|
DENKTAS’
RESPONSE TO PAPADOPOULOS PUBLISHED AS UN DOCUMENT
TRNC
President Rauf Denktas’ response to the speech made by Greek Cypriot
leader Tassos Papadopoulos at the 58th session of the UN General
Assembly has been published as a UN document.
The
full text of President Denktas’ letter is as follows;
“Your
Excellency,
I
have the honour to refer to the statement made by the Greek Cypriot leader
Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, at the 58th session of the United
Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2003 in New York.
Every
year, we witness the Greek Cypriot officials appear before the Assembly to
repeat their well-known baseless allegations against Turkey and the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus and portray the Cyprus question as a problem of
“invasion” and “occupation”. It was no surprise, therefore, that Mr.
Papadopoulos followed the same path which is nothing other than a distortion
aimed at concealing the responsibility of the Greek Cypriot side in the
creation and perpetuation of the Cyprus issue. Mr. Papadopoulos’ remarks
are, however, of particular significance from another perspective as they
not only confirm our solid perception that the Greek Cypriot side is yet to
come to terms with the idea of sharing the future of the island with Turkish
Cypriots either as their equals or under the terms of a new partnership but,
demonstrate a clear refusal to accept Turkish Cypriots even as their
counterparts. Obviously, this kind of approach does not promote
reconciliation especially at a time when we, on our part, have taken bold
steps towards fostering confidence and good-neighbourly relations between
the two sides on the island.
It
needs to be stressed, at the outset, that none of the resolutions to which
Mr. Papadopoulos pays lip service in his statement describes the justified
Turkish intervention of 1974 as “aggression” or “invasion” or the
subsequent presence of Turkish troops in the island as “occupation”. In
fact, Turkey’s intervention, which prevented the illegal annexation of
Cyprus by Greece, was undertaken in accordance with her rights and
obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, and was fully legal and
legitimate under Article 4 of the said Treaty. The legality of the Turkish
intervention on Cyprus has also been underlined by the Parliamentary
Assembly of the Council of Europe in its Resolution 573 (1974), adopted on
29 July 1974 and by the Athens Court of Appeals in its decision of March 21,
1979.
In
fact, the only occupation in Cyprus is the 40-year-old usurpation and
continued occupation of the seat of government of the once bi-national
Republic of Cyprus by the Greek Cypriot side. As for “invasion” I only
wish to recall the dramatic speech made by the Greek Cypriot leader,
Archbishop Makarios, before the Security Council on 19 July 1974, in which
he openly accused Greece, not Turkey, of invading and occupying Cyprus. His
remarks, which came subsequent to the Greek coup of 15 July 1974, are well
recorded in the annals of the United Nations and require no elaboration.
What happened in Cyprus before the coup, however, is of equal if not greater
importance in revealing the Greek Cypriot side’s exclusive responsibility
for the existing division of the island.
Between
the years 1963-1974, Greek Cypriots, aided and abetted by Greece practiced
terrorism and tyranny against the Turkish Cypriot people aimed at the
annexation of the island to Greece. The right of the Turkish Cypriot people
to life, liberty and security was almost non-existent during this period.
Hundreds of Turkish Cypriots were killed and maimed by armed Greek Cypriot
paramilitaries and a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population (some 30,000
people) rendered homeless. Hundreds more were abducted or subjected to
enforced disappearance, never to be seen or heard of again. There is ample
graphic evidence that during the years between 1963 and 1974 a systematic
campaign of ethnic cleansing was directed against the Turkish Cypriot people
by their former partners. One needs only to look at the reports of the UN
Secretary-General and the press reports to see the gravity of the situation
created by the Greek Cypriot campaign for enosis.
It
is this background of violence, for which the Greek Cypriots themselves are
solely responsible, that has divided Cyprus, segregated the two peoples of
the island from each other by pushing the Turkish Cypriots into scattered
enclaves encompassing a mere 3% of the island’s territory for 11 years;
and finally led to the present division.
As
for legitimacy and effectiveness to which Mr. Papadopoulos refers in
conjunction with the UN system and universal goals, it should be noted that
the legitimacy of the 1960 partnership Republic of Cyprus lay in the joint
presence and effective participation of both peoples in all organs of the
State. Neither of the parties had the right to rule or be the Government of
the other or the island as a whole. Indeed, the fundamental feature of the
1959-60 Agreements giving rise to the establishment of the long-defunct
Republic of Cyprus was that one partner would not dominate the other. In
December 1963, the Greek Cypriot partner of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus
resorted to violence and usurped the state machinery by force of arms. Ever
since, there has not been a joint central administration in the island,
capable of representing the whole of Cyprus, either legally or factually. In
other words, the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus in its
usurped title as the “Government of the Republic of Cyprus” has no legal
or moral right to represent anyone but the Greek Cypriot people.
