In 2018, the British public was shocked to learn that its cherished aid agency Oxfam was mired by a sex scandal which involved its own workers in Haiti, which were essentially using their power to rape women, or at the very best forcefully exchanging sex with food and medicine. 

But should we really have been so shocked?

Indeed, in the world of international aid it is commonly known that western aid workers often carry out such practices. But how do they escape prosecution or any accountability?

Given that the UN conducted a report of its own staff in January of this year and concluded that a third of all those interviewed reported some form of sexual harassment with ten percent reporting actually being touched inappropriately, is it not unreasonable to assume that it is the UN itself which is setting the ‘example’ to aid workers in the field?

Guterres himself was quoted by the London Guardian in January wanting to make a stand. “As an organization founded on equality, dignity and human rights, we must lead by example and set the standard,” he said. But under his administration, the UN might foster a reputation of being the champion of both sexual harassment in the office but also a compliant offender in covering it up.

According to the Guardian, “The UN has tried to increase transparency and strengthen how it deals with such accusations over the past few years after a string of sexual exploitation and abuse accusations against UN peacekeepers in Africa”.

But is that really true?

The head of the UN agency for HIV and Aids Michel Sidibe stepped down in June, six months before his term ends, after an independent panel said that his “defective leadership” tolerated “a culture of harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse of power.” His deputy, along with the Geneva-based agency’s head of the Nigeria mission also followed suite.

What these three individuals all have in common is not only were they incriminated in “a culture of harassment, including sexual harassment, bullying, and abuse of power”, but they are all likely of African origin.

Why is that relevant? Simply, because what we are witnessing now in the UN headquarters in New York doesn’t correspond with the clean up of UNAIDS and its scandal, which was called a “boys own” club. By contrast, the UN under Guterres seems to be blocking an investigations against white officials.

Western Sahara peace deal

Given that Sidibe, who became Mali’s health minister, wasn’t actually accused of any sexual misconduct himself, rather than covering up for a colleague, it is extraordinary now that Guterres won’t throw his weight behind an equally zealous campaign to investigate allegations against Canadian Colin Stewart, who is believed just about to have his contract as MINURSO boss extended in Western Sahara.

Unlike Sidibe, Stewart has very real allegations for his conduct in his previous post in Adis Ababa from both colleagues in New York and in the Ethiopian capital, according to an anti corruption website in New York, whose founder has just been banned from the UN headquarters for exposing the rank hypocrisy of Guterres.

Stewart is expected to continue in his role of MINURSO which is in Western Sahara, a disputed region bordering Morocco which took it over, when Spain abandoned it in 1975. Currently in the UN, a proposal for Western Sahara to gain partial independence from Rabat is being mulled by the security council and so it beggars belief that during such a delicate and tumultuous period, with so much riding on the peace deal, that Guterres would risk such a move, to support a friend and colleague.

Corruption seems to be a real problem in the UN. Cover ups seem to be more and more being reported at all levels from an institution which seems hell bent on not making itself accountable. Patrick Henningsen, editor of 21st Century Wire, who has seen the UN’s operations around the world with his own eyes, says it’s a cultural problem.

“It’s not surprising to see the UN would drag their heels an issue like sexual misconduct with their sordid record of covering-up sexual abuse and human trafficking in places like Bosnia, Haiti, Sudan and the Congo, and who knows where else” he says. “Clearly, there is a culture of corruption running through the wider institution.”

But with sexual harassment and the opportunities for cover ups that it creates, it’s hard to imagine how, in this day and age of social media and on line campaigns like “Me too” that such a calamity could remain. Putting aside how Stewart’s appointment as a UN chief where he could be compromised by blackmail for any sexual impropriety in his capacity as MUNURSO boss, let alone how a scandal could effect his ability to run the Western Sahara mission, there are other more important factors which we should consider.

Who really, genuinely cares about sexual harassment?

