Category: Cyprus/TRNC

  • SCANDAL: MPs caught trying to sell their influence for cash

    SCANDAL: MPs caught trying to sell their influence for cash

    [1]

    ‘MPs for hire’ face lobbying clean-up

    Cabinet ministers rounded on their former colleagues, including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon, who were caught trying to sell their influence for cash.

    Lord Adonis
    Cabinet members have vowed to tighten up lobbying laws

    Related Tags:

    Geoff Hoon
    Patricia Hewitt
    David Miliband
    ministers
    secretary

    They vowed to tighten up lobbying laws after MPs including Stephen Byers, Patricia Hewitt and Geoff Hoon were secretly filmed talking to undercover reporters.

    ‘There is absolutely no room for the sort of innuendo or promises that seem to have been floated in this case,’ said foreign secretary David Miliband.

    Chancellor Alistair Darling sugges ted the MPs had been naive to fall for the sting targeting 20 MPs standing down at the next general election.

    ‘Really, what on earth did they think they were doing?’ he said.

    ‘The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again – it’s obvious.’

    In the footage for Channel 4’s Dispatches programme, former transport secretary Mr Byers described himself as ‘like a sort of cab for hire’charging £5,000 a day to pull the strings of movers and shakers. He also claimed to have influenced Lord Adonis in his dealings with National Express.

    Former health secretary Ms Hewitt allegedly said she had helped a client paying her £3,000 a day to win a seat on a government advisory group.

    And ex-defence secretary Geoff Hoon is said to have offered introductions to current ministers, in return for fees of £5,000 a day.

    Mr Byers last night insisted he had ‘never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations’. He said he had made ‘exaggerated claims’ in the discussions caught on camera.

    , 21st March, 2010

    [2]

    Calls for inquiry into ‘MPs for hire’ scandal

    Damian Whitworth, Francis Elliott and Alex Ralph

    David Cameron demanded yesterday that Gordon Brown investigate a boast by the former Cabinet minister Stephen Byers that he had used his influence to change policies to favour businesses.

    The former Transport Secretary [Lord Adonis], who was secretly filmed offering himself “like a sort of cab for hire” for up to £5,000 a day, will be referred to the parliamentary standards watchdog today.

    Mr Byers told an undercover reporter that he had secured secret deals with ministers and said that he received confidential information from No 10 and was able to help firms involved in price fixing to get around the law.

    The claims gravely embarrassed Labour, which rushed forward a promise to introduce a compulsory register of lobbying which it said had been planned for the election manifesto.

    Thirteen Labour MPs and seven Tories were approached by investigators for Channel 4’s Dispatches and The Sunday Times, pretending to be executives from a fictitious American lobbying firm. The others to feature in the documentary to be screened tonight are Labour’s Geoff Hoon, Patricia Hewitt, Margaret Moran and Baroness Morgan and the Tory MP Sir John Butterfill, who is understood to have boasted about his closeness to Mr Cameron.

    Mr Byers was covertly filmed telling the reporter that he would be able to lobby ministers and gave examples of where he had done so before. He said he would charge £3,000-£5,000 a day and claimed he had done a deal with Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, to benefit National Express. He later retracted his claims and he, Lord Adonis and National Express all strongly denied any deal yesterday.

    All of the MPs filmed, including Ms Hewitt and Mr Hoon, former Cabinet ministers, denied any wrongdoing and insisted that they had breached no rules. “I am confident that any investigation from the Standards Commissioner will confirm that I have always fully complied with the MPs’ code of conduct,” Mr Byers said. “I have never lobbied ministers on behalf of commercial organisations and have always fully disclosed my outside interests.”

    Mr Hoon, a former Defence Secretary, reportedly said that he charged £3,000 a day and was looking to turn his knowledge and contacts into “something that frankly makes money”. He said: “At no stage did I offer, nor would I attempt to, sell confidential or privileged information arising from my time in government.”

    Ms Hewitt said she “completely rejected” the allegation that she helped to obtain a key seat on a government advisory group for a client paying £3,000 a day.

    The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats said they would table parliamentary questions about the claims in an attempt to see if there had been breaches of the ministerial code.

    “I have been warning for some time that lobbying is the next scandal to hit British politics,” Mr Cameron said. “These are shocking allegations. The House of Commons needs to conduct a thorough investigation into these ex-Labour ministers.”

    He said that the Prime Minister “would want to get to the bottom of the accusations being made about his Government — and real change is needed”.

    Senior Cabinet ministers distanced themselves from their former colleagues.

    Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, said it was “ridiculous” that the MPs had been caught out in the sting. “The best answer when you get a call like that is to put the receiver back down again. There are rules about serving MPs — we’ve said that we are going to have to get a statutory-backed code of conduct to deal with former ministers. But really, what on earth did they think they were doing?”

    David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that he was “appalled” and added: “There is absolutely no room for anyone to trade on their ministerial office.”

    Research by The Times shows eight former ministers have made up to £370,000 in outside work of various kinds since announcing they would be stepping down as MPs. They include John Prescott, John Reid, John Hutton, Alan Milburn and Ms Hewitt. Mr Prescott, former Deputy Prime Minister, has made up to £166,000, mostly through television documentaries and his autobiography.

    , March 22, 2010

    [3]

    Metro Leeds 22 March 2010

    [4]

    MPs’ foreign visit rules breached

    Hundreds of breaches of parliamentary rules by MPs who accepted free overseas trips from foreign governments have been uncovered by a BBC investigation.

