Theses which hinder solution of the Cyprus problem should be disregarded.
Two community leaders will meet on 3 September 2008 to start a new negotiation process to find a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Both sides have already agreed that the solution will be a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation based on political equality. Despite this an argument is still going on whether the newly created Federal State will be the result of a virgin birth or transformation of the Republic of Cyprus. Some say that TRNC should be recognised as an independent state even for 24 hours, to enable two states to form a federation others on the other hand affirm that federation should be formed by the two communities.
An agreement will be reached by two communities and not two states.
It is well known that Mr. Talat and Mr. Christofias participate in the negotiations under the good offices mission of the United Nations Secretary-General, as the representatives of the two communities and not two states. Since there are no legally accepted two states in Cyprus, the solution will be between two the communities and not two states. The frame of the solution has already been stated in various UN Security Council Resolutions: “Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession.” By signing the 8 July 2006 agreement both leaders had agreed on that the solution shall be as described above; between the two communities and not two states.
It is not possible for UN member states to recognise TRNC.
There are several UN Security Council resolutions on TRNC’s none recognition. Consequently scenarios contemplating recognition of the TRNC even for 24 hours is erroneous.
Virgin birth is not possible and necessary.
It is well known that two communities were co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960, but it was taken over by the Greek Cypriots in 1963. (The question whether the Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the governmental institutions or were ejected must be thoroughly investigated.) The articles of the Constitution regarding the Turkish Cypriot’s rights could not be changed. By discarding the Republic of Cyprus and creating a new state by a virgin birth could require the troublesome necessity of reapplication to UN and EU membership. To insist on virgin birth is meaningless. Thus transforming the structure of the recognised UN and EU member state where the two communities were cofounders, into a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal structure based on political equality is for the benefit of the two communities.
Protocol 10 is an EU primary law and thwarts virgin birth.
When the EU membership of the Republic of Cyprus was approved, the position of the EU in the event of a solution of the Cyprus problem was described by the Protocol 10. According to Protocol 10, island as a whole is EU territory and Turkish Cypriots are also Republic of Cyprus and EU citizens. In the event of a solution, the agreement and the necessary adjustments to accommodate Turkish Cypriots will be approved by the Council. In other words, Council will approve the transformation of the Republic of Cyprus into a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal state. Protocol 10 is part of EU primary law. Insistence of the Republic of Cyprus on the implementation of the Protocol 10 and refusing virgin birth issue makes it impossible for the EU as well to accept the virgin birth solution.
The attitude of the Turkish policy makers is very important for an early solution.
Friction between the active power points in Turkey is known. Intention of one party is to delay the Cyprus solution beyond the Turkey’s EU membership. Following the “yes” vote of the Turkish Cypriots at the referenda this perceptiveness together with Mr. R.R. Denktaş who is against a solution to the Cyprus problem, has changed its tactics. According to the new perception; the image that it is the Turkish side who wants a solution must be preserved but the solution should be delayed until Turkey’s EU accession and by insisting on virgin birth, recognition of TRNC even for 24 hours are hindering an early the solution.
Turkish Cypriot community and her leadership should cooperate with pacifist fraction and discard anti-solution theses.
An early solution is vital for continues existence of the Turkish Cypriot community. That is why Mr. Talat was elected as the president. It should be perceived and acted accordingly that insisting on virgin birth, recognition even for 24 hours and a solution between two sates as demanded by the anti pacifists is only impeding a solution. Turkish Cypriot leadership due to her financial dependence on Turkey and her desire to stay in power is unable to induce independent proactive proposals focused on the Turkish Cypriot’s future. Turkish suggestions are implemented regardless whether their right or wrong. This is not a policy in benefit of the Turkish Cypriots who are seeking an early solution. There is a potential danger that the fraction whish does not want a solution to the Cyprus problem will adversely influence the negotiation process. Our expectation is an early solution. Thus such theses which will hinder a solution should be identified and exposed. We should be vigilant against false pretentions for an early solution. It is in our benefit to cooperate with those politicians, intellectuals and NGO’s in Turkey who are supporting an early solution to the Cyprus problem and the Turkish membership of EU. Active solidarity of Turkish Cypriot, Greek Cypriot, Turkish and Greek pacifists and an earnest support of the international community is needed for the successful outcome of the process which will start on 3 September 2008.
KAB Executive Board
Mustafa Damdelen