|
Speech by Ambassador Sotos Zackheos Chairman of the European Arab Interactive Forum at the “Unresolved Conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean” Conference organized by the Research Center - Intercollege on Wednesday 23rd of May, 2007
|
|
Conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean The first basic question is the definition of the term: Eastern Mediterranean. Everybody easily understands that under this term we can narrowly include the Cyprus conflict, the Arab-Israeli Conflict, the Lebanon Crisis and we cannot ignore the sensitive struggle of the Kurdish people to secure their rights. One thing is certain though: Eastern Mediterranean and its surrounding areas is the most volatile region of the world with simmering conflicts on a par with some regions in Africa. The importance of the Eastern Mediterranean is of course due to oil and the international competition for its control and the routes of its transportation. For the purpose of the present presentation, I will limit myself to two conflicts: Cyprus and the Middle East.
The area of the Middle East and its surroundings are also in the center of the so-called War on Terror initiated by the current US administration. Despite the fact that terrorism transcends religions and geographical areas, the overemphasis by conservative circles on terror emanating from our region and Islam is not unrelated to the efforts by big powers to control and dominate this energy rich region of the world.
Basically there are two divergent approaches for the stability of the Middle East. The one propagated by the US, to a large extent accepted by the EU, places emphasis on human rights, democratization, transformation of societies and terrorism.
In the second, propagated by the Arabs, the main emphasis is placed on the termination of the injustice of the Palestinian occupation and of other Arab lands and of the Israeli violations of the rights of the Palestinian people.
The European approach towards the Middle East conflict is not homogenous and rather depends on a nation’s geographic location and other historical experiences. Usually South Europe and the Irish are more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, although the ideological orientation of specific Governments plays a significant role. Eastern Europeans, as they emerged from Communist rule, tend to support the Americans and the Germans who are very sensitive to the historical aberration of the Holocaust.
Security and social status were very important elements in the decision for the launching in 1995 of the Euromediterranean Partnership. Despite its obvious effects, the process has not focused its attention in the traditional security concept of solution of the conflicts, ie. the Cyprus problem and the Arab-Israeli conflict. The reason was obvious. Not to create tensions with Turkey or Israel.
While this approach might have been correct at the beginning of the process, as it would create momentum for strengthening other pillars of the partnership, continuing to ignore these important political problems leads to the diminishing interest and the perception of importance of the process for the ordinary citizens, especially of the South.
Recently, the concept of security has been expanded to include human security, which encompasses many of the elements propagated by the West, including the protection of the environment and confronting pandemics. I remember the eyebrows and debates when for the first time the Americans decided to include as a subject of the UN Security Council the question of AIDS. In the same vein the recent discussion at the Security Council at UK’s initiative of the question of the environmental degradation. Recently, the challenges have been the illegal migration, the integration of migrants and their rights inside the European Union. Of course all these issues, including the question of human rights are important aspects for building security. They should, in my opinion, form part of an honest broad debate between the West and the Arab world and should be linked with the just solution of the Middle East Conflict. Otherwise, the suspicion will remain with the Arabs that the West is attempting to impose their values and divide the Arab societies and destabilize their regimes.
Power Politics have a profound impact on the developments in the region. The absolute support by successive American administrations to Israel leads to a constant complaint by Arab countries. Despite the institutionalization of the Quartet as a primary body for attempting to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict, the influence of the United Nations, the European Union and Russia, has not equaled that of the Americans. It is my firm belief that without a more prominent role assumed by the EU and Russia, the prospects of a solution aren’t bright.