    More than 20 MPs broke rules on declaring hospitality in questions or debates after visiting locations such as the Maldives, Cyprus and Gibraltar.

    Between them, the MPs – from all the major parties – breached parliamentary regulations on more than 400 occasions.

    One former standards watchdog says it shows MPs cannot regulate themselves.

    Some MPs dismissed the breaches as technical errors or oversights.

    However, the former Commissioner for Standards in Public Life, Sir Alistair Graham, told the BBC repeated rule breaches threatened to “undermine the integrity” of the democratic system.

    He said it “demonstrated the failure of the self-regulating system of discipline in the Commons” and called for a shake-up of the way MPs’ behaviour is monitored.

    “This is a very worrying situation which will further demean the standing of Parliament,” he said.

    BBC home editor Mark Easton, who led the investigation, said it would raise further questions about the Commons’ ability to regulate itself.

    The rules on overseas visits are there to ensure that no-one can accuse MPs of accepting foreign hospitality in return for political favours, for example pressing the UK government for financial assistance.

    They require MPs to register such visits and then declare relevant trips in questions, motions or debates.

    One of those who appears to have fallen foul of the code of conduct is Labour’s Andrew Dismore, a member of the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee the very body which polices MPs’ behaviour.

    He broke rules more than 90 times, following annual visits to Cyprus, by failing to declare the hospitality when raising issues about the island in Parliament.

    In total, he has tabled more than 200 Commons questions about Cyprus since the last election in 2005, on topics such as missing persons from the island and its victims of past conflict between Turkey and Greece.

    The Commons information office estimates it costs on average £149 to answer a written question.

    Mr Dismore has also signed motions and led debates about Cyprus. However, he denies any wrongdoing and claims his questions about Cyprus were not sufficiently relevant to his trips to require a declaration.

    Conservative David Amess has admitted failing to register a free trip to the Maldives – regarded as a “very serious” breach of the rules by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, according to the MPs’ code of conduct.

    He also accepts he did not register a second trip for almost a year, blaming an administrative error by his office staff.

    ‘Paradise’

    During a debate he tabled about the Maldives in 2007, Mr Amess told the Commons how his “splendid visit” had given him “an early taste of paradise”.

    “No words can describe adequately just how beautiful the islands are,” he added, before suggesting the UK Government “could be encouraged to do a little more than is being done at the moment” for the islands in the Indian Ocean.

    Despite leading two debates about UK support for the Maldives and asking 15 questions about the islands, he failed to declare an interest. Referring to the MPs’ code of conduct, Mr Amess told the BBC: “It is for the member to judge whether a financial interest is sufficiently relevant.”

    Liberal Democrat Norman Baker, who has been actively calling for a clean-up of Parliament following the expenses scandal, has admitted breaching the rules on 37 occasions.

    In a statement to the BBC, Mr Baker accepts he failed to declare an interest when leading debates and tabling questions about topics such as human rights in Tibet. He has travelled to India twice, courtesy of the Tibet Society and the Tibet government-in-exile.

    “I should have then declared a relevant interest in respect of the parliamentary activities you list,” he said. “It is an unintended oversight that I did not.”

    The MP who heads the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, Tony Wright, told the BBC that such rule-breaking was “unacceptable” and that the system should be more transparent.

    “Declarations should be the norm. It is quite proper for MPs to go on visits. Some of those visits will be financed by foreign governments. But… if they’re lobbying on behalf of governments who have paid for their visits, then clearly we need to know about it.”

    The rules are enforced by MPs themselves. Breaches are only investigated if a formal complaint is made and there is no independent body to ensure that members stick to the regulations.

    Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox has admitted breaking the rules on two occasions, having visited Sri Lanka five times in the past three years courtesy of its government. He failed to declare the hospitality when asking ministers how much UK aid had been given to Sri Lanka.

    In a statement, Mr Fox said: “I should have noted an interest and will be writing to the registrar to make this clear.” He blamed a “changeover of staffing responsibilities” for registering one of his visits more than two months late.

    During the current Parliament, Gibraltar’s government has funded 31 trips for MPs to attend an annual street party on the territory.

    Street party

    Labour’s Lindsay Hoyle has been a guest at these National Day Celebrations three times. Following his visits he has asked 30 questions, tabled three early day motions and signed a further seven, all without declaring his interest.

    Mr Hoyle also broke the rules by failing to declare an interest following registered trips to the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

    “I have never received or sought any financial benefit,” he told the BBC.

    Conservative Andrew Rosindell has been a guest of Gibraltar’s government twice in recent years. He subsequently asked 48 questions and signed or sponsored nine motions related to the territory without declaring an interest.

    Thirteen of his questions about Gibraltar were before a visit had been registered. The BBC put the matters to Mr Rosindell but has yet to receive a response.

    The BBC has identified a further 10 MPs from all three major parties who have been guests of Gibraltar’s government and shortly afterwards breached rules when signing motions or tabling questions about the territory.

    The investigation has also identified three more Labour MPs and another Conservative who failed to declare an interest following visits to Cyprus.

