make money stuffing envelopes


Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

“Briefing Notes on the Cyprus Issue”



Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Defence

“Briefing Notes on the Cyprus Issue”

May 2001



1. Memorandum on the Cyprus Issue

2. EU Membership Process of the so-called "Republic of Cyprus

3. A Note on the Protection and Preservation of Cultural Heritage and Measures taken to prevent their smuggling from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

4. Facts on the Demographic Structure of Cyprus

5. LORDS EXPLAINED CYPRUS REALITIES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS (Minutes about Cyprus Issue in the House of Lords on November 6, 2002)



A. Recent History of the Conflict

1- There are two distinct sovereign national peoples in Cyprus, namely the Turkish Cypriot people and the Greek Cypriot people, who are politically equal and enjoy separate rights to self-determination. The Turkish Cypriot people and the Greek Cypriot people negotiated and signed the International Cyprus Treaties of 1960 governing Cyprus, as two of the five contracting parties (the other three being Turkey, the United Kingdom and Greece), agreeing to share power on the basis of equality and in exercise of their separate rights of self-determination.

2- The "state of affairs" created by the international Cyprus Treaties of 1960 is one of political and sovereign equality, and equal status of the two peoples. In addition to the internal balance established between the two national peoples of Cyprus, the Treaties established an external balance over Cyprus between the respective motherlands, Turkey and Greece. Under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom became Guarantors of the 1960 "state of affairs" in Cyprus.

3- Hence, the Republic of Cyprus as established under and by virtue of the 1959-1960 Agreements was not a unitary state, nor a nation state, nor a Greek Cypriot State. That Republic was a partnership Republic of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots who had lived in the island for 400 years, zealously guarding their national and religious identity, having separate loyalties to their respective motherlands, Turkey and Greece respectively. It is this Partnership State, which Archbishop Makarios and his aides planned to destroy and convert into a “Greek Cypriot Republic”. Here is an honest admission from the highest Greek Cypriot authority, namely Mr. Glafcos Clerides, which sheds light on the issue and the origins of the Cyprus conflict:

“Just as the Greek Cypriot preoccupation was that Cyprus should be a Greek Cypriot state, with a protected Turkish Cypriot minority, the Turkish preoccupation was to defeat any such effort and maintain the partnership concept, which in their opinion the Zurich Agreement created between the two communities. The conflict, therefore, was a conflict of principle and for that principle both sides were prepared to go on arguing and even, if need be, to fight, rather than compromise.

The same principle is still in conflict, even today...” (“My Deposition”, Vol.3, p.105)

Equally important is a statement by a prominent military official of Greece, General Karaiannis:

“in August 1960... President Makarios decided to proceed with ... organizing the Greek Cypriots for battle.” (Lt. Gen. George Karaiannis, the Greek Army Officer then in command of the “Cyprus Army”, Ethnikos Kiryx (Athens newspaper), 13 June 1965}

4- The notorious “Akritas Plan” devised in order to destroy the Partnership State along with the Turkish Cypriot partner and to annex the island to Greece (ENOSIS), which was also published as a UN document, is self-explanatory. During 1963-1974, thousands of Turkish Cypriots were killed, maimed or wounded by armed Greek Cypriot paramilitaries and a quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population (some 30,000 people) were rendered refugees. Hundreds more were abducted never to be seen or heard of again. Those lucky enough to survive Greek Cypriot atrocities, were confined to small enclaves, the total area of which corresponded to a mere 3% of the territory of Cyprus, and lived as refugees on Red Crescent aid. Turkish Cypriots were relieved from this agony and were saved from total extermination only by the timely intervention of Turkey in 1974, undertaken in accordance with her Treaty rights and obligations, following the attempt by Greece at the final takeover of Cyprus through a coup d'etat organized by the military junta in Athens and its collaborators in Cyprus.

5- Following the destruction of the constitutional order by the Greek Cypriots in 1963, the two peoples have had their own separate administrations. The Greek Cypriot regime, which had usurped the title of the “Republic of Cyprus” in 1963, pretended to be the “government of the Republic of Cyprus” even though it was not (and still is not) the bi-communal partnership Republic established fn 1960 either in law or in fact, and its illegal writ never ran over the Turkish Cypriot people. The international community, however, continued to treat the de facto Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the legitimate, bi-communal government of Cyprus. This misguided attitude of the international community, which continues to this date in complete disregard of the international Treaties governing Cyprus, constitutes the main impediment standing in the way of a negotiated settlement.

B. A Closer Look at the Years between 1963-1974

6- In spite of overwhelming evidence as to the origins of the Cyprus question, which dates back to the Greek Cypriot onslaught on the Turkish Cypriot people in December 1963 aimed at the annexation of Cyprus to Greece (or Enosis), the Greek-Greek Cypriot propaganda machine would have one believe that the problem started in 1974 with “the Turkish invasion”. History tells us otherwise. Long before the term "ethnic cleansing" was coined in connection with the Bosnia tragedy, it was practiced in Cyprus by the Greek Cypriots, in collusion with Greece, against the Turkish Cypriots. The extent of the suffering inflicted upon the Turkish Cypriot population by the ethnic cleansing campaign of the joint forces of Greece and the Greek Cypriot community was such that, in a recent article, the British newspaper Guardian

described Cyprus as “the mini-Bosnia of its day”! The following excerpts from the reports of the international news media provide graphic evidence as to the severity of this campaign:

“We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We are the first Western reporters there and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print and horrors so extreme that people seemed stunned beyond tears and reduced to a hysterical and mirthless giggle that is more terrible than tears.” (DAILY EXPRESS, 28 December 1963-report by Rene Maccoll and Daniel Mc. Geachie)

“... A few days ago, 1,000 people lived here, in their solid, stone built homes, which hug the coast road to Kyrenia, 13 miles from Nicosia. Then in a night of terror .350 villagers-men, women and children – vanished. They were all Turks.” (DAILY HERALD, London, 31 December 1963)

“In Cyprus the terror continues Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turks from villages. Thousands of people are abandoning their homes, lands, herds: Greek terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellens and the busts of Plato do not suffice to cover-up their barbaric and ferocious behavior.” (IL GIORNO, 14 January 1964, report by Giorgio Bocca)

7- The United Nations Secretary-General, on the other hand, provides irrefutable evidence as to the suffering inflicted upon the Turkish Cypriot people in his relevant reports to the Security Council, describing the economic restrictions imposed on the Turkish Cypriot people as being “so severe as to amount to veritable siege” (S/5950 of September 1964). The Secretary-General further reports that:

“... in accordance with figures published by the Turkish Cypriot Communal Chamber, the number of persons receiving some kind of assistance from the Red Crescent relief amounted to about 56,000 including 25,000 displaced persons, 23,500 unemployed and 7,500 defendants of missing persons, disabled and others.”

“ Thousands of Turkish Cypriots fled from their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry and sought refuge in what they considered to be safer Turkish Cypriot villages and areas.” (Report of the UN Secretary-General, S/8286 of 8 December 1967)

8- The then US Under-Secretary of State Mr. George Ball, in his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, states the following regarding the Greek Cypriot onslaught:

“Makarios' central interest (Makarios was the then president of the Greek Cypriot community) was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots” (pp. 341-5).

