Statement of Eugene T. Rossides
on behalf of the
American Hellenic Institute Public Affairs Committee, Inc.,
The Hellenic American National Council,
The Hellenic American Women's Council,
The Cyprus Federation of America,
The Pan Laconian Federation of U.S.A. and Canada,
The Pan Cretan Association of America, and
The Pan Karpathian Educational Progressive Association,
before the
Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations

APRIL 28, 1999

Chairman McConnell, Senator Leahy and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to present testimony to the Subcommittee on behalf of the organizations listed above on the Administration's foreign aid proposals. The current crisis in Kosovo has focused the spotlight on Southeast Europe.

As the result of the actions of the 104th Congress and the 105th Congress, military assistance and economic grant aid to Turkey are finally no longer part of the Administration's aid proposals. The decision of the Administration finally to eliminate aid for Turkey was due, I am convinced, in substantial part because of the role of the Congress.

The American Hellenic Institute Public Affairs Committee (AHIPAC) believes that the elimination of aid for Turkey was fully justified in the interests of the United States. For many years AHIPAC has argued that U.S. military and economic support for Turkey has rendered our country an accessory to Turkey's aggression against Cyprus, massive ethnic cleansing and genocidal actions against its 20% Kurdish minority, and human rights abuses generally against its citizens, including widespread torture. AHIPAC is very pleased that with regard to aid policy this sad chapter in U.S. relations with Turkey has at long last come to an end.

Cyprus
We support the amount of $15 million in humanitarian aid for Cyprus. This aid is an important symbol of U.S. support for Cyprus and of the U.S. commitment to achieving a comprehensive solution. We further believe that the Administration should follow the lead set by Congress and publicly call for the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus.

1999 Greek American Policy Statements
As the committee considers appropriations for overall U.S. policy in the region for the future, we hope you will take full advantage of the positive opportunities deriving from the close U.S. relationships with Greece and Cyprus. As the 1999 Greek American Policy Statements (Exhibit 1) make clear, Greece and Cyprus are vigorous and stable democracies. Their economies are rapidly modernizing. They are a source of regional political leadership, economic investment, and commercial expertise.

Greece is the only regional state that is a member of both the European Union and NATO. Greece is the strategic and economic key for the U.S. in the Balkans and Eastern Mediterranean to bring peace, stability, economic progress and democracy to the region. U.S. Ambassador to Greece R. Nicholas Burns has stressed Greece's key role for U.S. interests in the region. We commend Greece for its forthright and generous contribution to humanitarian and refugee relief in Kosovo.

Cyprus has established itself as a regional center of international business and finance and started substantive accession negotiations with the EU on November 10, 1998. By basing its policies in Southeastern Europe on close ties with Greece and Cyprus, the U.S. could materially advance its interests in regional stability, economic development, and increase in democratic institutions.

Turkey: The Cause of Many of the Region's Problems
These positive opportunities will, however, remain unfulfilled if Congress allows the Administration to adhere to its present appeasement policies toward Turkey. In contrast to the positive roles played by Greece and Cyprus, Turkey plays a negative role and is the prime cause of many of the region's problems.

The kidnapping of the Kurdish leader Abdullah Ocalan put Turkey's human rights record on the front page. More profoundly, his subsequent treatment, the manner of his trial, and the demand for the death penalty have illuminated the disproportionate and anti-democratic influence over domestic and foreign policy exercised by the Turkish military. As set forth in the Turkish constitution, the Turkish military controls Turkish foreign and national security policy and asserts decisive influence in domestic policy.

