Category: Cyprus/TRNC

  • EU Urges Turkey to Normalize Relations With Cyprus

    EU Urges Turkey to Normalize Relations With Cyprus

    In its annual progress report on countries aspiring to join the bloc, the European Union chided Ankara for failing – for another year – to normalize relations with E.U. member Cyprus.

    afp eu turkey 480 10nov10

    The European Union said Turkey must normalize relations with Cyprus if it is to realize its ambition to join the powerful bloc. Turkey still refuses to open ports and airports to Greek Cypriot air and sea traffic, or officially recognize the Republic of Cyprus.

    E.U. Enlargement Commissioner Stefan Füle made his comments as he presented the first E.U. enlargement package of the current commission.

    “Turkey has continued its particular reform process in particular the reform of its constitution,” said Füle. “But no one can be satisfied with the current pace of negotiations and let me quote, ‘it is now urgent that Turkey fulfills its obligation of full non-discriminatory implementation of the additional protocol to the association agreement an makes progress toward normalization of bilateral relations with the Republic of Cyprus’.”

    In a related development, Britain’s former foreign minister this week has caused outrage in the Greek Cypriot sector of Cyprus after suggesting partition of the island should be considered.

    Jack Straw said that if Greek and Turkish leaders in Cyprus can not sort out their differences next week at U.N. talks in New York, then Britain should consider the partition of Cyprus.

    Straw also accused Greek Cypriot Cyprus of using stall tactics in Turkey’s accession talks.

    “Greek Cypriot Cyprus is using what is a relatively tiny dispute, so far as numbers are concerned – though crucial in the terms of human beings – to try and stop Turkey coming into the European Union,” said Straw. “And Turkey is being much more harshly treated in these negotiations than, for example, its neighbors Bulgaria and Romania ever were.”

    Straw’s remarks came as Turkish and Greek Cypriot leaders, Dervis Eroglu and Dimitris Christofias, met for the latest round of reunification talks.  In response to Straw’s comments, Cyprus warned Britain that its two military bases on the island would be abolished if the country supports and brings about a permanent partition of its former colony.

    Cyprus was split in a 1974 Turkish invasion triggered by a Greek-inspired coup. Turkish Cypriots live in its north and Greek Cypriots in the south. Numerous attempts to reunite Cyprus have failed.

    via VOA | EU Urges Turkey to Normalize Relations With Cyprus | Europe | English.

  • No ifs or buts, Turkey must be part of the EU

    No ifs or buts, Turkey must be part of the EU

    Cyprus is just an excuse for those who cannot stomach the accession of a Muslim country

    Jack Straw

    Gul and Straw
    Photo: NATO

    The most important strategic decision facing the EU is its future relationship with Turkey. The UK’s position has long been clear and bipartisan — full Turkish membership of the EU as soon as possible. David Cameron told the Commons in June that “we should back \[Turkey’s membership\] wholeheartedly”. Britain’s unambiguous support for Turkey will be underscored by the visit of Abdullah Gül, its President, this week, with the award to him tomorrow by the Queen of the Chatham House Prize.

    Forty-six years after Turkey first signalled its wish to join the EU, there was some hope in 2005 that rapid progress towards this goal might be achieved. Following tortuous negotiations under the UK Presidency all 27 members of the EU agreed on 3 October 2005 actively to start accession negotiations with Turkey .

    But the wheels have come off, with potentially disastrous consequences. In the summer, in light of Turkey’s refusal to back tougher sanctions on Iran , Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, claimed that Turkey may have been “pushed by some in Europe” towards Iran. This “pushing away” has not followed from any conscious rethinking of the 2005 decision to embrace Turkey, but principally because Europe’s strategic future with Turkey (population 74 million) is now hostage to negotiations over Cyprus. (Greek Cypriot population 0.75 million, Turkish Cypriot 0.25 million).

    Cyprus is an internationally recognised sovereign state. However, the writ of the Government of Cyprus extends only to the south of the island, ever since the Turkish Army’s occupation of the predominantly Turkish Cypriot north in 1974. A UN “Green Line” runs through the middle of the capital, Nicosia, with the government of the not-so-far recognised “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (TRNC) in control in the north, with thousands of Turkish troops garrisoned there too.

    There are two stories: one of the “unjustifiable” Turkish invasion; the other of such “violent oppression” by the Greek majority of the minority that Turkish protection was (and is) vital. Both sets of stories have truths, but because Greek Cyprus was admitted to the EU before any settlement of the island’s future it is their truths which dominate EU decisions on Turkey .

    Of the 35 chapters of the draft accession treaty with Turkey, 18 (the key ones) are blocked or frozen — eight by a formal EU decision, four by France, and six by Cyprus. Although there is opposition in France to Turkish membership, the naked vulgarity of those whose real objections are that Turkey is 98 per cent Muslim would be far easier to counter without the convenient excuse that Cyprus provides.

    Each of the blocks on Turkey’s accession can be plausibly explained by reference to some failure by Turkey , or the TRNC, to meet formal undertakings in full. But there is a larger reality here, that failures by the EU or Cyprus are brushed aside. In 2004 the President of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos, signed a UN accord for a referendum on a new power-sharing constitution. He then campaigned duplicitously for a “no” vote. He was rewarded with EU membership, while solemn EU commitments to the Turkish Cypriots who kept to their side of the bargain and voted “yes” have never properly been delivered.

