The Cyprus Problem has lain unresolved in the International arena for nearly 50 years, (the latter part of this century). Because of its longevity, it has gone through numerous stages of "metamorphosis", due to the various Geo-Politico-Strategic changes that occurred in the area over this period. These include, World War II and the following Cold War era, the establishment of the new State of Israel, the Suez crisis, the Oil crisis, the later Arab-Israeli conflicts, the collapse of the Soviet Union and Communism and the Gulf War. More recently, other complicating factor include, the eastward Expansion of NATO and EU on the one hand, as well as the threat of the spread of Islamic fundamentalism toward Turkey and Balkans, to the North, and Middle East and Northern Africa, to the South. It is beyond the scope of this presentation to refer to Cyprus' history, which dates as far back as 8500 BC. The paper will concentrate on her more recent history since Turkey and Britain signed a defence treaty, which ceded temporary administration to Great Britain in 1878. The "modern" Cyprus Problem, originated as an Anti-colonial Struggle against British Rule and at the same time, (for the Greeks at least), the demand for their right of Self-Determination and thus Union with Greece. 1. International Vs Intercommunal problem. 1.1 The Cyprus Problem, has been, and still remains, an International problem. The Intercommunal facet, was fostered by the British and thereafter, utilised and exacerbated until the present time by Turkey, in order to justify partition and/or the creation a separate state. 1.2 It is indeed an International problem, as an Invasion and Occupation of a Sovereign State/Country by another has occurred. 1.3 Turkey acted contrary to the 1959 Treaty Of Guarantees, Article IV, (the very article Turkey used as justification for her Intervention in 1974), which clearly specifies: "In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty". This article IV, does not empower any of the Guarantor powers to intervene militarily. (see deliberations of Greece, Turkey and UK, prior to the signing of the Zurich agreements, whereby the three guarantors, agreed that the new republic would become member of the UN, and that there was a need to ensure that the exact definition of the term "take action", was not to be in contravention of the UN Charter and consultation was to be sought prior to the signing of the agreements, by the UN secretariat – Cyprus did become signatory and member of the UN in 1960). In any case, Turkey has had both the time and power to restore the conditions pertaining to the1960 Constitution. Furthermore, Turkey has deliberately set about changing these conditions. 1.4 Turkey’s long-term objective, which has been the Partition[1] of the island, in order to serve its strategic plans, also goes contrary to the Treaty Of Guarantees Article II, which also clearly states:...Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so far as concerns them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island. 2. Human Rights Violations – (the Human tragedy) Over and above the dreadful material losses and destruction, the human pain and suffering brought about by the invasion and occupation were devastating. The situation in Cyprus clearly depicts the deprivation of Basic Human Rights and Democratic Principles. These can further be sub-categorised into the following broad areas: 2.1 Refugees Two hundred thousand Greek Cypriots were forced to abandon their homes and properties. Makeshift tents, barracks, the homes of friends and relatives, as well as trees offered shelter to the refugees. With the passage of time, and thanks to international aid, the housing problem of the refugees was overcome. However, their demand for their basic human rights to be respected and for them to be allowed to return to their homes remains unrequited. 2.2 Missing People Twenty three years after the invasion 1619 people are still missing. Innocent children, women, old people, soldiers and able-bodied men, about whom there exists evidence that they were last seen in the hands of the invading forces, have never returned. According to Mr Denktash’s own admission on Sigma TV on the 1st of March, 1996, "... as the Turkish army moved and they captured {Greek Cypriots}, ........., they {the Turkish army} handed them over to our fighters {T.M.T}. The massacre did happen... it happened like this: Instead of taking them {Greek Cypriots prisoners of war} to police stations or to prison camps, they were killed. As soon as the Turkish army realised what is happening, ... that is when the rest were transferred to Turkey. Question: You are being frank and accepting that these massacres did happen? Denktash: - By our people ... in revenge, unfortunately." Although the recent agreement between President Clerides and Turkish Cypriot leader Mr Denktash, (in August 1997), for an attempt to locate and identify only missing persons of both sides believed to have been killed, is welcome, this falls short of accounting for the ones who were transferred to Turkey and recorded as Prisoners of War by the Red Cross/UN, and are still missing. Even if indeed they also have been killed, the Greek Cypriots merely ask for their Location and Identification so that a proper Burial can occur and thus relieve their long-bereaved relatives, of this inhumane and unnecessary uncertainty. The families of the missing have the basic human right to know. They need to know whether their loved ones are still alive, or if not, under what circumstances they died. The prosecution of the perpetrators can then be decided and addressed by the legal bodies in Cyprus and Internationally. 2.3 Enclaved People Another equally, if not more, disturbing issue is the ongoing and inhumane treatment of the Enclaved people. The Vienna III Agreement (On 2nd of August 1975, between the intercommunal negotiators, Glafcos Clerides (the present President of the Republic) and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash) The press communique issued on 4 August 1975, points out the following: 1.   The Turkish Cypriots at present in the south of the island will be allowed if they want to do so, to proceed north with their belongings under an organised program and with the assistance of UNFICYP. 2.   Mr Denktash reaffirmed and it was agreed "that the Greek Cypriots in the north of the island are free to stay and that they will be given every help to lead a normal life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion, as well as medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement in the north." 3.   The Greek Cypriots at present in the north who, at their own request and without having been subjected to any kind of pressure, wish to move to the south will be free to do so. 4.   UNFICYP will have free and normal access to Greek Cypriot villages and habitations in the north. 5.   In connection with the implementation of the above agreement, priority will be given to the reunification of families, which may also involve the transfer of a number of Greek Cypriots, at present in the south, to the north. None of the provisions of this agreement regarding the Greek Cypriots living in the occupied areas has ever been implemented by the Denktash regime. The Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktash, not only failed to honour his signature by refusing to implement the agreement he signed, but he repeatedly violated all its provisions. These blatant violations of human rights, are confirmed by numerous objective reports, by the UN, Council of Europe, US State Department, Amnesty International, German humanitarian organisation ASME-Humanitas and the list goes on. 3. Turkish Partitionist Intentions[2][3]and Gross Demographic Manipulation[4]. The Turkish Partitionist intentions, in the form of a "Federal" system, were expressed as far back as 1956, when the island was still a British colony. The eminent constitutional expert, Lord Radcliffe, in his "Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus", said the following on the subject: "It would be natural enough to accord to members of a federation equality of representation in the federal body, regardless of the numerical proportions of the populations of the territories they represent. But can Cyprus be organised as a federation in this way? I do not think so. There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communities and apart from other objections, federation of communities which does not involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficult constitutional form". Furthermore, the partitionist intentions of the Turkish Cypriot side and eventualities of 1974 – guided of course by Turkey – are openly outlined in at least two of the documents found in December 1963 in Dr Kutchuk’s (Vice-President) safe. The first[5] was written by a Turkish Cypriot militant group, and the second – their so-called "Secret Document"[6] – dated on the 14th of September of 1963 and signed by Dr Kutchuk and Mr Denktash, as Vice-President and President of the Turkish Communal Chamber respectively. The Demographic manipulation: The Population in Cyprus in 1974 and 1995, (in Thousands), was composed of: Year Greek Cypriot Community Turkish Cypriot Community Others TOTAL 1974   501   116   5   622 1995   623   91   22   736