As with all military dictatorships from Chile in the 1970s to Burma today, military control leads to violations of human rights and the rule of law. Turkey has continued and extended its illegal territorial claims against sovereign Greek territory, prompted new and unacceptable conditions for negotiations about Cyprus, continued its harassment of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, challenged international maritime law over shipping in the Bosphoros, and further stained its already notorious human rights record against pro-democratic forces and ethnic and religious minorities inside Turkey. Turkey is also a government wracked with corruption and a major illegal drug producing and drug trafficking country. Turkey's violations of international law eclipse those of Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

The Course for Congress
The immediate reaction by Congress with regard to Turkey should be to mandate an immediate halt to all arms sales and transfers to Turkey. The Administration has under active consideration the sale of advanced attack helicopters that will be used in Turkey's war of terror against its Kurdish minority. In addition to an arms ban, the Congress should eliminate any trade preferences or other benefits for Turkey, freeze any loan programs for Turkey and instruct U.S. representatives in multinational agencies to vote against any aid or loans for Turkey. I urge the members of this committee to take the lead in such efforts and to call for hearings on a critical review of U.S.-Turkey relations.

State Department's Country Report on Human Rights in Turkey
Turkey's lawlessness has been on record for many years. The State Department's 1997 Human Rights report stated: "Despite the government's stated commitment to respect human rights, serious human rights abuses continued." The 1998 report, released February 26, 1999 notes no improvement. Using almost identical language, it states:

"Despite Prime Minister Yilmaz's stated commitment that human rights would be his government's highest priority in 1998, serious human rights abuses continued....Extrajudicial killings, including deaths in detention from the excessive use of force, 'mystery killings,' and disappearances continued. Torture remained widespread. Police and Jandarma antiterror personnel often abused detainees and employed torture during incommunicado detention and interrogation."

Turkey's national torture policy has been a matter of public record for many years. In 1990 the distinguished law journal The Record of the Bar of the City of New York devoted a 125 page article to the subject of "Torture in Turkey" (45 Record pp. 6-131, 1990). A forty page follow-up article 4 years later found no improvement.

This horrific account of Turkey's oppression of its own citizens pains us all the more deeply as we have no quarrel with the Turkish people. We salute the brave Turkish citizens struggling for human rights and the rule of law. Our dispute is not with the Turkish people, but with the forces in the Turkish military and Turkish government that deny its own people the basic norms of civilization that we take for granted in the U.S.

The Dark Side of the U.S. Relationship with Turkey
During the Cold War, U.S. relations with Turkey went largely unexamined. Today the dynamics have changed. The Cold War has been over for 9 years. The Abdullah Ocalan case has brought to the front pages one of the most underreported stories in modern public policy, namely the dark side of the U.S. relationship with Turkey involving Turkey's horrendous human rights record and genocidal war against the Kurds in Turkish Kurdistan.

We now need to confront the grisly reality that in their 15-year-long war against its Kurdish minority, the Turkish military forces have killed close to 30,000 Kurds, death squads have assassinated hundreds of Kurdish leaders, scorched earth military campaigns have destroyed over 3,000 Kurdish villages removing by force over 2,500,000 Kurds from their homes. And the Turks have done so in large part using U.S. supplied arms such as attack helicopters and armored personnel carriers. The accuracy of these facts is attested by objective observers such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and others. These horrors far exceed anything that has happened in Kosovo. This is a matter of intense national shame to American values and principles.

Mr. Chairman, this should trouble all of our consciences. Our nation's involvement in these terrible acts is an affront to the fundamental issues of our time: freedom, democracy, decency, and human rights, the values we fought for in World War II and against Soviet communism. The fact that the Administration is turning its back on these values is a scandal far exceeding those with which we in Washington and throughout the Nation have been so narrowly concerned over the past year. Despite all their impressive rhetoric of commitment to democracy, in their approach to Turkey, the State and Defense Departments are in fact siding with aggression, tyranny, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and genocide.

Yugoslavia and Kosovo and the U.S. Double Standard toward Turkey and the Kurds
The Kosovo crisis further illustrates the contradictions inherent in U.S. policy toward Turkey. We share the universal concern about the unfolding humanitarian disaster, condemn the brutality of Milosevic's actions, and support the legitimate aims for autonomy for the Albanian minority in Serbia.

