Browse through our Interesting Nodes on the Informatics & Computing Business in Greece A)? GHT="50">
Compact version
Today's Suggestion
Read The "Macedonian Question" (by Maria Nystazopoulou-Pelekidou)
HomeAbout HR-NetNewsWeb SitesDocumentsOnline HelpUsage InformationContact us
Wednesday, 3 March 2021
  Latest News (All)
     From Greece
     From Cyprus
     From Europe
     From Balkans
     From Turkey
     From USA
  World Press
  News Archives
Web Sites
  Interesting Nodes
  Special Topics
  Treaties, Conventions
  U.S. Agencies
  Cyprus Problem
  Personal NewsPaper
  Greek Fonts

Cyprus PIO: Turkish Press and Other Media, 02-11-26

Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article - Next Article

From: The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office Server at <>



  • [01] Ankara reportedly expects Denktas to give positive reply to UN in 2 days.
  • [02] KIBRIS: ^”Denktas started working in an intensive manner^‘.
  • [03] Cosar discusses the UN plan with the US Ambassador.
  • [04] EP's Lajendik cites other alternatives to getting date at summit.
  • [05] Rauf Denktas denies reports that UN plan accepted.
  • [06] British special envoy on Cyprus met with Turkish Foreign Ministry Officials on Cyprus problem.
  • [07] KIBRIS says that the interest of foreigners in buying land the title deeds of which are in Turkish Cypriot hands increases.
  • [08] TURK-SEN considers the Annan plan as basis for negotiations; Statements by Eroglu and Ilkay Kamil on the Annan plan.
  • [09] National Security Council of Turkey will convene on 29 November.
  • [10] Mumtaz Soysal analyzes UN plan on Solution of the Cyprus problem.
  • [11] Rauf Denktas said that plan has to be assessed with the people.
  • [12] KIBRIS: Turkey is ready for a ^”Give and Take^‘ process.
  • [13] Erdogan said that EU should give date and a solution should be found to Cyprus
  • [14] Potable water has been found in the occupied Pergamos village.

  • [15] A Columnist said that UN plan is a good opportunity and criticized Denktas rejection.
  • [16] European Security and Defence Policy is solved.
  • [17] ^”Cyprus divided^‘.


    [01] Ankara reportedly expects Denktas to give positive reply to UN in 2 days

    According to KIBRIS (26.11.02), Ankara expects that the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas, give a positive written response to the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan^“s Cyprus plan within two days.

    The paper quoting unnamed diplomatic sources reports that there was a strong possibility that Denktas would convey to the U.N. that the plan could be taken as a basis for negotiations.

    The U.N. Secretary-General Annan presented the plan to the sides on November 11, and the Greek Cypriot side stated on November 18 that it was ready to negotiate the plan.

    Meanwhile NTV (26.11.02) reported from New York that Denktas was not happy with the plan, so much that he wanted to call it not a document but a ^”non-paper^‘.

    [02] KIBRIS: ^”Denktas started working in an intensive manner^‘

    According to KIBRIS (26/11/02), the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas who is currently in New York recuperating from open- heart surgery that he underwent in early October has started working in an intensive manner and his health is getting better.

    Denktasī advisor Ergun Olgun who is in New York together with Denktas, told KIBRIS that the Turkish Cypriot leader prior to submitting the Turkish side^“s answer to the UN Secretary-General, is holding a series of continued consultations with Turkish and foreign diplomats. He went on and said that following these consultations the answer of the Turkish side will be conveyed to the UN. However, he added, the time when the answer will be given is yet to be decided. Olgun said that tomorrow Denktas will be meeting with the USA Undersecretary of State Mark Grossman and Special coordinator Thomas Weston.

    [03] Cosar discusses the UN plan with the US Ambassador

    According to KIBRIS (26.11.02), the so-called State Minister and Deputy Prime Minister of the pseudostate Salih Cosar met yesterday with the US Ambassador to Cyprus Michael Klosson.

    The meeting took place of the US Embassy^“s Bureau in the occupied area. KIBRIS reports that evaluations of the Turkish Cypriots about the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan^“s Cyprus plan and especially the views of the coalition partner Democrat Party (DP) were discussed at the meeting.

    During the meeting, writes KIBRIS, Cosar referred to the negative issues regarding the territory arrangements, problems that might occur in case of settlement of the Greek Cypriots in the north of the island and deficiencies of the plan in the economic field.

