The history of Turco-Greek relations is one of conflict. The cause of this conflict must be sought in a number of factors-geographical, religious, ethnic and above all, historical. Geographically, both Turkiye and Greece are contiguous, with a common land frontier in Thrace (Trakya). Some of the Greek islands in the Aegean are just a few miles from the Turkish mainland. This contiguity has caused numerous frontier disputes and other incidents between the two states, culminating in the present conflict over the Aegean Sea and the island of Cyprus.
Ethnically, the Turks and the Greeks belong to different races and religions, the former being Muslim and the latter Orthodox Christian. They also have different cultures. The Turks have been reconciled to the loss of their (Ottoman) empire, and under the wise guidance of Kemal Ataturk, have relinquished their expansionist ambitions. The Greeks, however, enthralled by the reputation of ancient Greece (Hellas), have been bedevilled by notions of self-aggrandisement, often at the expense of their neighbours. Even the skilful Cretan politician, Eleutherios Venizelos, did not succeed, as Ataturk did in Turkiye, in saving Greece from this obsession of striving recklessly for territorial expansion rather than greatness in the sense of unity, territorial integrity, development and progress within its national boundaries.
Until recently, Greece was a monarchy based on a peasant economy, augmented by tourism, with the Orthodox Church pervading every aspect of Greek life, including the political sphere. Dictators have come and gone, but the social sub-stratum of Greece did not undergo much change despite the German occupation during the World War II. Turkiye, however, waged a war of liberation, followed by a social revolution, which completely eradicated the ancient regime and introduced laicism, a new order based on the secularisation of the state. Moreover, Turkiye has a more extensive land area, much larger population, with greater resources and better scope for development.
Historically, the two countries have frequently been at loggerheads, mainly because Greece, before 1830, was part of the Ottoman Empire and had to stage a long, bitter and bloody struggle in order to gain its independence. Once independent, Greece continued its self-aggrandisement by adopting an expansionist, irredentist policy, mainly at the expense of Turkiye. In the words of the Greek scholar Gerasimos Augustinos, "The ethnic, expansionist, and revivalist nationalist movement of the Greeks had not been able to surmount the political discord (dichasmos) of the country. Weakened by this, and without the united support of Western powers, it failed before the rival ethnic and integrationist nationalist Turkish movement. While the Greeks had looked to the past in formulating their nationalist ideal, the Turks broke with the past and based their movement on the present, in terms of ethnicity and territorial unity. Although both movements were aggressive, that of the Greeks was expansionist and tended unwittingly to the growth of a multi-ethnic state, while that of the Turks was exactly the opposite, contractive and ethnically unified.
There are several issues of conflict between the two countries which, by themselves, are far from insoluble. The main stumbling block in reaching compromises in all of the areas seems to be the Turkish hatred ingrained in Greek psyche and nurtured by successive political and religious policy makers since their independence in late 1800s. In contrast, Greek presence in the Aegean has always been a non-event for the Turkish people who consider Greek noises more of an annoyance than anything else-a fly in the soup-.
In stark contrast to Greeks, Turkish side does not perpetrate hatred for Greeks in their education system, media, arts, film industry or religion. The Turkish people realise the extent of the Greek antagonism only when they travel overseas to Western countries where they experience their organised and well funded misinformation campaigns.
Even though a short introduction in The Tourist Guide of Greece, 1994-1997 translates the word as The Great Idea, we would prefer the word The Grand Idea. As with many things that Greeks embark upon - and rarely finish - this was another one of their majestic plans. Megali Idea is the revival of the ancient Greek Empire including all the lands that had been under Greek influence, with Istanbul as the capital. Ridiculous as it may seem, majority of Greeks in late 1800's was convinced by mad politicians that this was possible. Even during the last years of the collapsing Ottoman Empire, Greeks were only able to annex Ionian Islands when they were handed over to them by the British. They acquired Thessaly and part of Epiros as a result of another Turco-Russian war. The first sensible Greek prime minister Kharilaos Trikoupis shelved the Megali Idea and concentrated on domestic issues that included the completion of the Corinth Canal - which Greeks begun constructing in 62 AD !!!
However, the Megali Idea was not dead and buried, and reared its head again after Trikoupis' death in 1896. The new hot - headed Prime Minister Diliyiannis decided to test the strength of the disintegrating Ottomans. It was only through the intervention of Hellenophile Western Powers that the Turkish Army was prevented from taking Athens. The Island came under international administration and later on handed over to Greece. The same scenario was repeated again after the War of Independence in Turkey when the Dodecanese Islands (12 Islands) were left to the Italian administration which later handed them over to Greece. Again, similar fate awaited Cyprus when British left the Island in 1960 but this time the opponent was not the frail old Ottoman Empire; they were facing the 4th largest army in the World.
Greeks devised numerous grand words such as Megali Idea and Enosis, formed various organisations such as EOKA and Etniki Eteria, and established alliances with Slavic dreamers pursuing a Pan-Slavic Empire in their efforts to expand their territories. Unfortunately, the recent administrators of Greece and Cyprus still embrace these ideals and feed their people with unrealistic dreams. The fact of the matter is the Greek expansionism in the Aegean meant that there is hardly any international waters left for Turkish ships to navigate through. The current geography in the Aegean Sea will need to be modified one day to allow Turkey to have a fairer share of it.
The deployment of Russian long range S300 missiles in the Aegean Islands by the Greek Administration is another hostile step aimed at provoking Turkey. Encroachment of Greek military presence in supposedly 'demilitarised' Aegean Islands is bound to provide the pretext for Turkey to intervene sooner than later.
A Concise Briefing Report:
This briefing note is published by "The British Parliamentary
Friends of Northern Cyprus" which is a group of 131 Members of
both Houses of Parliament and of all political parties
(Chairman : Keith Speed, RD MP Conservative; Vice-Chairmen :
Lord Willis, Labour, Andrew Faulds MP Labour; Treasurer : Peter Fry
MP Conservative; Secretaries : Stephan Day MP Conservative,
John D. Taylor MP UUP). London May 1992.
The Following is an extract from a publication titled "The Cyprus Question, A Concise Briefing Note" published by the British Parliamentary Group of the Friends of Northern Cyprus. No sentence or words have been changed and every effort was made not to alter the overall meaning while summarising the 78 page Briefing Note. Full text can be obtained from ATMG.
The Eastern Mediterranean is important to Western security, to the situation in Iran, the Gulf, and the Middle East, and still in relation to the Southern flank of Nato where relations between Turkiye and Greece are of great importance. Western trading interests, whilst small in Cyprus itself, require stability in the region.
The Greek Cypriots claim that the Cyprus problem was caused by the landing of Turkish troops in 1974, and that if only they would withdraw the problem would be solved. This is a serious misconception, for the modern Cyprus question began in 1963, and the landing of Turkish troops was the consequence, not the cause. Moreover, there were in fact two military actions in 1974; the first was by Greece, which caused the second, by Turkiye. The inhabitants of Cyprus have no common language (except English), and no common religion; nor have they, except at the surface, any common culture. This being so, any approach to the Cyprus question which regards Cypriots as a nation is fundamentally flawed. There are in fact two peoples of Cyprus - the Turkish Cypriots numbering about 175,000 and the Greek Cypriots numbering about 500,000.
The Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktas, a London-trained Barrister, has been a member of the Turkish Cypriot leadership since the early 1950's. He became leader after Dr. Kucuk in 1972 and has been consistently elected by the Turkish Cypriots as their leader, and now their President, since then. He has negotiated with Makarios, Clerides, Kyprianou and now Vassiliou as successive leaders of the Greek Cypriots.
Although Cyprus is of undoubted importance to the world as a whole no solution to the Cyprus question will work unless it is freely accepted by the inhabitants of the island who will have to live with it. Otherwise there will be bloodshed again, the island will be turned into another Lebanon, and it could result in war between Turkiye and Greece. There is therefore no point in trying to put pressure on Greece or Turkiye to force either or both of the parties in Cyprus to accept the unacceptable.
One of the most remarkable features of the Cyprus question is the extent to which the Greek Cypriots have been able to repudiate solemn international agreements and violate the human rights of the Turkish Cypriots on a massive scale and yet, by a quite astonishing feat of public relations, have secured for themselves world acceptance as the government of all Cyprus and have persuaded the world that they, and not the Turkish Cypriots, are the injured party.
The Turkish Cypriots have for nearly thirty years been deprived of an official voice in the world, and have been deprived of the financial resources to match the Greek Cypriots in the communication of their case to the world community. It is the purpose of this briefing note to help redress the balance for an understanding of the real nature of the Cyprus question.
It is all too easy to compare Cyprus with Western Europe or with other places, and to say "If there why not in Cyprus," but there is rather more to it than that.
(The Following is an extract from a publication titled "The Cyprus Question, A Concise Briefing Note" published by the British Parliamentary Group of the Friends of Northern Cyprus.)
Cyprus became part of the Turkish (Ottoman) Empire in 1571, at which time the population was a mixture of people whose origins were in many different parts of the Eastern Mediterranean and Europe. More than three hundred years later the island was leased to to Britain by Turkiye on terms that it was to be returned to Turkiye when Britain no longer wanted it. However, Britain annexed the island unilaterally in 1914 and declared it a Crown Colony on 1st May 1925.
On 20th October 1950 on the occasion of his enthronment as Archbishop, the future President of Cyprus, Makarios, declared "I take the Holy Oath that I shall work for the birth of our national freedom and shall never waiver from our policy of uniting Cyprus to mother Greece." Even the present Greek Cypriot leader , George Vassiliou, on 26th January 1989 spoke of Cyprus as "a Greek island and a bastion of Greece.
That is the crux of the problem, for Cyprus is not a Greek island but "the common home of the Greek Cypriot community and the Turkish Cypriot community" (UN Secretary-General, doc S/23780 para 18-endorsed by Security Council Res. 750 (1992) para 4).
