UN and the Cyprus Problem: A continuous effort to legitimize war crimes by the Secretary General

ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ

Defence Min Dendias receives Greek and Turkish delegations debating CBMs between the two countries

PM Mitsotakis: Rapprochement with Turkiye has helped reduce illegal migration

FM to Turkey: The Greek government will continue to steadfastly support the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the country

By Constantinos Sofocleous, MD, PhD*

The recent developments in the Cyprus problem leave no doubt about the Turkish intentions to completely control the island-country ignoring all UN and Security Council resolutions, EU law and basic human rights.

During decades of negotiations the Greek political leadership has accepted to negotiate on the Turkish proposal for the evolution of the Republic of Cyprus into what is called a “bicommunal bizonal federation”. This proposed federation will include Turkish and Greek component states with substantial veto power to secure the Turkish interests despite an 82% Greek majority.

This not only amounts to an incredible deviation from all democratic norms, but it also provides UN legitimization of war crimes executed through the continuous ethnic cleansing of the Greeks from the Turkish Occupied part of Cyprus since 1974.

If this was not enough, the Turkish side has now proposed the creation of 2 independent states in Cyprus; although it is clear that what they are aiming for is a dysfunctional confederation under perpetual Turkish patronage. The required Turkish Cypriot veto in such a dysfunctional state, will allow Turkey to control the entire island and through Cyprus, an EU member state, the decisions of the EU, even if Turkey never enters into EU membership.

• For a brief history and background, Cyprus, an ex British colony, became a partnership independent island country in 1960 with a problematic constitution providing the Turkish Cypriot minority (18% of population) a veto over executive and legislative decisions, a mandatory vice president and a 30 % participation in all public and government administration.

Britain, Greece and Turkey were named guarantors of the constitution with rights of unilateral intervention to maintain constitutional order! This fragile arrangement reached a stalemate when in 1963 the Turkish Cypriots blocked government budget. This led the Greek Cypriot president to request constitutional amendments that would allow the government to function.

The Turkish Cypriots, under the guidance of Turkey that bombarded the island, withdrew from the government and declared the partnership state as dead. Multiple UN and Security Council resolutions indicated that Cyprus would remain a sovereign island state represented by the Greek majority until the inter-communal conflict could be resolved.

Disagreements between the elected Greek Cypriot president and the Greek dictatorship (1967-1974) led to a Greek Junta coup against the Cypriot president in July 1974 that was used as the pretext of Turkey to invade the island with military force using NATO weapons. Roughly 170,000 Greek Cypriots were forced out from their homes in the north and are still not able to return. To this date, Turkey is still occupying 37% of Cyprus’ territory with 40,000 soldiers. In the Turkish occupied north, the majority now consists of Turkish settlers moved in an organized plan to purposely change the island’s demographics.

Despite a highlighted Turkish rhetoric regarding the desire to reach a comprehensive, fair, and democratic settlement in Cyprus, all Turkish actions and official declarations speak against this. In 1983 Turkey proclaimed the illegally occupied North of Cyprus as the so called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” recognized only by Turkey and deemed illegal by Security Council resolutions that reaffirmed the Republic of Cyprus as the only legal and recognized state representing the entire island.

The Republic of Cyprus representing the entire island became an EU member state on May 1st, 2004, with the understanding that the European law cannot be applied in the north territory as long as this remains under Turkish military occupation. Despite Cyprus EU membership, Turkey continues to declare that the Republic of Cyprus does not exist, despite its own interest to promote a custom union with EU and its obligation to recognize the republic of Cyprus.

Despite EU warnings for sanctions the Turkish president and his administration continue to use a rhetoric that far lies from the truth. President Erdogan has repeatedly declared that the EU is treating the Turkish Cypriots unfairly because they have not entered in to the EU. He deliberately hides the fact that Turkish Cypriots holding passports of the Republic of Cyprus are equal EU citizens and the only reason that the European acquis is not implemented in the North of Cyprus is the Turkish military occupation.

Simply put, the 47-year illegal occupation and ethnic cleansing of the Greeks from the Turkish occupied north of Cyprus is the only reason why this area is not enjoying fully the benefits of the EU membership status.

The Turkish government blames the Greek Cypriots for not accepting the 2004 “reunification” Anan plan failing to indicate that this plan was rejected because it did not address the most basic safety concerns of the Greek Cypriots. The plan accepted Turkish demands for perpetual Turkish rights for intervention, as well as the presence of Turkish troops on the island. It allowed citizenship to be given to illegal settlers, providing a platform to legalize the war crimes and the ethnic cleansing that has been committed in the occupied territory of Cyprus by Turkey since 1974. Furthermore, the Anan plan was far from any democratic solution, deviating from any known form of democratic administration where the majority is able to govern.

• Unfortunately, similarly to the Anan plan, all “solution” proposals backed by the UN are more dysfunctional and unfair than the originally dysfunctional 1960 constitution.
• All plans violate basic human rights limiting basic freedoms of movement, residency and political rights based on ethnic and religious identity. Even more concerning is the fact that they legitimize an illegal military invasion and occupation of a country member of the UN and the EU.

They even require the displaced victims (refugees like me) to accept a new partnership state where the perpetrator is a partner and guarantor of the new state, maintaining the same or stronger rights of intervention than those that created the 1974 ethnic cleansing in the first place!

It is very concerning that the UN Secretary General, the British, Cypriot and Greek governments accept discussions on plans that legitimize war crimes instead of insisting in the application of security council resolutions, international law and the EU treaty of Cyprus accession to the EU.

All these indicate that Cyprus entered the EU, as the UN recognized Republic of Cyprus with the acknowledgment that its North part is illegally occupied by Turkey. It is extremely disappointing that the Cyprus government has failed to protect its citizens’ rights within the EU, participating in illegal actions including the recent discussions with Turkey outside the frame of the UN security council resolutions.

In view of the recent announcement by Turkey that the old city of Famagusta maybe opened against all UN resolutions for the return of the city to its legal citizens under UN control, I hope that the British, Cyprus and Greek governments, as well as the EU, the UN and the international community in general will reconsider their tolerance towards the continuous Turkish practices of ethnic cleansing and violations against international law in Cyprus.

Constantinos Sofocleous, MD, PhD, New York,
Refugee from Kythrea
Since the 1974 Turkish Occupation of Northern Cyprus

U.S. Senators sent a letter to President asking him to deepen efforts with the UN and EU to hold Turkey and Erdogan accountable