Cyprus and the 2010 OSCE Mediterranean Conference by Alfred A. Farrugia
Alfred A. Farrugia
The Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is convening the 2010 Mediterranean Conference in Malta this week on 14 and 15 October. Malta and Cyprus are OSCE participating states as well as European Union members.
It remains to be seen whether the OSCE will address the situation in Cyprus in the course of this conference. It will indeed be strange if the OSCE were to convene such a conference and fail to discuss the occupation of an OSCE participating state in the Mediterranean by another OSCE participating state from the same region. It is not the first time that such an anomaly has arisen.
The theme of the 2010 OSCE Mediterranean Conference is “The Dialogue on the Future of European Security – A Mediterranean Perspective”. As may be expected, the three main sessions of the conference will cover the so-called three “baskets” of the OSCE, that is the politico-military dimension, the economic dimension, and the human dimension. In these sessions the “Confidence- and security-building measures (CSBMs) – the OSCE experience and the Mediterranean perspective”; “OSCE experiences in fostering security and stability by dealing with economic and environmental challenges”; and “the promotion of OSCE commitments and exchange of experiences on tolerance and non-discrimination by OSCE participating States and the Mediterranean Partners” will be discussed.
All these issues have their implications for Cyprus. How can the OSCE discuss confidence- and security-building measures when the basic principles of the OSCE enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act of 35 years ago have been completely ignored by the relevant participating states of the OSCE ever since it was established?
Principles
In the case of Cyprus, Turkey has failed to respect and put into practise the OSCE’s first principle of sovereign equality. Turkey has similarly violated the principle of refraining from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity of Cyprus; it has disregarded the principle of the inviolability of frontiers. What has the OSCE done during the past 35 years about Turkey’s refusal to abide by its commitment towards Cyprus’ territorial integrity, and the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another state? Those are five basic principles of the OSCE that Turkey has completely ignored. There are more.
Is Turkey providing information on the military forces it is stationing in the north of Cyprus in the OSCE’s Annual Exchange of Military Information, as it committed to do in the Vienna Document on CSBMs? Is Turkey providing details on the allocation of resources in its budget to maintain its military forces in the north of Cyprus, as it is obliged to do by the same Document on Defence Planning?
Are the OSCE diplomats aware of the economic and environmental implications of the occupation of the northern part of Cyprus by Turkey? Have any of the diplomats read the table in Appendix 1 (Volume Two) of the study compiled by Stella Soulioti entitled “Fettered Independence – Cyprus, 1878 – 1964”, namely the extent of control gained by Turkish invasion forces on the Cypriot economy?
IDPs
How can the OSCE discuss the human dimension and tolerance in a Mediterranean conference and forget the internally displaced persons (IDPs) on the island of Cyprus? Although the United Nations is dealing with the Cyprus question, there is nothing to stop the OSCE from doing the same in terms of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter – on regional arrangements. The OSCE has apparently forgotten its self-proclaimed principle of “OSCE first”!
In operative paragraph 4 of the UN Security Council Resolution 361 (1974) adopted on 30 August 1974, the Security Council expressed its grave concern at the plight of the refugees and other people displaced as a result of the situation in Cyprus and urged for their return to their homes in safety! Thirty-six years have passed since then, and the current concept of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation is undermining that element of the UN resolution.
Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots have the same rights as internally displaced persons (IDPs) to return to their homes, as the IDPs of Darfur have at the present time – UN Security Council Resolution 1935 (2010), operative paragraph 15, adopted on 30 July 2010.
The concessions made during the time of the Cold War, and in response to the unilateral declaration made by the leaders in the occupied north, may have made sense in those times. Now, with Cyprus as a member of the European Union, such concessions do not make sense any more, and are counter-productive if Cyprus is interested in keeping its unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity. Is a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation not another subtle form of separation or “taksim”?
Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots should be free to live wherever they like, including in their former homes or their parents’ and ancestors’ homes, if they wish to do so, rather than seek compensation for their usurped and expropriated homes. The basic human needs of Turkish Cypriots – their identity, recognition and security – like those of Greek Cypriots, need to be satisfied. Turkish Cypriots should be free to join any Cypriot national political party. In a parliamentary democracy they can have enough power to bring down any national Cypriot government if their basic needs are not met. They deserve to be a part of one Cyprus.
These are the issues that an OSCE Mediterranean conference could discuss, if the diplomats concerned had the political will to do so. The diplomats at the conference in Malta could devote whole sessions on Cyprus, if they want to. It is useless for the OSCE to declare at the last ministerial council meeting that it wants to get involved in conflict resolution, if it ignores a long protracted conflict in the Mediterranean such as the one in Cyprus. The OSCE is rendering itself irrelevant to such an important conflict when it could use its institutions to try and give a contribution to its solution.
The author is a retired diplomat who served at the Permanent Mission of Malta to the UN in New York, at the Delegation of Malta to the OSCE in Vienna, and at the Embassy of Malta to the United States in Washington DC as the Deputy Chief of Mission. He is also a Ph.D. candidate at the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution (ICAR), George Mason University (GMU), Virginia, conducting research on peace building in Cyprus.
http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=113474 
