Η πλεκτάνη Αναν και τα πλοκάμια της.. Έκθεση του International Crisis Group

Πιο κάτω στην παρούσα ενότητα παραθέτω κείμενα που αφορούν την δράση εξωπολιτικών «διεθνικών ιδρυμάτων» που στο παρελθόν ανάπτυξαν σημαντική δράση στην περίπτωση της πλεκτάνης γύρω από το σχέδιο Αναν. Σημειώνεται ότι ακόμη και μετά το δημοψήφισμα και το ΟΧΙ των κυπρίων το γνωστό ευαγές ίδρυμα που εδρεύει στην Ελλάδα με ισχυρές εξωπολιτικές διεθνικές και άλλες διασυνδέσεις διοργάνωσε στην Αθήνα συνάντηση για να αναπτύξουν τις θέσεις τους οι υπάλληλοι του International Crisis Group. Την έκθεση του International Crisis Group μπορείτε να την βρείτε στην ιστοσελίδα τους. Πιο κάτω παραθέτω εύστοχα δοκίμια των Πετάση και Ευρυβιάδη που την σχολιάζουν τεκμηριωμένα.

Το ευαγές ίδρυμα ICG και οι μυρωμένες εκθέσεις του

Οι αξιωματούχοι του είναι πρώην υψηλόβαθμοι πρώην διπλωμάτες διαφόρων χωρών

Του Μάριου Ευρυβιάδη
H αντι-κυπριακή έκθεση που εξέδωσε πρόσφατα η αυτοπροσδιοριζόμενη ως μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση (ΜΚΟ) International Crisis Group (ICG) και η οποία τιτλοφορείται «The Cyprus Stalemate: What Next?», γράφτηκε σε συνεργασία και υπό την εποπτεία της τουρκικής κυβέρνησης η οποία είναι και χρηματοδότης της οργάνωσης ICG. Κατά τα άλλα, η οργάνωση ICG με έδρα τις Βρυξέλλες αυτοδιαφημίζεται στο Διαδίκτυο (www.crisisgroup.org) ως μια «ανεξάρτητη, μη κερδοσκοπική, μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση», η οποία αντλεί τα στοιχεία της από πρωτογενείς έρευνες που διεξάγονται από ερευνητές της σε περιοχές όπου υπάρχουν συγκρούσεις, όπως π.χ η Κύπρος. Υψηλός σκοπός και στόχος της ICG είναι η κατάθεση επιστημονικά τεκμηριωμένων και αντικειμενικών απόψεων για την πρόληψη και επίλυση συγκρούσεων. Αυτό είναι που η ICG ευαγγελίζεται.
Ωστόσο η οργάνωση αυτή όχι μόνο δεν είναι αυτό που ισχυρίζεται και δεν διεξάγει πρωτογενή έρευνα, αλλά αντιθέτως η πραγματική έρευνα τεκμηριώνει ότι η ICG είναι μια εξαρτημένη και κερδοσκοπική οργάνωση της οποίας οι περιοδικές εκθέσεις ευθυγραμμίζονται απόλυτα με τις επίσημες θέσεις και την ιδεολογία των χρηματοδοτών της. Οι τελευταίοι είναι στη μεγάλη τους πλειοψηφία δυτικές κυβερνήσεις αλλά και η Τουρκία. Οι δε αξιωματούχοι τής κατά τα άλλα «μη κυβερνητικής οργάνωσης» είναι, χωρίς εξαιρέσεις, πρώην υψηλόβαθμοι αξιωματούχοι, διπλωμάτες και νομοθέτες δυτικών κρατών με τους Αμερικανούς, τους Βρετανούς και τους Αυστραλούς να κυριαρχούν.
Από πλευράς προσόντων, για τη συλλογή στοιχείων και τη συγγραφή εκθέσεων, στο ICG υπάρχει παντελής έλλειψη ποιοτικών ερευνητών, όπως επίσης και επιστημόνων. Η θέση αυτή τεκμηριώνεται από εξέταση των βιογραφικών τών ατόμων που εργάζονται στο ICG. Το αυστηρά επιστημονικά παραχθέν έργο, σε ένα προσωπικό της τάξης των εκατό και πλέον ατόμων που εργάζεται στο ICG, είναι σχεδόν ανύπαρκτο, καθώς τα άτομα που κατέχουν διδακτορικές σπουδές μετριούνται στο δάκτυλο του ενός χεριού.