It is estimated that over 60, 000 Turkish Cypriots left^[7] Cyprus in the period of 1974 to 1997.

Turkish Cypriot sources indicate that as many as 100,000 Illegal Aliens^[8] from Turkey had settled in the Occupied part by 1995. There is an additional 30,000 to 35,000 Turkish Army Soldiers.

As the figures below demonstrate:

Turkish Cypriots: 91,000 (recently, Turkish Cypriot sources suggest the figure does not exceed 70,000)

Turks from Mainland: 135,000

The Turkish Cypriots are a minority in their own sector^[9].

This intentional and gross Demographic Manipulation^[10] by Turkey is further complicating the solution of this already extremely complex problem. It can only be termed as intentional as the illegal regime and Turkey started introducing settlers from Anatolia within less than one year after the invasion of 1974. There are of course numerous successful examples of Ethnic Cleansing and Demographic Manipulation by Turkey, in order to achieve her goals. (eg. Ethnic Cleansing of Armenians, Greeks, other Christians, Kurds, etc. Demographic manipulation and eventual annexation of the Hattay region from Syria, Cyprus).

4. Alteration of the Socio-Economic status, Sociology and Multicultural cohesiveness

The separation of the peoples after 1974, alter significantly the sociological parameters in the population. i.e. the uprooting of the Cypriot "villager" from his home, meant that the harmonious marriage between the traditional urban lifestyle and the cosmopolitan elements of the big cities could no longer be continued, as most country-people, (from villages), are now residing in the remaining free capitals.

The Socio-economic structure was also, in many cases, dramatically changed either for the better or for the worse. Those sudden socio-economic shifts certainly had significant sociological manifestations upon the Cypriot society.

The forced and intentional physical severance of the Cypriot people according to their ethnicity to "Northerners" and "Southerners", had devastating effects upon the level of communication between them, (at a personal, social and language level), and thus the multicultural cohesiveness was eventually lost, and in fact, it was further exploited by the politicians on either side, as it has risen the level of antipathy and ethnic polarisation.

The change in the Socio-Economic structure of the Cypriots, over the years, would have been an unavoidable event. It is, however, the rate and circumstances under which those changes occurred that had a great impact upon their psychology, sociology and cultural integration.

