Written evidence submitted by Union of
Refugees and Displaced Persons of Cyprus
SUBJECT: THE
RE -ASSESSMENT
OF THE CYPRUS
PROBLEM
Mr Chairman, Honourable members of the Committee,
We, on behalf of the Union of Refugees and Displaced
Persons of Cyprus submit to the Foreign Affairs Committee our
position, views and proposals regarding the Cyprus issue.
Our Movement, herewith welcomes the recent decision
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs to consider the likelihood
of revising the stance it has adopted in the past concerning the
question of Cyprus. To this extent, we hope that the Committee
will successfully complete the difficult task it has undertaken
and anticipate that it will be able to generate findings and conclusions
which will be based on the values and principles that the United
Kingdom has so often declared to respect and preserve, principles
such as justice, equality, democracy and human rights.
We are hereby contacting the Committee so as
to give a clear indication of what the people of Cyprus deem essential
so as to agree with any proposal made by the UN or any other international
body or organ. The latest attempt to resolve the problem, known
as the Annan plan, as the Committee is well aware, has been rejected
by approximately 76% of the Greek Cypriot community while the
Turkish Cypriot Community has accepted it for understandable reasons,
which will be described below.
The plan itself, as well as repeated official
statements by the Secretary General of the United Nations Mr K
Annan and his representative Mr Alvaro de Soto before the referendum
underlined the fact that if the plan were rejected from one of
the two sides it would be immediately void and non-existent. Therefore
and since it has been rejected by one of the two sides by a majority
of 76% this plan should be regarded dead and buried. In our opinion
the United Kingdom has the obligation to respect the democratic
wishes of the vast majority of the people of Cyprus in exactly
the same way it would respect any decision of the British public
in any referendum.
Taking the above into consideration, we believe
it is more constructive to attempt to explain to the respectable
Committee why the Greek Cypriot side had decided to disagree with
the proposed plan as well as to proceed to suggestions as to what
prerequisites any further proposal should include. In summary,
the main reasons, which have lead, the people of Cyprus to reject
the plan was the inherent unworkability and unfairness which was
present throughout the plan. In addition to these reasons, which
will be elaborated below, the people of Cyprus maintain and are
adamant on this issue, that since the Republic of Cyprus has joined
the EU, any future proposal for a solution may not deviate from
the acquis communautaire and other principles such as equality,
non-discrimination and protection of human rights.
We hope that the United Kingdom, a country which
protects the rights of its citizens and a country which fights
powers and entities that oppose international rights and norms
will be able to re-assess correctly its up to now misguided stance
regarding Cyprus. We hope that the economic and political interests
that the United Kingdom may have invested in Turkey will not result
in allowing Turkey to violate and breach continuously and on a
mass scale the most fundamental rights of the people of Cyprus,
both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. We hope that in this
new era, this Committee and the government of the United Kingdom
will be able to abide by principles it has so openly supported,
principles like justice, democracy and rights.
The United Kingdom has proved frequently that
whatever the sacrifices and consequences, it shall pursue action
in order to maintain peace and stability, in order to protect
the weak and those who are suffering. We believe that it is time
for this Committee to examine the Cyprus question more correctly
and openly. It is a matter of an aggression and a continuing occupation;
a fact that in 1991 in Kuwait triggered armed intervention. It
would be futile for us to expect this kind of response as we do
not have petrol oil but only olive oil, however we do expect and
hope that the United Kingdom will eventually understand and realise
that by supporting, aiding and abetting Turkey to continue its
violations against the people of Cyprus it is not promoting the
true principles that the United Kingdom was founded upon and has
so dearly fought to preserve.
Following the above, we have prepared a brief
commentary, which explains why the Greek Cypriot community correctly
rejected the plan but simultaneously explains the ambition of
the Greek Cypriots to reach a just solution as quickly as possible.
The Republic of Cyprus is a sovereign state,
which is a full member of the United Nations since its independence
in 1960. The Republic of Cyprus is an island with 802.500 inhabitants
of whom approximately 80% are Greek Cypriot, 11% are Turkish Cypriot
and 9% are foreign residents and workers[3].
The Republic of Cyprus, in 1963, during its
first years of independence, witnessed an internal strife between
the two major communities. In July 1974, there was an unsuccessful
attempt by the military junta in Greece to overthrow the legitimate
President of the Republic. As a pretext, after the failed coup
d' etait, the Republic of Turkey, decided unlawfully and arbitrarily,
to invade and continuously occupy and divide, approximately 37%
of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, for 30 years[4].
