lobbyforcyprus<\/span><\/p>\n \n 19 February\u00a0marks the passage of 60 years since the London Agreement was initialled at Lancaster House in 1959. In common with so many texts which have come to haunt the Republic of Cyprus, the London Agreement was drafted in secret, in the absence of any public consultation exercise and in line with the interests of foreign powers.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n For all of its faults, the London Agreement paved the way towards the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus on 16 August 1960. Today, the Republic of Cyprus is a flawed yet functioning democracy and an independent, sovereign state which is a member of the UN, the Commonwealth, the EU and a host of other international organisations. These facts cannot be denied.<\/span><\/p>\n At the same time, however, certain other facts cannot be concealed. The London Agreement served the neo-colonial interests of Turkey and the UK, the last two colonial rulers of Cyprus. Under the London Agreement, both Turkey and the UK, as well as Greece, became locked into the legal architecture of the Republic of Cyprus \u2013 via the Treaty of Establishment and the Treaty of Guarantee. For this and for other reasons connected to other texts, such as the Treaty of Alliance, to which the UK did not become a party, the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus was severely constrained.<\/span><\/p>\n On the domestic front, the London Agreement paved the way towards the \u201cbi-communal\u201d ethnic and religious segregation of the citizens of the same sovereign state. The London Agreement spawned a divisive Constitution, Article 2 of which segregated the citizens of the same sovereign state into \u201ctwo communities\u201d owing their origins to the Ottoman division of the subjects of the Sultan into Muslims and non-Muslims. Thus, in line with the spirit of Ottomanism and the London Agreement, \u201cthe Greek Community\u201d was defined in a way which encompassed Greek, Greek Orthodox Christian and other non-Muslim citizens of the Republic of Cyprus. By contrast, \u201cthe Turkish Community\u201d was defined in a way which encompassed Turkish and Muslim citizens. The net effect was segregation.<\/span><\/p>\n The history of the US and South Africa confirm that segregation goes hand in hand with supremacism and discrimination. The \u201cbi-communal\u201d segregation promoted by the London Agreement was no exception. Under the Constitution of 1960, a by-product of the London Agreement, segregation, supremacism and discrimination were the organising principles. For instance: Article 1 of the Constitution prohibited any non-Greek from serving as President; Article 2 and other provisions collectively relegated Armenian, Maronite and Latin citizens of the Republic of Cyprus into \u201cthree separate religious groups\u201d, the latter of which became constitutionally subordinate to \u201cthe two communities\u201d; Article 20 preserved the pre-existing \u201cbi-communal\u201d colonial segregation of children via the maintenance of two separate communal primary school systems; and Article 63 preserved the segregated Greek and Turkish electoral lists which had previously been introduced by the British \u2013 in 1882 \u2013 as separate non-Muslim and Muslim electoral lists. To cap it all, the Constitution supplemented systemic segregation with systemic sexism. For instance, under Article 2 (7) (a), \u201ca married woman shall belong to the Community to which her husband belongs.\u201d1<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n The London Agreement manufactured this absurd state of affairs because Turkey and the UK refused to countenance the application of democracy and self-determination for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of the population, subject to the proper protection of minorities. During the late 1950s, 80 per cent of the population of the then Crown Colony of Cyprus consisted of ethnic Greeks or Greek Orthodox Christians or both.<\/span><\/p>\n Notwithstanding these demographic realities and the ancient Hellenic as well as Christian heritage of Cyprus, Turkey not only regarded this as a Turkish island. Turkey also favoured the \u201cbi-communal\u201d segregation of its population and the \u201cbi-zonal\u201d partition of its territory. As pointed out on 26 June 1958 by Harold Macmillan MP, the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe Turks \u2013 I am putting their view \u2013 regard Cyprus as an extension of the Anatolian Plain, a kind of offshore island with vital significance for their defence and their security. They say \u2013 this has been their argument up to now \u2013 that the Turkish-Cypriot community must not be ruled by a Greek-Cypriot community and they have advocated the physical separation of the two communities by means of a territorial partition.