There are those who go as far to say that peace in a given country can be threatened by how you treat the women there. Lina Abirafeh, a women’s rights campaigner working with the Lebanese American University in Beirut claims she has also been the victim of sexual harassment and understands how in Haiti (with the Oxfam scandal) and in African with UNAIDS revelations that it remains perennial.

“There’s a humanitarian “culture” rampant with toxic masculinity. Boys will be boys and “locker room talk” attitudes are pervasive. Such attitudes easily lead to a sense of entitlement – and an abuse of power” she says.

“Funding to prevent sexual exploitation always fell short. And cases were often not addressed – unless there was reputational risk to the organization. Convoluted “internal processes” did not result in concrete action. Whistleblowers continue to be silenced, threatened, fired. If people aren’t speaking up, it is because we did not provide them with the means to do so” she adds.

Speaking specifically about the UN problem, Abirafeh spells out how a problem like the UNAIDS sex scandal came about and took so long to be tackled and gives a clue as to what’s slowing down the same process in New York and why, perhaps, the MUNIRSO boss is avoiding a full investigation.

“There’s a disturbing trend here: More and more senior officials of NGOs and UN agencies are implicated. But… they’re being put on fully-paid suspension, thanked for their years of service, and given a dignified exit.

“And the UN’s response to these increasing cases of sexual harassment? Our usual recipe is a study and a task force!”

And yet, in Stewart’s case, he is neither facing a dignified exit nor suspension, which raises the question whether there is a racist element in the somnolent, but visible crackdown on those involved with sex scandals. Are only African officials being targeted?

Racism is a factor and even an element of corruption in itself. Who gets chosen to be protected against investigation for sexual harassment over those who do, is a real factor which not only makes the UN chief even more powerful, but encourages corruption and sexual impropriety? If Stewart gets a get-out-of-jail card and is not investigated for the allegations which stand against him, then what message does that send to other British, Canadian, American and any European official who can’t control his hands in the office?

Common currency: sex and blackmail

What is clear is that big members like the U.S., Britain and France don’t really care about corruption within the UN and certainly not sexual harassment, regardless of the implications in poorer countries in the world. The author contacted three British Lib Dem MEPs in the European parliament but none of them – not even the one who recently became chair of a human rights committee – could be even bothered to respond to any questions. It’s as though even those who do not practice it or support it, know that it’s the essential currency of big international organizations, along with blackmail, and so prefer to keep quiet as at some point, will be effected by it. It’s not the sexual harassment itself. It’s the blackmail or preferential treatment to waiver prosecution which comes with it. 

In reality very few people actually care about sexual harassment at the UN or anywhere, which is one of the reasons it is rampant in the UN, whose members refuse point blank to hold it to account. Even Transparency International’s media operation couldn’t find one official in its vast international network to even make a comment about it. 

And so, consequently, although Guterres has a massive corruption problem in the UN with sexual harassment at the core of it. And even his own account comes into question for any journalist who wishes to probe deeper. A Lisbon based organization which paid him in 2016 – but which the editor of Inner City Press claims he didn’t declare as earnings – is being linked to Patrick Ho, the Hong Kong businessman politico who is in jail now for bribing UN officials. Questions over a proposed deal by the Lisbon organization’s sale of an energy utility to a Chinese firm in 2018 are a dark cloud hanging over the UN chief who, appears at least, to have broken the mould on corruption, compared to Ki Moon and Anan before him. Let’s make no mistake. “Me Too” might have arrived at the UNs headquarters but like the journalist who has been banned from reporting on graft there, has been left standing in the rain. It may be knocking, but no one is answering. This is Guterres’s legacy in the making only two and half years into his term. It’s sexual harassment. At the UN. Who cares?

