Your Excellency,
Let us accept, arguendo, that you are partly right in your perception of the Cyprus Problem; that indeed, in its first decade (1964-1974), it started out as an issue of bi-communal conflict. Still, the Turkish invasion of 1974 was not simply “a tragic turn” to this conflict, as you called it, quite inappropriately, I dare say.
In historical terms, the Turkish invasion was a game-changing milestone, which metamorphosed the Cyprus Problem into an issue of an entirely different order than it used to be prior to 1974: no longer an internal clash between two ethnic groups cohabiting on the same island, but a de facto partition of a sovereign state by another.
In legal terms, it was, and it remains, a major breach of international law: first of the Zurich-London agreement of 1960, then of a whole array of UN resolutions and international court rulings, and now of the European Acquis Communautaire. As you are well aware, the initial infringement was further aggravated in 1983 by the unilateral declaration of the so-called “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” (“TRNC”), which the USA, justly so, has never recognised.
Finally, still in the terms of international law, the Turkish occupation became a bona fide war crime by way of Turkey’s settlement policies, which were put into effect as soon as the fighting stopped and continue to this day. This last fact alone provides irrefutable proof that the occupying power’s intention in Cyprus is not, unfortunately, to keep the peace.
Ηonourable Ambassador,
All legal subtleties aside, the Turkish occupation of Cyprus constitutes, above all, a continuing violation of fundamental human rights, as defined by the UN charter, the Maastricht Agreement and many other international treaties and declarations. These injustices are inflicted by the Turkish army as much upon Greek- as upon Turkish-Cypriots. The latter reality, the oppression of the Turkish-Cypriots by the overwhelming presence of the occupying army and the settlers, is often spun as “the isolation of Turkish-Cypriots from the rest of the world” and thus it is indirectly blamed on the Greek side and the international community. In actual fact, it is the result of nothing else than the perpetuation of an illegal and inhuman political status quo on the island, of which Turkey alone is responsible.
Honourable Ambassador,
Please allow me to express the opinion that the Cyprus Problem, which may have started out as a matter of bi-communal dissension, is indeed, contrary to your understanding, essentially and principally a question of invasion and occupation. The renewed effort to resolve the problem, which we all hope will eventually be brought to fruition, stands to gain the utmost, if the USA, of all great powers, does not turn a blind eye to this simple historical, legal, political and humanitarian fact.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Antonis K. Petrides (MPhil, PhD Cantab)
Assistant Professor of Classics at the Open University of Cyprus
Pingback: Εγώ «πικράθηκα στα ελληνικά, πληγώθηκα στα τούρκικα». Τα παιδιά μου, ευτυχώς, όχι (ακόμα)! | Λωτοφάγοι
antonispetrides.wordpress.com said:
Εδώ το σχόλιο του κ. Alexy Flemming στον Φιλολογικό Ιστότοπο και η απάντησή μου:
Alexy Flemming / 29 Μαΐου 2015
TURKEY’s OPERATION ON CYPRUS IN 1974 IS COMPLETELY LEGAL:
(1) Makarios (1ST PRESIDENT OF CYPRUS) (the UN Security Council Speech, 19 July 1974):
MAKARIOS: “CYPRUS WAS INVADED BY GREECE”
Sound record of the speech: http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/makarios1.wav
(2) Turkey acted on Cyprus via Art. IV(2) Treaty of Guarantee (“In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to consult together with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.”), hence in compatible with Art. 2(4) UN Charter.
(3) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the fulfilment of a LEGAL and MORAL obligation.”
(4) Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION.” Note: Just after 5 years later than 1974, in 1979, Greece’s Highest Court decided Turkish military intervention is legal without making any difference between 1st and 2nd military operation!
(5) Till now, there is NO sanction applied on Turkey due to 1974 Cyprus war: another sign of legality dimension of 1974 events.
If a country invades another one, UN imposes sanctions on that country.
Iraq invaded Kuwait, and UN imposed sanctions on Iraq.
Turkey did not invade Cyprus, hence UN did not impose any sanction on Turkey!
(6) There is no UN resolution that calls the Turkey’s 1974 action as “invasion”!
REPLY
antonispetrides.wordpress.com / 29 Μαΐου 2015
Dear Alexy, with all due respect allow me to say that you are disregarding a few facts:
(1) A significant number of UN Security Council resolutions have labeled Turkish actions unacceptable and have called for the withdrawal of Turkish troops of Cyprus and for the return to the status quo ante. One can read all the SC resolutions here: http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/PIO/PIO.nsf/6645bc8e70e73e2cc2257076004d01c1/462598a76861a108c2256d7c00372fe1?OpenDocument. I think it is obvious that nowhere, not a single one of them, calls Turkey’s actions even barely legal.