5. Destruction of Cultural and Religious Heritage & Identity and Ancient Antiquities

Destruction and Return to the Middle Ages. Prestigious foreign publications, individuals, associations and international organisations have castigated the actions committed by Turkey and her forces in Cyprus. What has occurred and continues to occur, constitutes a challenge to European and universal principles and there is urgent need for reaction to the gradual but systematic wiping out of the cultural heritage of Cyprus, which is so universally significant.

Sacrilege, Plundering, Desolation, Destruction, Illicit Trade In Antiquities, Smuggling:

"The Guardian", 'The Rape of northern Cyprus', 5.6.1976

"We visited 26 former Greek villages. We found not a single undesecrated cemetery..."

"...The vandalism and desecration are so methodical and so widespread that they amount to institutionalised obliteration of everything sacred to a Greek ... In some instances, an entire graveyard of 50 or more tombs had been reduced to pieces or rubble no larger than a matchbox...we found the chapel of Ayios Demetrios at Ardhana empty but for the remains of the altar plinth, and that was fouled with human excrement... At Syngrasis ... the broken crucifix was drenched in urine.. At Lefkoniko ...the interior of Gaidhouras church... was overlooked by an armless Christ on a smashed crucifix... Tombs gaped open wherever we went...crosses bearing the pictures of those buried beneath ... had been flattened and destroyed."

They Obliterate Every Greek Living Presence. With the flight of the Greek population, Turkey succeeded in her first target; the region ceased to live and breathe to the tune to which it had done for almost three millennia of its history. The villages and places, indeed every object, have lost their Greek names. The churches are empty. Works of art, symbols of worship, deeds and gestures that have repeated themselves for thousands of years, everything that constitutes the culture and heritage of Cyprus have become and still are objects for demolition - they are being destroyed, pillaged, wiped out.

Under numerous rulers, the population of Cyprus retained a continuity in its cultural identity, assimilating foreign influences and making them part of the Greek culture of the island. During the thousands of years of its history there has never been a radical discontinuity in the cultural identity of its population, and its heritage has been enriched around a common cultural theme. The Turks seem determined to break this chain of continuity.

1. Fruitless Negotiations

For 26 years the Cyprus Government, has participated willingly and in good faith, in multiple, yet fruitless and frustrating negotiations, which resulted in painful and demeaning concessions on behalf of the Greek Cypriots. The reason for all those failures, namely Turkey’s intransigence, was clearly defined and stated in numerous UN Secretary’s General reports^[11].

The irony is that although the proposed Bizonal-Bicommunal Federation solution, at Turkey’s insistence, was imposed even before the first "negotiations" following the 1974 Invasion, was "accepted in principle" by the Greeks in 1977 and 1979 (as they had no other realistic choice straight after a disastrous defeat), the Turks have refused to implement it ever since, as their true objective is indeed to attain status of a separate state for the occupied northern part. Since 1983 by the declaration of the illegal^[12] pseudostate, the so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", the Turks have tried persistently to obtain which they obtain international recognition, but only one country, Turkey of course has acceded such recognition.

Turkey uses the Cyprus problem as bargaining leverage in order to obtain Aegean Territorial and other concessions as well as a favourable treatment by the European Union (in the form of Aid and of course, Full EU Membership).

On the other hand, the Greeks progressively realising that the future pursued scenario/solution, would be dramatically worse than the 1960 constitution, have started to introduce new elements which may make the final solution more endurable. It is not unusual, therefore, every so often, for Greek Cypriot political leaders to state that:

Ø "we accept the federation model, BUT, as a European-style of Federation" or

Ø "we accept a federation solution, which ensures that the Human Rights of ALL citizens are fully respected" or even,

Ø "we accept a federal solution by which All the refugees will be able to return to their ancestral homes and properties",

knowing full-well that there is no such a style of federal system in Europe ^[13], (not even the Swiss or Belgian models which have inappropriately been referenced at various times) that the Bizonal-Bicommunal Federation could never ensure full Human Rights for the Greek Cypriots NOR allow all the refugees to return to their homes, as such a situation would make the implementation of such a Bizonal-Bicommunal Federation impossible due to the fact that the Greek Cypriots would then constitute a majority in the northern part and they would have no right in participating in that government.

Even if, according to certain proposed scenarios, one third of the Greek Cypriot refugees, (ie. ~60,000), are allowed to return to their homes, under Turkish Cypriot administration, they would constitute a significant minority that would have certain of its fundamental rights curtailed. Fundamental questions still remain:

Ø Will they participate in the organs of the Turkish Cypriot state government? (in other words will they have the right to participate in the government, in the legislature, the judiciary, the civil service, local government and so on).

Ø Will they have the basic right to elect and be elected in the state in which he/she resides?

Ø How is their protection to be ensured

Ø and should they, in turn, be eligible for a UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) as the Turkish Cypriot minority is/has been claiming?

How ironic and futile indeed!

2. Factors for consideration in a Future Solution

The presently proposed solution for the Cyprus Problem is, as mentioned above, the so-called Bizonal-Bicommunal Federation.

By definition, this is nothing but a partitionist/divisive system, a legalised form of Apartheid, where the two communities, are to be administratively and physically separate, on the basis of peoples’ ethnicity.

Back in 1964, Dr. Galo Plaza, the UN Envoy, in his report stated:

"In fact the arguments for the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government have not convinced me that it would not inevitably lead to partition" (S/62555 para. 154).
"Again if the purpose of a settlement of the Cyprus question is to be the preservation rather than the destruction of the state and if it is to foster rather than to militate against the development of a peacefully united people, I cannot help wondering whether the physical division of the minority from the majority should not be considered a desperate step in the wrong direction. I am reluctant to believe, as the Turkish Cypriot leadership claims, in the ‘impossibility’ of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots learning to live together again in peace. In those parts of the country where movement controls have been relaxed and tensions reduced they are already proving otherwise" (S/62555, para. 155).

If the objective of both the Cypriot people affected as well as the international community, is to promote a workable, permanent, fair and thus viable solution to the Cyprus Problem, there are certain fundamental parameters/criteria that need to be addressed seriously. A prospective solution needs to take into consideration:

2.1 The present status quo of geographically segregated communities is utterly artificial.

The occupied northern part of the island was the home of both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, (overwhelming majority Greek). If reconciliation is to be asked of the Cypriots in any future solution involving permanent spatial separation, essentially is to ask the majority to forget its Roots, (ie. homes, graves of loved ones, history, churches, memories), accept grievous losses and then to forgive. The situation would undoubtedly remain a thorn, which would be the source of future anguish and problems, as this would be asking the impossible.

2.2 The Legal Population Demographics/Statistics (ie. 82% Greek Cypriots and 18% Turkish Cypriots)

It is impossible to even attempt resolving the problem in Cyprus if the Illegal Settlers remain on the island and are used as a critical parameter by the Turkish side.

2.3 Equitable power sharing should in no instance be interpreted as Equal power sharing.

To equate the 82% of the Legal Population with the 18%, with respect to political power sharing, would necessarily imply the abolition of Democratic Principles and norms, such as Majority Rules and Rule of Law. The "Equal Partners" term coined by Turkey and thereafter adopted by others, is a mere fallacy. The Turkish Cypriots could and should be regarded as "Partners and Contributors", in any future solution. Furthermore, by which criteria could the term "Equal" be justified? There is no such a precedence of a minority acquiring status of an "equal partner" with the majority, in any country, including USA, Canada, Australia, etc, and in particular, due to their Multi-State Federation. (versus the proposed "Two-State" Federation in the case of Cyprus)

Noteworthy, is the relatively recent example of the transition from Apartheid to Democracy in South Africa, where even the powerful ruling white minority did not make such claims. Mr F. W. De Clerk, also stated inter alia, that " ...we have acknowledged that it was wrong to separate our people on the basis of ethnicity and that prompted us to seek a solution to the problem".

2.4 The Realistic Concerns of the Turkish people

The realistic concerns may frequently differ from the ones expressed by either party, in order to justify certain strategies. The Turkish Cypriots express the concern that the Greek Cypriots, by being the majority, (82% of the total Legal population), may impose a threat to them, with regards to their political and racial integrity, (through Enosis with Greece), to their physical well-being, (through killings and other atrocities), to their economic, educational, religious and cultural integrity and their governmental representation and role.

These perceived threats do not constitute present reality. The Greek Cypriots, despite whether or not Enosis was the just end-result of their struggles, through recent experience, including their humiliating defeat in 1974, realised the following:

2.4.1 Globalisation of economies, administrations, citizenships and even attitudes and life-styles: The realities of today are dramatically different to those prior to 1960 and 1974. Due to the dramatic changes in recent years with the collapse of the former Communist system and the ‘New World Order’, whatever that means, people are able to travel and communicate with greater ease than before. It has become abundantly apparent that all peoples are progressively becoming “citizens of the entire world”, rather than of a particular country within certain geographical borders. With Cyprus’ accession to the EU, most of the important decisions will then be taken outside Cyprus, (and Greece, for that matter), relating to the economy, monetary and social matters, transport, immigration, customs, technology, patents, trademarks, goods and services, commerce etc. Accession in the EU, translates to diminution of national sovereignty. Therefore, the concept/dream of Enosis, ie. the union with their ancestral motherland, in order to provide for their cultural and other needs, has become obsolete. Even if some Greek Cypriots wanted to impose their past Enosis aspirations upon the Turkish Cypriots, they now acknowledge that they can not, because of their military inferiority and the existing agreements. The most important reason, however, it's the fact that they themselves view it as a non-issue.