There is no doubt that the idea of annexing Cyprus to Greece (ENOSIS), invested as it is with the most intense religious and nationalistic overtones, has been and probably still is, the principal obstacle to good relations between the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots, and indeed between Turkiye and Greece. The Turkish Cypriots are just as fervently committed against the annexation of Cyprus to Greece, but they do not advocate the annexation of Cyprus to Turkiye, knowing that it would be just as objectionable to the Greek Cypriots as ENOSIS is to themselves.
As long ago as 1907 Winston Churchill (then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies) said: "I think it only natural that the Cypriot people of Greek descent should regard their incorporation with their mother country as an ideal to be cherished; but I trust that those who feel so earnestly will not forget that they must show respect for the similar feelings of others."
This advice was ignored, and from 1955 to 1960 the Greek Cypriot EOKA organization, under the leadership of George Grivas, fought for Enosis.
Although the Greek Cypriots were more numerous, the Turkish Cypriots had lived in Cyprus for 400 years as a distinct community. The bi-communal structure was fundamental to the 1960 accords, on the basis of which the Republic of Cyprus achieved independence, and recognition as a sovereign state from international community. The two communities were political equals; just as both large and small states exist as political entities and act as such within the structure of the European Community.
The means by which the Constitution gave effect to this agreement were fourfold; political, legal, administrative and military. The president was to be a Greek Cypriot and the Vice-President a Turkish Cypriot. Legislative authority was vested in a House of Representatives, of whom 70% would be Greek Cypriots and 30% Turkish Cypriots, but legislation and executive action required the concurrance of both the President and Vice-President in certain specified circumstances. Moreover, legislation relating to certain matters of sensitivity as between the two communities required a separate majority of representatives from each community. The Treaty of Alliance permitted Greece to station 950 troops in Cyprus and Turkiye 650 troops.
The Turkish Cypriot people, knowing that they could not enforce the agreement themselves, would never have agreed to join the 1960 Republic if the Greek Cypriots had not accepted a Treaty of Guarantee which gave Turkiye a legal right to intervene with troops if necessary. Independence was formally granted on 16th August 1960.
It became clear very soon after independence that the Greek Cypriots did not intend to abide by the Constitution, and that their entry into this solemn legal obligation with the Turkish Cypriots in 1960 had been a cynical deception.
Indeed in a speech on 4th September 1962, at Panayia, Makarios actually said "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered as terminated."
Article 173 of the Constitution provided that separate municipalities be established for Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The Greek Cypriots refused to obey this provision, so the Turkish Cypriots took the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus.
In February 1963 (Cyprus Mail 12.2.63) Archbishop Makarios declared on behalf of the Greek Cypriots that if the Court ruled against them they would ignore it. On 25th April 1963 the Court did rule against them and they did ignore it. The neutral President of the Court (a German citizen) resigned and the rule of law in Cyprus collapsed.
Even Greece was embarrassed by this behaviour. On 19th April 1963 Foreign Minister Averoff had written to Makarios "It is not permissible for Greece in any circumstances to accept the creation of a precedent by which one of the contracting parties can unilaterally abrogate or ignore provisions that are irksome to it in international acts which this same party has undertaken to respect."
In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots went further, and demanded the abolition of no less than eight of the basic articles which had been included in the 1960 Agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots, to which they naturally refused to agree. The aim was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority.
At Christmas 1963 the Greek Cypriot militia attacked Turkish Cypriot communities across the island, and very many men, women and children were killed. On 2nd January 1964 the Daily Telegraph wrote "The Greek Cypriot community should not assume that the British military presence can or should secure them against Turkish intervention if they persecute the Turkish Cypriots. We must not be a shelter for double-crossers."
"The United Nations not only failed to condemn the usurpation of the legal order in Cyprus by Force, but actually rewarded it by treating the by then wholly Greek Cypriot administration as if it were the Government of Cyprus (Security Council Res. 186 of 1964). This acceptance has continued to the present day; more than 27 years later, and reflects no credit upon the United Nations, nor Britain and the other Western powers who have acquiesced in it.
The mass murders of 1963, 1967 and 1974 are of such importance to an understanding of the Turkish Cypriot negotiating position to this day that no apology is made for quoting from the contemporary reports in some detail.
"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963" (Lt. Gen George Karayiannis of the Greek Cypriot militia "Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The General is referring to the now notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the extermination of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece. This plan was prepared in 1963 by the Greek Cypriot Minister of the Interior, Polycarpos Georgiadis.
On 28th December 1963 the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."
On 14th January 1964 the Daily Telegraph reported that the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilios had been massacred on 26th December 1963, and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross. A further massacre of Turkish Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on 16th February 1964, and there were many more.
On 1st January 1964 the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs which had caved in I found a twisted mass of bed springs, children's cots, and grey ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighboring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."
On 31st December 1963 The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualities were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of the head of Turkish Cypriot army medical services - allegedly by a group of forty men, many in army boots and greatcoats." The Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could, but there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.
British troops in Cyprus at the time did what they could to protect the Turkish Cypriots but the scale and ferocity of the attacks made their tasks impossible.
On 10th September 1964 the U.N. Secretary-General reported (UN doc. S/5950): "UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances,..........it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 250 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."
Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus in an interview with the UPI press agency on 30th December 1963 said: "All this happened because Makarios wanted to remove all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."
In his book "The Way the Wind Blows" former British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home said "I was convinced of the view that if Archbishop Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres nearly 27 years ago. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" (who did not take power in Greece until much later) or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has even to this day brought hardly any of the murderers to justice.
The U.K. House of Commons Select Committee found that, "There is little doubt that much of the violence which the Turkish Cypriots claim led to to the total or partial destruction of 103 Turkish villages and the displacement of about a quarter of the total Turkish Cypriot population, was either directly inspired by, or certainly connived at, by the Greek Cypriot leadership itself".
On 15th February 1964 The Daily Telegraph reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the six thousand inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot Quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot Government has recognized this officially. It is hard to conceive how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working together after all that has happened."
In his memoirs, the American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, said "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that". The fact is however that neither the US, the UK, the UN, nor anyone other than Turkiye ever took any effective action to prevent it.
It was therefore in 1963, not in 1974, that Cyprus was divided.
In December 1963 the Greek Cypriots excluded the Turkish Cypriots by intimidation or physical force from all their positions in the Government of Cyprus. The Commons Select Committee found: "In February 1966 for instance Makarios declared that the 1960 Agreements had been abrogated and buried, and when in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence."
On 14th January 1964 Il Giorno of Italy reported: "Right now we are witnessing the exodus of Turkish Cypriots from the villages. Thousands of people abandoning homes, land, herds. Greek Cypriot terrorism is relentless. This time the rhetoric of the Hellenes and the statues of Plato do not cover up their barbaric and ferocious behaviour."
On 8th December 1967 the UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council (UN doc. S/8286): "When the disturbances broke out in December 1963 and continued during the first part a964 thousands of Turkish-Cypriots fled from their homes, taking with them only what they could drive or carry, and sought refuge in what they considered to be safer Turkish-Cypriot villages and areas."
In September 1964 the Secretary-General reported to the Security Council (UN doc. 5950): "In addition to the losses incurred in agriculture and in industry during the first part of the year, the Turkish Cypriot community had lost other sources of its income including the salaries of over 4,000 persons who were employed by the Cyprus Government."
During the period 1963 to 1974 the freedom of movement of Turkish Cypriots was severely restricted (UN docs. S/5764, S/5950, S/7350); they were denied postal services (UN docs. S/5950,S/7001); their access to building materials, electrical equipment, motor parts, fuel, chemicals and many other commodities was severely restricted (UN docs. S/5950, S/7350); and Turkish Cypriot refugess had to live in tents and caves.
On 10th September 1964 the UN Secretary-General reported: "The economic restrictions being imposed against the Turkish Cypriot communities, which in some instances has been so severe as to amount to veritable siege, indicated that the Government of Cyprus seeks to force a potential solution by economic pressure." (UN doc. S/5950).
On 24th July 1965 the United Kingdom formally protested the unlawful action of the Greek Cypriots, but continued to deal with them as the Government of Cyprus, and took no effective action to stop them doing as they pleased.
In his memoirs published in 1987 former British Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister, James Callaghan, records that, "there is no question that the Turkish Cypriots had for many years been denied their political rights under the 1960 Constitution, and their basic human rights".
Sir Anthony Kershaw, Chairman of the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs until 1987 explained in a speech on 23rd October 1990 how the UN originally came to accept the Greek Cypriots as the Cyprus Government as follows:
"It was decided that UN troops should be sent to preserve order, but the UN can only send troops if the legal government of the country concerned asks for them. The only organization which could in 1964 be called the Government of Cyprus was the administration headed by Makarios. The Turkish Cypriots pointed out that this was not the legal government of Cyprus but such was the pressure of the times that the UN said: Look, your people are dying-let's get the troops out right away and the lawyers can sort it out later.
So it was decided, but since that time the UN has treated the Greek Cypriots as the only government of Cyprus, basing this upon a treaty and a constitution which had been repudiated by the Greek Cypriot government itself. I do not deny that the Greek Cypriot government is the de facto government of the South Cyprus. It has all the attributes of sovereignity, but so has the Turkish Cypriot government of Northern Cyprus."
In 1965 the UN General Assembly actually went so far, in Resolution 2977, as to express its confidence in the goodwill and humanity of the Greek Cypriot regime, which had been shown on the clearest possible evidence to have dishonoured international agreements, overthrown constitutional government, and violated human rights on massive scale.