    MPs who have breached the rules:

    David Amess

    Norman Baker

    Crispin Blunt

    Graham Brady

    Colin Breed

    David Burrowes

    Andrew Dismore

    Jim Dobbin

    Alan Duncan

    Liam Fox

    Mike Hancock

    Lindsay Hoyle

    Paul Keetch

    Bob Laxton

    David Lepper

    Andrew Love

    Madeline Moon

    Mike Penning

    Andrew Rosindell

    Richard Spring

    Theresa Villiers

    Rudi Vis

    DECLARING FOREIGN TRIPS

    • Any MP who has an overseas trip paid for by a foreign government must register it within four weeks
    • They must declare a financial interest if it “might reasonably be thought by others to influence the speech, representation or communication in question”
    • This includes when tabling questions, motions, bills or amendments, and when speaking out during Commons proceedings
    • Members may not, for example, call for increased UK financial assistance to the government which provided the hospitality
    • Q&A – MPs’ foreign trips rules

    ANALYSIS

    mark eastonBy Mark Easton, BBC home editor

    The point of the regulations is to ensure that a sceptical citizenry can be confident about the integrity of their elected representatives.

    Transparency is key.

    The whole system only works if members take this responsibility seriously. Declaration doesn’t imply wrongdoing, but a failure to declare might be interpreted that way.

    The widespread abuse of the system uncovered by our investigation suggests some Members of Parliament don’t understand this.

    But what really struck me as I conducted the investigation is that the system of scrutiny surrounding the rules clearly does not work.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8580183.stm, 22 March 2010

    [5]

  • The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    The United States and Turkey: A View from the Obama Administration

    usdos logo sealPhilip H. Gordon
    Assistant Secretary, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs

    Sabanci Lecture, The Brookings Institution

    Thank you, Strobe. It’s a great pleasure to be back at Brookings to deliver the sixth annual Sakip Sabanci Lecture. This is a homecoming of sorts for me and it’s great to see so many good friends here today. I’ve worked with Strobe both in the U.S. government, during the Clinton administration, and outside of it, during my tenure at Brookings. Throughout that time, he has been a constant source of wise counsel and clear-headed leadership. And though the Obama Administration has done its best to deplete the ranks of his staff, I am happy to see that Brookings under his direction is still thriving. Thank you for inviting me here today.

    I’m especially pleased to be giving the Sabanci Lecture – an event I am proud to say I played a part in conceiving six years ago, to help foster a dialogue in Washington with and about Turkey. I’m happy to see you have maintained the tradition of including Sabanci University students and faculty by video link – something which makes this lecture a unique event – and I look forward to hearing from colleagues in Istanbul today. I extend my best regards to Guler Sabanci who will be participating in the discussion from that end.

    The growth and success of Sabanci University in Istanbul and this lecture in Washington are both testament to the vision of the man for whom they are named: Sakip Sabanci. A successful businessman and great philanthropist, his contributions to the intellectual, cultural, and economic life of his country were major forces behind Turkey’s continued development and modernization. The Sabanci Lecture was established to highlight Turkey’s increasing importance in world affairs and to promote Turkey’s reform and integration into Europe – causes which Sakip Sabanci championed. I think the past several years have only confirmed the importance of this forum and of these issues, and that is precisely what I want to talk about today.

    The topic that I wish to address is the relationship between the United States and Turkey – a dynamic and multi-faceted relationship that is beneficial to both our countries. This could hardly be a more important or timely subject and this is a particularly appropriate moment to reflect on it. Almost a year ago, President Obama traveled to Turkey during his first overseas trip. He went to deliver a message of partnership, saying “Turkey and the United States must stand together – and work together – to overcome the challenges of our time.” Turkey and the United States have been partners for decades and that partnership is as important today as it has ever been. When Secretary Clinton went on her first trip to Europe, she too made a point of going to Turkey and she spoke of Turkey as a critical partner. The reasons why the President and the Secretary traveled to Turkey early in this administration’s term are the reasons why I want to talk about Turkey today – because we believe that an engaged, active, and cooperative relationship with Turkey is an important interest of the United States. As the President put it when he met Prime Minister Erdogan at the White House in December, “given Turkey’s history as a secular democratic state that respects the rule of law, but is also a majority Muslim nation, it plays a critical role … in helping to shape mutual understanding and stability and peace not only in its neighborhood but around the world.”

    Few countries play such a crucial role in such a diverse set of important areas. How many countries have borders with as diverse an array of countries as Turkey – Greece, Bulgaria, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Iraq, and Syria. With its combination of strategic, economic, and cultural links, Turkey’s influence touches such vital concerns of both our countries as the stability of the Middle East and relations with the broader Islamic world, relations with the Caucasus and Black Sea region, the transit of energy from the Caspian Basin to Europe, the security and development of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and the maintenance of strong ties to Europe and the Trans-Atlantic alliance. The geography that I have just mentioned spans some of the most sensitive and significant parts of the globe and in every one of these areas U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for progress.

    This is also a timely moment to be addressing the U.S.-Turkish relationship because the dynamic nature of Turkey is attracting the world’s attention in new ways. Domestically, debates about civil-military relations, and about the role of religion in society, have generated enormous interest abroad, and are followed closely in the United States. Economically, the last decade has seen Turkey display one of the highest rates of economic growth in the world – making Turkey one of the 20 largest global economies. In foreign affairs, Turkey has pursued an active foreign policy that has seen it interacting more intensively than ever with countries all across its neighborhood and beyond. Whenever and wherever I travel, which is a lot these days, one of the sentences I hear most often is “Ahmet Davutoglu was just here.”

    Let us be frank: the dynamism we see in Turkey has raised questions in the minds of some observers about where Turkey is heading, and that too is a reason why this is a timely topic. It is worth addressing these questions squarely. Though phrased in different ways, the questions all eventually boil down to a single concern: Is Turkey turning away from the West? We do not see it that way. Turkey is an integral part of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and has been for decades. Throughout that time it has always maintained strong relations with its neighbors to the west as well as its neighbors to the east. It is also reaching out in new ways. Turkey has always had multiple identities. But what binds the United States and Turkey together are shared interests, shared values, and a commitment to partnership. We believe that Turkey is and wants to remain anchored in the Euro-Atlantic community.

    However, the fact that some have questioned the strength of our ties does highlight an important issue. The relationship, which was much easier to justify when we faced a shared Soviet threat, requires hard work and attention – on both sides. Today, the global challenges we face are more varied and diffuse than they were during the Cold War. In this new environment, those of us who believe in the relationship have to make a special effort to explain the enduring value of the partnership between the United States and Turkey. Indeed, that enduring value is something I want to underscore today. On nearly every vital issue we face, the United States benefits from having Turkey as an engaged and supportive partner. The reverse is also true: on nearly every issue that is critical to Turkey’s future, the United States plays an enormously important role as a trusted friend and ally.

    The United States and Turkey may no longer be fighting the Cold War or containing Iraq, but we are working closely together in a number of important ways. In Afghanistan, the United States and Turkey are working together to offer a better life to the Afghan people by giving them the training and tools they need to build security and grow their economy. The United States and Turkey are working together closely on an action plan for joint assistance to the Afghan people. So far we have worked together with Turkey to develop key economic sectors in Wardak, and soon we plan to begin cooperative projects on infrastructure and health care in Kabul. Turkey is a major contributor of forces and expertise to the NATO mission in Afghanistan and its soldiers support the Afghan security forces’ effort to secure the capital region of the country.

    In Iraq, the Turkish government’s commitment to high-level strategic cooperation with the government in Baghdad, as well as the improvement in its relations with Iraqi Kurds, have been positive contributions to Iraq’s stabilization. The Iraqis just completed national elections with very robust turnout. Now the negotiations on forming a government are about to begin. It is important that all those with a stake in Iraq’s path to stability allow the Iraqis to make their own decisions and encourage their Iraqi leaders to support a process that will lead to formation of an effective government. Iraq is now Turkey’s second largest export market after Germany and the two countries’ growing economic and commercial relationship is yet another reason it is in Turkey’s interest to build a mutually beneficial relationship with Iraq. The United States and Turkey are also cooperating closely on counter-terrorism, both to fight international terrorist groups like al-Qa’ida and to battle the PKK terrorist organization in the region.

    In addition, Turkey is in the process of negotiating its accession to the European Union. While we recognize the decision is not ours, the United States continues to strongly support Turkish accession and urges Turkey to continue the democratic and political reforms necessary to complete the membership process. Further progress on promoting human rights and religious freedom, including important steps like reopening the Halki Seminary, will move Turkey’s EU prospects forward. These reforms do more than further Turkey’s EU accession bid – they also make Turkey an even more democratic and modern nation. The EU has its own part to play. It can help ensure that Turkey’s progress continues by making clear that the door to the EU will be open to a Turkey that fulfills the requirements for EU membership. We remain convinced that a Turkey that meets EU membership criteria would be good for the EU, and that Turkey’s effort to meet those criteria is good for Turkey.

    Turkey is already playing a crucial role as a transit hub for energy to the rest of Europe – heating homes, lighting offices, and powering industry across the continent. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which came online in 2006, delivers one million barrels per day of petroleum and in 2007 the South Caucasus pipeline began bringing natural gas from Azerbaijan to Turkey. What these various projects and a variety of proposed future initiatives show is that Turkey will be an integral part of meeting Europe’s energy needs and providing for Europe’s energy security.

    While Turkey plays an active role on the world’s stage as a European power, it has also been equally active in reaching out to its immediate neighbors. We are supportive of the Turkish government’s concept of pursuing a policy of “zero problems” with its neighbors. This is a lofty and admirable goal. Bringing it to fruition, as everyone recognizes, will require difficult compromises and brave leadership.

    Turkey’s work with Armenia to normalize relations demonstrates both the promise and the difficulty of this enterprise. It holds out the prospect of positive transformative change in the region. The steps taken so far by both countries have shown vision and courage. Last October, in the presence of Secretary Clinton, the foreign ministers of France, Russia, and Switzerland, and the EU High Representative, the Turkish and Armenian Foreign Ministers signed protocols on normalizing and developing their relations. We believe that the implementation of these protocols – leading to diplomatic ties and open borders – would be a historic development that would benefit both countries and contribute to security and economic prosperity throughout the region. We appreciate the effort that has been made so far and urge both countries to ratify the protocols without preconditions and as soon as possible, a point President Obama made on the phone to President Gul just two weeks ago. Let us not squander the historic progress already made. Ratification will bring valuable benefits to both Turkey and Armenia. All who are invested in the process must do their part to ensure that it moves forward.

    Let me address in this context the resolution recently considered by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. As President Obama has said, our interest remains a full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts related to the events of 1915. But the best way to do that, we believe, is for the Armenian and Turkish people themselves to address this history as part of their efforts to build a future of shared peace and prosperity. As both Secretary Clinton and Secretary Gates have indicated, further Congressional action could impede progress on the normalization of relations and for that reason we oppose this resolution.

    Another regional issue where Turkey can play a productive role is Cyprus. The United States continues to encourage the negotiations between the two communities under the auspices of the UN Secretary General. Turkey and Greece can also play constructive roles in helping the Cypriot parties toward a lasting solution to their differences. We welcome as well the positive dynamic in the relationship between the Turkish and Greek Prime Ministers – something that Greek Prime Minister Papandreou, who was just on this stage, spoke about when he was in Washington last week. We commend both Cypriot leaders for their efforts and urge them to seize this window of opportunity to pursue negotiations leading to a settlement that reunifies Cyprus into a bi-zonal and bi-communal federation. Prime Minister Erdogan’s recent and very constructive comments to the Cypriot press endorsing such a solution were very welcome and should help bring this outcome about.

    These are all issues where Turkish leadership can be constructively applied to bring about a more peaceful and prosperous neighborhood. But it is important to remember that while the concept of “zero problems” with neighbors is a good one, it should not be pursued uncritically or at any price. As one of the world’s leading states, Turkey has international responsibilities that extend beyond its immediate neighborhood. With respect to Iran, while the international community has sought to present a single, coordinated message to Iran’s government, Turkey has at times sounded a different note. We know Turkey shares our concerns about the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran and is supportive of international efforts to reach a diplomatic solution to concerns with Iran’s nuclear program. But we also believe it to be vitally important that we avoid actions that could potentially undermine or complicate our shared goal of a peaceful diplomatic resolution of this issue. We do not believe that Turkey’s decision to abstain in the IAEA last November helped this goal and we hope that Turkey will join the broad group of nations in the UN Security Council who are seeking to hold Iran to its IAEA and Security Council obligations.

    Nor should improved relations with Turkey’s Middle Eastern neighbors come at the expense of its historic allies such as Israel. We are hopeful that Turkey and Israel will work to reinforce these ties, even as Turkey develops its relationships with other states of the region. Turkey has long had good, even special, ties with Israel, and this has given Turkey an important opportunity to support peace in the Middle East – a cause that we all support.

    We in the United States also pay close attention to developments within Turkey. Obviously, decisions about Turkey’s political future can and must be made only by Turks within the context of Turkey’s democratic system. But as a friend we care about the ongoing development of successful, open democracy in Turkey. The process of reform and modernization that is so vital to Turkey’s future remains an important priority. Turkey’s leaders recognize this and have taken bold steps to foster a more cohesive country. The Democratization Project, which aims to protect the rights of Kurds and other minority groups, is a major step in Turkish history. We applaud this initiative and encourage Turkey to continue to move forward. The success of this effort would go a long way in securing Turkish democracy, promoting reconciliation in Turkish society, as well as advancing Turkey’s case for EU accession.

    But Turkey must also be careful to ensure that its hard-won successes in building a secular state and strong democratic system are sustained into the future. Media freedom is one of the bedrocks of a democratic society and no actions should be taken that appear to undermine the ability of the press to do its vital job. The rule of law is another essential element of true democracy and for that reason it is important that investigations or court proceedings, especially on politically sensitive cases, must be open and fully respect Turkish law. The ability of political parties to function freely is crucial as well – in a democracy, political parties should not fear being closed down. The citizens of Turkey deserve nothing less. The development of democratic politics is one of modern Turkey’s greatest achievements and dealing with difficult issues such as these in an exemplary manner will demonstrate to its people and to the world the strength and vitality of Turkish democracy.

    Let me end where I began: by describing what it is that I believe binds the United States and Turkey together. When you consider all of the things I have talked about today – from Afghanistan to the Middle East to the European Union to energy security – it becomes clear that the alliance between the United States and Turkey is founded on a firm base of diverse and deep shared interests. And when one considers so many of the pressing challenges in the world today, it becomes equally clear that U.S.-Turkish cooperation can be a force for immense progress.

    But our relationship is based on much more than a calculation of interest – it is rooted in shared values and a shared vision. The United States and Turkey have made a choice to establish a partnership, and with that partnership comes important responsibilities on both sides. As two large countries with broad and diverse interests, we will not always see eye-to-eye on every issue but we must never forget the larger outlook that we share. A vision of a democratic Turkey, with a vibrant economy, integrated into Europe, and with good relations with its neighbors, is a vision that has motivated generations of Turkish leaders. It is a vision we share too, and we want to help Turkey achieve it.

    Thank you.

    , March 17, 2010


  • Demopoulos and others v. Turkey

    Demopoulos and others v. Turkey

    This article was written by my good friend Robert Ellis and first appeared in the print edition of Hürriyet Daily News.

    The non-admissibility decision a fortnight ago by the European Court of Human Rights was welcomed as “historic” by the Turkish press and Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu, but it might be premature to pop the champagne corks. In fact, it is probably former Turkish Ambassador Tulay Uluçevik who struck the right note when he described the Court’s ruling as “a Pyrrhic victory.”

    Apart from the issue of security, that of property can be considered a major stumbling block for a solution to the Cyprus question, and the Annan Plan did little to assuage Greek Cypriot concerns. The right to restitution and return was effectively limited by a number of restrictions so that the majority of displaced Greek Cypriots were faced with compensation in the form of what Tassos Papadopoulos called “dubious paper.”

    The Property Board that the Annan Plan envisaged, which would have settled claims from both sides, would for the most part have been funded by the Greek Cypriots, so it would have been the merchant from Kayseri who fed his donkey with its own tail all over again.

    However, the Immovable Property Commission, or IPC, which the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”) established in December 2005 to deal with Greek Cypriot property claims, will in effect be funded by Turkey, as the “TRNC” has the status of “a subordinate local administration” under Turkish jurisdiction.

    The legal status of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”, which was proclaimed in 1983, has been a bone of contention for previous property cases appearing before the European court, but it has been established in admissibility decisions (for example, Loizidou v. Turkey in 1995 and Xenides-Arestis v. Turkey in 2005) that Turkey is the respondent state.

    In the latter case, an attempt was made to avoid a judgment against Turkey by establishing an “Immovable Property Determination, Evaluation and Compensation Commission” in July 2003, so as to provide a domestic remedy that should be exhausted. Nevertheless, this only provided for compensation but not restitution, and as there were doubts about the impartiality of the Commission, the remedy was found to be neither effective nor adequate.

    So, seen in those terms, the IPC must be considered an improved model as its provisions provide for restitution, exchange or compensation in return for rights over the immovable property and compensation for loss of use if claimed. Furthermore, two of the IPC’s five to seven members are independent international members, and persons who occupy Greek-Cypriot property are expressly excluded.

    Consequently, on the basis of the 85 cases concluded by last November, the Court found that the IPC provides an accessible and effective framework of redress for property issues “in the current situation of occupation that it is beyond this Court’s competence to resolve.”

    In view of the redress offered by the Annan Plan, it must be a disappointment for Greek Cypriots that the Court maintains its view that “it must leave the choice of implementation of redress for breaches of property rights to Contracting States” and that, from a Convention perspective, “property is a material commodity which can be valued and compensated for in monetary terms.” In fact, in more than 70 cases claimants opted for compensation.

    A further bone of contention in the current talks between Dimitris Christofias and Mehmet Ali Talat is whether it is the legal or the current owner of the property who should decide whether redress should be in the form of restitution, exchange or compensation.

    On this issue, the Court states, “It is still necessary to ensure that the redress applied to those old injuries does not create disproportionate new wrongs.” Finally, the Court concludes that this decision is not to be interpreted as requiring that applicants make use of the IPC. They may choose not to do so and await a political settlement, but in the meantime the Court’s decision provides a legal basis.

    Davutoğlu believes the Court’s decision has boosted the international legitimacy of the “TRNC”, in which case he has neglected to read the small print. “The Court maintains its opinion that allowing the respondent State to correct wrongs imputable to it does not amount to an indirect legitimization of a regime unlawful under international law.”

    Furthermore, “Accepting the functional reality of remedies is not tantamount to holding that Turkey wields internationally-recognized sovereignty over northern Cyprus.” The European Parliament has, in a resolution, called on Turkey to immediately start to withdraw its troops from Cyprus and address the issue of the settlement of Turkish citizens as well as enable the return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants.

    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has indicated he is willing to withdraw Turkish troops in the event of a solution, but his chief EU negotiator, Egemen Bağış, has boasted that Turkey has not withdrawn a single soldier or given away territory.

    Considering that not only the future of Cyprus but also Turkey’s prospects of EU membership hang in the balance, that kind of attitude is singularly unhelpful.

    Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.

  • Cyprus conflict closes leaders’ eyes to water shortage

    Cyprus conflict closes leaders’ eyes to water shortage

    Sheep cross the parched Kouris reservoir during the 2007 drought

    Water has been rapidly disappearing in Cyprus since the 1970s, but conflict between Turkish and Greek communities means fixing the problem is not high on the political agenda. Alex Bell finds that Cypriots are now struggling for control of land that is slowly dying.

    Here is a story: an old man from the Troodos hills of central Cyprus rises to his feet at a public meeting about the environment. He says that when he was young, his school teacher asked the class who could swim, and about half the hands went up.

    Then the teacher said: “Who has been to the beach?” and this time, only two hands went up.

    The moral of the story? I’ll come back to that in a moment.

    Cyprus

    We are in Nicosia, one of Europe’s last divided cities, and the focus of a bitter and bloody feud between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots.

    It goes back to 1974, when the island was divided, as Turkish troops invaded – following a collapse of the Cypriot government.

    It goes back further, to 1963, when the UN mission began here – never to leave as it tried to keep the sides apart.

    It goes back further still, to 1960, when the British left – knowing, surely, that claims of peace on this Mediterranean island, tucked in the armpit between Turkey and Israel, might never come to bloom. It keeps on going back and back…

    Water war

    I am here to cover a war – but not the one that has seen shabby oil drums erected in higgledy-piggledy piles as barriers dividing the city.

    Kouris reservoir

    Water stocks have been hit by a series of droughts in recent years

    The war I’m interested in is the water war – not an armed conflict, but a struggle nonetheless, between people and a rapidly disappearing resource.

    The alarming thing, for those working to ease this new conflict, is that Cypriots don’t even seem to realise that hostilities between them and nature have begun.

    Charalampos Theopemptou is the Greek Cypriot side’s Environment Commissioner, and it was he who told me the story about the old man in the classroom. He explains its meaning: that within living memory Cyprus was wet – there were plenty of rivers and lakes to swim in. Now, they are all gone.

    The island has reached what geographers call Peak Water – when demand meets and then outstrips supply.

    Peak Oil is already a familiar concept, and commands international attention. However, water, despite being central to life, is having a much harder time getting on to the political radar.

    Dying land

    Dig into the details of the current war and it seems to have less to do with fighting than it does with land.

    The irony is that the Cypriots, all of them, are fighting over land, which is slowly dying

    The issue that stalls peace talks is the question of houses and farms that were seized in the 1974 conflict. On both sides, people would like their houses back, or a cheque in compensation.

    The gradual effect of increasing wealth, EU membership for the south, and the opening of the borders, has defused tension, and means that the eternal subject of property prices is now at the heart of the issue.

    The irony is that the Cypriots, all of them, are fighting over land, which is slowly dying.

    The famous trees of Cyprus are rotting on their waterless roots, turning to dry kindling as they stand in the blazing sun.

    Ever since the 1970s, rainfall has been scarcer, meaning far less water reaching the reservoirs.

