Friday, October 18, 2024

THE MOVEMENT THAT PAVED THE WAY TO THE OPENING OF THE CHECK-POINTS

I was the T/C Coordinator of the Movement (Contact Group) for Independent and Federal Cyprus. Our Movement was the first bi-communal establishment of T/Cs and G/Cs since the first terror wave of the TMT in 1958.

On 13-16 May 1989, about 20 Cypriots gathered in West Berlin with the call of a German environmental group “Bildungswerk für Demokratie und Umweltschutz” and we initiated our “Movement for Independent and Federal Cyprus” with a mass participation in Nicosia in the garden of Lidra Palace Hotel on 23-24 September 1989. A document entitled “Views and Basic Principles”, which was adopted at the same place on 20-21 January 1990, was presented to the public in Greek, Turkish and English. (See the English text here: http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-first-bi-communal-movement-for.html )

We carried out various activities for the realization of our basic principles. The most important of these were the conferences of three T/C opposition party leaders on 14 December 1989 by Alpay Durduran (New Cyprus Party), on 19 January 1990 by Mustafa Akıncı (Communal Liberation Party) and on 23 February 1990 by Özker Özgür (Republican Turkish Party). The conferences took place in the G/C part of Nicosia, where opportunity was given to explain the G/C community their views on various aspects of the Cyprus problem. This was the first time in the near history of the two communities. The G/C wing of the Movement informed us that these conferences were very useful and were widely reflected in the G/C press.

In the third and last joint meeting that we held on 10-11 February 1990, five papers, written by the G/Cs and T/Cs, were discussed. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to continue our discussions on issues such as the views of the G/C side on the equality and guarantees, the structure of the federal state, and how this will be reflected in everyday life in a federal solution. The T/C leadership banned our intercommunal contacts by citing the demonstrations of the nationalist G/C students that started in March 1990. After this incident, only 5 of the 44 applications we made were allowed. The most important was the participation of Aziz Nesin, the famous Turkish humourist writer, in the events organized between 17 and 19 December 1990, due to his visit to the free part of our island. About 80 T/Cs attended cultural meetings in the G/C part of Nicosia for three nights. Journalists, writers and artists had the opportunity to meet their colleagues. Aziz Nesin held a press conference in the occupied northern part of Nicosia and about 20 G/C artists and writers were allowed to accompany him during his visit.

On 26 February 1991, our activity about the Federal State in the US was held at the Ledra Palace Hotel in the buffer zone, but the one about Yugoslavia on 22 March 1991 was not allowed.

In addition, we made various attempts to bring together journalists, doctors, cartoonists and writers from both sides of the divide. Some of these were allowed, but we could not get the permission for most of them. (http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-list-of-attempts-to-have.html )

On 6 May 1991, a three-man delegation of our Movement visited Mr. Atakol, the Foreign Minister whose department was responsible for giving the permissions. We were asked once again to make a statement that we are not coming from the occupied area, when we meet with our compatriots. I, as the T/C coordinator of the Movement, told Mr. Atakol that I accepted the occupation as the reality. Later Mr. Atakol reported this incident to Mr. Denktash, who wrote a letter to the Commander of the “Turkish Peace Forces”, telling him not to give ever any permission to the T/C coordinator and to the other three persons accompanying me during that visit.

On 13 May 1991 the T/C Committee of the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus filed a complaint with the Council of Europe, Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg in order to protest the restrictions imposed on our freedom of travel in our own country. This application (No.18270/92, Ahmet Cavit An and others v. Cyprus) made the T/C leadership furious, which reacted in the press against us. (Vatan newspaper, 25 May 1991)

Within the three years of our Movement (24 September 1989 – 8 September 1992) , I applied 87 times for myself or for the T/C members of the Movement to get permission for contacts in political, cultural, medical and social fields. Unfortunately, only 15 of these applications received a positive response.

As my freedom of organization in my homeland was restricted, I decided to lodge an application to the ECHR against Turkey on 8 September 1992 and it was declared admissible in 1998. (Case of Djavit An v. Turkey, Application No.20652/92)

From 8 September 1992 until 14 April 1998, I filed 147 applications to the occupation authorities to allow me to visit the free area (58 for political reasons, 47 for cultural reasons, 25 for medical reasons and 17 for social reasons.) From the 147 applications, 122 were rejected by the Denktash regime and 22 were approved. It should be noted that most applications were filed for participation at bi-communal meetings. (A detailed report can be read here: http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2014/01/affidavit-of-drahmet-djavit-an.html )

On 20 February 2003, a press release was published about the judgement of the ECHR. "The Court considered that all the meetings the applicant wished to attend were designed to promote dialogue and an exchange of ideas and opinions between Turkish Cypriots living in the north and Greek Cypriots living in the south, with the hope of securing peace on the island," the release said. "The refusals to grant these permits to the applicant in effect barred his participation in bi-communal meetings, preventing him from peacefully assembling with people from both communities" it added. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 4,715 euros for costs and expenses.” Two months later the check-point at Ledra Palace was opened for crossings, which was the most important development since the division of our island in 1974.

T/C State Attorney, Zaim Necatigil, who was defending Turkey at the ECHR, wrote the following in Turkish in his book “The Cyprus Conflict and Turkey in the grip of ECHR: Cases brought against Turkey by the Greek Cypriot Administration and the Greek Cypriots before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights,  Ankara 2005”:

"The TRNC Government took a very dramatic decision on April 21, 2003 with the number E-762-203 number and lifted from 23 April 2003 onwards, except some formalities, all the restrictions in order to facilitate the crossings, mutually from North to the South and from South to the North." (p.189)

 “There was a great impact of the Cavit An’s application to the European Court of Human Rights, which announced its decision on 20 February 2003,  on the opening of the gates on the “Green Line” on 23 April 2003. It is not possible to see the opening of the gates as a coincidence that came after this provision." (p.189)

"A compensation should have been paid to Cavit An. The Attorney-General of the TRNC contacted Cavit An, the Euro account was opened in a bank in the TRNC and the compensation and the judicial expenses were credited to that account. After the court's decision, the gates were opened and the objectives of the decision were fulfilled."(p.190)

 On 6 January 2019, the G/C newspaper Politis reported that in 2018, the T/Cs made 1,000,076 crossings and the G/Cs made 1,000,014 crossings from the 9 check-points on the dividing line. But unfortunately my wish of having a common political party has not yet been established!


