Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Embargoes are lifted, there are TC grown potatoes in Athens supermarkets and they are selling well. All EU nations, including Greece, accept TC chamber of Commerce certificiation of TC goods. But the point is not the so called embargoes, the point is to get Famagusta and Tymbou opened to international traffic, an effort to get recognition via the side door.

[zan]

Embargoes are lifted, there are TC grown potatoes in Athens supermarkets and they are selling well. All EU nations, including Greece, accept TC chamber of Commerce certificiation of TC goods. But the point is not the so called embargoes, the point is to get Famagusta and Tymbou opened to international traffic, an effort to get recognition via the side door.

We made an effort to put things right in 2004 Nikitas and you threw it back in our faces because you want total control. The idea that TC products are free to go where they like is utter nonsense...They are only working to prop up the "RoC" story and are doing nothing to solidify the TC rights on the island. The "Produce of the "RoC"" and not the work of TCs.....Every one know that the "RoC" is Greek. Working for the MAN = "RoC".

[Nikitas]

You are sidestepping the issue. Farmers want to sell their produce. Halil posted the figures, thousands of tons of potatoes now get sold to the south or via the south with no problem at all. The TC chamber of commerce is fully empowered to issue valid documentaion for TC produced goods and they can be shipped from Limassol and Larnaca to anywhere.

Realistically speaking, even if Famagusta was opened to regular traffic, ships would still call in Limassol, for the simple reason that it is a modern port with full container handling facilities and quick turnaround times, something vital in shipping. But we all know the ploy behind Famagusta and the supposed embargoes.

How come there is no problem selling property to foreigners and setting up joint ventures with Israelis? Obviously there is no banking embargoes in those cases.

[Tim Drayton]

People should be aware that the text posted here is an English translation published in the Cyprus Observer:
http://www.observercyprus.com/observer/ ... px?id=3220
of Niyazi Kızılyürek’s original article in Turkish which appeared in the Yeni Düzen newspaper on 16/11/2008:
http://www.yeniduzengazetesi.com/templa ... &zoneid=16

My reason for pointing this out is that I feel the translation is so poor as to distort, if not event misrepresent, Kızılyürek’s views. That this article has been translated by somebody with little feel for the English language is adequately demonstrated by the final line reading “part 2 be later on to come.”

Even so, let us compare the translation of the first couple of sentences:

Following the Greek 15 July coup, Turkey, one of the guarantor countries, began intervention preparations. Bulent Ecevit, then Turkish Prime Minister, met the then British Prime Minister Harold Wilson in London and suggested that the two countries act together on the intervention. Ecevit said the following regarding the intervention that the UK did not want to participate in: Our aim is to fulfil the system defined by the guarantee agreement.

with the original text:

15 Temmuz darbesinden sonra garantör ülke olarak Türkiye, Kıbrıs’a askeri müdahalede bulunmak üzere hazırlıklara başladığında, dönemin Başbakanı Bülent Ecevit garantör ülkelerden İngiltere’nin Başbakanı Wilson ile Londra’da biraraya geldi ve iki ülkenin birlikte hareket etmesini önerdi. İngiltere’nin katılmak istemediği müdahalenin amacını Ecevit şu sözlerle özetliyordu: “Amacımız garanti antlaşmasıyla getirilen düzeni ihya etmektir”.
and let us list the inaccuracies that have crept in:

1 “the Greek 15 July coup” – the original text refers simply to “the 15 July coup”
2 “Turkey, one of the guarantor countries” – the original text reads “Turkey, as a guarantor country”
3 “began intervention preparations” – the original text refers specifically to “military intervention”
4 The first sentence has been created by breaking up the original sentence, in which it is a time clause that could be perfectly adequately rendered in English as “When, following the 15 July coup, Turkey, as a guarantor country, began her preparations for a military intervention …”
5 “Harold Wilson” – the original text uses his surname alone
6 “act together on the intervention” – the original text simply reads “act together”
7 “regarding the intervention” – the original text speaks of “regarding the aim of the intervention”
8 “guarantee agreement” – this is the Treaty of Guarantee! The word agreement in English is used in a commercial not diplomatic context (and is “anlaşma” not “antlaşma” in Turkish).
9 “Our aim is to fulfil the system defined by the guarantee agreement” – Ecevit here is clearly quoting from the text of the Treaty of Guarantee, which reads, “re-establish the state of affairs created by the Treaty of Guarantee”, and a competent translation would use these words.

