The island of Cyprus was not divided in 1974 but in 1963, im-mediately after attacks by armed Greek Cypriot militia on Turkish quarters and unarmed Turkish Cypriot civilians.
The notorious wall of Ledra Street and the Lokmacı Barricade, in the very heart of the Venetian-built old city of Nicosia, were constructed early in 1964.
The Ledra Street eyesore represents the division for the Greek quarter just as its counterpart, the Lokmacı Barricade, does for the Turkish, and was the first checkpoint between Turkish and Greek Cy-priots.
Both barriers remained for 43 years, but the Greek guard post and the notorious wall in the Greek quarter at the bottom of Ledra Street, like Lokmacı, is now history.
There has been a great deal of stubbornness from both sides re-garding the opening of the crossing point for over a year.
During the years of division the buildings beyond the former checkpoint reached an extremely state of dilapidation, thus the area had to be closed to the public for some time while the necessary
What happens next is not just a matter for the Turkish Cypriot side; the Greek Cypriot administration is demanding progress in the opening of a new checkpoint, which will probably be named the Ermou, Lokmacı or Ledra Street crossing.
Discussions have not yet reached the thorny issues of local mili-tary disengagement or the removal of provocative signs and symbols, as demanded by the Greek Cypriot side.
Greek Cypriots insists on Turkish and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) flags and symbols being removed from the area, a demand which angered the Turkish side. These issues may well prove to be a stumbling block to an early opening of the crossing, with the Turkish Cypriot side objecting to the Greek Cypriot administration’s telling them what can and cannot be done on “their side” of the crossing.
Furthermore the UN Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) had differences with the Turkish Cypriots regarding the interpretation of the mapping of the buffer zone, leading to a high-level agreement in early 2006 to resolve the dispute.
Although the UNFICYP still receives patrol reports highlighting these differences, it is obvious that the Greek and Turkish sides had different opinions on the buffer zone’s delineation.
For example, the Greek Cypriot administration saw the recently demolished Turkish bridge as being within the UN buffer zone, whereas the UN did not. The opening of Ledra Street is inevitable, but may take a little more time.
The main issue for the two sides to match their criteria for the opening of the crossing point is whether this would mean the demilita-rization or disengagement of military forces.
It seems clear that the “Guns and Boots” will form the core of fu-ture negotiations on the Ermou, Lokmacı or Ledra Street crossing.
However, this should not be used by the Greek Cypriot adminis-tration in such a way that it draws attention away from what is really happening.
Real issues, such as what is going on in Brussels, the final deci-sion of European Union Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn con-cerning direct trade and the euro fiasco, should top of everyone’s agendas.
In fact the whole exercise was perfectly timed to distract observers from the shambles the Greek Cypriot administration has got itself into over the EU and direct trade with the Turkish Cypriots.
France hoped to obtain the use of a key air base somewhere in the Middle East to facilitate its ambition of playing a major role in the eastern Mediterranean after Jan. 16, 1991, or the US’s Operation Desert Storm.
In plain terms, after this operation, the French influence, existing in the Middle East since the late 1800s, was successfully wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, and full control of the area moved into their hands.
France had to find an ally to creep into the area; there were no other options. She had to find a country with which the benefits of an alliance would be mutual. After a comprehensive search, Cyprus, hav-ing problems with Turkey, was chosen as the ideal partner.
The Greek Cypriots, on the other hand, were in a state of unrest due to the existence of the Turkish army on the northern part of the island. The Turkish army, embraced by the Turkish Cypriots, inter-vened in 1974 to protect the lives of the Turkish Cypriots, who had been suffering from attacks by the Greek Cypriots since 1963.
The Turkish Cypriots had lost hundreds of innocent compatriots, mostly women and children who were forced to leave their homes, be-longings and memories and flee for their lives to the liberated parts in the northern territories during attacks in 1963, 1964 and 1967.
After 1974, they formed the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
The Greek Cypriots, aiming high to get control of the island again and form a unitary Greek government in which they planned to treat the Turkish Cypriots as a minority, were seeking an ally who would back them in the UN and EU loyally under any circumstances, preferably a strong one as well.
France, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and an outstanding country in the EU, was chosen to be the ideal candidate for an alliance against Turkey.
And so started the tale.
During EU-Turkey accession proceedings, France played her role perfectly, satisfying the demands of the Greek Cypriots by pressing Turkey to open up its seaports and airports to Greek Cypriot vessels and planes. A report by then Secretary-General Kofi Annan, drafted after a referendum held in Cyprus on April 24, 2004, was vetoed by France in the UN Security Council. The report clearly blamed the Greek Cypriots for blocking efforts leading to a sustainable and comprehen-sive solution on the island acceptable to the international community.
The Greek Cypriots, pleased with the efforts of France, made the first move by offering sea and air military bases, aiming to accomplish several objectives with a single stroke. Their first objective was to se-cure France’s crucial support against Turkey in both the UN and EU.
