POLITIS: “Pets forbidden from going to the occupied areas”. A dog owner only just managed to spare his pet from being put down after he was stopped on his return from the occupied areas. The man apparently did not know it was illegal to bring pets back over from the occupied areas and had crossed over with his pet unnoticed earlier in the day and was only stopped on his return to the free areas. The veterinary services said this was the first and last time the law had not been implemented, and in future all pets would be put down.
Cyprus Mail 16 06 06

Tassos protests UN involvement in north training

UNFICYP yesterday hit back at comments by President Tassos Papadopoulos criticising the participation by the UN Cyprus force’s commander in a search-and-rescue exercise in the north.

Papadopoulos said it was “wrong” on the part of UNFICYP to monitor a search-and-rescue naval exercise in the occupied areas. He said the government had made representations.
“This exercise is considered illegal, not only by us, but also by previous decisions of the United Nations on Cyprus,” Papadopoulos said.

He said Turkey had no rights in the coastal waters of the Republic or in the areas in which the exercise was conducted.

He added that although the failed Annan Plan provided for such an exercise the plan had not been approved, and therefore such an move was invalid.

“The UN should first respect their own decisions, that Cyprus remains a sovereign and independent state with all its sovereign rights in the airspace and the sea,” Papadopoulos said.

UNFICYP spokesman Brian Kelly said that Chief of Mission Micheale Moller had taken note of the President’s comments.

“The UN is in Cyprus to assist in maintenance of the peace and order, as well as searching for a solution to the Cyprus problem,” Kelly said.

“In order to this it must interact with and speak to all parties to the conflict. Major General Barni’s participation in yesterday’s exercise is to be seen in this context.”

CYPRUS MAIL JUNE 2006

UK and US rewording UNFICYP mandate behind the scenes’

By Jean Christou

ALLEGED diplomatic wrangling in New York over the final wording for the approval of UNFICYP’s mandate for another six months drew criticism at home yesterday after Britain and the US reportedly tried to interfere with the terminology in the text.

The mandate renewal was due to be approved late last night, recommending the continuation of UNFICYP on the island for another six months.

However according to reports from the Cyprus News Agency (CNA) in New York, sources said that American and British diplomats were employing ambiguous wording. They tried to alter the basis of the UN Secretary-general's Good Offices Mission, using the term ‘parties’, instead of ‘communities’ to describe the two sides in Cyprus.

The reports also said that problems emerged over the technical committees, and that several references, mainly in the sixth paragraph of the resolution's preamble, were removed.

The concessions subsequently made by Americans and the British did not fully satisfy Greece and Cyprus, both of whom wanted clear-cut wording regarding the technical committees. The draft resolution was circulated on Wednesday night.

It regrets that “the gap between words and deeds remains too great for the Secretary General to resume his good offices mission” and urges progress towards the resumption of negotiations for a comprehensive settlement.

President Tassos Papadopoulos said yesterday the resolution was “neutral” following efforts made by Cyprus to reverse the terminology that was proposed to describe the two sides as entities instead of communities.

Asked if he was troubled by the British and the support it had from the US, he said he was but that the other three countries in the Security Council, France, China and Russia had “supported our positions”.

House President Demetris Christofias said deviations from accepted terminology had begun as early as 1999.

“The Americans try they build on that deviation and of course they are trying to build on the stance they have taken since the referendum,” he said.

“But we have good friends who are Permanent Members in the Security Council and now Greece is also now a member of the Council so I believe the resolution that will be approved will pass muster.”

EDEK leader Yiannakis Omirou said it was not the first time that Cyprus has been faced with such manoeuvrings by the British and the Americans.

“We hope their efforts will fail and collapse,” he said.

“A message should be sent to the Americans and the British, and particularly the British over their continued anti-Cyprus attitude, because they are the guarantors of Cyprus` independence and sovereignty and territorial integrity, and they have interests here that require the collaboration of the Cyprus Republic.”

CYPRUS MAIL JUNE 2006

Higlights Of The Press Conference By Secretar-General Kofi Annan
On 15 June, 2006

Un Headquarters, New York

Q: Sir, when you took over your job about 10 years ago, I remember asking you whether you had inherited the Cyprus problem. I asked if you were going to solve this problem during your tenure. I asked the same question of Waldheim, and he said “oh yes”, but it is still a very live problem, like a long-lasting soap opera of the UN. Since you have a limited time now, do you still think that this problem might be solved? Your plan, which carries your name, was rejected by the Greek Cypriots. Was it a lost opportunity, or what is the next step they can take now?

SG: Let me start by saying that you have to admit that I got closer than most. I got closer than most, but we were not able to resolve it. I am still in touch with the parties, and I recall my last meeting with Mr. Papadopoulos in Paris, where we discussed the need to resume the talks. I pointed out to him that I would want to see more action than words; I would want to see the gap between words and action narrow a bit more to convince me that the parties are ready to move. At that point, he and Talat, who live very close to each other, had not even met in about two years and we had been trying to get them to meet.

The situation has been complicated further by the fact that Cyprus is now a member of the European Union and Turkey is seeking to join the European Union. You saw the controversy last week on the question of expanding the Union agreement to cover the 10 new members, including Cyprus. So when you are negotiating and you have one country sitting in the club and the other seeking to join the club, it does not make it easier. Quite frankly, I think that this situation has complicated the process.

I am going to be sending Gambari to the region very soon. He will go to Cyprus and then to Greece and to Turkey to take the pulse, and come back to report to me as to what the situation is and whether there is enough movement for us to begin to look at what further steps we can take to push the parties forward. For the moment, I cannot promise you that I will resolve it between now and the end of December, but I did get close.

Alithia

“Kaybedilmis Vatanlar” (Nikos Rolandis)

Kibris Liberaller Partisinin Baskani olarak 4-7 Ekim 1990 tarihlerinde, Finlandiya’nin Helsinki sehrinde gerçeklestirilen Liberallerin Uluslararasi Kongresine katilmistim. Ziyaretim sirasinda Finlandiya Disisleri Bakani ile de görüsmüstüm. Bana Yunanistan Büyükelçisi eslik etmisti.

Bakan ile birçok seyin yaninda Kibris sorununu da görüsmüstük. Ona devam eden isgal ve evlerine geri dönmek isteyen göçmenler hakkinda bilgi vermistim.

Bakan, savastan veya silahli çatismadan sonra mallarindan mahrum kalanlarin yasadiklari sorunun neredeyse çözümü olmayan uluslararasi bir sorun oldugunu bana o zaman söylemisti. Bana, “evim buradan birkaç bin kilometre uzaktadir” demisti. “Topraklarimizin %10’u Sovyet topragina dönüstügü zaman evlerini kaybeden diger binlerce Finlandiyali aileler gibi benim ailem de evini kaybetti” diyerek su tavsiyede bulunmustu: “Sorununuza en erken zamanda bir çözüm bulmaya çalisiniz, çünkü savastan sonra ne topraklarin geri verilmesi, ne de tazminat kolaydir”.

Dogal olarak II. Dünya Savasi’ndan sonra Avrupa’da yasanan trajik gelismeleri biliyordum. Birçok büyükelçi bana ailelerinin ve hemsehrilerinin sonsuza kadar kaybedilen ve hiçbir tazminat alinmayan mallari hakkinda hikayeler anlatmislardi. Polonya’nin, topragindan net %25’lik bir kaybi vardi. Yani Kibris’tan 12 kat daha büyük bir alan… (Sovyetler Birligi, Polonya topraginin yaklasik %40’ini almisti, öte yandan Polonya da Almanya’dan %15 toprak almisti). Romanya ve Macaristan gibi diger ülkelerde de yeniden düzenlemeler yapilmisti. Milyonlarca insan, hiçbir tazminat almadan evlerinden ve mallarindan edildiler. Bütün bunlar imtiyazli Avrupa’da meydana gelmisti.

