MUNINAL'21 United Nations Security Council Delegate Study Guide

MUNINAL’21 United Nations Security Council Delegate Study Guide

LETTER FROM SECRETARY GENERAL

Dear Delegates, It is my utmost pleasure to welcome you all to the MUNINAL’21. I am happy to say that it is an honor for me to serve you as Secretary General in the first ever official online conference of MUNINAL. I can assure you all that our conference will be unforgettable in every single way possible. Our organization team, led by Mr. Ozan Eren, has put up so much effort to plan every single detail of organization to give you the best experience. Also, our DSG Deniz had a lot of efforts to be verified by munturkey.com. It is my utmost pleasure to welcome you the

MUNINAL’21’s UNSC committee. Our distinguished Under Secretary General Süha and his assistant Osman Has prepared this study guide for you to understand the concept of this committee as well as rules of procedure of that conference is different from a regular MUN. This committee is well thought and prepared. Get ready for the fu and the crises all along the conference. There will be lots of surprises among the 2 days ahead of you. Both our organization team and academic team has been working so hard to make this experience unique and unforgettable.

Sincerely, Arda Demirel Secretary General of MUNINAL’21

LETTER FROM UNDER-SECRETARY-GENERAL Most esteemed participants, Before introducing myself, I would like to welcome you all to MUNINAL’21. My name is Süha Ayvaz. I am a senior grade at Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli University. I am studying International Relations and I will be serving you as Under-Secretary-General responsible for UNSC. As usual, the focal point of the Council is maintaining world peace and security together. And this committee will be no different. Council’s rights to take precautions within its mandate and the charter of the United Nations. The actions that the Council will take will subsequently affect the flow of the committee, so I can suggest you think twice when you are taking measures or executing events, as they can have severe consequences. Please bear in mind that this study guide is not a comprehensive total review of the issue, and it merely serves as a path through which every delegate can start researching. The course of the committee will require agile reactions to every event, so it is in the best interest of every member of the committee if you were to complement this study guide with other resources and develop a

comprehensive understanding of the issue. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. I wish you all the best of luck. You can contact me via [email protected]

Yours sincerely

Ahmet Süha Ayvaz Under-Secretary-General responsible for UNSC

Letter From Academic Assistant

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

To begin with, I would like to salute and thank you for participating in MUNINAL’21.

My name is Osman Özer and I am a sophomore student at the University of Istanbul – Cerrahpaşa in the English Language Teaching Department. I will be serving you as the Academic Assistant of the United Nations Security Council committee. Having been through tough lockdown situations derived from COVID-19 lately, I am thrilled to serve you as so in one of the very first faces to face conferences organised here, in Turkey.

There are a few issues that concern with world’s peace and safety hereby presented to you through this booklet. By pointing at the duties and mandate of UNSC, reminding you that you should imagine not just an ordinary individual, but a decisionmaker for the fate of the world. Consequently, it is my utmost sincere recommendation for you to study thoroughly and pay attention to flow in committee.

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen,

Before concluding, there are two things I consider important. One of which is that this work of research was designed, developed and produced through the multitude of resources of various religious faiths and beliefs, even though some of them are not directly cited from, as much as possible. The other one is the motive behind the preparation of this booklet was to give you some ground knowledge about the agendas you are going to talk about. Some important or proportionally big parts or small details regarding agendas might be not given intentionally and left blank. In that sense, you must fill in the blanks and enrichen yourself by doing further readings.

In case of a question, you might contact me as well through [email protected]

Wishing you all good luck and waiting fingers crossed to meet you. Thank you.

A word of caution before you start:

Before you start reading the study guide, please understand that the study guide is only meant to be a starting point for your research. It can guide you through the process of gathering essential information on the topic, but it is in no way a substitute for the actual research every delegate is required to do.

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL AND ITS MANDATE

The United Nations Security Council was founded in 1945 shortly after the League of Nations had failed. League of Nations then was restored as the United Nations. In its charter, the United Nations makes it clear that within its 6 main organs, The United Nations Security Council, shortly UNSC is the only executive part of the United Nations and one can easily understand that it keeps the balance of powers stable thus guards the global security and peace. Understanding the nature and the history of the UNSC, it is the most prominent organ of the UN as the first article in the UN Charter clearly shows the aim of the establishment as “to maintain international peace and security” and thus all the decisions taken by the UNSC are binding and all the UN member states must implement those while other organs can only make recommendations to the member states. UNSC is also responsible for the recognition of the non-member states to be part of the UN. UNSC is governed by the presidency and it rotates every month. As of April 2018, the current president in Vietnam[1] Security Council holds its meetings with 15 members states. There are two different kinds of members, permanent members, and temporary members.

The permanent members of the council as the name suggests, are not replaced and they all possess a veto power meaning even one permanent member state can disapprove of any kind of action to be taken by the council, they are often referred to as “P5” -the permanent five- and those states are United States of America, United Kingdom, France, People’s Republic of China, and Russian Federation. The temporary members consist of 10 states which are: Bolivia, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Peru, Poland, Sweden.[2] They are elected in the United Nations General Assembly for a 2-year term basis concerning the geographic patterns mentioned in

resolution A 1991(XVIII). Each member state has only one vote for making collective decisions however since P5 members have a veto right, without the permanent states’ consensus no action can be taken by the Security Council and the decisions are taken by the council must be followed by all the other member states accordingly.

The mandate of the Security Council

As stated above, it is in the true nature of the Security Council to maintain international peace and security to prevent conflicts. The UN charter establishes the Security Council as one of the six main organs and grants these responsibilities and the council may meet whenever it is necessary. As stated in the charter, the council has 4 main purposes as follows:

▪ " to maintain international peace and security;

▪ to develop friendly relations among nations;

▪ to cooperate in solving international problems and in promoting respect for human rights;

▪ and to be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations.

Actions That Can Be Followed for Maintaining the Peace

When the Council receives a threat to the peace the usual action is to advise the parties for trying to reach an agreement. The Council may:

▪ set forth principles for such an agreement;

▪ undertake investigation and mediation, in some cases;

▪ dispatch a mission;

▪ appoint special envoys; or

▪ request the Secretary-General to use his good offices to achieve a pacific settlement of the dispute.

When conflict turns into violent events, stopping them as soon as possible is the priority of the Council, if such events unfold the Council may:

▪ issue ceasefire directives that can help prevent an escalation of the conflict;

▪ dispatch military observers or a peacekeeping force to help reduce tensions, separate opposing forces and establish a calm in which peaceful settlements may be sought.

Further on the Council may choose to apply enforcement measures, these are:

▪ economic sanctions, arms embargoes, financial penalties and restrictions, and travel bans;

▪ severance of diplomatic relations;

▪ blockade; or even collective military action. [3]

AGENDA ITEM I: NON-PROLIFERATION OF ICBMs IN NORTH KOREA AND POSSIBLE SANCTIONS ON NORTH KOREA

A. North Korea's Nuclear Arms Race: Timeline of events

Foremost North Korea is a non-nuclear-weapon state and there are only 5 official nuclear-weapon states and they are also the 5 permanent members of the Council. According to the Treaty on Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a nuclear-weapon state is a country that manufactured a nuclear weapon and exploded before 1967, January 1. [4]

However, as it is detailly explained bellowed, NPT has a loophole as one country who signed the treaty can withdraw from the agreement with no repercussions and so did North Korea in 2003.[5]

Since their withdrawal, they have been testing and detonating nuclear bombs. However, the history of North Korea’s nuclear development and recent arms race has its roots back in the 1956s with the cooperation of the USSR.[6] We can divide North Korea’s nuclear program into two main phases:

Phase I

1956: USSR conducts basic training programs to North Korean scientists for initiation [7] (ibid)

1958: USA allocates nuclear missiles and M65 nuclear canons to South Korea.[8]

1959: USSR and North Korea sign an agreement on nuclear cooperation. [9](ibid)

1962-1974: Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center opens and its reactor reaches 4 MW of power[10](ibid)

Afterwards in the late 70’s and early ’80s uranium mining operations has begun.

In this phase, we can clearly understand that North Korea has started a nuclear program involving uranium mining.

PHASE II

1989: As the Soviet Union’s power comes closer to ceasing to exist, North Korea no longer has the economic and military support provided by the USSR.

The United States captures satellite images of North Korea building a facility to reprocess the nuclear fuel rods to separate the plutonium, and later it was confirmed that they had 24 kilos of plutonium which would be enough to build 2 to 3 nuclear missiles equivalent of 20 kilotons plutonium bomb. This had alerted the US administration and regarded as a red line. North Korea has even tried to withdraw from the NPT but due to pressure, they had to show full compliance with NPT in 1994.[11]

1994: the United States and North Korea had made negotiations and signed the Agreed Framework agreement which stopped North Korea from producing plutonium but in return, they could get fuel

oil and economic cooperation.

2003: North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT.

In July 2006 North Korea test-fired a long-range missile that fell in the Sea of Japan. The Council passed a resolution to make North Korea stop the program.[12]

In October, the officials stated that they have tested a nuclear weapon. As a reaction, the Security Council voted unanimously to impose several sanctions against North Korea, including blockades of weapons and financial embargos. Resolution 1718 dictates North Korea eliminate all of its nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles. September 30: During the six-party talks held in Beijing, North Korea signed an agreement in which they promise to begin dismantling its nuclear arsenal. However, they missed the deadline on December 31 for disabling the weapon facilities by the end of the year.

2009 May 25: North Korea stated that they have conducted another nuclear test which was their second

June 12: The Council responds to the test by condemnation and imposed new sanctions

2010 November 20: A professor at Stanford University published a report that North Korea has a new nuclear enrichment facility.

2013 February 12: North Korea conducted its third nuclear weapon test and first under Kim Jong Un. In three weeks Council ordered newly sanctions

2015 December 12: North Korea stated media says the country has added the hydrogen bomb to its arsenal.

2017 September 9: North Korea claimed to have detonated a nuclear warhead. According to South Korea's Meteorological Administration, the blast is estimated to have an explosive power of 10 kilotons.

2017 July 4:North Korea has claimed it has conducted its first successful test of an intercontinental

ballistic missile, or ICBM, that can "reach anywhere in the world."

2017 September 3: North Korea has carried out its sixth nuclear weapon test, causing a 6.3 magnitude seismic event, as measured by the United States Geological Survey. Pyongyang claims the device is a hydrogen bomb that could be mounted on an intercontinental missile. A nuclear weapons monitoring group describes the weapon as up to eight times stronger than the bomb dropped in Hiroshima in 1945.

In response to the test, Trump tweets that North Korea continues to be "very hostile and dangerous to the United States."[13]

B. TREATIES ON NUCLEAR ARMS, ICBMS, AND ABMS

There are previously signed international, bilateral and multilateral agreements and treaties that have focused on the reduction of nuclear proliferation and to prevent future arms races oy on land, sea, air and even in space including the Moon and the orbit of the world for a peaceful and secure world.

