Category: Main Issues

  • Two Politically Equal and Sovereign Peoples Live on Cyprus

    Two Politically Equal and Sovereign Peoples Live on Cyprus

    The conflict in Cyprus has been ongoing for the past 57 years, since 1955 when the Greek Cypriot terrorist organization EOKA was established.

    Yet still there seems to be no sign of a settlement and no hope for one as well. Cyprus became part of the Ottoman Empire in 1571 and more than 300 years later, it was leased to Britain by Turkey with the agreement that Cyprus was to be returned to Turkey when Britain no longer wanted it.  Britain ruled Cyprus as a protectorate until 1914, when Turkey sided with Germany in the Great War. Britain then annexed Cyprus and assumed sovereignty, ruling it as a colony until 1960 when it became an independent republic.

    Although Cyprus has historically never been part of any Greek state, the population of Cyprus was changed dramatically by the British as from 1905 once Cyprus became a Crown Colony. The British began to allow Greeks to settle in Cyprus and communities were set up in Greece to encourage people to move to the island of Cyprus. Greek Cypriots became a majority on the island of Cyprus and remain so today.

    Around mid 1950s Britain decided to hand sovereignty over to the inhabitants of the island. Her decision was to transfer sovereignty jointly to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot peoples, for the “creation of an independent, partnership state in Cyprus.”

    It was on this basis that the constitution of 1960 was negotiated and the Treaties of Guarantee, Alliance and Establishment were finalized. It was at this point that the Republic of Cyprus came into being as an independent partnership state.

    The agreements that were made were based on equality and partnership between the two people in the independence and sovereignty of the island. The 1960 constitution required joint presence and effective participation on both sides in all organs of the state to be legitimate.

    Neither community had the right to rule other the other, nor could one of the communities claim to govern the other. The aim of the basic articles of both the constitution and the subsequent treaties was to safeguard the rights of the two peoples as equals.

    It was hoped that the two peoples of the island and their new partners would be able to live peacefully together under this new political partnership. It soon became obvious that this was not going to be possible.

    It became clear that the Greek Cypriots and Greece did not intend to abide by the constitution. They did not give up their ambition for the annexation of the island to Greece, and the Greek Cypriot leadership sought to unlawfully bring around constitutional changes. In effect, this would negate the “partnership” status of the Turkish Cypriots and clear the way for annexation with a Turkish minority. The only way that the Greek Cypriots could achieve their aims was to destroy the legitimate order, by the use of force, and to overtake the joint-state. The rule of law collapsed on the island in 1963 as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.

    The Turkish Cypriots took the Greek Cypriots to court because the Greek Cypriots refused to obey the mandatory provision of separate municipalities for the two communities. The court ruled against the Greek Cypriots, and as expected they ignored the courts’ ruling.

    After this the Greeks tried to get eight basic articles of the 1960 Agreement abolished. These articles were there to protect the Turkish Cypriots, and so by removing them the Turkish Cypriots would be reduced to a minority subject to control by the Greek Cypriots. Christmas 1963 saw Greek Cypriot militia attack Turkish Cypriot communities across the island killing many men, women and children. Around 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated. The constitution became unworkable, because of the refusal on the part of the Greek Cypriots to fulfill the obligations to which they had agreed. The bi-national republic which was imagined by the Treaties ceased to exist after December 1963. The Greek Cypriot wing of the “partnership” State took over the title of the “Government of Cyprus” and the Turkish Cypriots, who had never accepted the seizure of power, set up a Turkish administration to run their own affairs.

    In the end, the Greek Cypriot state was internationally recognized under the title of the “Government of Cyprus,” was brought into the EU, and the Turkish Cypriots were forced in 1985 to unilaterally declare their own administration under the name of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,” which still is not recognized.

    The two main peoples on Cyprus, the Turks and the Greeks, share no common language besides English, no common religion and no common literature, nor do they, except on the surface, share any common culture, from the past until the present. A “United Cyprus” or a “United Federal Republic of Cyprus” is a utopian idea that has no hope of realization.

