>> HEC Home Page >> HEC Projects >> HEC-MEDIA >> HEC-MEDIA 2007 Letters >> >>Washington Times Letters 01/14/07
//
January 19, 2007
This response addresses the Sunday letter "Cyprus divisions" by the representative from the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. First and foremost, save for its creator, Turkey, no country in the world recognizes the illegal entity Hilmi Akil claims to represent.
Further, according to our State Department, neither Mr. Akil nor any other so-called representative of the illicit regime is extended diplomatic privilege or recognition by the United States. The Republic of Cyprus is recognized by the world community, including the European Union, of which it is a full member, as the sole legal authority on the island.
Notably, as a result of Turkey's failure to recognize the Republic of Cyprus and open its ports to Cypriot ships, Turkey's EU candidacy is at risk. That is the same reason for the continued isolation of the occupation regime, which has refused to allow the Turkish Cypriots to trade with the European Union through the legitimate ports of Cyprus.
The Turkish invasions of Cyprus in July and August 1974 fulfilled the expansionist claims of Turkey, which were expressed as early as 1955, when the "Cyprus is Turkish" terrorist organization was formed with the assistance of the government of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes and participated in the anti-Greek pogroms in Constantinople that year.
The Government of the Republic of Cyprus is led by native-born Cypriots and represents native-born Cypriots. It does not derive its authority from any foreign army, unlike the representatives of the Turkish occupation who, propped up by 40,000 Turkish troops, enforce the dictates of Ankara.
Furthermore, the Turkish occupation has imported 150,000 Turkish-born colonists into the occupied territories in violation of the fourth Geneva Convention, proving the offensive and expansionist nature of the Turkish invasions.
In addition, the Turkish occupation notoriously presides over the systematic destruction of more than 500 Greek Orthodox Churches and monasteries of occupied Cyprus as part of its efforts to complete the ethnic cleansing of the territories by removing all traces of their former Greek Cypriot majority and their history.
While destruction of Cyprus' religious heritage is reminiscent of the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statues, curiously absent (perhaps because of lack of coverage?) is the international outcry and condemnation of the destruction of Cyprus' Christian cultural patrimony.
Finally, the Republic of Cyprus, in a free and democratic atmosphere, rejected the plan of appeasement put fourth by disgraced U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan because of its failure to uphold the democratic standards required by the citizens of Cyprus.
In contrast to the democratic referendum in the Republic of Cyprus, the vote on the Annan plan in the occupied territories of Cyprus was conducted under the auspices of the Turkish military and included the participation of the non-Cypriot colonists imported to change the demographics, who unsurprisingly voted for legalizing their status and ensuring a continued influx of mainland Turks while severely restricting the return of Greek Cypriots expelled from their homes.
THEODORE G. KARAKOSTAS
Hellenic Electronic Center
Boston
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
January 14, 2007
Cyprus divisions
I arrived in the United States last week to serve as the new Washington representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and was disheartened to have to read on my first day at work a letter by Annie Charalambous who, in trying to respond to an earlier Op-Ed, misrepresented the facts in Cyprus and distorted history, failing to give the slightest hint of a change of heart for the constructive on the part of the Greek Cypriot side. ("Another Turkish myth," Jan. 5).
Firstly, no part of Cyprus was ever occupied by Turkey. Turkey had to intervene in 1974, in accordance with the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960, in order to save the Turkish Cypriots from final elimination in the hands of Greek and Greek Cypriot troops and militia, and to protect the bi-communal independence of Cyprus. Also, the Turkish Cypriots did not "break away" as a result of this rescue operation, but had been forcibly ejected from the legitimate bi-communal Cyprus Republic by the Greek Cypriot partners well before then, in 1963.
Secondly, while exaggerating the Turkish military presence, the Greek Cypriot spokeswoman conveniently ignores the presence of thousands of Greek troops on the island, including 20 generals commanding the Greek Cypriot National Guard. She further skips the fact that mutual troop withdrawal from Cyprus would have started long ago in accordance with the United Nations sponsored settlement plan -- the Annan Plan -- had the plan not been rejected by the Greek Cypriot side with a staggering 76 percent majority.
Finally, concerning obligations arising from its customs union, Turkey, with its action plan dated Jan. 24, 2006, proposed the simultaneous and reciprocal removal of all restrictions, including those instigated by the Greek Cypriot side with a view to keeping the Turkish Cypriots under an inhuman isolation which covers virtually every aspect of their lives. It should be recalled that the European Council decided on April 26 2004 to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people. The Greek Cypriot side, together with Greece, has been doing its utmost to prevent the European Union from honoring its commitment.
In light of these facts, it should not be difficult to determine which side "wants to consolidate partition" in Cyprus: The party which has rejected the UN's comprehensive settlement plan thus preventing the resolution of all the issues which continue to divide the two sides in Cyprus, the party which still hopes to force a whole community into submission through inhuman restrictions.
The Greek Cypriot leadership's approach to the Cyprus question is so blatantly unconstructive that even a Greek Cypriot commentator could not help but describe it as "repugnant." Referring to the Greek Cypriot leaders' mentality Loucas Charalambous wrote: "It is a mentality that clearly and without any trace of shame expresses itself almost officially as the policy of permanent partition. By now it is obvious that they would rather stay in power over half of Cyprus than step down in the case the country was reunified" (Sunday Mail, January 7, 2007).
HILMI AKIL
Representative
Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
Washington
