Cyprus EU Association

Turkish Cypriots are not the focal point of the Finnish proposals. The objective is; only to satisfy a member state, the Republic of Cyprus and a candidate state, Turkey.

The Finnish proposal has been the top topic of our agenda for several weeks. “Achievement of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution based on political equality and a united Cyprus rather than a divided Cyprus to be member of the EU” is undisputable objective of the Cyprus EU Association. We believe that well-balanced confidence building measures until a solution is useful. Thus, we shall support any confidence-building proposal, including Varosha, provided it is balanced.

In this article, we shall try to explain once again what “Finnish proposal mean from Turkish Cypriots’ point of view ”.

The purpose of Finland is to avoid a conflict between Turkey and the EU.
The Finnish proposals do not lift the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community!
Should our goal be to lift political isolation on TRNC or to lift isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community?
The university sector is faced with danger; the EU can take measures.
The EU, by enabling free movement of goods, should help to achieve economic integration all over the island and the region.
Direct flights to and from Ercan are not within the capacity of the EU.
To pretend that by “Direct Trade” “the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community are lifted” is very hazardous and objectionable.
If Turkey is to open her ports, let it be, it will be her decision, but “Confidence Building measures in Cyprus” must be kept separately and should be balanced packages.
The thesis to reopen Varosha under TRNC control is not feasible.
Consequently, Turkey–EU relations’ process should be decoupled from the peace process and/or the confidence building measures in Cyprus.
Our strategy; while searching for an early comprehensive political settlement, should be to avoid to be a party to the Turkey-EU relations. Until a solution is found, we should work to achieve lifting of all the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community, based on the cooperation of the two communities and minimizing the economic difference of the two communities by means of economic integration, to pave way for a more favourable environment to solve the political problem.

l.    The purpose of Finland is to avoid a conflict between Turkey and the EU.

Turkey’s progress at her EU process is important for both the Turkish people and the regional stability. But we are against any moves that are making Turkish Cypriots a party to the issue, just to improve the Turkey- EU relations. Turkey’s relations with the EU should be decoupled from the confidence building measures and the Cyprus peace process.

II.    The Finnish proposals do not lift the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community!.
The Finnish proposals involve opening of Varosha under the UN control, realisation of the direct trade from port of Famagusta and Turkey opening her ports. Direct trade from port of Famagusta to the EU will enable goods to be exported without the payment of the common customs tariff. This has minimal impact potentials. Our exports will increase only by about 1%. When one considers the goods export capacity of the Turkish Cypriots it is obvious that the value of this initiative will be negligible for them.

III. Should our goal be to lift political isolation on TRNC or to lift isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community?.
KAB believes that until a comprehensive solution is found, isolations on the Turkish Cypriot
Community should be lifted. If we concentrate on the lifting of the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot Community, the chances of success are very high. Since concentration on lifting the isolations on TRNC will ultimately involve recognition of TRNC, the chances of any success is not possible.

IV. The University sector is faced with danger, EU can take measures.
The Bologna process which will come into force in 2010 has effected the universities as their diplomas will not then be recognised thereafter. Considering the investments made in this sector, the number of the new entries this year is not satisfactory. According to experts, one university student as a source of income is equivalent to fifteen tourists’. A solution should be found for the universities that contribute about 400 million US dollars to the north Cyprus economy. This can only be demanded on arguments based on the 1960 Constitution that granted the two communities separate educational rights.

V. The EU, by enabling free movement of goods, should help to achieve economic integration all over the island and the region.
Free movement of goods overall the island should be achieved by implementation of free trade. Goods imported to north could be sold to south and vice versa. Thus, Turkish Cypriots will be included within the integration of Turkey and south Cyprus. It lies within the EU capacity to legislate the necessary regulations, to enable the operation of the northern ports under her observation and supervision that will enable free trade and free movement of goods all over the island.

VI. Direct flights to and from Ercan are not within the capacity of the EU.
Although it is very important for the tourism sector, direct flights are not within the capacity of the EU. Thus, the EU institutions cannot be expected to take any steps in this direction. Direct flight to Ercan is impossible prior to a solution despite of intensive intergovernmental lobbying.

VII. To pretend that by “Direct Trade” “the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot Community is lifted” is very hazardous and objectionable.
Expression by Turkey and the EU; “we have lifted isolations” by implementing the direct trade and their influence on the third countries accordingly will deter true lifting of isolations. The realization of direct trade, with minimal benefits, to be presented “as a great victory” will obliterate the dynamics of lifting the isolations on free trade, universities and the tourism industry.

