Category: Main Issues

  • Mission Accomplished?

    Mission Accomplished?


    By David Boyajian

    USA Armenian Life Magazine

    By any objective measure, the two-year old campaign against the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) denial of the Armenian genocide has been a spectacular success.  The ADL, the Jewish American community, Israel, and Turkey were taken by surprise and shaken to their roots.  As shockwaves from the campaign spread, Turkey’s ambassador to Israel cut short his vacation to return to Tel Aviv to complain to Israeli leaders.

    Grassroots Armenians in Massachusetts have flexed, and continue to flex, their political muscles as never before, targeting the Massachusetts Municipal Association and the elected officials and human rights commissions of 14 cities: Arlington, Bedford, Belmont, Easton, Lexington, Medford, Needham, Newburyport, Newton, Northampton, Peabody, Somerville, Watertown, and Westwood.
    As a result, they have all ceased sponsoring No Place for Hate (NPFH), the alleged anti-bias program created, trademarked, and funded by the ADL.  See NoPlaceForDenial.com.


    Successful Results


    Among campaigns initiated by Armenian Americans, only the Congressional genocide resolution has generated more exposure and controversy.


    The campaign has spawned thousands of news reports, editorials, commentaries, radio interviews, and letters in non-Armenian media in the U.S. and around the world.


    The battle against the ADL and NPFH has underscored to non-Armenians that the genocide issue directly affects them, their cities, and their schools.


    Armenian Americans now have a louder voice in their communities.  And those who deny the genocide have been put further on the defensive.


    Exposing the ADL’s holocaust hypocrisy reportedly helped to push the House Foreign Affairs Committee into approving the genocide resolution two years ago.


    The campaign is the main reason why recent news reports on the strained relations between Turkey and Israel refer to the Jewish lobby’s collusion with Turkey in genocide denial.
    Other denialists, such as the American Jewish Committee and B’nai B’rith, have also been exposed.


    Armenian Leaders Fall Short


    Sadly, outside Massachusetts, Armenians and lobbying organizations such as the Armenian National Committee of America and Armenian Assembly of America have done little to defend Armenians and others against the ADL denialism and programs.  This is a major failure.


    Even in Massachusetts, the Armenians who have been fighting the ADL are mostly grassroots activists and several ANCA leaders.  With rare exceptions, our so-called Armenian leaders in politics, academia, business, journalism, law, medicine, and the church have remained shamefully silent and uninvolved.  The reasons?  Laziness and, in my opinion, an unwarranted fear of criticizing a Jewish organization.


    The fact is that the Massachusetts campaign has drawn enormous support from non-Armenians, many of them Jews: human rights commission members, city officials, journalists, academicians, and more.


    Armenians must not permit genocide denial, whether by a Turkish, Jewish, or any other kind of group.


    The ADL and America


    As Americans, Armenians have a wider responsibility to expose the ADL and similar organizations that falsely claim to espouse “human rights.”


    ADL programs besides NPFH, such as World of Difference (WOD), have infiltrated thousands of cities, workplaces, law enforcement agencies, and public schools, the latter often attended by Armenian American children.


    When Glendale’s Hoover High issued an invitation to WOD, the Armenian community put a stop to it, but only – only – because it was aware of the campaign in Massachusetts.  WOD even tried to penetrate St. Stephen’s Armenian Elementary School in Watertown.


    Were it not so damaging to society, it would be laughable that an organization that conspires with Turkey to cover up mass murder is strong-arming countless American citizens – children, teachers, workers, law enforcement officers, and ordinary citizens – into its “anti-hate” and “tolerance” training programs.


    Some ADL members who conduct these programs may be well intentioned.  But the national ADL leadership is not.   It is clear, particularly given its collusion with Turkey, that the ADL is a political, not a civil or human rights, group.  Its “human rights” programs are a cover – a way to influence and buy unsuspecting Americans who will later support, or at least not criticize, the ADL’s foreign and domestic agenda.


    Incredibly, ADL agents have also conducted illegal surveillance of African Americans, Latinos, labor unions, and others.  The police chief of Arlington, Massachusetts has even admitted that the ADL provides police with investigative intelligence that they cannot legally obtain themselves.


    One can surmise, therefore, that the ADL may operate covertly against Armenian Americans.


