Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

Cyprus: misguided support for direct trade with Turkish-occupied Cyprus

Author: Robert Ellis
2 May 2010

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.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=178362315106&topic=26260&post=644076

here you go h my friend

[boomerang]

EU, Turkey on collision course


Reuters

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan addresses parliament in Ankara yesterday. At a recent lunch with EU ambassadors, the Turkish premier called a European resolution on Cyprus ‘baseless and unacceptable.’

By Robert Ellis

The European Parliament has with a resounding majority called on Turkey to immediately start to withdraw its troops from Cyprus and address the issue of the settlement of Turkish citizens on the island. It has also called on Turkey to enable the return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants.

The Turkish reaction was predictable. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at a lunch for EU ambassadors called the resolution “baseless and unacceptable” and his chief EU negotiator, Egemen Bagis, said Turkey shouldn’t take it seriously.

According to Turkish columnist Semih Idiz, the EU has painted itself into a corner over Cyprus but the boot is on the other foot.

Turkey, in holding Cyprus hostage to its own prospects for EU membership, has played for high stakes but lost. The beginning of the end was the European Council meeting in Helsinki in 1999, which, while agreeing to Turkey’s candidacy, stressed that if no Cyprus settlement had been reached by the completion of accession negotiations, the Council’s decision on accession would be made without this being a precondition.

The next nail in Turkey’s coffin was its signature on the Protocol to the Ankara Agreement in July 2005, which extended the customs union to 10 new EU members, including Cyprus. Two days before, Tony Blair had assured Prime Minister Erdogan it was a “legal fact” that Turkey’s signature did not involve the recognition of Cyprus but nevertheless Turkey issued a declaration to this effect.

Two months later, the EU issued a counter-declaration, reminding Ankara that its unilateral declaration “has no legal effect” on Turkey’s obligations under the Protocol and that recognition of all member states is a necessary component of the accession process.

This standoff resulted in a decision by the EU Council in December 2006 not to open eight chapters of the acquis relevant to Turkey’s refusal to recognize Cyprus. In addition, Cyprus has announced it will set preconditions for opening a further five in addition to the energy chapter, which it has already blocked. France has also blocked five chapters directly related to full membership, which caused a European diplomat to lament: “There will soon be no more chapters left to open.”

At the General Affairs Council meeting in Brussels last December, Britain and Sweden tried to downplay the issue and equate the Cyprus question with the border dispute between Croatia and Slovenia.

When this attempt failed, Britain issued a counter-declaration two weeks later, stating that it was in the EU’s strategic interest not to let “bilateral issues” hold up the accession process.

Legal facts

However hard Britain tries to nod and wink at Turkey’s continued occupation of 37 percent of a sovereign European state, there are certain legal facts that cannot be ignored. The European Court of Human Rights has already established that the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” is, in fact, a subordinate local administration of Turkey, and last month the British Court of Appeal confirmed the landmark legal decision by the European Court of Justice in Apostolides v. Orams.

Together with several thousand other British citizens, David and Linda Orams bought land belonging to a Greek Cypriot owner, who had been dispossessed by the Turkish invasion in 1974. Although the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control over the occupied areas, the judgments of its courts are still enforceable and therefore the Orams were ordered to demolish their holiday home, pay compensation to Apostolides and return his property. As the Court of Appeal noted: “Quite apart from Security Council Resolutions, the United Kingdom has an obligation under the Treaty of Guarantee to recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus.”

Therefore it is a paradox that Turkey invokes this treaty to justify its presence on the island. The Turkish military has long considered Cyprus to be essential to Turkey’s security and has therefore opposed any withdrawal of its forces. In 2006, the Finnish term presidency proposed to put the “ghost town” of Varosha (suburb of Famagusta), which is guarded by Turkish soldiers, under UN supervision to enable its Greek Cypriot inhabitants to return.

However in a secret letter to then Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, Deputy Chief of the General Staff Saygun Ergin warned against any form of compromise. General Saygun, who is now retired, is one of the high-ranking officers who have been detained in connection with alleged coup plans against the government.

Game plan

Turkey’s game plan is, and for the last 50 years has been, the establishment of an independent Turkish state in northern Cyprus, which is why confederation rather than federation is the preferred goal. Turkey’s settlement policy, which is in breach of Article 49.6 of the Geneva Convention, is a means to this end and has reduced the original Turkish Cypriots to a minority in their own community.

Turkey has already posited a solution along the lines of Kosovo or Taiwan and there is talk of “a velvet divorce” a la Czechoslovakia. However, Bagis has declared Cyprus “a national cause” and that Turkey has no plan or thought to withdraw its troops.

For this reason, if push comes to shove and Turkey is faced with the breakdown of membership talks, it will be interesting to see what Turkey actually decides to do.

For example, Committee of the Regions (COR), an EU advisory body, plans to urge Turkey to withdraw its forces from Cyprus by the end of 2010.

At the Geneva Conference in 1974, British Foreign Secretary James Callaghan warned: “Today the Republic of Cyprus is the prisoner of the Turkish army: Tomorrow the Turkish army will find itself the prisoner of the Republic of Cyprus.” With the benefit of hindsight, Jim was right.

Robert Ellis is a regular commentator on Turkish affairs in Denmark and from 2005-2008 was a frequent contributor to the Turkish Daily News.

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=178362315106&topic=26260&post=644076

[boomerang]

Together with several thousand other British citizens, David and Linda Orams bought land belonging to a Greek Cypriot owner, who had been dispossessed by the Turkish invasion in 1974. Although the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control over the occupied areas, the judgments of its courts are still enforceable and therefore the Orams were ordered to demolish their holiday home, pay compensation to Apostolides and return his property. As the Court of Appeal noted: “Quite apart from Security Council Resolutions, the United Kingdom has an obligation under the Treaty of Guarantee to recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus.”

in other words this judgement consolidates the power of the roc and INVALIDATES the thought of the occupied to being treaded as a separate entity...

anyne doing business will be open for lidigation, from the roc...

so again h you need to stop headbutting walls...