Saturday, November 16, 2024

How near are we to the targeted federal solution aimed at solving the Cyprus problem?

This year, I would like to touch on why we are far from the targeted federal solution to the Cyprus problem. First, let's take a look at the history of the Turkish Cypriots' desire for a separate state.

As is known, the unitary constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, which was established in 1960, encountered some difficulties in implementation and after the 13-article amendment proposals announced by President Makarios on November 30, 1963, these proposals were rejected by Turkey before the Turkish Cypriot leadership on the grounds that they would only grant minority rights to the Turkish Cypriots and the intercommunal clashes began on December 21, 1963.

Dr. Küçük announced on December 30, 1963 that "the Constitution is dead" and that he no longer saw himself as Vice President and that he and the Turkish Cypriot ministers refused to attend government meetings. The Turkish leadership also began to establish parallel services in the regions under Turkish control. Turkish Cypriot civil servants stopped attending their duties.

In the French newspaper Le Monde on January 10, 1964, Vice President Dr.   Küçük told the reporter that “the 35th parallel would be the ideal line for the division of Cyprus, and he wanted the northern half of the island, including the ports of Kyrenia and Famagusta, to be given to the Turkish Cypriots. Dr. Küçük added: “We want to create a separate state. Mixed Greek Cypriot-Turkish Cypriot villages can no longer exist. My citizens live under the terror of their Greek Cypriot neighbours. The Turkish Cypriots are not a minority. They are a people with their own language, religion and traditions. We have as much right to this island as the Greek Cypriots.”

In the summer of 1964, President Makarios rejected the proposal presented by the US representative Acheson in Geneva, which was to annex the island to Greece on the condition that Turkey (NATO) would be given a military base on the Karpas Peninsula.

Prof. Nihat Erim, who participated in the negotiations on behalf of Turkey, wrote the following in his memoirs:

“General Turgut Sunalp explained the need for a region larger than the Karpas Peninsula in terms of military needs. Mr. Acheson and American officers accepted the Akanthou region line from the Boghaz to the north of the Gulf of Famagusta. The surface area of ​​Cyprus is 3572 square miles. With the accepted border, 300-350 square miles of this would be the region given to the Turks, that is, approximately 11% of the island... There would also be at least 5 Turkish canton regions. Thus, the Turks would have a say in 25-30% of the island.” (Cyprus within the scope of what I know and see, Ankara 1975, p.374)

The following very important words spoken by Prime Minister İsmet İnönü in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on September 8, 1964 clearly show what the Turkish side perceived from the very beginning about a new constitution to be made for Cyprus: “In order to be within the scope of the treaty, we started the discussion not with the official word of taksim (partition) but with the form of federation.”

INTERCOMMUNAL NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS (1968-1974)

The new constitution to be created in the intercommunal talks that started in June 1968 was based on a “unitary state”. It is recorded that the Turkish Cypriot negotiator Rauf Denktaş made various concessions on constitutional issues and accepted the reduction of the 30% communal representation rate in the state to 20%. However, President Makarios refused to grant the Turkish Cypriots autonomy in their own regions, which they formed by gathering in certain areas of the island and corresponding to 3% of the island’s territory, in return for these concessions. Because he thought that this could lead to the partition of the island in the future.

The Greek Cypriot negotiator Glafkos Kleridis, who has covered these issues in detail in his memoirs, wrote that when discussing with Makarios on April 10, 1973 the inclusion of Article 185 of the 1960 Constitution, which banned both enosis and partition, in the new Constitution, Makarios said that he would not sign any constitution that excluded “enosis” again until Greece and Turkey accepted these prohibitions with a protocol. (Cyprus: My Deposition, Volume: 3, Lefkoşa 1990, p.270)

It is known that the intercommunal talks ended with Prime Minister Ecevit proposing a federal solution to the Cyprus problem after his meeting with Rauf Denktaş on April 2, 1974.

It is also recorded that during the NATO meeting in Lisbon on June 4-7, 1971, the Greek representative Christos Palamas and the Turkish representative Osman Olcay prepared a plan to get rid of the President of Cyprus Makarios and declare "double enosis". This plan was implemented through the double betrayal of July 15 and 20, 1974, and our island was divided into two regions.