2.4.2 The threat to the physical well being and security of the Turkish Cypriots, (through killings and other atrocities), is an argument that has being used, for a long time. How valid is this assertion? Undoubtedly, atrocities occurred on both sides. It would be indeed an oxymoron to contemplate such terms as a "Gentle War", or "Civilised Hostilities".
As the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Clerides, stated in his letter to Mr. Denktash, on the 22nd October, 1996,...

"...With regard to your accusation that Greek Cypriot Enosis thugs in 1963 were killing Turkish Cypriots, may I remind you that at the same time Turkish Cypriot partitionist thugs of the T.M.T. were killing Greek Cypriots. We could exchange lists of casualties of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, killed, wounded and missing, both for that period and for the period from 1963 to 1996. In such a case your side will be the winner. I do not think, however, this would be a constructive way to approach a solution to the Cyprus problem"

Since the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, Greece has accepted her reduced borders, and has not contemplated any expansionist wars or territorial concessions at the expense of her neighbours. The same cannot be claimed by Turkey, which in fact has an appalling Human Rights violations record against Greeks, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Syrians, Kurds, Cypriots, etc. Ethnic intolerance and Ethnic Cleansing and Demographic manipulation is historically and consistently been practiced by Turkey, (ie. upon the Greeks, in Constantinople, Asia Minor and the Black Sea (Pontians), in Cyprus and elsewhere). It is still a part of Turkish policy and practice. It is also interesting to note that of the 230,000 Greeks residing in Constantinople alone, in 1921, a mere 2,000 or less is left at the present.

Alarming indeed remains the fact that the Turkish people themselves suffer HR violations by their own government.

The question should indeed be turned around; "who should be worrying for their security"?

2.4.3 Economic Overriding by the more economically advanced Greek Cypriots. This is a legitimate concern of the Turkish Cypriots. The Cyprus Government, however, has clearly stated that provided a JUST solution is envisaged, is prepared to allocate all the monies presently spent on armaments, for the betterment of the economic status of the Turkish Cypriots.

This very gesture is indicative of the sincere intentions of the Cyprus Government toward its Turkish Cypriot citizens. It is both humane as well as sensible as the promotion and encouragement of comparable economic standards between all its peoples, will ensure future harmony and enhance cohesiveness.

Accession to the EU, will be more economically beneficial to the Turkish Cypriots.

Of note is the fact of globalisation, where, in any country of the globe, economic overriding of the majority – let alone the minority – is experienced by the multinational companies (with or without national identification).

2.5 The Concerns Greek Cypriot

There exist some additional Greek Cypriot concerns that should also be emphasised here. These include the fact that, Turkey, because of its evident superior negotiating power (ie. through Military superiority/security), tends to pay less emphasis to the concerns of the Greek Cypriots, such as:

2.5.1 Right for the refugees to return to their ancestral land and homes,
2.5.2 the issue of Illegal Settlers (ie. The massive demographic alteration of the island by the influx of nearly 100,000 Anatolians. Worthwhile noting here is that the Turkish Cypriots themselves, are now only approximately 80-90,000. ie. Minority in their "own" sector),
2.5.3 the persistence of Turkey, to continue to have the Unilateral right of intervention on the republic, which is also contradictory to UN Charter (ie. for a UN country to have the right to intervene militarily, onto another country which is also UN member),
2.5.4 the contradiction/incompatibility of the above, to the presently pursued future solution (of Bizonal-Bicommunal Federation) and its desired long-term viability, which presupposes the curtailment of their basic Human Rights, ie.
2.5.5 The Three Basic Freedoms (of Movement, of Residence, Right to own property),
2.5.6 Right of Vote and Democratic Representation of Greek Cypriots in the organs of government of the proposed "Turkish Cypriot Federated State"
2.5.7 Becoming second class citizens in their own country and in the near future, in Europe.

2.6 The New Solution MUST be consonant with the European and Western Democratic models and conventions.

The Bi-Communal, Bi-Zonal Federation concept, (as detailed in the 100 paragraphs of Ghali’s "Set of Ideas" in 1992), is incongruous with fundamental principles of fairness, unity, democracy, functionality, economics, and compatibility with Western systems and in particular that of the EU, of which Cyprus hopes to be a full member.

The future solution must fully encompass/respect the basic Human Rights and freedoms of ALL citizens of the island irrespective of race/religion.

It would be impossible to perceive, a situation whereby a Greek Cypriot, as an ordinary European citizen, could in the near future, be allowed to reside, work, vote and be voted, anywhere in Europe, for example Paris, and yet, would not be allowed to do the same, in Kyrenia (in the proposed "Turkish Cypriot State", and in which he/she might in fact have been born), just because he/she is of a certain ethic origin, namely Greek. How could the European Court of Human Rights justify the existence and maintenance of such inequality between two types of European Citizens? That could indeed impose an unnecessary challenge, for the European Union.

It is surely not a solution that will ensure peace and harmony between all people, irrespective of race, culture and religion.

