The Turkish Republic of Cyprus’s representative in London, Oya Tuncalı, responds to an interview with the Republic of Cyprus High Commissioner Euripides Evriviades in last week’s Londra Gazete
By Oya Tuncalı
I am writing in reference to the interview with the Londra Gazete of Mr. Euripides Evriviades, the Greek Cypriot high commissioner in London, which was published on 11 December 2014.
There is an obvious discrepancy between the interpretations of the two sides in Cyprus regarding historical events. In his interview, Mr. Evriviades conveniently blames the unsettlement of the Cyprus issue on Turkey and the Turkish troops for “occupying the northern part of Cyprus”. It is important to note in this regard that none of the United Nations Security Council resolutions describe the presence of the Turkish troops on the Island as “occupation”. In the absence of a political settlement in Cyprus, the presence of Turkish forces in the North is the only effective deterrent against the repetition of the attacks against the Turkish Cypriot people between 1963 and 1974. It should also be recalled that the gradual withdrawal of Turkish forces from the Island would have now been completed had the Greek Cypriots accepted the Annan Plan on 24 April 2004.
Mr. Evriviades also employs dubious rhetoric while attempting to identify the parties responsible for the resolution of the Cyprus issue. He claims on the one hand, that “peace in Cyprus would have been achieved long ago if it was up to the Cypriots themselves”, but that if President of the Republic of Turkey Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdoğan “wants to solve it, it can be solved”, on the other. I would like to remind Mr. Evriviades that the Turkish Cypriot side is the sole interlocutor of the Greek Cypriot side, as is also confirmed by established UN parameters which clearly indicate that the Cyprus problem is bi-communal both in nature and at the negotiating table. Given the fact that all UN settlement plans tabled to this date, including the Annan Plan of 2004, were rejected by the Greek Cypriot side, it is illogical to attribute the lack of settlement of the Cyprus issue to any other third party.
Moreover, it was the Greek Cypriot side that unilaterally suspended the comprehensive settlement talks by withdrawing from the negotiating table on 7 October 2014, citing the “violation of the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus” as an excuse. This is not a credible excuse to withdraw from the negotiations as disagreement over sovereignty lies at the heart of the Cyprus issue, and any outstanding disputes in this regard should thus be addressed as a part of the negotiations themselves. It should be recalled, in this context, that the Joint Declaration agreed between the two leaders on 11 February 2014 confirmed that a settlement will be based on sovereignty which emanates equally from Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots.
Mr. Evriviades states that Mr. Anastasiades “has said that all natural resources of Cyprus….belong to the state”. In this regard, it should be duly noted that the “state” to which Mr. Evriviades refers, namely the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, was established jointly by the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots as two political equals and later destroyed in December 1963 by the Greek Cypriot partner. Since then, there has not been a joint central administration on the Island capable of representing the whole of Cyprus, either legally or factually. Thus, the unilateral activities undertaken by the Greek Cypriot side prior to a comprehensive settlement violate the fundamental rights and interests of the Turkish Cypriot people who were the equal co-founding partner in the 1960 Republic of Cyprus and therefore have equal rights and say over the natural resources of the Island. Ultimately, all matters related to the issue of natural resources on and around the Island should be conducted within the framework of the proposals of the Turkish Cypriot side made in 2011 and 2012, which are still valid, and envisage the joint exploration and exploitation of the natural resources of the Island on the basis of the principle of fair and equitable distribution, rather than through one-sided initiatives, until a comprehensive settlement is reached.
It would not be possible to open a new page, let alone enter into a partnership based on political equality as envisaged by the UN parameters, by repeating the same unacceptable approach of disregarding the Turkish Cypriot side. The Turkish Cypriot people have democratically and legally elected representatives and, contrary to the objections of the Greek Cypriot side, it is only natural that these representatives conduct meetings with foreign officials at all levels and on various platforms.
If the Greek Cypriot side is, as it claims, sincere and committed to the efforts of finding a solution to the 50 year old problem in Cyprus, it should adopt a constructive approach and return to the negotiation table without any preconditions or further delay.
The Turkish Cypriot side remains fully committed to the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue in the shortest possible time under the Good Offices Mission of the United Nations Secretary-General and on the basis of the Joint Declaration of 11 February 2014 which constitutes the framework of a future settlement based on the established UN parameters.
