25 years on, the Greek Cypriot refugees are still waiting for justice

On the one hand there is a self interested small group headed by Mr Denktash which holds political power in occupied Cyprus purely by virtue of the Turkish army's occupation of Greek Cypriot stolen lands. But at the same time legions of Greek Cypriot refugees are queueing up to repossess their stolen lands as they are legally entitled to do. They have been steadfast in their refusal to consider any settlement which fails to allow refugees to recover these lands and it should be clear that no solution can be imposed upon Greek Cypriots without recognition of these points.

Prime Minister Blair and President Clinton repeat their much publicised objective of bombing Serbia until the return of all Kosovan refugees with their safety and long term security guaranteed.

We must now demand that the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees are also entitled to return to their homes. After all, they have been waiting for 25 years and the Kosovans have been promised a return by Christmas!

It is well known that the title-deeds gifted by the Denktash regime to its friends are not worth the paper they are written on. Not only does the European Court of Human Rights say this but even Turkish and Turkish Cypriot registered banks recognise this fact.

They do not accept title-deeds issued by the criminal authorities in the self proclaimed administration in occupied Cyprus as collateral for raising bank loans. They know that the deeds are fraudulent, that the only legal documents are held by Greek Cypriot refugees and that this has been reinforced by the stunning decision in the Loizidou case . If Mrs Loizidou and others like her refuse to transfer their title-deeds to Turkish Cypriots or Turks then they will always have the legal right to reclaim and repossess that property. Any proposed settlement that tries either openly or surreptitiously to expropriate the lands of the refugees would invite massive resistance and place any third parties in an invidious position.

So long as the refugees refuse to surrender their deeds then the economic potential of the occupied north will continue to remain unrealised. It will only be when those title-deeds are used by their legitimate owners, the Greek Cypriot refugees, that there will be a liberation of economic forces, a vast surge in capital borrowing requirements and huge civil development.

Denktash insists on there being an exchange of properties in order to legitimise the theft of Greek Cypriot land in 1974 and to confer legal validity on the phoney title-deeds he and his supporters want so desperately to see realised. The thief having stolen the house now wants permanent right of occupancy and the deeds to go with it!

To enable this to happen Denktash and Turkey have proposed the setting up of a joint commission of Greek and Turkish Cypriot representatives to deal with property issues between the two communities. However, even this manoeuvre was discredited given that it had been proposed by Turkey to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe as an alternative to making payment of compensation to Mrs Loizidou who won her case against Turkey. On 9 February 1999 the Council of EuropeÕs Committee of Ministers insisted that the decision of the European Court of Human Rights had to be implemented irrespective of any other elements that Turkey wanted to introduce. It is therefore abundantly clear that the proposed establishment of a property exchange commission is nothing more than a cynical ploy by Turkey to try to avoid the devastating consequences of the Loizidou decision and the multitude of similar decisions which will inevitably follow as more and more refugees bring similar cases against Turkey.

In considering the question of property exchange it is also necessary to consider the basic laws of supply and demand. In the occupied area the vast majority of the land has been stolen from the rightful owners, the Greek Cypriots. Historically there has been very little Turkish Cypriot property ownership in the north of the island.

In the free south, where real estate belonging to Turkish Cypriots before 1974 was an estimated 14% the vast bulk of the land also belongs to Greek Cypriots. So who are we meant to barter with? The land on both sides is predominantly Greek Cypriot and we cannot be expected to exchange that which we lost in 1974 for that which we do not have in significant quantities now - Turkish Cypriot properties. Put simply, are we being asked to rob ourselves?

And then there is the question of real estate values. Properties in the occupied area are massively undervalued because the legitimate owners have been denied access to them for almost 25 years. But as soon as this property is restored to the rightful owners, property prices will soar with foreign and domestic capital being poured into the occupied area. Greek Cypriots with lands in the occupied areas will become millionaires overnight. Who then in their right mind would carry out a property exchange or accept paltry compensation? Land currently valued at zero equity will suddenly become the hottest property in Europe. Is it any wonder that the criminal rulers of the occupied area want to become the legitimate owners of land under the guise of having a recognised confederated state?

