Not so local elections in Turkey

This year three anniversaries in Cyprus have coincidentally come together: The sixtieth anniversary of the UN Security Council Resolution 186 adopted on 4 March 1964, which did more to perpetuate injustice than to extinguish the fire in the island and which still binds the hands of the Turkish Cypriots; the fiftieth anniversary of Turkey’s military intervention on 20 July 1974 as a Guarantor power, which changed the fate of the island in a indelible way; and the twentieth anniversary of the failed Annan Plan referendum held on 24 April 2004 to find a solution to the Cyprus conflict with a federal formula. All three of these anniversaries give important clues to those who wish to have a closer look at Cyprus and what might happen in the future.

The Statesman who best realised the importance of Cyprus for Turkey was undoubtedly the strategic genius, founder of Turkey, Atatürk. In 1937 Atatürk summarised Turkey’s view of Cyprus as follows: “As long as Cyprus is in the hands of the enemy, the supply routes of this region are blocked. Pay attention to Cyprus, this island is important for us.”

Looking back in historical perspective, the State of the “Republic of Cyprus”, established in 1960 with the Treaties of London and Zurich, relied on the delicate balance between Turkey and Greece established by the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923. Constitutionally, it was a functional federation in which Turks and Greeks shared sovereignty and, unlike other states, its independence was guaranteed by three countries (Turkey, Britain and Greece). As a requirement of joint sovereignty, the Vice-President, elected from among the Turks, had veto power. Perhaps the most striking feature of the state of affairs established in 1960 was the return of  the Turkish troops after 1878 when they had left the island.

Unfortunately, this fragile partnership between the two peoples, which started with fresh hopes, lasted only three years. In December 1963, the Greek Cypriot side brutally attacked the Turkish Cypriots and expelled them from the organs of the partnership State, massacring hundreds with acts of ethnic cleansing that went down in history as Bloody Christmas. This is how the chain of mistakes and injustices committed by the international community against the Turks in Cyprus began. The perpetrators of the murders and crimes committed against the Turks, to which the international community turned a blind eye, were never brought to justice.

How was the international reaction?

Early 1964 the issue was brought to the agenda of the United Nations Security Council with the pressure of the Greek Cypriot side, whose basic intention was to free itself from the constitutional rights granted to the Turks, to draw the issue to the international arena where they felt safer and to connect the island of Cyprus to Greece, an aim long-cherished by them. Under those circumstances, Turkey wanted to use its right to intervene under the Treaty of Guarantee to stop the attacks, but it encountered opposition basically from the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

Consequently, the draft resolution 186 prepared by the two powers to end the conflict envisaged the establishment of an international “peacekeeping force” to work, not with the two equal founding peoples of the Republic, but under the new “Cyprus Government”, now consisting only of Greek Cypriots, from which the Turks were excluded at gunpoint. Rauf Denktaş, who represented the Turkish Cypriots at the Council, resisted 186 together with Turkey, arguing that the security provisions in the Treaty of Guarantee were sufficient to provide peace. However, the resolution was passed as the US and the UK, which had veto power, wanted. Thus, a “Peace Keeping Force” was formed that would fulfil its mandate of “maintaining law and order in Cyprus” by being accredited to the new Greek Cypriot government, which was actually the violator of the 1960 constitution. This clearly meant a flagrant and grave historical mistake committed by the  United Nations Security Council, since literally the fox was now entrusted to safeguard the henhouse.

In the ensuing years, Resolution 186 served as a basis for the Greek Cypriots to refuse any proposals to find a settlement on the island. More important of all, it placed the Cyprus issue at a wrong perspective: Its harmful effect has continued for many years by both squeezing the Turks to establish a federation with their involuntary neighbors and by opening the way for their neighbors’ unlawful administration to becoming a member of the European Union in contradiction to the 1960 balance.

Meanwhile, the situation of the United Kingdom, the former colonial power, whose part in the adoption of Resolution 186 was beyond doubt,  deserves special mention. When we look at the past, the United Kingdom had offered to give the island of Cyprus to Greece in 1915 in return for entering the war on its side in the First World War.  Although having a substantial military capability on the island with two military bases extending to 254 square kilometres, which is around 3 percent of the island, the United Kingdom remained uncooperative and silent while the Turkish Cypriots were attacked and killed in the painful years from 1963 up until 1974. The United Kingdom also left Turkey alone by not using its Guarantor authority during the 20 July 1974 Military Operation of Turkey against the Sampson coup, which was staged by the Greek Junta in order to hand over the island to Greece.

Hence, after so many years, it becomes indisputably clear that, had it not been for Turkey’s military operation in 1974, the 50th anniversary of which will be celebrated on 20 July this year, no stumbling block would unfortunately have been left for the Greek side to completely eradicate the Turkish Cypriots from the island.

Turkey’s Peace Operation

This is actually the reason why the name of this life saving operation goes with  “Peace”. The decision then whether or not to carry out this operation, which has an important place in the history of Turkish diplomacy and military service, was not easy for Ankara, which was experiencing the difficulties of being governed by a coalition government. It was for the most part Prime Minister Bülent Ecevit’s statesmanship and his clear vision of Turkey’s interests in Cyprus and the Eastern Mediterranean, as well as his integrity, that were decisive factors through the decision making process to intervene militarily. Ecevit’s ability to use the necessary initiative with diplomatic skills at critical stages of the operation and his working in harmony with the General Staff deserves special mention in the context of the success achieved.

After the Operation, the division of the island into two as Northern and Southern Cyprus, followed by the population exchange deal of 7 August 1975 enabled the settlement of the Turks in the North and the Greeks in the South. As a consequence, the Turkish Operation significantly paved the way for a permanent change in the fate of the island, after which a period of uninterrupted peace began to reign in Cyprus.

Obviously it would be useless to ask what happened after 1974 to the United Nations Peace Keeping Force on the island, which too, like the United Kingdom, had remained indifferent when the Turks were being attacked: Unsurprisingly, since Resolution 186 remained the same, their enterprise continued to be unlawfully accredited to the Greek Cypriot Administration. The “Force” kept on with its attitude of favoring Greek Cypriot interests in the buffer zone as well as in the South where it was basically assigned and active. Could anything favorable be expected otherwise for the well being of the Turkish Cypriots from a weak and biased military unit, while 33 per cent of its budget is funded by the Greek Cypriots and 11 per cent by Greece?

Is Cyprus an issue of “Invasion and Occupation”?

For 50 years now, the Greek Cypriot side has been trying to draw the issue into the international arena by claiming that the Cyprus issue is a matter of invasion and occupation. On the contrary, the two best answers to this claim were given by the former Greek Cypriot leader Archbishop Makarios himself, who directly accused Greece of invading Cyprus in his speech at the United Nations on 19 July 1974, and by the Athens Court of Appeals in 1979. In the case numbered 2658/79, filed by the family of a Greek corporal who lost his life in Cyprus on 22 July 1974, the Court in question, with its decision dated 21 March 1979, decided that as Guarantor, Turkey was justified in its 1974 intervention, that it acted in accordance with the London-Zurich Treaties in doing so, and that the real culprits should be sought among the Greek officers who prepared the ground for the intervention by organising a coup in Cyprus.

How did the referendum on the Annan Plan come about?

After 1974, negotiations started within the framework of the United Nations Secretary General’s mission of good offices to forge a federation between the two sides. The Greek Cypriot side participated in the negotiations as the “Government”, claiming to represent the whole of Cyprus, while the status of the  Turkish side was reduced to that of a “community”. Over the years, many federal solution plans were put forward. The “bi-communal arrangement” in 1975, the Anglo-American-Canadian Plan in 1978, the Waldheim Report in 1981, the Cuellar Plans in 1985 and 1986, the Boutros-Ghali Set of Ideas in 1992 and finally the famous Annan Plan in 2004 came to the agenda. All through these talks the Greek Cypriot side constantly demanded the abolition of the Guarantee system, withdrawal of the Turkish troops from the island and settlement of Greek Cypriots people at Northern Cyprus territory. They also refused to accept the solution of the property issue through compensation and exchange.

As former Greek Foreign Minister Nicos Rolandis admitted later in an article published in the Sunday Mail on 3 February 2008, it was in fact the Greek Cypriot side which rejected all federal solution proposals indicated above, including the Annan Plan. This brings us to the core of the question: was a federal solution on the island really viable? Indeed, in order for Turks and Greeks to live under a federal umbrella, first and foremost, there needed to be strong common interests, mutual trust, respect and above all, interdependence on vital issues with a culture of joint decision-making and sharing.