Süphesiz bir savas kasirgasi içinde her sey yerle bir olur: Degerler, insan haklari, emeller, hayaller. Dünyada çeyizi daha az hazir olan diger bölgelere bakacak olursak, insan haklari ve bunlarin hayata geçirilmesi ne yazik ki fikra gibidir.

Kibris’ta Kibrisli Rumlar olarak 1974 yilinda bir savasi kaybettik. Tutarsiz ve ciddi olmayan kararlari ve eylemleri ile bir derecede Elenizmin neden oldugu bir savasi… Savas yüzünden Kibris topraginin %37’sini kaybettik. Birçok ölümüz, kayip kisimiz ve göçmenimiz oldu.

Kibris kayiplarinin sayisi, Kibris’in boyutuna kiyasla çok büyüktü, ancak insanlik trajedilerine kiyasla önemsizdi. Ruanda’da 500.000 insanin katledilmesi, Irak ve Filistin’deki katliamlar, 1975-79 yillari arasinda Kamboçya’da 2 milyon insanin öldürülmesi, bitmek bilmeyen aci, Afrika ve Asya’da (yani sadece ölüm disinda baska hiç kimsenin hakki olmayan yerde) milyonlarca insanin aç olmasi gibi katalizör olaylarin unutulmasi için birkaç hafta yeterliyken, Kibris’a iliskin dünya ilgisi nasil canli tutulacak? Insanlik drami içinde, iyi besili Kibrisliyi ve isgal bölgesinde kaybettigi arsasini gerçekten de kim düsünecek?

1970’li yillardan beri mümkün olan federal bir çözüm konusunda mücadele etmemin nedeni budur. Beklentilerimize ve hayallerimize uygun çözümü bize hiç kimsenin hiçbir zaman sunmayacagini görüyordum (gerçekten de bize bunu hiç kimse sunmadi). Uluslararasi toplum ve Avrupa, Kibris’in basina gelenlerden bir bölümünün sorumlulugunun bize de ait oldugunu düsünüyorlardi (dogru olduguna inaniyorum). Bu nedenle her zaman Kibris sorununun çözümüne iliskin çesitli planlarla gereken bedeli ödememizi istiyorlardi.

Özellikle de mal-mülk konusunda bugüne kadar sunulan bütün planlar, topragin yeterince büyük bir bölümünün geri verilmesini ve geri verilemeyecek olanlar için de tazminat ödenmesini öneriyorlardi.

Annan Plani (geçmiste reddetmis oldugumuz bütün planlardan en kötüsüydü), Maras’i, Güzelyurt’un büyük bir bölümünü ve 50’den fazla köyü kapsayan yaklasik %8’lik bir bölümün Kibris Rum yönetimine verilmesini öngörüyordu. Göçmenlerin yarisi (85.000) Kibris Rum yönetimi altinda geri dönebilirlerdi. Birçogu Kibris Türk yönetimi altinda geri dönecek ve geriye kalanlar da tazminat alacaklardi. Ancak plani reddettik. AKEL’e göre Annan Plani’nin getirecegi yeniden birlesme yerine, “Kaybedilmis Vatanlar”i tercih ettik.

Bugün hükümet, yarattigi çikmazi ele almaya çalisiyor. Isgal bölgesinde son 2-3 yil içinde binlerce ev insa edildi ve sürekli olarak insa ediliyor. Güzelyurt’a devasa projeler yapmayi planliyorlar. Bafra’ya sadece 500.000.000 dolar yatirim yapacaklar.

Kibris, son üç yillik kararlarin ardindan inkar edilemez bir sekilde bölünmeye sürüklenmektedir. Bunu sadece körler görmüyor. Ancak kör vatandaslarimizin bile onlardan daha çok gördükleri görülüyor. Hasara ugrayanlar hangi mallari ve hangi tazminati alacaklar? Eger isgalden beri, hepsi BM ve uluslararasi toplum tarafindan desteklenmis olan 7 çözüm firsatini reddettigimizi göz önünde bulundurulacak olursak, bu hangi yöntemle basarilacak? Hali hazirda Avrupa Insan Haklari Mahkemesine yapilan basvurularin ne kadar sonuçsuz ve siyasi açidan ne kadar tehlikeli olduklari kanitlanmistir. Kisacasi bizdeki hasara ugrayanlar da, Finlandiyalilarin, Polonyalilarin, Romanyalilarin veya hatta Küçük Asya Rumlarinin (Eolos topragi 84 yil sonra hala torunlarinin kalbindedir) veya Iskenderun’lu Suriyelilerin veya mallarindan mahrum edilen milyonlarca dünya vatandasinin bitmek bilmeyen kuyruklarina girmeyecekler mi?

Ancak bizim durumumuzda ayirici bir fark var. Buraya kadar gelme karari bize aitti. “Umulani” tercih ettik. Mantiken kabul edilir ve mümkün olani reddettik. Hatalarimizdan ders almadik ve böylece bunlari tekrarlamaya ve trajik sonuçlarini yasamaya mahkum olduk. (ea)

HABERLER

Cyprus Mail

Internet Edition

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Refugees seeking cash from north’s property commission

By Elias Hazou

THE MAJORITY of displaced Greek Cypriots seeking redress in the north for loss of properties after the invasion are opting out of returning to their homes and going for the cash.

At least this is the conclusion drawn from the claims made before the ‘property commission’ set up in the north last March. If accepted as legitimate by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the body could be handling Greek Cypriot applications for the reinstatement of properties in the north.

The establishment of the commission came after the ECHR last December handed the baton to Turkey to find a way of offering redress to Greek Cypriot Myra Xenides-Arestis, who lost her property in Varosha during the 1974 Turkish invasion. Turkey accepted the challenge and has in turn given the Turkish Cypriot authorities – as its ‘subordinate local authority’ – the task of delivering justice on Greek Cypriot property claims.

In making the ruling, the ECHR effectively adjourned around 1,400 Greek Cypriot applications, pending a later decision on whether the Turkish Cypriot property commission truly fits the criteria spelled out by the ECHR.

The court gave Turkey and the breakaway regime six months in which to provide “effective domestic remedies” for Greek Cypriot refugees’ property claims.

Its judgment read: “Turkey should introduce a remedy, within three months, which secures, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant as well as in relation to all similar applications (approximately 1,400) pending before the Court.”

The deadline for assessing Turkey’s compliance expires on June 22.

In the south, the initial reaction to the court’s ruling was mixed. Some felt the onus was now on Turkey, while others warned Ankara would get off the hook by simply feigning to provide redress.

Yet others worry that the solution of the Cyprus problem might boil down to an ad hoc exchange of properties and payouts.

But according to daily Politis, most of the Greek Cypriot refugees (around 10) who have turned to the commission are asking for monetary compensation for their lands.

What’s more, they are waiving any claim for non-use of their properties since 1974. And in some cases the claimants are settling for amounts that fall well short of the real value of their property.
Without naming names, the paper mentioned the case of a refugee from Kyrenia who has given up on returning to his property, even though he is entitled to. His tract of land does not ‘belong’ to a Turkish Cypriot, nor has any development taken place on it. Yet the man simply wants a cash settlement.

Another Greek Cypriot is the owner of six donums of real estate in the occupied part of Nicosia. The Bayrak television station now lies on it. According to Politis, the owner did not even bother filing for restitution, knowing he stood no chance of winning – the ‘property law’ enacted by the breakaway regime excludes public utilities buildings and ‘national interest’ facilities from undergoing a change in ownership.

Undeterred, the practical-minded owner went for compensation, asking for some £300,000. The paper commented that he could have got a lot more for the land, suggesting the person was desperate to close the deal and raise some cash.

