The UN Secretary-General’s report of 15 June 1964, S/5764 stated:

Below are some quotations from the World Press at the time of the Greek military coup in 1974 and the Turkish intervention which followed:

That this was the position of each and every leader with whom I negotiated as from 1968 has been my confirmed view. As long as the Greek Cypriot wing of a partnership state (which was destroyed by Greek Cypriots in order to hijack it and move into Enosis), is treated as "the government of Cyprus", they feel they have succeeded and that no one can deprive them of their "claim of legitimacy" over the whole island". In other words, Greek Cypriots are refusing to compromise on a problem which has already been settled in their favour. They do not need Turkish Cypriots in order to be "the legitimate government of Cyprus" because – contrary to the Rule of Law and the facts – they are treated as such by all concerned. So why should they re-establish a partnership with Turkish Cypriots who, inevitably, they believe and expect, will collapse as a result of the isolation that they have imposed on them. Unfortunately, all those who have accepted the Greek Cypriot side, in complete disregard of its long standing previous record of violations of human rights, treat Turkish Cypriot resistance to the Greek Cypriot attempt to impose its political will on them as "intransigence". Hence the refusal of the Greek Cypriot side to compromise on the title of "the government of Cyprus", well knowing that Turkish Cypriots will never concede this hijacked title to them.

This commitment is based on the idea that there is only one people in Cyprus. This has to be corrected if reunification is the aim. You cannot unify ONE people. There are two peoples in Cyprus of different ethnic origin, different religion and language, with diversely opposing national affiliation. It was the trick resorted to by Greece and the Greek Cypriot side asking for self-determination for the people of Cyprus, as a means for achieving Enosis, as far back as 1954 when they applied to the United Nations. The immediate reaction of Turkish Cypriots and of Turkey was that the Greek Cypriot people could not speak for the whole island; there were two peoples in Cyprus and one of them could not, through the use of the right of self-determination, impose its will on the other and colonize it by uniting the island with Greece. By 1956, the British colonial government conceded the fact that the right of self-determination, in the case of Cyprus, if used, would be used by the two sides separately. The then British Colonial Secretary Alan Lennox Boyd said:

The country has been divided because of the Greek Cypriot attempt to nullify the Turkish Cypriot homeland and convert the bi-communal partnership Republic into a Greek Cypriot Republic. It can be reunified by conceding the right of the Turkish Cypriots to keep a safe homeland in the North in a bi-zonal set-up, provided the Greek Cypriot demand to be the government of all the island is cast aside.

If the fact that sovereignty emanates equally (as also spelt out in the UN Set of Ideas of 1992) from the two peoples (ex co-founder partners of the hijacked Republic of Cyprus) is accepted, then it would be quite easy to establish a bi-zonal federation / confederation and to unify the island under that roof. All that is needed for re-unification is for the Greek Cypriot side to abandon the idea that they are (or will ever be accepted by Turkish Cypriots) to be the legitimate government of Cyprus. This is what has impeded a settlement for 40 years. The governments which have been misled into believing that the problem in Cyprus is the attempt to divide a unitary state and a Cypriot nation, should awake to the fact that there has never been a unitary state and a Cypriot nation, and that what has fallen apart are the two co-founder partners of a partnership state because the Greek Cypriot partner decided to take over the partnership and convert it into a Greek Cypriot state. This is confirmed in the following statement of the former Greek Cypriot President, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, who is considered to be a moderate by many in the international community:

Then, Mr. Papadopoulos wants "the settlers" to leave the island. What he calls settlers are Turkish men and women who came to the island under an agreement between the TRNC and Turkey to make-up for the gap in the employment needs of the Turkish Cypriot economy.

Some of these people, who stayed in North Cyprus for more than five years and integrated into the economy and society, have acquired TRNC citizenship. Some have married local girls, and have children, now at university age. They have put their efforts into the economy of the land and they are part of the life of what makes the TRNC. Without them the economy would collapse, agriculture die, the construction sector would come to a standstill, and the tourism sector dwindle, creating a vacuum from which Greek Cypriots wish to benefit

The phenomenon of immigrants and "foreign workers", who eventually acquire the citizenship of the land where they have been working for more than five years, is an accepted practice all over the world. The TRNC should not be treated any differently.