Πολλά από τα παραπάνω στοιχεία για τον πολυδιαφημιζόμενο διεθνή ρόλο και «έγκυρο» λόγο των εκθέσεων του ICG προέρχονται από διεξοδική έρευνα που διεξήγαγε ο Jan Oberg, διευθυντής του ιδρύματος «The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research» (www.transnational.org). Με τον ενδεικτικό και δεικτικό τίτλο «The International Crisis Group: Who Pays the Piper?» ο Oberg αποδομεί τον προσχηματικό λόγο και προπαγανδιστικό ρόλο της οργάνωσης ICG και την παρουσιάζει ως αυτό που είναι: ένα ελεγχόμενο και καθοδηγούμενο προπαγανδιστικό εργαλείο στα χέρια αυτών που πληρώνουν τους λογαριασμούς και τους παχυλούς μισθούς των αξιωματούχων της. Το συμπέρασμα του Oberg, με βάση τα αδιαμφισβήτητα στοιχεία που παρουσιάζει, είναι αυταπόδεικτο: «Εκείνος που πληρώνει τον μουσικό, του λέει και τι να παίζει» («He who pays the piper calls the tune»).
Σχετικά με την έκθεση για την Κύπρο, αυτή συντάχθηκε τους τελευταίους 6-8 μήνες. Κατά την περίοδο σύνταξης της έκθεσης Τούρκος διπλωμάτης που υπηρετούσε στις Βρυξέλλες βρισκόταν σε συνεχή επαφή και συνεργασία με τους συντάκτες της, ενώ αξιωματούχοι του ICG γίνονταν αποδέκτες επίμονων τηλεφωνημάτων από το τουρκικό Υπουργείο Εξωτερικών. Επωδός των τηλεφωνημάτων αυτών ήταν ότι η τουρκική χρηματική εισφορά προς το ICG είναι σημαντική και το περιεχόμενο της έκθεσης πρέπει να ανταποκρίνεται στις προσδοκίες της Τουρκίας. H τράπουλα ήταν σημαδεμένη.
ΕΙΜΑΙ σε θέση να γνωρίζω ότι η κυπριακή κυβέρνηση έλαβε γνώση του περιεχομένου της έκθεσης προτού αυτή πάρει την τελική της μορφή. Αλλά οι όποιες προσπάθειες της για εξισορρόπηση δεν έφεραν αποτέλεσμα για τους λόγους που προαναφέρθηκαν. Η τράπουλα ήταν εξαρχής σημαδεμένη.
Ωστόσο, το τι ακολούθησε τη δημοσιοποίηση της έκθεσης, που τυπικά έγινε την 8η Μαρτίου, είναι εξίσου σημαντικό όσο και το περιεχόμενό της. Η διάδοση της έκθεσης μέσω Διαδικτύου έγινε με ταχύτητα αστραπής. Προσωπικά έλαβα την έκθεση από περισσότερες από δεκαπέντε ηλεκτρονικές διευθύνσεις, η πλειοψηφία των οποίων είχαν βάση εκκίνησης την Κύπρο και την Τουρκία. Στον τουρκικό Τύπο η έκθεση έγινε δεκτή με διθυραμβικά σχόλια, κάτι που ήταν βέβαια αναμενόμενο.
Στην Κύπρο η έκθεση έγινε δεκτή με κακεντρέχεια από τους θιασώτες του Σχεδίου Ανάν για τον επιπρόσθετο λόγο ότι λοιδορούσε τον πρόεδρο της Δημοκρατίας. Έχω την εντύπωση, χωρίς απτά στοιχεία, ότι οι δικοί μας ανανιστές ανταγωνίζονται τους Τούρκους για την προώθηση της τουρκο-χρηματοδοτούμενης αυτής έκθεσης στο Διαδίκτυο, όπως επίσης και την παρουσίασή της σε διάφορα ευαγή ιδρύματα τα οποία λειτουργούν και χρηματοδοτούνται με πανομοιότυπο τρόπο όπως το ICG.