Perhaps I am hair-splitting, but I feel that Niyazi Kızılyürek is one of the most competent and balanced political commentators in Cyprus today, and it upsets me to see his words distorted in this way. An uninformed reader might imagine that this text was penned in English by Kızılyürek and that the latter does not even know the correct name of the Treaty of Guranatee! This does Kızılyürek a great injustice because he is an academic with many published works to his name who specialises in the Cyprus problem. More generally, Kızılyürek has a very sharp, direct style when he writes in Turkish and this style is not at all reflected in the above translation. I think at the very least a note should have been appended that this text was a translation, and the original source should have been credited.

[zan]

You are sidestepping the issue. Farmers want to sell their produce. Halil posted the figures, thousands of tons of potatoes now get sold to the south or via the south with no problem at all. The TC chamber of commerce is fully empowered to issue valid documentaion for TC produced goods and they can be shipped from Limassol and Larnaca to anywhere.

Realistically speaking, even if Famagusta was opened to regular traffic, ships would still call in Limassol, for the simple reason that it is a modern port with full container handling facilities and quick turnaround times, something vital in shipping. But we all know the ploy behind Famagusta and the supposed embargoes.

How come there is no problem selling property to foreigners and setting up joint ventures with Israelis? Obviously there is no banking embargoes in those cases.

What goes on in the TRNC and what they can do with exports are two separate issues. There is no reference to TC involvement in Cyprus anywhere in your literature except in the negative or a passing comment. Now that you have your ENOSIS through the EU, the total Greekifying of the island has been almost as successful, if it were not for our resilience and the help we get from Turkey.

The produce that is allowed through is something that you really had to implement once you got into the EU. You cannot stop it. With what intent you try to sell these products to the world and with what vigor you are claiming production rights and copyrights before Turkey gets in is also telling of intent.

The game goes on Nikitas...Don't expect us to sit on our hands while you maneuver constantly threatening our existence.

[halil]

Search for Confederation and declaration of the TRNC -1-

21.11.2008

Niyazi Kizilyurek



It should be kept in mind that with the establishment of the TRNC the main thing to be achieved was the continuation of Denktas Presidency. The Federate State Constitution did not allow him to be elected so that was the main concern rather than independence. The new constitution with the establishment of the TRNC opened that option for him.

Ilter Turkmen

Following the Greek 15 July coup, Turkey, one of the guarantor countries, began intervention preparations. Bulent Ecevit, then Turkish Prime Minister, met the then British Prime Minister Harold Wilson in London and suggested that the two countries act together on the intervention. Ecevit said the following regarding the intervention that the UK did not want to participate in: Our aim is to fulfil the system defined by the guarantee agreement. (Ecmel Barutcu 1999: 60). In Rauf Denktas speech on the morning of 20 July, he said the following: This is not an occupation. It is totally a police action to maintain the independence, unity, and safety once again in Cyprus. It is our duty to help keep the intervention in its focus and prevent bloodshed and bring peace to Cyprus as soon as possible. Victory belongs to the defender of the Republic of Cyprus and of all Cypriots. (Denktas 2000: 388/389).
A ceasefire was agreed two days after 20 July 1974 and the Foreign Ministers of the guarantor countries of the UK, Greece and Turkey met in Geneva and made a common statement. The common statement said that the representatives of the two communities in Cyprus along with the representatives of the guarantor countries would meet in order to hold negotiations on August 8 and the main focus elements in the meetings would be: going back to the constitutional system and re-assigning the position of Vice President according to the 1960 constitution.
Although the common statement mainly referred to returning to the 1960 constitution and the constitutional system, one statement put into the text on the insistence of the Turkish side, bore opposing meanings in itself. The Turkish side insisted that the statement: There are actually 2 autonomous administrations one being the Turkish and the other being the Greek in the Republic of Cyprus; and the statement was added to the common announcement. As the statement conflicts within itself it is obvious that the Turkish side was in favour of a federal solution demanding that the federal solution be based on two separate administrations even back then. As a matter of fact, the statement by then Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit said the following: No one can act as if nothing had changed in Cyprus there have been irreversible changes in Cyprus in the morning of July 20.(Bahcheli: 100).

