Cyprus: Injustice Cannot Be Legitimized Through EU Membership - Part 1

Turkish Daily News, Friday-Saturday, February 11-12, 2005

Analysis by M. Ergün OLGUN, Undersecretary of the Turkish Cypriot Presidency
 

  International law and practice honors the full exercise of the right to self-determination when faced with continuing injustice and oppression.

Political injustice:

  The Turkish Cypriot people have been prevented by their equal ex-partner (the Greek Cypriot side) since 1963 from exercising their equal political rights sanctioned by international agreements and the 1960 partnership Constitution. The Greek Cypriot side refused the March 31, 2004 U.N. plan in the landmark separate simultaneous referenda of April 24, 2004 in order to sustain this political oppression. The plan was the synthesis of agreed guidelines and many years of negotiation and foresaw the establishment of a new bi-zonal partnership (Main Articles iv), based on the acknowledgement by each side of the other's distinct identity and integrity and the fact that their relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other (Main Articles iii).

  In his emotional pre-referenda speech of April 7, 2004, Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopulos called on the Greek Cypriot people to give a resounding “No” reply to the U.N. plan. At a book-launching ceremony on Jan. 14, 2005 the Greek Cypriot leader stated that the main reason for the Greek Cypriot refusal was the failure of the U.N. plan to endorse the sole continuity of the Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus. He pointed out that the security arrangements of the plan were not the main issue.

  In order to translate the political equality of the two sides into practical terms the plan had provided for elements of continuity for both sides in the new state of affairs, through what was conveniently called “virgin birth.” The plan also provided that the settlement would be the source of legitimacy for all matters in the future.

  Since being crowned with accession to the European Union on May 1, 2004, in spite of the legal and political shortcomings and the promise that they would back a U.N. plan for settlement before membership, a more confident Greek Cypriot government has been exploiting its membership status and threatening Turkey with blocking its EU membership process unless, among other things, they recognize the Greek Cypriot government as the sole legal authority and representative of the whole island.

  This threat alone is proof of the extent to which the Greek Cypriot side can go in their “national policy” to subordinate the Turkish Cypriot people to their authority and jurisdiction.

Economic injustice:

  The Turkish Cypriot people have been suffering economic oppression since 1963. In his report of Sept. 10, 1964 (S/5950) the secretary-general had described the economic restrictions imposed against the Turkish Cypriot people as “so severe as to amount to a veritable siege” (paragraph 222). In his report of May 28, 2004 (S/2004/437) the U.N. secretary-general reported that “… I would hope they [members of the Security Council] can give a strong lead to all States to cooperate both bilaterally and in international bodies to eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots and impeding their development” (paragraph 93).

  The Greek Cypriot side is aggressively using the economic oppression tool in order to compel the Turkish Cypriot people into submission and subordination through deprival. The imposed restrictions mainly apply to international trade, travel and tourism. To make restrictions effective, the Greek Cypriot side has been exploiting the recognition card, which they hi-jacked with the title of the 1960 partnership republic, by declaring the seaports and airports of North Cyprus to be “illegal.” Since May 2004, in order to perpetuate its economic oppression, the Greek Cypriot side has actively been trying to prevent the endorsement of the draft regulations proposed by the EU Commission aimed at lifting the economic isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people through direct trade and financial assistance.

  Property is one of the key factors in economic development and, correspondingly, is one of the core issues of the U.N.-led negotiations. Although there is agreement to resolve the property issue through negotiation, bearing in mind the principle of bi-zonality and the agreement that each community will administer its territory, a more confident Greek Cypriot side has been trying to undermine the agreed guidelines and pre-empt a settlement on the property issue through unilateral initiatives outside the negotiating table.

  Many Turkish Cypriots own property in Greek Cypriot South Cyprus and many Greek Cypriots own property in Turkish Cypriot North Cyprus. As a natural follow-up of the population exchange agreement of 1975 and the bi-zonality agreement of 1977, the Turkish Cypriot side has been proposing the speedy settlement of the vital property issue primarily through exchange and compensation.

  Since the rejection of the U.N. plan, which contained balanced arrangements for the settlement of the property issue, a new Greek Cypriot campaign is under way aimed at intimidating property users in North Cyprus (specifically those properties which would have been the subject of a political settlement) in order to bring the Turkish Cypriot property market and economy to a standstill.

Psychological and social injustice:

  Turkish Cypriots have never resorted to terrorism or violence and are a peace-loving, tolerant, democratic and secular people. In spite of all their conciliatory efforts, and through no fault of their own, three generations of Turkish Cypriots have been treated as the “other,” prevented from exercising their political and human rights, humiliated, marginalized, kept in a state of limbo and obstructed from realizing their hopes and expectations. Since 1963, Turkish Cypriots have also been deprived by the international community in general of a fair hearing of their case. Turkish Cypriot football clubs have even been prevented from playing matches with other clubs.

