Michael A. Zachariades
Leiden University
September 2002
LLM Public International Law
TRANSPLANTED POPULATIONS and the PROBLEMS CAUSED: CYPRUS
Table of Contents
1. Cyprus Chronology
- Leading up to Turkish Invasion
2. International Law
and Turkey’s Violations due to Invasion and Occupation
3. Turkey’s
Declaration of an Independent State
4. European Court of
Human Rights Finds Turkey Guilty
5. Joint Legal Opinion
of Legal Experts
6. European Stance on
the Cyprus Problem and European Union Membership
7. Turkish Settlers
8. Turkish-Cypriot
Press
9. Solutions
10. Conclusion
TRANSPLANTED POPULATIONS and the PROBLEMS CAUSED: CYPRUS
In
the pages that follow, we will begin, in Part I, by taking a journey through
Cyprus’ history leading up to Turkey’s military invasions in July and August
1974. We will prove that due to the treaties that were signed and the
Constitution that was drafted for Cyprus, after she gained independence from
Britain in 1960, set her on a collision course with outside control, occupation
and division.
In
Part II, we will note that Turkey’s invasions that occurred in 1974 led to her
constant violations and blatant disregard for international law. Subsequently,
we will question why Turkey and her authorities have not been held accountable
for their actions.
Later,
in Part III, Turkey’s “puppet regime”, the “Turkish Republic of Northern
Cyprus” (“TRNC”), declared itself an independent state. We will conclude that
the “TRNC” did not satisfy the Montevideo requirements for acquisition of
statehood. Therefore, the creation of such an entity is a violation of
international law and subsequently, any recognition of the “TRNC” is also a violation
of international law.
In
Part IV, we will cover the European Court of Human Rights and the decisions of Loizidou v. Cyprus and Cyprus v. Turkey. These two cases are
important for the future of Cyprus and her people, both
Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike.
Then
we will, in Part V, review the “Joint Legal Opinion” of legal experts in
regards to several issues affecting Cyprus today. We will address various
issues relating to human rights violations committed in Cyprus, by Turkey. For
instance, we will cover forcible transfers as breaches of particular human
rights standards, forcible transfers as racial, religious or other
discrimination: “ethnic cleansing”, large scale forcible transfers as a crime
against humanity, and forcible expulsion by a belligerent or unlawful occupant.
Part
VI will assess the European Stance on the Cyprus Problem and European Union
Membership. We will also include a section devoted to the winners and losers of
Cyprus’ accession into the European Union. Subsequently, we will conclude that
Turkey has the most to lose and gain by solving the Cyprus Problem prior to
Cyprus’ accession.
In
Part VII, we will review the issues relating to the Turkish “settlers” and the
Turkish policy of “Turkification” in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus. This will
include the creation of citizenship laws in the “occupied areas”, contrary to
the Republic of Cyprus’ laws, in order to give “settlers” Turkish-Cypriot
citizenship.
Part
VIII will be devoted exclusively to the Turkish-Cypriot press. In this section,
we will include several articles written by Turkish-Cypriot journalists
regarding the crisis that exists in “occupied” Cyprus. This will help the
reader understand that a solution will help the Turkish-Cypriots and
Greek-Cypriots alike.
Then, in Part IX, we will look into various means of
finding a just and viable solution to the Cyprus Problem. We will begin by
looking into Turkey’s military action and occupation as illegal and “an act of
aggression” that cannot be sanctioned. Therefore, we will conclude that since
Turkey’s initial action was illegal, anything that flows from that initial
illegal act is, therefore, also illegal.
Then, we will look into the mandatory steps that need to
be taken in order for there to be a solution that is fair for all the people of
Cyprus. For instance, we will conclude that the Turkish military withdrawal
from Cyprus, the return of refugees and displaced persons to their country,
property and homes, and that the repatriation of Turkish “settlers” is the only
means at finding a realistic solution. Additionally, we understand that every
individual has rights, hence, we will question whether any of the “settlers” in
the “occupied areas” have any legal right to remain in Cyprus.
Finally, in Part X, we will present our conclusion based
on the facts and law established in the proceedings pages. We will argue that
the continuing illegal acts committed by Turkey, in Cyprus, shall no longer be
unnoticed or ignored by the international community. The solution should not
legalize the atrocities that have been committed by Turkey. Most importantly,
the solution should not waive or ignore any rights that any displaced person or
refugee is or has been entitled to since Turkey’s act of aggressions in 1974.
Cyprus is the third largest island in the Mediterranean
Sea, about the size of the State of Connecticut, USA, with an area of 9,251
square kilometers. Its location is important because it lays in the
northeastern corner of the Sea, where three continents meet - Europe, Asia and
Africa. At the end of 1997, Cyprus’ population was 746,100. It consists of over
85% Greek-Cypriots, which includes Maronites, Armenian, Latins, 12% Turkish
Cypriots and 3% foreigners residing in Cyprus.
The island’s location and its copper attracted traders and
settlers from much of the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It
appeared for the first time in the history of civilization during the Neolithic
period. However, it was during the last phase of the Bronze Age, in the 13th
century B.C., when the Mycenean Greeks came for the first time to Cyprus as
merchants and immigrants. They settled and introduced the Greek language and
culture and both have been preserved to this day.
Tauber, the demographer aptly described this persistence
of Hellenism as,
“When it is remembered that the major Greek
colonization occurred in the Bronze Age, that alien groups ruled Cyprus for
more than two thousand years, that refugees had come in from many areas at many
different periods, the persistence of a basically Greek population is quite
astounding.”
At the end of the 4th century B.C., Cyprus
became part of the Kingdom of Alexander the Great, which lasted until the 1st
century B.C., when Cyprus became part of the Roman Empire and we see the
beginning of the Byzantine period under Emperor Constantine. Byzantium, now
Istanbul, became the capital of the Roman Empire. Under Constantine, Byzantium
was called New Rome and then Constantinople. During the 15th
century, Cyprus came under the rule of the French Lusignans and the Orthodox
Church was repressed. In 1489, Cyprus became part of the Republic of Venice and
in 1571, the Ottomans conquered it.
It is crucial to note that in examining the demographic
history on Cyprus, the two most important events that are relevant to the
present demographic profile of the island are:
(1) the establishment
of Hellenic colonies during the Bronze Age and
(2) the introduction of
the Turkish component into the population matrix of the island following the
Turkish conquest of 1571.
Under Ottoman rule, the Greek Orthodox Church was
restored.
Turkey began to export a population from her mainland onto the Island of
Cyprus. In 1572, the first Turkish census showed 85,000 Christians and 20,000
Muslims liable for poll tax. Cyprus remained under Ottoman rule for centuries.
In 1821, during the Greek War of Independence, many Cypriots fought and fell
fighting this war. In addition, during the war a number of Bishops in Cyprus
were hanged by the Turkish authorities, having been accused of supporting the
revolution. The question of Cyprus, and its incorporation into a larger
Greek-state was raised soon after 1830; however, it did not become possible.
The Ottomans remained in control of Cyprus until 1878.
In 1878, Turkey ceded Cyprus to Britain because they
feared the expansionist policy of Tsarist Russia. Britain in return, promised
to help Turkey in the event of an attack by Russia on certain bordering
provinces. The Cypriot people, again, demanded to be incorporated with Greece.
However, they were never asked what they wanted, and Turkey and Britain were
not looking out for any interest but their own.
British Colony
In 1923, Turkey, under the Treaty of Lausanne, Article 16,
renounced all claims to Cyprus and by Article 27, of the same treaty, divested
itself of the exercise of any power or jurisdiction in political, legislative
or administrative matters over the nationals of Cyprus. In 1925, Cyprus was
formally declared a British colony. At that point, the Turkish population on
the island, whether they were descendants of members of the Turkish occupation
force or expatriates from Turkey, where given a choice between permanent
settlement in Cyprus or repatriation to Turkey. Only a small number choose the
latter.
Under British control, primary education was put under
direct British supervision. In addition, Britain applied the Metternihic Rule
of “divide and conquer” in order to safeguard their geopolitical and
geo-strategic interests following the Greek-Cypriot demands for “enosis”
with Greece. In addition, Turkey encouraged and assisted the nationalist
elements among the Turkish-Cypriots, to demand “taksim”.
Hence, a split was starting to form amongst the economic and cultural elites.
However, not until 1955, when the Greek-Cypriots started the struggle for
liberation from British rule, did this become apparent. Prior, the
Turkish-Cypriots in Cyprus intermingled with the Greek-Cypriot people and lived
in peace and harmony with them.
When the Greek-Cypriots could not achieve their freedom
peacefully, they took up arms against the British colonial power. Britain
worried about Cyprus’ push for self-determination and called on Turkey to
intervene. In defiance of the Treaty of Luassane, Turkey subsequently
intervened “to protect the Turkish-Cypriot minority.” However, the
Turkish-Cypriots where never in any danger. The partition of Cyprus became the
objective of Turkish foreign policy, from that point, up to the present.
The Republic of Cyprus - Rise and Fall
On 11 February 1959, an agreement was reached between
Greece and Turkey on a plan for a settlement. An
agreement was signed on 19 February for the final settlement of the Cyprus
dispute.
On the basis of the Zurich and London Agreements, a constitution was drafted
and Cyprus was proclaimed an independent state on 16 August 1960. The
Constitution divided the two communities on the basis of ethnic origin. The
President had to be a Greek-Cypriot elected by the Greek-Cypriots and the
Vice-President a Turkish-Cypriot, elected by the Turkish-Cypriots. Archbishop
Makarios and Fazil Kutchuk were elected President and Vice-President of Cyprus,
respectively.
The Agreements that were signed had many flaws. For
instance, during British colonial rule, in the courts, the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot
judges tried all the cases, irrespective of the origin of the litigants.
Interesting to note, no complaints were ever filed against the judges. However,
the above Agreements provided that disputes among Turkish-Cypriots needed to be
tried by Turkish-Cypriot judges and disputes among Greek-Cypriots, tried by
Greek-Cypriot judges. In the case where there was a dispute between a
Greek-Cypriot and a Turkish-Cypriot, two judges had to sit and try the case.
This only led to bias and a court that was not productive. In addition,
separate Greek and Turkish Communal Chambers were created to deal with
education, religion and sporting matters, to name a few. This system was
destined to fail and drive the Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots further
apart, as we will read later.
Apart from the Zurich and London Agreements, two treaties
were signed that infringed on the independence and sovereignty of the Republic
of Cyprus. First, and most important, the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. It was
signed between Cyprus, on the one hand, and Greece, Britain and Turkey on the
other. Under this Treaty, Greece, Britain and Turkey were given “the right of
joint or even unilateral action for the purpose of re-establishing the state of
affairs created by the Treaty.” Second, the Treaty of Alliance. This was
between Cyprus, Greece and Turkey. This gave them the right to station
military, of their own forces, on the island. How can a State function
internally and deal with their own domestic affairs if there is some other
State there to tell them what and how to do things? Simply put, distrust and
division was destined.
These Treaties were in direct conflict with the basic
principles of international law and the United Nations (UN) Charter, contrary
to the right of every state to full sovereignty and independence. In other
words, the powers given to Greece, Turkey and Britain, to act unilaterally if
it is “needed”, would constitute intervention in the domestic affairs of an
independent state and a member of the United Nations.
On November 1963, President Makarios drafted 13 amendments
to the Constitution. The President hoped that this would remove some of the
obvious causes of friction. These amendments were submitted to the
Turkish-Cypriot minority, however, before they could review and decide, the
Turkish Government said they were unacceptable.
On 21 December 1963, inter-communal violence broke-out
between the Greek and Turkish-Cypriots. The Turkish Government and the Turkish
terrorist organization in Cyprus (TMT), threatened to launch an invasion.
President Makarios’s proposal for amending the Constitution was exactly the
excuse that the Turkish Government was looking for to put the plan of partition
of Cyprus into use.
Turkish-Cypriot Ministers, members of the House, as well
as Turkish-Cypriot civil servants, withdrew from the Government. On false
claims that the Government of Cyprus was about to annihilate the
Turkish-Cypriot minority, Turkish officers resorted to forcible movement of
sections of the Turkish-Cypriot population. However, this was not for
protection, as it would seem. Rather, it was to create compact Turkish areas
and create a geographical separation on the island, between her people.
On 31 December 1963, the Vice-President made two
statements in regard to the crisis. Kutchuk said that the Constitution of
Cyprus “no longer existed because there was no possibility of the Turkish and
Greek communities of living together on the island.” He declared, “the Cyprus
Constitution is dead.” In
addition, he was asked if he wanted Cyprus partitioned between the Turkish
minority and Greek majority, he replied, “Call it partition if you like.”
The former Vice-President of Turkey, Kemal Satir, in a public statement said,
“Cyprus will be divided into two sections, one of which will join Turkey.” The
then Foreign Minister of Turkey, in an Athens newspaper added, “the radical
solution… would be to cede one part of Cyprus to Greece and the other, closest
to the Turkish Asiatic coast, to Turkey.”
In response to the serious situation in Cyprus, the
threats and acts of intervention, aggression from outside, and the forcible
population transfers; the British Government convened the London Conference to
deal with the problem. The Government of Cyprus realized that it was being
pushed into agreeing on the occupation of Cyprus by foreign troops and the
establishment of the intergovernmental committee, which would in a way, replace
the authority of the Cyprus Government. Turkish threats at invasion were
constant. The Cyprus Government appealed to the United Nations for assistance.
In March 1964, under Security Council resolution 186 (1964), the United Nations
Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus was formed (UNFICYP). However, during this period
soldiers and arms arrived on the island. In August 1964, Turkey bombed
Greek-Cypriot villages with napalm.
In 1965, the United Nations Secretary-General appointed
Dr. Galo Plaza, mediator. Plaza issued a report that stated that the problem of
Cyprus could not be resolved by resorting back to the situation that existed
prior to 1963. Instead, a new solution would have to be found. In other words,
he stated that the solution should satisfy the majority of the population, and
at the same time, protect the legitimate rights of all the people on the
island. Unfortunately, Turkey rejected this.
Dr. Plaza added that
…if the purpose of a settlement of the Cyprus
question is to be the preservation rather than the destruction of the state and
if it is to foster rather than to militate against the development of a
peacefully united people, I cannot help wondering whether the physical division
of the minority from the majority should not be considered a desperate step in
the wrong direction. I am reluctant to believe, as the Turkish-Cypriot
leadership claims, in the “impossibility” of Greek-Cypriots and
Turkish-Cypriots learning to live together again in peace. In those parts of
the country where movement controls have been relaxed and tensions reduced they
are already proving otherwise.
On 18 December 1965, the United Nations General Assembly
passed resolution 2077, because they were concerned about the Turkish threat to
Cyprus’ sovereignty and independence. This resolution called upon all states to
“respect the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic
of Cyprus and to refrain from any intervention directed against it….” In
addition, the resolution recommended “to the Security Council the continuation
of the United Nations mediation work in conformity with Council resolution
186(1964) of 4 March 1964.”
In 1968, President Archbishop Makarios was re-elected
overwhelmingly, and he declared that “enosis” was not realistic.
In addition, the United Nations Secretary-General recommended and started talks
between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to find a solution to the Cyprus
problem. However, as noted above, the Turkish aim was “taksim,” therefore, no agreement was found.
President Makarios began normalizing the restrictions on
the Turkish-Cypriots. Hence, the restrictions and checkpoints that were established
following the clashes of 1963-1964 were lifted. Now, the Turkish-Cypriots were
free to move around the entire island. However, the Turkish authorities did not
follow suit. Nonetheless, inter-communal talks continued to proceed with the
belief of finding a settlement based on a unitary, independent and sovereign
state.
A breakthrough seemed imminent. However, in February 1974,
Turkey’s intention came into clear fruition, when Turkish Prime Minister
Ecevit, declared that only federation could be accepted in Cyprus. Later, in
July 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus.
Conclusion
In retrospect, Greek inhabitance of Cyprus that dates back
to the Bronze age, shows us that this island consists of a religion, culture
and language that is of Greek origin. However, we must also understand that the
Turkish conquest also played a large role in creating Cyprus’s demography.