Mr. Ball also states in the same pages that “the Greek Cypriots do not want a peace keeping force; they just want to be left alone to kill Turkish Cypriots” and issues the following stern warning to Archbishop Makarios: “... the world`s not going to stand by and let you turn this beautiful little island into your private abattoir”.

9- The tragic fate of the Turkish Cypriot people is exemplified in a secret report by British Commander Packard, who was serving in the island during that period:

“One of Packard's first tasks was to try to find out what had happened to the Turkish hospital patients. Secret discussions took place with a Greek Minister in the collapsed government. After a brief investigation, he was able to confirm local rumors. It appeared that Greek medical staff had slit the Turkish patient’ throats as they lay in their beds. Their bodies were loaded on to a truck and driven to a farm north of the city where they were fed into mechanical choppers and ground into the earth.” (Published in THE GUARDIAN newspaper on 2 April 1988)

10- The multiple violations of the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots administration prompted Mr. Franz Karasek, the General Rapporteur of the Political Affairs Committee of the Council of Europe, to state the following in his report on Cyprus:

“Economic social and educational inequality; as well as insecurity during the last eleven years, were the origin of the intercommunal mistrust and fears of political tension and regional as well as communal isolation between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot populations. This created in the Turkish Community feeling of being under-privileged and oppressed... Humanitarian suffering was at the origin of an eleven-year-long Cyprus crisis. (para.11, Doc. 3600 of l9th April 1975)

11- The human rights violations of the Turkish Cypriots encompassed the denial of the right to security of life and property; the denial of the freedom of movement and settlement; denial of the right to education, freedom of communication and correspondence; and denial of political economic and social rights, among others. The Turkish Cypriots did not “leave” the Government organs as often alleged by the Greek Cypriot side, but were forcibly ejected from the entire state apparatus of the Republic and totally disenfranchised. To this day, the Greek Cypriots continue to occupy and monopolize the seat of “the government of Cyprus” against all norms of justice, legality and morality.

12- In the face of the ongoing violence directed against the Turkish Cypriot people by the Greek-Greek Cypriot armed elements; the Turkish Cypriot civil servants could not attend their duties for fear of their lives. The Greek Cypriot side exploited this imposed situation as a perfect opportunity to mislead international public opinion by alleging that the Turkish Cypriot authorities and civil servants “left the government”. The Greek Cypriot administration continues to utilize this unfounded allegation as a propaganda tool to this day.

13- The return of the Turkish Cypriot Members of Parliament to their posts, for instance, was made contingent on their acceptance of the unconstitutional changes that had been made to the Basic Articles of the 1960 Constitution. The said amendments which had been made by the Greek Cypriot members of the House unilaterally and illegally in the absence of the Turkish Cypriot representatives were not only in gross violation of the 1960 Constitution but concerned the very articles which had been incorporated in the 1959-60 international Treaties as the unalterable Basic Articles of the Constitution of Cyprus. This unlawful act carried out in complete violation of international law was aimed at relegating the Turkish Cypriot side from its co-founder status to that of a minority by doing away with the basic articles of the Constitution designed to safeguard the equal political and partnership status of the Turkish Cypriot and the Greek Cypriot peoples.

l4- This historic incident which clearly demonstrates that the Greek Cypriot side stood in the way of the repeated efforts of the Turkish Cypriot authorities to exercise their partnership rights and unlawfully occupied the seat of the government of the once bi -communal Republic of Cyprus has also been recorded in paragraphs 7-12 of the periodic report of the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council dated 29 July 1965, S/6569.

C. The Turkish Intervention and the Ensuing Peace and Security on the Island

15- The only factor which kept the Greek Cypriots from annihilating the Turkish Cypriots entirely during the 1963-74 period was Turkey's right to intervene under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 signed by Turkey, Greece, Great Britain and the two communities in Cyprus. However, Turkey refrained from exercising this right until the last moment, when the military Junta then ruling Greece staged a coup d'etat through its military forces and local collaborators in Cyprus on 15 July 1974. The coup was aimed at expediting Enosis (union with Greece) through an armed takeover of the island, and this is how Archbishop Makarios, who was toppled by the coup, described it in his dramatic remarks before the UN Security Council on 19 July 1974:

“It (the coup) was a clear attack from the outside and a flagrant violation of the independence and sovereign of the Republic of Cyprus. The so-called coup was the work of the Greek officers who man and command National Guard... It was an invasion, which violated the independence and sovereignty of the Republic. The invasion is continuing as long as there are Greek officers in Cyprus... 

... The coup of the Greek junta is an invasion, and from its consequences the whole people of Cyprus suffers, both Greeks and Turks… The Security Council should call upon the military regime of Greece to withdraw from Cyprus the Greek officers... and put an end to its invasion of Cyprus.” (Official Record of the 1780th Meeting)

16- This being the case, it is a total distortion of historical facts to describe the legitimate and justified Turkish intervention as an “invasion', when it was clearly Greece, not Turkey, that had invaded and occupied Cyprus. With its intervention in Cyprus on 20 July 1974, Turkey has prevented the final extermination of the Turkish Cypriots and the island’s annexation to Greece. Turkey's intervention was undertaken in accordance with her rights and obligations under the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, and was fully legal and legitimate under Article 4 of the said Treaty.

l7- The presence of the Turkish Forces in Northern Cyprus, which continue to perform a peace-keeping mission in the island by serving as a deterrent against the repetition of Greek Cypriot aggression against the Turkish Cypriots, is a vital security requirement for the Turkish Cypriot people.

18- In spite of the Turkish intervention, which has brought peace and security to the island; the assault against the Turkish Cypriot people continues in the form of an inhuman embargo on the economic, social, cultural and political life of the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). If the Turkish Cypriot people organized themselves, into full statehood, through a process of administrative and political evolution, this is thanks to their resilience, sacrifice and belief in the universal values of human freedom and dignity.

l9- The Turkish Cypriot people proclaimed their independent sovereign state in 1983 in exercise of their inherent sovereign rights and the right to self-determination. The TRNC has an effectively functioning, democratically elected government, a democratically elected legislature, an independent judiciary and all other institutions of statehood. Successive reports of the US State Department to the effect that there is a “strong regard for democratic principles” in Northern Cyprus and that “the Turkish Cypriot authorities respect human rights, norms and practices”, attest to the clean human rights record of the TRNC.

D. The Negotiating Process and the Present State of Affairs in Cyprus

20- The fundamental basis of the search for a just and lasting solution in Cyprus, which has been again on intermittently since 1968, has been the equal partnership of the two peoples in the island (the internal balance) and the maintenance of the balance established between the two motherlands, Turkey and Greece (the external balance). In the course of the efforts conducted under the auspices of successive UN Secretaries-General for a settlement, a number of basic parameters have emerged, such as bi –zonality, political equality and the continuation of the Treaties of Guarantee and of Alliance. Resolution of the properly issue on the basis of global exchange and/or compensation is also among these parameters.

21- The policy which the Greek Cypriot side has followed vis-à-vis the talks, namely its rejection of the 1985-86 Draft Framework Agreements, the UN-sponsored Set of Ideas of 1992 as well as the package of Confidence Building Measures of 1994, as well as others, should have demonstrated to all concerned that the other side is not interested in a negotiated settlement but is out to destroy the very parameters which have been established in the process of the negotiations. In fact, the 1959 position paper approved by the Greek Cypriot National Council which envisages a unitary state and which the Greek Cypriot side continues to regard as the basis of any future solution, proves beyond doubt that it totally rejects the idea of equal partnership.

