US seeks major military base on united Cyprus

Ping

PRETTY IN PINK

Donate Here By Secure Server

Or mail checks to
FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794

or you can use

PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com

STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD-
It is in the breaking news sidebar!

I'm not so sure this is a good idea. These guys have been fighting each other since the ice age.

Cool....an unsinkable aircraft/troop carrier right off the Israeli coast.

Not sure why we need another base. The Brits have a 250 square kilometer base at Akrotiri, a base at Dhekalia and one on Mount Olympus the highest point on the island. The US shares these facilities under a US/UK treaty. The bases are legally part of Britain so the US/UK militaries can do pretty much what they want.

If I was doing a four year hitch in the service, a rotation to Cyprus might seem a pretty good break !

There were never any Turks on that island until the middle of the 15th century after they conquered Greek Christians.

well why not one more.

I watched a documentary on SBS (like PBS in US) in Australia that spoke about the 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus that resulted in dividing the island.

According to the documentary the invasion was US supported as there was a socialist government in Greece and the fear was a Socialist government in Cyprus would be too close to Israel.

Don't forget the Yom Kippur War in Israel was in 1972 just 2 years before that. Imagine Israel surrounded by socialist countries like Syria, Egypt from land and potential Cyprus from sea.

Anyway Turkey invaded and since then island is divided.

well why not one more.

Well I don't know about you but I'm a taxpayer and if we can piggyback off an existing facility I would think it a lot cheaper than building a new one. Also a lot less diplomatic hassel than if we have to open a completely new base on land owned by the greeks or turks.

I don't know what's happening with the 250 sq kilometeres ( 100 sq miles ?) but it seems to me you can do a lot of whatever the military wants to do in that space.

2 UK bases already exist on the inland serving UK/US needs. But if collection of military bases in not a hobby but is important for the US interests why not?
Problem being that what media deceptively call "reunification" of Cyprus, is misleading the official recognition of the separation of the island into "North" and "South" is not "reunification". Reunification would mean that every Greek or Turk will go back home just like when, years ago, all Cypriots (81,2% Greeks and 18,8% Turks) lived together scattered all over the island. "Turkish North" and "Greek South" is an artificial separation based on ethnic cleansing from both sides.
The official recognition of this separation, whatever form it takes, will mean, some time in the future, that UK bases will be lost for ever.
Detrimental for the control of Eastern Mediterranean by the US putting in jeopardy Israel's safety.
The policy of the US in Cyprus is myopic and underestimates the strategic importance of the island for the US and the State of Israel.

The official recognition of this separation, whatever form it takes, will mean, some time in the future, that UK bases will be lost for ever.

I don't undestand your point here. The existing bases in Cyprus are UK sovereign territory i.e. they are legally part of Britain. So long as the US and the UK are geting along OK then the US will have the use of those bases. It has nothing to do with the status of the different ethnic communities in Cyprus.

When Britain granted independence to Cyprus it held on to part of the island as it's own territory. They are like Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

UK bases are sovereign UK territory under the Treaty of Zurich. The Treaty of Zurich has become de facto inactive, but is still honored by the Republic of Cyprus.
The true reason behind UN plan is to safeguard the bases through a new agreement. But this agreement has to a) be accepted by both sides b) introduce a viable and permanent solution. Both conditions have to be met. Both separation resulting from nonacceptance or separation due to an eventual impossibility of application of the new agreement will lead to the same result. The Anan plan seems to have worked hard for these two eventualities. I do not know the reason.
But there is more. I read a recent article by a British professor specialized in Cyprus, William Malinson. He says that UK does not want and never wanted Cyprus to be a really independent State and member of NATO. In such a State, UK bases have no meaning as such.
Greeks would have no problem becoming a NATO member and offering NATO or USA military bases, and indeed sovereign bases, should USA accept the application of International Law in the case of Cyprus which was refused to the Greeks: self-determination, majority rule etc. May I remind you that Greeks make 82% of the population of the island and Turks 18%. If it is to give credit to professor Malinson, the Anan plan is British-made and works against US interests! So we come back to the old question: is US foreign policy led by UK and Turkey?
A prosperous, happy, calm cheerful island, NATO member, having on it US bases, can safeguard US interests in this sensitive part of the world for ever. Can safeguard the existence of Israel for ever!
The Anan plan, an ill-inspired improvisation, safeguards future trouble or its nonacceptance, both being equally detrimental to US interests in the area.
USA should have turn Cyprus into a US carrier keeping people on it happy and friendly to the US. Why create unnecessary hate once more in this sensitive area? The US should not take such risks...few miles north west of Israel.

UK bases are sovereign UK territory under the Treaty of Zurich. The Treaty of Zurich has become de facto inactive, but is still honored by the Republic of Cyprus.

Let me see if I can answer this as carefully as I can. Firstly the bases were retained by the UK under an annex to the so called London Treaty dated 19th February 1959 which was accepted and guaranteed by the Governments of Greece, Turkey and the putative Government of Cyprus. Therefore whatever the de facto position of the Treaty of Zurich the de Jure position of the bases cannot be challenged, they have in effect been accepted and guaranteed by all parties concerned.

