Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus, 29 December 2004
Having had the opportunity to follow the oral
evidence proceedings of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the framework
of the inquiry on Cyprus, we were struck by the fact that certain
Turkish allegations were brought to the forefront in respect to
the two draft regulations proposed by the EU Commission, concerning
financial aid" to the Turkish Cypriots and the so called
"direct trade" regulation. Knowing of your keen interest
in Cyprus I am sure that you would be interested to have the full
and accurate facts of the matter put at your disposal, I have,
therefore, taken the liberty of addressing my present letter to
you in order to provide you with the relevant information.
As I am sure you know the two draft regulations
were put forward by the Commission following the conclusions of
the General Affairs Council of 26 April 2004.
The relevant passage of these conclusions stated
"that the Council is determined to put an end to the isolation
of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification
of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish
Cypriot community. The Council invites the Commission to bring
forward comprehensive proposals to this end, with particular emphasis
on the economic integration of the island and on improving contacts
between the two communities and with the EU. The Council recommended
that the
259 million already earmarked for the northern part
of Cyprus in the event of a settlement now be used for this purpose".
In carefully analysing these conclusions one
cannot but conclude that the overriding "mandate" given
is to provide such proposals which would facilitate the reunification
or Cyprus, the economic integration of the island and improve
contacts between the two communities and with the EU.
Nowhere, and in no way, do the Conclusions even
hint at proposals that would go in the opposite direction, namely,
strengthening the existing division, promoting separate economic
development and independent relations with the EU, and most importantly,
the cessation of the already evolving inter-communal economic
and other activities.
With regard to the draft regulation on "financial
aid", I consider it extremely significant to remind that
it was the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus, HE Mr George
Iacovou, who before anybody else, formally proposed that the
259 million, earmarked for the Turkish Cypriots in
the event of a settlement, be immediately made available to them
even though a solution had not been achieved.
Furthermore, the Republic of Cyprus eager to
facilitate the successful conclusion of this effort contributed
with certain proposals, at the drafting stage, that would have
served the declared objectives of the effort, in a manner that
would have been legally correct, thus, making its implementation
unassailable before any court of law. Attempts to amend the text
proposed by the Commission by certain players, in a manner disregarding
the legitimate concerns of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,
unavoidably led to a lengthy discussion of the draft regulation,
whose text was finalised and eventually agreed upon only by mid
November 2004.
Taking into account the clear mandate of 28
April 2004, one would have expected that every effort would have
been made for its speedy implementation, as in tact my Government
proposed. Unfortunately, however, certain third countries, including
the United Kingdom, have refused to cooperate in a constructive
manner, in reaching an agreement on the text of this draft regulation
holding it, in a manner of speech, "hostage" to agreement
being achieved on the so called draft regulation on "direct
trade". This conditionality in fact is what held up the implementation
of the draft regulation on "financial support" and not
any prevarication on the part of the Republic of Cyprus.
The draft regulation has been agreed upon and
we see no substantive reason for any further delay in its implementation.
In fact, bearing in mind the innuendos left hanging in respect
to possible responsibilities of my Government, one really wonders
as to the reasons behind the blocking tactics we have observed.
Having set the record straight in respect to
the "financial aid" regulation, which anybody directly
involved with the subject cannot but be aware of, it really is
amazing to hear testimonies alleging to so called prevaricating
tactics on behalf of the Government of Cyprus.
Turning to the second draft regulation, the
so called "direct trade" regulation, we are once again
faced with a situation whereby the Commission has not confined
itself to its mandate. It disregards the fact that the entire
territory of the Republic of Cyprus acceded to the Union and,
chooses to sideline Protocol 10, arbitrarily deciding to adopt
Art. 133 of the EC Treaty as the "legal basis" for the
draft regulation, which effectively provides for trade with a
third country. This approach is legally wrong and politically
questionable.
It should be noted, in this regard, that upon
a request by a number of Member States the Legal Service of the
Council of the European Union gave a written opinion on the matter
with which it unambiguously vindicates the positions of the Government
of the Republic of Cyprus. In fact, the opinion states that accepting
the Commission's premise in respect to Art. 133 would amount to
a "misuse of power and would render the adoption of the act
illegal (Art.230)". A copy of the said legal opinion is attached
herewith.
