This is an important question, because the ability of the Greek Cypriot Administration to enforce an embargo on Turkish Cypriot trade, sport, and communications derives from their acceptance by other countries and institutions as if they were the lawful government of all Cyprus.

On 25^th April 1980 the Secretary of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs delivered the following statement to the House of Lords: “We have conducted a re-examination of British policy and practice concerning the recognition of Governments. This has included a comparison with the practice of our partners and allies. On the basis of this review we have decided that we shall no longer accord recognition to Governments. The British Government recognises States in accordance with common international doctrine.”

On 30^th July 1980 the Minister of State reiterated that “the British Government recognises States, not Governments” and this was affirmed again on 12^th November 1987 The United States takes the same position.

Accordingly, if the British and US Governments recognise States not Governments, neither the Greek Cypriot nor the Turkish Cypriot administration is recognised by them as the Government of Cyprus.

On 25^th April 1980 the British Government also declared that “………..we shall continue to decide the nature of our dealings with regimes which come to power unconstitutionally in the light of our assessment of whether they are able of themselves to exercise effective control of the territory of the State concerned, and seem likely to continue to do so.”

There is a UN Security Council resolution (541) which calls upon the world not to recognise any Cypriot State other than “the Republic of Cyprus,” but there is no UN resolution which gives the Greek Cypriots alone the right to call themselves the Government of Cyprus. The international community has merely dealt with them on a day to day basis as if they were the Government of Cyprus. Even Resolution 541 is advisory, not mandatory.

This is what happened:

When the British granted independence in 1960 they did so on the basis of a bi-communal partnership constitution, negotiated between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots and endorsed and guaranteed by Britain Greece, and Turkey. From its very inception the Republic of Cyprus was never a unitary state in which there is only one electorate with a majority and minority. It is important to note that the President, the Vice-President, and the Members of Parliament were all elected by their own people. The Greek Cypriots have never had the right to elect all those officials themselves and to create a government wholly within their control.

The two peoples were political equals, and successive Secretaries-General of the UN have acknowledged that fact. Most recently the Annan Plan (2004) provided that the relationship between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots is not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other. The two peoples were each asked by the UN to exercise their democratic right of self-determination in separate referenda on 24^th April 2004. The Turkish Cypriots voted to accept the Annan Plan for unification of Cyprus and the Greeks Cypriots voted to reject it.

The case of Cyprus is sui generis, for there is no other State in the world which came into being as a result of two politically equal peoples coming together by the exercise by each of its sovereign right of self-determination, to create a functional federation within a single territory, and guaranteed by international treaty, to which each of them consented.

THE EVENTS OF 1963/4

It would not be surprising if readers of this note had a different view of those events, because for the past forty years the world has been given an extremely skilful version of the story almost entirely from the Greek Cypriot point of view. This is because the Greek Cypriots have had all the Cyprus Embassies and High-Commissions for themselves since 1963, they occupied the Cyprus chair at the United Nations and in all other international bodies, and the Turkish Cypriots were excluded from that time until now from all the normal channels of international communication.

The Turkish Cypriot people, knowing that they were outnumbered by Greek Cypriots, and could not enforce the founding Agreement themselves, would never have agreed to join the 1960 Republic if the Greek Cypriots had not also accepted a Treaty of Guarantee which gave Turkey a legal right to intervene, with troops if necessary.

It became clear very soon after independence that the Greek Cypriots did not intend to abide by the Constitution, and that their entry into that legal obligation with the Turkish Cypriots in 1960 had been a deception. On 28th July 1960 Makarios said “the agreements do not form the goal - they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will.

In a speech on 4th September 1962, at Panayia, Makarios said "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated."

It would be difficult to imagine a more openly racist, policy than this. It is also an expansionist policy – the very charge which the Greek Cypriots laid against Turkey when Turkey intervened twelve years later to put an end to it.

