Clerides tells the priests to shut it The Greek Orthodox Church of South Cyprus and the Clerides administration are at odds over how the Cyprus problem should be solved: Federation or unitary state. Although Turkish Cypriots flatly reject a federal settlement and have been proposing a Cyprus confederation of two sovereign states, bitter recriminations continue in southern Cyprus between the Church and the Greek Cypriot administration and within the Church itself over whether a Cyprus settlement should be a federation or a unitary state. With domestic tension increasing over the competing views, both between the Church and the administration and within the Church itself, Cyprus Mail reported that Greek Cypriot leader Glafcos Clerides has appealed for domestic calm. Spokesman of Clerides released details of a letter which Clerides sent to the Holy Synod on January 28, which included extracts from a meeting of the National Council 23 years ago (March 9, 1977) when Archbishop Makarios was President. Makarios, Head of Greek Cypriot administration but also head of the Church, had ‘explicitly’ stated at the time he favoured a bizonal solution to a multi-regional federation, according to Clerides and Papapetrou. This policy was reaffirmed in the presence of three Greek prime ministers and also formed the basis of numerous UN resolutions, Papapetrou added. Therefore, there is no need for any commotion over this matter. Quarreling over things that are absolutely clear is quite unnecessary. The row began before his departure to Geneva, when the so called Bishop Pavlos of Kyrenia condemned the proposed bizonal federation supported by the Clerides administration and by U.N. resolutions. The paper reported that the so called Bishop Pavlos of Kyrenia issued a statement, also signed by the archbishop Chrysostomos, saying a federal solution would lead to the de-Hellenization of a large part of the island. Pavlos was reacting to earlier statements by Kiti Bishop Chrysostomos, who did not dismiss the federation model as a future settlement of the Cyprus issue.

“THERE ARE TWO STATES IN CYPRUS”   Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit speaking on the Turkish CNN news channel evaluated the latest developments in the Cyprus issue. He stated that, “even if it is not openly said and pronounced, everyone who does not deceive themselves is now beginning to accept the existence of two separate states in Cyprus. This has become a fact which cannot be ignored”. Prime Minister Ecevit stated that, despite the heavy embargoes imposed upon the TRNC, an example which is rarely seen in the world, the TRNC is continuing to develop and is protecting its independence. Prime Minister Ecevit also pointed out that, despite only being recognised by Turkey, the TRNC has six universities recognised worldwide. Prime Minister continued by stating that, “in other words, it is a reality which cannot be denied. Once this reality is accepted, then naturally it would be much easier to reach an agreement. It is not easy for the Greek Cypriots to absorb this amongst themselves. However, if there is not too much outside interference on this issue, then I believe a result could be achieved”.

Impossible to return to pre - 74 Eroglu: Greek Cypriots not interested in solution. Bayrak Radio reported that TRNC Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu met with the representatives of nine media organisations, who were in the TRNC upon the invitation of the BRT. According to BRT, Ero¤lu replying to questions on the Geneva talks, referring to the arguments of the Greek Cypriot priests, said that “those who reject the concepts of confederation and federation have not yet comprehended the reality of the TRNC.” Ero¤lu also said that it has been revealed that the views expressed by the Greek Cypriots in Geneva are nothing but the retouched version of the 1960 Cyprus Republic constitution and efforts to transform it into a federal constitution. He added that the ways to direct talks can be deadlocked if the Greek Cypriots insist on their demands. In reply to a question on his view on Archbishop Chrysostomos’ remarks to the effect that neither confederation nor a federation is acceptable for the Greek Cypriots, Ero¤lu said: "Numerous Greek Cypriot politicians support Chrysostomos’ stand. For this reason, the stand that rejects a confederation and federation can be interpreted as the views of the Greek Cypriot political parties. Such views, which will uproot persons, seek to return to the pre-1974 period. It is impossible to return to the pre-1974 period."

