|
R.R. DENKTAÞ
PRESIDENT OF TRNC
INTERVIEW
POLITIS NEWSPAPER
(21
November, 2004)
DIONYSIS DIONYSIOU
1. Under what circumstances we can expect
solution for the
Cyprus
problem in the near future?
Denktaþ:
The circumstances which exist to-day are not any
different than those which have existed since
December 1963. It is “these circumstances” which
have prevented a settlement over forty years. I feel
that unless “these circumstances” are changed there
is little likelihood of a fair settlement in the
near future. Both sides have been broadcasting that
they are for a settlement, for re-conciliation, for
unifying the island. Is it not high time we all sat
and talked honestly to each other? Is it not time we
allowed all those “friends” (USA, UK, EU, Secretary
General and his associates) to diagnose “the
problem” and have a new look at “the circumstances”
which have prevented a settlement for over 40 years?
Apart from blaming each other for
non-settlement of “the problem” has anyone really
tried to find out the reason why? No one has! At
each opportunity that I had, in my talks with
diplomats and others, I have always appealed for
an impartial committee (to be accepted by both
sides) to come to Cyprus for one propose only:
namely to diagnose the problem, before remedies are
prescribed, or plans prepared by “others” are put
on the table. No one responded, everyone hiding
behind UN Security Council Resolutions which treat
Cyprus as a piece of land (the Republic of Cyprus)
and accepts Greek Cypriots as “the legitimate
Government of Cyprus”. Those who work out such
resolutions have no need to look at facts or
consider the Rule of Law applicable to Cyprus.
Because of these convenient circumstances for Greek
Cypriots they do not need to change the present
state of affairs in which they are considered to be
the only legitimate Government of Cyprus
-
as they wanted to be by destroying the partnership
state established by the 1960 agreements!
So, let us look at the facts as we,
Turkish Cypriots, see them:
21 December 1963
attack on us was the result of a well-prepared plan
of action. The offer to amend the constitution was,
as Mr. Clerides conceded in his memoirs, neither
necessary nor well-timed!
The Akritas plan and the events which
followed support this view. General Karayiannis’s
statement underlines this fact beyond a shadow of
doubt:
When the Turks objected to the
amendment of the Constitution, Archbishop Makarios
put his plan into effect and the Greek attack began
in December 1963.
KARAYIANNIS, Lt-Gen George
(Greek Army Officer then commanding the Cyprus
National Guard)
In an article in the Greek newspaper Ethnikos Kiryx
on 15 June 1965
Makarios refused to recognize Dr.
Kuchuk as his vice-president and declared The
Constitution to be dead and buried. He offered
minority rights to the Turkish Cypriots while
claiming to be the constitutional President and
with his 100% cabinet to be the government of
Cyprus. Our refusal to accept this fait
accompli was treated as a rebellion
against the legitimate government of Cyprus.
During 1963-1974 period nearly 600
Turkish Cypriot civilians mostly children, women and
old men, were shot dead, as many wounded and maimed
while 203 Turkish Cypriots “arrested by the Cyprus
police (!)” were never to be seen again! One fourth
of the Turkish Cypriots population had to move to
safer areas from 103 villages! The restrictions put
on Turkish Cypriots in the form of prohibition of
basic articles, the destruction of their economy
were the by-products of this onslaught. To this day
not a single Greek Cypriot has been taken to court
for any of the offences committed against us.
As you will remember, during these years
the world was being told by Makarios and others
that “the Cyprus Problem” had arisen as a result of
the revolt of Turkish Cypriots against the lawful
Government which was trying to bring the situation
to normality with the help of UNFICYP!
Was this true? Did any journalist dare
to question this presentation by Makarios and his
government?
Turkish Cypriots, under severe attack by
Greek Cypriot armed elements, put up a resistance as
best they could, expecting the UNFICYP to help them,
achieve normality - meaning to put back the
constitutional order.
When we put this expectation to UN
Secretary-General U Thant his answer was: UNFICYP is
not in Cyprus in order to bring back the
constitutional order!
As a result of Kophinou-Ayios Theodoros
attacks (nearly 30 people killed in one day while
the UNFICYP soldiers responsible for protecting
civilians in the area was taken as hostages unable
to intervene, and unable to communicate with the
world) Turkey’s serious attempt to intervene was
only thwarted by the intervention of US with the
result that Grivas and some Greek troops had to
leave the island.