\u201d2<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Partly because of the opposition to partition exhibited by the Eisenhower Administration in the US, Turkey was unable to achieve any \u201cbi-zonal\u201d partition of Cyprus during the late 1950s. However, due to the London Agreement and the Constitution, Turkey was able to cement the \u201cbi-communal\u201d segregation of citizens. In due course, after the constitutional crisis of November 1963 and an inter-communal conflagration sparked in December 1963, Turkish strategy was updated. As revealed by Dr Galo Plaza, the then UN Mediator, in his Report to the then UN Secretary-General, dated 26 March 1965:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTheir [i.e. the Turkish Community\u2019s] proposal envisaged a compulsory exchange of population in order to bring about a state of affairs in which each community would occupy a separate part of the island. The dividing line was in fact suggested: to run from the village of Yalia on the north-eastern coast through the towns of Nicosia in the centre, and Famagusta in the east. The zone lying north of this line was claimed by the Turkish-Cypriot community; it is said to have an area of about 1,084 square miles or 38 per cent of the total area of the Republic. \u2026<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe Turkish-Cypriot community holds firmly to its previous position and in particular continues to insist on a solution based on the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government. \u2026\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c\u2026 [T]he Turkish-Cypriots envisage a federal system within which there would exist autonomous Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot States, the conditions for whose existence would be created by the geographical separation, which they insistently demand, of the two communities.\u201d3<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In his report, Dr Plaza clarified that the strategy of Turkey was similar to the strategy of the Turkish Community:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cThe Government of Turkey, for its part, indicated that it considered a solution to the Cyprus problem to lie along the lines of a federal State, and it communicated to the Mediator an informal note containing general principles similar to those referred to above in regard to the position of the Turkish Cypriot community.\u201d4<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In other words, pre-1974 Turkish strategy rested on intrinsically inhumane forms of \u201cbi-communal\u201d and \u201cbi-zonal\u201d segregation, and the formation of a perverse form of \u201cfederal\u201d governance.<\/span><\/p>\n After two invasions launched in 1974 in purported response to an unlawful coup staged in Nicosia, Turkey was able to implement this long-standing objective. Turkey did so by invading, occupying, ethno-religiously cleansing and colonising 36 per cent of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus; this amounted to 57 per cent of the coastline of the Republic. With the assistance of the UK in January 1975, Turkey then managed to forcibly relocate into the occupied area almost all of the Turkish and Muslim citizens of the Republic of Cyprus who were south of the cease-fire lines established after the second invasion. To add insult to injury, Turkey flooded the depopulated occupied area with citizens of Turkey and of other countries, who had no legal right to move to or live there.<\/span><\/p>\n All in all, to borrow the words of Prime Minister Macmillan, Turkey used brute force and other illegal methods to achieve \u201cthe physical separation of the two communities by means of a territorial partition\u201d. To this end, Turkey showed contempt for international humanitarian law, international human rights law and other elements of international law. This is illustrated by a report of the European Commission on Human Rights adopted in 19765<\/sup><\/a> and various judgments of the European Court of Human Rights.6<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Since 1974, the partition of the Republic of Cyprus has existed on a de facto basis, as has the ongoing Turkish occupation. In law, nothing changed upon the illegal declaration of independence purportedly made in the occupied area in 1983 by a subordinate administration of Turkey named \u201cthe Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus\u201d (\u201cT.R.N.C.\u201d). Indeed, as recently noted by the European Court of Human Rights (\u201cECHR\u201d) in a judgment handed down on 29 January 2019:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cTurkey is regarded by the international community as being in occupation of the northern part of Cyprus \u2026 and\u2026 the international community does not recognise the \u201cTRNC\u201d as a State under international law \u2026\u201d.7<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Judicial observations, such as these, cut no ice in Ankara. According to President Erdogan of Turkey, the \u201cECHR\u2019s rulings are not binding on us.\u201d8<\/sup><\/a> With a mindset such as this, is it any wonder that, since the establishment of the ECHR, Turkey has acquired the worst human rights record among the 47 member states of the Council of Europe?9<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Today, owing to a collective failure to uphold the rule of law, democracy and the basic principles of justice, the United Nations Security Council expects the Republic of Cyprus to surrender to Turkish strategy of Turkey by embracing a \u201csolution\u201d which would legalise the illegal consequences of the illegal actions of Turkey. More specifically, under Resolution 649 of 1990, the Security Council envisages a \u201csolution providing for the establishment of a federation that will be bi-communal as regards the constitutional aspects and bi-zonal as regards the territorial aspects\u201d.10<\/sup><\/a> In other words, Resolution 649 not only calls for \u201cbi-communal\u201d segregation and supremacism to be maintained in modified form, but it also requires these to be supplemented by \u201cbi-zonal\u201d segregation and supremacism along the lines of pre-1974 Turkish strategy.