Denktas presents bizonal, bicommunal federal state

In the second phase of Geneva meetings started with the participation of the representatives of both communities in Cyprus, the Turkish side suggested two different federal solutions based on geographical elements. The one presented to Glafcos Clerides by Rauf Denktas showed the land designated for the Turkish Cypriot Administration was defined as 34% of the island and a bizonal, bicommunal federal state government was planned. The offer presented by the Turkish group to the Greek group was named after then Minister of Foreign Affairs as the Gunes Planâ, and included the multi-canton-federation imposed on the Turkish side by Kissinger. There were 6 cantons in this plan which distributed 34% of land designated for the Turkish Cypriots into 5 big and one small canton.
Interestingly, until yesterday the Turkish side that defended returning back to the Zurich and London Agreements claimed that these agreements did not work and said that there should be fundamental changes made to form a system based on geographical elements. A Federal Government should be instituted resulting in a stepping back from the common statement made at the first Geneva meeting. Rauf Denktas had stated that there could be no going back to the Geneva meetings basis as there could be no turning back to the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, adding that this constitution could not protect the Turkish Cypriots resulting in a need for the Republic of Cyprus to be reformed and restructured in an autonomous government in separate locations. (Polivios G. Poliviou 1976:331). Further more he mentioned Bi-national federal state in the solution offer he made to Glafcos Clerides. On 17 August 1974, following the completion of the military intervention, the then Turkish Prime Minister, Bulent Ecevit, stated that the basis for the Federal Cyprus State with two autonomous geographically separate administrations had been actually laid. (Samani 1999: 105).

part 2 be later on to come.