VIII. If Turkey is to open her ports, let it be, this will be her decision but, “Confidence Building measures in Cyprus” must be kept separately and should be balanced packages.
Turkish and Greek Cypriots should provide well balanced openings based on confidence building measures that will solve the problems of both sides. With in this context, a balanced confidence building measures involving reopening of the Varosha to its owners under UN control, inclusion of the northern Cyprus universities into the Bologna process, free trade, lifting of cultural, sportive and tourism isolations, opening of Ledra Street, Kokkino and similar crossings should be implemented. If Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot community rights are focused on, then the ghost town as it is, Varosha should be returned to its owners under UN control. The Finnish proposal is focused on Turkey’s process with the EU and satisfaction of a member state, Republic of Cyprus, with Varosha. The meaningless direct trade’s aim is to create the situation of ”the isolations on the Turkish Cypriots are lifted, thus Turkey can now open her ports.” Turkey’s process with the EU should be decoupled from negotiations on the Cyprus problem.

IX. The thesis to reopen Varosha under TRNC control is not feasible.
Stability is required for investment. Thus, even if Varosha is to be reopened as an autonomous region under TRNC authority, to presume that the original owners will reinvest is not realistic. Consequently it is not possible to support the idea of probable expansion, worth billions of dollars, in the building industry. Varosha should be reopened within a well-balanced confidence building measures, under the UN control.

X. Consequently, Turkey–EU relations process should be decoupled from the peace process and/or the confidence building measures in Cyprus.
Otherwise, Turkish Cypriots will lose their communal rights in the name of avoiding a train crash between Turkey and the EU and the fears that Government of the Republic of Cyprus is to veto the smooth running of this process. Turkish Cypriots are not even considered as a party in this scenario.

XI. Our strategy; while searching for an early comprehensive political settlement, should be to avoid to be a party to the Turkey-EU relations. Until a solution is found, we should work to achieve lifting of all the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community, based on the cooperation of the two communities and minimizing the economic difference of the two communities by means of economic integration, to pave way for a more favourable environment to solve the political problem.