03.09.2007

Dr Aris Petasis,

P.O.Box 25385, CY-1309 Nicosia, Cyprus

The International Crisis Group

1629 K St NW
Washington, DC 20006,

USA

The editor (of Report No 184),

Subject: International Crisis Group: Europe Report No 184—17 August, 2007 “Turkey and Europe: The Way Ahead”

On 8 March, 2006 you published Europe Report No 171 under the title: “The Cyprus Stalemate: What Next?” After reading your report I sent you a rebuttal on 17.03.2006. Regrettably I was not honored with a response or acknowledgement. I had sent my rebuttal to your Brussels office (149 Avenue Louise Level 24, B-1050 Brussels.) I was hoping that you would acknowledge the other point of view. I have now written a new rebuttal focusing on what you write about Cyprus in your Europe Report No 184 on Turkey.

In section IV, part A of your report no. 184 on Turkey (“Cyprus—Symptoms or Cause?,” pages: 17-21), you make a number of points which I feel are not objective. I also feel that in your report you fail to make full disclosure of important factual information to help your readers make up their mind. I get the impression that there is an attempt on your part to influence your readers against the Greek Cypriot position and the President of Cyprus; one would presume because you are unhappy with the way the Greek Cypriots and their President voted in the referendum on the Annan plan. Please find below my position on some of the issues you raise in your report:

• Your report notes, “By August 1974 it (Turkey) occupied 37 per cent of the island amid an ethic cleansing that separated the communities.”

You fail to clarify who were doing the ethnic cleansing and who the victims were. You leave it open with the hope that the reader will assume that both sides were engaging in ethnic cleansing. The fact is that this policy suited only Turkey and its strategic plans for partitioning Cyprus. You fail to write that the invading Turkish armies employed standing procedures that were designed to terrorize the Greek civilian population to flee to the south of the country. Any land the Greeks left behind was subsequently occupied by Turkey. For an objective assessment on what happened I recommend that you read the report prepared by the European Commission of Human Rights and which was adopted on 10 July, 1976 (two years after the invasion and after some of the emotion had settled.) This report was the work of 18 distinguished jurists (chaired by Professor J.E.S. Fawcett) from nearly all of the then 19 members of the Council of Europe. The report includes many horrific findings and accuses the Turkish army of engaging in: killing of (Greek) civilians, executing of prisoners, torturing of detainees, looting, arbitrary detention of civilians, deliberate malnutrition, rape and many other disgusting offences against women and children. All these acts of violence were designed to terrorize the Greeks to leave their ancestral homes.

Turkish Cypriots that were living in the south part of the island were also threatened by the Turkish army to move to the northern part and to help further the Turkish cause of partition. These people, many against their will, were transported by air from the southern part of Cyprus to Turkey and from there to the northern part of Cyprus to take the houses and properties of Greeks that were terrorized and took flight. Many Turkish Cypriots in the south battled to stay with their Greek compatriots in the villages they were born. Many cried and pleaded to stay. Some even gave their house keys to Greek Cypriot refugees to take care (Washington Post 11 August, 1975.)

• Your report notes, “….In effect the Greek Cypriot entity joined the EU. It is represented in the European Parliament by seven Greek Cypriots and no Turkish Cypriots.”