    Continuing the Campaign


    There are compelling moral and practical reasons why Armenians must continue this campaign.
    Human rights experts say that the Armenian genocide was – and denial of any genocide is – an offense against humankind as a whole.  All people, therefore, Armenians included, have a responsibility to confront denialists.


    Even Israelis acknowledge that Israeli – Turkish accords include an unwritten proviso that top Jewish lobbying groups such as the ADL work against Armenians on virtually every issue of concern to Armenian Americans, such as military aid to Azerbaijan and Turkey.


    According to political analyst Harut Sassounian, for example, AJC and B’nai B’rith officials issued “a public pledge to help enact pro-Azeri and pro-Turkish legislation and counter Armenian and Greek initiatives in the U.S. Congress.”


    Exposing the holocaust hypocrisy of the ADL and other organizations reduces their credibility and, therefore, their ability to damage Armenian American interests.


    Even locally, ADL members have worked against Armenian interests.  A top ADL officer and well-connected Boston figure, Peter Meade, has made himself the main opponent of the proposed Armenian Heritage Park – which includes a genocide plaque – on Boston’s Rose Kennedy Greenway.


    Will Armenian Americans confront organizations that harm not just their interests, but also those of the wider American society?  In Massachusetts, yes.   Elsewhere, it remains to be seen.
    The author is a freelance writer. Several of his articles are archived at Armenianpedia.org.

  • Can Ter-Petrossyan benefit?

    Can Ter-Petrossyan benefit?

    By Appo Jabarian

    Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
    USA Armenian Life Magazine

    Public interest in the 2009 Glendale city election among both Democrats and Republicans may reach as far as California’s capital city of Sacramento. But the public interest roused by Yerevan city council and mayoral election has definitely traveled to the far corners of the Armenian Diaspora and to the dark corridors used by certain non-Armenian special interest groups, such as the neo-cons in Washington and elsewhere.

    What does Glendale, CA, USA have in common with Yerevan, Armenia? The overcrowded field of candidates for City Council races in both cities. The overflowing fields in both municipalities have created a zoo-like atmosphere.

    Is Yerevan on the verge of being “Glendalized?” Or, is Glendale being “Yerevanized?” Glendale has been holding its city council races since its founding in 1908 without a primary election. A primary can weed out perennial candidates that siphon away votes from well-qualified ones. So Glendale has been “Glendalized” long before Yerevan. So the verdict is in.

    As of press time Monday March 23, there were nearly a dozen candidates that had entered the race for the April 7 election for Glendale’s three open seats on the council, whereas in Yerevan, nearly 400 candidates (representing 7 parties) had entered race for the sixty five seats on the Armenian capital’s city council.

    To add further excitement to the Yerevan election, for the first time ever, the elected body of the 65 Council Members will elect one from their ranks as mayor.

    According to the 2005-amended Armenian Constitution, “If one of the parties participating in the council elections receives more than 50 percent of the seats, the person topping that party’s list becomes the mayor. If the person topping the party’s election list does not meet the requirements, withdraws, or as a result of the elections none of the parties receives more than 50 percent of the seats, the mayor is elected by a secret ballot.”

    The seven political parties vying for seats in the Yerevan City Council elections and for the mayor’s seat are: 1) Opposition People’s Party, 2) Opposition Labor Socialist Party of Armenia, 3) Opposition Armenian National Congress along with opposition coalition members 4) Prosperous Armenia, 5) Republican Party of Armenia, 6) Armenian Revolutionary Federation and 7) Orinats Erkir (Country of Law).

    Who may benefit from Yerevan’s overcrowded field of candidates?

    In the absence of active cooperation among the ruling coalition member parties, most probably any one party may fail to garner over 50% of the council seats.

    And which party/candidate may benefit the most? That remains to be seen.

    But who will resort to machinations to benefit at any cost from the zoo-like situation? Some parties/candidates, and certainly former president Levon Ter-Petrossyan.

    For many of his Armenian and non-Armenian supporters, the mayoral election is a mini presidential race for failed presidential candidate Ter-Ptrossyan who contested last year’s presidential election and was soundly defeated by his main adversary President Serge Sarkissian.

