28 May 2004

1. "Kurds unmoved by Turkish preparations for state broadcasts in Kurdish", residents in this mainly Kurdish town in southeastern Turkey show little enthusiasm for the Kurdish-language broadcasts which state radio and television have agreed to run, after much resistance, to boost the country's bid for EU membership.

2. "Let the Kurds be", as the Iraqi saga meanders even further into the unknown, one thing still seems solid there: Kurdish reliability.

3. "Iraqi Kurdistan: Kurds fear draft UN resolution on Iraq could damage their future", senior Kurdish officials have expressed dismay at a proposed U.S.-British U.N. resolution on Iraq, saying it ignores Kurdish rights and guarantees of federal self-rule that were included in the interim constitution hammered out last March.

4. "Talking Turkey about Turkey", the Turks are upset with Israel these days. The roadmap for Kurdistan is long overdue.

5. "U.S. Recognizes New Leader for Turkish Cypriots", the State Department indicated in a written statement on Wednesday that it no longer recognized President Rauf Denktash as the leader of the divided island's Turkish Cypriot community.

6. "Verheugen: no "double standards" for Turkey", the EU "cannot have double standards" in its evaluation of Turkey's readiness to open membership talks, the Financial Times has quoted Commissioner Verheugen as saying.

Dear reader,

Due to Pentecost we will not publish our Flash Bulletin on Monday, 31th. The next edition will be available on Tuesday, June 1st. We regret any inconvenience this may cause.

We'll be back on Tuesday, alive and kicking (hopefully)

The editors

1. - AFP - "Kurds unmoved by Turkish preparations for state broadcasts in Kurdish":

DIYARBAKIR / 28 May 2004 / by Hande Culpan

Residents in this mainly Kurdish town in southeastern Turkey show little enthusiasm for the Kurdish-language broadcasts which state radio and television have agreed to run, after much resistance, to boost the country's bid for EU membership.

For many, including Kadri Ipek, a self-employed 41-year-old, the move is far from being a gesture of good will to satisfy Kurdish demands for cultural rights now that a 15-year bloody campaign for Kurdish self-rule in the region has nearly died down.

"As a native of this town, I see the decision for Kurdish language state broadcasts as an attempt by the government to prove itself to the EU. It was not done for the Kurds," Ipek said.

Expanding cultural rights for the sizeable Kurdish population was a key demand of the European Union from Turkey as the bloc gears up for a decision in December this year on whether to open membership talks with the mainly Muslim country.

In a taboo-breaking move in 2002, parliament adopted a set of EU-inspired reforms allowing state radio and television (TRT) to broadcast in Kurdish and permitting private institutions to teach Kurdish.

But the implementation of the reforms -- once categorically rejected on the grounds that they could play into the hand of Kurdish separatists -- has proven tortuous for the country.

Three private institutions -- in Van in the east, Sanliurfa and Batman in the southeast -- were given the go-ahead for teaching Kurdish this year after months of battling various bureaucratic hurdles.

Kurdish broadcasts, however, are yet to get off the ground. In the two years since the adoption of the reform, TRT failed to go ahead with the broadcasts, citing its own governing regulation which obliges to institution to air in "clear and fluent Turkish".

To save face against the EU, the government, meanwhile, gave the greenlight last year for private radio and television networks to air in Kurdish as well, but only to national television stations, excluding local ones. No big private television network so far has made a move.

In a sign that it had resolved the legal jumble, TRT finally announced on Tuesday that it would launch preparations for Kurdish broadcasts, but did not say when exactly it would start airing in Kurdish.

"It is a tragicomical situation. The government is unable to implement a law that itself pushed through parliament," said Selahattin Demirtas, the head of the Diyarbakir branch of the Turkish Human Rights Association.

Another point of criticism is the time limit imposed on Kurdish broadcasts. Television stations will broadcast in Kurdish for two hours a week with Turkish subtitles, while radio stations will air Kurdish programmes for four hours a week and will have to run the same programme in Turkish immediately after.

"The broadcast reform is very pleasing, but it is not enough. It has been made as difficult as possible and it is very limited in time," said Diyarbakir mayor Osman Baydemir.

