Cyprus-Forum.com

Alexandros Lordos wrote:And yes - I believe Cyprus has suffered enough in its history from various aggressors, to deserve a proper defense capability.

Yeah, I guess you're right.
It's just that this whole defense issue and what it goes with seems just too dangerous a turf for this island... From back then, with that ship-load of rifles, to that S-300 business...
I just find complete demilitarization with appropriate security guarantees from someone much more appealing...

Can any EU country attack any other EU country? Can any NATO ally attack another NATO ally?

Definetely no. So let's make Cyprus a NATO ally after the solution and feel the safety with including Turkey in this alliance, too. As Alexandros stated, majority of TCs wouldn't accept any security formula that Turkey is not included.

Insan, the NATO in the RoC is viewed as a corrupt organization that exists for nothing but serving US interests, while allowing them to hide behind it. Now, this may very well be true, but the average Joe in Cyprus is not about to get it through his or her head that we don't have a whole lot of options out there to choose from...

I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for your constructive comments on this so far. I'm a bit pushed for time at this hour, but I'll respond to the points made so far later on, as well as any new ones that arrive. Once again, thanks all, hopefully this will prove to be a constructive thread.

Saint Jimmy wrote:Insan, the NATO in the RoC is viewed as a corrupt organization that exists for nothing but serving US interests, while allowing them to hide behind it. Now, this may very well be true, but the average Joe in Cyprus is not about to get it through his or her head that we don't have a whole lot of options out there to choose from...

All EU countries except some of the new ones are allies of Nato. Actually, I don't see any difference between being an EU member and at the same time being a NATO ally. If NATO exists to serve US interests, then this means that all EU countries which are allies of NATO are all servants of US. We all know that it's irrelevant. I heard that DESI was a pro-NATO party in South but I have no idea about other pro-west parties. I think it's easy to convince AKEL because in the beginning they were completely against EU just like all other communist parties of EU. However they changed their stance for the sake of "national cause". This means AKEL is able to compromise on anything that would serve the "national cause". Though I'm not quite sure what's the "national cause" of GC nation.

In my opinion, it seems to me that this is the only feasible alternative that opens the doors of a genuine alliance in East mediterennean region. Otherwise neither TCs nor Turkey accepts any security formula that Turkey will not be included.

insan wrote:In my opinion, it seems to me that this is the only feasible alternative that opens the doors of a genuine alliance in East mediterennean region. Otherwise neither TCs nor Turkey accepts any security formula that Turkey will not be included.

Insan,

what would you say to a security proposal that invloves Greece, Turkey, and the European Union?

The EU would be in charge of the overall defense and security of Cyprus, and also for counter-terrorism / quelling civil unrest, Greece would have special responsibilities for the security of the GC constituent state, while Turkey would have special responsibilities for the security of the TC constituent state.

How does it sound to you?

Alexandros Lordos wrote:

insan wrote:In my opinion, it seems to me that this is the only feasible alternative that opens the doors of a genuine alliance in East mediterennean region. Otherwise neither TCs nor Turkey accepts any security formula that Turkey will not be included.

Insan,

what would you say to a security proposal that invloves Greece, Turkey, and the European Union?

The EU would be in charge of the overall defense and security of Cyprus, and also for counter-terrorism / quelling civil unrest, Greece would have special responsibilities for the security of the GC constituent state, while Turkey would have special responsibilities for the security of the TC constituent state.

How does it sound to you?

Sounds perfect, Alexandros. Every security formula which also includes Turkey in it, would be acceptable for both TCs and Turkey. However GCs still will not evade to meet with US and Turkey in an almost similar platform; Trans Atlantic Pact. So, I say you better don't resist not to be in the same alliance together with US and Turkey.

I've been thinking a bit more about the security aspect, and it seems to me now that there are various different levels of threat that should be addressed:

Level 1: Threat from acts of terrorism

Bombings, assasinations, harassment of GCs in the north or TCs in the south.

Level 2: Threat from civil unrest

Chaotic breakdown of order, taking over of villages / towns by armed militia.

Level 3: Organised assault by a constituent state and/or its mother-land.

Greek Cypriots invading the northern constituent state, or Turkey invading the southern constituent state.

Level 4: Military assault by another country.

Extensive war in the middle east and eastern mediterranean, with Cyprus being seen as a strategic location to be taken over.


How likely is each of the above types of threat? I think Level 1 threats (terrorism) are very likely, Level 2 threats (civil unrest) are only possible if the whole constitutional order begins to break down, Level 3 similarly, Level 4 doesn't depend on us.

When we devise security proposals we should be aware of all these security needs. Looking back at the Annan Plan, it is a shock to see how little attention was paid to the security aspect, just re-affirming the Treaty of Guarantee with no analysis and consideration whatsoever of the real security needs of a post-solution Cyprus.

Going back to Level 1 threats, which are the most likely and which could derail the whole process of reconciliation, thus leading to Level 2 and Level 3 threats, I think we need a security force that:

a. Will be highly trained to deal with asymmentric threats. There should be a powerful information gathering system, as well as the ability to operate in small, flexible and highly networked units.

b. Will be absolutely impartial, so as to be able to hunt down GC terrorists in the south or TC terrorists in the north. I think that, at least for this counter - terrorism part, Cypriots, Greeks and Turks are inappropriate, because they cannot be trusted to be fully impartial, so troops from other countries should be used.

c. Will have the ability to protect whole communities, if they have been targeted by terrorists (notably, GC villages in the north and TC villages in the south).

More later ...

Alexandros Lordos wrote:What would you say to a security proposal that invloves Greece, Turkey, and the European Union?

The EU would be in charge of the overall defense and security of Cyprus, and also for counter-terrorism / quelling civil unrest, Greece would have special responsibilities for the security of the GC constituent state, while Turkey would have special responsibilities for the security of the TC constituent state.

How does it sound to you?

I'm still a bit pushed for time so further suggestions on security will have to wait, but I just wanted to make a point about this Alexandros. Such a pact would still mean the involvement of both Greek and Turkish troops on the island, thus effectively maintaining the Treaty of Guarantee. I know that many in both communities would like a continued role for the 'motherlands' but I would only see that as a disaster, continuing to tie Cyprus to their apronstrings.

I also can't see the EU ever becoming involved as a security guarantor, the ESDP is a slow burner and the European Rapid Reaction Force is barely effective yet and designed for quick operations, not lengthy peace-keeping. The EU is not a traditional security organisation where members are required to come to mutual defence, its power is political and economic, not military.

My suggestion was designed to make Cyprus more autonomous in security matters, albeit with guarantees from NATO, with provisos preventing intervention without widespread agreement in the alliance. I think any security system involving Greek and Turkish troops, particularly divided into two sectors, thus preventing an integrated defence system, would be brewing up trouble for the future.

Responding to an earlier point also, I do feel that fully integrated GC and TC units is also the only way forward. This should lead to an increased level of camaraderie within the army and development of a single purpose, i.e. prevention of harm to Cyprus and its people. Any separation in the security forces will tie them only to their respective communities. As for english as the mode of communication, this occurs throughout NATO forces when operating under joint command and functions well. It prevents misunderstandings in the command structure and allows soldiers from different countries to exchange information. True, not everyone in Cyprus speaks english, but part of being trained as a member of the civil guard would involve intensive language tuition.

Anyway, I must get on, I'll return to this later.

Phileleftheros today features an article that says that Talat considers Turkish troop presence in Cyprus forever a 'must-have'...

Oh, and moose, he also said (well, according to Phileleftheros) that Christofias lied to him in Burgenstock about what he was going to support in the referendum