Cyprus-Forum.com

Agios Amvrosios wrote:Turkish and Greek Cypriots would both enjoy greater security with Cypriot NATO Membership. Nato Membership would go some way at least to prevent both Greece and Turkey invading Cyprus. I don't think that the commies of either side would favour NATO membership though .

Why not?

2fan wrote:

Agios Amvrosios wrote:Turkish and Greek Cypriots would both enjoy greater security with Cypriot NATO Membership. Nato Membership would go some way at least to prevent both Greece and Turkey invading Cyprus. I don't think that the commies of either side would favour NATO membership though .

Why not?

Read any AKEL manifesto or political resolution and you'll see why. Greek Cypriots generally do not trust NATO as an impartial actor.

cannedmoose wrote:

2fan wrote:

Agios Amvrosios wrote:Turkish and Greek Cypriots would both enjoy greater security with Cypriot NATO Membership. Nato Membership would go some way at least to prevent both Greece and Turkey invading Cyprus. I don't think that the commies of either side would favour NATO membership though .

Why not?

Read any AKEL manifesto and you'll see why.

Mr. Cannedmoose, you seem to understand very little about the art of Foreign Policy. NATO itself was an institution engineered to combat the Warsaw Pact, it was always an American dominated Institution because this was a necessary pre-requisite Western European Nations accepted for Nuclear protection of their lands, that was until, France gained influence by developing an ICBM based detterent of their own. However, NATO as it stands is a danger to World peace, it has no other function than to exact the wishes of the United States, as witnessed in Kosovo, and elsewhere. As an useful vehcile for American Foreign Policy, NATO at least has the advantage of being pretty much under US domination (as mentioned). Within NATO there are differences of opinion, so when there was a question in September 1998 of sending unarmed NATO monitors into Kosovo, every NATO country (with the possible exception of Britain) wanted the operation authorized by the UN Security Council as is required by treaty obligation. But the US flatly refused. It would not allow the use of the word "authorize." It insisted that the UN has no right to authorize any US action, to disastrous effects later, as we have seen. When the issue moved on to negotiations and the use of force, the US and it's bully boy (the fashionable word is 'Lieutenant') Britain, typically the two warrior states, were eager to use force and abandon negotiations. In fact, continental European diplomats were telling the press that they were annoyed by the saber-rattling mentality of Washington. So NATO as a whole was driven to the use of force, in part, reluctantly. In fact the reluctance increases as you get closer to the region. So England and US are quite enthusiastic, others quite reluctant, and some in between. Further US engineering was witnessed at Rambouillet, in which the media took it upon themselves to further kick up the march for war, What went mostly unreported was that the Rambouillet accord had a secret Annex B, which Madeleine Albright's delegation had inserted on the last day. This demanded the military occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia, a country with bitter memories of the Nazi occupation. As the Foreign Office minister Lord Gilbert later conceded to a Commons defence select committee, Annex B was planted deliberately to provoke rejection.

As it stands, it should be disbanded and some new form of Regional Rapid Reaction Force should be formed instead, An EDF for example seems like an attractive proposal, however, I think we first have to give thought on how to eject Britain for The European Community as it has so clearly shown itself to be working in the interests of the State Department and not Brussels.

Quite how you can make such an assumption of my knowledge of foreign policy is startling from my simple one line reply to 2fan. Au contraire, I believe that having studied international relations at both Bachelors and Masters level I have a pretty solid understanding of both foreign policy and the contemporary role of NATO.

You also seem to have made the assumption that I am a great supporter of NATO as an institution, where you would be wrong again. Rather I support the evolution of a ESDP, which would shift Europe's current reliance on the US defence structures and co-ordinate European responses to crises and also integrate European national defence structures in areas such as logistics where we are generally woeful. Finally, I'd advise that you don't attempt to portray yourself as an expert so forcefully, your knowledge alone will provide you with that label, you don't need to try and belittle others to achieve it, that demonstrates desperation rather than expertise my friend.

