The Intended Solution of the Cyprus Problem

1 20th August 2018 To: 1. His Excellency the President of the Republic of Cyprus 2. Honorable Minister of Interior 3. Honorable Minister of External Affairs 4. Honorable interlocutor of the Greek Cypriot community 5. Honorable Leaders of Political Parties 6. Honorable President and Members of the House of Representatives 7. His Beatitude the Archbishop of Cyprus and members of the Holy Synod 8. Honorable President of PSEKA 9. Media The Intended solution of the Cyprus problem Please allow me to raise my concerns about the above issue and to argue for the reasons that lead me to the view that the main objectives of our side in the desired solution, is the establishment and legalization of the rapture of the land of Turkish Cypriots (T / C) and other beneficial effects arising from the invasion of Turkey, as well as avoiding the risks of a new advance of the Turkish troops. Did our leadership have set these targets right after the invasion and this policy was then followed by all the consecutive political leaders? To support this reflection I quote the following: 1. The rapture of T / C property began immediately after their abandonment and continued until today. There was no attempt made for a fair temporary allocation of the T/C properties, to the entitled refugees who lost their property in the occupied areas. Until today the T/C lands and properties were allocated in complete secrecy and without transparent procedures and criteria, to non-entitled people, favored supporters of the respective rulers, for symferontologikous and electioneering purposes. Reference made by the revelations of the Mayor of Paphos in November 2017, regarding the scandalous management and allocation of T / C properties to non-entitled Greek Cypriots (G/C), landowners and businessmen. Now with the proposals made from our side, we named the raptures as "Users" and we gave them the right to have the first say in claiming the ownership of the land. 2. From the outset, our leadership was careful to trap the voice of refugees by appointing their representatives. This along with the divisive and dictatorial mechanisms prevailing left no room for the refugees to organize themselves and demand their return to their ancestral homes and the liberation of their occupied Fatherland. 3. The coup in Cyprus was denounced by our leadership, to the Security Council of UN on 19.07.1974, as a clear military "invasion" of Greece in Cyprus, which violated its independence and territorial integrity. Thereafter there has been political inactivity from our leadership, in denouncing the invasion of Turkey, the occupation of 37% of our country and the change of its demographic character, by the forcible displacement of population. There was also unjustified political inactivity in bringing to the attention of the international community, of the problems brought about by the invasion involving the brutal displacement of civilians, the looting and desecration of all churches in the occupied areas, (some 250 churches), the change of Greek place names etc. Rather than condemn the invasion of Turkey and demand the withdrawal of its troops, our leadership chose to enter into negotiations, starting with the basic grant of a bizonal, bicommunal federation and effortless delivery of Charter with areas they proposed to remain under T / C command. With this tolerance policy of the invasion and our inactivity, we left 2 Turkey undisturbed to project its own propaganda that they came to our island to protect the Turkish Cypriots and bring about peace. For that matter our side argues that the complaints are avoided, supposedly not to affect the climate of the negotiations. When we, for 44 years, did not call upon the international community and demand the vindication of our Homeland and its citizens, what results do we expect? Is this not an indicative that in many ways we settled with the favorable consequences of the Turkish invasion and we do not want to change the status quo? 4. We began the latest round of talks with the invocation to the people, of some Nelson Mandella reference that in order to reach agreement in negotiations we must make retreats. To give more importance to this aspect, we hosted at the Presidential Palace a multimember team from South Africa. I do not know who those "wise men" that we hosted were, or what expertise they had to offer us. I have my doubts though; that this scene was a smokescreen to justify, not only the retreats which followed, but in more importance the concessions of internationally guaranteed rights of citizens, such as the ownership of their land property etc. 5. Do to circumvent the international law and principles; we made sure that the solution will come through a five-member conference to have more international recognition and gravity? We have thus made sure to avoid reactions and / or appeals from citizens, of any violation of their rights in what has been agreed? Does the objective sought to pentamers was to exclude the European Union and the Security Council members from having a say and role in the negotiation process, so that we will be able to deviate from the rights and principles that they represent? Does the statement of the UN Secretary General that the Cyprus settlement agreement is a "Cyprus Case", responds to this goal? I.e. you can agree between you whatever you want and then come to us to authenticate. As a first step we took advantage of this deviation from the principles, was to rule out the return of four villages in the Kyrenia district, ( Larnaca Lapithou Agridaki, Sysklipos, Saint Ermolaos, whose return under G / C rule was included in all settlement plans prepared by the United. Nations and accepted by the T / C in the referendum of 2004), in order to implement the Cyprus favoritism criteria, and request the return of another area instead (see paragraph 4.1 of my letter dated. 27.06. 2016, Appendix 1A). 6. Does the reason to hasten to call upon some decision of the European Court of Human Rights in a personal appeal, in order to support with our own proposals, the so-called rights of usurpers, instead of to invoke the international law and demand to secure the trampled rights of the refugees, was in order to achieve the aforementioned targets; We named the usurpers "Users", and we gave them the right to have the first say on the acquisition of the property they usurped. Furthermore we offered them the right to invoke alleged emotional ties with the property usurped, as an additional element for the acquisition of the property. We forgot that these conquerors (who we now named "users"), in 1974 they threw us out of our own homes and property by massacres, rape, etc? We forgot that the expelled refugees lived some time under the trees waiting to be given a tent. Is this not indicative that we drove things in a solution that would legalize and permanent the Turkification of the occupied part of our "Fatherland" , in order to achieve the permanency of the unfair benefits of the usurpers? 7. When these concessions were offered to the so-called "Users", the Turkish conquerors rushed to make even a small extension and / or addition to existing occupied buildings of G / C, in order to strengthen their claim on the ownership of the property. For the same reason they rushed to build something, to erect even a single booth / shelters or anything else, in the fields of G / C, so that they will claim ownership of every inch of land of G / C in the occupied territories (see reference in my letter dated 27.6.2016 Section 4.3, Appendix 1B). All these were caused by our own proposals, which unfortunately may have already been included in the terms agreed between the two sides. We delivered not only the occupied homeland, but also the ownership of the land of Greek Cypriots to the Turkish conquerors. For more than two millennia, the island were then 3 enslaved by various conquerors. No one violated the right of ownership of the land property of our enslaved ancestors. They taxed, oppressed, but did not expelled them from their homes, not snatched the ownership of their land. How can the leadership of our country, make such concessions to the ownership of its citizens property, to the conquerors and predators, especially now in the 21st century where human rights of each citizen, is guaranteed by all international organizations? With what severity they present to the people of Cyprus, who are also citizens of the European Union, that this solution is fair and ensures the human rights and freedoms in accordance with the European Union; Such a solution would be agreeable to those who benefited from the effects of the invasion, which is the majority of the Greek Cypriots (see reference to my letter dated 27.6.2016 Paragraph 1.1.5, Appendix 1C). This, combined with the aforementioned argument that we put our ambitions and personal interests over and above the rights of our "Homeland" and against the rights of our "compatriots" refugees, who were displaced by the invaders and lost their properties in the occupied areas, will help for this unjust solution to be voted at the Referendum. Moreover it will be equally devastating if the solution which would have been "agreed" between the two sides and approved by the five-member Conference, is rejected by the people. To satisfy personal ambitions and interests, we managed to grant the T / C minority of 18% (derived as a residue of the occupation of the island by the Ottoman Empire in the period from 1571 to 1878), to form an illegal State, by the occupation of 37% of the island and the illegal ownership of the G / C properties in that part.

Load more