My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

It is a great pleasure being in the UK Parliament.

As the honorable members of the British Parliament, and as people with a keen interest in Cyprus, I am sure that you all are already well informed about the history of Cyprus and how the state of affairs of today came into being. Hence, I will not go into the  details of the history of Cyprus.  

It should be kept in mind however that since the forceful destruction of the Partnership Republic of Cyprus in 1963, there has not been a joint administration in the island.

Despite this fact, the grave mistake of recognising the Greek Cypriots as the legitimate successors of the “Republic of Cyprus” continues. This is indeed the major impediment on the road to a solution in the island and should be addressed.

What I am trying to say is that the international community and in particular Britain as one of the Guarantor powers of the 1960 Partnership Republic should refrain from giving the Greek Cypriot administration the assurance that even in the absence of a settlement, they will continue to enjoy all the benefits of the Republic.

In fact, it is this posture of the international community that fuels the Greek Cypriot intransigence.

Negotiations for the solution of the Cyprus problem have been carried out since 1968.  The Turkish Cypriot side continues to participate in these negotiations, which have been continuing intermittently, in a constructive manner. The aim has been to establish a new partnership between the two sides on the basis of UN parameters which emerged over the course of the long years of negotiations, such as political equality and bi-zonality.

After numerous failed attempts, the UN Settlement Plan of 2004 came into being as the outcome of four and a half years of negotiations. The people of the TRNC approved it by 65 per cent in the separate, simultaneous referenda held in both sides of the island on 24 April 2004. Aware of the fact that a settlement requires compromise, the Turkish Cypriot people have endorsed the Plan despite the great sacrifices it entailed for them.

The Greek Cypriot side’s rejection by 76 percent of the Plan, however, came as a shock to the international community, which considered the Plan as a window of opportunity. With its rejection of the settlement plan, the Greek Cypriot side has clearly shown that it is not ready to enter into a power-sharing arrangement with the Turkish Cypriot people. The separate simultaneous referenda confirmed on the other hand that there exist two equal peoples on the island, and that each side governs itself.

In view of their affirmative vote, the international community and particularly the European Union took decisions and made numerous pledges for the lifting of the unnecessary restrictions on the social, economic and political development of the Turkish Cypriot people.

Despite the repeated calls, in their reports, of both the outgoing and the current UN Secretary-General’s to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people little has been done by the international community.

It is now accepted by all concerned that the unilateral membership of the Greek Cypriot side into the EU without reaching a settlement in Cyprus has further complicated the Cyprus problem.

Since its accession to the EU, the Greek Cypriot side has been exploiting its membership through strategies which aim to do away with the UN negotiating process. It has also concentrated its efforts to block every step of the EU towards the easing of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots.

It should of course be kept in mind that the lifting of the isolation is not an end in itself, but it will surely be conducive to a settlement as it would bridge the gap between the two sides, paving the way for a smoother transition in the event of a settlement. At the same time, it would also show to the Greek Cypriot side that its policy of non-solution will not keep the Turkish Cypriots isolated forever and thus it would have to reconsider its current negative stance.

For this we need your support. We hope that the Honorable members of the British Parliament and all our friends in Britain will make a concerted effort to end the isolation of the people of the TRNC.

It is most disappointing to note that, even a friendly football game cannnot take place between a British team, Luton Town and Turkish Cypriot team Çetinkaya. You would certainly remember that the game could not take place and was cancelled only few minutes before the kick-off, due to the extreme pressure exerted on Luton Town by the Greek Cypriots.

Unfortunately, the all-encompassing isolations imposed on the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots do not stop at sports. They range from:

·         denying the Turkish Cypriot people the right of representation in international fora;

·         to preventing or restricting their travel abroad and their communication with the outside world;

·         to curtailing the trade and tourism between the TRNC and the outside world;

            and to hampering all cultural and sporting relations.

One of the most serious aspects of the isolation is the prevention of direct flights to the TRNC. As long ago as 18^th May 2004 the then Prime Minister Blair said that it was important to end the isolation of Northern Cyprus and to lift the embargoes in respect to trade and to air travel.

The Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons made a similar statement in its Report on Cyprus.

On 8^th July 2004 the Foreign Office Minister told the House of Lords that: “ the British Government fully support the agreed EU policy of ending the isolation of Turkish Cypriots, and that direct flights to Northern Cyprus could play a useful role in bringing that about.”  