REPRESENTATION ABROAD UNDER ONE FLAG President Denktas in a recent meeting he had with Haakon Blankenborg, the Norwegian Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Commission Chairman, said that “Cyprus has not yet applied to the European Union (EU) for membership, because there is no united Cyprus state for 37 years.” Giving detailed information about the development of the Cyprus question to the Norwegian deputy, Denktas stated that the Greek Cypriot side applied to the EU on behalf of the whole island, adding this application is a political one. Pointing out that equality is the main thing, President said that the problem cannot be solved by bringing two sides around a table in an unequal way. Responding to a question, President said that confederation is a partnership composed of two states. “We don’t give up the rights of our state, but we are ready to be presented abroad regarding certain issues under one flag, he added. The Norwegian deputy said in his part that he came to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to meet with his friends and the President Denktas, adding this meeting is the important part of his visit. The position of the Turkish side regarding the application of the Greek Cypriot side to the EU is important for EU, noted the

CYPRUS PROBLEM AFTER HELSINKI Following the EU- Helsinki Summit and the declaration of Turkey‘s EU-candidateship, one of the world’s most complicated problems, namely the 37 year old Cyprus conflict seems to have taken the direction of peace instead of more war. The attitudes reflected by the Luxemburg Summit in December 1997 were definitely myopic, selfish and utterly wrong. Indeed the decision by the EU-Foreign Ministers in Edinburg, to start entry negotiations with the Greek Cypriots before a solution to the Cyprus conflict is reached, represented a failed course in European history. Despite Helsinki and the relatively mild weather developing between Turkey and Greece, we are far from a compromise solution and if anything, the views are still diametrically opposed. While Ankara demands that the Cyprus conflict not be associated with her membership procedure, Greece is pressing hard to couple the two issues together. Greece is making her veto conditional of the EU pledging to accept a divided Cyprus to membership. Greece is further demanding concessions in the Aegean issues such as continental shelf, territorial limits and international air-traffic control. The apparent softening in Athen’s attitude has nothing to do with humanitarian considerations emanating from the catastrophic earthquakes that shook both countries. It is more related to Greece’s desire to join the European Monetary Union and to correct her damaging image within the EU. The Greek economy could no longer sustain the costly, high-tension policies against Nato partner Turkey. Having established that both Greece and Turkey have some very serious Real Politic-considerations, let us look at the negotiating process and the two other actors, the USA and UNO. Between 3-14th December 1999, both the UN and USA have noted the views of the two Cypriot sides and expect the two sides to reach a preliminary agreement during the Geneva meetings planned to start on the 31st January 2000. Judging from the number of heavy guns who will be taking part in the Turkish Cypriot negotiation team, it is obvious that the Turkish side is taking these negotiations very seriously. It is to be hoped that the Greek Cypriot side will show the same seriousness and that meaningful negotiations may begin. It is further speculated that the third round of talks will take place after the Turkish Cypriot Presidential elections due to take place in April 2000. In this meeting, it is further claimed that a joint UK-US plan based on a loose federation will be presented to the two sides. This so-called plan will offer the Turkish Cypriots equal rights in the central government and rotational presidency. After that, the Turkish Cypriots will join the EU together with the Greek Cypriots before Turkey’s own membership ever materialises. It will remain to be seen if the Turkish side would feel confident enough to accept any more guarantees from countries such as the UK and Greece!! Küfi Seydali, M.Sc, DIC. Austria representative of the TRNC

