DENKTASH: WHY THE GREEK CYPRIOTS MUST ACCEPT PROPERTY COMPENSATION
(Cyprus Mail - Saturday, August 30, 2003)

Below is the full text of an article on the property issue sent to the Cyprus Mail by Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktash

IT IS regrettable that the Greek Cypriot administration has chosen to hinder Greek Cypriots from applying to the independent judicial commission in the North for the settlement of their property questions. This is a fundamental interference in the right of the individual to pursue his claims freely and without any obstruction from any authority.

Until April 2003, there was a physical impediment to such pursuit locally but since April 2003 this impediment has been removed and both sides are in a position to seek remedies in each others’ tribunals, without making any sacrifices from their political stand or convictions. And this is how it should be because otherwise these people from both sides who have property claims arising from their displacement (for Turkish Cypriots as from December 1963) and for both Turkish and Greek Cypriots as from 1974 will have to wait until eternity. Half of the Turkish Cypriot population has moved North in 1975 as a result of the Exchange of Population Agreement and nearly a quarter of the Greek Cypriot population had moved South.

Settling the property questions of these people will greatly enhance the chances of a settlement because it will remove the uncertainty about the future set up for both sides. As is known, Turkish Cypriot side has tried to settle the property problem at every stage of the talks since 1977 but Greek Cypriot leadership has persistently blocked the way, promising Greek Cypriot refugees return to their properties in spite of the agreements that the future settlement will be based on bi-zonality.

A great number of Greek Cypriots who have visited the North since April 2003, now see that the best and quickest way of settling the property issue is through exchange or compensation. A number of old Greek Cypriot friends who came to see me have welcomed the move for setting up a commission for this purpose.

I hope that the flow of applications for such a fair deal will not stop because of the unacceptable threats of the Greek Cypriot authority.
The difficulty in settling the property problems through restitution is not merely political (the parties having agreed to settle the issue on a bi-zonal foundation, resting on the exchange of population agreement of 1975) but it is also due to the human factor that the occupiers of the abandoned Greek Cypriot properties in the North, are mostly Turkish Cypriots who were forcibly evicted from their villages and houses in 1963/64 and finally, who, by the agreement of 1975 voluntarily moved North in view of the acceptance of the fact that integrated life should be bi-zonal in the future. Therefore, it is unjust to settle the property problem of a displaced Greek Cypriot in 1974, by displacing anew a Turkish Cypriot who himself is a displaced person both in 1963/64 and later through the exchange of population Agreement in 1975. These people have fled conflict, leaving behind their own villages, homes and properties, which have been utterly destroyed, as witnessed now that they were able to visit their old habitats. These people have no wish to go back to their old places, which have been utterly destroyed or “compulsorily acquired by the Greek Cypriot authorities”. Turkish Cypriots who moved to the North under the 1975 agreement have taken care and developed the properties given to them in exchange for what they left in the South, believing that, because of the agreements on bi-zonality and exchange of population, there would be no dislocation again.

Under these circumstances it is most inappropriate for the Greek Cypriot administration to put obstacles before the Greek Cypriots owners who wish to settle their problems by resorting to the local commission now available for this purpose. This stance of the Greek Cypriots administration, which has destroyed most of the Turkish Cypriot properties in the South and/or compulsorily acquired them, is tantamount to saying that the South is now closed to Turkish Cypriot owners, but Greek Cypriot owners are entitled to their properties in the North.

This delicate balance between the rights of both sides to their properties has to be carefully watched so that one side or the other is not left homeless. In short, displaced persons exist on both sides and on both sides these people have been adequately rehabilitated. What is needed is fair and satisfactory compensation. The attempt to settle the problem of one of them through restitution of property is tantamount to creating a new refugee problem for the other. This is not the fast, fair and humanitarian way of settling the problem.

In Cyprus the period of terror and violence which uprooted one-fourth of the Turkish Cypriot population and denied all the rights of Turkish Cypriots from 1963 to 1974 ended with the agreement of bi-zonality and exchange of population which prepared the way to peace-building. The property questions have to be settled within this understanding. The fact that 40 years after the beginning of the conflict, the Greek Cypriot leadership, still clinging to the hi-jacked title of “the government of Cyprus”, pretends to have forgotten all the above and is still trying to get away with Cyprus, should not blur the visions of those who are trying to help the two peoples of Cyprus to solve their problems.

The conflict situation has been stabilised since 1974 and the bi-zonality of a future settlement is an agreed fact. What has to be done now is to settle the property questions in a satisfactory way. Turkish Cypriots cannot go to the South, not only for political and security reasons but also because there is almost nothing to go back to, and it is part of the agreement of peace-building that the two peoples should live in their own zones. So, Turkish Cypriots will have to be compensated rather than enjoy the right of restitution. If the same principle of compensation is not applied to the Greek Cypriot owners, then discrimination against Turkish Cypriots will be blatant.
In Cyprus, there is no denial of the right of ownership but there is a necessity for re-arranging the property claims justly and fairly in view of the new political set up. The serious human rights implications of various approaches to settling property questions, especially in the context of 40 years old Cyprus problem need no emphasis. Having agreed to a bi-zonal settlement and complied with the agreement of population exchange with the result that half of the Turkish Cypriot population from the South joined the remaining half in the North hoping that this would be the final dislocation they would face in four decades, and having left all that they owned in the South to the government in the North “in trust” for exchanging with Greek Cypriot properties they now occupy, it was unavoidable that they should have put all their money and efforts in enjoying and developing their new acquirements. Equally it was important that they should be able to mortgage, sell or lease these properties without hindrance as legal owners, as otherwise, economic life would come to a full stop. Hence granting them TRNC title-deeds for economic survival and development.

To disregard all these facts 30 years after the decision to settle the problem on the basis of two zones is not helping the process of peace, but is creating new conditions for future unrest. In Cyprus, both Turkish and Greek Cypriots refugees have been adequately rehabilitated. What remains is satisfaction on property issues and that satisfaction can easily be achieved by assessing the value of Turkish Cypriot properties in the South vis-à-vis Greek Cypriot properties in the North and then working a scheme for a fair settlement of this thorny issue. To insist that restitution is the only way of solving this problem is invitation to future conflicts between the parties who have been rehabilitated long ago.

The domestic remedy we have now put in action should not be pushed aside for a fictional view that application to the property commission is direct or indirect recognition of the state. Turkish Cypriots who are now able to seek remedies in the courts of the South are loyal subjects of TRNC with no intention or pretension of recognising the Greek Cypriot administration as their lawful government.

Recognition of the state of any nation is an act of state and does not arise from individual conducts. The independent commission established in the TRNC is composed of persons of sterling character, while independence of mind is assured under the Rule of Law: The members of the commission are assured the security of tenure of High Court Judges which is as follows:
Article 11 (3) of the “Law as to compensation For Immovable properties etc” provides:

1. “Judges cannot be dismissed; they cannot be retired before the age provided by the Constitution, unless they so desire, and they cannot be deprived of their acquired rights even in the event of the abolition of a court or a post.” -Article 137 of the Constitution!
Those appointed to the commission are persons of character. It will be a pity if politically motivated threats prevent a speedy settlement of the property issues.

This is an open and sincere invitation to a fair settlement of property issues, which will greatly enhance the chances of a fair and permanent settlement.