Compensation which Makarios agreed to
pay to the families for those killed in these two
villages and for repairing the houses destroyed was
never paid.
But the result of this was the decision
to start the inter-communal talks. Makarios still
refused to talk to Dr. Kuchuk (lest the equality of
the two sides was recognized), so he nominated Mr.
Clerides, and I represented Dr. Kuchuk.
These talks continued until the end of
1973 towards the end of which Judge Dekleris from
Greece,
and Prof. Aldýkaçtý from
Turkey
joined us as expert advisers. The result? Rejection
of the formula (local autonomy in a new partnership
state) by Makarios. Why? Because I had conceded
almost everything which Makarios had wanted to
change in the constitution except the status of my
people and I insisted that the guarantee system
should continue. Mr. Clerides, in his memoirs,
states that he and the Greek government advised
Makarios to accept this plan, but he refused!
So, we have a clear picture of Greek
Cypriot leadership who started the attack in 1963;
refused any negotiation or contact with the Turkish
Cypriot side until 1968; forced by events to start
negotiations from 1968 to 1973 but rejects the plan
for an agreed solution.
For Greek Cypriot side, these ten years
(1963 to 1973) are years of prosperity; no trouble
in Cyprus; not even one Turkish Cypriot killed
during this period. And, Turkey, they argue, used
the opportunity created by the colonels’ coup, came
and invaded Cyprus in July 1974, so the problem is
one of occupation and the resultant refugee problem!
Until 1974 there was no problem. What was UNFICYP
doing in Cyprus as from 1964 then?
For us, the problem is the destruction
of a partnership by the Greek Cypriot partner in
1963 (a coup by Makarios against the partnership
regime) resulting in the Turkish Cypriot refusal to
accept Greek Cypriot ex-partner as “the legitimate
Government of Cyprus”!
The result of this ethnic conflict was
the division of the two politically equal partners
as from December 1963 and the division of the
geography of Cyprus into Greek sector and Turkish
enclaves as from that date. The argument that Cyprus
was divided as a result of 1974 invasion is
nonsense, and this presentation which denies the
events of 1963-74 gives us no confidence for the
future.
Again Mr. Clerides puts the case amply
and fairly in his memories:
GREEK CYPRIOT AIM
(a) Creation and development of the constitutional
problem.
The constitutional crisis of the year 1963 disrupted
the constitutional order, the continuity, and the
partnership status of the two communities, which was
created by the Zurich Agreements.
Because of the disruption of constitutional order a
peculiar situation was created, by virtue of which
the state authority, on the one hand, became under
the absolute control of the Greeks, and though the
Government was recognised internationally, yet
internally Turkish enclaves were created within the
territory of the Republic in which at first, an
elementary organisation for the purpose of governing
the Turkish Cypriots was established, the main
characteristic of which was the confusion of
military and political powers and functions, and the
prevailing of military power.
After the crisis of 1967 (Kophinou Crisis) the above
disruption of constitutional order became more clear
and showed tendencies of permanency. Thus in
December 1967, the elementary military-political
organisation of the Turks in the enclaves developed
into a "Temporary Administration" on the basis of a
charter, and at the same time the political and
military authorities were separated.
In the years that followed a steady, stage by stage
development is noted in the Turkish Administration,
with the separation in its legislative, Executive
and Judicial powers. An administrative organisation
is created, as well as police force and an army. The
increase of the financial resources of the Turkish
Cypriots through economic aid from Turkey permitted
the functioning of their administration on a more
permanent basis, a fact which they made clear, by
renaming their "Temporary Turkish Cypriot
Administration" to "Turkish Cypriot Administration".
Thus there exist today in Cyprus two poles of power
on a separate geographical basis i.e the Government
of the Cyprus Republic, controlling the largest
section of the territory of the state and
internationally recognised, and the Turkish Cypriot
Administration, which controls a very limited area
and is not internationally recognised, but has
already taken almost all the characteristics of a
small state.
From the above the conclusion can be drawn that our
top priority and target must be the dissolution of
the Turkish enclaves for the sake of securing the
unity of the island.
Glafkos Clerides, My Deposition, volume 3, pages
236-237
For Greek Cypriots 1974 Turkish
intervention is the beginning of their suffering.
