The essence of the problem

The historical approach consists of the facts that Turks were forced out of the partnership state in 1963; that they were subject to intense activities that constitute "crimes against humanity" at the hands of Greek Cypriots between 1963-74; and that Turkey was forced to intervene in the face of the 1974 coup that was aimed at realizing the goal of "enosis". The facts that the Greek Cypriot administration has international recognition and that it is joining the EU due to Greek pressure do not change these facts. The Greek-Greek Cypriot side is responsible for all events that have created the problem and a solution may contain not only measures that are designed to prevent reoccurrence of these events but also elements that are against Greek Cypriots because of their responsibility in them.

Inter-communal talks between 1968-95 did not foresee Cyprus’ accession into the European Union before a solution. This change of policy on the part of the EU has led to, in fashionable terms, a shift in paradigm, and also meant violation of the Articles 1 and 2 of the Guarantee Agreement. The EU, professing to be arguing for the supremacy of law, could have requested the opinion of the Hague International Court of Justice through the U.N. Security Council on the Cyprus’ membership, but it did not (UN Charter, Article 96.1).

With this policy, the EU has put the duty to make concessions only on the Turkish side; it has reduced chances for the success of talks by imposing several tight calendars; it has also taken on its shoulders the responsibility for a risk that is far bigger as compared to the Cyprus problem, namely Turkey’s being left outside not only of the EU but also of the West and disturbing of the peace and security in the Eastern Mediterranean.

Solution in Cyprus could be summarized as protection of the small community against the big community. Even if one assumes that the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) enters the EU together with Greek Cypriots with its independence and sovereignty kept intact, due to the EU regulations designed to extend freedoms and integrate economies, it will soon come under the dominance of the Greek Cypriot economy which is 16-17 times bigger and will be eliminated. Therefore, one needs to analyze not whether the mechanisms proposed by the Annan plan are balanced but whether they are enough to protect Turkish Cypriots. And the answer to this question is unfortunately negative.

I am leaving aside the fact that the "political equality" right that stems from Turkish Cypriots’ rights to self-determination is reduced to a formal nature in the Annan plan. The package has been impressed by Switzerland in the state system. Switzerland is in the category of "homogenous federalism". The minimum required numbers set for votes from the Turkish side in the making of major decisions of the legislative and executive are insufficient as "ethnic protection measures." For this reason, it is necessary to return to the "asymmetric federalism" of the 1960 Constitution, which a envisaged presidential veto system and separate voting by two sides in the legislative.

The number of Greek Cypriots that will arrive the north and whose property there will be returned is so important event without exaggeration that bi-zonality loses its meaning completely.

It is possible that exceptional protective measures granted to Turks in the Annan plan be eroded within the EU by EU regulations in a very short period of time (This issue will be discussed in a separate article).

By becoming a member of the EU, Cyprus, contrary to Article 1 and 2 of the Guarantee Agreement, sets up a "political and economic" union with the EU and, in the meantime, with Greece and Britain. According to the plan, Turkey undertakes a responsibility to guarantee this "union" as part of the new plan. That is, the guarantee system becomes absurd.

What is most important, with Cyprus’ membership, Turkey loses its means to have a say in Cyprus as much as the two other guarantor countries have in line with the "most favored nation clause" of the 1960 system and protect in this way the Turkish Cypriots, Greece has the field all to itself.

It is now understood why Turkish Cypriots cannot be protected in the event of Cyprus’ joining an EU, of which Turkey is not a member, in line with the Annan plan, isn’t it?