Subsequently, the Greek-Cypriot majority and Turkish-Cypriot minority lived
together, in peace and harmony, for hundreds of years.
However, we believe that two of the many things that led
to the deterioration of peace and harmony should be highlighted. The first, the
plan of “taksim” was engraved in the minds of the Turkish-Cypriots, which led
them to believe, after many years of co-habitation, that things needed to
change. The Turkish-Cypriots were led to believe that “taksim” was the only
answer to their problems, even though no problem existed.
Then, there was the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Here, Turkey
was given “the right of joint or even unilateral action for the purpose of
re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty.” In the end, their
actions were unilateral; however, they did not achieve the “purpose” of the
Treaty. Instead, they achieved their own “purpose” which is to “occupy” a foreign,
sovereign, and last but not least, the territory of an United Nations member.
Coup and Invasion
On 15 July 1974, a coup d’etat, engineered by the Greek
military junta, which aimed at assassinating President Makarios, became the
catalyst that the Turkish Government was waiting for. With this as a backdrop,
on 20 July 1974, Turkey invaded and claimed the right under the 1960 Treaty of
Guarantee to protect, as they argued, the Turkish-Cypriot minority that was in
“danger.” In fact, no Turkish-Cypriots were in danger during the coup. The coup
was designed to overthrow the President, not to attack any civilians.
In violation of the United Nations Charter
and international law, Turkey’s military invaded and continues to occupy over
1/3 of the Republic of Cyprus, a democratic and internationally recognized
sovereign state. International lawyers around the world, such as, Prof. John
Dugard and Prof. James Crawford, classify the 1974 invasion and the continuing
occupation as illegal. In addition, the United Nations’ Security Council and
General Assembly confirm this view by the passage of numerous resolutions
calling the invasion deplorable and calling on the Turkish troops withdrawal.
United Nations Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2, Paragraph 4
reads as follows:
“All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with
the Purposes of the United Nations.”
In response to Turkey’s violation of international law,
the United Nations Security Council passed resolution 353, which
1. “Calls upon all
states to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of
Cyprus;
2. “Calls upon all
parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and
requests all states to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any
action which might further aggravate the situation;
3. “Demands an
immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that
is in contravention of operative paragraph 1 above; and
4. “Requests the
withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military
personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international
agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of
Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974”.
However, the Turkish occupying regime did not adhere to
the calls at re-establishing law and order, not to mention peace.
During the first offensive of 20 July 1974, Turkey managed
to capture 8% of the Republic’s territory. However, with the “cease-fire” in
place they violated Security Council resolutions and the agreements signed at
Geneva
by proceeding with a second offensive. On 15 August 1974, the Turkish military
illegally captured an incredible 38% of Cyprus. If at first you do not succeed
initially, try and try again. Even though Security Council resolution 353
called for a “cease-fire” and the Foreign Ministers of the Guarantor Powers
were in discussions on how to solve the dire situation, Turkey planned and
executed their plan of partition on the island.
Right as Guarantor Power
In order to understand the situation, we need to look back
to the 1923 Lausanne Treaty. As written in part I (above), Turkey renounced all
claims to Cyprus and divested itself of the exercise of any power or
jurisdiction in political, legislative or administrative matters over the nationals
of Cyprus. From that point, and up to the point when the Treaty of Guarantee
was signed in 1959, Turkey had no right(s) in Cyprus.
In order to entertain Turkey’s argument that it had a
right under the Treaty of Guarantee may be, in some capacity, understandable.
However, this does not explain Turkey’s multiple invasions. If Turkey had a
right to intervene, it was in order to, and for the purpose of, re-establishing
the state of affairs created by the Treaty. The right ends there. Their right
as Guarantor did not include the “right to invade” an independent and sovereign
country.
It is important to note that when a foreign power
intervenes, or in this circumstance, invades, once order is re-established and
calm is restored, according to the norms of international law, the foreign
power must leave. They
cannot remain as an occupying force dictating their ideas of law and order.
However, in violation of international law, the Turkish military has remained
an occupying force in Cyprus for 28 years.
If Turkey intervened to “restore order” and then withdraw,
rather than invade, as they did in 1974, this situation may never have been an
issue. So long as, the foreign Turkish Army left, as quickly as they came.
However, a multiplied round of atrocities against Greek-Cypriots occurred
massively with the invasion. Turkey held over 70,000 Cypriot Civilian Prisoners
in Concentration Camps in the “occupied areas” of
Cyprus and in Turkey as hostages. Over 1600 of these prisoners which included,
the old, woman and children. A further 8000 Greek-Cypriots were killed during
the Turkish invasion. 200,000 Greek-Cypriots instantly became refugees, while
over one-third of the Cyprus population was “ethnically cleansed”
by Turkey in their own country.
Human Rights Violated
The European Commission of Human Rights confirmed flagrant
violations of human rights by the invading Turkish forces in all respects. It
established violations of the right to life by indiscriminate murders, inhuman
and degrading treatment, of the right to freedom and safety, by the use of
detention centers, both in Cyprus and in Turkey, rapes, displacement and
looting.
In November 1974, the United Nations General Assembly
unanimously adopted resolution 3221, with the framework for a solution to the Cyprus
problem. It
1) Calls upon all
states to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and
non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from all acts and
interventions directed against it;
2) Urges the speedy
withdrawal of all foreign forces and foreign military presence and personnel
from the Republic of Cyprus and the cessation of all foreign interference in
its affairs;
5) Considers that all the refugees should return to
their homes in safety and calls upon the parties concerned to undertake urgent
measures to that end.
The adherence to this resolution was made mandatory when
the Security Council endorsed resolution 3212 in its own resolution 365 (1974)
of 13 December 1974. However, Turkey did not comply with any resolutions then,
and they are not today. Even though Turkey is obligated to act because she is a
member of the United Nations, no pressure has been applied on Turkey, and
therefore, no solution has been attained.
Turkey’s Unwillingness to Negotiate
On 10 February 1975, the Greek-Cypriot side, in an attempt
to end the stalemate and enter into meaningful negotiations with the
Turkish-Cypriot side, sent proposals to end the problem based on the United
Nations resolutions. On
13 February 1975, Turkey’s response was heard when they announced the
establishment of the “Turkish Federated State of Cyprus”
(“TFSC”). This action was denounced by the international community and the
United Nations Security Council with its resolution 367 (1975) of 12 March
1975.
However, Turkey, once again, ignored international law and the international
community by declaring a separate federated state.
With the creation of the illegal “TFSC” comes the creation
of an illegal “constitution”. The “constitution” has many problems and flaws.
For instance, in the “constitution, the Greek-Cypriot and non-Turkish
communities that are enclaved in the “occupied areas”, are defined as “aliens.”
In other words, they are deprived of the most fundamental and basic human
rights. Their rights to ownership are not respected and there are special
expropriation laws dealing with the property belonging to displaced
Greek-Cypriots and their immediate allocation to the Turks from Turkey and
Turkish-Cypriots.
In 1975, 20,000 Greek Cypriots and Maronites remained enclaved
in the Karpass Peninsula and Kyrenia. With their continual denial of basic
rights, such as health care and education, all but 600 have left for better
life in the south. In leaving, they too became refugees and had their homes,
properties and belongings illegally expropriated to Turks from the mainland and
Turkish-Cypriots.
President Makarios emphasized in his address before the
United Nations General Assembly,
in an independent, non-aligned Cyprus free from the
threats of force and all outside interference, its people, Greek and Turkish
Cypriots, can live together in harmony with mutual respect for their legitimate
rights. In these circumstances there will be neither need nor purpose for the
existence of any armies…. The Government of Cyprus supports a fully
demilitarized state of Cyprus and to this end is prepared to disband completely
its armed forces.
Turkey made it clear that she was against any meaningful
negotiations and tried to prolong the talks. The United Nations General
Assembly demanded the withdrawal of all foreign troops without further delay.
However, 28 years later and no change.
In January 1977, Rauf Denktash
asked to meet with President Makarios. The meeting was to take place under the
auspices of the United Nations. On 12 February 1977, President Makarios and
Turkish-Cypriot Leader Denktash agreed to the High-Level Agreement guidelines
for the next round.
The text of the agreed instructions (guidelines) reads as
follows:
1. We are seeking an
independent, non-aligned, bi-communal Federal Republic.
2. The territory
under the administration of each community should be discussed in the light of
economic viability or productivity and land ownership.
3. Questions of
principles like freedom of movement, freedom of settlement, the right to property
and other specific matters, are open for discussion, taking into consideration
the fundamental basis of a bi-communal federal system and certain practical
difficulties, which may arise, for the Turkish-Cypriot community.
4. The powers and
functions of the central federal government will be such as to safeguard the
unity of the country having regard to the bi-communal character of the State.
Nonetheless, even with the guidelines in place, Mr.
Denktash did not substantively add to the negotiations. He reiterated all that
he said in the talks one round earlier. Once again, the Turkish-Cypriot side,
thanks to Denktash, failed to submit any proposals that would form a basis for
settlement.
The Cyprus problem was dealt with again in 1977, when the
United Nations General Assembly adopted resolution 32/15. Once again, the
resolution called for the urgent and effective implementation of resolution
3212(XXIX) and resolution 365(1974), as the valid framework for the solution of
the problem on Cyprus. In addition, it “calls for the urgent resumption in a
meaningful and constructive manner for the negotiations between the
representatives of the two communities.” And it “demands that the parties
concerned refrain from any unilateral actions which might adversely affect the
prospects of a just and lasting solution of the problem of Cyprus by peaceful
means.”
Conclusion
When a State violates international law, should they not
be held accountable? Do thousands more have to die? Should we wait until all
the remaining enclaved Greek-Cypriots in the “occupied areas” become refugees
as well? How much longer does the situation in Cyprus have to continue in order
for the international community to react with sternness? This would not be the
first time, nor the last time, that actions were taken against a State that
violated and continues to violate, international law.
Look to Iraq, for instance. Sanctions are still in place
today for their non-compliance with United Nations resolutions. What about
Serbia? Is it because that situation was “dire”? Their actions led to sanctions
and eventual bombing by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
However, 28 years later, countless of international laws violated, and still,
Turkey has not been held accountable or paid any repercussions.
If laws are in place to keep States just and Turkey is a
State, would it not be logical to conclude that these laws should apply to
Turkey and keep it just?
On 15 November 1983, the part of the Republic of Cyprus
that has been under illegal Turkish domination since 1974, unilaterally
declared itself independent. The “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”
(“TRNC”), as it calls itself, is not recognized by the international community.
However, Turkey, even though acting surprised, recognized the “new state” and
pledged to assist it.
This action provoked universal condemnation and the
international community unequivocally declared that there shall be no question
of recognition. Even today, there has been no recognition, other than from
Turkey.
On the same day, Mr. Kyprianou, the then President of the
Republic of Cyprus responded that
“this action not only complicated further the Cyprus
problem but made it clear that the intention of the Turkish side was always to
create faits accomplis and to create conditions for the secession of the
occupied area from the Republic of Cyprus.”
It is important to highlight that this action would not
have been possible but for the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus. Hence,
Turkey is in violation of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, under which Turkey,
together with Britain and Greece, had undertaken to safeguard the independence
of the island.
The United Nations Secretary-General stated that this
action was “contrary to the resolution of the Security Council on Cyprus and at
variance with the high-level agreements of 1977 and 1979.” In addition the
Secretary-General declared that the unilateral declaration of “independence was
bound to affect adversely the situation in Cyprus” and to complicate efforts
“to promote an agreed, just and lasting settlement.”
On 18 November 1983, the Security Council adopted
resolution 541(1983), which reads, in part,
1. Deplores the
Declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of
part of the Republic of Cyprus;
2. Considers the
Declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;
3. Calls for the
urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975);
…
6. Calls upon all
states to recognize the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and
non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;
7. Calls upon all
states not to recognize any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus;….
To this day, member states have
respected international law and refrained from recognition of the illegal
“TRNC.”
Theories of Recognition
Recognition arises in every aspect of State life. Whenever
there is a change of government or a transfer of territory, legal or illegal,
the question of recognition is involved. Only
after a State has been recognized may it exercise the rights and attributes of
sovereignty with other States. Recognition confirms its place in the community
of other nations.
In discussing the theory of recognition, there are two
schools of thought, which differ as to the concept of recognition. There is the
constitutive school, which as set forth by Oppenheim, is that “A State is, and
becomes, an International Person through recognition only and exclusively.”
The other, which is opposed to this theory, is the declaratory school. This
theory considers that existence of State is a fact. And, as long as, that fact
exists, it is subject to international law, independently of the actions of
other States.
Criteria for Statehood
The basic criteria for statehood is found in Article 1 of
the Montevideo Convention, 1933:
The State as a person of international law should
possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined
territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with other
States.
A State that satisfies these conditions is a State, and
recognition of it, is the establishment of that fact and not the expression of
a will. “It is cognition rather than re-cognition.”
Before recognition, the unrecognized community does not exist. Only the act of
recognition allows it to come into legally existence in relation to the
recognizing State. It is the legal existence, the one that is judged by
international law that is of importance. Therefore,
recognition has a distinctive constitutive character.
Non-Recognition and Jus Cogens
Are existing States required to recognize a new community
as a State? No. There is no obligation to perform the act of recognition. On
the other hand, if a State recognizes another community that has not fulfilled
the conditions set by international law, it is a violation of international
law.
“When the illegality invoked is substantial, and in particular when it involves
a norm of jus cogens, States have a
duty under customary international law, individually and collectively, not to
recognize the act as legal.”
An internationally wrongful act of a State, which
constitutes an international crime, entails an obligation for every other
State:
(a)
not to recognize as legal the situation created by such act;
and
(b)
not to render aid or assistance to the author State in
maintaining the situation created by such act; and
(c)
to join other States in affording mutual assistance in
carrying out the obligations under (a) and (b).
Criteria for Statehood Unfulfilled
As noted above, Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and nine
years later, 1983, it unilaterally declared itself independent.
However, 28 years later, 2002, and still only one, Turkey, recognized this
declaration, in violation of international law. Does the “TRNC” have the right
to be recognized? In other words, has it satisfied the four basic requirements
of statehood laid down by the Montevideo Convention of 1933? And if so, would
it then be entitled to “cognition” as satisfying these conditions and hence,
recognition by the community of nations?
The first criterion that needs to be satisfied for
statehood is the possession of a permanent population. States are composed of
individuals. Hence, the rule is that a permanent population is necessary for
statehood. However, there is no minimum amount requirement.
Since 1974, the Turkish government has been trying to
create a permanent population. This permanent population consists of Turkish
Colonists transplanted from Turkey’s mainland. In doing so, Turkey has
successfully managed to cleanse not only the Greek-Cypriots, but also, the
Turkish Cypriots. Today, the “occupied areas” consist of a population, which
was illegally created, of 115,000 Turkish Colonists and 40,000 Turkish troops.
The permanent population that existed before 1974 has been captured, killed or
forced to emigrate. The legal population of these areas is the 200,000 Greek
Cypriots and 40,000 Turkish Cypriots who lived in the “occupied areas” before
1974.
Hence, the “TRNC” does not have a permanent population and does not satisfy the
first requirement of statehood.
The second, criteria for statehood, is the possession of a
defined territory. A substantial boundary or territorial dispute with a State
is not enough to bring statehood into question. The only requirement is that
the State must consist of a coherent territory effectively governed.
The “TRNC” cannot satisfy this requirement either. Since the effective
jurisdiction of Cyprus was terminated through the use of force by Turkey (in
relation to the “occupied areas”), Cyprus prevents third party states (Turkey)
from according the “TRNC” recognition. Such an unilateral action would infringe
upon the rights of Cyprus.
Possession of a government is the third requirement needed
for a community to achieve statehood. There are various claims that this
government requirement is the most important criteria for statehood, since all
the others depend on it.
Government has two aspects: actual exercise of authority and the right or title
to exercise that authority.
There is no “Turkish-Cypriot Government” because it does not consist of
Turkish-Cypriots and has been judged by the European Court of Human Rights
(ECHR) to be controlled by the Turkish military. The
right to exercise that authority is given to the “TRNC” by Turkey and not by
“its” people. The actual exercise of the authority given to it from Turkey is
upon the illegal Turkish settlers. In addition, there is no legal police in the
“occupied areas”. The occupying Turkish army carries out policing. Therefore,
the “TRNC” does not satisfy the third requirement, which some argue, is the
most important requirement for statehood.
The last criterion, which needs to be satisfied before a
State may be recognized, is the capacity to enter into relations with other
states. Capacity depends partly on the power of an internal government of a
territory to enter into, carry out, and accept responsibility for its relations
and actions with other States.
Since the “TRNC” is not capable of entering into, carrying out and accepting
responsibility for its relations and actions with other States, it therefore,
does not satisfy the fourth requirement of statehood.
Some theorists argue that there is a fifth requirement to
statehood. Independence. It is believed by some to be the central criterion of
statehood.
In the situation with the “TRNC,” independence is a legal nullity. It may even
be regarded as a “puppet state.”
Since the illegal Turkish regime of the “TRNC” is actually controlled by
Turkey, that new relation becomes one of agency, and the responsibility for the
illegal acts of the “TRNC”, falls with Turkey. The
“TRNC” does not nor cannot act independent of Turkey.
Conclusion
In the end, the “TRNC” is not a recognized entity. It has
not satisfied the requirements of statehood set out in Article 1 of the
Montevideo Convention. Therefore, since the “TRNC” has not satisfied the
requirements of statehood, States are prohibited to, and that includes Turkey,
from recognizing that community. If States do, as Turkey did, it would be a
violation of international law and they should be held accountable.
On 4 November 1950, the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe (Convention) was
adopted. On 3 September 1953, it entered into force. The Convention was signed
by 32 member states of the Council of Europe, including, Cyprus and Turkey.
The goal of the Convention was in “securing the universal
and effective recognition and observance of the rights therein declared…. And
to promote the collective enforcement
of certain rights stated in the United Nations Universal
Declaration.”
Loizidou v. Turkey
Titina Loizidou is a Greek-Cypriot refugee who has been
prevented from returning to her home in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus by
Turkish troops. She comes from Kyrenia, which today, happens to be under
illegal occupation by Turkey. Due to Turkey’s illegal invasion in 1974,
Loizidou has been denied from returning to her home by the Turkish army.
Loizidou applied to the European Commissioner of Human
Rights, in Strasbourg by filing an individual application against Turkey. Her
case subsequently went from the Commission to the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR).
Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights reads:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.”
In looking to Article 1 of Protocol 1, the ECHR took
notice of the large number of Turkish troops stationed in the “occupied areas”
of Cyprus. In addition, the ECHR considered it “obvious that the Turkish Army
exercised ‘effective overall control’ over that part of the island.” Hence,
such control meant that Turkey bears responsibility for the actions of the
“TRNC.”
It follows from this reasoning, since Loizidou had been
deprived, on more than one account, of returning to her property, that it fell
within Turkish jurisdiction. Therefore, Turkey and the Turkish Army were
directly responsible for not allowing Loizidou enjoyment of her property.
The ECHR established that “an individual has basic rights
and these rights will be respected under all circumstances.” In other words,
Turkey abused Loizidou’s basic human rights by not allowing her free movement
and settlement, enjoyment of property and exercise of property rights.
In order for the ECHR to rule as such, they needed to
assess Loizidou’s legal title to the land. To do so, they needed to look to
Article 159 of the 1985 “TRNC constitution” that all immovable property which
were found abandoned in 1975 were considered as the property of the “TRNC.”
After doing such, the ECHR took official notice of Security Council resolutions
541 and 550 and of the statements made by the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe, the European Communities and the Commonwealth Heads of
Government.
After doing so, the ECHR concluded that the international
community does not regard the “TRNC” as a state under international law. Hence,
it “cannot attribute legal validity for the purposes of the Convention to such
provisions as Article 159.” In other words, since the ECHR found that the
international community does not recognize the “TRNC”, and hence, the laws of
the “constitution” could not, and did not, take away or deprive Loizidou of her
property.
In addition, the ECHR decided that because of the
continuous violations of Loizidou’s human rights by Turkey, and the subsequent
loss of use of her property, she was entitled to just satisfaction under
Article 50 of the Convention. Turkey was order to pay Loizidou US$600,000 in
damages for the continued violation of her right to peaceful enjoyment of her
property, US$40,000 for non-pecuniary damage and US$244,168 for her cost and
expenses.
In the end, the most important precedent that was set by
this case is that Loizidou “is still the legal owner of the property, no issue
of expropriation arises, … and that her claim is thus confined to the loss of
use of the land and the consequent loss of opportunity to develop or lease it.”
In addition, Mrs. Loizidou has not abandoned her right to return to her
property. This precedent, will not only pave the way for other Greek or
Turkish-Cypriots from doing the same, it will also open the door for
Palestinian Arabs who forcibly fled their homes in 1948 and again in 1967. They
too, no longer have access to their land.
The political consequence of this decision is crucial.
Subsequent negotiations and a solution to the Cyprus Problem cannot ignore that
the rightful owners of land in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus can only be
absolved of their property rights when they themselves decide to surrender that
right and their land.
Cyprus v. Turkey
On 10 May 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)
delivered its judgment; by sixteen votes to one that the matters complained of
by Cyprus, in its application, entailed Turkey’s responsibility under the
European Convention on Human Rights (Convention). The ECHR held that there were
14 violations of the Convention.
Turkey denied liability under the Convention for the
allegations made against it. However, the ECHR ruled that the application fell
within the “jurisdiction” of Turkey within the meaning of Article 1
of the Convention. Therefore, Turkey was responsible under the Convention.
In addition, the ECHR used Loizidou v. Cyprus (above) as being consistent with this ruling on
“jurisdiction.” As noted above, in the Loizidou
Case, the Court held that Turkey exercised “effective overall control” of
the “occupied areas” of Cyprus through its military presence there. Therefore,
Turkey’s responsibility of the Convention was engaged for the politics and
actions of the “TRNC” authorities.
Furthermore, the ECHR looked to the Advisory Opinion of
the International Court of Justice in the Namibia
Case and that, in situations similar to these, “the obligation to disregard
acts of de facto
entities, like the ‘TRNC’, was far from absolute. Since life went on in the
territory concerned for its inhabitants, that life must be made tolerable and
be protected by the de facto
authorities, including their courts. To hold otherwise, would amount to
stripping the inhabitants of the territory of all their rights whenever they
were discussed in an international context, which would subsequently amount to
depriving them even of the minimum standard of rights to which they were
entitled.”
This case relates to the situation that has existed and
continues to exist, in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus, since Turkey and her
military invaded in July and August 1974.
In the explanation of this case, we will not cover all 14
violations of the Convention in depth. However, the specific violations of the
rights of displaced persons to respect for their home and property will be
covered.
Violations
As to Greek-Cypriot missing persons, the ECHR ruled that
there had been a continuing violation of Article 2,
Article 5
and Article 3
of the Convention.
As to living conditions of Greek-Cypriots in the Karpass
region of “occupied” Cyprus, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of
Article 9,
Article 10,
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1,
Article 3, Article 8, Article 13 and a continuing violation of Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1 of the Convention.
As to the rights of Turkish-Cypriots living in “occupied”
Cyprus, the ECHR ruled that there had been a violation of Article 6
of the Convention.
As to the rights of displaced persons to respect for their
home and property in “occupied” Cyprus, the ECHR ruled that there had been a
violation of Article 13 and a continuing violation of Article 8 and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1.
Article 8 of the Convention
The applicant Government (Cyprus) maintained that the
respondent State’s (Turkey) action, which had prevented the displaced
Greek-Cypriots from returning to their homes, was in violation of Article 8 of
the Convention which reads,
1. Everyone has the
right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his
correspondence.
2. There shall be no
interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such
as in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the
interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the
country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health
or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Cyprus maintained that Turkey’s policy was aimed at
dividing Cyprus along racial lines. Subsequently, 200,000 Greek-Cypriots
were displaced. “This was affected partly by physical expulsion and partly by a
systematic campaign of terror, causing Greek-Cypriots to flee in the face of
Turkey’s advancing armed forces.”
The Commission found that these persons, without
exception, continued to be prevented from returning to or even visiting their
previous homes in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus. In addition, the displaced
individuals are unable to apply to the “authorities” to reoccupy their homes
that they left behind.
Therefore, the ECHR concluded, that there has been a
continuing violation of Article 8 of the Convention by reason of the refusal to
allow the return of any Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to their homes in
“occupied” Cyprus.
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Cyprus maintained that the Greek-Cypriot refugees, who
were driven out of their homes, either during Turkey’s invasion or during the
subsequent occupation that ensued, were continuously refused the right to
return to “occupied” Cyprus. Hence, this not only barred them access to their
property, but it also “prevented them from using, selling, bequeathing,
mortgaging, developing, and enjoying it.”
Therefore, this amounted to a continuous violation of the
“right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions” that is guaranteed by Article 1 of
Protocol No. 1, which reads,
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any
way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws, as it deems necessary to
control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to
secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.
The Republic of Cyprus contented that Turkey had adopted a
policy of interference with the immovable property of the displaced persons.
These properties in question, where unlawfully dispossessed and transferred
into Turkish
possession. Steps were taken to “legalize” this illegal appropriation of
properties by assignment of “title deeds” to the new possessors.
Due to Article 159 of the “constitution” of the “TRNC”,
the ECHR agreed that the “authorities” no longer recognize any ownership rights
of Greek-Cypriots. This article in question was given practical effect in “Law
no. 52/1995.” This provision has been deemed invalid, by the ruling in the Loizidou case (above), for the purposes
of the Convention. In addition, even though “Law no. 52/1995” was not invoked
before the Loizidou Court, “it cannot be attributed any more legal
validity than its parent “Article 159” which it purports to implement.
Therefore, the ECHR concluded, since Greek-Cypriot
property owners in “occupied” Cyprus are “being denied access to and control,
use and enjoyment of property”, there has been a continuing violation of
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
Article 13 of the Convention
The applicant Government contended that the respondent
State failed to provide an effective or any remedy to displaced persons. For
instance, they were not permitted to talk to the International Red Cross
without Turkish supervision.
This was a clear breach of Article 13 of the Convention,
which reads,
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in
this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national
authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons
acting in an official capacity.”
The Commission held that the Greek-Cypriots were given no
conditions in which to contest their physical displacement. Therefore, there
was a violation of Article 13 of the Convention. The ECHR agrees with the
Commission and concludes that there has been a violation of Article 13 because
Turkey failed to provide Greek-Cypriots, not residing in “occupied” Cyprus, any
remedies to contest their rights.
Conclusion
The holdings from the Court in the two cases above will
serve as a guideline to a final settlement of the Cyprus problem. It is
imperative to note that the rights of displaced persons cannot be bartered away
for the purpose of obtaining a solution. Only the concerned individuals can
waive their existing rights. This topic will be addressed in another section of
this paper.
In this section, we will cover the legal issues arising
from Certain Population Transfers and Displacement on the Territory of the
Republic of Cyprus in the Period since 20 July 1974. The Republic of Cyprus
asked the legal scholars (experts) to advise them on the question of “the
lawfulness under both general international law and the regime established by
the European Convention on Human Rights of forced population transfers and of
certain proposals for compulsory transfers of property belonging to persons
displaced as a result of force population transfers in Cyprus from mid-1974 onwards.”
They were asked to deal with the following matters:
1. the right of
return of displaced persons;
2. the right of such
persons to their homes and property located in areas from which they have been
displaced;
3. the lawfulness or
otherwise of a compulsory global exchange of properties of the displaced
persons, with property rights being replaced by individual rights to apply for
compensation.
When dealing with mass population transfers, it is
important to note that there are voluntary and forcible transfers. An example
of voluntary population transfers may be caused by economic factors, such as
work. However, the experts were not concerned, in this respect, because the
persons caused to flee, still retain a “measure of freedom as to whether,
where, and how to move and whether to return.”
In regards to Cyprus, what occurred was a forcible mass
transfer. There, the Cypriot population was not given the choice of whether to
stay or go. Forced population transfers can occur due to the community or group
they belong to, as a side effect of armed conflict or from a refusal to grant
permission of return by barring return to the expelled population.
In dealing with forcible transfers, the experts
distinguished the following four legal contexts:
a. Forcible transfers
as breaches of particular human rights standards;
b. Forcible
transfers as racial, religious or other discrimination: “ethnic cleansing”;
c. Large scale
forcible transfers as a crime against humanity; and
d. Forcible
expulsion by a belligerent or unlawful occupant.
Human Rights
Forcible mass transfers of population are a violation of
human rights and these rights have become part of the corpus of international
law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 declared that Article 3,
Article 5,
Article 9,
Article 12,
and Article 15(2), are
fundamental rights relevant to mass transfers of population. It is also the
opinion of these experts that “forcible transfer of populations is now clearly
contrary to international law as it has evolved.”
After the Turkish Army invaded Cyprus, 1600 Greek-Cypriots
went missing. There were reports made that they were in Turkish custody at the
time of their disappearance. This is contra to Article 3 of the Convention
because “everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person,”
however, Turkey did not respect this right. Until today, the fate of over 1600,
is still unknown.
Countless amounts of women were subjected to rape and acts
of prostitution at the hands of the invading Turkish military and Turkish
officers. Again, Turkey did nothing to stop or prosecute those responsible for
these “inhuman” and “degrading” acts that run contrary to Article 5 of the
Convention.
In regards to Article 9 of the Convention, over 200,000
Greek-Cypriots were forced into “exile” in 1974 due to Turkish military
aggression. They have not been allowed to return and have become refugees in
their own country. And
due to the fact that they were exiled, the Turkish Army also interfered with
their privacy, family and home. Which is in violation of Article 12 of the
Convention.
Lastly, since the Greek-Cypriots that were forcibly
removed, have not been allowed to return home and exercise free movement in
Cyprus, they have been arbitrarily denied of their nationality in violation of
Article 15(2).
Ethnic Cleansing
Ethnic cleansing is the forcing out, from a particular
area, the people of one race or ethnic group, in order to bring about and
maintain the changed demographic complexion of the area. This act is prohibited and has been found to
be a violation of international law by the Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination. They declared, “any attempt to change or to uphold a
changed demographic composition of an area, against the will of the original
inhabitants by whichever means is a violation of international law.”
The United Nations Security Council first passed
resolution 941 (1994), which described “ethnic cleansing” as a clear violation
of international humanitarian law, demanded it be put to an end, condemned the
practice as unacceptable and reaffirmed that those who committed these acts
will be held individually responsible for such acts. In addition, similar
Security Council resolutions strongly condemned the practice of “ethnic
cleansing” as a violation of international humanitarian law and demanded that
this activity cease.
In July 1974, Turkish troops forced about 200,000
Greek-Cypriots, who were living in what is today the “occupied areas”, to flee
to the “free areas” of Cyprus. However, in October 1974, 32,029
Turkish-Cypriots were still in the “free areas.” Nonetheless, the demographic
composition was not complete, so the remaining Turkish-Cypriots were
transplanted to the “occupied areas.” Unfortunately, most did not want to leave
their properties and lives behind, but they were left with no choice.
Crimes Against Humanity
In 1996, The International Law Commission adopted Article
18 of the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind. This
Article declares that “’arbitrary deportation or forcible transfers of
populations constitute a crime against humanity ‘when committed in a systematic
manner or on a large scale and instigated or directed by a Government.’”
“Large-scale forcible expulsion of people is a crime under
international law…. Such conduct is not linked with the category of war crimes:
it involves a crime against humanity, whether carried out in armed conflict or
otherwise.”
In Cyprus, the situation was carried out both during an
armed conflict and continues through the subsequent occupation. The Turkish
Army is trying to forcibly transfer the remaining Greek-Cypriots that remained
enclaved in the “occupied areas” since 1974. Today, about 600 still remain.
When dealing with the unlawfulness of forcible mass
transfers of populations, Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, of 12
August 1949, and Article 85(4)(a) of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions, of 12 August 1949, classifies mass transfers of population as
serious war crimes and “grave breaches.”
Article 49 reads:
“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as
deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of
the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are
prohibited, regardless of their motive.”
Article 85(4)(a) reads:
“The transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its
own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or
transfer of all parts of the population of the occupied territory within or
outside this territory, is in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth
Convention.”
In Cyprus, mass populations were “ethnically cleansed” by
the Turkish Army, which is a violation of Article 49. In their place, the
Turkish Government sent “its own civilian population to the territory it
occupies.” Hence, a violation of Article 85(4)(a). These acts, which were
committed, were done at the expense of all the original inhabitants; it was not
done to protect the “deportees” interests. Rather, it was to further an act
that has been deemed “illegal” and third states are precluded from recognizing
it as lawful.
The Right to Return
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
(CERD) discussed the issue of “the return of refugees’ or displaced persons’
property”
and observed that:
The flight of hundreds of thousands of refugees or
displaced persons that leave their homes and properties empty, as a result of
an armed conflict, frequently results in such property being occupied by
non-authorized people. Such is at present the case in… Cyprus, and elsewhere.
After their return to their homes of origin all such refugees and displaced
persons have the right to have restored to them property of which they were
deprived in the course of the conflict and to be compensated for any such
property that cannot be restored. Furthermore, any commitments or statement
relating to such property made under duress should be null and void.
The refugees’ right of return is understood, not merely as
returning to one’s country, but also, to one’s home. The international
community has recognized this right as “a free-standing, autonomous right in
and of itself.”
The United Nations has reaffirmed this right to return to one’s home in
resolutions addressing displacement in numerous countries and regions,
including, Cyprus. In
addition, the General Assembly has also recognized the right of refugees to
return to their homes in resolution(s) concerning Cyprus.
The CERD stated, “all… refugees and displaced persons have
the right to freely return to their homes of origin under conditions of
safety.”
In addition, in August and September 2001, the
international community had a meeting for the World Conference against Racism,
Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, declared its
universal recognition of “the right of refugees to return voluntarily to their
homes and properties in dignity and safety, and urge[d] all States to
facilitate such return.”
Right to Restitution
There are many varying reasons and circumstances which
people come to lose their homes and properties. Where there is mass forcible
displacement of a population, the relevant remedy is restitutio in integrum.
Ensuring the restitution of housing and property, and the right to return in
safety and dignity, is in order to protect the human rights of the victims.
In 1995, the Dayton/Paris Peace Agreement ended the
Bosnian War. It provided that “all refugees and displaced persons have the
right to freely return to their home of origin and the early return of refugees
and displaced persons is an important objective of the settlement of the
conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” In addition, the United Nations Security
Council emphasized the urgent need, in regards to the Rwanda crisis, for the
“orderly and voluntarily repatriation and resettlement of refugees and the
return of displaced persons which are crucial elements for the stability of the
region.”
Where there has been an unlawful forced population
transfer, measures intended to prevent the enjoyment of any right of return to
their place of origin “will amount to an aggravation of the offense and will
amount to an attempt to legitimate the violations that have taken place.”
If, as in Cyprus, “the initial forcible population
transfer constitutes a breach of international law,… then any arrangement that
consolidates the illegality and its consequences, imposed without the full and
free consent of those directly affected, can only be seen as an attempt to
ratify the original wrong.”
The Commission on Human Rights (Commission) has stated
that the practice of forced eviction “constitutes a gross violation of human
rights” and has examined the remedy of restitution in the context of such
violations of human rights. The Commission has referred to the “right to
restitution… for victims of grave violations of human rights.” Hence, it is a
“free-standing, autonomous right.”
The Geneva Convention, relative to the Protection of
Civilians Persons in Time of War, of 1949, Article 49, reads,
“Persons… evacuated shall be transferred back to their
homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.”
In addition, the Rome Statue of the International Criminal
Court authorizes restitution as a remedy for violations occurring under its
jurisdiction.
Article 75, paragraph 1, reads,
“The Court shall establish principles relating to
reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation
and rehabilitation.”
The International Law Commission has also recognized
restitution as a proper remedy for certain violations of international law in
the draft articles on State responsibility.
Article 35 reads,
“Full reparation for the injury caused by the
internationally wrongful act shall take the form of restitution, compensation
and satisfaction, either singly or in combination.”
Article 36 adds,
“A State responsible for an internationally wrongful
act is under an obligation to make restitution, that is, to re-establish the
situation which existed before the wrongful act was committed.”
However, if the victims chose otherwise or if this proves
impossible, then, and only then, is compensation the appropriate alternative.
The right to housing and property restitution has been recognized and used in
several agreements designed to end conflict.
For instance, in dealing with the return of displaced
persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Article 1 of Annex 1 to the Dayton/Paris
Agreement reads, that displaced persons “shall have the right to have restored
to them their property… and to be compensated for any property that cannot be restored
to them.”
In the end, where there is any ruse involving involuntary
expropriation of property rights, it is unlawful, as it would be incompatible
with any form of restitution.
Conclusion
In summary, the above opinion determined that forcible
mass transfers are in violation of human rights and contrary to international
law. They added that changing of the demography of a territory amounted to
“ethnic cleansing” and is a violation of international law. In addition, the
legal experts explained that the expulsion of people is a crime against
humanity and a crime under international law. And it is a violation of Article
49 and Article 85(4)(a) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949.
Lastly, it was determined that refugees or displaced
persons have the right to return to their country and their home. To preclude
return would subsequently amount to an “aggravation of the offense.” This topic
will be addressed in relation to a possible solution to the Cyprus problem,
later in this paper.
Cyprus is politically, culturally and historically part of
Europe. Since 1961, is has been a full member of the Council of Europe and
since 1975, it has been a member of the Organization for Security and
Co-operation in Europe. In addition, in 1972, Cyprus completed an Association
Agreement with the European Economic Community.
This Agreement provided for the advanced elimination of
trade barriers. Hence, eventually leading to a complete Customs Union.
On 4 July 1990, Cyprus applied for European Union (EU)
membership. On 30 June 1993, the European Commission concluded that Cyprus had
European character and vocation and was, therefore, eligible to be part of the
European Community. On 4 October 1993, the EU Council of Ministers affirmed and
confirmed that Cyprus is eligible to become a member of the EU.
On 6 March 1995, the EU confirmed that Cyprus would be
part of the next stage of its enlargement. On 12 and 13 December 1997, the
European Council set 30 March 1998 as the day for the start of the negotiations
for accession into the European Union.
In regards to the Cyprus Problem, the European Council
emphasized that a political settlement will facilitate the accession of Cyprus
to the EU. However, it added, “if no settlement has been reached by the
completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession will
be made without the above being a precondition.”
On 15 and 16 June 2001, the European Council added that
the enlargement process is irreversible and “provided that progress towards
meeting the accession criteria continues at an unabated pace, the road map
should make it possible to complete negotiations by the end of 2002 for those
candidates that are ready.”
Republic of Cyprus and Turkey Membership
The Council of Europe and the European Council recognizes
the Republic of Cyprus as the legitimate government. In addition, they denounce
the illegal “TRNC” and all the secessionist actions due to the Turkish invasion
of Cyprus in 1974.
The European Parliament and
the Parliamentary Assembly of
the Council of Europe have adopted countless recommendations and resolutions
calling on the “restoration of the unity and territorial integrity of Cyprus,
respect for the human rights of its inhabitants and the withdrawal of foreign
troops from its territory.” The Parliament and the Assembly have condemned the
Turkish secessionist actions since the illegal declaration of the “TRNC” on 15
November 1983.
Turkey has applied for membership in the EU, however, the
severe destruction caused due to Turkey’s invasion and occupation cannot go
unnoticed. Turkey’s attempts to alter the demography and eliminate every sign
of authentic culture in the “occupied areas” must be reconciled. In order for
Turkey to be considered a candidate for EU membership, it must first end its
human rights abuses against Cyprus.
Winners and Losers
The issue of settling the Cyprus Problem is very
important. However, it has become apparent that Cyprus will join the European
Union (EU) regardless of a solution. Nonetheless, no matter how good this
appears, this cannot be good for all the citizens of Cyprus.
Turkey has, on many repeated accounts, threatened to annex
the “occupied” part of Cyprus if only “free areas” are allowed into the EU. How
realistic is this? Well, if Turkey did such an act, and annexed an EU member
State, it would be in violation of international law. However, as we have read,
this means nothing to Turkey. But, since their chances of gaining its own EU membership
would end with such a move,
Turkey will certainly think twice.
The “occupied areas” are faced with another problem.
Unless the entire island enters the EU, Turkish-Cypriot youth, who are angered
with Turkish refusal to negotiate, will continue to emigrate, as their only way
out.
Hence, with their departure, Turkey will offset the loss with Turkish
Anatolians. This will only aggravate the situation and make matters worse.
Turkey would hurt the “occupied areas” of Cyprus because the money that the European
Union has appropriated will not be given.
On the other hand, with accession into the EU, Cyprus, as
a whole, will benefit from membership. The EU will finance the “occupied
areas”. All Cypriots, Turkish and Greeks, will be able to travel, live and work
in Europe, as a European.
However, the possible downside for the Cyprus Republic is
that if accession occurs without a solution, this may lead to the divisions
becoming definite. In other words, even without annexation, Turkey would
continue to change the demography in the “occupied areas” and may extinguish
any desire for the reunification of Cyprus.
Conclusion
In the end, it is clear that both Turkey and Cyprus would
gain if a solution were found prior to Cyprus’ accession into the European
Union. However, without a settlement, life will go on as it has for the past 28
years, but Turkey will pay the largest price.
Cyprus’ long history has seen her overcome invaders,
crusaders and occupiers. However, one force has proven to difficult to triumph
over. In the end, it will not be strength that will overwhelm this foreign
occupier; it will be desire to be free and independent of a foreign strangler.
With respect for international law and human rights, the international
community, will solve this problem and do away with the “last divided capital
in Europe.”
The international community, backed by international law
has, when Turkey first illegally invaded in 1974, up until the present, called
on Turkey and her authorities to recognize international law and respect it.
However, 28 years later and nothing has changed worth noting. Rather, only the
opposite has occurred. In this section, we will cover what are the real
consequences of Turkey’s behavior.
Prior to 1974, the discussions of Cyprus and its destiny
were held within Turkish political circles. The role Cyprus would play was to
no surprise, especially to the Government of Turkey.
Even before Cyprus gained her independence from British
colonial rule in 1960, the Foreign Minister of Turkey, in 1955, stated that
The importance of Cyprus to Turkey does not arise
from a single cause; it is a necessity which emanates from the exigencies of
history, geography, economy and military strategy, from the right to existence
and security, which is the most sacred of every state, in short, from the very
nature of things.
Discussions and decisions were made and prepared long
before the actual invasions of Cyprus in July and August 1974. Since 1974,
Turkey has implemented their plan at changing the demographic character of
Cyprus and its territory by the importation of thousands upon thousands of
Anatolian settlers.
Turkish Policy Continues
According to Article 49 of the Geneva Convention (IV) of
1949,
“The occupying power shall not deport or transfer
parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”
The importation of settlers to Cyprus, from Turkey, began
immediately after the Turkish invasion in 1974. The “need” for seasonal workers
was used as a pretext. These workers were supposed to help in the “collection
of fruit” from the orchards. Thousands of Turks flocked to the island while the
regime offered them “Turkish-Cypriot Citizenship.”
Turkey’s aim, through colonization, is to alter the
demographic character of the island for political gain. In order to claim more
territory and have political rights during negotiations, the occupying regime
in the “north” of
Cyprus decided it would be to their advantage to import “settlers” from Turkey
to change the balance of the population.
Prior to 1974, the Turkish-Cypriot population in the
“northern” part of Cyprus was 115,600.
However, at the end of 1990, it was said to be 171,500. This would result in a
48.35% increase. This is not the result of natural growth due to birth because
the numbers in both parts of Cyprus are comparable. Hence, it must be “due to a
substantial influx of migrants.”
Fazil Kuchuck
wrote that “the entirely uneducated newly-brought Turks” must be sent back to
Turkey “before they convert Cyprus to a graveyard.”
The expulsion of the Greek-Cypriot people and their culture, and the settlement
of colonists from the “most backward districts of Turkey, constitutes the most
disgraceful form of colonization of our age.”
The “Turkish-Cypriot Administration” has a policy of
encouraging the Turkish migrants to permanently settle on the island. They are
granted housing, property and nationality, which results in equal rights with
the Turkish-Cypriot population that existed in Cyprus, living with the
Greek-Cypriots, long before Turkey began changing the face of Cyprus.
United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy wrote, in 1976,
that,
There is also good reason to believe that Turkey is
continuing to increase its civilian population on Cyprus. The ‘colonization’
policy of Ankara, which brings mainland Turkish nationals to Cyprus, has been
an open secret for many months - and, in fact, was confirmed to me in a recent
exchange of correspondence with the foreign minister of Turkey. According to
some reports more than 40,000 Turkish nationals have moved to Cyprus so far.
And, although the movement of large groups of Turkish civilians has apparently
ended for now, the colonization policy continues - as does the expulsion of
Cypriot Greeks from their homes and lands in the ‘occupied area.'
The Turkish “settlers”
fall into two main categories. Most are shepherds and peasants, who live the
same life in Cyprus as they did in Turkey. The other group is managers,
businessmen and Turkish military. Even though they are a minority amongst the
settlers, they exert influence on the ruling class of Turkish-Cypriots.
The majority of “settlers”, shepherds and peasants, are
“poor and without any trace of civilization, illiterate and fanatic Islamists.”
In order to transfer such a large quantity, the Turkish authorities vacated
“entire Turkish villages” in
Anatolia.
In addition, some of the “settlers” are criminals who find
“occupied” Cyprus a safe hideout from authorities. The Turkish-Cypriot press
has described the “occupied areas” as “Texas” and that it holds the “World
Record in Burglaries.”
Simply put, the Turkish-Cypriots do not feel safe in their own homes and on
their own streets. “They dare no go out after dark in ‘occupied’ Nicosia
because they are afraid of being mugged or attacked by unemployed ‘settlers’
who seem ruthless to achieve their goals.”
The balance that existed prior to 1974 no longer exists.
The Turkish-Cypriots are now the minority in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus.
With the 30,000, and on some accounts 40,000 Turkish troops stationed on the
island, the Turkish-Cypriots have become second to the Turkish mainlanders in
their own country. This figure is “equivalent to some 15% of the total
population of the ‘northern part’ of Cyprus.”
In 1974, the Turkish-Cypriots welcomed the Turkish Army
coming to Cyprus.
However, a year later, they were thinking in complete opposite because they no
longer felt “in control of either, their home, wife, daughter or property. The
Turkish Army could enter any house and do whatever they wanted.”
“Everything is in the hands of the [Turkish] Army, which are directing all
administrative officials on the other side. And of course, they are directly
connected with the Foreign Ministry and the military headquarters in Ankara.”
This was, and is, the reason for the emigration of Turkish-Cypriots from the
“occupied areas.”
Today the man on the street is asking: ‘What is
going on? Are we going once more to become a minority in our country?’ Some of
them are exerting pressure on the Turkish-Cypriot political parties by saying:
‘Since they (settlers) formed their separate party, you put aside your right or
left differences and unite.'
“Great numbers of uneducated people come from Turkey, and
this mass, which flows to ‘northern’ Cyprus, does not return to Turkey.”
Between 1974-1995, about a third of the pre-1974 Turkish-Cypriot population has
emigrated due to “unemployment, economic, social and moral degradation and the
pressure from Turkish colonists who are given undue privileges.” It is evident
that if this trend continues, there will be no Turkish-Cypriots in Cyprus.
Due to Turkish military action, and its occupation of over
1/3 of the Republic of Cyprus, all the people of Cyprus have paid a heavy
price. For instance, Cyprus has lost a potential 70% gross output, 65% of the
tourist accommodation capacity, 87% of hotel beds under construction, 83% of
the general cargo handling capacity, 56% of mining and quarrying output, 41% of
livestock production, 48% of agricultural exports, and 46% of industrial
production.