    In turn Klosson said that Annan expected the parties to express their views about the plan as soon as possible and added that a framework agreement that could be reached before December 12 would serve the interests of all the parties.

    [04] EP's Lajendik cites other alternatives to getting date at summit

    According to KIBRIS (26.22.02), Turkey-EU Parliament, Joint Parliamentary Commission (JPC) Co-Chairman Joost Lajendik said yesterday to get a date for accession talks is not that the only choice for Turkey at the Copenhagen summit.

    ``There are many other alternatives, even if Turkey does not get a date at the Copenhagen summit, this won^“t mean that Turkey has lost, `` Lajendik said.

    The JPC delegation headed by Lajendik responded to questions of journalists after meeting with Turkish Foreign Ministry Deputy Undersecretary Ambassador Akin Alptuna.

    Lajendik said that their visit to Turkey is the first one following the elections in Turkey, adding that they will meet with Prime Minister Abdullah Gul as well.

    Lajendik said that they took up the reform package adopted by Turkey on the way to EU membership in the meeting, adding that they were pleased with the new package proposed by the Gul government.

    Noting that the reform process of Turkey has to continue and cooperation has to be made in Cyprus issue, Lajendik said that ``thus, Turkey can get advantages in Copenhagen. Certainly, the decision belongs to member countries. ``

    When asked what will happen if Turkey can^“t get a date for accession talks during the Copenhagen summit, Lajendik said that to get a date is not the only alternative for Turkey.

    Lajendik said that there are many alternatives for Turkey at the Copenhagen summit.

    When a reporter asked him what will happen if Turkey can^“t get the date it expects to get in Copenhagen, Lajendik said that ``the debate on this issue still continues within the EU. ``

    ``There is a discussion about this issue, officials discuss whether a negotiation date or a `date for a date` will be given to Turkey. Even if Turkey can^“t get the negotiation date in Copenhagen, this won^“t mean that Turkey has lost, there are many alternatives for Turkey. EP has not taken a clear decision on this issue; everybody has his/her own views. But Turkey should not only regard Copenhagen as a summit to get a negotiation date, there are many alternatives. Turkey should not think that there is only one alternative, `` he said.

    When asked what would their message to the EP be, Lajendik said that they will draw EP`s attention to the reforms undertaken by Turkey to date.

    ``Besides, we must also look at the position of the Turkish government about Cyprus which has not become clear yet. The decision will be given by heads of states and governments, `` he said.

    [05] Rauf Denktas denies reports that UN plan accepted

    According to Ankara TRT 2 (25.11.02), the Turkish Cypriot leader, Rauf Denktas denied the reports in certain media organs to the effect that he had accepted the plans submitted to the sides by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan. In a statement to a television station broadcasting in the occupied area, Denktas said that he had discussed the Cyprus problem with Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis in a sincere manner, and added: ^”The issues on which we have agreed are the milestones of the national cause.^‘ Pointing out that he has conveyed his views on the plan to the Turkish foreign minister in candour, Denktas said: ^”There is no such thing that we accepted it. We asked the Secretary-General for more time. Accepting or not accepting is one thing, and looking and confirming is another. The report that we accepted the plan is mistaken.^‘

    [06] British special envoy on Cyprus met with Turkish Foreign Ministry Officials on Cyprus problem

    According to ORTAM (26.11.02) and Ankara Anatolia News Agency (25.11.02) the British Special Envoy on Cyprus Lord Hannay, who is in Ankara for official contacts, conveyed the message that after the Copenhagen summit everything will be more difficult.

    Lord Hannay met yesterday with the Turkish Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ambassador, Mr Ugur Ziyal, and other Turkish high ranking officials regarding the Cyprus issue.

    The British envoy said yesterday that they are working to get a result in the Cyprus problem before the Copenhagen summit, adding that they are waiting for acceptance of the U.N. plan as a basis for new negotiations.

    Responding to questions of journalists after the meeting, Lord Hannay said that he didn^“t want to issue an official statement in an atmosphere in which consultations between the sides continued. Noting that his meeting with Ambassador Ziyal was very constructive, Hannay said that they took up the Cyprus problem in details.

    Lord Hannay said that similar contacts between the concerned sides will continue, adding that the aim is to get the result needed by the EU before the Copenhagen summit. He also added that the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Mr Jack Straw, will probably visit Turkey next week.

    Asked what will happen if there is no result before the Copenhagen summit, Hannay said that he didn^“t want to deal with speculations.