As a result of this unlawful, yet continuing,
invasion and occupation, in direct contravention to Article 2(4)
of the UN Charter, approximately 200,000 persons ie two fifths
of the population, have been through the use of force, both physical
and other, internally displaced and prevented from returning[5].
During the invasion, Turkey adopted the practice of enforced disappearances
of Greek Cypriots[6]
and has, since then, on a continuous basis, omitted or refused
to co-operate with the Republic of Cyprus and the International
Red Cross as to the determination of their whereabouts[7].
The internally displaced persons have been evicted forcefully
from their homes and properties in direct violation of Articles
8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Article 1 of
Protocol No.1 of the same Convention[8]
and Article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention.
They have been victims of continuous inhumane,
degrading treatment, which amounts to torture[9].
These persons have had their individual and collective rights
continuously violated, based on discriminatory and racial grounds[10].
The Republic of Turkey has been engaged in the perpetration of
grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and has to this extent
carried out mass forcible transfers and illegal settlement of
the occupied territories with parts of its own civilian and military
population[11].
Moreover the cultural heritage of the island has been ever since
the invasion, on a continuous basis destroyed and plundered.
Unfortunately, key players of the international
community, due to political expediencies and interests, have continuously
undermined the abovementioned unquestionable facts and have addressed
the problem as if it were an inter-communal strife rather than
an ongoing invasion and occupation. As a result, the UN Secretary
General proposed a plan, known as the Annan plan[12],
which was put, on 24 April 2004 before the two communities, in
the form of two simultaneous separate referenda. It suffices to
mention that in the referenda, in the occupied part, the settlers,
who apparently exceed the actual number of the indigenous Turkish
Cypriots[13],
had a right to vote and they voted knowing the pre-meditated and
illegal crime of settlement was arbitrarily and retrospectively
"legalized" in the plan, contrary to provisions of Customary
and Treaty based International Law. The results of the referenda
were approximately 76% of the Greek Cypriots to reject the proposed
plan, while approximately 65% of the Turkish Cypriots and settlers
approved it.
It is important to examine the real reasons
why the Greek Cypriots rejected the plan, as under no circumstance
can the unsupported assertion that Greek Cypriots did not want
re-unification have any merit. They disapproved of the plan as
they disagreed with a large number of core provisions such as
the selected few mentioned below:
(1) The fact that the human rights of all
the Cypriots were not safeguarded in accordance with international
standards. On the contrary, fundamental rights such as the right
to return to one's home[14],
respect to private and family life, the right to enjoy one's property[15],
freedom of establishment[16],
participation in Government[17],
the right to be elected or to participate in elections[18],
to name but a few, were all limited or totally negated according
to one's ethnic or racial background. This created an unacceptable
new form of apartheid and continuous discrimination based on criteria,
which have been internationally condemned[19],
criteria that would in the near future increase the differences
and friction between the two communities rather than bridging
and unifying the people of Cyprus.
(2) Turkey preserved her right to intervene
militarily at any time, if she deemed it was necessary23, a right,
which she claims, she had in the past and has invoked so as to
carry out the 1974 invasion. This fact was further exacerbated
by the provision that only a part of the Turkish occupying army
would be removed24. These provisions suppressed the feelings of
safety and dignity of the local population.
[20][21]
(3) According to the plan, at least 85,000 illegal settlers
were "legalized" and acquired a right to stay[22].
This fact is in direct conflict with international humanitarian
law creating a dangerous precedent, which could be invoked in
the future in other long-term conflicts. Knowledge of this precedent
would motivate occupying powers to attempt to prolong their occupation
so as to successfully change the demographic structure of the
occupied territory, with the a priori knowledge that the settlers
would be allowed to stay when the occupation came to an end.
(4) The plan demanded the striking out of
all pending individual applications of displaced persons against
Turkey, before the European Court of Human Rights[23].
Moreover, the plan provided that any compensation, regarding the
ongoing violation of the right of enjoyment and loss of use of
property[24]
would be provided by the "constituent state" from which
the applicant derived from. In this way, Turkey, who is the sole
perpetrator of crimes against humanity and war crimes, as well
as violations of human rights, and thus directly responsible for
restitution in integrum and compensation[25],
was directly absolved from its international obligations. This
resulted in leaving the people of Cyprus with the burden to revive
the economy[26],
pay compensation to displaced persons and bridging the differences
between the two communities, while having to deal and work with
an unworkable and unjust plan.
