7 December 2004
The Orams Case, The Property Issue And
Sustainable Settlement In Cyprus
The public persecution of David and Linda Orams through the press is
reprehensible especially while the case is sub judice.
All the laments and pleas for “fair justice” by those Greek
Cypriots who left their properties in the North and went South
pretend that refugee problems and property problems attached to them
are the product of Turkey’s arrival in 1974. If this one-sided
glance at the picture is replaced by an objective look at the
problem, then this is the picture, which one sees:
The refugee problem started in 1963 when nearly half of the Turkish
Cypriot population had to flee from 103 villages and take refuge in
what came to be known as “Turkish enclaves”, denied of all their
property rights until 1975.
Turkish properties abandoned in the South since 1974 have enriched
Greek Cypriots to this day, without any compensation. Homes and
other buildings, including 107 mosques have been totally destroyed.
Valuable land belonging to Turkish Cypriots in the South has been
“compulsorily acquired” without any notification to the owners.
Mr. Papadopoulos is on record saying that compensation will be
considered when there is a settlement of the Cyprus problem. From
the Greek Cypriot press we see, from time to time, the
monkey-business which goes on in the South regarding Turkish
properties. Not only houses but all buildings in most of the
Turkish Cypriot villages have been totally destroyed while vineyards
and irrigated lands are being utilized by Greek Cypriot “occupants”
free of charge!
To recap, nearly half of the Turkish Cypriot population
were deprived of all their rights and use of their properties
between 1963-1974, confined to enclaves, living on subsidies from
Turkey while defying the attempt of the Greek Cypriot partner to
take over the whole island (the homeland of both peoples) and
colonize it by giving it to Greece! Economic life for the whole
Turkish Cypriot population was thus at the mercy of Greek Cypriots
with the result that there was little or no economic life! The
message of the period to Turkish Cypriots was very clear and simple,
as stated by Mr. Glafkos Clerides:
“The best solution for us is no solution. Next year we shall be
where we were the last year, and the next, where we were the year
before.
We, the Greek Cypriots, today have the government completely under
our control. We do not have the Vice-President with his veto, or
the three Turkish Ministers in it. All the Ministers are Greeks.
Our Government is the only one internationally recognized. Why
should we bring back the Turks? The Turks today control only 3% of
the land; the
area comprising their enclaves. They haven’t got rich resources and
are having difficult times because of economic atrophy. Finally
they will have to accept our decisions - or go.”
(From the article of Stavros Angelides “The sad story of the status
quo” in the Greek Cypriot daily Fileleftheros of 20 September 1992.)
But for the intervention of Turkey in July 1974, this vision of Mr.
Clerides would have been realized, had Greece succeeded in its coup
of 1974.
After 1974, it was agreed that we would shape the future under a
bi-zonal federal structure, Turkish Cypriots living in the North and
Greek Cypriots in the South (where they had respectively
consolidated as a result of the coup, events following the
intervention, and the 1975 agreement for population exchange). The
events of the 1963-1974 period and the 1974 coup made bi-zonality an
imperative security need for Turkish Cypriots and it was on this new
reality and basis that negotiations were set in motion, on and off,
until today.
Had Greek Cypriot leaders from Kyprianou onwards wanted a settlement
on the basis of the High Level Agreements, they should have not told
their people that there would be no settlement until Greek Cypriot
refugees returned to their properties in the North.
After the decision on bi-zonality, in line with the voluntary
exchange of population agreement of 1975, half of the Turkish
Cypriot population moved from South to North.
Allocation of Greek Cypriot properties in the North to
these people was done out of necessity. In time, these allocations
were reviewed and formalized under our “Equal Valuation Law”, which
we believe is in line with the agreed principle of bi-zonality. The
factor of imminent necessity was there because no-one would invest
in such properties and no-one would be able to lease or mortgage
such properties, get money and use it for the development of them.
The fact that this was a painstaking, difficult and sensitive job is
clear from the fact that, even today, some allocations are being
contested in Court. In any case, all UN proposals that followed,
including the latest Annan Plan, contained provisions that regulated
the freedom of settlement and the right to properties in order to
safeguard bi-zonality.
Had the Greek Cypriot leadership wanted or needed a settlement, they
would not have challenged these proposals, mainly on the ground that
Greek Cypriot refugees were denied the right of return to their old
habitats.
Those of us who wanted permanent peace in the island believed (and
continue to believe) that the huge movement of population which was
necessitated by the violence into which the island was pushed
(started by the Greek Cypriot side and Greece) needed a political
settlement. The attempt to demote and treat the Cyprus issue in the
confines of the right to properties of the individual (which also
has to be respected), disregards the constitutionally protected
collective rights dimension of the issue, as well as the political
reasons for the movement of population on both sides and the need
for personal security, especially for Turkish Cypriots who were
almost eradicated from the island.
Coming back to the Orams’ case, hundreds of British and
other foreign residents have bought properties from TRNC title-deed
holders in the North. This has been going on for years. Now, the
advent of the Greek Cypriot side,
under the false title of the legitimate government of Cyprus, into
the EU has given the Greek Cypriot side (which is using the EU as a
means of achieving what it failed to achieve
between 1963-1974) the opportunity to further its political design
by bringing civil action against these residents who have acquired
properties in good faith.
As stated by the President of the Greek Cypriot Bar
Association, Nicos Papaefstathiou, on 29 September 2004, the
property question should be settled through political discussions
and not through the courts. This is what we have been saying all
along.
Over the last 25 or so years, the Turkish Cypriot side has
been trying to apply the mutually agreed principle of bi-zonality in
North Cyprus. Can this be undone now? Over the last 30 years, the
character of each plot has changed, several pieces of property have
changed hands 3 or 4 times.
We call upon Greek Cypriot leaders to put aside excuses and
to uphold the mutually agreed principles of bi-zonality and
political equality so that a political settlement can be possible.
We also call upon them not to prevent their people from applying for
redress to our institutions.
Serdar Denktaş