    When asked what he expected from the Turkish side, Hannay said: ^”Our target is the acceptance of the U.N. plan as the basis in a new relation order^‘.

    When asked about his impressions of the meeting at the Ministry, Hannay said that the meeting was very constructive and the issue was complicated.

    Hannay noted that they had talked like friends and allies who had many common goals related to Turkey^“s EU membership.

    Asked whether he would meet with the new government, Lord Hannay said that he would have met with the Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis if he was in Ankara and stated that he wanted to have the opportunity to have a meeting with Yakis in coming days.

    Responding to a question if there was a direct link between the Cyprus question and Turkey^“s EU membership process, Hannay said that there was not any official link but many issues similar to that were linked with each other.

    Lord Hannay pointed out that the British government believed that the Cyprus question should be solved under its own umbrella and with methods regarding vital interests of Turkish and Greek Cypriots, Turkey and Greece.

    ^”The British government believes that Turkey^“s EU membership process should be taken up within its framework and it supports giving a clear calendar to Turkey^‘, Hannay said.

    When he was reminded about the proposal of Justice and Development Party (JDP) leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan that Cyprus, European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP) and Turkey^“s EU membership process should be taken up as a package, Hannay said that those issues were taken up in London the previous week.

    Noting that those meetings were very positive, Hannay said that British Prime Minister Tony Blair was impressed with Erdogan^“s views about Turkey^“s future.

    Gul and meet with Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal.

    Lajendik is expected to assess his contacts by holding a news conference on Tuesday.

    [07] KIBRIS says that the interest of foreigners in buying land the title deeds of which are in Turkish Cypriot hands increases

    KIBRIS (26.11.02) reports that the interest of foreigners in buying land, the title deeds of which belongs to the Turkish Cypriots, increases. Quoting ^”some real estate agents^‘, the paper writes that foreigners are selling their land in the free areas of Cyprus for 150 thousand or 200 thousand Cyprus pounds and buy houses in occupied Kyrenia for 50 thousand or 70 thousand pounds.

    The real estate agents told KIBRIS that the increase of the interest of the foreigners in buying land in occupied Kyrenia is due to the developments regarding the Cyprus problem. The agents expressed the opinion that the market will be revived in case an agreement is reached, continues KIBRIS, noting that selling land has stopped in all the occupied areas except Kyrenia.

    Talking to KIBRIS, the owner of Mut Real Estate Agents, Haluk Mut said that those who are interested in buying land in Kyrenia are mostly British citizens. ^”Some British who live in South Cyprus have began selling their homes there for 150 - 200 sterling pounds and buy houses in Kyrenia^‘, he added noting that the British prefer land the title deeds of which belong to Turkish Cypriot who live in London.

    [08] TURK-SEN considers the Annan plan as basis for negotiations; Statements by Eroglu and Ilkay Kamil on the Annan plan

    KIBRIS (26.11.02) reports that Turkish Cypriot Trade Unions^“ Federation (TURK ^÷ SEN) considers that the plan submitted by the UN Secretary ^÷ General, Kofi Annan for Cyprus, could be a basis for negotiations. TURK ^÷ SEN^“s chairman, Onder Konuloglu announced at a press conference yesterday the opinion of the executive committee of the trade union on the issue.

    Mr Konuloglu claimed that no one has the right to ignore the political equality, the bi-zonality and the fifty ^÷ fifty partnership in the state to be established. Mr Konuloglu expressed the opinion that there is chaos now in the Turkish side because Turkey is saying one thing and the so-called ^”officials^‘ of the pseudostate say something different.

    ^”We consider the Annan document as an opportunity and we believe that it should be accepted as a basis for negotiations^‘, he concluded.

    Meanwhile, speaking during a meeting with the so-called ^”attorney general^‘ Akin of the pseudostate, Mr Dervish Eroglu, so-called ^”prime minister^‘ of the illegal regime, said that the Turkish Cypriots are misinformed about the plan and added that the plan has been translated into Turkish and as from today it will be explained to the people.

    Furthermore, Ilkay Kamil, so-called ^”education and culture minister^‘, who is visiting London, has said that there are some points in the plan which the Turkish side cannot accept and claimed that the plan cannot be a basis for negotiations as it is today.

    [09] National Security Council of Turkey will convene on 29 November

    CUMHURIYET (25.11.02) reports, under the banner headlines ^”Sensitive Subjects' Will Be explained in the NSC", that the National Security Council (NSC) of Turkey will convene on 29 November.

    According to the paper the first National Security Council meeting, in which the Justice and Development Party (JDP) government will participate, will be held on Friday, 29 November 2002. On the agenda of the meeting are the subjects of Cyprus, the ESDP (European Security and Defence Policy), the EU and northern Iraq, which are being intensively talked about in the public opinion. Due to the fact that the members of the new government will participate for the first time, the NSC Secretary-General, General Tuncer Kilinc, will make a presentation related to the "National Security Policy Document" (NSPD). The explanation of the subject of religious reactionism, which takes first place among the internal threat elements, constitutes the most sensitive part of the meeting. The military wing of the NSC is also expected to explain its reservations related to the plan submitted by the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to the sides on Cyprus.

    The second government formed of the cadres coming mainly from the national school of thought, will become acquainted for the first time all together with the military wing of the state at the NSC meeting that will be held on 29 November. A total of eight ministers from the cabinet, in which Abdullah Gul is the Prime Minister, will participate at the NSC meeting. Besides Gul, his deputies Ertugrul Yalcinbayir, Mehmet Ali Sahin, Abdullatif Sener, Minister of Foreign Affairs Yasar Yakis, Minister of Internal Affairs Abdulkadir Aksu and Justice Minister Cemil Cicek will represent the government. Minister Aksu is the only minister who has the attribute of having NSC experience. Aksu had previously participated in the NSC because he was in the same position during the Turgut Ozal period. Prime Minister Gul and Justice Minister Cicek, although they have government experience, had not been in positions in which they would have participated in the NSC. The fact that during the election period the JDP had criticized the fight against religious reactionary activities in the 28 February process is directing attention to this meeting.

    The meeting, under the chairmanship of President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, will be attended from the military wing by the Chief of General Staff, General Hilmi Ozkok; the Land Forces Commander, General Aytac Yalman; the Air Forces Commander, General Cumhur Asparuk; the Gendarmerie General Commander, General Sener Eruygur and the NSC Secretary General, General Kilinc. It is expected that the subject of Cyprus, the ESDP, northern Iraq and the EU, which have been talked about intensively in the public opinion recently, will come onto the agenda.

    In the meeting, in which the Prime Minister and the ministers, who are new members of the NSC, will participate for the first time, will be given information on the subject of Turkey's "NSBD". On this subject, the NSC Secretary General, General Tuncer Kilinc will make a presentation. Kilinc will explain the elements of internal and external threat aimed at the Republic regime and the measures accepted to be taken against these. This presentation constitutes the most sensitive point of the NSC meeting. Previously, in the period when the 28 February process was started and caused by the Refahyol [coalition between the defunct Welfare Party and the True Path Party] government, the NSBD was rewritten. In its revised form, religious reactionism, among the internal threat elements, was put in first place. The 28 February NSC declaration, in which the legal measures directed against religious reactionism were placed, had been approved by Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, in whose cabinet [the present] Prime Minister Gul was also a member. Within this scope, it was accepted to prepare 24 legal regulations against religious reactionary activities. Very few of these regulations could be made into laws. A series of applications were put into effect aimed at the illegal Koran courses and drying up of the financial resources of religious reactionism. Basic education was increased to eight years, the number of imam-hatip schools was decreased, and the entrance into public schools wearing turbans [headscarf worn as a political symbol] was forbidden. The attitude to be displayed by the ministers of the JDP government during the explanation of religious reactionism, which is in first place among the internal threat elements, and the necessary measures to be taken against these, is of importance. While religious reactionism was brought to first place in the listing of internal threats due to the applications of the Refahyol government, separatism is in second place and racist mafia-type organizations and corruption are in third place.

    In the listing of the external threats are the aspirations of Greece against Turkey and Cyprus, the authority vacuum in northern Iraq and the activities of Iran for exporting its regime. Syria, which was previously included in the list of external threats, has recently been removed from this position. The "NSBD", which is renewed when needed, also includes a deployment of the units according to the foreign threats and the measures to be taken. Furthermore, it was stated that some expressions in the government program read the day before yesterday [Saturday, 23 November] in the TGNA [Turkish Grand National Assembly] could also come onto the agenda in the NSC meeting.

    In the government program, the section about the banning of the rights of civil servants can only be realized with a judiciary judgment, is being perceived as referring to the decisions of the Supreme Military Council (SMC). If a new law is passed in this direction, then the course for taking the decisions of the SMC to the court will be opened.