However, some of those agreements lack such critical provisions that enable some countries to exploit the nature of the agreements and start building a nuclear arsenal.

The list of treaties that are previously signed:

NPT: Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons 1967

SALT: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1&2 1972-1979

ABM: Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty 1972

START: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 1&2

New START: 2011

JCPOA: Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015

NPT: Non-Proliferation of Nuclear weapons (1967):

Because of its nuclear disarmament capabilities, the NPT holds the most prominent place of power among the other treaties. Entering in force in 1970, the NPT created the legal term of the non-nuclear state thus any state signing the agreement who are not a part of the P5 are automatically are obliged to disarm their nuclear arms capabilities.

However, there is great pressure on the NPT for it lacks implementation of the disarmament elements of the agreement, the article VI is still debated on NPT created nuclear-free zones on the Article VII which demands 2 things, first no presence of any nuclear arms and secondly an international verification and control machinery. And there are 5 treaties established so far.NPT, however, has a debatable loophole. Any nation can technically withdraw from NPT with no repercussions making the NPT a non-definite nuclear disarmament treaty and some nations never signed the treaty such as Israel, India and Pakistan while North Korea withdrew from it.

SALT: Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1&2 (1972-1979): SALT was a series of bilateral conferences and led further international treaties between the United States of America and the Soviet Union that focused on arms control during the Cold War.

SALT I is the first part of the limitation talks that led to the establishment of the ABM treaty.

The treaty has limited the number of ballistic missile launchers at the existing levels and left room for the addition of submarine-launched ballistic missiles but only after the same amount of SLBM and ICBM launchers had been dismantled. It also had a clause stating that there can only be one ABM site to defend ICBM launching sites. [14]

ABM: Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972):

As a result of SALT, this treaty stopped the two parties, the Soviet Union and the United States, to reduce each other’s nuclear capabilities. Thus, stabilizing the arms race and prevented future competition on ABMs. Technically this treaty left each side with a maximum of 2 ABM sites and 100 ballistic missiles in each of those sites available against a nuclear ballistic missile, signed in 1972.[15] One can find it hard to see why there is a need for a reduction of defensive systems not on the offensive ones can be explained with the idea of MAD theory and nuclear capabilities that are responsible for a world level balance of power that keeps the world peaceful and secure which is the mandate of the Council yet those treaties and talks are actual results of the Conference on Disarmament on the first hand not the first committee of the UN.

However, in 2002 the USA withdrew and so did the ABM cease to exist and expired. When the USA built ABM sites near Russian borders after the expiration, it only created tension between NATO and Russia.

START: Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty 1&2

START was a very important bilateral treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was signed in 1991 and enforced three years later. START limits both sides to have a maximum number of nuclear warheads which is 6000.

Yet neither side ever reached the number fully to show good faith in Article VI of the NPT.

This treaty also limits the number of ICBMs to 1600.

Treaty expired in 2009 due to the timeframe and was renewed and replaced by NEW START in 2010.

START II never came into effect due to the USA part’s not ratifying and the Russian part to withdrew as a response to the USA’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty [16]

New START: (2011)

Signed in 2010 by Russian Federation and the United States, shortly the New START a continuation of START I, limits the strategic arms. It reduces the maximum number of nuclear warheads to 1550.

Which was 6000 previously? It also reduces the ICBM and SLBM and heavy bombers loaded with nuclear arms to 800. New START shows significant progress on the disarmament of strategic weapons.[17]

C. INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILES AND ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILES

Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles are launched from land or underwater to strike a target from a very long distance.[18] They are guided ballistic missiles with a minimum range of 5500 km. They pose a threat to international security because once a nation deploys them, they can be stopped with an advanced ABM system up to a range limit and as far as the strike is originated, the faster they are. They can get as fast as 25 times the speed of sound while the fastest jet can only reach 1.5 times the speed of sound when unarmed. This complexity and overpower create a global problem just like North Korean ambition. Once they are launched, the missile passes through 3 different stages of flight. Boost, ballistic(midcourse) and re-entry. They are guided by satellites while in the boost phase. Targeting cannot be changed after the launch nor the missile can be recalled.

During the midcourse, the rocket and warheads are separated, and this occurs hundreds of kilometres away from earth, in space. If the anti-ballistic missile system cannot stop the rocket at midcourse, it is almost impossible to stop it again as it gets into the re-entry phase with great speeds. Also, one should note that to stop a missile coming from space, the SAM must be fast enough to catch it in mid- air while the gravity works against the SAM and helps the ICBM instead as they move in the same direction. In the North Korean case, it is still unknown if the North Korean scientists managed to build a material to use at the tip of the missiles during the re-entry phase or did they illegally acquired it from China, as the atmosphere creates friction which heats the missile or any object at greater speeds, and making the warheads detonated beforehand, making them useless. According to many sources North Korea successfully managed to keep the nose cone stable at 25-45 Celsius degrees.[19]

The longer the range, the higher the altitude can an ICBM have. This makes it extremely hard for ABMs to stop the ICBMs. It is very easy to recognise an ICBM. They do not have any wings while

ABMs have ones. This is because they are meant to fly above the surface and high in the atmosphere where there is no air.

They also travel to space. Any missile or rocket that travels to space does not have any wings.

Missile Defence Systems:

Anti-Ballistic Missile is a surface to air missile(SAM) that is designed to stop ballistic missiles.[20] (A possible pre-emptive strike by North Korea to the USA )

North Korea’s Possible Range of ICBMs

Problems Related to the Defence Systems

Foremost, it is quite a complex system to shoot missiles to intercept an ICBM and neutralize it. The detection phase has two main parts: The satellite images and the intelligence acquired and processed and confirmed. The tricky part is to respond. When an ICBM is launched the targeted nation has only 1 to 3 minutes to interfere with the threat and this includes the launch of the ABM. Therefore, the system must be awake and alert always and respond in seconds. However, the longer the range of the ICBM is the more advanced system the attacked nation needs.

The reason as stated above is the fact that to reach a long distance, the missile must gain enough altitude and reach space. Normally an ICBM is only propelled for 10 minutes during the flight mostly in the boost phase. After the midcourse, the separated warheads fall to the ground with great speeds and can reach 27,360 km/h.[23]

The meaning of the higher altitude is the ABM must reach it before it re-enters the earth. If the range is greater chances of an ABM stopping is only getting lower. A peak declaration of the missile can reach 60g. [24]

As it looks quite technical, there lies another problem. Due to the nature of the self-defence, when a nation is attacked, they can legally attack the offensive nation or armed groups. While this right is

granted a small case study is shown to forecast possible scenarios:

Case Study: North Korea strikes to Guam

In such a scenario, the Ground-based Midcourse Defence System will detect the missile when it’s launched. Then the ground interceptor missile will be launched before the re-entry phase, the kill vehicle will be released, and it will shoot down the warheads.

If they succeed to bring the missile down the city will be protected from a nuclear strike. But even if they fail, the USA will have the legal right to shoot an ICBM to target the North Korean launching sites.

A. If the USA can successfully eliminate the launching site, the North Korean nuclear capacity will cease to exist and a big series of armed conflicts will be prevented. The Council will decide on actions to take on North Korea and the USA can be even granted for an invasion.

B. The USA fails to target the launch site and North Korea will respond again, creating a war between the two nations. A war of ICBMs will be deadly because even the most advanced defence system fails to shoot mock targets at a 40 per cent ratio.[26]

POINTS A DOCUMENT SHOULD COVER a) Council response to the crises as official press releases b) The council shall point out the crises in the resolution c) Possible solutions regarding the agenda shall be pointed d) Council’s actions should promote peace and security while eliminating global threats

Work and mandate of the Committee

❖ take appropriate action on information regarding alleged violations of sanctions measures

❖ seek from all States information regarding the actions taken by them to implement effectively the sanctions measures and whatever further information it may consider useful

❖ consider and decide upon notifications and requests for exemptions from the sanctions measures

❖ designate individuals and entities who meet the listing criteria as contained in the relevant resolutions

❖ examine the Member States’ reports submitted according to relevant resolutions

❖ examine the reports presented by the Panel of Experts

❖ report every 90 days to the Security Council

❖ conduct outreach activities

TIMELINE

In July 2006, The UNSC condemns North Korea's launch of ballistic missiles and restricts all sales of "missile or missile-related" items and technology to the country.[S/RES/1695]

In October 2006, following North Korea's first nuclear test, the Council imposes sanctions on the country, including the sale of items that may assist with their nuclear program and military items, such as aircraft, helicopters and tanks. [S/RES/1718]

In June 2009, Security Council expresses their "gravest" concern after North Korea's nuclear test in May, expanding sanctions to most arms imports. [S/RES/1874]

In January 2013, more sanctions are imposed by the UN, in response to a North Korean satellite launch. North Korean officials and organizations related to the space program see their assets frozen. [S/RES/2087]

In March 2013, in response to February nuclear test, the UN once again condemns and puts more sanctions on North Korea, extending the asset freeze to more individuals and organizations; luxury goods such as yachts and racing cars are also put under sanctions.[S/RES/2094]

In March 2016, another nuclear bomb test prompts more United Nations sanctions, allowing states to search cargo heading into North Korea for any contraband. [S/RES/2270]

In November 2016, the toughest sanctions were imposed after the September nuclear bomb test, cutting North Korean exports of coal by $800 million. [S/RES/2321]

In June 2017, high profile North Korean leaders have their assets and travel frozen in a new round of sanctions, following continued ballistic testing. [S/RES/2356]

In August 2017, North Korea's exports, including coal, iron, iron ore, and lead, are all hit again by new sanctions imposed after Pyongyang's first ICBMs launch. [S/RES/2371]

In September 2017, Council passes new sanctions on North Korea in response to their nuclear test, cutting oil imports and banning the sale of textiles. [S/RES/2375]

In December 2017 the Council once again tightened the sanctions against North Korea as a response to the launch of the Hwasong-15 ICBM. [S/RES/2397] [32][33]

Points A Document Should Cover a) Crises shall be responded with a press release b) Council should perform possible sanctions under the mandate of the Council

c) Sanctions to imply shall not be against the international law nor be implied without a cause d) Sanctions shall not promote the violation of human rights e) Before deploying harsh sanctions, the Council should create a list of mandatory changes to be implied by the country to promote dialogue and peace f) Council’s aim should be to resolve the issue peacefully while responding to offensive actions with strong unity g) The committee shall act as the Sanctions Committee under the Council until the possible sanctions are debated and written, then the committee shall vote upon it as they are the Security Council

1.INTRODUCTION TO AGENDA ITEM: SITUATION IN SUDAN 1.1. Brief History of Sudan In 1955, a short while after the British-Egyptian rule ended, the First Sudanese Civil War (the Anya Nya Movement) began. Sudanese people have achieved their independence on the first day of the following year. Their celebrations, however, were short-lived due to the military coup that was staged later on. The military regime that had been led by General Ibrahim Abboud lasted for 6 years, and was later overthrown in the “October Revolution” in 1964, it was apparent that the people of Sudan was after democracy. 5 years after the revolution, a coup led by Gaafar Nimeiry, overthrew the government yet another time. In 1972, After the signing of the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement, the First Sudanese Civil War was finally over and southern Sudan becomes a self- governing region, for a relatively short duration, since the agreement wasn’t carried out as it was supposed to [4]. The era of peace was short-lived yet again. In 1983, the Second Sudanese Civil War broke out due to the government’s refusal to comply with the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement. It was started by the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which was led by John Garang and it wouldn't be over until the signing of The Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement and the government, which was done on the 9th of January 2005 [5].

