- The Washington Times - Wednesday, November 6, 2002

Cyprus' one-state recognition

In "An island divided" (Letters, Monday), Turkish Cypriot representative Osman Ertug comments that "The fact that the international community in general and the European Union in particular have continued to grant diplomatic recognition to the Greek Cypriot administration in spite of indisputable facts to the contrary is a political act that has nothing to do with the legitimacy of the case or the rule of law" can only be politely described as disinformation.
Despite Mr. Ertug's assertions, the reasons why only one state continues to be recognized has everything to do with the legitimacy of the case and the rule of law. The international community does indeed continue to recognize only one state on the island, namely the Republic of Cyprus.
After the 1974 Turkish invasion of 37 percent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus and the ethnic cleansing of 200,000 Greek Cypriots, in 1983 Turkey sought to sustain a declaration aimed at creating a separate "state" in these same occupied areas called "the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." The declaration was promptly condemned by the international community at large, as evidenced by U.N. Security Council resolutions 541 and 550, which not only declared it legally invalid, but also called for its immediate withdrawal and urged all states not to recognize it. No state has endorsed this invasion, occupation and transnational aggression. Undoubtedly, any recognition given to a state based on invasion and ethnic cleansing would set a dangerous precedent for other countries with minority communities.
As for Mr. Ertug's contention that the republic does not represent or have control over the people of "Northern Cyprus," there is an element of truth. It is unrealistic to expect the lawful authorities to exert effective control of residents within an area that is illegally occupied by Turkey. This was confirmed by the European Court of Human Rights (Loizidou vs. Turkey), which found that Turkey solely exerted control under the areas it illegally occupies with an army 40,000, and not the illegal regime it sustains militarily and economically.
Moreover, the republic could not represent the majority of the residents in the occupied areas for the simple reason that they do not hold Cypriot citizenship and are illegal settlers. Since 1974, Turkey has relocated more than 125,000 mainland Turks to northern Cyprus in violation of international treaties.
In closing, Mr. Ertug's idea of dividing Cyprus into two separate states would violate the rule of law and the human rights of all Cypriots, Greek and Turkish alike.

NICHOLAS ANDREOU
Nicosia, Cyprus

Remaining Iraqi war concerns

Though Sunday's Page One article, "Support grows slowly for action against Iraq," seems, at first glance, to encourage the belief that the United States eventually will go to war, two main concerns remain: the apparent abdication of U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, as fashioned by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell in the name of "diplomacy," and the efficacy of U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix.
Regarding the revised U.S. draft of the U.N. resolution on Iraq, both Russia and France continue to "oppose language that would allow the United States to attack Iraq on its own." This is a very disturbing development, for it implies in no uncertain terms that other nations are still made to believe they have veto power on U.S. sovereignty and our inherent right of self-defense. Yet there are no cries of indignation from America's prime diplomat. On the contrary, negotiations continue to erode the essence of the original resolution, and no defense is heard for national sovereignty.
Conspicuously evident is Mr. Powell's lack of insistence on a provision in the resolution that would call for interviews with Iraqi scientists outside Iraq. Indeed, he continues to mire the United States in the farce that U.N. inspectors might just find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq without first ensuring the Iraqi scientists' unencumbered help and their families' safety abroad.
Has the naive Mr. Powell donned his dangerous "pacifist" hat to spare Saddam Hussein once again, just as he fatally did in deterring coalition forces from storming into Baghdad during the Gulf war? As we know now, the so-called Powell Doctrine was as much a total failure as his more recent foray into foreign policy: the implementation of the disastrous Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, in which he tried to force Ariel Sharon to negotiate with known terrorist Yasser Arafat.
As for Mr. Blix, he must first be made to account for failing to detect Iraq's chemical and biological weapons when, as director of the International Atomic Energy Agency before the first Gulf war, he certified Iraq as a conforming nation and praised Saddam for his "exemplary compliance" with inspections.
President Bush must forcefully take back the reins from our misguided diplomats in Foggy Bottom, whose contrary agendas continue to undermine U.S. foreign policy.

CARIN SALA
Palm Beach, Fla.

Sharon hit-piece?

To assign columnist Georgie Anne Geyer whose hatred of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is well-known to review the new biography "Sharon: Israel's Warrior-Politician" is equivalent to assigning anti-Israeli academic Edward Said or Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or a member of Hamas ("Ariel Sharon: plus and minus," Books, Sunday).
With scorn not only for Mr. Sharon, but also for Israel reflected in almost every column she writes, certainly she was not the proper choice to review the biography of Israel's outstanding military leader and patriot.
Mr. Sharon's actions have been for the preservation of his nation and its security. Patriots are a dying breed in our world. They should be congratulated and honored rather than criticized.

NELSON MARANS
Silver Spring

Zimbabwe's oppressed minority

In his otherwise accurate assessment of the troubles in Zimbabwe ("The next killing field," Commentary, Friday), Austin Bay makes the outrageous claim, "Both the Shona and the Serb are thieves, 'former Marxists' and ethnic cleansers who provoke ethnic strife, incite economic envy, murder opponents and do so under the propaganda cover of righting long-term historical wrongs." This accusation is totally false and grievously slanders the majority of Shona people who, in fact, do not support Zimbabwe's ruler, Robert Mugabe, and his henchmen, who are the true ethnic cleansers.
Many members of Zimbabwe's opposition party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), are Shona, as are many of those who voted for them. Even among those who are not party members or did not vote for the MDC candidate, Morgan Tsvangirai, only a small minority fit Mr. Bay's description of the Shona people in Zimbabwe. The rest are peace-loving citizens suffering under the rule of an evil tyrant.

PAUL ASHTON
East Sussex, England

Foreign-language ballots

As I voted yesterday, I was distressed to note that the voting machine asked for the voter to select either English or Spanish.
Because only citizens are allowed to vote and because even naturalized citizens are supposed to demonstrate a working knowledge of English to obtain their citizenship, why are voting machines programmed for a foreign language? Surely an individual who does not possess a working knowledge of English cannot possibly be considered a member of an "informed electorate."
The practice of making ballots or voting machines available in foreign languages is outrageous and represents a ticking time bomb that ultimately will mean the destruction of the United States as we know it.

BILL ROTHE
Potomac

LOAD COMMENTS ()

 

Click to Read More

Click to Hide