CYPRUS

Turkish Cypriot Proposals

for the

Solution

of the

Cyprus Problem

CHRONOLOGY: 1955 — 1958 Greek Cypriots attempt to unite Cyprus with Greece by killing Turkish Cypriots, the British and Greek Cypriots who oppose union. Turkish Cypriot resistance to union results in a negotiated settlement of the problem in 1959 between the two motherlands (Turkey and Greece) of the two national Communities in Cyprus. August 1960 — The bi-communal republic of Cyprus is established. Greek Cypriot leaders plan to destroy the bi-communality of the republic and proceed to union with Greece.

December, 1963 — Greek Cypriot private armies and Greek Cypriot elements of the Cyprus police and Army attack Turkish Cypriots who are driven out of 103 villages and have to abandon posts in Government services, etc. Turkish Cypriots refuse to accept this fait accompli and defend themselves in Turkish enclaves all over Cyprus until 1974.

1968 — 1974: Inter-communal negotiations continue; although there is a new agreement, Greek Cypriot leaders refuse to authorise a settlement because this will involve reprohibition of Enosis. Archbishop Makarios and the Greek Government declare that they will not sign an agreement which may prohibit Enosis once again.

15th July, 1974: The Coup.

2,000 Greek Cypriots are killed by the Coupists. 3,000 Greek Cypriots rounded up and detained. Thousands killed and buried in mass graves. Turkish Cypriots are also killed. A take-over of the Island by Greece and complete destruction of the Turkish Cypriots is being put into effect.

20th July, 1974: Turkey intervenes under her Treaty Rights, Inter-communal negotiations begin. July, 1975: At the fifth Vienna negotiations the two sides agree on a population exchange in preparation for a bi-zonal federal settlement.

February, 1977: Archbishop Makarios agrees with Mr. Denktas to settle the problem on a bi-zonal federal basis.

Hence, the Turkish Cypriot proposals. point accepted by both sides. Furthermore, the text of the agreed instructions (guidelines) referred to in the communique issued at the end of the second summit meeting on the 12th February, 1977, embodies an agreement on the "non-aligned" character of the Federal Republic. Consequently, there should be no difficulty in incorporating these agreed attributes in a basic definition of the new Federal Republic. It is in this context that the Turkish Cypriot proposals contain provisions embodying these basic attributes and a Preamble expressing the common will of the two Communities "to live side by side in peace and security, to enjoy the benefits and blessing of a democratic system of government based on the rule of law and social justice and to enhance their social and economic development" and their determination to ensure the non-recurrence of the sufferings of the past.

B. Difficulties of the constitutional solution In addition to obvious and well-known difficulties inherent in the formation of any federal system, such as reaching a compromise between the equality of partners, on the one hand, and the necessity of establishing a workable central government machinery, on the other, or striking a balance between the rights of the individuals and the interests of their respective communities, the "federal question" in Cyprus involves many other crucial and deep-rooted problems. Guarantee) and who now have their own distinct administrations, with their own legislative, executive and judicial organs, having exclusive control and authority over two distinct areas of the island.

(b) This is not a search for a solution to a domestic "national" problem, but a compromise between two conflicting "national" demands of two different national Communities. Throughout recent history, Greek Cypriots had looked upon Cyprus as a Greek land destined to be united with Greece while the Turkish Cypriots looked upon the island as an old Turkish land and adamantly refused to be colonised by Greece. To the Greek Cypriots union of Cyprus with Greece (Enosis) was "liberation and freedom", to the Turkish Cypriots such a union was "colonisation", loss of all human rights and physical elimination from Cyprus. Thus, the Greek Cypriot action for achieving Enosis always brought immediate reaction from the Turkish Cypriot side. Greece which coveted Enosis, helped the Greek Cypriots by giving them arms and personnel while Turkish Cypriots sought help from Turkey in selfdefence.

Through the centuries the two national Communities had jealously guarded their national Identity while each cherished its own "national aspiration". The Greek Orthodox Church preached Enosis and anti-Turkish sentiments While Greek Cypriot schools gave this "national policy" further "cultural" backing. The Turkish Cypnots took counter measures in order not to be eliminated or absorbed by the Greek Cypriot Side.

It was inevitable, therefore, that the two Communities would come into violent collision when the Greek Cypriots, under the leadership of the Greek Orthodox Church, launched their terrorist campaign for achieving Enosis in 1955. Contrary to the present Greek Cypriot propaganda, this campaign, which lasted until the end of 1958, was not for independence but for Enosis. Then, in 1960 the two Communities accepted a Compromise and worked out a Constitution after continuous deliberations which lasted for eighteen. months. In short, the two national Cornm.unities, which had fought for opposing political aims, agreed by the texts signed in Zurich and London, to forego these aims in lieu of a 'partnership Republic" based on the existence of the . two national Communities and on their Inalienable rights and partnership status. These two Communities together brought about the bi-national" State of Cyprus. They together, under agreed terms of cooperation and partnership, shared the legislative, executive, Judicial and other functions. Matters which the two Communities had managed on a communal basis Over the centuries— like education, religion, family law, etc. — were left to the autonomy of the Communal administrations which had legislative, executive, and judicial authority over such matters. In effect a "functional federative system" had been established by the two co-founder Communities of the Republic.

This functional federative character of the former Republic of Cyprus is often forgotten by those who are apt to see the present search for a federal solution as an attempt to dismantle a completely "unitary" system of government, Which was not created or even envisaged by the 1960 Constitution. and status, proposed amendments to the Constitution (November, 1963) and when the Turk ish Cypriot Community refused to agree to the proposed amendments they launched their attack in order to implement a well-prepared scheme which came to be known as "the Akritas plan". Turkish Cypriot houses and properties in 103 villages were destroyed. Nearly 30,000 Turkish Cypriots became refugees. In all areas where the Turkish Cypriot resistance continued an inhuman blockade was mounted. All Turkish Cyp riots were physically barred from taking part in the administration of the island. All constitutionality went overboard. Turks of Cyprus lived at the mercy of Greek Cypriot and Greek mainland armed elements.