The G20 summit in Argentina ended with no major breakthrough or a breakdown but that is not good news for the pressing global challenges. From climate change to international terrorism and from civil wars to refugee crises, there are a host of issues that continue to spread instability throughout the planet. G20 was conceived of as an institution to bring together economically most capable nations to contribute to the resolution of international challenges outside the United Nations framework, which has long been hampered by the inaction of veto-wielding powers at the Security Council.

To be sure, the G20 was never meant to substitute the UN but it was nevertheless supposed to be more flexible and responsive to global problems hindering economic development and stability. The latest convening of the summit avoided any major political dramas but it has not produced much in the way of building a common framework on any of the major issues facing the community of nations.

The final communique of the G20 could not go beyond reaffirming the importance of the multilateral global trading system and had to exclude any criticism of “protectionism” or “unfair trade practices” due to the American and Chinese sensitivities. 

All eyes were on President Trump as he finds himself being challenged at home by the Mueller investigation, which appears to be ending. He also has been the subject of heavy criticism for essentially siding with the Saudi administration in the Khashoggi affair in the name of protecting American interests. Further, Russia’s most recent aggressive actions in Ukraine have forced him to cancel a potential meeting with President Putin. His seemingly temporary truce with China was most likely motivated by the need to avoid yet another major political drama, which could have rattled the markets and cost him support domestically. Despite the fact that he appointed a hardliner to lead the trade negotiations going forward, this temporary halt to the trade wars provided him with some ammunition to sell it as a political victory to his constituency. Despite the multilateral nature of the G20 gathering, the biggest news the U.S. walked away with was still a bilateral one, very much fitting the President’s America First approach.

The U.S. was often the major force driving the big agenda items in these international gatherings but this time around nobody expected it in the first place due to the “America First” president in office. At the same time, here appeared to be no clear substitute for the U.S. leadership either. The major players seemed content with a reduced American role that is not interested in leading the conversation to resolve world’s big problems, economic or otherwise. The final communique could not go beyond reaffirming the importance of the multilateral global trading system and had to exclude any criticism of “protectionism” or “unfair trade practices” due to the American and Chinese sensitivities.

Many observers are just happy that a communique was even possible where the Trump administration has attacked multilateralist institutions established in the past under the U.S. leadership. The unwillingness of the U.S. to support the very principles of these very institutions undermines the effectiveness of G20, especially in the absence of another great power willing to underwrite these principles.

Today, what we are seeing is the increasing irrelevance and greater provincialization of multilateral institutions that are supposed to provide comprehensive global solutions.

While the U.N. has been dysfunctional largely due to the veto powers held by the Security Council member states, the G20 is now becoming ineffective as a result of its “natural leader” to refuse a robust leadership role with a global agenda. That is why, many regional and bilateral issues seemed to be more at the forefront during the summit. The gathering provided yet another opportunity for countries like Turkey to bring the regional issues to the agenda.

Turkey was vocal about the Khashoggi affair, calling on the international community once again to treat it as an affront to international norms. President Erdogan met with President Trump on the sidelines to discuss the status of northern Syria, which has critical national security implications for Turkey. In this sense, Turkey had a successful summit. Nevertheless, the summit underperformed considering the urgency and the seriousness of the global issues facing the planet although some might be content that it ended with a common declaration at the end.

Today, what we are seeing is the increasing irrelevance and greater provincialization of multilateral institutions that are supposed to provide comprehensive global solutions. This reality promises further uncertainty and instability around the world, which is already faced with challenges no single nation can solve on its own. When the most powerful G20 nations cannot unite around a common global agenda, it is becoming increasingly clear that the monumental challenges of the world will remain unattended at least for the time being.      

The most striking feature of the Brunson case is that the U.S. has resisted to understand Turkey’s new foreign policy, and this led to a crisis between the two countries. Just to remind the reader, American Pastor Andrew C. Brunson has been kept under arrest for almost two years with the accusation of aiding terrorist groups such as the PKK. He was put on trial, found guilty and was condemned to a three year plus imprisonment by the Turkish courts.