Monday, April 22, 2024

The publication of “Cumhuriyet” (Republic), as the only newspaper that defended the coexistence of the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots on the island (1960-1962)

Abstract:

In this article, excerpts are given from the various editorials, main titles and news of “Cumhuriyet”, a weekly Turkish Cypriot newspaper, which was published 89 issues between 16 August 1960 and 23 April 1962.

The main contributors were the two lawyer-owners Ayhan M. Hikmet and Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan, (who were both murdered), his dentist brother Haşmet M. Gürkan, Dr. İhsan Ali and the trade-unionist Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu, who wrote without a signature about “Labour Life”.

The opinion of the “Cumhuriyet” writers are given on the following subjects like the responsibilities of the citizens and the press, the cooperation of the journalists, the constitutional problems, the problems of “Enosis” (union of Cyprus with Greece) and “Taksim” (partition of Cyprus), the warnings to the both leaderships.

Keywords:  the policy of the newspaper, responsibility of the press, warnings,  constitutional issues, cooperation of the journalists

 

The “Cumhuriyet” newspaper published its first issue on 16 August 1960, the date when the British colonial administration ended on the island of Cyprus and when the Republic of Cyprus was established as an independent state.

Reviewing all the 89 numbers of the newspaper provides us with important information about the first two years of the Republic of Cyprus. In this paper, I shall try to point out how this newspaper dealt with the problems of cooperation and co -existence of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot communities during the years of its publication.

This weekly newspaper was issued by a group of Turkish Cypriots who believed in the state of the Republic of Cyprus, which would be ruled by the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Its permanent writers were the following persons:

The editorials, signed as “Cumhuriyet” were written by Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan, who worked as a columnist in previous years.  Ayhan Mustafa Hikmet, who studied law later like Gürkan, wrote on unemployment, peasant’s situation and other economic problems in the Turkish Cypriot community. Ahmet M. Gürkan’s brother, Haşmet Muzaffer Gürkan wrote under the title “Thoughts” on page 2 and he also prepared the weekly news summaries and comments with his pseudonym “İlhan Gündüz” under the title “Panorama”. Dr. İhsan Ali, who was known for his opposition to the separatist policies of the Turkish Cypriot leadership was among the writers of the newspaper. On page 3, the “Labour Life” corner was prepared by the trade-unionist Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu, but his signature was not used. On the same page, news from the Greek Cypriot press was translated from the newspapers of the previous week”.

The path and ideal of the newspaper

The first issue of “Cumhuriyet” was published on 16 August 1960 in the M. Fikri Printing House in the Turkish quarter of Nicosia. It had four pages in tabloid form.

The first editorial had the title “Our Path and Our Country” and it stated that the newspaper had started its publication life in order to fill a gap that would not be underestimated for the Turkish Cypriot community and to complete the lack of an independent Turkish newspaper. The editorial continued as follows:

“Cumhuriyet”, which was put into the life of the Republic of Cyprus with a historical event such as the declaration of the Republic of Cyprus, would keep up with the principle of “peace at the homeland and peace in the world” and it will make an effort to give our country a best example of peace in the Mediterranean.”

In the editorial titled “Two Anniversaries” on 14 August 1961, a year of experience was summarized as follows:

“….We believe that if the two communities act with the mentality of cooperation based on mutual respect and the reign of peace and order in our country continue and if the economy of Cyprus is planned, a solution can be found to the economic crisis. Our newspaper celebrates the anniversary of the Republic with all citizens in the hope of seeing better days.”

Haşmet M. Gürkan, in his article titled “The Day of Independence”, after mentioning the explanations that the anniversary of the Republic of Cyprus would not be celebrated, he asked the question “Is there a country that does not celebrate the anniversary of its independence?” Later, he expressed the negativities of the government of the republic in one-year performance as follows:

“The implementation problem of the 30-70 percent proportion or the separation of the municipalities, where satisfactory progress could not be reached in the solution of these problems, the inability to prevent the incidents that shook the public order thoroughly, the fact that there are no remedies for economic crisis and for unemployment. These are the unsuccessful examples of one year’s performance.”

Responsibility of the Press

The “Cumhuriyet” newspaper criticized the writings in the Turkish Cypriot press as well as those in the Greek Cypriot press that were inclined to disrupt the relations between the two communities. For example, in the newspaper dated 13 September 1960 (Issue 5), the editorial titled “Destructive debates” wrote:

“Some of the Turkish and Greek newspapers are unfortunately printing some detailed articles that can wear out the young structure of the Republic of Cyprus. This must have sadden every Cypriot, who thinks reasonable in terms of the future of our young republic. In order not to concern this sadness, it is necessary for the responsible personalities from both main communities to come together and agree on a cooperation program, which will help them to relax the stretched nerves. Because every day the nerves are stretched a little more and the difference between emotions and thoughts between the two main communities is increasing.

As citizens, who do not want the come-back of the dark days of the past, we believe that the time has already passed away for both communities in order to give up the extreme national feelings and irrelevant hatred against each other. If we do not walk on a responsible road for our new state as citizens of the young Cyprus Republic, it may fall back into the dark cliff of the past, and the gangrene gnawing Congo today can gnaw the body of the young Cyprus Republic as well.

The duty of every Cypriot is to leave aside the extreme emotions, to forget the past and make an effort for the economic development of this beautiful homeland, and to hold the helping hand of the United Nations as mature citizens. The most urgent case is that our island should get free from the economic crisis. Not to increase chauvinism!”

An opposition party was also established

The editorial of the Cumhuriyet newspaper dated 3 October 1960 (Issue: 8) wrote the following under the title of “Towards Democracy”:

“The Turkish Cypriot People’s Party, which we learned with pleasure that it was established in Limassol last Tuesday and organized in Nicosia yesterday, Sunday, is the main audit party or - as the public say - the main opposition party, born from the hearts of our people.”

It was also announced that Ahmet Muzaffer Gürkan was elected as the Secretary General at the party’s founding meeting.  Under the title of “Appeal of the Turkish Cypriot People’s Party to our people”, the party’s declaration said the following under the title of “Internal Politics”: 

“It is essential in the field of domestic politics to indicate our attitude to the Republic of Cyprus, which is a result of Zurich and London agreements, and also to express our commitment to the letter and spirit of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus.”

Unending warnings of the “Cumhuriyet”

In the headline of the “Cumhuriyet” on 14 November 1960, there was the following warning: “Warning to those, who hope to benefit from inter-communal clashes… The chauvinist publications should be ended.”

