THE TURKISH settlers in the occupied area have been a recurring theme in the defiant rhetoric of Greek Cypriot politicians who maintain that none should be allowed to stay after a settlement. This position is wishful thinking at best; at worst, it is calculatingly misleading and very similar to the assertion that we would not accept a settlement that did not ensure the return of all refugees to their homes.
The politicians know that no settlement would allow the return of all refugees (neither the Ghali ‘set of ideas’ nor the Annan plan had such a provision) yet they insist on building up people’s expectations for the sake of winning a few more votes. Exactly the same approach is adopted in the case of the settlers — the politicians have created the impression that they would all be put on ships and sent back to Turkey or there would be no deal. But is there anyone who honestly believes that these are realistic expectations?
Asked to comment about the claim by one of Alvaro de Soto’s advisers that no settler would be forced to leave Cyprus, government spokesman Kypros Chryostomides gave a classically legalistic answer. The mass deportation of settlers would be difficult, but none of them had the right to stay in Cyprus. What is this supposed to mean? The whole matter would depend on the final agreement, he said, adding that settlement of occupied land was considered to be a war crime. Why do politicians find it so difficult to speak openly about these issues?
The Annan plan stipulates that some 30,000 Turkish settlers would stay in Cyprus, so it is unlikely President Papadopoulos could secure their mass deportation through negotiations. Some of them do have a legal right to stay in Cyprus. For instance, those who are married to Turkish Cypriots and those who were born in the occupied area cannot be sent back. Can our government deport foreign nationals who have married Greek Cypriots or the offspring of foreigners who have been born and brought up here?
It is a complex issue that should be treated as such, instead of being cynically exploited by politicians looking to win votes. Newspapers are as bad, pouncing on Turkish Cypriot politicians as soon as they say anything that could be construed as support for the Turkish settlers. Mustafa Akinci was castigated by the papers yesterday for saying that no settler would be forced to leave Cyprus. He was given no credit for suggesting a cash incentive for those who did want to go. What did the papers want him to say, three months before elections in the occupied north? That he wants all settlers, many of whom, rightly or wrongly, have voting rights, sent back to Turkey?
All these politicians and writers never seem to ask the obvious question: what useful purpose is served by talking tough about the settlers. Apart from helping the anti-solution camp in the north, it also creates a negative climate between the two communities. Even if we cite the legal argument that the settlers are here as a result of a war crime, we cannot ignore the other legal argument — that after 20 years on the island they too have certain rights. Nothing is as simple and straightforward as the politicians would have us believe.
