In this article, we conclude our visit to the history of the
so-called Cy-Prob or ‘Cyprus Question’ by looking at the declaration of
Statehood on November 15th 1983, by the founding father of Turkish
Cyprus, the late and great Rauf R Denktas and also we will look at the
relationship of Cyprus with the EU and we will see that this entity, has by no
means dealt with Turkish Cyprus in a manner which approached fairness. For some
reasons better known to themselves the French in particular and the Germans too,
have swallowed the Greek argument for Cyprus and it is past high time that
balance was addressed. This columnist continually strives to do precisely this.
Because of the elimination of the Turkish Cypriot component
of the Republic of Cyprus, first the Turkish Cypriot administration functioned
as the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus, the appellation "Federated"
indicating their desire to return to the 1960 Bi-communal Constitution. Then on
15 November 1983 the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus was proclaimed by the
unanimous vote of the Legislative Assembly of the hitherto Turkish Federated
State of Cyprus, which is the democratic representative body of the Turkish
people of Cyprus.
The proclamation stressed that the Republic would adhere to
all treaties and agreements binding on it, including the Treaty of Guarantee,
would follow a policy of non-alignment, would remain faithful to the principles
of the United Nations Charter and would endeavour to facilitate the
establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic where Turkish
Cypriots and Greek Cypriots could co-operate in peace and harmony.
The proclamation emphasized, inter alia, that the founding
of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a manifestation of the right of
self-determination of the Turkish Cypriot people of Cyprus. The declaration
also stipulated that the newly created entity will not unite with any other
state, except with the southern unit to form a federal republic of Cyprus.
When
the Secretary-General's Special Representative in Cyprus, Mr. Gobbi, met Mr.
Denktash on 15 November, the latter handed to him a letter addressed to the
Secretary-General, explaining to him why the Turkish Cypriot people had been
"left with no other alternative but to take this vital step based on our
equal co-founder partnership status in the independence and sovereignty of
Cyprus".
The letter expressed the disappointment arising out of Greek
Cypriot attitudes towards the ‘inter-communal’ talks, stressed the belief that
a genuine federation can only be established between equal partners having the
same political status and affirmed that, having waited for 20 years under an
uncertain political status, the Turkish Cypriot people had taken a legitimate
step for re-defining their political status in the form of an independent and
non-aligned republic by exercising their natural right to self-determination.
In
the same letter, Mr. Denktash, drawing attention to the provisions of the
Declaration, expressed his desire for the continuation of the
Secretary-General's mission of good offices and his readiness to resume the
negotiations under the Secretary-General's auspices at any time. He also stated
that his proposal for a high-level meeting remained in effect. The primary aim
of the Turkish Cypriots within the November 15th Declaration of an
independent state, that of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, is to
assert their status as co-founders of the future confederation of Cyprus and to
ensure that the sovereignty of that republic will derive from the existing two
states joining together as equals in the formation of a future co-federal
republic.
The
declaration of statehood was supported by 87,928 signatures. On the same day,
Turkey recognised the new Republic. Later the set of ideas of the UN Secretary
General as to be found in the Annex to the Report of the Secretary General to
the Security Council, S/24472 dated 21st August 1992 clearly accepted the fact
that there was no longer a single Republic of Cyprus and suggested to continue
negotiations between the two communities in order to establish a new bi-zonal,
bi-communal confederation in Cyprus. This set of ideas however was not accepted
by the Greek Cypriot side nor were the confidence building measures suggested
by the UN Secretary General. Despite this situation the diplomatic initiatives
continued.
It
is, nevertheless, difficult to expect success from such moves nor from the
continuing good offices of the UN Secretary General, as the prospects for a
negotiated settlement were marred and the crisis of confidence prevailing in
the island between the two communities was further deepened, by the
illegitimate unilateral application for membership of the European Union made
by the Greek Cypriots in 1990 and accepted by the EU Council meeting on the
12th-13th December 1997 in Luxembourg despite its flagrant illegitimacy.
Before
going into the details of the legal issues that concern the Greek Cypriot
application to join the EU, it would be particularly relevant at this point
to recall that at the time the Greek Cypriots were applying for membership
the UN Security Council had adopted resolution 649 on 12th March 1990 which
called upon the parties to pursue their efforts to reach freely a mutually
acceptable solution in the form of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation.
Indeed, the UN Secretary General reporting to the Security Council (S/21183)
had used the following phrases: "Cyprus is the common home of the
Greek Cypriot community and of the Turkish Cypriot community. Their relationship
is not one of majority and minority but one of two communities in the State
of Cyprus. The mandate given to me by the Security Council makes it clear
that my mission of good offices is with these two communities. My mandate is
also explicit that the participation of the two communities in this process
is on an equal footing. The solution that is being sought is thus one that
must be decided upon by, and, must be acceptable to both communities. It must
also respect the cultural, religious, social and linguistic identity of each
community."
In
the light of the above, it would not be unreasonable to claim that not only
legally, but also from a political point of view, acceptance by the EU of the
Greek Cypriot unilateral application for membership without the consent of
the Turkish Cypriot community will result in impeding the good offices
mission of the UN Secretary General aiming at a mutually acceptable solution
in Cyprus between two politically and legally equal sides. This, because the
EU has unlawfully recognised only one of the two parties, namely, the Greek
Cypriot administration by accepting its unilateral application in 1990 and by
negotiating with this administration for full membership in the near future
at the same time with the other five first wave candidates for membership.
As
to the legal defects concerning the unilateral application of the Greek
Cypriots and the treatment of it by the EU one may start first with the
constitutional illegitimacy as the Greek Cypriot administration had no lawful
authority to make such an application because it is obvious that through the
first coup of the Greek Cypriots ousting the Turkish Cypriots from their
guaranteed positions in the organs of the government of the Republic of
Cyprus, the basic and entrenched
articles of the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus were irredeemably
maimed. Indeed, in June 1967, the legislature in the Greek Cypriot
administration went so far as unanimously passing a resolution of Enosis, in
other words, union with Greece though such action was clearly prohibited by
article 185 of the 1960 Constitution. Moreover, as was referred earlier on 30
July 1974 the respective Foreign Ministers of Turkey, Greece and the United
Kingdom had noted the existence of two autonomous administrations within
their joint Geneva declaration.
It
is also obvious that even the Greek Cypriot administration knew that it has
no right to act on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus and consequently, it
submitted an application in respect of "Cyprus" and not the
"Republic of Cyprus". This of course is also unacceptable either in
law or in fact because it suggests a unity in the island under the dominant
control of the Greek Cypriot administration despite the fact that there
exists in the North a distinctly separate Turkish Cypriot state and community
divided from the South by the UN
cease-fire line as well as the presence of a UN force garrisoned upon this
line.
|