And the second important objective was to call on France for help if one day Turkey were to attack to them or if they decided to attack the Turkish Cypriots and take over the northern territories, relying on French support, as they did on 1919, which ended in catastrophe.
Of course, this alliance, France’s signing of a military agreement with the southern Cypriot Greek administration, is a worrying devel-opment. It will definitely block the way and weaken the initiatives for a comprehensive solution on the island.
As a matter of fact, the cracks already existing between the two communities of the island, namely Greek and Turkish, will only deepen, leading to a stable separation, and one with no hope of getting together again in the future.
The genius trickery planned to eliminate the Turkish Language from being one of the “Main Languages” of the European Union, was successfully staged during the annexation talks of Cyprus with EU.
The European Union, which claims “Liberty, Democracy, Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and The rule of law” as the fundamental principles of their establishment, was unbelievably misled by Greek Cypriots during the negotiations and eventually deceived at the end.
Item 2 of Zürich Agreement, agreed upon and initialed by the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers in Zürich on February 11, 1959 titled as “BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS” written as “The official languages of the Republic of Cyprus shall be Greek and Turkish. Legislative and administrative instruments and documents shall be drawn up and promulgated in the two official languages.”
This item clearly defines that there are two languages spoken on the island and that the official languages of Cyprus Government are Greek and Turkish. All legislative and administrative documents, mails, communications, correspondence and similar paper work will be done in Greek and Turkish, according to the choice of the applicant.
The Greek population of Cyprus lives in the south, which covers 66% of the island and naturally all the schools from kindergarten to colleges have their education and teachings in Greek language and follow the books printed and sent by Greece, the main land of Greek Cypriots, which declared Greek as its main language upon entering the EU in 1981.
The prayers and religious ceremonies in Orthodox churches are held in Greek and the Greek Cypriots talk, shop, communicate, read news papers printed in Greek, watch TV’s broadcasting in Greek and use Greek language largely in every second of their daily life.
Same applies for the Turkish population of Cyprus, living in the northern parts of Cyprus, and covering 34% of the island. They use Turkish language in all stages of their daily, economic, religious and educational life.
Turkish Cypriots are the equal partners of the Republic of Cy-prus, as per the 1959 Zürich Agreement and 1960 Treaty of Estab-lishment of the Republic of Cyprus.
The Greek Cyprus Administration when entering to EU on May 1, 2004 deceived European Union with a false declaration and declared English as the main language, instead of Greek and Turkish, as per clearly stated in item 2 of the Zürich Agreement.
As mentioned, in the southern part of Cyprus, school teachings, religious ceremonies, daily, and even discussions in the parliament and the language spoken and written in official buildings is not English but Greek.
What was the trick?
Why than, was the official language of Cyprus Government declared as English but not Greek and Turkish?
The answer is very simple.
To keep the Turkish Cypriots and the Turkish people living in European countries out of the EU and to block all the entrances to EU offices for them.
To be employed in any EU office, the applicant sits for an exami-nation in his/her main language and chooses another EU main lan-guage as the second best.
When a Greek Cypriot applies, he/she chooses Greek as his/her main language, which is declared by Greece and not by his/her coun-try, and chooses English as the second best.
But when a Turkish Cypriot or a Turkish origin European makes an application as an European Citizen to any EU post, he/she has to sit for an examination and interview, in any two other languages than his/her main language, because Turkish is not accepted as one of the Main Languages of the European Union.
This crystal-clear and unacceptable discrimination does not match with the fundamental principals of the European Union, namely “Liberty, Democracy, Respect for human rights and fundamental free-doms and The rule of law”.
The Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA), finally managed to con-vey the artificially created petrol crisis based on the hydrocarbon ex-ploration in her so called “Exclusive Economic Zone” in to the EU and European Parliament.
Actually this was the target of the GCA, to create a dispute with Turkey and push Europe as a whole to deal with political issues pro-voked artificially by her self, with Turkey.
Turkey is not a party to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, UNCLOS, due to the continental shelf demands of Greece for her Dodecanese islands in Aegean sea. Turkey duly did not accept the 12 nautical miles width of the territorial waters of the Dodecanese islands as declared by Greece on the bases of UNCLOS and noted this act as “Casus Belli”, a “Cause of war”.
All the European countries recognized UNCLOS and are part of this Convention. According to UNCLOS, declaration of an Exclusive Economic Zone by an independent state strictly requires mutual agreement’s of the neighbor states around.
Since Turkey is not a part of this convention, she already pos-sesses her previously declared southern Continental Shelf stretching 200 nautical miles southwards starting from the baseline joining Gazi-pasha, the eastern tip of Antalya bay, with Kash, the western tip of Antalya Bay, according to the 1958 Geneva Convention.
GCA had signed an Economic Cooperation agreement with Greece years before. Now she signed and agreement with Egypt delimiting their respective economic zones and providing for detailed offshore cooperation, while she also has agreed with Lebanon on a similar delimitation and cooperation.