After more than a decade and a half, Nimeiry got taken out of his position by the Transitional Military Council due to widespread unrest amongst citizens. In 1986 Sadiq al-Mahdi became the prime minister of the coalition government formed after elections. He was later overthrown in a coup staged by the National Salvation Revolution. A couple of years after the coup, on the 16th of October 1993, Omar al-Bashir was appointed president, starting his almost three-decade-long rule over the country [6]. In September 2001, with the passing of resolution 1372, the UNSC lifted its sanctions that were placed on Sudan due to their actions in the ongoing civil war. “The lifting of sanctions would allow the intensification of diplomatic activity towards progress in the peace process.” said the United Kingdom representative [7]. On the 20th of July 2002, The Machakos Protocol was signed, the protocol that was set to be the first chapter of the Naivasha Agreement (The Comprehensive Peace Agreement), which would end the Second Sudanese Civil War [8].

The War in Darfur Initiation of the Conflict In February 2003, The War in Darfur, also known as the Land Cruiser War began, and it still is not resolved to this day. The conflict started when the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) rebel groups took action in the form of an insurrection to protest the disregard that was given by the Sudanese government to the region and the non-Arab population within. Janjaweed Militias and Systematic Killings In January 2004, The Sudanese army has moved into Darfur to quell the rebellion, prompting hundreds of thousands of refugees to flee, mostly into the neighbouring country, Chad. During the movement of the army, a UN official reported pro-government Janjaweed militias carrying out systematic killings of non-Arab villagers in Darfur. This Arab militia has been described by the Sudan expert Alex de Waal as "counter-insurgency on the cheap". These equipped and supported Arab militias were the Sudanese government's second response to the protests [9]. In UNSC Resolution 1556, the council demanded that the Government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed militias, apprehend and bring to justice its leaders and their associates who had incited and carried out violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, as well as other atrocities in the country’s Darfur region. (http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1556) The United States Secretary of

State Colin Powell described the Darfur killing as genocide, a description that would resurface on several occasions and times throughout Bashir’s presidency [10]. War Crimes and Failed Peace Attempts In May 2006, the Khartoum government signed a peace accord with one of the main rebel factions in Darfur, the Sudan Liberation Movement. The peace accord did not hold for long, however, and the fighting went. Adding insult to the injury, two smaller rebel groups and the Justice and Equality Movement have rejected the accord entirely. On the 31st July 2007, UNSC Resolution 1769, created an African Union/UN hybrid peacekeeping mission in Darfur (UNAMID). 26000 peacekeepers were authorized for this mission [11].

On the 4th 2009 March, The International Criminal Court issued its first arrest warrant for President Bashir. 2010 February, Omar Hassan al-Bashir made his announcement at a Darfur rally after agreeing on a temporary ceasefire with the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) in Doha. He also signed an agreement committing Sudan to reach a final peace deal with the rebels by March 15, 2010. But unfortunately, other Darfur rebel groups have rejected the deal, and the agreement came almost exactly a year after the last Khartoum/JEM ceasefire which the rebels said broke down in a day [12]. On the 12th of July 2010, The ICC issued its second arrest warrant on Bashir. He was charged with five counts of crimes against humanity, two counts of war crimes and three counts of genocide. (https://www.icc-cpi.int/darfur/albashir) While the leader of the Justice and Equality Movement, Khalil Ibrahim, was killed in action in late 2011, the war was still far from over. In 2016, Amnesty International reported that the Sudanese government was using chemical weapons in the area, according the organization, up to 250 people have been killed by chemical weapons and the number will keep increasing [13]. 1.2. The Secession of South Sudan Roots of the Discrimination Southern parts of Sudan and its citizens felt opposed and discriminated against, ever since the independence of Sudan. The idea of secession can be traced back to 1955, even before Sudan declared its independence. The southern region of Sudan was always marginalized, due to the non- Arab, partly Christian, and partly animist population, as opposed to the Arab and Muslim population of the northern side. The government failed to deliver on their promise to bring a federal

governing system, and they were also accused by southern leaders, for their attempts at imposing an Arabic and Islamic identity [14]. Anya Nya Guerilla Movement The southern army officers had mutinied in Torit, 1955. These veterans would later be the core members of the Anya Nya guerilla movement, the movement that led the First Sudanese Civil War. This loosely knit movement was not a big, nor effective at first. By that time, they have infused with other rebel armies and gained popular support against the governments’ violent attempts to solve the rising issue. While they failed to unify Sudan and its glory, they were considerably active in political and military affairs. After the coup led by Gaafar Nimeiri, the military pressure on the movement increased drastically. But it didn’t take long for the new regime to seek negotiations with the rebels. Negotiations quickly resulted in the Addis Ababa Peace Agreement in March 1972, which absorbed Anya-Nya soldiers into the Sudanese army and granted autonomy to the southern region [15]. The autonomy of the southern region did not last long, the government cancelled their autonomy rights in 1983, and there were mutinies of former Anya-Nya soldiers. Most importantly of all, in 1983, Gaafar Nimeiri has declared Sharia law across the country, abolishing the non-muslin southern region, who got punished by this law. In response to these, the southern Sudan forces formed the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA), led by John Garang, this was done to have a military force to use against the government in Khartoum. At the beginning of the war, both sides have committed several war crimes, including the deployment of child soldiers. There was another coup in 1985, that took down the Khartoum government. It was only a year after the coup, that the Khartoum government led by Prime Minister Sadiq al-Mahdi and the SPLA led by Col. John Garang met for negotiations [16]. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement There have been several other negotiations between the SPLA and other political parties. The two most important ones were the first meetings in Ethiopia, which resulted in the Koka Dam Declaration, calling for the abolishment of Sharia and having a constitutional conference for the entire nation. (https://peacemaker.un.org/sudan-kokadam-declaration86) There has been a peace plan agreed upon by the SPLA and the Democratic Unionist Party, which was also approved by Sadiq al-Mahdi government. Nevertheless, the fighting went on with all the human rights abuses and atrocities it had before. It would take years for the government and the SPLA to reach an

agreement, starting with the 2002 July Machakos Protocol, which was a big step towards peace between the two sides [17]. After the intense continuation of peace talks and several documents produced, on January 9, 2005, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, ending the 22- year long civil war. The agreement tackled a power-sharing government which also included the rebels, wealth sharing, the resolution of several conflicts, including the Abyei Conflict, a permanent ceasefire, and autonomy for the south. The agreement also called for a South Sudanese referendum for independence after 6 years. In July 2005, former rebel leader John Garang was appointed as vice president, and a constitution that significantly increased the autonomy of the south was signed [18]. Vice President John Garang has lost his life in a plane crash, less than a month after the beginning of his vice presidency. He was succeeded by Salva Kiir Mayardiit. Within the same year, the autonomous government which was dominated by former rebels was formed in South Sudan. However, the peace between the north and the south was fragile, especially in the Abyei region, a very strict point in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement. The Southern Sudan Referendum Committee announced that %98.83 have voted in favour of secession from the north in January 9, 2011, referendum. US President Barack Obama, declared Washington’s intentions to recognize South Sudan as an independent state when the Comprehensive Peace Agreement ended, which would be July 2011 [19]. Conflicts After the Secession The referendum meant a new beginning for South Sudan, but by no means was it an end to their troubles with the Khartoum government. President Omar Al-Bashir claimed the disputed region of Abyei on behalf of the north on live television in April 2011, this declaration from the president brought the tension to its breaking point, and there were several armed clashes between the southern and northern forces. After a month, The African Union announced that Sudan and South Sudan have reached an agreement that establishes a demilitarized and jointly monitored Common Border Zone which would also host an Ethiopian peacekeeping force [20]. Nevertheless, there were many more armed clashes between the two forces that were still placed in Abyei. According to UN reports, more than 102.000 people have fled the region. New clashes also broke out in the capital of the oil-rich region, Kordofan. The conflict in Southern Kordofan heated up after a while, officials announced that Sudanese troops have killed hundreds of rebel fighters. South Sudan became an independent state with an 8 million population on July 9, 2011, and had a lot of troubles

to face as a newly made country. Its economy depended significantly on its oil exports, which is a very disputed issue between Sudan and South Sudan. While a considerable amount of oil-rich regions fall under the South Sudan borders, the refinement facilities and the pipelines to the red sea are in Sudan. In January 2012, South Sudan shut down oil production after accusing Sudan of stealing $815 million of its oil. Sudan says it confiscated the crude to make up for unpaid fees to use the pipeline and processing facilities in its territory. A breakdown in talks about a proper arrangement for oil production, refinement, and export resulted in a complete halt [21]. Needless to say, South Sudan’s economy was damaged significantly. South Sudan also tried to occupy different oil-rich regions from Sudan, namely the Heglig oil field, they were repulsed by Sudanese forces. In September, the presidents of both countries reached an agreement on how trade, security and oil production will be handled. After a year of failure to implement the 14 demilitarized zones in the borders between the countries, defence ministers of both parties signed an agreement to enforce their respective military forces [22].

After many internal conflicts and civil war in South Sudan, the UN claims that ethnic cleansing is going underway, a claim that is strongly rejected by President Salva Kiir. More than a million refugees flee to Uganda, and famine is declared, in what the UN describes as a man-made catastrophe caused by civil war and economic collapse [23]. 1.3. The Ousting of Omar al-Bashir 2018 Protests If Omar al-Bashir was to ever go down, it wouldn't be an easy way out. He was condemned, both nationally, and internationally, had an arrest warrant from the ICC. But for 29 years, he somehow managed to keep the power in his grip [24]. In January 2018, due to the acute shortage of currency and several other reasons; as a part of the austerity plan, the government removed bread subsidies from its 2018 budget [25]. Right after this announcement, the bread prices raised from one Sudanese pound to three; and the people, more than half of whom living in poverty, flooded the streets in response [26]. There has been a similar protest caused by austerity measures in the past. According to Amnesty International reports from 2013, at least 10 people, predominantly high-school students, were killed when security services and paramilitary police opened fire during a demonstration against fuel prices and the cost of living in Nyala, Darfur [27]. Authorities blocked the sale of six daily newspapers carrying critical

coverage of the subsidy cut and price rises according to their editors. By the time, due to lack of any news, these protests lost their intensity [28]. In late 2018, the same reason would cause another protest, a protest that went much deeper than the previous one. Hundreds and thousands of people have flooded the streets in several cities on December 19 to protest the government’s tripling of bread prices after a three-week shortage and amid steep inflation reaching up to %70 at the time [29]. By December 20th, protesters chants were no longer about bread or inflation. Quite clearly the people of Sudan were done with Omar al-Bashir. The demonstrations caused the deaths of many citizens, increasing in number each time. However, the opposition took vows to not stop until their wishes were granted [30]. With no let- up in the near-daily demonstrations, 22 political groups issue a joint call on January 1 for a “new regime”. After almost two weeks, when the protests spread to Darfur, Bashir made a statement about how “the demonstrations will not change the government.” What he didn’t know, was that his rule was to end with one.

State of Emergency On February 11, Human Rights Watch has released footage of the police violence, including tear gas, beatings, and live fire. 12 days later, President Omar al-Bashir declared a state of emergency for a year, dismissed the federal government and sacked all state governors. He also stated that that the popular protests that have rocked Sudan since December are “legitimate”, despite his security forces murdering, torturing, and raping unarmed protesters the past several weeks [31]. At least 57 people had been killed since December by then. And with the state of emergency declared, the security forces had a free hand in cracking down on protesters and carrying out detentions. New state governors from the military were appointed, alongside a new prime minister, but the ministers of defence, foreign, and justice kept their positions. In a statement, the Sudanese Professionals Association said; “the demands of this revolution are crystal clear. The regime and its head must step down [32].” Several decrees in the state of emergency gave the security forces the right to search any building, restrict the movement of people, arrest people suspected of committing a violation related to the state of emergency and seize assets or property during investigations. Moreover, those arrested by the security forces are routinely subject to torture, inhumane and degrading treatment, violations of non-derogable rights by any international standard [33] [34].

April 11 Coup d'état It was the 11th of April, the demonstrations were not slowed down by the state of emergency declared by the soon-to-be-former president Omar Al-Bashir. The military has noticed the people that an important announcement was to be made, and later that day, it was announced that Omar al-Bashir was forced from power and arrested by the military. His ouster was precipitated by the biggest peaceful demonstrations in a generation, culminating in a vast sit-in attended by hundreds of thousands in the capital, Khartoum. The people celebrated on the streets from what it looked like, but the important announcement also included one crucial point, one that would not be accepted by the people of Sudan. Sudanese Defense Minister Awad Ibn Auf declared on state radio the establishment of a two-year transitional government administered by the military with him in charge, adding that the constitution was suspended, that a three-month state of emergency was in effect and that a curfew had been imposed.

National and International Backlash The Sudanese Professionals Association rejected the coup they described as a way to “reproduce the faces and institutions that our great people revolted against.”. The people vowed not to end the sit-in until a civilian government was established [35]. The international backlash to the coup was also similar, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres appealed for "calm and utmost restraint by all" and urged a transition that would meet the "democratic aspirations" of the people. In a tweet, UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: "We need to see a swift move to an inclusive, representative, civilian leadership. And we need to ensure there's no more violence," The African Union condemned the military takeover and Amnesty International's Secretary General Kumi Naidoo said he was "alarmed by the raft of emergency measures" announced by the military [36]. UN human rights officials have called on authorities to lift the state of emergency imposed by the military and address the legitimate grievances of the Sudanese people. The United Nations has also released $26.5 million from its emergency relief fund to provide "food, livelihood, nutrition, health, water, and sanitation assistance" to over 800,000 people "affected by a worsening economic crisis and food insecurity" across Sudan over the next six months [37]. On May 13th, Former President Omar al-Bashir who has been under arrest since his ousting was charged with involvement in the killing of dozens of protestors, and on the same day, the protestors announced that a breakthrough agreement was reached with the TMC [38]. According to the

spokesman of the movement, the structures of the authorities and their powers were agreed upon. The sovereign council, the cabinet, and the legislative body were the authorities named. The discussions were set to keep going [39]. June 3rd Massacre The ousting of Omar al-Bashir did not stop the Sudanese from having round o’clock sit-ins in Khartoum every day. These sit-ins had a serious purpose, to press for civilian rule and democratic elections. Over time, these sit-ins also turned into celebrations and festivals. While the people, and a fair amount of the army, were celebrating, the Rapid Support Forces were getting prepared. The RSF is a paramilitary group under the command of Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, also known as Hemet, deputy head of the TMC. Even though he was the deputy head of the TMC, many believed that he was the successor of Omar al-Bashir after his ousting. The RSF fighters are mainly recruited from the tribal militia called Janjaweed. Janjaweed has been used by the government to relentlessly burn down villages and carrying out a series of actions that can only be described as a systematic genocide in Darfur [40]. On June 3rd, early in the morning, the army had left the celebrations, and RSF fighters were being deployed at alarming numbers. Rumours spread on social media, but the power outage significantly hindered people’s ability to share their suspicions. At 5 am, the RSF and the police have received the order to begin the attack, and not long after that, the sound of live ammunition being fired and the screams of the citizens as they ran for their lives, were echoing in the crowded streets of Khartoum. People were raped, beaten and shot to death, hospitals were barely functioning, and the army has refused to give shelter. Dead bodies were tied to stones and thrown in the River Nile. The massacre was live-streamed, by dozens of Sudanese citizens [41]. By the next day, while the people were just beginning to tell their stories, a government-imposed internet blackout took place, and it would last for more than a month and would restrict or completely block all internet access for Sudan [42]. Later, many different news agencies’ bureaus were shut down days ago [43]. Just hours following the incident, UN Secretary-general has made a statement, reminding the TMC that their biggest responsibility is the safety of the citizens, and asked all those involved in any way to show utmost restraint [44]. On the 7th of June, the African Union suspended Sudan’s membership [45]. On June 21st, Hemet made a public statement, denying all the attacks, and blaming impostors, “dressed up like the RSF”. He stated that they have arrested groups of people who “claimed to be

from RSF” during and before the June 3rd massacre. However, several officers have admitted to taking part in the attack, and according to their testimonies, the order was directly from Hemet. While these officers' claims cannot be truly confirmed, any other explanation that was granted by the officials, seem highly unlikely in every aspect [46]. According to TMC reports, at least 61 people have died that day, but a committee of doctors says that “they have identified 128 dead bodies, and many more remained.”. After less than a month, the people of Sudan, this time all over the country, were out on the streets, this time in tens of thousands, and they faced tear gas and live ammunition. On June 9, the internet blackout was lifted, and the social media was flooded with footage from June 3rd [47].

1.4. Transitional Military Council and the Transition Discussions on the New Government On June 4th the head of TMC has announced that national elections will be held in 9 months and that they have cancelled any agreements they have reached with the Forces of Freedom and Change [48]. These agreements were published by the FFC before the announcement, The snap election, as former British ambassador to Sudan Rosalind Marsden, said, would "simply pave the way for much of the old regime to come back into power". So neither the public nor the FFC was agreeing on it [49]. The FFC cut communication with the TMC entirely for a month, but the two sides kept the talks going thanks to African mediators, and after two straight days of discussion, on July 5, the two sides agreed to "establish a sovereign council by rotation between the military and civilians for three years or slightly more," according to African Union mediator Mohamed Hassan Lebatt [50]. This statement was later confirmed by the SPA over Twitter, with some additional information. The association has stated that the council would consist of 5 civilians, 5 military members, and one civilian chosen by the rest, and it would be led by a member from the military for the first 21 months, followed by 18 months of civilian rule. The two sides also agreed on a transparent investigation to look into the violent events that took place. The establishment of a legislative council was delayed until the sovereign council was formed [51]. The FFC was set to have a 2/3rds majority over the council, but that was before the sit-ins were brutally crushed on June 3rd. After these announcements, the streets erupted with celebrations, but some were still sceptic of TMC’s loyalty to this agreement [52].

After more than a month full of detailed discussions for the power-share between the military and civilians, on august 3rd, the document was finalized, and it was initialled by representatives from both the FFC and the TMC on the following day [53]. Draft Constitutional Charter for the 2019 Transitional Period The 3-year transitional period will be led by an 11-member Sovereign Council which will oversee the creation of a council of ministers, and a legislative council. The body will be composed of five military personnel chosen by the TMC and five civilians selected by the FFC. The 11th member will be a civilian chosen by consensus between the two parties. The sovereign council will be headed by a military general during the first 21 months, followed by a civilian for the remaining 18 months.

The FFC will also appoint a prime minister, and give the prime minister a list of 18 nominees to form a cabinet, excluding the interior and defence ministers. Those ministers will be appointed by the military members of the Sovereign Council. An independent legislative council will be formed. Its members cannot exceed 300 people, and at least 40 per cent of the seats will be reserved for women. The FFC will appoint 67 per cent of the legislative council's members, while other political groups that are not associated with al-Bashir will select the rest. Sudan's armed forces and its paramilitary Rapid Support Forces will be led by the commander of the armed forces, who will also lead the Sovereign Council for the military period [54]. Official Signing of the Constitutional Declaration On August 17, the Draft Constitutional Declaration was officially signed, dissolving the TMC and replacing it with the Sovereignty Council. On the 21st of August, former governing body TMC’s chairman, Lt. Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan was sworn in as head of Sudan's sovereign council, which will run the country during a 3-year transitional period. The members of the council were also sworn in and unveiled [55]. On the same day, Abdalla Hamdok, an economic and governance scholar previously heading the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (ECA), was appointed as Prime Minister, to head the transitional government [56]. 1.5. Ongoing Issues in Sudan US State Sponsor of Terrorism