As
for effectiveness, I can only agree with Mr. Papadopoulos that no one can
reach the proficiency of the Greek Cypriots in utilizing international
recognition as a political leverage to the detriment of the Turkish Cypriot
side. Indeed, the unjust treatment by the international community of the
Greek Cypriot administration as the “legitimate Government of the Republic
of Cyprus” has always been and continues to be the main source of
encouragement for the Greek Cypriot side to reject equal power-sharing with
the Turkish Cypriots. As you are well aware, acting in its purported
capacity as the “Government of Cyprus” the Greek Cypriot administration
made a unilateral and unlawful application for EU membership and the
acceptance and processing of the said application by the European Union,
despite our justified opposition and International Treaties banning such an
eventuality, had a devastating effect on the efforts aimed at reconciliation
in Cyprus.
When
in December 2002 the EU declared that the Greek Cypriot administration would
be accepted as a new member on behalf of Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot side
hardened its position vis-à-vis a negotiated settlement confident that the
accepted parameters of a settlement in Cyprus, such as bi-zonality,
restrictions on the three freedoms and the continuation of the 1960
guarantee system, would disappear once “Cyprus” were to become a member
of the EU in which Greece was a member but Turkey was not. This position was
evident in the intransigent and inflexible attitude of the Greek Cypriot
side throughout the process of direct talks, which commenced in 2001 upon my
initiative and culminated in the talks at the Hague.
Contrary
to the claim of Mr. Papadopoulos, we all know that the talks did not fail as
a result of intransigence on our part but simply because the Greek Cypriot
administration, heartened by its EU membership prospects, was not willing to
concede to the concept of partnership between equals and to translate the
principles of sovereign equality and bi-zonality into practical terms.
Despite
the negative attitude of the Greek Cypriot administration, we concentrated
on giving a new impetus to the efforts targeting a comprehensive settlement
and, as Your Excellency will recall, on 2 April 2003 I put forward our
proposals aimed at overcoming the deep crisis of confidence between the two
peoples which has been blocking the way to a just and lasting settlement in
Cyprus. The proposals included opening parts of the fenced area of Varosha
for resettlement; removal of all restrictions imposed by the Greek Cypriot
side in overseas trade, transport and travel, as well as on cultural and
sportive activities; the free movement of peoples, including tourists and
UNFICYP; and free movement of goods. Unfortunately, the Greek Cypriot side
without even considering the said proposals rejected them the very same day.
Furthermore,
with a view to promoting the search for reconciliation through the creation
of a new climate of confidence, the Council of Ministers of the Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus adopted a decision on 21 April 2003, which
provided for the new arrangements for crossings between the TRNC and South
Cyprus. This was a historic decision to which both the Turkish Cypriot and
Greek Cypriot people reacted very positively.
As
you are well aware, one of the most fundamental issues in the Cyprus
question is that of property. The Turkish Cypriot side has for long been
proposing to the Greek Cypriot side that a Joint Property Claims Commission
be set up to look into Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot property claims and
to develop the modalities as to how the property issue can be settled on the
basis of the agreed principle of bi-zonality. The Greek Cypriot side has
been refusing this proposal while affected property owners are deprived of
effective remedies. In the absence of cooperation from the Greek Cypriot
side, the TRNC, in consultation with relevant international bodies, has
passed a new law through its Assembly providing remedies to Greek Cypriots
who wish to receive either full compensation against their properties, or
exchange their properties in the TRNC with those Turkish Cypriot properties
in the South. The humanitarian and practical significance of this
legislation cannot be over-stressed. The reaction of the Greek Cypriot
administration to this new opening of the TRNC has also been negative. Greek
Cypriot officials have taken turns in denouncing those Greek Cypriots who
chose to make use of this legal remedy in the TRNC. This constitutes a
blatant attempt to curtail individual rights of Greek Cypriots and to
undermine an effective instrument provided by the TRNC which conforms fully
with relevant international norms.
Your
Excellency will also recall my letter of 11 July 2003 in which I sought your
support to initiate another major undertaking. The Turkish Cypriot side
proposed the opening of Nicosia International Airport under UN
administration to serve both sides. The proposed package also included the
other measures foreseen in the UN Confidence Building Measures proposals of
1993 and 1994, including the opening up of the fenced area of Varosha for
re-settlement under UN administration. The Greek Cypriot side has also
rejected this constructive proposal.
In
Mr. Papadopoulos’ own words with regard to the situation in the Middle
East; “the necessary political will should be demonstrated by both sides
at all levels and be matched with persistent action on the ground in the
right directions”. The recent developments in Cyprus during which the
Greek Cypriot leadership failed to reciprocate to our each and every
initiative in any direction demonstrated beyond doubt that the proposed
political will of the Greek Cypriot party for a “functional and viable
solution” is nothing more than an empty remark designed to impress the
audience.