In his book "Democracy at Gunpoint" Andreas Papandreou recalls that in 1964 "A clandestine operation began on a huge scale; of nightly shipments of arms and 'volunteers' who arrive in Cyprus in civilian clothes and then join their Greek Cypriot units."
Newsweek had likewise reported on 27th July 1964 that: "Before dawn each day the great iron doors of the port of Limassol are slammed shut...UN troops are barred. A few hours later the doors swing open and covered lorries, weaving on overloaded springs, roar out of the port and head toward the Troodos mountains."
Despite their withdrawal into defended enclaves, the Turkish Cypriots were subjected to a further massacre of civilians in 1967 at the village of Kophinou (Gecitkale). Only warning flights by the the Turkish Air Force prevented further massacres at this time, and forced the withdrawal of some of the mainland Greek forces which had been illegally built up in Cyprus.
In 1971 General Grivas returned to Cyprus to form EOKA-B which was again committed to making Cyprus a wholly Greek island and annexing it to Greece. In a speech to the Greek Cypriot armed forces (Quoted in "New Cyprus" May 1987) Grivas said: "The Greek forces from Greece have come to Cyprus in order to impose the will of the Greeks of Cyprus upon the Turks. We want ENOSIS but the Turks are against it. We shall impose our will. We are strong and shall do so."
The 1976 UK House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus formed the view (HC 331 1975/76 para. 22), that Turkiye had proposed joint Anglo-Turkish action under the Treaty of Guarantee, and this was confirmed by Prime Minister Ecevit on 14th August 1974 (Daily Telegraph 15th August). However the Labour Government in Britain refused to take any effective action, even though they had troops and aircraft in the Sovereign Bases in Cyprus.
They argued that Britain was under no duty to take military action, but Article II provided that Britain would guarantee the state of affairs established by the 1960 Constitution, which it manifestly failed to do. The Select Committee concluded that "Britain had a legal right to intervene, she had a moral obligation to untervene. She did not intervene for reasons which the Government refuses to give."
"On 20th July 1974 Turkiye intervened under Article IV of the (1960) Treaty of Guarantee" (UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office doc. CPS/75, Jan, 1987).
"Turkiye exercised its right of intervention in accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty." (Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, 29th July 1974).
Even the Greek Court of Cassation in Athens has held that the Turkish intervention was legal. In case no. 5658/79 of 21st March 1979 the court declared "Turkiye's intervention in Cyprus as a Guarantor power within the framework of the Zurich and London Agreements is legal."
It is argued by the Greek Cypriots that even if the first phase of the Turkish intervention was legal the extension of the area under Turkish control in the second phase from 14th August to 16th August 1974 was illegal since there was no longer any subsisting breach of the Treaty. However, as will be seen, the facts do not support this view.
In Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish Cypriot men aged between 19 and 38 were taken away by Greek Cypriots and were never seen again. On the same day Greek Cypriots opened fire in the Turkish Cypriot neighbourhood of Paphos killing men, women and children indiscriminately. On 23rd July 1974 the Washington Post reported "In a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived." (also Times, Guardian, 23rd July 1974).
On 24th July 1974 France Soir reported: "The Greeks burned Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenceless Turkish villagers who have no weapons live in an athmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forests. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity."
The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus reported in 1976 "The second phase of military operations was inevitable in the view of your committee as the position reached by Turkish forces at the time of the first cease fire was untenable militarily."
The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on 30 August 1974: the massacre of Turkish Cypriots in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertaken their (August) intervention."
"Turkiye intervened to protect the lives and property of the Turkish Cypriots, and to its credit it has done just that. In the 12 years since, there have been no killings and no massacres" Lord Willis (Lab.) House of Lords 17th December 1986 (Hansard, col. 223).
On 12th March 1977 Makarios had declared "In the name of ENOSIS that Cyprus has been destroyed."
On Independence Day 1985 the Greek Cypriot Daily Simerini lamented as follows: "We believed that we are the centre of the Earth. We thought that we, small and insignificant as we are, would be capable of exercising policy on an intercontinental plane. But also above all we underestimated the Turks. The unstable and fickle policy of our leaders has brought us to the brink of total disaster."
Turkiye's action in 1974 created a safe haven for the Turkish Cypriots, just as seventeen years later the Allies created a safe haven for the Kurdish people in Northern Iraq.
As early as 1964 the Turkish Cypriots had to establish an elected authority to govern themselves whilst confined in their defended enclaves.
On 30th July 1974 the Geneva Declaration of the Guarantor powers recognized:
(a) that Constitutional Government no longer existed in Cyprus
(b) the existence in Cyprus of two autonomous administrations; one Turkish Cypriot and the other Greek Cypriot.
Britain should have taken the lead at the United Nations as from 1963 to ensure that no international acceptance was given to any "Government of Cyprus" which continued to be in breach of the 1960 agreement. The Cyprus seat should have remained vacant until it could again be lawfully occupied. Instead Britain did the exact opposite and took the lead in securing the adoption of the now notorious Security Council Resolution 353 in 1974 which, after all that had happened, treated the Greek Cypriot regime as the Government of Cyprus.
On 1st February 1966 in Athens the Greek Cypriot leader, Archbishop Makarios, had already declared: They (the Zurich and London Agreements) today stand abrogated and buried. Neither Turkiye nor any other power can breath life into them again."
The 1960 agreement having been repudiated by the conduct of the Greek Cypriots, and indeed expressly abrogated, Turkish Cypriots could not live for long in a political limbo, so in 1975 they declared North Cyprus to be a Federated state, with a democratic constitution, but with the declared intention that it should one day form part of a federation for the whole of Cyprus.
Once more the UN showed its partiality, and in Security Council Resolution 367 "deplored" the decision of the Turkish Cypriots, while continuing to reward the unilateral decision of the Greek Cypriots in 1963 to impose their own autonomous administration on Cyprus.
No progress toward settlement having been made, the Turkish Cypriots declared independence as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983, but still they formally declared that they wished to work towards a new federal Constitution for the whole of Cyprus. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus today is a multi-party democracy, with a free judiciary, a free press and free trade unions.
Again Britain, the United Nations and the world in general deplored this step, on the ground that it was contrary to the 1960 constitution and therefore illegal.They have never explained how the 1960 constitution, having been repudiated by the Greek Cypriot side as long as 1963, could still be binding upon the Turkish Cypriot side.
It is sometimes suggested that since personal relations between Turkish and Greek Cypriots have traditionally been good it is only the Turkish army which is keeping them apart. This is not the case, and in the recent elections the Turkish Cypriots made it clear by an overwhelming majority that they do not wish to integrate. The fact that personal relations between Turkish Cypriots and their Greek Cypriot neighbours were good did not prevent the murder of Turkish Cypriots in 1963, 1967 and 1974 by Greek Cypriot neighbours whom they knew by name.
Cyprus is also quite different to countries elsewhere in the world where families are parted by frontiers, for almost all the Turkish Cypriots are in the North and Greek Cypriots in the South. The few Greek Cypriots who remain in the North do so of their own free will, and may join their families in the South whenever they choose. There is no parallel between the "Green Line" frontier in Cyprus and the now demolished Berlin wall. The Berlin wall was not erected to protect West Germans from aggression, and the Green Line does not divide a nation.
It is sometimes asked "If the Turkish Cypriots fear Greek and Greek Cypriot troops. are not the Greek Cypriots justified in feeling afraid of Turkish troops?" The answer is no. Turkish troops have been in Northern Cyprus since 1974, and no Turkish soldier has set foot in Southern Cyprus or killed a Greek Cypriot in that time. If Turkiye had wished to occupy the whole of Cyprus she could easily have done so in 1974, and would never have encouraged the Turkish Cypriots to accept successive UN plans, which excluded the annexation of all or any part of Cyprus.
The 1984 UN plan for a settlement acknowledged the need for a Turkish military presence, and this was acceptable to the Greek Cypriot House of Assembly when it censuredtheir then President, Mr. Kyprianou for refusing to agree to it.
It is often alleged that the UN Security Council has demanded the withdrawal of Turkish troops, but this is not the case. Security Council Resolution 353 (1954) specifically called for the withdrawal of the Greek officers to whom Makarios had referred in his letter of 2nd July 1974, but it did not, and had no legal right to, call for the withdrawal of Turkish troops, which are there under the authority of the 1960 International agreement.
The Greek Cypriots have used their unwarranted status as the Government of Cyprus to persuade the world to practice partial but very damaging economic embargo against the Turkish Cypriots. However these sanctions do not have the authority of any UN Security Council Resolution under Chapter VII of the Charter.
The Greek Cypriots have also succeeded in constructing an international embargo against the participation of Turkish Cypriot Sporting Clubs in international events. This is a petty attitude which does nothing to foster trust and confidence between the two peoples of Cyprus, and should be abondened forthwith.
These boycotts were intended to force the Turkish Cypriots to concede Greek Cypriot demands, but they have served only to drive the Turkish Cypriots closer than ever to Turkiye.
From 1963 to 1974 the Turkish Cypriots begged the world to see that they were deprived of these rights by the Greek Cypriots to the point that the United Nations described them (doc. S/5950) as being under veritable siege, but the world turned a blind eye.
Today, the Greek Cypriots demand that they should be free to move and to establish themselves in the Turkish Cypriot area and they claim it is a human right.. The Turkish Cypriots are entitled to say to the Greek Cypriots "You did not care about our human rights when you were in control for eleven years; why should we care about yours?" The Turkish Cypriots do not however say that, and are willing to negotiate: but unrestricted access to the North would place the personal security of Turkish Cypriots at risk again. It is all too evident in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in Europe what even a very small number of determined terrorists can do.
The Greek Cypriots have always exaggerated the number of their displaced persons, and they frequently claim in excess of 200,000, but a census of evacuated Greek Cypriot dwellings in 1974 showed that there can not have been more than 105,000. This is not many more than the Turkish Cypriots who have been displaced-25,000 in 1963 and 65,000 in 1974.