I read a recent article by a British professor specialized in Cyprus, William Malinson. He says that UK does not want and never wanted Cyprus to be a really independent State and member of NATO. In such a State, UK bases have no meaning as such.

Unfortunately I have not seen this article but a very close analogy would be the UK and US bases in Germany, a NATO ally. Do they have "no meaning"

Greeks would have no problem becoming a NATO member and offering NATO or USA military bases,

By "Greeks" I assume you mean the ethnic Greek population on Cyprus as the countries of both Greece and Turkey are already full members of NATO.

I hope the foreign policy of the United States is led, not by the UK or Turkey, but by the long term interests of the USA, whatever they may be. Relations with the government of Turkey have cooled somewhat after the fiasco of the US having to re-route the US 4th Infantry Division through the Suez canal because the government of Turkey would not allow the transit of the division into Iraq.

The long term solution to the partition of Cyprus cannot be solved by the USA but by the parties on the ground. The US cannot act as the mediator in every dispute around the globe. Every time the US tries to get involved in a dispute the parties involved turn around and start throwing mud at the US (vide Israel/Palestinians, Kosovo etc etc) It's time for others to act like grown ups and settle their own disputes.The long term solution probably lies in the whole of the Island becoming a member of the EU which will mean accepting Turkey into the EU. Thus Turkey and Cyprus would become the outliers of both the EU and hopefully NATO.

However "Retournons a nos moutons". The bases are UK sovereign territory whatever the status of the two communities on the Island. The United States, for economic and military/strategic reasons is re-positioning its bases in Europe( basically moving out of high cost Germany) It seems to me that the people of Cyprus could gain considerable economic benefit and security by hosting some of the forces which are moving further east.

What I am saying is that the de jure position of the bases is based on the Treaty of Zurich which is not anymore honored by Turkey and which can be officially terminated, as in the case where the Greek majority and the Turkish minority (to use the proper terms) finally decide that no agreement can be reached and for ever. The legal status of the bases though, is a very complicated legal matter should Cyprus become member of NATO and/or in relation to EU law, the only thing I can tell you is that the situation is not as simple as you present it from the legal standpoint.
What I said, that the bases will have no meaning should Cyprus become member of NATO is something I copied from the article of professor Malinson. There are of course US bases in Germany as well as in Greece. Professor Malinson indicates I suppose a contradiction having to do with the legal status of the bases in Cyprus as sovereign bases. I am not a specialized lawyer in these matters and I cannot analyze further, neither can you I suppose.
You say that the US cannot act as a mediator in every single case on the planet. But Cyprus is not a common place. Just look at the map. Among other things have a look at Israel few miles on the south east. And indeed, in the recent case of the so called reunification plan for Cyprus US has intervened exercising unheard-off spasmodic pressure on the Greek side to accept the worldwide unique constitution in which among other things:
The 82% Greek majority and the 18% Turkish minority will have equal number of seats in the Senate, in the Supreme Court and in the Bank of Cyprus.
The 18% Turkish minority will have 33% of the seats in the Parliament, but any decision of the Parliament has to be ratified by the Senate.
The 82% Greek majority thus becomes hostage of the 18% Turkish minority which can exercise a veto against any and all decisions of the majority.
This is a blatant violation of the fundamental right of majority rule and self-detemination of Constitutional and International Law. Or else, is a pure nonsense from the practical point of view in the sense it cannot be viable. The 18% minority keeps the 27% of the territory and only a fraction of Greek refuges can go back home if their home will be under Turkish-Cypriot control.
I cannot give to you a full report of dozens of paranoid provisions in the so-called reunification plan.
It is my impression that Greeks are naive and childish, but not completely mad.
How someone could ever imagine that they could accept this legal atrocity?
I do not know who is behind this paranoid "Annan plan for reunification of Cyprus" (the drafting has been directed by some Lord Haney) but it is a complete nonsense and its acceptance or nonacceptance will equally damage US interests in the area.

US need a calm, peaceful and prosperous island to turn it into an American carrier so that it can control Eastern Mediterranean and protect Israel. The Annan plan which was of course rejected by Greeks today, moves to the opposite direction. It has created once more hate and anti-americanism for no reason. God knows why.

It is true that despite all that, maybe, the bases will stay. But why take risks few miles away from Israel?

You say: "I hope the foreign policy of the United States is led, not by the UK or Turkey, but by the long term interests of the USA, whatever they may be".
I have no other choice but to accuse you of ignorance and naivety. The US foreign policy is influenced by very many factors such as lobbies, private interests, foreign governments, the media which in their turn may be controlled by any of these entities, paid-off or bribed officials, fixations, recently religious fundamentalists and all short of variables which quite often are not controlled by the President and could seriously damage the long term interests of the United States. The study of these variable make part of the curriculum of American studies in many Political Sciences Departments of European Universities.

A good conservative American is the one who continuously search for the truth to exploit it for the benefit of the US, not someone who looks the world behind pink glasses.To be a patriot requires hard work. Lazy minds cannot be patriots. Likewise lazy minds cannot be liberals. They are both lazy or else idiots, and an idiot is not conservative, liberal or whatever, He/she is simply an idiot.

Lord Honey made the draft, sorry, not Haney.
He must have tried hard to fail in that ridiculous way.
Possibly he has done in on purpose.