Over a year later, the Foreign Office Minister said the UK supported, in principle, the commencement of direct flights from the UK to Northern Cyprus but as yet “no decision had been reached on the basis of legal considerations”.

Frankly, legal or technical obstacles put forth by the interested parties seem nothing more than a pretext to justify the failure to end the isolation. We therefore had no choice but to bring a legal action in the English Courts, and we hope that this will yield positive results on direct flights this year.

I am compelled to say that the developments with regard to direct trade are still very unsatisfactory.

Following the referenda held on both sides, the European Commission, in line with the Council’s decision of 26 April 2004, prepared a package of proposals that consists of two regulations: Direct Trade and Financial Aid.

The two regulations which were complementary in nature were later de-coupled due to the political pressure exerted by the Greek Cypriot administration.

Approval of only the Financial Aid Regulation with many significant changes on 27 February 2006 has certainly contradicted the main objective of the 26 April decision.

Unfortunately deadlock still continues on the approval of the Direct Trade Regulation.

The EU Council of Ministers took a decision on 22 January 2007 reiterating their support for the adoption of the Direct Trade Regulation and for the resumption of works in this regard. After more than three years, the Direct Trade Regulation is still on the table. Every effort to initiate the process for its adoption has been blocked by the Greek Cypriot side’s unacceptable demands.

We the Turkish Cypriots expect the Direct Trade Regulation to be adopted as it is proposed by the EU Commission in July 2004, without being subjected to any preconditions, enabling preferential trade with EU countries through our ports.

Any arrangement to the contrary will not be accepted by the Turkish Cypriot side and will further lessen the confidence of the Turkish Cypriot people towards the EU.

On the other hand, adoption of the Direct Trade Regulation in its original version will be a step forward for the lifting of the isolation upon the Turkish Cypriot people.

Further delay in the adoption of the said regulation would be to the advantage of the Greek Cypriot administration whose sole objective is to continue to impose isolation upon the Turkish Cypriot people. Hence, we expect the United Kingdom to encourage the current EU presidency to take up this issue and bring it to a favourable end.

Having said the above, there are of course some positive developments which indicate that the just cause of the Turkish Cypriot people is gradually being acknowledged by the international community.

The signing of the Strategic Partnership Agreement between Turkey and the United Kingdom is an important development in this regard. The said Agreement emphasizes the ending of the isolation imposed on the Turkish Cypriot people and the promotion of the direct commercial, economic, political and cultural contacts between the UK, the EU and the Turkish Cypriots.

Within this framework, it also underlines the importance of maintaining high-level contacts with the Turkish Cypriot authorities, the continued support for the TRNC universities to participate in the European Higher Education Area and the representation of the Turkish Cypriot parliamentarians in the European Parliament. I hope that the UK will stand by its words and set an example for the other countries.

I am confident that the Honorable Joan Ryan as the British Government’s Special Representative to Cyprus will play a pivotal role in establishing a liaison between UK and the Turkish Cypriot people, and that she will be strictly even-handed in her dealings with the two peoples of Cyprus, both in the UK and in Cyprus.

Another positive development is the statement made by the European Commission vis-à-vis the seaports in North Cyprus. This statement clearly reveals that the decision of the Greek Cypriot side to declare our ports closed was a unilateral act and that there is no legal restriction for the use of the sea ports located in North Cyprus under international law. The statement of the EU also confirms the fact that the use of seaports in the TRNC is a bilateral issue and that there is no decision of the UN or EU or any other organization prohibiting their use. Most recently, Olli Rehn, in response to a question, reconfirmed the position of the Commission in a written statement, stating once again that there is no restriction over the use of our sea ports.

The starting of direct ferry tours between the TRNC and Syria is a case in point demonstrating that the only obstacle in our way is the lack of political determination of the international community and it needs to be addressed without further delay.

Developments such as direct sea ferry boat services or pledges from international actors such as the UK gain more importance, as they will give out a strong message to the Greek Cypriot side that its policies will not be rewarded anymore. 

Our expectation is that countries like the United Kingdom will stand by their promises and show the necessary determination to take concrete steps to end the isolation, despite all Greek Cypriot efforts to achieve the contrary.

Hopefully this will be done without further delay since the international community must restore its fading credibility in the eyes of the Turkish Cypriots.

For the time being, negotiated settlement remains a desirable option for Turkish Cypriots. The Greek Cypriots pay lip-service to this objective, but their actions show that their aim is to postpone the settlement of the problem, with the hope that in the course of time it can do away with the established UN parameters and bring the Turkish Cypriots under their control by a process of osmosis. I can tell you quite clearly that they will never succeed.