Turkish Cypriots were told by the outside world to take no notice of statements of this kind. They were told that they were just rhetoric. However, the Turkish Cypriots were to discover that when Greek Cypriot leaders make statements of that kind they should be taken seriously.

The Constitution provided for separate municipalities for Turkish Cypriots in the five main towns. The Greek Cypriots refused to obey this mandatory provision and in order to encourage them to do so the Turkish Cypriots said they would not vote for part of the Government's taxation proposals. The Greek Cypriots remained intransigent, so the Turkish Cypriots took the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus. The court comprised one Greek Cypriot judge, one Turkish Cypriot judge, and a neutral President.

In February 1963 Makarios declared on behalf of the Greek Cypriots that if the Court ruled against them they would ignore it. On 25th April 1963 the Court did rule against them and they did ignore it. The President of the Court (a German) resigned and the rule of law in Cyprus therefore collapsed.

In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots went further, and demanded the abolition of eight of the basic articles which had been included in the 1960 Agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots, to which abolition the Turkish Cypriots were naturally reluctant to agree. The aim was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending their ultimate expulsion from the island. They had prepared a written plan for this purpose, called the Akritas Plan.

"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963" (Lt. Gen George Karayiannis of the Greek Cypriot militia reported in "Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). This plan was prepared in 1960 before the new constitution had been given any chance to work.

On 28th December 1963 the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."

British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, said "I was convinced that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."

The American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, said in his own memoirs, "Makarios’ central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that." The fact is however that neither the US, the UK, the UN, nor anyone, other than Turkey eleven years later, took effective action to prevent it.

On 12th January 1964 the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote to London (telegram no. 162) “The Greek (Cypriot) police are led by extremists who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as “special constables” gun-happy young thugs. ....... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved.”

The Turkish Cypriot MPs, civil servants, judges, and other officials were all excluded from their positions by the threat or use of force.

Greek Cypriots often claim that the Turkish Cypriots caused the violence and withdrew voluntarily from their positions in the State, but this is absurd. The Turkish Cypriots were heavily outnumbered, they had no modern weapons, and Turkey was at that time in no position to protect them. On 12th January 1964 the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote to London (telegram no. 162) “The Greek (Cypriot) police..... threaten to try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wish to return to the Cyprus Government.

Further, the UK Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs found that “When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives had sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence" (ie. if they agreed to fundamental constitutional changes to the great disadvantage of their community, imposed upon them by force of arms).

Accordingly, even if there had been any substance to Greek Cypriot claims that they were operating the government alone of necessity because the Turkish Cypriots were leaving their places vacant, there can be no justification for that claim after July 1965

Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus told Die Welt on 27th December 1963 “Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility of the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights.” In another interview with UPI press agency on 30th December 1963 he said: "All this happened because Makarios wanted to remove all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."

Glafcos Clerides, later the President of the Greek Cypriots, said at the time “the Turkish Cypriots the Greek Cypriots are in full control of the Government. All the Ministers are Greeks. Their government is the only one recognised internationally - why should the Turkish Cypriots bring the Turks back in? The Turks today control only 3% of the land. They have no rich resources and they are living through difficult times from an economic point of view. They will ultimately have to accept their point of view - or go.”

The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs further reported unanimously that, "Although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been merely seeking to "operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation" this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective".

The Committee continued : "Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS (annexation of Cyprus to Greece) in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution." (Art. 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee declares prohibited any action likely to promote directly or indirectly union with any other state or partition of the island, and Art. 185(2) of the Constitution is to similar effect).

And at para. 28 "The effect of the crisis of December 1963 was to deliver control of the formal organs of Government into the hands of the Greek Cypriots alone. Claiming to be acting in accordance with “the doctrine of necessity” the Greek Cypriot members of the House of Representatives enacted a series of laws which provided for the operation of the various organs of government without Turkish Cypriot participation."

Insofar as the Constitution became unworkable, it was because the Greek Cypriot leadership refused to respect the obligations to which they had agreed. The “doctrine of necessity” or “principle of obligation” in international law applies to supervening impossibility due to extraneous causes. It does not apply to self-induced causes.