It is clear that Turkey’s policy on Cyprus is the
consolidation of partition and the annexation of the occupied area by Turkey.
Hence, any efforts to solve the Cyprus problem are thwarted since they conflict
with the policy of Turkey and Mr. Denktash.
The Republic of Cyprus Citizenship Law
In addressing the laws of Cyprus in regards to
citizenship, the text that follows, determines the legal avenue one would
pursue, if necessary, to obtain Cypriot citizenship. In international law there
are two ways of obtaining citizenship. One method to derive citizenship is via jus solis and the other, via jus sanguinis.
Jus solis means
that a person is granted citizenship through the place of birth. On the other
hand, jus sanguinis literally is
“right of blood,” which makes descent from a family member the primary
determinant of citizenship. Listed below, first will be the applicable laws for
those individuals that would be claiming citizenship via descent. Second, the
laws that “alien”
individuals would use when seeking naturalization.
Acquisition of Citizenship
(1) A person born in
the Republic
on or after the 16th day of August, 1960, shall be a citizen of the
Republic if -
(a) at the time of the
person’s birth his father was
a citizen of the Republic or, if not living at the time of the birth, the
father would, but for his death, be entitled to become a citizen of the
Republic.
(2) A person born on or
after the 16th day of August, 1960, in any foreign county shall be a
citizen of the Republic if -
(a) at the time of the
person’s birth his father was a citizen of the Republic or, if not living at
the time of the person’s birth, would, but for his death, be entitled to become
a citizen of the Republic….
Qualifications for Naturalization
1. Subject to the
provisions of the next following paragraph, the qualifications for
naturalization of an alien who applies therefor are -
(a) that he has either
resided in the Republic or been in the public service of the Republic, or
partly the one and partly the other, throughout the period of twelve months
immediately preceding the date of his application; and
(b) that during the
seven years immediately preceding the said period of twelve months he has
either resided in the Republic or been in the public service of the Republic,
or partly the one and partly the other, for periods amounting in the aggregate
to not less than four years….
It is important to keep in mind that in Cyprus, there is
no defined right to citizenship due to jus
solis. This will be crucial when we examine, later in this paper, the
rights of the “settlers” and whether, they too, can apply for Cypriot
citizenship.
Acquiring Turkish-Cypriot Nationality
In 1975, the unrecognized “Turkish-Cypriot Administration”
passed Act No. 3/1975, under which nationality could be given to anyone who
requested it. Paying close attention to the members of the Turkish armed forces
who had served in Cyprus, the wives, children and brothers of members of these
forces who had died in Cyprus between 20 July 1974 and 20 August 1974. These
individuals were given free houses and property and became the elite in the
“occupied areas.” In
addition, nationality could be given to persons who served in the Turkish
Resistance Organization in Cyprus and Turkey.
Furthermore, in 1981, the “Turkish-Cypriot Administration”
passed a regulation on the acquisition of the nationality of the state in
exceptional cases. For instance, it provides for granting of Turkish-Cypriot
nationality to persons who have been, for at least one year, permanently
residing in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus. In
addition, the regulation allows nationality to be granted in cases where the
“persons have made or would make an important contribution to the economy, to
those who have contributed to social and cultural life, the development of
external relations or the raising of the standard of education and to all those
who have rendered services… to the security forces.”
It is important to note that proof must be showed in all cases. Interestingly,
there is also a regulation that permits the “authorities” to grant
Turkish-Cypriot nationality to any person they deemed necessary. In other
words, a loophole or an elastic clause, which would allow, if needed, to work
around the “requirement” for providing proof.
It is important to highlight that the citizenship “laws”
passed in “occupied” Cyprus are just smoke and mirrors. The objective is to
give “settlers” the power to push the ideas of Denktash and Turkey forward.
For instance, the matter of Cyprus’ entry into the EU or the
return of Varosha, an “occupied” village back to its legal inhabitants, may be
called to referendum.
Hence, the question becomes, whether all the “settlers” who were given
Turkish-Cypriot citizenship illegally, are given the right to vote along with
the remaining Turkish-Cypriot population.
Opposition parties have declared that “in a referendum,
only Turkish-Cypriots should have the right to vote and ‘settlers’ must be
excluded from it.”
However the problem is more complex than most would like to believe. Republican
Turkish party leader, Ozger Ozgur, stated that “In a place where the number of
its nationals and the number of eligible voters are not known, it is impossible
to hold valid elections or referenda. Here we cannot tell the number of voters
among those who were granted citizenship, since many Turks have also been made
citizens of the country. To name but a
few of the most publicized cases: Bulet Ecevit, football player Danzu Colak
(who is serving a jail sentence in Turkey), singer Seregil, former Turkish
ministers Abdulah Tenedzi and Orham Kizedzioglu, the nephew of Turkish
president Suleyman Demirel, and Yiaha Dezire….”
It is expected that with the acquisition of nationality,
you gain a bundle of rights. The most important right that the “settlers” gain
is the right to vote. In order to stay in power, Mr.Denktash has been sure,
especially prior to an “election,” to naturalize as many “settlers”
in order to ensure victory. So long as this trend continues and Denktash
remains in power, you can be assured that the “settler” population will
increase at the expense of the Turkish-Cypriot population that continues to
decrease.
This issue of who is and who is not a Turkish-Cypriot
national will pose a problem in a possible solution to the Cyprus problem.
Hence, we will address this topic again, later in the paper, in the section
dealing with Solutions.
Settler Population
In addition to acquiring Turkish-Cypriot nationality, Mr.
Denktash has also promoted the policy of altering the demographic character of
the island. By simply changing street names from Greek to Turkish or more
importantly, giving the Turkish “settlers” Turkish-Cypriot names in
order to confuse and alter the numbers. In the end, it will be harder to know
who is and who is not Turkish-Cypriot.
The largest groups of “settlers” are farmers and peasants
from Turkey. They accept three times less pay then the Turkish-Cypriots. At the
beginning, they cultivated wheat and grains. After they sold the crop, they
would invest the money in Turkey. The money would be used to purchase a flat,
for instance.
In addition, the “settlers” have never considered Cyprus their home. When most
“settlers” die in Cyprus, they want to return “home” to Turkey.
Actual numbers, of “settlers” are very hard to find. The
Greek-Cypriots have an idea and a round figure. Mr. Cuco attempted, under the
auspicious of the United Nations, and was not given full disclosure by the
“Turkish-Cypriot authorities.” The Turkish-Cypriot press and citizens are
calling for Denktash to release the numbers, if they have any. However, the
answer, if one even exists, remains a highly guarded secret.
In discussing this with the Council of Europe, Mr. Matsis
deposited many articles from Turkish newspapers that were exposing this
situation. The newspapers requested that Mr. Denktash investigate how many
“settlers” there were in the “occupied areas” in comparison to the
Turkish-Cypriots.
Eventually, things will have changed completely. On one of
Mr. Matsis’ trips to the “occupied areas”, he was told by his Turkish-Cypriot
escort that you could see who was a “settler” and who was a Turkish-Cypriot,
simply by the way they walked. In addition, in the “occupied areas”, there are
separate cafes for the “settlers” and separate cafes for the Turkish-Cypriots.
The varying political parties also separate themselves as well.
The “two communities” living in “occupied” Cyprus have
divided themselves along culture, language and ideological lines. The
Turkish-Cypriots have been losing and are continuously in the process of losing
“their” Cyprus to a foreign “occupier.”
Turkification of Cyprus
When Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974, many people that were
caught in their path sought refuge in churches, in hope that they would be safe
from any “un-holy” acts. However, that was not the case and they were forced to
leave. The churches were left to fend for itself. The churches became targets
of destruction. Many sacrilegious activities have taken place. It has been
reported that urine can be found on the altar and the floor, that the church
Bible would be used for toilet-paper, the frescos on the church walls have been
gashed and disfigured, icons stolen and sold illegally, and in many cases,
churches have been turned into stables.
These sacred and holy places in the “occupied areas” which
number, 500 churches and countless monasteries, have been left to fend against
the worst element of all - people who do not respect religion. This is another
step to erase the past and the history of its people.
To make matter worse, in 1982, Mr. Denktash donated
twenty ancient objects to the University of Virginia. The Cyprus Republic, the
rightful owners of these antiquities, protested. In the end, the items were
returned. However, only two were sent to the Republic, while the remainder was
sent back to Denktash.
“Haven’t you heard that the 2000 year old Christian
Church in Cyprus, St. Barnaba’s Church, has been robbed? Haven’t you heard that
35 icons were stolen, that 11 of them were found in Kythrea, that 11 were
retrieved at Ankara airport while being smuggled out, and that the rest are
lost?
“Haven’t you heard what’s happening in Varosha?
Haven’t you heard that figurines belonging to the chalcolithic period and kept
in the Archaeological Museum have been stolen and smuggled to London?
“What about the icons in the other churches: the
mosaics, the private collections, the illegal digs? Haven’t you heard of these?
“Well haven’t you heard the story of the small
Venetian lion either? They took the cub away from its mother’s side and then sent
it to London. But they say no, it is not true; it shared the fate of many other
historic masterpieces during the war, that is, it was destroyed. Others claim
that it is buried somewhere nearby in a haphazard manner. Others say yes, it
was smuggled out, but later it was brought back. No, they will say, such a lion
cub has never existed. Actually it was that piece of stone…
“Why have they stopped the digs started before 1974
at the city of Gastria, which belongs to the geometric age?
“Do you know what has happened since then? The
government has issued permits to certain businessmen from Turkey to set up a
gypsum factory there. The tombs were destroyed and plundered of their
antiquities. What business did they have there? Were they engaged in the gypsum
trade or in the antiquities trade? Haven’t you ever heard of these things?”
Turkey has spared no expense at altering the face of
Cyprus. Originally, since the inhabitants of Cyprus where of Greek culture and
heritage, naturally, the street names, village and town names, were also Greek.
However, all that has changed. Greek names were given Turkish names. No
conqueror has done anything of this magnitude. The Ottoman Empire allowed the
Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus to reestablish itself after being oppressed
prior. However, this Turkish Force is of a different breed and belief system.
Nonetheless, Turkey and Mr. Denktash have managed to alter
history for their alleged benefit. If this was not enough, in spite of
international law, history and geography, Turkey has created maps that show
Cyprus as part of Turkey. Their goal - to create a Turkish province.
In this section, we will cover various articles written in
Turkish-Cypriot newspapers, in hopes of gaining an insight, in a general sense,
how they see the state of affairs in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus. The
Turkish-Cypriots have grown more and more concerned with the increase of
Turkish settlers. Mr. Denktash’s political opposition parties have called on
his “regime” to stop granting Turkish-Cypriot citizenship to anyone who applies
for it.
Finally, in 1990, Denktash and his “authorities” conducted a census on the
“settler” population. However, the results have remained secret.
Turkish-Cypriot journalists should be applauded for their
continuous struggle to emphasize the urgency in finding a solution to the
Cyprus problem. Every time an article is written in “occupied” Cyprus and
Denktash or his “authorities” disapprove, the said author(s) are arrested and
their paper is shutdown.
For example, Sener Levent, editor and chief of AFRIKA,
formerly AVRUPA, was arrested and charged with libel against Denktash and his
illegal regime. On 21 August 2002, an article was smuggled out of the Levent’s
prison cell and published in AFRIKA. In this article, he stresses that he does
accept the legality of the Turkish invasion in 1974 and all that subsequently
followed. In addition, he added that he did not recognize the legality of his
arrest and another journalist, Memduh Ener.
From an excerpt of the article Levent writes,
The voice of our people in the north of Cyprus has
been suppressed. But the solidarity voices that come from the south strengthen
the hope that together we shall be able to build a future for Cyprus. From the
south comes the message, ‘Hold on, friend’. No one should have a doubt. Cyprus
will soon belong to the Cypriots again… If I don’t burn, if you do not burn,
how will the darkness go away.”?
There is a problem in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus and
the “problem” wants to keep those with a voice mute. We hope that by placing a
section in this paper devoted to several articles from the Turkish-Cypriot
press, we can help in giving the individuals who are fighting for justice an
international audience that would listen.
The articles that follow were translated from the original
Turkish into Greek and then into English for use in this paper.
However, some of the text that follows is only a paraphrase of the Greek text
translated to English. Each article will begin with a “note” which will
summarize each piece.
AVRUPA
NOTE: The author of this article wants us to appreciate
the severity of the “settler” problem. She does not understand where they came
from and who they are. In addition, she writes that the situation has caused
Turkish-Cypriots to emigrate out of “occupied” Cyprus.
Every time this author went to Nicosia
center, in the “occupied parts” she would search to find a Turkish-Cypriot.
However, that was very difficult. She saw people who have nothing to do with
Cyprus. They do not even look Turkish-Cypriot. “Where did they come from?” This
was the cause of Turkish-Cypriot emigration. They speak a language that is
foreign and an accent that has nothing to do with Turkish-Cypriot.
The shops have signs hanging in their windows that read,
“For Sale”, “For Rent” or “For Let.”
The author spots children, in the streets, not wearing any shoes.
Instantly, she knows that they are not Turkish-Cypriot children because
Turkish-Cypriots take care of their children. “Who are these children and where
did they come from?”
Walking, she tried to find someone she knew, however, that
was in vain. She felt as though she was walking in the streets of Syria. Only
Kurds and Anatolians. The Turkish-Cypriots are left to wonder if the Turkish
Authorities are trying to pass the Kurds and Anatolians as Turks. “Do they
think we are stupid?”
KIBRIS
NOTE: The author of this article wants us to understand
that the situation regarding the “settlers” is grave and needs to be addressed.
In addition, the author wants us to understand that, even with “immigration
laws” in place, the “Turkish-Cypriot authorities” do not know who and how many
immigrants arrive in “occupied” Cyprus.
Questions were raised as to how the immigrants or
“settlers” are gaining Turkish-Cypriot citizenship. Hence, the “Turkish-Cypriot
Parliamentary Committee” had a study to answer these questions. Interestingly
enough, it took them one year to complete the study, of which, they should be
very literate about.
In the end, they discovered that the answer lies in
Article 8, Law on Nationality, which reads that Turkish-Cypriot nationality
could be given to:
A) Foreigners who
submit an application and adults that reside there [”occupied areas”] for 5
years with no criminal record and do not carry any contagious diseases.
In addition, a “Minister” must recommend and must gain
Article 9 approval from the Council of Ministers as a whole.
(a) adult children
whom parents lost nationality, for whatever reason;
(b) people who have
invested in certain vital sectors of the economy, in general, or distinguished
individuals who offered and served politics, science and all other factors of
life;
(c) people whom the
Council of Ministers impose that nationality should be given;
(d) members who
participated in the invasion of 1974 and also to the wives, children and
parents;
(e) to the people who
served in TMT
after 01 August 1974
The wives and children of all the above, simply need apply
to the proper authorities to receive citizenship.
In a report from the “Parliamentary Committee” they write
that between 1974 to 1999, only 48,819 immigrants received Turkish-Cypriot
Citizenship. However, prior to this
report an “Immigration Officer” reported that between 1974 - 1983 there were
48,819 immigrants that received Turkish-Cypriot Citizenship. So the question
then became who is right?
The “Immigration Officer” was later forced to come-out and
apologize and declare that his report was false and that the actual numbers are
in conformity with the “Parliamentary Committee” findings.
Parliament Members of the Opposition criticized the
“Committees” report and added, “this has nothing to do with reality.” In
addition, Turkish officials came from Turkey to study this issue, in depth,
with the “Attorney-General,” Akin Sait.
However, the “Minister of the Interior,” Mehmet Bayram,
claims that this meeting between Turkish officials and the “Attorney-General”
never took place. He added, that between 1974 to 2001, 50,000 were granted
Turkish-Cypriot citizenship, in 2000, only 181, in 2001, only 150 and between
1993 - 2001, only 2735 were granted Turkish-Cypriot citizenship. These numbers
do not add-up.
AVRUPA
NOTE: The author in this article is concerned about the
lack of control on the infiltration of “settlers”. It does not matter whom or
where they come from, they are always allowed entry.