The Australian people, would be unable to comprehend, let alone accept, a system where an ethnic (or other) minority of 18%, would demand and be given:

Ø 30% of Australia’s Territory;
Ø have its Own Sovereign State, where other races or groups different from its own, would have no right of free residence, property ownership and representation in government, etc;
Ø sovereignty that is not limited by that of the Federal Government
Ø Permanent Vice President or rotating Presidency and Foreign Affairs minister;
Ø Ministerial composition ratio of 3:7;
Ø Power of Veto at all levels, (Vice-President, Ministerial, Upper and Lower Houses)
Ø 30% of the Federal Lower House, with Separate Simple Majorities, (effectively 50%);
Ø 50% of the Senate;
Ø separate Judiciary based on ethnicity;
Ø and have a foreign country, friendly to that group, (eg. Indonesia) that would have the right of military intervention upon Australia, to "protect" the rights of that group; and the list could go on.

We, the Australian Greek-Cypriots, dream of a solution to the Cypriot problem, in which people will enjoy the same equality and security provided by the Australian model, which not only is fair and humane but is also the best example of how successfully multiculturalism can work.

2.6.1 A brief summary of the Negative points of such a Bizonal Bicommunal Federation:

Ø There is no successful precedence for such a Bi-zonal, Bi-communal model, (where the constitutional structure and administrative arrangements are based on the ethnic background of citizens), but there are numerous examples of unsuccessful ones. (eg. the former federation in Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union, etc.)

Ø Despite of what many observers believe, it could only be a Destabilising factor to the whole area, rather than a Stabilising one, as this will be the "liquid medium in a series of Connecting Vessels", where instability in Turkey could have immediate and multiple repercussions on Cyprus and Greece. (ie. Instability and problems will flow from Turkey in the Northern (Turkish) State which in turns will stream down and into the Southern (Greek) State, which would then follow its natural path to Greece and finally return to the present basic scenario/threat of a Turco-Greco conflict).

Ø By definition it is divisive, being based on the citizen’s ethnic/religious background, it thus becomes a legalised form of Apartheid.

Ø It is both Archaic and Anachronistic, especially in an era of "bringing down the international barriers and borders" as well as "Economic and Administrative Rationalisation". The Turks need to contemplate whether indeed they want to be Europeans OR followed the archaic principles of the Ottoman era?

Ø The nomenclature, Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot, (eg Federated State, Administration, Judiciary, Territory, etc), will become institutionalised and be a perpetual reminder of Ethnic Division and Conscience. (At the same time, both Greek and Turkish Cypriots, will be required, to endeavour living together in harmony).

Ø As in 1960, this solution empowers the minority to impose a system of government upon the majority, and the international community, in some miraculous way, will expect it to work. One should indeed pose the question "whether such a solution could be accepted by themselves in their own countries?"

Ø The polarising nature of this experimental model of federation, will lead unavoidably to friction and doom to yet another painful failure, for the already long-suffering Cypriot people (Greek and Turkish). This inevitable failure will yet again be blamed upon the Greek side, as in 1963-64.

Ø It sets a precedent, which will complicate International Relations (eg. EU Accession negotiations of countries such as Bosnia), as well as complicating Internal Stability within certain countries with a non-homogeneous ethnic population. (eg. Kurdish rights in Iraq and Turkey).

Ironically, this solution that Turkey proposes for/imposes upon Cyprus, may in fact, one day, be the basis of the genesis of a monster within her own borders, whereby, for example, the Kurds could demand, then "rightly" so, not only the fragmentation of the Territorial integrity of the Republic of Turkey, but also disproportional administrative rights, with respect to participation/representation in government, etc.)

Ø The implementation of such system, will contravene the provisions of the Acquis Communautaire of the EU, thus making Cyprus’s Accession if not impossible, at least problematic.

Ø the need to maintain and support 3 (three) sets of government, (ie. Two State and One Federal), and 4 (four) Legislative Bodies-Parliaments, would render a small country of merely 3/4 of a million people, both a bureaucratic nightmare and economic disaster.

Certain international observers ask of the Greek Cypriot side to be realistic in their demands, which lean more toward the unitary state principle. The answer to their request is boldly expressed in the last point made above.

How realistic it is to have the abovementioned bureaucratic and economic burden. Or, how realistic is to have people physically segregated in the same country (or in Europe) because of their Ethno-Religious origins.

The Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Cyprus, Archbishop Chrysostomos, who venomously opposes this form of Partition of people and land, stated: "There would be no people to be governed as everybody will directly/indirectly working for a government".

It needs to be acknowledged that there exist an obvious contradiction between the presently pursued solution and the desired form of solution.

2.6.2 How do the Greek Cypriots feel RE: Bizonal-Bicommunal Solution?

There exist a clear trend within the Greek Cypriots away from the Bizonal-Bicommunal Solution. This is evident in the responses to Telephone and Written Polling regarding the future solution, over the last few years.