22- With its unilateral and unlawful application for EU membership in 1990, the Greek Cypriot side added a new dimension to its efforts to frustrate the negotiating process and do away with the parameters established hitherto. The Greek Cypriot side never concealed that it was only trying to enter the EU for political reasons in order to achieve a “German-style federation” and render Turkey’s guarantee ineffective. It should be pointed out that a “German-style federation” in which there would be no limits on movement, settlement and property ownership makes a mockery of bi-zonality, and is a clear recipe far a return to the past, and, ultimately, for disaster. It should not be forgotten that Germany was one nation divided along ideological lines during the Cold War, whereas in Cyprus there has always been two national peoples.

23- With its policy of bringing about the economic, social and, political collapse of the Turkish Cypriot people through inhuman embargoes; a massive build-up of sophisticated armaments in the context of its “joint military doctrine” signed with Greece in 1993, coupled with its unilateral drive for EU membership, the Greek Cypriot side has demonstrated that it is not interested in a settlement but in outmaneuvering and ultimately dominating and doing away with the Turkish Cypriots.

24- It is obvious that as long as the Greek Cypriot side is unjustly treated as the government of the whole island it will not adopt a more flexible, realistic approach to the Cyprus issue. On the other hand, the decades-old approach adopted by the international community of having negotiations at the level of “the two communities”, in the belief that the question of equal status would come about as the final outcome, has failed to produce any result, as the Greek Cypriot leadership, encouraged by the diplomatic and economic benefits of political recognition, has lacked the need and the incentive to share power with the Turkish Cypriot side on the basis of political equality.

25- It has, therefore, become Imperative that a fresh and realistic approach conducive to progress in the negotiations is required in order to open the way for reconciliation. The fact that there are two distinct national peoples and two separate independent States in Cyprus is an indisputable reality. Acknowledgment of this reality is what is needed in order for negotiations to start on the basis of true equality.

26- As mentioned, the Greek Cypriot party with its unilateral application for EU membership has completely destroyed the mutually accepted parameters established in the course of the UN-sponsored negotiating process. It was the Greek Cypriot side, which rejected all UN initiatives envisaging, a “federal” formula, and began paying lip service to a so-called federal formula only after receiving the green light for EU accession with the expectation that the EU membership would prejudge the outcome of the efforts towards a negotiated settlement.

27- To the contrary, the Turkish Cypriot party attended, in a constructive spirit, the negotiations conducted under the auspices of the UN since 1968. More recently, the Turkish Cypriot party took an initiative with its Confederation proposal of 31 August 1998, which is designed to facilitate the good offices mission of the UN Secretary-General and to initiate a process of a new partnership of the two equal ex-partners under a confederal roof

28- The Turkish Cypriot party also participated in the process of UN-sponsored proximity talks in good faith since December 1999 and put forward constructive, comprehensive and realistic proposals with a view to helping the process move forward. With his statement of 14 November 1999, inviting the parties to the process of proximity talks to be conducted without preconditions between the two equal parties, the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan, described the aim of the talks as preparing the ground for meaningful negotiations leading to a comprehensive settlement.

29- Unfortunately, the Greek Cypriot party, which has been allowed to sail under the false banner of the “Government of Cyprus”, is still far from conceding the equal political status and sovereign rights of the Turkish Cypriot people. This attitude has, once again, manifested itself by the inflexible and irresponsible stance adopted by the Greek Cypriot party during the whole process of proximity talks, evidenced by its public statements and also its brazen violations of the code of confidentiality.

30- The Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, made a statement during the second round of proximity talks held in Geneva, on 2 February 2000, that the objective of the proximity talks process “is not to create a new State of Cyprus but to amend the existing Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus”. The fact is that the search for reconciliation in Cyprus has never been defined or taken up as a matter of “amending a constitution”, at any stage of the current process, or any previous one. As the whole world is aware, the 1960 Constitution of the then Republic of Cyprus was violated and completely abrogated by the Greek Cypriot side as from 1963, having been declared “dead and buried” by Archbishop Makarios. It is obvious that the end result of a comprehensive settlement will not and could not be the restoration of the long defunct Republic of Cyprus or its Constitution, which have not been in existence or in force in the last 38 years, but the creation of a new partnership which takes into account the experiences of those years, so that the agonies of the past will not be repeated.

3l- During the third round of proximity talks held in Geneva, in July 2000, the Greek Cypriot side violated the code of confidentiality in an attempt to discredit our proposals, as it leaked the Turkish Cypriot documents, presented to the UN as non-papers, to the Greek Cypriot press.

32- Another example of Greek Cypriot intransigence is their strong reaction to the Secretary-General's statement of 12 September 2000 and boycotting of the talks for two days. This statement among other things, supports the principle of political equality of the two parties; refers to a “comprehensive settlement enshrining a new partnership”; and stresses that each of the two parties “represents its side and no-one else”. In the face of this intransigent posture adopted by the Greek Cypriot administration, the Turkish Cypriot people justifiably asks if a party, which rejects even the most fundamental and already accepted parameters of a possible future agreement, would ever be ready for reconciliation with the Turkish Cypriot party.

33- At the fifth round of the UN-sponsored proximity talks on Cyprus held in Geneva between 1-10 November 2000, in spite of the press black-out requested by the UN from the beginning in connection with the process, the 20-point document presented on 8 November 2000 to the parties in the form of “oral remarks” by the UN Secretary-General who participated in the last phase of the fifth round of talks, was leaked to the press by the Greek Cypriot side. This is yet another manifestation of the insincere and irresponsible behavior of the Greek Cypriot side in the process of talks.

34- With this document, which ignores the existence of two equal sovereign states and peoples in the island, the UN Secretary-General has regressed from his own statements issued on 14 November 1999, and more recently on 12 September 2000 at the commencement of the fourth round of proximity talks held in New York.

35- Although, in the “oral remarks” of the UN Secretary-General, the terms “a new partnership” and “the equal status of the two parties” are used, these terms are not given any substance and are not properly reflected within the overall framework of the said remarks. Therefore, the state structure that is envisaged in the “oral remarks” is one, which reflects fundamentally the Greek Cypriot position and demands. This is reinforced by the references to “a single international legal personality, one sovereign, indissoluble common state”, “single citizenship” etc., which are characteristics of a unitary state. Hence, the UN Secretary-General's “oral remarks” have led the Turkish Cypriot side to conclude that its justified views were being fundamentally ignored and that the process had turned into a vehicle by which its legitimate rights, existence and identity would dissipate in a predominantly Greek Cyprus, within the European Union.

36- Against this background, following the Summit Meeting held in Ankara on 24 November 2000, between the delegations of Turkey and the TRNC, headed respectively by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer and President Rauf R. Denktaþ, TRNC President Denktaþ has announced that the process of proximity talks had deviated from its declared objective and continuing the proximity talks without our parameters having being accepted was harming Turkish Cypriot interests.