Given this criminal line of thought it is obvious why the Turkish proposal to set up a commission to effect property exchanges is rotten to the core.

It is no wonder that Denktash and his criminal accomplices want to keep these stolen lands and not to exchange or relinquish any part of them. Every hectare in the occupied area has the potential to be worth its weight in gold. If Denktash knows this, doesn't the rest of the world realise that we do too?

When seen in this context, the idea of property exchanges and compensation loses any credibility and practicability. How can a compensation agency even under the aegis and blessing of the UN ever hope to adequately compensate Greek Cypriots for renouncing their properties which are set to appreciate by thousands of per cent? This is quite simply a nonsense.

The British press on Turkey, following its brutal invasion of Cyprus in 1974. Click here for full text

Through a cynical process of colonisation, it is now estimated that only 60,000 of the original 118,000 Turkish Cypriots still live in the occupied area, their identity, traditions, and culture under serious threat from the massive influx of colonists from Turkey. There are now over 100,000 colonists in the occupied area. Serious consideration should be given by the major power brokers to effect their repatriation to Turkey and facilitate their removal by offering compensation. After all, the so-called 'TRNC' is an illegal regime and by definition those who settle there are illegal immigrants defying the immigration controls of the internationally recognised Republic of Cyprus. There can be no moral dilemma in forcing Turkey to resettle the colonists to where they came from - Turkey. The only real question is how much to offer by way of compensation?

If we take the average Anatolian family as consisting of 5 people, that makes for 20,000 families or units (given a population of 100,000). If an offer of US$2,000 per family were made under an internationally UN sponsored relief/compensation package, that would amount to US$40 million. Add to this the Turkish state resettling these people in Anatolia, giving them plots of land and livestock then we can see that they would certainly be far better off than they are now. Rather than seeking to compensate refugees to forego their lands (the cost of which would go off the richter scale if the Loizidou decision is an indication of likely compensation) it must make financial sense to think in terms of compensating illegal immigrants and repatriating them to their homeland.

Forty million dollars to achieve a solution is cheap indeed!

The seizure of Abdullah Ocalan was not a particularly outstanding piece of intelligence work in itself. What was clever however, was the way in which Turkey set up Greece to be the fall guy.

Naturally, this exposed Greece as the entity against which violent Kurdish protests were directed. Indeed, the overall impression created was that the Greeks were in some way willing accomplices in the betrayal of Ocalan. But the capture of Ocalan is now rebounding on Turkey.

No sooner had he been arrested when his presence became an acute source of embarrassment to the authorities there. Who would ever believe that Ocalan could receive a fair trial at the hands of the foremost user of state sponsored torture, and given the frequent disappearances of detainees and others in Turkish prisons?

On at least three separate occasions the European Court of Human Rights has questioned the independence and neutrality of Turkey's Courts. Since Ocalan was arrested his lawyers have complained continually about threats to their lives and harassment from sources very close to the Turkish Government. Indeed, on 22 February the EU Foreign Ministers were obliged to issue a joint statement insisting that Ocalan have a fair and open trial.

Turkey faces a dilemma. If Ocalan is permitted a free and fair trial he will use the opportunity to advocate the Kurdish case for Turkey to respect their fundamental human rights, something which Turkey lamentably fails to do. If Ocalan denounces the struggle, the overwhelming impression will be that he has been tortured, drugged and coerced into making these statements. With so many international observers demanding the right to attend Ocalan's trial we can speculate whether it is he that is on trial or Turkey.

The political ramifications of Turkey having seized Ocalan are huge. Turkey now appears as the terrorist state which seeks to deal with its domestic problems through violence, intimidation and genocide.

Ocalan, to Turkey's dismay, appears increasingly as a national resistance hero fighting an oppressive and criminal regime.