On
the other hand, it is true that the overwhelming majority of the Turkish
Cypriot people are willing and ready for a political solution in Cyprus as
well as European Union membership. It is equally true, however, that the
Turkish Cypriot people are also ready and determined to make sure that their
state – the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus – is not dismantled by
any means and to continue protecting their inherent rights and interests at
all costs instead of yielding to Greek Cypriot aspirations of bringing
Cyprus under their domination.
With
regard to the all-important issue of human rights, I wish to stress that the
Greek Cypriots are in no position to blame anyone for violating human rights
and freedoms in Cyprus especially at a time when the inhuman Greek Cypriot
embargoes imposed on the Turkish Cypriot people under the usurped title of
the “Government of Cyprus” continues unabated. The all-encompassing
Greek Cypriot embargoes 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 rest of the world; to
curtailing trade and tourism between the TRNC and the outside world; and to
hampering all cultural and sporting relations of the Turkish Cypriot people
with other countries.
Furthermore,
despite the positive moves of the Turkish Cypriot side, Greek Cypriot
authorities continue to discourage both Greek Cypriots and tourists from
crossing over to North Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot authorities do not allow
tourists to stay overnight in North Cyprus and threaten the Greek Cypriots
and others who choose to stay with legal action and fines. People who buy
consumer goods from Turkish Cypriot shops in the TRNC are faced with
difficulties on their way back to South Cyprus. Greek Cypriot press reports
confirm that such goods continue to be confiscated by the Greek Cypriot
police in spite of public outrage in the face of such senseless acts.
Regarding
the humanitarian issue of missing persons, it is noteworthy that Mr.
Papadopoulos has conveniently omitted any reference to the Turkish Cypriot
missing who disappeared during the atrocities of 1963 to 1974. This position
is, of course, in tact with the inherent Greek Cypriot policy with regard
to this sensitive issue. In spite of real and direct evidence
testifying to the reality that most of the Greek Cypriots listed as missing
by the Greek Cypriot administration are those killed by the Greeks
themselves in the internecine war during the coup d’etat of 15 July
1974 or those killed in the events that the coup had triggered off,
subsequent Greek Cypriot administrations managed to conceal the truth from
Greek Cypriots and the international community, alike, for decades and
exploited this humanitarian issue for political gain at the expense of the
families on both sides who had lost their loved ones.
It
should be recalled, in this context, that following a series of dramatic
disclosures in Southern Cyprus concerning cases of so-called “missing
persons” being kept on the missing list in spite of the knowledge that
they had been killed during the events of 1974, the then Greek Cypriot
Foreign Minister, Mr. Ioannis Kasoulides, admitted that the Greek Cypriot
administration “owed many apologies” to the relatives of the “missing”.
Your
Excellency knows too well that the only body competent to solve the question
of missing persons in Cyprus is the autonomous tripartite UN Committee on
Missing Persons in Cyprus established in 1981 and comprising of one Turkish
Cypriot, one Greek Cypriot and a neutral member appointed by the UN
Secretary-General. It is evident even from the composition of the Committee
on Missing Persons in Cyprus (CMP) that Turkey is not a party to this issue.
In view of these realities, the non-reference by Mr. Papadopoulos to the CMP
and his attempt to link Turkey to the question of missing persons
demonstrates that the Greek Cypriot leadership is still not interested in
putting an end to this humanitarian ordeal but in prolonging it by shifting
to other platforms through dissolving the CMP which, owing to its structure,
not only gives equal say to both parties but ensures impartiality.
I
wish to take this opportunity to reiterate that the Turkish Cypriot side is
prepared to cooperate fully, as hitherto, within the CMP to resolve the
issue in line with the expectations of the families concerned on both sides.
We only hope that adopting the same constructive approach, the Greek Cypriot
side will stop playing with human pain and reveal the full list of the names
and places of burial of all the Greek Cypriots who were killed during the
Greek coup of 15 July 1974, hence
remove the main impediment in the way of progress towards the final solution
of this long lasting issue.
As
for Mr. Papdopoulos’ remarks on refugees, I only wish to recall the
historical fact that the question of displaced persons in Cyprus has been
fundamentally settled through the Third Vienna Agreement dated 2 August
1975. With this agreement the two sides agreed on a voluntary re-grouping of
populations in their own respective territory under the supervision of
UNFICYP. Both the agreement and its implementation are well recorded in
relevant UN documents. (S/11789 of 5 August 1974, S/11789/Add.1 of 10
September 1975).
Regarding
the issue of the so-called “enclaved”, it is noteworthy that the term
enclaves was first used in the relevant reports of the UN Secretary-General
to describe the areas which Turkish Cypriots had been forced into by Greek
Cypriots during the period between 1963-1974. Lately, the Greek Cypriot side
has been trying to utilize the term of so-called “enclaved people” for
propaganda purposes by exploiting the presence of the several hundred Greek
Cypriots living in Northern Cyprus. The fact is that there have been no
“enclaved people” in Cyprus since the liberation of the Turkish Cypriots
by Turkey in 1974 and that the Greek Cypriots living in the Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus enjoy the same rights and living conditions as the rest
of the residents of the TRNC.
Before
I conclude, Excellency, I wish to reiterated that, as I confirmed to you in
my letter of 24 July 2003, the military authorities of the Turkish Republic
of Northern Cyprus are prepared to discuss with UNFICYP the issue of de-mining
in Nicosia and its close vicinity.”
In
a press conference organized regarding the latest developments in Cyprus,
President Denktas evaluated the EU Progress Report and its sections
referring to Turkey and Cyprus. The President said if the Cyprus issue was
an issue that constituted an obstacle for either side’s entry into the EU,
then the application made by the Greek Cypriot side on behalf of Cyprus
should have been prevented.
The
President said: “It is not possible for the EU, who didn’t put the
Cyprus issue in front of the Greek Cypriots and Greece as an obstacle and
acknowledges the Greek Cypriot side as being the legitimate government of
Cyprus, to correct this fault by punishing Turkey. This attitude will
further escalate its fault. The
EU has done a grave injustice and is discriminating the Turkish people and
by treating the Greek Cypriot side, who has violated the human and
constitutional rights of the Turkish Cypriots, as the legitimate government
it is contradicting its own principles. Careful analysis of this issue by
the Turkish press will bring the EU to its senses. As a result of its wrong
decisions the EU is more worried than we are. Because of this they are
exerting unbelievable pressures on us so that with our signature we can
correct their fault, eliminate Turkey’s rights over Cyprus and through the
Annan plan, which is indirect enosis, enter the EU…the Turkish people will
continue to show the world that they will not bow to this…”
Stressing
that Turkey was not an “invader” in Cyprus, President Denktas said if
law was being violated in Cyprus, this was down to the Greek-Greek Cypriot
duo. He added that the EU was assisting and supporting the Greek Cypriots
and Greeks, who had violated the law. “This is a big shame which will go
down in history”, he added.
Stressing
that the Turkish side was ready for reconciliation and peace and to
establish a new partnership on the basis of the realities, the President
underlined that there are two peoples, two sovereignties and two democracies
in Cyprus, called upon the Greek-Greek Cypriot duo and EU to acknowledge
this.
Referring
to the statement made by the EU Enlargement Commissioner, Gunter Verheugen,
after the announcement of the 2003 EU Progress Report for Turkey, that the
EU expects a settlement in Cyprus, President Denktas said if the EU expects
a settlement, why did they prevent it?
Continuing,
the President asked if it was logical to expect a settlement when the EU was
constantly telling the Greek Cypriots on every occasion that whether there
was a settlement or not, whether they accepted the Annan plan or not, Cyprus
would become an EU member. He added that with these guarantees to the Greek
Cypriots the EU itself prevented a balanced settlement from being reached.
TRNC
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE: “ALLEGATIONS REGARDING LANDMINES
ARE UNFOUNDED”
In
a written statement issued yesterday (5 November), the TRNC Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and Defence stated that allegations that the Turkish Cypriot
side were removing anti personnel landmines and replacing them with
landmines for heavy vehicles were totally unfounded.
The
full text of the statement is as follows;
“According
to a news item in yesterday’s Greek Cypriot press, at the meeting of the
Budget Committee of the Greek Cypriot House of Representatives held on 3
November 2003, concerning the budget of the Greek Cypriot Ministry of
Defence, Ms. Maria Kiriaku, a member of Parliament from DISI, has claimed
without any ground that the Turkish side had replaced the anti personnel
mines with heavy vehicle mines and had reinforced the mine fields. In
response, the Greek Cypriot Defence Minister Mr. Mavronikolas has also
alleged that he had received information to this effect.
Such
allegations, which ignore the fact that the proposal to clear the mines in
Nicosia and its vicinity was made by President Denktas, has once more
demonstrated that the Greek Cypriot side is devoid of any good will. It is
clear that the allegations in question are directed towards sabotaging the
initiatives taken by the TRNC aimed at the normalization of relations
between the two peoples and the efforts towards creating a positive
atmosphere in order to facilitate lasting reconciliation between the two
sides.
Therefore,
we invite once again the Greek Cypriot side to refrain from spreading
unfounded allegations aimed at creating tension and instead to pursue
a constructive approach conductive to establishing good neighbourly
relations and cooperation between the two parties in the island”.
|
