24 June 2005

Excellency,

It has come to my attention that the Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus is planning to ratify the new EU Constitution on behalf of the whole island at the Greek Cypriot Parliament as the “Parliament of Cyprus” on 30 June 2005. The results of the April 2004 referenda on the comprehensive settlement plan of the UN Secretary-General, namely the Annan Plan, have changed the parameters of the Cyprus question. In spite of the overwhelming Turkish Cypriot vote for unification and EU membership, the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan prevented a united Cyprus from entering the Union. I am confident, therefore, that you will consider the following in the light of the new circumstances brought about by Turkish Cypriot dedication to reconciliation.

The Republic of Cyprus was founded in accordance with the international 1959-60 London and Zurich Agreements. The legitimacy of the 1960 Republic lay in the joint presence and effective participation of the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities in all organs of the State. Neither party had the right to rule the other or assume the right to be the Government of the other or the island as a whole in the absence of the other in all organs of the State and its Government.

H.E. Mr. Jose Manuel Barroso
President
European Commission
Brussels.

The partnership Republic of Cyprus was destroyed in December 1963 when the Greek Cypriot partner forcibly ejected all Turkish Cypriot members from their positions in all the state organs. The Turkish Cypriot partner did not accept this attempted takeover of the bi-communal State and prevented the Greek Cypriot side from extending its authority over Turkish Cypriots. In consequence, since December 1963, there has not been a joint central administration in the island, capable of representing the whole of Cyprus, either legitimately or factually. Each side has since ruled itself, while the Greek Cypriot side has continued to claim that it is the sole “Government of Cyprus”.

The Turkish Cypriot side was, thus, deprived of all its vested rights, including the right to veto decisions relating to foreign affairs or to approve such decisions by deliberately acquiescing in them. In spite of this undeniable fact, the Greek Cypriot administration unilaterally applied for EU membership on behalf of the whole island and managed to bring the “Republic of Cyprus” to the verge of full membership. However, the Greek Cypriot posture to represent the whole island did not change the reality that a divided island was going to enter the EU in the absence of a political settlement. Hence, the UN Secretary-General initiated a new process of negotiations in 1999 with the ultimate objective of uniting Cyprus in time for accession to the EU on 1 May 2004. A new window of opportunity was, therefore, created to ensure that the EU membership of Cyprus materialized as a result of the common will and consent of the two equal communities of the island.

As you know, the four and a half years of negotiations produced its final result on 31 March 2004 and simultaneous referenda were held on the Annan Plan on 24 April 2004 in both parts of the island. The plan was approved in the Turkish Cypriot referendum by 65%, clearly demonstrating that the expressed will of Turkish Cypriots is in favour of unification on the principles of partnership, bi-zonality and political equality. On the other hand, 76 % of the Greek Cypriot community rejected the plan as a result of the open incitement of their leader, Mr. Papadopoulos. This clearly proved that the Greek Cypriot side was not ready to enter into a power-sharing arrangement with Turkish Cypriots. Instead, they opted to continue to enjoy the benefits of the title of the “Republic of Cyprus” which was usurped since December 1963.

The simultaneous referenda also confirmed the fact that there exist two equal communities on the island, neither of which represents the other. Consequently, it would be untenable to claim that there is a single authority to represent the whole island, disregarding the reality that any solution in Cyprus requires the consent of both sides and both peoples. The two peoples have the right of self-determination and they used this right in the referenda simultaneously. Hence, neither side can claim jurisdiction or authority over the other, and their powers are limited to their own communities.

The Greek Cypriot side, over the years, based its arguments on the principle of the doctrine of necessity. Although the doctrine of necessity did not legitimize their claims, the Greek Cypriot posture to be the legal “Government of the Republic of Cyprus” prevailed on the main premise that the Turkish Cypriot side was pursuing secessionist policies. In fact, all UN resolutions citing the Greek Cypriot regime as the legal “Government” were based on the assumption that Turkish Cypriots were supporting secession. The April 2004 referenda have changed this notion beyond doubt.

The results of the referenda have shown which side is for a solution that encompasses unification and peace, and which side is for continuation of division. In paragraph 90 of his report dated 28 May 2004 (S/2004/437) to the Security Council, the UN Secretary-General noted “the will of the Turkish Cypriots, who have voted for unification” and declared that “this vote has undone whatever rationale might have existed for pressuring and isolating them.” The UN Secretary-General also stressed in the same report that what was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side “was the solution itself rather than a mere blueprint. (para. 83)”.

The Greek Cypriot side can no longer use the doctrine of necessity against the Turkish Cypriots. Nor can that doctrine be relied upon to justify the laws of a government which had itself campaigned against unification; hence, prevented normalizing the State structure; and ultimately blocked the full EU membership of Cyprus as a whole.

It is amply clear, therefore, that the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus has no legal or moral right to claim to represent or act on behalf of anyone other than the Greek Cypriot people. It is now time to acknowledge the undeniable fact that the “Government of the Republic of Cyprus” has no legal or moral right or the jurisdiction to represent or act on behalf of the whole island or Turkish Cypriots who have their own democratically elected representatives. Accordingly, there is no legal, moral or factual justification for an exclusively Greek Cypriot House of Representatives ratifying the EU Constitution on behalf of the “Republic of Cyprus” while the provisions of the 1959-60 London and Zurich Agreements require the explicit consent of the Turkish Cypriot side in such matters.

In view of the above, the ratification of the EU Constitution by the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus, in its purported capacity as the “Government of the Republic of Cyprus”, will not, in any way, be binding on the Turkish Cypriot people without their separate consent. I wish to reiterate, in this context, the firm commitment of Turkish Cypriots and their elected leadership to unification and EU membership.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

Mehmet Ali Talat
President