Filenews 19 June 2022 - by Panicos Panayiotou
The current occupant of the White House, Joe Biden, was one of the main supporters of the Greek positions and together with Paul Sarbanis, as members of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee for more than 30 years, had played a leading role in highlighting and condemning Turkish aggression against Greece and Cyprus. "If elected president of the United States, he will react to Turkish behaviour that violates international law and Turkey's allied commitments to NATO, such as violations of Greek airspace" and "will work diplomatically to provide a solution to the Cyprus problem", he said in a text released by his election staff, a few days before the previous presidential elections (November 2020) and titled: "Joe Biden's vision for Greek Americans and U.S.-Greece relations."
Sarbanes, Bradimas, Biden and now Menendez, as well as some other U.S. senators and lawmakers of both parties (each of course through different starting points and perceptions), have kept since 1974 some relative balance in the face of undesirable and even hostile actions of American leaders, in relation to the Turkish occupation of Cyprus and the Turkish provocativeness in the Aegean. It may have been proven time and time again that American politics, whether with a Republican or a Democratic occupant of the White House, has no substantial differences in matters of Greek interest, but the action, intervention and mobilization of members of Congress, at least at times, has averted the worst.
The pre-election promises made by U.S. presidential candidates to the Greek-American community have never materialized. And this reality is not only due to the fact that there is still an obsession to support Turkey to this day, regardless of what it is committing against American interests. Another reason to be reckoned with is the constant lack of coordination, a stable policy and a coherent strategy on the part of Hellenism (Athens, Nicosia and the Diaspora). And this timeless gap has negative consequences on national issues.
The decisive role in the USA, in the defence of international law in the case of Cyprus, has been undertaken almost entirely in recent years by Senator Robert Menendez (chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations), who is a major obstacle to Turkish aspirations aimed at circumventing American laws and sensitivities for the application of international law. In a recent editorial of "F", it was very aptly pointed out that "Robert Menendez is clear, vis-à-vis the occupying Turkey. And he is clear because that is how he thinks it is the right thing to do in relation to the application of international law, which violates the Ankara regime."
Mr. Menendez stated that "Turkey's violation of international legality, including overflights and violations of Greek airspace and the invasion of territorial waters, is unacceptable and will have consequences. This is something that we need to make clear to Turkey and continue the pressure", and added that "the greatest and closest threat to security and prosperity in the Eastern Mediterranean region comes from Turkey, which despite being a member of NATO is adopting a provocative attitude."
Therefore, Turkey's provocative stance, based on what Senator Menendez said, should have consequences, have consequences, have a cost to the occupying power and not attempt to appease and cajole it again. The assertion, for example, by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who called Turkish concerns about the prospect of Sweden and Finland joining the Alliance "legitimate", is a continuation and culmination of the general attitude that NATO and the US have held for decades towards Turkish expansionism.
On the one hand, "sacrifices" and concessions are being called for in order to punish Putin, and on the other hand, Erdogan is rewarded, who buys Russian weaponry, refuses to participate in the sanctions programme against Russia and sends his troops to invade neighbouring countries. Sweden and Finland are seeking to join NATO, provided that if they are attacked by Russia it will be considered an attack on all member states of the North Atlantic Alliance and there will be an immediate allied military response. The only one who found himself blackmailing for this prospect is the Sultan of Ankara, not of course because of different ideological pursuits, but because "it is not possible (Turkey) to support the plans for Sweden's and Finland's accession to NATO that host many terrorist organisations", as he claimed. The region's arch-terrorist accuses Scandinavian countries of terrorism. But he knows very well what he says and what he does. He is making fun of them again in order to gain significant economic and military benefits, at a time when he is asking the US to give him, unconditionally, F-35 fighter jets, the Patriot anti-aircraft system and at the same time to keep the Russian S-400 system.
NATO and Turkey
For so many years, Turkey as a member of NATO has been constantly violating the air and sea space of another NATO member country, Greece. On Russian aggression, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg stressed that "he has fundamentally violated international law, including the UN Charter", while Turkish aggression has never spoken of a violation of international law.
On the contrary, sometimes, in the context of equidistance, he has tried to give the impression that Greece also bears responsibility. Senator Menendez's remark that "Turkey's violation of international legality is unacceptable and will have consequences", should now be the primary objective not only of Cyprus and Greece, but of the US Congress