This author questions who is behind all the “bums”
entering Cyprus. “Is it the Army? The Embassy? Who is behind this? These people
who bother our girls in the streets. All the hungry that come to our country
without any difficulty.” In matter of fact, the authorities have been
prohibited from stopping individuals from entering the “occupied areas.”
However, when they do ask the individuals wishing to enter, “where they come
from,” they are shown a document that was given to them from the Embassy.
AVRUPA
NOTE: The author of this article writes that since the
“settlers” have arrived in “occupied” Cyprus and received Turkish-Cypriot
citizenship, the Turkish-Cypriots are left with no choice but emigration. In addition, the “authorities” respond by
giving just as many “settlers” citizenship as there are Turkish-Cypriots who
leave.
Since all the “settlers” have arrived in the “occupied
areas” of Cyprus, two political parties were dissolved due to their gaining of
Turkish-Cypriot citizenship. In matter of fact, Mr. Akingi, a “Turkish-Cypriot
Authority,” refused to sign the nationalization papers of several illegal
immigrants. Hence, he was sent out of the “government.”
Recently, a large number of Turkish-Cypriots have applied
to the Cyprus Republic for Cypriot passports and have left the “occupied
areas.” Just in case there is no solution to the Cyprus problem prior to
Cyprus’ accession into the European Union and only the “free area” of Cyprus is
admitted, these Turkish-Cypriots can live in Europe as Cypriots, and therefore,
Europeans.
The “TRNC” responds by giving “settlers” Turkish-Cypriot
citizenship. “About 26,000 Turkish ‘settlers’ have applied for Turkish-Cypriot
nationality. This number, however, should not be alarming because the
‘Authorities’ do not care who comes in and what or who they are.”
AVRUPA
NOTE: This author writes about some of the criminal and
immoral acts that the “settlers” are engaged in against the Turkish-Cypriots.
In addition, the author believes that the numbers of Turkish-Cypriots that are
left are very few in comparison to the Turkish “settlers.”
“They have raped our grandmothers, who are 70 and 80 years
old. They have had relations with our donkeys and our dogs. The Turkish-Cypriots
are afraid to walk in the streets and afraid to be alone in their own house.
The people in power shout that Cyprus is a country for all Turks. However, most
that arrive are illegal workers and naturalized just before elections.
“Political parties who are in power, do so, to stay in
power. At the beginning, nationality is given to illegal workers, and later to
their wives, children, parents and siblings. Their only obligation is to
support the one and only [S.S. Denktash].
“How many Turkish-Cypriots are left? This we shall never
find out. It is a ‘Government’ secret. I remember some time ago when we were
120,000. These were the years when families had a lot of children. However,
after 1974, there was birth control. In spite of all this, our population has
increased to 208,000. Rumors have it that only 30 to 40 thousand are
Turkish-Cypriot. And this is optimistic. The Turks from the mainland that have
been naturalized are four times as many.
“Do you think there is another country in the world that the
countries real population is only one-fourth of the total population?”
LONDRA GAZETE
NOTE: This article refers to a speech where the speaker
equates the number of Turkish-Cypriot emigrates to the number of “settlers”
given Turkish-Cypriot citizenship.
On 3 March 02, Turkish-Cypriot Professor, Bakir Caglar,
gave a speech at Woodgreen Civic Center. British Parliament members where
present for the occasion. Professor Caglar declared, “from 1974 to today,
50,000 Turkish-Cypriots have emigrated from Cyprus. And this is the number that
Turkish Authorities claim were nationalized.”
ORTAM
NOTE: In this article, the author writes that the influx
of “settlers” is so great that the “TRNC” is working overtime to give
Turkish-Cypriot citizenship to immigrants.
Employees of the so-called “TRNC” work constantly to give
“nationality” to illegal migrants. The Turkish-Cypriots are waiting for the
“Government” to tell them the number of immigrants who became Turkish-Cypriot
nationals during the first two-and-a-half-months of 2002.
ORTAM
NOTE: Here, the author expresses Turkish-Cypriot concern
over a possible referendum and who would have the right to vote.
Turkish Authorities are trying to increase the population
in the “occupied areas” in case the solution to the Cyprus Problem is called to
a referendum. Turkish-Cypriot journalists constantly write that
Turkish-Cypriots do not like this policy because, in the end, their fate and
the fate of their country, will be left in hands of the “settlers” to decide.
Most population increases occur just prior to an election.
It does not matter what type of election it is. In addition, many Turkish
students come to the “occupied areas” in order to acquire Turkish-Cypriot
nationality. With Turkish-Cypriot nationality, they pay less tuition in their
respective Universities.
YENI DUZEN
NOTE: The author
of this article writes about the most popular way for illegal immigrants to
enter and subsequently acquire Turkish-Cypriot citizenship. Hence,
Turkish-Cypriots are left no choice but to emigrate.
The most popular way for Turks to get Turkish-Cypriot
Nationality is to enter the “occupied areas” as illegal workers. It is almost
certain, that during elections all illegal migrants will be granted
Turkish-Cypriot Nationality. There are about 20,000 of them. And this does not
include their wives and children.
Ironically, most illegal migrants are actually employed by
the “Turkish-Cypriot Government.” Hence, this forces the Turkish-Cypriots to
emigrate out of the “occupied areas” in search of employment.
YENI DUZEN
NOTE: The author of this article, Kutlu Adali, was
murdered on 7 July 1996 for his opposition to the Turkish occupation of Cyprus.
The article below expresses the Turkish-Cypriot concerns over the presence of
the Turkish troops and the settlers in “occupied” Cyprus. He believed, and lost
his life for his belief, that this constitutes a real threat to
Turkish-Cypriots.
“In Nicosia, I wanted to look at a free, independent and
sovereign country for the last time on the day the Republican Assembly
resolutions on the establishment of a federation, which were strongly supported
by the Democratic Party and National Unity Party (NUP), votes in the
Parliament. Yes, I wished to look at our country once more before the process
of ‘integration’ began.
“Integration and not independent will be the basis of the
relations between north Cyprus and Turkey on matters related to foreign
affairs, defense, security and economic developments as of 29 August 1994. I
observed while walking down the street that the changes did not take place
overnight and through the 30 Democratic Party and NUP votes in the Parliament,
which were supported by Rauf Denktash. The streets, post offices, and banks
were unbelievably crowded with military servicemen. It was as if there were
more troops than the civilian population in the town. Obviously, the civilians,
the banks, and the post offices were experiencing the process of integration.
The names of people from Gaziantep, Sanliurfa, Mardin, Diyarbakir, Adna, Hatay,
Mersin, Antalya, Konya, and Trabzon, in Turkey, were inscribed on the metal
signs that hang outside the shops and work places. Apparently, the Cypriots
without any identity and distinguished personality, to consider the situation
prior to integration.
“Cypriots no longer live in many of the houses in Nicosia.
Many of the old buildings are used as boardinghouses, coffee shops and places
where foodstuffs and household goods are sold. Children no longer play in the
narrow streets as they used to in the past. Nor do Cypriot women sweep and wash
the pavement in front of their homes or sit in their doorways to chat with
their neighbors. Multicolored mucus and saliva splattered on the pavements are
seen streaking the streets and the odor of urine is everywhere. People in traditional
attire or baggy pants, which are tied around the waist and knees, and who wear
a moustache and carry strings of worry beads, greet each other in the
traditional way instead of simply saying good morning in Turkish with a smile.
That makes one wonder whether the town is in Anatolia.
“Cypriot women do not sit in front of their homes any
more. People from Anatolia, who wear colorful dresses, have taken their place.
Some of them talk in Turkish, in an incomprehensible way. Others converse in
Kurdish, Arabic, and Persian. Meanwhile, folk songs are heard in the streets,
which express the feeling of longing for the homeland or for the beloved, which
create a sad atmosphere. The situation on the outskirts of the town is no
different. The people that work in construction sites are part of the picture
in Nicosia. All that is an indication that we are gradually integrating with
Anatolia.
“The process of integration did not start overnight - that
is, with the Denktash factor and the 30 Democratic Party and NUP votes in
Parliament. That will be confirmed by the currency that is the circulation, the
flags that fly, the daily acts of robbery, freedom enjoyed by criminals who
murder people, easy access through the immigration departments in the airport
and the seaports, the inaccessibility of beaches, the opening of numerous
banks, the splendor of military parades and diplomatic protocol in the country.
“Yes, integration did not take place overnight. The
corrupt situation, which has forced the Cypriots to immigrate to Britain,
Canada and Australia, did not emerge overnight. We have been crying and leaving
this island for 31 years. A valuable friend has informed me that exactly 44,000
people have applied to the Australian Commissioner’s Office to immigrate to
Australia. That means the Turkish-Cypriot Population will decrease to exactly
64,000 people in the near future.”
AVRUPA
NOTE: The author of this article writes about whom he
believes is really in control in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus.
“The main responsibles for this country’s present state of
affairs (and everybody knows what kind of State of affairs its in), as far as
we are concerned, are Ankara, Denktash and all the past and present of north
Cyprus governments. However, if one establishes this fact, this in no way means
that one will be acquitted from having any responsibility. That is nobody can
get away with it by saying: ‘the sole responsible for this state of affairs is
Ankara or Denktash.’ All of us are guilty. No one should think that I have come
to this conclusion because there are no convicts put in jail because of their
ideas. Unless we get rid of the illness of always putting the blame on others
for the difficulties we face, we will not be able to notice the injustice we
are committing.
“In this country, this is how they rocked the opposition.
How? Let me tell you. Not blaming oneself may be an intellectual illness.
However, saying that the one who does not exactly share your own views is on
the opposite camp, is nothing but having an inquisition mentality. In fact,
there is no difference between Denktash and the opposition regarding their
behavior. Denktash brands those he does not like as ‘traitors,’ and in turn the
opposition brands those they do not like as ‘Denktashists.’ This illness was
more visible at a time when leftist ideas were first being introduced in our
country. They were roaring and accusing everybody.
“Maoist! Agent! Trotskist! Who were roating to whom?
Leftist to leftists….
Nothing has changed today. They have a fixed idea in their
heads - Denktash is guilty. And for this reason they think that if Denktash
goes, everything will become normal. This way they are unable to see that it is
not Denktash who is ruling us, but Ankara.
“Just look at our opposition. If not all, at least its
majority. Do they blame Denktash or Ankara? They say, Denktash and only
Denktash. This stance does nothing but to alleviate the responsibilities of the
Ankara government in bringing our country to this situation.
“Also the stance taken against Denktash by the opposition
is not a sound and healthy stance. Because they made it their principle to
oppose whatever Denktash says. Thus, they have lost their credibility before
the people. They are not aware of the fact that nothing will change in this
country after Denktash’s death if other things are not changed. This way they
have rocked and destroyed the opposition in this country, even those who were
their supporters. Since they are unable to stand against Ankara, they attack
Denktash.
“Although among themselves they complain that ‘they are
under Turkey’s occupation’, they are not courageous enough to write this in
their newspapers. Instead of blaming themselves, they consider it a big deal to
severely criticize the old leftist friends or ours, which are not with them
anymore. Let them do so….
“How many people extended a helping hand to these friends
of ours who have for years struggled in the opposition front with great
sacrifice and who were then condemned to destitution and hunger?
“A respected leftist friend of mine, who has citrus groves
in Morfu and a good pension as well as a good salary from a rightist
‘establishment,’ that he is currently working at, asked me the following when,
after seven years of exile, I returned home and met him in the street:
‘You have come back?
‘Yes, I have.
‘Why did you come back?
‘This is my country….
‘You should have stayed.
“You should have stayed there, with those who took you
there…. It seems that this friend of mine was thinking that I have come back
here to be accounted for. How could he have known I have come back here to
settle accounts? Did he not think that he, too, had his share of responsibility
while the country was being destroyed?
“Holding Denktash the sole responsible for everything that
is being done here is tantamount to accepting him as the president of an
independent state. Whereas, I am sure, we are being ruled by the forty thousand
troops on the island and Ankara.”
Conclusion
When one discusses the Cyprus Problem, the
Turkish-Cypriots are often forgotten. They too have suffered a great deal at
the hands of the illegal “regime” in Cyprus. All the elements that Turkey has
introduced have caused the Turkish-Cypriots to question their own existence in
Cyprus. They have called on controls on the flow of immigrants, however, there
has been no such device implemented. If a “settler” wants Turkish-Cypriot
citizenship, they get it.
When they speak out against Denktash and Turkey, they are
punished; some even gravely. Nonetheless, they publish their papers and have
their voices heard. However, nothing has been done to solve the problem. In the
end, they are left with only one choice, and that is emigration.
Even today, where “occupied” Cyprus has more foreigners
than Turkish-Cypriots, the dream of living free of a Turkish oppressor is not
relinquished. The dream of Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots living in a
united, free and independent Cyprus is not far from reality, thanks to the
Turkish-Cypriot Journalists.
Turkey wants to stay in Cyprus because of its strategic
importance. To the north of Cyprus, is Turkey. To the East of Cyprus, are
Israel, Syria and Lebanon. To the south of Cyprus, is North Africa. Since
Turkey’s invasion 28 years ago, this has become more apparent by the steady
influx of “settlers” into the “occupied areas.”
In this section we will first deal with the illegality of
the Turkish invasions of July and August 1974. And subsequently, that the
withdrawal of Turkish military, from Cyprus’ territory, is mandatory. Second,
the issue of refugees and their right to return to their country and homes in
safety. Third, we will argue that all Turkish colonists or “settlers” and their
descendents must be repatriated. However, to do so, we must first recognize who
is a “settler,” why they should or should not go and what rights, if any, they
are entitled too. Lastly, we will review the property rights of the refugees
and displaced persons.
Kellogg-Briand Pact and Stimson Doctrine
Before we move on and deal with the issues, we need to
understand that since Turkey’s initial invasion and subsequent occupation are
illegal and in violation of international law, anything that flows from that
initial illegal act is therefore deemed to be illegal. It is the “authorities”
of “occupied” Cyprus’ belief that when availed with recognition by the
international community, their violations would be ratified. However, any
recognition of an illegal act is also a violation of international law.
Nonetheless, their belief is far from the truth. For
example, in 1928, the Kellogg-Briand Pact was ratified and ultimately signed by
62 countries, which included Turkey. This pact renounced war as an instrument
for resolving international disputes. The parties agreed that the settlement of
all conflicts, no matter of what origin or nature, which might arise among
them, should be sought only by pacific means and that war was to be renounced
as an instrument of national policy.
This pact never made a meaningful contribution to
international order. For example, in 1931, Japanese soldiers guarding the South
Manchurian Railway blew up part of the track, in order to create an excuse to
seize Manchuria proper. The Secretary of State, at the time, Henry L. Stimson,
reacted to this act, which he declared it to be a violation of international law
by issuing the Stimson Doctrine. The Doctrine declared that the United States
“would not recognize any situation or treaty that… was brought about by means
contrary to the Kellogg-Briand Pact.” In other words, the “fruits of aggression
will not be sanctioned.”
If the international community were to recognize the acts
of aggression committed by Turkey and the subsequent illegal declaration of the
puppet state of the “TRNC”, then the “fruits of aggression” would therefore be
sanctioned, and be contrary to international law.
Today, under United States Criminal Law, there is a
doctrine known as the “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.” Under this Doctrine,
evidence discovered due to information found through illegal search or other
unconstitutional means, may not be introduced by the prosecutor. The theory is
that the “Tree”, or the original illegal evidence, is poisoned and thus taints
what grows from it.
This Doctrine, even though it relates to domestic law in
the United States, is related to the Stimson Doctrine because they do not
recognize “fruits of aggression” or ends that stem from illegal means.
Therefore, it is our conclusion that the status quo that exists in “occupied”
Cyprus, which includes, “settlers”, Turkish troops and the “TRNC,” are illegal
and should not be recognized as legal because they are the “fruit” of an
initial illegal act and therefore “poisoned.”
Turkish Invasions and Withdrawal of Troops
The Turkish invasions that occurred in 1974 were illegal
and against international law. According to the United Nations Charter, there
is a prohibition on the use of force and it reads,
“All members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any manner inconsistent with the
purposes of the United Nations.”
Turkey’s “use of force” was directed “against the
territorial integrity or political independence of” Cyprus, and it was in a
“manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.” Hence, this is
an issue that should not be compromised in negotiations to end the Cyprus
problem.
In response to Turkey’s violation of the United Nations
Charter and international law, the Security Council demanded that all parties
“cease-fire” and to “refrain from any action which might further aggravate the
situation.”
However, in August, Turkey violated the cease-fire and staged a second
offensive.
On 13 May 1983, the United Nations General Assembly
adopted Resolution 37/253 (1983). The resolution
“Considers the withdrawal of all occupation forces
from the Republic of Cyprus as an essential basis for a speedy and mutually
acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem”;
“Demands the immediate withdrawal of all occupation
forces from the Republic of Cyprus”; and
“Considers that the de facto situation created by
the force of arms should not be allowed to influence or in any way affect the
solution to the problem of Cyprus.”
Therefore, the invasion was deemed a violation of
international law. In addition, the United Nations Security Council and General
Assembly have passed resolutions calling for the “immediate withdrawal of all
occupation forces from the Republic of Cyprus.” It has also been demanded that
Turkey should have no more interference with Cyprus’ affairs.
Refugees Right to Return Home
A Refugee’s right of returning to their country and home,
has been recognized by the international community as “a free-standing,
autonomous right in and of itself.”
This right is, like the Turkish military withdrawal, also non-negotiable. This
principle should be honored and adhered to by any State. If these norms are not
respected and followed, then that State should be dealt with accordingly by the
international community as a whole, and not unilaterally.
In addition, the United Nations Security Council and
General Assembly have reaffirmed this right in resolutions 361,
3212(XXIX)
and 37/253.
Also, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the
European Court of Human Rights, have echoed this view. Nonetheless, the
refugees have not been allowed to safely return to their country or their
homes.
The Court ruled in Loizidou
v. Turkey and Cyprus v. Turkey
that Turkey abused the refugees’ basic human rights by not allowing them free
movement and settlement, enjoyment of property and exercise of property rights.
The Court ruled that Turkey was guilty of mass violations of the human rights
of both Cypriot communities.
In lieu of these decisions, the Turkish authorities, both
in Turkey and “occupied” Cyprus have a decision to make. Will they adhere to
the Court’s decision(s) and respect international law? If not, what is the
international community willing to do in order to see that they do? The
precedent set-out by the Court is not only relevant to the Cyprus Problem, but
it will also be the precedent that the Arabs of Palestine have been waiting
for; there is much more at stake than 200,000 Cypriot refugees denied of their
basic rights. The world will be watching.
Settlers - Is Repatriation The Only Answer
So what will happen with the “settlers”? This is a concern
of both Greek and Turkish-Cypriots. For example, on one of his trips into the
“occupied areas,” Mr. Matsis was approached by several Turkish-Cypriots who
told him, “…do something to help us send the Turks back to Turkey.”
It is clear that the Turkish-Cypriots do not want the “settlers” in their homes
or on their property.
At a press conference at the Council of Europe, Mr. Matsis
and a Turkish-Cypriot politician were answering questions about the situation
and solution to the “settlers” in the “occupied areas” of Cyprus.
Interestingly, they were both in complete agreement 90% of time. The next day,
the papers in France
reported that a left-wing Turkish-Cypriot and right-wing Greek-Cypriot were in
complete agreement on the issues of Cyprus. When the Turkish-Cypriot politician
returned to the “occupied areas” of Cyprus, he had his passport confiscated and
his daughters, who were studying in Ankara, were forced to go back to the
“occupied areas” of Cyprus.
This problem is of great importance and magnitude and must
be approached with international and Cypriot laws in mind. In addition, one
cannot forget that concessions must be made on both sides, however, it must be
done without ignoring the legal rights of refugees to return to their country
and their homes.
Categories of Settlers
In addressing this complex and difficult issue of
repatriation, we must first define and explain the different groups of
“settlers” that reside in the “occupied areas.” Without doing so, we cannot
appreciate the situation, nor can we present an amicable solution for both
parties involved.
The first category is not a “settler,” rather they are the
Turkish-Cypriots that were citizens of Cyprus, or eligible for citizenship, on
or after the “16th day of August, 1960.”
The Turkish-Cypriots are entitled to all the rights and privileges equal to any
other legal Cypriot citizen of the Republic. In addition, their children and
grandchildren, if any, are also eligible for Turkish-Cypriot citizenship, in
their own right.
The next three groups of “settlers” are composed of
individuals that are of Turkish mainland origin or are Turkish mainland
citizens. They had no connection with Cyprus and should be considered a
non-Citizen and repatriated back to Turkey. In addition, their descendants are
also considered to be “settlers” and would be forced to return with their
families.
Lastly, we have a group that is comprised of persons born
in places other than Turkey or Cyprus. For instance, there are large amounts of
Bulgarians who have entered the “occupied areas” and remained there
indefinitely. They too are considered “settlers” and should also be repatriated
back to where they came from.
In our opinion, with the exception of the rightful Turkish-Cypriot
citizens of group one, the remaining four groups have no claim or right to
remain on Cyprus soil. They occupy homes and property, which once belonged to,
and are still legally owned by Cypriot refugees, displaced persons, or
emigrated Turkish-Cypriots that have left at regular intervals.
If this sounds simple and somewhat crude, it is in some
respects. However, by approaching the discussion in this manner, we can now
make concessions where there is legal basis and in some instances, moral reasons,
why we should. If concessions are not made, then all the Cypriots will be
guilty of human rights violations and this “problem” will not be solved
properly.
Legal Right to Stay in Cyprus
We have already acknowledged which Turkish-Citizens would
be entitled to remain in Cyprus after a settlement is reached. Hence, now, it
will be our attempt to decipher which “settlers” will be availed with a similar
right to remain in Cyprus as Turkish-Cypriot citizens.
It should be taken as fact, that many “settler” families
have come to “occupied” Cyprus and have had children. In some instances, there
may even be grandchildren. However, it is important to note that since the
“settler” parents are not legal Turkish-Cypriot citizens, neither are their
descendants. In other words, the law of jus
solis does not apply.
However, in the United States, for example, there is a
right to citizenship via jus solis.
In other words, if you were born on United States territory, you are entitled
to apply for United States citizenship. It does not matter if it is aboard a
United States plane, boat or if it is in territorial waters. So long as the
place or soil belongs to the United States, it entitles that child, if they so
choose, to United States citizenship.
In the Republic of Cyprus, this is not applicable because jus solis does not apply. Hence, only if
the “settler” children’s parents were entitled to Turkish-Cypriot citizenship,
would they too be entitled to citizenship. The laws of Cyprus are clear on this
subject. Simply because you are born on the “soil” of Cyprus, it does not
automatically give you the legal right to qualify and be eligible to receive
Cypriot citizenship. Hence, the children, if they wanted to obtain Cypriot
citizenship, would have to apply and qualify for naturalization, as an “alien.”
When a solution is reached, this topic will be of great
importance and it is our opinion that it should not be handled lightly. The law
that governs the situation at hand is the Republic of Cyprus Citizenship Laws
of 1967.
The laws of Cyprus should not be confused with the “laws”
of the “TRNC” because there is only one legitimate government of Cyprus and
that is the Republic of Cyprus. Hence, only their laws apply. The “laws” of the
“TRNC” are invalid and carry no weight or enforcement because the “government”
which created those “laws” did not have the legal right or capacity to change
the citizenship laws of Cyprus. If this is not understood during the
negotiation proceedings, then a greater problem will ensue.
Right to Stay - Marriage
We have established that the laws of the Republic of
Cyprus are applicable and that only jus
sanguinis is of concern. Therefore, we shall now direct our attention on
determining what other legal avenue the “settlers” may consider, should they
want to stay, after a settlement is negotiated.
If a “settler” does not have the right to citizenship
through descent and since they cannot claim Turkish-Cypriot citizenship through
jus solis, what choice do they have?
The only exception would be citizenship due to marriage. If a “settler” married
a Turkish-Cypriot, then that “settler,” even though illegal, could then stay
and apply for citizenship. In addition, their children would also be eligible
for Turkish-Cypriot citizenship because one parent is rightfully
Turkish-Cypriot and jus sanguinis
applies in Cyprus’ citizenship laws.
The only problem with this approach would be where
“settlers” have a “marriage of convenience.” According to Mr. Kumcuoglu, the
Turkish Ambassador in Nicosia, there have been 1500 mixed marriages in the
“occupied areas” of Cyprus, since 1974.
Hence, today, there may only be about 800 to 1000 “settlers” who would gain the
right to stay. Anything over that amount would be suspicious and looked into as
a possible “marriage of convenience.”
Relief Fund for “Settlers”
The issue of legality and the right to stay in Cyprus as a
citizen, is a very touchy and sensitive subject. Since, tens of thousands of
“settlers” will not qualify for citizenship via either jus sanguinis or marriage, it will not be a simple task to
repatriate individuals who may have never been to Turkey and claim no
connection to Turkey.
The Republic of Cyprus’ official policy on the issue of
“settlers” is that since they are not Cypriot, they should all be repatriated
upon settlement of the problem. However, it is understood that the “settlers”
have human rights and it should not be infringed.
Nonetheless, this problem should not trump the return of the Greek-Cypriot
displaced persons and refugees.
Having the “settlers” return should be a win-win situation
for all parties involved. In order to do so, an attractive package should be
created and funded by Turkey and the international community. The “settlers”
should be persuaded that it is better for them to move back to Turkey and that
this package would help them do so.
Mr. Denktash is afraid of this possibility because he
knows that most settlers would take the deal and leave.
However, the fund should be established and the “settlers” should be encouraged
that if they were not repatriated they could find themselves without legal
“title” to their land and property.
With Cyprus’ accession into the European Union, this
officially becomes a European problem and should be handled accordingly. Europe
and the international community should not ignore Cyprus, her people and the
problem.
Right to Vote
As written above, when one obtains citizenship, they are
given a bundle of rights. Within this bundle, there exists the right to vote.
Mr. Denktash realized that with more votes, came constant power. Hence, the
number of “settlers” increased, especially prior to an election, in order to
ensure his right to stay in power.
The increase in “setter” population, not only gave Mr.
Denktash control, it also changed the demographic make-up of “occupied” Cyprus.
Today, there are more Turkish troops and “settlers” than there are
Turkish-Cypriots. Why should that be a concern in relation to the right to
vote?
Cyprus is going to go through tremendous changes by the
end of the year, with or without a settlement. Hence, the Cypriot citizens may
be called to vote on approval or disapproval of various topics. One topic of
great concern is Cyprus’ accession into the European Union.
It is apparent that the Republic of Cyprus is, and so are
her people, behind the idea and entrance into the European Union. In addition,
from all the reports in the Turkish-Cypriot press and the occasional left-wing
Turkish politician or press, they too, are behind the idea of Cyprus’ accession
into the European Union as a “united” Cyprus.
However, Denktash and the “authorities” that control him,
have other ideas. Due to the changed demography in the “occupied areas,”
Denktash can have any ideas and “principles” he believes in, voted for in his
favor. Keep in mind, it would not be Turkish-Cypriots who vote for Denktash and
his policy, rather, it would be the majority “settler” population who has no
connection to Cyprus.
If a referendum is called for all Cypriots to decide their
fate, then who can, rather, who is legally obliged to vote? Who is a Cypriot?
It is our conclusion that any votes in a referendum or
otherwise will be given to the individuals that were entitled to Cypriot
Citizenship on or after the 16th day of August 1960. Hence, if you
are not a citizen or entitled to citizenship, you would be classified an
“alien.” In other words, “a person who is not a citizen of the Republic.”
Therefore, you would have to proceed and apply for naturalization. However,
this does not ensure their right to obtaining citizenship. In the mean time,
their rights in no way would be equal to the legal Greek and Turkish-Cypriot
populations.
Property Rights
We have already discussed the different categories of
“settlers” and acknowledged which “settlers” may have a legal right to remain
in Cyprus. We are also under agreement that all refugees have the right to
return to their county, property and homes. In addition, the principle of
housing and property restitution is part of international and national law, has
been reaffirmed by the international community and it has been recognized by
independent United Nations bodies.
However, with a solution to the Cyprus problem in our
sights, will the displaced persons be able to return to their county, property
and homes? Can we depend on the international community to guarantee the safe
return of the refugees? And if they did return, what can the displaced persons
expect to be faced with?
In the paragraphs that follow, we will write about several
problems that the refugees of Cyprus may be faced with when they exercise their
“right to return.” Several impediments include, lack of judicial remedies,
secondary occupation, abandonment laws, and destroying property registration.
In addition, we will review the proposed “Joint Property Claims Commission.”
Judicial Recourse
When the refugees return, they should be awarded judicial
recourse, whenever necessary, for the improprieties that have or may occur. As
in Bosnia
and Kosovo,
this situation was dealt with by establishing an “ad hoc independent housing
and property commission designed to promote the right to housing and property
restitution.”
By establishing an ad hoc independent commission to deal
with the issue of housing and property restitution, the displaced persons can
be sure that their rights will not be put aside or forgotten. Hence, the
displaced Cypriots will be able to deal directly and immediately when they face
problems with their housing and property.
Secondary Occupants
Since the Turkish invasions in July and August 1974, all
displaced persons have been denied their “right to return.” Hence, the Turkish
authorities found vacated properties and homes. In their place, the
“authorities” in the “occupied areas” transplanted tens of thousands from
Turkey and elsewhere, to occupy the properties and homes of the displaced.
It has been 28 years since the initial illegal act
occurred, therefore, many of the properties and homes that legally belong to
the refugees, are in the illegal possession of the “settlers.” This is known as
secondary occupation and is a serious impediment to the return of the refugees.
This is a clear violation of the Geneva Convention
relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 1949, Article
49, which reads,
“Persons… evacuated shall be transported back to their
homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.”
Additionally, instead of allowing for their return safely,
Turkey violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949, and
“transfers parts of its own civilian population into the territory it
occupies.”
The “settlers” were offered the refugees’ properties and
homes as an incentive to make the move to the “occupied areas.” Hence, most
villages and towns are now under “settler” occupation and control. In this
instance, secondary occupants are not “innocent or acting in good faith.”
When the refugees return to find their properties and
homes are inhabited, who should move and start-over? Where should the
“settlers” be placed before they are repatriated? Human rights need to be
recognized in all cases. However, ignoring the displaced persons for 28 years,
is long enough, and should end, upon their return home. Dealing with the
illegal inhabitants on a case-by-case basis is a very practical solution.
The fund will be in place, hence, the homes and properties
that are illegally inhabited by “settlers” should be vacant for the displaced
persons’ return. However, in the case that they are not, what are the options?
What if Turkish-Cypriots occupy the homes of Greek-Cypriots? Turkish-Cypriots
are Cypriots are they not?
In the case a home or property is being occupied by
“settlers”, the options are few. For instance, the fund is the best way for all
parties involved to be on the wining side of the deal. Since the “settlers” do
not own legal right or title to the home or property they occupy, then they
have nothing to lose. The package should be made attractive enough that the
“settler” would only lose if they did not vacate accordingly.
Would the police be called in to remove them? Let us hope
it does not come down to forceful expulsions. However, keep in mind, if law and
order were to be followed, if you are illegal on a property that does not
belong to you, the police will, on the orders of the owner, have the trespasser
removed.
In the event the property or home is occupied by a
Turkish-Cypriot, there are obviously other options available worth noting. For
starters, the Republic of Cyprus does not want any Cypriots to forfeit any of
their legal rights.
Hence, the Turkish-Cypriot would be asked to move in order for the rightful
owner to return to their home. In addition, the Republic would build the
Turkish-Cypriot a new home. In
other words, this would be solved amicably and with human rights in mind.
As written earlier in this paper, the illegal population
in “occupied” Cyprus consists of about 40,000 troops and about 115,000
“settlers.” The remainder being Turkish-Cypriots. On some accounts, the number
of Turkish-Cypriots is around 40,000. Therefore, with the departure of the
“settlers” and the military, which includes its hardware and soldiers, the
“occupied areas” will not be as congested when the refugees exercise their
right of return. Hence, the problem of secondary occupation should not appear
to be a problem with no hope of fixing.