     

    Ata ATUN

    [email protected]

    August 9, 2012

  • EXPECTATION FOR A DISASTER –

    EXPECTATION FOR A DISASTER –

     Ömer Engin LÜTEM

    Turkish Forum Advisory Board member, E Buyukelci
    omer lutem
    Harut Sassounian is an American columnist of Armenian origin. He is known for always supporting extreme nationalist views and showing great reactions towards events, rebuking from time to time Turkish, Armenian and American statesmen and politicians and giving advice to them. Thus, due to these qualifications he is highly admired and frequently read by the Diaspora Armenians. He is a person who must be taken seriously due to his influence over the Armenian Diaspora rather than the value of his writings.

    In one of his articles last week entitled “Frequently Asked Questions on Armenian Demands from Turkey”, he expressed that with 2015 approaching, he will respond to some fundamental questions regarding Armenian territorial demands from Turkey.

    One of these questions was “Isn’t it a Fantasy to expect that Armenians will ever Regain Western Armenia (Eastern Anatolia)?” In response, he said that Turkish leaders will not voluntarily hand over to Armenians a single inch of land, therefore Armenians have to wait for unforeseen developments to occur in and around Turkey—such as civil war, global or regional conflict, revolution, Kurdish insurrection, natural disaster, or nuclear catastrophe— that bring about a power vacuum and possible border changes in that part of the world. In response to another question on “If Western Armenia is freed, wouldn’t the overwhelming majority of the population and elected officials be Kurds and Turks, making Armenians a small minority in their own homeland?”, he stated that demographic changes resulting from unforeseen circumstances in the region shall determine how many Kurds, Turks, or even Armenians remain in the area. Therefore, one cannot automatically conclude that Armenians would become a minority in Western Armenia.

    In short, Sassounian expects that a great development (civil war, global or regional conflict, revolution, Kurdish insurrection, natural disaster or nuclear catastrophe) will occur making it possible for border changes to take place in and around Eastern Anatolia. He expresses and hopes that this development will to a great extent cause the Turks and Kurds to be killed and therefore, the Armenians will be able to gain the majority and Eastern Anatolia could then unite with Armenia.

    Of course this is only a fantasy. Currently and in the discernible future there is not a single indication that such a development could occur in and around Eastern Anatolia. On the other hand, there is also no explanation to why such a development will not affect Armenia and the Armenians; in other words, why the Armenians will survive while the Turks and Kurds are killed. However, apart from these, expecting and even hoping for some disasters to take place and for Turks and Kurds to be killed just to gain territory creates a serious ethical question. This kind of idea could only be the result of a deep racist hatred.

    Although it could have an affect over the Diaspora, it could be thought that not too much importance should be attached to these kinds of insane delusions of a columnist. However, this kind of mentality is very common among the Armenians and even though indirectly, is actually embraced by high-level Armenian statesmen. We will only provide two examples.

    In 2005, in response to a question concerning the territorial integrity of Turkey, Robert Kocharyan, who was President from 1998-2008, had said that the foreign policy of the Government mainly entails the recognition of the Armenian genocide and that the Armenian presidents and politicians in the future should be concerned with the legal consequences of the recognition. According to the Armenians, since the legal consequences of recognizing the genocide allegations is the returning of properties to the relocated Armenians, compensation being paid to them and territory from Eastern Anatolia being given to Armenia, with his statements Kocharyan had indirectly claimed territory from Turkey, but had said that achieving this is up to the statesmen of future generations.

    Current President Sarkisian carries the same view on this issue as his predecessor. Last year in July, in response to a student’s question on whether Western Armenia, including Mount Ararat, will ever unite with Armenia, Sarkisian had said that “everything depends on the young generation. Every generation has some goal to achieve”. Since this response means that future Armenian generations must work towards uniting Eastern Anatolia, including Mount Ararat, with Armenia, the Turkish Foreign Ministry had condemned this statement and expressed that giving advice to the youth and the future generations in a way that will provoke an ideology of hostility and hatred among societies is an extremely irresponsible behavior.

    On the other hand, Prime Minister Erdoğan had said that statesmen ought not to inculcate enmity and hatred in future generations and that Sarkisian’s behavior is incitement, therefore it will lead Armenia’s youth into darkness and their outlook will always be through dark glasses. By also expressing that what Sarkisian meant was to say `Now you got Karabakh from us. In the future you will occupy Ararat` and that this means `Armenia could from now on enter a war against Turkey as it wants`, he had said that there can be no such diplomacy and statesmanship and that Sarkisian has made a serious mistake and must apologize for it.

    As could be seen, territorial claims of the Armenians from Turkey are not recent and although in an indirect manner, still exist and are even addressed on the presidential level. Therefore, there is nothing new in Sassounian’s statements. He has tried to address under which conditions these claims could be achieved and has reached the conclusion that only if a disaster occurs and a majority of the Turks and Kurds are killed in this disaster will it be possible for Turkey to give territory to Armenia.

  • What happens if Syrian Armenians are settled in Nagorno-Karabakh?

    What happens if Syrian Armenians are settled in Nagorno-Karabakh?

    The growing violence in Syria is strongly affecting the ethnic and religious elements in the country. This tension and upheaval raise concerns and worries among the Armenians in the country as well; for this reason, a portion of the Armenian population is seeking refuge in Armenia.

    The Armenian Ministry for the Diaspora has announced that there has been a visible increase in the number of Syrian Armenians filing an application for Armenian citizenship in 2012 and that so far, 4,000 applications for citizenship have been received. The current state of affairs in the city of Aleppo, historically a center of Armenian immigration, is one of the major concerns held by the Armenian authorities right now. It should also be noted that some Armenian groups have acted in favor of Bashar al-Assad’s regime so far. This is a huge handicap because the initial signs of the problems that will be exacerbated in the post-Assad era have become visible in the ongoing clashes where the Armenian people are subjected to violence by the opposition groups.
    Currently, the Armenian government is taking proper measures to facilitate the visa process for Syrian and Lebanese Armenians, to create proper infrastructure of education for the Armenians coming from foreign countries, to appoint teachers who would give lectures on Western Armenian to the newcomers and to ensure that flights become less expensive. Armenian authorities also note that the state is ready to deal with the problems of Syrian Armenians, including the acquisition of citizenship status and their settlement in the country.
    Sergey Minasyan from the Caucasian Institute in Yerevan notes that the post-Assad Syria will not serve Armenian interests, also adding that Syrian Armenians could be settled in Nagorno-Karabakh. Arguing that this would contribute to the economic development of the region, Minasyan wanted to stress other points. There are reasons for ignoring the problems that previously settled Armenians in the region encountered, including social adaptation and unemployment this time.
    First, it is extremely important to promote the flow of capital held by Armenians through recognition of the Syrian Armenians as proper citizens. In addition, there will emerge chances for the diaspora to extend help to these people; therefore, this will promote and improve the image of the diaspora. Funds have already been created for this purpose. For this reason, settlement of Syrian Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh is a reasonable option for Yerevan.
    Second, the new political concept developed to improve ties between Armenia and the diaspora seeks to develop the relations and to preserve unity between Armenia, the diaspora and Nagorno-Karabakh despite all disagreements. To this end, the settlement of the Syrian Armenians in the region seems to be a great opportunity for Yerevan to achieve this goal. This has already been set at the Panarmenian Congress, convened to secure unity and integrity. Bold steps have been taken in recent years to integrate Nagorno-Karabakh with the world and to promote development in the region. Bako Shakyan, the leader of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh administration, has met with representatives of the Iranian Armenian Society in the US, the Argentinean Armenian society members, the representatives of Dashnak Party on the American continent and some Armenian businessmen in Europe on political and economic matters concerning the region. The talks were fruitful; extensive investments have been made in Nagorno-Karabakh in such fields as mining and energy. Slovakia and the Czech Republic started construction of a huge hydroelectric plant in Nagorno-Karabakh. The opposition parties in Armenia including the Dashnak Party, as well as ruling parties, are eager to ensure that Nagorno-Karabakh is recognized as an independent state and that Azerbaijan is presented as an aggressor. To this end, the Armenian authorities used as propaganda the blacklisting by Azerbaijan of  deputies and academics from various countries visiting Nagorno-Karabakh.
    Third, there is eagerness to change the demographic outlook of Nagorno-Karabakh.
    In other words, by this change, Armenia seeks to acquire a stronger position in the probable future peace talks. From another perspective, however, this will be an attempt that will keep the issue unresolved. Even though some actors do not recognize the existence of two separate Armenian states and advocate the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia — and there are some disagreements between the politicians in Yerevan and in Karabakh — this matter needs to be considered in the long run. If it becomes successful in this, Yerevan will have secured strong solidarity between Armenians, and in that case, it can gain a stronger position in the Nagorno-Karabakh issue. Some experts hold that even though it seems unlikely, Armenia’s interest in this issue alone should be considered important.
    A new political move: Comparing Nagorno-Karabakh with Cyprus
    The Armenian authorities who are leading the way in the Karabakh issue note that they take Turkey as an example, arguing that economic development is much more important than military power. Armenia, which frequently stresses that it has liberated the Nagorno-Karabakh territories, also argues that Turkey needs to worry about the Cyprus issue rather than the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute. Shavars Kocharyan, the deputy foreign minister of Armenia, who reacted to Turkey’s criticism of the recently held elections in Karabakh also called on Turkey to stop teaching a lesson to Armenia. In fact, this approach is not new and will not be the last time because all Armenian politicians and experts use the Cyprus card against Turkey when it comes to the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.
    This is similar to the situation where Turkey was silenced due to its approaches vis-à-vis the regional conflicts. In international venues where Turkey was accused of committing genocide against Armenians, Turkey attempted to raise the issue of massacres in the Balkans. However, in each attempt, the Turkish authorities had to stop because of strong accusations. Our politicians and experts who experienced this frequently are displeased with this situation. Therefore, Turkey, instead of reiterating its conventional statements by which it declared it did not recognize the elections that it did not officially recognize, should be able to take alternate political, economic and cultural moves. This is possible through closer attention to regional developments and reshaping foreign policy. Otherwise, a Turkey that becomes hand-tied vis-à-vis diverse issues will have to deal with the risk of inability to promote its just causes in the eyes of the international community.
    Mehmet Fatih ÖZTARSU – Today’s Zaman / Analyst, Strategic Outlook
    *.html
  • Is It A Petrol Crisis Or A Trick For Sovereignty

    Is It A Petrol Crisis Or A Trick For Sovereignty

    Türkiye'nin Münhasır Ekonomik Bölgesi by Ata ATUN
    Exclusive Economic Zone of Turkey by Ata ATUN

    The Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA), finally managed to convey the artificially created petrol crisis based on the hydrocarbon exploration in her so called “Exclusive Economic Zone” in to the EU and European Parliament.

     

    Actually this was the target of the GCA, to create a dispute with Turkey and push Europe as a whole to deal with political issues provoked artificially by her self, with Turkey.

     

    Turkey is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, due to the continental shelf demands of Greece for her Dodecanese islands in Aegean sea. Turkey duly did not accept the 12 nautical miles width of the territorial waters of the Dodecanese islands as declared by Greece on the bases of UNCLOS and noted this act as “Casus Belli”, a “Cause of war”.

     

    All the European countries recognized UNCLOS and are part of this Convention. According to UNCLOS, declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone by an independent state strictly requires mutual agreement’s of the neighbor states around.

    Since Turkey is not a part of this convention, she already possesses her previously declared southern Continental Shelf stretching 200 nautical miles southwards starting from the baseline joining Gazipasha, the eastern tip of Antalya bay, with Kash, the western tip of Antalya Bay, according to the 1958 Geneva Convention.

    GCA had signed an Economic Cooperation agreement with Greece years before. Now she signed and agreement with Egypt delimiting their respective economic zones and providing for detailed offshore cooperation, while she also has agreed with Lebanon on a similar delimitation and cooperation.

     

    The Economic Cooperation agreement with Greece, covers and delimits the seas between Rhodes island and Western tip of Cyprus, extending 200 nautical miles southwards, shuts away to Turkey the western waters of Eastern Mediterranean sea.

    The Exclusive Economic Zone agreement with Egypt, covers all the waters with in Cyprus and Egypt and gives underwater sovereignty to Greece, Cyprus and Egypt.

    The Exclusive Economic Zone agreement with Lebanon, covers all the waters in between Cyprus and Lebanon as well.

     

    The target of these agreements is, to occupy Turkey’s southern Continental Shelf zone, to build a solid wall around Turkey’s southern shores and to isolate her from the seas of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, with all the underwater and sea bed wealth underneath.

     

    Based on the 1960 Treaty of the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, the March 4, 1964 dated UN resolution No. 186, passed to stop the fierce inter-communal clashes on the island, contributed to the GCA the sovereignty and the role of Governing Government of the island of Cyprus.

     

    The protocol 10 of the Republic of “Cyprus’ Accession Agreement” to the EU, took into consideration the island of Cyprus as a single sovereign state and the GCA as the sole and only accredited “Government of Cyprus”, as well.

    Article 1(1) of Protocol 10 disregards the existence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and partnership rights of Turkish Cypriots in the so called Greek Cyprus Government, and defines the territories under the sovereignty of TRNC as “the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”.

     

    The trick of the artificial petrol crisis lies on extending and spreading the sovereignty of the GCA to the territorial seas of “the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”, namely the waters of TRNC, facing to Turkey, along the northern cost of the island and grasp the whole island, relying on to the 26 EU member states behind.

     

    Ata ATUN

    [email protected]

  • In Cyprus, a new generation inherits a conflict

    In Cyprus, a new generation inherits a conflict

    Tell a Greek Cypriot that your next destination is the Turkish city of Istanbul, once the seat of empires, and there’s a chance you will be gently chided. “You mean `Constantinople,’” the conversation partner might say, referring to the former Byzantine capital, which fell to Ottoman armies in 1453.

    By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

    map of Cyprus lge2

    PYLA, Cyprus —Tell a Greek Cypriot that your next destination is the Turkish city of Istanbul, once the seat of empires, and there’s a chance you will be gently chided. “You mean `Constantinople,’” the conversation partner might say, referring to the former Byzantine capital, which fell to Ottoman armies in 1453.

    This allegiance to the past is tinged with defiance, a stubborn refusal to call a place by the name chosen by the inhabitants of a hostile country. But it is more recent civil strife and war, nearly half a century ago, that infuse the psyche of Cyprus, a Mediterranean island favored by vacationers for its sun and beaches. Â

    In a strange twist, divided Cyprus has taken on a role meant to unify, this month assuming the rotating presidency of the European Union, a six-month stint that gives it a self-promotional platform even as it scrambles for a multi-billion dollar bailout to support its troubled banks. In another quirk of split-screen Cyprus, it is seeking money from oil-rich Russia, an increasingly important friend, in addition to the EU, as it tries to avoid the austerity measures that would likely come with any European aid.

    At the heart of these dueling directions lies the “Cyprus problem,” as it is blandly known.

    Talk of a peace settlement between the island’s majority Greek Cypriot community and Turkish Cypriots that would end decades of political uncertainty is giving way to a sense that the problem is, unofficially, the default solution.

    “People are simply not interested in any form of power-sharing,” said Yiannis Papadakis, a social anthropologist at the University of Cyprus. “There is a strong denial of this reality.”

    Papadakis said the problem is so consuming that it has sapped will on both sides to debate migration, the environment, women’s rights and other important social issues. He questioned whether they can compromise and trust each other if they ever reach a political settlement.

    Cyprus, which joined the EU in 2004, split into an internationally recognized, Greek-speaking south and a Turkish-speaking north after a 1974 invasion by Turkey, a reaction to a coup attempt by supporters of union with Greece. Travel restrictions between the two sides have relaxed, but negotiations on security and territory foundered. Only Turkey, whose EU candidacy has stalled partly because of the impasse, recognizes the government in the north.

    The result is an island that is not quite a nation, with an identity that is the sum of its shards. When George Andreou became the first Cypriot to climb Mount Everest and held up his nation’s flag at the summit in May, it was a reminder of division as well as a symbol of unity.

    The flag, designed by a Turkish Cypriot and adopted in 1960 after independence from British rule, shows a map of the whole island and two olive branches, a symbol of peace between communities. But Turkish Cypriots use a flag that is a variation of the star and crescent emblem of Turkey, their patron.

    In his rucksack, Andreou, 39, also carried the old flag of his hometown Famagusta, which he and his ethnic Greek family fled ahead of Turkish forces, less than one year after he was born. The climber has never returned to his house in Famagusta, where Turkish Cypriots now live, because he thinks it would help to legitimize Turkish forces based in the northern part of the island.

    “It is like I never lived my childhood or I refused to remember,” Andreou wrote in an email. “I know from my parents that they had been very difficult years since we left everything behind, hoping we would go back soon. It never happened. Instead, we lived in houses without doors and windows, in tents, in the fields, anywhere just to stay safe and away from war.”

