RECENT DEVELOPMENTS ON THE CYPRUS QUESTION

Tumani Dembajang

I would like to share my experience and ideas about the island of Cyprus with those of you who may be interested in knowing and broadening your horizon about world’s current fairs and politics. The Island of Cyprus has been at the center of international spotlight and debate for a long time.

The four-decade old Cyprus question is once again on the agenda of the international community. The international community held its breath as the Turkish Cypriot President Rauf R. Denktas and the Greek Cypriot President Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos met, on 11March 2003 in the Hague, under the auspices of the UN Secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan in order to settle the Cyprus problem once and for all. Yet, the marathon talks held in The Hague have once again failed to produce a settlement.

However, the fundamental question one should ask is: Why have the talks failed? In order to understand this, one has to not only look into the process of direct talk which began in January, 2002 and culminated in The Hague talks, but also how and why the Cyprus issue came about.

The Cyprus question began in 1963 when the Greek Cypriots side launched a military campaign with the aim of uniting the island with Greece and appropriated the title of the Republic of Cyprus in which two peoples (Greeks and Turks) were equal partners. As a result, the Turkish Cypriot people were left stateless; had to endure Kosovo-like massacres; live as refugees and under severe international embargoes. This unfortunate situation continued in the watchful eyes of the UN peace keepers until the Turkish peace intervention in 1974 which came in the aftermath of a coup d’etat, carried out by the Greek junta and its Greek Cypriot collaborators. Their aim was to unite the island with Greece. Following the Turkish peace intervention, in line with an agreement between the two sides, the Turkish Cypriots voluntary moved to the North and vice versa. In 1975, the Turkish Cypriots who have been administering themselves since the destruction the partnership Republic established the Turkish Federal state of Cyprus know as Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Since 1968 the two sides have been negotiating on and off in order to reach a settlement in Cyprus to no avail. The main obstacle to a comprehensive settlement is the clash of ambitions between the two sides on the island. Whilst the Greek Cypriot side desires a settlement which will make the island a Greek island with a Turkish Cypriots minority, the Turkish Cypriots rejects that idea and wants a settlement on the basis of equal power sharing.

Ironically, the international community recognises the Greek administration as the legitimate government of the whole island when in reality it has no sovereignty over the north. It is in this vein that the Greek administration using its title of the Government of Cyprus imposed inhumane embargo on the Turkish Cypriots people on every field ranging from political representation t international for a to travel, trade, sports etc. Since the European Union has accepted the Greek administration as a member, there is little hope that the Turkish Cypriots can gain anything at the negotiating table. Without a lasting settlement of the Cyprus problem, it is sure that the EU is going to inherit the problem of Cyprus because they have accepted a divided island on board what is called United Europe. It will remain to be seen what the EU could do to win the confidence of the two parties to come together as one again.

 

It was in this atmosphere that the Turkish Cypriot President Rauf Denktas took the initiative at the end of 2001 to commence direct talks between the two sides. The UN Secretary General’s special adviser of Cyprus, Alvaro De Soto was the mediator at year- long talks until The Hague meeting with UN Secretary General. Later the UN secretary General Mr. Kofi Annan presented his plan entitled Basis for a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem which was followed by revised versions as a

Result of demand by both sides for changes

The secretary general paid a visit to the island last February to personally present the revised plan to the two leaders and hoped to broker a settlement by the end of the month. Once again the two day negotiation did not deliver settlement then Mr. Annan concluded that they should meet in The Hague in his presence to state whether they accept taking the plan to simultaneous referenda on both sides. This was a radical approach which probably has no precedence. The talks failed because of uncompromising preconditions set by both sides on the issue of taking the plan to simultaneous referenda and unfortunately the talks have come to an end.

All three versions of the plan made a correlation between the acceptance of the planned the date of accession of the Greek Cypriot side in the EU. Even though this correlation exists, the two sides were not given the necessary time to negotiate the plan which consisted of hundreds of pages of legal jargon. Hence, taking the plan to referenda before it was fully negotiated and accepted by the authorities of the two sides, or before many blank pages were filled was no different than signing a blank cheque or business contract. Even though both sides stressed that they want wanted change to the plan, the UN insisted that any changes that could be made to the plan should be minor and should not change its philosophy. Yet, the plan in its current form was not ripe for the two sides to accept.

Throughout the talks, the opposition of the Turkish Cypriot side has been that there are two states on the island, namely TRNC and the Greek Cypriot state in the south and that it is these two states which could create a new partnership. Since the Greek Cypriot side has rejected this position and at the same time the Turkish Cypriots side has rejected the continuation of the republic of Cyprus, the UN introduced the idea of "virgin birth". However, this concept has remained in words and had not been reflected in the plan.

Another difficulty with the plan is the thorny issue of property. The plan ignores the fact that there was a voluntary exchange of population in 1975 during the cease fire and the agreed parameter of bi-zonality is an essential element in any settlement. Just recently when the president of the Turkish side Mr. Rauf Denktas opened the borders for the first time since 1974, many Greek Cypriots came to visit their former homes in the north with the hope that they will claim them in the in court. However, the plan envisages the settlement of the property issue on the basis of individual rights and accepts only the title deeds granted by the Republic of Cyprus and not the TRNC, thus allowing large numbers of Greeks Cypriots to return to the north and / or claim the property they left in the north prior to 1974. This means that thousands of Turkish Cypriots, who themselves came to the north as refuges due to the situation between 1963-1974, would have to move from the properties which they came to know as their home and from which they earn their livelihood. This would mean that they would become refugees for the second time and in some cases third time.

 

The international community should come up with a workable and an acceptable solution of the Cyprus problem. They should know that there are two sovereign states on the island and should be treated justly. The Turkish Cypriots have been unfairly treated and disappointed by the whole world especially the UN because all these is happened in the presence of UN doing absolutely nothing to stop them.

Than you for you time.