However, we believe the reasons given for the intervention against Serbia raise wider issues. It is only right that the arguments used regarding Yugoslavia should apply elsewhere in the region. With regard to Turkey they apply precisely. Practically everything said by the President and other senior Administration officials (and those by NATO officials and European government officials) regarding Yugoslavia and its Albanian minority applies equally to Turkey and its Kurdish minority. Change Yugoslavia to Turkey and Albania to Kurds in the speeches and statements and they remain accurate.

If, as NATO states, Milosevic is using scorched earth tactics in Kosovo, he has copied them from Turkey's approach against the Kurds. Turkey has followed a brutal policy of ethnic cleansing and their actions meet the criteria for "crimes against humanity" and "genocide." They have employed a policy of dispersal to reduce the percentage of Kurds in Southeast Turkey, which is part of Kurdistan as delineated by President Woodrow Wilson and set forth in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres.

To support autonomy for the Albanian minority in Serbia, while abetting the Turkish military's ethnic cleansing and horrendous human rights violations of the Kurdish minority in Turkish Kurdistan, is a double standard. It is not in the interests of the U.S.

The U.S. should state unequivocally that the U.S. supports autonomy for the Kurdish people in Turkish Kurdistan and that in order to achieve that aim the U.S. is prepared to apply the same political and economic pressure on the Turkish military as it has on Serbia. NATO should do the same, particularly since Turkey is a member of NATO.

We do not call for military action against Turkey but believe that appropriate action, namely economic sanctions and suspension from NATO, should be implemented until Turkey is in compliance with U.S. laws, the UN Charter, the North Atlantic Treaty and customary international law.

The U.S., NATO, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Cyprus: A Double Standard
In making the case for action against Serbia, President Clinton and others have cited the need to oppose aggression. Once again NATO member Turkey is guilty on that count.

Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and occupation of 37.3% of Cyprus in 1974 is external aggression and a violation of the UN Charter preamble and Article 2 (4), and the North Atlantic Treaty preamble and Article 1, and customary international law. Further, Turkey violated U.S. laws because it illegally used U.S. supplied arms and equipment in its invasion of Cyprus. This clear, unambiguous violation of international law eclipses in its implications for international order the internal action taken by Serbia in Kosovo.

Ever since 1974, the U.S. and NATO have tolerated and appeased the Turkish military's ethnic cleansing and crimes against the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus.

The actions of the U.S. and NATO regarding Cyprus from 1974 to date are a stain on the honor of both, particularly because of the U.S. accessory role in Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus which the State Department has been attempting to cover-up ever since.

The parallel between Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus and Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait is clear. The U.S. should be as forceful in ridding Cyprus of its aggressor, Turkey, as it was in Kuwait. At a minimum, NATO should suspend Turkey from the alliance until Turkey is in compliance with the North Atlantic Treaty and the UN Charter.

The issues involved are discussed at greater length in the 1999 Greek American Policy Statements. Other exhibits attached are:

Exhibit 2--Op-ed page article in the Los Angeles Times, (Nov. 19, 1998) by John Tirman, Executive Director, Winston Foundation for World Peace, which discusses "the savage treatment of the Kurdish population in Turkey for 70 years."

Exhibit 3--Column in the Cleveland Plain Dealer (Feb. 22, 1999, page 9-b) by its foreign affairs correspondent, Elizabeth Sullivan, which discusses Turkey's "brutality and repression against the Kurds" and compares Yugoslavia's crackdown on an armed Albanian insurgency in its province of Kosovo and Turkey's armed repression of a Kurdish insurgency and differing U.S. positions.

This brings home the fact that there is no difference in principle between the Kurdish struggle for autonomy and those of other peoples, such as the Kosovo Albanians whose struggle the U.S. supports today, including negotiations for autonomy on their behalf with the Yugoslav government . As such, the U.S. should stop referring to those who articulate these legitimate aspirations on behalf of the Kurdish peoples as terrorists. To fight against oppression is not terrorism.

Exhibit 4--My letter to Chairman Sonny Callahan, House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, of April 28, 1998 regarding "The record of Turkey's unreliability as an ally."

The Two Prime Determinants of U.S. Policy on Turkey
Mr. Chairman, the Administration's policies toward Turkey remain deeply flawed. AHIPAC urges Congress to demand a critical review of U.S. policy toward Turkey. For this to be successful it will be necessary to focus on the two prime determinants of the policy.

Policies Driven by Career Officials
While the President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense have the final responsibility for this policy, they do not drive it. It is driven by a handful of career foreign service officers in State together with their counterparts in the Defense Department and on the National Security Council. Over the years these officials have shaped U.S. policy toward Turkey with the end effect of violating U.S. laws and making our country a direct accessory in Turkey's destabilizing role in the region.

These officials, past and present, assert that the U.S. is acting as an "honest broker" in the region. The truth is otherwise. Laurence Stern, the distinguished foreign affairs correspondent and foreign news editor for the Washington Post, punctured that myth in his book The Wrong Horse (1977, page 7) when he wrote that:

"One of the most important keys to an understanding of the Cyprus muddle is the realization that the United States, far from being a disinterested broker to the disputes of the past, was a deeply involved participant."

State Department Cover-Up
The lack of political will and a strong pro-Turkish tilt in the State Department and other agencies have corrupted this vital area of U.S. foreign policy. Instead of open, democratic government we have witnessed a cover-up of the State Department's accessory role in Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus and its pro-Turkish tilt. It has led to an Orwellian denial that the Cyprus problem is one of aggression and occupation by Turkey with the active participation of the U.S through the State Department. It has led to a failure to act on the U.S.' clear moral responsibility to redress the problem. It has caused our government to abandon the rule of law regarding Turkey.

The State Department's cover-up and other failures have seriously damaged U.S. national interests and cost the U.S. treasury billions of dollars in wasted military and economic aid to Turkey.

Turkey's Paid U.S. Agents of Influence
The second determinant of this pro-Turkish policy is the horde of Turkey's paid U.S. "agents of influence" registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Alongside the role of career officials, the Congress should also investigate the role played by these agents. Turkey has spent an average of $3-$4 million annually on several lobbying firms for over a decade. This practice apparently enjoys constitutional protection under the First Amendment.

Nonetheless, the impression given is that the foreign policy of this country is for sale to the highest bidder. For citizens committed to a foreign policy based on American interests and American values, it is highly disquieting that foreign money and that former high officials on the payroll of a foreign government should exert an influence of this nature on American policy making. The U.S. lobbyists for Turkey also bear responsibility as accomplices to Turkey's crimes. Congress should demand an accounting.

The U.S., Cyprus, Turkey and the Rule of Law
Mr. Chairman, the rule of law, not advanced weaponry, is a core principle of American diplomacy and the surest instrument for advancing American interests in the world. All too often U.S. policies have failed to apply the rule of law in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean against persistent violations by Turkey. Despite these violations, the U.S. has given assistance and supplied arms to Turkey far beyond its legitimate defense needs and inconsistent with its role in NATO. This appeasement and application of a double standard vis-à-vis Turkey has damaged U.S. interests. We call upon the Administration and all U.S. government agencies, particularly the State Department, to correct these failures and to apply the rule of law rigorously in all contacts with Turkey.

Nowhere is the rule of law more neglected than with regard to Cyprus where the coddling and appeasement of Turkey by the Administration are the main obstacles to a settlement of the Cyprus problem. The lack of political will is in the State and Defense Departments.

A comprehensive settlement is attainable if the Congress and the Executive Branch were to respond to Turkey's aggression in the same manner as President Eisenhower responded to aggression when he condemned and reversed the invasion of Egypt by Britain, France, and Israel in October 1956. On that occasion he said:

"There can be no peace without law. And there can be no law if we were to invoke one code of conduct for those who oppose us and another for our friends."