37- The Turkish Cypriot party has stated that there was no purpose in continuing the talks unless the reality of the existence of two States was accepted through the acknowledgment of Turkish Cypriot statehood. Recognition of the reality that the Greek Cypriots are not the government of the Turkish Cypriots or the whole of Cyprus, and, hence, that they do not represent the Turkish Cypriot people or the island as a whole, has became a necessity in order for the principles of political equality to have substance.

38- This should not be misconstrued as “running away from the table” but as the only way of putting the negotiations on the right track, where they should have been from the beginning.

39- In view of the foregoing, it must be evident that the Greek Cypriot side's attempt, through unilateral EU membership, to destroy the long-established parameters in Cyprus demonstrates that it is not ready for a compromise settlement. The bi-zonailty that was finalized through the Population Exchange Agreement in 1975, has since evolved into a two-State situation, with a UN controlled Buffer Zone running between the ceasefire lines of the two parties. This is the product of the political developments that have since taken place. The reality of the separate geographical and political existence of the two peoples and their respective States has to be acknowledged.

40- Maintaining the myth that there exists a single central authority in the island having jurisdiction and control over both peoples and States or over the island as a whole, is insisting on a theoretical assumption, which is devoid of any legal and factual basis. As undermined by the UN Secretary-General and former US President Clinton respectively, Cyprus is the common home of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot peoples who were the co-owners of the island. As also emphasized by President Clinton “there cannot be a solution to the Cyprus problem that would return the situation to what it was before 1974” (President Clinton's bi-monthly report on Cyprus concerning the period between 1 August-30 September 1999).


- It should be underlined once again that the applicant here is not Cyprus, but merely the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus, which does not represent the Turkish Cypriot people or the island as a whole

- Therefore, this membership application or the process is not binding in anyway either on the Turkish Cypriot people or the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

- EU membership process of "Cyprus" is also in complete contradiction to the letter and spirit of the founding Treaties and of the Constitution of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, which had established an equitable balance between the respective interests of the two constituent peoples as well as the two guarantor motherlands.

- Point 8 of the Zurich Agreement expressly provides that:

“The president (Greek Cypriot) and vice president (Turkish Cypriot) separately and conjointly, shall have the right of final veto on any law or decision concerning foreign affairs, except the participation of the Republic of Cyprus in international organizations and pacts of alliance in which Greece and Turkey both participate”. (Constitutional effect was given to point 8 of the Zurich and London agreements by article 50(1) of the, long defunct, l950 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus).

- Point 23 of the Zurich agreement provides that:

“the Republic of Cyprus shall accord most-favored-nation treatment to the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey in connection with all the agreements whatever their nature”. (The mandatory provision was incorporated as “basic article 170” in the 1960 Constitution).

- Furthermore, Article 1 of the Treaty of Guarantee provides that the “Republic of Cyprus":

“undertakes not to participate in whole or in part in any political and economic union with any other state whatsoever”

- In the Ghali Set of Ideas of 1992, it was expressly provided that the EU membership of Cyprus is a matter to be taken up after reconciliation is achieved in the island and would be discussed and agreed to by the two parties, and will be submitted far the approval of the two parties in separate referenda.

- What is behind the Greek Cypriot eagerness and agitation for EU membership? Lets hear it from the Greek Cypriots themselves:

“If the Greek Cypriots enter the EU, this would give the Greek Cypriots major cards to play on many constitutional issues put forward at present by the Turkish Cypriots”.

(The statement of the Greek Cypriot President of South Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, reported in the Greek Cypriot daily, Agon, 23 July 1994).

“The accession of the Cyprus into the EU will inevitably have an impact on the 1960 Treaties of Guarantee and of Alliance and will abolish the unilateral right of Turkey to intervene.”

(The statement of the Greek Cypriot President of South Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, reported in the Greek Cypriot daily, Agon, 18 July 1995).

- Now lets take a look at the negative implications of the EU membership process of “Cyprus” on the 33 year-old UN-led negotiating process, again from the Greek Cypriot statements:

“Ghali's Set of Ideas cannot be put into effect. We do not accept any diversion from the principles of the EU. We do not accept a federal system that does not recognize the freedom of movement, settlement and the right to properly”.

(The statement of the Greek Cypriot former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Alecos Michaelides, reported in the Greek Cypriot daily, Simerini, 9 July 1996).

“In view of our application to join the European Union, the new constitution must be compatible with the acquis communautaire, nor it should contain provisions which will prevent effective implementations of the European Union Executive and Legislative”

{The statement of the Greek Cypriot President of South Cyprus, Mr. Glafcos Clerides, given on 2 February 2000, during the second round of the Proximity Talks).

- The EU, with its March and June 1995 decisions regarded the Greek Cypriot side as the “sole interlocutor for accession negotiations” and stated that “the Turkish Cypriot community can be contacted with the permission of the ‘Government of Cyprus’”.              

- This unfortunate decision encouraged further the Greek Cypriot side to continue with its unilateral and unlawful bid for EU membership and to distance itself from the UN-led efforts to find a mutually acceptable solution to the Cyprus issue.

- The intervention of the European Union reached its climax at the Luxembourg Summit held in December 1997, where the decision taken was to start the accession negotiations with “Cyprus”.

- The Luxembourg European Council requested “the willingness of the Government of Cyprus to include the representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community in the negotiation delegation to be acted upon”.

- Acceptance by the Turkish Cypriot side to take part in the so-called Cyprus delegation would have meant, recognition of the Greek Cypriot side as the “Government of Cyprus” and

abandonment of their equal political status and sovereign rights enshrined in the 1964 Treaties.

- Knowing well that the Turkish Cypriot side would never consent to take part in such a delegation, which in fact is not a Cyprus delegation, but a Greek Cypriot one, or in such a process which regards the Turkish Cypriot side as a mere “minority”, the Greek Cypriot invited the Turkish Cypriot side to take part in the so-called “Cyprus delegation”.

- The Luxembourg Decision of December 1997 has dealt a fatal blow to the “inter-communal talks” by destroying the parameters established through the efforts of the UN Secretary-General for reconciliation and the very basis of the inter-communal talks, namely the political equality of the two parties and bi-zonality, which have been continuing on and off for many years now, with no outcome due to the recognition of the Greek Cypriot side as the “legitimate Government” of the whole of Cyprus.

- Furthermore, with the Helsinki Summit Decision of December l999, in which, among other things, it was stated that reconciliation in the island is not a precondition for EU membership of “Cyprus”, the EU has left the Greek Cypriots with no motivation whatsoever to need or desire reconciliation with the Turkish Cypriots.

- Unfortunately, the UN Secretary General has followed the same mistaken path in his “Oral Remarks” of 8 November 2000, and in reference to EU membership, has stated that “the provisions of the comprehensive settlement should not represent an obstacle to such membership”. This is an approach, which puts EU membership ahead of a settlement, making it a precondition, and is totally unacceptable.

- Since the involvement of the EU, the Greek Cypriot party has been talking about a “German- style federation” in which there would be no limits or regulations on the freedom of movement, settlement and the right to property. Hence, there would be no bi-zonality.

- It should be pointed out that a “German-style federation” in which there would be no limits on movement, settlement and property ownership makes a mockery of bi-zonality, which has now assumed a two State nature, and is a clear recipe for a return to the past, and, ultimately, for disaster.