The following views were included under the headline:

“In recent days, chauvinist publications that made harm to the interests of all Cypriot people have been accelerated by some writers from both sides. As it is known, the reason for accelerating these publications is that the idea of a “Cypriot Nation” was put forward by some political circles of foreign countries. These publications were taken forward to cursing the nationality of the other. According to the statement made by the Foreign Office of the Turkish Government, this ability to blur the harmony and the mutual trust between the Turkish and Greek community is harmful and it is too dangerous since it can prepare a new collision ground between the two communities. (…) In the Constitution of Cyprus, there is no article that denies the Turkishness of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greekness of the Greek Cypriots. The Republic of Cyprus is an entire state that has been formed from two national communities. There exists no Cypriot nation, but the Cypriot State. A multi-national state has not been seen for the first time in history. Whether Turkish or Greek, the patriotic and national duty of the press and the responsible circles is to keep the Republic of Cyprus alive and to evolve it.”

“Enosis and Taksim ideals should be abandoned”

Starting from the first issues, the “Cumhuriyet” newspaper constantly advocated the integrity of the island and the continuation of the new state and opposed the ideal of Enosis and Taksim, advocated by both community leaderships.

In the introduction to the article titled “Studies on the Constitution: Integrity of Cyprus” published in Cumhuriyet newspaper dated 23 August 1960 (Issue: 2), the following important article in the Zurich and London agreement was quoted: 

“The country of the Republic is a whole and cannot be divided. The union of Cyprus, in whole or in part, with any state or independence resulting from separation is excluded.”

The article ended by stating that this article shouted the following truth:

“In this country that has entered a new era, there is no room for extremist ideas such as two communities cannot live together. In this homeland, which is an inseparable whole, the two communities will take great steps towards a more democratic and prosperous life by respecting the rights of the two communities in the private field, helping each other in the public field, cooperating and strengthening their friendship.”

“Citizen’s duty”

 The editorial titled “Citizen’s Duty” and published in the newspaper dated 5 June 1961 stated the following:

“We believe that when peace and tranquility become established on our island and intercommunal relations become completely normal, the problems that will arise in the implementation of the Cyprus agreements will disappear.

However, in the current situation, talking about any change in the island status and going further and expressing the longing for statuses in two different poles such as partition and enosis can neither be considered to serve the interests of the people of Cyprus, nor of Turkey and Greece.

Expressing such extreme aspirations can only serve the insidious and subversive purposes of some foreign states that are the enemies of the Cypriot people. This should be known as such, and every Cypriot citizen should understand his responsibility within the framework of the Republic regime and always avoid expressing destructive and divisive aspirations.”

The following warnings were included in the article titled “The Future of Cyprus”, which appeared next to this editorial in the newspaper of the same date:

“Life has proven in practice that the independence of our beautiful homeland – the Pearl of the Mediterranean – Cyprus depends on the sincere cooperation of the two main communities living in Cyprus – the Turkish and Greek people – based on mutual understanding and respect. (…) The dreams of Enosis and Taksim, which are rejected by the Constitution signed by all relevant parties, must now be put to an end. Historical events have also proven that these two slogans do nothing more than create hostility, hatred and bloody incidents between the two communities.”

“Cyprus belongs to Cypriots”

In the article titled “Cyprus belongs to the Cypriots” in the Republic dated 2 January 1961 (Issue: 21), the formula of the independence of the island was given as follows:

“The duty of every Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot who loves his homeland and nation is to respect each other’s rights, to work with all their strength to ensure the survival and evolution of free Cyprus, and to lead their communities to a more democratic, more prosperous, happier and more peaceful life. To claim otherwise means – in our opinion – not seeing the truth, not understanding the truth, or deliberately turning a blind eye to the truth.

In short, the independence of Cyprus does not mean its annexation to any nation or state, but to be ruled by the Cypriots. Moreover, this, as a fundamental principle, was also included in the Cyprus Constitution and signed by those concerned.”

Constitutional Issues

The problems that arose during the implementation of the Cyprus Constitution were evaluated objectively and with common sense by the writers of the “Cumhuriyet” newspaper. The headline of the newspaper dated 3 April 1961 (Issue: 34) was as follows: "The bill of tax law has not passed through the parliament.”

In the details of the news, it was mentioned about the demonstration held by the young people in Nicosia, who wanted to resolve the Municipalities issue as soon as possible with the 70-30 percent ratio, and the news that “Berberoğlu resigned from the Parliamentary Group” was given with the following reason:

“He resigned from the Parliamentary Group because he did not like the attitude and the system followed by the Turkish group in the Parliament during the group negotiations, and he did not approve of the fact that the group still did not have a charter.”

“On the President’s words”

Haşmet M. Gürkan, author of the “Thoughts” column in “Cumhuriyet” dated 8 May 1961 (Issue: 39), wrote the following under the title “On the President’s Words”:

“President Archbishop Makarios painted a realistic picture of the intercommunal situation in Cyprus in an interview he gave to a foreign journalist a while ago. Stating that there is a kind of racial separation in Cyprus and that Greeks and Turks are not integrated neither socially nor commercially, the President said that he hoped that this situation, which started during the “State of Emergency”, will improve over time when the Cypriot people, both Greek and Turkish, realize that they are a new people.

The President expressed a painful truth. Until the days of emergency, relations between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus were normal. There was never any social cohesion between them, but the level of normal citizenship relations reached in those days was at a level that could be considered ideal for today.

There is no use dwelling on what has passed. The important thing is to start a new life in this new era of Cyprus. The government of the Republic must make special efforts in this regard. In our opinion, the first thing to do today should be to ensure that the issues under discussion, that is, some articles of the Constitution that have not yet been implemented, are implemented first. In this way, issues that are easily the subject of discussion and unrest will be eliminated. (…) Let the state undertake initiatives that make people love and accept it, let all Cypriots, Turkish and Greek alike, see the practical benefits of their common state, then who will listen to the politicians who hope to benefit from bringing down politics and who will listen to incitements and provocations?”

Common works of journalists

While the “Cumhuriyet” newspaper criticized the publications of Greek and Turkish newspapers in Cyprus that would disrupt the relations between the two communities, it followed a policy in favour of the cooperation of journalists from both sides.

For example, the headline news in the issue dated 23 January 1961 (Issue: 24) was as follows:

“Positive steps in inter-communal relations. Turkish and Greek journalists held a joint meeting. Dr. Küçük’s statement was well received.” In the news, Vice President of Cyprus Dr. Fazıl Küçük’s return from his visit to Lebanon was appreciated, because he showed the cooperation of the communities there as an example.”