    Having lost the 2008 presidential election, Ter-Ptrossyan’s supporters manipulated the misinformed Armenian youth and led them into street riots and direct confrontation with Armenia’s Police. Over ten citizens lost their lives because of such public violence instigated by the former president’s supporters.

    At the time, many independent observers laid the blame of the March 1, 2008 tragedy squarely on Mr. Ter-Petrossyan.

    Can the same scenario be repeated in May of this year?

    Concerned citizens on both sides of the aisle shouldn’t wait and see. They should be remain alert. They should not fall into Ter-Petrossyan’s supporters’ trap again.

    Before, during and after the race for the mayor of Yerevan, the responsibility of maintaining public order and country’s internal stability falls on the shoulders of both the government and opposition. Helping Armenia emerge as a healthy young democracy is everybody’s national duty. Overnight, Democracy in Armenia can not be to par with long-established democracies in Europe and the United States. Armenia became independent only 18 years ago from the now-defunct one-party Soviet system.

    Also, the neo-cons in Washington and elsewhere shall abstain from misusing the “democracy” mantra to further their so-called “Rose Revolution” agenda in Armenia. They should leave Armenia alone.

    If these elements are that much “empathetic” towards Armenian Democracy’s well-being, they better 1) Discourage individuals like Ter-Petrossyan to destabilize Armenia from within; 2) Assist Armenia in overcoming the dire economic consequences of the 15 year-old illegal blockade by Turkey and Azerbaijan; 3) In helping the Republic of Artsakh (Karabagh) Armenians exercise their right to self-determination by effectively urging the international community to recognize it as an independent Armenian Republic which was freed from former Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan’s occupation (1921-1994); 4) Urge Turkey to return to Armenians their lands in Western Armenia and Cilicia; and 5) Urge Azerbaijan to return to Armenians both Northern Artsakh district of Shahumian and Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic.

  • Letter to Pelosi

    Letter to Pelosi

    PRESS RELEASE

    A letter sent to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and signed by almost all of the retired Turkish Ambassadors is disclosed Thursday morning April 2nd, just a few days before President Obama’s visit to Ankara. Unusually strong wording reflects their serious concerns regarding a recent initiative taken by the Armenian-American lobby in Washington.

    Every year in April, Armenian lobby asks the US Congress, so far without success, to adopt a resolution recognizing their claims of “Armenian Genocide” perpetrated according to them at the beginning of last Century, during the First Wold War, under Ottoman rule.

    Diplomats state that the arguments used in the draft resolution are inaccurate or unfounded. The silence regarding the losses and sufferings of the Turkish people during the same period adds to its total one-sidedness, therefore to its fairness and credibility.

    In a long text they highligt one by one the shortcomings and the distortions of the historic events mentioned in the draft. For instance, they point out that the court martials formed in 1919 at the end of the War in Istanbul under Allied military occupation are taken as valid bases to prove the guilt of the Ottoman rulers, while they were considered at that time even by British lawyers as a “farce” undermining their credibility. They also underline that the US archive documents had been dismissed by the British Attorney General in 1920 as “personal impressions and opinions” unsuitable for use in legal proceedings.

    They explain how Armenians manipulated US Ambassador Morgenhtau, who had some particular vision about Turks and “Orientals” in general and how some subsequent American ambassadors, including Admiral Bristol and the “US Observer Mission” had contradicted him.

    They reject references made to International institutions stating that neither the United Nations, nor the Genocide Convention have ever recognized or made mention of “an Armenian Genocide”, as suggested in the draft resolution. Consideration of a report with these claims was refused on the grounds that it was not the UN’s task to pass judgment on history.

    They quote a report of Secretary of State R.Lansing to President Wilson, where R.Lansing express the opinion that “The betrayal of the Armenians against the State is the cause of their relocation”. They also mention official records in which Armenians present themselves as “de facto participants in the war” on the Allied side against the Ottoman State, just to be admitted in the Peace Conference.

    Providing detailed census figures taken from various official records, they make the following interesting observation to illustrate what they call as “the malicious exaggeration” of the death toll: \”If the present global Armenian population is accepted as the descendants of a a limited number of Armenians to have survived the relocation, this would mean a population explosion unheard in the history of mankind. By the same rate of growth, the present day
    population of Turkey would have reached three hundred million, almost equal to the population of the United States, instead of the present 72 million”. Adding that: “Prominent scholars (Turkish, American and others), refute these exaggerations as the remnants of war propaganda (as later acknowledged by British historian Arnold Toynbee) or as the products of ethnic and religious bias. The same bias also explains the lack of any reference to Turkish-
    Muslim deaths”.

