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)