- It should not be forgotten that Germany was one nation divided along ideological lines during the Cold War, whereas in Cyprus there has always been two national peoples.

- Given that completely different pictures exist for Germany and Cyprus, no body should expect the Turkish Cypriot party to give consent either to a “German-style federation” or to a “German-style EU membership”.

- Any consideration entertaining the idea of patching the Turkish Cypriots up to the “Republic of Cyprus, either today or, if materialized, after its unilateral accession to the EU, deserves nothing but to be treated as an illusion.

- To add insult to injury, the Greek Cypriot administration now seeks to engage the EU in the security aspect of the Cyprus issue, by offering to grant bases and troops to the EU Headline Goal.

- Greek Cypriot administration is unfortunately getting positive signals on this matter, at least from certain circles.

- Entertaining the aspiration of the Greek Cypriot administration to be associated with the Headline Goal of the EU would certainly aggravate the situation and threaten the peace and stability both in the island and in the region.


- The cultural heritage of Cyprus, whether in the North or in the South, emanates from the diverse and rich cultures and civilizations which have populated the island throughout history and it is the common heritage of humanity regardless of its origin which should be protected and preserved. The relevant competent authority in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus,

namely the Department of Antiquites and Museums, works diligently to realize these objectives with available meager resources.

- However, the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus, which attempts to present itself as the champion of the conservation of cultural heritage, continues, to show utter contempt for the Turkish-Muslim heritage in Southern Cyprus, where Ottoman Turkish shrines are under threat of destruction.

- For instance, on 29 August 1999, Greek Cypriot elements perpetrated a depicable arson attack on one of the most sacred Islamic sites on the island, namely the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque in Larnaca, Southern Cyprus. According to reports which have appeared in the Greek Cypriot press of 30 August, 1999, apparently on account of the information provided by the “guard” responsible for the security of the premises, the door of the Hala Sultan Tekke Mosque was forced open through the use of iron saws by a number of Greek Cypriots who subsequently poured gasoline into the interior of the Mosque and set it ablaze.

- The historic Bayraktar and Omeriye Mosques located in Southern Nicosia, which have been repeatedly targeted by bombs planted between 1963-1974, continue to be a frequent target of arson and various types of attacks. It is important to note that between 1963-1974, 103 mosques were destroyed.

- Alongside these wanton acts of violence, the- Greek Cypriot administration's policy on Turkish-Muslim cultural heritage in South Cyprus is one of neglect at best. Ottoman Turkish architecture in South Cyprus is under direct threat of disintegration due to the Greek Cypriot administration's manifest failure to protect and preserve them. For example, official sanction was given to the conversion of the grounds of the Omeriye Mosque into a bus garage and car park while historic Ottoman aqueducts have been torn down in order to create space for the construction of coffee shops and public houses. Other historic buildings dating from the Ottoman period have become receptacles for the waste of the local population.

- The fact that the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus continues to show utter disrespect for the Turkish-Islamic heritage of the island has also been conclusively confirmed by independent sources including Mr. Ymenus van der Werff, General Rapporteur of the Subcommittee on the Architectural and Artistic Heritage of the Committee of Culture and Education of the Council of Europe, who reported the following in paragraph 5.3 of his report, which was published as a document of the Council of Europe on 2 July 1989 (AS/CULT) AA (41) (1):

“We noted with regret the complete destruction of the main mosque in Paphos. The whole area has since been flattened to give way for a widened road junction and a car park. There is no memorial to the existence of the mosque. Below the road a Turkish bath complex remains hidden in the rubble and vegetation awaiting restoration. The Turkish Cypriot cemetery by the nearby St. Sophia Mouttalos Mosque is dilapidated”.

- Greek Cypriot claims that the cultural heritage in the North have been systematically destroyed, have already been conclusively refuted by foreign observers, including prominent experts from UNESCO and the World Council of Churches. Senator van der Werff also reported the following in paragraph 5.1 of his report, which indicates that TRNC authorities are taking utter care in protecting the cultural heritage in North Cyprus:

“In the North ...we saw no churches destroyed (though St. George in Limnia, was listed as such)”.

The current Rapporteur of the Committee on Culture of the Council of Europe, Ms. Vlasta Stepova who during her visit to the TRNC on 29 October, 1999, has stated that the best way to preserve cultural works is to find alternative everyday use for them. She added that no country in the world has the means to turn every cultural building into a museum or to preserve it fully. She was most impressed by the preservation, through everyday use of the St. Barnabas Monastery and Salamis Ruins in Gazi Maðusa, as a museum and as a venue for cultural events respectively, and praised the use of the renewed Bellapais Monastery in Girne, as a concert hall.

- Her views are in line with the Charter of Venice of May 1964 Article 5 of which states that “the conservation of historical buildings can be achieved through use for any useful communal purpose”; and with the Amsterdam Declaration of 1975, which states, inter alia, that “...historic buildings can be given new  functions related to the needs of contemporary life” (p.7, para.3)

- Immediately after the 1974 Peace Operation, the Antiquities Law (Law No. 35/75) was passed by the Assembly of the then Turkish Federated State of Cyprus (TFSC) to protect and preserve the antiquities and later, the Council of Ministers made regulations to control the trading, collection, excavation and exploration of Antiquities. Also regulations were made to prevent the smuggling of the antiquities and heavy fines were set accordingly.  The Antiquities Law has been revised in 1994 (Law No. 60/94) with penalties for the smuggling of antiquities having been increased.

- As part of the legal measures taken, the Supreme Council of Ancient Monuments and Immovable Antiquities was established and commenced its work in cooperation with the Department of Antiquities and Museums. One of the duties of the Council is to determine the limits within which the registration and the protection of immovable antiquities and ancient monuments will take place. Work on these matters was completed and the list of immovable antiquities and ancient monuments within the boundaries of the then TFSC was approved by the Council of Ministers.

- It Is important to note that, neither the Greek Cypriot Department of Antiquities nor the Greek Cypriot Orthodox Church have any updated and complete registers of the cultural property in their custody before 1974. According to a statement made by Dr. Andreas Dimitriou, President of the Greek Cypriot Archaeologists' Association (Cyprus Mail, 19 November, 1991), “Even now in the South there are very few icons that are on photographed record”.

- Therefore, whenever an icon or a historical artifact originating from the island appears in the international art market, the Greek Cypriots, instead of admitting to their inability to protect the cultural heritage, of the island, and the plundering and looting of historical artifacts which took place after the Greek junta's coup on 15 July 1974 against Archbishop Makarios, and spending their time and resources to rectify this shortcoming, find it more expedient to falsely accuse the Turkish Cypriots. It is noteworthy that Rina Catselli, the Greek Cypriot writer and politician, on page 21 of her book, “Refuge in my Homeland” writes:

“The presidential palace was destroyed afterwards to cover up the fact that it had been looted. Works of art were plundered from the Archbishopric by the henchmen of the Greek Junta. My God! ...Nothing is sacred to these People…”

- The problem of vandalism and theft of valuable public property including works of art and antiquities is not only an international problem but also one, which has existed since time immemorial and clearly transcends political disputes. However, while the plundering of antiquities under the control of the Greek Cypriot Administration is interpreted by the Greek Cypriots as part of an international problem, which, according to them, they are doing their best to contain, the incidents of the Turkish Cypriot side are presented as part of a deliberate programme or plundering Cyprus' cultural heritage. The following is a very good example in this regard. During 1980 the invaluable “Leda and Swan” mosaic was stolen from the Kuklia Museum situated in the Greek Cypriot district of Paphos. In the face of heavy local and international criticism the Greek Cypriot minister in charge of the Department of Antiquities on the Greek Cypriot side made the following statement: “Thefts from museums even from the very well known museums in the large cities of Europe and the USA, do take place all over the world despite draconian measures being taken”: (Cyprus Mail, 3 January, 1991).