    Days after Andreou, a banker, returned from the Himalayas, his wife gave birth to their first child, who may grow up to discover the same sour politics. The same goes for the 3-year-old daughter of Ahmet Sozen, a Turkish Cypriot research director at Cyprus 2015, a group that seeks to promote joint understanding.

    Sozen said the uncertainty goes back to the 1950s, when his father, now 80 years old, was a police officer in a British administration fighting a Greek Cypriot guerrilla group that sought union with Greece.

    While today’s stalemate is violence-free, Sozen maintains the ethnic Greek-Turkish divide has a corrosive impact on Cypriot psychology.

    “I don’t want my little daughter to go through the same thing in her life,” said Sozen, who was inspired to become a professor of politics in order to help find a solution, even though his self-described “life mission” sometimes exhausts and frustrates him. Polls by his group indicate that Turkish Cypriots, who have leaned toward living apart because of fears of being dominated, and Greek Cypriots, who have tended to prefer a one-state island dominated by their majority, are moving further from the compromise of a power-sharing federation.

    Greek Cypriots fear encroachment from Turkey, a rising power that objects to Greek Cypriot plans for off-shore oil and gas exploration. They highlight past suffering, but gloss over the question of 1960s attacks on Turkish Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots resent the Greek Cypriot rejection of unification in a 2004 referendum.

    “As more time passes, it’s not good for the result, meaning that people are not moving toward the solution spirit. On the contrary,” said Sozen, noting that the problem is exacerbated by a gap between Cypriots and their leaders. “People are alienated in the sense that the common people are shut away from the official process. The general public is not really informed by what is happening.”

    In February, Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu said negotiations with the Greek Cypriot leader left “a zucchini taste in the mouth,” a Turkish way of saying they have grown bland.

    His Greek Cypriot counterpart, President Demetris Christofias said in May that talking to Eroglu was like trying to knock down a wall by throwing eggs at it.

  • Turkish Cypriots Shackled in Life, Shackled in Sport

    Turkish Cypriots Shackled in Life, Shackled in Sport

    image001

    Sunday, 22nd July 2012:  The British Turkish Cypriot Association (BTCA) in conjunction with the human rights group Embargoed!, held a protest outside The London Hilton on Park Lane, the International Olympic Committee’s (IOC) official headquarters for the London 2012 Olympic Games.

    The group was passing on the messages and sentiments of all Turkish Cypriots to once again remind the IOC of their promises to world athletes which is to ignore political differences within the spirit of the Olympic Games.

    The main theme banner depicted a logo which read:

    “Turkish Cypriots Shackled in Life, Shackled in Sport” and then asks:  “WHY ?”.

    However, the answers to this question seem as complicated as the Cyprus problem itself and this again demonstrates the double standards practiced upon the Turkish Cypriot people.

    BTCA Chairman, Cetin Ramadan, said in a letter to Mr. Jacques Rogge:

    As the spirit of the Olympics finally hits the East end of London and the country as a whole, the excitement builds but Turkish Cypriots have mixed feelings about the whole affair.  Many British Turkish Cypriots have expressed their dismay, sadness and disappointment at the exclusion of Turkish Cypriot athletes in the forthcoming London Olympic Games.  As the BTCA, we have been called upon to channel their heartfelt grievances and request a reason why the IOC cannot accept Turkish Cypriots participating under the Olympic flag.

    Regardless of the political circumstances in Cyprus, this should not be used as a reason to bar Turkish Cypriots from sport.  We cannot understand why the IOC has denied participation of Turkish Cypriot athletes in the London 2012 Olympic Games especially as they are willing to compete as individual athletes under the Olympic flag, similar to athletes from other countries.

    The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has produced world class athletes such as taekwondo World Champions Ziya Gokbilen and Pinar Akarpinar.  But despite proving their world class competence and status, their request to compete under the Olympic flag was denied.

    We believe that the discrimination of this magnitude represents a particularly vicious form of unreason and fear in the search for a UN sponsored political agreement in Cyprus.  We believe it is precisely the mission of the IOC to dispel any such future actions by setting an example of the importance of diversity at a European and global platform.