Declaration of the TRNC and Demand of Confederation -2-

28.11.2008

Niyazi Kizilyurek
Declaration of the Cyprus Turkish Federate Government
During the days when mutual suggestions were being made and negotiations between the communities continued the Turkish Cypriot side unilaterally declared the establishment of the Cyprus Turkish Federate Government (CTFG) on February 13, 1975. According to the statements by Denktas “there was other reason than to just form the wing of the planned Federal Government with the establishment of CTFG.” (R.R. Denktaş 1988: 80)
In fact in the declaration of the CTFG it had been stated that the ‘main aim’ was to unite with the Greek Cypriot Community and under the coverage of bizonal federation defined by geographical borders adding that the “1960 Republic of Cyprus Constitution (…) could be revised to be the Cyprus Federal Republic Constitution and could be a re-arrangement for the Federal republic.”
Although CTFG was said to have been established “as a step towards the establishment of the Federal Cyprus State” as a matter of fact this was part of the solution strategy which had been in affect since 1974 - the Turkish side had the intention of “two separate and independent governments” (in today’s concept it is “two separate democracies”). As a matter of fact if it was up to Denktas the independent Cyprus Turkish Government had to be declared right then. In fact Denktas was dealing with the preparations for the intercommmunal talks along with Clerides in 1974, and he is known to have said that “the Turkish Cypriots will have to have declared their independent state even if it is a day long state” in December 19-20, 1974 at their meeting with Clerides (Clerides vol 4, 1992: 149).
Frankly the Turkish side had taken the issue of “representation” from 1974 on and made it their basic issue since the Republic of Cyprus was under the influence of the Greek Cypriots from 1964 onwards. Although the Turkish side rejected the decision of the Security Council on 4th March 1964 which acknowledged the Makarios Government as the legal one, the Turkish side was not so on the issue until July 1974, as a matter of fact counted this as one of the facts of life. Following the 1974 military intervention while on one side it was expressed that the existence of the Cyprus State would continue with the effort of turning it into a Federal State and search for a solution and on the other hand it would be expressed that the Cyprus State was not being represented legally and there could be a solution based on the two separate administrations on the island. According to these ideas it was either the Republic of Cyprus which would be “lowered to the public level” or the Turkish Cypriot Community would be “up-graded to the State level.” The declaration of the CTFG was the first step taken on the road. As a matter of fact the deputy PM of the time Necmettin Erbakan suggested that the Greek Cypriots should give up on the Republic of Cyprus and instead declare the Greek Cypriot Federate Government. Erbakan also suggested that: “The President of the Federate State should change every year similar to the system in Switzerland” summarising the Turkish side’s thesis (Menter Şahinler 1979:79).
The Turkish side expressed a similar opinion at the 1st Vienna meetings on 21st July 1975, putting on the table the thesis they would continue to insist on getting through and the Greek Cypriot side would continuously reject to. The basic element of the opinion which continues to cause great dispute was: “At present, no matter what their names are there are two separate and different administrations working in the separate sides of the Republic of Cyprus, one being the Turkish Cypriot Administration and the other being the Greek Cypriot Administration. The two separate, different and equal administrations display all elements of a Republic in their own territory. Therefore out movement base should be this and debate on what authorities would the current administrations transfer to the federal Government. This basically means, we are not coming from the notion that there is a central state to function with all the authority and duty of the government or what the authority or function would be bestowed by the State to these governments (Federate NK.) On the contrary we come from the perspective that there are two separate and different administrations located in their separate territories. Therefore we should be debating on the authorities and functions of the current administrations that would be turned over to the Federal State.”
As everyone can interpret from the above mentioned opinions, the Turkish side shifted from a Federal State notion towards a Confederate State right after 1974. As Ecmel Barutcu said: “Rauf Denktas had pulled the flag and began talking about Confederation already”(Barutcu 1999: 119). The Confederation thesis accepted by Denktas, which meant a solution based on two separate states in Cyprus, was accepted as the official thesis following the 1974 intervention and even before the declaration of the TRNC the notion of “solution based on two separate administrations” was the official opinion that was to be demanded. It is a well known fact that Denktas was out to get a completely independent Turkish Cypriot State however, as Turkey had said, “We cannot bear this burden” with hopes of preventing difficulties. To be frank there was no need for that. The thesis defended at the negotiation table was based on the understanding of the “existence of two separate administrations.” As a result the “curtain federation” used by Necmettin Erbakan frequently in those days was called the official thesis of the Turkish side. According to this: “there should be such a constitution that when people look at it from the outside they should see federation however when the curtain is drawn there should be divided Cyprus underneath” (Birand 1979: 302).
- to be continued

[Nikitas]

We have a saying in Greek- the one you stuck me with was not the one you showed me. The federation issue reminds me of that saying. They talked Federation while they intended to stick us with Confederation.

[utu]

Halil,

Your entity's UDI was compromised from the beginning. Turkish dominance of trade, military, and government in the north made that inevitable. Reading the text of the UDI makes the reality in the north even more distasteful...