    Despite Turkey’s longstanding acknowledgement that because of its size, and differential wage costs, there would have to be decades-long transitional restrictions, especially on free movement of labour, it has been more toughly treated by the EU than any other applicant state.

    Take Bulgaria and Romania . They were admitted to the EU in 2007 after waiting only ten years. Their GDP per head is similar to Turkey’s. There are serious concerns, still, about corruption and inadequate judicial systems in these two countries. Yet the EU chose (and I was party to this) to apply a Nelson’s eye to some of those shortcomings in pursuit of a wider strategic goal. In other words the EU showed some practical vision now so lamentably lacking for Turkey.

    Under a succession of able Special Representatives the UN has made heroic efforts over the years to find a one-state solution for Cyprus, in accordance with the UN mandate for a “bi-zonal bi-communal federation, with political equality”. This task now falls to Alexander Downer, the former Australian Foreign Minister. He’s talented and experienced, and might pull off success.

    Next week, the Greek Cypriot President Demetris Christofias, and the TRNC President Dervis Eroglu have critical talks with the UN Secretary-General. We should pray for success. But the chances of a settlement would be greatly enhanced if the international community broke a taboo, and started publicly to recognise that if “political equality” cannot be achieved within one state, then it could with two states — north and south.

    It is time for the UK Government to consider formally the partition of Cyprus if the talks fail. This will be very controversial in the UN as well as the EU. Russia will be vehement in its opposition — as it was with Kosovo. But those who respond by inviting me to wash my mouth out with carbolic might like to say how much longer the EU and the UN can tolerate the current approach, whose only consequence so far has been to paralyse the development of relations with Turkey.

    Good reasons led me to believe that having (Greek Cypriot) Cyprus within the EU would assist the peace process. This judgment has not been borne out by events. When in 2004 Cypriot behaviour did lead us to have second thoughts, we should have faced down the explicit threat from Greece to veto all other accessions (of states such as Poland and Hungary ) unless Cyprus came in at the same time.

    We cannot turn the clock back. But we can change the terms of trade. The EU needs Turkey rather more than Turkey needs the EU.

    Jack Straw was Foreign Secretary 2001-06

    The Times, London

  • Talks are ‘last chance for solution’ on Cyprus

    Talks are ‘last chance for solution’ on Cyprus

    KKTCBy James Blitz in London, Kerin Hope in Athens and Delphine Strauss in Ankara

    Cyprus might slide towards formal partition if a make-or-break meeting of Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders at the UN this month fails to find a solution to the long-running crisis, diplomats fear.

    Three years after the UN began its latest attempt to broker a deal, Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, has taken the unprecedented step of summoning the leaders of the Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to New York in an attempt to end the deadlock.

    The talks are set for November 18. But officials in the UN and leading western governments have warned that there is a limit to how long they will back the negotiations, saying they are running out of patience with the inability of both sides to strike a deal.

    “If we don’t get agreement now . . . then it really is ‘goodnight, nurse’ ”, a leading diplomat involved in negotiations told the Financial Times.

    “There’s a chance the UN will withdraw its good offices in hosting the talks. We’re not going to stay here for ever, going through mindless meetings and meaningless talks.”

    Another senior diplomat from a European Union nation warned that the peace talks ran the risk of failing completely. “This meeting is the last chance for a solution because progress so far has been pitiful,” the diplomat said. “We’re approaching the point where it’s time to face up to the painful consequences of failure.” The Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders have held almost 90 face-to-face negotiating sessions in the drive for a settlement. Talks to create a single federal state comprising both communities appeared near success in January after years of often difficult talks. But discussions have stalled because the Greek Cypriots are demanding extra territory on the island before they agree to abandon their historic rights to property that is on the Turkish side.

    The pace of talks has also slowed since Dervis Eroglu was elected Turkish Cypriot president last April, replacing Mehmet Ali Talat.

    Critics of Demetris Christofias, the Republic of Cyprus president, said the Greek Cypriots were using filibustering tactics. “The Greek Cypriot leadership pulls back when advisers are close to agreeing,” said one person with knowledge of the talks.

    The senior EU diplomat said failure to strike a deal this year would bring a real risk that Cyprus would move to formal partition. While the Greek part of the island is an internationally recognised state and member of the EU, the TRNC is formally recognised only by Turkey. “If there is no significant progress by the end of 2010, it will have disastrous consequences and Cyprus could be permanently divided in 2011,” the diplomat said.

    “Withdrawal of the UN good offices after a failed peace process means that a non-negotiated partition becomes a real possibility and Turkey would likely push for wider recognition of the TRNC.” 

    According to the diplomat, the TRNC’s prospects of being recognised as an independent state have increased after an International Court of Justice ruling that Kosovo’s declaration of independence did not violate international law. “Partition will damage Cyprus economically, politically and culturally,” the diplomat told the FT.

    “It will also threaten broader regional instability because it will mean Turkey and Greece have to spend more militarily on preserving the formal border across the island.”

    Diplomats said the Greek Cypriots wanted all their property in the north of the island – comprising 75 per cent of total property in the TRNC – reinstated. The Turkish Cypriots want to keep the property and pay the Greek Cypriots compensation instead. “Both sides have started to come together on some aspects of the negotiation but haven’t reached sufficient convergence,” a UN official said.