Orhan Kaya, a public sector worker, agreed: "The hours of the broadcasts should be extended. In fact, one of the channels, should be devoted only for Kurdish broadcasts."

When TRT finally launches its broadcasts, it is set to face stiff competition in the region where buying a digital receiver and a satellite dish for 100 dollars gives access to four Kurdish channels broadcasting from abroad -- two out of northern Iraq and two from Europe.

"In Diyarbakir, 60 or 70 percent of people ar buying these systems, but only those who have the means can buy it," said a 28-year-old salesman, who wished to remain anonymous. "So TRT broadcasts would be good for those who are poor," he added.

2. - The Jerusalem Post - "Let the Kurds be":

27 May 2004

As the Iraqi saga meanders even further into the unknown, one thing still seems solid there: Kurdish reliability.

For the past 13 years, the non-Arab minority that constitutes roughly a third of Iraq has effectively lived as an American protectorate, and remarkably so. As if to confound all the many prophets of doom among its many hostile neighbors, the burgeoning Kurdistan has displayed a remarkable measure of political stability and economic vitality, particularly considering the volatile neighborhood of which it is a part.

As Erik Schechter writes in this issue, the overall number of Kurds living today in Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria is estimated at 30-35 million, roughly the number of Canadians in North America. The lands the Kurds populate, while politically disjointed, are geographically contiguous. Moreover, this ancient nation has its own language and customs, something numerous other independent nations worldwide cannot boast.

Tragically, though it deserves an independent state of its own by any yardstick, the Kurdish nation fell prey to superpower cynicism and regional paranoia. The superpowers neglected to grant the Kurds a state in the aftermath of World War I, when they carved out much less viable states in the Middle East, such as Lebanon.

Meanwhile, all four countries which played host to the Kurds decided each in its turn to perceive the national aspirations of the Kurds as a strategic threat. The rationale, for each of them, is that if the Kurds get even one small state, and only in one of the four states where they currently live, the Kurds elsewhere will immediately rebel in an effort to join the smaller Kurdistan and together build a Greater Kurdistan.

By this logic, Romania should oppose Hungary's independence, Italy should oppose Austria's and France should fear Switzerland's. That is of course absurd, and so is the opposition to the Kurds' independence. Moreover, Syria, Iran, Turkey and Iraq all emphatically supported Palestinian statehood. If only for the sake of consistency they should all concede that what they demand that Israel grant the Palestinians - who do not speak a language of their own and whose numbers are far smaller, by any count, than the Kurds' - they must themselves grant the Kurds.

Yet the Kurds have a cause which is not only a moral one.

In a Middle East famous for its inherent instability, the Kurdish zone in northern Iraq has loomed large as a beacon of stability. Thirteen years of relative quiet and growth are nothing to scoff at in this part of the world, and this is even before Kurdish Iraq has been fully linked to its mineral riches. Formally emancipating it can further enhance this process, and help establish an island of stability whose impact can inspire the rest of former Iraq, and much of the broader Middle East.

If anyone needed proof of the distorted and unworkable way in which modern Iraq was built, the past year's events supplied it amply. The Suni minority's frequent refusal to join hands with their Shi'ite neighbors speaks volumes of the ethnic outlook that makes that country tick. By that logic, too, the Kurds deserve a state.

As the handover of civilian power in Iraq approaches, the world powers may want to make a point of imposing an independent Kurdistan on its neighbors, if not for the sake of justice, then at least for the sake of stability.

3. - The Washington Times - "Iraqi Kurdistan: Kurds fear draft UN resolution on Iraq could damage their future":

SULAYMANIYAH / 28 May 2004

Senior Kurdish officials have expressed dismay at a proposed U.S.-British U.N. resolution on Iraq, saying it ignores Kurdish rights and guarantees of federal self-rule that were included in the interim constitution hammered out last March.

"This is a negative sign," Nechirvan Barzani, the prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government in Irbil, said in an interview yesterday. "It is very disappointing for the Kurdish people not to have the [interim constitution] and federalism mentioned in the resolution."