Throughout the ages people from many different countries and faiths have settled in Cyprus. These have included Hittites, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, Lusignans, Venetians, Turks and British. There have been Greeks in Cyprus for many years, but in 1745 during the Ottoman Empire the British Consul at Aleppo reported that there were then 150,000 Turks and 50,000 Greeks in Cyprus. Gradually over the years since then the Turkish and then the British rulers of the island allowed more and more Greeks to settle, so that by the time the British left in 1960 the population was 80% Greek and 20% Turkish.
Greek Cypriots complain that large numbers of people of Turkish origin have been allowed to make their homes in Northern Cyprus since 1974, but they forget that far more Turkish Cypriots emigrated to Turkiye, Britain and United States and to other countries during the period 1963-1974 when life in Cyprus was made extremely difficult for them.
In fact during that period emigration of Turkish Cypriots was actively promoted, by terror, economic deprivation, and one-way assisted passages. Very little was heard from the international community about those attempts by the Greek Cypriot administration to "change the demographic structure of the island".
Greek Cypriots say it is an injustice that Turkish Cypriots occupy 36.2% of the land area of the island although they are only about 20% of the population. However, there are four answers to this:
First, there is no country in which each ethnic group occupies such proportion of the land area as their numbers bear to the total population. The Greek Cypriots did not regard the equitable distribution of territory as important between 1963 and 1974, when they forced the entire Turkish Cypriot population, most of whom were dependent on agriculture, to live in enclaves amounting in total to less than 3% of the land.
In Cyprus, Turks and Turkish Cypriots owned most of the land under Ottoman rule, but Greek Cypriots were allowed to purchase land as free citizens, and by the time of independence in 1960 Turkish Cypriot holdings had reduced to about 30% of the land. Throughout the 1950's and 1960's Greek Cypriots were encouraged to buy land from Turkish Cypriots, but Greek Cypriots who contracted to sell land to Turkish Cypriots were treated as traitors by EOKA and dealt with accordingly.
Second, the area in which the Turkish Cypriots live is close to the minimum necessary to establish a defensible position and to ensure reasonable economic viability. The Turkish Cypriots did not wish to live in a divided island, and are well aware of the benefits of a larger economy, but trust and confidence having been destroyed, it is impossible to go back to the status quo ante.
Third, the Turkish Cypriots have, by accepting the UN draft framework agreement, agreed to negotiate territorial adjustments.
Fourt, the Turkish Cypriots have accepted that as part of an overall settlement there will be an exchange and valuation process, and compensation will be made in property and/or money to those on both sides who have lost their property.
Displaced persons or refugees are today no more than a political device in Cyprus, as all Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot displaced persons have been resettled. In the case of Greek Cypriots this has been done with funds supplied from international aid programs, but none of theis aid was given to the Turkish Cypriots, who had to rely on Turkiye alone.
Pending a settlement, Turkish Cypriot properties in the South are occupied by Greek Cypriots, and vice cersa. There is a lot of talk about Greek Cypriot hotels occupied in the North, but very little about Turkish Cypriot farms and vineyards occupied in the South.
The dispute relating to former Greek Cypriot properties in the North came before the English courts in Hesperides Hotels v Aegean Holidays & Muftizade [1978] QB 205. Giving judgement in the Court of Appeal Lord Denning said:
"There is an effective administration in Northern Cyprus which has made laws governing the day to day lives of the people. According to these laws the people who have occupied these hotels in Kyrenia are not trespassers. They are not occupying them unlawfully... It follows inexorably that their conduct cannot be made the subject of a suit in England."
Most of the property claims of British and other third party nationals in Northern Cyprus were settled long ago. Of those third party nationals whose claims are still unresolved, some are unable to produce evidence of title because they were evading taxes or exchange controls, or were acting as unofficial nominees for Greeks or Greek Cypriots.
The Turkish Cypriots have at least as much interest as the Greek Cypriots in finding out what happened to members of their families who are missing. However, most Turkish Cypriots have now concluded that they are in all probability dead and will never be seen again.
For Greek Cypriots, their loved ones went missing from 15th July 1974 when, as noted before, Greek Cypriot para-militaries backed by mainland Greek troops overthrew the Makarios Government and began to slaughter any Greek Cypriot suspected to being a supporter of Makarios, before turning their attention to Turkish Cypriots.
On 17th April 1991 Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "Most of the missing persons disappeared in the first days of July 1974 (ie before the Turkish intervention). Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots and in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson."
On 19th July 1974, before the Turkish army landed, Archbishop Makarios told the UN Security Council "I do not yet know the details of the Cyprus crisis caused by the Greek military regime. I am afraid that the number of losses is great... I considered the danger from Turkiye lesser than the danger from Greek army officers."
The Greek newspaper TA NEA published an interview on 28th February 1976 with Father Papatsestos, the Greek Orthodox priest in charge of the Nicosia cemetery. He recounted the events of 17th July 1974 when Greek officers required him to bury truckloads of Greek Cypriots in mass graves, together with one young Greek Cypriot whom they buried alive, and ten dead Turkish Cypriots. This one priest counted at least 127 bodies brought to him, and there must have been many similar incidents throughout the island.
On 23rd July 1974 The Times reported that " a production Director from Dublin said he had seen bodies being buried in a mass grave near Paphos after last Monday's coup. People were told by Makarios to lay down their guns and were shot out of hand by the National Guard, he said."
On 23rd July 1974 The Times reported "Fears that many supporters of Archbishop Makarios may have been massacred since last week's coup were expressed in London yesterday, by an American-born woman whose husband is now on top of EOKA-B's wanted list. She was told that about a hundred members of the Presidential Palace guard had been killed after they laid down their arms."
On 6th November 1974 TA NEA reported the erasure of dates from the graves of Greek Cypriots killed in these five days in order to blame their deaths on the subsequent Turkish military action.
In an article on 28th February 1976 in the Greek Cypriot press Father Papatsestos said: It is a rather hard thing to say, but it is true that the Turkish intervention saved us from a merciless internecine war.The Sampson regime had prepared a list of all Makarios supporters, and they would have slaughtered them all." Many of the people saved by Turkiye are members of the present Greek Cypriot leadership.
The balance of probabilities is that most of the Greek Cypriots still listed as missing were killed during the Sampson coup of 15th-20th July 1974. Some are in mass graves such as those described by Father Papatsestos, and the remainder have no known grave. Those killed in the fighting with the Turkish army would not have died if the Greek Cypriots and Greece had not tried to exterminate the Turkish Cypriots and annex the island to Greece, and the blame for their deaths must rest firmly upon their own leadership.
Prisoners of War taken by the Turkish Army were sent to Turkiye, where they were visited by the Red Cross, and repatriated on 8th August 1974, 16th September 1974 and 28th October 1975 under international supervision. There are no prisoners of war still in Turkiye. Until recently however allegations continued to made of "sightings" of Greek Cypriots in Turkiye, and sometimes photographs were produced. On 17th April 1991 Ambassador Ledsky told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee "The US Ambassador to Turkiye has looked into all of these allegations and found there was no substance. The Turkish Government was cooperative and the Turkish and US Governments worked together on this. The subject has been exhausted and we haven't heard an allegation in two years."
For Turkish Cypriots, their sense of bereavement goes back at least as far as Christmas 1963 when, as noted before, the Greek Cypriots made a violent attack upon the Turkish Cypriot population. This was not war, but a premeditated attack upon defenceless woman, children and old men. These attacks were repeated in 1967 and again in 1974.
Very many of these Turkish Cypriots have no known grave, and their families have been encouraged by the Turkish Cypriot leadership to accept the inevitable conclusion that they are dead and to put their grief behind them.
A constructive approach to the future would be for the Greek Cypriot leadership to do as Turkish Cypriot leadership has done, and make it clear to their people that after so many years, the probability is that their loved ones are dead. It is cruel to keep alive their hopes and to prolong uncertainity on such matters as inheritance, remarriage and the like.
However the Greek Cypriot leadership keeps alive the question of missing persons as a political weapon against Turkiye and to generate symphaty for their cause. Their insistance, after more than 17 years, on the production of a live or dead body before they will consider a case closed, makes it doubtful that they have any genuine interest in assisting the Committee on Missing Persons to complete its work.
Since 1968 attempts have been made to negotiate an agreement pursuant to which the Greek and Turkish Cypriots could be reunited under some kind of constitution for the whole island.
However, the main obstacle to progress appears to have been the lack of political will on the part of the Greeks and Greek Cypriots to put the agreements into effect. Indeed, on 24th November 1983 the Greek Prime Minister said "We can only negotiate for a unitary Cyprus. For us neither federation nor confederation is an acceptable solution. Our proposal is for the establishment of a unitary State. We can negotiate on this after the departure of the Turkish soldiers" (Ethnos 24.11.83).
Of course, as noted above, Cyprus never was a unitary state, and no Turkish Cypriot leader could accept such a state, in which the Greek Cypriots could use their superior numbers to control the whole country. This would put the Turkish Cypriots back into the second class position they were in from 1963 to 1974.
Even more important is the Greek and Greek Cypriot insistence that Turkish troops leave the island, for this would leave the Greek Cypriots free to renege again on whatever constitution they had agreed, and to resort to violence again, just as they did in 1963, in 1967 and in 1974. Of course, no one can be certain what Greek Cypriots would do, but the Turkish Cypriots cannot be expected to take the risk.
In November 1984, after lengthy discussions with both sides the UN Secretary General put forward a draft framework agreement for a comprehensive solution of the problem through establishment of a federal republic. The Turkish Cypriots accepted the plan in its entirety but Mr. Kyprianou, after consulting Athens, said he could accept it only as a basis for discussion. This announcement surprised even his own people, and a motion of censure upon him was passed in the Greek Cypriot House of Representatives.
