|
|
|
|||
|
Excellency,
As we enter a new phase in the search for a negotiated settlement in Cyprus, I would like to share with you some thoughts and concerns regarding the issues at hand, for the purpose of contributing to your efforts to have full-fledged negotiations resumed. At the outset, I wish to make it clear that the National Unity Party, which is the Main Opposition Party in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, supports dialogue and negotiation as a means of resolving the issue, within your mission of good offices. In fact, as you may recall, much of the previous processes had taken place under National Unity Party governments, during the term of office of your predecessors. The fact that no settlement has been reached was attributed to “the deep lack of trust and confidence” between the two sides, both by Secretary General Annan and his predecessor Boutros-Ghali. I am sorry to say that such mistrust and lack of confidence, which is the legacy of four-and-a-half decades of conflict, continues to exist. This is the outcome of the half-century-old Greek Cypriot campaign to take over or dominate Cyprus at the expense of the Turkish Cypriots, one of the two “co-owners” of the island and co-founder partners of the 1960 “Republic of Cyprus”. The current division in the island owes its existence to this campaign, which had caused untold suffering to our people, including deprivation of life and property, displacement and disenfranchisement. Reports of former Secretaries General to the Security Council from the 1963-74 period provide ample evidence as to the above. Added to this burden of history is the continuing Greek-Cypriot-instigated isolation and restrictions imposed on our people, and the exploitation, by the Greek Cypriot side, of its usurped title as the “Government of Cyprus” as well as its unilateral and illegitimate EU membership status achieved after the referenda of April 2004. Such exploitaion has created a serious imbalance in, or almost a total monopolization of, the representation of Cyprus in the international arena in favour of the Greek Cypriot side, diminishing, if not totally eliminating, any incentive on their part for a settlement. It is against this background that negotiations have taken place, any possible progress at the table being either destroyed or pre-empted by the counterproductive activities of the Greek Cypriot side as “the Government of Cyprus” outside the negotiating table. The election of Mr. Christofias to the leadership of the Greek Cypriot administration seems to have raised hopes for reconciliation, but is such “optimism” really justfied? While Mr. Chritofias has shown a greater willingness than his predecessor to talk to the Turkish Cypriot side, there is no sign that he has softened his rhetoric or his stance on the isolation, or, for that matter, on the substance of the issue. Mr. Christofias made it clear that, just like his predecessor, he regards the Cyprus issue as “a problem of invasion and occupation,” and denied that the isolation even exists! He called on President Talat “to cut the umbilical cord with Turkey” and “to rid himself of the suffocating embrace of Turkey,” our Guarantor, Motherland and main stem of support. He also made statements indicating that he puts the Turkish Cypriots in the same category as the several hundred Maronites, Armenians and Latins in Cyprus, ignoring our collective partnership rights and status and attempting to relegate the issue to the level of individual rights, regardless of how sacrosanct those rights may be. Moreover , Mr. Christofias has cast serious doubts on his willingness to compromise, by making a commitment to his coalition partners, including Mr. Papadopoulos, that he would not change the existing policy of the Greek Cypriot side in any fundamental way. He described the efforts aimed at a settlement as an exercise on how “the unitary Republic of Cyprus will evolve into a federal state.” Let alone meeting our criterion of a two-state solution, such pronouncements are incompatible even with the “virgin birth” approach in the plan for “The Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem”, devised by your predecessor. They also fly in the face of the fundamental concept of a new partnership that will be co-founded by the two equal peoples and the two existing sovereign States on the island, regardless of whether they are recognized or not.. Our Party believes that, in order for any new fully-fledged process not to turn into another exercize in futility, there must be sufficient common ground and commonality of vision between the two parties on which a sound future could be built. It is, naturally, up to you to decide whether such commonality of views and positions exists to justify the resumption of fully-fledged negotiations. The following fundamental points that represent our “red lines” are presented in a constructive spirit, with the intention of helping Your Excellency, as you consider embarking on a new process aimed at resolving this long-standing dispute. A more detailed version of our views and concerns can be found in the set of Talking Points attached to this letter. (TP red lines) I believe that these views are shared by a great segment, if not the majority, of the Turkish Cypriot people, regardless of the fact that they are presented by the Opposition. I, therefore, call upon Your Excellency to take them into full consideration as you ponder your difficult task. Please accept, Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration. Tahsin Ertuðruloðlu Chairman TALKING POINTS -At a time when the negotiating process is expected to resume, we as the National Unity Party, which is the Main Opposition Party in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, deem it appropriate and necessary to share with you some of our views and concerns. -At the outset, we wish to make clear that the National Unity Party is not against dialogue and negotiation with the Greek Cypriot side, under United Nations auspices. If an agreement or reconciliation is to be reached between the two peoples or States in the island, there is no other way. -What is important here, however, is between who and on what basis the dialogue and negotiation will take place. -It is obvious that the negotiating process that has been going on intermittently for the last 40 years on the basis of the “two communities”, did not produce any result. It is also useful to recall that the Greek Cypriot Administration, which has usurped the title of the “Government of Cyprus”, has exploited this title to the utmost, engaging in activity outside the negotiating table that is opposed to the very aim of the negotiations. -We have witnessed that it is futile to expect an outcome of equality from a process that is not based on true equality. -The fact that we have nevertheless been open to negotiations with the Greek Cypriot side is the outcome of the conciliatory policy we have pursued so far, as well as the sensitivity of our people to the expectations of the international community. -It is obvious from the years-long negotiations held under National Unity governments that we share the sensitivity and expectations of our people in this regard. However, the process regarding the Cyprus issue is not static; it is naturally affected by changing global conditions and the previous processes. -The Greek Cyprot side, which had destroyed the partnership Rebublic in 1963, not only utilized all the advantages of its illegal status as the “Government of Cyprus”, but also became a member of the European Union. -How realistic is it to expect an Administration provided with such privileges to be more “conciliatory” than the previous one? -How realistic is it politically to expect a fundamental change in the policy of the other side, with the assumption of power by Mr. Christofias? -Indeed, Mr. Chritofias has made a commitment to his coalition partners, including Mr. Papadopoulos, that the policies they have pursued for years will not be changed in any fundamental way. -Mr. Christofias’ public statements indicate that his point of departure is the continuation of the “Republic of Cyprus” and its “evolution into a federal state”. -Let alone being incompatible with the concept of a genuine “two-State solution”, this proposition is also contrary to the “virgin birth” approach in the United Nations plan for the Comprehensive Settlement of the Cyprus Problem (the Annan Plan). -It would be a mistake to assume that our people, who said “yes” to this plan for various reasons and for the sake of reconciliation four years ago, remain committed to the plan. -In fact, public opinion polls indicate that our people are not where they were four years ago. -The fact that our Government has declared this plan to be the basis of negotiations for the Turkish Cypriot side, thus “setting the bar too low,” has caused serious concern on our part that it would open the door for further concessions by the Turkish Cypriot side beyond those contained in the plan. -By contrast, the Greek Cypriot side, enjoying the advantages of being the recognized “government” as well as an EU member, has raised the stakes, putting itself in the position of “the party that has to be satisfied.” -We are concerned that Mr. Christofias, also benefitting from being “a new leader”, will enjoy an unfair advantage on the international scene, thus securing the support of the international community. -In this frame of mind, can he be expected to show the flexibility and make the necessary concessions for a just, realistic and sustainable settlement? -Will the international community, in general, and the European Union, in particular, who were unable or unwilling to exercize pressure even on Mr. Papadopoulos, be any more ready or willing to exercize pressure on Mr. Christofias now? -In the light of the above, the views of the National Unity Party on how to proceed are as follows: 1-“Communal equality” is the language of the past and is no longer sufficient to describe the Turkish Cypriot people or its status. We should, at a minimum, be referred to as either “the Turkish Cypriot side” or as a “party”, depending on the context, as has been the case in the previous phases of the negotiations. At an advanced stage in the negotiating process, even for a pledged limited duration, it is vital for us that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus be formally recognized by the United Nations and the international community. This is necessary for the permanence of the envisioned settlement, that can only come about if both sides are treated equally so that neither side’s state acts are rendered null and void once the settlement goes into effect. In case there is no settlement, the question arises as to what kind of a future awaits the Turkish Cypriot people. This cannot be anything other than the recognition of the TRNC by countries in addition to the Republic of Turkey. Without such recognition, the Turkish Cypriot side should not be expected to sit at the negotiating table.2. The proposal for having a time limit for the preparation period and a target date for a comprehensive settlement, as set out in the letter dated 22 February 2008 addressed by President Talat to the United Nations Secretary General, is appropriate. The Turkish Cypriot people have no time to lose with open-ended negotiations that will last forever. It is our people’s right to know what their future will be. It would be
National Unity Party
|
||||
|
|
© 2007 UBP |
|||