The Economic Cooperation agreement with Greece, covers and delimits the seas between Rhodes island and Western tip of Cyprus, extending 200 nautical miles southwards, shuts away to Turkey the western waters of Eastern Mediterranean sea.
The Exclusive Economic Zone agreement with Egypt, covers all the waters with in Cyprus and Egypt and gives underwater sovereignty to Greece, Cyprus and Egypt.
The Exclusive Economic Zone agreement with Lebanon, covers all the waters in between Cyprus and Lebanon as well.
The target of these agreements is, to occupy Turkey’s southern Continental Shelf zone, to build a solid wall around Turkey’s southern shores and to isolate her from the seas of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, with all the underwater and sea bed wealth underneath.
Based on the 1960 Treaty of the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, the March 4, 1964 dated UN resolution No. 186, passed to stop the fierce inter-communal clashes on the island, contributed to the GCA the sovereignty and the role of Governing Government of the island of Cyprus.
The protocol 10 of the Republic of “Cyprus’ Accession Agreement” to the EU, took into consideration the island of Cyprus as a single so-vereign state and the GCA as the sole and only accredited “Government of Cyprus”, as well.
Article 1(1) of Protocol 10 disregards the existence of Turkish Re-public of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) and partnership rights of Turkish Cypriots in the so called Greek Cyprus Government, and defines the territories under the sovereignty of TRNC as “the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”.
The trick of the artificial petrol crisis lies on extending and spreading the sovereignty of the GCA to the territorial seas of “the areas of the Republic of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control”, namely the waters of TRNC, facing to Turkey, along the northern cost of the island and grasp the whole island, relying on to the 26 EU member states behind.
The old horse of the UN Security Council and the secretaries-general of the UN –from U Thant to Annan — is definitely the Cyprus problem. The partnership of the Republic of Cyprus was established with two communities: the Greeks and Turks of the island, by way of the 1960 Treaty of Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus.
However, it would later be destroyed in 1963-64 by Archbishop Makarios III and his criminal crew — one of which was the present pretender to the post of “President of Cyprus,” Mr. Papadopulos.
This is a glaring fact known to all concerned parties but they choose to ignore it for their self-interests.
The political decision of the big Western powers of that era was to recognize Makarios III and his government as if it was composed of 100 percent Greek Cypriots (in lieu of a partnership government of 70 percent Greek Cypriots and 30 percent Turkish Cypriots), right after the ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriots and the government of Cyprus, which was then composed solely of Greek Cypriots after the Turkish Cypriots were forced out of their government offices.
Greek Cypriot leaders defied the compromising 1960 agreement and resorted to armed force in order to destroy the “partnership Re-public,” thus getting rid of the “sui generis” provisions which did not allow the Cyprus Republic to destroy itself and unite with Greece or Turkey.
Despite this, the Greek Cypriot leadership was treated as if it had successfully achieved its objectives while Turkish Cypriots were, at great human cost, resisting this unorthodox, illegal attempt in order to protect the bi-national partnership quality of Cyprus.
The Soviets, leaders of the eastern block of that era, joined in on this fallacy hoping that Makarios III would invite the Soviets to Cyprus, committing a grave injustice against the Turkish Cypriot partner whose constitutional rights were violated while as individuals, Turkish Cypriots lived under fear of genocide until Turkey’s arrival in 1974.
Archbishop Makarios III, “The president of Cyprus” who had en-gineered the whole tragedy back in 1963, had welcomed UN Resolution 186 as a victory.
He stated: (Cyprus Mail, March 5, 1964) “We have received a res-olution in the first phase of our struggle in the international field. Tur-key cannot, in the future, threaten intervention in Cyprus invoking the Treaty of Guarantee.” He then fortified this statement in Athens — on the anniversary of 1950 illegal Enosis [annexation to Greece plebiscite in Cyprus — saying that, “Today the Zurich and London Agreements (which established the republic of which he was still treated as its president) stand abrogated and buried. Neither Turkey nor any other power can breathe life into them again.”
It is a pity and a shame that even following 1974, the big powers refused to have a second look at Cyprus and at the secretary-general’s mandate in order to pave the way for a fair and permanent solution.
This would necessitate putting a proper diagnosis on “the Cyprus problem.” Suggested remedies by all concerned parties and previously submitted plans by the Secretary-Generals were obviously not helping to reach a settlement and yet, as if blindfolded to the realities of Cyprus and to the policies of the two parties on the island, they all insisted in treating one of the parties — the one which had created the problem in order to achieve Enosis, which the 1960 International Agreements had outlawed — as “the legitimate government of Cyprus.”
This attitude of not treating both sides equally; this deliberate er-ror of treating the Greek Cypriot side as the legitimate government in contravention of the rule of law, is an undeniable fact that has so far prevented a settlement in the “old horse”: the Cyprus problem.