    They also draw our attention to the juridical inconsistencies of the Armenian claims by stating that “Genocide” is a legal concept defined in the 1948 UN Convention and only a due and impartial legal process by a competent court can certify its existence and issue an indictment to this effect. Hence, they expect the Congress of the United States, itself an edifice of law, to refrain from acting as a self-appointed tribunal.

    The following paragraph in the letter is particularly interesting. They recognize that “the number of casualties is important”. “However” they say: ” in order to qualify such unfortunate events as “genocide”, it is not the numbers, but irrefutable proof about the existence of the intent to destroy a people “as such” that needs to be established. At the end of the War, Allied governments who were in possession of all official records and archives could not produce any credible document or evidence proving this element of intent. They consequently released all the ministers and parliamentarians who were detained or interned in Malta for prosecution of war crimes”.

    They suspect that some Armenian circles may consider such allegations as politically useful, even a convenient cover for the ongoing occupation of a fifth of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the expulsion of more than one million people from their homes.

    According to them, if the US Congress adopts this draft Resolution failing to take the slightest trouble to consider arguments other than those raised by ethnic Armenian activists, that will inevitably have a serious debilitating effect on Turkish-American relations and will postpone indefinitely the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. They add that, to speak about different versions of the events is not phibited in Turkey, contrary to prohibition imposed by some European states. The refusal by the Armebian side of a Turkish proposal for the establishment of a commission composed of Turkish and Armenian scholars clearly demonstrates who in reality is afraid of facing the truth.

    They are warning that “many possibilities of cooperation between Turkey and the USA in the Middle East, the Caucasus, the Balkans, in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the field of energy, in the joint struggle against terrorism and other transnational challenges are likely to suffer as a result” and that “the goodwill already generated by the planned visit of President Barrack Obama to Turkey”, as well the positive effects of the overtures made to Armenia for the normalisation of relations “may be lost”.

    Ali Hikmet Alp

  • Azerbaijan Warns Turkey

    Azerbaijan Warns Turkey

     

     

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1602796.html

    By Emil Danielyan

    Turkey will act against the national interests of Azerbaijan if it normalizes relations with Armenia before a resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov said on Thursday.

    “If the [Turkish-Armenian] border is opened before Armenian troops’ withdrawal from the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, that will run counter to Azerbaijan’s national interests,” Mammadyarov told journalists during a visit to Georgia.

    “We have brought this opinion to the notice of the Turkish leadership,” he said in remarks broadcast by the Azerbaijani ANS television and monitored by BBC. “To tell the truth, the Turkish leadership accepts that and says that the [Karabakh peace] talks should continue and that Armenia’s troops should withdraw from the occupied territories. Only on this condition can the border be opened.”

    The warning followed Turkish and Western media reports that Armenia and Turkey are poised to announce an agreement that commits them to gradually establishing full diplomatic relations and reopening their border. Ankara shut down the frontier in 1993, at the height of the war in Karabakh, out of solidarity with Turkic Azerbaijan. A Karabakh settlement acceptable to Baku has been a key Turkish precondition for normalizing relations with Armenia.

    The two neighboring nations embarked on a dramatic rapprochement last summer amid indications that Ankara is ready to stop linking Turkish-Armenian ties to Karabakh. The apparent policy change has prompted serious concern from Azerbaijani politicians and pundits. They believe that an open border with Turkey would ease Armenia’s regional isolation and encourage it to maintain the Karabakh status quo.

    “Hurriyet Daily News” claimed on Thursday that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliev has threatened to halt gas supplies to Turkey if Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government cuts a ground-breaking deal with the Armenians. The paper claimed that Aliev made the threat at a meeting with unspecified “third parties” in Baku. It gave no further details.

    Aliev was expected to discuss the matter with the visiting U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Matthew Bryza. “Mr. Bryza travels to Azerbaijan Thursday to discuss how a Turkish-Armenian agreement could help revive efforts for a settlement on Nagorno-Karabakh,” reported “The Wall Street Journal.” The paper cited an unnamed senior Turkish official as saying that Washington is trying to facilitate such an agreement.