Perhaps a detailed account of the recent developments with regard to negotiations is necessary at this point.

Following the results of the referenda and the failure to adopt the Comprehensive Settlement Plan, the negotiations came to a standstill. Answering to our repeated calls, the UN decided to take an initiative to establish a mechanism for day to day affairs that affect both sides on the island, such as crime, illicit activity and infectious diseases. The efforts of the UN to establish a cooperation link between the two sides led to the 8 July process.

The main purpose of the 8 July agreement of 2006 is to break the current impasse in the negotiating process, since it foresees the immediate resumption of full-fledged negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement.

However, the Greek Cypriot side has been blocking the process, intensifying its efforts instead to tightening the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people. Consequently, the numerous meetings held between the representatives of the two sides did not bring about any tangible results. The Turkish Cypriot side’s calls for the meeting of the two leaders to overcome the deadlock and moving the process forward were only responded to after a year’s delay.

The two leaders met on 5 September 2007 within the framework of the good-offices mission of the UNSG to discuss the ways to move the process forward with a view to pave the way for the negotiations for the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

The Turkish Cypriot side stepped ahead and proposed at the leaders’ meeting that after a preparation period of two and a half months to be carried out within the framework of the 8 July process, full-fledged negotiations between the two leaders to start and the working groups as well as the technical committees continue to work parallel to full-fledged negotiations.

Believing in the need for an urgent solution, the Turkish Cypriot side also proposed that the end of the year 2008 is targeted for the solution of the Cyprus problem.

The Greek Cypriot side rejected, out of hand, the whole idea of a timetable. The position adopted by the Greek Cypriot leader during the meeting also surfaced that Papadopoulos attended it as a maneuver for the upcoming elections in South Cyprus.   

The TRNC President H.E. Mr. Mehmet Ali Talat met the UN Secretary-General H.E. Mr. Ban-ki Moon on 16 October 2007. At this meeting he brought a package of confidence building measures, which was the revised version of the dated 6 July 2006, to the attention of the UNSG.

It is obvious that the implementation of these confidence building measures will help prepare the ground for the start of full-fledged negotiations. The Turkish Cypriot side reiterated at the meeting that it is committed to the immediate resumption of full-fledged negotiations under the good-offices mission of the UNSG to find a solution in Cyprus and years of negotiations have provided us with the necessary body of work to reach a solution.

The Greek Cypriot side on the other hand has communicated its so-called 8-point proposal to the UNSG on 15 October 2007, only a day before the meeting of President Talat.  Their aim was clearly to deceive the international community through appearing to be committed to the process, when in fact they are playing politics.

The Greek Cypriot proposals do not contain any suggestion for moving the process forward, let alone for the resumption of full-fledged negotiations. The so-called proposals can only be considered as the Greek Cypriot side’s position paper at best.

The true intentions of the Greek Cypriot side have been revealed at the General Assembly of the United Nations. These past years the Greek Cypriot leader Papadopoulos did not refrain from stating his vision of a settlement. It is apparent the only acceptable solution to the Greek Cypriot side lies through the assimilation of the Turkish Cypriot people within the Greek Cypriot state.

While paying lip service to a federal solution, the Greek Cypriot side envisages a unitary state and would not agree to any other formulation which would require power sharing with the Turkish Cypriots. The responsibility here lies with the international community. The Greek Cypriot side, through concrete action, should be forced to see that a solution in the island can only be achieved through acceptance of the fact that there exist two equal peoples on the island.

Following the Greek Cypriot elections in February, a new initiative by the UN is expected. Regardless of the outcome of the elections, in view of the fact that time is not on the side of a settlement, the new initiative should take into account the existing realities.  Years of negotiations have provided us with the necessary body of work for a settlement. Hence, parameters such as political equality, equal status and bi-zonality should be the sine qua non conditions setting out for the new partnership in a future settlement.  

At the end of my speech, I feel obliged to stress that we believe in the need for an urgent solution to the Cyprus problem. The Turkish Cypriot people cannot be held hostage to Greek Cypriot aspirations forever. The year 2008 should be viewed as a year for new opportunities and openings for a solution. Your Excellency’s our proposal for the immediate resumption of negotiations remain at the table.

The Turkish Cypriot side continues to be committed for the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem under the auspices of the good offices mission of the UNSG and on the basis of the established UN parameters and the body of work.

Thank you.