Britain's duty if no deal in Cyprus

After the coming general election, what should the next government do about Cyprus if the present reunification talks fail, and the island remains divided as it has been for the past 46 years? The answer, in short, is that it should deal with both of its two peoples fairly and reasonably. But is the UK not doing that already? The answer is NO.

The Greek Cypriots are treated as though they were the government of all Cyprus, and they occupy the Cyprus chair in all international organisations. They are full members of the EU and have their officials in all the institutions of the EU, they trade freely with Britain and the rest of the world and they have received massive subsidies over the past 47 years.

By contrast, the Turkish Cypriots are frozen out of the UN and out of almost all international organisations; their envoys are not recognised, they have no say in the affairs of the EU; they are placed under severe restrictions on their trade, travel, and inward investment, and even on their sporting contacts with the world. They have received virtually no benefit from the international subsidies given to Cyprus over the past forty years, and even today when the EU is willing to make grants to Turkish Cypriots the grants are obstructed by the Greek Cypriots.

So far as property is concerned, Turkish Cypriots living in the North have no legal right to recover their property in the South until (if ever) a comprehensive settlement is reached between North and South, However, on 14th January 2010, an out-of-court settlement was accepted by a Turkish Cypriot, Nezire Sofi, before the ECHR, and she received an apology and compensation from the Greek Cypriot government for deprivation of her property since 1963.

Perhaps this settlement will begin to alleviate the hardship suffered by Turkish Cypriots, but they still have no effective legal redress in the South or in the EU or UK courts. By contrast Greek Cypriots can apply now to a compensation commission in the North. They can even apply to the EU and UK courts for compensation but those courts have no power to compel the demolition of a house in Northern Cyprus nor the eviction of its occupiers.

Cyprus was a Turkish island until it was leased to the British in 1878, and the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots had lived there for hundreds of years when Britain decolonised Cyprus in 1960. They are quite distinct from each other; they have a different religion, a different language, and a different culture. They each lived in their own villages or in separate parts of the towns and larger villages.

On 19th December 1956 the Colonial Secretary pledged that ‘it will be the purpose of HM Government to ensure that any exercise of self determination should be effected in such a manner that the Turkish Cypriot community, no less than the Greek Cypriot community, shall in the special circumstances of Cyprus be given freedom to decide for themselves their future status.’

The UN Secretary-General made it clear in 1992 (UN doc. S/24472) that sovereignty ‘emanates equally from both communities. One community cannot claim sovereignty over the other.’

The independent Republic of Cyprus was therefore constituted in 1960 by a solemn agreement between the two peoples of Cyprus, on the basis of political equality, and guaranteed by Britain, Greece, and Turkey. It was never a unitary state with a majority and minority. So why are the two peoples of Cyprus treated today as though one were a government and the other a mere ‘community?

Quite simple really: the Greek-Cypriots say that everything was fine until 1974 when Turkey ‘invaded‘ and divided the island, and forced the Turkish Cypriots to live in the North. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The events of 1974 were in fact the culmination of eleven years of oppression of Turkish Cypriots by Greek Cypriots.

On 28th December 1963 the Daily Express reported: ‘We went tonight into the Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears.’

On 1st January 1964 the Daily Herald reported: ‘When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs which had caved in I found a twisted mass of bed springs, children’s cots, and grey ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighbouring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house.’

On 12th January 1964 the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote ‘The Greek (Cypriot) police are led by extremists who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as “special constables” gun-happy young thugs. ... Makarios assured us that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved.’

A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on 16th February 1964, and there were many more. On 17th February 1964 the Washington Post reported that Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide.’ Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians, and there is no evidence that the Turkish Cypriots were themselves in any way responsible for these appalling events.

In his memoirs, the US Under Secretary of State, George Ball, said that the Greek Cypriot leader’s ‘central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that.’ The fact is however that neither the US, the UK, the UN, nor anyone, other than Turkey eleven years later, took effective action to prevent it.

Ball himself told the Greek Cypriot leader, Makarios, that ‘if he persisted in his cruel and reckless conduct Turkey would inevitably invade, and neither the US nor any other western power would raise a finger to stop them.’ In his book The Way the Wind Blows former British prime minister Lord Home said ‘I was convinced that unless Makarios could bring himself to treat the Turkish [Cypriots] as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island.’

The events in Cyprus of 1963/64 were a clear case of genocide, executed in accordance with the notorious ‘Akritas’ plan, but no Greek Cypriot leader (some of whom are still alive) has ever faced an international criminal court.

From that time forward the Greek Cypriots have behaved as though they alone were the Government of Cyprus and neither the US nor any other western power has raised a finger to stop them. Britain has had a major influence on international policy toward Cyprus, so why has the treatment of the Turkish Cypriots been inconsistent with all the principles — fairness, justice, respect for human rights and respect for constitutional obligations, for which Britain has always stood firm in the world. Why? Probably because the UK and US have allowed themselves, and still allow themselves, to be intimidated by real or imagined Greek Cypriot threats to the operation of their military facilities in the South of Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriots lived in defended enclaves for eleven years until in 1974 a civil war broke out among the Greek Cypriots, and Turkey landed troops to prevent any further massacres of Turkish Cypriots and the forcible annexation of the island to Greece. Since then most of the Turkish Cypriots have lived in the North under the protection of Turkish soldiers, and most of the Greek Cypriots in the South. There are as many Greek and Greek Cypriot troops in the South as Turkish and Turkish Cypriot troops in the North.

The UN and others have tried time and time again to put the broken Republic back together, but they have failed, and talks are still continuing. The reason for their failure is that most of the Greek Cypriots, and especially their religious leaders, have no interest in sharing Cyprus with the Turkish Cypriots. They want the island for themselves, and some of them still wish to annex it to Greece.

The Greek Cypriots rejected the UN plan for a settlement in 2004, which the UN, the US, the EU, and the UK all regarded as a fair and reasonable basis for settlement, and recent opinion polls are showing that a majority on both sides, and especially among the young, are now in favour of two states in the island. A settlement for the sake of a settlement would not work, and tensions could rise to the point where violence could return to the island after 46 years.

If the present settlement talks fail as most serious commentators expect the next British government due in May should use its influence to promote a two-state solution and resist further attempts to put the two peoples under a single political roof. It is simply not reasonable to expect the Turkish Cypriots to wait any longer, and immediate action should be taken by the UK to relieve the Turkish Cypriots from the unjust restrictions from which they suffer — as they were promised when they accepted the UN Plan in 2004.

The UK must also give financial help to the Turkish Cypriots to bring their economy up to the same level as the Greek Cypriots, and as some recompense for the failure of the UK government over 47 years to discharge its obligations to the Turkish Cypriots as a guarantor of the 1960 settlement. This must be bilateral aid, because aid channelled through the EU or the UN would be blocked by the Greek Cypriots.