For us, it is the end of our suffering from 1963 to
1974. But for this intervention Nicos Sampson would
have declared Enosis and cleansed
Cyprus
of the Turkish Cypriots.
"Had
Turkey not intervened in 1974, I would not only have
proclaimed enosis - I would have annihilated the
Turks in Cyprus.
The then General Secretary of AKEL is
on record saying that 10,000 of his followers were
on the list of extermination… How many more of
Makarios followers would have been killed is another
matter.
After the Turkish intervention the three
Guarantors declared in Geneva that there were two
autonomous administrations in the island.
It is on these basis and on the
realities I have tried to outline so far that
further talks in Cyprus and outside Cyprus began.
Exchange of population in August 1975;
agreement for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation of
1977-1979; the settlement of major humanitarian
issues were all done in this frame-work; but,
unfortunately the Security Council Resolutions of
1964 onwards continued to be the bulwark of the rest
of resolutions from year to year and this helped
Greek Cypriot leadership to regain and continue to
use the title of the hijacked “Republic of Cyprus”
at our expense and at the expense of a fair,
balanced solution. “Fair and balanced” means
recognition of the fact that what was destroyed was
a partnership and not a unitary state and what is to
be re-established is again a partnership of the two
politically equal peoples. Greek
Cypriot side, hiding behind the armour of the
hijacked title of “the government of Cyprus” has
consistently rejected the criteria of “two equal
peoples who have separate right of self
determination.
My “adventure” with Mr. Kyprianou
lasted for eleven years. He pretended he was
interested in a bi-zonal settlement. He was not, as
his Foreign Minister Mr. Rolandis proved by
resigning from his post saying that he was being
used to deceive the world to believe that Kyprianou
was really for a federal settlement. In the end, Mr.
Kyprianou was heroic (!) enough to confess that he
had never believed in a federal settlement.
“82% cannot establish a federal government with 18%”
he said and confessed that what he had strived to do
was to honour the will and testament of Archbishop
Makarios, the great leader! What that testament was
we all know, but it may be useful to quote for the
good of Greek Cypriot youth who were made to believe
that “the problem” was a problem of invasion and
occupation and that all was well until 1974!
Makarios had said: “By what I
have done I have brought
Cyprus to the nearest point to Enosis. There is no
going back on it except for Enosis.!”
Thus, any settlement short of Enosis is virtually
outlawed by the church!
Clinging to a hijacked title
because it is deemed to bring the island to the
nearest point to Enosis, has been the main obstacle
to a negotiated settlement. Recognition of
this title and declarations to the effect that
whether there is an agreement or not Cyprus will
become a member of the EU have left no reason for
compromise in the Greek Cypriot leadership.
5 years with Mr. Vassiliou, and 10
years with Mr. Clerides have gone by with no result.
And in spite of the fact that it was agreed by both
sides (Vassiliou-Denktaþ) that any agreement would
be put to the separate referenda of the two sides,
Greek Cypriot leadership would not concede that
there are two politically equal peoples
in the island with the separate right of
self-determination. In 2004 this was put to the
test on a non-agreed plan but even
then Greek Cypriot side continues to claim to be
“the Cypriots” (the people of Cyprus) and speak of
us as “the Turkish Cypriot minority living in the
occupied areas”, their “citizens”! Under these
circumstances how can anyone expect an early
solution? The key to a fair solution rests in
treating both sides as equals. The opposite has been
the rule for forty years thanks to US, UK national
interests over Cyprus and successful Greek lobbying.
But all such success has not helped to solve the
problem, it has merely entrenched the two parties in
their opposite positions. ERU membership “of Cyprus”
(meaning Greek Cypriots) will worsen the situation
not improve it because Greek Cypriot leaders will
try to use it even more for consolidating its
position as the legitimate government of the whole
island. To this, have no doubt, our resistance will
be as intense and separation will become more
permanent.
2.
How dead or how alive is the Anan plan?
Denktaþ: At Hague meeting both sides said they
wanted amendments to the plan prior to agreeing on a
date for the referanda. We needed time. This was not
given and although both sides were not ready for the
referenda, I was pinpointed as the intransigent one
who had pulled the plug out of the talks. In fact it
was Lord Hannay who had run out of his patience and
refused to grant the time needed by both sides. But
don’t let me mislead you. Knowing Mr. Papadopoulos I
feel that there was no chance that we could have
agreed on the amendments had we got the time that we
had demanded.