Mr. Barzani is a member of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), one of the two main factions ruling the Kurdish north and a key ally of the U.S.-led coalition.

Kurds, who make up 20 percent of the Iraqi population, were strong supporters of the U.S.-led campaign to remove Saddam Hussein. But they are reluctant to relinquish the gains they made under 13 years of self-rule that began at the end of the 1991 Persian Gulf war.

Despite winning recognition of the federal status of their region in the constitution, growing numbers of Kurds are now wondering whether it was wise of their leaders, Massoud Barzani and his rival, Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), to commit to a post-Saddam Iraq.

Kurdish leaders say U.S. and British officials appear to have bowed to pressure from the influential Shi'ite leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, who objected to any reference to the interim constitution, which he opposed, appearing in the U.N. resolution.

Coalition sources said U.S. and British officials needed to move ahead with the political process and took a pragmatic decision to bypass the interim constitution.

The Kurds' concerns highlight the difficulty faced by the coalition and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi in trying to forge agreement among Iraq's diverse ethnic and religious factions on the composition of the interim government and over the future political shape of the country.

According to a plan being finalized by Mr. Brahimi, the transitional Iraqi government that will take charge on July 1 will have a president, a prime minister and two vice presidents.

The Kurdish leaders have demanded that at least one of the top posts should go to a Kurd. Mr. Talabani had been lobbying hard for the prime minister's post, which it now appears will almost certainly go to a member of the majority Shi'ite community.

"Not offering the prime ministership or the presidency to the Kurds proves that we are still dealt with as second-class citizens," Mr. Barzani said.

Meanwhile, Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish politician who sits on the Iraqi Governing Council, criticized the lack of consultation with Iraqis on the wording of the resolution. "As usual, it was done behind closed doors, and behind Iraqi backs," he said. Mr. Othman said an Iraqi delegation was heading to New York to lobby the U.N. Security Council on Kurdish concerns and other issues such as debt relief and control over security matters after the turnover.

Many Kurds now openly question how long they can be expected to remain part of the country if the chaos and instability threatens to engulf their own, largely successful region.

"For now we must not cause trouble, but if the mullahs or the nationalists come to power, it will lead Iraq to catastrophe and we will have every right to be independent," said Anwar Majid, a medical student in the northern city of Sulaymaniyah.

Mr. Majid said he was one of 1.7 million Kurds who signed a recent petition calling for a regionwide referendum on self-determination.

"Shi'ite and Sunni Arab violence is aimed at the coalition forces, yet it is really a war for control over future power. Kurds don't want Islamic or Arab nationalist rule because it won't be long before they turn against us," he said.

4. - KurdishMedia.com - "Talking Turkey about Turkey":

27 May 2004 / by Gerald A. Honigman

The Turks are upset with Israel these days. The roadmap for Kurdistan is long overdue.

The same folks who have declared over one fifth of their own non-Turk Kurdish population (over ten million people) to be "non-existent" in the past (they’re really just "Mountain Turks, don’t you know?) and have taken steps to outlaw Kurdish language and culture (Arabic is one of Israel’s two official languages), are allegedly mad at Israel for going after the Arab terrorist infrastructure in Gaza. These are the same folks who have killed tens of thousands of Kurds over the years in the name of their own security, have invaded neighboring Iraq for similar reasons, etc., etc., and so forth.

Islamic/Arab terrorist, Zarqawi: America, of course, was No.1 . enemy and No. 2 is the Kurds.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I like the Turks, for the most part at least. But Turkey’s relationship with Israel must not be an unbalanced affair...something to use when relations are on the downswing with Syrian Arabs, for example. Now that they’re again on the upswing, Ankara needs its excuse to back off from the Jews. Gaza schmaza.

Talk about guts...Ankara complains about Israel not wanting Arabs turning Gaza into a terrorist base and threatens to withdraw its ambassador--while Israel has agreed in theory to an Arab state being set up there--but totally nixed the idea of an independent Kurdish state being set up in adjacent northern Iraq for its own security reasons. Think about that for a minute. We’ll return with vengeance to this point a bit later.