However, lacking any such favorable approach or culture and, having literally lost the means to attack militarily, the Greek Cypriot side started to impose a ruthless embargo against the Turks, which continues to this day. Today, citizens of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are unable to participate in international sports competitions, cannot fly or trade directly, cannot benefit from foreign aid, face restrictions in communication and are subjected to racist physical attacks when they cross into Southern Cyprus. Could a federation be established in such an environment? The answer to this question was given by the then UN Secretary General Kofi Annan in his report dated 28 May 2004, after the Greek Cypriots rejected the 8000-page solution plan bearing his name, which was put to referendum in both parts of Cyprus on 24 April 2004: “Greeks do not want to share authority and prosperity with Turks on an equal footing.”

Today, it is understood as a fact of the island that the Greek Cypriot side is not in favour of giving up the administration it has.

Would it be any better today if the Annan Plan had been accepted? The Turks living in the parts of Northern Cyprus envisaged to be ceded to the South would then become migrants for a third time since 1963. Furthermore, one third of the Greek Cypriot population would be allowed to enter and settle in Northern Cyprus, which would dilute the bi-zonality and disrupt the demographic structure of the North, undoubtedly causing frictions between the two peoples again. Worse, since the plan did not resolve the property issue comprehensively, tensions would then arise again. A Greek canton would be established in the Turkish Karpaz region of the island, which would jeopardize the territorial integrity of the North. Above all, the guarantee system would have been watered down and the deterrent, balancing and protective influence of the Turkish troops on the island would have disappeared.

What kind of a future awaits the island Turks?

Although the Greek Cypriot side has so far rejected all proposals on a federal solution, it still insists on vague federal models that would allow them to keep their rule and would open the way for them to reduce the Turks to the level of a minority. It is also  not surprising that such ventures are backed by Greece and the European Union. Assuming that such federal models continue to be put on the table and negotiated, would that amount to any better situation other than chaining the Turkish Cypriots to an endless negotiation process?

Like every country, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus may have problems and difficulties. However, it needs to be duly acknowledged that Turkish Cypriots are governed with an advanced understanding of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. Therefore, it can undeniably be said that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus has an international democratic legitimacy. Keeping such characteristics in mind, there is probably no other example in the world where a country is both fully democratic and also is living under inhuman embargoes and restrictions.

So what kind of a future will the Turkish Cypriots draw for themselves under such circumstances? Before making any prediction, it is most useful to recall the words of the late leader of the Turkish Cypriots, Rauf Denktaş from October 29, 2003: “I will not even enter paradise without Turkey.” His words reflect not only the true nature of his people’s connection with the Motherland, but also shows his dedication to Atatürk, whose understanding of Cyprus was quoted above.

Bülent Ecevit, the Prime Minister of Turkey during the 1974 Peace Operation, had made a similar statement in his speech at the Turkish Grand National Assembly on 21 January 1997: “As much as Turkey is a guarantee for the TRNC, the TRNC is also a guarantee for Turkey. The security of our Mersin and Iskenderun harbours, natural gas and oil pipelines in the Eastern Mediterranean depend on it; therefore, Turkish troops must remain in Northern Cyprus forever.” It is noteworthy that Ecevit’s remarks are also in striking congruity with the words of Atatürk.

It might therefore be said that the future of the Turkish Cypriots is closely related to Turkey and to living in peace and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean, under the roof of the state they have established, with the assurance provided by Turkey’s effective guarantee. The peace and tranquillity that came to Cyprus 50 years ago will be consolidated when a compromise is reached with their southern neighbours on the basis of sovereign equality and equal international status.

Equatorial Guinea, a small country in Africa with only 1.4 million inhabitants, has always attracted my attention. It is the only Spanish speaking country on the continent. Sandwiched between Cameroon and Gabon, it stands like a matchbox facing the ocean. The capital, Malabo, is not on the main continent, but on the island of Bioko in the Gulf of Guinea (Atlantic Ocean), off the coast of Cameroon. In 1996, the discovery of oil in the country’s offshore areas changed the fate of this poor former Spanish colony. It was imagined that the oil revenues would lift one and a half million citizens out of poverty and into middle-income status. Yet, a quarter of a century later, we look at the state of the country and realize that the oil profits have not trickled down to the people, but have instead lined the pockets of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo and his family members, who came to power in a coup d’état in 1979.