    According to “The Wall Street Journal” and the Turkish press, Ankara and Yerevan are close to signing a “roadmap” to normalizing bilateral times and setting up inter-governmental commissions dealing with various issues of mutual interest. One of these commissions would reportedly study the 1915 mass killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire.

    The idea of such a study was floated by Erdogan in 2005 and rejected by then Armenian President Robert Kocharian, who considered it a Turkish ploy designed to scuttle worldwide recognition of the massacres as genocide. Kocharian’s successor, Serzh Sarkisian, has indicated that he does not object to the Turkish proposal in principle.

    Press reports have said that the Turkish-Armenian deal could be unveiled during or shortly after U.S. President Barack Obama’s April 6-7 visit to Turkey. Turkish leaders hope that will discourage Obama from honoring his election campaign pledge to recognize the Armenian genocide. They have warned that such a declaration would set back the Turkish-Armenian dialogue.

    Armenian Foreign Minister Eduard Nalbandian dismissed the Turkish warnings during an early March visit to Paris. Diplomatic sources say Nalbandian may again meet his Turkish counterpart, Ali Babacan, early next week on the sidelines of a UN-sponsored international conference in Istanbul. For his part, Babacan is expected to visit Yerevan on April 16 to attend a high-level meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation Organization.

    (Photolur photo: Elmar Mammdyarov.)

  • Are Turkey And Armenia About To Normalize Relations?

    Are Turkey And Armenia About To Normalize Relations?

    C41D5CFE 6566 4762 940A C983660228DE w393 s

    In September, Turkish President Abdullah Gul (left) accepted Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian’s invitation to attend a soccer match between their countries.

    April 02, 2009

    There are increasing hints that Turkey and Armenia could soon announce a deal reopening their border — which has been closed since 1993 — and restoring diplomatic relations.

    Regional analyst Richard Giragosian, director of the Yerevan-based Armenian Center for National and International Studies, discusses the possibilities of such a deal with RFE/RL correspondent Charles Recknagel.

    RFE/RL: You are one of an increasing number of regional analysts who see a forthcoming accord between Ankara and Yerevan. Why is that?

    Richard Giragosian: We see broader developments that have moved both parties, Armenia and Turkey, much closer to forging a historic agreement. These broader trends include not only Russian support for such an initiative but we also see [that] the upcoming visit of U.S. President [Barack] Obama to Turkey [on April 6-7], the recent visit of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Turkey, and several months of secret negotiations and diplomatic negotiations between the Armenians and Turks in Switzerland have paved the way for a historic breakthrough agreement.

    RFE/RL: There are some additional variables to consider that might increase pressure to reach agreement, including Obama’s campaign promise to support a Congressional resolution that would recognize as genocide the killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in the period of World War I, and the upcoming Armenian Remembrance Day on April 24, which the White House traditionally marks with a statement. How soon do you think a Turkish-Armenian accord might be announced?

    Giragosian: We see leaks of such a deal in the Turkish media and it seems both sides are now preparing their respective societies to brace for an announcement that possibly could come as early as April 16, when the Turkish foreign minister arrives in Armenia in the form of a meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation organization.

    However, I do not expect a breakthrough agreement to be unveiled during the April 16 meeting. It seems more likely that Turkey will decide to wait until after April 24 in order to exert maximum leverage over the Obama administration to refrain from recognizing the “Armenian Genocide” in his April 24 statement.

    Thawing Relations

    RFE/RL: If there is an announcement of an accord, what points might it include?

    Giragosian: Several elements will be announced, starting with an agreement to open the long-closed border between Armenia and Turkey, followed by an agreement to move toward diplomatic relations, with the Turkish ambassador in Georgia most likely assuming the portfolio of representing Turkey in Armenia.

    Third, we see an agreement as well to form a large, all-encompassing governmental commission to resolve several issues, most importantly including the “Armenian Genocide” issue. And fourthly, we do see signs of a possible Turkish unveiling of a new document or road map on Nagorno-Karabakh committing all sides to work within the OSCE Minsk Group mediation process and committing all sides to working hard to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which is the last frozen conflict in the region.

