While UN fully supports a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue based on a bi-zonal, bicommunal federation with political equality European Union (EU) support is in line with the agreed United Nation’s (UN) framework, relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the principles on which the EU is founded.
I regret to emphasize that EU having accepted the Greek Cypriots’ EU membership unilaterally as the Government of 1960 Cyprus Republic in 2004 when the Cyprus Question has not yet been settled and did not yet accept the Turkish Cypriots political equality no solution ever and never could be expected to guarantee humanitarian and human rights of the Turkish Cypriots at the federal basis!
After a review of the historical and legal situation of Cyprus, it is a real fact that the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot regimes and the respective communities which they represent, are presently entitled to exercise equal rights under international law, including rights of self-determination as they have excercised at the referendum of UN Annan Plan in 2004.
I kindly inform you that those conditions which EU eagerly insisting for the solution of its member state Cyprus issue namely the European fundamental principles clearly contradict the agreed UN framework, relevant UN Security Council resolutions. So it can be seen very clearly that both UN and EU are flagrantly violating Turkish Cypriots fundamental human rights and the rights of the 1960 Cyprus Republic partnership rights and also blocked the way to a possible peaceful agreement of the Cypriot peoples.
If EU should have respected these parameters considering the positive vote at the 2004 referendum for the UN Annan Plan should accept the Turkish Cypriots EU membership together with the Greek Cypriots at the same basis of “political equality and the status”.
After the unilateral EU membership recognized as the Government of 1960 Cyprus Republic do you really expect any settlement agreement of Cyprus issue from uncompromising Greek Cypriots’ when they have the full support of UN and EU while the Turkish Cypriots deprived and denied of all their rights.
Neverthless you seem determined to force the Turkish Cypriots to accept these EU principles to be applied at the settlement of Cyprus question which surely will nullify bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and lead to the realization of Enosis Idea of the Greek Cypriots whom they have destroyed the 1960 Cyprus Republic in 1963 when government controlled militia attacks excersized so cruel bloody genocide of the Turkish Cypriot civilians which history has ever witnessed!
On occasion of UN. bi-zonal, bi-communal federation settlement I have kindly remind you that at the referendum held on 2004 UN Annan Plan when the Turkish Cypriot people voted for “YES” by the 67% vote and Greek Cypriots “NO” by 76% vote while Turkey by imposing pressure on the Turkish Cypriots to accept this plan had been contributed more than your expectations in concrete terms and undertook responsible actions with a view for the settlement of Cyprus question with the UN framework including all relevant UN Security Council Resolutions while EU by unjust pro-Greek political stand encouraged Greek Cypriots antoganism. Let me to inform you that just three days after the disclosure of this UN Annan Plan my association gave a press release and informed the public that this plan had been prepared by the Greek Cypriots and the EU together. After the referendum it was accepted by press release of the Greek Cypriots Attorney General Alekos Markides, Greek Cypriot President Glafkos Klerides and EU Commissioner Gunther Verhugen! they could not believe and understand why the Greek Cypriots rejected the UN Annan Plan while it has been prepared by them and regretted that they have been betrayed by the Greek Cypriots!
Let’s considering posture of UN and EU that will not accept a two-state solution and the United Nations Security council resolution of 15.11.1983 defining the declaration of independence of The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as illegal asking the revocation of this declaration and inviting the member states of the United Nations not to recognize it. This resolution evidently, maintains that the Treaty Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus of 1960 is still valid and therefore implicitly maintains that there have been violations of the same Treaty by the Greek Cypriot Community their abusive modifications of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus of 1960.
The position of the Security Council with regard to the existence and independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not appear to adhere to the principles on international law consecrated in the Vienna Convention of 23.05.1969 on the law of treaties which entered into force in 1980 and was ratified by many states, including the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland, and France both of which have permanent seats at the Security Council of the United Nations with rights to veto.
If it was legally correct that the declaration of independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus must be considered as violating the Treaty of 1960, it would follow that the unilateral modifications of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus performed by the Greek Cypriot Community and the EU membership constitute equal violations of the of the same Treaty. These violations having preceded the Turkish Cypriot declaration of the federated Republic of 13.02.1975, constitute, according to Article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the law of treaties, cause for the cessation of the effects of the Treaty of 1960 with the consequence of rendering legitimate the federative state declaration of the Turkish Cypriot people.