We maintain, that the philosophy whereby this
plan is based upon, should and must be revised and reassessed,
as it distinguishes/discriminates the inhabitants of the island
according to their "component state" identity which
in reality is nothing more than dividing the inhabitants of the
island on the basis of their ethnic, racial and religious origin,
creating a European state with an apartheid constitution. This
philosophy which is the cornerstone of the Annan plan and also
the 1960 Constitution of Cyprus, rather than bringing both Communities
together, uniting them, merely increases the gap and friction
which already exists in Cyprus due to the struggle of powers in
the specific area, which derives mostly from the three directly
involved countries, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom.
This plan, instead of adopting and reaffirming
principles such as democracy, rule of law, equality, non-discrimination,
protection of rights such as freedom of establishment and movement,
protection of minority rights but not to the detriment or to an
unequal manner of other people or communities in the island, does
exactly the opposite.
The United Nations has totally distorted reality.
The Cyprus problem is not one of an intercommunal strife it is
one of a violation of the cornerstone of the UN charter, it is
a violation of Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, it
is a clear case of one Country invading another.
Furthermore, this plan is unworkable and unbalanced.
It creates not a situation of political equality but a direct
oppression of the majority by the minority in direct contravention
of principles such as democracy and individual equality, one-person
one vote. The plan is condemned ab initio to fail, as it is not
workable.
From the above mentioned facts one can clearly
understand why the Greek Cypriots had every reason and obligation
towards the future generations of all Cypriots to disagree with
the plan. However, we, as persons residing in a semi-occupied
country, do not merely reject unfair and unworkable plans.
We put forward counter-proposals. We reaffirm
our commitment to promote and seek a solution that is based on
and is in accordance with international law, the resolutions of
the Security Council[27]
and the General Assembly of the United Nations[28]
as well as other specific and general Recommendations and Reports
from Committees such as the Human Rights Commission[29]
and the Economic and Social Council[30].
We also request that any future solution is based on the acquis
communautaire of the European Union and the principles of
democracy, rule of law and protection of human rights as well
as the European Charter of Fundamental Rights.
We maintain, that for a solution to be viable
and long lasting it should take into consideration the following
historic and unquestionable facts argued and decided in the European
Court and Commission in Strasbourg:
During 1974 a number of civilians were killed,
tortured, and raped. Their right to liberty, security, and prohibition
from forced labour and enforced disappearances was violated. Their
right to respect for private and family life, freedom of thought,
conscience, religion expression, discrimination, of protection
of property and education were all violated. These violations
are well documented from various sources, especially in the three
Interstate cases of Cyprus v Turkey brought forward
before the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
These decisions were applied and reaffirmed in the case of a Greek
Cypriot Refugee Mrs Loizidou who won the first case of this kind
in the European Court of Human Rights on 18 December 1996. The
last case which adjudicates this matter to a final judgment stage
is the fourth interstate case brought forward by Cyprus against
Turkey, which was decided on 10 May 2001, in the European Court
of Human Rights, rather than in the Commission which was the previous
practice, whereby the Court found a violation of Articles 1, 2,
3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 of the European Convention for the protection
of Human Rights and Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol 1. Currently
there are over 3,000 applicants in the European Court of Human
rights complaining for similar violations, which resulted from
the unlawful and continuous acts of Turkey since 1974. Moreover,
a number of historical and educational buildings archaeological
sites and monuments were destroyed especially Churches of unique
kind and character. Sacred icons have been disposed of in the
international markets along with many artefacts, but at this stage
the violation of rights is the most important issue that should
be addressed.
The rejected plan completely disregarded the
above findings of the European Court, and numerous Security Council
and UN General Assembly Resolutions. The UN itself, completely
disregarded its Charter, a Charter made to bring peace and stability
in the international community, based on certain values, and proposed
a plan which was clearly outside its mandate.
The United Nations plan, disregards customary
international law, the notion of obligations erga omnes, grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions. It disregards crimes against
humanity and war crimes that occurred in Cyprus and are ongoing
since 1974. In addition to this, the Annan plan further proposes
that the Cypriots, notwithstanding the fact that they are Citizens
of the European Union should accept that the values and principles
that exist in the European Union should not form a part of the
new state that is being proposed. The plan both directly and indirectly
suggests that the principles of Democracy, rule of law, protection
and enforcement of basic Human rights such as free movement and
establishment should be trumped, forgotten and waived and that
the Cypriots with the full agreement of the European Union should
accept a so called divergence, deviation of the acquis communautaire.
The plan suggests that the Cypriots should accept and acknowledge
the problem as an intercommunal problem and not one of an invasion,
it suggests that the Cypriots should indirectly recognise the
regime which has been created in the north and which has not been
recognised by any state in the world except Turkey, the perpetrator
of these crimes who has been condemned and convicted both in the
European Court of Human Rights and in a number of other international
fora.
