Turkey -- Cyprus OHS Debate 2010

1/2 Landes/Dilks

TURKEY -- CYPRUS
TEXT: The United States federal government should offer the government of Turkey that
(insert plan text) on the condition that the government of Turkey remove all Turkish
occupation forces and colonists from the island of Cyprus, enter into binding negotiations over
the future of Cyprus and return the areas of Varosha /Famagusta and Morphou to Cyprus
sovereign control.

1. COUNTERPLAN SOLVES - TURKEY SAYS YES. THEY WANT A DECREASED US MILITARY

PRESENCE
Cloud 7 (DAVID New York Times, 10/12, "Military Seeks Alternatives in Case Turkey Limits Access",
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/europe/12military.html)

Turkey signaled its displeasure by recalling its ambassador to Washington on Thursday, the day after the House Foreign
Affairs Committee endorsed the resolution. Meanwhile, Bush administration officials stepped up their warnings that passage of the measure by the full
House could have dire consequences.
For the second day in a row, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates warned about the “enormous implications” for American military operations in Iraq if
Turkey limited flights over its territory or restricted access to Incirlik Air Base.
“All I can say is that a resolution that looks back almost 100 years to an event that took place under a predecessor government, the Ottomans, and that
has enormous present-day implications for American soldiers and Marines and sailors and airmen in Iraq, is something we need to take very seriously,”
Mr. Gates told reporters in London.
In public, only Turkish legislators have explicitly warned of limiting the American military presence, though other
members of the government have also warned of consequences.
“This is an issue where the Turkish officials have made clear their very strong concerns about this and have
raised questions about potential consequences in the event that this resolution passes,” said Tom Casey, a State
Department spokesman.
Though a NATO ally, Turkey has proved a roadblock to American military actions before , especially in March 2003, when its
Parliament refused to authorize movement of American ground troops through its territory during the initial invasion of Iraq.

2. THE COUNTERPLAN IS BETTER. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD CONDITION THE PLAN
ON TURKISH SOLUTION TO CYPRUS
Larigakis 3 – executive director of American Hellenic Institute Washington Times (Nick, October 8, http://www.ahiworld.com/101403letter.html,
st)

The U.S Administration knows very well that it is the Turkish government that supports Denktash’s intransigence, and this is where the U.S. should
invest more diplomatic resources if it wants a solution.
Indeed, the time is ripe for positive movement on a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem , now that U.S.-
Turkey relations are being reassessed. Despite Turkey’s denial to let the U.S. troops create a northern front against the Hussein regime
during the Iraq War, the U.S. rewarded Turkey by giving $1 billion in foreign aid and by approving an $8.5 billion loan.
Given that a successful foreign policy "cocktail" should include the right mix of sticks and carrots, it’s past time
that the U.S. set specific conditions to Turkey with regard to the Cyprus issue. The U.S. in its own interests
should condition aid to Turkey on (1) removing all its occupation forces and colonists from Cyprus; (2)
supporting a settlement of the Cyprus problem through negotiations based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal
federation in a sovereign state, the EU acquis communautaire, democratic norms, U.N. resolutions on Cyprus and the pertinent decisions of
the European Court of Human Rights; and (3) returning to the government of Cyprus now, Varosha/Famagusta and
Morphou areas under U.N. supervision for the return of refugees to their homes.
Until such time that the U.S. pressures Turkey, the aggressor and occupier, to get out of Cyprus, the
possibilities to achieve a just, viable and functional solution of the Cyprus problem will remain daunting.
Turkey -- Cyprus OHS Debate 2010
2/2 Landes/Dilks
3. CYPRUS INSTABILITY LEADS TO NUCLEAR WAR
Blank 2k (Stephen, June, www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub113.pdf)

In 1993 Moscow even threatened World War III to deter Turkish intervention on behalf of Azerbaijan. Yet the new Russo-Armenian Treaty and Azeri-
Turkish treaty suggest that Russia and Turkey could be dragged into a confrontation to rescue their allies from defeat.72 Thus many of the
conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict in which third parties intervene are present in the
Transcaucasus. For example, many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have a great
potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often feel obliged to rescue their lesser proteges and proxies.
One or another big power may fail to grasp the other side’s stakes since interests here are not as clear as in
Europe. Hence commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons to prevent a client’s defeat are not as well
established or apparent. Clarity about the nature of the threat could prevent the kind of rapid and almost uncontrolled escalation we saw in
1993 when Turkish noises about intervening on behalf of Azerbaijan led Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in that case.73 Precisely because
Turkey is a NATO ally, Russian nuclear threats could trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given
the erratic nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies). The real threat of a Russian nuclear strike against
Turkey to defend Moscow’s interests and forces in the Transcaucasus makes the danger of major war there
higher than almost everywhere else. As Richard Betts has observed, The greatest danger lies in areas where (1) the
potential for serious instability is high; (2) both superpowers perceive vital interests; (3) neither recognizes
that the other’s perceived interest or commitment is as great as its own; (4) both have the capability to inject
conventional forces; and, (5) neither has willing proxies capable of settling the situation.74 Russian
perceptions of the Transcaspian’s criticality to its interests is tied to its continuing efforts to perpetuate and
extend the vast disproportion in power it possesses relative to other CIS states . This power and resource disproportion
between Russia and the smaller states of the Transcaspian region means that no natural equilibrium is possible there. Russia neither can be restrained
nor will it accept restraint by any local institution or power in its pursuit of unilateral advantage and reintegration.75 pursuit of unilateral advantage
and reintegration.75

REFUSAL TO CONDITION TURKEY IS TO BE COMPLICIT WITH GENOCIDE

American Hellenic Institute 2000 (January, “Memorandum”, http://www.ahiworld.org/professorsmemo.html, st)
During the Cold War, U.S. relations with Turkey went largely unexamined. Today the dynamics have changed. The Cold War has been over for 10 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.
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 some 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 3,000,000 Kurds from
their homes.
Turkey's actions against the Kurds constitute "ethnic cleansing," "crimes against humanity" and "genocide."
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 exceed what happened in Kosovo and rival those of Iraq in Kuwait.
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 recent past. Despite all their impressive rhetoric of commitment to democracy and human
rights regarding Kosovo, in their approach to Turkey, the State and Defense Departments and the National
Security Council (NSC) are in fact siding with aggression, tyranny, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity
and genocide.