Written evidence submitted by the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus
NOTE VERBALE
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Cyprus presents its compliments to the Foreign Affairs Committee
of the United Kingdom Parliament and with reference to the latter's
announcement of inquiry into United Kingdom policy towards Cyprus,
has the honour to send in electronic form, attached herewith,
a Memorandum together with its Executive Summary, to assist in
its inquiry.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Cyprus avails itself of this opportunity to renew to the Foreign
Affairs Committee of the United Kingdom Parliament the assurances
of its highest consideration.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On April 24, 2004, the People of Cyprus were
asked to approve or reject the UN Secretary-General's proposal
for the Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem (Annan
Plan V). A clear majority of 75.8% of Greek Cypriots rejected
the Annan Plan, which was neither fair nor balanced.
A significant reason for the rejection was the
fact that during the negotiations, both in Nicosia and in Bürgenstock,
everybody was so keen to satisfying all Turkish demands, whilst,
at the same time, the basic proposals of the Greek Cypriot side
have been disregarded and their serious concerns were completely
ignored.
The final package presented to the sides contained
provisions, which could not be approved by the Greek Cypriots;
Greek Cypriots did not accept the continuation of the Treaty of
Guarantee for an indefinite period of time, with an expanded scope,
when compared to the 1960 Agreement; they rejected a Plan, which
did not contain ironclad provisions for the implementation of
the agreement, especially for those provisions where Turkey's
cooperation was necessary; they failed to understand why Turkish
settlers, were to be given Cypriot citizenship or a permanent
right of residence leading to citizenship; they did not understand
why all Turkish settlers, who constitute a majority of persons
on the "electoral rolls of the t.r.n.c.", have been
permitted to vote in the referendum; they did not consent to a
Plan that would have established a complicated and dysfunctional
state, through the possibility of continuous deadlocks on clearly
political issues unsuitable for judicial arbitration; they did
not vote for a Plan imposing on them the liability to pay the
large claims for loss of use of properties in the Turkish occupied
area and which did not guarantee a workable economic basis for
a reunified Cyprus; they rejected a Plan, certain provisions of
which are clear violations or long-term suspensions of the enjoyment
of fundamental rights; they disapproved a plan that denied to
the majority of refugees the right of return to their homes in
safety; they rejected a Plan, the provisions of which would deprive
Cyprus of enjoying sovereign rights stemming from its membership
in the European Union. (Vide pp. 6-14, for the reasons of the
rejection by the Greek Cypriots of the Annan Plan.)
On the contrary, the Plan unfortunately stipulated
"bizonality" in the sense of creating permanent ethnic
and legal separation and effectively brought the whole of Cyprus
into Turkey's sphere of influence.
It was not surprising, therefore, that a Plan,
so imbalanced in favour of Turkey, was not approved by 75.8% of
Greek Cypriots, exercising their legitimate democratic right.
It is, however, emphasized, in the strongest possible terms, that
Greek Cypriots had rejected this particular Plan and not the solution
of the Cyprus problem.
Although the Plan stipulated that it would be
null and void in the event of its rejection in the referendum,
there are attempts at putting pressure on the Republic of Cyprus
and at upgrading the secessionist entity in the occupied areas.
It should be noted, in this respect, that no consequences were
incurred on Turkey and its subordinate local administration when
for so many years they rejected all previous proposals and plans
by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
The Greek Cypriots are not turning their backs
to their Turkish Cypriot compatriots. On the contrary, the Greek
Cypriot side are fully determined to work for a solution that
will meet the hopes and expectations of both communities. We want
a common future for all Cypriots within the European Union, without
any third parties dictating that future.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus is
the first to support the economic development of Turkish Cypriots;
an economic development, which promotes the ultimate aim of facilitating
the reunification of our country. (Vide pp. 23-28, for the Cyprus
Government's policies and initiatives in favour of the Turkish
Cypriots.) However, it is more than evident that Turkey and the
Turkish Cypriot leadership are not genuinely interested about
the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community, but
primarily for the upgrading and ultimate recognition of the secessionist
entity.
The disappointment of the international community,
for not arriving at a settlement, is fully understandable. The
Greek Cypriots share this disappointment. Nevertheless, it should
be noted that the international community should aim at finding
and securing viable, just and lasting solutions to international
problems; the efforts for a solution of a complex international
dispute, such as the Cyprus problem, must continue.
The United Kingdom has a special role in working
for a solution preserving the sovereignty, the territorial integrity
and the unity of the Republic of Cyprus. It should aim at the
economic integration and the rapprochement of the two communities
and should avoid actions that are not in line with this goal.
In this respect, the United Kingdom should not support and promote
proposals for "direct trade" from the northern part
of the island. It should, also, not object to the inclusion, in
the EU Regulation on financial support for the Turkish Cypriots,
of a provision, which will ensure respect of the rights of private
property and possessions of the Greek Cypriot displaced persons.
Moreover, the British Government should respect resolutions of
the Security Council on Cyprus and avoid actions to weaken Resolutions
541 (1983) and 550 (1984).
The Government of the United Kingdom and the
international community should remain committed to working for
a solution bearing in mind the essence of the Cyprus problem.
This is none other than the illegal invasion and occupation of
part of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey and the forceful separation
policies inflicted on the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots
by 30 years of Turkish military occupation. The United Kingdom
Government should work for the complete withdrawal of all Turkish
troops and the demilitarisation of the Republic of Cyprus.
The United Kingdom should also support the proposal
of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, as elaborated in
the letter, by President Papadopoulos to Commissioner Verheugen,
dated 23 August 2004, for the return of Varosha to its lawful
inhabitants and the reopening of Famagusta port, under the joint
management of the two communities, with an appointed chairperson
by the European Commission.
The Greek Cypriots express their disappointment
at the fact that British Representatives in Switzerland, had distributed,
during the Bürgenstock Meetings, to Foreign Ministries and
the mass media, two inaccurate Memos trying to undermine the positions
of the Greek Cypriot side and guide the international community
towards a negative attitude in case of disapproval of the plan
in the referendum; they express their disappointment at the fact
that British policy, following the 24 April 2004 referendum, has
not shown, in practice, respect for the will of the overwhelming
majority of the Greek Cypriots; they regret the inclusion in the
"strategic partnership" document, signed between the
United Kingdom and Turkey, of a paragraph affecting the interests
of the Republic of Cyprus; they feel that the United Kingdom seems
to support and promote proposals which do not serve the aim of
the reunification of Cyprus, or indeed the purpose of the economic
development of the Turkish Cypriot community and the economic
integration of the island and which, on the contrary, infringe
on Cyprus's sovereignty.
Such policies lead to disappointment and can
affect the traditional excellent relations and bonds of friendship
between the peoples of Cyprus and the United Kingdom and the latter's
role in future negotiation, which should aim at making the necessary
changes in the Annan plan, to make it functional and workable
and in line with the EU acquis communautaire.
The occupation of the northern part of the island
and the presence of Turkish military troops are incompatible with
international law and the behaviour by a Country aspiring to become
a member of the EU. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes that
the withdrawal of Turkish troops, as well as the fulfilment of
its obligations under the Customs Union Agreement concerning Cyprus
and the removal of the vetoes on the participation of Cyprus in
international organisations will facilitate Turkey's accession
prospects. The United Kingdom should insist on Turkey's compliance
with those obligations.
|
