A bird's eye view

We birds are at last beginning to feel for the first time happy and encouraged with developments in the United States. Why? Because the results of the Nov. 8 elections, in which the Democratic human Party took control over both Houses, clearly demonstrate that the American humans have at last woken up and were able to say to the Bush man humans that enough is enough.

The results also show that democracy is making a fast recovery in the United States and that the American humans can no longer tolerate restrictions to their individual freedoms. It was also a message of discontent not just with the Bush man's policies over Iraq but with the Republicans' control of Congress, which left the president able to operate without any restraint from the legislative authorities. The first practical result of the elections was the resignation of the Rumsfeld man, something that should have taken place a long time ago, since he represented a misfought war. The Frank Rich man, in an article published in the International Herald Tribune on Nov. 13, describes the outcome of the elections in a very eloquent way. We quote some excerpts: "Of course the thumping was all about Iraq. But let us not forget Katrina. It was the collision of the twin White House calamities in August 2005 that foretold the collapse of the Bush Presidency. Back then, the full measure of the man finally snapped into focus for most Americans, sending his poll numbers into the 30s for the first time. The United States saw that the president who had spurned a grieving wartime mother camping out in the sweltering heat of Crawford was the same guy who had been unable to recognize the depth of the suffering in New Orleans' fetid Superdome. This brand of leadership was not the ?compassionate conservatism? that had been sold in all those photo ops with African-American schoolchildren. This was callous conservatism, if not just plain mean.? Well said, Mr. Rich man, and bravo to the American humans who reacted in such an effective way to safeguard their democracy.

We birds welcomed the hosting in our city on Nov. 13 and 14 of the Alliance of Civilizations, which is an initiative by the Erdogan man and the Zapatero man in improving relations between the West and Islam. We were also happy to see that the Kofi Annan man and the Khatami man were also present at this important meeting. What we, however, could not understand, was the absence of Patriarch Bartolomeos, who, in his wisdom had initiated dialogue between Christianity and Islam from 1992. His experience from this on-going dialogue would have greatly contributed to the meeting of the Alliance of the Civilizations. But this was not the case. Maybe another time!

We have nothing more to say about the ongoing crisis between Turkey and the EU. We would just like to quote the last paragraph of our column of Oct. 9 last year. "Some bird-brained advice is once again necessary for the Turkish human administration. The best way to get your revenge on the way that the EU treated you these last few days is by doing what the EU does not expect you to do. And that is to start implementing everything that you have been told to implement. In that way you will deprive the EU of the pleasure of finding a reason to further delay your accession negotiations. That should be your primary objective. Your second objective should be to start a campaign to charm the public opinion of the EU. We know from the past that you are good at that. It is imperative in the next 10 years of negotiations that you change the negative opinion that the European humans have about Turkey. This will also influence in a positive way the positions of the EU governments. Only by doing that will the humans of Turkey be able to enjoy one day the freedom of the birds."

Ponder our thoughts, dear humans, for your benefit.

Talat: We have no gift for Papadopoulos

Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat stressed on Wednesday that he will continue efforts for the unification of the island of Cyprus, but will never accept giving Maras (Varosha) "as a gift" to Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos, who rejected the last major peace effort in 2004.

EU Term President Finland has suggested the return of Maras to Greek Cypriots, in exchange for opening the Turkish Cypriot port of Magosa to direct trade with the EU, as part of a deal that aims to break Cyprus deadlock that threatens the future of Turkey's EU talks.

At celebrations yesterday for the 23rd anniversary of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), President Mehmet Ali Talat described his vision of a settlement on the divided island as "a united federal Cyprus" under the roof of the European Union.

The celebrations began at Dr. Fazil Kucuk Bulvari and continued with an aerial display by the Turkish Air Force of "Turkish Stars" in Girne and continued with celebrations and key speeches all around the country. The Turkish government was represented at the celebrations by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul.

Addressing the crowd during a celebration in Lefkosa, Talat expressed commitment for a settlement and unification on the island, but underlined that for that the Greek Cypriots must accept the political equality of the Turkish Cypriots.

"Turkish Cypriots, by establishing and advancing the TRNC, have made it clear to the world that they want to govern themselves rather than becoming local or secondary extension of an external authority," he said.

Criticizing Greek Cypriot leader Papadopoulos for using Turkey's EU membership negotiations as a means of imposing its "osmosis" policy upon the Turkish Cypriot side, Talat said this Greek Cypriot game is coming to an end. "Soon it will be even clearer that nothing can be attained through such cheap bargains and blackmailing, which are completely incompatible with European values," Talat said.