- While claiming to care very much for the cultural heritage of the island, the Greek Cypriots block the passage of aid to the Turkish Cypriot authorities in the North, although it is there that so many of the cultural monuments lie. The Greek Cypriots go to great lengths to prevent international organizations or private institutions from taking an interest in or providing assistance to the TRNC. They even try to prevent archeologists from conducting research in the TRNC.

- UNESCO, which has taken upon itself the universal responsibility of aiding and overseeing the preservation of the common cultural heritage of mankind, has so far failed in its task to provide any direct assistance of any kind to the TRNC. UNESCO’s insistence on not giving direct aid, financial or technical, to the TRNC is incredible and can only be construed as the undesirable and negative result of Greek Cypriot political pressure.


- Throughout history, Cyprus has witnessed fluctuations in its population pattern due to migration affected by economic, political and other factors. During the greater part of the Ottoman period 60,000 Turks and 20,000 Greeks lived in Cyprus. In the year 1788 the total population of 70,000, was equally divided between Turks and Greeks.

-  Following the British takeover of Cyprus in 1878 and discouraged, in particular, by the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne by which Turkey recognized British sovereignty over the island, many Turkish Cypriots chose not to become British subjects and emigrated to Turkey.

- Nearly 10,000 Turkish Cypriots who served in the security forces against EOKA terrorism during 1955-1961 left the island, mostly to Britain or to Australia with their families once the 1959-60 Cyprus Agreements were signed and former Greek Cypriot terrorists began assuming high-level posts in the new government. Subsequently, as part and parcel of the Greek Cypriot policy of annihilating the Turkish Cypriot population through massacres, oppression, and discrimination, there was a forced emigration of the Turkish Cypriot population between 1963-1974. During this period emigration of Turkish Cypriots was actively promoted by Greek Cypriot terror, economic deprivation and assisted one-way passages. Following the Greek Cypriot attacks between 1963-1974, 21,439 Turkish Cypriots were forced to leave Cyprus (figures are from the Report prepared by M. Riesen and A. Muller for the Committee on Migration, Refugees and Demography of the Council of Europe dated 10 March, 1987, para.55)

- After 1974, following the establishment of peace and security on the island, part of the Turkish Cypriots who were forced to emigrate between 1963-74, returned to the safety of their homes and contributed to an increase of the population in Northern Cyprus after 1974.

- The Greek Cypriot allegations regarding the demographic structure and changes in the TRNC, through a deliberate “transfer of population from Turkey” by bringing in “settlers” since l974, are totally unfounded and are only one aspect of the Greek Cypriot side's ongoing campaign of misinformation and propaganda aimed at distorting the facts and realities in Cyprus. It is true that a limited number of immigrant workers arrived from Turkey as a result and within the framework of labor exchange agreement between the Republic of Turkey and the TRNC. This is due to the fact that after security was established in 1974, the new economic activity in Northern Cyprus aimed at reforming the economic infrastructure, created opportunities and the demand for greater manpower A number of workers came to work in the

agricultural, tourism, construction and industrial sectors, and also from other countries, as a necessary measure to help the Turkish Cypriots in their economic development efforts. Given the economic need to import labor it is only natural, given the circumstances of geography, social proximity, and for reasons of history and culture that such labor came from Turkey

- Some of these people have gained citizenship of TRNC after five years of residence, in accordance with the relevant legislation in the TRNC, which is in fact identical to the legislation in South Cyprus. Some of these Turkish nationals have left the island once their task was completed when the need far manpower declined following the Population Exchange Agreement of 1975 which enabled some 60,000 to 65,000 Turkish Cypriots to move from the South to the North.

- It hardly needs to be stressed that migration of labor and immigration in general are international phenomena affecting all countries including Northern Cyprus. It is only natural that the TRNC, like any other country, should regulate labor entry and exit in accordance with its own economic requirements. It is also important to note that the number of people who have resettled in the North since 1974, is nowhere near the thousands of Greek mainlanders who have been settled in Cyprus over the years, and thousands of immigrants mainly from Lebanon, the Russian Federation, Serbia and other countries who have come to Southern Cyprus since 1974. According to Mr. Fluckiger's report on the issue to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (AS/PR (41) 19, dated 9 November 1989), there are around 30,000 Lebanese living in Southern Cyprus, an estimate he bases on data provided by international humanitarian organizations. Our estimates indicate that the number of Lebanese alone living and working in the South is not less than 60,000 (It is interesting that in the Report of Mr. Cuco prepared in 1992 for the Committee on Refugees, Migration and Demography of the Council of Europe, “The Demographic Structure of the Cypriot Communities”, (Doc.6589) this figure is only 1,410 for the year 1990). Also it should be noted that there are 24,000 British citizens also residing in Southern Cyprus.

- Although, military questions have no relevance to the issue of demography, there has been irrelevant and unfounded allegations regarding this question. As this issue is repeatedly raised, the realities should be underlined in this respect. In brief, peace and security in Cyprus since 1974 have been maintained by the presence of the Turkish Armed Forces whose deployment in the island is fully legitimate under the 1960 treaty of Guarantee. The number of Turkish forces in Cyprus has been notified to a relevant body, namely the OSCE. The Turkish military presence in the island is a vital security requirement for the Turkish Cypriot people, particularly in the absence of an overall political settlement, as it serves as a deterrent against Greek-Greek Cypriot aggression.

- After the establishment and subsequent destruction by the Greek Cypriots of the “Republic of Cyprus” in 1963 alone, as many as 20,000 mainland Greek troops and officers illegally entered the island to take part in the attempt to materialize ENOSIS. (See “Democracy at Gunpoint” by Mr. Andreas Papandreou, the former Prime Minister of Greece). Ample evidence also exists in the UN Secretary’s-General’s reports no.S/5950 of September 1964 and S/8286 of December 1967, pertaining to the illegal importation of Greek mainland troops into Cyprus and their being given “legal status” in order to resettle them in the island an a permanent basis.

- As early as World War II, a total of 10,350 mainland Greeks had come to settle in the island (see Document No. C.O. 67. 328 of the British Colonial Office). There are at present about 7,000 Greek officers and soldiers in Southern Cyprus plus 14-15,000 Greek Cypriot troops, under the command of General from Greece that operates under the directive of the General Staff of Greece. Hence, it is the Greek Cypriot side which has always attempted to alter the demographic character of Cyprus, not only by introducing thousands of soldiers and settlers from Greece but also by trying to “cleanse” Cyprus of its ethnic Turkish population. At present, the Greek Cypriot side continues to admit tens of thousands of immigrants from other countries.