Meanwhile a Greek Cypriot currently living in Britain and filing a claim has also opted for a cheque, even though the commission informed him that he was entitled to having his property returned to him. The man is reportedly asking for £2 million.

Press reports said that in the coming days the commission is set to announce its decisions on eight cases, so that it can then present itself to the ECHR as an effective “domestic legal means” that resolves property claims.

Speaking off the record, legal sources told the Mail yesterday that the court was unlikely to take into account these actions, because the whole affair hinged on the handling of the pilot case – Arestis.

And Achilleas Demetriades, the lawyer of Arestis, yesterday said that he would be filing his observations to the ECHR on June 21.

As the other litigant, Turkey will also be presenting its own observations to the court on that date.

As widely predicted, Arestis has not taken recourse to, nor had any contact with, the property commission.

“One should bear in mind that Turkey has to restore full access and use of property to Mrs Arestis… we are waiting to see whether Turkey honours its obligations,” Demetriades told the Mail.

He said he was not worried by the argument that his side did nothing to promote its claim.
“That does not concern us.

Cyprus Mail 2006

How Manifesta was lost

By Agnieszka Rakoczy

THE EUROPEAN Biennale of Contemporary Art Manifesta 6, one of the most important art events in the European art calendar, was to change the image of Nicosia, a small, divided city with limited cultural life.

The idea was to make the city a hive of activity for 100 days for an international set of artists, art students and art critics and to liven up the old town at its core, since 1974 a stagnant labyrinth of rundown buildings and ruins divided by a time-warped landscape trapped in the UN-patrolled buffer zone that separates north from south.

“The fact that I am here smiling and enjoying myself means that Nicosia is about to host one of the most important and fascinating cultural events in the world and the biennial Manifesta 6 event is rated in the top three Contemporary Art events,” said Nicosia’s mayor Michael Zampelas a year ago, at the official launch of the event. “We hope that the event, which will take place in 2006 will be bi-communal with both of the island’s main communities taking part. In 2006 Nicosia will feel the pride of any other European city.”

In total, 1.8 million euros was to be spent on an international art school, the major component of the biennale, planned to take place in Nicosia between September and December this year. One million euros was secured from three main local sponsors: the Ministry of Education and Culture, the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism and the Nicosia Municipality. The rest was to come from international and local organisations that both the International Foundation Manifesta (IFM) and Nicosia Municipality’s non-profit organisation Nicosia for Art (NFA) were to target. The school was to be based on experience of the Black Mountain College created in America in the 30s and also draw from educational ideas of such prominent artists as members of avant-garde group Fluxus – George Maciunas and Joseph Beuys. It was to be postgraduate, international and trans-disciplinary, with three departments, each run by one of the curators, and about 60 to 100 students. A certain number of places was to be reserved for Cypriots from both the north and the south.

“My wish and my vision is that the city will be filled with art, artists and students who will fill it with a brand new energy,” general co-ordinator of the biennale and director of the Nicosia Municipal Art Centre Yiannis Toumazis said last November. “I expect it will be especially visible within the Old Town, currently trying to re-design and re-create itself. Imagine all the students, teachers, artists and high-calibre experts co-existing in Nicosia for 100 days, joining together their experience and innovative ideas. We need this new approach.

“The will of the curators is that the event will happen all over Nicosia, especially old Nicosia. Of course, it will be also an event in bi-communal context. We want to organise the event out of which both communities will profit. Our aim is to use venues on both sides of the Green Line. For this reason we are also organising informal and unofficial meetings in next few weeks with institutions and individuals on both sides of the Green Line to inform them about the Manifesta.”
Unfortunately, the past week’s developments mean there is not going to be a “new approach”, there is not going to be a biennale, there will be no explosion of art. The attempts to resolve numerous differences between the Manifesta 6 curatorial team and NFA ended in disaster and Nicosia’s mayor pulled the plug on the project he bid one million euros for just two years ago. On Thursday, he fired the curators and broke off the contract with the IFM.

In an official statement issued on Friday, the mayor explained that the main reason for NFA terminating the contracts was the insistence of both the curators and IFM on locating part of Manifesta 6 Art School in north Nicosia.

“Recently and contrary to the original concept of the Manifesta 6 programme, the curatorial team insisted on the establishment and operation of an essential part of the Manifesta 6 school in the occupied part of Nicosia,” the statement said. “Through relevant correspondence, NFA and its board, have made clear from the outset that the establishment and operation on a permanent basis of an essential part of the school in the occupied part of Nicosia, apart from being in conflict with certain aspects of Cyprus and international law, was also outside the ambit of the terms of the respective agreements and in breach of NFA’s contractual right to have autonomy in making decisions of this kind. The above was a major obstacle in the continuation and the realisation of Manifesta 6.”

The statement went on to accuse both the curators and the IFM of making “every effort in creating a political issue out of a purely legal matter” and “assigning political dimensions to a cultural event, which had as one of its primary aims the creation of a platform of co-operation between the two communities in Cyprus, within a spirit of solidarity and common understanding”.

Florian Waldvogel and Anton Vidokle, the two curators still present on the island (Egyptian curator Abu ElDahab left Cyprus on May 27 because she didn’t have a work permit to stay and her tourist visa expired), told the Sunday Mail that the letter of termination they received contained a paragraph stating they could not reveal any of its contents, that if they did so they would be immediately sued by the municipality. They also said that in spite of the fact that their job agreement with the municipality didn’t contain a confidentiality clause they were told they were not allowed to reveal any part since Cyprus law does not require a contract such as theirs to have a confidentiality clause expressly incorporated into it. (The Sunday Mail contacted several lawyers over this claim and none of them confirmed this to be the case.)

Both curators were adamant that the concept of having the activities of the biennale on both sides of the Green Line were not as “recent and contrary to the original concept” as implied in the NFA’s statement.

They insisted that the idea was raised from the outset and that the IFM’s representatives said as much when they first visited Nicosia to meet with municipal officials and other dignitaries.

“Officially, I think it was at the beginning of 2004 [before Nicosia was officially selected] when the IFM director Hedwig Fijen and several other members of its board like Vicente Todoli, the director of London’s Tate Modern and Francesco Bonami, the senior curator of Chicago’s Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, came to Cyprus and had several meetings with the local officials like the mayor and the minister of culture,” said Vidokle. “And from the very outset they talked about Manifesta 6 taking place on both sides of the city and the officials said ‘yes’.”

“As far as we were concerned everything we did was based on this understanding,” he continued. “And actually, until March 25 we were never told that it was wrong. For example, after being chosen, we were invited to Nicosia. We came in December 2004, had a number of meetings with the mayor and Yiannis Toumazis, were taken to the north, to Famagusta and the northern part of Nicosia. Afterwards, on several occasions we were assured by the mayor that doing the project in the north would not be a problem because Kutlay Erk was his best friend. Yiannis also reassured us. He even went with us to visit Erk, who actually wasn’t as optimistic as Zampelas. He did assure us of his informal support because he wanted Manifesta to happen.

“Last summer we started looking for venues on both sides – again with the municipality’s full help. Constantinos Panayiotis who works for the municipality was assigned by NFA to do research on both sides to identify vacant buildings that could be used by Manifesta. In the office, we put up a map of Nicosia, both north and south, with streets names and pins indicating possible locations, again on both sides.

“When I came back in November I started talking with Anber Onar about her building in the old town because it was vacant. Initially I was quite interested so I asked Yiannis to look into it. Two persons – one from the Power House and one from Manifesta went there and took pictures. Yiannis asked Anber about the rental price and we thought it was too expensive so we started looking again. In January or late December, I started talking with Rana Zingir Celal about her building. There were several meetings between her and Yiannis and she provided him with a copy of the original title deed proving that it was originally a Turkish Cypriot property.

And then I suddenly I had this feeling that it was going nowhere. We had all these meetings but I kept asking Yiannis when we could confirm we had the building. He kept on saying it was very difficult. Then I started insisting and the whole thing exploded.”

The same version of events was confirmed by Waldvogel. “I had a lecture on my department of school at the beginning of March at the Weaving Mill,” he said. “And people were asking about the department in the north and Yiannis was confirming and defending it. Then on March 16 Anton had a talk in the north and again there was no problem. Only on March 25, during our official meeting in Berlin, Yiannis said we could not do it in the north because they could neither insure nor protect us there and also because some people would not cross because they would have to show their passports.

“I just want to ask how Yiannis and Mr Zampelas have been living here all their lives and know everything about this conflict, but didn’t they tell us this at the beginning of the project? Why did they wait till March when all the plans were finalised?”

Ironically, similar sentiments have been expressed by one of the Manifesta project’s most vehement opponents, artist and journalist Kikos Lanitis, who has been writing about the subject for months in Simerini newspaper.

“I think they didn’t notice,” he said. “They were so happy that Manifesta was coming to Nicosia that they didn’t see that there was a very sensitive political line there they were stepping over. Even when newspapers were asking them these questions they just ignored them.”

But although the curators agreed the real source of the problem was deeply rooted in local politics they also said the location of the art school was only one of the issues raised during the abortive mediation meeting between their representative and NFA spokesman Nicholas Efstathiou on Friday, May 26.

Many of the issues related to charges of mismanagement and disorganisation within the ranks of the NFA team and included: the state of the biennale’s budget, lack of set rules regarding expenditure and cash-flow in the project, lack of contracts for artists invited to participate in the project and the curators’ working conditions.

“As far as we know Nicholas was ordered by the municipality’s lawyer to say ‘no’ to everything,” said Waldvogel. “He is a very reasonable man. I think the situation was also embarrassing for him.

“I just can’t understand why for 18 months the municipality failed to arrange for a work permit for our colleague Mai. I don’t understand why they could not give us information about the state of our budget, why they could not arrange for visas for our assistants, nor pay them for their work, why they couldn’t send official contracts to the artists we invited so they could start working on their projects, why even the students we accepted haven’t yet received official letters of acceptance from NFA.

“We asked these questions time and again. We tried every possible way to find out what was going on. I wrote an e-mail to Yiannis only last week to meet all of us and talk. There was no answer. Anton sent a similar letter in April, with the same result. We had several meetings with members of the IFM Board who tried to mediate. It didn’t work. There seems to be no will here to find an agreement. We have really tried everything. That is why we have gone to the press because we were desperate.”

Calls to the Mayor’s office, to Yiannis Toumazis and Minister of Education and Culture Pefkios Georgiades went unreturned all week. The Cyprus Tourism Organisation (CTO) did respond, saying it sponsored Manifesta 6 with £100.000, spread over two years, and paid out according to receipts submitted for real expenses.

“The responsibility for the organisation of Manifesta 6 has been undertaken by Nicosia for Arts Ltd,” said Lefkos Phylactides , the CTO executive director. “The CTO has not been involved in any way in the organisation of the event.  We have already asked Nicosia Municipality to inform us regarding the latest developments concerning the organisation of the biennale."
CYRPRUS MAIL JUNE 06

Turkish Cypriots insist project will go ahead

By Simon Bahceli

TURKISH Cypriots linked to the beleaguered Manifesta art project say the event will go ahead, despite the sacking on Thursday of all the curators involved.

“It will happen, and it will happen in the way Manifesta envisioned – extremely successfully, and maybe even better than originally planned,” host committee member Rana Zingir Celal told the Sunday Mail yesterday, adding that artists in the north would now be “working independently, unencumbered by having to work in an official capacity”.

One Turkish Cypriot participating artist, Anber Onar, told the Mail, “For the artists nothing is changing. Whether or not there is agreement with Nicosia for Art, it will not discourage this event from taking place. If necessary we will hold a shadow Manifesta in the north”.

Zincir Celal partly blamed “a serious lack of communication” and “an active policy to block any kind of communication with the north” for the cutting of ties between the Greek Cypriot Nicosia for Art organisation and Manifesta.

“Nicosia for Art can now do whatever it likes, and Manifesta can still set up its associations with whoever else it wants,” she said.

Zincir Celal she had witnessed a change in attitude by Nicosia for Art towards Turkish Cypriot involvement.

“It was not like this at the beginning. Something changed at some point,” she said.


She added: “The Greek Cypriots were using Manifesta to present themselves to the international art crowd and Europe. Unfortunately for them the curators have turned out to be more sincere and genuine than they would have liked.”

Now Zingir Celal says alternative funds could be available for staging the event if the Cypriot government pulls out completely.

“More people are interested in providing funds for the event now,” she said, adding that interested parties also included some Greek Cypriots and foreign ambassadors.

Onar and Zingir Celal sought yesterday to play down any idea that Turkish Cypriot artist might seek to make political capital out of the row that has erupted between Manifesta and its Greek Cypriot hosts, with Onar saying, “The political significance is probably more important for the Europeans than it is for us. They have been shocked. They are now saying ‘we can’t work with these people’.”

Cyprus Mail 2006

Nicosia Municipality hits back at Manifesta ‘distortions’

By Elias Hazou

NICOSIA for Art (NFA) yesterday presented its side of the story on why Manifesta 6, one of the most important art events in the European art calendar, was abruptly cancelled.

The idea behind the endeavour was to make the city a hive of activity for 100 days for an international set of artists, art students and art critics.

However, last week hosts NFA, run by the Nicosia municipality, pulled the plug on the event. Mayor Michalakis Zampelas explained that the main reason for the NFA terminating the contracts was the insistence of both the curators and the International Foundation Manifesta (IFM) on locating part of Manifesta 6 Art School in north Nicosia.

Both curators were adamant that the concept of having the activities of the biennale on both sides of the Green Line were not as “recent and contrary to the original concept” as implied in the NFA’s statement.

Anton Vidokle, one of the curators claimed that the very outset there was an understanding that Manifesta 6 was to take place on both sides of the city and that local officials said had agreed to this.

The curators speculated that political pressure from above led to the scrapping of Manifesta 6.
But in a statement released yesterday, the NFA denied the accusations, insisting any fault for this turn of events lay squarely on the shoulders of the IFM.

“Firstly, we must stress that the initial idea adopted by the Curators as intended in the organisation included the creation of one integrated school, which the Curators themselves had decided to locate at the Nicosia Municipal Arts Centre.

“Unfortunately, given internal problems amongst the curators, which proved irresolvable in spite of all the efforts on the part of the host to overcome them, we were led to the splitting of the school into three departments, the responsibility of which would fall upon each of the three curators accordingly.

“Just this past February and while the search for the venues was ongoing throughout the whole city, a proposal for the rental of the Misirlizade Centre in Seray Square in occupied Nicosia was submitted. Despite the fact that the curators had previously decided that only the buildings which were offered free of charge would be used (as was the case with all previous Manifesta events), the organisers decided to investigate this possibility.

“It became clear from the outset that the establishment and operation of a department of the school in the occupied territories on a permanent basis stood in conflict both with Cyprus as well as International Law principles. Due to the obligatory passport check by the non-recognised ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’, it was not possible for NFA as the host of the event, to guarantee free access to participants as well as to the public at large. This was a contractual obligation of the host. The fact that participation in the main programme of the school was ‘obligatory and not optional (as would have been the case for ‘one-off’ events) created a serious legal problem given that the host would not be in a position to scrutinise and challenge the unlawful process of passport checks exercised by the ‘authorities’ of the so-called ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’.

“Even the establishment and operation of infrastructure on territory that is under occupation created insurmountable, real and fundamental problems (obtaining of licences, insurance, operations, permits for events in public places, and many more). It should also be stressed that, according to the contract, the host is autonomous in respect of the final choice of venues in which the undertakings and events of Manifesta will take place. Both IFM and the Curators repeatedly and strongly disputed NFA’s autonomy in this respect.”

In closing, the NFA expressed its “deepest regret for this unfortunate outcome, but also… surprise and disappointment for the manner in which the matter was handled, by both IFM and the curators, especially through incomplete public statements.

“The reasons that led to the termination of the event were purely of a legal nature and, in contrast to claims manifested by IFM and the curators, had nothing to do with political interference or pressure.

“Unfortunately… the rhetoric surrounding an issue as serious as the Cyprus problem has been used in such a way as to depict and reinforce division and bipolarity, instead of fundamentally contributing to its understanding.

“In spite of all the polemics to which the host, the Nicosia Municipality and the local community is subjected, as part of the distortion of its genuine and honest intentions, the Nicosia Municipality will nevertheless continue to pursue international collaborations that have the potential to create the climate for a real dialogue and promote, within and outside of the arts, programmes that strengthen tolerance and multiculturalism.”
Cyprus Mail 2006

Kıbrıs Rum ve Yunanistan Basınından Günlük Seçme Haber ve Makaleler.

06.06.2006

COMMENTS

Haravgi

“One Homeland, One People” (Article Coloumn)

“One homeland, one people”, not divided, but united... Holders of a single hegemony and territorial integrity... That’s the AKEL’s policy and has been following this policy for decades. Mehmet Ali Talat knows this as well as the whole Cyprus people including Greek Cypriots and Turkish, furthermore his own party used to defend these theses. In short he cannot blame a party by saying that “it is more beneficial for it to be on the front of rejection”. Especially when AKEL, with a-80-year-history behind it, is the only political party which stated in its founding declaration that all citizens of Cyprus, including Greeks, Turks, Armenians and Maronites have a place in the struggle against colonialism… Even after the Turkish occupation AKEL has extended the hand of friendship to our Turkish compatriots. It has stressed that a common struggle should be waged in order to remove the fait accompli of the invasion and occupation, and in order to live together in peace [peaceful co-existence?].

A good neighbourly relationship is relevant for two states. The proposal of Talat found no response from our people who was fighting to prevent a division and creation of two separate states. People of Cyprus wishes a solution on the basis of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation which has a single [the entire ?] sovereignty and unitary economy. The fait accompli of the crimes of the Coup d’État and Turkish occupation cannot be legitimised [legalised?]. They are the two sides of the same medallion in the conspiracy where Cyprus and the people are victims …

On stead of talking as the voice of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot leader should hear the voice of ordinary Turkish Cypriots who understood as a majority that by saying ‘no’ in the referendum the Greek Cypriots were not rejecting resolution, but rejecting the said plan. He should hear the voice of ordinary Turkish Cypriots who are tired of almost complete dependence of the occupation zone to Turkey, and facing severe oppression of the army and settlers.

Whole people of Cyprus know policy of AKEL very well. It is undeniably an open policy. Cyprus cannot be divided and we, all Greek and Turkish Cypriots will struggle to prevent unchanging policy of Turkey which wants to create a mandate on the Northern zone of our country. (ea)

Haravgi

“He must direct his criticisms somewhere else”

Talat said that being in the front of rejection becomes to AKEL …

In stead of direction his criticisms to AKEL he should better look at a mirror. Maybe than he realise that he is the one who should be ashamed. It is a pity but after several direction changes his personal attitude has changed. Similarly his behaviour towards AKEL which remained committed to the agreements signed with his party when he was the Chairman of the Republican Turkish Party… Now Talat speaks about good neighbourly relationship and removal of the said isolation of the Turkish Cypriots, it is apparent that he talks about a confederation of two separate sovereign states. Therefore he has to direct his criticisms somewhere else … (ea)

Haravgi

“Talat disclosed himself” (Kostakis Konstantinos)

Mehmet Ali Talat has disclosed a lot in the interview he has given to the “Fileleftheros” newspaper regarding his intentions and aims of the policy he has pursued. In deed Talat has disclosed himself, because now everybody knows that the one thing he was interested in was not resolving the Cyprus problem, and unifying our country and people with in the framework of a single state, but getting the pseudo state recognised.

Therefore, Talat refuses the process aiming to prepare the ground for restarting the negotiations that were agreed in Paris, and would have a greater rate of success in resolving the problem. Talat, does not accept that the technical committees start discussing the important aspects of the Cyprus problem in order to reduce the number of disputes and to prepare the ground for restarting negotiations, but insists that the committees discuss only daily issues. In other words he feels contended while he pretends to be a defender of resolution and blaming others for being rejectionist. His actions were advancing anything but a solution… He feels it is sufficient to pretend to be ready for negotiation; on the other hand he is not interested in advance preparations for successful completion of negotiations. That is, he does not bother that should the negotiations started, they were lead to failure. On the contrary he strives for such a development, because good intentioned people would argue that we were unable to find a solution, and they will pave the way to get the pseudo state of the Turkish side recognised and facilitate the plans to divide the island and our people.

Turkish side is called to prove in deed that they are really interested in the resolution of the Cyprus problem. The first step in this direction is to enter into a constructive cooperation in implementing the Paris agreement. In short, Talat should abandon being a rejectionist and start cooperating for the benefit of our people including Greek and Turkish Cypriots. (ea)

Alithia

“Only way out” (Opinion column entitled)

What AKEL’s press representative says or how the disaccorded chorus of the coalition conveys Talat’s theses are not important for the international community or fro the UN. The Turkish Cypriot leader has not only remained prepared to discuss the essence of the Cyprus problem, but also asked the UN Secretary General through a letter to undertake a new initiative.

The leaders of the coalition is very lax in trying the declared thesis and intentions of Talat, because they show by their actions and omissions, by their empty slogans and demagogic attitude that they were scared to follow the advice of the Security Council resolution no 1475 which states that the resolution should be negotiated on the basis of the UN plan.

However there is no other way out, their non-compliance with the resolution no 1745 which binding for everyone, is accompanied with a deafening silence. This silence is devotedly maintained by the prime movers of the inertia and distorting demagogy. In short who would belive us or who would take us seriously? So many empty words uttered for internal consumption is deceiving the people and extending the dangerous stalling in the mud.

We insist that in advancing effective solutions both in the disputes in Aegean (that is, they have implications on Cyprus problem) and in unifying the island again, the only shield defending the thesis of Greece and Cyprus is getting harmonised with the international law.

In defining a new pan-ethnic strategy, we expect that the learned intervention of the former President of Greece Stefanopulos who said that the disputes in Aegean should be referred to International Court of Justice in The Hague and the obligation to comply with the above-referred resolution of the Security Council are properly considered. Otherwise, as the shallow slogans continue the impasse would continue and Turkey would be allowed to be a couple of steps ahead of us by obtaining the tolerance of the international community and support in Taiwanisation of the occupation zone.

What is happening is important. What is said for internal consumption is not important. The people must see the truth in order to show its response and to prevent worse taking place. (ea)

Alithia

“That is the way European solution is implemented” (Alekos Konstantinidis)

After the referendum and refusal of the UN General Secretary’s plan that would unify Cyprus again, those who played the prime roles in the no campaign assured the people that in stead of the bad plan of the General Secretary, very soon a European plan presenting solution will be available. That is, when Cyprus became a member a couple of days after the referendum in Cyprus, on 1 May 2004, a solution based on the principles of the European Union… Two new “Europan” parties were founded: The European Democracy Party of Prodromos Prodromos and European Party (EVROKO) of Dimitris Şilluris. These parties declared as their prime target that finding a European solution to the Cyprus question.

At present we bear witness how the European solution to the Cyprus problem is implemented and those European parties, as well as those who support Europ should be very pleased. Even though they have not yet plainly stated that they are very pleased…

That is the way European solution is implemented:

As of 1 July the European Union Bureau start operating in the North (I use UN terminology).The bureau of the EU in the occupation zone will undertake to apportion the EU economic aid which would support Turkish Cypriot in economical terms

European Parliament will establish a Contact Group for Turkish Cypriots [ie. High-Level Contact Group for Relations with the Turkish-Cypriot Community]. CGTV will visit the occupation zone and so far as understood from its members’ statements that it would only interested in removing the isolation of Turkish Cypriots. The Contact Group will present its oral report regarding the measures to be adopted in order to remove the international isolation of the Turkish Cypriots at the annual Conference of the Speakers of European Union Parliaments which will be held in July. With the removal of the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots (this is the terminology adopted by the EU) the first big step of the European solution will be taken.

A member of the Contact Group, Austrian MEP Karin Resetarits defended application of Erasmus Student Exchange Programme for the universities in the occupied North Cyprus and supported the recognition of the universities through this manner.

EU Contact Group had a talk with Mehmet Ali Talat, the Turkish Cypriot leader, at his office.

European Greens Group openly declares that in order to advance a European solution to the Cyprus problem they would organise a meeting in the North Cyprus.

On 24 May a delegation consist of British MEP’s visited Mehmet Ali Talat at his office. Robert Evans MEP said that the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots should be removed and that EU was seeking methods in regards to resolution of the problem.

This is the European solution that has emerged or has been implemented or has found its way into implementation two years after the rejection of a solution which is proposed by the UN and said to be not compatible with the EU legislation.

Harmonious solution

“With the Annan plan you had a solution harmonious with the EU legislation. I do not agree with those who claim that it was not harmonious. I do not know what a solution within the EU framework means” (Netherlands Ambassador to Cyprus, interview with the Filelefteros newspaper, August 2004). (ea)

Alithia

“My friend MEPs” (Pampos Haralambus)

Yannakis Omiru, president of EDEK addressed yesterday to “my friend MEPs” and asked them not to believe the stories that isolation has been applied to the Turkish Cypriots. According to his explanations the isolation was not applied by the Republic of Cyprus but Turks themselves.

Omiru said the following in his statement: “It is true that the Turkish Cypriots have been isolated in economic, political, cultural and athletics spheres. Who can deny that? But this should be defined as follows: This isolation was imposed by the occupation solders of Turkey”. Interpreting the statements of the MEPs taking part in the EU Contact Group with Turkish Cypriots Omiru continued:

“I hope my friend MEPs will not fail to see that the isolation was imposed by the occupation forces of Turkey. Furthermore I hope that they will not fail to see the Security Council resolutions No 541 and No 550 which state that the members of the UN should avoid actions that would lead to direct or indirect recognition of the false [legally invalid ?] states”.

Yorgos Lillikas, the governmental spokesman said: “If the Turkish Cypriots are isolated, this is not caused by the Republic of Cyprus which has extended all rights and services to our Turkish compatriots, but caused by the Turkish invasion, maintained occupation and division of the island”.

The spokesman then questioned about the Mechtild Rothe’s comments of removing isolation only when the problem is resolved.

However the same MEP also stated “the principle purpose of our visit to the occupation zone is to express our solidarity with Turkish Cypriot community”. This means while the Turkish Cypriots could be isolated in economic and athletics, but not politically. Re. the dinner of Rothe and Robert Van der Water, member of political bureau of the Socialist Group of the EP, with the leaders of CTP, F.Soyer, K. Erk and O. Nami

After diner Rothe declared: “We wish the island reunited and Soc. Group of EP support Annan Plan. Cooperation of MEPs with the left leaning politicians of Cyprus is very important since we share the aims and opinions”.

I must remind you that Roth was one of the staunchest supporters of the Greek Cypriots in the ascension process and her help was invaluable. (ea)

Mahi

Provocation MEPs and stagnation of Greek Cypriots (Pambos Mitidis)

Following their visit to the occupation zone, members of the Contact Group will deduce that isolation was imposed on the Turkish Cypriots. What would be strange is that their failure to focus on the 250 displaced who have not been able to return to their homes for thirty years. The present situation is the result of Turkish actions. Their main ploy is to present new provocations on the grounds of refusal of the Annan Plan.

The Greek Cypriot side displays inertia and uses the 76 percent ou the national vote to realise some aims which are contrary to the Cyprus Hellenism. This unacceptable actions and political inactivity made the Turkish propaganda believable and made inroads to European conscience. We were converted from the victim to culprit and we may end up in the chair of the accused. (ab)

Fileleftheros

“Talat’s Real Intentions” (Görüş Sütunu)

At the end Mehmet Ali Talat opted to express the views pleasing Ankara in order to remain as the leader of the occupation regime. These views represent a continuity and the interview he has given to “Fileleftheros” confirms the policy of forever division of the island.

Talat’s reference to good neighbourly relations is very revealing regarding the Turkish intentions. While Talat distances himself from two state solutions, his above referred thesis support that logic. It is also supported by his insistence of discussin low level political issues.

Talat, insists on the Annan Plan because he hopes that the Greek Cypriots continue their opposition to the plan and the problem remains unresolved. To support this line Talat uses the following phrase from the letter of UN Sec. Gen. : “This plan is the only plan available on the negotiation table and would constitute the basis of the solution in the futire.”

The gap between the sides is widening, but concealing the intentions of one side would not serve any party. Talat must now prove that he is supporting resolution of Cyprus problem. Talat must prove that he is not only supporting the Plan but resolution of Cyprus problem. His views on reunification are very general and ambiguous. This is no longer concealable. (bş)

Fileleftheros

“Criticisms to Talat”

With the interview given to “Fileleftheros”, Talat became the focus of our government. Spokesman said that the leader of Turkish Cypriots is interested in the recognition of false state more than resolving the Cyprus issue. OK, but has our chiefs understood in only now? (bş)

Politis

“Talat, Lillikas, Lenin…” (Andreas Parashos)

Agreeing or disagreenig Talats thesis is not important. However if the government spokesperson distorts thesis the which were expressed in written form in an interview, to mislead the general public, now that is important …

After citing the question of Bimbissis and Talat’s reply the commentator asks us to peruse Lillikas’ reply: “Talat would like to discuss only daily political issues which he connects with recognition of the institutions of the false and political interests such as setting up a good neighbourly process state. Talat’s approach and the UN Gen.Sec thesis and opinion regarding a new preparatory work in order to prepare the preconditions and circumstances that would lead to a resolution through an agreed effort, are incompatible.

Here reaching the conclusion is up to you… We would only like to remind you the words of Vladimir İliç Lenin “Oft repeated lies turns in to the truth”. (bş)

Politis

“Are we racist?” (Yorgos Kaskanis)

A man applied to the authorised departments of a legitimate and internationally recognised state. He was unemployed and wished to learn if he was entitled to any benefit. From 8 o’clock in the morning to midday was not able to learn under a shower of humiliating misbehaviour of the authorities. He was a Turkish Cypriot. The conditions were not better for the rest but the officials went beyond the limits and proved that such a mentality is deeply rooted in the officialdom and among the people.

Could be the policy of compelling the Turkish Cypriots to Republic of Cyprus achieved by this manned? Don’t they realise that the things that heighten the barriers and enable the Turkish Cypriots to talk about isolations consist of all those mentality and behaviours?

The same were told to us by the MEPs. For the first time, using a forceful language, they pointed out isolations, necessity of free trade, blame Greek Cypriot side’s attitude as racist. A hue and cry was raised. Continuing their accustomed tactics they blamed the MEPs whenever they find a microphone.

But they did not deal with the above-referred incident. True, Greeks endure the same treatment, but they can curse on an inflexible state, but when the Turkish Cypriots are involved the comments of the MEPs would be rightly different. (bş)

Simerini

“Myth of isolation” (Görüş Sütunu)

Politics is communicating by using technology as well as persuasive thesis. From time immemorial the Greek Cypriot side uses poor, routine and dead-end arguments which have remained unconvincing to foreigners. The isolation of the poor Turkish Cypriots is a classical example of an Anglo-American myth, When their plan to submit the Greek side to the Turkish side was refused with a strong “no” answer in the referendum, this myth was put into circulation.

Greens and the Contact Group are now defending this myth. However months ago we warned the authorities to supply proper information to the members of these groups, and warned them the possibility of these groups turning to be a weapon of Turkish propaganda. It is now apparent that the authorities are failed.

Referring to Mechtild Rothe’s words regarding the isolation of Turkish Cypriots, the commentator asks: Who isolates the Turkish Cypriots since 1974? It is Turkey through its continuing occupation of the 37 percent of the territory of Republic of Cyprus… Turkey holds Turkish Cypriots as hostages due to expantionist political, economic, social and diplomatic reasons. All decisions are made by Turkey.

Isolation of the Turkish Cypriots is due to the occupationist presence of Attila. American, British, European and Turkish ravens are yodelling a revolting rhyme on the so-called isolation of the Turkish Cypriots. Why the government and political leadership who meddles with every issue do not reply to this Geobels propaganda? Do the Turkish Cypriots want to advance? Let them join us in an European Cyprus free from Attila, settlers and Turkey’s interventions… All other words are blatant propaganda of many foreigners and idiots among the Greek Cypriots. (bş)

Simerini

“Bed time story of isolation” (Kornilios Hacıkostas)

Some European circles, such as contact group, tend to belive the isolation story.

We know that the Turkish Cypriots are not isolated but awarded privileges to the detriment of the Greek Cypriots. As the government spokes person explained, the Republic provides services to the Turkish Cypriots without the obligations of the Greek Cypriot citizens.

Turkish Cypriots benefited from our properties in the occupation zone and enjoyed privileges in the free zone. The injustice is on the Greek Cypriots and displaced while the Turkish Cypriots is the most complaining party. (bş)

Politis

“Going is fine!”

We were insulted from the MEPs of the Contact Group. They said the Greek Cypriot side is racist. We all are ashamed as we are accustomed to be. … Last Saturday, French daily Le Monde published an article containing so much negative elements about Cyprus. This article argued that a Montenegrin type separate state scenario is justifiable for the Turkish Cypriots.

Going is fine! I am asking President Papadopulos what has happened to us. Let us wait the promised better days … (bş)

Politis

“Again they did not understand”

Following the visit of the MEPs of the Contact Group, our political leaders stated that “yet again the Europeans did not understand us”.

But why? Did we fail to find time to put our arguments? Did they refuse to discuss these arguments? Are those Europeans stupid? Does Turkey play them in his hands?

Or should we have mentioned “justified isolation (due to invasion and occupation) instead of “so-called isolation”? In either way the isolation is there and justified. Maybe then they start to talk about these. (bş)

NEWS

CNA

“Urgent dig in Paralimni is completed”

The emergency dig in Paralimni region where disappeared Turkish Cypriots are thought to be buried is completed. Disappeared Persons Committee will meet to evaluate the reports of the experts regarding the dig and adopt resolutions for the steps to be taken.

CNA

“Renovation of the churches in occupation zone”

Government spokesperson Yorgos Lillikas, stated that he has no knowledge of work oriented to renovate the destroyed churches in the occupation zone with the assistance of EU. The question was asked by “Simerini” newspaper and Lillikas said the Cyprus government support preservation of religious and historical works remaining in the occupation zone. He said he has no personal knowledge but believed the relevant ministries has information in this regard..

CNA

“A delegation of American Hellens Institute visit Cyprus”

A six member delegation will arrive on Monday to have talks in Cyprus. The official announcement states that the delegation meet high level governmental representatives and informed about the latest developments. The delegation will meet Papadopulos, Hristofyas, Sarris, Lillikas and US Ambassador Ronald Schlicher separately.
Delegation will have a press meting on Thursday and depart on 10 June.

Turkish Cypriots want to return to Tylliria homes

By Jean Christou

TURKISH Cypriot villagers, originally from Tylliria on the north western coast of the island, are asking to move back and have made an official request to the government.

Reports yesterday said the government was considering the request and would given an answer by December.

According to Turkish Cypriot newspaper Yeniduzen, former residents of five villages in the area who currently live in Yialousa, are demanding to return to their ancestral homes.

This might also pave the way for Greek Cypriots to return to live in Yialousa, the group representing the Turkish Cypriots said.

The group is also demanding compensation from the government for being forced to leave Tylliria in 1964 and being forced off their land prior to that during the intercommunal troubles.

Erdogan Ozbalikici, who heads the committee for the return of the villagers, told Yeniduzen their case was different because they were forced to abandon their homes in 1964, and not as a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion.

“We want to be compensated for the fact that we were expelled in 1964 but we also want the possibility to return,” Ozbalikici said. “We have been forgotten by the Greek Cypriot and the Turkish Cypriot politicians.”
Ozbalikici said he had met Interior Minster Andreas Christou and pointed out to him that Turkish Cypriots owned 77 square kilometers in the area.
“In August 1964 we were expelled from the area,” he said.

“We were forced live in an area of only six square kilometres. Many lived in caves, others in settlements, and in 1978 we lived in prefabricated housing.”

He added that the areas in question remained under Greek Cypriot control and even now when former Turkish Cypriot residents visited the area they couldn’t see their houses because they were under military army administration.

“If Titina Loizidou has the right to be compensated for her house, then the Turkish Cypriots of Tylliria have a hundred times more rights to this,” said Ozbalikici.

“We are victims and we want to be compensated under our international rights.”

He said they had been told by the Interior Ministry that they would have an answer by December.

Politis yesterday quoted Christou as saying the government was taking the request seriously but that there were many dimensions to it and that it would have to go to the Cabinet after an in-depth examination of the issues.
Cyprus Mail 2005

Government pleads with Greek Cypriots to avoid north’s ‘property commission’
By Elias Hazou

AN unhappy government yesterday appealed to people’s sense of patriotism, cautioning Greek Cypriots not to be lured by the glitter of gold as they seek compensation for their lost properties from the ‘compensation commission’ in the north.

The commission was set up last March. If accepted as legitimate by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the body could be handling Greek Cypriot applications for the reinstatement of properties in the north.

The establishment of the commission came after the ECHR last December handed the baton to Turkey to find a way of offering redress to Greek Cypriot Myra Xenides-Arestis, who lost her property in Varosha during the 1974 Turkish invasion. Turkey accepted the challenge and has in turn given the Turkish Cypriot authorities – as its ‘subordinate local authority’ – the task of delivering justice on Greek Cypriot property claims.

So far, around eight Greek Cypriots have contacted the commission’s offices in the occupied part of Nicosia. According to press reports, most of them are opting for the cash and waiving any claim to return to their homes in the north.

Not so for Arestis and her legal team, who expect Turkey to grant her full restitution – meaning access and use of her property.

With the deadline for Turkey’s compliance with the ECHR’s ruling expiring on Thursday, the fate of some 1,400 similar Greek Cypriot applications hangs in the balance.

And with time running out fast, the commission in the north is reportedly pulling out all the stops to acquire a veneer of credibility. According to daily Politis, the body is “promising Greek Cypriots the earth” should they choose to apply to it.

Compensation application forms are now available in Greek and English, and applicants are assured of handsome payouts. Moreover, the commission guarantees it can transfer the money to an applicant’s bank of choice, including banks in the south, although Turkish banks are recommended.

According to the commission’s legal advisors, depositing the amount in Turkish banks and then transferring it to a bank in the free areas would not present a problem – they point out that recently the National Bank of Greece acquired a controlling stake in Finansbank AS, Turkey’s sixth-largest publicly traded bank.

Over the weekend, Politis sent a group of its reporters undercover to investigate. The journalists, posing as interested refugees, were furnished with application forms and details on how to apply, including the relevant documentation.

According to Politis, the commission has drawn up certain models, based on which it calculates the value of the property being claimed. Using a large database, an estimate is made on the actual value of a tract of land or the compensation due a refugee for loss of use.

A lawyer working for the commission assured the Politis journalists of full confidentiality in their dealings.

It takes around a month and a half for an application to be examined. Initially, the commission asks the applicant to determine the amount of compensation he/she wants. Next the commission proposes its own figure. In the event of a major difference between the two amounts, applicants have the right to appeal first to the commission and then to the ECHR.

And the commission is reportedly planning to set up a website, where interested parties can find information and even carry out the initial stages of an application.

But Achilleas Demetriades, lawyer for Arestis, yesterday dismissed these moves as sensationalistic.

Turkish Cypriot press reports said that Arestis has been offered £460,000 for her property.
But Demetriades was unimpressed.

“Mrs Arestis’ primary concern is to return to her home in the fenced-off area of Varosha,” he told state radio yesterday.

“This is not academic. The ECHR has ordered Turkey to provide genuine redress until June 21, in other words restore Mrs Aresti to her property.

“I believe most people would take the same course of action as us. But certainly there are some who would prefer the money, due to financial difficulties and what have you. That’s fine. It’s their business. It’s understandable. We judge no one.”

Demetriades said he doubted that the European court would be influenced by this burst of activity from the commission.

“These are just attempts at attracting people, so that Turkey can then say ‘Look, we have so many applications pending before our commission’.”

Government Spokesman Christodoulos Pashardis yesterday urged Greek Cypriots to place the “national good” above their narrow personal interests.

“The government fully respects the individual rights of its citizens. But, first and foremost, it has respect for the broader national interest. Only a correct solution [to the Cyprus problem] can serve this national interest.

“I must stress also that the commission only provides compensation – it does not return one’s property or grant access to it,” he said.

DISY deputy chief Averoff Neofytou agreed, but took a different angle. He said the fact that people were turning to the commission suggested Greek Cypriots held out little hope for reunification and a political settlement.

“We must not leave this national affair to come down to each citizen’s personal needs and choices,” Neophytou warned.

“How can we be sure that the seven applicants today will not become 70 or 700 tomorrow?”
The same went for Turkish Cypriots seeking their properties back in the south.

“What will happen, God forbid, if the ECHR rules that the commission is fit to examine applications? My hope is that Greek Cypriots are very careful.

“Now is the time for initiatives. We must use our membership in the EU to come closer to a solution,” he added, taking a dig at the government.

Cyprus Mail 2006

Lost territories
By Nicos A. Rolandis

IN MY capacity as President of the Liberal Party of Cyprus, I attended the Congress of the Liberal International in Helsinki, Finland, from October 4-7, 1990. During my visit, I had a meeting with the Finnish Foreign Minister. The ambassador of Greece in Helsinki was present at the meeting.

The Cyprus problem was one of the subjects we discussed with the Minister. I briefed him about the continuing occupation of Cyprus and the displaced persons, who were fighting for their return to their homes.

It was then that the Minister interjected that recovery of properties lost as a result of war or armed conflict is an almost insoluble international problem. “My home lies tens of kilometres from where we are now,” he said. “My family lost it together with thousands of Finns who lost their homes, when 10 per cent of our territory became Soviet territory. Try to find a solution to your problem soon,” he advised, “because neither the return of territory nor the payment of compensation is easy after an armed conflict.”

I was of course conversant with the tragic developments in Europe after the Second World War. Many ambassadors had described to me how the properties of their families and their fellow countrymen were gone for ever, without the payment of any compensation whatsoever. Poland had suffered a net loss of 25 per cent of her territory, an area 12 times larger than the whole of Cyprus. (The Soviet Union took 40 per cent of Poland’s land, while Poland recovered 15 per cent from Germany). Territorial adjustments were made in other countries, like Romania and Hungary. Millions of people were thrown out of their homes and properties and they did not receive any compensation. All this happened in privileged Europe.

It is an undisputed fact that in the maelstrom of war all principles are razed to the ground: values, human rights, objectives, dreams. And if one roams about the less endowed parts of the globe, human rights and their implementation have become a joke.

Here in Cyprus, we Greek Cypriots lost a war in 1974. A war caused, to some extent, by imprudent and frivolous decisions and actions of Hellenism. In the process we lost 37 per cent of the territory of Cyprus. Many people died. We had missing persons and refugees.

Our losses were very large compared to the size of Cyprus but insignificant if juxtaposed to world tragedies. How could we ever keep the interest in Cyprus alive, when a few weeks are enough to erase the memories of avalanches, such as the carnage of 500,000 people in Rwanda, the continuous loss of life in Iraq and Palestine, the extermination of 2 million people in Cambodia in 1975-9, the interminable pain, suffering and famine affecting Africa and Asia, where death – and nobody else – exercises its rights? Truly, who is going to care about the well fed Cypriot, who has lost a piece of land in the occupied part of Cyprus, in the face of cataclysms caused by international human tragedies?

This is why I have been supporting since the 1970s a feasible federal solution to our problem. It was obvious to me that what was in our dreams would never be offered to us (and it was never offered). The European and the world communities had reached the conclusion (rightly, I believe) that we had been partly to blame for the predicament of Cyprus, so they wanted us to pay our share of the price, through the various plans for the solution of our problem.
More specifically, on the question of property, all plans submitted so far provided for the return of a rather large chunk of land and for the compensation for those properties which would not be returned.

The Annan plan (it was worse than the previous plans, which we had rejected in the past) provided that 8 per cent of the territory would be returned and placed under Greek Cypriot administration. The area to be returned included Varosha, a large part of Morphou and more than 50 villages. All in all 50 per cent of all refugees (85,000) would go back to their towns or villages under Greek Cypriot administration. Others would return under Turkish Cypriot administration and the rest of them would be compensated. The plan was rejected. We opted for the “Lost Territories” solution rather than the reunification to which the Annan plan would lead us, according to AKEL.

The government now tries to handle the impasse caused by its own decisions and actions. In the occupied part of Cyprus thousands of buildings have been erected in the past two to three years and many other are under construction. Colossal projects are programmed in the Morphou area. In Vokolida alone, $500,000,000 will be invested.

The decisions of the past three years are clearly leading Cyprus to partition. Only blind people cannot see this reality – but it appears that our blind fellow citizens outnumber those who can see. Which properties and which compensation will ever be granted to the refugees and through which methodology will this be achieved, if one takes into account that seven opportunities for a solution of our problem, all of them supported by the United Nations and the international community, have been dumped by us since the invasion?

It has already been proved how ineffectual and politically dangerous are recourses to the European Court of Human Rights. Is it therefore not to be anticipated that all those who lost their properties will eventually join the endless queues of Finns, Poles, Romanians? Or of the Greeks of Asia Minor (the soil from their land is still, 84 years later, close to the hearts of their descendants) or of the Syrians of Alexandretta (Iskenderun)? Or of the millions who lost their properties elsewhere in the world?

In our case however there is an obvious difference. The decision to reach this deadlock was taken by us. We opted for “wishful thinking”. We rejected what was reasonably acceptable and feasible. Our mistakes of the past did not teach us, so we were condemned to repeat them and to bear the final tragic consequences.



NICOS A. ROLANDIS
POLITICAL BUREAU


Tel:+357 22 353811/2, Fax:+357 22 353100, P.O. Box 21700 – 1508 Nicosia. Email: nicos@rolandis.com

CYPRUS MAIL