The Turkish Cypriot president also raised criticism of the EU for what he called "discriminatory" treatment of Turkish Cypriots. Talat said it is unfortunate that the EU is embracing current Greek Cypriot leader Papadopoulos, who made preparations and gave orders in 1963 for the mass killings of Turkish Cypriots. But he underlined that despite that, Turkish Cypriots will continue in their bid for a settlement and EU membership. "Sooner or later, the Turkish Cypriots will take their place in the EU," Talat stressed.

What we (the EU) Say in Cyprus, Goes!

The EU Commission has finally released its 75-page progress report and 20-page strategy document on Turkey. The report is almost as long as the previous one. While preparing the report, there were obvious efforts to place important obstacles in front of Turkey.


EU Term President and Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja?s recommendation of a Cyprus solution model is now the subject of a new debate.


France had proposed holding a referendum in all countries on Turkey?s accession; however, the proposal was rejected and was not included in the report. Certainly, France?s goal is to stave off Turkey, which is a nightmare for France and a potential economic rival, before it becomes any stronger.


It?s important to examine the evaluations made immediately before and after the report by EU Commission Chairman Jose Manuel Barroso and European Parliament?s Turkey liaison Camiel Eurlings. The words of both as well as Tuomioja?s proposal were aimed at misleading Turkey. EU Commission Chairman Barroso, who assessed the report immediately before it was released, said that if the Cyprus problem continued, Turkish-EU negotiations would not be halted and diplomatic initiatives would be launched.


Barroso also advised Turkey to open its ports to Greek ships and planes by the end of the year. If ports aren?t opened, the issue will be taken up by the Council of Ministers to be held on Dec. 14. The aim was to frighten Turkey in hopes that it might open its ports.


The Injustice to Turkey


In a press conference held after the European Union published its progress report and strategy document, Eurlings said Turkey had to implement the additional protocol to ensure reliability to the European Union, emphasizing that they weren?t asking Turkey to recognize the Greek Republic of Cyprus. He also appealed to the union to remove the embargo on Turkish Cypriots , noting the situation for the Turkish Cypriots was extremely important to resolve the Cyprus problem.


While Eurlings was keen not to use the term ?Turkish Cyprus,? he used the term ?Turkish Cypriots? or ?the Cypriots living in places on the island where the Greek Republic of Cyprus is not sovereign.?


EU authorities had guaranteed they would lift the embargoes applied to Turks in Cyprus if Turkey accepts the Annan Plan. Although 65 percent of Turkish Cypriot voters voted ?yes? to the referendum, the EU authorities failed to keep their promises and said, ?That is a political decision, not a legal one,? as a reason for not removing the embargoes. When Turkey asked why it was carrying all the weight, EU authorities said, ?You are right legally, but we are superior politically,? which in other words meant ?Because we said so.?


As for Finland?s recommendations, EU term president and Finnish Foreign Minister Tuomioja said: ?These recommendations are your last chance on the subject of a Cyprus solution. If you miss this chance, there won?t be another opportunity like this.? But, we saw how unreliable and untrustworthy the words of these people were when new recommendations were made after both sides rejected the proposals. There was a decision made on April 26, 2004, by the EU Council that said the Council was determined to end the isolation of the Cyprus Turkish society and support the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community by reuniting Cyprus.


The fact remains that the EU council decision, dated April 26, 2004, to remove the embargo on Turkish Cypriots was placed in the 10th protocol of the 2003 Accession Agreement.


EU Continues Faulty Cyprus Policy


This is an EU Council decision; in fact, it?s a decision of the EU Council comprised of ministers and so this decision is the European Union?s institutional obligation. Trusting this EU Council obligation and the 4th article of the Financial Aid Regulations, Turkey signed the final declaration of the EU Council summit on Dec. 17, 2004, which expanded the Ankara Agreement to include 10 new members. This meant Turkey had to open its ports to Greek Cypriot ships and planes. Now the European Union is changing the game. Implementing the April 26, 2004 EU Council decision doesn?t remove the embargoes nor does it take any steps to do so. The European Union hasn?t kept its promise.


The European Union wants Turkey to comply with the Dec. 17 final declaration of the EU Council and the contents of the Accession Framework Paper, dated Oct. 3, 2005, and it is putting pressure on Turkey to open its ports to ships and planes with a Greek flag. Moreover, although the Greeks, while becoming an EU member, signed the 10th protocol and agreed to comply with U.N. Security Council decisions regarding Cyprus by a comprehensive solution and to support efforts of the U.N. General Assembly, they didn?t and they continued to prevent the economic development of Turkish Cyprus.