In the newspaper dated 15 May 1961 (Issue: 40), it was announced that the delegation of Greek Cypriot and Turkish journalists would depart from Cyprus to Ankara by plane on 17 May. According to the news, the journalists would stay in Turkey for 12 days, make contacts, visit Istanbul and Izmir, and then go to Athens on 29, and also make a trip to Western Thrace. Returning to the island would be on June 10. The report stated that Haşmet M. Gürkan would attend the trip on behalf of Cumhuriyet newspaper.

Haşmet M. Gürkan started to write his impressions about these trips in the “Thoughts” column of the newspaper dated 5 June 1961 (Issue: 43), under the title “Notes from a “goodwill” trip: 1” and continued in 8 articles until 24 July. In his first article, under the title “The need to live together”, Gürkan referred to the conversation Turkish Foreign Minister Selim Sarper had with Cypriot journalists and conveyed his impressions under the following subheadings: Living together, It is easy to destroy, It is difficult to build and Pending issues.

In this article, Gürkan also published the “Joint Declaration” of Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot journalists and quoted the following common wish: “Although there are difficulties that naturally occur in newly established states, we are sure that mutual understanding and good-will will compensate for them in a short time.”

Representatives from the following newspapers participated in these trips to Turkey and Greece: Bozkurt, Fileleftheros, Kypros, Cumhuriyet, Haravghi, Phos, Nacak, Mahi, Halkın Sesi.

In the newspaper dated 19 June 1961, Ayhan M. Hikmet, who represented the Cumhuriyet newspaper in the Cyprus press delegation that went to Cairo with President Makarios, who visited the United Arab Republic on 3 June, shared his impressions under the title “Notes from the United Arab Republic Trip” in three articles.

Dr. İhsan Ali’s warnings

Dr. Ihsan Ali, who was among the authors of “Cumhuriyet”, criticized the statements made by some Greek Cypriot politicians to the Greek Cypriot press in his article titled “Our Greek citizens should follow a policy based on reality”, which was published on 20 February 1961 (Issue: 28). He wrote:

“What is done is done; Even if this Republic is a freak, it is the duty of everyone living on this island, whether Turkish or Greek, to keep it alive. Every individual should act with a Cypriot mentality and work for the progress and improvement of the country. Running behind other dreams only creates restlessness and disorder. However, the melting of the ice that has formed between the two elements is only possible if these two elements approach each other and revive the old friendship. For this, mutual goodwill is essential. Of course, one-sided sacrifice and compromise cannot be expected.”

Dr. İhsan Ali, in another article titled “Political Unrest in the Homeland” published in the newspaper’s issue dated 21 August 1961, stated that Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot press should not fuel political unrest in the country and he continued as follows:

“Turkish and Greek press have been in a duel for a while. Ironically, the tense situation between them has become even worse after the goodwill trips. (...) Creating general unrest with inappropriate and indecent polemics will not benefit this country at all... In order to put an end to this situation, Turks and Greeks need to work together. (...) At the same time, chauvinists and demagogues on both sides should now remain silent for the sake of the interest of this country. Enosis and Taksim have now been a dream for both sides. There is no reason why the two elements, who have lived as friends and brothers in Cyprus for centuries, should not live the same way from now on...

As a result, in order to eliminate the political unrest in the country, the Enosis and Taksim theses must be left aside and those in power must prevent threats and intimidation and give up actions such as partisan treatment of citizens.”

Giving importance to Turkish language

In the article titled “Theme of the Week: On Television” on the front page of Cumhuriyet dated 6 February 1961 (Issue: 26), Haşmet M. Gürkan stated that a separate “Turkish Broadcasting Directorate” should be established on television, as in radio. He emphasized and said, “I guess there is no other way to improve Turkish programs and raise them to a quality level.”

In the article titled “Far-fetched Turkish” on the 4th page of the newspaper dated 5 March 1962, it was complained that the official newspaper did not show the necessary respect for Turkish, and therefore it stated that words that do not comply with the Turkish legal language were used in the text of a law dated 1 March. It was emphasized that “legal texts should bear clear and precise expressions.” The article warned:

“Since attention is not paid to writing the language in its best form, texts full of grammatical errors in Turkish are published as law... It is time to prevent them from making further disrespect for our language.”

“The duty of the press”

Ayhan Hikmet’s article in the issue of Cumhuriyet newspaper dated 2 October 1961 had the title “The Duty of the Press” where the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot press were accused of “incitement”. Ayhan Hikmet included the following views in his article:

“For the future of the country, the entire Cypriot press, both Turkish and Greek, has a great responsibility: It will bring peace and tranquility to the country, it will pave the way for economic development, it will provide the greatest service in eliminating poverty. Today, every Cypriot, whether Turkish or Greek, poor or rich, young or old, expects this duty from the press. Today, with all our sincerity and good will, we call out to all local press, Turkish and Greek, to establish friendly relations, and we continue to publish within the framework of previously reached agreements, away from any kind of provocation, and taking into account the high interests of the country and communities. The interests of our country expect this from us.”

The newspaper’s headline dated 16 October1961 was as follows: “Intercommunal relations should not be undermined. Issues of disagreement and tension should first be addressed by the authorities.”

The headline of the newspaper dated 23 October 1961 had the following warnings: “The Turkish quarter should not be isolated from other elements. Let us know how to defend our rights with dignity, not with exuberance.”

In the news, Dr. Küçük made a call for Greek Cypriot tradesmen to return to the central market of Nicosia, whereas Denktaş’s statement to Bozkurt newspaper that “if they return, serious incidents will occur” was criticized. The news in the headline ended with the following wish: “It will be ensured that Turkish quarters become regions where various elements come together and shopping increases to an ideal level, as before.”

The news under this headline in “Cumhuriyet” of the same date was as follows: “Is our community being dragged into new adventures? Destroying the Zurich and London Agreements would mean the destruction of our community.”

In the news, it was stated that three Turkish Cypriot ministers held a meeting with their senior officials in the previous week and suggested that they should not listen to the Greek Cypriot chiefs and ministers and that a kind of civil disobedience campaign should be launched, and the opinion was expressed that “Common sense has prevailed for now.”

Warnings to the Greek Cypriot press

In a comment titled “Eleftheria’s Strange Attitude” published in Cumhuriyet on 6 November 1961, the newspaper wrote a comment that after the Greek general elections, the Greek Cypriot people together with the Greek government and opposition should demand a foreign policy that targets the reconsideration of the “strange Zurich and London agreements on the basis of “justice and morality” and it continued as follows:

“The fanatical circles that want this to be done today may also want the agreements to be terminated tomorrow. We are not going to claim that the Zurich agreement is perfect. But it is a fact that this agreement provided Cyprus first with peace and then with independence. The London agreement and the constitution prepared later provided the opportunity for the two main communities in Cyprus to join hands and establish a self-governing state on the lands they own. The one-year history of the Republic of Cyprus has shown that the Republic is capable of survival, despite various internal and external negative influences, suggestions and provocations. “It was the Zurich agreement that provided the appropriate environment for the Republic to survive.”