CYPRUS Cyprus is at the edge of this vast area. Throughout the centuries its geographical position has been both a blessing and an invitation to foreign domination. The role of Cyprus increased with the 1869 opening of the Suez Canal which marked the increased British and French power and influence in Eastern Mediterranean, replacing those of the Ottomans. The British occupation of Egypt in 1882 diminished French influence and left British control unchallenged until the Second World War. The Cold War brought the area of the Eastern Mediterranean to the attention of the Americans, who placed increased value to the strategic importance of Turkey, as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and of course for the control of petroleum resources of the Middle East. Cyprus’ membership to the European Union could have given the country a unique role for peace and stability with a potentially high influence and peace making role as well as a bridge of intercultural understanding and tolerance in the sensitive region of the Middle East. These possibilities are not being fully exploited in view of the absence of a solution to the Cyprus problem. The important role of Cyprus was demonstrated many times during the Lebanese Civil Wars in 1976 and 1982 when some segments of the Lebanese population had no other escape route than Cyprus. During the war in Lebanon last July, Cyprus was again the principal location for evacuations of foreign citizens and for the transit of humanitarian aid to the country until the Israeli naval and air blockades were lifted. Despite our own conflict and the fact that Greek-Cypriots are Orthodox while Turkish-Cypriots are Muslims, Cyprus has over the years welcomed Lebanese of all religious denominations and managed to enjoy the trust of all Lebanese people. We have also hosted informal meetings of Palestinians and Israelis, including Mayors and business people. We also hosted last year a meeting of Iraqis for deliberations for a forming of a Human Rights Council in their country. The creation of 2 states in Cyprus as advocated by the Turkish foreign policy will have a great impact on the role of Cyprus and will breed instability, since this is a solution that is not favored by the Greek-Cypriot population.
It does not also address the question of property rights of Greek Cypriots in the occupied part. The imposition of partition of the island will perpetuate insecurity and instability, will affect the Greco-Turkish relationship as well as the prospects for Turkish accession or deepening links with the European Union.
In the Cypriot situation the main element of the cause of the problem is foreign interference and more particularly the Turkish designs, for control of the Eastern Mediterranean, which led to the invasion and the continuing occupation of 1/3 of Cypriot territory and the turning of a significant segment of the Greek-Cypriot population as refugees in their own country. Of course, foreign interests played a significant role in fomenting the extreme nationalistic feelings and tension among members of both communities who lived intermingled throughout the island for a long period.
The British interests in Cyprus and most particularly their desire to maintain the British bases on the island should also be mentioned. The strategic importance of the British bases has gone, over the years, depending on the state of power politics of big powers through different phases. Nowadays when the United States has become the dominant power in the region, the British, in the framework of their special relationship with the Americans, are practically rendering services to the US for surveillance and flights in the region. It is for this reason that the UK tries through different approaches to ensure that the question of the withdrawal of the bases, a colonial leftover, will not be seriously raised.
The failure of the Kofi Annan efforts which led to the rejection by the overwhelming majority by Greek-Cypriots of the plan were due to many factors and primarily to the importance attached by Britain and the USA to Turkey. It is no secret that Cyprus was one of the concessions that the US were offering for enlisting Turkey’s support for facilitating their war against Iraq. There was also lack of negotiating skills by the UN. The mediator Mr. Alvaro De Soto failed to understand the complexities of the international and local political environment: his listening throughout the process only to the British and the Americans with the simultaneous neglect of the views of Russia, China and France were major mistakes. As a result, the above three countries did not allow the endorsement of the UN Secretary General’s report by the Security Council, simply taking note of it, something unprecedented in the history of the United Nations. Another aspect of the inefficiency of De Soto’s strategy was his inability to try to work out a balanced settlement, meeting the interests of the two communities in Cyprus. He did not understand the political process of the Greek-Cypriot politics: Kofi Annan 5 offered to President Papadopoulos significantly worse provisions in many aspects from Annan 3 offered to President Clerides. Before even the preparation of Kofi Annan I, the UN failed to take into account the warning of the Greek Cypriot side not to proceed if they felt that there was no prospect for a fair solution. The view of our side was expressed at a confidential breakfast at my residence in New York between Foreign Minister Kasoulides and the UN Undersecretary General Mr. Kieran Prendergast.
The Kofi Annan plan was presented hastily before Cyprus was to enter the EU. International actors realized that the accession of Cyprus to the European Union could not be delayed since in Greece no Government was willing or could afford politically to allow enlargement with 9 other countries and leave Cyprus out.
It is for this reason that I doubted an effective UN role in the Middle East due to the fact that Mr. De Soto even after his failure to produce a solution to the Cyprus problem was appointed as the Special Envoy for the Middle East situation.