    RFE/RL: How much opposition is there in Turkey and Armenia to an accord?

    Giragosian: Once the agreement is announced publicly, this will invite confrontation with powerful vested interests. On the Turkish side, the vested interests which will oppose this will perhaps be a nationalist reaction against normalization. From the Armenian side, the Armenian government will have to deal with the Armenian diaspora, which has taken the lead role in terms of Armenian nationalism on this issue and the lead role in genocide-recognition efforts.

    All Sides In Favor

    RFE/RL: You are in Yerevan. What is motivating the Armenian government to pursue an accord at this time?

    Giragosian: The timing is both ironic and inductive to normalization and an agreement, mainly because it is this Armenian government that is much less popular and much less legitimate than any previous Armenian government, making its desire for a foreign-policy success even more profound.

    The Armenian government, embattled by a political internal stalemate, needs a foreign-policy success to distract international attention and divert it away from domestic shortcomings and also to endow it with a degree of legitimacy, which it lacks.

    RFE/RL: And what about the Turkish side?

    Giragosian: We also see, for the first time, that it is in Turkey’s national security interest to open the border, to stabilize the restive Kurdish regions of eastern Turkey, which, after the war in Iraq, is even a larger concern for Turkey.

    RFE/RL: Finally, what is Russia’s position on a Turkish-Armenian accord? In the past, Moscow — which has strong ties with Yerevan — has been seen as against it. Has that changed?

    Giragosian: The key difference here is that after the war in August [in South Ossetia between Russia and Georgia], the Russians are now supporting the process, unlike in the past, and in fact they are also looking to use open borders between Armenia and Turkey to their own economic benefit by virtue of their control over energy and telecommunications in Armenia, but also to further isolate and marginalize Georgia, which is in their strategic interest.

    But despite the negative agenda I do think that, regardless of the motivations, that the end result is a net benefit for all sides.

    https://www.rferl.org/a/Are_Turkey_And_Armenia_About_To_Normalize_Relations/1600894.html

  • Turkish Cypriots in bid to grab EU Parliament seats

    Turkish Cypriots in bid to grab EU Parliament seats

    Published: Wednesday 1 April 2009   

    Cypriot officials have rejected demands from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to hand two seats in the next European Parliament to MEPs hailing from the breakaway northern part of the island, which has so far only been recognised by Ankara. EurActiv Turkey contributed to this article.

    A group of Turkish Cypriots living in London have warned they are putting the matter before the European Court of Justice, asking for the cancellation of the European elections in Cyprus if their demands are not met. 

    Mehmet Bayramoglu and Münir Tatar want the EU to give two of the six Cypriot seats to Turkish Cypriots, so the northern part of the divided island is represented in the European Parliament. 

    The government of Cyprus strongly resisted the calls. Any move that aims to withhold two Cypriot seats in the EU assembly during efforts to solve the Cyprus problem would not be constructive, Cypriot Foreign Minister Marcos Kyprianou stated on 26 March. 

    “The way these seats are distributed is a matter of internal legislation of each member state and not an EU matter,”‘ Kyprianou noted, recalling that during Cyprus’ accession to the EU in 2004, it was agreed that different provisions could be made should the Cyprus issue be resolved. 

    Given that UN-led negotiations on Cyprus are not expected to conclude before the June European elections, Kyprianou said that the poll should be held under Cypriot legislation, which authorises Turkish Cypriots to vote and even apply for Parliament – but only if they register in the southern part of the island. 

    An EU Council decision adopted in 2004 sets the number of EU elected representatives in Cyprus at six. However, it adds that elections shall not be held in the northern part of the island, where “the government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”. 

    In the event of the entry into force of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, the Council states that the term of office of the elected MEPs from Cyprus shall end, and extraordinary European elections shall be held throughout the whole of Cyprus. 

    Cypriot officials told EurActiv that almost 80,000 Turkish Cypriots, who have acquired the new identity card of the Republic of Cyprus and are eligible to register as voters, have also the right to be included on the special electoral list for the European Parliamentary elections. 

    The government of the Republic of Cyprus has even simplified identification formalities, allowing voters to participate on polling day by merely presentating their Republic of Cyprus identity cards, an official added, stressing that Turkish Cypriots in possession of the new identity card could register as voters, stand as independent candidates or register political parties.