    Mr Eroglu wants to reach agreement on property before moving on to other areas. The sensitivity of the issue was confirmed last week when Turkish and Turkish Cypriot politicians met to discuss how to finance any compensation for Greek Cypriot owners.

    Leaked reports of the session, attended by a Turkish bank chief executive, sparked a furore. “If things carry on as they are then it’s just negotiations for the sake of negotiations,” said a Turkish Cypriot official, adding that the New York meeting could produce simply an “X-ray photo” of the stalemate or a “prescription to break the deadlock”.

    , November 7 2010

  • Friends of Turkey Group Visits USAK House

    Friends of Turkey Group Visits USAK House

    International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) hosted a meeting with key European Parliament members concerning the recent developments and deadlocked relations between Turkey and European Union on 3rd of November 2010.

    The conference titled “Future of Turkish-EU Relations” provided a unique opportunity for the speakers and participants to discuss the problems and trajectories in Turkey-EU relations. Turkish and European experts in their fields as well as the policy makers attended to the conference. The purpose of the conference was to provide overview and possible recommendation concerning Turkey- EU relations. USAK hosted the members of “Friends of Turkey Group” namely,  Andrew Duff (President of the European Federalists, UK), Alexandra Thein (Germany), Anneli Jaateenmaki (Former Minister of Finland), Metin Kazak (Bulgaria), Marietje Schaake (Netherlands), Jelko Kacin (Former Minister of Defence of Slovenia), Diane Wallis (Vice President of European Parliament, UK), Anne Maria Corraza- Bildt (Sweden), Birgit Schnieber Jastram (Germany), Jo Leinen (Chairperson of Environment Committee,Germany), Jutta Steinruck (Germany); under the chairmanship of the Guner Özkan, the chair of Center of Eurasia Studies, and Alosz Peterle, Member of European Parliament, President of the Friends of Turkey group and former Prime Minister of Slovenia.

    The conference began with two comprehensive presentations which addressed the Turkey-EU relations by USAK experts; Mustafa Kutlay and Ceren Mutus.

    Mustafa Kutlay in his presentation, focused on three pillars of EU-Turkey Relations. Kutlay focused on the changing dynamics of Turkey’s EU journey, future of Turkey- EU Relations and the discussion about the whether Turkey drifting away from the EU.

    Regarding the dynamics of Turkey- EU Relations, Kutlay stated that “free market economy and economic development” together with “institutionalization of democracy and development of human Rights” are the two main objectives for Turkey. Furthermore he also touched upon two other pillars “stability in foreign policy in instable regions” and “modernization within the context of Westernization.” However, according to him, the last two pillars are not priorities for Turkey at the existing conjuncture.

    Ceren Mutus who is an expert on European Studies in USAK, briefly mentioned about the political reforms initiated between 2001 and 2004 and concluded her speech by shedding light on the legal and technical content of the recent constitutional package.

    She claimed that the sweeping reforms that have been undertaken by Turkey between 1999 and 2004 were mainly due to the concrete commitment made by the EU towards Turkey’s membership. Turkey, with the aim of fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and become eligible for the formal negotiations, pushed forward ambitious reform packages. In this context, death penalty was removed from the Turkish Constitution, the legal protection of socio-cultural rights of Turkish citizens irrespective of their ethnic and religious origin has been improved, the role of the military in Turkish political life has been significantly diminished, the freedom of expression has been enhanced and recently a comprehensive judicial reform promoting the well- functioning of the justice system was adopted.

    After the presentations, Alojz Peterle takes attention to the difference between the planning and preparation from implementation.  He emphasized that at the beginning of the process, there was romantic atmosphere. However Turkey’s membership is different and more difficult than the other candidate countries. Moreover he believes that, both sides done much of things such as reforms and values over the last decade. Furthermore, he marked that EU should show its interest and prove the support of Turkey’s membership during the process.

    Former Finland Prime Minister, Anneli Jaateenmaki contributed to the discussion by highlighting the fact that there is a long list of reforms, but it is difficult to implement. Even it seems good and efficient; the implementation is not strong.

    President of the European Federalists, Andrew Duff emphasized that Turkey’s military is so big and corrupted. It also failed to defeat PKK.  He also raised the questions as follows:  “Why Turkey is so tolerant to this big army and its activities.  “If Turkey’s PM and President order army forces to withdraw from Cyprus, would they obey?”

    Anna Maria pointed out her disappointment about the negative attitude toward the closed chapters which was shown by experts.  She continued attracting attention to the different perspectives of the parties. For instance, according to her some people, of course, scared about Turkey’s membership because of the recession the process of secularization and Kurdish Issue.

    USAK Expert, Prof. Ihsan Bal, respond the comments by stating that, “Turkish public mind is changing about the implementation of the reforms. Western political reforms and values will be implemented because there is a public demanding and politicians try to respond positively to these demands.  To be honest, reforms are implemented more strictly and effectively when we compare it with 10 years before.”

    He gave some interesting samples during his speech. For instance, he believes that “If military coups occur citizens will protest unlike 1980’s. Of course, some of the people want coups and military actions. We can label them as “ultra-nationalist” groups but they are a small minority group. In that respect democratic initiative towards Kurds got support and military is silent because of the huge majority support backing the project.”