According to the EU Commission progress report, the recommendation for opening ports before the Dec. 14 summit is not an ultimatum. This recommendation aims for the Commission and, consequently, the European Union to put pressure on Turkey. If there is no progress on the ports issue, then there will be a recommendation at the Dec. 14 summit to freeze the negotiations on chapters related to transportation and the customs union. The summit will most likely be a difficult one with Greek Cypriots making veto threats and Turkey refusing to open it ports to carriers with Greek flags. Although efforts to halt the negotiations may intensify, the European Union will not have the courage to suspend negotiations with Turkey. The accession talks will continue with the postponement of discussions on titles related to ports.


The report evaluates how well Turkey has adopted the EU membership criteria in the political and economic fields, it includes the titles of topics confirmed for discussion, works on compatibility with EU accession and important developments made in the last year. Turkey has fulfilled all of its responsibilities. If it weren?t for the underlying ill-intentions on the committee and the creation of artificial problems with a mind to prevent Turkish membership, Turkey could become a member well before 2020. It was indicated in the report that as a result of signing the additional protocol, Turkey is responsible for enabling ?transportation? and the ?free circulation of goods? for all 10 new EU members, and that the European Union will make an evaluation during the year as to whether or not Turkey made full compliance on this matter. It is not mentioned as to what kind of precautions will be taken in case the evaluation is negative.


This approach shows that no sanctions will be made if Turkey doesn?t open its ports to ships and planes with Greek flags and that accession talks won?t break off for this reason. Another interesting part of the report is the statement to the effect that Turkey has remained bound to a comprehensive solution under the leadership of the United Nations in almost any attempt at a Cyprus solution, regardless of the source.


This description is good proof that Turkey is not in the ?no? position and that it is accepted as a party that wants a Cyprus solution. This new and positive definition in the Turkish report should be used very well. Another positive implication of the report on the Cyprus issue is the emphasis on the fact that Turkey has supported both communities of the island regarding talks on the ?technical committee? level resulting from the Gambari initiative. The mention of the 11-point plan of action on Cyprus presented by Turkey in the EU Commission progress report shows that in spite of Papadopoulos?s immediate rejection of these recommendations, they are still valid alternatives and they comprise a positive point for Turkey.


Professor Ata Atum, East Mediterranean University Faculty Member

Consider the salient truth about international concerns

Our attitudes to risk are governed, not by their incidence, but by their salience. Subjective assessments emphasise the salience of risks. For politicians, salience is all and that is why we are at war on terror.


Last week Bill Clinton, former US president, brought the great, the good and, above all, the rich to New York to discuss important global problems. But what makes a global problem "important"?

We mostly judge risks by their salience. Alone at home a few weeks ago, I heard a noise and, on investigating, disturbed a burglar who had walked through an unlocked door. I have since installed a new and sophisticated alarm system. The objective risk has not changed but my perception of it has. Salience explains why we go for a check-up when we hear that a friend has cancer or heart disease and why we drive more carefully after passing the site of a road accident. Salient risks are those that everyone is talking about or that we have recently encountered.

The risk of terrorist attack was not salient enough before September 11 2001 and too salient after. But, as you stand in line at airport security, observe that you are more likely to be killed by an object from space than in an aircraft crash. If the asteroid that hit the planet 100 years ago had landed in Trafalgar Square, it would have destroyed London. Because it only flattened a forest in remote Siberia, the risk is not salient. A bigger collision in Mexico 65m years ago led to the extinction of the dinosaurs and most other species. One day a similar event will destroy life on earth as we know it, if North Korean weapons of mass destruction, or a new pandemic, have not got us first.

The asteroid risk was briefly made salient by the movie, Armageddon. For most of human history, there was not much point worrying about space objects because there was nothing we could do. But, as the film showed, we might now be able to avert such a disaster: a nuclear explosion could deflect the path of the object.

How probable is the event? How serious are the consequences? How feasible and how costly is counteraction? These criteria, not salience, should determine the importance of global problems. But they are not always easy to apply. Some scientists believe that a shower of quarks could become a strangelet and pull all other matter into it until the whole earth, you and me included, was compressed into a sphere of 100m diameter. This is a conceivable outcome of experiments in high-energy physics. Other scientists note that no strangelet has ever been observed and doubt that one ever will be. But the trouble with apocalyptic projections is that all, except the last one, will be falsified.