The commentary article said that Eleftheria newspaper should “desist from negative publications” and ended as follows:

“Those who do not want painful and dark times to begin again in these beautiful lands, where peace came late, must respect the Zurich agreement, just by looking at its peaceful character.”

In Cumhuriyet dated 13 November 1961 (Issue: 66), criticisms of Greek Cypriot newspapers were continued under the following headings: “No digging in ashes Mahi”, “What does Eleftheria say to this”, “When it comes to them” (to Eleftheria’s article), “Opinions that do not agree with the facts” (to Kypros’s article).

The headline of the newspaper dated 20 November 1961 was as follows: “Our pure advice to Dr. Spiridakis is not to blur the atmosphere of the country for the sake of political success. Attacking the agreements while defending the Greek Community Chamber is incompatible with political maturity.”

Crisis in the House of Representatives

The headline of Cumhuriyet dated 25 December 1961 was “The Income Tax Bill could not be passed” and the following warning was made:

“While the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot people are struggling with the economic crisis, members of the House of Representatives should not try to create a political crisis. What is expected from political office holders is to act with restraint. The spirit of the Vice President’s statement is such that it can set an example for those in charge of the government.

Let us state in advance that today’s political crisis is caused by, on the one hand, some chauvinistic Greek (-Cypriot) deputies, who are in the complex of “Are we going to say yes to every request of the Turks?” and, on the other hand, it is the result of the stubborn attitudes of some Turkish members, who act under the directives of well-known circles with their ideas and actions that hinder the normal functioning of the Republican regime. How sad it is that even the efforts of Berberoğlu, a Turkish member known for his constructive ideas and actions, could not affect this stubborn attitude. (…) What adds a bigger link to this chain of mistakes is, of course, the chauvinistically written articles of the “Ethniki” newspaper, the organ of the Greek (-Cypriot) opposition party.”

The headline of the newspaper dated 1 January 1962 (Issue: 73) was “The strange situation caused by the non-passage of the Income Tax Bill” and the following warning was made:

“The government mechanism will be disrupted and the citizens will pay double taxes. “We invite the members of the House of Representatives to fulfil their duties towards the people.”

Cumhuriyet newspaper used the following headline in its issue dated 8 January 1962 (Issue: 74):

“Logic, not emotion, should dominate the President’s words... The Cypriot press should seriously focus on the country’s issues.”

The news stated that Makarios, in his speech at a religious institution meeting, said that the Cyprus Agreements were a stepping stone to victory and that he would try to change the constitution, and that he laid the groundwork for trade unions to send a telegram to the UN and demand a reconsideration of the 70-30 percent ratio. The newspaper ended its news with the following words: “The duty of the Cypriot press, which is responsible for shedding positive light on general opinion, is to avoid all kinds of publications that may incite unrest in our country.”

In the article titled “Yorgadjis’s unforgivable blunder” published in Cumhuriyet dated 12 February 1962, it was announced that the Minister of Internal Affairs gave a speech at an opening ceremony in Limassol that hurt the feelings of the Turkish Cypriot community and was full of accusations about the Turkish nation. A week later, Haşmet M. Gürkan, in his column titled “We are fed up”, made the following warning: “Politicians in responsible positions should put aside the war of words and resolve the issues at the table.”

In the news titled “Public disorder must be prevented” in the same newspaper, the following warnings were made: “It is reported that some Turkish street vendors who went to Greek neighbourhoods to shop were insulted and expelled by some Greek youth... The Police Commander and the Minister of Internal Affairs did not deny these news, otherwise, are the police incapable?”

In the issue of Cumhuriyet newspaper dated 19 February 1962, an article titled “On the occasion of Küçük’s application to the Constitutional Court” stated the following: “He applied to the Supreme Constitutional Court, claiming that neither he nor the Turkish ministers were given the right to speak on many issues related to the foreign policy of Cyprus. The development of inter-communal relations cannot be served by ignoring the Turkish officials in the government of the Republic.”

The headline of the newspaper dated 12 March 1962 was as follows: “President Makarios and the Vice President will meet again. Does rapprochement between communities come at the expense of curtailing some freedoms?” The news continued as follows: “The meeting that Makarios and Küçük held a week ago was the first meeting that led to inter-communal rapprochement. They will meet again this week and thoroughly review some pending issues between the two communities.”

There was another warning at the end of the news: “Achieving intercommunal peace at the expense of citizens’ freedom of thought and speech can never be considered a gain for the country.”

In the issue of Cumhuriyet newspaper dated 26 March 1962, there was the following important news: “As a result of the assault at Bayraktar and Ömerge mosques, Bayraktar’s tomb was destroyed and the minaret suffered significant damage. We strongly condemn this heinous assault.” (…) “As a newspaper that longs for the positive development of relations between the two communities, we strongly condemn the confusing mentality that creates these encroachments that constitute a conspiracy against the inter-communal relations.”

Pressures and threats to the newspaper and its writers

In the article titled “Oppressors and Idealists” published on the front page of the newspaper and without any signature, in its issue dated 18 September 1961, “Cumhuriyet” announced that “the distribution of the newspaper and the sharing of its ideas were wanted to be prevented.”

The statements in the relevant paragraph referring to the publications of “Nacak” newspaper, the voice of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, were as follows: “Well-known oppressive and terrorist circles have launched a new campaign against the “Cumhuriyet”. Their aim is to prevent the “Cumhuriyet” from being read, distributed, and the ideas it wrote from being disseminated at all costs.”

Under the newspaper’s headline dated 1 January 1962 (Issue: 73), it was noted under the title “Citizen, be alert: Terrorism is on the loose” that there was an attempt to damage Lawyer Ayhan Hikmet’s car on the night of 28 December.  On the 2nd page, Ayhan Hikmet’s article had the title “The road to fascism”.

Haşmet M. Gürkan wrote the following in his article titled “Because of the Extremists” in Cumhuriyet dated 9 April 1962: “As a newspaper that sees the fact that there are extremist elements on both sides we already started a struggle with them for the sake of the interests of the country and community. We would like to point out the diagnosis of Mr. President (given as a statement to the Istanbul newspaper).”

Two lawyers were killed and the opposition was silenced

Regarding the bombs placed on Ömerge and Bayraktar Mosques, Cumhuriyet made the following call in its last issue dated 23 April 1962 (Issue: 89) under the title “Citizens should say what they know”:

“It is essential that the citizens who have information about these events should report them to the Investigation Commission without hesitation, for the sake of our country and the establishment of peace on our island.”

In the article titled “We remind Nacak” published in the same newspaper, it was said:

“Yes, we repeat: Everyone with common sense has guessed who the low, mean and sold-out guy responsible for the bomb incidents is. The day is near when the mask on this scoundrel’s face will be taken off. And when that day comes, we will be the ones who will be able to state with certainty that the Turkish (-Cypriot) community cannot be held responsible for these despicable bomb incidents.”

On the night that these lines appeared in the newspaper, Ahmet Gürkan, who arrived home with his car at around 20:30, was shot and killed with an automatic weapon. Later at night, around 01:45, Ayhan Hikmet was shot to death with a hunting rifle in his bed at home, in front of his wife’s eyes. From now on, all the opposing voices that existed within the Turkish Cypriot community were buried in a deep silence!

Contributor:

Ahmet Cavit An is a retired paediatrician by profession and has written since 1971 many articles and studies on the Cyprus problem and the history of the island in various newspapers and journals in Istanbul and Nicosia. He published 25 books (in Turkish) in Cyprus and in Turkey about the history of the Turkish Cypriots in the political and cultural field.  

(This paper was read at the international conference on “The Period of Co-Existence of Greeks and Turks in Cyprus (1960-1963)”, which was held in Nicosia on 1 – 2 December 2023 by the Cyprus Society of Historical Studies in collaboration with the Department of History and Archaeology, University of Cyprus, and the School of Law, University of Nicosia.)

Wednesday, October 18, 2023

THE COMMON ACTION PROBLEMATIC OF THE CYPRIOT LEFT: FROM PAST TO PRESENT

When we speak of the Cyprus Left, we must first clarify what we mean by this. Greek Cypriot writer Kyriacos Djambazis, in his book "Disclosure of a Myth", emphasizes that the nationalist leadership of the Greek Cypriot community does not include Turkish Cypriots in the definition of "Cypriot people" with an "expansionist" understanding. In this case, since the Cypriot people will consist only of the majority Greek community living on the island, the exclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community, which does not comply with their demands for union with Greece, becomes a necessity in terms of political integrity.

AKEL AND EXCLUSION OF MINORITIES

Djambazis writes that the Communist Party of Cyprus (KKP), which was founded in 1926 and developed a policy against the nationalists' goal of Enosis, has set the island's full independence as its main goal and argues that this can only be achieved through the joint struggle of the two communities (Lefkoşa 2013, p.55).

On the other hand, the leadership of AKEL, which replaced the KKP and defined itself as the "Progressive Party of the Cypriot Workers", adopted the definition of "Cypriot people = Greek Cypriot community", like the nationalist Greek Cypriot leadership, and excluded from the common political struggle foremost the Turkish Cypriot community, as well as other religious groups like the Maronites, Armenians, Latins.

Djambazis, who also gives us information about the existence and views of the members who criticize AKEL's policy of Enosis and its mistakes in its approach to Turkish Cypriots, referred to an article titled "AKEL and the Turkish Cypriots", written by Pavlakis Georgiou, a member of the AKEL Politburo and responsible for the Turkish Cypriot community. In that article titled "Minorities" (No: 12, 1954, pp. 294-297), Pavlakis Georgiou stated:

“AKEL both did not educate the Greek people about the difficulties of the struggle and underestimated the role of minorities. For this reason, it has never addressed minorities, never enlightened them or called them to struggle... Moreover, the ignoring or belittling of the Turkish minority by our progressive party is nothing but an obvious expression of this chauvinism.” (p.31)

In his footnote to this quote, Djambazis makes the following assessment:

“The contempt mentioned in the quote is limited to the non-use of the Turkish language in workers' meetings and party documents. Of course, while linguistic communication is a major factor, it is not the only factor. The reaction of the Turkish Cypriot workers was related to the Enosis policy supported by AKEL. AKEL management interpreted this as not being able to explain their theses because of language and refused to examine the underlying causes.” (p.31)

At the meetings held by the "Left and the Cyprus Problem" group, I also discussed these issues in my papers titled "Language Problem in the Common Class Struggle in Cyprus" (1924-1954) in 2018 and "The Enosis Problem of the Greek Cypriots and Political Cooperation with the Turkish Cypriots (1902)" in 2020.

FROM ENOSIS TO FEDERATION

At a press conference with Turkish Cypriot journalists in 1989, AKEL Secretary General Dimitris Christofias answered a question directed to him regarding the issue of enosis as follows:

“Our current program was approved in 1962 and still hasn't changed. At that time the goal was complete independence. In the conditions of those days, the Turks were scattered and there were no conditions for federation. After 1974, conditions were created for two separate regions and federation. In our opinion, Turks should live in the North, Greeks should live in the South, and Turks should be in the majority in the North. All these views are new and naturally unpredictable in the conditions of 1962. Our program needs to be changed. That program is not valid today. The valid ones are the party decisions, taken after 1974. What is on the agenda now is federation, and enosis and partition must be buried forever. We are divorced from Enosis, enosis is now buried.” (Halkın Sesi, 19-23 April 1989)

Speaking at an event, organized by AKEL on the evening of October 13, 2000, Party Secretary General Dimitris Christofias said that Cyprus gained its independence after many years and tough struggles, that the majority of the people took part in this struggle, but there were some mistakes on the domestic front and the Turkish Cypriot factor was not given the necessary attention. (Kıbrıs newspaper, 16 October 2000).

This important statement of Christofias about the policy of AKEL, the biggest party of the Greek Cypriot left, which excludes the Turkish Cypriot community, reminded me of an article published in the newspaper "Demokratis" in 1952 and I wrote under the pseudonym "Yusuf Aydın", an article titled “AKEL and the Turkish Cypriot Factor”, in which I felt the need to emphasize this important point once again:

“But unfortunately, AKEL itself, which prides itself on being the party of the Cypriot working class, still does not pay due attention to the Turkish Cypriot factor.” (Kıbrıs’ta Sosyalist Gerçek, No:58, November-December 2000)

This historical article, which puts its finger on this burning issue and asks for due attention to the issue half a century ago, was taken from AKEL's publication "Demokratis" and it was translated into Turkish and was published in the newspaper Halkın Sesi, dated March 19, 1952 under the title “The Liberation Struggle of the People of Cyprus. (Written by G.Ioannidi, K.Koliyannis, P.Rusu, Translated by K. Muhtaroğlu) In this article titled “=Turkish Minority=", among other things, it was said:

“AKEL should explain to the Turkish minority in concise and sensitive words that the independent administration to be provided in case of the annexation with Greece will provide the Turkish Cypriots with ample autonomy, national, linguistic, political, religious and other development. AKEL will not be the leader party of the struggle of the Cypriot people unless it succeeds in influencing and winning over the Turkish minority workers in the political arena and as an organization.”

The justification of these warnings, which appeared in Demokratis in March 1952, was accepted at that time, as the PEO established a separate Turkish Office for Turkish Cypriot members in November 1952. The news that AKEL also established a separate Turkish Bureau appeared in the Turkish Cypriot press in June 1954. The first statement signed by "AKEL Turkish Branch Office", which was distributed to the public, was published in full text in the newspaper Halkın Sesi, dated October 20, 1954. (A.An, Transition from Class Unionism to Ethnic Unionism and Workers' Opposition among Turkish Cypriots, Nicosia, 2005, pp.208-212)

In his book, Djambazis writes the following regarding the attitude of Turkish members on the issue of Enosis defended by AKEL: "Unfortunately, there is no written document showing how the AKEL administration informed the Turkish party members, or even if they did, how these members reacted." (p.25)

I also wanted to cover the important and sensitive issue of AKEL's Enosis policy and Turkish Cypriots in my book titled “The First Pioneers of Our Working Class - Turkish Cypriots in the Labour Movement Until 1958” (Khora Publishing, Nicosia, January 2011), but only what I could obtain. I quoted two anecdotes. (p.141)

FEDERAL STATE

The fascist Greek coup in the summer of 1974 and the subsequent partition of the island by Turkey forced the Greek Cypriot leadership, including AKEL, to accept the federation model. On what grounds was AKEL now accepting this model, which contradicted the USSR's view that "a form of federal state can also be considered" in 1965?

As the author of these lines, I had been wanting to ask the AKEL leadership, whom I sympathize with, some questions that have plagued my mind since I started to look at the world from the perspective of the working class. As a matter of fact, in a letter I forwarded to AKEL on December 20, 1977, I requested the explanation of the reasons for the adoption of the federal solution, which was strongly opposed by the party before, and asked the following questions:

“Wouldn't it be helpful to hold a conference on theoretical and organizational issues regarding Turkish Cypriots before the 14th General Assembly of AKEL? What will be the future of ethno-political integration in Cyprus?”

Unfortunately, this proposal was not even responded to and the “approach to Turkish Cypriots and the nationality problem” continued to prevent the two communities' relations from improving as a bleeding wound.

JOINT FRONT OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS AND GREEKS

The following decision, taken at the AKEL Central Committee Plenum Meeting on February 24, 1989, is still relevant today:

“Another prerequisite for the victory of our struggle and the liberation of Cyprus is the joint front of the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. According to AKEL, the idea of establishing a joint struggle front is maturing today. The necessity of a common struggle on the Greek Cypriot side is accepted by the wider public. (...) AKEL, which has a wide prestige in the Greek Cypriot community and also in the Turkish community, will take the initiative to bring the idea of rapprochement and establishing a common front into practice. This task is not easy at all. There are many issues that need to be discussed and clarified in order to reach the desired level of consensus with our Turkish Cypriot citizens.”

In a series of articles titled “What AKEL's 80th Anniversary Theses Reflect” that I wrote in May 2005, I stated the following:

“On April 23, 2003, after the Turkish Cypriot side allowed mutual free crossings to both sides of the green line, albeit limited, we did not witness new expansions in AKEL's rapprochement policy. Interestingly, the case filed by Ahmet An, the Turkish Cypriot Coordinator of the Contact Group for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, against Turkey, the sovereign power in the north of Cyprus, was won in the European Court of Human Rights on February 20, 2003, after a waiting period of 12 years. The main theme of the case was the inhibition of “freedom of association”.

In the first month after the attainment of this freedom, a negative response was given to the question “When will the Turkish Bureau open, which AKEL closed in 1974 on the grounds that contacts were no longer possible”, by the Secretary General of AKEL Dimitris Christofias. His explanation was on the grounds of “safety of comrades”. It was a sign of how difficult the struggle that had to be fought was going to be. Moreover, it is known that nearly 30 letters I sent to the party between December 2, 1974 and November 4, 2003, requesting opinions on theoretical and organizational problems related to Turkish Cypriots, were left unanswered.

Another reason we were told during our meetings with other AKEL supporters was as follows: “Turkish Cypriot progressive parties are against AKEL establishing a separate Turkish branch. It is sufficient to support the progressive parties that still exist in the north.”

However, as far as we know, this support has been maintained for years in the form of purchasing tickets from the solidarity lottery of the CTP held every year. Unfortunately, those who "own without any criticism" of the party policy also achieve a zero-to-none result due to the struggles to "not be a mug stuck in AKEL's tail"! In other words, the "agents" of once have just turned into a "bad copy"!

Since the gates were opened, AKEL has yet to hold any political meeting for Turkish Cypriots living in north of the division line. Another disadvantage is that the joint commissions created together with the CTP do not work, regardless of the reason. Especially during the voting of the Annan Plan, AKEL's saying "no for a strong yes" led to the loss of sympathy for AKEL in the Turkish Cypriot community. Despite the fact that the party has adopted the federal solution, it has emerged that it has not sufficiently enlightened both its members and the Greek Cypriot community in general on what the federal state is and what it is not, and on the sharing of power. (…)

NO UNITY TO FIGHT CYPRUS TURKISH LEFTISTS

AKEL preferred to stay away from Turkish Cypriots, both after 1968, when the youth of higher education was closely interested in leftist ideology, and under the extraordinary conditions created by the coup and occupation in 1974, just at a time when a guiding Turkish Office was needed.

Especially, AKEL made a big mistake by closing the Turkish Bureau, and under the new conditions, it caused the Turkish Cypriot workers to be deprived of a leadership that would enable them to equip themselves with an internationalist policy against the separatist policies of the nationalist Turkish Cypriot leadership. It is an important shortcoming that this vital mistake made in organizing is not mentioned in the 80th year theses.” (These critical articles were published in Afrika newspaper between 15-22 May 2005.)