She came under fierce criticism in South Cyprus for her comments but defended her views in the Greek Cypriot daily newspaper "Alithia" on 22 September 2004 when she stated:

The number of Turkish Cypriots who emigrated from the island after the onslaught of 1963 to this day because of the economic restrictions imposed on us cannot be minimized. Many Turkish Cypriots look upon higher education as a means to overcome the isolation imposed upon them and emigrate from the island, in search of jobs, especially to Turkey, Great Britain and recently to the United States, resulting in a brain-drain. Therefore, there are not many Turkish Cypriot men left for technical jobs, or jobs in the construction, tourism and agricultural sectors. But for the so-called "settlers", who fill up the jobs for which there are not enough Turkish Cypriots, our economic life would come to a standstill.

Mr. Papadopoulos wants "respect of human rights for all Cyprus". If he is sincere, he should start paying compensation to Turkish Cypriots for destroying their lives, expectations and honour, as well as their houses and property since 1963 to this day. He should agree to the setting up of a joint board to determine the damage caused and how this could be compensated and should agree to stop its unjustly acquired advantage of legitimacy to thrash Turkish Cypriots and Turkey through unilateral action. He should concede that it is against any notion of human rights to destroy peoples lives, to oust people from their homes, force them to live in enclaves, deny all their constitutional and human rights, relentlessly destroy their economy, and then, after a voluntary exchange of populations and political agreement on bi-zonality, insist on the right to return of all "refugees" (forgetting the 40 year occupation of the seat of the partnership government and that what has come about since then is a result of that occupation) and try to sever all Turkish Cypriots from the roots that they have established over the last 30 years as a consequence of the agreement on bi-zonality. And when one Turkish Cypriot who has chosen to live in the South wins his case for the return of his property, the whole Greek Cypriot population rises in alarm!

We invite Mr. Papadopoulos and all concerned, including the ECHR, to accept the ruling of the Greek Cypriot Attorney-General that these property questions should be settled politically and that courts cannot deal with them disregarding the political realities.

Mr. Papadopoulos wants underlying structures for a functioning economy, the functioning and workability of the new state of affairs, the just resolution of the land and property issues in accordance with the decisions of the ECHR, and the respect for the right of return of "refugees." All these, put together in the light of the Greek Cypriot view that until 1974 there was nothing wrong in Cyprus; that all was peaceful etc; that the government of Cyprus consists of 100% Greek Cypriots; that what is needed is the satisfaction of the Greek Cypriot side on all these issues, indicate that Mr. Papadopoulos is not after an agreed solution in the form of a new partnership but merely after the extension of Greek Cypriot authority to the North; in other words, a return to pre-1974.

The statement of Mr. Papadopoulos that, "The mistakes of the past must not be repeated" could have meant a great deal to us had he acknowledged, apologized and compensated Turkish Cypriots for all the damage his side caused in the name of Enosis. It is high time for Mr. Papadopoulos to comprehend and consider the realities which the preparation and application of the destructive policy embodied in the Akritas Plan have created in the island. Basing himself on a self-assumed title, he cannot forever claim the right to extend his authority to the North. If this intention continues, then partnership and unification cannot be an option for Cyprus until the Greek Cypriot side changes course and accepts the realities they created with guns.

As he says, "the people who will have to live with any solution are in the best position to judge what is suitable for them". The Greek Cypriot people are as much entitled to decide what is best for them as Turkish Cypriot people are. In Cyprus, these decisions have to coincide for a fair settlement to be achieved. For this to happen, it is necessary that the contestants are on a par and one of them is not allowed, any longer, to continue to claim to be the legitimate government of the other, or of all Cyprus. This position is not tenable under the Rule of Law, and the facts and realities of the last 40 years do not support such a spurious claim. A settlement on misconception or on illegalities cannot last even if forced down the throats of the two parties. What is wanted is truth, what is needed is an impartial diagnosis of the problem; what is wanted is respect for the equality of the two parties, and treating Turkish Cypriots merely as 25% of the population whose rights should be protected in a settlement is not equality. Turkish Cypriots are one of the two peoples, one of the two national units who will either live side by side without unification, or will work out the principles of a new permanent partnership which will enable them to co-operate (as good neighbours who need and respect each other) in the international arena for the good of both sides.