Of course, Ocalan could die in prison. Turkey has already highlighted his supposed heart trouble, although his lawyers seem to think that Ocalan is in good health, apart from his questioning under drugs. How convenient it would be for Turkey, if the unfortunate Mr Ocalan was to have a heart attack. How could anyone then question the workings of nature?

Yes, Ocalan has become a political liability for Turkey in the same way its illegal occupation of Cyprus has become its bar to entry to the European Union. It is Turkey that once again appears to be the malefactor, a terrorist state and a country whose values and traditions put it outside the realms of the European Union.

Turkey has very serious ambitions on becoming a nuclear power and is planning to build a nuclear power plant at Akkuyu Bay, less than 100km from the island of Cyprus. Despite strong local and international opposition by several pressure groups, Turkey may still succeed in fulfilling its ambitions.

There are a number of very good reasons why the building of a nuclear power plant in Turkey must be prevented:

• The Akkuyu site is in an earthquake zone, near an active fault line, the Ecemis fault. This region has experienced a number of strong earthquakes over the past 100 years.
• Turkey will be able to make its own nuclear bombs. In 1992 Senator Glenn and other US congressmen accused Turkey of supplying sensitive technology to Pakistan in order to aid its acquisition of uranium enrichment technology. The close working relationship in nuclear technology between Turkey and Pakistan, which for the first time tested nuclear weapons made of Uranium in May 1998, is a serious concern to the international community.
• Turkey is planning to build the nuclear power station as close as possible to the island of Cyprus and is not going to ask the government or citizens of the Republic of Cyprus.
• It is difficult to understand why any country in the world is prepared to promote Turkey to a nuclear power when Turkey has one of the poorest human rights records in the world. In addition, there has been a civil war between the Turkish military and the Kurds since the early 1980s.
• A colony of the Mediterranean monk seal, one of the ten most endangered species in the world lives on an island in the mouth of the Akkuyu Bay. The water intake and sea traffic for the plant will endanger these rare seals.
• Turkey's economy is a disaster. Interest rates and inflation are rampant, thus contributing to a succession of unstable governments and civil unrest. Indeed, despite recent elections, Turkey is still governed by a military regime and has merely a façade of democracy - the political composition of the government and the judicial system are totally controlled by the military.

There are very good reasons why nuclear reactors should not be built anywhere in the world. No country in the world has yet identified a satisfactory method for the disposal of radioactive waste; nor a satisfactory and economical method for the decommissioning of nuclear reactors when they are retired.

Power stations are an unnecessary hazard to local population and the number of nuclear incidents world-wide have proven that these hazards are very real.

Producing electricity via a nuclear reactor is more expensive than producing electricity via burning coal or oil, via gas turbine, via hydro-electric plants, via solar, wind or tidal power - there are many cheaper ways to make electricity. Turkey has many perfect environments highly suited for the generation of very cheap electricity by solar power.

We call on your help to oppose the sale of nuclear reactors to Turkey. Many other international pressure groups are already doing so. Of note are the Nuclear Awareness Project (based in Canada), Greenpeace, the Cyprus Green Party and Diaspora.

If we are to succeed your support and contribution are absolutely vital.

For further information visit www. diaspora-net.org

Armenian children, ethnically cleansed and orphaned by Turkey in the first genocide of the 20th century, 1915-1922.

The situation in Kosovo is familiar to thousands of Cypriot refugees - families expelled from their ancestral homes, women raped, thousands of refugees and countless civilians missing, presumed murdered. The question posed however, by the refugees ethnically cleansed from their homes by the Turks 25 years ago and still waiting for the day when they can return, is whether the political landscape has finally changed. Prime Minister Blair (writing in The Times recently) referred to NATO defeating Milosevic and ''reversing the ethnic cleansing'' and that ''[Milosevic's] troops must get out of Kosovo''. Can Cyprus therefore now look forward to NATO jets flying into occupied northern Cyprus to oust Denktash? Can the Cypriot refugee, Titina Loizidou, finally expect compliance by Turkey of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights compensating her for the loss of use and enjoyment of her occupied property in Kyrenia? Can the refugees expect to return to their homes and the Republic of Cyprus to have the more than 90 UN resolutions finally enforced against Turkey?

