My first reaction?
I like it!
The best assurances against future action by Turkey would be provided, not by a further treaty, but by a demilitarised Cyprus, a continuing rapprochement with Greece and progress towards EU membership, and the presence on the ground of a properly constituted multinational force, providing real security guarantees with the backing of a United Nations Chapter VII Resolution.
In other words.....
"We are back. Cyprus will become renewed British Colony in disguise (behind the EU veil), except this time, we will take your guns away, so you don't start again, killing each other.”
However, if Turkey is serious about joining the EU, she will have to be more reasonable on this point. Turkish Cypriots are, we believe, ambivalent about the Turkish army. Although for understandable reasons they are reluctant to place their views on the record, we heard from several Turkish Cypriot sources when we visited the island that the presence of Turkish troops is not seen as an unalloyed blessing. We believe that many Turkish Cypriots would prefer to see an end to Turkey’s military presence, if appropriate security guarantees could be provided.
I see a problem here. Turkey is changing very rapidly, towards Islam and away from the EU. The Generals would choose to support the Islamists, thus retaining some of their power. With the EU, they know they would be reduced to public servants, like the rest of the NATO forces.
One of our witnesses raised the question of whether the bases as a whole should be returned to Cypriot sovereignty even before an overall settlement. Christopher Brewin acknowledged the value of the bases to the United Kingdom, but suggested that the sovereign status of the areas was an anachronism. He called for “leasehold now”. Dr Claire Palley also suggested that the efficient functioning of the SBAs could suffer “If Cyprus-UK relations become embittered—as they well may”. Our Parliamentary colleague, Andrew Dismore MP, told us that the status of the bases was becoming an issue on the island. However, when we visited, we encountered no significant pressure from Cypriots to alter the present arrangements, and it appears that the only political party in the South openly calling for such a step is the small Green Party. We were also told that changes in status can be made only with the agreement of Greece and Turkey, which we believe is unlikely to be forthcoming in isolation from progress on the broader issues. We do not, therefore, agree with those who seek an immediate change in the status of the SBAs, or indeed any change outside the context of an overall settlement.
182. We conclude that the Government’s decision to offer to transfer sovereignty over almost half of the United Kingdom’s sovereign base areas on Cyprus to the island’s two communities as part of an overall settlement was a constructive and useful gesture, with no negative consequences for the United Kingdom’s interests. We recommend that the Government be prepared to renew the offer with the same conditions as before in the event that progress towards a settlement is resumed.
The Britts are testing the waters here............(friends?)
The Turks standard arguement : "If the British need to have Bases, being so far from the British Isles, how about us?"
209. Although Turkish Cypriots receive aid from the United States, the United Kingdom and the EU, among others, the self-styled ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ has effectively been bankrolled by Turkey, which has supported the northern Cyprus economy to the tune of $3.7 billion over the past 30 years.
"Bankrolling" is an art for the few.......
• the referendums would take place in time for the result to be announced and (in the event that a favourable result was achieved) the plan to take effect before 3 October 2005.
What is with this October 3rd date again? Should there be a connection of Turkey's date with Cyprus?
It is time we move forward, that's for sure!
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:12 am
