|
11
February 2005
"Cyprus:Injustice Cannot be legitimized through
European Union Membership" by Ergün Olgun, the
Undersecretary of TRNC Presidency, published in
Turkish Daily News on 11 February 2005
International law and practice
honour 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 1960 International Treaties and the
internationally guaranteed 1960 partnership
Constitution agreed by both communities. In 1963
the Turkish Cypriots were forced out of the
partnership government and had no recourse under
conditions of premeditated violence but to establish
their own government in defended enclaves. Ever
since 1963 the rump Greek Cypriot government that
usurped power has been treated as the government of
Cyprus, purely for reasons of international
politics, by all states save Turkey. This has led to
the suppression of the human and political rights of
the Turkish Cypriot people at the instigation of the
Greek Cypriots.
To
sustain this political oppression, the Greek Cypriot
side refused the 31 March 2004 UN Plan in the
landmark separate simultaneous referenda of 24 April
2004. 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 7 April 2004,
the Greek Cypriot leader, Tassos Papadopulos, called
on the Greek Cypriot people to give a resounding
“NO” reply to the UN Plan. At a book launching
ceremony on 14 January 2005, the Greek Cypriot
leader stated that the main reason for the Greek
Cypriot refusal was the failure of the UN Plan to
endorse the sole continuity of the Greek Cypriot
Republic of Cyprus. He clearly indicated that this,
and not the security arrangements of the Plan, was
the main issue.
In
order to express the political equality of the two
sides in practical terms the Plan 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 bestowed with the accolade of accession to the
EU on 1 May 2004, in spite of the legal and
political shortcomings of that accession, and with
the promise that they would back a UN Plan for
settlement before membership, a more confident Greek
Cypriot government has been exploiting its
membership status. In particular it is threatening
Turkey with blocking its EU membership process
unless, among other things, Turkey recognizes the
one hundred percent 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 will go in their “national
policy” to subordinate the Turkish Cypriot people to
their authority and jurisdiction.
ECONOMIC
OPPRESSION
The
Turkish Cypriot people have been suffering under
severe economic embargoes since 1963. In his early
report of as long ago as 10 September 1964 (S/5950),
the Secretary-General had described the economic
restrictions imposed against the Turkish Cypriot
people as “so severe as to amount to veritable
siege”. Based on this, he
had concluded that the Greek Cypriot Government
of Cyprus “… seeks to force a potential
solution by economic pressure as a substitute for
military action” (paragraph 222). In his
recent report of 28 May 2004 (S/2004/437), the UN
Secretary-General still found it necessary to state,
after a period of 40 years, “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
economic oppression tool is being used aggressively
by the Greek Cypriot side to force the Turkish
Cypriot people into submission and subordination by
depriving them of the natural right to make a living
for themselves in the world. The restrictions
imposed mainly apply to international trade, travel
and tourism. To continue to make these restrictions
effective, the Greek Cypriot side has been playing
the recognition card (recognition, which they
hi-jacked together 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 been actively
trying to prevent 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
Property is one of the key factors in economic
development and, correspondingly, is one of the core
issues at the UN-led negotiations. Although there
is agreement on resolving the property issue through
negotiation (though respecting the principle of bi-zonality
and the agreement that each community will
administer a territory that would be economically
viable), a now more confident Greek Cypriot side is
trying to undermine the agreed guidelines, and
pre-empt a settlement on the property issue through
unilateral initiatives outside the negotiating
table. This unilateral approach ignores the fact
that while there is much former Greek property in
North Cyprus, there is equally a good deal of
Turkish Cypriot property in South Cyprus.
It
has to be recalled that as a natural follow-up of
the population exchange agreement of 1975, and the
bizonality agreement of 1977 between Archbishop
Makarios and President Denktaþ, the Turkish Cypriot
side has been proposing the speedy settlement of the
important property issue primarily through exchange
and compensation.
Since
the rejection of the UN Plan, which contained
balanced arrangements for the settlement of the
property issue, a new Greek Cypriot campaign is
underway 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
prevented 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 in
international fora.
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, have 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 23
April 2003, and the referenda results of 24 April
2004, have revealed, to universal disappointment,
that the Greek Cypriot perception of a re-united
Cyprus under Greek Cypriot rule has not changed, and
continues to be a major preoccupation.
CONCLUSION
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 settlement in Cyprus that
have been endorsed by the UN 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 hi-jacking 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.
Turkish Cypriots have been prevented by the 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 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 aggression.
In
order to perpetuate its illegally and unjustly
acquired advantageous position in Cyprus, the Greek
Cypriot side on 24 April 2004 rejected the new
partnership plan of the UN, thus blocking a way
forward for the Turkish Cypriot people. As well as
being subjected to political oppression and
discriminatory redistribution through economic
restrictions and embargoes, Turkish Cypriots are
also confronted with serious violations of their
individual human rights.
Greek
Cypriot oppression cannot be legitimized by any
claims to authority or jurisdiction, or by the
political fact of EU membership. International law
and practice recognize that when the collective
rights of a people or community that inhabit a
territory are ignored and they are 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 faced with
serious violations of human rights, then no limits
can be put on the full exercise of the right to self
determination of such a people.
The
results of the landmark referenda of 24 April 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 provide the outstanding, and probably
unique, example of an oppressed and marginalized
party who have sought a new partnership venture with
their oppressor after so devastating a previous
experience.
Bearing this in mind and, most of all, the fact that
since the rejection of the UN Plan in April 2004,
the Greek Cypriot side has been further tightening
its coercive policies, the UN Security Council
should re-visit its resolutions 541 (1983) and 550
(1984) both in order to relieve the Turkish Cypriot
people of the injustice and oppression to which it
has been subjected, and to allow Turkish Cypriots to
have the opportunity to exercise their right to
freely determine their own future. The separate
right to self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot
people was accepted by the British Government as far
back as 1956 and 1958.
The
question of size, or a part-island location, are not
factors of importance for self-determination, or for
membership of the European Union. At this time,
there are 20 Member States of the United Nations
that have smaller populations then the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus and are mainly island
based.
In
re-visiting the Cyprus issue, the Security Council
should also bear in mind that the persistent and
continuing Greek Cypriot approach to the Cyprus
question underlines the fact that the two sides have
no common vision, no perceived common interests, no
mutual trust, no working experience and no
inter-dependence that could bring about and sustain
a partnership settlement. Federalism experts know
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 is now abundantly clear from
the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan that
these conditions did not exist at the time of the
Copenhagen (December 2002) and the Hague (March
2004) Summits either. Therefore 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 from the region
in which the island is situated. Therefore, if the
Turkish Cypriot people were to choose to go their
own way, certain restrictions could 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 expressed commitment from both
the Turkish Cypriot state and the Greek Cypriot
state not to unite with any neighboring state or
territory, other than in the context of integration
with the European Union;
·
A commitment from the Turkish
Cypriot state that it would immediately work towards
becoming a full member of the European Union.
·
A commitment from both sides that
they would settle the outstanding property and
border issues through negotiation as part of the
settlement package.
·
A request for a guarantee by
Turkey and Greece of 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
European Union should not allow itself to be used
by member states as a means of promoting their
oppressive obsessions, or for settling scores with
neighbouring or third countries.
M. Ergün
OLGUN
|
Articles and Comments 