Here I wish to make two comments: 1) It was the Republic of Cyprus that joined the EU and not “the Greek Cypriot entity.” The fact that the Turkish occupation does not allow the Turkish Cypriots to benefit fully from their country’s accession to the EU has nothing to do with the government of Cyprus or its policies, 2.) The fact that Cyprus is represented in the European Parliament by 6 (you mention 7 because of oversight) Greek Cypriots and no Turkish Cypriots is no fault of the Greeks. The Turkish Cypriots are welcome to participate in the political process except that the policies of Turkey and the occupying forces do not allow them. I am sure that you are aware that the Cyprus government issued a standing invitation to our Turkish Cypriot compatriots to join the government and to take part in parliamentary processes.

• Your report states, “…the Turkish Cypriot people accepted virtually the same deal (Annan Plan).”

Here you fail to note that the Turkish colonisers (that were transported to the occupied areas) also voted and as was expected overwhelmingly accepted the Annan plan. Your report gives the impression that the Annan plan was some fair and balanced proposal but for some weird reason the Greek Cypriots failed to see its merits. The Annan plan failed miserably on the tests of objectivity and fairness and would have turned Cyprus into a protectorate of Turkey. Its provisions violated international law, human rights and the principles on which good government rests. In my rebuttal to you of 17.03.2006 I bring up a multitude of reasons why the Annan plan was favoring Turkey and condemning the Greeks of Cyprus to oblivion; I will not repeat these arguments here.

• You note, “Enlargement Commissioner Verheugen declared that the Greek Cypriot side cheated on a 1999 Helsinki summit pledge not to hinder a solution.”

I find the above reference to be outlandish and hard to understand. Your report is basically saying that the Greek side pledged in 1999 to accept any plan put forward for the solution of the problem irrespective of the final contents of this plan. How could anyone with any sense sign a blank cheque in 1999 the moment the authors of the Annan plan kept adding new provision seconds before this was finalized in April, 2004? Given their desire for a speedy solution the Greeks made a commitment that they would never hinder a fair and balanced solution which would meet the standards of international law, the values on which the EU rests and the decisions of the European and International Courts. Surely the Greeks never made a pledge to accept any plan irrespective of how catastrophic this would be for their country.

• Your report notes, “The Greek Cypriot ‘no’ was due to ….a hard line President, who rejected the plan from the start.”

I cannot understand why the President of Cyprus is a hardliner simply because his point of view differs to yours. Given that President Papadopoulos rejected the Annan plan on grounds of principle I would have expected your report to praise his stance rather than to vilify him. The authors of the report vent their frustration on President Papadopoulos ostensibly because the President influenced the overwhelming majority of Greek Cypriots to reject the Annan plan. I understand that it is much easier to attack one person than hundreds of thousands (of ‘no” voters.) May I remind you that in my rebuttal of 17.03.06 I explain that the Greek Cypriots are not a sheepish folk who the President can maneuver and boast one of the highest densities of university degree holders in the world. They are thus capable of taking sound decisions on life-threatening matters. Exercising exemplary leadership President Papadopoulos simply stood by his people in their worst hour.

• Your report states, “The communist party Akel, joined the “no” campaign to keep its place in the coalition government.”

I am no fan of communist parties, but wish to defend Akel against your report on grounds of fair play. Your report basically accuses Akel of failing to support a good plan that would have, in your opinion, liberated Cyprus and instead opted for continued occupation in order to keep its place in the coalition government. Do the authors of your report seriously believe that here they put forward a convincing argument which will impress the independent-minded reader?

• Your report notes, “As a European Commission official put it, ‘every step is dogged by 40.000 Turkish soldiers and 40.000 Greek Cypriot lawyers.’”

I tend to agree with the observation of the European Commission official in that 40.000 Turkish occupying troops continue to violate the rights of an independent, peaceful and well-governed people and that there are 40.000 points of law and principle why they should leave Cyprus.