  Unfortunately, neither the sufferings caused by the events of 1955, 1958, 1963 and 1974, nor the rising integrative partnership process generated by the European Community, sufficed to tame the extreme ethno-nationalism of the Greek Cypriot majority and their perception that Cyprus is a Hellenic island. The opening of the border on April 23, 2003 and the referenda results of April 24, 2004 have revealed, with great disappointment, that the Greek Cypriot preoccupation and perception of Cyprus has not changed.

Saturday, February 12, 2005


 by M. Ergün OLGUN, Undersecretary of the Turkish Cypriot Presidency

  The distinct identity and equal political status of the two communities in Cyprus is a political and legal fact. The 1977 High Level Agreement endorsed a territorial basis for each community. The principles of bi-communality, political equality and bi-zonality are the key parameters for a settlement in Cyprus that have been endorsed by the U.N. Security Council.

  The Turkish Cypriot government has been exercising effective authority both over the territory under its control and over the people on that territory since the destruction of constitutional order in Cyprus in 1963. Moreover, since the hijacking of the title of the partnership Republic of Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot partner and its transformation into a Greek Cypriot Republic, the Turkish Cypriot people have been protesting that the government since December 1963 is not the government of the 1960 partnership republic and does not represent Turkish Cypriots and their government.

  Turkish Cypriots have been prevented by Greek Cypriot authorities from exercising their collective rights as a politically equal party for over 40 years. During the 1963-1974 period this was mainly done through coercion and violence. But since the intervention of Turkey in 1974, the stationing of Turkish troops on the island and the population exchange agreement of 1975, Greek Cypriots have been forced into limiting their actions to political, economic and psychological oppression and intimidation.

  In order to perpetuate its illegally and unjustly acquired advantageous position in Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot side on April 24, 2004 rejected the new partnership plan of the United Nations, thus blocking the way forward of the Turkish Cypriot people. As well as being subjected to political injustice and discriminatory redistribution through economic restrictions and embargoes, Turkish Cypriots are also confronted with serious violations of their individual human rights.

  Injustice cannot be legitimized by claims to authority or jurisdiction, or by EU membership. International law and practice recognizes that when the collective rights of a people or community that inhabit a territory is subject to serious injustice; when a people or distinct community is confronted with discriminatory redistribution in the form of isolation, economic restrictions or democratic representation; or when the members of a distinct community are confronted with serious violations of human rights, then no limits can be put on the full exercise of the right to self determination of such people.

  The results of the landmark referenda of April 24, 2004 have glaringly revealed that it is not the Turkish Cypriot side that is systematically trying to prevent a partnership settlement. In fact, Turkish Cypriots are probably the only example of an oppressed and marginalized constituent party who has sought a new partnership adventure with their oppressor following a previously devastating experience.

  Bearing these points in mind and, most of all, the fact that since the rejection of the U.N. plan in April 2004 the Greek Cypriot side has been further tightening its oppressionist policies, the U.N. Security Council should re-visit its resolutions 541 (1983) and 550 (1984) in order to relieve the Turkish Cypriot people of the injustice and oppression to which they have been subjected and in order to allow Turkish Cypriots to have the opportunity to freely determine their own future. The British government as far back as 1956 and 1958 accepted the separate right to self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot people. At this time, there are 20 member states of the United Nations that have smaller populations than the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and which are also mainly island based.

  In re-visiting the Cyprus issue, the Security Council should also bear in mind that the two sides in Cyprus have no common vision, no overarching common interests, no mutual trust, no working experience and no interdependence that could bring about and sustain a partnership settlement. Federalism experts know all too well that it is next to impossible to establish and sustain partnerships between parties that are still entangled in a deep-rooted and identity related conflict unless there is a mutually hurting stalemate or very strong, needs-based mutual interests at stake. It has to be said that these conditions did not exist at the time of the Copenhagen (December 2002) and The Hague (March 2004) summits, either. Therefore, from a sustainability point of view, the argument that an opportunity was missed in either Copenhagen or The Hague is not sound.

  Finally, the Cyprus question cannot be taken up and sustainably resolved in isolation of the region in which the island is situated. Therefore, if the Turkish Cypriot people were to choose to go their own way, certain restrictions can be put on the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot sides, for the purpose of preserving regional peace and stability, when exercising their separate constitutive powers. Among such limitations could be:

  ·  An expressive commitment from both the Turkish Cypriot state and the Greek Cypriot state not to unify with any neighboring state or territory, other than in the context of integration within the EU;

  ·  A commitment from the Turkish Cypriot state that it would immediately work towards becoming a full member of the EU.

  ·  A commitment from both sides that they would settle outstanding property and border issues through negotiation as part of the settlement package.

  ·  Turkey and Greece can be asked to guarantee the new state of affairs created by the settlement package.

  In brief, my three points are that the Turkish Cypriot people should be immediately released from being the oppressed hostage of the Greek Cypriot side by lifting the Security Council restriction on their right to determine their future. The Turkish Cypriot people should be immediately freed from economic injustice and oppression by facilitating direct trade, travel and tourism through Turkish Cypriot ports. The EU should not allow itself to be used as a means by member states for promoting their oppressionist obsessions or for settling scores with neighboring or third countries.