Sincerity

There is no such term in the vocabulary of the European Union officials. In the context of foreign affairs, there is no reason to describe them as insincere. However, I think the circumstances are different, this time around.

We know that in order to prevent the erosion of the derogations, included in the Annan plan the protection of the Turkish Cypriot community, by the EU acquis, they have to become part of the EU’s primary law. The Cyprus agreement has to be ratified by all EU member parliaments for this to take place. Only then can the Greek Cypriots be prevented from contesting the agreement at the Luxemburg Court of Justice, citing the limitations imposed on them for acquiring as much property in the north as they want or migrating as violation of their personal freedoms, in order to eliminate the derogations.

However, the EU officials argue that because of the admission treaty of Cyprus having been ratified by all EU member countries and the lack of time, the agreement could become similar to a primary law by an EU Commission decision.

When the Turkish side said this would not work, certain parts of our media, once again, tried to lay the blame on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) President Rauf Denktas, by arguing that if he had signed the "agreement" on March 10-11 last year in The Hague, Cyprus’s admission treaty, including the derogations, would have been approved by the EU parliaments and would have become EU primary law.

However, if Denktas had signed the "agreement" last year in The Hague, nothing would have changed. In the fourth paragraph of the protocol outlined in the second annex of the "agreement," dealing with the provisions of exceptional nature, it is said that the "agreement" has to be in accordance of the founding principles of the European Union. In other words, the provisions are not accepted. With this protocol, the EU acts like the "agreement" is becoming primary law, while in fact it is not. The former Greek Cypriot leader Costas Simitis must have known this, because he openly said that the Cyprus issue would not be solved by the Annan plan, but the EU acquis.

When the Turkish side insisted on parliamentary ratification, the EU officials eventually started telling the truth. These broad derogations valid for an unlimited period of time could not be accepted (However, broader derogations valid for an unlimited period of time were granted to Malta). In other words, the EU would not have recognized the provisions of exceptional nature as primary law, even if the "agreement" had been signed in The Hague. They were putting on a show of acceptance, while negotiating against us with the Greek/Greek Cypriot side. However, those who criticized Denktas among us did not have the strength and honesty to question the sincerity of the EU and admit that Denktas was innocent.

Now the EU is proposing a new formula, through which the "agreement" would not become primary law, but would become very close to it, a status between primary and secondary law. They call this "an act of adaptation."

On the 22nd page of "European Law, Chris Turner, Hodder & Stougton, 2002, Oxon," there is a figure on the EU legal sources. Here acts are considered among tertiary legal sources, as documents ratified by the representatives of the EU member countries at the EU Council. In other words, the acts do not have the strength to protect the provisions of exceptional nature. The EU is presenting us the worst possible guarantee, in the guise of providing the best, thinking we will be uninformed about the complex EU laws. Here, we are faced with a stance that goes beyond insincerity. We cannot trust the EU.

Under these conditions, Turkey cannot take the chance of facing the risk of Turkish Cypriots being admitted to the EU before Turkey becomes a member, even if the "agreement" becomes EU primary law.

Even the legitimacy of a government which has increased its votes in the local elections is not enough to follow such an adventurous course.