Further written evidence received from
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, further to the relevant
Memorandum, sent on 13 September 2004, attached herewith, a Supplement
entitled "Whether the United Kingdom should seek to alter
its relationship with the northern part of the island".
14 September 2004
Whether the United Kingdom Should Seek to Alter
its Relationship with the Northern Part of the Island
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic
of Cyprus believes that the Committee, in its examination, should
take into serious consideration that the United Kingdom, as a
Guarantor Power, as a Permanent Member of the Security Council
of the United Nations, and as a Partner in the European Union,
must not in any way try to upgrade the status of the secessionist
entity in the occupied part of Cyprus, nor attempt to, either
directly or indirectly, undermine the sovereignty of the Republic
of Cyprus. The United Kingdom Government must work towards the
reunification of Cyprus and its people respecting, at the same
time, international law including the acquis communautaire.
In this respect, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
recalls the legal obligations contained in the provisions of Article
II of the Treaty of Guarantee, signed in 1960 which state that:
"…the United Kingdom, …recognise and guarantee
the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic
of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic
Articles of its Constitution."
Moreover, the United Kingdom, which was instrumental
in the elaboration, drafting and passing of relevant United Nations
Security Council Resolutions—especially Resolutions 541
(1983) and 550 (1984)—must avoid any and all actions, which
would lead to the weakening of those Resolutions. There is no
doubt that our common goal of reuniting Cyprus will be negatively
affected forever by such actions, which will undoubtedly lead
to the upgrading of and the creeping or overt recognition of the
secessionist entity in the north.
The northern part of Cyprus is not a separate
state or country, but a part of the Republic of Cyprus, occupied
by foreign troops. This is established by a number of United Nations
Security Council Resolutions and no country (except the occupying
power) or international organisation recognises the existence
of such a state. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recalls UN Security
Council resolution 541 (1983), which brands the [secessionist
declaration] in the occupied part of Cyprus as "legally invalid
and calls for its withdrawal", and 550 (1984), which "…Reiterates
the call upon all States not to recognize the purported state
of the `Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus' set up by secessionist
acts and calls upon them not to facilitate or in any way assist
the aforesaid secessionist entity."
Moreover, it should not be forgotten that the
Republic of Cyprus and the United Kingdom are both members of
the European Union. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs believes that
the founding principles of the EU, namely democracy, the rule
of law, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, should
form the basis of all the endeavours of the Union. The Ministry
of Foreign Affairs additionally believes that decisions on issues
directly affecting vital interests of the Republic of Cyprus should
be made on the basis of cooperation and solidarity.
In view of the above, the United Kingdom should
not support and/or promote proposals for "direct trade"
with the northern part of the island. Such moves lack any sound
legal basis. In fact, they clearly try to promote and present
external trade with a secessionist entity as lawful. They attempt
to legalize an illegal situation in the territory of a Member
State of the EU, where the application of the acquis communautaire
is suspended, whilst at the same time creating serious practical
problems and setting dangerous international precedents. More
importantly, such proposals disregard the aim of the economic
integration of the island and its people—an aim which proposals
for "direct trade" risk sacrificing on the altar of
political considerations.
As for Community law, it should be emphasized
that the former imposes a specific duty of loyal cooperation between
the Community and the Member States enshrined in Article 10 EC.
The European Court of Justice has held that "the duty to
cooperate in good faith governs relations between the Member States
and the institutions." The Court has also emphasized that
this obligation "imposes on Member States and the Community
institutions mutual duties to cooperate in good faith." The
Ministry of Foreign Affairs expects that its partners in the EU
will actively support Cyprus in its efforts to assist the Turkish
Cypriots and to strive for the reunification of the island, while
at the same time upholding its vital national interests. It was,
after all, the European Court of Justice itself which decided,
in the seminal case of ex parte Anastasiou (1994), that
"cooperation is excluded with the authorities of an entity
such as that established in the northern part of Cyprus, which
is recognized neither by the Community nor by the Member States."
The findings of the ECJ leave no room for interpretation and preclude
EU Member States from conducting "direct trade", or
acts of equivalent nature, with the secessionist entity in occupied
Cyprus.
As for the insistence of the Turkish occupation
regime to conduct "direct trade" through the illegally
functioning ports and airports in occupied Cyprus, the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs would like to stress that, under a well-established
principle of international law, every State has the indisputable
right to determine which of its ports and airports are open and
functioning, as well as to define their terms of operation. The
United Kingdom should respect this sovereign right of the Republic
of Cyprus without more.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus supports
the EU's expressed intention of extending financial assistance
for the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community
and recalls that it was the Foreign Minister of the Republic who,
at the Council of 26 April 2004, tabled the subject and advocated
the granting, to the Turkish Cypriots, of the
259 million that would have been transferred to Cyprus
in the event of a solution. The Government of Cyprus welcomes
the stipulation in the Commission's draft Regulation that in the
implementation of projects financed under this Regulation the
rights of natural and legal persons, including the rights to possessions
and property, shall be respected. A fortiori the decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights concerning Cyprus and, more
particularly, its Judgments in the Loizidou line of cases
where the Court held, inter alia, that there had been a
breach of Article 1 of Protocol No 1 of the Convention, in that
the applicant had effectively lost control over, as well as all
possibilities to use and enjoy, her property and that the denial
of access to the applicant's property and consequent loss of control
thereof were imputable to Turkey. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs
expects that, as a strong advocate of the rule of law and the
effective functioning of international and regional judicial bodies,
as well as the faithful execution of their decisions, the Government
of the United Kingdom will work within the principles of the Court's
decisions.
Lastly, it is noted that Turkey maintains complete
and overall control over occupied Cyprus. This continuing reality
was acknowledged by the European Court of Human Rights, which,
in its Judgment in Cyprus v Turkey (2001), underlined that Turkey,
which has "effective overall control over northern Cyprus",
is responsible for securing therein all human rights under the
Convention and Protocols she has ratified, such that violations
of such rights directly by her or her "subordinate local
administration" are imputable to Ankara. Unfortunately, there
is still no change in this situation as the Turkish army continues
to cast its dark shadow over all decision-making in occupied Cyprus,
including decisions pertaining to the movement of Greek Cypriot
products, which must be approved by the Turkish military.
The welfare and prosperity of the people of
Cyprus lie in the economic integration of the two communities
and the unification of the island's economy: not with the encouragement
of unlawful, separatist tendencies. For, any moves or initiatives
supposedly aiming at the economic development of Turkish Cypriots
but with evidently hidden political motives, create nothing more
than a disincentive for a solution and promote the permanent division
of the island, whose northern part continues to toil under the
presence of 36,000 troops and more than 100,000 settlers transplanted
from an EU Candidate Country. It is in this context that the United
Kingdom should be aiming at the intensification of contact and
cooperation between the members of the two communities, whilst
avoiding actions that are not in line with the goal of Cypriot
reunification.
|