Belgian model for Cyprus ANAP deputy Bulent Akarcal› writes on the possibility of implementing the 'Belgian plan' in Cyprus. A summary of his column is as follows: In the 'Milliyet' issue dated 31 January 2000 it was stated that the Belgian model was being examined so as not to allow the Turkish side to be swallowed up by the Greek-Cypriot economy. The report went on to say that the Turkish-Cypriots were concerned about the free circulation of people, goods, money and services if the Greek-Cypriot Administration were to be accepted in the EU. With the advent of free circulation, it is feared that the more progressive economy of the Greek-Cypriots will swallow that of the Turkish side. In the studies it was seen that the EU candidacy process for Belgium, which also has two differing communities had gone through similar stages. The Turkish-Cypriot side, which began to study the Belgian model, prepared a statement setting out the conditions under which the Turkish side could enter the EU within the framework of a confederative solution. Belgium was an independent state in 1830 but began to become divided in two due to the difference of language between the Walloons and the Flemish, although no difference in culture existed between the two, as of 1960. In Belgium today, Flemish is spoken in the north, in the south French and in the northeast, German; in Brussels all three are spoken. Each region has its own parliament and there is a common national parliament. However, the delicacy and wisdom of this division stems not from race or ethnic origin but from the language spoken. In the 1960s Belgian state asked its citizens to decide which one language each preferred as their mother tongue, and the region in which these languages would be spoken were determined. As a result, in each region all the official documents were written in the language of that region. For example, if a person living in the French-speaking region settles in the Flemish-speaking region with his family, he loses all rights to his mother-tongue except when talking with the members of his family. He has to use Flemish in the office, even when he is writing to central Government. The wisdom of the model lies in this. A person can change the language he is speaking but not his ethnic origin. Belgian citizens are racially discriminated against according to their origin. Free circulation can only be possible by changing the language. All people are Belgian citizens and have to live with the official language spoken in their region. How can this model be implemented in the Cyprus Confederation? Turkish can be spoken in the north, Greek in the south, and both languages can be used in the capital. Therefore, everyone working in the capital has to know both Turkish and Greek. A Greek family coming from the Greek- speaking region to settle in the Turkish-speaking region has to write and speak in Turkish and be Cypriot citizens. Under this model, provocation of fanatics cannot disturb the other society with their racial, cultural and religious views. If they are going to buy property, they will do so to live and work there. The Belgian model could be valid on Cyprus because it allows societies with equal rights to live side by side, not within each other, without taking economic, political, social and cultural aspects or the size of the population into consideration.

Turkey warns France

Besides the Greek Lobby groups, one of the most active lobby groups against Turkey in the USA and Europe is the Armenian lobby groups. These two groups often work hand in hand together, falsely accusing Turkey of the atrocities that the Greeks and the Armenians themselves committed. As the April 24, the so called anniversary of the genocide committed by the Ottoman state in 1915 approaches, the Armenians in USA and in France are becoming very active again. Hoping to mark the 85th anniversary of the so-called "Armenian genocide" on April 24 they are pushing for the recognition of this day as the official so called Armenian genocide day by the State Assembly of the State of Wisconsin. Also in France they are pressuring the French Senate to uphold a single article of a bill passed by the lower house of the French Parliament in May 1998 that states, "France clearly acknowledges the 1915 Armenian massacre." The article claims the Ottoman government committed genocide in April 1915 against Armenians who were loyal subjects of the empire. Article, which was proposed by an MP of Armenian descent ignores the atrocities committed by the Armenians in the region, who were helping the invading Russian army. Turkish officials close to government are claiming that if such a bill is upheld by the French Senate, it would inevitably be harmful for Turco-French relations, which have been progressing with efforts made by the two countries' presidents. Meanwhile, in order to put pressure on France, the French Ambassador to Ankara, Jean-Claude Cousseran, was summoned to the Turkish Foreign Ministry and he was warned that if the draft was to be deliberated again, relations between Turkey and France would become tense. Claims by the Armenians are not based on historical facts and the number of so called genocide victims exceeds the number of the Ottoman Empire's entire Armenian population. These allegation against Turkey achieves nothing but creates animosity between Turks and Armenians. A letter written to the Wiscconsin authorities by Mehmet Komurcu, a lawyer who lives in the State of Wisconsin explains briefly the historical facts and the consequences of the actions of the Armenian hate groups. The letter was printed in some of the newspapers of the state.

Note: since the release of this news, French Senate rejected to debate this issue

What is the Purpose:

Education or Ethnic Pandering

On November 16, The State Assembly of the State of Wisconsin considered a bill that requires that the Great Hunger in Ireland, the Holocaust, and the Armenian Genocide be included by school boards as part of national and world history curriculum and that those days also be commemorated. I am writing to express the Wisconsin Turkish community's deep objection to any mandating by the Wisconsin legislature of the alleged "Armenian genocide" as required study material in State schools. I am not a historian but as a lawyer it is my obligation to respond to this threat to defend justice and the truth. But most importantly, I believe it is a duty on us to be objective and to defend the rights of all of the people, Armenian and Turks alike who suffered tremendously in a civil war during the World War I in eastern Turkey. At the outset, one needs to understand there were massacres that took place on both sides. Historical facts show that there was repression but no genocide of any sort and it was never one-sided tragedy. However, taking advantage of their well-established lobbying organization in the U.S., the Armenians are presenting their version of the distorted history. It is absolutely crucial to be able to make a distinction between truth and fiction before declaring April 24th as the so-called "genocide Remembrance Day" for the Armenians. We, Turks, do not agree with this fabricated history. It is obvious that many of the State representatives have little or no knowledge of these complex historical events. When the political ambitions take precedence over historical truths it can only cause harm to the objectivity of history and create new problems. Although it is not my intention to give a mini-lesson in the history of Turkish-Armenian relations which is highly debated in scholarly circles it would be beneficial to provide brief information about what happened 80 years ago. Historical research indicates that the Armenians were attempting to break away from their long term ruler the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) during the World War I. Revolutionary Armenians revolted and assisted Russian invasion of eastern Turkey and partaken in killing of innumerable Turks and Kurds, who were their long time neighbors. However, when the Russians were forced to retreat, the Armenian people were left behind unprotected. Hence, Turkish and Kurdish citizens of the empire struck back in revenge. In the resulting civil war, the Turks as well as the Armenians suffered. Consequently, the Ottoman government decided to expel Armenians to Syria. Many of them died along the way. While the Armenians have consistently sought to portray themselves to the world as innocent and helpless victims, no mention is made of the tens of thousands of Ottoman Armenians who fought in the ranks of the invading Russian Army, nor of their betrayal of their own state. Ignoring the fact that more than million Turks were killed during the World War I, Armenians insist on viewing their suffering as a unique phenomenon of the period, rather than as part of the tragedy. Certainly, it cannot be even compared to the horrors experienced by the Jewish nation in the first half of this century. Because their genocide claim lacks the support of independent scholarly research Armenian groups have developed a strategy to legislate their version of history by lobbying the US Congress to pass resolutions recognizing their allegation. However, the US government does not recognize the genocide but refers to it as massacre. Accordingly, these attempts so far have been rejected several times in the House and in the Senate. After failing in their attempts at the national level, they have turned to State legislators where their lobbies could function more effectively. Unfortunately, they have been successful in some States such as California and Massachusetts where Armenians are highly represented. This shows the fact that there is a political preference depending on the local political clout of favored minorities. This brings to mind that all minorities are equal, but some minorities like Armenians are more equal than others. Armenian lobby is pushing once again for "genocide recognition", and this time they are doing it in Wisconsin. This bill, if passed, will not only grievously hurt and humiliate families of Turkish-Americans and their children, but also turn an alleged and highly disputed Armenian myth into legislation at the expense of ruining the United State's relations with a loyal and important ally, Turkey. Moreover, Armenians' insistence on fomenting hatred with their one-sided claim has resulted in a terror campaign since the 1970s. Armenian terrorists have assassinated many Turkish diplomats, four in the US, and their immediate family members in order to compel the international community to accept their distorted version of history. The purpose of these lines is not to condemn all Armenian nation as terrorist but to call attention to contradiction that those who wish to generate sympathy for an alleged genocide have chosen murder and other acts of terrorism. Only couple of weeks ago FBI has arrested Mr. Mourad Topalian, recent president of the major Armenian American lobby, namely ANCA, for his alleged terrorist activities against the Turkish nation. Many nations (minorities) have long been subject to inhuman and racist treatments by their suppressive governments. I believe we should teach our children about dark sides of the history as well as good. However, we should be very cautious when undertake such a delicate mission not to poison fresh minds of our children by creating negative image of certain nations. Let's think about it for a second, your six years old child goes to school and his/her teacher tells that the day is commemoration of the Holocaust, Armenian or Irish genocide. The first impressions of this child will, most probably, be that the Germans are bad, the Turks are bad, and the English are bad because they killed people. We cannot expect a six years old to properly analyze that the issue here is the genocide not the condemnation of nations involved. Because children at that age just accept what they have been told without discussing it. These kids will grow up with this in mind and when they come across to a Turkish or a German, most likely first thing they will remember is what they learned in the school. It is obvious that such a situation will promote ethnic and racial intolerance. What's more, to enact such a bill by singling out Armenians for remembrance will only encourage hate crimes and other forms of intimidation against people with Turkish origin. Furthermore, it will serve to the purposes of those people whose purported motivation was revenge for the alleged genocide such as last month's indicted Armenian terrorist leader Mourad Topalian. While it is absurd to even blame Turkey for the alleged events (1915) that took place before its birth (1923) it is equally absurd to claim genocide when Turks even have suffered heavier losses than Armenians did. The statistics show that there is an inescapable link between violence and vandalism and ethnic and racial intolerance. At the very extreme, we may witness Turkish houses are burned and Turkish children are beaten in schools resembling what happens in Germany. Americans have already suffered much from racial discrimination and violence. Instead of provoking very young children against certain nations, teaching of tolerance should be priority in state schools. In order to educate pupils about the historical record of inhumanity and racism, a wide range of curricula can be added to the program including war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, the Native American, Cambodian, Vietnamese and Black Slavery issues. Otherwise, we the Turks will unquestionably think that this legislation, mandating classroom instruction on the alleged Armenian genocide, is unjust and is to promote the politics of ethnic identity, that is intending to chastise the Turkish nation and the government of today. Therefore, it is not about education but ethnic pandering. Once more, the allegation has been extremely disputed among reputable American and other scholars, and never proven in a court of law or other impartial tribunal. In conclusion, the State of Wisconsin should not lend its credibility to an unproved charge against an entire nation. Furthermore, passing of such bill will not serve for a worthy cause rather than increasing ethnic hatred against certain nations.