- Between 1974 and 1990 the population of Northern Cyprus increased from 115,600 to 171,500, which also includes foreign residents such as workers with work permits, businessman and other professionals and Greek Cypriots and. Maronites still residing in the North. Our experts calculate that the total of immigrants into North Cyprus is between 20,000 and 25,000 between1974 and 1991, it is estimated that 17,000 Turks have either married Turkish Cypriots or earned citizenship together with their children who number about 5,000 in North Cyprus (Senator Cuca's figure is much closer to the factual truth than the figure of 80,000 unjustifiably put out by the Greek Cypriots).

- Regarding the impartation of foreign workforce, it is clear that Southern Cyprus is not

immune to the problem of labor shortage. The Greek Cypriot administration also has to import foreign workers into its workforce in order to meet the demands of the employment gap. It is curious how a worker happens to be a “citizen” when he thus enters the South, but a “settler” if he happens to enter the North. Information appearing in the Greek Cypriot press indicates that there are up to 40-50,000 foreigners permanently resident in South Cyprus. Some of these are Greek military personnel given Greek Cypriot citizenship, others are naturalized persons, foreign residents, foreign workers with residence permits and illegal workers. One report indicates that figure to be nearly 40,000; 10,000 of which are illegally employed (figures released by the Greek Cypriot Immigration Department, Cyprus Weekly, January 24-20, 1997). The international press has reported how Russians have turned parts of the Greek Cypriot port town, Limassol, into a “Russian zone”. Among others, an article in Le Figaro (2 January 1995) entitled “Limassol, the Little Russia of Cyprus” deals mainly with the money laundering activities of the Russian Mafia in the town. The US Department of State's, International Narcotics Control Strategy Report on Cyprus for 1998 stated: “Russians connected with organized crime control, a number of offshore banks in {South) Cyprus.” “...the presence of approximately 3,000 Russian and other East European entities among the more than 25,000 offshore companies in (South) Cyprus raises questions regarding the use of these companies and banks to shelter proceeds from illegal activities…”

- It is interesting to note that in the statistical record books of the Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots born after 1960 do not even exist. The Greek Cypriots try to create misconceptions about the growth rate of the Turkish Cypriot population. As the Turkish Cypriot population growth rate between 1947-1960 was 1.9% according to the official population census, it is obvious that if the Greek Cypriot side had left the Turkish Cypriot population growth rate unhindered, today this number would have in any event reached about 200,000.

- It should be noted that there are currently about 500,000 Turkish Cypriots living in Turkey; 200,000 in Great Britain; 40,000 in Australia and some 10,000 in North America and 5,000 in other countries. All these people having emigrated because of Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing campaign, and the Induced socio-economic hardship. By law, children born to a Turkish Cypriot parent are Turkish Cypriot citizens irrespective of other citizenship(s) they may hold. This is in line with the legislation of many European countries.

- According to the latest official census of 15 December 1996, the population of the TRNC is 200,587 and the annual growth rate is 1.7. This figure includes 11,925 persons with permanent residences abroad. 82% of this population is TRNC citizens (164,460 persons), 15% (30,702 persons) Turkish citizens and the remaining 3% of other nationalities. Of the 15% Turkish citizens who number 30,702, 27% (8,287) are students studying at various universities in the TRNC, 42% (12,922) are workers, and another 26% are businessmen or retirees who have settled in the TRNC.


(Minutes about Cyprus Issue in the House of Lords on November 6, 2002)

 Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this short debate on Cyprus, specifically Northern Cyprus, a region too often given the “blind eye” treatment and frequently misrepresented within the United Kingdom. More significantly, and with dire consequences for Turkish-Cypriots, the European Community has scandalously manipulated the issue.  

I do not have time to retrace in detail the history of the past 40 years. Suffice to recall that the Greek/Turkish arrangement for an independent Cyprus under the 1960 Treaty of Alliance precluded both enosis (union with Greece), the Greek and Greek Cypriot preference, and taksim (partition of the island), favoured by Turkey and Turkish Cypriots.  

The Treaty of Guarantee committed Britain, Turkey and Greece to underpin and safeguard that arrangement. Yet between independence in 1963 and the 1974 Turkish “peace operation” the Turkish-Cypriots endured a nightmare of discrimination, persecution and ultimately murder by their Greek-Cypriot neighbours. The 1974 Turkish action was fully justified and curtailed genocide that was already assuming monstrous proportions.  

On 28th December 1963 the London Daily Express reported:

 “We went tonight into the Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 men women and children had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we saw sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears”.  

The American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, stated that the Greek Cypriot leader’s, “central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on massacring Turkish Cypriots”. 

Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon recalled:  

“No one who lived as I did in Cyprus in the 1960s will forget what was happening. It was an attempt at the systematic elimination of a community. It was ethnic cleansing before that phrase came into vogue in the Western media”.  

I do not suggest that every Greek-Cypriot colluded in those atrocities. History shows that many of them died as a consequence of Grivas/Makarios treachery.  

Like the IRA, EOKA operated on the theory that orchestrated murder and mutilation can keep an entire people in fearful subjection. Later, on 15th July 1974, five days before the Turkish operation, hundreds of Greek-Cypriot supporters of Makarios were slaughtered and were buried by the truckload in mass graves when mainland Greek forces overthrew the Makarios regime. One can only regret the Cold War pressures and strategic geographical considerations that precluded Britain from fulfilling her treaty obligations at the time. I do, however, pay tribute to our armed servicemen and women who have, since 1974, manned the Green Line and helped sustain peace on the island.  

If one refuses to acknowledge what the Greek Cypriots did to the Turkish Cypriots then one will not understand why the Turkish Cypriots established their own state. Nor will one comprehend why today they must not agree terms that may seem reasonable to outsiders but would put them at risk again.  

I must ask why Britain -my nation- continues to be party to actions by the European Union that condemn a small, peaceful community of Turkish Cypriots to an economic, political and cultural wilderness, while concurrently embracing nations that until recently have been our sworn enemies.  

That question cannot be answered without giving consideration to the recent “enlargement” deliberations by the European Union. The decision to exclude Turkey, our faithful ally for the past 80 years, while admitting a divided Cyprus in a situation that would enhance the Greek Cypriot south while further impoverishing the Turkish Cypriot community in the north, is surely perverse.  

I cannot accept protestations that the European Union would ensure equity. It is not the European Union that imposes an embargo on exports from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus; the European Union that has sustained the embargo on direct flights into the TRNC; the European Union that has allowed Greek influence to dictate, effectively, that Cypriot history must be considered only from the moment Turkey sailed to protect a besieged people from barbarism?  

Do we as a nation, while we preen ourselves on our human rights record, on our equality agendas and on our world leadership, do anything to ameliorate this injustice? No. We turn a blind eye; we raise no ripples on a “Sea of Humbug”. And to what effect? Industrious Turkish Cypriots must abandon their beloved island and seek their livelihood in the UK, the USA and elsewhere. Hence, the Turkish Cypriot population gradually decreases and Greek Cypriot propagandists make much of that.  

The European Union is effectively contributing to social-engineering dare I use the phrase “condoning social extermination?” We are helping to accomplish the “final solution”- what the Akritas Plan designed by Makarios, Yorgadjis and Clerides failed to accomplish by oppression and murder in the 1960s.  