Results of Written Poll – April 1996

Question:

Do you believe OR not in the establishment of a Unitary State following a possible solution of the Cyprus Problem?

Answers: (% of those who answered)

Furthermore,

2.7 Some Additional Comments for consideration

The principle of respect for International Law and humane considerations, together with concern for their vested interests, led members of the International Community to take effective measures in order to protect Kuwait. It is discriminatory for the International Community not to intervene in Cyprus in a more decisive manner.

Indeed, the Greek Cypriots acknowledge that presently, may not possess the same strategic and economic importance to the allies, as they did have in the 1950s. They do, however, have their dignity and of course, right, to be allowed to live as the rest of civilised world, in peace and democracy.

Nobody can refuse one the right to strive for his freedom and it is immoral for anyone to ask the Cypriots to accept to live under a racist system.

It is also proper, we believe, to remind our "allies", that is was the Greeks and Greek Cypriots that fought by their side in all wars. More than 33,000 Cypriots served on different fronts under the British Allied forces during the War, many of them died in the fighting and are buried in military cemeteries in 15 countries. Cyprus was at the time of the War a British colony and gained its independence in 1960. Cyprus’ President, Mr Clerides joined the Royal Air Force in 1939 and as an RAF pilot he was shot down over Germany in 1942 and taken prisoner until the end of the war. He is mentioned in despatches for distinguished services.

President Clerides stated on the 15th of June 97, during a ceremony for the Cypriot World War II Veterans and POWs:

“Cyprus is still awaiting to be vindicated for its contribution to the fight against the Axis forces in the Second World War and will continue to struggle for justice and the prevalence of the rule of law throughout its territory, part of which has been under Turkish occupation since 1974,”…"We deeply regret that humanity has not managed to render into reality the vision for a new world order based on a moral code of conduct and the rule of law, in conditions of social justice, prosperity and stable peace." 

Alas, if other allies are to be treated as the Greeks have been so far. It is to be hoped that Australia’s "allies", do not shift so rapidly with the vicissitudes of the times and with newly discovered vested interests in the South Pacific area, as has been the case with Greece.

1. Dum Spiro, Spero! {While I Breathe/Live, I Hope!}
   
   
2. One of the most encouraging signs is Cyprus’ accession negotiations for Full European Membership. It would be very advantageous indeed, if accession is accomplished prior to the solution of the Cyprus Problem, as this will enhance the Cyprus Government’s position at the negotiating table. This is also reinforced by Turkey's strong desire for EU Aid and Full membership.
   
   
3. Also of significance, is the Cyprus Government's various ways of expressing what it sees as the incompatibility between a Just and Desirable solution (in particular with the Acquis of the EU) and the solution presently pursued officially by the UN and other agents. Cyprus needs and wishes to disengage herself from the proposals offered or imposed upon the Greek Cypriot side over the years. The Attorney General of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr Markides during a statement on the 14th of April, 1997 declared, inter alia, that:

“…nothing binds us to whatever we have proposed at any round of talks, if and since it had not been accepted by the other side at the same time, where we have made the relevant proposal... Since a proposal has not been accepted, the side which made the proposal, has the right to recall whatever has been said and commence from the starting point. And this is the correct position”. 


4. The uncontrolled rate, at which Turkey is arming herself, - despite some encouraging signs – is producing severe Economic Difficulties^[14] in its interior, which in turns breeds extremist predispositions, (ie. Social, Religious, Ethnic). The rise in Fundamentalism and the Internal Political instability in Turkey, do raise concerns in the west, (US and EU), with respect to the stability and maintenance of Turkey’s fragile secular democracy. The volatile Ethnic Composition of Turkey, the Human Rights Violations upon both ethnic minorities as well as the Turkish people themselves by their own government, (See text of US State Department's Country Reports on HR Practices - Turkey: 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999) are only some of the issues that are of great concern to Turkey and the west.
   
   
5. The Kurdish Problem. The time will eventually come, when the Kurdish problem will need to be addressed and resolved. That would of course necessitate for the provision of – at minimum – some form of an autonomous state, (ie a definite watering down of presently held views by the ruling army elite). Therefore, Turkey may be forced to be in an unenviable and compromised situation, which may give rise to other changes in the area. 
   
   
6. The European Court’s of Human Rights favourable – for the Greek Cypriot side – Judgement in the case of Loizidou v. Turkey, has significant repercussions (moral, political and economic). 

There exists an urgent need for re-examining the past and the present situations both within Cyprus, as well as Internationally, and with thoughtful planning, formulate and structure the future, where the interest of all Cypriots could best be served. It falls upon the shoulders of all Hellenes, to ensure that only a just and humane solution is allowed to prevail, at last, on this island. 

The role of the Hellenes and Philhellenes of the Diaspora should never be underestimated. There has never been a time in history, where the Hellenes, (both within the geographic Metropolitan borders of Greece and Cyprus as well as in the Diaspora), have been better equipped. Indeed, they have, now more than ever, the will, the capacity and the means to achieve their just goals. 