Mehmet Kömürcü

“This is Bayrak; voice of the Turkish Cypriots”

Is it possible to say that after nearly 40 years since the first attack on the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek and Greek Cypriots, we are moving towards a solution in Cyprus?

As the ordinary public we do not know what exactly the sides have talked or achieved so far but thanks to noises of the scared Greek Cypriot media, church and the politicians, we can say we are no where near.

Looking at few ugly acts staged by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots before the second round of proximity talks, it is very hard for us to hope that the Greeks or Greek Cypriots are ready for peace in Cyprus.

It is evident that the more they think that the international community is accepting the reality of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the more aggressive they are becoming.

First incident was a hateful letter written to Dr. McLaughlin by George J. Dariotis, Supreme President of the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association.

Dr. McLaughlin, the presenter of a program called ‘The McLaughlin Group’, on his program held on December 15, Dr. McLaughlin declared Atatürk to be “The Person of the Full Millennium”, which angered the Greek Americans. In his letter Dariotis assaulted Atatürk, tried to dishonour his name and cleverly used the opportunity to attack Turkey. Dariotis got the answer he deserved from the Turkish American community and from some Americans who are aware of the situation. This incident shows that the Greek lobbies in America still carrying on with their hate campaigns towards the Turks.

The other incident, which is still going on at the present time is the hate campaign started by Mrs. E.K. Marcoullis, the representative of the Greek Cypriot administration in Washington D.C.

This hate campaign was started against Mr. Richard Judd, the President of the central Connecticut State University for allowing the establishment of ties between the Connecticut State University and the Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU) of the TRNC. So far the campaign has not been successful. Coupled with the hate towards the Turks and Turkish Cypriots, their annoyance at the achievement of the TRNC in the education field, is driving the Greek Cypriots crazy. While there are 5 Universities in the TRNC, there is only one in the South. This achievement of the TRNC despite the embargoes has long been a source of irritation for the Greek Cypriots.