U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence claimed earlier that he had been innocent and expressed that he had to be released immediately. The language adopted in those statements bore a degree of threat and was disrespectful to the Turkish judicial system. That’s why Turkish officials have criticized President Trump and Vice President Pence for not showing patience and being disrespectful to the judicial process after the release of the pastor. They underlined that Turkey is a country where the rule of law is shown due respect. In fact, the issue was more than being about the rule of law, it is more of respecting Turkey’s sovereignty and recognizing its new international status.

The Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s probable murder in the Saudi Arabia Consulate in Istanbul also points to the same problem. It is clear that the Saudi crown prince Mohammad Bin Salman ordered the killing of Mr. Khashoggi on account of his critical stance towards the Saudi regime. Regarding the very close and special relations between Prince Salman and President Trump’s son-in-law and senior envoy to the Middle East Jared Kushner, it is not hard to guess that the U.S. was closely following the issue and was informed that Mr. Khashoggi was ordered to be killed. Choosing Istanbul as the location for this outrageous act, which directly defies the norms of international politics, does not seem to be random. It has been rightly put forward by some analysts that the purpose of this unfortunate act of killing was not just to get rid of an opponent of the Saudi regime but to get Turkey involved into this unfortunate incident and to violate its sovereignty.

Combining these two recent incidents with the Trump administration’s supply of heavy weapons and diplomatic protection to the Syrian branch of PKK (YPG) and its unabashed and militant foreign policy towards Palestine and Jerusalem, one can conclude that the U.S. shows no respect to Turkey’s security concerns and sovereign rights. More to the point, the Trump administration fails to understand Turkey’s new foreign policy doctrine. Turkey has been following a revisionist foreign policy for a couple of years. It has been seeking adjustments in the existing distribution of power in its region and in the international system in general.

Turkey’s current Syrian policy and its call for reforming international institutions such as the UN Security Council on the basis of new international realities can be given as examples to this revisionist turn in Turkish foreign policy. Despite that these are defensive policies, since they were put into action after Turkey came under attack by terrorist groups and its long-term allies, they manifest the desire for change in international politics.

The U.S.’s uncompromising posture pushes Turkey towards more activism in its foreign policy. President Erdogan has just vowed to eliminate all the YPG militants in Manbij and cleanse off the region from the terrorist elements located in the east of the Euphrates river. This would be a punch in the face to the YPG (and also to the U.S.) who has already suffered a terrible loss in the Operation Oil Branch in Afrin. After that done Turkey would secure the control of all its southern border with Syria and become a more powerful actor in Syrian politics and in the region in general.

As long as the U.S. clings to its current policy of disrespecting Turkey’s sovereignty and supporting its enemies, this will get Turkey to feel more insecure and as a result it will accelerate its policy of defensive expansion in its vicinity. The Trump administration has to find a better policy to be able to contain Turkey. Supporting the YPG, giving unconditional support to Israel, disrespecting Turkey’s sovereignty and opening an economic war have so far backfired. Turkey has grown more powerful.

President Trump was quoted as claiming: “They do not want me or us to win because I am the first president ever to challenge China on trade,” while chairing a UN Security Council session. “We don’t want them to meddle or interfere in our upcoming election” he said.

After having waged several trade wars spanning the globe with several skirmishes including China, Canada, Iran, Mexico, the EU & Turkey several of which were devised to score points at home and play into his voter’s expectations -such as fulfilling the demands of his evangelist supporters who were influential in the tariffs imposed to Turkey over Pastor Brunson’s detainment in Turkey- Trump hasn’t been able to loot what he was expecting locally but instead his ill-advised decisions are taking a toll on US economy.

Trump had started a trade war with China in 2017 over a trade deficit with Beijing which was $375.6 Bn at the time where he blamed China with gearing its reciprocal tariffs to target a crucial artery of his voter base, farmers. The newest impact is expected to strike at the start of next week as the new 10 percent tariffs imposed on over $200 billion of imports from China are scheduled to go into effect.