The declaration of independence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus of 15.11.1983, however, must instead be considered as inherently implying the cessation of the effects of the Treaty of 1960 according to Article 65 of the same Vienna Convention. It being true that such a cessation has not been formally notified as required by Article 65 of the cited Vienna Convention, the absence of such notification does not in any way impede the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus from validating the mentioned cessation at any moment, nor can it have any effect on the consequence to be drawn from the situation in fact and in law concerning the existence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus as a sovereign and independent state.
Therefore, in all of these documents rights to determine their political future were recognized in both the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community, and they in turn pledged to exercise those rights jointly to create a single state governing all the territory and peoples of Cyprus. The Basic Articles of the Constitution were carefully drafted to perpetuate both the recognized equality of the two communities and their obligation to share the attributes of sovereignty.
Concomitantly, a second group of constitutional articles gave the two communities extensive powers of self-government. All legislative power concerning matters of religion, education, personal status, municipal institutions and affairs was reserved to the exclusive competence of a Greek Cypriot and a Turkish Cypriot Communal Chamber, each elected by and ruling over its respective community. Each Communal Chamber could appoint judges to hear disputes arising out of matters under its competence and could raise taxes from its own people to support its separate programs. Articles 86 and 87. In addition, separately governed Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot municipalities were to be created in the five largest towns in Cyprus.
Unfortunately, this carefully balanced and internationally sanctioned regime lasted only a little over three years. On 30 November 1963, Archbishop Makarios, the duly-elected Greek Cypriot President of the Republic, proposed to the Guarantor powers thirteen amendments to the Cypriot Constitution. These proposed amendments – six of them to Basic Articles which were declared immutable by treaty and constitutional provision – had as their obvious purpose the elimination of the carefully negotiated balance of power between the two communities. When adopted these thirteen amendments would decisively shift the balance of power so as to favour the numerical majority – and hence assure Greek Cypriot rule.
Civil disorder and armed violence broke out throughout the island. As an element of this crisis, the Turkish Cypriot members of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus either withdrew or more likely were forced from their offices. Shortly thereafter, the Greek Cypriot members of the government, purporting to act in legitimate exercise of their offices, enacted all thirteen amendments. They contended that the Turkish Cypriots could now only be re-admitted as partners in the administration if they accepted the amendments passed in their absence. Since the Turkish Cypriot members could not accept these illegal amendments, they never resumed their seats in the legislature.
The unilateral usurpation of authority by the Greek Cypriots was an obvious violation of the Constitution, as well as the treaty obligations accepted by the Greek Cypriot community. The Greek Cypriot regime had violated Article 182 of the Constitution, which stated that the Basic Articles “(could) not, in any way, be amended, whether by way of variation, addition or repeal,” and which required concurrent two-thirds votes of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives for all other amendments. Their actions simultaneously contravened Article I of the Treaty of Guarantee, in which the Republic of Cyprus undertook “to ensure … respect for its Constitution.” Both Britain and Turkey issued diplomatic protests condemning the amendments as “contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, which is under the safeguard of international treaties.” These 13 amendments, and the situation dependent upon them in the area under Greek Cypriot control, cannot therefore be validly accorded any international recognition.
From 1964 until the present, the Greek Cypriot regime has claimed to be the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus, with sovereign right over the whole Island and all of its inhabitants. There is no legal basis in international law for such a claim. The formation of a regime founded on the unilateral usurpation of rights specifically reserved to the Turkish Cypriot people contravenes the plain language and obvious intent of the Treaty of Guarantee, the Zurich Agreement and the 1960 Constitution. The Greek Cypriot regime is neither the government of the “Republic of Cyprus” originally recognized by the community of nations in 1960 nor the legitimate successor of that government. The Greek Cypriot regime therefore had in 1964 and has today no right under international law to claim that it speaks for the Turkish Cypriot community or that it wields the sovereign powers that devolved upon the Republic of Cyprus in 1960.