EVALUATION OF THE ANNAN PLAN VOTE HELD IN THE NORTH AT THE END OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TALKS (1977-2017)

After the summit agreements in 1977 and 1979, it was decided to continue the inter-communal talks on the basis of a "federal state". This process, which went through various stages, ended on April 24, 2004, with the "Annan Plan", named after the UN Secretary General, being submitted to the approval of the parties.

This solution plan could not be implemented and was eliminated, because it was accepted by 64.91% on the Turkish side and rejected by 75.38% on the Greek side in referendums held in both regions of the island. In fact, this plan, supported by the EU and the US, did not touch the British bases in Cyprus, but foresaw the recognition of the separatist structure in the north. On the other hand, it was striking that the Turkish settlers, who had moved to the part of the island occupied by Turkey since 1974, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention, were allowed to vote in the referendum. The nearly 65% ​​positive vote rate in the referendum held north of the partition line was exaggerated and misinterpreted by both the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey for many years. However, the results of a survey conducted by Kudret Akay, Director of the Cyprus Social Research Center (SOAR), among 960 people between June 4-11, 2003, were not promising us a reunification. They can be summarized as follows:

The views of voters in the north who voted “yes”:

1. 69.7% believed that their state would be recognized internationally and foresaw a positive course of events.

2. 67.3% supported EU membership.

3. 66.1% were in favour of separate sovereignty.

4. 58.5% believed that the land they were using would legally be owned by them.

5. 57.7% thought that the TRNC would be part of an internationally recognized state.

6. Those who considered a common state with the Greek Cypriots were 33.7% of those who voted “yes.”

7. Those who said “I said “yes” for the reunification of my homeland” were only 28.1%.

The views of the voters in the north who voted “no”:

1. 54.3% did not want to return the “land that was made a homeland”.

2. 44% did not want to join the EU without Turkey becoming a member.

3. 36.5% were against partnership with Greek Cypriots.

4. 29.2% believed that they would be negatively affected by new property relations.

5. 27.3% believed that they would be negatively affected by territorial adjustments.

6. 19.2% thought that they would not have a state of their own that would be recognized internationally. (Radikal newspaper, Istanbul, July 30, 2004)

As can be clearly seen from all these answers, the majority of the participants in the survey were motivated by nationalist feelings regarding “homeland”, “land” and “Turkey” and believed that the separatist “TRNC” statelet under the auspices of the Republic of Turkey would be recognized with EU membership.

THE POINT REACHED BY THE LAST ROUND OF TALKS

The Talat-Christophias talks, which began in September 2008, continued until 2013, when Eroğlu was elected president in 2010. Anastasiadis was elected in 2013, but the talks could only begin a year later, when the two leaders reached an agreement on February 11, 2014. Akıncı took over in 2015. He achieved significant rapprochement in the talks with Anastasiadis in Mont Pelerin in January 2017 and in Crans Montana in June 2017.

Despite the hundreds of pro-federation statements made in the past 50 years, it is known by political observers who have been following the events closely that the Turkish side, when talking about federation, actually wants the island and the Republic of Cyprus to be divided. In fact, Cyprus President Vasiliou spoke openly in a statement he gave to the BBC and said that the solution proposals of the Turkish Cypriot side were based on a different perception: “We are talking about a federation, but it is a federation for a single country. The Turkish Cypriot proposals want us to talk about two separate countries, two independent states. We cannot talk on this basis.” (Cyprus Mail, 5.3.1989)

The blockages in the intercommunal talks are due to this difference in understanding. The contradictions between what was said during Turkey’s military intervention in the summer of 1974 with the excuse of “restoring the constitutional order in Cyprus that had been disrupted” and what was done later are obvious. Moreover, contrary to the agreement signed by the three guarantor countries in 1960, the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus could not be protected and the 36% of the land in the north of the island has been subject to ethnic cleansing and military occupation for 50 years.

