EU threatens balance of power in Cyprus

Date: 22/01/1998

As the prospective launch of Union accession talks with Cyprus heightens tension throughout the eastern Mediterranean, leader of the Turkish Cypriot people Rauf Denktas explains why he believes that this could set back efforts to achieve peace

ON 3 July 1990, the Greek Cypriot administration made a unilateral application under the usurped title of 'the government of the Republic of Cyprus' to become a member of the EU, purporting to act for and on behalf of the whole of Cyprus.

Despite the immediate reaction of the Turkish Cypriot side strongly opposing this unlawful application, the Union unjustly decided it was a proper application by and on behalf of 'Cyprus'.

Ever since that fateful decision, the Greek Cypriot side's efforts to frustrate the negotiating process and continue its journey towards integration with Greece as the 'government of Cyprus' have intensified. It has erected obstacle after obstacle in the way of a negotiated settlement.

The course which it followed - namely its rejection of the United Nations' sponsored set of ideas of 1992, the 1994 package of confidence building measures, and many others - should have demonstrated to all concerned that it is not interested in a negotiated settlement but is out to destroy the very parameters established through the negotiating process.

With its policy of bringing about the economic, social and political collapse of the Turkish Cypriot people through inhuman embargoes, a campaign of defamation and propaganda, and a massive build-up of sophisticated armaments in the context of its 'joint defence doctrine' with Greece, the Greek Cypriot side has demonstrated over and over again that it is bent on perpetuating and even escalating the conflict rather than resolving it.

Against this background, I met Mr Clerides in New York and subsequently in Switzerland in July and August, after a break of almost three years in face-to-face negotiations owing to his rejection of direct dialogue on the pretext that "no common ground" existed between us.

What Mr Clerides meant by lack of "common ground" was that I had not bowed to his demand to support, a priori, his unilateral and unlawful application for EU membership without an overall settlement and the maintenance of the vital balance between Turkey and Greece in the eastern Mediterranean, as provided for by the 1960 agreements.

Ever since, he has made the issue of EU membership not only a precondition but also the centre-piece of his policy, at the expense of the negotiating process.

The talks in New York and Switzerland did not produce the desired results because Mr Clerides refused to budge an inch from his entrenched fundamental position of trying to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to a 'protected minority' in a 'Greek Cyprus', while the European Commission's Agenda 2000 report envisaging the commencement of accession negotiations with Cyprus (meaning the Greek Cypriot administration) in early 1998 dashed hopes of any progress towards a comprehensive settlement.

This ill-timed development, totally against the will of the Turkish Cypriot side and in spite of our justified objections to EU membership prior to a settlement and maintenance of the Greco-Turkish balance in the eastern Mediterranean, dealt a devastating blow to the negotiations.

The Greek Cypriot side cannot be expected to show the necessary flexibility at the negotiations while the EU, with the manipulation of Greece, is taking steps bolstering the Greek Cypriot side's illegitimate claim to be 'the government of the whole of Cyprus' and prejudicing the outcome of the intercommunal negotiating process.

Nor can we as the Turkish Cypriot side be expected to remain engaged in this process while developments are taking place, away from the negotiating table and totally against our will, which prejudge the final outcome.

When I state this reality and explain that Cyprus' EU membership can only be discussed and agreed to after an overall settlement and following separate referenda of the two sides as envisaged in the UN set of ideas, I am accused of intransigence. I am not bothered by this. My duty is to protect the vested rights and interests of my people the best I can.

If new terms of coexistence are to be found between the two sides in Cyprus, certain principles and elements have to be validated and guaranteed.

Under the international treaties governing Cyprus, union with Greece was outlawed, together with its antidote, partition, while fear of Greek Cypriot domination was effectively dealt with by inbuilt safeguards and recognition of the political equality of the two communities.

The guarantee system gave us a feeling of security for the future, as the balance between the two motherlands, Turkey and Greece, over Cyprus assured permanence of the new state of affairs.

It was as part of these checks and balances that the international treaties which established the 1960 partnership republic prohibited Cyprus from joining international organisations and pacts of alliance of which Turkey and Greece were not both members.

The Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 states that Cyprus "undertakes not to participate in whole or in part in any political or economic union with any state whatsoever", clearly proving the parties' intention to maintain an equitable balance between the respective interests of the two constituent communities and the guarantor powers on Cyprus.

Furthermore, the Zurich and London Agreements give each community a veto in matters affecting foreign affairs, expressly providing that the president (Greek Cypriot) or vice-president (Turkish Cypriot) shall have the right of final veto on any law or decision concerning "the participation of the Republic of Cyprus in international organisations and pacts of alliance in which Greece and Turkey" do not both participate.

The underlying considerations of the 1959-1960 international treaties are still in full effect and force. These are the fundamental rights and status I have been defending at the negotiating table over the years and which the Greek Cypriot side now aims to destroy by accession to the EU.

Union membership is being used as a ploy to do away with our vested rights and destroy the balance between Turkey and Greece over Cyprus in favour of Greece.

Mr Clerides tells his people that once 'Cyprus' is accepted as an EU member, the national cause of Hellenism will triumph because the Treaty of Guarantee will be inapplicable against a Union member state and further, that by virtue of EU laws, all the basic principles that have so far emerged regarding a bi-zonal, bi-communal settlement will be of no effect.

When I present these facts to Union diplomats, I am told to forget the past and look to the future. But if we are to look into the future without looking back, we have to start with the current state of affairs. The indisputable reality in Cyprus is that there are two distinct national communities and two separate democratic and political entities with all the characteristics of statehood.

In taking part in the negotiations, I derive my authority from the democratic will of my people and their elected representatives, the parliament and the government, as does Mr Clerides from his own institutions. Recognition or non-recognition does not change this reality and certainly is not the issue.

What is at issue is whether there exists in Cyprus one government with a mandate from the people to apply for EU membership or conduct accession negotiations on behalf of the whole island. The answer is clearly 'no'. There has not been a government representative of the whole population since the forceful destruction of the partnership state by the Greek Cypriots in 1963.

The pretence that an administration composed solely of Greek Cypriots is 'the legitimate government for the whole of Cyprus' and can act on behalf of Turkish Cypriots is a challenge to all those who believe in a world based on the rule of law, human rights and freedom and democracy.

It is this wrong perception which has prevented the solution of the Cyprus question. Now, with the decision taken at the Luxembourg summit, the EU has further enhanced the impediment standing in the way of a political solution.

The suggestion that the Turkish Cypriot community become part of the EU membership process initiated by the unilateral Greek Cypriot application is an affront to a people which has struggled for equal rights and status in Cyprus for the last 34 years.

It is obvious that a limited interpretation of equality merely at the level of the two communities has failed to lead us to a negotiated settlement based on political equality since it has allowed for a purely Greek Cypriot administration to pose to the world as if it were 'the sole legitimate government for the whole of Cyprus' and seek integration with Greece, both directly and through the EU.

Given the latest Union decision, destroying both the parameters of the UN negotiating process and the established framework for a just and lasting solution in Cyprus, it has become imperative that any future phase of negotiations should reflect the two sides' equality not only at the level of the two communities but also at the level of the two sovereign states, which in reality they represent.

Author is leader of the Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus.