|
REPORT ON "FRENDS OF CYPRUS" INTERCOMMUNAL CONFERENCE LONDON 1st - 6th DECEMBER 1986 CORRESPONDANCE ON CONFERENCE LETTER FROM Mr DENKTAS AND LETTER FROM LORD BETHELL |
|
When Friends of Cyprus organised the conference there were those who expressed doubts about the usefulness of such a political gathering given the present climate -particularly a gathering in which the participats attended in no representative capacity. There was the view that positive contributions to the Cyprus problem could only come from direct official negotiations or from the good offices of the United Nations. However our conference clearly showed that given the present stalemate, it is vital to develop contacts between the two communities and that these contacts will have to be regular ones if the two sides are ever to reach an agreement that will work successfully. The conference's most positive contribution was that politically influential Greek and Turkish Cypriots were able to listen to each others hopes, fears, suspicions, aspirations and mutual misconceptions and were able to work towards a better understanding of each other's views. At the conference 'confidence-building measures' emerged as a central topic.Items such as future cultural exchanges,joint social and sports events, the revision of text-books -particularly history books- and the economic disparity between the different parts of the island were all viewed as areas in which the political figures could practically begin work on promoting and developing contacts and thereby contribute to the much needed confidence building process. Despite the failure to agree on an official joint statement, the issues and principles discussed were agreed on by a majority of the participants and endorsed by a unanimously elected subcommittee, made up of three Turkish- Cypriots and three Greek-Cypriots representing the broad political spectrum on both sides. This was in itself no mean achievement, and sugessts that further meeting of this type could make progress. There is always the danger that the organisers of such a conference might be accused of inadvertently attempting to put one side at a disadvantage. At our conference a minority of the Turkish- Cypriot participants at one stage seemed to feel that their very presence would jeopardise the Turkish- Cypriot position, and that approving a joint statement might be seen as propaganda which could work against them. This was certainly not the intention of friends of Cyprus. We believe that such feelings understandably enough, spring from misconceptions nurtured by years of genuine fear and distrust. Only constant direct communication between the two sides can heal such misconception, paving the way for a practical, objective, just and lasting solution. Friends of Cyprus is the only organisation which has provided a forum for high level but informal intercommunal meetings. We believe that such meetings are an essential part of the search for a solution to the Cyprus problem. We shall continue to provide the framework and arena for the developement of contacts between the two sides, regardless of setbacks and failures elsewhere. Cyprus can only extricate itself from the present stalemate with everyone's support. All have a part to play. Too many people confine themselves to pious wishes that the Secretary-General will succeed when it is clear that his initiative is currently stalled, and even were it not, can in fact only involve the executive leadership of the two communities. What is now needed is a serious re-appraisal of both the UN Secretary General's initiative and the role of the international community. A new pace of activity must be developed. Its essential base must be a continued search for practical initiatives to build new contacts between Greek and Turkish Cypriots living on the island. Cyprus is in danger of being divided by time itself. There is a school of thought that those involved and concerned with Cyprus will come to accept the status quo as the best solution. Even if this were to happen, it would mean the loss of the distinctive Cypriot identity to which most members of both communities attach importance. Also it would be a solution based on force, lacking the consent of those most directly affected and as such would be both unjust and unworkable in the long term.
|
|
REPORT ON "FRENDS OF CYPRUS" INTERCOMMUNAL CONFERENCE LONDON 1st - 6th DECEMBER 1986 The fifth "Friends of Cyprus" conference bringing together equal numbers of Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot participants was the first composed mainly of political figures. Previous conferences had brought together representatives of the teachers' and of the journalists' unions, of the associations of architects and civil engineers, and of the trade union of federations in both communities. As one participant noted, this was the first occasion since 1974 that he had enjoyed the opportunity to meet and discuss with political personalities from across the political spectrum in both communities simultaneously. The participants in the conference were: Mr.Pavlos
Dinglis The meeting began with a social function on the evening of Monday December 1st. The atmosphere was, as it had been at all past "Friends of Cyprus" conferences, excellent. During this function, and more formally on the following day, the request was made that the draft agenda prepared by "Friends of Cyprus" should not be followed but that there should be a general exchange of views and discussion of confidence-building measures in partcular. This was accepted. PRIVATE SESSIONS The private working sessions of the conference were held between Tuesday 2nd and Friday 5th December inclusive. Members of the committee of "Friends of Cyprus" and journalists well informed on the Cyprus problem chaired the meetings, which were confidential. The views of the two communities on the Cyprus problem as a whole were expressed, but most discussion prior to the communique turned on some specific suggestions, such as the need to remove distorted references to the other community's history in school text-books, the need for further meetings, preferably in Cyprus itself, and the need to encourage cultural and sports exchanges. The point was also made that a previous "Friends of Cyprus" conference had led the way to a solution of the problem of payments from the provident funds to Turkish-Cypriots, but that no solution had been achieved on social security payments. There was a constructive discussion on this issue. On the evening of Wednesday 3rd of December the participants were invited to the Foreign Office where they were received by Baroness young, the Minister of State. On the evening of Thursday there was a meeting at the House of Commons with those members of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs who were not in Cyprus itself at the time. Mr David Howell chaired the meeting, and the other members present were Mr.Ian Mikardo. Mr.Nigel Spearing and Mr.Bowen Wells. On the evening of Friday there was a cocktail party in the House of Commons. THE OPEN MEETING The open meeting under the chairmenship of Lord Bethell on the evening of Saturday 6th December was attended by large numbers of Greek-Cypriots, as well as Britons. Lord Bethell emphasized that the participants had taken part in the conference as individuals, not as representatives or delegates, Mr.Tassos Papaodopoulos, Mr.Ahmet Gazioglou and Mr.Ozker Ozgur made introductory comments and there were then questions from members of the audience responded to in turn by participants in the conference. One of the matters which particularly interested questioners was the topical issue of a joint university in Cyprus. It had not been possible to agree a joint communique at the closed sessions on Thursday and Friday and this naturally proved to be the centre of the introductory comments and major interventions. Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos thanked "Friends of Cyprus" for organizing the meeting and so reaffirming the belief that Cypriots of both communities had a future together in a united federal Cyprus."Even the journey of one thousand miles starts with a little step", and this little step had been taken by their visit to london. It was important to be able to listen to each other's hopes, fears, suspicions, aspirations and mutual misconceptions, and to be able to work towards a better understanding of each other's views. One of the most valuble results of the week's meeting had been the human closeness and warmth and their rediscovery that behind the problem there were human beings who had suffered and were still suffering because of the lack of a solution. There had been wide areas of agreement between the participants, especially the six-man subcommittee, dispite the absence of a joint communique. The joint draft declaration was "on the table and in the hearts of Greek-Cypriot and some Turkish-Cypriot participants" .The Greek-Cypriot participants were ready to meet again any time anywhere with thier colleagues to reaffirm the adoption of the sub-committee's agreed document and to finalize its implementation. In the meantime the Greek-Cypriot side would work actively to implement the measures mentioned in the draft document. Mr.Ahmet Gazioglou said after a week's discussions the participants had failed to reach agreement in three main areas: (a) On vital requisites for a just and lasting soulotion. (b) On practical measures like lifting the embargo on the Turkish-Cypriots and opening Nicosia International Airport. (c) On a short joint declaration. The reason for these failures lay in the attitude of the Greek-Cypriots who wanted to dominate the Turkish-Cypriots and become masters of Cyprus. Mr.Gazioglou objected to the draft agenda participants had found on arrival, which he said, was aimed at causing harm to the U.N. Secretary Generals draft agreement of March 1986. He urged Greek-Cypriots to avoid illusions and intransigence. If Turkish-Cypriots were not accepted as politically equal partners there could be no just or final settlement. Mr.Ozker Ozgur regretted Cypriots had to travel thousands of miles to be able to talk to their own compatriots. As a result of the meeting he was convinced that all were in favour of a settlement within the framework of the top-level agreements between Mr. Denktash, the late Archbishop Makarios and Mr.Kyprianou. Everyone thought the U.N. Secretary General's iniative should not fail. This common desire reflected the wishes of the grass roots of both communities—the workers, the peasants and other classes. Mutual concessions would lead to a settlement. If Turkish and Greek Cypriots alike could not concede to each other they would lose their homeland. This was a grave danger but a real one. If the two communities could not concede to each other, others would benefit. By calling the meeting in London, "Friends of Cyprus" had started the absolutely necessary process of trust building between the two communities. He envisaged the day when both could say "We are now building the future of our country mutually". Mr. Constantine Lordos disagreed with Mr. Gazioglou's assessment of the 'failure' of the week's discussions. The original agenda prepared by "Friends of Cyprus" would have covered the substantive issues which could have included the UN initiative. There were objections however, not least by Mr. Gazioglou, that these were substantive points already being discussed by the official leadership of both sides, and that participants would not be able to negotiate on the points set out in the agenda. The participants therefore concentrated on conference-building measures, in these catagories: 1. Those which the participants could promote or implement on their own without outside help, eg, from the leadership of the two communities. 2. Those regarding which they could hopefully convince their respective leadership. 3. Those requiring further discussion at similar conferences. When an unanimous joint draft declaration with an appendix covering confidence-building measures was presented to the plenary on Thursday, there were some participants who felt it might be too early for these and others who felt it would be more useful to tackle the UN Secretary General's initiative, which had earlier been abandoned by the conference as a subject for discussion. The Greek-Cypriot side stood by all the proposals agreed in the joint draft document and invited their Turkish-Cypriot colleagues to join them. Mr. Ahmet Gazioglou responded first that the sub-committee's decisions were not binding on the plenary and second that even today there existed the illusion that the island of Cyprus was a totally Greek island which would one day be united to Greece; Mr. Lordos denied this forcibly and Mr. Dinglis regretted some Turkish-Cypriot colleagues had objected to the joint draft agreement. In response to the question from the floor, Mr. Ahmet Gazioglou read out both the draft communiqe and his counter-proposal. The sub-committee which had unanimously agreed the draft joint communiqe was composed of Mr. Dinglis, Mr. Lordos, Mr. Papadopoulos, Mr. Durduran, Mr. Orek and Mr Ozgur. The text, as read out by Mr. Gazioglou, is as follows: JOINT DECLARATION ADOPTED BY ELECTED COMMITTEE AT FRIENDS OF CYPRUS CONFERENCE ON THURSDAY 4TH DECEMBER 1986 1. We are for rapprochement between our two communities in order to promote mutual understanding and confidence necessary for a just and lasting solution to the reunification of Cyprus on a bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal basis. 2. Cultural exchanges, joint social and sports events should be encouraged, and we as participants will do our utmost to promote such activities, as indicated in the appendix. 3. We believe that the youth should be brought up in a spirit of inter-communal friendship, and that the revision of history text books should be taken up, aiming at the eradication of ill-feeling, enmity, and prejudice between the two communities. 4. The economic disparity between the north and the south carries potential danger and should be bridged. We agree to try and influence the decision makers of both sides to implement the top level agreements, to take the appropriate steps for the normalisation of the situation in the island, and to lay the economic foundation for the envisaged federal structure. 5. The efforts of the United Nations Secretary General for a just solution should continue with determination to succeed. We feel obliged to support his efforts. Appendix 1. EXCHANGES a. Cultural Events b. Athletic Events c. Professional Organisations d. Business Leaders e. Trade Union Leaders f. Journalists 2. JOINT SPECIALISED GROUPS FOR THE DISCUSSION OF: a. Environment and Ecology b. Health c. Preservation of National Heritage d. Preservation and Restoration of National Monuments e. Economy f. Outstanding Social Security Issues g. A University for the use of both Communities 3.The participants express their willingness to continue their contacts without prejudice to the political positions of their respective sides. Mr. Gazioglou also read his own proposed declaration, which is as follows: "We endorse the continuing efforts of the U.N. Secretary General to find a peaceful solution." CONCLUSION OF THE OPEN MEETING Mr. Ozgur commented that he felt obliged to state there could be nothing wrong in participants to the conference stating they were in favour of the unification of their country. That is the least participants in such a conference could say. Mr Dinglis then appealed to Mr. Gazioglou to agree at least to the appendix. Mr. Gazioglou responded that participants were not present to settle the political side of the Cyprus problem, which could be achieved quite simply by the Greek-Cypriots accepting the Secretary General's latest proposals. Mr. Papadopoulos noted on behalf of the Greek-Cypriots that nothing in the draft communiqe was controversial since its elements had been taken from the 1977 and 1979 high-level agreements agreed by both sides. Some Turkish-Cypriot participants had made clear they wanted no joint statement at all. Lord Bethell concluded by saying there had been a great deal of substance in the week's discussions. The participants would be taking these discussions away with them -to build on them. "Friends of Cyprus" would like to thank both the participants and all those who by their financial contributions made this conference possible. The participants all took active part and reflected both the goodwill and the obstacles that exist to a rapprochement within the republic. The Cypriot businessmen, overwhelmingly resident in Britain, who contributed to the conference —"Friends of Cyprus" had no financial backing, whether directly or indirectly, from any official source—gave an example to many politicians, diplomats and journalists around the world who speak a great deal about a solution to the Cyprus problem but apparently do not see the need for contacts between Greek-Cypriots and Turkish-Cypriots as an essential part of the process of reaching a just settlement. AFTER THE JOINT MEETING.... There was some controversy in the north of Cyprus on the return of the participants from the "Friends of Cyprus" Conference in London. Our reports are inevitably second-hand (dates of reports are given in brackets) and depend on the accuracy of translations, but events seem to have developed as follows: It appears that on their return to Nicosia (9/12/86), both Mr. Ozgur and Mr. Durduran made some forcible criticisms. Mr. Ozgur said it would have been a great contribution to the rapprochement of the two communities if the declaration had been published. Mr.Durduran criticized the behaviour of Mr. Tansel Fikri describing it as ill-mannered and his intervention as harmful. Mr. Ozgur said that Mr. Fikri (the TRNC'representative in London) had prevented acceptance of the joint declaration. Mr. Ozgur expressed the view that dialogue should continue. In response Mr. Denktash (11/12/86) said Tansel Fikri had not intervened and he did not have much information on why the joint declaration had not been signed. He alleged that the meetings had been organised by an association that can be named "Friends of Greek-Cypriots", and those Turkish Cypriots who attended found it unsuitable to sign a declaration which was in line with Greek-Cypriot demands. Mr. Denktash attacked Mr. Ozgur alleging he was providing new opportunities for the Greek-Cypriots to attack him. There was then apparently (12/12/86) a statement from the TRNC' "Foreign Ministry" repeating the attack on "Friends of Cyprus" and telling how a journalist obviously briefed by the Greek-Cypriot side had "phoned and been answered by the TRNC' representative." On 13/12/1986 another participant, Mr. Ferdi Sabit, added his voice to the criticisms already made, and regretted the creation of a solo voice (ie, that of Mr. Denktash) by the ruling circles in the Turkish Community. Mr. Sabit compared the multi-voice character of the Greek-Cypriot side. On 15/12/1986, the formation of a Turkish-Cypriot/Greek Cypriot Friendship Committee was announced by a group of reporters and authors. Mr. Ahmet Gazioglou held a press conference (reported 16/12/86) in which he confirmed he himself had stopped the publication of the joint declaration, refusing to sign it because it included points mentioned in the High Level agreements and therefore political; and also fearing Mr. Galanos would make use of it with the visiting delegation from the House of Commons Select Committee, Mr. Gazioglou denied that the non-signature had been influenced by Turkish press reports calling Turkish-Cypriot participants traitors. Mr. Gazioglou however criticised Mr. Fikri's lack of diplomacy and said that he had, for some reason unknown to him, panicked. Before leaving for London he had reached complete consensus with Messrs Ozgur and Durduran regarding the Turkish army and UN resolutions, and both had stuck by the understanding then made. Mr. Ozgur reverted to the question (18/12/86) alleging that the non-signing of the declaration was not the result only of Mr. Fikri. The impression created was that official Turkish-Cypriot policy was not in favour of intercommunal rapprochement. He apparenly alleged that Mr. Fikri had from the first day suggested the torpedoing of the meeting, and had said the meeting would dispel the positive atmosphere created by Mr. Denktash's visit to London. Mr. Ozgur then went on to criticize Mr. Denktash's speech in London.
|
|
CORRESPONDANCE
ON CONFERENCE TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS PRESIDENT'S OFFICE Lefkosa, via Mersin 10 - Turkey Lefkosa, 20 February, 1987 Lord
Bethell, I have just heard about the evidence which you and Lord Willis gave before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee on the 9 February and I was most disappointed about your remarks concerning me in connection with the meeting organized by your "Friends of Cyprus" association in London last December. In the statement which you made before the Committee you infer that three of the Turkish Cypriots who had participated at the meeting (to whom you refer as my "supporters") withdrew their approval, "on my instructions", of a unanimous" decision which had been taken at the meeting. This allegation which you have attributed to me is entirely without any foundation. Needless to say, I am not immune from all sorts of allegations and insinuations which are attributed to me for propaganda purposes and I have got quite used to them over the years. What has particularly disappointed and surprised me is that such an unfounded allegation should have been made by you, particularly after the correspondence which we had exchanged last autumn. You will recall that you had written to me on 30 October "urging me to encourage my supporters" to participate at your meeting in December and I had replied to you on 5 November that I did not wish to intervene, one way or the other, but that I respected the views of those who were distrustful about the motives of your meeting. As you are aware I had no objection to the participation of the three Turkish Cypriots (whom you later described as "Denktas supporters") or of any other Turkish Cypriots. (I enclose, herewith, for easy reference, copies of the correspondence in question). As you know one of the three Turkish Cypriots in question is a former Minister of Defence of the joint Republic (which was established in I960 and which was destroyed by Makarios and his colleagues in 1963 by force of arms), a former Speaker of the Turkish Cypriot Parliament and a former Prime Minister; the other two are responsible journalists, writers and researchers. I cannot help but place on record my view that the allegations in question which you made are not only unfair, unjust and discourteous to me (in the light of my letter to you of 5 November), but are also offensive and insulting to your three Turkish Cypriot guests, whom you had invited to the meeting. As the subject-matter of this letter relates to evidence which you gave at a public hearing before the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee Meeting on Cyprus, I am sending a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the Chairman of the Committee, Sir Anthony Kershaw, for the Committee's records. Rauf R. DENKTAS President. As from:
73 Sussex Square H.
E. Mr Rauf Denktash 6th March 1987 Thank you for your letter of February 20th. I an extremely pleased to hear that it was not on your instructions that three Turkish-Cypriot participants in our December 1986 conference refused to accept the conclusions recommended by the six-man working party. As you have no doubt been informed, the working party included three Turkish-Cypriots: Mr Alpay Durduran, Mr Osker Ozgur and Mr Osman Orek. They unanimously recommended a Joint Declaration and Appendix. Copies of these are enclosed. I roust emphasise that we in Friends of Cyprus were extremely encouraged that the six prominent Cypriots, three from each side, were able to reach agreement on such an imaginitive programme of confidence-building measures, many of them non-governmental and none of them capable of interfering with the UN Secretary General's efforts. It seems to us extraordinary that any Cypriots, Greek or Turkish, would wish to stand in the way of organising cultural or athletic events between members of the two communities, would be opposed to joint preservation of the national heritage or would be unaware of the need to revise school history books, which are presently the source of much inter-communal distrust. We were therefore extremely disappointed when, following a lunch given by your representative in London, Mr Tansel Fikri, for the Turkish-Cypriot participants on Wednesday, December 3rd, it became clear that three men who are indeed broadly speaking your political supporters, were determined to oppose the ideas which all the others wore prepared to accept. I was not at the lunchtime discussion on December 3rd, but I have spoken to several of those who were and I am satisfied that Mr Fikri did Indeed intervene in opposition to the proposed document. Several of those there have stated this publicly. They assumed that, since Mr Fikri is your representative here, he was speaking on your behalf. We are very pleased therefore to discover from your letter that this was not in fact the case and we are encouraged by what you Bay to believe that you will support the ideas put forward by the six-man working party, which do indeed seem to have broad support in both communities. I would be very grateful indeed if you could confirm to me that you will add your support to this programme. I shall be visiting Cyprus in mid-May and would be very pleased to discuss with you how Friends of Cyprus might be able to help in this area. I will, if I may, contact your office nearer the time in the hope that you and other senior members of your administration. will be able to receive me. Meanwhile I have sent a copy of this to Sir Anthony Kershaw, MP and I propose, unless you object, to make public the entire correspondence. We believe that our December conference proposed some useful ideas which, while they will of course not solve the Cyprus problem, could make an important contribution towards reconciliation. I am encouraged to believe that you will share By hopes for this, so that we can work together along the lines suggested in the attached note. Lord Bethell |