    According to Kurdish issue, he argues that it is a combination of economy and security. He mentions that the terms of numbers of killed-terrorists shows the military success but it is not the solution way. Of course democratic governments use military tools in order to solve the problem, like Britain, but it is just part of the issue. In other words, governments not take the military decision solely.  They should use civil agents, such as police force and intelligence services take more roles in the region at the problem.

    He emphasized the importance of the USAK report in 2005 which triggered the reform in military institution. “Army takes some steps and become more professional. It reduces the number of compulsory service man. But reforms need time, can be effective in long term.  To be realistic the change over one night is impossible.”

    Bal take attention to Cyprus issue as well. He underlines that there is not only one way to solve the issues. Turkish military presence is not the sole reason for the problem. Both sides should make some other progress and take actions.  Moreover, Turkish Cypriots isolated and it is not fair while other side is recognized as EU member and enjoys benefits of the membership. In other words; we say “yes” to referendum but, get no benefit. Cyprus issue should take consider as package not as a chapter.

    Güner Özkan closed the conference by admitting Turkey’s active policy in the last decade.  He believes that those active policies are not aiming to replace EU, Turkey just diverse its options. He clearly pointed that; there will be no alternative to EU for Turkey. More importantly, he said the other alternatives are not comparable to the EU. In the ten year period, we hope to have more deep economic and political relations with EU.

    By Firat Güzeldag and Kasim Ileri (JTW)

    Journal of Turkish Weekly, 3 November 2010

    International Strategic Research Organization (USAK) hosted a meeting with key European Parliament members concerning the recent developments and deadlocked relations between Turkey and European Union on 3rd of November 2010. The conference titled “Future of Turkish-EU Relations” provided a unique opportunity for the speakers and participants to discuss the problems and trajectories in Turkey-EU relations. Turkish and European experts in their fields as well as the policy makers attended to the conference. The purpose of the conference was to provide overview and possible recommendation concerning Turkey- EU relations. USAK hosted the members of “Friends of Turkey Group” namely,  Andrew Duff (President of the European Federalists, UK), Alexandra Thein (Germany), Anneli Jaateenmaki (Former Minister of Finland), Metin Kazak(Bulgaria), Marietje Schaake (Netherlands), Jelko Kacin (Former Minister of Defence of Slovenia), Diane Wallis (Vice President of European Parliament, UK), Anne Maria Corraza- Bildt (Sweden), Birgit Schnieber Jastram (Germany), Jo Leinen (Chairperson of Environment Committee,Germany), Jutta Steinruck (Germany); under the chairmanship of the Guner Özkan, the chair of Center of Eurasia Studies, and Alosz Peterle, Member of European Parliament, President of the Friends of Turkey group and former Prime Minister of Slovenia.

    The conference began with two comprehensive presentations which addressed the Turkey-EU relations by USAK experts; Mustafa Kutlay and Ceren Mutus.

    Mustafa Kutlay in his presentation, focused on three pillars of EU-Turkey Relations. Kutlay focused on the changing dynamics of Turkey’s EU journey, future of Turkey- EU Relations and the discussion about the whether Turkey drifting away from the EU.

    Regarding the dynamics of Turkey- EU Relations, Kutlay stated that “free market economy and economic development” together with “institutionalization of democracy and development of human Rights” are the two main objectives for Turkey. Furthermore he also touched upon two other pillars “stability in foreign policy in instable regions” and “modernization within the context of Westernization.” However, according to him, the last two pillars are not priorities for Turkey at the existing conjuncture.

    Ceren Mutus who is an expert on European Studies in USAK, briefly mentioned about the political reforms initiated between 2001 and 2004 and concluded her speech by shedding light on the legal and technical content of the recent constitutional package.

    She claimed that the sweeping reforms that have been undertaken by Turkey between 1999 and 2004 were mainly due to the concrete commitment made by the EU towards Turkey’s membership. Turkey, with the aim of fulfilling the Copenhagen criteria and become eligible for the formal negotiations, pushed forward ambitious reform packages. In this context, death penalty was removed from the Turkish Constitution, the legal protection of socio-cultural rights of Turkish citizens irrespective of their ethnic and religious origin has been improved, the role of the military in Turkish political life has been significantly diminished, the freedom of expression has been enhanced and recently a comprehensive judicial reform promoting the well- functioning of the justice system was adopted.

    After the presentations, Alojz Peterle takes attention to the difference between the planning and preparation from implementation.  He emphasized that at the beginning of the process, there was romantic atmosphere. However Turkey’s membership is different and more difficult than the other candidate countries. Moreover he believes that, both sides done much of things such as reforms and values over the last decade. Furthermore, he marked that EU should show its interest and prove the support of Turkey’s membership during the process.

    Former Finland Prime Minister, Anneli Jaateenmaki contributed to the discussion by highlighting the fact that there is a long list of reforms, but it is difficult to implement. Even it seems good and efficient; the implementation is not strong.
    President of the European Federalists, Andrew Duff emphasized that Turkey’s military is so big and corrupted. It also failed to defeat PKK.  He also raised the questions as follows:  “Why Turkey is so tolerant to this big army and its activities.  “If Turkey’s PM and President order army forces to withdraw from Cyprus, would they obey?”

