(C) Daily Kos
This story was originally published by Daily Kos and is unaltered.
. . . . . . . . . .
The onslaughts of Cyprus and Ukraine. Two invasions, two different American responses [1]
['This Content Is Not Subject To Review Daily Kos Staff Prior To Publication.', 'Backgroundurl Avatar_Large', 'Nickname', 'Joined', 'Created_At', 'Story Count', 'N_Stories', 'Comment Count', 'N_Comments', 'Popular Tags']
Date: 2022-08-20
Forty-eight years ago, on July 20, 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus and did what Russia did in Ukraine. The Turks ravaged the small island. The Turkish army murdered innocent civilians, tortured, raped women and children, and eventually grabbed 37% of the territory of the Republic.
The London Sunday Times, on January 23, 1977, published excerpts of a report of what the European Commission on Human Rights found, stating: “It amounts to a massive indictment of the Ankara government for the murder, rape, and looting by its army in Cyprus during and after the Turkish invasion of the summer of 1974.”
To justify their invasion, the Turks invoked the same fraudulent excuses that Russia used in its attack against Ukraine, namely security concerns and fears for the safety of the Turkish-Cypriot minority on the island. Putin had alleged security anxieties and that the Russian -speaking people of Eastern Ukraine were in danger.
Tiny Cyprus, just forty miles south of Turkey, which had an army as large as the entire Greek Cypriot population, could not have threatened Turkey or the Turkish Cypriots, who made up 18% of the people on the island. Non-nuclear Ukraine could not have been a threat to nuclear and much bigger Russia or the Russian speakers in Ukraine.
Putin’s fears of Ukraine joining NATO and the latter being a threat to Russia are also ludicrous. As Michael McFaul, former Obama adviser on Russia and U.S. ambassador to Moscow (2012-2014), pointed out, it will be absurd to believe that NATO will “invade” Russia, a nuclear power. He stressed a NATO attack on Russia would be “suicidal,” and Putin knows it.
Germany had assured Putin it would have vetoed Ukrainian membership in NATO, and Ukrainian integration in the Alliance was not imminent. The Russian news agency TASS reported on February 15, 2022, that the German Chancellor said, “Ukraine’s NATO membership was not on the alliance agenda.” Since the war started, Zelensky repeatedly stated that Ukraine would not become part of NATO and that he did not oppose neutrality. If these were the reasons behind Russia’s invasion, why doesn’t Putin end his attack, withdraw his forces, and begin negotiations with Zelensky?
The fundamental goal of both invasions was to grab territory from weaker neighbors. The Turks continue to occupy and colonize northern Cyprus and attack other countries in the region because they want to recreate the Ottoman Empire. They created their state in north Cyprus, which only Turkey recognizes. Putin aims to rebuild the tsarist Russian Empire.
Both invasions violated international law, and most states in the U.N. condemned them.
But there were also differences. The invader of Cyprus was a NATO ally, Turkey, not a Western adversary. The United States and NATO did little to stop the invasion; in fact, Turkey attacked using American and NATO weapons, violating American laws prohibiting the employment of American weapons for offensive purposes.
There was another significant distinction. During the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, Henry Kissinger, a ruthless practitioner of realpolitik, directed the foreign policy of the United States. Stuck in the 19th century, Kissinger paid little attention to the rule of law or democratic norms and prioritized power. So he did little to stop the Turkish invaders and later explained to President Ford that there was “no American reason why the Turks should not have one-third of Cyprus.”
That Turkey violated an independent state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity was not of concern to him. Nor did he care about the death, pain, and devastation the Turkish army inflicted on the people of Cyprus. His primary concern was not to displease Turkey, which, in his view, was an important NATO ally, only to find out later that many U.S. lawmakers disagreed with him and imposed an arms embargo on Ankara. Greece was equally significant to the West, and American laws also mattered. There is even evidence suggesting Kissinger facilitated the Turkish attack.
In Kissinger’s corrupt world view, small countries should submit to the will of large ones. If they refuse to surrender, their stronger adversaries will destroy them; and it will be their fault, not the perpetrators. Coined as realpolitik or realism, this type of thinking or foreign policy approach exonerates aggressors, provides excuses for bullies and invaders, and asks small states to surrender. And even though, in 1978, Hans Morgenthau, the father of modern realism, denounced realpolitik and power politics and warned that they ”could ultimately result in the destruction of the human race,” Kissinger and many of their proponents persist in upholding them.