Several surveys indicate that US consumers are becoming apprehensive regarding the hike in prices across all products which are expected to manifest more clearly this fall. Walmart and other leading retailers warn of price increases for manufactured goods in all categories. Many smaller businesses have started to voice their concerns over impending massive blows to their exports.

China has retaliated firmly rejecting the claim in remarks to the Security Council. Chinese Foreign Minister, Wang Yi said “We do not and will not interfere in any countries’ domestic affairs. We refuse to accept any unwarranted accusations against China, and we call upon other countries to also observe the purposes of the UN charter and not to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs.”

While the potential of China interfering in US midterms haunts Trump, it also sheds a different light, right from the source, to claims over Russian meddling of presidential elections in 2016. Will two close allies, Russia & China puppeteer the President of the country deemed as the de facto single superpower, into and out of office?

The Assad regime late Wednesday attacked residential areas in Syria’s Eastern Ghouta district with chlorine gas, Syrian Civil Defense said.

The attack came late at night in Eastern Ghouta’s village of Hammuriyah, the civil defense group, known as the White Helmets, said on its social media account.

The posting said that many women and children were affected by the gas but that their number and condition are not yet clear, since intense attacks by the regime and its supporters are ongoing and the roads are closed.

On March 12, the Assad regime cut Eastern Ghouta into three distinct parts, to capture southern Hammuriyah, where it also conducted attacks, including poison gas attacks, on civilian areas.

Despite a UN Security Council cease-fire resolution, on March 3 the regime and its allies began a major ground operation — backed by Russian air power — aimed at decisively capturing Eastern Ghouta, an opposition-held suburb of Damascus.

On Feb. 24, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 2401, which calls for a month-long cease-fire in Syria — especially Eastern Ghouta — to allow the delivery of humanitarian aid.

Three days later, Russia announced its own cease-fire initiative, calling for daily, five-hour “humanitarian pauses” in the opposition-held district.

Home to some 400,000 people, Eastern Ghouta has remained the target of a crippling regime siege for the last five years.

The regime has stepped up its siege in recent months, preventing the delivery of badly needed humanitarian aid and leaving thousands of residents in need of medical treatment.

Last week, a UN inquiry commission released a report accusing the Assad regime of committing war crimes in Eastern Ghouta, including the use of chemical weapons on civilians, causing mass starvation, and forcibly preventing medical evacuations.

Source: AA

On Tuesday 16 January the U.S. State Department announced that it will withhold a $65M aid to Palestine.

Following the U.S. failure to attract international support for its Jerusalem decision and following the embarrassment of the Trump administration at the United Nations General Assembly, where the U.S. was left isolated in the international realm, President Trump had threatened to cut aid to UN-member countries.

The first move came to the Palestine Authority, which has slammed the U.S. for its recent decision and has underlined that the U.S. is no longer party to the peace negotiations.

Speaking to reporters at a press briefing, State Dept. spokesperson Heather Nauert told reporters that the suspension of aid to Palestine is “being held for future consideration.”

The U.S. will transfer $60 million of what was originally a $125 million tranche of funding to the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) while withholding the remaining $65 million.

Heather Nauert acknowledged that without the $60 million tranche, the refugee agency was at risk of shuttering.

She added that additional U.S. funding will depend on “some revisions” being made at the agency, which provides healthcare and social services to Palestinian refugees in the West Bank, Gaza, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan.

Claiming that the decision was not politically motivated or related to President Trump’s Jerusalem decision, Nauert claimed that it was rooted in “concern” over how the UNRWA is managed and how it spends its funds.

The spokesperson also added that the U.S. expected other countries to “step up to the plate” and provide more funding for the agency.

This move by the U.S. can be interpreted as a beginning to a slash in funding to international organizations as the President himself had said that following the loss at the UNGA, the U.S. would “re-consider” where and how it spends its money.