The third incident, which took place during the recent visit of the Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou to the island, was a real eye opener for everyone who got to hear about it, a real display of ‘cannot stand anything Turkish’. Mr. Papandreou, who was in Cyprus just before the second round of proximity talks to explain the Greek position on Cyprus to the Greek Cypriot political parties and the church who are putting opposition to a federal solution in Cyprus, was about to hold a joint press conference with the Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister to give information about his contacts in South Cyprus. The trouble began after a Greek Cypriot journalist complained about the logo on a microphone from Turkish Cypriot state television Bayrak (Flag) Radio Television (BRT). The BRT crew was asked by Greek Cypriot officials to remove the logo from the microphone which was to be placed in front of the two ministers. Annoyed at the action of the officials, all the Turkish Cypriots, who were there to cover the press conference left the room and waited in the corridor. Several phone calls later they were told they should return, but when they again went to place the BRT microphone on the table officials tried to hide it behind the decorative flower arrangement. Greek Cypriot newspaper Cyprus Mail reported, “Two local TV stations said the instruction to remove the offending logo had come directly from President Glafcos Clerides who was consulted in a flurry of phone calls from the Foreign Ministry.” Talking about the incident after the conference the Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Cassoulides said the incident was the "symptom of a disease which should not exist", and added that every night BRT opens with the message: "This is the voice of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus." Why were the Greek Cypriots really annoyed by the presence of a simple logo? Or did it remind them that the name Bayrak was the flag of the struggle of the Turkish Cypriots against the atrocities of the Greek Cypriots in the 60s. Many of us still remember, as the Turkish Cypriots were loosing all hopes and facing total destruction, how the words “This is Bayrak the voice of the Turkish Cypriots” gave us back the confidence to continue with our struggle. BRT, which started in a shed and grew to be what it is today, had played a very important role in the struggle of the Turkish Cypriots and that is the main reason that the Greek Cypriots cannot stand it. Cassoulides may regard TRNC as a disease and the Greek reaction as a symptom, but in reality, the reaction of the Greeks in all these incidents can be named as a Greek disease, the Greek Hate. As long as this Greek disease exist there can never be peace in Cyprus.

“This is Bayrak; voice of the Turkish Cypriots” This voice will never be silenced by the Greeks.

Bayrak = Flag

This was at the top of the news items of almost all the news agencies few weeks ago. They all reported who Arkan was and what he did. Report by the news agencies went on to explain that Arkan, 47, who was indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal for alleged atrocities in Bosnia and Croatia, was shot. We do not care who the killers were, all we can say is that he was a terrorist who was responsible for the murders of thousands of innocent people, therefore he got what he deserved.

Arkan emerged as one of the richest Serbs from the conflict in Yugoslavia. He reportedly smuggled gasoline, mostly from Greece, during the international embargo against Yugoslavia, and had several private companies dealing with import of cars, arms, and cigarettes. News agencies reported that world leaders said that they regretted that Arkan's death had robbed them of the chance to bring one of Serbia's most feared warlords before a UN war crimes tribunal. The head of the UN mission to Bosnia, American diplomat Jacques Klein, said one could not mourn such a man. "I don't think tears can be shed for a psychopathic mass murderer," he told Reuters in Sarajevo.

It could be argued that this is a bit of an old news item but a newspaper cutting, which was sent to us from an Austrian reader few days ago prompted us to remind our readers who Arkan was and who were his friends.