• Your report notes, “The Presidents of Greek Cyprus (Papadopoulos) and Turkish Cyprus (Talat) met.”

I wish to remind you that International law recognizes President Papadopoulos as the legitimate President of the Republic of Cyprus (of all Cyprus) and that Mr Talat is simply the representative of the Turkish Cypriot community (what’s left of it.)

• Your report notes, “The Turkish side remains determined to preserve the internationally agreed, bicommunal, bizonal solution reached in the Annan Plan over decades of talks.”

I wish to remind you that: a) the Annan plan was all about partitioning the country into two and that it violated, amongst other things, the freedom of the people of Cyprus to live wherever they wish in their own country. The Annan plan bicommunal, bizonal, etc arrangements may not be offensive to the authors of your report as outsiders but is grossly offensive to us who were going to take the brunt of this “solution.” Your reference in this statement to, “.… decades of talks” fails to note that in the intervening period (30 years between the start of the initial talks and the Annan plan) all the Turkish side had been doing is pouring in tens of thousands of colonists from Turkey with the clear objective of changing the demographic balance, in violation of international law. Moreover, in this intervening period Turkey built military bases (naval, air and land) thus making its intention clear that it will be staying permanently on the side that would have gone to Turkey via the arrangement of a “Turkish Cypriot Constituent State.”

• The authors of your report state, “….It was the Turkish Cypriots who voted for the EU backed, UN-brokered reunification plan while the Greek Cypriots refused it.”

Here again the authors of your report unfairly try to show that the Greek side is intransigent and that the Turkish side is co-operative and that it makes sense for the cooperative side to be rewarded by the international community and the EU for its good behaviour. It was natural for the Turks (particularly the colonizers) to accept a plan that literally gave them Cyprus on a plate (please read the gains that the Prime Minister of Turkey outlined in defending his acceptance of the final Annan plan.) It was equally natural for the Greek side to reject an intolerable plan that included appalling and deadly provisions.

• Your report notes, “The unilateral easing of border controls by the Turkish side in 2003 reduced tension further.”

I wish to remind you that in the eye of international law Cyprus does not have internal borders. All it has is a ceasefire line which marks the point where the invading Turkish armies stopped in August of 1974. In an effort to show that they are an independent entity the Turkish side still asks for identification papers to allow Cypriots to travel in their own country.

• Your footnote 134 states, “The conclusion is that almost all Turkish Cypriots who had the right and opportunity to cross (the ‘borders) did so….”

Here again you try to paint the picture of a good Turk who supports compromise and a bad, intransigent Greek. Obviously, it is emotionally easier for Turkish Cypriots to cross into the government-controlled areas and enjoy the freedom of a democratic country where the rule of law reigns and is free of invasion armies and where they can express their views freely and without intimidation. They cross into the free areas because Greek Cypriots bend over backwards to make them feel welcome to shop, meet friends, use the hospitals, transact business with the Civil Service in a civilized manner, etc. Equally, it is emotionally hard for the Greek Cypriots, who were forcibly evicted by the invading Turkish armies, to visit their houses and properties in the occupied areas as tourists and spend money that would go to support the occupation of their country. The declared policy of the Government of Cyprus strongly favors cooperation and interchange between Cypriots under conditions of freedom.

• Your report notes, “Although the (Greek) government still supports Greek Cypriots at key points, it has argued in favor of the Annan plan….”

It is true that the Greek government supports the Greek Cypriots. It is untrue that the Greek government supports the Annan plan. This last assertion is more wishful thinking than fact. I have not seen a shred of evidence pointing to the Greek government’s support of the Annan plan; though it is possible that some (minute number) pro-government politicians may talk privately in support for the Annan plan.

• The political elite in mainland Greece was arguably more in favour of the compromise bicommunal Annan plan….”