It is clear that the bombing of Yugoslavia is consistent with the West's policy of only ever acting in respect of human rights violations when it is perceived to be in its interests to do so.

NATO had no legal basis for launching an attack on Yugoslavia on March 24th 1999. It ignored and circumvented the UN (probably not wanting to face Russia and China on the Security Council) and although it was contrary to its rules of engagement, attacked a sovereign nation state over an internal conflict. If the West had acted in similar fashion to prevent many other human rights violations, its actions in relation to Yugoslavia and Kosovo might have been understandable. However, in addition to their failures in relation to Cyprus, the West has turned a blind eye to the mass slaughters of innocents in Rwanda, the Sudan, Sierra Leone and Ethiopian civil wars, the mass persecution of Kurds in Turkey and the occupation of East Timor by Indonesia, to name but a few.

The experience of Serbs in the Krajina region of Croatia also demonstrates the West's double standards. Ironically, the West turned a blind eye when 250,000 ethnic Serbs were ethnically cleansed. These refugees remain forgotten and without international aid.

The decision to bomb Serbia seems more to do with a misjudged belief by the Western powers that political capital could be gained effortlessly (by the use of advanced military technology) than any notion of protecting the ethnic Albanians, which was of secondary concern. Why else did the US ignore its advisers' warnings that the bombings would lead to a mass exodus of refugees and even more suffering.

Up to the early 1930s Kosovo had a majority Serb population. However, a combination of German occupation in the Second World War, and the mass influx of Albanian immigration diluted the Serb population to the point at which it became a minority in the province. NATO's news briefings never explain this.

The final wording of the Rambouillet talks placed before the Serbian/Yugoslav delegation as a fait accomplit was not something a sovereign state could have accepted. Although the US and other Western powers say that they do not wish to grant Kosovo full independence, the effect of the agreement would have taken away most of Yugoslavia's powers. It effectively meant seceding Kosovo from Yugoslavia. While the Yugoslav delegation had been prepared to hand over limited autonomy to the Kosovans, the proposal by US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright meant that the Serbs either capitulated and gave up Kosovo or faced a bombing campaign. She must have known it would act as a pretext for an air attack. Her mistake was to rely on US' superior military technology in the hope that this would result in increased autonomy for the Kosovans and of course heighten the standing of President Clinton and Secretary of State Albright.

If Mr Blair and Nato's spin doctors are to have us believe we are entering a new era where human rights abuses will no longer be slipped under the carpet, the return of the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees must be immediately and unconditionally implemented.

Have the dramatic events in Yugoslavia had any impact on the Cyprus issue other than the obvious - a further indefinite delay in reaching a settlement? In essence, very little, though the ramifications of this war in the Balkans have not yet clearly been felt or understood. On the most superficial level we have seen Denktash proposing the colonisation of Varosha using Kosovar refugees for such a purpose. His 'humanitarian' gesture is, of course, cynical and manipulative.

An enduring consequence of this war is that the Greek Cypriot people have become accustomed to a media presentation of the war in Yugoslavia which has clearly placed the US, its allies (with the notable exception of Greece) and NATO in the most unfavourable light. Sympathy has been overwhelming for the Serbs, perceived to have been punished for their defiance of the further partition of their country.

Any talk of a proposed settlement involving the stationing of NATO forces in Cyprus will arouse the hostility of the Cypriot people right across the political spectrum. The idea that when and if Yugoslavia is 'wrapped up' the US will, in a bullish mood, 'impose' a settlement on Cyprus is much exaggerated. What can we be threatened with - aerial bombardment? Or the unleashing of the Turkish armed forces against us? That would do more harm to Turkey than to us on the international stage. At any rate, NATO has targeted Yugoslavia as a pariah state and subjected it to a fierce onslaught. There are no similarities to Cyprus; this is a small island occupied since 1974 by foreign occupation forces and trying, with the support of the international community, to restore its sovereignty and territorial integrity. The occupying forces in Cyprus belong to a NATO ally, Turkey, considered by the US and EU member states as a strategic ally and therefore not subject to hostile treatment.

