The news story begins:
“On the invitation printed by the Adana Tennis, Mountaineering and Water Sports Club (ATDSK) for its international tennis tournament, the map of Cyprus on the flag of the Greek Cypriot side showed the TRNC and the Greek Cypriot side in different colours.”
And continues:
“ATDSK President Hilal A. Aksöz, who said the incident was caused by a technical error, made the following statement: The print shop downloaded images of the flags of the 16 countries featured on the invitation from the internet. However, the image of the Greek Cypriot flag was not examined carefully. It was not a deliberate mistake.”
First, let’s talk about how the flag was found.
As the story says, I too tried to find this flag on the internet. If you are looking for an image or information online, the first address you will no doubt enter is www.google.com. I searched for a number of terms. First, because it was an official organisation, I tried “Republic of Cyprus,” “Cyprus,” and “Republic of Cyprus” in Turkish, but I didn’t come across this flag. Then, thinking like the person who designed the invitations, who was probably Turkish, I searched for “Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus,” “Cyprus,” “TRNC,” “Greek Republic,” and “Greek Cypriot Flag,” but still couldn’t find it.
In other words, despite being very good at using the internet, I couldn’t find this flag online.
Frankly, I’m curious what that person searched for and how they found it.
Anyway, while I was online, I also looked at the websites that had published the story. The comments people had posted interested me more than the story itself! Some of them said, “If only they had made the north red and put the TRNC flag separately,” while others said, “This is all we can console ourselves with.” And some said, “For one thing, it isn’t the Greek flag, it’s the Republic of Cyprus flag; it’s not the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, it’s the Republic of Cyprus. What nonsense.”
Leaving all these arguments aside, what does this flag represent?
When you look at the flag, it is not the TRNC flag, it is not the Republic of Cyprus flag, and it is not even the flag proposed in the Annan Plan. On the other hand, such a flag could represent neither a federation nor a confederation.
In the end, at this stage, the flag represents nothing!
But as far as I can tell, it is certainly a flag that does not exist and that no one had previously thought about.
So, let’s think about it…
At first glance, one might think, “It looks like a flag drawn up after 1974 that reflects the realities of the island.” One could even argue that it might be useful for propaganda.
On the other hand, starting from the often-expressed view that “we also have rights in the Republic of Cyprus,” people might offer comments and thoughts on “how such a flag could be used as an argument in defending those rights.”
In short, depending on your political views, you can offer many different interpretations of the issue and develop your own thoughts.
I don’t know what you think.
Think about it…
Hope to see you on Friday…
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be respectful in traffic! One Day I’ll Take My Head and Go ---1.05.2009 Since the start of the week, we’ve been waking up and going to bed with the Orams case on our minds... And yet we thought that day would never come!
It was as if the case didn’t exist for us...
Perhaps we wanted it not to exist.
Or perhaps some people wanted it not to exist!
There is a sense of bewilderment among the country’s senior officials.
The question coming from the public and the media, “Why did this happen?” is making some people uncomfortable...
As if those people didn’t know this would happen...
As if no one had told those people this would happen!
And now some people are sitting with their heads in their hands, wondering, “Why did this happen?”
...
“Really, why did this happen?” some people continue to wonder!
And yet the negotiation process was “continuing”...
And yet we had “come close” to a solution.
And yet everything was going to be “wonderful”!
Some people feel deceived, stabbed in the back.
They weren’t expecting this outcome while the negotiations were continuing at the table.
Some people are sad, hurt, a little angry, and a little resentful.
“How can those who say they support reaching a solution make a decision that will bring about a lack of resolution?” some people wonder, unable to make sense of it...
And yet some people are working for a solution, thinking about a solution...
“But how can I reach a solution with a dagger in my back?” some people ask themselves.
Some people want to shout at those who made this decision, to scream at the top of their lungs: “You don’t want to resolve this; you are the reason there is no resolution.”
The decision made by some people seems to have upset some other people greatly.
And yet aren’t those other people the ones who had a part in the decision made by some people?
Those other people are actually thinking about that now, too.
“Could I have stopped it?” they ask.
Perhaps, inevitably, they form sentences full of “if only”s.
They keep questioning themselves, but don’t want to be asked questions about the outcome...
But they know what they will do from now on.
They want to say it plainly, even to shout it out...
“With a dagger in my back, I’ll put an end to the negotiations.”
Then a song by Livaneli, which they often had the chance to listen to years ago, comes to mind, and they start humming: “One day I’ll take my head and go To the smell of nets just brought up from the sea..
This island is yours, that island is mine Following the yellow-legged gulls..
One day the sun will reach above my head
One day the blue will reach above my head One day, like a madman...
One day I’ll take my head and go!..”
Hope to see you on Tuesday. Happy May Day ...
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be respectful in traffic! The Region’s ‘Old-New’ Leader (Part 1) ---5.05.2009 The only thing that caught my attention in Turkey’s cabinet reshuffle was the change at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs! I believe this change is a continuation of another change (the Greater Middle East Project). Before discussing that change, which is connected to this issue, let’s recall what the Greater Middle East Project is. The Greater Middle East Project: According to the documents, the Greater Middle East refers to a region stretching from Morocco and Mauritania in the west to Central Asia and Mongolia in the east, the Caucasus and Turkey in the north, and the Arab world down to Somalia in the south.