Voting ended on Monday evening for the controversial referendum on the secession of northern Iraq’s Kurdish region.

The polls were due to close at 6 p.m. local time (3 GMT), but the Kurdish Regional Government’s Election Commission extended the operation by another hour in order to allow voters to cast their votes, with the exception of the Kirkuk province.

According to reports of the Anadolu Agency, the Election Commission also reported that the turnout stood at 76 percent.

While local authorities have urged the residents not to carry out aerial firing while celebrating the results, a shooting incident was reported in which a civilian was killed in the disputed district center of Tuz Khurmatu, Saladin province.

In wary of potential violence that may erupt due to the referendum, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu warned the KRG that the Turkish army will intervene if the Turkmen population are targeted.

UN concerned

As the count begins, many statements have emerged from countries condemning the KRG and underlining that the results will not be recognized.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said Monday that he was concerned about the “potentially destabilizing effects” of the referendum held by the KRG in defiance of the international community.

A statement released by his spokesman Stephane Dujarric, highlighted that Guterres “respects the sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity of Iraq” and recommends that all outstanding issues “be resolved through structured dialogue and constructive compromise.”

The statement further added that the UN Secretary-General expects UN-mandated activities to be allowed to continue, unhindered.

Ahead of the 72^nd session of the United Nations General Assembly, President Erdogan, Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu, Deputy Prime Minister Recep Akdag and Chief of the General Staff of the Turkish Armed Forces Hulusi Akar have begun their visits in New York.

Rohingya

In spite of crimes that are taking place in Myanmar’s Rakhine State, Turkey has led the effort in humanitarian aid. With delivering aid through the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination Agency (TIKA), assisted by First Lady Emine Erdogan, Turkey has delivered 1.000 ton of aid to the Rohingya Muslims.

While official figures are unknown, it has been reported that over 400,000 Rohingya have crossed the border to Bangladesh. While the de facto leader of Myanmar, a former Noble Peace recipient, Aung San Suu Kyi announced that she will miss the UN General Assembly as criticism on her handling of the Rohingya crisis grows, President Erdogan is expected to deliver a speech highlighting the attempt of ethnic cleansing of the Rohingya, urging the international community to get to action.

Erdogan: UN in need of structural reform

During the groundbreaking ceremony for the building of new Turkevi (Turkish House) center in New York, President Erdogan highlighted in his speech that the UN needs “structural reform” in order to make it more inclusive and ensure that it is able to fulfill its mission towards world peace.

“Despite all it shortcomings, the UN remains the sole global umbrella organization where everyone can make their voices heard and seek solutions to their problems,” the President said. “However, the world is not the world during which the UN was founded.” Erdogan stated that the structure of what is arguably the most impactful UN organ, the Security Council, is unjust, resulting in a global organization that is unable to perform its duties as a vanguard of world peace.

“The UN needs to be reformed so that it can adapt to a changing world,” Erdogan said. “Today, reforming the UN is on the agenda. However, that reform is not what we understand from the word ‘reform.’”

His speech at Turkevi was referring to a reform-themed meeting on Monday at the onset of the UN General Assembly attended by U.S. President Donald Trump.

Trump, who had promised UN reform as one of the goals of his four year tenure said during the meeting that the organization suffered from “bureaucracy and mismanagement.”

Erdogan has on numerous occasions said “the world is bigger than five”, a reference to the five permanent Security Council members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States.

P5 countries have abused their veto power to defend national interests, rendering the UN dysfunctional in face of global crisis. The most recent example has been the Syrian war, which has continued for 7 years, and resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of millions.