We should note that Rauf Denktaş officially mentioned the confederation for the first time in his Presidential Oath speech at the Cyprus Turkish Federated State Assembly on July 9, 1983. However, after that, whenever the Turkish side sat down for negotiations for a new federal constitution, it proved with all its behaviours and statements that it was not sincere. However, there are certain principles and concepts of international law that have been determined for years. Politics cannot be made without perceiving these. Different meanings cannot be attributed to them according to the interpretations of individuals. Federation cannot be interpreted instead of taksim, or federation cannot be interpreted instead of confederation.

FEDERALIST CANDIDATES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HELD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TAKSIM LINE

As is known, on July 7, 2017, the negotiations were interrupted again in the Swiss town of Crans Montana. The federal constitution was almost finished and while the last "Security" chapter was being discussed, a disagreement arose and then the Turkish side moved away from the UN parameters and turned to the "two separate states" policy.

Of the candidates who participated in the first round of the presidential elections held in the occupied area on October 11, 2020 and who were in favour of resolving the Cyprus problem with a federal constitution, independent candidate Mustafa Akıncı received 35,053 votes (29.84%), while CTP candidate Tufan Erhürman received 24,008 votes (21.67%). Independent candidate Kudret Özersay, who resigned from the People's Party General Chairmanship, received 6,574 votes (5.74%).

A week later, in the second round held on October 18, 2020, Mustafa Akıncı, who ran as the sole candidate of the supporters of a federal solution, received 62,910 votes (48.31%). But the winner was Ersin Tatar, who defended the new policy of the occupying power Turkey, “two separate states”. The difference in votes between Tatar, who was elected with 67,322 votes (51.69%), and Akıncı, who lost the election, was only 4,412. A report was published by the supporters of a federal solution stated that Turkey interfered in these elections held in the occupied area. The rate of those who did not participate in the elections was 32.71%.

In the presidential elections held south of the division line on February 12, 2023, the votes received by the candidate of the supporters of a federal solution, Mavroyannis, were 189,335 (48.03%), but Christodoulides won the race with 204,867 votes (51.97%). Here, the difference between the winning and losing candidates was 15,532 votes, while the rate of those, who did not participate in the elections was 27.55%.

As can be seen from the figures, while the federalist votes on both sides reached 48%, unfortunately a common federal Cyprus front could not be established. Because there is no consensus among the federalists on both sides. Neither AKEL nor CTP has prepared a summary containing the issues on which convergence was reached in Crans Montana. The communities have not been enlightened on this issue.

WHAT IS THE PROPORTION OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL UNION OF THE ISLAND?

According to the statement made by the Republic of Cyprus authorities for the elections held on June 9, 2024 for the Cypriot representatives to be sent to the European Parliament, the number of registered Turkish Cypriots over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote was 104,118. Of these, 103,281 resided in the occupied northern part of the island, while 837 resided in the southern part.

In the meantime, let us also recall that the number of Turkish Cypriots with a Republic of Cyprus ID is 110,734, and 83,950 of them have obtained a passport. (Fileleftheros, April 1, 2018)

The overall voter turnout in the European Parliament elections was 58.86% across the island. It is thought-provoking that only 5,676 out of 104,118 registered Turkish Cypriot voters (6.8% of the total number of voters) voted. The number of voters who came from the north occupied by Turkey was 5,523.

Then we need to ask: Why did the 62,910 Turkish Cypriot voters who voted for the federalist candidate Mustafa Akıncı in the north, who is in favour of the reunification of the island under a new federal constitution, refrain from participating in the EP elections? We have stated above that the CTP, which claims to be in favour of a federal solution, received 34,008 votes in the first round. This means that they are not sincerely in favour of a federal union either.

The sincerity of those in favour of a federal solution within the Greek Cypriot community can be assessed by the reluctance to establish a common political front with the Turkish Cypriot federalists.

Since April 23, 2003, when the division line between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities was opened with some crossing points, the political forces that will fight for the federal union of all Cypriots have unfortunately not yet been organized within the framework of a common political program, and we are far from the targeted federal solution to the Cyprus problem.

(Read at the 6th Annual Conference of the “Left and Cyprus Problem” Group, held at the Home for Cooperation in Nicosia on 16th November 2024)

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.)