Not only are a people affected by the imposed isolation of the TRNC; the whole ecology of the Mediterranean may be put in jeopardy through financial constraints that preclude comprehensive, sustainable and scientifically planned environmental programmes in the area.

 Worldwide, protected areas are set aside to conserve nature and landscapes with, invariably, international support for such objectives. In poorer regions financial support is made available through NGOs and the commercial sector. When decisions are made and actions by implemented, national parks are sustained by inbuilt tourism programmes. How can that happen in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus when, after almost 30 years of peace there, we in Europe still fail to acknowledge its existence? The Mediterranean region is a global priority for conservation. Can that be achieved without cognisance being taken of Northern Cyprus as a major element in the equation?  

It will not be adequate to be told merely that the United Kingdom Government, “support the efforts of the United Nations Secretary-General”. That does not stand up to close analysis because the United Nations, so far, has not been an impartial interlocutor. It has taken the Greek Cypriot side on the fundamental question that the Greek Cypriot administration is the government of all Cyprus. That is not the case. That can never, ever again be the case.  

There can be a solution on the island, but it has to be one that guarantees -absolutely guarantees this time- the integrity of the Turkish Cypriots.  

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis for initiating this debate. I have known Cyprus for over 30 years. We must not go into the background in detail, but Turkish Cypriots form 22 per cent of the population. There will never be a settlement in Cyprus without their agreement. Both sides must reach an agreement. You cannot have a united Cyprus just by asking for it; you must obtain an agreed Cyprus in which both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots come together in agreement and have that agreement approved by the two communities in their own sectors of the island.  

The treatment received by the Turkish Cypriots was terrible: the 22 per cent of the population they comprise were forced into 3 per cent of the island’s territory. Your Lordships can imagine the dreadful situation. Then there was a Greek-inspired coup from Athens, overthrowing the Greek Cypriot President, Makarios. Then the Turkish Government and army intervened, in their role as one of the lead guarantor powers of Cyprus. There have now been two separate entities for 30 years. We must not live in the past. We must accept that we have moved on by 30 years: two communities; two entities.  

In Kosova there was a similar ethnic dispute between the Kosovans and the Serbs. The Serbs lost their homes, as the Greek Cypriots did in Northern Cyprus. What did the world say about Kosova? It did not say the Serbs must return to their houses. In fact the international community is encouraging Kosovans to live in what Serb houses still remain. This is a contradiction. In Kosova financial support is being provided to Kosovans to occupy the empty houses, whereas in Cyprus some people are living in the past and saying that the Greek Cypriots must have the right to return to Northern Cyprus.  

Most of the Greek Cypriot houses do not exist; they have either collapsed and disappeared through 30 years of deterioration or people have built new house on top of them. Houses do not remain for people to return to.  

I turn to enlargement. There are two reasons why there has not been great movement in the talks: first, the recent illness of President Denktash, who is in the Presbyterian hospital in New York after a heart operation. That is bad news because it could delay the talks; we wish him well. The second is the foolish decision by the European Union to tell the Greek Cypriots that they do not have to reach a settlement but will be brought into the European Union whether or not there is a settlement. That removed the incentive from the Greek Cypriots to reach an agreement.  

That is now the core problem. There is no encouragement to the Greek Cypriots to reach agreement with the Turkish Cypriots. I hope that there is an agreement. The Turkish Cypriots want one and the Greek Cypriots certainly want one. It can be on the basis of what exists in Belgium: some kind of federalism in which the Greek Cypriots have their sector and the Turkish Cypriots have their sector but there is overall sovereignty for international affairs.  

Lord Rogan: My Lords, I want further to highlight what my noble friend Lord Maginnis of Drumglass mentioned: the economic, political and cultural wilderness in which Turkish Cypriots find themselves as a result of crippling embargoes imposed by the Greek Cypriot administration.

Since 1963 Turkish Cypriots have been prevented from reaching their full economic potential. The Greek Cypriot administration has imposed very stringent economic sanctions on the Turkish Cypriot area: an all-embracing embargo, coupled with an intensive campaign of hostile anti-Turkish Cypriot propaganda, that has led to the almost total isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people from the rest of the world. 

The Turkish Cypriot people have been effectively denied their right to engage in political, economic, social, cultural and sporting contacts with the rest of the world. And we, the British, European and international community not only turn a blind eye but actively participate in these embargoes. We do so by recognising the Greek Cypriot regime. 

Let me give your Lordships a few brief examples. In April 2001, the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Clerides, admitted that the Greek Cypriot administration had imposed an embargo on all ports and airports in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, declaring them closed and illegal. The Greek Cypriot administration refuses entry to Southern Cyprus for all foreign visitors who have chosen to enter the island through seaports and airports in the North. For those who wish to cross from South to North, there are restrictions on the duration of stay, and this does not even allow for an overnight visit. Nor are visitors to the North allowed to purchase any goods or souvenirs. 

I have experienced this myself. While I thoroughly enjoyed my visit to both parts of the island, I can well understand how the necessary stop-over in Turkey adds to the inconvenience of travelling to Northern Cyprus. The extra expense and time required undoubtedly discourage tourists from visiting this beautiful part of the island.  

Your Lordships will also be aware that in July 1994 the European Court of Justice held that member states of the EU could only import fruits and vegetables carrying certificates of origin from the “Republic of Cyprus”. Without access to international markets, how can Turkish Cypriot economic sectors develop? With no one willing to import Turkish Cypriot goods, much of the area’s agricultural crops -citrus fruits, vegetables, potatoes, wheat and barley- are simply left rotting in the fields.  

Greek Cypriot hostility was also directed against the British bank, HSBC, at the beginning of this year. HSBC was the first major foreign bank to open branches in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot authorities, however, began campaigning against their presence in Northern Cyprus. They sent a senior manager of the Greek Cypriot Central Bank to London to put pressure on the British Financial Services Authority to stop the HSBC’s operations in the North. Mr. Clerides himself issues further threats and is reported to have said, “We will do what it takes and act accordingly”.

Whatever suggestions are put forward for the resolution of the Cyprus problem, I believe that we in the UK should stop participating in these inhumane embargoes. We express concerns for human rights around the world, yet for nearly 40 years we have stood back and allowed one part of a small island to deny the rights of the other to economic development. Are we going to do the same for another 40 years?

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, for initiating this debate at this crucial time.  

My noble Lords drew attention to the lack of economic prospects. At present, Turkish Cypriots are isolated because the TRNC is recognised only by Turkey. To acquire a passport, a citizen of the TRNC must apply to the Turkish embassy and must often travel to Ankara while his or her application is processed. Turkish Cypriots cannot take part in international events or be members of global organisations. As several speakers have said, their population is falling fast due to emigration.

An international embargo on trade means that Turkey is the only available market for produce from the TRNC. The tourism boom, so obvious in the south, is almost entirely absent. The recent devaluation of the Turkish lira has widened the gap between the two communities, and it has been estimated that per capita income in the south is as much as seven times greater.  

Also, I want to mention heritage and conservation. UNESCO has not provide any assistance to the Turkish Cypriot authorities to preserve common cultural heritage.  

As the debate has made clear, Cyprus’s future remains uncertain. All parties stand to gain from the opportunities over the coming months. I hope that the outcome of negotiations will satisfy the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and all those with an interest in the future of Cyprus.

[ Webmaster]