So, it’s time to really "talk turkey," if you know what I mean. Israel has neglected a brave people who have helped many Jews in the past. Just ask the hundreds of thousands in Israel who originated in Iraq. Israeli leaders have done this largely to not anger the Turks over this painful issue. So the Turks’ policies towards the Kurds were treated in a hands off manner.

If the Turks, however, insist on joining the rest of the world in applying hypocritical double standards towards the Jewish State, the time has come for certain truths to at long last come out in the open. So let’s begin...

The ink had barely dried on the exchanged letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon back in April 2004 over the Gaza disengagement plan when the State Department masters of foggy doublespeak began to whittle away at any real progress that may have been made.

While I welcomed President Bush’s apparently fleeting April2004 remarks about Israel not having to return to those 1949 U.N.-imposed armistice lines (and, for the first time, in public, I heard him call them just that, not "borders") or not having to consent to national suicide by allowing millions of real or fudged descendants of Arab refugees a "right of return" (half of Israel’s Jews originated in "Arab"/Muslim lands), it could be argued that all of this was very late in the coming. An earlier dose of these facts of life could have eliminated the Arab hope of Israel being offered up on a silver platter by its "friends"--a la Czechoslovakia1938 --and perhaps led them to negotiate more seriously. I also wish that Mr. Bush would have explained all of this to much of the world that was watching him on television in different terms, not simply as "new facts on the ground."

The territorial adjustments which Israel deserves has to do with justice...not simply the imposition of power.

The disputed lands in question that Israel came to "occupy" as a result of renewed Arab hostilities in 1967 (being blockaded--a casus belli--etc.) were not Arab lands but unapportioned areas of the original 1920 Palestinian Mandate that all peoples were allowed to settle in. Top legal scholars such as Eugene Rostow and others have written extensively about this. Indeed, the League Of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission and other sources recorded Arabs pouring into the Mandate from all over the Middle East and North Africa because of the economic development going on due to the Jews. Any22 nd or23 rd Arab state that might be created -- and second, not first, Arab one within the original 1920 borders of "Palestine" (Jordan emerging out of the lion’s share in1922 )-- must not emerge at the expense of the security of the sole, miniscule state of the Jews.

So, with all that’s happening with the Iraq mess right now, and in light of recent developments regarding the Turks, it’s time to put things into a broader perspective.

Consider, for example, the world wide obsession to create an additional Arab state (supposedly in the name of "justice"), while Kurds are still not yet deemed worthy of one. When America finally withdraws from Iraq, the Arabs will likely take vengeance upon these people for their friendship and cooperation with Washington.

Now think about this...

Over thirty million Kurds remain stateless today, often at someone else’s mercy. At a time when much of the world insists that justice demands that there be yet another Arab state, there is a nauseating silence--in most of the media, in academia, at the United Nations, etc.-- over the plight of this people.

Spread out over a region which encompasses parts of southeastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran, and other adjoining areas as well, these modern day descendants of ancient Medes and Hurrians continue to find themselves in very precarious circumstances.

Kurdish culture and language have periodically been "outlawed" in attempts to Arabize or Turkify them, and in an age when other dormant nations/national groups were able to seize the moment with the collapse of empires, the Kurds were repeatedly denied this chance by an assortment of so-called "friends" and foes alike.

Having been promised independence after World War I, the Kurds saw their hopes dashed after the British received a favorable decision from the League of Nations on the Mosul Question in1925 . Predominantly Kurdish Mosul and Kirkuk were where much of the oil was located, and the main arm of British imperial power - the navy - had recently switched from coal to oil.

The Brits decided that their long term interests involved not angering the region’s Arabs, who--by their own writings--declared that the rise of an independent Kurdistan would be seen as the equivalent of the birth of another Israel. Regardless of scores of millions of non-Arabs living in the region (including one half of Israel’s Jews who were from "Arab"/Muslim lands), Arabs declared a political monopoly over what they regarded as "purely Arab patrimony." We are living with the consequences of this mindset today.

Much has been written about America’s abuse of the Kurds, although the mainstream press, media, academia, and other supposedly "enlightened" folks have - with some notable exceptions - too often ignored this.

Having stood by our side and aided America continuously over the decades, the State Department has too often pulled the rug out from under the Kurds after their immediate "use" was deemed over, with deadly consequences to this people. And yet, they have remained strangely loyal to Washington.

While I won’t rehash the disgraceful behavior of much earlier periods, recent and current policies are sufficient to make the point. And while I am focusing on America, the rest of the world - for the most part - has been as bad or worse.

Because America has the power to greatly influence the course of geopolitics all around the world, my focus is mostly on my own country. But others--especially Israel, whose people were called to be the original "light unto the nations"--should pay more attention to this as well. Regarding the latter, any "help" that Israel might want to provide might actually, in some ways at least, actually hurt. So this must be thought out very carefully.

America should always strive to be a shining light. I say this not out of naivete. America has the power and ability to do this as no other nation has. All it lacks is the will. And this is largely due to the clique that runs the Department of State. On the Kurdish issue, it has assumed Britain’s posture in the post-World War I era vis-a-vis the Kurds.

Foggy Bottom insists - after hundreds of thousands of Kurds have been maimed, gassed, and slaughtered in other ways by Arabs just in Iraq alone over the last several decades (Syrian Arabs have recently renewed their previous slaughter of Kurds as well) - that Kurds will never gain independence. The heartland of Kurdistan had been in the region around oil-rich Kirkuk.

State insists that the Kurds remain part of a united Iraq, regardless of the bloody consequences this will probably have for them in the future yet again. And while I hope I’m wrong, I doubt it.

America’s federal dream, while looking good on paper, has largely been rejected by the Arabs themselves, be they Shi’a or Sunni. The majority Shi’a, long suppressed by Saddam, now have other plans.

The Shi’a refuse to grant Kurds any control over their own fate, regardless of any alleged partial federal agreement achieved so far with America’s continuous prodding. And Arabs, of any stripe, are still not about to grant Kurds any real equality. A visit to the Kurdish Media’s website would be very useful to any and all needing "enlightenment" in these regards. An article posted by Dr. Hussein Tahiri’s "The Iraqi Shi’ites: When An Oppressed Becomes Oppressor," posted March8 , 2004 in www.KurdishMedia.com is revealing; and the site has many other informative essays.

While the formula for a summer 2004 handoff of American power to an Iraqi government looks reasonable-- again, on paper--the reality is likely to be something far different. I hope I’m wrong, but my opinions have something to do with tigers changing their stripes or leopards changing their spots. And those tigers and leopards are very old and entrenched ones, indeed.

The same State Department - which fought President Truman over America’s recognition of a reborn Israel in 1948 - insists that there be no partition of Mesopotamia/Iraq. Britain had earlier received the Mandate for Mesopotamia at the same time it received the Mandate for Palestine in the post-World War I era. But, unlike Palestine, which would undergo a number of partitions in attempts to arrive at a compromise solution between Arab and Jew, a much larger Mesopotamia was somehow declared to be incapable of doing this for its Kurds.

After World War II, the British were given control of previous Ottoman territory. Of this vast area, a small piece - they called it Palestine - was intended for the Jews. In1922 , Colonial Secretary Churchill chopped off roughly80 % of Palestine, and handed it over to its Hashemite Arab allies. Purely Arab Transjordan - today’s Jordan - was thus born. Arabs rejected another partition in 1947 which would have given them roughly half of the20 % of the land that was left. President Bush and State today insist that Arabs will get another state, their second one in "Palestine."

The main reason put forth for why Mesopotamia/Iraq is incapable of this sort of partition is the potential for instability it will cause in the region. Not only will the Arabs be miffed at someone else gaining national rights in "their" region, but the Turks, in particular, will supposedly have a fit due to their own large and suppressed Kurdish minority.