It is an undisputed fact that the acceptance by the Greek-Cypriot side of the mediation effort of the UN Secretary General has been a major mistake. I know that many pressures were exerted on the leadership to accept mediation but the fact remains that we failed to understand what was at stake for major powers and Turkey from the accession of Cyprus in the EU without a prior solution to the Cyprus problem. As to the future, unfortunately, the stalemate will continue. Following the rejection by the overwhelming majority of Greek-Cypriots of the Kofi Annan plan 5 which failed to address legitimate concerns of the Greek-Cypriots, accepting all the red lines of the Turkish side in Burgenstock given by Mr. Ziyal, the only new effort has been the agreement which was worked out by the two leaders and the UN Under Secretary General of Political Affairs, Mr. Gambari on 8th July, 2006. Despite the fact that almost a year has elapsed, no technical committee or group of experts have met to prepare the way for a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Ankara does not seem willing to lose the advantages they got through Kofi Annan Plan 5. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Talat have also indicated that they do not want to help President Papadolpoulos’ chances for reelection by engaging in this effort. Definitely, they do not want to stop the exploitation of Greek-Cypriot properties in the occupied part of Cyprus, a main source of foreign currency. Moreover, the continuing power struggle in Turkey between the Kemalists and the Islamists of Mr. Erdogan, as exemplified by their recent open controversy for the election of the new Turkish President, does not augur well for a change of attitude in Turkey which will encourage solution to the Cyprus problem. I have to point out however, that the takeover of power by the Islamists in Turkey did not lead to a marked improvement in Greco-Turkish relations except in the atmospherics or to a solution to the Cyprus problem.
Another factor of pessimism is the fact that Turkey is not even satisfied with the 3 year suspension of the discussions inside the European Union of its obligations towards Cyprus which they managed to secure by the decision of the European Council on 11th December, 2006. This decision in essence sent the review of the issues touched by the Protocol and the normalization of Turkey’s relations with Cyprus to 2009 and beyond. In the meantime, Turkey continues with the faits accomplis by trying to upgrade the regime through the establishment of trade offices in other countries, including the Gulf countries, and by insisting on direct trade through the Port of Famagusta and the airport at Tymbou. It is a fact that Turkey has recently managed to exploit in the best way possible its strategic position and improved its overall relationship, including with the organization of the Islamic countries, whose Secretary General, Mr. Ihsanoglu is a Turkish national. Relationship with the Arab League has also been improved. Mr. Gul participated in the last Ministerial meeting of the Arab League. Mr. Erdogan subsequently attended the Arab League Summit. Turkey has been extremely active in projecting a mediating role in the region. It was a big success for Turkey to be a mediator between the European Union and Iran, hosting Mr. Solana and Mr. Larijani, the Iranian nuclear weapons negotiator in Ankara in the presence of Mr. Gul. The relations with Russia, especially in the economic field have also improved markedly.
Turkey is also trying to persuade its strong allies to keep the European Union outside the solution of the Cyprus problem, keeping it instead exclusively under the United Nations, knowing very well that the UN is not an effective organization in peace making. Moreover, we have to evaluate the election of Mr. Sarkozy, as the new President of France and the course that the French-German axis will follow on the European perspective of Turkey. Both Greece and Cyprus officially continue on the same line supporting the full accession of Turkey to the EU. We have to start thinking, however, about the possibility of an eventual “special privileged relationship” between Turkey – EU, and its impact on the Cyprus settlement.
It is obvious that we are in need of a solution to the Cyprus problem, of continuous efforts at rapprochement between the two communities. Time is not working in favor of a solution because it solidifies the de facto division and the faits accomplis.
We need to stay vigilant on bizonal bicommunal federation. The greatest danger that I see is that continued passage of time will make ideas of loose confederation more attractive to the outside world and even to Greek-Cypriots. The recent reactions concerning the election of Mr. Gul have exposed the division of Turkish society and proved the great difficulty if not impossibility for Turkey to fulfill the Copenhagen criteria, which provide for stable democratic institutions. I doubt that the Turkish Government will dare to stand up to the secular forces and the army to proceed with the needed change of heart to allow a just and acceptable solution. Under the circumstances, there are legitimate fears that a solution to the Cyprus problem is deferred to the time of Turkey’s accession if this was ever to happen. In the meantime, faits accomplis will be accelerated as demonstrated by the recent public pronouncements by Talat that Morphou will be opened for construction and development.