Under this project, the United States has devised a comprehensive strategy for transforming the “Islamic geography” of the countries in the region, covering political, legal, information/education, economic, social, and security dimensions, and aiming for long-term change in these areas.
The public’s perception of the Greater Middle East Project is actually very different from the official approach described above. What people living in the regions in question, including Turkey, understand by the project is this: A strategy pursued by the United States to seize the riches of the above-mentioned regions, which are rich in natural resources!
The strategy in question, which we heard articulated more forcefully by the previous US president, George Bush, is actually a continuation of the resolution adopted by the US Congress in 1957 under the title “Maintaining Peace and Stability in the Middle East,” known as the Eisenhower Doctrine. I can’t move on from this subject without referring to the words often heard from the public: “The United States doesn’t make day-to-day policy! They pursue policies for 50 or 100 years.”
That being so, it is impossible to say that the United States, which has been making policy based on a strategy set 52 years ago, has succeeded over the course of this process. In fact, it is plain to see that the resolution described as “Maintaining Peace and Stability” has, in our time, come to life in exactly the opposite way. The latest example is Iraq!
So, where does Turkey fit into this?
More on Friday…
In fact, this question is a key factor in the United States’ failure to “succeed.” This is because, over the years, the United States has tried to use Turkey as a tool, both during the Cold War and during and after the first Gulf War. The tradition of the peoples in the region, who were governed for centuries in accordance with decisions made in Istanbul, is the biggest obstacle confronting the United States as it seeks to become the region’s “patron country.”
It is clear that the factors underlying this obstacle, together with a renewed focus on this tradition, have made Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdoğan the most popular “leader” in the region today!
Reaching this position is important!
But establishing this leadership—or, more accurately, acting with an awareness of the need for it—is undoubtedly much more important…
(To be continued on Friday…)
Hope to see you on Friday…
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be respectful in traffic! The Region’s ‘Old-New’ Leader (Part 2) ---8.05.2009 _(Continued from Tuesday’s column!)_ The fact that Prof. Dr. Ahmet Davutoğlu, who has acted on this awareness and has directed Turkish foreign policy from outside the cabinet, particularly as an expert on the Middle East—and who has been seen as a shadow foreign minister—is now taking the seat of Minister of Foreign Affairs seems likely to reinforce what Turkey’s role in the region should be in the future.
This step also contains a serious message to both the EU and the United States. Turkey is sending the United States a stronger and more legitimate message that “we attach importance to the region,” while telling the EU that “Turkey will be an influential country in its region, one whose word is heeded.”
The EU has received this message. The reactions from the EU after this appointment make that clear.
On the other hand, Turkey’s taking an active role in the Middle East with this claim, in response to the EU’s constant obstruction, means that perhaps the EU’s only fear is coming true: the EU, which is causing trouble today and sees this appointment as “moving away from negotiations,” may find that Turkey will become a country it needs in the future.
Who knows, perhaps the EU has not welcomed this awareness and prefers Turkey to remain dependent on it through the EU process. (That’s a subject for another column!)
That seems to be the EU dimension of the matter.
What about the US dimension?
The first event that made the United States understand this awareness in Turkey was the March 1 motion! The Grand National Assembly of Turkey did not approve the motion, and it did not open Turkish airspace, ports, or territory—most importantly, Incirlik Air Base—to US use as it prepared to invade Iraq. Turkey was telling the United States, “I will not allow actions in my region without my knowledge.” And it did so using the United States’ own weapon: democracy!
For many years, relations between the parties remained at their lowest level as a result of this event—I call this a “cautious strategic partnership”—but ties were not severed. The United States again took the initiative to rebuild those ties more strongly than before, with the new president making Turkey his first visit.
Rather than trying to understand Obama’s visit to Turkey early last month and the messages he delivered, it would be more accurate to try to understand the messages sent to him by Turkey, which read this show of importance correctly.
Yes, the United States is a superpower in the world!
But the United States, which has tried to pursue the same strategy through different names and projects since 1957, has at last understood—albeit belatedly—that it has not been able to, and will not be able to, establish dominance in the region by using the argument of “peace and democracy” while making the region more deprived of peace and further removed from democracy.
Turkey has understood this better.
So, what message was given to Obama in Turkey?
“Only Turkey’s leadership can be at issue in the region. History shows this, too.”
Let’s also clear up a question people may have.
This role does not mean bringing Turkey closer to the East. On the contrary, a Turkey preparing to join the EU and strong in its region—even a leading Turkey—is in the interests of all parties, particularly those in the Middle East.
Starting from this point, I believe it would be futile to try to explain how successful Turkey, as the region’s “old-new” leader, can be in making issues such as the “Armenian Question,” the “Cyprus Question,” and the “Israeli-Palestinian Question,” among others, cease to be problems on its own terms.
Is this a dream, or a historical necessity?
I’ll leave you to answer that question…
Hope to see you on Tuesday…
Pay attention to your surroundings, keep them clean, and please be respectful in traffic!