Sir,
I would like to respond to Mr Leonida’s letter, “Calling from planet Earth” (Sunday Mail, November 26), where he ask “how these lofty legal principles (i.e. principles of European human rights law) would be implemented in the case of Cyprus”.
It is true that, in relation to case of Cyprus, Turkey is free to disregard European human rights law. However, the EU is not. In recent European wars, the EU has attempted, to quote Mr Leonida, to enforce “strict adherence to the safeguarding of human rights” instead of allowing the victor to dictate the peace. The EU has exerted diplomatic pressure which essentially amounts to setting conditions on EU membership) in relation to former Yugoslavia. The EU has imposed the following conditions in relation to the right of refugees to return home:
Bosnia and Herzegovina must “complete the refugee return process” (Council Decision of June 14, 2004); Serbia and Montenegro must “facilitate the return of displaced persons” (Council Decision of June 14, 2004); and Croatia must “Speed up refugee return” (Council Decision of September 13, 2004).
Similar conditions were made for the Kurds: Turkey should “pursue measures to facilitate the return of internally displaced persons to their original settlements” (Council Decision of January 23, 2006).
In other words, the EU believes that refugees are entitled to return home, except for the case of Cyprus, where the EU believes that permanent restrictions should be written into the EU’s founding treaties to ensure that the refugees do not return (i.e. the Annan plan).
It is easy to conclude that EU’s policy on Cyprus is to endorse the “exchange of populations” solution to the Cyprus problem that has been advocated by Turkey since the 1950s. But this is the view of a small faction, led by Britain, and not the view of all 25 member states. The EU’s official policy is that the UN plans must be “in line with the principles on which the European Union is founded” (Council Decision of June 22, 2002), which includes adherence to human rights. The European Commission claims that the Annan plan is consistent with these founding principles.
However, it is very hard to reconcile this with the restrictions contained in the Annan plan, such as the, restrictions on the right of free movement and residence that are contained in Article 2 of the Proposed Act of Adaptation.
The question as to whether the Annan plan is consistent with European human rights law is not merely academic, because if it is, then as Mr Leonida correctly pointed out in his letter:
“Who will implement them [human rights principles]? Certainly not the EU which fully endorsed the Annan plan.”
However, if the Annan plan is not consistent with the EU’s founding principles, then the Commission itself is violating EU law. As citizens of the European Union we can demand that the EU institutions comply with EU law.
Most European politicians are not aware of the contents of the Annan plan. They assume that it is consistent with human rights and that the Greek Cypriots rejected it because they do not wish to share power with the Turkish Cypriots. If it can be shown that the Annan plan is not consistent with the EU’s founding principles then the European politicians would not insist that the Greek Cypriots accept it as “the losing side must accept the terms of the victors”. Rather, they would insist that all parties, including Turkey, accept the EU’s founding principles, which includes allowing all refugees to return home.
Turkey would be free to ignore the EU’s demands, but that means giving up the prospect of membership.
Panos Gregory,
Croydon, UK
??
??
??
??