During the debate Mr. Ezekias Papaioannou, leader of AKEL said :"Kyprianou never adopted the basis of federation which was agreed upon by Makarios and Denktas, and he never exerted any effort for the solution of the Cyprus problem on the basis of a federation. He never respected the summit agreements."
On 14th June 1986 The Times reported that "the UN Secretary General had cast his usual diplomatic dicretion aside to blame the Greek Cypriot community for obstructing his attempts at a negotiated solution to the Cyprus dispute...The warning was a rare concerted public effort to bring home the message to the Greek Cypriots that time was not on their side. With the Turkish Cypriots having firmly placed themselves in the right by accepting the UN package the door was open for further consolidation of their Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".
The Times continued "It was also a deliberate effort to make it as difficult as possible for Mr. Kyprianou to continue side-stepping the package in the hope of seeing it fade into obscurity". Though Britain and other countries consistently said that they supported the UN plan, there is no evidence that they led the Greek Cypriots to believe that they would incur any significant costs by refusing to settle. To say, as some countries do, that they will never recognize two states in Cyprus means that the Greek Cypriots can be as inflexible as they like and can prolong the political uncertainity indefinitely.
Accordingly the Greek Cypriots have been permitted to continue side stepping the UN package without any real diplomatic costs, and are still holding out for better terms.
In March 1988 President Denktas invited the newly elected Greek Cypriot leader Mr. George Vassiliou for an informal social meeting with him, and proposed a comprehensive programme of confidence-building measures in the social, cultural, medical, environmental, educational and other fields. The informal meeting never occured because Mr. Vassiliou insisted that it take place at the "Presidential Palace" in South Nicosia with his participation as "President" of all Cyprus.
In February 1990 the two leaders met with the UN Secretary General at New York. The talks broke down because the Greek Cypriots refused to accept that the Turkish Cypriots had the right of self-determination. This is contrary to common sense, because a worthwhile agreement is not an abstract thing. It is a consensus which must be freely reached and which both parties must genuinely wish to put into effect. The Greek Cypriots are also wrong in law, for in detailed written opinions two of world's leading international lawyers, Mr. Eli Lauterpacht QC of the UK and Mr. Monroe Leigh of the US confirmed in 1990 that each of the two parties do have the legal right of self-determination.
In 1990, President Ozal of Turkiye proposed a four party conference in which the participants would be Turkiye, Greece, the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots. This arrangement acknowledges the realities of Cyprus and accords equal status to all parties most intimately concerned. In August 1991 US President George Bush endorsed the four party conference under the auspices of the UN Secretary General, which had been proposed by President Ozal. As at May 1992 the ceonference had not convened.
The one-sided nature of international proceedings on the Cyprus question must surely impair the authority and fundamental validity of the numerous General Assembly Security Council, and other resolutions which the Greek Cypriots so often use in support of their own case. In the Institutions of the European Community the Greek representative consistently argues the Greek Cypriot case, but the Turkish Cypriot case cannot be argued.
The Commons Select Committee recommended in July 1987 that "whatever the prospects for an early federal seyylement the British Government and others must recognize the need to release Northern Cyprus from its present "pariah status" and that everything possible should be done to facilitate contacts between Northern Cyprus and the outside world".
Tourists who arrive in Cyprus through a Southern port or airport are allowed to cross into the North provided they complete the same entrance formalities as are usual at borders. However, the Greek Cypriots insist that they return before 5 pm on the same day, and will discourage the visit by telling the traveller that the North is an armed camp, where his safety cannot be guaranteed. This is of course ridiculos, as is well known by the very many Members of Parliament, businessmen and holidaymakers who visit Northern Cyprus each year.
Persons acting in the Greek Cypriot cause even threatened the London Underground with a bomb attack in 1990 if they did not remove posters advertising holidays in Northern Cyprus.
Today, Northern Cyprus is a thriving holiday resort, where there is hardly any crime, and where the beaches and scenery have not been spoilt by modern development. Travel is via Turkiye.
Nevertheless, on 4th July 1990 the Greek Cypriot Administration of Mr. Vassiliou applied for membership, and purported to do so on behalf of Cyprus as a whole. They had no legal or moral right to take this action. Even under the 1960 Constitution, sovereignty was vested jointly in the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, and such a fundamental step could not therefore be taken without the authority of the elected leaders of the Turkish Cypriot co-founders of the Republic. The Turkish Cypriots, having been excluded from the Government by force in 1963, were not even consulted.
The application itself is also a breach by the Greek Cypriots of Security Council Resolution 649 (1990) which called upon both sides to refrain from any action that could aggravate the situation between them.
The application is also in violation of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, by virtue of which Cyprus bound itself not to participate in whole or in part in any political or economic union.
"Our non-recognition of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not however affect our acknowledgement of the Turkish Cypriot community. We maintain a dialogue with their leaders through our High Commissioner in Nicosia. We continue to trade with them and we try to see that they benefit from the aid we give to Cyprus."
Although the Turkish Cypriot leader, President Denktas, meets regularly with the UN Secretary General, and has also met with the U.S. Secretary of State, the British Ministers will not talk with him and expect him to communicate via officials. This policy has been severely criticised by many senior British Members of Parliament as being contrary to the principle of natural justice that both sides of the case must have an equal hearing, and as having no basis in law or common sense.
The Turkish Cypriots feel justifiable aggrieved by the attitude of the Commonwealth toward them.
Speaking in the US House of Representatives on 17th November 1989 Congressman Burton (Indiana) said "There is no rational reason why the Greek Cypriots have taken this action (ie their military build-up). At a time when peace seems to be breaking out all over the world and at a sensitive period in the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot negotiations this senseless action can only serve to exacerbate the Cyprus dispute."
Perhaps the Greek Cypriots wish to start a fight so that they can call on the world to help them when they begin to lose, just as they did in 1974.
The West must of course have regard to its security interests in the Eastern Mediterranean, and in relation to Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East. British bases and other installations in Cyprus do not however make Britain as vulnerable to Greek Cypriots political pressure as might be thought, because:
* they provide employment for 3,500 Greek Cypriot workers,
* they contribute £59m per year to the Greek Cypriot economy,
* the military security to which they contribute benefits not only the British but all the people of the region, including Greek Cypriots themselves,
* Cyprus, whilst useful as an air force training area, is not indis[ensable,
* there is not the same need for runways as existed in the 1960's,
* if need be, the electronic intelligence gathering facilities which the bases and other installations provide could be located elsewhere.
The present Western policy of discriminating against the Turkish Cypriots is nor cost free. Turkiye is a nation of 52 million people with huge economic potential whereas Greece is a country with only 10 million people and relatively little undeveloped potential.
Turkiye is strategically vital to the West, particularly since the Gulf War and in view of the break up of the Soviet Union. Turkiye is the natural leader of all the Turkish-speaking peoples of the former Soviet Union, and is a potential bridge to the Islamic world. Democracy, whilst well established in Turkiye, still needs to be nurtured, and it is essential that good relations are maintained.
Western policy towards Cyprus is damaging relations with Turkiye, as well as with the Turkish Cypriots themselves, and Turkiye is in particular tired of Cyprus being used against it, quite unjustifiably, in almost every international forum.
RecognitionInternational law defines a State as a territory with defined boundaries, with a government to which the inhabitants are habitually obedient, and which is free from political control by any other State. (Sir Hersch Lauterpacht - "Recognotion in International Law" paras. 10-13).
There is no doubt that Northern Cyprus has clearly defined boundaries, and it was decided in the "Hesperides Hotels" case noted above, that it has a government which makes laws to which the inhabitants are habitually obedient.
So far as political control is concerned Northern Cyprus is recognised by Turkiye as an independent state, and whilst there are close links between the two countries the Turkish Government does not claim any right to interfere in the political affairs of Northern Cyprus. There have in the history of the United Nations been many member states subject to enormous political influence by other states (for example the states of Eastern Europe) but they were nevertheless recognised as independent states.
It is sometimes argued that economic and military viability are preconditions of statehood. However, if it were not for international discrimination against Northern Cyprus it could easily support its population, and if it were not for Greek and Greek Cypriot aggression they would never have needed Turkish military protection. Are the aggressors to be rewarded by denying recognition to their victim?
The Turkish Cypriot people are justified in feeling aggrieved by the treatment which they have received, not only from the Greek and Greek Cypriots, but from the world at their request. Having accepted proposals which both the U.N. Secretary General and the British Government considered a reasonable basis for settlement and having continued to talk since 1968-always being urged to have "just one more try"-they are entitled to expect that their condition of political limbo will soon be at an end.
The advantages which the Greek Cypriots enjoy by virtue of their unjustified recognition as the "Government of Cyprus" are valuable to them, and they will not relinquish them except at a very high price. That price is too high for any Turkish Cypriot leader to pay without jeopardising the security or economic future of his people or both.
The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is a political fact, and it is not in the long term interests of Britain nor of the European Community to continue any longer to discriminate against it. All restrictions on flights to, and trade and communications with, Northern Cyprus should be removed forthwith, and international aid to Cyprus should in future be allocated on the basis of need.
At a time when so much in the world is changing it is absurd to continue to deal with Cyprus on the basis of a twenty-eight year old fiction. Everyone hopes that negotiations will succeed, but a settlement which either party finds unacceptable will be no settlement at all, and could plunge Cyprus again into violence and bloodshed. A settlement at any price would be worse than international acceptance of the present reality in Cyprus.
However, if equal treatment were accorded to each, it is more than likely that the two peoples would wish in due course to build a closer association between themselves, just as the sovereign peoples of Europe have done.