I believe that as long as the political
vision of the two sides are so diversely different
it is not possible to solve the problem on the false
basis on which it has been allowed to flourish for
so long.
Especially after the referenda to
continue to deal with the Greek Cypriot side as the
“Legitimate Government of
Cyprus” leaves no room for optimism.
Any attempt to breathe life into the Annan Plan,
which declared itself to be null and void and of no
effect whatsoever if one or both parties voted “No”,
is a fruitless effort – like all previous efforts it
will merely give more time to the so-called
Government of Cyprus to continue its struggle for
subjugating Turkish Cypriot people. The two
referenda clearly indicate the existence of two
politically equal peoples with the
separate right of self-determination, which they
have used; therefore the fact that one can not speak
for the other is quite clear; how can then one be
treated as the legitimate government of the other?
Dead should be allowed to rest. What
has to be done is to seek an agreement on the
minimum parameters prior to a face to face
negotiation. If there is no joining of minds on
these parameters then there should be no attempt to
start negotiations on loose grounds. Then status quo
should prevail subject to giving equal treatment to
Turkish Cypriots in the North and thus keeping the
door open to a unification through the EU. Mr.
Papadopullos wants the status quo to continue as
hitherto, Greek Cypriot side to be treated as the
legitimate Government of Cyprus and Turkish Cypriots
left in the limbo of non-recognition. This is non
acceptable.
3.
During the negotiations
last March an envoy of yours, Mr Olgun and also your
son Serdar had secret meetings and discussions with
Mr Papadopoulos. What was the meaning of these
discussions?
Denktaþ:
Serdar came to me and told me that he had this offer
for a meeting from Mr. Papadopoulos; he had talked
to the prime minister Talat and they had agreed to
give an affirmative answer. For us, any movement for
a negotiated settlement was a good sign. So I raised
no objection. It transpired that Mr. Papadopoulos
wanted postponement of the process. To this we could
no agree.
Mr. Olgun did not meet with Mr. Papadopoulos. He
met his under-secretary at their request. Again what
they wanted was a postponement. I felt that their
aim was to put things beyond 1st May and
once they were in the EU there would be no hope of
any settlement!
4.
After the referenda you believe that we are closer
to a Federation or to a Confederation?
Denktaþ:
A short cut to a federal solution is confederation.
In the case of Cyprus thirty years of negotiations
for a federal solution has failed because Greek
Cypriot side looks upon a federal solution as a
solution to be arrived at by “the Government” of
“the unitary state called the Republic of Cyprus”
conceding certain rights to Turkish Cypriot side in
the North, to have certain autonomous powers.
Our conception of a federal settlement was and is
that two autonomous peoples who have been living
apart and ruling themselves separately for forty
years will decide what powers to give to a joint
central government for international affairs etc.
and retain the residual powers for themselves.
The bi-zonality (agreed as far back as 1975 – 1977)
is the geographical base of the two federated
states, and certainly not in the diluted form in the
Annan Plan. For us, these should be sovereign areas,
States, for security reasons and for permanence of
any settlement. We cannot forget that our new
partner to be was the old partner who tore down the
1960 constitution and defied an international
agreement which provided us with a tripartite
guarantee…This time, we want the agreement to be on
solid grounds, not merely a paper agreement. This
was the reason for voluntary movement of population
and the agreement of bi-zonality. There are many
people on both sides with bitter memories and acts
of revenge should not be encouraged by putting these
people under one roof so soon. Time is needed for
both sides. Property problems can be solved by
compensating each other but if revenge killings
start we shall be back in the trenches again. We
have no right to take this risk and agree without
paper guarantees which I see in equal sovereignty in
a bi-zonal setup. Kogical answer to the existing
problem is surely confederation which in time may
grow into a federation.
A federal agreement as envisaged in the Annan Plan
will never work because at all levels it rests on
the cooperation of the two sides; and cooperation
implies political good-will, sincerity and trust
which are non-existent in our case.