It is regrettable that Mr. Papadopoulos, who has put up all the obstacles and created all the difficulties preventing the EU from making life easier for Turkish Cypriots, can afford to state to the august body of the UN General Assembly that his government "is pursuing policies aiming to enhance the economic development of the Turkish Cypriots". The record of obstacles is very long and evident. I need not elaborate on it. All "openings" promised by Mr. Papadopoulos aim at forcing Turkish Cypriots to accept his authority as the legitimate government of Cyprus. This, of course, is quite unacceptable to the Turkish Cypriots.

It will be a repetition on my part to re-state what the problem is not, in view of the statement by Mr. Papadopoulos that, "This problem is the result of a military invasion and continued occupation of part of the territory of a sovereign state". This sovereign state was a partnership state, the homeland of both co-founder national Communities. The criminal Greek and Greek Cypriot conspiracy to take over the whole island and convert it into a Greek land with the resultant national resistance of the Turkish Cypriot partner to save its share of the homeland and prevent the colonization of the state is the Cyprus problem. It is this resistance of Turkish Cypriots which prevented the colonization of the island! Mr. Papadopoulos cannot claim unilaterally the right to speak for the sovereign state which his policies have split into two. The double referenda in which he took part for and on behalf of the Greek Cypriot people is a clear answer to such a claim. He has no right, no mandate to speak for Turkish Cypriots, or to accuse Turkey, which sacrificed her sons in order to prevent the colonization of the island. It is due to Turkey’s efforts and sacrifices that there still exist a chance for unifying the island, otherwise it could have been colonized by Greece in spite of the 1960 International Treaties which were devised in order to prevent such an eventuality.

On the question of the missing persons issue, Mr. Papadopoulos is well aware that the autonomous Missing Persons Committee (MPC), established by the UN, was constantly undermined by his representatives who refused to strike out any of the names of those who were confirmed as having been killed, thus proving, later at the ECHR, "the ineffectiveness" of this committee as a propaganda tool against Turkey. 90% of Turkish Cypriot missing persons are unarmed civilians including babies, young mothers, old grandparents, children of 9 months to 4-5 years, all elementary school children aged 11 in one village, whereas 90% of Greek Cypriot alleged "missing persons" are soldiers, armed militia who are known to have died in combat and, due to the summer heat buried wherever they fell dead. We tried to send over to the Greek Cypriot side the initial Greek / Greek Cypriot soldiers killed in the first day of the fighting but the "officers" of Mr. Nicos Sampson refused to take them. Thus, they had to be buried on the Turkish Cypriot side.

Furthermore, the Greek Cypriot leadership has not accounted for the intra-Greek killings and mass murders between 15 – 20 July 1974, some of whose graves are on the territory of the TRNC, but Greek Cypriot leaders have consistently refused to give us information about these burial places because they have listed all these Greek Cypriots killed by Greek Cypriots on the missing persons list in order to conceal their internal carnage.

"The accession of Cyprus to the European Union in conjunction with the lack of an agreement on the settlement of the Cyprus problem, in spite of our efforts and our preference for a settlement prior to accession, signifies the end of an era and the beginning of a new one" says Mr. Papadopoulos.

That half Cyprus has become an EU member; that it is the Greek Cypriot side who has brought about this anomalous condition by deceiving the world (especially the EU and the UN); that they have no legal mandate to represent the whole island; and that the era of such deception should end and a new era based on the proper diagnosis of the problem should begin is the honest expectation of Turkish Cypriots who have been on the suffering side of the coin since 1963.