As for your suggestion that the UK be ejected from the EU. The whole concept of European defence cooperation is founded on the Anglo-French defence agreement of 1998. Without the inclusion of British defence capabilities, the EU has little ability for forward projection and even less ability for sustained operations outside the EU's territory. I agree with you that the relationship between the MOD and the US Department of Defense is too close, but that's not something that will change anytime soon. Expelling the UK isn't the answer, the answer is further integration of the UK into ESDP and the gradual sidelining of NATO, the existence of which depends to a certain extent on US perceptions of its usefulness. If the US is unable to direct ESDP, I'm sure they'll eventually tire of leadership in NATO and pursue instead a more bilateral relationship between their defence structures and those of the EU.

cannedmoose wrote:Quite how you can make such an assumption of my knowledge of foreign policy is startling from my simple one line reply to 2fan. Au contraire, I believe that having studied international relations at both Bachelors and Masters level I have a pretty solid understanding of both foreign policy and the contemporary role of NATO.

Your qualifications mean little to me, seeing as how I am going to The London School of Economics to study Politics, Economics and International Relations, and follow it up with a Masters in European Politics I could easily trumpet the same meaningless drivel concerning such institutionalized courses. It's a common joke among those who understand such systems, particularly International Relations, because the way International Relations are taught at Universities is basically that The West goes around with a sort of 'bumbling benevolence' and makes a few mistakes once in a while, for example, The PR exercise in Somalia, or Vietnam, which is an interesting one because Vietnam is often referred to in such courses as a 'mistake' in much the same way one could consider the Holocaust a 'mistake', alluding to this belief that is simply 'Good intentions gone awry' - Of course, anyone with even a basic understanding of the conflict would understand that the deaths of around 3 Million Civilians (and that's a conservative estimate by the way) across the whole of Indochina due to US action is not a 'mistake', it is 'mass murder'. And it's also commonly assumed on Political Courses that Vietnam was a failure for the US, far from it, as described below in American Power and New Mandarins, which explains the basic objectives of the US:

"After the Vietnam war was ended in 1975, the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing.

When the Mennonites tried to send pencils to Cambodia, the State Department tried to stop them. When Oxfam tried to send ten solar pumps, the reaction was the same. The same was true when religious groups tried to send shovels to Laos to dig up some of the unexploded shells left by American bombing.

When India tried to send 100 water buffalo to Vietnam to replace the huge herds that were destroyed by the American attacks-and remember, in this primitive country, water buffalo mean fertilizer, tractors, survival-the United States threatened to cancel Food for Peace aid. (That's one Orwell would have appreciated.) No degree of cruelty is too great for Washington sadists. The educated classes know enough to look the other way.

In order to bleed Vietnam, we've supported the Khmer Rouge indirectly through our allies, China and Thailand. The Cambodians have to pay with their blood so we can make sure there isn't any recovery in Vietnam. The Vietnamese have to be punished for having resisted US violence.

Contrary to what virtually everyone-left or right-says, the United States achieved its major objectives in Indochina. Vietnam was demolished. There's no danger that successful development there will provide a model for other nations in the region.

Of course, it wasn't a total victory for the US. Our larger goal was to reincorporate Indochina into the US-dominated global system, and that has not yet been achieved.

But our basic goal-the crucial one, the one that really counted-was to destroy the virus, and we did achieve that. Vietnam is a basket case, and the US is doing what it can to keep it that way. In October 1991, the US once again overrode the strenuous objections of its allies in Europe and Japan, and renewed the embargo and sanctions against Vietnam. The Third World must learn that no one dare raise their head. The global enforcer will persecute them relentlessly if they commit this unspeakable crime."

And Vietnam is just one example, it's also important to note that The Majority of Americans (63% - Gallup) believe that only 100,000 Vietnamese Civilians died in The American War over there, approximately 1/20th of the most Conservative Estimate (The Pentagon's own estimate funnily enough), to give you some context, could you imagine the justified response from the International Community if a new study tomorrow revealed that most Germans thought only 300,000 Jews died in the Holocaust?

Finally, I'd advise that you don't attempt to portray yourself as an expert so forcefully, your knowledge alone will provide you with that label, you don't need to try and belittle others to achieve it, that demonstrates desperation rather than expertise my friend.

My good friend, I am neither desperate, nor I am seeking any kind of praise for my knowledge concerning Post-World War 2 American Foreign Policy. I won't deny I have studied it from a very young age, and have took the time to read books from every concievable position on a broad spectrum, but I do not need the praise of others, if it comes, it is a nice thing, that I won't deny, but I do not actively seek it.

I agree that university courses don't teach you much. However, for a time I also worked in Brussels, so I think I also wear a practitioners cap as well. Merely regurgitating Noam Chomsky's opinions doesn't lend you credence, it simply demonstrates your adherence to his philosophy of international relations, a philosophy that is highly questionable and the subject of much debate as you shall find out when you begin your higher education, the aim of which is to widen your horizons beyond a prescribed model.