In October 2017, after 20 years, The US Treasury lifted various economic sanctions against Sudan. These lifted sanctions excluded the ones that concerned the conflict in Darfur [57]. Sudan remains on the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list to this day. Atlantic Council has reported that the current placement of Sudan in State Sponsors of Terrorism, is in fact, a hinder to the Sudanese government’s capabilities to fight against terrorism. It was also suggested that nowadays, it is hard to convincingly argue that the reasons that motivated the declaration still hold. In late September, Hamdok said he had held useful talks with US officials on the topic and expressed hope that an agreement could be reached "very soon" [58]. Economic Crash Sudan has been in economic turmoil since it lost the bulk of its oil production in 2011 when South Sudan seceded. It has devalued the pound several times but has not been able to halt the fall. One dollar currently fetches 65 pounds on the black market versus the official rate of 45. He also said he wants to focus on peace-building in a nation that has seen conflicts flare in multiple parts of the country, “Stopping war, which represents 70% of the expenditure in the budget, will create a surplus that can be invested in production and particularly agriculture, livestock, and related industries,” he said. Shortly after Bashir was ousted, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia pledged $3 billion in aid to Sudan, in the form of a $500 million deposit in the central bank, which Sudan has already received, as well as fuel, wheat, and medicine [59]. Abdalla Hamdok, who requires $10 billion in foreign funding over the next two years to jump- start the economy, has to convince America to remove Sudan from its list of State Sponsors of Terrorism, a designation that has left Khartoum isolated from most of the international financial system since 1993. Washington lifted most of Sudan's trade embargos in 2017. But Sudan is behind on its interest payments with its debt exceeding $58 billion, making it ineligible for further loans [60]. The Old Regime The National Forces Coordination, a coalition of rightist, Islamist parties affiliated with the former Al Bashir regime, announced their opposition to the new government and claimed it will seek to bring it down by peaceful means. “Some of those in the current Sovereign Council is wanted by the International Criminal Court,” the group claimed in a statement on Wednesday. The newly formed coalition includes the Popular Congress Party, the Reform Now Movement (established

by dissidents of Al Bashir's National Congress Party), and the Just Peace Party, founded by El Tayeb Mustafa, an uncle of the ousted president. At a press conference of the National Forces Coordination, Ali El-Haj, Secretary-General of the Popular Congress Party, described the new government as “a bilateral military government repeating the experiences of the former regime”. The Popular Congress Party was established by the late Dr Hasan El Turabi who was the driving force behind the coup that brought Omar al- Bashir to power in 1989. In an attempt to lower public opinion on the Constitutional Declaration, the secretary-general of the Popular Congress Party made a harsh statement, describing it as partisan and exclusionary, explaining that it does not mention a single word about general elections. He called for elections within a year, explaining that the National Forces Coordination will draw up an election law.

El Haj announced that they will form shadow governments in Khartoum and the states. He also called for elections and affirmed that The Popular Congress Party refused to participate in the cabinet and parliament, stressing the priority of the peace process, and accusing the FFC of seeking to postpone the peace process Agenda Item III: Cyprus Issue

2.0 CYPRUS ISSUE

Cyprus is an island that situated in the middle of Mediterranean Sea. Due to its place, throughout the history, for nations who wanted to have a control over the territory, it was a vital stop. “[…] The island stands like a convenient steppingstone in the Mediterranean Sea. So, for three thousand years it has been stepped on. Nearly every military com[m]ander worth his armor launched a campaign from these sunsoaked shores. Rules included Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Franks, Venetians, Turks, and finally British,” says Roucek (1976) and backs this idea. Of course, this caused some diversity in the governing of Cyprus, and it was a seed that would soon turn into a major, still ongoing, and as Doumas (1968) refers “insoluble,” issue. 1. Enosis Enosis is a Greek word means “union,” in English. It is not specifically used for Cyprus, but it refers to the general idea of Greeks putting together Greek rooted lands that are outside the borders of Greece. Understandably from this context, as a term it is used for many other lands as well, but amongst those, maybe the most widely known one or important one is the movements in Cyprus.

It goes back to last ruler of the island, UK. While “Great Eastern Crisis,”1 was still ongoing, UK became the protector of Cyprus. In 1914, when UK and Ottoman Empire engaged in a war the island was annexed by UK and after it being confirmed by Lausanne Treaty, the island was now officially subjugated by United Kingdom (Stergiou, 2018). The island settler’s desire was not that of course. After years of ruling by foreigners, they believe and felt the urge to be an independent or independently ruled state, or self – determination. “During [this] British Figure 2: Archbishop Makarios III (Fernandez, 1962) Period, the Orthodox Church of Cyprus emerged as the figure head of Greek nationalism on the island (Dietzel, 2014).” Therefore, it would not surprise to see the word first emerging typed on the walls of churches in Cyprus, 1947. No one could make sense out of them at first, but then it became crystal clear that Orthodox Church was asking Cyprus to join Greece (Birand, 1999). Greeks were not the only ones living on the island, there were also Turks in the meantime, whom they were against the idea of Enosis. This caused an ideological war in between those two sides. According to Stergiou (2018) and Lange (2012), both sides were implementing their own curricula. At Figure 1: (Demonstration in Cyprus during the 1930s, in favor of Enosis (Union) with Greece, 1930) Greek schools, kids were taught Cyprus as “unredeemed isle of Greece,” and idea to look forward to merge with Greece was being injected to their brains. In their books, Turks were shown as the archenemies of Greeks with their evidence from Greco-Turk wars and finally students had to take an oath to allegiance of Greek flag. In the meantime, Turkish pupils were taught to look at Kemalist Turkey as their spiritual home. This fight between two groups got fierce and fierce with every passing year. In 1949 archbishop Makarios II, demanded from UK to have a referendum for the sake of Cyprus’ future. It was denied. Then the church decided to have the voting themselves. In 1950 they organised a plebiscite, which only Greek population allowed to partake. With overwhelming result, 96% of the participants agreed to ENOSIS (Database and Search Engine for Direct Democracy, 2016). In the same year, Makarios III selected as the new archbishop of the church. “[…] he was the first monk to ascend to the throne since 1840 (Dietzel, 2014).” In alongside, he was now the Ethnarch, that is, facto leader of Greek Cypriot community. What is more, he was a huge supporter of ENOSIS. “In his inaugural speech, he vowed not to rest until the union with ‘mother Greece’ had been achieved,” cites Stergiou (2018). And yes, he really would

1 “Great Eastern Crisis,” is a series of events and wars that took place in Balkan peninsula, which belonged to Ottoman Empire at the time, in 1875-1878. Many wars and many treaties were made in that time window.

work hard and do his best to merge Cyprus with Greece, but eventually he would not manage to do so – or in the way as he dreamt at least. 2. Formation of EOKA Previously mentioned power of Archbishop Makarios III was so influential, and he was so much liked that he was able to convince Greece. In 1954 Greece mentions of Cyprus and necessity of it having a self – determination in United Nations. But there was an issue – issue called United Kingdom. The island was an important asset for them in the sense of maintaining the influence in middle eastern because they already had a couple bases on the island, and it was much easier to control on the island. So, talks were dropped. Then an armed organisation decided to be founded: EOKA. EOKA, or as its full name Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston, (“National Organization of Cyprus Struggle”), was founded in Cyprus in 1954-55. “The idea for an armed struggle originated roughly during the same period from the Ethnarch Makarios, the Greek army retired Cypriot colonel George Grivas (Figure 3) and some other prominent personalities in Cyprus and Greece (Varnavas, 2004).” Essential idea was to “[...] promote the union of Cyprus with Greece through the use of force (Varnavas, 2004),” that is, to achieve enosis. The aim of the organization was to draw attention of international public to the issues on Cyprus through heroic undertakings, harassing UK assets on the island to force them to retreat from the island and seeking a diplomatic Figure 3: George Grivas resolution. The biggest obstacle on the road to achieving these was UK presence in island and essentially the hostile was UK assets on island. They would perform demonstrations, carry out sabotages against government instalments, assassination attempts, guerrilla attacks, bombings or forming a passive resistance amongst the population (Birand, 1999; Varnavas, 2004). United Kingdom obviously would respond to these hostile activities. They engaged state of emergency and enforced curfew, fees; hired informants to expose EOKA guerrillas, and finally bounty offerings. These resulted well, in the perspective of United Kingdom, of course. EOKA was weakened but Grivas got away. Though, case for Cypriots were not the same, quite contrary, they were fierce and EOKA became a symbol for independence for them (Birand, 1999). 3. Taksim This was the perspective of Greek Cypriots. Aforementioned, amongst the island settlers there were Turks as well. In the meantime, they were stuck in between two fronts. They had nobody to get help from, as Republic of Turkey has just got over World War I and became allies with Greece in NATO and belonged to Marshall Plan, which was initially against communism. Like Birand (1999) put, “Greece and Turkey were living their honeymoon and Cyprus was not an issue.” Two men came forward in that sense.

If Greek Cypriots had Grivas and Makarios III to symbolize and lead their thesis, Turkish Cypriots had Dr. Fazıl Küçük (Figure 4) and Rauf Denktash (Figure 5). They initially wanted to raise awareness through the newspaper they released called “Bayrak.” In the meantime, Turkish society were separated as ones sided with Brits and ones Anti’s (Birand, 1999). The pressure was high at the time, but still these two men managed to do some stuff, like founding foundations or opening schools, with the help of Turkish Cypriots. April the 1st 1955 is an Figure 5: Dr. Fazil Kucuk important date for this policy. “On the night of April 1, 1955, the ground shakes in Cyprus, bombs explode, machine guns cause death,

workplaces, military barracks, British places are blown up. The Figure 4: Rauf Denktash General Governor's Office, the Undersecretariat's Office, the Middle East British Land Forces General Headquarters in Wolseley Barracks and the radio station are also affected by the explosions. (Keser, 2012).” Many arrests, fierce battles took place that night, Makarios III was caught and sent to an exile to Seychelles. Alongside all these, another importance of this night was that United Kingdom used Turkish Cypriots as suppressor units. Consequently, this caused Turkish and Greek Cypriots to come across for the first time. This will create the basis for EOKA to turn their target of hostility. Turkey, on the other hand, was hesitant to involve in the issue, but by saying that if UK were to retreat from the island, it is natural right of Turkish Cypriots to retain island’s administration, showed their stance. When United Kingdom arranged a conference in London to discuss the fate of Cyprus and invited Turkey too, showed that UK accepted that Turkey had rights to claim the island as well. But Greece strongly denied this and claimed that Turkey was not even a side of the issue, and it was between UK and Greece. So, this conference fall apart even before gathering (Birand, 1999). Now that Turks are on the island are in danger of EOKA because of the attacks to villages that Turks living in, seeing how UK and Greece treated, Turkey decided to involve in the Cyprus Issue and Taksim policy was born bits by bits. Taksim means “Separation” in English. As an idea it meant Cyprus, either by dividing into two and having the northern part or without dividing, whole island, as a state in Turkey. The official adoption of Taksim policy was the result of negotiations between UK and Turkey in 1956. However, the idea was already being discussed before that (Balıkçıoğlu, 2016). Support from Turkic public was massive. Towards the end of 1950’s, demonstrations that would soon be recalled as “Ya Taksim Ya Ölüm” (“Either Separation or Death”) began to be made. Hundreds of thousands of people participated in those over a dozen, 43 exact, demonstrations and showed that Turkey was also involved (Wiki, 2020).