    Anna Maria pointed out her disappointment about the negative attitude toward the closed chapters which was shown by experts.  She continued attracting attention to the different perspectives of the parties. For instance, according to her some people, of course, scared about Turkey’s membership because of the recession the process of secularization and Kurdish Issue.

    USAK Expert, Prof. Ihsan Bal, respond the comments by stating that, “Turkish public mind is changing about the implementation of the reforms. Western political reforms and values will be implemented because there is a public demanding and politicians try to respond positively to these demands.  To be honest, reforms are implemented more strictly and effectively when we compare it with 10 years before.”

    He gave some interesting samples during his speech. For instance, he believes that “If military coups occur citizens will protest unlike 1980’s. Of course, some of the people want coups and military actions. We can label them as “ultra-nationalist” groups but they are a small minority group. In that respect democratic initiative towards Kurds got support and military is silent because of the huge majority support backing the project.”

    According to Kurdish issue, he argues that it is a combination of economy and security. He mentions that the terms of numbers of killed-terrorists shows the military success but it is not the solution way. Of course democratic governments use military tools in order to solve the problem, like Britain, but it is just part of the issue. In other words, governments not take the military decision solely.  They should use civil agents, such as police force and intelligence services take more roles in the region at the problem.

    He emphasized the importance of the USAK report in 2005 which triggered the reform in military institution. “Army takes some steps and become more professional. It reduces the number of compulsory service man. But reforms need time, can be effective in long term.  To be realistic the change over one night is impossible.”

    Bal take attention to Cyprus issue as well. He underlines that there is not only one way to solve the issues. Turkish military presence is not the sole reason for the problem. Both sides should make some other progress and take actions.  Moreover, Turkish Cypriots isolated and it is not fair while other side is recognized as EU member and enjoys benefits of the membership. In other words; we say “yes” to referendum but, get no benefit. Cyprus issue should take consider as package not as a chapter.

    Güner Özkan closed the conference by admitting Turkey’s active policy in the last decade.  He believes that those active policies are not aiming to replace EU, Turkey just diverse its options. He clearly pointed that; there will be no alternative to EU for Turkey. More importantly, he said the other alternatives are not comparable to the EU. In the ten year period, we hope to have more deep economic and political relations with EU.

    By Firat Güzeldag and Kasim Ileri (JTW)


    Wednesday, 3 November 2010

    Journal of Turkish Weekly

  • Turkey to bring water to Cyprus through pipelines beneath sea

    Turkey to bring water to Cyprus through pipelines beneath sea

    Turkey’s environment minister said that Turkey would bring water to Cyprus through pipelines beneath the sea.

    Eroglu

    Turkey’s environment minister said on Wednesday that Turkey would bring water to Cyprus through pipelines beneath the sea.

    Minister Veysel Eroglu defined the project a difficult one, and said it would be the first of its type in the world.

    “Thus, we will be connected to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) with water,” Eroglu said during his meeting with TRNC’s Tourism, Environment and Culture Minister Kemal Durust in Ankara.

    Eroglu said Turkey hoped to solve Cyprus’ water problem, and tenders had been opened for the project–the first step of which was Alakopru Dam.

    Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan would lay the foundation of the dam on November 3, Eroglu also said.

    Another dam named Gecitkoy will also be constructed within the framework of the project aiming to carry water from Turkey to TRNC through pipelines beneath the sea. The tender for the Gecitkoy dam will be held as soon as possible.

    Alakopru dam is expected to be constructed within four years and Gecitkoy within three years.

    WorldBulletin

  • Is China in the Bible?

    Is China in the Bible?

    From the December 2010 Trumpet Print Edition »

    Bearded Dragon from CyprusThe scriptural, prophetic identity of the most populous nation on the planet.

    BY DAVID VEJIL

    China: The Next Superpower.” “China: America’s Number-One Enemy.”

    Such headlines have become common. It is logical that the nation with nearly 20 percent of the world’s population, the second-biggest economy and the biggest military (in terms of manpower) would inspire such discussion.

    But will China become the world’s next superpower? The truth is, you cannot know China’s future unless you understand that nation’s identity in the Bible, the only source that can reveal the answer!

    Yes, if you believe the Bible, you can actually know for certain—without a doubt—who will dominate the world very shortly!

    Hundreds of think tanks spend countless hours and vast sums of money in search of an answer to this question. Yet, the Bible reveals the answer—if they would only believe!

    The Bible is a book primarily about Israel, physical and spiritual. When other nations are mentioned, it is typically in relation to Israel. In biblical times, the interaction between the Chinese and the Israelites was of no major consequence, and so China was rarely mentioned.

    However, the Bible does speak prophetically of China’s role in end-time events. Technological advances in communication and trade have shrunken the distance between China and the modern descendants of Israel considerably (for an explanation of who these nations are, request our free book The United States and Britain in Prophecy). Today China has considerable global influence: Witness, for example, the amount of U.S. debt China holds and the huge trade imbalance between the two nations, and the fact that China is the world’s most dominant trading nation.

    An understanding of these prophecies hinges on knowing the biblical identity of the Chinese people. Before delving into this, however, we must gain a basic overview of Chinese history.