While a strong Turco-American alliance is worthy of support, the Turks are wrong on this matter, and too many have allowed them to get away with this for too long. While it is understandable that they’re nervous about the potential problems, this does not give them the right to have a veto power over the plight of some thirty million long-oppressed and abused Kurds. Again, think of the irony here regarding Ankara’s "concerns" over rejectionist Arabs, who could have had their additional state decades ago had they just not continued to work towards the destruction of the sole Jewish one.

An independent Kurdistan set up in northern Iraq - under the right conditions - might actually be a blessing for the Turks. Those Kurds - like those Jews, Greeks, Armenians, etc. - wishing to live in an independent state could migrate to it. An arrangement could also be made whereby the oil wealth of the area could be shared with the Turks as well, since they feel they got robbed via the earlier decision by the League of Nations on the Mosul Question.

Putting things into the broader perspective, consider the following facts:

The CIA’s Fact Book on the Internet shows Israel to have a population of roughly 6 million people, of whom about20 % are Arab. Among the latter are some very hostile elements. Israel’s territory is about20 , 770sq Km.

Turkey has a population of about 68 million people, of whom about 20% are Kurds. Turkey’s territory is about780 , 580sq Km. About38 Israels would fit into Turkey.

Despite Israel’s small size, Foggy Bottom has no problem demanding that Israel allow the creation of another Arab terrorist state, dedicated to its destruction, right in its backyard. State continues to ignore proclamations by even so-called Arab "moderates" that Oslo and all other such "peace initiatives" are but "Trojan Horses," steps along the way in the Arabs’ post-’ 67destruction in phases strategy for Israel.

Now, how will the fifth of miniscule Israel’s population that is Arab react to this adjacent potential development? And how will the majority of Hashemite Jordan, which is also mostly Palestinian Arab (however you define that, in that many, if not most, "Palestinians" entered Mandated Palestine from elsewhere in the region during the Mandatory Period), react to this? Arafat’s boys had already tried a takeover of Jordan in1970 . They were crushed in King Hussein’s "Black September." And Israel’s mobilization in the north sent a message to the PLO’s Syrian allies at the time as well. Yet the Foggy Folks seem not to be worried about any destablizing effects here.

The same hypocrites who declare that Israel must grossly endanger itself so that yet another Arab state might be born insist that Kurds must remain forever stateless because of some problems their freedom might cause to a Turkey nearly forty times Israel’s size in territory and over eleven times its size in population, and with the same80 % to 20% mix of potential "headaches."

There’s no defense for this. An ex-State Department career person contacted me after one of my earlier articles. In our subsequent correspondence, he told me to just accept the fact that the Kurds will never be allowed their state, while attacking me, of course, for my reservations over what State has in store for Israel. He even brought up the subject of "dual loyalty." I asked him if he would say that to some 60 million or so - if not more - Christians who are saying the same thing that I am. No answer - pathetic.

Regardless of America’s good intentions (and we were correct in ridding the land of Adolf, I mean Saddam), it’s likely that Iraq will become even more of a mess - rather like Yugoslavia with the death of Tito, though I really don’t like mentioning him and Saddam in the same breath - and more costly over time. Entrenched Arab attitudes - centuries old - are not likely to change regarding their relationships with their conquered, non-Arab populations. Any of the latter that have not agreed to the forced Arabization process - be they Kurd, Jew, Berber, Black African, Copt, Lebanese, etc. have had major problems to contend with, often deadly ones.

Asking Kurds to forsake the creation of their one, sole state for the pipedream of an egalitarian Iraq is a travesty of justice if ever there was one. Regardless of their religious coloration, the vast majority of Arabs are in no sharing mood when it comes to questions about what they see as "purely Arab patrimony." They’re the rulers, the rest are the ruled. Period...

Again, when America leaves Iraq, as it will sooner or later, the backlash will once again fall on the people who supported us the most--the Kurds. We have left them holding the bag too many times already.

Think about how the course of history may have been changed if an Israel existed prior to the Holocaust.
You read about the problems with the Shi’a above. Saddam’s regime was largely Sunni-supported. Abu Musab Zarqawi, of al-Qaida fame, wrote a letter that was recently intercepted by U.S. forces in Iraq. He’s the guy who is believed responsible for the recent slaughter of Shi’a in Baghdad and Karbala. In the letter he listed four enemies. America, of course, was No.1 . No. 2 is the Kurds. Here’s what he says about them: They are "...a lump in the throat and a thorn whose time to be clipped has yet to come."