So, a transitional period of say 20-30 years as a
confederal set up is easier to work with because the
matters to be discussed and settled will be far less
and each side will be quite free in its internal
affairs. What should keep two parts together should
be the fear of the use of the right to separation
and the benefits of cooperation under a confederal
system as an EU member. The EU relations can be so
arranged that the two sovereign sides will be under
the EU roof without having an internal joint roof in
the island. Uniting within the EU should be the
ultimate aim. A forced unity on artificial basis
will surely break down again on the plea that it is
not functional
-
a term used in the past for destroying 1960 set-up,
and currently, very much in use while referring to
the Annan plan. Greek Cypriot method of achieving
functionality has cost us 40 years. We do need a
second trial of it.
If the island is to re-unite the events of the last
forty years have to be taken into account. And this
level of mistrust and divergence of views on a
settlement pushing the parties for a “home-made”
solution by others is a useless effort and all that
it does is to give Greek Cypriot side more time for
deceiving the world that they are “the people of
Cyprus” (Cypriots) and that Turkish Cypriots are
their minority. How many years have we lost
-
with the set of ideas, and then with the Annan Plan?
Why try failed remedies?
5.
In the absence of an agreed solution is the status
quo a viable option for you? For how long?
Denktaþ:
Our priority has always been security. In spite of
the embargoes we have succeeded in keeping our heads
above water for forty years. When Mr. Papadopoulos
says that he would prefer the status quo to an
agreement like the Annan Plan he is not conceding
anything to the Turkish Cypriot side. All he means
is that he would like to continue as hitherto as
“the Government of the whole island”; be able to
claim that this island is under Turkish occupation;
that there is a human rights issue affecting Greek
Cypriots who had moved south and now cannot go back
to their properties in the North.
It is this status, this ability to continue the
deception of the world which he prefers to any
other settlement.
Our preference for our status as TRNC is an answer
to the above stated “drive” of the Greek Cypriot
side. This is our defense against Greek Cypriot
assertion that they are the master, the government
of all!
Relentless Greek Cypriot embargo did not result in
our social or political collapse.
If further steps in the right direction can be taken
and the world realizes that they have been doing
great injustice to Turkish Cypriots by treating
Greek Cypriot side as “the people and the government
of Cyprus”, then we shall be much better off!
6.
With the accession of
Cyprus
to the European Union do you think that recognition
of an independent state in the North is a realistic
aim?
Denktaþ:
I shall never loose hope that at least some of the
EU countries will wake up to the realities of the
island and will decide to investigate and diagnose
the Cyprus Problem.
If a united Cyprus is what is wanted
then it must be conceded that Cyprus is a divided
country, that5a there are two separate people living
separately for 40 years, ruling themselves
separately and that under the Rule of Law one has no
right to claim to be the government of the other.
Treating Cyrus as ONE Cyprus and then seeking its
unification is a logical confusion. To unit, both
sides must wish it and need it. By treating one
party as the government of all such need is
eroded.
It is inconceivable that Europe so much devoted to
peace and democracy to the Rule of Law and justice
would continue to shut its eyes to the realities of
Cyprus and be a party to the cause of non-solution
for forty years by treating Greek Cypriot side as
the government of Cyprus in contravention of the
Rule of Law, defiance of international agreements
and democracy. In an island where the two sides have
the legal right to elect their representatives
separately how can anyone claim the right to impose
the political will of the Greek Cypriot
administration (elected solely by Greek Cypriots)
over the Turkish Cypriot people. Where is justice in
this?
7.
According to certain political analysts,
Cyprus
is not any more high in the strategic agenda of
Turkey.
In the same line there are also voices in the North
claiming that
Turkey
is gradually abandoning
Northern Cyprus.
Do you agreed with this analysis?
Denktaþ:
Turkey, for us, mean the whole people of Turkey with
its government, National Assembly, the presidency
and so on. It will be a great mistake to think that
Cyprus is not any more high in its strategic agenda!
On the contrary, with the developments in the Middle
East and in the whole area, it is becoming more and
more so. Voices in the North to the effect that
Turkey is gradually abandoning North Cyprus are due
to exasperation arising from unjust treatment meted
out to Turkey in order to force it to make
concessions on Cyprus. I believe that the present
Turkish Government is also waking up to the fact
that promises made are soon forgotten and that
Cyprus Problem has nothing to do with her advance in
the direction of EU membership. I believe the more
Greek Cypriot side tries to put “Cyprus” as an
impediment before Turkey, the more the EU members
will be interested to know the facts on Cyprus, and,
the more they know, the less attention they will
give to what Greek Cypriot side tells them on
Cyprus. All the people cannot be deceived all the
time.
8.
How do you describe the relations between you and
Turkish prime minister Ertoan? There are some
allegations indicating that your relations are not
really good.
Denktaþ:
Mr. Erdogan did not share my evaluation of the Annan
Plan and the line of policy Greek Cypriot side was
following. Now I am sure he is in a better position
to see the realities. He is a very friendly, sincere
person when you see him face to face. He has his
responsibility to the Turkish nation and I have mine
to my people. It is not necessary to see eye to eye
on every issue. This does not mean you are not on
good terms with the other.
9.
Are you going to be a candidate for another term in
the North?
Denktaþ:
No.
10. How do you see today the relations between
simple people ( Greek and Turks) comparing them to
the past?
Denktaþ:
Inter-communal strife has never been a personal
strife between the two sides. It has always rested
on the assertion of dominance by one side on the
other. Had there not been a struggle for Enosis,
there would have been no inter-communal trouble, no
Taksim, no demand for union with Turkey. EOKA, EOKA-B
gave rise to Volkan, to TMT. The claim to be “the
legitimate government of Cyprus” gave birth to
“transitional Turkish Cypriot administration”; more
international acceptance of the Greek Cypriot side
as the legitimate Government of Cyprus, necessitated
dropping the word “transitional” from our title.
After 1974 we establish the Federated wing of a
Federal
State only to be laughed at. Seeing that the world
had closed its eyes and ears to the realities of
Cyprus, we elevated our Federated State to that of
proper state – TRNC…. These are realities of
Cyprus. What is born as a result of the ensuing
conflict cannot be treated as non-existent. Equality
is the foundation of mutual respect and confidence.
Let us be realists and not dreamers that Turkish
Cypriots will bow to a minority position.
Now, Greek Cypriot authorities are adamant in not
giving up their title of “the Government of Cyprus”.
But surely they know that no Turkish Cypriot will
accept them as his government. So the alternative is
not to ask for unification unless it is conceded
that there is a Turkish Cypriot Government in the
North. One state with two separate governments? Why
not? Then what we have to settle are boundaries,
settling the property problems as a political
problem and not loading EHRC with more and more
cases against Turkey! Stopping this accusation that
Turkey is occupying the island is an essential
indication of truthfulness and sincerity. Very
necessary for confidence building. Turkey has
stopped the illegal occupation of the island by the
present “title holders” helped by Greece. All these
claims and counter-claims are political matters
raised by the leadership, carried on by the church,
fed by the schools and national papers. If these
stop and property claims are settled fairly, the two
peoples can get along provided that aggrieved
families are taken care of and 1963-1974 period is
compensated. I believe that anti-Turkish
indoctrination of young school children should
cease. I remember my good friend Louis Loizou one
day asking me to give him a lift to take his
daughter from the kinder-garden. I did so. It as
EOKA days, British soldiers hunting EOKA men, and
EOKA killing British people. We picked up the pretty
daughter. On the way Loizou asked her “Who are our
enemies?”. She replied “Turks, father”. “But” said
Loizou “it is the British hunting us and we killing
them, what has Turks to do with this?” The daughter
replied “Our teacher has told us, the fight with the
British is transitory, it will be over sometime, but
our real enemies are the Turks father”. Loizou was
embarrassed. “You know Rauf, we never talk such
nonsense at home… but see what they have done to her
in three months?” Quite a number are such examples
in my memory and now when I get reports of Greek
school books and what they teach elementary school
children, I feel that our offer to have a joint
committee to look into these matters should be taken
up seriously by both sides. I don’t know whether you
are aware that a meeting arranged by UN I believe,
for this purpose, between the representatives of two
ministries of Education was not attended by the
Greek Cypriot side lest it would mean “recognition
of the TRNC”. Such self-induced fears should not
prevent tackling the problems which face us
courageously. Two peoples, two governments exist and
it is desirable that all possible impediments to a
fair and just solution should be jointly looked into
for one simple purpose: Never to live 1963-1974
again, never to need a peace operation for our
survival. |
Articals and Comments 