The world’s most senior head of state

In my writings on Africa, I have always lamented that some leaders in the continent, especially those who came by coup d’état, cling to their seats and usually do not leave office until their death. Obiang Nguema is at the top of this list. Last year, this most senior of the dinosaurs participated in the November 2022 elections, which were brought forward by 6 months, and was once again authorized him govern the country for 7 years. In simpler terms, the 80-year-old leader, who has been in power for 43 years, won 95 percent of the votes in the elections he participated in for the 6th time.

Winning elections is easy when the opposition is for show

When you think of winning elections, don’t think of free and fair elections. There has been intense pressure on the opposition for years. In the November 2022 elections, the two opposition candidates who were tolerated to run against the Leader won only five percent of the vote. The ruling party won all 100 seats in parliament. Let us emphasize for this occassion: In this small country, the struggle for power is not between the government and the opposition. It is between the players within the ruling party (the Democratic Party of Equatorial Guinea). In other words, the competition is between members of the leader’s family.

Is son Teodorin ready for the seat?

In terms of the post-Leader era, the main contender for power is the son Teodorin, who has been dreaming of the coveted seat for 10 years. In 2012, the 54-year-old Teodorin became vice-president for national defense, and in 2016 he was promoted to first vice-president. While rumors in palace circles over the past year had suggested that father Obiang Nguema would decline to run in the April 2023 elections due to his advanced age, and that son Teodorin, who had gained enough experience during his 10 years as vice president, would step forward and take over, developments have not been in line with expectations.

According to Jeune Afrique, at the Party congress held at the end of 2021, part of the family opposed the transfer of the seat to son Teodorin, who at the time had a very negative image in the eyes of the international community. It was agreed that the elections would be brought forward by six months to November 2022, that the Leader would run again and retain the seat, and that he would resign in a year or two and hand it over to his son Teodorin, the vice-president.

A presidential candidate? Spoiled child of the jet set?

Son Teodorin’s dossier is quite extensive and colorful. Over the past decade, lawsuits and judgments have been filed against him in courts in the US, UK, France and Switzerland. In all of these cases, the money spent on luxury real estate, luxury automobiles or collectibles of well-known singers was found to be shady, or public money was used (in France, in the case of “Les biens mal acquis – ill-gotten property”, the Paris court ruled in 2021 that the defendant Teodorin should be fined 30 million euros, imprisoned for 3 years and his property confiscated). The course and results of these cases were covered by the press in many countries, and the image of Teodorin on the one hand, and of his father, the head of state, and of his country Equatorial Guinea on the other, was severely damaged (172nd out of 180 countries on the corruption list). Some sanctions against the “spoiled child of the jet-set” by Western countries are still in force (he is banned from entering the UK). With such a dossier, the son Teodorin is the number one candidate for the office of President of Equatorial Guinea in 2023 or 2024, taking over from his father.

Missing plane of the national airline

How did I write this article? For the past year, I have been following Obiang Nguema, Africa’s longest serving head of state, with great interest to see whether he would run again and whether he would be succeeded by his son Teodorin, other sons or his brother. But I could not write about the November 2022 elections because they coincided with my laziness. However, when I read a very interesting development about the family last week, I thought it was time to reflect on the country, the family and all the intrigue.

The story goes like this: Teodorin’s half-brother Ruslan heads CEIBA, the national air company of Equatorial Guinea. Last November, the authorities discovered that an ATR 72-500 aircraft belonging to CEIBA had vaporized. In 2018, the plane was sent to Spain for technical maintenance, but was subsequently removed from the company’s inventory and inventory records. The issue of the missing plane was reported in the press in December. Eventually, it was revealed that the head of the company, son Ruslan, had sold the missing plane to the Spanish aircraft maintenance and repair company Binter Technic. In the wake of this scandal, Vice President Teodorin announced on Twitter last week that his half-brother Ruslan had confessed to selling the plane, that he would not be given any privileges because he was family, and that he had ordered his arrest. In other words, no more nepotism!

Being an oil-rich country : A curse or a fortune?

It is sad and disheartening to see the family that has ruled the small oil-rich African country for 43 years without letting the opposition breathe and is determined to continue to do so. It is worth remembering that we have seen similar cases of abuse in the family of the late José Eduardo dos Santos, the historic leader of Angola further south, whose daughter Isabel Santos became the richest woman in Africa by misusing public resources. It is possible to multiply the examples even more. I must confess: When I think of oil in Africa, I don’t know whether I should think of prosperity, abundance and wealth or corruption and curses.