“Expressing the sense of Congress on the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over all the territory of the island of Cyprus.”
Misrepresentation #1: The Republic of Cyprus is an independent sovereign nation state with the current Greek Cypriot administration retaining sovereign rights over the entire territory of the island.
Fact: The Republic of Cyprus cannot be associated with a single identity or nation. In 1960, the Republic of Cyprus was established as a partnership state based on the political equality of the two constituent peoples of the island, the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. When this new state was given a seat at the U.N. these two peoples were regarded as bearing the status as co-founders and equal partners.
- The 1960 bi-national Republic, which was established with the adoption of three international treaties (signed by the two peoples of the island along with Turkey, Greece and the United Kingdom) was illegally and forcibly destroyed by the Greek Cypriot side in 1963.
- The Greek Cypriot administration, which purports to be the Government of the Republic of Cyprus, has no legal or legitimate authority to represent the entire territory of Cyprus or the Turkish Cypriots. Sadly, the Greek Cypriot administration continues to impose its political will upon the Turkish Cypriot side.
- At the core of the Cyprus dispute today rests the challenge of renewing the partnership between the co-founders of the 1960 Republic that was destroyed by the Greek Cypriot side. Despite the fact that Turkish Cypriots continue to seek the re-establishment of the defunct partnership state, the Greek Cypriot side continues to pursue their goal of extending Greek sovereignty over the entire island.
Misrepresentation #2: The Republic of Turkey is illegally occupying the northern area of Cyprus through the presence of Turkish troops.
Fact: To refer to the Turkish troops dispatched on the island as an occupying force is untenable; rather these troops have served as a peacekeeping force that has aided in the restoration of order and security on the island. It is at the request of the Turkish Cypriots that that Turkish troops remain on the island until such time that a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus dispute is reached.
- Turkish troops were dispatched to the island of Cyprus in 1974 as an urgent moral imperative and a legal obligation as stipulated by the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee- signed by Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Guarantee remains in force as of this day. As a guarantor power under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Turkey was obliged to intervene on the island to prevent Cyprus from being annexed to Greece (Enosis) and to protect the Turkish Cypriot population in the wake of a bloody coup engineered by the Greek junta in 1974.
- Turkey is not against the reduction of forces on the island, but this has to be done through a comprehensive settlement within the U.N. process.
- Had the Greek Cypriot side not rejected the UN backed 2004 Annan Plan, which addressed the issue of reducing the presence of Turkish (as well as Greek) forces on the island this issue would have been resolved. At the time, Turkey had actively promoted the Annan Plan (to which the Turkish Cypriots overwhelmingly voted yes).
Misrepresentation #3: Turkey is attempting to colonize the area of Northern Cyprus and alter the demographic composition of the island by sending hundreds of thousands of its citizens to live permanently on Cyprus.
Fact: Turkey has never espoused a policy of sending settlers to northern Cyprus, nor has it ever made a deliberate attempt to illegally alter the demographic composition of the island.
- Since the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, it is Greece and the Greek Cypriot side alone to which actions that would result in the alteration of the demographic structure of the island must be attributed:
- In 1963 when the Greek Cypriots forcibly usurped the island's government they initiated a determined effort to destroy the Turkish Cypriot peoples. By 1967 this campaign was supported by Greece, which sent over 50,000 troops to the island. In the process, thousands of Turkish Cypriots were massacred and over 100,000 Turkish Cypriots were forcibly displaced.
- In 1974 the Greek junta coup in Cyprus, which overthrew leader Archbishop Makarios and installed Nikos Sampson, sought to transform Cyprus into a wholly Greek island and annex it to Greece. The coup posed a grave and unacceptable threat to the Turkish Cypriot community as evidenced by Sampson later declaring: “Had Turkey not intervened I would have not only proclaimed Enosis, I would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus” (26 February 1981, Eleftherotypia).
- Thousands of Turkish Cypriots have fled to Turkey and other countries as a result of Greek/Greek Cypriot violence that ensued between 1963-1974, but also as a consequence of the ongoing political and inhumane economic strangulation that exists against the Turkish Cypriot community.
Misrepresentation #4: Turkey is attempting to unjustly seize and exploit the energy resources which are rightfully the property of the Republic of Cyprus by extending its control over the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of the island.
Fact: The energy resources off the coast of Cyprus are rightfully the property of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. In the current round of negotiations towards a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus dispute, the two community leaders agreed that the exploration and exploitation of natural resources as well as the delimitation of maritime jurisdiction areas of the island- including EEZ’s- was to be left to the discretion of the future partnership government.
As a guarantor power, Turkey cannot be blamed for seeking to protect the inherent rights of the Turkish Cypriot people over the natural resources of the island as well as reacting to the unilateral and illegal attempts by the Greek Cypriot government to delimit the maritime jurisdiction areas of the island and its initiation of the exploration of offshore hydrocarbon resources.
- Any unjust attempt to seize and exploit energy resources off the shores of Cyprus must be traced to the actions of the Greek Cypriot administration.
- The repeated objections by Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot side in response to the provocative actions of the Greek Cypriot administration’s conclusion of maritime delimitation agreements and unilateral start of the exploration of energy resources off the island without the consent of all concerned parties were completely disregarded.
- To resolve the tension connected to the hydrocarbon resources off the coasts of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot side officially submitted a constructive proposal to the Greek Cypriot administration on September 24, 2011. If the Greek Cypriot side remained unwilling to accept the mutual and simultaneous suspension of all activities related to the hydrocarbon resources of the island, then as an alternative, the proposal foresaw the formation of an ad-hoc committee with the participation of the two sides and the U.N. to determine the future course of such off-shore activities as well as the shares of the two sides derived thereof which would primarily be used to finance an eventual comprehensive settlement. This proposal, which could work to deescalate tensions (as noted by US State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland on 29 September, 2011) was sadly dismissed by the Greek Cypriot side.
- If the Greek Cypriot administration is genuinely committed to attaining a comprehensive settlement and wants to preclude the escalation of tensions on the issue of hydrocarbon resources, it should respond positively to the Turkish Cypriot proposal of 24 September.