The Cyprus issue is not only one of human rights purely in an abstract sense, but of legal rights, specifically property rights. Title-deeds and property theft go to the very heart of private property, as vindicated by the Titina Loizidou vs Turkey judgement. What, however, further complicates the matter is that proposed compensation for Greek Cypriot refugees foregoing their land is impractical when the land itself will appreciate fantastically once returned to the legitimate owners, making any compensation packages worthless. Property rights are the Cyprus issue.

One comparison frequently made (especially by Denktash) between Kosovo and Cyprus is the alleged hostility between the respective communities and so the desirability to give independence to the Kosovars just as the Turkish Cypriots are said to desire independence. But no such legitimate claims can be made concerning Cyprus, inspite of Denktash's stubborn insistence that there are two separate 'communities' with irreconcilable differences. The fact is that the two 'communities' have been kept apart for a quarter of a century by the illegal apartheid authorities in the north. Any attempt to bring the two sides together have been repeatedly thwarted by Denktash for good reason - he does not wish to create the conditions by which new political and social forces will emerge that may threaten his position and his interests. Hence, the occupied north has more or less interned itself. What proof is there that Greek and Turkish Cypriots cannot live together peacefully when they have been forcibly separated for so long? When exchanges do take place (usually pilgrims reciprocating visits) they are invariably good natured and courteous. Denktash can make as many bogus claims as he wishes. The world understands that the true reason for his call for confederation and independence is that he and his clique are reluctant and adamant about returning what was stolen from the Greek Cypriots - their land!

Independence for Kosovo has the complication of raising the question: should every ethnic group and minority be entitled to independence and sovereignty? If so, why not break up Spain and create a Basque state? Why not a greater Kurdistan born out of four or five countries in the near and Middle East, including Turkey?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. In this context how can anyone possibly contemplate the creation of an autonomous confederated state in the occupied north of Cyprus? It is a nonsense.

NATO will be ''immune from all legal process, whether civil, administrative or criminal, under all circumstances and at all times, immune from [all laws] governing any criminal or disciplinary offences which may be committed by NATO personnel in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... NATO personnel shall enjoy, together with their vehicles, vessels, aircraft and equipment, free and unrestricted passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including associ-ated airspace and territorial waters'' ... The Government of Yugoslavia ''shall, upon simple request, grant all telecommunications services, including broadcast services, needed for [the occupation], as determined by NATO. This shall be free of cost ... NATO is granted the use of airports, roads, rail and ports without payment of fees, duties, dues, tolls or charge. The economy shall function in accordance with free market principles.''

"The evidence suggests the majority of Turkish Kurds want only equal treatment..."
Leader, The Guardian (February 17 1999)

"The [Turkish] army had destroyed villages and brought about large-scale forced evacuations... Throughout the Kosovo crisis the Serbs charged the West with a double standard. Turkey's treatment of the Kurds was far worse than anything the West accused the Serbs of doing in Kosovo, they said, yet as Turkey was a member of NATO the West turned a blind eye. The Serbs were right... Western governments should put as much pressure on Turkey to change its policies as it has on Yugoslavia."
Leader, The Guardian (November 25 1998)

Unity Wharf, Mill Street, London SE1 2BH
telephone/facsimile +44 (0)181-888 2556

If you require a hard copy version of Lobby for Cyprus News
please contact Lobby via e-mail:
admin@lobbyforcyprus.org

Lobby for Cyprus News is published by Lobby for Cyprus - a non party political organisation with the aim of reuniting Cyprus

©Lobby for Cyprus 1999