IMPERIALISM DOES NOT WANT THE UNITY OF THE CYPRUS LEFT

In the 1990 Edition "Yearbook of International Communist Affairs", which is published every year in the USA, there is the following assessment of the Turkish Cypriot left:

"If the north and south of Cyprus were to reunite in a "Federal Republic" one day, it can be predicted that the combined voting power of the left-wing parties in both communities could secure a majority of the votes in a Presidential election.

This fear of American imperialism, first expressed in the 1989 Yearbook and more clearly formulated a year later, explains why the United States pursued a two-state confederal solution based on partition of the island. It also reveals the reason for the "hostility against the Greeks" and "not having contact between the communities" policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, which has been a collaborator of British and American imperialism. (A.An, The U.S. View of the Turkish Cypriot Left, Sosyalist Gözlem, October 1993, Issue:5)

In the 1991 Yearbook, the following evaluation is made:

“Although AKEL is not banned within the Turkish Cypriot community, the party has chosen not to be active in the north due to the difficulty of establishing contact via the “green line”.

There are three left-wing parties among Turkish Cypriots: CTP, TKP and YKP. All three left-wing parties advocate a federal solution to the Cyprus problem and believe that intercommunal rapprochement is a tool in achieving this. According to the CTP leader, “all three left-wing parties are unique in their own right, and none of them copy any party in the south of Cyprus or anywhere else in the world.” (Learned from personal communication between Özker Özgür and writer Thomas W. Adams on 6 November 1990.)”

LEFT PARTIES OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS

When the island was partitioned after the events in July 1974, Turkish Cypriots gathered in the north and formed various political parties, unions and associations. The struggles of those who are mentioned on the left are known for their successes and mistakes. The parties that represent today the Turkish Cypriot left politically are as follows:

The Republican Turkish Party (CTP), which was founded at the end of 1970 and defended a left social democratic line for many years, has adopted a liberal policy today. The old left line of the CTP has to some extent been taken over by the New Cyprus Party -YKP. YKP was founded in 1989 by the left wing that broke away from the Communal Liberation Party-TKP. Those who left the CTP together with Özker Özgür formed the Patriotic Unity Movement (YBH) in 1998 by merging with the YKP, but later left and founded the United Cyprus Party (BKP) in 2002. The Right Social Democrat, Communal Democracy Party-TDP- is the continuation of the TKP, which was founded in 1976, and it cannot develop because the party cannot reproduce itself.

Some of the members and supporters of these four political parties are the projections of those views in the unions of workers, teachers and other civil servants. Other elements of the Turkish Cypriot left, who are independent of these structures and have a political view, can occasionally convey their thoughts in certain publications or in their own magazines or newspapers, or they maintain their existence in the form of certain narrow friend groups. The Cyprus Socialist Party, which was founded by the "Socialist Reality in Cyprus" magazine in 2002, and the Independence Path established in 2018 by the "Baraka Cultural Association" can be given as examples.

It is noteworthy that, with a few exceptions, all these organizations did not adopted the accumulated experience of the Turkish Cypriot left, which were silenced by the bloody terror and oppression applied by the TMT in 1958. These parties, which do not base their current policies on the principles that the old left tradition defended with the mistakes and merits, cannot clearly show the Turkish Cypriot community the way out of the political, economic, social and cultural impasse they are in, and in the final analysis, they leave the people helpless and melt away.

Almost all of the political parties in the Greek Cypriot part are against the partition of the island and demand that the Cyprus problem be resolved with a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal state structure and an end to the fait accompli that has been imposed on the island for 49 years by military force. Let us remind you that the candidate of AKEL, the largest organized party of the Greek Cypriot left, won 48% of the votes in the last presidential elections.

OBSTACLES TODAY

The Turkish and Greek Cypriot left, which should join forces to re-organize the Republic of Cyprus under a federal roof and to re-establish friendship and cooperation between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, the two main ethnic-national communities living on our island, against the partitionist and separatist policies of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, should immediately make a new assessment of the situation. In order to overcome the difficulties on the way to an independent and federal Republic of Cyprus, it has become an inevitable necessity to get rid of fake leftists and reorganize the struggle.

Unfortunately, we are far from the goal of a unified federal state, although advocates of a federal solution make up 48% of voters on both sides. Akinci and Mavrogiannis, the federalist presidential candidates on both sides, resigned from politics after failing to win the elections. Already after the collapse of the inter-communal negotiations in Crans Montana, the Turkish Cypriot side abandoned the UN parameters based on a federal solution and began to advocate the policy of “two separate states”.

But now is the time to form an All-Cyprus Federalists Front to fight for a united Cyprus whose federal constitution is at the signing stage. In this struggle, it is inevitable that those who seem to be in favour of a federal solution but support the confederal solution or the final partition will be exposed. What we mean here is the so-called federalist policy of the CTP. CTP Chairman Tufan Erhürman, who says he is a "Federalist", did not continue the struggle for a solution in this direction and left the scene to the separatists.

Same Erhürman spoke at a meeting of the United Cyprus - Bi-communal Peace Initiative, held with the leaders of CTP, TDP, DISI and AKEL on February 11, 2019 under the title "Bi-communal Discussion Panel" in the buffer zone in Nicosia against the speech of KTOEÖS President Selma Eylem, who stated that “The north of the country turned today into the backyard of the Republic of Turkey”, Erhürman reacted by saying that “even if I were not the Prime Minister of the TRNC, I would reject her statement completely” and stating that he did not agree with what was said. This was the clearest proof of the CTP's policy of not blaming the occupying country.

In addition, Erhürman took the floor after the speech of POGO Women's Movement General Secretary Skevi Koukouma, who attended the 10th Ordinary Congress of the CTP Women's Organization on May 28, 2022 and repeated again: "I am under the obligation and responsibility to openly state that we, as CTP, do not accept some of the terms used in her speech here, and that we reject the terminology of the occupied area."

The most important factor underlying the election failure of the supporters of the federal solution, besides the interventions of the occupying power, is the use of the "citizen-made" settler population transferred here as a vote depot in the race for seats in the Parliament.

The day-to-day criticisms of the government by hiding the occupier and the invader serve no purpose other than "we cooperate better". The solution forces that are in favour of the federal Cyprus should gather and come together and seek ways to meet with the federalists in the Greek Cypriot side as soon as possible on a COMMON POLITICAL platform! It is not enough to just publish joint statements, we must make our voices heard in the international community!

(This is the English translation of the original Turkish text of the paper, presented at the 5th Annual Conference of the “Left and Cyprus Problem”, held on 14 October 2023 at the “Home for Cooperation” in the buffer zone in Nicosia, where the subject was the “Common Action by the Cypriot Left”. Because of time constraint, only the text of the last two subtitles was read.)