Anyway, since this is totally off-topic, this thread should really return to the topic at hand, which is the security structures required post-settlement.

This is a precis of my suggestion, based upon an earlier model. I'm too jet-lagged to flesh this out right now, but will do so at a later date:

1. Removal of the Treaty of Guarantee, replaced by full integration of Cyprus AND Turkey into European Security and Defence Policy.

2. Transfer of formal sovereignty over the British SBAs and other military areas to the Cypriot state. Replaced by a renewable 50-year lease on the territories, renewable only with the agreement of the Cypriot state.

3. Removal of all Greek and Turkish troops from the island.

4. Insertion of an interim multinational peace-keeping force under EU control for a period of 3 years, renewable on a 6-monthly basis if required after this period (similar to that which currently operates in Bosnia-Herzegovina). This force would include several hundred military trainers tasked with the creation and development of a joint Cypriot armed forces.

5. Disbanding of the GC national guard and TC militia forces. Surplus equipment will either be sold on the international market (ethical factors considering). Any heavy equipment such as obsolete tanks, APCs etc. will be environmentally screened before being dumped into a location in the sea off the coast to establish a man-made reef.

6. Creation of a 4,000 strength voluntary (i.e. professional) armed forces with no division on either ethnic or gender basis (yes, if women wish to join the army, they should have the right to do so). This force should have no quotas and members of either ethnic community should be free to move through the ranks according to his/her ability, meaning that a TC could ultimately command the force. In the interim, the commander of the force should be the commander of the European Peace-keeping force, with which the Cypriot forces should work alongside and gradually enmesh their activities to allow the European force to be scaled down and ultimately leave. The Cypriot armed forces will be tasked with defence of the island until such time as ESDP can be invoked and support arrives.

7. Given Cyprus' size, any weapons which could be deemed to project power beyond Cyprus' borders - such as medium range ground-ground missile systems would be proscribed.

8. Cyprus' responsibilities in monitoring illegal immigration from the south-eastern flank of the EU would be a paramount task for this force. The currently Greek airbase near Paphos should therefore be converted to a coastal command station, with forces stationed there equipped with medium-range coastal patrol aircraft.

9. In addition to a unified armed forces, a joint 2,000 strength gendarmerie should also be created. Similar to gendarmerie forces in France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands, this would constitute a civil defence force tasked with the maintenance of civil order, as well as acting as a second line of internal defence. In coordination with the national police forces (in a federal solution, I envisage separate TC and GC police forces within an overall structure - much as the English police force is regionalised but works essentially as one force), the gendarmerie would be responsible for maintaining peace amongst the peoples of the Constituent States, investigation of acts of terrorism, drugs smuggling, espionage etc. These units would become part of the international organisation of gendarmerie forces and would be initially trained and led by forces from other European gendarm groups, with command ultimately being handed over once the force is fully operational.

That's the bare bones of my security plan. Off to bed now because I'm knackered!

cannedmoose wrote:I agree that university courses don't teach you much. However, for a time I also worked in Brussels, so I think I also wear a practitioners cap as well. Merely regurgitating Noam Chomsky's opinions doesn't lend you credence, it simply demonstrates your adherence to his philosophy of international relations, a philosophy that is highly questionable and the subject of much debate as you shall find out when you begin your higher education, the aim of which is to widen your horizons beyond a prescribed model.

You claim that higher education will somehow widen the spectrum of debate in which I operate, firstly, I would prefer it if you didn't take such a patronising tone with me, as stated before, it is of no consquence to me that I am young, or that I have yet to get a BSc or MSc. As it stands, I have these opinions precisely because I decided to read from a neutral standpoint (or as neutral as one can get) when I was much younger, from all possible political persuasions, ergo I have read everything from Strauss and Friedman to Chomsky and Zinn - About as wide a spectrum of debate (New left to Neo-Liberal) as one is going to get. I am also well aware of the criticism surrounding Professor Chomsky, however, since most of this is either ad-hominem or simple character assasination (with the notable exception of the Faurission Affair which I believe was an admirable act on Chomsky's behalf), I have no reason to subscribe to any of these beliefs, as I have yet to anyone, David Horowitz and Alan Dershowitz included, present any kind of an effective rebuttal of the facts Chomsky presents concerning American Foreign Policy. As I have stated, it is not a 'Conspiracy Theory', it is simple fact, History has shown that Corporations as Institutions want to advance their own interest with little or no regard for any kind of Social Conscience, the idea of profit, or Corporate influence over Government isn't anything new, as Adam Smith noted in the Wealth of Nations, "Government is the shadow cast by Business."

Regarding my main area of expertise, Nicaraguan History since 1920, I think that Chomsky's own research and work regarding this issue is excellent, the policy of the US towards this area, frequently regarded as the backdoor of it's Empire, proves his point time and time again - As do the current issues in Venezuela and Columbia. I have little or no time for those who frequently scoff of a 'Sandinista Genocide', or somesuch, when concerning the issue of The Miskito Indians it is true Sandinista forces engaged some of these indigenous peoples on the coast, and the subsequent UN report confirmed 33 Innocents were killed and buried in a mass grave, yet compared with the disgusting US Human Rights abuses through their mercenaries, the Contras, it pales in comparison (The Contras having killed upwards of 100,000 innocent people). And the rest of Latin America is pretty much the same too, The democratically elected Arbenz Government was overthrown by the CIA in the 50's by the Dulles brothers because it was threatening the interests of United Fruit, The same pattern follows elsewhere in the region as well, consistent attempts to overthrow Hugo Chavez in Venezuela for example, democratically elected by 3 landslide victories, The support for the Columbian Government with the 2nd largest amount Military Aid (A Government with the worst Human Rights record in the Western Hemisphere), The support for the brutal death squads of the dictatorship of El-Salvador, a particurlarly gruesome story follows below:

"The results of Salvadoran military training are graphically described in the Jesuit journal America by Daniel Santiago, a Catholic priest working in El Salvador. He tells of a peasant woman who returned home one day to find her three children, her mother and her sister sitting around a table, each with its own decapitated head placed carefully on the table in front of the body, the hands arranged on top "as if each body was stroking its own head."

The assassins, from the Salvadoran National Guard, had found it hard to keep the head of an 18-month-old baby in place, so they nailed the hands onto it. A large plastic bowl filled with blood was tastefully displayed in the center of the table.

According to Rev. Santiago, macabre scenes of this kind aren't uncommon. People are not just killed by death squads in El Salvador-they are decapitated and then their heads are placed on pikes and used to dot the landscape. Men are not just disemboweled by the Salvadoran Treasury Police; their severed genitalia are stuffed into their mouths. Salvadoran women are not just raped by the National Guard; their wombs are cut from their bodies and used to cover their faces. It is not enough to kill children; they are dragged over barbed wire until the flesh falls from their bones, while parents are forced to watch."

Consistent Interference in Panama also follows. And this pattern isn't confined to Latin America, I bring it up only because it's the area I have studied in most detail, no, it follows in every other outpost of the American Empire, from Indonesia to Indochina. Those who justify such acts are not just wrong, they are despicable human beings.

With regards to Chomsky and Hermann's Propaganda Model, it has so far stood the test, and proved it's "Filter System" theory to be quite correct on a number of issues, as documented in 'Manufacturing Consent'. I have every reason to doubt Professor Chomsky's works, thats why I take it upon myself to read his voluminous amounts of footnotes and sources, as of yet, as I stated, nobody has been able to mount an effective rebuttal, if you would like to make the case for an Altruistic America, I would like to hear it.

As interesting as this is my friend, it's not 'on topic' I'm afraid, so I won't respond in kind. I was not attempting to be patronising, I was simply responding in a similar manner to which you replied to my first post re: AKEL. Your assumptions about my positioning on US hegemony also seem to be highly erroneous, if we actually had a discussion, I think you'd find that we share a similar viewpoint on this matter. You do have an interesting perspective and I'm sure your dissertations will be an interesting read.

yes i must say ive enjoyed this battle of who has studied more and what. like little children on the playground wearing graduation caps and gowns and arguing.

cannedmoose wrote:As interesting as this is my friend, it's not 'on topic' I'm afraid, so I won't respond in kind. I was not attempting to be patronising, I was simply responding in a similar manner to which you replied to my first post re: AKEL. Your assumptions about my positioning on US hegemony also seem to be highly erroneous, if we actually had a discussion, I think you'd find that we share a similar viewpoint on this matter. You do have an interesting perspective and I'm sure your dissertations will be an interesting read.

Ok, I apologize for my misunderstanding.