Sir
Please do not perpetuate the myth that the Annan plan was a plan for the reunification of Cyprus. It was a plan for partition devised by the foreign offices of the US and the UK assisted by Mr Annan. Its purpose was to hasten Turkey's entry into the EU but effectively it rewarded Turkey for its invasion and occupation of Cyprus. Mr Peel's article seeks to mislead your readers and is an insult to the Greek Cypriots who were ethnically cleansed, who were thrown out of their homes and whose loved ones were killed during the brutal Turkish invasion of 1974.
Yes, it would have been much more beneficial to the Republic of Cyprus if it had joined the EU as a free state without more than a third of its territory occupied by Turkish military forces. However, the Turkish army will not withdraw unless more important powers such as the US and the UK exercise their political will and urge them to do so. That would be a step too far and an extraordinary show of moral backbone and ethics which are sadly lacking in any of the US or UK's foreign policies. Our governments habitually use the "war against terrorism" as a euphemism for politically expediency. However, these same governments do not regard it as politically expedient for the Turkish troops to withdraw from the beautiful island of Cyprus. They would rather reward invasion and occupation by handing over the stolen goods, ancestral homes and lands and churches to the invading forces and returning a tiny fraction of the land to the legitimate owners. That is not justice, it is a reward for theft and murder.
So forgive us if we do not agree that our family graves should be desecrated, that our churches should be used as stables and that our homes should be occupied by military troops and immoral sunseekers. When there is a just solution proposed by the UN which respects fundamental human rights and allows the Greek Cypriots to return to their homes, then they will vote in favour – perhaps Mr Peel should reflect on that.
|
| HOME | back to top ^ |
|
|