House of Commons
Wednesday 29 November 1995
The House met at half-past Nine o'clock
PRAYERS
[Madam Speaker in the Chair]
Famagusta
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Streeter.]
9.34 am
Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting): I should like to thank you, Madam Speaker, for granting this debate, which will be followed with interest in this country and certainly in Cyprus. The elected mayor of Famagusta has travelled from Cyprus to listen to the debate and is in the Strangers Gallery. I extend a warm welcome to him. I should like to declare my interest. I am the chair of the Cyprus group of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and the hon. Members for Edmonton (Dr. Twinn) and for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) are the other officers of the group. Many hon. Members from all parts of the House are on the all-party Cyprus group.
Cyprus has a long historical relationship with the United Kingdom. It is a member of the Commonwealth and the UK is one of the guarantor powers for the island. The country is known and loved by many millions of British people who have visited it over many years. It is most certainly not some faraway country with which we have no links or know little about. Many of us know that President Clerides served with great distinction in the Royal Air Force during the last war, and that many Cypriot men and women bravely fought alongside members of our armed forces.
In 1974, the Turkish army brutally invaded Cyprus. That led to the division of the island and 21 years later it is still occupied and divided. Over the years there have been many discussions that I and many hon. Members had hoped would lead to an honourable settlement under which the rights of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots--I stress, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots--would have been respected and protected. Sadly and tragically, nothing has happened over the past 21 years to bring about a settlement. That is why I sought this debate.
In seeking to overcome problems one has to make a start and over many years Famagusta has been given as the example of where that start could be made. Since the 1974 invasion it has been a ghost town. No one lives there and no business is conducted in the town, yet before 1974 it was one of the most popular areas in Cyprus because it had beautiful beaches and hotels and a thriving business community lived and worked there. All that could return, and it would benefit the people who would live there-- the Greek and true Turkish Cypriots whom I wish to see once again becoming the inhabitants of Famagusta.
I have said that Famagusta could provide the start for a settlement and I should like to repeat some of the comments that have been made over the years. In November 1978, just four years after the invasion, a joint British, Canadian and American group produced a document entitled, "Framework for a Solution of the Cyprus Problem". It proposed the immediate resettlement of Famagusta. Paragraph 12 of the document states:
In his 1978 report, the then Secretary-General of the United Nations said:
United Nations Security Council resolution 550 was passed on 11 May 1984. It says that it
We now reach May 1993 and the report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who proposed
On 4 April 1994, the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that
In his report to the Security Council on 11 April 1994, the Secretary-General underlined
What role does Famagusta play today in the life of Cyprus? None whatever. As I have said, it is a ghost town. Nothing is sadder or more distressing than to go into that region of Cyprus, to stand on high buildings, to look into Famagusta, as I have, and to be with Greek Cypriots who say, "That used to be my home, that used to be where I worked." Twenty-one years after the invasion of Cyprus, that is still the tragic position: Famagusta is a ghost town.
Are the British Government, one of the guarantor powers, happy with that? If not, what are they doing to promote the reopening of Famagusta? I and many other Members of Parliament want there to be meaningful involvement by the British Government. They cannot say,
"Oh, we have no role to play," or, "There is too much opposition to this proposal." The only opposition is from Mr. Denktash, but again, as with everything concerning a possible honourable settlement in Cyprus, there is always opposition from Mr. Denktash. The views of the UN, of the United States Congress, of the European Parliament and of the Council of Europe are all on record. They all say the same thing: it is Mr. Denktash and his supporters in Turkey who stopped the progress that we want.
I talk, hon. Members talk and, most certainly, the Republic of Cyprus and the UN talk of the full return of Famagusta to its position before the 1974 invasion. The Minister and his officials must not waste their time talking about a gradual return, some of the town being returned and some of it still remaining under the control of Mr. Denktash. That suggestion is totally unacceptable to hon. Members and to the Republic of Cyprus. So I beg the Minister not to waste his time with such suggestions.
We seek, as the United Nations has sought, the full return of the town of Famagusta to the people to whom it belongs--Greek and Turkish Cypriots. With that return must come the full withdrawal from the town and the area of the Turkish army, its place being taken by United Nations peacekeeping forces.
The case for the return has long been made, and we must ask the Minister why it has not happened. I am sure that the House would like to hear his views. For years, when Cyprus has been discussed in the House, the Government, who have been in power for 16 years, have always made the same statement: "Of course we want a settlement, and we fully support the efforts of the United Nations."