    A Brief History of a Great People

    The Chinese people comprise one dominant ethnic group and many small minorities. The ethnic Han comprise more than 90 percent of the 1.3 billion people living in China. Though minority ethnic groups—such as the Uygurs, Tibetans, Mongols and Manchu—make up a small percentage of the Chinese population, in absolute numbers they are still large populations. For example, there are actually more Mongols living in China than in Mongolia.

    These other ethnic groups have been absorbed into China through conquest by the Han Chinese. The Han have long dominated the heartland of China, usually defined by the Yellow River in the north, the Yangtze in the middle and the Pearl River on the south. This rich agricultural region is surrounded by border regions occupied by non-Han peoples, such as Tibet, Xinjiang (home of the Muslim Uighurs), Inner Mongolia and Manchuria, the historical name given to the territory north of North Korea.

    Historically, fierce nomadic cavalry armies from the northern border regions have posed a difficult challenge to the agriculture-based Chinese. The incursions motivated the building of the Great Wall.

    When the Han were strong, just like today, the border regions were under their rule. When they were weak, they lost control of those buffer regions and in some cases were even invaded by their Turkic and Mongol neighbors.

    The foreign invaders all achieved measures of success, controlling portions of Chinese territory for various periods, mainly in northern China. The most complete conquest was the Mongol invasion started by Genghis Khan in the a.d. 1200s: The resulting dynasty fully controlled China for a century.

    All these invasions had one thing in common, however: They all met their end by the Han Chinese.

    No matter which foreign invader occupied the throne, China always remained Chinese.

    One remarkable demonstration of the resilience of their society and culture was the survival, amid all the invasions, of the Chinese language—a feat few other languages have managed.

    This was partly due to the size of the Han population. In a.d. 2, the first available census shows a Chinese population of about 60 million, one fourth of the world’s population at the time!

    To better rule this immense population, nomadic invaders typically adopted Chinese administration techniques and the Chinese language, a language quite unrelated to their own. Eventually their descendents adopted Chinese culture and the agricultural lifestyle as well. When the Han reasserted themselves, they easily absorbed the invaders that remained.

    All the mixing and migrating of different peoples has made it impossible to characterize what a pure ethnic Han is. Nevertheless, prophetically speaking, China refers to all the people of China, not just the Han ethnic group. And at any rate, the Chinese and all the minority groups living in China are of the Mongoloid race, which stems from Noah’s son Japheth.

    The Mongoloid Race

    As Herbert W. Armstrong taught throughout his ministry, Noah’s son Japheth married a woman of the yellow race, and went on to father the Mongoloid people. The Hebrew word Japheth means enlargement, according to The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary,and a glance at the modern world shows that the Oriental populations have been enlarged and multiplied to an unparalleled degree. Japheth’s descendants have long been the most populous people on Earth, with the bulk living in China, Southeast Asia and Japan.

    Genesis 10:2-5 show that the enlargement of Japheth began with the patriarch himself siring seven sons and an untold number of daughters. Obviously, these sons and daughters were a mix between the Caucasoid and Mongoloid races, the latter of which grew more definitive in subsequent generations. Soon after the dispersion at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:8), Japheth’s descendants migrated through Central Asia to the lands they occupy now.

    One of the seven sons of Japheth bears special importance to the prophetic identity of the Chinese and even their nomadic neighbors. That is Magog, the second son of Japheth mentioned in Genesis 10:2.

    Where Did Magog Go?

    Again, the Bible deals primarily with Israel. Since Magog’s descendants migrated to an area largely independent of the civilizations developing in the Middle East, no sons of Magog are listed in Scripture.

    However, Jewish historian Josephus indicated where Magog’s descendants settled. He wrote in the first century, “Magog founded those that from him were named Magogites, but who are by the Greeks called Scythians” (The Complete Works of Josephus).

    In a prophecy in Ezekiel 38, the Bible labels this vast territory of northern Eurasia where the Scyths lived—a region that stretched from the Russian steppes east into modern-day China and Mongolia—as Magog.

    This territory contained many different tribes of people of the white and yellow races, all of whom were called Scyths or Scythians by the Greeks (see last month’s installment in this series). The Ezekiel 38 prophecy demonstrates this as well, listing numerous nations and peoples associated with or dwelling “in the land of Magog.” The people who most prominently settled this land are typically identified as Mongolic and Turkic. The name Mongol is even derived from the name Magog.

    The ancient history of this land is a story about different Turkic and Mongolic tribes vying for control of the area. Whenever a tribe grew strong enough, it would rule the area; in rare cases—such as with the Huns, Seljuk Turks and Mongols—if these nomadic tribes consolidated enough power, they conquered lands beyond their own.

    The resulting conquests led to much cultural and genetic intermixing with the people of Central Asia—and makes their national borders largely irrelevant to defining their ethnic backgrounds.

    Today the land the Bible calls Magog is dominated in the west by Russia—which is reasserting control over the region it once possessed through the ussr—and China in the east.

    Details of the ancient history of Magog and its people remain obscure since the Turks and Mongols didn’t develop a written language until after their contact with the Chinese or Persian civilizations. Though these nomadic peoples have a sketchy history, they still play an important role in understanding China’s prophetic role.

    While the Mongols’ connection to Magog is most obvious, they were just one tribe of a related people that carry the biblical name Magog. Ezekiel 38 is a prophecy about the land of Magog and all the distant “cousins” that live there and are associated with each other, such as the Russians and Chinese. One of the Mongolic nomadic tribes in this area bears a special relationship with China. They are the Khitan, a people responsible for China’s modern name and one of China’s biblical names, Chittim.