<\/span><\/p>\n Worse still, Resolution 750 of 1992 envisages that \u201cbi-communal\u201d and \u201cbi-zonal\u201d forms of segregation will be enshrined in inherently supremacist and discriminatory circumstances. These would legalise the ethno-religious cleansing of the past while facilitating demographic engineering in the future. More specifically, paragraph 4 of Resolution 750 expressly endorses paragraph 20 of a Report of the then UN Secretary-General dated 3 April 1992, the latter of which provides that:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201c20. The bi-zonality of the [proposed bi-communal, bi-zonal] federation is reflected in the fact that each federated state would be administered by one community which would be guaranteed a clear majority of the population and of land ownership in its area.\u201d11<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n In 1992, the Permanent Representative of the UK to the UN, who voted in favour of Resolution 750, was Sir David Hannay; he is now known as Lord Hannay of Chiswick. In an interview granted on 22 July 1999 to Malcolm McBain for the benefit of the British Diplomatic Oral History Project of Churchill College, Cambridge, Sir David Hannay \u2013 who, by 1999, was the British Government\u2019s Special Representative for Cyprus \u2013 laid bare the segregation and supremacism underpinning the policy of the UN which he and his country had helped to formulate:<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cFor the Cyprus problem the solution is quite obvious. You have to leave the Turks and the Greeks autonomous in their own areas but you have to have some central powers for a federal government. But most of the powers would be in the zones which would be largely mono ethnic in nature. So you are not trying to make them all go and live amongst each other again, as that wasn\u2019t a great success last time. A lot of people got killed and it\u2019s not very sensible to do that.\u201d12<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Today, notwithstanding amongst other things the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the European Union on 1 May 2004 and the introduction of European Union Law into the Republic of Cyprus, the segregation inherent in the proposed \u201cbi-communal, bi-zonal federation\u201d lives on. The evidence lies in post-1992 Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council. A recent example is Resolution 2453 of 30 January 2019. This \u201c[urges] the sides to renew their commitment to an enduring, comprehensive and just settlement based on a bicommunal, bizonal federation with political equality, as set out in relevant Security Council resolutions\u201d.13<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n Resolution 2453 does not make any express mention of the European Union. Nor does Resolution 2453 expressly require any settlement to be in accordance with European Union Law. Why? Perhaps the explanation lies in an extraordinary fact. According to the United Nations, \u201cthe penholder on the resolution\u201d was none other than the United Kingdom,14<\/sup><\/a> the colonial ruler of Cyprus until 1960 and, at the time of writing, an outgoing member of the European Union. Is this not the height of neo-colonialism?<\/span><\/p>\n Thus, when politicians, diplomats and others envisage a \u201csolution\u201d resulting in \u201creunification\u201d based on UN Security Council Resolutions, what they really mean is the perpetuation of a long-standing \u201cproblem\u201d which results in legalised re-division, legalised re-segregation and, yes, legalised Apartheid. All of which is an affront to the democratic values of the European legal order.<\/span><\/p>\n It is hardly surprising that Lobby for Cyprus was established in 1992. This was the year in which the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 750 and thereby backed an undemocratic recipe for re-division, re-segregation and re-colonisation. Back then, the founders of Lobby for Cyprus could smell a rat and, with the passage of time, they have been vindicated. As has their decision to adopt their simple yet telling objectives. These are known as \u201cthe 3Rs\u201d: the Removal of Turkish troops; the humane Repatriation of Turkish colonists; and the right of Return of all refugees and forcibly internally displaced persons. In addition to the 3Rs, Lobby for Cyprus also call for \u201cNo Apartheid in Cyprus\u201d and true equality before the law, not least by way of the true democratic principle \u201cone person one vote\u201d. These objectives seek to ensure that any \u201csolution\u201d does not lead to injustice, be it via Apartheid or otherwise.<\/span><\/p>\n On the subject of Apartheid, it is telling that Turkey has never signed four of the key instruments of international law which prohibit Apartheid. More specifically, Turkey has never signed the International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid,15<\/sup><\/a> Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,16<\/sup><\/a> the International Convention against Apartheid in Sports,17<\/sup><\/a> and the Rome Statute on the International Criminal Court.18<\/sup><\/a><\/span><\/p>\n It is also telling that in his report, dated 15 October 2018, the current Secretary-General of the United Nations referred to \u2013 but did not otherwise comment upon \u2013 \u201cprotests by civil society activists on both sides of the divide against the decision of local Turkish Cypriot authorities to open a beach in the Famagusta area only to Turkish Cypriots and Turkish nationals.\u201d19<\/sup><\/a> If this is not an example of Apartheid imposed by the illegal subordinate local administration of Turkey in the occupied area, what is?<\/span><\/p>\n In spite of these undemocratic, unjust and otherwise unacceptable realities, the United Nations has evidently chosen to embrace neo-colonial Turkish objectives and to champion neo-Ottoman Turkish values, such as \u201cbi-commalism\u201d, \u201cbi-zonality\u201d and \u201cthe political equality of the two communities\u201d. This in spite of the self-evident character of these concepts as smokescreens which conceal what they really require \u2013 the imposition of legalised injustice through legalised segregation, supremacism, discrimination and Apartheid.