[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 13]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 19127]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




      WILL THE WEST GIVE UP CYPRUS TO PLACATE AN IRRITABLE TURKEY?

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS

                               of florida

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, December 7, 2010

  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Madam Speaker, I would like to commend to my 
colleagues an article written by Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president 
for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, in the 
Washington Times on November 19, 2010. Mr. Carpenter has written an 
excellent article, warning of the danger in recent rumblings led by 
former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw that Cyprus should be 
divided into two nations. The territorial integrity of Cyprus must 
never be sacrificed for the sake of healing relations with Turkey--a 
move that would only reinforce the Turkish governments disregard for 
international standards.

               [From the Washington Times, Nov. 19, 2010]

                    Carpenter: Sacrificing an Island

                        (By Ted Galen Carpenter)

       It's no secret that relations between Turkey and its 
     Western allies have become quite testy over the past year or 
     so regarding an assortment of issues, including policy toward 
     Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Western leaders are 
     understandably eager to heal the breach with Ankara because 
     Turkey is a significant regional power. Unfortunately, it 
     seems increasingly likely that the small nation of Cyprus 
     will end up being a sacrificial pawn in that effort.
       The latest indicator is an article by former British 
     Foreign Secretary Jack Straw arguing that it is time for 
     Britain and other governments to consider the formal 
     partition of Cyprus, if the latest round of U.N.-brokered 
     talks do not achieve a breakthrough. The northern portion of 
     Cyprus has been occupied by Turkish troops ever since the 
     1974 invasion of that country. Following the invasion, Ankara 
     set up a puppet government (which is recognized only by 
     Turkey) in the occupied territory and brought in more than 
     250,000 settlers from the Turkish mainland. Periodic U.N. 
     mediation efforts have failed to resolve the division of the 
     island.
       As yet, neither London nor Washington has embraced Mr. 
     Straw's proposal, but it has all the characteristics of a 
     prominent trial balloon. Over the years, numerous members of 
     the foreign policy communities in both Britain and the United 
     States have privately toyed with the idea of imposing a 
     formal partition.
       Going down that path would be a mistake--for both practical 
     and moral reasons. The practical consideration is that the 
     U.S. and the leading EU countries already set a dangerous 
     international precedent in 2008 when they encouraged and then 
     formally recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of 
     independence from Serbia. At the time, NATO troops occupied 
     Kosovo, preventing Belgrade from doing anything to thwart 
     that secession.
       Numerous governments warned that the move trampled on 
     Serbia's sovereignty and created a highly destabilizing 
     precedent. That fear was soon realized when Russian troops 
     implemented the secession of two restless provinces from 
     Russia's small neighbor, the Republic of Georgia.
       Now the Western powers may be flirting with the notion of 
     forcibly dividing Cyprus against the will of the Cypriot 
     government and a majority of the Cypriot people. Such a move 
     would reinforce the unhealthy recent precedents set with 
     respect to Kosovo and Georgia--and would encourage nations 
     and movements with secessionist agendas around the world.
       The moral case against partitioning Cyprus to curry favor 
     with Ankara is even stronger. Turkey committed an act of 
     aggression when it invaded its neighbor in 1974, and that 
     violation of international law is made worse by the 
     continuing occupation and the colonization effort using 
     Turkish settlers. That should be unacceptable behavior by any 
     country, but it is even more outrageous coming from a NATO 
     member and aspirant to join the European Union.
       The tepid reaction over the decades by Washington and its 
     democratic allies to Ankara's rogue conduct on the Cyprus 
     issue is troubling. Those countries should not further reward 
     Turkey's aggression by making the division of Cyprus 
     permanent.
       There are other actions the West can take to help repair 
     the fraying relationship with Turkey. In particular, the U.S. 
     must show greater understanding that its policies in Iraq--
     especially the creation of a de facto independent Kurdistan 
     in the north--create major problems for Ankara because of 
     Turkey's own restless Kurdish population. Likewise, the push 
     for ever tighter economic sanctions against Iran poses major 
     economic and strategic dilemmas for Turkey.
       Those issues need to be addressed squarely, and efforts 
     should be made at least to cushion the adverse impact on 
     Turkey. But it would be wrong to adopt the cynical approach 
     of using Cyprus as a convenient sacrificial pawn to ease 
     overall tensions with Ankara. Such a move would betray 
     important Western values and, in the long run, likely 
     undermine important Western interests.

                          ____________________