Whatever the pretensions of the Greek Cypriot regime, the practical consequence of the events of 1963-1964 was the emergence of parallel administrative, judicial and legislative organs for each of the two peoples. Increasingly from 1964 onwards, the Greek Cypriot regime which purports to be the government of the Republic of Cyprus has not exercised over the Turkish Cypriot people any of the significant incidents of sovereign control reserved to the Government of the Republic of Cyprus in the 1960 Constitution. Instead, virtually all decisions governing the conduct of Turkish Cypriots have been made by the governmental institutions of the Turkish Cypriot community, and virtually all decisions concerning the conduct of Greek Cypriots have been made by the governmental institutions of the Greek Cypriot community. Physically, the two communities have become increasingly separated.
This practice of parallel self-government and physical separation of the two Cypriot communities continued after the coup of 15 July 1974, staged by elements of the Greek Cypriot National Guard but foiled by the Turkish intervention, which began on 20 July. In the Geneva Declaration of 30 July 1974, the Foreign Ministers of Greece, Turkey and Britain noted “the existence in practice in the Republic of Cyprus of two autonomous administrations, that of the Greek Cypriot community and that of the Turkish Cypriot community.” The Turkish intervention could not and did not alter the equal legal status of the two Cypriot communities, which derived from the earlier treaties and Constitution; nor was it the origin of the physical separation of the Greek and Turkish Cypriot peoples, who had been living as separate, self-governing communities since at least 1964.
The root of the problem is the destruction of the 1960 Constitution by the Greek Cypriots in 1963, and their persecution and attempted genocide of the Turkish Cypriots until Turkish soldiers rescued them in 1974. The British Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon recalled (3) that “No one who lived as I did in Cyprus in the 1960’s will forget what was happening then. It was an attempt at the systematic elimination of one part of the community. It was ethnic cleansing before that phrase came into vogue in the Western media.”
The legal rights of the Turkish Cypriot community predate and were manifested by the proclamation in 1975 of the Turkish Federated State of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots considered it necessary to “create in their own region the legal basis of an order leading to the establishment of the future independent, Federal Republic of Cyprus” and reaffirmed that “their final objective is to unite with the Greek Cypriot community within the framework of a bi-regional federation. “This exactly describes the form of the federal system toward which the leaders of the two communities, meeting under the auspices of the Secretary General of the United Nations, subsequently agreed to negotiate in their Four Guidelines of 12 February 1977
Similarly, the long-delayed decision of the Turkish Cypriot Community in 1983 to declare itself the independent Republic of Northern Cyprus cannot lessen the rights to self-determination that the Turkish Cypriot people share equally with the Greek Cypriot people. For more than 50 years the Turkish Cypriot community has negotiated in good faith with representatives of the Greek Cypriot community to come to a lasting political solution to their island’s troubles. The fact that the Turkish Cypriots restrained themselves for 20 years from proclaiming a separate Turkish Cypriot Republic was, under the circumstances, an act of continuing forbearance, the exhaustion of which can hardly be condemned, and stands in sharp contrast to the actions of the Greek Cypriot community in forcibly dismantling the constitutional Cypriot regime three years after their specific commitment to preserve it. The events of 1963 are not the source of the Turkish Cypriots’ legal rights to determine their political future and to play an effective role in the government of the island, nor did they alter those pre-existing legal rights.
Much consequence has been drawn by some observers, and by the Greek Cypriot community, from the fact that numerous States have recognized the Greek Cypriot regime as the sole government of Cyprus. Although certain minimal criteria of statehood are required by customary international law, the recognition of governments is, none the less, an act of an inherently political, rather than legal, character. The mere fact of international recognition, no matter how widespread, cannot excuse or confer legitimacy upon the violations of both domestic constitutional law and international treaty law through which the Greek Cypriot regime usurped the name as well as the government of the “Republic of Cyprus,” particularly since it never exercised sovereignty over the whole island.
In any event, the most that can be said is that the international community has not withdrawn its recognition of the Republic of Cyprus established in 1960. The recognition of a government cannot automatically carry with it the recognition of all future governments of that state. The Greek Cypriot regime has assumed the title “Republic of Cyprus” but abandoned the substance. Since that time, no state has affirmatively recognized a “Greek Republic of Cyprus” based on the amended constitution. All they have done is continue to treat Cyprus as a single state.
When the subject of statehood, rather than recognition, is examined, it is apparent that the territory controlled by the Turkish Cypriot government is at present no less eligible for statehood than its Greek Cypriot counterpart. According to the international law for the existence of a state the necessary criteria are; (1) permanent population, (2) a reasonably well-defined territory, (3) an effective government, (4) and independence from foreign control of decision-making, particularly regarding relations with other states. “An entity that satisfies these requirements is a state whether or not its statehood is formally recognized by other states.
Since the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus satisfies all the formal legal prerequisites for statehood, it is clear that international law does not forbid its recognition by other states.
Even though the UN recognition, it is clear that neither of the governments existing on the Island is qualified to assert that it is the government of the “Republic of Cyprus.”. Thus, sovereignty would devolve fully and legitimately to any new Cypriot government if the successor state or states were the product of a concurrent exercise of self-determination by the two communities superseding the joint exercise through which the 1960 Republic was established.
In summary, the Greek Cypriot people has never had the right to assert sovereignty over the Turkish Cypriot people without their consent. Nor, from the moment the Greek Cypriots unilaterally rejected the constitutional basis on which the legitimacy of the Cypriot government rested in international law, has the Greek Cypriot regime had any right to assert sovereignty over the island. Since that time, practical necessity has created two governments on Cyprus. The rights of the peoples of the two communities to determine their own political futures have remained unchanged and in all respects are equal. The nations of the world, through resolutions of the Security Council and General Assembly of the United Nations, have recognized and consistently reaffirmed these rights, as have the two communities themselves in their interim negotiated agreements. Under these circumstances, international law does not sanction differential treatment of the two communities in the current negotiations or in any resulting settlement. If these efforts to establish a federal government of Cyprus-with the equal participation and mutual acceptance of the two peoples should fail, each regime the Turkish Cypriot no less than the Greek Cypriot-would be eligible for recognition as an independent state. Such recognition by other states would not then infringe any principle of international law.
I regret to remind you once more that rejecting the Annan plan the Greek Cypriot side, confident of the EU support, negotiated with the Turkish Cypriot side from 2008 till 2017 but kept rejecting many UN federation proposals, hoping that the EU full support would pressure the Turkish side to give them their maximal claims. The whole world saw that in Crans Montana (2017), the Greek Cypriot Leader Anastasiades rejected the last minute deal reached as he later admitted since could not get his people to agree to share power and resources of the island with the Turkish Cypriots in a federal solution. This is the sum of everything which led to a two state model.
“The following list is from Nicos Rolandis The ex Foreign Minister of Cyprus “Peace moves rejected by Greek Cypriots”: I think the world will slowly get fed up with Turk bashing by The Greek Cypriots (GC). It’s way past its sell by date.
1) 1948: Consultative Assembly: We (GCs) rejected it.
2) 1955-56: Harding proposals: We (GCs) rejected them.
3) 1956: Ratcliffe Constitution: We (GCs) rejected it.
4) 1958: Macmillan Plan: We (GCs) rejected it.
5) 1959-60: Zurich-London Agreements: We (GCs) rejected them in 1963 (through the efforts to amend the Constitution) although we initially accepted them.
6) 1964: Acheson Plan: We (GCs) rejected it.
7) 1972: Agreement of Clerides-Denktaş: We (GCs) rejected it.
8) 1975: Bi-communal Arrangement: We (GCs) rejected it.
9) 1978: Anglo-American Canadian Plan: We (GCs) rejected it.
10) 1981: Evaluation of Waldheim: We (GCs) rejected it.
11) 1983: Indicators of Perez de Cuellar: We (GCs) rejected them.
12) 1985-86: Consolidated Documents of Perez de Cuellar: We (GCs) rejected them.
13) 1992: Set of Ideas, Boutros Boutros-Ghali: We (GCs) rejected them in 1993.
14) 1997: Kofi Annan’s proposals at Troutbeck-Glion: They could not go through.
15) 2002-2004: Annan Plan: We (GCs) rejected it”
And the last the Crans-Montana;
The 5-Party Conference in Crans-Montana in the 2017, held under the auspices of the United Nations, opened with the participation of the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Nicos Anastasiades, the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Mustafa Akıncı, and the guarantor powers’ representatives.
Talks to reunify the island of Cyprus collapsed amid anger and recriminations marking the end of a process seen as the most promising in generations to heal decades of conflict.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres told after the last conference session in Crans-Montana “I’m very sorry to tell you that despite the very strong commitment and engagement of all the delegations and different parties … the conference on Cyprus was closed without an agreement being reached,”. Statements by former European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker on the Cyprus issue, blamed the Greek Cypriot side for the stalemate in the 2017 Crans-Montana talks.
After the 60-year intransigence of the Greek-Cypriots, the Turkish Cypriots officially declared that they would not take part in the 1960 Cyprus Republic at the 5-Party Conference in Geneva on 28 April 2021. Already at the referendum in 2004 by rejecting the UN Annan Plan the Greek-Cypriots lost their right to be the legitimate government of 1960 Republic of Cyprus.
I would like to have EU Commission views at this point of the Turkish Cypriots’ status so that our members and the larger Turkish Cypriot people can understand your policy. Because we are confused that on one side the EU wants to play a role in the efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue but on the other shifts to a further pro-Greek Cypriot line becoming a party to the Cyprus issue. Sometimes the EU statements surpass that of the Greek Cypriots and the Greek foreign ministry statements in supporting the Greek line strongly.
In view of the fact that the whole world accepts our fully equal rights at sea and over the hydrocarbon resources there, do you agree with this? Do you know that the Greek Cypriot side which has been accepted as the Cyprus government is the only EU country which does not apply its own constitution.
I remind you that Cyprus accepted by EU as the “best member” when the Turkish Cypriots deprived all their partnership rights as well as basic human rights when the Cyprus constitution cannot be applied even though they have voted with the full determination of uniting the Cyprus at the UN Annan Plan referendum on 24 April 2004.
The former UK Foreign Minister Jack Straw’s call for two-state solution in Cyprus. He calls on the international community’s commitment to a two-state solution in Cyprus. Straw suggests “As one of Cyprus’ “guarantor nations,” along with Turkey and Greece, the UK has a role to play in breaking the deadlock and pushing for a two-state solution.”
Straw’s proposed solution is for the international community to commit to a two-state solution if negotiations for a united island continue to fail. He cited examples like the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia and the Balkan states’ separation from Yugoslavia as instances where splitting states was the best option.
Mr Straw has insisted that the problem has become an impasse because of what he describes as the mistake of allowing Cyprus to join the EU in 2004, after the southern part of the island reneged on the UN-brokered Annan deal to bring the island back together again, a solution the citizens of the unrecognized TRNC accepted. In 2017, the Cypriot government walked away from Crans-Montana in Switzerland with a solution close.
When Ersin Tatar was elected president of the TRNC in 2020, he won on a platform backed by one of the guarantor powers namely Turkey for a “two-state solution”, claiming that, after five decades, hopes of bringing the two communities together were dead. “It is the facts on the ground,” he noted. “What we have at the moment is peaceful coexistence with two neighbouring states.
“Different people, different language, different history, different culture. Therefore it was our true right to establish our own state, which we did [in 1983]. “Since 1964 we have been separated. The young generation don’t know one another. They have different language, culture and experiences. There have been so many bitter experiences that there is no hope for a federal relationship in the future.”
There has been no concurrence since 1963, and there is no “doctrine of necessity” which allows one partner to assault and terrorise the other and then claim the right to run the State alone. The Greek Cypriots have been asking the Turkish Cypriots to go back since 1967, but on terms which abrogate their basic rights and which they could not possibly accept. Nor could the Greek Cypriots be trusted, for even today racial hatred against Turkish people is incited in their schools, churches and military camps.
Refering to your Rozsa’s answer about the “Property issues affecting both Cyprus communities would need to be addressed in these talks” may I please remind you about the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) rejection go the Greek Cypriots’ request to turn Northern Cyprus: 27.05.20120: ECtHR; “The Places where Greek Cypriots migrated from Northern Cyprus ar NO LONGER TEHEIR HOMES SINCE Greek Cypriots has LIVED ALMOST ALL THEIR LIVES IN OTHER PLACES AND HAVE NO CONCRETE AND PERSISITING LINKS WITH THE PROPERTY THEY CLAIMED. That’s why, Greek Cypriots “HAVE NO RIGHT TO RETURN BACK TO THE NORTH”. In fact The Federal Court of United States of America “REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS’ REQUESTS TO RETURN BACK TO THE NORTHERN CYPRUS OR TAKING COMPENSATION”. (09.10.2014)
May I also remind you of UN 1975 Vienna Agreement of the Population Exchange on 2 August Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots signed between the leaders Rauf R. Denktash and the President Glafkos Clerides! the following was agreed:
- The Turkish Cypriots at present in the South of the Island will be allowed, if they want to do so, to proceed North with their belongings under an organized programme and with the assistance of UNFICYP.
- Mr. Denktash reaffirmed, and it was agreed, that the Greek Cypriots at present in the North of the Island are free to stay and that they will be given every help to lead a normal life,
- The Greek Cypriots at present in the North who, at their own request and without having been subjected to any kind of pressure, wish to move to the South will be permitted to do so
In this case EU’s proposal for the comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus issue based on a bi-zonal, bi communal federation with the principles on which the EU is founded strongly contradicts with not only the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions but also the agreed United Nation’s (UN) framework! EU does not take care the agreements between the two partners and the partnership rights in favour of the other partner of the Republic.
EU itself does not care and apply its principles simply in the case of EU membership of the illegitimate Cyprus State when one of its partner namely the Turkish Cypriots have been dispelled out of the state by the Greek Cypriots and the Greece military armed forces who are guilty of genocide of the civilians in Cyprus!
Whereas the UN and the EU have not fulfilled their promises and have not lifted the isolation and embargoes until today, despite the unilateral admission of the Greek Cypriots to the EU, who rejected the UN Annan Plan at referendum in 2004. Expecting the Turkish Cypriots to have confidence in any agreement under the conditions of UN and EU has no meaning other than to accept the fate of “Humanitarian Tragedy of Palestinians in Gazze!”
“The EU must be aware of the damage that it has done to the prospects for a settlement in the island by processing the unilateral and unlawful acceptance of the Greek Cypriot administration as EU member, and the damage it continues to do by insisting on this totally wrong and misguided policy. I regret to say that by this misguided policy EU hoping to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by the Aid programme means that EU still don’t understand what is the Cyprus issue. In fact the Aid programme total of which is EUR 700 million in 20 years is nothing compared by the compensation which should have been paid for the Turkish Cypriots whom deprived and denied all fundamental human rights and the 1960 Cyprus Republic partnership rights by force of arms since 1963 by the military support of Greece to Greek Cypriot partners whom the unilateral illegal EU membership afforded as gift by EU at a time in 2004 when they rejected the UN Annan Plan the “reunification” of Cyprus.
Regrettably, the Greek Cypriots have been able, using the governmental status to which they are not entitled, to silence the Turkish Cypriot voice, and shut them out of all official channels of communication, so that “Cyprus” has come to mean “Greek Cyprus.” No other significant group of people anywhere in the world is treated as the Turkish Cypriots have been treated. It is time therefore that the world began to listen to the Turkish Cypriot point of view and to question the assumptions from which the Greek Cypriots have profited for so long.
How could EU be expecting with economic integration of the island and improving contacts between the two communities the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community under the embargoes when UN Chapter VII (41) of the United Nations Charter don’t allow such an action against one of the partners?
So Human Rights Association calls on both UN and the EU for the acknowledgement of the TRNC, that has existed in Cyprus for 41 years since 1983 which is the only option that will pave the way for a two-state agreement in order to protect the Turkish Cypriots fundamental human rights and the partnership rights of the 1960 Cyprus Republic and the peace in the Eastern Mediterrenian.
I kindly request you to take the above points into account when you to let us know your response to our letter in order to inform our members.
Yours Sincerely,
Hasan Y. Işık
President of the Turkish Cypriots
Human Rights Association.
- President Ersin Tatar of the TRNC.
Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertuğruloğlu.
Note:
- Note; Seminar in London 16th February 2001.
MICHAEL STEPHEN was a Member of the United Kingdom Parliament 1992-97. He is a Barrister and International Lawyer and a Member of the Royal Institute of International Affairs evaluate the Cyprus questıon which was Published by Northgate Publications, London in July 2001