[halil]

Declaration of the TRNC and Demand of Confederation - 3
05.12.2008

Niyazi Kizilyurek

Based on the existence of ‘Two Different and Equal Administrations’

On the one hand with the weapon’s embargo by the US and, on the other hand as a result of the international diplomatic attempts, the Turkish side had to sign two different pacts based on the ‘bicommunal and bizonal federation’ thesis with Makarios (1977) and Spiros Kiprianu (1979) under the Presidency of Denktas. But, the Turkish side kept pursuing the idea of a confederated solution and did not step back. However, Mumtaz Soysal, a consultant to Denktas, said “we will announce it to the world as federation but we will defend confederation.” In brief, the Confederation concept was not abandoned after the Denktas-Makarios pact. In the Cyprus negotiations which were held in Vienna between 31 March and 7 April 1977, while the Turkish side mentioned “a federal state which would be established with very limited authorisations assigned by two different administrations” with the concept of a “Federation by Evolution”, it also defended the idea of a confederation. The Turkish Cypriot side suggested: “The Turkish Cypriot Federation wants to establish an independent, disconnected, bizonal federate Republic with the Greek Cypriot Administration and offers the establishment of a partnership based on the equality of two Administrations with goodwill. (…) In the federal system suggested by the Turkish Cypriot Federation - which will be established only with the union of power and resources of the two equal political units in a central federal administration based on political equality - in the beginning and with cooperation anticipated in a relatively limited area in different administrative branches. From this point of view, in the first stage, the functions of a Federal Government which were offered and with an advisory characteristic can be transformed into essential federal authorisations when trust and collaboration are built between the two communities.
As it can be understood, the Turkish side mentioned the transformation of the federation based on a concept of confederate state. However, the comments by Mehmet Ali Birand, who watched the negotiations closely, were in the same direction. Birand said, “Turkey’s suggestions involved confederation. They put forward mechanisms which will be transformed into federation in the case of building mutual well-intentioned relations, but anticipated establishing two small states which will work separately and govern themselves separately.”(Birand 1979:386)
When the Turkish side had to make new suggestions on 13 April 1978 they repeated the same ideas. The suggestions by Denktas’ consultants to Prof. Mumtaz Soysal and Necati Munir Ertegun which were presented to the UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim in Vienna, emphasised the political, socioeconomic and legal difficulties of establishing a federation in Cyprus and the main principles of the solution were: “Establishing a federation in Cyprus is not a simple case like giving the power and authorisations of the present central government to its elements. On the contrary, it is the effort to reunite two communities that have experienced violence and bloody battles. The Turkish Cypriots resisted the Greek Cypriot violence between the years 1963 to 1974 and did not recognise the Greek Cypriot administration which declared itself the ‘Cyprus Government’. Legitimacy can be provided with the collaboration of the two communities that will join together and establish a new regime in order to prevent the repetition of past pain and suffering. But the two have not yet reached the same level of economic and social development. The difference between the economic and social levels, the two communities’ inequality combined with the mistrust based on past experiences, causes the biggest difficulty in establishing a federation in Cyprus. In that case, in order to reduce the risk of deadlocks in the mechanism of government, the authorisations which would be given to federal offices should be reduced.”
The Turkish side refers to the ‘limited authorisations’ to be given to the central government based on the existence of ‘two separate and equal administrations’ within an established ‘federation’ and says that the authority to be given to the federation could be increased as long as trust was built between the two communities. However, these suggestions anticipated the organisation of a confederation rather than of a federation. In that suggestion it was suggested that the leadership of the federal state would be undertaken by in two year turns and federal legislative systems would be formed by the legislative organs of the federations with equal participation. (Criton Tornaritis 1980:196-197)
The basic conclusion so far, is that the Turkish side has based all its suggestions on “the presence of two separate nations” beginning from just after July 1974 until the declaration of the TRNC. In that case, why was the declaration of TRNC necessary? We will try to answer this question in our next column.

[zan]

Halil,

Your entity's UDI was compromised from the beginning. Turkish dominance of trade, military, and government in the north made that inevitable. Reading the text of the UDI makes the reality in the north even more distasteful...

How would you have done it utu.....Would you have turned away the only life line you had....We have been under isolation since 1963.......Turkey came in 1974.....Wanna tell me what the options were???? FFS

Try telling a starving man not to eat the piece of bread he found on the floor because you consider it dirty....Perhaps an offer of clean food would have been more humane...