    For the past four decades, getting enough water to the farms and the people has been a struggle.

    The general dampness of nature is drying up, like a rag that is being wrung ever tighter.

    This is why the European Commission believes Cyprus is the canary in the coalmine: what happens on this island is threatened to happen all across the drier parts of the continent.

    Experts agree that this crisis can be tackled, but first you have to recognise it’s there – and that’s part of the problem.

    Even the proposed solutions can be problematic.

    Desert resort

    Nicos Vassillou is a small man in his 70s with decades of experience planning and consulting for the Cypriot government. You might also call him a visionary.

    He believes he has a way to solve Cyprus’s problems in one fell swoop – a plan for a pipeline from the Turkish mainland to Cyprus, which will not only meet current demand, but also supply extra to irrigate the parched fields.

    Turkish occupied northern Cypriot village of Bellapais

    Tourism is a key industry particularly in the Turkish-controlled north

    As we talked in a hotel lobby, he painted me a picture of the island transformed back into a verdant paradise and one where peace might reign.

    But the Cypriot government is sceptical – not least because this plan would hand control of the water supply to Ankara, its sworn enemy. And it seems that it still can’t quite believe the water will really run out.

    It has put its money behind de-salination plants, powered by oil-fired electricity stations, which it hopes will supply the cities with water by 2012.

    It has also regularly imposed water rationing – but has turned its back on water conservation and recycling schemes, or even fixing the leaking water pipes.

    The irony is that Cyprus is already considered a kind of paradise by many people – its main business is tourism, and selling property to north Europeans looking for a warmer life.

    The question is, will anyone want to come and swim here at all if the holiday resorts are no more than manufactured oases within a desert?

    While the real, political war steals the headlines for now, the water war is threatening to steal the future of a place once known as the Green Island.

    How to listen to: From Our Own Correspondent

    Radio Four: Saturdays, 1130 BST. Second weekly edition on Thursdays, 1100 BST (some weeks only).

    World Service: See programme schedules

    Download the podcast

    Listen on iPlayer

    Story by story at the

    programme website

  • Assyrian Genocide Recognition Creates Political Crisis in Sweden

    Assyrian Genocide Recognition Creates Political Crisis in Sweden

    3-13-2010

    Sweden (AINA) — The historical decision by the Swedish parliament recognizing Seyfo as a de facto genocide on Assyrians, Greeks and Armenians is creating a considerable political crisis in Swedish politics. The issue has dominated the headlines in Swedish media for several days.

    The Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt, in a taped interview with Afram Barryakoub for Hujådå, the magazine of the Assyrian federation in Sweden, said he recognized the genocide one week before winning the national elections in Sweden in 2006. This fact is set to create problems between Reinfeldt and his foreign minister, Carl Bildt, one of the most pro-Turkish European foreign ministers.

    Bildt has said he will not consider the decision of the parliament but will do everything he can to avoid it becoming official Swedish foreign policy (AINA 3-13-2010). The response to his remarks have come from Hans Linde, the foreign policy spokesman of the Left Party, who said his party will consider pressing charges against Carl Bildt with the national constitution committee.

    Assyrian International News Agency

  • CBS – BY DR. ROBERT B. MCKAY (TURK BOB)

    CBS – BY DR. ROBERT B. MCKAY (TURK BOB)

    From: ALI CINAR
    Subject: BOB MCKAYDEN CBS YORUMU

    bob1

    To Les Moonves, President & CEO, CBS Corp.  lmoonves@cbs.com

    From: Robert McKay, PhD., P. O. Box 126, Eastford, CT 06242 860-974-0392

    Regarding:  Reply to the Bob Simon/Peter Balakian Story titled “Battle over History”

    Date:  February 28, 2010

    Bob Simon’s story being aired Sunday, February 28, 2010, on 60 Minutes with Peter Balakian is causing concerns about CBS by the Turkish community…concerns that I, too, share.

    50 Years ago my wife and I traveled to Turkey.  We lived there for 5 years as teachers at the Tarsus American College, Tarsus, Turkey.  Finding artifacts going back to 2500 B.C. opened our eyes to aspects of history that never seemed real in a sterile classroom on the rolling hills of eastern Connecticut, University of Connecticut.

    One of the many issues that interested me were the events of 1915 and the actions that surrounded them.

    However if we take 1915 out of context we do not see the relentless, persistent and predictable deaths that the Armenians have inflicted on their neighbors:  Jews, Kurds, Turks, Azeries, and all others who might disagree with them.

    A flow of history which shows a uniform and consistent pattern of atrocities by the Armenians would be the 3 periods listed:

    1.      1915 through WWI Armenian Russian conspiracy

    2.      1980’s Armenians begin worldwide assassinations:  Ambassadors and politicians

    they didn’t like.  The FBI credited Armenia with 25% of international terrorism in the USA.

    3.      1992—In the Nagorno=Karabakh region of Azerbaijan Armenian and Russian

    forces kill 400,000 Azaries leaving 1,000,000 (IDP’s) International Displaced

    Persons in Azerbaijan.

    Period I

    Let’s talk about 1915 through WWI.  It is well documented that Russia wished the demise of Ottoman Turkey and wanted access to oceans.  During this period Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire flocked to join Russian forces attacking the Ottomans from their eastern flank.  The Armenian Russian forces and guerilla forces with the Ottoman Empire blow up post offices, cut lines of communication and caused the Ottomans to move up to 400,000 troops from the southern flank to protect the Armenian Russian threat.  There were massacres and atrocities of equal magnitude on both sides.  Bones found in Turkish soil are both ethnically Turkic and Armenian.  However, today after all these years people like Peter Balakian, who never had first hand knowledge of the situation, claim that the Ottoman’s committed a genocide:  as a side note the term genocide was never used until it had political importance long after WWII.