4. Formation of TMT Enosis was Greek ideology to merge Cyprus and Greece together. Turks developed “Taksim,” as counter ideology. Greek Cypriots had EOKA to pursue Enosis idea, however, Turks did not have any armed organization to pursue their ideas. And you know, ideas are not bulletproof at all. So, Turkish Cypriots felt the neediness of having an armed organization that can fight with EOKA. TMT, (Türk Mukavemet Teşkilatı), or Turkish Resistance Organisation was founded in that sense. Having an armed resistance group idea was not something new, in fact, before founding TMT, there were already a few resistance groups, such as “KARAÇETE,” “VOLKAN,” “9 EYLÜL,” and “KIBRIS TÜRK KOMANDOLARI.” The aim of these groups was to defend Turks living in Cyprus at the time. But these groups were constituted of amateur youngsters that are volunteered to defend their nation. However, these groups lacked political ground, aim or discipline and sometimes act of them harmed the thesis (Mutlu, 2007). Due to these, it was needed to have an organised armed organisation. After negotiations with Turkey and Turkish Figure 6: Lieutenant Colonel Riza Cypriots, it was settled to form a new armed organisation. There Vuruşkan are debates about when exactly it was formed. Rauf Denktash says November 26-27, 1957; Kemal Tanrısevdi says November 11, 1957; first declaration of organisation says November 29, 1957; according to Turkish it is accepted the day founder set foot to island, August 1, 1958, accepted as the date it first formed. For this job, lieutenant colonel Rıza Vuruşkan (Figure 6) was stationed. On 31st of September 1958, Rıza Vuruşkan went to Cyprus as an inspector of İş Bankası, with the alias of “Ali Conan,” and alongside Captain Mehmet Özden as his helper with the alias of “Necdet Bayazıt.” The next day, they officially formed the organisation in Nicosia (Akgül, 2016; Birand, 1999). The aims of forming TMT was these: To protect Turkish Cypriots from the cruelty of Greeks, not to get under the ruling of Greeks, repelling the attacks towards Turks from Greeks, defending rights of Turks, preventing Enosis to become real, maintaining relationships with Turkey, merging all of the freedom movements in one centre and coordinate the moves, maintaining morale on the island, and finally having a military support from Turkey, can be said (Akgül, 2016; Mutlu, 2007). In the future, this organisation will be so influential and play an important role in the fate of island that one of the founders of the organisation Celal Bayar says “[...] if it were not for TMT, we would definitely not see these days,” as Akgül (2016) cites. 5. Independent Republic of Cyprus Conflicts continued until year 1959. In 1959 February, Zurich and London treaties were signed between Greece, Turkey and UK. With officially enforcing these agreements, British ruling officially ended on the island, and it became an independent state by prohibiting Enosis and Taksim policies. These treaties brought a uniliteral management system in Cyprus. In that sense, the President would be Greek, first President is Makarios III, and vice – president would be Turkish, first Fazil Kucuk (Stergiou, 2018; Ministry of Foreign Affairs, n.d.).

Management system was determined in those treaties as well. It was aimed to create a balance between both communities while separating power with 70:30 proportion, in favour of Greek Cypriots. For security issues, it was 60:40. Governing way would be presidential and both sides had the right to vote anything as well as being responsible for ensuring the sovereignty of the island. In order to provide this, Greece would be allowed to send 950 and Turkey 650 soldiers to island (Yılmaz, 2010). As Yılmaz (2010) cited, Stephen Xydis regarded this structure as “The Reluctant Republic.” Because it was created essentially to cease the violence in the island and neither side was fully happy, except for Turks (Yılmaz, 2010; Birand, 1999). But of course, complexity of governing system would not allow this condition to last long for neither side. The difficulties faced while making some laws, such as basic taxation, establishment of municipalities, ethnically separate armed forces, making hard for both sides to be on the same page. By alleging this, Makarios III demanded amendments for 13 subjects on the constitution. It was instantly rejected by Turkish Cypriot management, and they withdrew from governing. With this, a new era of chaos was about to emerge (Yılmaz, 2010; BRITANNICA, n.d.; Stergiou, 2018). 6. Akritas Plan “Naturally, Makarios had taken into account Turkey’s probable rejection of this Constitutional amendment proposals and had drafted his plans accordingly. Knowing that he would not be supported by Turkey in the political field he decided to implement his Akritas Plan [...] (Alasya, n.d.).” The plan was prepared by Polykarpos Yorgadjis, minister of interior at the time. Essential ideas of the plan were to show world that Zurich-London treaties did not work, constitution had to change, cancel international treaties, to achieve enosis, retake the rights that were previously given to Turkish Cypriots, eliminate Turkish Cypriots from their veto rights and finally have another plebiscite for enosis. And ultimately, it was foreseeing that if Turks were not to accept these new terms, Greeks would become violent against them. (Savrun & Tınal, 2017; Şener, 2013; Rahe, 1986; Birand, 1999). They really became violent, and this violence led to Bloody Christmas events. Bloody Christmas, also Figure 7: Nicos Samson with Turkish flag. (Küçük Kaymaklı, might be known as 1963 crisis, is a pair of events that Nicosia) occurred between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. It took 4 days and during these 4 days, many villages were raided, coffee houses, Embassy, schools were gunned, and houses burnt down. Events began on 21st of December. While on his way home, TMT member Zeki Halil was stopped in his car and wanted to be searched by Greek polices. According to constitution it was an illegal act, so, he refused. Then an argument began and some other Turks who heard rallied to scene. Seeing the crowd, Greek polices asked reinforcements. When they arrived, they shot and killed Zeki Halil as well as his lover, Cemaliye Emirali, who came to scene upon hearing the incident. Turkish police responded to scene as well and injured a few Greek polices. Next atrocity

was towards Nihat İlhan. He was also a TMT member and a medical officer. Having had dinner, just as they were about to go to sleep, gunshots were heard. Greeks were coming to bust, shooting at random places. Meantime household hid the kids inside the bathtub in bathroom, thinking they would not get harm from gunshots. Greek Cypriots finally arrived at İlhan’s place and shot and injured everyone they come across. Ultimately, they found the kids too and murdered them as well. And last chaotic event took place in Küçük Kaymaklı, Nicosia. This village was important, because with its 5000 population it was amongst the most populated areas as well as being the headquarter of TMT. It was believed that if this village were to be destroyed, the resistance of Turks would be destroyed too. Nicos Samson (Figure 7) came to village holding a Turkish flag on his hand, saying they came to help. They gathered men together in a line and executed every single one of them. Then, sent rest of the village to an exile and set fire to the village. Hundreds of Turks were killed and injured that day. Soon, these events will lay the ground for an intervention from Turkey (Atun, 2008; Alasya, n.d.; n.a., 2021; Histories, n.d.; Özkan, 2013; Keser, 2011) 7. Cyprus Invasion Violent acts were continuing, tension on the island were growing and growing with every new day coming and passing through. In the meantime, a surprise event occurred. On April 21, 1967, tanks began to move in the streets of Athens, Greece. Greek people woke up with the sounds of tanks moving and radio announcements saying because of the political instability they observed and in order to preserve the wellbeing, army took over the government. The incident which also known as “Generals’ Coup,” was planned by Colonel Yorgios Papadopulos, Brigadier Stilyanos Pattakos and Brigadier Nikolaos Makarezos. As to why generals went under such undertaking, it has been said that they were concerned about upcoming elections. Because left oriented party EDA was seen surely going to win the elections. According to generals, if EDA were to win elections, communism would be brought to Greece and discharges would take place in armed forces. Leaders immediately enforced 24 hours of curfew in Athens and Salonika and a purge began. Many people who were against the coup were arrested and ultimately Colonel Papadopulos declared himself as Prime Minister. This coup also affected Cyprus Issue as well. Prime Minister Papadopulos was Hellenistic and Enosis idea was important for him. Therefore, knowing Turks’ desire for intervention, they sent a battalion to island to prevent Turks from doing so. Meantime talks began between junta management and Turkey, but they ended with no result. Soon, this would lead to another crisis (Berberakis, 2020; Shuster, 1973; Let's Meet in Thessaloniki, n.d.; Wiki, 2021). Having no resolution from Keshan and Dedeagac talks, tension began to arise again on the island. The igniter was Denktash’s arrest. On his way home from United Nations Security Council gathering, he attempted to sneak into Cyprus and apprehended by Greek police. This put Makarios III in a serious dilemma, as he could not persecute him, if he did so, there would be Turkish Cypriots’ protests; otherwise, if he did not, there would be protests from Greek Cypriots. Crisis was resolved politically when Glafcos Clerides involved and Denktash ensured that if he were not going to be persecuted, he would not try anything such in the future and demanded to be returned to Turkey. Agreed and he was sent to Turkey (Şener, 2020).

Within the next two weeks, a new crisis occurred. On November 15, 1967, Greek forces led by General Grivas attacked Ayios Theodhoros (“Boğazköy”) and Kophinou (“Geçitkale”). There were serious fights and after 8 hours of fighting, National Guard overran most of Ayios Theodhoros and Kophinou. Kophinou had a strategical importance as it was sort of a bridge in between Turkey and Turkish Cypriots. This immediately led Turkish National Security Council to gather. Now it was settled: Greece junta was in favour of merging Cyprus and Greece and achieve Enosis. This forced NSC to settle on a military intervention, with every resource available at all costs. US involved and talks began in between three parties. Ultimately, there was a settlement and Grivas was forced to retreat from Cyprus with his 10,000 soldiers with the orders from Greece. (Şener, 2020; Coşkun , 2018; UNFICYP, n.d.; Birand, 1999). In 1973 junta in Greece dissolved on its own. A new government came in charge, meantime, intercommunal talks were going on between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Some terms were settled on; however, they were turned down by both Athens and Makarios III. In the following year, 1974, when a letter belonged to Makarios III written to Athens, saying it was Greece who she was responsible for chaos on the island and should pull their senior officers and military assets back. This loosened the ties with Greece and Makarios, ultimately Athens sent Nicos Sampson to have Makarios assassinated. He could not manage to accomplish, but he was able to overthrow Makarios and replaced him (Birand, 1999). “In 1974, EOKA leader, who undertook a coup against Makarios on island, Sampson, declared that he would annex Cyprus to Greece. Once again, slaughter began on the island,” says Erbakan (2014). Against those slaughters, Prime Minister Ecevit went to London, United Kingdom to resolve newly occurred issues. He demanded presence of Turkish military assets for the security of Turks on the island, to be accepted, Sampson to leave the island, as well as some other Greek army Generals. They were not fulfilled, so, Turkey, by pledging 4th article, decided to undertake an intervention to island, to bring peace, not only for Turks, for Greeks as well, so as Ecevit said. On 19th of July 1974, Turkish navy fleet set sail from Mersin at 10:00 pm. The intervention was planned to be executed on three hands, from sea, land and air, with 8,000 soldiers. Marines and paratroopers were to guard Kyrenia (“Girne”), commandos were to clear Greek assets on the mountains. UNSC demanded an armistice from both sides, and it was accepted on July 22, 1974. Meantime, strange events were going on Greeks’ side. Ioannidis junta in Greece fell apart and Constantin Karamanlis became the Prime Minister once again. Also, Nicos Sampson junta in Cyprus collapsed as well and left the Prime Minister role to Clerides. On July 25, 1974, peace talks in Genoa began and lasted until July 30, 1974. Both sides had different opinions about Cyprus’ future. In one hand, Greece was in favour of kicking Turks out of the island and break possible reinforcements sent from Turkey. On the other hand, Turkey was asking for a lasting solution and demanding land for Turks. Fierce arguments had come to an end and both sides finally agreed on some terms. It was accepted that there were to be two different autonomous governments and in between those two governments, there to be a line to separate and a peacekeeper force of UN to be stationed in the island.