In July 1991 the following motion was tabled in the UK House of Commons: "This House recalls that when independence was granted to Cyprus in 1960, sovereignity was transferred to the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots jointly as political equals; recalls that the 1960 Constitution broke down in 1963 and is now defunct; notes that the U.N Secretary General has stated that the relationship between the two communities in Cyprus is not one of majority and minority but one of equals; further notes that UN Security Council Resolution 649 calls upon the two peoples of Cyprus to co-operate on an equal footing; believes that the Greek Cypriot side's reluctance to recognise the equal political status of the Turkish Cypriot side is obstructing the way to a federal solution since federations can be formed only between political equals; and therefore calls upon Her Majesty's Government to treat the two peoples of Cyprus and their respective leaders on a basis of complete equality without any further delay."
For more information please also visit the site; Cyprus: The truth before 1974The U. S. State Department's 1991 and 1994 Human Rights Reports impartially and clearly identified, one by one all human rights violation by the Greek State through its systematic discrimination and oppression policies on Western Thrace Turks.
Furthermore, by its August Report 1990 report titled " Destroying Ethnic Identity - The Turks of Greece " and the April Report 1992 titled " Greece: Improvement for Turkish Minority; Problems Remain " which resulted from in-depth research, " Helsinki Watch " brought Greece's assimilation policies to the attention of world public opinion.
The Council of Europe and the European Community denounced the assimilation and annihilation policies of Greece in relation with not only Western Thrace Turks but also the other six minorities living in Greece. Greece is a member of both The Council of Europe and The European Community.
Greece has always been successful in propagating distorted information about its relations with Turkey to the world public opinion. Yet human rights violations in Western Thrace cannot be concealed anymore. Greece aims at "destroying ethnic identity" of the Turkish community who has been living in Western Thrace for hundreds of years. No one can deny the Human Tragedy of Western Thrace Turks.
The policies of the Greek State directed to the Western Thrace Turks aim at eradicating and annihilating the whole Turkish presence in Greece.
The Turks of Greece have left permanent tracks of their ethnic, religious and cultural identity in Western Thrace. They cannot be eradicated forcibly from the land where their present and past generations were born.
The Turks of Greeks are law-abiding citizens of the Greek State. Although they are being treated as second class citizens, they continue to fulfil their citizenship duties. In spite of this, Greeks excluded, humiliated and oppressed them.
The obligation assumed by Greece under "Section III" of the Lausanne Peace Treaty of 1923, dealing with the protection of minorities cover the following basic rights and liberties:
Furthermore, these rights conferred to the minority are recognised as fundamental laws by Greece. No law, no regulation, nor official action should conflict or interfere with these stipulations, nor should any law, regulation, nor official action prevail over them.
Thus, according to the Lausanne Peace Treaty, Greece is under the obligation to extend to the Turkish Moslem Minority in Western Thrace the same treatment and security as to other Greek citizens.
Despite this, since the signing of this Treaty, with the exception of the period from 1930's up to early 1950's, there has been a persistent and massive violation of human rights in Western Thrace. For years the Greek authorities have been violating their obligations undertaken according this Treaty and other international treaties to which Greece is a party. Furthermore, the attitude of the same authorities is in contradiction with the principles and values that have inspired the European Communities, the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the Paris Charter as well as other CSCE documents and declarations on the questions of minorities and even with the Greek Constitution itself.
The Greek Nationality Law No.3370, enacted in 1955, states in Chapter B, Section VI, Article 19: "A person of non-Greek ethnic origin leaving Greece without the intention of returning may be declared as having lost Greek nationality. This also applies to a person of non-Greek ethnic origin born and domiciled abroad. His minor children living abroad may be declared as having lost Greek nationality if both their parents or the surviving parent has lost the same. The Ministry of Interior Affairs decides in these matters with the concurring opinion of the National Council."
This law violates two provisions of the Greek Constitution: Article 4.2 which says that "Withdrawal of Greek citizenship shall be permitted only in case of voluntary acquisition of another citizenship or of undertaking service contrary to national interests in a foreign country." Article 19 also violates the Concluding Document of the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting to the CSCE signed in January 1989, which provides that states will respect the rights of everyone to leave this own country and return to it.
By means of Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Law, the Turks of Greece are systematically expelled from Greek citizenship by administrative decision, without the verdict of any court. No effective local remedies exist to reserve such decisions. Thousands of Greek citizens of Turkish origin were expelled from citizenship. Among them are 3 year old babies, people more than 100 years old and Turks who are in military service in the Greek Army.
The ultimate objective of Greece's Western Thrace policy is to deroot and eradicate the Turkish presence in the country. To this end, Greece tries to divide the Turkish minority and prevent its natural growth. She endeavours by all means to obstruct the educational, cultural and socio-economic development of these people and forces them to emigrate.
The Pomak Turks who lived in the mountainous "restricted area" are isolated from the Turks who dwell in the cities. The 15 to 30 km wide area bordering on Bulgaria was declared as "restricted area" according to the law on "Restricted Areas" enacted in 1936. The right to travel and social activities of the 35-40 thousand Turks who live in the 133 Turkish villages included in this zone are under the strict control of the Greek authorities; the region is almost like a concentration camp. Official passes are required to travel in and out of it.
The population of Western Thrace is approximately 360,000. Although Greece is unwilling to give exact numbers, it is generally accepted that 140,000-150,000 Greek citizens of Turkish origin live in Western Thrace.
The Greek Defence Minister Athanassios Kanelopulos said in his statement published in the Turkish Daily "Cumhuriyet" on June 7, 1990 that 150,000 Greek nationals of Islamic faith lived in Western Thrace.
The population of the Turkish minority in Western Thrace was 130,000 in 1923 when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed. Taking into consideration the 2.8% annual population growth rate of the Turkish minority, the correct number must have been around 500,000 in 1990. The Turkish minority in Western Thrace emigrated to Germany, Australia, the United States and Turkey as a result of the assimilation policies consistently pursued by Greece. The Turks who could not find jobs in Western Thrace had to go to other parts of Greece where they were immediately "Hellenised".
The Turks of Western Thrace had the ownership of 84% of all land in Western Thrace in 1923. Now they only have 20% of land.
Western Thrace is surrounded by Bulgaria and Rodop Mountains in the north, Turkey and Meric (Evros) River in the east, the Aegean Sea in the south and Karasu (Nestos) River in the west. The territory of Western Thrace, consisting of the provinces of Gumulcine (Komotini), Iskece (Xanthi) and Dedeagac (Alexandroupolis), extends from east to west as a narrow strip in the north-eastern part of Greece. The area of Western Thrace is 8,578 square km.
In order to achieve its goal to eradicate the Turkish minority as an ethnic, religious and cultural entity, Greece has arbitrarily expelled thousands of minority members from its citizenship, through the Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Law.
According to Article 19 of the Greek Nationality Law, a Greek citizen of non-Greek ethnic origin legally leaving Greece may be declared as having lost Greek nationality by decision of the Minister of Interior. Under Article 19, ethnic Turks can be stripped of their citizenship by an administrative decree, without hearing. According to the US State Department's 1989 Country Report, under Greek law there can be no judicial review and there is no effective right of appeal. The total number of people who have lost their citizenship in this fashion is not clear. However, according to Dr. Sadik Ahmet, a member of the Greek Parliament, there were hundreds over the past years. Some people deprived of citizenship in 1989, were students who went abroad to study in Germany, the United States and Turkey.
In one case, Serhat Haliloglu, a soldier, lost his citizenship on July 21, 1989, when he was in military service in the Greek Army. In other case that was described in the Athens Rizospastis newspaper on May 19, 1989, two "Moslem origin Greek citizens" were refused to enter Greece. The Greek governments also inhibit the freedom of movement of Western Thrace Turks by seizing their passports. Passports of forty or fifty Turks are confiscated every year. The confiscation of passports for no reason, without hearing and without an opportunity for judicial review, violates the Greek Constitution and International Agreements on freedom of movement. It constitutes the denial of Turkish Community's right to travel.
The article written by a Greek lawyer Georgios F. Apostolidis in Avgi, daily, dated August 24, 1995 concerning the Article 19 is the evidence that the implementation has driven the Greek jurists furious. The article is as follows:
"In 1988 Neriman A.H. from Genisea village of Xanthi had gone to work in Germany. She deposited her savings in the Greek National Bank and in 1933 bought a house in Xanthi. However, she later learned that she had been stripped of her nationality by Ministry of Interior decree no: 35962/24790 dated 7.1.1994. Her passport was declared invalid. Now a stateless person, she is unable to return to her home.
Shengioun K. who lived in Xanthi with her parents and relatives, married in 1978 a Turkish national in Istanbul. Before the wedding she registered her petition, as laid down by law, to effect that she did not want to lose her Greek nationality. Her birth certificate, Greek passport and electoral roll registration were all in order. She learned that she had been stripped of her nationality by Ministry of Interior decree no: 26792/18650 dated 6.11.92. Her passport was declared invalid and she became a stateless person.
These are only two of the victims of Article 19 of Greek Nationality Law. After the moderate policies of the Zolotas and Mitsotakis Governments, the PASOK Government has again intensified Greek-style ethnic cleansing. As always, their quarry is the Turks of Western Thrace who are Greek nationals but are less equal than other Greeks.
Despite the fact that the Article 19 of the Nationality Law is in contradiction to the Article 4 of the Constitution, it has been retained "temporarily" by the "Transitory Provision 111" and requires the passing of a new law to be repealed. The Article 19 divides Greek nationals into two groups; those of "Helen origin" and those of "non-Helen origin". Only the Greek nationals of non-Helen origin can be stripped of their nationality when they go abroad "without intention of returning". Despite the provisions of Article 20 of the Constitution, the Ministry of Interior does not allow "non-Helen origin" nationals to submit a defence before making its decision. That nationals of "non-Helen origin" who are abroad "without intend to return" is determined by secret police reports. All these proceedings are carried out by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Department in Kavala and its bureaus in Xanthi and Komotini. All proceedings are carried out in utmost secrecy and those of other racial origins and lawyers are denied access to the dossiers. Those arbitrarily stripped of their nationality have no chance of defending their rights. Despite the fact that the Greek Government has accepted responsibility through international agreements to reduce the number of stateless persons of other races, the arbitrary use and abuse of Article 19 is turning hundreds of Greek nationals from Western Thrace into stateless persons.