Strangelets so lack salience that they are hard to take seriously: I cannot imagine that a single reader of this newspaper will lie awake tonight worrying about strangelets. But if events can be too rare to be salient enough to merit our attention, they can also be too frequent to be salient enough to receive our attention.

Each year, a million children die from malaria. Those who live in areas where the disease is endemic, and survive, acquire a degree of immunity. They remain vulnerable through their lives to episodes of disease, which sap their energy and productivity. Perhaps a billion or more malarial episodes occur every year.

Almost every study that has asked the three key questions of global issues - how likely, how serious, how preventable - has put the communicable diseases of malaria and HIV/Aids at or close to the top of the list. HIV/Aids acquired salience by spreading through the bathhouses of San Francisco, and has lost salience as the developed world has brought its epidemic under control and this could be achieved in the developing world. Malaria, eliminated from Europe and North America in the last century, has never been salient. But it is largely preventable - sleeping nets treated with insecticide alone dramatically reduce its incidence, and the discovery of an effective vaccine is a wholly realistic prospect.

World leaders emphasise issues that are salient to them and to their voters. But Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the richest men in the world, have instead asked the questions - how likely? how costly? how amenable to action? - and put disease control at the head of their list of global issues. That judgment demonstrates the power of philanthropy over politics, of individual over collective action, of decision over discussion.

British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il

* US allies think Washington threat to world peace
* Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom

The ICM poll ranks the US president with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety.

America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
British believe Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il
· US allies think Washington threat to world peace · Only Bin Laden feared more in United Kingdom
Julian GloverFriday November 3, 2006The Guardian
The ICM poll ranks the US president with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety.
America is now seen as a threat to world peace by its closest neighbours and allies, according to an international survey of public opinion published today that reveals just how far the country's reputation has fallen among former supporters since the invasion of Iraq.Carried out as US voters prepare to go to the polls next week in an election dominated by the war, the research also shows that British voters see George Bush as a greater danger to world peace than either the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, or the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Both countries were once cited by the US president as part of an "axis of evil", but it is Mr Bush who now alarms voters in countries with traditionally strong links to the US.
Article continues
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The survey has been carried out by the Guardian in Britain and leading newspapers in Israel (Haaretz), Canada (La Presse and Toronto Star) and Mexico (Reforma), using professional local opinion polling in each country.It exposes high levels of distrust. In Britain, 69% of those questioned say they believe US policy has made the world less safe since 2001, with only 7% thinking action in Iraq and Afghanistan has increased global security.
The finding is mirrored in America's immediate northern and southern neighbours, Canada and Mexico, with 62% of Canadians and 57% of Mexicans saying the world has become more dangerous because of US policy.
Even in Israel, which has long looked to America to guarantee national security, support for the US has slipped.
Only one in four Israeli voters say that Mr Bush has made the world safer, outweighed by the number who think he has added to the risk of international conflict, 36% to 25%. A further 30% say that at best he has made no difference.
Voters in three of the four countries surveyed also overwhelmingly reject the decision to invade Iraq, with only Israeli voters in favour, 59% to 34% against. Opinion against the war has hardened strongly since a similar survey before the US presidential election in 2004.
In Britain 71% of voters now say the invasion was unjustified, a view shared by 89% of Mexicans and 73% of Canadians. Canada is a Nato member whose troops are in action in Afghanistan. Neither do voters think America has helped advance democracy in developing countries, one of the justifications for deposing Saddam Hussein. Only 11% of Britons and 28% of Israelis think that has happened.
As a result, Mr Bush is ranked with some of his bitterest enemies as a cause of global anxiety. He is outranked by Osama bin Laden in all four countries, but runs the al-Qaida leader close in the eyes of UK voters: 87% think the al-Qaida leader is a great or moderate danger to peace, compared with 75% who think this of Mr Bush.
The US leader and close ally of Tony Blair is seen in Britain as a more dangerous man than the president of Iran (62% think he is a danger), the North Korean leader (69%) and the leader of Hizbullah, Hassan Nasrallah (65%).
Only 10% of British voters think that Mr Bush poses no danger at all. Israeli voters remain much more trusting of him, with 23% thinking he represents a serious danger and 61% thinking he does not.
Contrary to the usual expectation, older voters in Britain are slightly more hostile to the Iraq war than younger ones. Voters under 35 are also more trusting of Mr Bush, with hostility strongest among people aged 35-65.
· ICM interviewed a random sample of 1,010 adults by telephone from October 27-30. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. Polling was by phone in Canada (sample 1,007), Israel (1,078) and Mexico (1,010)