The Greek Cypriots had no choice but to capitulate to Turkey; otherwise, they would have been responsible for the dire consequences. After the Turks violently forced the Greek Cypriots out of northern Cyprus, transferred the Turkish Cypriots from south Cyprus to the north, and partitioned the island, Kissinger told James Callaghan, Britain’s foreign secretary, it didn’t have to happen this way. “The same could have been done through diplomacy.” That the overwhelming majority of the island’s people, the Greek Cypriots, opposed geographical separation and partition did not concern him.
Likewise, Ukraine, in Kissinger’s view, had to submit to Russia’s demands to survive. It didn’t matter what the Ukrainian people wanted, and Russia’s imperialism was not a problem either. There was nothing absurd about the Kremlin’s alleged “security” concerns, and it wasn’t a factor that Russia, with more nuclear weapons than the United States, had little to fear.
It wouldn’t be hard to guess how the United States would have acted in Ukraine if Kissinger had been in charge of U.S. foreign policy. He would have concurred with the excuses of the Russian invaders. He would have ignored the 1994 Budapest agreement under which the United States, the U.K., and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s sovereignty, and in return, Ukraine gave up its nuclear weapons.
Kissinger would have pressured the Ukrainians to capitulate to Russia’s demands. If they didn’t, he would have refused to grant any help to them and allowed the Russians to slaughter them. The Ukrainian list of war casualties would have been much higher, and Zelensky may have been killed by now.
Seeking autocratic Russia’s support to counter China would have been more important to him than defending the rule of law and justice. Many of his current writings and speeches confirm the above. Now he advocates Ukraine concedes territory for peace. But, if history can teach us one thing, it is that Kissinger’s kinds of responses are not only immortal but also do not bring peace. Appeasing dictators does not work, and it only makes them more arrogant and demanding.
President Biden’s worldview differs dramatically from that of Kissinger’s. He believes that an international order based on the rule of law and democratic tenets best serves U.S. interests and humanity and reacted to the Russian invasion of Ukraine accordingly.
In responding to questions by ABC News, President Biden explained that U.S. involvement in Ukraine was necessary because “this is about more than just Russia and Ukraine. It’s about standing for what we believe in, the future we want for our world, liberty, and the right of countless countries to choose their own destiny. And the right of people to determine their own futures or the principle that a country can’t change its neighbor’s borders by force,” Biden said (ABC News, February 20, 2022, Remarks by President Biden February 15, East Room).
At a White House briefing on February 22, President Biden once again stressed the importance of the rule of law and the right of states to maintain their territorial integrity. “Who in the Lord’s name does Putin think gives him the right to declare new so-called countries on territory that belonged to his neighbors? This is a flagrant violation of international law and demands a firm response from the international community,” Biden added.
The Biden administration did not merely talk. Short of triggering a nuclear war, it backed up its words with action. President Biden united NATO against the Russian invaders, imposed severe sanctions on Russia and quickly supplied Ukraine with unprecedented economic and military help.
It remains to be seen whether President Biden will apply the same standards and beliefs to the aggression of a NATO ally and refute Putin’s claims that we “are all the same: practicing double standards, preaching about values to camouflage the pursuit of our own interests and deploying propaganda to weaken foes (Michael McFaul, 2018).“
Many bureaucrats at the State Department, National Security Council, and Defense Department pose a significant obstacle to President Biden’s vision of an international order based on the rule of law and his credibility. The evil Henry Kissinger may be gone, but his acolytes remain.
President Biden, however, is unlikely to stay aloof if Turkey attacks Greece, another NATO ally, or tries to take over the entire island of Cyprus, a U.S. friend, and an E.U. member. Ankara’s intrusions in Greece’s airspace and territorial waters and Cyprus’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ), and a Turkish invasion of northern Syria to purge the Kurds will put the Biden administration to the test.
[END]
---
[1] Url:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2022/8/20/2116636/-The-onslaughts-of-Cyprus-and-Ukraine-Two-invasions-two-different-American-responses
Published and (C) by Daily Kos
Content appears here under this condition or license: Site content may be used for any purpose without permission unless otherwise specified.
via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/dailykos/