I presume that you are referring to the intellectual, academic, etc. elite. In my mind no Greek that supports a plan sure to subjugate fellow-Greeks deserves to be called “elite.” The “political elite” in your report is made up mostly of self-declared “internationalists” and “reformists” with confused neo-liberal views and with an axe to grind (with “chauvinists Greeks.”) Many of them have funny ideas about how the Greeks are to blame for the 33-year occupation of their country, etc. Most importantly, these people have naïve ideas, bordering on the childish, about international agreements and the ease with which these can be improved; in their mind all the wronged, weak side has to do is show goodwill and justice will be miraculously restored.

• Your report notes, “An opportunity to change in Greek Cyprus may emerge if presidential elections in February 2008 produce a more pro-reunification president than the current hardliner, Tassos Papadopoulos.”

I have the feeling that defeat of President Papadopoulos in the upcoming elections heads your wish list. Reading between the lines I get the impression that nothing will delight the authors of your report more than seeing President Papadopoulos out of office. I will not, however, use the line taken by many that your report constitutes interfere in the internal politics of Cyprus as I do not mind anyone expressing his/her views. All indications point to a new victory and a return to office of President Papadopoulos. I would advise the authors of your report not to pin their hopes on any soft-touch Cypriot President because the people of Cyprus have the last word on any new plan; any unfair proposal is sure to be rejected.

• Your report, though published in August 2007, sites 2003 figures to prove that the Turkish Cypriots are 3 times poorer than the Greeks and one fifth their number.

I am sure that your institution has current economic and demographic figures at its disposal. I presume that the reason why you throw around old and unverified figures is to prove the case of the “poor Turkish Cypriots” who are bullied economically by the Greeks through their sanctions. The Turkish Cypriots are welcome to join the Cyprus economy if they wish and indeed more than 15.000 have chosen to do so.

• Your report notes, “The new settlers probably half the Turkish Cypriot population….,” and further down in footnote 150 your report states that, “The Annan plan would have allowed 45.000 outsiders on each side to gain citizenship and a further 5% of the population on both sides to be resident.”

Considering that your work is research based one would have expected to find precision in your data. If indeed your position on the number of settlers (colonisers) is correct then Turkey would have had little problem accepting repeated requests for a population count which it vehemently rejects. I submit that the number of colonisers that the Annan plan allows to stay in Cyprus is far greater than the number in your report. Here are the correct figures: a) 45.000 colonizers with citizenship, plus b) 18.000 Turkish colonizers, who after being sent to Cyprus, married Turkish Cypriots. This figure also includes their children, plus c) 15.000 permanent resident colonizers who would have acquired citizenship 4 years after the “new state of affairs”, plus d) 18.000 colonisers that are resident academic staff and students in Cyprus. The total figure comes to 96.000 with most being well trained army reservists, i.e. an extension of the Turkish army. I would also like to remind you that Didier Pfirter, Legal Adviser to Mr Alvaro de Soto (Special Adviser to Mr Annan), stated in his speeches in Turkey on 17 July 2003 (7 months before the referendum) that, “the plan does not foresee that anybody (Turkish colonisers) will be forced to leave.” Clearly by their shear numbers the colonizers and Turkey would have controlled the “Turkish Cypriot Constituent State.”

The number of colonisers continues to grow and by all independent accounts it has now reached circa 200.000. Add to this number more than 40.000 Turkish soldiers and the figure of people that are here from Turkey in violation of international law jumps to 240.000. With only 90.000 Turkish Cypriots now living in Cyprus (many fled/migrated to more democratic places) the ratio of Turkish Cypriots to Turks from Turkey is now 1: 2.5. I am sure that you can easily verify these numbers.

In conclusion, I find your report blatantly propagandistic in favor of Turkey’s positions and lacking in erudition and objectivity. I would respectfully suggest that if you wish to have any influence on independent-minded readers you will need to bring balance and objectivity to your reporting.

Respectfully,

Dr Aris Petasis