<\/span><\/p>\n Lobby for Cyprus is proud to stand up to Turkey and to stand for the civilized values which Turkey has crushed in its own country and in its own backyard, including the occupied parts of the Republic of Cyprus. These values include democracy, the rule of law, justice, freedom and human dignity. These values also include integration, which is the antithesis of segregation.<\/span><\/p>\n Sixty years after the conclusion of the London Agreement, the time has come to consign segregation to where it rightfully belongs \u2013 the scrapheap of history.<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Notes<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n 1. The Constitution, the 1960 Treaties and other supporting texts were originally published in Command Paper Cmnd 1093 entitled Cyprus<\/i> (Her Majesty\u2019s Stationery Office, London, July 1960). An electronic copy of this Command Paper has been published by the United Nations at http:\/\/unpan1.un.org\/intradoc\/groups\/public\/documents\/un-dpadm\/unpan039703~1.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 2. Hansard, House of Commons Debates, 26 June 1958, Columns 724-725.<\/span><\/p>\n 3. Report of the United Nations Mediator on Cyprus to the Secretary-General, United Nations Security Council Document S\/6252, paragraphs 73, 78 and 149, website of the United Nations Library, at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/573661\/files\/S_6253-EN.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 4. Ibid, paragraph 97.<\/span><\/p>\n 5. See Cyprus Against Turkey: Report adopted on 10 July 1976 by the European Commission of Human Rights<\/i>, Volume 1 at https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/app\/conversion\/pdf\/?library=ECHR&id=001-142540.pdf<\/a> and Volume 2 at http:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/webservices\/content\/pdf\/001-142541?TID=thkbhnilzk.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 6. See, for instance, the judgments in Cyprus v Turkey<\/i> [2001] ECHR 331 and Cyprus v Turkey (Just Satisfaction)<\/i> [2014] ECHR 478. 15.<\/span><\/p>\n 7. See paragraph 129 of the judgment in the case of G\u00fczelyurtlu and Others v. Cyprus and Turkey<\/i> (Application no. 36925\/07) at https:\/\/hudoc.echr.coe.int\/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-189781%22]}<\/a>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 8. See President Erdogan\u2019s official press release of 20 November 2018 at http:\/\/www.tccb.gov.tr\/en\/news\/542\/99715\/-those-who-want-to-take-turkey-back-to-its-old-dark-days-will-vanish-into-their-own-darkness-<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 9. See the statistics published by the ECHR for the period 1959 to 2016 http:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/Documents\/Overview_19592016_ENG.pdf<\/a> and for the period 1959 to 2017 at http:\/\/www.echr.coe.int\/Documents\/Overview_19592017_ENG.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 10. See UN Security Council Resolution 649 of 12 March 1990 at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/87038?ln=en<\/a> and at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/87038\/files\/S_RES_649%281990%29-EN.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 11. See UN Security Council Resolution 750 of 10 April 1992 at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/141154<\/a> and at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/141154\/files\/S_RES_750%281992%29-EN.pdf<\/a> plus the Report of the then UN Secretary-General dated 3 April 1992 (UNSC Doc. 23780) at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/141467\/files\/S_23780-EN.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 12. See www.chu.cam.ac.uk\/media\/uploads\/files\/Hannay.pdf<\/a> at page 25.<\/span><\/p>\n 13. See Resolution 2453 of 30 January 2019 at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/1662896?ln=en<\/a> and at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/1662896\/files\/S_RES_2453%282019%29-EN.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 14. See UN Security Council Press Release SC\/13683 of 30 January 2019 at http:\/\/www.un.org\/press\/en\/2019\/sc13683.doc.htm<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n 15. As adopted on 30 November 1973.<\/span><\/p>\n 16. As adopted on 8 June 1977.<\/span><\/p>\n 17. As adopted in New York on 10 December 1985.<\/span><\/p>\n 18. As adopted on 17 July 1998.<\/span><\/p>\n 19. See the Report of the Secretary-General on his mission of good offices in Cyprus, UN Security Council Document S\/2018\/919, dated 15 October 2018, paragraph 4, at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/1649162?ln=en<\/a> and at https:\/\/digitallibrary.un.org\/record\/1649162\/files\/S_2018_919-EN.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Lobby for Cyprus acknowledges the assistance of Klearchos A. Kyriakides in the preparation of the above text. It is partly based on his various articles published since 2016 by Simerini and Agora Dialogue.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" February 19, 2019 lobbyforcyprus 19 February\u00a0marks the passage of 60 years since the London Agreement was initialled at Lancaster House in 1959. In common with so many texts which have … <\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.onisilos.gr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/02\/image001-1.jpg\")