Sides once again gathered up on August 9, 1974, in Genoa for 2nd Genoa talks. The idea behind this talk was to accept resolutions that came out in 1st Genoa talks and talk about peace and re- founding a constitutional government in Cyprus. Federal government system solution put forward by Denktash in this conference. According to it, “[…] there will be two separate federated states, each of which is dominant and autonomous in its own region, and the powers of the central government will be used considering that the state consists of two nations. It would cover 34% of the surface area of the Republic of the Turkish Federal State of Cyprus (Tosun, 2012).” Turkey on the other hand, proposed a controlled state on the same day. “According to this proposal, the Republic of Cyprus to be established would have an autonomous Turkish-Cypriot region with six cantons and an autonomous Greek-Cypriot region with two cantons (Tosun, 2012).” Greek side asked for time to consider this, but both Turkey and Turkish Cypriots rejected to this thinking it was a tactic to stall. Failure of this conference and not fulfilling the requisites that were previously settled during 1st Genoa conference led to second invasion. Second invasion began with the code “When I say, ‘Ayşe should go on a vacation,’ from Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit on August 14, 1974. It took two days without facing with no serious Greek resistance, and captured 36% of the island. United Nations Security Council called for another armistice on August 15, 1974. When Famagusta (“Magusa”) – Lefke line drawn and Turkish military took control above that line Turkey ended military intervention on August 16, 1974 and resolved the Cyprus Issue – for the time being and from the standpoint of Turkish Cypriots (Birand, 1999; Tosun, 2012; Countrystudies, n.d.; In-Cyprus, 2019; Ekathimerini, 2020; Wiki, 2021; Demir , 2020). 8. TRNC Right after Cyprus Invasion/ intervention of Turkey, on the island, there were two different geographical area that are inhabited by two different groups. To have a legitimate status and ensure peace and wellbeing on the northern side of the island, Cyprus Turkish Federate State was founded on January 13, 1975. This caused tension between two sides to rearise again. Talks were reinitiated between Turkish Cypriots’ leader Denktash and Greek Cypriots’ leader Makarios III. During second talks, UN Secretary General attended as well, and during that talk, two independent Cyprus Republic were recognized. However, sudden death of Archbishop Makarios and his replacement with firmer president, rest of the talks did not reach any resolution. Both this and Greeks taking this issue to United Nations, instead of having a compromising attitude, Turkish Cypriots felt that they had no other choice. On November 15, 1983, by invoking right of self – determination, Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was founded. Today, TRNC is still existing, however, it is not recognized by any other country except for Republic of Turkey (Tosun, 2012; Güler, 2004). The Cyprus Issue, on the other hand, is continuing up until today, despite the attempts tried so far.

VI: RESOURCES

[1] http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/

[2] http://www.un.org/en/sc/members/

[3] http://www.un.org/en/sc/about/

[4]https://unoda-web.s3-accelerate.amazonaws.com/wp- content/uploads/assets/WMD/Nuclear/pdf/NPTEnglish_Text.pdf

[5] http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/01/10/nkorea.treaty/

[6]https://web.archive.org/web/20130425162315/http://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Report s/

Ref%200072%20-%20North%20Korea’s%20Nuclear%20Program%20.pdf

[7]https://web.archive.org/web/20130425162315/http://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Report s/

Ref%200072%20-%20North%20Korea’s%20Nuclear%20Program%20.pdf (ibid)

[8]https://books.google.com.tr/books?redir_esc=y&id=D0icvm2EQLIC&q=77#v=onepage&q=77& f=false

Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 77–80.

[9]https://web.archive.org/web/20130425162315/http://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Report s/

Ref%200072%20-%20North%20Korea’s%20Nuclear%20Program%20.pdf (ibid)

[10]https://web.archive.org/web/20130425162315/http://americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Repr s /Ref%200072%20-%20North%20Korea’s%20Nuclear%20Program%20.pdf (ibid)

[11]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/14/AR2006101401068.html

[12]http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr:3379/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=8f538266-0c1f-45bb-a45b- ef9fe0b5d729%40sessionmgr120&bdata=Jmxhbmc9dHImc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN=BAQ413 73405561&db=n5h http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr/login?url=http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr:2092/login.aspx?direct=true&db=n5h &AN=BAQ41373405561&lang=tr&site=ehost-live

[13]http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr:3379/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=fe4c7880-b7a4-4f0e-855c- ddba52c61e73%40sessionmgr101&bdata=Jmxhbmc9dHImc2l0ZT1laG9zdC1saXZl#AN=2300831 3&db=9h http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr/login?url=http://icproxy.khas.edu.tr:2092/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h A N=23008313&lang=tr&site=ehost-live Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen

[14] https://static.history.state.gov/frus/frus1969-76v32/pdf/frus1969-76v32.pdf

[15] Henry T. Nash (1 May 1975). Nuclear Weapons and International Behaviour. Kluwer Academic

Publishers. ISBN 9028602658. Each site would consist of 100 ABMs, or a total of 200 ABMs for each country]

[16] http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1394&context=cgu_fac_pub

[17] Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on measures for the further reduction and limitation of strategic offensive arms, article ii

[18] https://fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/icbm.htm

[19]https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/world/north-korea-says-icbm-can-carry-large- heavy-nuclear-warhead/article9749583.ece

[20]https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-weapons/missile-defense/how-gmd-missile-defense- works#.Wr4AFD-sbIU

[21] http://www.nti.org/gmap/nuclear_north_korea.html]

[22] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-17399847

[23] https://www.space.com/38954-how-do-intercontinental-ballistic-missiles-work.html

[24] https://fas.org/rlg/garwin-aps.htm

[25]https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4203379/where-guam-north-korea-missile-kim-jong-un- donald-trump-attack-japan/

[26]https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/world/north-korea-missile- defense/?utm_term=.d333649c43d0

[27] https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sanctions/1718

[28]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/sep/23/china-to-enforce-un-sanctions-against-north-

korea

[29]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-northkorea-usa-rights/u-s-sanctions-north-koreans-for- flagrant-rights-abuse-idUSKBN1CV2Q3

[30]https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/02/22/punishing-north-korea-a- run-down-on-current-sanctions/?utm_term=.190eadc92040

[32] (https://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/20/asia/north-korea-nuclear-sanctions-timeline/index.html)

[33] https://www.un.org/sc/suborg/en/sanctions/1718(ibid) [4] https://www.sahistory.org.za/sites/default/files/file%20uploads%20/scopas_s._poggo_the_first_s udanese_civil_war_afbook4you.pdf) (https://enoughproject.org/blog/sudan-brief-history-1956 [5] https://www.wikizeroo.org/index.php?q=aHR0cHM6Ly9lbi53aWtpcGVkaWEub3JnL3dpa2kvQ 29tcHJlaGVuc2l2ZV9QZWFjZV9BZ3JlZW1lbnQ [6] https://www.apnews.com/290aba2d7ba94493bc23111ca1b937c7 [7] http://unscr.com/en/resolutions/1372 [8] https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SD_020710_MachakosProtocol.pdf [9] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-22336600 [10] https://2001-2009.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/36042.htm [11]https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3- CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CAC%20SRES%201769.pdf [12] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/feb/24/sudan-darfur-rebels-ceasefire [13] https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2016/09/chemical-weapons-attacks-darfur/ [14] https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Africa/2011/0721/South-Sudan-5-key-questions- answered/Why-did-the-Republic-of-South-Sudan-secede-from-the-North [15] https://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?mot1989 [16] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14019202 [17] https://peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/SD_020710_MachakosProtocol.pdf 35

[18] https://www.c-r.org/accord/sudan/summary-comprehensive-peace-agreement [19] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12317927 [20] https://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/06/world/africa/sudans-leaders-meet/ [21] https://pachodo.org/pachodo.org/latest-news-articles/news-from-various-sources/2601- South-Sudan-accuses-Sudan-of-$815m-oil-theft [22] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-south-talks/sudan-south-sudan-sign-deals-to- restart-oil-secure-border-idUSBRE88Q1R820120927 [23] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14019202 [24] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/04/11/five-crises-sudans-president-survived- before-mass-protests-that-led-his-downfall/ [25] https://thearabweekly.com/bread-riots-sudan-over-subsidy-cuts-austerity-plan [26] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-protests/student-killed-opposition-leader-detained- as-bread-protests-grip-sudan-idUSKBN1EW0R6 [27] https://www.amnestyusa.org/reports/annual-report-sudan-2013/ [28] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/05/27/world/raising-bread-prices-led-protests- eventually-ouster-sudan-leader-omar-al-bashir/ [29] https://www.france24.com/en/20190411-sudan-timeline-four-months-mounting-protests- bashir [30] https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/protests-rock-sudans-capital-bread-prices-soar [31] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47330423 [32] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/23/state-of-emergency-declared-in-sudan-by- under-fire-president [33] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/03/05/sudans-unlawful-state- emergency/?noredirect=on [34] https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx [35] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/sudans-military-expected-to-announce- overthrow-of-president-following-months-of-popular-protests/2019/04/11/bedcc28e-5c2b-11e9- 842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html 36 [36] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-47891470 [37] https://edition.cnn.com/africa/live-news/sudan-latest-updates/index.html

