From: sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.mideast,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.turkish,soc.rights.human
Followup-To: soc.culture.turkish
Subject: Re: A State Where Turks Can Now Live Unmolested and Free.
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 93 21:31:49 EST
Reply-To: sera@zuma.UUCP (Serdar Argic)
Distribution: world

In article <Jan25.053520.72146@yuma.ACNS.ColoState.EDU> irakliot@longs.LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Leo J. Irakliotis) writes:

|> The Turkish action is in conformity with Turkish history, law and 
|> tradition, let alone with the international law.

>No doubt. But if the turkish action is in conformity with the Intl law,
>then could you explain why the UN Sec Council asked for a withdraw of 
>the turkish army from the island? And perhaps you could care to explain
>why the EC parliament issued a similar resolution? And perhaps the

The winding down of winter puts you in a heavy philosophical mood?
The record clearly shows that the Greek Cypriot leadership never
believed in equality between the two communities, have accepted
the independence with great reluctance and then nullified the
constitution in a unilateral fashion, counting on a forceful
fait accompli. 

That's why the United Nations Security Council resolutions, 
resting on the wisdom of hindsight, always proposed a bi-territorial 
and bi-communal federative solution because the record shows that 
a 'unitary' solution ends up with Greeks killing the Turks for 
'enosis' with Greece.

Article IV of the 1960 Tripartite Treaty of Guarantee among Great 
Britain, Turkiye, and Greece gave Turkiye the right to intervene if 
the 1960 agreement was violated. When Greece invaded the island on 
July 15, 1974, and then tried to annex it, the Turkish government 
acted to establish an area in northern Cyprus where Turkish Cypriots 
could live free of fear.

The August 30, 1974, "Die Zeit" German newspaper report of "the 
Massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta," proves how 
justified the Turks were in undertaking their intervention.

Source: THE INDEPENDENT, 11 August 1992
        page 14, Letters to the Editor

Brigadier Michael  Harbottle

Sir: The decision  hangs in  the  balance as to  whether or not a
United  Nations peace enforcement operation is to  be mounted  in
Bosnia-Herzegovina  as a safeguard to the humanitarian  operation
already  under way. It is perfectly legitimate for  force  to  be
used  in self-defence,  but anything more  sophisticated and more
aggressive needs very careful and deep study.

A full-scale operation  with tens of thousands  of troops appears
to  be under  consideration, but  can such  a deployment  has any
chance of success?  If one draws on the German  army's failure in
the in the  Second World War to subdue the  partisans, divided as
they were, it is difficult to believe that a mixed UN force would
be any  more successful  at overcoming  the opposition  in Bosnia
today.

It  is certainly  improbable  that such  a military  intervention
would deter  the Serbian forces. We  only have to go  back to the
Fifties and  Cyprus and  remind ourselves how  a handful  of EOKA
fighters, not more than 200 all  told, held at bay between 12,000
and  15,000   British  soldiers  for   four  years.  I   ask  the
decision-makers to  be very wary  about committing the UN  to yet
another  dangerous,  and  probably abortive,  exercise  in  peace
enforcement.

Instead,  there is  a  lesser option  open  to the  UN.  It is  a
standing  principle  of  all  UN  peace-keeping  operations  that
self-defence can be  used in the face of any  attack, or imminent
threat  of  attack,  to   safeguard  UN  soldiers'  lives,  their
positions and  equipment and  the force's  ability to  fulfil its
mandate.

There is no requirement to seek a Security Council resolution; it
is a standing operating procedure.

IN CYPRUS IN 1967, AT THE  VILLAGE OF MELOUSHA, THE GREEK CYPRIOT
NATIONAL GUARD WAS  MARCHING ON THE VILLAGE  TO APPREHEND TURKISH
CYPRIOT FIGHTERS  ALLEGED TO BE  THERE. THE UN  POSITIONED TROOPS
BETWEEN THE  NATIONAL GUARD AND  THE VILLAGE, AND WARNED  THAT IF
THE NATIONAL GUARD CAME WITHIN 200 YARDS OF THE UN POSITIONS, THE
TROOPS WOULD  USE FORCE IN  SELF-DEFENCE TO PREVENT AN  ATTACK ON
THE  VILLAGE. THE  NATIONAL GUARD  HALTED 250  YARDS FROM  THE UN
POSITIONS AND LATER RETURNED TO BARRACKS. THE DETERRENT EFFECT OF
THE INTENTION TO  USE FORCE TO UPHOLD THE  MANDATE WAS SUFFICIENT
TO PREVENT WHAT COULD HAVE BECOME AN ACT OF GENOCIDE.

If one applies this principle  to today's situation in and around
Sarajevo, it would be perfectly  legitimate for the UN to provide
a  self-defence  capability  to   ensure  that  the  humanitarian
operation's  mandate  is secured  and  the  UN positions  on  the
airport and  the relief  convoys protected. It  could do  this by
employing  helicopter  gunships,  assisted by  spotter  aircraft,
against the Serbian artillery and mortar positions from which the
shelling  comes. In  the  context of  self-defence,  it would  be
sufficient  for the  aerial attacks  to be  directed against  the
weapons themselves and not against  the troop positions. It would
be enough to destroy the enemy's fire-power capability, and could
provide an adequate deterrent against further attacks on the UN.

It may be argued that even if this were effective, it would solve
only part of  the problem. It is for the  decision-makers to make
up their minds as to what they want; to ensure the implementation
of  the humanitarian  operation as  the mandate  requires, or  to
carry the fight to the  Serbian forces, involving the probability
of a war of attrition with an inconclusive result.

Yours faithfully,

MICHAEL HARBOTTLE
Director
The Centre for International
Peace-building
Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire
9 August

The writer was Chief of Staff of the UN
Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus, 1966-68.

Serdar Argic

                           'We closed the roads and mountain passes that 
                            might serve as ways of escape for the Turks 
                            and then proceeded in the work of extermination.'
                                                       (Ohanus Appressian)
                           'In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists 
                            a single Turkish soul.'    (Sahak Melkonian)