Türkçe

Home \| Welcome \| About Us \| Executive Bodies \| Forum \| Activities \| Photo Album \| Press Statements \| Documents \| Links \| Contact Us
Turkish Cypriots are not the focal point of the Finnish proposals. The objective is; only to satisfy a member state, the Republic of Cyprus and a candidate state, Turkey. The Finnish proposal has been the top topic of our agenda for several weeks. “Achievement of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal solution based on political equality and a united Cyprus rather than a divided Cyprus to be member of the EU” is undisputable objective of the Cyprus EU Association. We believe that well-balanced confidence building measures until a solution is useful. Thus, we shall support any confidence-building proposal, including Varosha, provided it is balanced. In this article, we shall try to explain once again what “Finnish proposal mean from Turkish Cypriots’ point of view ”. The purpose of Finland is to avoid a conflict between Turkey and the EU. The Finnish proposals do not lift the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community! Should our goal be to lift political isolation on TRNC or to lift isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community? The university sector is faced with danger; the EU can take measures. The EU, by enabling free movement of goods, should help to achieve economic integration all over the island and the region. Direct flights to and from Ercan are not within the capacity of the EU. To pretend that by “Direct Trade” “the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community are lifted” is very hazardous and objectionable. If Turkey is to open her ports, let it be, it will be her decision, but “Confidence Building measures in Cyprus” must be kept separately and should be balanced packages. The thesis to reopen Varosha under TRNC control is not feasible. Consequently, Turkey–EU relations’ process should be decoupled from the peace process and/or the confidence building measures in Cyprus. Our strategy; while searching for an early comprehensive political settlement, should be to avoid to be a party to the Turkey-EU relations. Until a solution is found, we should work to achieve lifting of all the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community, based on the cooperation of the two communities and minimizing the economic difference of the two communities by means of economic integration, to pave way for a more favourable environment to solve the political problem. Details of our point of view are as follows. Ali Erel President. l. The purpose of Finland is to avoid a conflict between Turkey and the EU. Turkey’s progress at her EU process is important for both the Turkish people and the regional stability. But we are against any moves that are making Turkish Cypriots a party to the issue, just to improve the Turkey- EU relations. Turkey’s relations with the EU should be decoupled from the confidence building measures and the Cyprus peace process. II. The Finnish proposals do not lift the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community!. The Finnish proposals involve opening of Varosha under the UN control, realisation of the direct trade from port of Famagusta and Turkey opening her ports. Direct trade from port of Famagusta to the EU will enable goods to be exported without the payment of the common customs tariff. This has minimal impact potentials. Our exports will increase only by about 1%. When one considers the goods export capacity of the Turkish Cypriots it is obvious that the value of this initiative will be negligible for them. III. Should our goal be to lift political isolation on TRNC or to lift isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community?. KAB believes that until a comprehensive solution is found, isolations on the Turkish Cypriot Community should be lifted. If we concentrate on the lifting of the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot Community, the chances of success are very high. Since concentration on lifting the isolations on TRNC will ultimately involve recognition of TRNC, the chances of any success is not possible. IV. The University sector is faced with danger, EU can take measures. The Bologna process which will come into force in 2010 has effected the universities as their diplomas will not then be recognised thereafter. Considering the investments made in this sector, the number of the new entries this year is not satisfactory. According to experts, one university student as a source of income is equivalent to fifteen tourists’. A solution should be found for the universities that contribute about 400 million US dollars to the north Cyprus economy. This can only be demanded on arguments based on the 1960 Constitution that granted the two communities separate educational rights. V. The EU, by enabling free movement of goods, should help to achieve economic integration all over the island and the region. Free movement of goods overall the island should be achieved by implementation of free trade. Goods imported to north could be sold to south and vice versa. Thus, Turkish Cypriots will be included within the integration of Turkey and south Cyprus. It lies within the EU capacity to legislate the necessary regulations, to enable the operation of the northern ports under her observation and supervision that will enable free trade and free movement of goods all over the island. VI. Direct flights to and from Ercan are not within the capacity of the EU. Although it is very important for the tourism sector, direct flights are not within the capacity of the EU. Thus, the EU institutions cannot be expected to take any steps in this direction. Direct flight to Ercan is impossible prior to a solution despite of intensive intergovernmental lobbying. VII. To pretend that by “Direct Trade” “the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot Community is lifted” is very hazardous and objectionable. Expression by Turkey and the EU; “we have lifted isolations” by implementing the direct trade and their influence on the third countries accordingly will deter true lifting of isolations. The realization of direct trade, with minimal benefits, to be presented “as a great victory” will obliterate the dynamics of lifting the isolations on free trade, universities and the tourism industry. *VIII. If Turkey is to open her ports, let it be, this will be her decision but, “Confidence Building measures in Cyprus”* must be kept separately and should be balanced packages.** Turkish and Greek Cypriots should provide well balanced openings based on confidence building measures that will solve the problems of both sides. With in this context, a balanced confidence building measures involving reopening of the Varosha to its owners under UN control, inclusion of the northern Cyprus universities into the Bologna process, free trade, lifting of cultural, sportive and tourism isolations, opening of Ledra Street, Kokkino and similar crossings should be implemented. If Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot community rights are focused on, then the ghost town as it is, Varosha should be returned to its owners under UN control. The Finnish proposal is focused on Turkey’s process with the EU and satisfaction of a member state, Republic of Cyprus, with Varosha. The meaningless direct trade’s aim is to create the situation of ”the isolations on the Turkish Cypriots are lifted, thus Turkey can now open her ports.” Turkey’s process with the EU should be decoupled from negotiations on the Cyprus problem. IX. The thesis to reopen Varosha under TRNC control is not feasible. Stability is required for investment. Thus, even if Varosha is to be reopened as an autonomous region under TRNC authority, to presume that the original owners will reinvest is not realistic. Consequently it is not possible to support the idea of probable expansion, worth billions of dollars, in the building industry. Varosha should be reopened within a well-balanced confidence building measures, under the UN control. X. Consequently, Turkey–EU relations process should be decoupled from the peace process and/or the confidence building measures in Cyprus. Otherwise, Turkish Cypriots will lose their communal rights in the name of avoiding a train crash between Turkey and the EU and the fears that Government of the Republic of Cyprus is to veto the smooth running of this process. Turkish Cypriots are not even considered as a party in this scenario. XI. Our strategy; while searching for an early comprehensive political settlement, should be to avoid to be a party to the Turkey-EU relations. Until a solution is found, we should work to achieve lifting of all the isolations on the Turkish Cypriot community, based on the cooperation of the two communities and minimizing the economic difference of the two communities by means of economic integration, to pave way for a more favourable environment to solve the political problem.