 

This territorial dispute stems back to the Turkish military intervention in Cyprus in July 1974. Turkey acted as a legal guarantor of peace following a coup on the island which was part of a plot to annex Cyprus to Greece. In accordance with the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, to which Greece and the UK are also signatories, Turkey reserved the right to intervene, unilaterally or otherwise, with the intent to re-establish the state of affairs on the island. Yet Turkey stopped short of a full takeover and only took control of the north, which became a de facto safe haven for persecuted Turkish Cypriots. As Turkish Cypriots holed up in enclaves in the south fled to the Turkish-controlled north, some 200,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced from their homes.In November 1983, Turkish Cypriots declared independence in the north and started issuing new deeds for Greek Cypriots properties that were left behind. These properties were either sold or handed out to migrants from Turkey who arrived after the island was split in 1974. Today, these migrants comprise around half of the population in the Turkish north. Around 40,000 of them, mainly earlier arrivals, were granted citizenship rights in the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). The remainder live in the TRNC on a residency permit or illegally.Admittedly, to clean up the past problems, the Turkish Cypriots are prepared to make some concessions. While some Greek Cypriots who had their properties seized will have those properties returned, others may be compensated either through a payout or by being given other properties elsewhere equal to the value of their seized property. The Greek Cypriot administration has therefore demanded that Guzelyurt be ceded to the Greek Cypriot federal zone so that some 100,000 Greek Cypriots can be moved there. They have also demanded that around 66,000 Greek Cypriots be allowed to live and be given full rights within the Turkish Cypriot federal zone. Furthermore, the Greek Cypriots want the administration of Christian religious sites in the Turkish Cypriot zone, as well as four Maronite villages, to be handed over.

The Turkish Cypriot side, however, seems keener on compensation payouts than drastically changing borders and demographics. Under any deal, the Turkish Cypriot side will already have enough trouble deporting some 80,000 migrants back to Turkey, which includes the children of migrant families who were born and raised on the island. They too will require compensation.

Having failed to reach an agreement in November, the two sides are expected to submit new maps in the next meetings in Geneva on January 9, 2017. Three days later they will be joined by the three guarantor states – Turkey, Greece and the UK – to discuss the issue of guarantorship.

Both Greece and the UK have previously stated their willingness to waive their guarantor rights. The Greek Cypriot administration has also demanded a complete pull-out of Turkish troops from the island. But the Turkish Cypriots oppose the complete withdrawal of Turkish troops. Turkey’s stance, meanwhile, remains ambiguous. If offered the right incentives, such as greater integration with the EU or the financial benefits of hosting a pipeline, Turkey may forgo its guarantor rights, or settle for a military base on the island, similar to the British bases.

In many ways, the fate of Cyprus partly depends on Turkey’s relationship with the EU. These relations took a turn for the worse recently when the European Parliament condemned Turkey for its crackdown on a network of state infiltrators who stand accused of being behind a failed coup attempt in July. Greece’s recent refusal to extradite fleeing coup plotters to Turkey also hasn’t helped.

Likewise, a rapprochement between Turkey and Russia following almost a year of strained ties presents its own problems. With Moscow and Ankara deciding to push ahead with the Turk Stream pipeline, which will pump gas from Russia to the Turkish-Greek border via the Black Sea, it is likely that any pipeline built through Turkey from the eastern Mediterranean will join the same network. This means that any gas Europe seeks to import from the eastern Mediterranean or Central Asia will be mixed with Russian gas as well. So much for Europe cutting off its dependence on Russia.

Low global crude oil prices also risk putting off potential investors from approaching the eastern Mediterranean reserves. Energy giants must first be convinced that exploring, exploiting and exporting natural gas from the area will be profitable. So far, the reserves found in Cypriot waters are not enough to economically justify such investment, which means it would need to be combined with Egyptian and Israeli reserves. But in a region already plagued by political instability, investing in the eastern Mediterranean may prove to be a risk no company is willing to take.

As the gas fueling these peace talks begins to run low, Eide’s inspiring grin is gradually turning into a frown. Eide himself is now warning of a “deterioration of trust” and a “hardening of positions” among ordinary Greek and Turkish Cypriots. For many Cypriots, these talks are a last chance for peace on the island. If they fail, it is unlikely that anyone will accept the continuation of the status quo.