Hellenes, over their long existence/history, have proved themselves to be a resilient race and they will ensure that their struggle for peace and justice, eventually triumphs. Hellenes ask of nothing more than what is legally and morally theirs. It is indeed the duty of all, not just those of Hellenic ancestry but all decent human beings, to remain vigilant concerning threats to the Democratic processes, the Rule of Law. Hellenes have fought many times along the side of their allies for the preservation of common principles, territorial integrity of the lands and freedom of others. It is disheartening that the allies have not been courteous to their sacrifices and good will. 

We hope that common sense will prevail, and both the "allies" as well as the Turkish Government, will acknowledge that living in harmony with the Greeks will be beneficial for all, and this can only be achieved by mutual respect of each others basic rights, culture, religion and of course territorial integrity. 

With respect to the proposed solution of Bizonal Bicommunal Federation, the intention is to create second-class European citizens and such a solution will violate European Law – the Acquis – and in addition making Cyprus' entry to the European Union difficult or even impossible to achieve. 

THUS, it is now high time that the proposed basis for solving the Cyprus problem be Re-thought and Re-adjusted, having regard to the necessity for ensuring that the modified constitutional framework will guarantee the basic Human Rights to all Cypriots within the European Union. The solution must aim and strive to bring the two communities together rather than segregate them on ethno-religious grounds. 

Drawbacks of a Separatist System of Government

The T.M.T. leaders, at the instigation of Turkey, were all along trying to promote a "solution" to the problem aiming ultimately at the island's division. Proposals were put forward for direct partition or for federation envisaging removal of populations and the setting up of two distinct administrations for the purpose of creating separate national and racial areas.

The idea of federation in Cyprus was examined in 1956, when the island was still a British colony, by the eminent constitutional expert, Lord Radcliffe, who, in his "Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus", said the following on the subject:

"It would be natural enough to accord to members of a federation equality of representation in the federal body, regardless of the numerical proportions of the populations of the territories they represent. But can Cyprus be organised as a federation in this way? I do not think so".

The United Nations mediator, Dr. Galo Plaza, was of the same opinion. In his report he said:

"To my mind the objections raised (against federation) also on economic, social and moral grounds are in themselves serious obstacles to the proposition. It would seem to require a compulsory movement of the people concerned - many thousands on both sides - contrary to all enlightened principles of the present time, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (S/62555, para. 153).

"It is essential to be clear what this proposal implies. To refer to it simply as "Federation" is to oversimplify the matter. What is involved is not merely to establish a federal form of government but also to secure the geographical separation of the two communities. The establishment of a federal regime requires a territorial basis and this basis does not exist. In an earlier part of this report I explained the island wide intermingling in normal times of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot populations. The events since December 1963 have not basically altered this characteristic: even the enclaves where numbers of Turkish Cypriots concentrated following the troubles are widely scattered over the island, while thousands of other Turkish Cypriots have remained in mixed villages" (S/62555, para 150).

Elsewhere in his report Dr. Plaza stated:

"In fact the arguments for the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government have not convinced me that it would not inevitably lead to partition" (S/62555 para. 154).

"Again if the purpose of a settlement of the Cyprus question is to be the preservation rather than the destruction of the state and if it is to foster rather than to militate against the development of a peacefully united people, I cannot help wondering whether the physical division of the minority from the majority should not be considered a desperate step in the wrong direction. I am reluctant to believe, as the Turkish Cypriot leadership claims, in the ‘impossibility’ of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots learning to live together again in peace. In those parts of the country where movement controls have been relaxed and tensions reduced they are already proving otherwise" (S/62555, para. 155).

Endnote II

UN Secretary General Reports on the deliberate policy
by the T/C leadership for Self-segregation.

"The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to a rigid stand against any measures which might involve having members of the two communities live and work together or which might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities, as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots".

6 Report of the UN Secretary-General S/6426, 10 June 1965, para. 106. See also S/5764, 15 June 1964, para 113; and S/6228, 11 March 1965, para 17. At the height of the disorders in 1964 up to 25,000 Turkish Cypriots, encouraged by their leadership, had moved from outlying villages or mixed villages to concentrate in territorial enclaves. Those who had moved were prohibited by the Turkish Cypriot leadership on pain of "criminal penalties& from returning to their homes until an overall political settlement acceptable to them was reached. This continued self-segregation, with measures applied by the Turkish Cypriot community to its own members to prevent mixing of the two communities, persisted until Turkish enclaves in the northern part of Cyprus were used as supporting footholds for Turkey’s invasion.

Furthermore, a claim by a foreign invader that it is securing an ethnic minority appropriate governmental arrangements is not permissible. Were such a minority issue justification for foreign military intervention, many States would risk occupation and dismemberment by aggressive neighbours having common ethnic origins with the disaffected minority.