    China Is Chittim

    Isaiah 23:1 has a prophecy about “the land of Chittim.” To which modern nation does this end-time prophecy apply? This biblical name refers to both the island of Cyprus and to the nation of China, whose progenitors first populated Cyprus and gave it its name.

    Jewish historian Josephus records that some descendants of Japheth—such as the families of Gomer, Tubal and Togarmah—first settled in southern Europe before migrating east into Asia. Kittim was one such family, originally settling lands to the west of Mesopotamia before moving to the Far East.

    Genesis 10:4 lists the sons of Japheth’s fourth-born son: “The sons of Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim, and Dodanim” (New King James Version). Kittim is synonymous with the Chittim of Isaiah’s prophecy. Verse 5 mentions that these sons of Javan settled the isles, or the coasts. This occurred shortly after the dispersion of the Tower of Babel, when the sons of Javan migrated to the northern Mediterranean. These tribes gave their names to various cities and islands, such as Cyprus and Rhodes.

    The Mongoloid types of these families, including the Kittim, did not stay in the Mediterranean, however. Over hundreds of years and many generations, some of these families migrated east into Asia from Cyprus, where they are found today, according to research by Dr. Ernest Martin, formerly of Ambassador College.

    The descendants of Javan’s son Kittim came to Asia some time after many of their cousins had already settled there. After their migration through Central Asia, the Kittim made their appearance in modern-day northern China and Mongolia under the name Khitan in the fourth century a.d. In the 10th century, the Khitan people managed to create a dynasty that subjugated the peoples, including the Chinese, in modern-day northern China. Their territory stretched from what is now Korea to eastern Kazakhstan, including Beijing, the seat of government in China today.

    Because the Khitans controlled the overland trade and communication route from China through Central Asia to Europe, China was called Cathay, after the Khitans. The designation first applied to north China, but later designated all of China. It is a name the Russians still use for China today.

    Isaiah 23:1-3 reveal that Chittim, modern-day China, will form a part of a global economic market along with Europe, one that is prophesied to shut out the nations of Israel. It should be no surprise that China will be an integral part of this economic partnership with Europe, as it is now the world’s greatest exporter. These two trading blocs will soon dominate the global economy!

    The history of the Khitan demonstrates what has happened to many of the Mongolic tribes that once roamed the western portions of what the Bible calls Magog. These nomadic tribes were not considered Chinese when they were conquering the Han civilization, but after centuries of living inside China’s borders, much of their populations have been ethnically absorbed by the Han Chinese. Whatever remnants of these Mongolic nomads that have managed to remain distinct, such as the Mongols, are now classified as ethnic minorities in China.

    In the Khitan’s case, their absorption was so complete that an ethnic minority group from their descendants doesn’t even exist!

    The history of these nomads shows just how strong a connection China has with biblical Magog. To a certain degree, they even share the same borders and the same people. But if this explains the Mongolic nomads whose descendants now live in northern China, what about the original Han people who settled and continue to live in China’s heartland?

    Handling the Han

    The history of the Han Chinese is much less obscure. In fact, the Han people record their history all the way back to the time of the Tower of Babel!

    Ancient Chinese records speak of China’s first emperors, Yaou, Shun and Yu.

    One such record, The Shoo King, explains that one of Yaou’s tasks was to deal with the effects of a great flood that ravaged the land: “Destructive in their overflow are the waters of the inundation. In their vast extent they embrace the mountains and overtop the hills.”

    While scholars explain the inundation as a local flood in China, it is clear from the biblical account, God’s sacred Word, that these annals are talking about Noah’s Flood. Consider:

    During Yaou’s lifetime a new leader, Shun, came to power. According to another ancient Chinese manuscript, The Bamboo Annals, Shun is described as having a “black body.” He was obviously not Chinese, and his mother was called “the queen mother of the west,” indicating him as a foreigner. The Shoo King gives the name of Shun’s father as Koo-sow.

    According to Dr. Herman Hoeh’s Compendium of World History, this Shun was none other than the Nimrod of the Bible. Therefore Koo-sow, which can also be spelled Kusou, is Nimrod’s father Cush! And the “queen mother of the west” can only be Semiramis. She was the mother-wife of Nimrod who called herself “queen of heaven,” as documented in Alexander Hislop’s Two Babylons. These are the three principal figures of man’s rebellion at the Tower of Babel.

    Nimrod was a son of Cush and therefore of the black race. The Bible describes him as a mighty rebellious leader who caused the people to revolt against God shortly after the Flood (Genesis 10:8-9). He gathered the different races and peoples together to build the Tower of Babel, but was stopped when God intervened and confused the languages (Genesis 11:1-7). The different races and peoples were then scattered to different areas of the world (verse 8).

    At that point, Yu became the next ruler. Yu, China’s first great hero, founded the Xia dynasty; from that point forward, leadership was given on a hereditary basis. The return of government to a Chinese ruler indicates that the Chinese immediately left the area of Babel and broke free from Nimrod and his successors’ rule. Under Chinese rulers, they migrated to their modern-day location.

    The chronology as presented by The Shoo King places the rules of these three kings toward the end of the third millennia b.c. (The Chinese Classics). This time frame also agrees with the Bible.