Even Greece was embarrassed by this behaviour. On 19th April 1963 Foreign Minister Averoff wrote to Makarios "It is not permissible for Greece in any circumstances to accept the creation of a precedent by which one of the contracting parties can unilaterally abrogate or ignore provisions that are irksome to it in international acts which this same party has undertaken to respect."

The UK Commons Committee continued at para, 29 "Equally damaging from the Turkish Cypriot point of view was what they considered to be their effective exclusion from representation at, and participation in, the international fora where their case could have been deployed............." "An official Turkish Cypriot presence in the international political scene virtually disappeared overnight." It is not therefore surprising that the world has been persuaded to the Greek Cypriot point of view, and they have been able to influence the proceedings of the United Nations.

THE UNITED NATIONS

By Security Council Resolution 186 on 4th March 1964, the United Nations failed to condemn the usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus by force, and used the words “Cyprus Government .” The Turkish Government was willing to accept this resolution because in their view the term “Cyprus Government” could, properly construed, only mean a government which, according to the 1960 Constitution, acted with the concurrence of both its Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot members.

The British representative at the UN was instructed to vote for resolution 186, and in telegram 1131 of 12th March 1964 to Ankara the British Government said “as regards the definition to be given to the expression “Cyprus Government” we agree with the Turkish Government.” However, this was soon forgotten, and the British Government and all others except Turkey has dealt with the Greek Cypriot administration to the present day as if it alone were the Government of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots had by this time been driven into defended enclaves where they survived as best they could for the next 11 years until rescued by Turkey in 1974. The Greek Cypriots never gained control of those enclaves.

British thinking at the time can be gathered from secret documents released by the Public Record Office in 1994. On 12th August 1964 the UK Representative to the UN, sent a telegram to his government in which he said:

Throughout the 1960-63 period of his Presidency, and before, Makarios had been assiduously courting the “Non-aligned Movement” of which the Burmese UN Secretary-General, U Thant, was an enthusiastic supporter. Makarios had also been courting the Soviet Union and its satellites. When therefore the Cyprus question came before the Security Council in February 1964 he was in a strong position. The fatal step taken by the Security Council was to accept the credentials of the representatives of Makarios after December 1963, despite the protest made to the Council in Turkish Cypriot Vice-President Küçük’s telegram of 27th December 1963 that there was no longer a lawful government of Cyprus. This was not simply an internal matter for Cyprus, because the 1960 Constitution was guaranteed by international Treaty, to which a permanent member of the Security Council (Britain) was a signatory.

What the UN should have done was to leave the “Cyprus” seat vacant until such time as constitutional order was restored and allow the representatives of both peoples of Cyprus equal status at the United Nations.

As former Greek Foreign Minister, Bitsios, observed “In the United Nations issues are not won through speeches in the Council Room, but in hard battling behind the scenes. It is there that the texts of resolutions are bargained, pressures are exerted, and the raw language of vested interests is heard.” The Turkish Cypriots were excluded from this process, and by the time Rauf Denktas was allowed to address the Council on 28th February 1964 the issue had already been decided against him.

The Greek Cypriots were jubilant. On 5^th March 1964 Makarios declared “We have secured a resolution in the first phase of our struggle in the international field.” He added that in his opinion Turkey could no longer intervene under the Treaty of Guarantee. Having got away with this, the Greek Cypriot leaders were emboldened to believe that at the United Nations they could get away, literally, with murder.

The Resolution could not have passed if Britain or the United States had voted against it.

Sir Anthony Kershaw MC, MP, Chairman of the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs until 1987 explained how the UN came to accept the Greek Cypriots as the Cyprus Government as follows: "It was decided that UN troops should be sent to preserve order, but the UN can only send troops if the legal government of the country concerned asks for them. The only organisation which could in 1964 be called the Government of Cyprus was the administration headed by Makarios. The Turkish Cypriots pointed out that this was not the legal government of Cyprus but such was the pressure of the times that the UN said: Look your people are dying - let's get the troops out right away and the lawyers can sort it out later – they never did.