Since the 2000s, Turkey has been one of the vocal advocates of UN Security Council reform, focusing on representativeness, effectiveness and the accountability issues. One should note here that Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system and calls for reform is hardly new; Turkey began to express its discontent with the workings of the UN right after its establishment in 1945. Accordingly, Turkish authorities did not hesitate to express the need for an urgent UN reform during and after the Cold War era. However, since the 2000s, Ankara has been more willing to take an active role in the UN in general and the UNSC in particular. Accordingly, Turkish authorities voice loudly in many platforms that the UN system is outmoded, while a profound change is under way in world politics.In parallel with their predecessors, the AK Party rulers raise, on every possible occasion, the demand for a more representative UN Security Council. They target not only the issue of representativeness, but also the Security Council’s failure to respond effectively to humanitarian crises like the recent debacle in Syria. Ankara’s criticism towards the current UN order is best symbolized in Turkish President Erdoğan’s statement: “the world is bigger than five.” Ankara has been critical of the UN also for its inability to adequately support the developmental needs of impoverished nations. In particular, Turkey has asked the UN to concentrate more on all issues related to human rights and development.

Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system has evolved into concrete reform suggestions in the last decade.

Turkey’s criticism towards the UN system has evolved into concrete reform suggestions in the last decade. Two documents are worth mentioning in terms of Turkey’s posture towards the reform debate. Firstly, on 26 July, 2005, Turkey co-sponsored the Uniting for Consensus plan in the UN General Assembly, together with eleven other members. The plan suggested a reformed Security Council which would consist of 20 elected members, serving for a two-year term, in addition to the five permanent members. According to Turkey’s reform proposal, the General Assembly would elect twenty other members of the United Nations to be non-permanent members of the Security Council, based on, in the first instance, their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security as well as to the other purposes of the Organization with an equitable geographical distribution. The Uniting for Consensus plan also called for improving the Council’s working methods in a transparent, inclusive, and accountable manner, including restraint on the use of the veto; procedures to ensure transparency in decision-making; accountability in performance and access to information.

Secondly, The Turkish Foreign Ministry’s 2007 report, called “Turkey’s Priorities for the 62th Session of UN General Assembly,” was remarkable in terms of documenting Turkey’s priorities and expectations from the UN across a broad spectrum. For Ankara, a comprehensive reform of the UN System cannot be completed without a reform of the Security Council. This document also reconfirmed that an expansion of the non-permanent members of the Security Council would better reflect the principle of sovereign equality. More importantly, Ankara made it clear that “Turkey attaches utmost importance to the effective functioning of the United Nations.”

Turkey’s current challenge to the international order is reform-oriented, rather than anti-systemic.

Thus Turkey’s current challenge to the international order is reform-oriented, rather than anti-systemic. From the political cosmopolitan point of view, the UN is definitely not the best, but the only available global platform that approximates the universality of norms and values. The first decade of the 2000s illustrated that Turkey has significant potential to play a bigger role in the UN platform by combining its new foreign policy vision with its long-lasting commitment to the founding principles of the United Nations, as well as its traditional foreign policy principle of “peace at home and peace in the world.”

Turkish rulers should critically and comparatively access the prospects and the limitations of the Turkish foreign policy at the United Nations during the first decade of the 2000s with that of the second one, in which Ankara lost the UN Security Council non-permanent membership for the 2015-2016 period. Turkey is one of the few states with both the potential and the vision to extend the global order that represents the vast majority of the nations. In a world that is increasingly shaped by fragmentation, it has become much more critical for states like Turkey to be more “cautious” in terms of foreign policy choices towards issues on both the regional and global scale. As one of the founding members of the UN, Turkey will continue to keep the UN at the center of its increasing efforts in search for an effective, accountable, representative and legitimate international order.