[38] https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/13/africa/bashir-sudan-charges-protestor-deaths- intl/index.html [39] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48252942 [40] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR56qxM4kHA [41] https://twitter.com/girifna [42] https://500wordsmag.com/sudan-news/return-of-internet-in-sudan-reveals-more-of-3-june- massacre/ [43] https://www.aljazeera.com/podcasts/thetake/2019/06/sudan-muted-massacre- 190621133114104.html [44] https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/sgsm19612.doc.htm [45] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/african-union-suspends-sudan-violence- protesters-190606113838460.html [46] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR56qxM4kHA [47] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/13/sudanese-protesters-demand-justice-after- mass-killings [48] http://saudigazette.com.sa/article/568086/World/Africa/Sudan-military-councils-offer-of- elections-in-9-months-rejected [49] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-48503408 [50] https://www.france24.com/en/20190705-sudan-protesters-generals-power-sharing- agreement-african-union [51] https://twitter.com/AssociationSd/status/1147269867718041601?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwca mp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1147269867718041601&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2F500wo rdsmag.com%2Fsudan-news%2Fwhat-you-need-to-know-about-sudans-military-and-civilian- power-sharing-deal%2F 37 [52] https://500wordsmag.com/sudan-news/what-you-need-to-know-about-sudans-military-and- civilian-power-sharing-deal/ [53] https://www.ft.com/content/303c81d2-b6b6-11e9-96bd-8e884d3ea203 [54] http://constitutionnet.org/vl/item/sudan-constitutional-declaration-august-2019

[55] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/africa/burhan-sworn-in-as-head-of-sudans-sovereign- council/1561378 [56] https://allafrica.com/stories/201909020011.html [57] https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/pages/sudan.aspx [58] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/?view=article&id=30733:sudan-still-a-state-sponsor-of- terrorism [59] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sudan-protests-exclusive/exclusive-sudan-needs-up-to- 10-billion-in-aid-to-rebuild-economy-new-pm-says-idUSKCN1VE0QZ [60] https://allafrica.com/stories/201909020011.html [61] https://www.dabangasudan.org/en/all-news/article/sudan-rebels-take-issue-with-forces-for- freedom-and-change (1930).Demonstration in Cyprus during the 1930s, in favor of Enosis (Union) with Greece. Wikicommon, Athens. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cypriot_demonstration_1930.jpg Akgül, M. (2016). TÜRK MUKAVEMET TEŞKİLATI. Master's Thesis, BALIKESİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ TARİH ANABİLİM DALI, Balıkesir. Alasya, H. (n.d.). THE CYPRUS PROBLEM. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article- file/6248 Atun, A. (2008, 12 23). Kumsal Katliamı Nasıl Oldu. Retrieved from Kıbrıs Postası: https://www.kibrispostasi.com/c1-KIBRIS_POSTASI_GAZETESI/j97/a3960-kumsal-katliami- nasil-oldu Balıkçıoğlu, E. (2016). Kıbrıs Müzakerelerinde “Taksim” Tartışmaları (1956–1959). VAKANÜVİS- Uluslararası Tarih Araştırmaları Dergisi(2), 30-61. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/230019 Berberakis, S. (2020, April 21). Kıbrıs’ın da kaderini değiştiren Yunanistan’daki askeri darbenin 53.yılı: Albaylar Cuntası döneminde neler oldu? Retrieved from BBC: https://www.bbc.com/turkce/haberler-dunya-52368122 Birand, M. (1999). 32. Gün: Kıbrıs'ın 50 Yılı Belgeseli. Retrieved from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2XwO9KUznA BRITANNICA. (n.d.). The Republic of Cyprus. (D. Hunt, J. Bowman, & The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica, Editors) Retrieved from Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Cyprus/Efforts- toward-reunification Coşkun , Y. (2018). The Cyprus Crisis of 1967 and The British-Turkish Policies. Türk Dünyası İncelemeleri Dergisi, 377-398. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article- file/610619 Countrystudies. (n.d.). The Greek Coup and the Turkish Invasion. Retrieved from Countrystudies: http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/15.htm

Database and Search Engine for Direct Democracy. (2016, September 19). Cyprus, 22 January 1950 : Annexation to Greece. Retrieved from SUDD: https://www.sudd.ch/event.php?lang=en&id=cy011950 Demir , M. (2020). SAVUNMA SANAYİNDE İŞBİRLİĞİ PROBLEMİ: KIBRIS BARIŞ HAREKATI VE ZEYTİN DALI HAREKATI ÖRNEKLERİ. Postgraduate Thesis, İSTANBUL TİCARET ÜNİVERSİTESİ , SOSYAL BİLİMLER ENSTİTÜSÜ SİYASET BİLİMİ VE ULUSLARARASI İLŞİKİLER ANABİLİM DALI. Dietzel, I. (2014). The Ecology of Coexistence and Conflict in Cyprus : Exploring the Religion, Nature, and Culture of a Mediterranean Island. Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=935367&lang=tr&site=eds- live. Doumas, C. L. (1968). History and the Cyprus Problem. Social Science, 43(3), 146-152. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41891040 Ekathimerini. (2020). Sakellaropoulou on Cyprus invasion anniversary: ‘The pain remains unrelieved’. Retrieved from Ekathimerini: https://www.ekathimerini.com/news/254906/sakellaropoulou-on- cyprus-invasion-anniversary-the-pain-remains-unrelieved/ Erbakan, N. (2014). KIBRIS DAVAMIZ. In DAVAM (p. 151). Ankara: MGV. Fernandez, O. (1962). Archbishop Makarios of Cyprus. Mayor Wagner greets Archbishop Makarios at City Hall. New York World-Telegram; the Sun. Retrieved from https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/III._Makarios#/media/Dosya:Makarios_III_and_Robert_F._Wagner_ NYWTS_cropped.jpg Güler, Y. (2004). KUZEY KIBRIS TÜRK CUMHURİYETİ’NİN KURULUŞUNA KADAR KIBRIS MESELESİ. G.Ü. KIRŞEHİR EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ DERGİSİ, 5(1), 101-112. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1337540 Histories, M. (n.d.). Bloody Christmas 1963. Retrieved from Military Histories: https://www.militaryhistories.co.uk/greenline/xmas63 In-Cyprus. (2019). Cyprus marks 45th anniversary of Turkish invasion. Retrieved from In-Cyprus: https://in-cyprus.philenews.com/cyprus-marks-45th-anniversary-of-turkish-invasion/ Keser, U. (2011). 21 ARALIK 1963 KANLI NOEL, KUMSAL FACİASI VE BUGÜNE YANSIMALARI. Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 11(23), 93-121. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/233457 Keser, U. (2012). 1958–1963 MÜCADELE SÜRECİNDE KIBRIS’TA BASIN VE NACAK GAZETESİ. Çağdaş Türk Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 305-348. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/233464 Lange, M. (2012). Ethnic Violence and Education. New York: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Ac2NRpHoY3EC&pg=101&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q& f=false Let's Meet in Thessaloniki. (n.d.). The military junta in Greece (1967-1974). Retrieved from Let's Meet in Thessaloniki: https://www.meetinthessaloniki.eu/en/the-military-junta-in-greece-1967-1974/

Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (n.d.). What Happened in 1959 - 1960. Retrieved from https://www.mfa.gov.tr/what-happened-in-1959---1960.en.mfa Mutlu, H. (2007). KIBRIS TÜRK MUKAVEMET TEŞKİLATI. Master's Thesis, Hacettepe Üniversitesi, Atatürk İlkeleri ve İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü , Ankara. n.a. (2021). Bloody Christmas (1963). Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Christmas_(1963) Özkan, A. (2013). ENOSİS, KANLI NOEL OLAYI VE BİRLEŞMİŞ MİLLETLERDE KIBRIS SORUNUNDA TÜRKİYE'YE ARNAVUTLUK DESTEĞİ. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(2), 765-796. Retrieved from https://jasstudies.com/?mod=tammetin&makaleadi=&makaleurl=94952692_41%C3%B6zkanali_ T-765-796.pdf&key=26487 Rahe, P. (1986). INSTITUTE OF CURRENT WORLD AFFAIRS. Tulsa. Retrieved from http://www.icwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/PAR-21.pdf Roucek, J. S. (1976). CYPRUS IN THE MEDTIRERRANEAN GEOPOLITICS. Il Politico, 41(4), 732- 746. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43209935 Savrun, E., & Tınal, M. (2017). SOĞUK SAVAŞ DÖNEMİNDE İNGİLTERE VE TÜRKİYE'NİN KIBRIS POLİTİKALARI. Çağdaş Türkiye Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi(34), 349-371. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/474284 Shuster, A. (1973, November 26). MILITARY COUP IN GREECE REMOVES PAPADOPOULOS; NEW REGIME BEGINS PURGE. Retrieved from New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1973/11/26/archives/military-coup-in-greece-removes-papadopoulos- new-regime-begins.html Stergiou, A. (2018). CYPRUS. In P. McIntyre, & I. Frame (Eds.), The Middle East and North Africa 2019 (65 ed., pp. 155-162). New York: Routhledge. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336169901_The_History_of_Cyprus_until_2018 Şener, B. (2013). 1963-1964 KIBRIS KRİZİ: TÜRK DIŞ POLİTİKASI TARİHİNDE ASKERİ SİYASAL VE HUKUKSAL BOYUTLARIYLA BİR ZORLAYICI DİPLOMASİ UYGULAMASI. Türk Dünyası Araştırmaları(205), 103-136. Retrieved from http://abakus.inonu.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/11616/18564/Makale%20Dosyas%C4%B1.pdf ?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Şener, B. (2020). 1967 Kıbrıs Krizi’nde Siyasi, Askerî ve ve Hukuki Boyutlarıyla Türkiye'nin Zorlayıcı Diplomasi Uygulaması. Cumhuriyet Tarihi Araştırmaları Dergisi(31), 271-304. Retrieved from http://www.ctad.hacettepe.edu.tr/16_31/10.pdf Tosun, Y. (2012). II. DÜNYA SAVAŞINDAN SONRA 1974 KIBRIS BARIŞ HAREKATI VE ÇEVRE ÜLKELERİN SORUNA BAKIŞI. Postgraduate Thesis, DOKUZ EYLÜL ÜNİVERSİTESİ, ATATÜRK İLKELERİ VE İNKILAP TARİHİ ENSTİTÜSÜ, İzmir. UNFICYP. (n.d.). THE 1967 CRISIS. Retrieved from United Nations Peacekeeping Force In Cyprus: https://unficyp.unmissions.org/1967-crisis Varnavas, A. (2004). Chapter 2: The Preparation of The Armed Struggle. In A HISTORY OF THE LIBERATION STRUGGLE OF EOKA (1955-1959) (p. 33). Nicosia: Epiphaniou Publications .

Wiki. (2021). Turkish Invasion of Cyprus. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#Greek_military_coup_and_Turkish_i nvasion Wiki. (2021). Wikipedia. Retrieved from Greek junta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_junta Ya Taksim Ya Ölüm. (2020). Retrieved from Wikizero: https://www.wikizero.com/tr/Ya_Taksim_Ya_%C3%96l%C3%BCm Yılmaz, M. E. (2010). Analyzing and Resolving the Cyprus Conflict. Journal of Cyprus Studies(39), 77- 106. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1101466