Abandonment Laws
Today, there are only about 600 to 1000 enclaved
Greek-Cypriots in the “occupied areas.” This number has been decreasing since
the illegal Turkish invasion and occupation. The enclaved are treated as
“aliens” in the “occupied north” and human rights are not respected.
Mr. Denktash has been trying to eradicate all that is
Hellenistic and that includes the remaining enclaved. The enclaved are told, by
the “occupying authorities”, that if they leave their homes and properties, it
would be expropriated. In addition, Denktash’s “authorities” restrict the
movements and freedoms of the enclaved, leaving them with no choice but to flee
from their homes, properties and country.
The abandonment laws that Denktash utilizes are “used to
punish displaced persons for fleeing and may also be used to facilitate and
entrench policies of ethnic cleansing or demographic manipulation…. Such laws
not only impede the right to return, but often violate the principles of
non-discrimination and equality, as they apply to or are enforced against
specific racial, ethnic, religious or other groups.”
If these discriminatory and arbitrary “laws” that Denktash has implemented are
not rectified, then the restitution process will be complicated.
Destroyed Property Registration
The “authorities” in the “occupied areas” have been
certain to cover all possible “legal” aspects one would argue upon a return to
their property and home. We dealt with secondary occupation and abandonment
laws. Both were handled and solved reasonably.
However, now we may be faced with a more complicated
problem. Every legal owner has a title to his or her property and home. Some
displaced persons are fortunate to have it on their person when they are forced
to leave, some unfortunately are not. Whatever documents were left behind by
the displaced persons, which claim title to the property or home are sure to
have been destroyed by the “occupation regime” in the “north.”
In its place, Denktash has issued “fake titles” to the
property. Hence, now all the “settlers” that occupy property and homes have
“title” to a property that is not rightfully belong to them. In other words, in
some cases we will have two individuals claiming property rights over the same
property. Who wins? Who are the rightful owners?
If we understand that the “TRNC” is illegal and anything
it creates, is therefore illegal, then the “titles” that Denktash has
distributed is also illegal and therefore invalid. Therefore, with the records
that still exist in the Republic of Cyprus and the legal titles held by the
displaced Greek-Cypriots, we will be able to decipher between fact and fiction.
Joint Property Claims Commission
On 19 November 1992, the United Nations Secretary-General
made the following statement:
Concerning displaced persons, I welcomed the
acceptance by Mr. Denktash of the principle of the right to return and the
right to property. At the same time, while expressing understanding for the
practical difficulties involved in resolving the issue of displaced persons, I
stated that the manner in which these difficulties were addressed must not by
itself deny the principle of the right to return and the right to property.
The “Joint Property Claims Commission” (Commission) fails
to respect the displaced persons’ right to return and the right to their
property. Hence, it is contra to international law, the European Court of Human
Rights decisions and United Nations resolutions. To understand the
inappropriateness of the Commission, we must first read some of its vital
elements.
They are:
1. The Commission is
to be established “as early as possible”.
2. It is compulsory;
individual property owners will have no choice not to accept compensation. If
they do not claim within six months they lose the right to claim.
3. The Government of
Cyprus is to expropriate all Turkish Cypriot properties in the territory under
its control, without compensation. Compensation is to be made by the Turkish
Cypriot side.
4. The earlier
unlawful confiscation, by the Turkish Cypriot side, of all Greek-Cypriot properties
in the north of Cyprus is to be ratified.
5. A ‘shortfall in
funds necessary for compensation’ is envisaged, which will be covered by
‘various possible sources’.
6. Although
properties are to be valued ‘at the current market value’, there will be
‘windfall taxes on the increased value of the transferred properties’. Who will
pay these is unclear.
First, by stripping the displaced persons their right to
choose and making it compulsory that they accept compensation ignores the
decisions handed down by the European Court of Human Rights. The Court has held
that the property in “occupied” Cyprus still legally belongs to the refugees or
displaced persons. Hence, it would violate and not meet the standards set out
in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights,
which reads,
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the
peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his
possessions except in the public and subject to the conditions provided for by
law and by the general principles of international law.”
In lieu of the above, in devising this scheme, Denktash
failed to recognize that any taking of property must conform to international
law. In addition, Turkish-Cypriots and Greek-Cypriots should not be treated
differently. The Commission would discriminate based on “ethic origin” and the
initial violation of international law would be exacerbated.
Therefore, based on the Commission, the Greek-Cypriots
would be precluded from returning to their homes and property; the said
property that they were “ethnically cleansed” from, in 1974. Hence, it would
impair any “effective exercise of return.”
In regards to the “Joint Property Claims Commission,” we
are in complete agreement with the views expressed by the legal experts on this
issue. They wrote:
The consent of the people affected and which are
intended to perpetrate or entrench the changed demographic composition of an
area, where that change follows from mass forced displacement contrary to
international law, will themselves be contrary to international law and in
particular will violate the core principle of the prohibition of
discrimination, which is binding upon all States. The organs of the United
Nations have consistently endorsed these principles.
At first, in the words of the Secretary-General we
“welcomed the acceptance by Mr. Denktash of the principle of the right to
return and the right to property.” However, upon review of his “Joint Property
Claims Commission,” it became evident that Denktash did not regard property
rights when his proposal was drafted.
Therefore, the proposals set forth by the Commission would
violate Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In addition, such a compulsory transfer of properties could not be implemented
between disputing party “leaders” without consent of the displaced persons
directly affected. Hence, this Proposal is inconsistent with international law
and need not be implemented.
Recommendations
Why have past negotiations aimed at ending the Cyprus
Problem failed? Is one individual too blame or are there more? Simply put,
these questions should no longer be asked. The Cypriot people have suffered
long enough. It is time to put all the cards on the table and figure-out a
solution. Greek and Turkish Cypriots lived in Cyprus for many years without
concerns that they may be attacked or killed. This is apparent from all that is
written above. Even today, in the town of Pila, Greek and Turkish Cypriots live
in peace and harmony.
In all the confusion and non-agreements, the problem
relating to the “settlers” has not been addressed during the negotiations
between President Clerides and Mr. Denktash. Why has this topic been ignored
and not solved first? Many argue that the “settler” problem is “problem number
one.” If the “settlers” issue was discussed from the beginning, there would be
no beginning and the talks would end before they even started. Even without
this issue, there is still no progress made. Again, we have to ask, where
should the blame lie? Who can make a difference, but does not want to help?
United States and Turkey
We are of the opinion that it is not President Clerides
and Mr. Denktash that should be held totally responsible for the failure at
reaching a solution to the Cyprus Problem. To do so, would allow this problem
to perpetuate into a bigger problem of “he said, he said,” and it would create
a greater mess with no solution ever being reached. To solve the problem, the
United States of America (United States) and Turkey need to take an active
role.
We are certainly not suggesting that the United States and
Turkey should sit down at a table and draw a new map of Cyprus, with new laws
and a new population. On the contrary, we are calling on the “super-power” of
today’s world, the United States, to pressure Turkey, who so desperately needs
United States approval to act. Only with United States assurances will the
Cyprus stalemate be resolved.
First, the United States needs to persuade Turkey that
they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by following through and
complying with international law, the European Court of Human Rights decisions
and United Nations resolutions, in regards to Cyprus.
In doing so, the United States should not be frightened
that they may lose their military bases in Turkey. That will not happen because
the United States is too important for Turkey’s everyday existence. It is the
United States that gives the Turkish military their weaponry. If they do not
get it from the United States, they are sure to get it from Israel. And who
gives weapons to Israel? The United States supplies the Israelis with their
armaments as well.
Next, Turkey should understand, that if they do not solve
this problem before Cyprus enters the European Union (EU), they will have the
biggest price to pay. In other words, Turkey would forever eliminate themselves
from membership in the European Union. By remaining in de facto control of over 1/3 of Cyprus, Turkey would be in direct
violation of the European Union’s basic principles, which are the freedoms of
movement, establishment and property.
In addition, the Cyprus Problem would immediately become
an European Union problem when Cyprus becomes a member of the EU. Hence, the
European Union will be left with no choice but to solve the problem. In other
words, the Turkish military would need to leave Cyprus soil immediately. This
action may anger the Turkish Government and cause a “war” between Turkey and
Europe. This should not happen and can certainly be avoided. Therefore, there needs
to be a solution prior to the end of 2002.
If Turkey is serious about solving the Cyprus Problem and
the United States gives them the push they have been waiting for, this
situation would become a memory. It is understood that it would not and could
no happen over-night, but it would be a step in the right direction; the
direction of an island that is in peace and not divided along ethic lines.
Turkey needs to tell Mr. Denktash that the time has come
to put an end to the failures of the past negotiations. Denktash may believe in
the manner in which he is destroying Cyprus, her history and her people,
however, it is Turkey that supports his “regime” and gives him the power to
act. Without Ankara, none of this is possible.
Over ½ of the property in
the “occupied areas” is controlled by Turks from Anatolia.
It is estimated that there are over 115,000 Turkish “settlers” in Cyprus.
Turkey has a population of about 70 million. Hence, Turkey should assure
Denktash, if it is a concern of his, that with a solution realized, it would
not be a problem for the repatriation of the “settlers” back to Turkey. With
the help of the EU and the attractive package, it can be accomplished.
In the past, the United States has used more than tough
words to the see the results it demanded. For example, when Iraq invaded
Kuwait, the United States did not idly stand-by and watch what would happen.
Rather, they successfully used their military superiority to cripple and defeat
the Iraqi military and subsequently, liberate Kuwait.
We are not asking the United States to send troops into
“occupied” Cyprus and solve the problem by using force. In contrast, we are
asking the United States to use its influence on Turkey, in order for her to
listen to reason and obey international law, court decisions and United Nations
resolutions. We are asking the United States to engage Turkey in a
war-of-words, not in a war-of-might. In the end, Turkey will realize that they
only hurt themselves if a solution is not attained.
The City of Hope - Pila
Since 1974, Cyprus has experienced lawlessness at the
hands of Turkish troops and Turkish policy. However, the island of Cyprus has
continued to survive the trauma and can, contrary to Ankara and Denktash, live
harmoniously in mixed Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities.
Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots lived in peace and
harmony before the British introduced the concept of “taksim”. The British
introduced this concept in order to keep control of the Greek-Cypriots who were
fighting for an independent Cyprus, free from British colonial rule and
influence. As written earlier, it was not distrust or hate that separated these
two communities, rather, it was a scheme created, by the British, in order to
introduce chaos and postpone Cyprus’ inevitable independence.
However, even with the establishment of the Republic of
Cyprus in 1960, the concept of “taksim” was already well established and on its
way to complete fruition. However, even with “taksim” in place, and the
multiple Turkish invasions and subsequent occupation, one constant has remained
true. Greek and Turkish Cypriots can live harmoniously as they did in the past,
when they are given the freedom and choice to do so.
For instance, Pila is a village that both Greek and
Turkish Cypriots live, work and worship in the same neighborhood. It is
important to note that individuals are allowed to enter in and out of Pila,
unabated, so long as they do so, from the “free areas” of Cyprus. Many
Turkish-Cypriots are denied entrance if they are crossing into Pila from the
“occupied areas” to the north. The Turkish military and authorities worry that
if Turkish-Cypriots venture into Pila they may never return.
The Turkish-Cypriots that reside in Pila today were, and
are, under pressure from the Turkish authorities and Denktash to move out of
the village and venture into the “occupied areas.” However, they have resisted
such demands by remaining in Pila.
As you enter the village, you first see a Greek Orthodox
Church on your right side. However, if you continue another meter, you will
find a Mosque situated on the left side of the street. When you enter the
center of the village there is a Greek café and a Turkish café. They are both
situated next to each other. This leaves the villagers the choice of where to
sit and drink coffee or talk about life and sport.
When we inquired about “law and order” at the United
Nations station in the village, they were quick to point out that there is no
problem between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots. They co-exist without incident.
In addition, Commander Slovak, in Pila, mentioned that if there were any
“military” problems, then the United Nations would take care of the situation.
However, if there ever are problems, in regards to a Greek and Turkish Cypriot,
then the Pila Civilian Police or “CivPol” would address the situation.
In other words, there is no Greek-Cypriot or Turkish
military present in Pila. All problems that may result due to friction between
a Greek and Turkish Cypriots are handled and solved by CivPol. Additionally,
the only military in the village is the United Nations. This is the example
that should be used for the future of Cyprus. However, one must remember that
it already exists today and did so in the past.
Geopolitics
Even though it is obvious that Greek and Turkish Cypriots
can live peacefully in Cyprus, and still do so, the Cyprus Problem has not been
resolved. In fact, it has grown worse by the years. Can there be another cause
of this resistance to finding a just and viable solution? Simply put, as we
have concluded above, the problem that exists in Cyprus can be solved quickly
and justly based on international law derived from various sources, such as the
European Court of Human Rights decisions and various United Nations
resolutions.
However, the law and its application are only one relevant
factor in the situation at hand. Rather, we believe that geopolitics is another
factor why this problem has not been solved. If “enosis” were actually achieved
by Cyprus with Greece, it would be Greece, rather than Turkey, that is the
United States’ favorite ally in the region. Additionally, Britain would not
have Cyprus to use as its “military landing strip” in the Eastern
Mediterranean. Hence, a vacuum of power would have seen Greece as the dominant
force in the region; not Britain, Israel, Turkey or the United States of
America.
When the British introduced the concept of “taksim” in the
mid 1950’s in order to keep Greek-Cypriots right to self-determination
oppressed, they also created the climate for what exists today. If “enosis” was
achieved, Greece would not only control the islands of Rhodes and Crete, but it
would also control Cyprus. In other words, every country would be trying to
please Greece, rather than Turkey.
Geopolitics and the desire for global dominance are relevant
in Cyprus. Due to Cyprus’ position geographically, she has been left at the
mercy of States that have wanted to keep Cyprus divided, rather than united.
This should not be overlooked, and it has, in all stages of negotiations
relating to Cyprus’ future.
In the end, the solution should adhere to international
law and the basic principles embodying respect for human rights, democracy and
settlement.
Turkey’s violations cannot be overlooked and subsequently
ratified, as Turkey demands as a precondition for a settlement. Whether it is
the initial violation of the United Nations Charter and the “prohibition on use
of force”, the violations of the Geneva Convention with the mass transfers of
displaced persons or Turkey’s civilian reassignment to the “occupied areas”, or
the continuous human rights violations committed by Turkish authorities.
Either way, the final settlement should not accept any
proposals that would be tantamount to legalizing the illegal and destructive
invasion and occupation of Cyprus by Turkish forces since 1974, and which would
violate the human rights of all Cypriots. In addition, the right of the
refugees and displaced persons to return to their country and homes should not
be infringed by the “leaders” while crafting a solution.
Today, we stand on the cusp of finding a fair and lasting
settlement to the dispute. With the help of the international community, which
includes the United States and Turkey, this problem will be solved without
further incident.
It is apparent that Greek and Turkish Cypriots can
co-exist in the same country, city, town or village. With the example of Pila
to be used as a guide here in Cyprus when a solution is reached. In addition,
all the Cypriots that have emigrated from Cyprus due to Turkey’s invasion and
subsequent occupation, generally immigrate to the same countries.
Whether it is a Greek-Cypriot or a Turkish-Cypriot, they
immigrate countries, such as, the United States, Canada and Australia. Once
there, they establish a new community, similar to the mixed villages that
existed prior to 1974. In other words, precedent exists for a just solution and
re-unification of the divided island and people. However, we should not be
afraid to use it.
Lastly, we believe that Greek-Cypriots need to take a more
active role and exercise their rights, as did, Titina Loizidou. Apathy and
despair cannot help or make the situation solve itself. The people of Cyprus
need to be heard in order for the world to listen. As the Turkish-Cypriot press
reports everyday, the problem is getting worse, not better. Hence, solutions,
ideas, and proposals need to be presented, even by people like us. If we did
not, then someone else would and their ideas may not coincide with law,
justice, fairness or equality.