Many of us reply, "Good, but what are you doing to create an initiative leading to discussions and to a settlement for Cyprus and its people?" When has an
initiative, any initiative, come from the Government over the past 16 years? It is now 21 years since the invasion, and for 16 of those years the Government have been in power. What can they say now to show their own initiative on Cyprus?
I have here a concurrent resolution published by the United States Congress on 16 March 1995, called,
"Supporting a resolution to the long-standing dispute regarding Cyprus". No doubt the Minister has seen it. I could quote at length from that document, but one sentence says it all:
President Clinton and the United States Congress are now to take an active role on the Cyprus issue. What will be the Government's response? Do they welcome that or will they obstruct it? What is their view? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us.
We all know about Turkey's role in Cyprus. Last week Mrs. Ciller, the Prime Minister of Turkey, was in London and met our Prime Minister. She can offer nothing to help him in our coming general election, but we all know what she wanted--this country's support for Turkey's application to join the European customs union, and in her forthcoming election campaign.
We all know how high-level politics are conducted; there are trade-offs. So my question to the Minister is: what did Mrs. Ciller offer? Did she commit Turkey to work genuinely now for an honourable settlement in Cyprus? And what did the Prime Minister ask her to do?
I hope that the Minister will tell us.
At the beginning of my speech I mentioned Cyprus and membership of the Commonwealth, and a statement on Cyprus was made at the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Zealand. It gave total support to the United Nations resolutions on Cyprus-- resolution 365, passed in 1974, resolution 550, passed in 1984, and resolution 939, passed in 1994. The Heads of Government also called for the
"In order to promote an atmosphere of goodwill and to resolve pressing humanitarian problems, the . . . (Famagusta) area shall be resettled under UN auspices in accordance with the attached agreements. Such resettlement shall be initiated in phase with the resumption of full intercommunal negotiations on a comprehensive agreement".
"The time may now be ripe for a concrete attempt to deal with some important aspects of the existing stalemate on the ground, thus creating an opening for further significant steps.
The status of Famagusta which obviously should not be kept in its present empty and decaying condition, may provide an opportunity of the kind. Since Famagusta is situated in the immediate vicinity of the buffer zone and is patrolled by UNFICYP troops, it would be seem natural to envisage United Nations assistance in this connection".
There was a high-level agreement between the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Kyprianou, and the leader of the Turkish Cypriots, Mr. Denktash. It said:
"Priority will be given to reaching agreement on the resettlement of Famagusta under UN auspices simultaneously with the beginning of the consideration by the interlocutors of the constitutional and territorial aspects of a comprehensive settlement. After agreement on Famagusta has been reached it will be implemented without awaiting the outcome of the discussion on other aspects of the Cyprus problem".
That agreement between President Kyprianou and Mr. Denktash was signed on 19 May 1979. Despite all those talks and agreements, nothing has happened.
"considers attempts to settle any part of Famagusta by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations".
That is why I said earlier that I and our friends on the Conservative Benches want both Turkish and Greek Cypriots living once again in Famagusta. Regrettably, however, nothing happened in the six years after the framework document to which I referred was agreed and recommended in November 1978.
"a package of confidence-building measures as a first step towards an overall settlement. A key issue in the set of proposals was the opening up of the fenced area of Famagusta to resettlement by its original inhabitants. The area would be placed under UN administration and the owners of property there could obtain possession of their assets. Both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would be able to enter the area freely and intercommunal contact and trade would be encouraged. The proposal was accepted by the Greek Cypriot side from the outset but the Turkish Cypriot side failed to give a positive response."
"the Turkish Cypriot side had not provided the response necessary to make an agreement on the implementation of the confidence-building measures possible".
So again, sadly, nothing happened, but the Secretary-General clearly stated who had stopped the progress that we had all been looking for.
"the need to conclude an agreement on the implementation of the confidence-building measures".
Against that background and all the recorded facts, can there be any doubt who has stopped the progress that could and should have been made? Is the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office in any doubt?
Are the British Government in any doubt? The UN and the Republic of Cyprus clearly support and work for the reopening of Famagusta.
"President Clinton appointed a Special Presidential Emissary for Cyprus".
"withdrawal of all Turkish forces and settlers from . . . Cyprus, the return of the refugees to their homes"--
a statement that was fully endorsed by the conference.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |