Sir, – Nicosia Letter by Brendan Ó Cathaoir (World News, February 6th) distorts the realities of Cyprus.
Mr O Cathaoir mentions the island is divided by the Green Line, but what he does not say is that the Line was drawn on the map right after the armed attacks on Turkish Cypriot civilians by Greek Cypriot militia in December 1963, and that the UN peace keeping forces in Cyprus was stationed on the island during the first half of 1964.
Referring to Turkey’s intervention in Cyprus in 1974 as “invasion” and the subsequent presence of Turkish troops in the island as “illegal occupation” reflects neither the legal nor the historical facts of the island. Moreover, none of the Security Council resolutions on Cyprus refer to the rightful intervention of Turkey as an “invasion” or its continued presence in the island as “occupation”.
It is amply clear the current situation in the island did not come about overnight in 1974 as a result of Turkey’s intervention but was the result of Greek Cypriot aspirations to unite Cyprus with Greece and to annihilate the Turkish Cypriots in line with the notorious Akritas Plan.
In reference to Mr Ó Cathaoir’s unfounded allegations concerning the cultural monuments: neither the Greek Cypriot department of antiquities nor the Greek Cypriot Church has any updated and complete registers of the cultural property in their custody before 1974. Therefore, whenever an icon or an antique piece of Cypriot origin appears in the international art market, the Greek Cypriots, instead of admitting to their inability to protect the cultural heritage, and channelling their resources to rectify this shortcoming, find it more expedient to falsely accuse the Turkish Cypriots. The current Archbishop Chrysostomos II of the Greek Orthodox Church of Cyprus clearly stated that they did not have the registers of the movable cultural objects of the churches in North Cyprus. (Turkish Cypriot daily newspaper Kýbrýs, January 22nd, 2009). In fact, the problem regarding the preservation of cultural heritage is not an issue that is only affecting North Cyprus, but the island as a whole.
Mr Ó Cathaoir claims the Greek Cypriots are “committed to peaceful reunification in a federal state” – nothing could be further from the truth.
All UN settlement plans tabled to this date were rejected by the Greek Cypriots. Furthermore, one should never forget that the Annan Plan was not the perfect plan for the Turkish Cypriots. Aware that a comprehensive solution requires compromise, the Turkish Cypriot people overwhelmingly approved the Annan Plan by 65 per cent, while 76 per cent of the Greek Cypriots rejected it. The results of the referendum clearly demonstrated the Turkish Cypriot people are in favour of a comprehensive settlement.
The Turkish Cypriot side is committed to continue to display the necessary political will in order to reach a just, sustainable and comprehensive settlement in the island based on established UN parameters. On the other hand, the resounding No of the Greek Cypriots proved that they are not ready to enter into a power-sharing agreement with the Turkish Cypriots and that they rather opt to continue to enjoy the benefits of the title of the “Republic of Cyprus” which they usurped through force of arms in December 1963. The rejection of the plan by the Greek Cypriots had clearly proven, once again, that they are not in favour of a solution. This has also been acknowledged by the then UN secretary-general in his report of May 28th, 2004 (S/2004/437) to the UN Security Council that what was rejected by the Greek Cypriot side “was the solution itself rather than a mere blueprint”.
I would like to underline that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an effectively functioning state, with a democratically elected legislature, an independent judiciary and all other institutions of statehood. – Yours, etc,