Someone who was a Greek national until recently is treated as if non-existent, the same as if he was a corpse in a crematorium, and according to secret regulations, he can not get any documents issued by public institutions or local authorities, ie. birth and marriage certificates etc.
Using these Nazi-style methods, the Greek State is able to maintain a constant feeling of insecurity among the minority. A citizen of different race in Western Thrace faces the risk of losing his nationality if he goes abroad for work, for education or for any other reason. At this point however, the contradictions in Greek Government's internal logic become conspicuous. The official, but rather recently formulated, argument is that "there are no Turks in Greece, there are the only Greek Muslims". According to this official view, the members of the minority do not belong to any other race or ethnic group, and differ only in religion from other Greeks. But in order to strip these people of their nationality under Article 19, they need to be deemed to be of a different race. When the former independent Member of Parliament for Komotini, late Dr. Sadik Ahmet declared that he was a Greek national of Turkish origin, he was accused of treason. As we lay Dr. Sadik Ahmet to eternal rest, we continue to deny the ethnic identity of thousands of his compatriots.
We have the advantage of being born in Xanthi before the age of Venizelos the Constitutional Lawyer, before Magginas, Samaras, Papathemelis or the other Hellenist extremists. At school, we had Turkish class-mates. They remain as firm, fraternal friends. Some are believers and some others are non-believers. We hadn't attempt to deny their ethnic identity until now. Nor had the Ottoman Empire tried to deny ours. Our ancestors were Ottoman subjects but were also Greeks. Article 19 attempts to destroy this deep human relationship by dividing the inhabitants of Western Thrace into "good" Greeks and "bad" Turks. Along with other administrative measures against the Minority and extremist in the state-structure, the tragic circumstances being created will be difficult to resolve as it is in the former Yugoslavia. To save our country from having to defend itself against accusations of racism in international institutions, the political parties, the Greek public opinion, the legal bars and every Greek individual of common sense must give thought to this matter.
In conclusion,, the minds in Athens, who can not implement its own plans to create ghettos for ethnic Greeks brought from the former Soviet Union, the unreal "Romania's" or the "development plans" produced solely for internal consumption, must realise that development of Western Thrace is not possible without the active participation of the hard-working, respectable, law-abiding Minority there."
Article 19 is the only racially based citizenship law in Europe and it is still in force today.
4 - RELIGIOUS OPPRESSION ON WESTERN THRACE TURKS
The Turkish minority in Western Thrace has been subject to restrictions by the Greek governments on its freedom of religion. According to the Lausanne Treaty, the Turkish minority is entitled to freedom of religion and to the right to control charitable and religious intentions. In addition, the January 1989 Concluding Document of the Vienna Follow-Up Meeting to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe sets forth the rights of individuals to organise their own religious structures. The Lausanne Treaty provides not only for free exercise of religion by the Turkish minority, but also to establish and control religious institutions. Additionally, Greek Law Number 2345 of 1920 states that Muftis (the heads of Moslem community) must be elected by the Moslem people. This law has never been enforced. Muftis have been appointed by the Greek government.
The section related to the election of muftis in Western Thrace in the Helsinki Watch Report of 1990 is as follows: "There are three muftis in Western Thrace in Xanthi, Komotini and Evros. According to Nicos Papaconstantinou, Director of the Greek Press and Information Office in New York, muftis are appointed by the Minister of Religious Affairs following a proposal submitted by a committee of Moslem religious leaders. Mufti Mehmet Emin Aga of Xanthi, who was appointed by the Nomark of Xanthi in February 1990, told Helsinki Watch in May that the government had interfered with the religious practices and beliefs of the Turkish minority by not allowing them to choose their spiritual leaders. As an example, he pointed to the recent appointment of Hafiz Cemali as mufti of Komotini. The day after our interview, Mufti Aga resigned, stating that he had accepted the job on condition that the election of Moslem religious leaders by members of the community. Mufti Aga stated that by appointing Cemali as mufti of Komotini, the Greek authorities had shown that they have no intention of reactivating the 1920 law.
The issue of the selection of muftis is of great concern to the Turkish community. While the Helsinki mission was in Western Thrace, leaders of the Turkish minority held several meetings, trying to decide how best to handle the situation. Member of Parliament Ahmet Faikoglu met with imams in Komotini after Mufti Aga's resignation, and announced that the community would launch protest demonstrations if the Greek authorities chose a successor to Mufti Aga instead of allowing the Turkish community to choose one. The selection of muftis was one of the first issues taken up with Prime Minister Constantine Mitsotakis by Dr. Sadik Ahmet on May 14, 1990, in his first meeting with the Prime Minister after the April elections. Dr. Ahmet asked the Prime Minister to make changes in the present practices to permit the Moslem minority to elect its religious leaders.
Mehmet Emin Aga was sentenced on January 24, 1995 by the Larissa Court of Appeals in Greece to ten months imprisonment upon charges of "usurping the title of Mufti". He was then sent to Larissa Prison.
Also see related article "European Court of Human Rights Ruling on the case of Serif vs.Greece".
In Greece the duration of the compulsory primary education is 9 years. However, there are only two gymnasiums giving 3 year education for the Turkish students who are living in the Western Thrace and complete their 6 year schools education from the total of 242 schools active in the region in accordance with the Treaty of Lausanne. Only 70 students chosen by drawing lots, have the chance of completing their education in these two schools, among thousands of students graduated from that 242 schools. The eventual adverse effects of this system, based on chance rather than ability, knowledge and study will be seen, evidently, in the young brains.
Deprived of proper teachers, educational material and modern buildings, children of the minority are faced with the alternatives of either becoming under-educated second class citizens, or going to Turkey for education and getting alienated from their land and in many cases, losing their citizenship as a result.
The minority today can neither establish, nor manage and control its educational establishments despite the explicit provisions of the Lausanne Treaty.
By order of the Minister of Education, an arbitrary system of lottery has been imposed for the selection of students to enrol in the two minority high schools in 1993. According to the new regulation, the Celal Bayar High School in Komotini is authorised to accept sixty new students, whereas, the quota for the Muzaffer Salih High School in Xanthi is limited to only thirty newcomers. This is a stark indication of how Greece treats the Turkish Moslem Minority, since every year about one thousand students graduate from the minority primary schools. As stated above, the Lausanne Treaty gives the minority the right to establish its own educational institutions. The reactions of the Turkish Moslem Minority as well as the reaction of some Greek circles to this exercise have gone unheard.
The minority is also deprived of the right to choose their own teachers. Since 1968, the Greek State is unilaterally training "minority teachers" in the so-called "Special Pedagogical Academy of Thessaloniki". These teachers, chosen and educated arbitrarily by the Greek Government, lack basic qualifications and even have difficulty in speaking proper Turkish.
It is worth noting that not even one single student from the minority has been able to attend a Greek University. This fact suffices to demonstrate the situation in which the Turkish Minority finds itself.
The section related to Turkish schools in the report of Norway Helsinki Committee is as follows: "Greek authorities claim that entrance examinations are necessary to improve the educational standards of Moslem pupils. Obviously it is out of the question for Greece to allow Greek students whether Moslem or Christians to continue higher education without possessing the fundamentals of the Greek language which, fortunately, is the case among entrance exams in the two Turkish secondary schools." (Helsinki Watch: Destroying Ethnic Identity-The Turks of Greece).
The Helsinki Committee visited Turkish schools in Komotini and Alexandroupolis. The impression is the same everywhere. Many pupils, ramshackle buildings and a shortage of text books. The few which are left are old and worn-out. It was impossible to register a single printed or written Turkish word in the Turkish elementary school in the Mestalini section of Komotini. The teaching of Turkish grammar was done without text-books. The Helsinki Committee was informed that the pupils at this school used to go on to the Turkish speaking secondary school. As a result of the new entrance examinations only a small number is allowed to enter. In 1990, only 70 of 350 applications were accepted. It is even harder for the Turkish speaking students to pass the entrance examinations of the Greek universities.
"At another elementary school, the headmaster told the Committee that he needed a permission to answer questions other than those directly related to school matters. It was difficult to make a new appointment. Someone was discreetly watching us in the background".
The education in the minority schools are now 50 percent Turkish and 50 percent Greek. The education in Humanistic subjects, such as political science, history and geography, and also biology, are carried out in Greek. Education in mathematics and technical subjects is in Turkish. Greek text-books are new and they are changed every second year. The Turkish ones, if any, are old and worn out.
The subject, in the report of Norway Helsinki Committee is explained as follows: There are no Turks in Greece, only Moslems. That is the official Greek standpoint, and has always been the great obstacle to the development of the cultural identity of the minority. The minority organizations have suffered strongly from it. The Turkish youth associations (Turk Gencler Birligi) in Gumulcine (Komotini) and Iskece (Xanthi) and the teachers associations of the Turkish minority, are two examples. It has not always been like that. though. The right to show one's Turkish identity has gradually crumbled away. Hasan Hatipoglu, former member of Parliament from the Centre Union (till 1967) says that they were free to use the prefix "Turkish" in the 50s and 60s. Turkish and Greek place names were both used on road signs and in public documents. Bilingual road signs were common before 1967. The same applied to signs and posters in Turkish minority schools. The Turkish Youth Organisation (founded in 1928) was forbidden in 1984. In November 1987, the Supreme Court decided that the organisation should not be allowed to make use of the prefix "Turkish" in his name. It was said there were no Turks in Greece. The Supreme Court had decided that "Turkish" is similar to Turkish citizenship. Teachers educated in Turkey do not get employment. The minority has pointed out that such discrimination is a violation of the Treaty of Lausanne: "the minorities should have equal rights to establish, manage and control at their own expense, any charitable, religious and social institutions, any schools and other establishments for instruction and education, with the right to use their own language and to exercise their own religion freely therein."