Moreover, we would like to highlight the point
that if such a plan is brought before the people of Cyprus for
a second time, it will mean that the United Nations and other
countries supporting it, have not taken into consideration the
free will of the people of Cyprus. Moreover it shall prove its
lack of objectivity, as it will disregard the fact that Cyprus
is a member state of the European Union and therefore any solution
must be in accordance with the acquis. It will also ignore the
fact that Turkey is currently occupying European Union territory.
Furthermore, we wish to remind the Committee
of the legal responsibilities of the United Kingdom which arise
from the treaty of Guarantee in the 1960 Constitution and the
positive conventional duty of the United Kingdom to adopt all
necessary measures so as to guarantee the protection of the constitution,
territorial integrity and status quo as was determined in the
Cyprus Act of 1960 and the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.
Concluding, for a solution based on the universal
values of fairness and human rights we hereby urge the Committee
to exert its influence in every direction so as to aid the people
of Cyprus to succeed in this just quest for long lasting peace,
freedom and reunification.
Lastly, the Greek Cypriot community looks forward
to the time that genuine re-unification of the island will be
succeeded. If such an opportunity presents itself when all Cypriots
will have the same obligations and equal rights between one another
as individuals and as Cypriots vis a vis the rest
of the world, then the Greek Cypriot Community will be the first
who will support such a long-lasting, viable, fair and workable
solution. The people of Cyprus want to have the same obligations
and the same RIGHTS as the rest of the European Citizens. We want
to become 100% Europeans.
We would be grateful if this memorandum is forwarded
to the other members of the Committee.
Kyriacos Kalattas
Secretary General, Union of Refugees & Displaced
Persons of Cyprus
12 September 2004
3 http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/ Back
4
http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/ Back
5
Interstate Applications Cyprus v. Turkey 6780/74, 6950/77, 8007/77,
25781/94. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ Back
6
http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus-Problem/missing.html , Back
7
http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/cyphome/govhome.nsf/0/ Back
8
See for example Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) Application No. 15318/89
18 December 1996. Back
9
See E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/17*, E/CN.4/1996/52/Add.2, E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2 Back
10
See E/CN.4/Sub.2/1994/18, E/CN.4/1995/49, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1997/23 Back
11
UNGA Res 3395 (XXX) 25.11.1975, UNGA Res 34/30 20.11.1979, UNGA
Res 37/253 13.5.1983 http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/All/F8A417A0530CA515C2256DC200389A3C/$file/2%20may%202003.pdf?OpenElement Back
12
http://www.stockwatch.com.cy/nqcontent.cfm?a_name=news_view&ann_id=28285 Back
13
Recommendation 1608 (2003), Recommendation 1197 (1992), Recommendation
1056 (1987), Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe Back
14
See for example Article 3(7) of the Main Articles of the Plan,
see also Article 2(1) of Draft Act of Adaptation to the Terms
of Accession of the United Cyprus Republic to the European Union Back
15
See for example Article 10 of the Main Articles, see also Annex
VII Article 21, see also Annex VII Part II articles 5-18, Annex
VI attachment 1, Back
16
See for example Article 3(6) of the Main Articles of the Plan,
see also Article 2(2) of Draft Act of Adaptation to the Terms
of Accession of the United Cyprus Republic to the European Union Back
17
See for example Article 5 of the Main Articles of the Plan, see
also Article 26 of the Constitution Back
18
See for example Article 3 (3) of the Main Articles of the Plan Back
19
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, General
Recommendation XXII on article 5 and refugees and displaced
persons (fortyninth session), A/51/18 (1996), annex VIII.C,
para. 2 (d). Back
20
See Part C Annex III, Additional protocol to the Treaty of Guarantee Back
21
See Part C Annex IV Article 3, Additional protocol to the Treaty
of Guarantee Back
22
Annex II Attachment 3, see also Annex III Attachments 4&5 Back
23
Annex VIII Attachment III, Back
24
See Annex VII Attachments 3 & 4 Back
25
Loizidou v. Turkey (Just Satisfaction) Application No. 15318/89
28 July 1998, http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc/ Back
26
http://www.stockwatch.com Back
27
UN SC Res 355 (1974), UN SC Res 360 (1974), http://www.un.org/Docs/sc/unsc_resolutions.html Back
28
UNGA Res 33/15 (1978), UNGA Res 37/253 (1983)UNGA Res 3212 (XXXIX),
UNGA Res 3395(XXX), http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/gares1.htm Back
29
Recommendation 1987/50 11 March 1987 Back
30
E/CN.4/Sub.2/ 2002/17 Back
|
