|Wednesday, 23 September 2020|
Cyprus PIO: Turkish Press and Other Media, 03-06-12
Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
From: The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office Server at <http://www.pio.gov.cy/>TURKISH PRESS AND OTHER MEDIA No.109/03 12.06.03
[A] NEWS ITEMS
[B] COMMENTARIES, EDITORIALS AND ANALYSIS
[A] NEWS ITEMS
 Denktas adamant on his "state"According to KIBRIS newspaper (12.06.03), the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Rauf Denktas, harshly reacted against former British Special Envoy for Cyprus Lord David Hannay, who earlier said there would never be a solution in Cyprus based on two states. Denktas said: ``Who are you? There is the state regardless of whether he recognizes us or not.``
Speaking during a meeting with a delegation of the Ankara Chamber of Trade (ATO), Mr Denktas evaluated the statement of Hannay.
Denktas alleged: ``Hannay, during his six-year term in office, always considered the Cyprus issue from the point of view of the Greek Cypriots. He kept saying that they would never recognize a separate state and always acted like a snob colony governor, and never wanted to understand what we wanted to say. Now that he left the office and said there would never be two states. Who are you to say this? It is the most serious injustice to say `I do not and will not recognize your state` to a people who founded its state. This is a shame for those who don`t recognize it.``
Repeating his known allegations Denktas said that he was ready for an agreement on a two-state basis.
When asked about Cyprus Foreign Minister George Iacovou's contacts in the United States, Denktas criticized the U.N. Secretary-General's Cyprus Special Envoy Alvaro de Soto and alleged that de Soto did not have the capability to understand Cyprus issue.
 Ertugruloglu: Hannay, Weston statements hinder agreement between "two states"According to KIBRIS newspaper (12.06.03), the so-called Foreign and Defense Minister of the pseudostate Tahsin Ertugruloglu said yesterday that the plan submitted by U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan didn`t have any part to be re-evaluated. ``Insisting on this plan, which does not have any validity, is nothing but hindering the possibility of reaching an agreement on the island,`` Ertugruloglu claimed.
Speaking to illegal Turkish Cypriot News Agency (TAK), Ertugruloglu assessed the statements of former British Special Envoy Lord David Hannay who said that ``a two-state solution in Cyprus will never come true`` and the statement by U.S. State Department Special Coordinator to Cyprus, Mr Thomas Weston, who called on the Turkish Cypriot side to re-assess the Annan plan.
Ertugruloglu alleged that the approaches of Hannay and Weston had the character of hindering a possible agreement between the "two states" in Cyprus.
Criticizing the statement of Weston, who said that Turkish Cypriot side should re-evaluate the Annan plan, Ertugruloglu underlined that the agreement in Cyprus could be possible by taking into consideration the realities of the island. He added that the approach of Weston was preventing an agreement between "two states" in Cyprus like the approach of Hannay.
 TUSIAD wants Cyprus settlement on the basis of the Annan planAccording to KIBRIS newspaper (12.06.03), the Chairman of the Turkish Industrialists and Businessmen's Association (TUSIAD), Mr Tuncay Ozilhan, speaking at the Supreme Consultative Council of the TUSIAD, said that Turkey should become an EU member and solve the Cyprus problem on the basis of the Annan plan as soon as possible .
He went on and said that the latest overtures of the Turkish side regarding Cyprus have created a very positive atmosphere in the USA. Ozilhan said : "However, they underline that these overtures could not take the place of a solution. They drew attention to the fact that the EU has accepted certain limitations brought about by the Annan plan in favour of the Turkish side and they warned that if a solution is not found by May 2004, then with the EU membership of the south Cyprus all these favors would not be possible to acquire."
 Angolemli met with the EU AmbassadorAccording to YENICIZGI newspaper (12.06.03), the Head of the European Commission Delegation in Cyprus, Ambassador Adriaan van der Meer, met yesterday with the leader of the Communal Liberation Party (CLP), Huseyin Angolemli, within the framework of his meetings with the political parties for exchanging views.
During the meeting, Angolemli said that the next week will be intense and that at today's meeting they will evaluate with the EU Ambassador the visits of the foreign diplomats in Cyprus.
Referring to the EU openings in Cyprus, Angolemli said that the financial aid that the three municipalities got is a very positive step, but the rest of the municipalities should also obtain a financial aid.
Commenting on the forthcoming so-called elections in December, Angolemli said that he follows with regret the threats by the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas towards the elections. He stressed that the intention of Denktas is to put obstacles to the Turkish Cypriots, who struggle for a solution and accession into the EU. Angolemli also said that after the departure of the Republican Turkish Party from the unity of the left powers, he carried out many meetings with the civil organizations and the political parties regarding the "elections" in December and he will announce the results of those meetings in a press conference next week.
[B] COMMENTARIES, EDITORIALS AND ANALYSIS
 Ugur Ziyal to visit Washington. Turkey's position on Cyprus expected to be clarifiedTurkish Daily News (11.06.03) publishes the following commentary by Mehmet Ali Birand under the title: "US awaiting Ankara's reply":
"Next week Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal will be in Washington. That will be the first official contact at the Foreign Ministry level in the wake of the magnitude 8 quake caused by the "motion" incident and the aftershock called Wolfowitz.
Americans have left behind the era of "from the military to the military kind of message-sending, relying on the views relayed by JDP politicians and believing the businessmen that operate outside the official channels." To build a new relationship they intend to take the conventional path. They want to hear from the mouth of the Foreign Ministry what the basic foundations of that relationship will be.
The last time Ziyal had visited Washington he had been received by key figures such as Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. This time he will be able to see only Assistant Secretary of State Mark Grossman and probably someone else at the same level. Nothing else, as far as we know, for the time being.
This is not merely a protocol problem. This shows the place the U.S. assigns to Turkey. In the future this may change but for the time being Washington has adopted a wait-and-see attitude.
They want to hear what Turkey intends to do and how. In the short-run their efforts will be limited to damage-control, to the clearing of the debris caused by the "quake", to ensuring that the "buildings" that have survived will remain erect.
Subtitle: Things they don't want
America has made crystal clear the things it does not want Turkey to do. From what I gathered from the American and Turkish officials I have talked with and from the observers that have been closely following the way Turkey-U.S. relations unfold, one issue comes to the foreground:
The Bush administration does not want the Turkish prime minister to have so close a relationship with the Iranian officials that they would pose for photographers hand in hand.
The Bush administration does not want Turkey to believe certain doubts and worries expressed by Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Buyukanit. It does not want speeches of this kind to be made.
Subtitle: Things they want
In fact, Americans are trying not to say what they do want from Turkey. They say Turkey is free to conduct any kind of policy it likes. However, at the end of the day, they do not conceal their expectations.
Iran-Syria is first on the line.
Washington will probably not resort to arms but it is not hiding that it is going to squeeze Iran's throat. What Washington wants to know is what kind of policy Turkey would follow in such a case.
Will the Turkish politicians say, "Iran is our neighbour. We must protect them against the U.S."? Will the Turkish military see Iran as an alternative? Will they give Iran that message during their talks with the Iranians?
Or will they explain to the Iranians Washington's approach -- albeit less vigorously than the U.S. itself would?
To give a substantial example I can cite the speech Abdullah Gul made at the Islamic Conference, the way he said that Islamic countries should undergo a change and keep in step with modern times.
This is exactly the kind of approach America wants, the kind of approach it expects Turkey to have.
In fact, Powell's writing a letter to congratulate Gul was not meant to show that bilateral relations were improving. It was meant to underline the message, "This is what we expect from you."
Here is a another question, one that concerns Iraq and northern Iraq. Will Turkey assess the developments in that country only from the standpoint of security or focus on economic and political cooperation?
To sum up, basically, the same question is being asked: "Do you view the world like we do and intend to act together with us or are you going to shape your own world?"
They will want to learn from Ugur Ziyal how Ankara views the peace process and what it plans to do in order to persuade organizations such as Hamas and the Islamic Jihad and the Palestinians to agree to enter into the peace process.
They will try to find out what Turkey has in mind regarding Cyprus and whether it wants a solution or not.
Most importantly they will try to see how insistent the Turkish government is on the EU issue.
At the end of the day a certain picture will emerge. It will be seen where Turkey wants to place itself under the new world conditions. Regardless of what happens, Ziyal's talks in Washington will clarify the situation on many issues -- or leave Washington a little more confused that it is now.
The road map for Turkey-U.S. relations will be redrawn, starting from point zero or the crossroads will be all the more obvious.
Would Turkey part ways with the West? If not, how is the way we view the U.S. and the EU taking shape?"