    In brief your concern with the topic is appreciated, but telling only the pro-western/Christian side of the story is not appreciated.  In the minds of many scholars, writers and politicians, the Armenian perspective is wrong!  There are, in fact, two sides.

    Please note that a preponderance of scholars and politicians do not accept the genocide concept.  Interestingly the highest ranking Armenian, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of the new independent Armenian Republic in 1923 did not accept the concept of genocide.

    a)      Dr. Katchaznouni in his report to the Dashnaq Party’s 1923 Congress clearly accepts Armenian responsibility for the tragedy that befell his country.  “We (Armenians) caused this tragedy.  Turks knew what they were doing (and) the (Ottoman Turkish) deportation (of Armenians) was right and necessary”

    This report has been hidden from researchers for years, however since being uncovered it has been published in a brief 125 page book titled “Dashnagtzoutiun Has Nothing to Do Anymore”, Kaynak Yayinlari (Kaynak Press)  pps. 125.

    b) The Malta Tribunal, held by England, immediately after WWI and initiated by the Armenian interest could not convict a single Ottoman military officer or politician of

    genocide and/or war crimes.

    c) U.S. Admiral Bristol, commander of the Sixth Fleet and later first Ambassador to the new Republic of Turkey (post WWI) traveled the country extensively and reported no genocide.

    d) Ambassador Elekdar went to England to intensively study a document produced by the English called the “Blue Book”.  The Ambassador has shown that most of the the documents were either fraudulently written or slanted so as to draw England into WWI.

    Ambassador Elekdar subjected himself to scholars from around the world on his findings. He has not been refuted.

    For brevity it is fair to say that the key scholars and leaders of the early 1900’s did not attribute a genocide to the Ottoman Turks.

    Period II

    During the 1980’s Armenians, who never at any time in the history of the Ottoman Empire had never had sovereignty over even a single square inch of the Anatolian peninsula were beginning to push for land claims and reparation based upon a made up genocide claim.

    During this time the Turkish archives were open to scholars.  No one has ever found a single note or sentence regarding a government policy of eliminating or getting rid of Armenians.

    Armenia would never open its archives.  In order to prevent conflicting view the Armenians began a worldwide campaign of assassinating ambassadors and others who disagreed with them.  In fact at one point during this period the FBI identified Armenia as being responsible for 25% of international terror casualties in the U.S.A.

    Period III

    In 1992 interest in oil drive an Armenian Russian genocide of Azeris.  As in Period I (1915) Armenians are pawns of Russia.

    However since the early 1800’s those people of the Transcaucuses:  Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan have been under the control of Russia.  The Armenians more that the others, have been willing to be the pawns of Russian geo-political interests.

    In the 1990’s Russia had decided that the oil rich region of Nagorno-Karabakh would be an autonomous section of Azerbaijan even though it had a high % of Armenians living there.

    The Armenians living in this Nagorno Karabkh region of Azerbaijan began killing any Azari that lived there.  In the village of Khojaly (about 7000 people) the Armenians killed every man, woman and child.  The Russian 366th Regiment participated.

    The result was that by 1992 Armenians were responsible for killing 400,000 people and leaving over 1,000,000 International Displaced Persons (IDP’s) in Azerbaijan.  Where is the popular media outrage?  Where is the political outrage?  These events are contemporary.

    As background information let’s remember that Armenia today is about the same population as Connecticut, slightly over 3 million.  Ten years ago the Armenian population was almost double that of today.  For economic reasons, Armenians are relocating around the world, a large percentage to Turkey.

    In Conclusion

    1. The long term actions of Armenia as an aggressor pawn of Russia lends credibility to the Turkish claims that there was no genocide.
    1. There is no doubt that more ethnic Turks died than ethnic Armenians,

    (International Red Cross figures state that more than 25% of all ethnic Turks died

    as a result of war, massacres, diseases and starvation.)

    1. There never was an Ottoman policy to exterminate Armenians.
    1. Ottoman Turks failed in World War I in large part because Armenian/Russian

    forces diverted their capabilities to the eastern part of the empire.

    1. At the beginning of the century Armenians were pawns of Russian attempts to

    gain seaports.  Armenia thought part of the Ottoman Empire would be given to

    them.

    1. Later in the century (1992) Armenia was a pawn of Russian oil interests.

    Again Russia gets oil, Armenia expands its borders into Azerbaijan.

    1. Armenian Russian killings in Azerbaijan are 400,000 dead and 1,000,000 IDP’s.

    Where is the outrage by the media and U.S. politicians.

    Personally I was very unhappy to see any program with Peter Balakian associated with it.  He is an Armenian nationalist who, as a “historian” has never attempted to see the truth of both sides.

    I could bring a wide range of resources to CBS that would acknowledge the suffering of Armenians and Turks and would like to do so if CBS has any interest in a broader look at history.

    Your 60 Minute piece either by plan or coincidence came at a very bad time:  the U.S. Congress is considering H. Res. 252 which agrees with the “non historical based claims of Armenia.”

    This resolution will harm U. S. Turkish relations and the Armenian-Turkish normalization process for years to come.  It will also harm Islam Christian trust for centuries around the world.  Alliances between Muslim and Christian countries will be less likely.  Certainly Turkish treaties with American backed Israel will be much

    less enthusiastically viewed.

    Cordially,

    Robert McKay