(2) The reason of point no. (1) is the following. The Treaty of Guarantee is there, precisely, to guarantee the existence of the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish invasion has brought about a de facto abolition of the very sovereign state whose existence she was supposed to guarantee. Turkey’s actions might have had a shred of legality, if she had restored the elected president rather than abetting, eventually, the creation of a breakaway entity in the north.
(3) It is not true that Turkey has suffered no sanctions for the continuing occupation of Cyprus. The European Court of Human Rights, for one, has condemned Turkey for this very reason a number of times. Only very recently Turkey has been ordered to pay millions of Euros in compensation to Greek-Cypriot refugees for loss of property.
(4) Turkey’s settlement policies, which are part and parcel of the occupation, are a bona fide war crime.
(5) The Greek court rulings you are referring to are more political than judicial. They only reflect the deleterious political climate of the period.
LikeLike
antonispetrides.wordpress.com said:
Περαιτέρω συζήτηση στο Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/431548333567575/858614004194337/?notif_t=group_comment
LikeLike
Pingback: «Λωτοφάγοι»: Γενικό ευρετήριο | Λωτοφάγοι
antonispetrides.wordpress.com said:
Μία ακόμη συζήτηση αυτή τη φορά με τον κ. Μίκη Χατζηνεοφύτου:
M. HADJINEOPHYTOU: Antonis, I hear what you are saying. However, let us put ourselves in the shoes of our TC compatriots. Before the invasion they were forced to live in enclaves some without water and electricity. About 80 000 people in 3% of the area of Cyprus. Makarios said in Athens in 1964 during a meeting at the Palace with the king and the Greek government “we have them where we want. Let them boil in their juice”. Turkey invaded in 1974 and in no time she achieved the military targeta set. Does anyone seriously believe that Turkey would restore things as they were prior to the invasion? I am asking this question because we should have known better. We had many chances to solve the damn thing but our maximalist asked prevented us from seeing clearly. Klerides with Denktash came up with a good solution early 1970 but Makarios rejected it. Even after the invasion we had our chances but, we kept saying no. The Anglo American Canadian plan was an excellent opportunity lost. What is your take on solution Antonis?
A. PETRIDES: My take is very simple: we need to solve the damn thing, sooner rather than later, for the sake of our children! I am the child of refugees: from my parents I have inherited the hurt of the 20th century. But I am also the father of two children. To my boys I would like to bequeath nothing but the joy of a peaceful future in a united, 21-st century Cyprus. Therefore, we have the historical obligation to work towards a solution that meets the needs of this generation, the generation of our children, rather than trying to settle the score for previous ones. I would like to see within my lifetime a REAL, genuine re-unification of the island, that is to say, of the population, the economy, the government. If everybody is sincere about this, I am confident that it can be achieved within the context of a bi-communal federation.
LikeLike
antonispetrides.wordpress.com said:
I transfer here a discussion I had with Mr Edward Pacey on Facebook.
E. PACEY: Well written letter but missing a bit in that it fails to mention why they invaded in the first place. The illegality of events pre and post 74 are internationally accepted but appear weighted given the lack of movement by the same international community for so many years.
A. PETRIDES. Dear Mr Pacey, thank you for your comment. There’s no denying that the imprudent actions of local hotheads gave Turkey the pretext to invade. But this does not provide the invasion with any legality or moral authority. If Turkey had intended to act within her rights as guarantor power, (a) she would have acted in support of the Republic of Cyprus, which she helped establish, already in 1963-4 rather than abetting the plans of Turkish secessionists in more than one ways; (b) upon invading she would have restored Makarios, the elected president, or at least act towards the re-establishment of legal democratic order, rather than practically abolishing a sovereign state, which she continues to occupy for almost half a century; (c) she would not have encouraged the formation of a breakaway ‘state’ in flagrant violation of the 1960 agreement; (d) she would not have transferred tens of thousands of settlers to the island, radically changing the make-up of the population. Therefore, the invasion itself was a crime that changed the game completely, not simply “a tragic turn of events”. Failing to recognise that, and equating the moral weight of events pre- and post-1974, is not only historically shortsighted but politically unhelpful as well, insomuch as it relieves Turkey from her responsibility to redress the consequences of her actions by making real and reasonable concessions on the negotiating table. The international community is not promoting the cause of a solution – on the contrary it feeds the modern-day hotheads that oppose it with strong arguments against it – by failing to acknowledge that the continuing military occupation of the island is the major pathogen in the case of the Cyprus Problem. Anyhow, my greatest regret is that the ill-advised invasion comment spoiled an otherwise admirable speech on the part of Mr Koenig and obfuscated his fundamental message, which we all need to take to heart: we have the responsibility, the obligation, the historical duty to overcome our differences and resolve this problem sooner rather than later. There CAN be such a thing as “the Cypriot dream” and we DO need to pursue it!
LikeLike
Pingback: Open letter to Mr J. M. Koenig, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the USA to the Republic of Cyprus - Φιλολογικός Ιστότοπος