Cyprus: misguided support for direct trade with TRNC
Author: Robert Ellis
2 May 2010 - Issue : 883
The support by the S&D group in the European Parliament for the proposed regulation for direct trade between the EU and northern Cyprus may be well-meaning but it is certainly misguided.
The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty has changed the balance of power in the European Union. One consequence is that the Commission has in an “Omnibus communication” submitted to the European Parliament its earlier proposal for direct trade from 2004, which was shelved because of Greek Cypriot opposition. But the EU Council was at odds with its own Commission, because the Council’s Legal Service opined that the legal basis for the Commision’s proposal was invalid.
The proposal also presents other legal and political obstacles, which the S&D group has ignored. For example, the European Court of Justice in its Anastasiou judgment from 1994 precludes acceptance of movement and phytosanitary certificates issued by authorities other than the competent authorities of the Republic of Cyprus. The only documentation from the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce that can be accepted is in connection with the Green Line regulation from 2004, which provides for intra-island trade.
Furthermore, there is the question of transport. By Order of Council the Cypriot government in October 1974 closed the ports of Famagusta, Karavostasi and Kyrenia, and last July the British High Court of Justice in Kibris THY v. Secretary of State for Transport confirmed the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus over its airspace, land areas and adjacent territorial waters under the Chicago Convention.
As all EU member states are signatories to this convention, the introduction of a direct trade regulation would constitute a violation of the sovereign rights of the ROC and consequently be found invalid by the European Court.
According to UN Security Council resolution 541(1983) the declaration of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” is legally invalid, and in resolution 550 (1984) the Security Council calls on all states “not to facilitate or in any way assist the aforesaid secessioníst entity”. Consequently, as Turkey’s aim is to create a Taiwan situation in northern Cyprus, a direct trade regulation can only be considered a helping hand.
The Green Line regulation was adopted to strengthen reunification, and the financial aid regulation of 2006 to the value of €259 million was intended to promote the structural development of the occupied areas. Here the Council strikes a delicate balance, as it states: “The granting of such assistance shall not imply recognition of any public authority in the areas other than the Government of the Republic of Cyprus”.
However, the High Court in its judgment concerning direct flights to northern Cyprus concluded that “the grant of permits would amount to implied recognition that the Government in control of the TRNC was sovereign over the territory which it effectively controls”.
Self-defeating and harmful
In February a solid majority of the European Parliament called on Turkey to immediately start to with draw its forces from Cyprus, address the issue of the settlement of Turkish citizens on the island and enable the return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants. On this basis, not least while negotiations are proceeding, to pass a direct trade regulation would not only be self-defeating but also harmful.
The Turkish occupation of a good third of Cyprus was initially justified by the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which gave Turkey the right to unilateral action to bring an end to the coup backed by the Greek junta in July 1974. But as Turkey has also undertaken to recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, it can no longer use this treaty as a justification for its continued presence.
In addition, the massive transfer of settlers from Anatolia to northern Cyprus is a flagrant violation of Article 49.6 of the Geneva Convention of 1949. Although Turkey claims to be a state that abides by the rule of law and is a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, it continues to ignore this violation.
In Resolution 550 the UN Security Council also called for the transfer of Varosha (Famagusta) to UN administration, which would allow the return of this “ghost town” to its original inhabitants. Finland during its term presidency in 2006 also reiterated this call, and this is where a breakthrough in the current negotiations could lie.
This proposal, which was backed by the Cyprus government, could have led to the operation of the port of Famagusta under UN or EU control but (then) Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül was warned against any form of compromise in a secret letter from Deputy Chief of General Staff Ergin Saygun. The question is now whether Prime Minister Erdogan is in sufficient control of his generals to break the deadlock.
Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in the Danish and international press.
http://www.neurope.eu/articles/Cyprus-m ... 100550.php