During those eleven years, when the Turkish Cypriots were living in defended enclaves, the Greek Cypriots were establishing themselves in the world as if they were the lawful government of Cyprus, which they are not; and they persuaded people that the Turkish Cypriots had voluntarily given up their governmental rights. Amazing as it may seem, they were believed by many.

By 1983 Turkish Cypriots had come to the conclusion – correctly as it now proves – that it was impossible to achieve a reconciliation with the Greek Cypriots. One important reason was the power of the Greek Orthodox Church and the extreme views of its leadership. It is clear from the attitude of the Church to the Annan Plan in 2004, including threats to Greek Cypriot voters that they would be barred from heaven when they died, that this is as true today as it ever was.

Turkish Cypriots therefore had no alternative but to establish their own state. They were saddened to find that the compelling reason for this was not understood by the international community, and that the Greek Cypriots were able to obtain Security Council Resolution 541 and subsequent resolutions which, whilst not mandatory, have dissuaded other states from recognising the Turkish Cypriot State. It is time for these resolutions to be repealed.

THE EMBARGO

The United Nations has never authorised an embargo against the Turkish Cypriots, but the Greek Cypriots were able to place the Turkish Cypriots under restrictions from 1963 to 1974 because they had physical control of the island.

After1974, Greek Cypriot officials had already been accepted for the purposes of day-to-day business by most states and international organisations as if they were lawful representatives of Cyprus, and they were able to persuade the world that Cyprus had been subjected in 1974 to an unprovoked attack by Turkey. In fact, when the civil war between the Greek Cypriots broke out on 15^th July 1974 the Turkish Cypriots again feared for their lives and called upon the Guarantor Powers for help, as the United Nations force could not or would not prevent the violence. This time, after waiting eleven years, Turkey did respond to their call by landing troops.

Some years later, on 26th February 1981, the Greek Cypriot leader of the anti-Makarios faction, Nicos Sampson said “Had Turkey not intervened I would not only have proclaimed ENOSIS (annexation to Greece) - I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus.” Having dealt with Sampson it would have been absurd for Turkey to depart and leave the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, who had been responsible for their persecution for the past eleven years. Turkish soldiers are needed in the North of Cyprus until the Turkish Cypriots can survive without them. Their past experiences have not given the Turkish Cypriots much faith in international protection, and they could not fail to notice what happened recently to the Moslem people of Srebrenica whilst under international protection.

After 1974, the Greek Cypriots were able to enforce their embargo against the Turkish Cypriots by persuading other countries, and more recently by persuading the European Court of Justice, that it was illegal to trade with or fly to any part of Cyprus, or even to play international sport, without the permission of the “Government of Cyprus” - which meant in practice the permission of the Greek Cypriots. The purpose of the embargo was to bring the Turkish Cypriots to their knees and force them to accept a settlement on Greek Cypriot terms. Fortunately they have not succeeded, but it puzzles most Turkish Cypriots to find the Greek Cypriots calling the Turkish Cypriots their brothers and sisters whilst at the same time doing their best to strangle their economy.

They could not have enforced this embargo without the tacit acceptance of the international community, and it is time for this acceptance to be withdrawn. Turkish Cypriots have done nothing to deserve such treatment. Within the EU, the lifting of the embargo would require amendment to subordinate legislation which could not be vetoed.

The Greek Cypriots were also able, by using international recognition to their advantage, to get judgements against Turkey in the European Court of Human Rights in property cases. In fact the second division of the island in 1974, which caused property losses on both sides, was caused by the incomparably more serious violation of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots, none of whom has ever been compensated.

The Turkish Cypriots have suffered a serious injustice for the past 40 years by international willingness to deal with a Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the lawful government of all Cyprus, where in fact it had destroyed the constitutional order by force of arms.