Lawsuits were filed against the leaders of the Turkish Minority Dr. Sadik Ahmet and Ibrahim Serif, during the elections of 1989, for distributing campaign leaflets that referred to Minority as Turkish.
Many members of the Turkish Minority have been prosecuted during local election on October 16, 1994 on the ground of using the word "Turkish" in the campaign documents.
Nikolaos Papazafiriu, immediately after being appointed as the Commander of Police Force of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace, went to Inhanli (Evlalon), Iskece (Xanthi) and detained Huseyin Arif who was elected as the Turkish Mayor of the township. Huseyin Arif was kept in prison for 1.5 hour and subjected to insult and inhumane treatments.
Afterwards Papazafiriu went to Gokceler (Seleron), a Turkish village. He made a raid on a coffee-house run by Recep Kucuk, Mayor of the township, and ordered an arbitrary search and hurled insults at Kucuk in front of the Turkish customers.
These events occurred in the first day of October 1995, are the latest examples of the oppression of the Turkish minority in the Western Thrace.
The subject, in the report of Norway Helsinki Committee is explained as follows: "If you drive a car in Western Thrace, heading North, you soon arrive at a guarded border post. The warning tells you that you have reached the border of a forbidden area. You are still in Greece, though. There are still 30 kilometres to go to the Bulgarian border, but you are only allowed to proceed with a special license. With few exceptions, the roads are very bad. Most of the population are Moslems. A majority will also claim they are Turks. On the other hand, Greek sources will claim that many of them are Pomaks (Bulgarian speaking Moslems). This border was established by Greek authorities after World War II. The intention was to protect Greek territory against infiltration from the three communist neighbours. Naturally, this was an issue during the Greek Civil War, when Bulgaria, Albania and Yugoslavia supported the guerrillas. A borderline was drawn right in the middle through the Moslem area, approximately 30 kilometres from the northern border. It covers the border area towards Bulgaria. Ehinos (Sahin) is the only large city with some 10,000 inhabitants. With few exceptions, this internal border had only negative effects for the Moslems in Greece. The population on the Bulgarian side of the state border is ethnically the same as the one on the Greek side. North of Komotini (Gumulcine) is the Bulgarian Kirdzhali (Kircali), a province with a predominantly Turkish population..."
All the inhabitants of the Xanthi and Rodopi sectors of this restricted zone are ethnic Turks. They number around 40,000 and live in 118 villages. In contrast, not a single Greek village exists in this area. As to the segment of the military zone in the Evros prefecture, where the local Turks were submitted to vicious policies of forced expatriation and immigration with a view to "cleansing" the land, 7 Turkish villages continue their existence.
Ethnic Turks habiting this huge enclave are not only deprived of their basic right to freely travel from one place to another in their own country, they are also relegated to wretched economic and social conditions even when compared to their brethren outside the zone due to the restrictions imposed. It is not by chance that the most underdeveloped regions in Greece are within the military restricted zone. Because of the rigid restrictions on farming, forestry and manufacturing, the locals of the zone mainly live on animal husbandry. Roads, telephones and other means of communications, health services, running water in houses and other basic facilities either exist in rudimental forms or are non-existent. Due to these conditions, there is a growing tendency among the youth to leave the land of their birth and migrate.
Education and religious services are also of poor quality in the military restricted zone. The inhabitants of the zone are subjected to policies aimed at destroying their Turkish ethnic identity. These policies are pursued by undermining schools and mosques through unqualified teachers and clerics meticulously chosen according to the tastes of the Greek Government. This is a clear usurpation of the rights accorded to the Turkish minority by the Lausanne Treaty, which stipulates total freedom in the fields of education and religion.
The restricted military zone is rigidly secluded from the outer world. The border crossings in Xanthi and Rodopi, between Greece and Bulgaria, remain firmly sealed. Local businessmen appeal for the reopening of these crossings on grounds that it will boost local trade and development. The Greek authorities turn a deaf ear on these appeals. Their interest is in keeping the links severed between the members of the Turkish minority and their kinsmen in Bulgaria.
The economic indicators reveal that the situation of the members of the Turkish minority are worse than the rest of the Greek population. Western Thrace is the poorest and the least developed region in Greece, and this can be attributed largely to the deliberate negligence by the Greek authorities. The difference between the Greek and Turkish districts in terms of prosperity and living facilities is so evident that one can easily identify Greek districts with better roads and houses than adjacent Moslem ones.
The members of the Turkish Moslem minority are not allowed to sell and buy property freely. The credit facilities are provided for the ethnic Greeks with the condition that they buy Turkish land or Turkish houses in Western Thrace while the members of the minority can not get credit they need to farm their lands which, in most cases, are their only means to earn their living. They can not get permission for construction of new houses and repair their old homes.
They can not get permission to do their own business and perform their profession. There is a well-known case of a chemist who could not get permission to open a pharmacy even though he had completed all the necessary procedures properly and made his first application in 1982.
They face difficulties in getting driving and hunting licenses.
Their lands are subjected to expropriation from time to time. The Greek authorities have commonly cited the need to establish military bases, universities, industrial sites or open-air prisons in order to justify the expropriation of the most valuable and arable lands belonging to the members of the minority. But, it is usually observed that only a small portion of the expropriated lands are used for their stated purpose. That makes one think that this practise is a way to deprive the minority of the means necessary for survival and to force them to migrate.
Recently, Greek authorities attempted to expropriate about 6,000 acres of land in Rodopi belonging to the members of the minority in order to build an open-air prison despite the fact a court ruling was demanded for the land in question by the owners.
Land ownership has changed dramatically in Western Thrace since 1923. The Turks which owned 84 percent of the land in 1923, now own only 20 percent of the land.
They are not recruited as civil servants, except for a few ethnic Turks who are admitted to the municipality as cleaners, there is not a single member of minority who could get a job at higher positions in civil service.
Members of the Turkish Minority must enjoy equal rights like the other Greek citizens in all fields, including the right to elect their own representatives to the Parliament. However, during the June 1989 and November 1989 general elections in Greece it is observed that some of the measures that had been taken by the Greek Government could have serious effects on the freedom to elect.
The measures included: the temporary closure of the Turkish-Greek border shortly before elections to avoid the Greek citizens of Turkish ethnic origin returning to Greece to cast their votes; transfer of thousands of soldiers to Western Thrace to vote in an attempt to outweigh the ethnic Turks votes and to decrease the number of the ballot boxes in order to make the voting more difficult for ethnic Turks.
Despite all these obstacles, the Turks were able to send two independent deputies to the Parliament during the April 1990 elections. However, immediately after the general elections, amendments to the Election Law rendered nearly impossible the chance for independent candidates from the minority to be elected.
The major aspect of the new Greek Election Law is that it brings the requirement of obtaining a minimum three percent of the total votes cast country-wide by political parties as well as by independent candidates to be elected. It is obvious that an independent candidate who runs from one single electoral district will not be able to secure the three percent threshold required and consequently will not be elected even if he receives the majority of the votes in his district.
At least 200,000 votes are necessary in order to pass the three percent threshold. But in the constituencies of Western Thrace, even the total number of the registered voters are below this number. Considering that the total number of the Turkish minority is around 150,000, three percent threshold requirement makes it absolutely impossible for the minority to send independent representatives to the Greek Parliament in the next general elections. After the introduction of this new electorate system, it becomes clear that the minority will never be able to send independent representatives to the Parliament.
As the past experiences have shown independent representatives can articulate the problems of the minority better than a representative who is a member of a certain political party. Now, with this electorate law, the minority lost its most important leverage in its struggle to live as equal Greek citizens. It is clear that this law has the aim of hindering the independent list movement in Western Thrace which make it possible for the minority to send independent representatives to the Parliament.
This new Greek Election Law has no peers among the democratic countries with regard to its provisions that require nation-wide threshold for an independent candidate who is running the elections in an electorate district without affiliation to any party or political organisation.
In the 10 October 1993 general elections, Dr. Sadik Ahmet won the highest number of votes (26,228) in the Rodopi province, which amounted to 32.75% of the total votes, yet he could not be elected. The PASOK won the second highest votes (24,860) and the New Democracy Party the third highest votes (22,800) with the percentages of 31.04 and 28,47 respectively. Dr. Sadik Ahmet was hindered to be rightfully elected, wheras Pasok got two deputies and New Democracy Party one deputy.
Greek authorities pay no respect for the Turkish cultural heritage and leave the monuments and sites the Ottoman period to self-destruction.
The territories which belong to Greece today was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. As a result, today there are many Turkish historical buildings, mosques and monuments in Greece, especially in the Western Thrace region. It is observed with regret that the Greek authorities, forgetting to consider these historical works as common heritages of mankind, are indifferent towards them. They are somehow left to destruction of climatic conditions. In the Alexandropolis region all the Muslim monuments with the exception of a mosque, have been destroyed. In other regions of Greece the situation is no different. The Pospos Shrine in Komotini which dates back to 1390's was demolished in December 1989 by the Greek authorities with the argument that the Shrine was about to collapse and it was a danger for the public. But although it had already been long time since demolition, there is not still a serious attempt to restore the Shrine. As it can be seen, Greece appears to be determined to take all measures to undermine the status of the Turkish Muslim Minority in Western Thrace established by international treaties.