Now, while Foggy Bottom demands some two dozen states for Arabs and actually encourages the good cop/bad cop team of Arafat and Hamas/Islamic Jihad by at least some of its actions, double standards, and doublespeak, we all need to think harder think about the direction we want the greatest country on Earth - The United States of America - to follow regarding the fate of our strangely loyal friends, the Kurds.

The roadmap for Kurdistan is long overdue. And if the Turks can join the Arab chorus in favor of terrorists bent on Israel’s destruction, then it’s time for Israel to reconsider its silence regarding the Kurds as well.

5. - The New York Times - "U.S. Recognizes New Leader for Turkish Cypriots":

WASHINGTON / 27 May 2004

The State Department indicated in a written statement on Wednesday that it no longer recognized President Rauf Denktash as the leader of the divided island's Turkish Cypriot community.

The State Department, in a written answer to a question posed by reporters at a regular State Department briefing on Tuesday, said the United States considered Mehmet Ali Talat, the prime minister of Turkish northern Cyprus, to be the Turkish Cypriot leader.

The statement said that Mr. Talat had met earlier this month with Secretary of State Colin L. Powell at the United Nations. "Secretary Powell has met with Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat in his capacity as leader of the Turkish Cypriot community, and U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus Michael Klosson has called on Mr. Talat as leader of the Turkish Cypriot community," the department said. "Our position is that he is the leader of the Turkish Cypriots."

The question arose after comments by Thomas Weston, the American special envoy to Cyprus, in which Mr. Weston referred to Mr. Talat, and not Mr. Denktash, as the Turkish Cypriot leader.

Mr. Denktash, 80, has been an important Turkish Cypriot political figure since the 1960's and became the leader in 1974 after Turkey invaded and occupied northern Cyprus in response to coup by Greek Cypriots seeking to unite the island with Greece.

After a proclamation of independence in 1983 by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is recognized only by Turkey, Mr. Denktash won four consecutive five-year terms as president, but he said last week he would not seek another term in elections set for next year.

The United States and others had grown increasingly frustrated with Mr. Denktash, and Washington was particularly displeased earlier this year when he opposed and campaigned against a United Nations plan to reunify the island.

Mr. Talat had supported the plan and despite Mr. Denktash's opposition, Turkish Cypriots voted in favor of it last month. The proposal was rejected, however, when the Greek Cypriot south voted overwhelmingly against it.

The United States has promised to reward the Turkish Cypriots for their support of the plan and is now reviewing its policies toward the Turkish region with the goal of easing its isolation.

6. - Euractiv - "Verheugen: no "double standards" for Turkey":

28 May 2004

The EU "cannot have double standards" in its evaluation of Turkey's readiness to open membership talks, the Financial Times has quoted Commissioner Verheugen as saying.

According to Enlargement Commissioner Günter Verheugen, the EU's scheduled October report on Turkey's readiness to start negotiations would "use the same methodology and benchmarks, the same criteria and same rules" as those applied to the other candidate states. Addressing an event hosted by the London-based Centre for European Reform, Mr Verheugen said that "We must not have higher standards for Turkey, or lower standards".

Mr Verheugen's statement was described by the Financial Times as being "one of his clearest endorsements" for bringing Turkey inside the EU. He said that while Turkey is clearly becoming an "emotional issue" in the campaign leading up to the European parliamentary elections in mid-June, it is a "must" to discuss the country's EU accession with the citizens. He said that the EU's "dogma" was not to "decouple the process of political reforms in Turkey and European integration".

Meanwhile, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan gave a lecture in Oxford on 27 May outlining his country's potential contributions to the EU community. Mr Erdogan voiced his conviction that membership negotiations would start if the EU determines that its conditions on human rights and democracy are met. Mr Erdogan was reported to have said that a rejection of Turkey’s application would disappoint his people and undermine the basic philosophy of the EU.