    The Chinese have preserved the most complete secular history of their civilization, dating back more than 4,000 years. There is a lot of myth and legend included as well, but the general chronology of emperors is verified by archeological finds, as well as what is recorded in Scripture.

    Archeological Proof

    Western scholars and the Chinese themselves, heavily influenced by Western thought after the 1920s, believed the Xia dynasty and the history immediately following were mere inventions, mythical heroes and kingdoms.

    However, an archeological find in 1959 at Erlitou in the western part of the Henan province revealed an early Chinese society dating back to the same time and place that The Shoo King records the Xia dynasty existed! The city found at Erlitou is the largest of all cities found dating to this time period and is believed to be the capital city of the Xia government.

    Since that find in the North China Plain off the Yellow River, archeologists have found some 200 sites revealing the same culture throughout a broad area, demonstrating a rapid settlement and urbanization during 1900 to 1500 b.c. This was the formation of the first Chinese state! (The Chinese Neolithic: Trajectories to Early States).

    The Bamboo Annals records the existence of other Chinese states and how the Xia rulers expanded their control over them. Archeologists have found evidence of other Chinese states, but none contained as many settlements as those closely identified with the city found in Erlitou where the Xia ruled—clearly the center of power of the first post-Flood Chinese civilization.

    Interestingly, the archeological record shows a period of extremely low-population settlement in the period immediately before the Erlitou culture arrived. The archeologists, steeped in evolutionary thought, call the time before the Flood the Neolithic period. They have found evidence of a thriving civilization in China in this time period, followed by a contraction in settlement, with evidence pointing to drastic flooding in the region (ibid.).

    Though the archeologists won’t admit it, this is evidence of a great flood followed by a resettlement of the area led by the Xia dynasty!

    Back to Gog and Magog

    So if history is clear that Shun is Nimrod, who are Yaou and Yu? How do these names fit in our biblical identity?

    A basic understanding of Ezekiel 38 gives us that information. That chapter speaks of the land of Magog and specific people or peoples living in that land: “Son of man, set thy face against Gog, the land of Magog” (verse 2). Gog and Magog are also mentioned together in Revelation 20:8, showing a close connection between the land and peoples. When Arab historians talked of the Mongols, they used the terms Yagog and Magog.

    According to Dr. Hoeh, Yaou in Chinese history is likely the same person the Arabs call Yagog in their tradition. Every prophetic indication is that China has a strong connection with Gog and Magog. Ezekiel 38:2 refers to China. Along with Russia, China dominates the entire area of Magog and is associated with the nations listed in subsequent verses.

    Therefore, the Chinese Han people were ruled first by a Japhetic descendant associated with Magog—possibly his son, though the Bible doesn’t say specifically. During Nimrod’s rebellion at the Tower of Babel, the Chinese were ruled by Nimrod. After his reign, when God intervened and changed the languages, government over the Chinese returned to the Japhetic line, under Yu’s rule. These people then migrated north and east to modern-day China, setting up their capital in the North China Plain at the end of the third millennium b.c.

    The location of China helps reveal other biblical identities as well.

    Kings of the East

    In a prophecy recorded in Daniel 11, a clash is foretold between “the king of the north,” a German-led European power, and “the king of the south,” a radical Islamic power led by Iran (these prophetic identities are explained in our booklets Germany and the Holy Roman Empire and The King of the South, both free upon request). Emerging victorious, the European army is then prophesied to conquer the tiny Jewish nation now called Israel. At that point, verse 44 foretells, “tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble” this European king.

    Any map will show that north and east of Jerusalem are Russia and China, the two dominant powers of the land biblically referred to as Magog!

    This event is further expounded in Revelation 16:12, where it is prophesied that the “kings of the east” will gather an army that numbers 200 million soldiers! (Revelation 9:14-16). Such a vast army could only be assembled with the massive population of China. Clearly China is one of those kings of the east!

    So back to our original question: Will China become the world’s next dominating superpower after the decline of the U.S.? The answer is no!

    Though it will grow to tremendous world power, even superpower status—especially through economic means, as indicated in Isaiah 23—it will not rise to the top spot. That position will be filled by the European power led by Germany! After a short economic partnership, China will violently contend with the king of the north for global dominance.

    But this war will end when Jesus Christ returns and destroys both powers!

    After that, according to biblical prophecy, Christ will restore His government on Earth, a government that will bring peace and prosperity for 1,000 years. Yet Ezekiel 38 prophesies that not every nation will submit to Christ’s rule voluntarily. Soon after the Second Coming, the people of Asia will form an army in order to attack the people living in Jerusalem!

    This will be the last great rebellion in the 1,000-year period. Christ will utterly destroy it and deliver His people. It is a grand statement from God: “Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the Lord” (Ezekiel 38:23).

    Believing the Bible gives us an understanding of ancient Chinese history that scholars reject, and reveals the future status of China and major events this world power will participate in. But even more, it gives us the final and inspiring end result: Christ establishing His Kingdom on Earth!

    God is offering the wonderful opportunity to know, now, who is the Lord! Horrible wars are prophesied to occur shortly, but God will deliver His people, those who know He is the Lord and rely on Him. That should lead to the next big question: Are you one of those?

    For further study, order a free copy of our booklet Russia and China in Prophecy.