposed holding and care of refugees in its territory

Here I also note Chomsky’s saying: if you want to get rid of terrorism, stop participating in it!

  • we deal with (English) Turkish propaganda with our own systematic propaganda or better enlightenment, both internally and externally. An appropriate specialized service should be set up for this purpose, perhaps under the PIO or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
  • Cyprus also holds an enviable geostrategic position. That is why England is willing to keep its bases here with claws and teeth. Let us not forget that it created the Cyprus Issue; with her tactics of “divide and rule” it succeeded in having the confrontation between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus; its aim being that of maintaining control of the Southeastern Mediterranean. Something it seems to be willing to share with Turkey – in the context of NATO solidarity perhaps. And this we must “throw in the face” of both the Greek government and the rest of our partners in the EU. To demand our rights and not to expect the voluntary support of our partners. In addition, this means that the issue of Britain’s withdrawal from its military bases in Cyprus must be raised, urgently and strongly. To turn our geostrategic advantage into a weapon for our interests. Somewhere here, of course, our recent energy upgrade with the possibility of exploiting submarine hydrocarbons in our EEZ is to be considered.
    Finally, in addition to the tripartite and/or quadrilateral – essentially trade – alliances with neighboring countries, we must examine and substantiate our relationship with the Kurdish Liberation Movement. We must become the foremost defenders and propagandists of the rights of the Kurdish people.

For all the above, the point is that the establishment of a broad anti-occupation front is imperative. Beyond political parties. Both the government and the parties are discredited in the eyes of the people. We need a unifying body that includes organizations and individuals who agree on the vision of liberation and popular participation. With relevant details and suggestions I will return with a second relevant article.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Back to top button