The following are several examples of the United States, led by the State Department, not applying the rule of law to Turkey, all to the detriment of U.S. interests:

1) the failure to apply U.S. and international law to Turkey's ethnic cleansing and genocidal war against its 20% Kurdish minority;

2) the failure to apply U.S. law and international law to Turkey's several invasions of northern Iraq, for military actions against Kurds in northern Iraq, including massive invasions with up to 35,000 troops;

3) the failure to apply U.S. and international law to Turkey's periodic bombing of Kurds in Iraq;

4) the failure to apply U.S. and international law to Turkey' continuing occupation of 37.3% of Cyprus with 35,000 troops;

5) the failure to apply international law to the Aegean Imia islets issue;

6) the failure to apply the Iran-Iraq Sanctions Act to Turkey' deals with Iran and Libya;

7) the failure to apply U.S. and international law to Turkey's violations of religious freedom against Christians and Jews in Turkey, including the illegal closing of the Halki Patriarchal School of Theology;

8) the failure to apply international law to Turkey' illegal embargo on Armenia;

9) the failure to apply the Geneva Convention of 1949 to Turkey's 80,000 illegal settlers;

10) the failure to apply the terms of the NATO Treaty to Turkey for its invasion of Cyprus; and

11) the failure to condemn Turkey's violation of the UN Charter by Turkey's threats of war against Greece in the Aegean regarding Greece's internationally recognized right to extend its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles.

NATO and Cyprus
We have long called for a NATO force on Cyprus under UN auspices and acting in full respect of Cyprus' sovereignty as a component of a settlement of the Cyprus problem. However, under pressure from the U.S. government, NATO has applied a similar double standard to Turkey on the rule of law.

While NATO is taking action to promote Albanian autonomy in the Serbian province of Kosovo, it is conspicuously silent on the aspirations for autonomy of the Kurds. This is a double standard, pure and simple.

NATO's toleration of Turkey's aggression against Cyprus in violation of its own Treaty and the UN Charter is a stain on NATO's record and honor. NATO should call for the immediate removal of Turkey's illegal occupation forces and settlers from Cyprus and the demilitarization of Cyprus coupled with a military force to augment the UN peacekeeping force. If Turkey refuses to cooperate, NATO should consider appropriate action to bring Turkey into compliance.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, we support the following legislative initiatives:

1) We support the amount of $15 million in humanitarian aid for Cyprus. We urge the Administration to follow Congress' lead and call publicly for the immediate demilitarization of Cyprus. We call upon the Administration to give full support for Cyprus' accession negotiations with the European Union and to reject any attempt by Turkey to delay or interfere with these. During 1998 we deplored the Clinton Administration's heavy-handed pressure on the government of Cyprus' efforts to acquire defensive weaponry. The State Department manufactured the issue 2 years ago and intimidated Cyprus into altering the contract. We support military aid for Cyprus to purchase the U.S. patriot anti-missile system.

2) Although military aid to Greece was also halted by the Administration, we support military aid for Greece as long as Turkey keeps its illegal 35,000 man army of occupation and its 80,000 illegal colonists/settlers in the occupied territory of Cyprus, and maintains its 125,000 man Army of the Aegean aimed at Greece's Aegean islands. A clear message to Turkey would be sent if Congress appropriated some military aid for Greece. We condemn Turkey's threats on Greece's national sovereignty over the islets of Imia in the Aegean and Turkey's threats of war against Greece in the Aegean regarding Greece's internationally recognized right to extend its territorial waters from 6 to 12 miles. These threats are in violation of the UN Charter Preamble and Article 2 (4) and the NATO Treaty Preamble and Article 1.

3) We oppose any sale or transfers of U.S. weapons to Turkey as contrary to the best interests of the U.S.

4) We believe that the Congress should eliminate any trade preferences and any other benefits for Turkey, freeze any loan programs for Turkey, instruct U.S. representatives in multinational agencies to vote against any aid or loans for Turkey, and should consider economic sanctions against Turkey.

5) The Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees should hold hearings on a critical review of U.S.-Turkey relations.

Turkey is the main security threat to U.S. interests and to Greece and Cyprus in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean. A close U.S. relationship with Greece and Cyprus represents the best counter to this threat to U.S. interests. For the White House and career officials in the State Department and Defense Department to deny this is to deny reality.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.