Dear Sir,
The attempts by Loucas Charalambous through his purported facts and truths (‘The Stark Truth About Return of Refugees’, Sunday Mail, December 16) to show that the refugees will not want to return to their homes in the event of a settlement only evidences a lazy and cavalier approach to journalism.
A demand for the right to return to our homes is neither a ‘slogan’ nor ‘rhetoric’, but feasible even under the Annan Plan which is little more than a legitimisation of the occupation of Cyprus and a blatant violation of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee by Turkey. If we Cypriots surrender our rights and stop calling for the restoration of those rights all hope will be lost and we might as well give Turkey the keys to our stolen lands and heritage.
There are five obstacles to the Annan Plan, all of which can be resolved at the click of a Turkish General’s fingers and which, when dealt with can allow all the refugees to return to the homes and or deal with their property.
First, the plan allows the Turkish military to remain on the island indefinitely. This is not acceptable as free Cypriots will never have sufficient faith in the Turkish Army to live anywhere where it can exercise any form of control. It must be remembered that the Turkish Army is independent of the Turkish Executive and has never been bashful either of telling its government where its limitations are or in deed getting rid of that executive and parliament altogether. In addition, Turkey is notorious for not honouring international agreements and indeed takes pride in its ability to openly dishonour them.
Secondly, save for the Turkish settlers that would otherwise be entitled legally to stay on the island, e.g. marriage to a Cypriot national, they must be returned to Turkey en masse. I have witnessed and have heard first hand account from Turkish-Cypriots as to the divisions between them and the mainland Turks.
The settlers have no loyalty to Cyprus and will always be answerable to Ankara. As they outnumber the Turkish Cypriots it is difficult to see on what basis the occupied area is and can be placed under Turkish Cypriot administration.
Bearing in mind most settlers were enticed to the occupied areas with promises of stolen land and a year’s basic subsistence it will take much to encourage them to leave the island, and by all accounts would be happy to do so as they have not generally found the experience pleasant.
Thirdly, human rights to be enjoyed by those living under the Turkish Cypriot Administration must be equal to those enjoyed and to be enjoyed by the free Cypriots. It is incredible and incredulous that Kofi Annan gave (under his Plan) inferior rights to the Turkish Cypriots. The only plausible explanation for that anomaly is to facilitate by Turkey and its military the repression of the Turkish Cypriots and allow the type of illegal and inhuman practises carried on in Turkey to be conducted in Cyprus;
Fourthly, the occupied land to be released to the free Cypriots is insufficient. A more realistic restoration of the stolen land (which only involves a slight adjustment to the second of the existing Annan plans) along the Attila line, Famagusta, Karpasia and Morphou, will contrary to the assertions of Mr Charalambous produce a return of the bulk of the refugees within a free area and leave only a relatively small number to return under a Turkish Cypriot administration, where they will be as a necessity an ethnic/religious minority.
If the three obstacles noted above are cleared and with the prospect of the occupied area being once again returned to its status as the Riviera of Eastern Mediterranean there is little doubt that free Cypriots will want to return to their stolen properties and take advantage of that. Those who do not will have the option to deal with their properties as free men; and
Lastly the qualifications to the Sovereignty of Cyprus in the Annan Plan, which makes it subservient to Turkey must removed. This was yet another concession to the Turkish military by the UN General Secretary in a situation where he appeared to throw out the UN Charter and simply tick the General’s wish list.
We have demonstrated over the years that we will not surrender our rights and the time we have gained has allowed the International Community, particularly its institutions and courts to mature and become an affective instrument of the oppressed. In addition EU membership has given us, however small, a lever with which we can shape our destiny. Turkey is further now from legitimising its occupation then it has ever been. Mr. Charalambous should re-examine his facts and truths and spend a little time working out how to restore those rights rather than simply abandon them.
Andreas E. Alexandrou,
High Barnet, UK
??
??
??
??