Attack by the Greek fanatics

The international travel fair, Destination 2000, held at the Olympia was the scene of few more ugly and aggressive attacks on the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots. First problem was created by the Greek Cypriot person in charge of the Greek Cypriot stand inside the fair. When he found out that the neighbouring stand belong to the Turkish Cypriot company called Cyprus Paradise, which promoted the TRNC, he simply went mad and started to scream his head off. When the officials arrived to investigate the incident, he, with an ordering manner demanded that the Turkish Cypriot stand to be moved. To his shock, officials politely asked him to move his own stand if he did not want to be next to the Turkish Cypriot stand. While this incident was taking place on the inside, there was even uglier scenes on the outside. Two Turkish Cypriots who were distributing leaflets promoting TRNC were attacked by the members of the Lobby for Cyprus who were distributing leaflets against Turkey. To start with there were no problems, two Turkish Cypriots and two Greek Cypriots were distributing leaflets but after the arrival of nine other Greek Cypriots, things started to get out of hand. With the arrival of this new group the Greek Cypriots became abusive and attack the Turkish Cypriots. The Group took the boxes of leaflets distributed by the Turkish Cypriots, threw the Turkish Cypriot flag on the ground and jumped up and down on it. In the process the two Turkish Cypriots were punched and kicked by the fanatic Greeks.

Photo from Hürsoz

As the police arrived on the scene, one of the Greek Cypriots carried on with aggressive behaviour, making ugly gestures holding his genitals, almost a natural act by Greek Cypriots when they strongly disagree with someone.

It was later reported to TCN after the issue 43 was published and sent out to our readers and the media that the same group of Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot vigil outside the 10 Downing street twice after the above incident at the Olympia. These individuals are known to be the fanatical supporter of the fascist EOKA group Lobby for Cyprus, who is financially supported by the Greek Cypriot illegal regime in South Cyprus

Quick Learner

On Feb 1, 2000 Greek Cypriot news agency CNA reported: “British Euro MP Theresa Villiers has written to Prime Minister Tony Blair and President of the European Parliament Nicole Fontaine calling on them to step up efforts and show more political will for a settlement in Cyprus, in view of the second round of peace talks that opened in Geneva yesterday. In her letters, dated January 27 and released today, Villiers urges them to call upon the Turkish side to abandon its intransigence in efforts for a settlement in Cyprus, especially after the European Union Helsinki summit which granted Turkey a candidate status and decided the Cyprus Republic can join its ranks even if a settlement is not reached.”

It is amazing how quickly someone can learn about Cyprus problem, given the right circumstances and the right advisors.

Just before the Euro elections last year, in the interview Ms Villiers gave to the Gerçek newspaper, she said she did not know much about Cyprus. Only few months after the elections, she is an expert on Cyprus problem, so much so that she can say that it is the Turkish side that is the intransigent side. If the report of the news agency is correct, they are known to lie and mislead, we are facing a big problem. Perhaps, unlike the Greeks we do not have enough Sophoclideses, who are very capable and are very persuasive about the issues concerning Cyprus. So capable and persuasive that they even become advisors to British MPs on Cyprus problem. As for Ms Villiers, she is lucky that she lives far away from Cyprus. If she was any closer, she would go deaf from the screams of the Greek Cypriots who are against a federal solution, which includes the mighty powerful church, political parties, media and around 95% of the rest of the population.

Serbia's most notorious warlord, Zeljko Raznatovic known as Arkan, died as he lived: By the bullet.

Clerides appeals for calm

in wake of Church row.

Haunted by the Set of Ideas

Recent reports by the Greek Cypriot media claimed that the UN is preparing a lengthy document based on the Gali set of ideas. Some newspapers gave the news under the headline “Gali Ideas Resurrected”. Boutros Boutros Gali, was the former UN Secretary General who tabled set of ideas at UN talks seeking a Cyprus solution during his tenure. But the Greek Cypriot side, although at first pretending to be in agreement with them, totally rejected the set of ideas. In fact Greek Cypriot leader Clerides won his first term in the office because he totally rejected the Gali Set of Ideas. The document is being prepared by UN third parties and is expected to cover all aspects of the Cyprus problem and will be presented to both sided as a basis for discussion at the beginning of the third round of talks. Some of the Greek Cypriot papers reported that at the time their leaders rejected the set of ideas but now they are faced something worse.