Speaking about the questions of security involved in the Cyprus Problem, my memory brings me back to the hasty attempt by the Americans to offer a resolution of the Security Council on security a few days week before the Referendum on Kofi Annan 5. The fact that the Greek Cypriots feel the need for strong security provisions in the Cyprus settlement, shows that the Cyprus problem is not an intercommunal problem since usually it is the weak community that feels the imperative need for strong security elements in any agreement. Moreover, the successive proposals by all Cypriot Governments for the demilitarization of the island is a sign of friendly feelings for the Turkish Cypriot community.
Many analysts doubt whether Turkey will be content with a solution that will simply prevent the strategic control of Cyprus or part of it by Greece. Turkey’s reaction to the decision of the Cyprus Government to proceed with international tenders for the exploitation of possible oil or gas deposits in the exclusive economic zone of Cyprus, adjacent to Egypt, manifests its desire to have a say, to say the least, additionally for the southern part of Cyprus, which in a bizonal bicommunal federation solution of Cyprus, will constitute the Greek-Cypriot constituent state.
Middle East There are many similarities between the Cyprus problem and the Middle East Conflict. Many of their aspects have the same legal basis in international law. I refer in particular to the question of the settlers, refugees and their right of return and property reinstatement as well as the need for implementation of UN General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions. I am afraid that the stalemate on the Middle East peace process will also continue. Despite the recent reengagement of the Bush administration through the visits of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, the fact remains that we are 18 months before the elections in the US. A weakened Administration, which focuses primarily on the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, will not be able or even willing to spend the needed political capital for a sustained effort on the Middle East peace process. Furthermore, the internal problems faced by the Israeli government, following the disastrous development of its invasion of Lebanon last summer and the publication of the report of the panel of experts appointed to review the conduct of the war, have rendered the Prime Minister, Mr. Olmert, completely powerless, with his political future and survival uncertain. The Israelis always easily use the phrase “we need a partner for peace”. Unfortunately, they did not help Arafat in his final years as well as his successor Mr. Abbas. Now with the vacuum brought about following the disaster defeat of the Israeli plans to suppress the Hezbollah in South Lebanon last summer, one wonders whether there is the political will and leadership to seek peace. This is even more disappointing in view of the fact that we had recently two major positive developments on the Arab side. I speak here about the formation of the Palestinian National unity government which includes members of Hamas, Fatah and independents, and the reiteration by the Arab League at its session on the 19th April, 2007, in Riyadh of Saudi Arabia of support to the Arab initiative, which promises recognition of Israel if they withdraw from the Arab territories and find a solution for the Middle East conflict.
The fact remains that there is a lot of political posturing from both sides. The declaration by Prime Minister Olmert that if Saudi Arabia will convene a conference of moderate Arab leaders, Israel and President Abbas, he will be willing to participate, has been interpreted by the Arab counties as a tactic to gain acceptance and recognition without first fulfilling its international obligations and ending the occupation of Arab lands. Under the circumstances, the question remains of how to deal with the continuing economic suffering and the plight of the Palestinian people in the face of the continuing embargo of direct economic aid to the Palestinian government. While we should insist that the Palestinians will seize launching rockets against Israeli targets and they should release the Israeli soldier, at the same time, Israel should cease its continuous expansion of Jewish settlements around Jerusalem and free Palestinian prisoners. Israel’s alterations of the status quo, hinder the possibility of resuming meaningful negotiations. As I said earlier, the Quartet’s efforts and the Roadmap have failed so far to deliver positive results. We should therefore take bold measures and change the problematic parts of the Roadmap such as the issue of imposing many conditions before the peace process moves to the next stage. At the same time, I believe the deployment in Gaza of an international peace monitoring force would positively contribute to the peace process by guaranteeing the security of Israel and at the same time stopping the Israeli extrajudicial killings of Palestinians. The international community and Europe in particular should find a way to provide money to the Palestinian government under, of course, solid guarantees of full transparency and accountability. I would like in this respect to mention the fact that the Cyprus government, through an agreement that I personally signed last year, provided 250,000 US Dollars through the World Food Program for feeding needy Palestinian children. This year, Cyprus has allocated the sum of 500,000 dollars for the same purpose in the framework of our strategy for development assistance, which includes the Palestinian territories as one for our five priority countries. Research & Development Center - Intercollege Copyright © 2007. All rights reserved |