Turkish Cypriots lived on, resisting Greek Cypriot aggression from 1963 to 1974, never accepting the illegal Greek Cypriot rule — which claims to be "the Government of Cyprus"— as the legitimate government of the island.

Legitimacy could only be re-established when the two Communities came together under agreed terms of partnership. Greek Cypriots had, by resorting to violence, ousted the Turkish Cypriot partner from the administration.

On the 26th June, 1967, the Greek Cypriot House of Representatives unanimously passed a

resolution declaring that ". . . it would not sus

pend the struggle . . . until this struggle ends in success through the union of the whole and undi vided Cyprus with the motherland, without any

intermediary stage" and by the end of 1967 the Greek Cypriot armed elements who had com

bined to form one single task force with 20,000 Greek army personnel clandestinely brought to Cyprus attempted to finish off the Turkish Cyp riot resistance by attacking the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Gecitkale (Kophinou) and Bogazici (Ayios Theodoros). This activated Turkey to come to the aid of the Turkish Cypriots. In order to avert Turkey's intervention the attack on Turkish Cypriots was stopped and Greek Cypriot leaders agreed to have inter-communal talks which began in June, 1968. These talks lasted — on and off — until the coup of July, 1974, but although near-agreements were reached, several times the Greek Cypriot leadership refused to settle the problem on the basis of an "inter-communal partnership Republic" guaranteed against Enosis.

The events which preceded the coup of July, 1974, again meant further distress for the belea guered Turkish Community whose members were used as political hostages by both sides of the inter-Greek conflict. In the end, the coup materialised. No one doubted that the coup was a final attempt for the takeover of the island by Greece and the destruction of the independence of Cyprus. Thousands of Greeks were killed by the coupists, but as usual, Turkish Cypriots suffered severely at the hands of the Greeks. More Turkish Cypriot villages had to be aban doned, thousands more Turkish Cypriots became refugees. Had Turkey failed to move under and by virtue of the Treaty of Guarantee then Cyprus as an independent State would no longer be. The coup in Nicosia would consolidate the position of the Junta in Athens and extend its hegemony to Cyprus.

Turkey was left with no alternative but to move under the Treaty of Guarantee. Inevitably the Turkish intervention of 1974, with the unavoidable consequences of any such military action, brought also sufferings to the Greek Cypriot Community who had to abandon their homes and emigrate. This was mainly due to the second phase of the operation on the 14th16th August, 1974, which, contrary to what the Greek Cypriot "side wOuIcl have world public opinion wrongly to believe, became imperative upon the massacre of Turkish Cypriot civilians and the Greek Cypriots' refusal to fulfil the conditions of the Geneva Declaration of the 30th July, 1974 — — to establish a security zone at the limit of the areas under the control of the Turkish Armed Forces.

— to immediately evacuate all the Turkish Cypriot enclaves occupied by the Greek or Greek Cypriot forces.

— to exchange or release the detained military personnel and civilians.

Subsequently contacts and negotiations took place between the two sides from 1974 to 1977. It was agreed that the parties should work for a bi-communal, bi-zonal solution.

At the third Vienna talks in the summer of 1975 the parties agreed to exchange their population on a voluntary basis. UNFICYP undertook to help in this exchange programme and in the end, half of the Turkish Cypriot population which had lived under most inhuman conditions in Greek Cypriot areas for eleven years moved North, while the majority of the Greek Cypriots in the North moved into Turkish villages and properties in the South.

A constitutional solution for Cyprus has to be evolved in the spectre of such a dramatic recent history and the main preoccupation in the minds of the people directly involved is to find ways of preventing the recurrence of the sufferings of the Past.

(b) The two Communities coming together to establish a new form of government with the hope of preventing the recurrence of the past sufferings have not yet reached the same level of economic and social development.

The Turkish Cypriot Community, having first lived under a Greek Cypriot dominated government and then in isolated enclaves and forced today to cope with international restrictions imposed on its external communications, is economically weak and in need of creating its own viable economy and promoting its human potentialities. Starting with the events of 1963, all the economic resources of the island were utilised for the development of the Greek Cypriot Community, while governmental policies of customs, taxation, credit and investment were devised and implemented without any consideration of the economic development needs of the Turkish Cypriot Community. By a "Government" Decree, sale of land to the Turkish Cypriots was prohibited, while licences for building factories, etc., were arbitrarily denied to them. The Turkish Cypriots were deprived of their freedom of movement and communication and lived in an economy of consumption in their enclaves at the mercy of the Greek Cypriot producers and importers.

The Greek Cypriot Community, on the other hand, although having undergone the adverse effects of a recent armed conflict, lives in a stronger economy, having enjoyed for at least a decade all the benefits of an administration with wide international recognition and trade relations. In this context it is worth recording that the Greek Cypriot administration having deprived the Turkish Cypriot population of its nghtful share from the budget, forced the Turkish Cypriot population, which was left destitute, to import hard currency as aid from Turkey to the tune of 13 million pounds sterling per year all of which enriched the Greek Cypriot Central Bank for eleven years.

Today, as a consequence of the past situations and the usurpation of the governmental machinery by force of arms, external trade is still mainly in the hands of the Greek Cypriot Community who continue to retain the monopoly of representing foreign firms and enterprises on the island; the Greek Cypriot Community benefits from the privilege of signing bilateral trade agreements, financial and technological cooperation and extensive foreign aid at the international level; it maintains regular commercial

■■■••■■•=11iIIMImm•