That the Commission did not have such a mandate
can be ascertained by simply reading the previously quoted General
Affairs conclusions of 26 April 2004. While the Council asked
the Commission for proposals that would give "particular
emphasis on the economic integration of the island and on improving
contacts between the two communities . . ." the Commission's
proposals go exactly in the opposite direction promoting separateness
and non-cooperation.
What is even more extraordinary is that, while
the above effort for "direct trade" has been promoted,
a regulation (Reg. 866/2004) known as the "green line regulation"
is already in place for trade both within the island and with
EU Member States. This regulation has not been given the chance
to prove its worth, in view of the efforts to promote the draft
regulation for the so called "direct trade", thus, in
a way undermining the purposes for which the whole effort was
undertaken by creating counter-incentives for the Turkish Cypriots
in cooperating for the effective implementation of the "green
line" regulation.
Illustrative of the lack of spirit of cooperation
for the implementation of the "green line" regulation
was a message sent to the Cypriot Chamber of Commerce and Industry
by the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce, in response to the
former's efforts for joint ventures between textile manufacturers,
from both communities, stating that: "the textile manufacturers
association in the north do not seem to be interested in meeting
their counterparts". Copy is attached herewith[2]
Moreover, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Talat
persisted in pointing out the need for coupling the two proposed
regulations. Exemplary of the fact was the letter sent by Mr Talat
to the 24 Heads of State on 1 June, clearly stating that the Turkish
Cypriots "In fact do not believe in intra-island trade .
. .".
The draft regulation on "direct trade"
amounts in effect to use of the declared closed ports and airports
in the occupied areas of Cyprus. As you very well know, the Government
of the Republic of Cyprus is the sole sovereign Authority to determine
which of its ports and airports are open and functioning, and
to define the terms of operation for these ports and airports.
Moreover, the Republic of Cyprus has every right to declare the
ports and airports in the areas under Turkish occupation as closed,
having especially in mind that the legitimate Authorities of the
Republic are not in a position to control and impose the terms
of operation on these ports and airports, as well as the relevant
obligations emanating from international treaties, including air
safety and the fight against terrorism.
In concluding on this particular issue, let
me stress, in the strongest possible terms, that the Government
of the Republic of Cyprus does not oppose the facilitation of
trade between our Turkish Cypriot compatriots and the rest of
the EU. Such trade, however, must be based on legality and be
pursued on the basis of the existing Reg. 866/2004, for whose
unimpeded functioning, the Republic of Cyprus has made a number
of practical proposals and has shown the utmost of flexibility.
These proposals aim at simplifying VAT procedures, widening the
range of goods, (including the main Turkish Cypriot export item
of citrus fruit), allowed to cross the line, duty and tax free,
and increasing the number of crossing points. Furthermore, and
as a practical expression of the Government's willingness to facilitate
the Turkish Cypriot traders, an additional proposal has been made
in respect to the port of Famagusta, and a special hub in Larnaca
port for the exclusive use of Turkish Cypriots.
Regrettably, there was no positive reaction
regarding the Governments proposal to grant authorisation for
the re-opening of Famagusta port for trade purposes, with primarily
a Turkish Cypriot workforce under the aegis of the European Commission
and the co-management by Turkish and Greek Cypriots, following
the return of the fenced area of Varosha to the control of the
Government Had this proposal materialised, the port would be open
to economic operators from both communities under equal terms
and would be operating for trade purposes under the European Commission's
supervision, with the participation of Turkish and Greek Cypriots
alike, and pursuant to an EU regulation.
Having said all of the above, I think it must
be evident that, had in fact the goal been to facilitate Turkish
Cypriot trade, then this could be sorted out quite quickly, in
a manner that would be both legal and would also serve the purposes
for which the Council mandated the Commission to make proposals.
On its part the Government of the Republic of
Cyprus stands ready to make its own contribution and show all
possible flexibility in cooperating with its partners to achieve
the goals stated. What remains to be seen is whether other, third
parties involved, including the UK, will act in a similar manner
and in line with what the Court of Justice said concerning the
fact that the duty to cooperate in good faith governs relations
between Member States and the institutions; an obligation that
"imposes on Member States and the Community institutions
mutual duties to cooperate in good faith".
I would be grateful if the present letter is
circulated to all the Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the United Kingdom Parliament.
HE Petros Eftychiou
High Commissioner of the Republic of Cyprus
29 December 2004
2 Not printed. Back
| 