    Subtitle: The Reservations about Cyprus

    Information will be given to the government within the scope of the detailed study made by the General Staff on the subject of the proposal of the UN Secretary-General, Mr Kofi Annan, submitted to the sides on Cyprus. In the study made by the General Staff it emphasizes that the security areas of the ^”Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus^‘ are besieged in the maps in the proposal and the following reservations are listed:

    ^”- According to the map, the Karpass Cape, which is the most extreme point [northeast] of Cyprus, would remain on the Greek Cypriot side. This would create problems in the control of the Iskenderun Bay. The Iskenderun Bay is one of the most important oil transport places due to the Baku-Ceyhan Oil Pipeline. The Karpass Port, which would pass into the hands of the Greek Cypriots, is the passing point of the oil tankers. It holds under complete control the transport routes going to Famagusta. The Eastern Mediterranean has priority in Turkish foreign policy. The freedom of Turkey in the Eastern Mediterranean is dependent on Cyprus being in reliable hands.

    - Morphou is the only source of [fresh] water of the ^”TRNC^‘. The region is famous for its olive and orange groves. These are the sources of livelihood for the Turkish Cypriots.

    - The settlement of the Greek Cypriots in the territories that would be left by the Turkish Cypriots could lead to the island becoming a Greek Cypriot island.

    - The majority of the Turkish Cypriots live in locations close to the "Green Line". As the result of the UN maps 80 thousand Turkish Cypriots could fall into the position of becoming immigrants. Resettlement of the Turkish Cypriots from this region to other regions could upset the economic and social structure on the island.^‘

    [10] Mumtaz Soysal analyzes UN plan on Solution of the Cyprus problem

    Mumtaz Soysal, Denktas' legal advisor, gave an interview to Cumhuriyet correspondent Ayhan Simsek. Cumhuriyet (25/11/02) publishes the full text of the interview. Following is the full text of the interview:

    ^”Question: What kind of an answer is the īTurkish Republic of Northern Cyprusī thinking to give to the UN plan?

    Answer: We are not considering the rejection of the document. We will convey to the UN Secretary-General the elements that cannot be accepted in the plan and the points that have to be revised. This plan may become a beneficial document in the direct negotiations with the Greek Cypriots and one that we may take up mutually together with the other documents. However, this plan cannot form a document for negotiations with the United Nations.

    A wrong impression was created among the Turkish public as if Turkey was going to discuss this document with the United Nations. īTRNCī is the main subject of the discussion. However, īTRNC^“sī name has not been mentioned in this document. This is a serious mistake. What is more, this document is not an ultimatum that should be either accepted or rejected. This is a document with the aim of assisting the two sides to reach a consensus.

    Question: What are the drawbacks of this document from the perspective of the Turkish Cypriots?

    Answer: Particularly the īnew partnership based on sovereign equalityī is extremely complicated. It is not clear as to whether or not the Greek Cypriots, which claim to represent the whole of the island under the name of the Republic of Cyprus, will continue to be recognized in this way. The document mentions a "Cypriot" state. Even if the document mentions that this is the name of the new state, the "Republic of Cyprus" is in this way being recognized.

    This kind of a danger exists in the document. The document does not openly say that "the names of the Republic of Cyprus and īTRNCī will change and will acquire new names," that the states under these names will become founding members [of the new state], or that the new state will acquire a certain new name. The name of the new state is not present in this document. The two sides will certainly find a name, but the document should have at least indicated that the two sides should agree on such a name.

    Question: Does this document meet the Turkish Cypriot people's expectations with regard to sovereignty?

    Answer: It cannot be said that this document meets the expectations of the Turkish Cypriot people with regard to sovereignty. The following process is being implemented with regard to the formation of the new partnership. The leaders of the two sides will first agree as the īleaders of the two communitiesī. A new partnership will emerge from this agreement. This means that the new partnership is not being formed of two states. However, we have been arguing for the formation of a partnership after each of the two states offers a part of its own sovereignty.

    The sovereignty of the new partnership state should have been formed by the sovereignty of the two states. īTRNCī should have been recognized a week or at least 24 hours before the signing of an agreement in order for one of the two parts not to be reduced to an īorganization of a congregationī.

    Question: Why is this definition so important?

    Answer: What the document does is that it introduces constitutional changes. However, the introduction of a new Constitution does not mean the coming into being of a new state, for constitutional amendments were introduced often in the past in Turkey, such as the one for changing the name "Turkey" into the "Republic of Turkey".

    The first and second French republics were mentioned while drawing up the 1961 Constitution. This was the continuation of the Republic of Turkey. Are the Turkish Cypriots being asked to accept this plan? That is, will the same state continue to exist even when constitutional amendments are introduced? The 1960 Republic of Cyprus has now been turned into the īGreek Cypriot Republicī.

    The guarantees are not sufficient for the Turkish Cypriot side. The Greek Cypriots, who took the Republic of Cyprus under their control during the incidents that took place in 1963-1974, claim that the Cyprus issue is an internal problem, that there was a revolt, that the Turkish Cypriots left the administration, and that this is why incidents erupted. The whole world, for its part, believed the allegations made by the Greek Cypriots.

    However, we thereafter pointed out that these incidents occurred in the two partnerships established by two states, that these incidents cannot be considered an internal issue, and that the solution that will be found at the end of the talks should be reached through an agreement between two states and not through constitutional amendments. The existence of the Turkish Cypriots can be secured only in this way. We want an agreement between two states in order to show the existence of an entity established by two states.

    Question: Does the manner in which the guarantee agreements are taken up in the UN document assure the Turkish Cypriot side?

    Answer: The document takes the security gained with the help of the guarantee agreements beyond the 1960 process. According to the document, the "community leaders" will sign a Constitution. Thereafter the state that will turn into the state of Cyprus will sign an agreement with the guarantor states. A more secure agreement was signed in 1964 among five parties, mainly, the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot side, Britain, Greece, and Turkey.

    Question: The Greek Cypriot side has up until the present been arguing for the solution of the problem through constitutional amendments. Is the document in its present form closer to the Greek Cypriot approach?

    Answer: Our impression is that this document was drawn up jointly with other states, particularly Britain and the United States, with the participation of the EU and the Greek Cypriots and not by the United Nations alone. The leaking of the details about the document to the Greek Cypriot press is an indication of this fact.

    Question: "Political equality" was one of the important solution parameters of the United Nations. Is the UN plan a reassuring document from this perspective?

    Answer: The document does not meet our expectations on this issue. Moreover, the document contains certain traps. There are in Cyprus two communities that do not appear equal at first glance from the numerical perspective. When we say political equality in light of our past experiences, we are asking for an equality that goes beyond the appearance of numerical equality. This is very important for the security of the Turkish Cypriot people. However, the UN document envisages a voting system with the participation of everyone and not a voting system based on communal separation.

    The document says that "at least one-fourth of the votes" of one of the two sides is required for making decisions. That is, a decision can be made when in a 48-member parliament 24 Greek Cypriots and one-fourth of the Turkish Cypriot members, or six Turkish Cypriot members, vote in favour of the same decision. According to our past experience, all the Greek Cypriot political parties are after Hellenism. On the other hand, an atmosphere of pluralism prevails in the Turkish Cypriot side. Consequently, decisions in favour of the Greek Cypriots would emerge with regard to issues that the majority of the Turkish Cypriots do not approve of [if this voting system is approved].

    Question: What are the Turkish Cypriots thinking about the Greek Cypriots who would settle in the Turkish Cypriot side in accordance with the UN plan? Will this affect the political equality?

    Answer: We are against [the settlement of Greek Cypriots in the Turkish Cypriot side] for two reasons. First, we are not sure about the extent to which the claim that the past has been completely forgotten is true. There is a great difference there even if the Greek Cypriots say that they have forgotten the past. A major part of our youth wants to forget the past either due to the lack of information or due to the lack of knowledge. However, the youth in the Greek Cypriot side is ready to fight for these causes in an extremely militant manner.

    Second, there are in each of the two communities^“ individuals who would not forget the past easily. According to the document, one-third of the population in our part will gradually consist of Greek Cypriots at the end of a 20-year period. These Greek Cypriots will become the citizens of the fragment state and, consequently, they will have the right to run as candidates and to vote. This may generate a more dangerous situation compared to other situations. Should the voting process I just mentioned become valid, these individuals will constitute a one-fourth majority that will always be ready [to vote] in favour of the [Greek Cypriot] side.

    Question: How do you assess the land exchange issue?

    Answer: The introduction of a map envisaging the exchange of properties is a big mistake. This will render the finding of a solution difficult; for certain sensitivities have emerged following the introduction of this map. This issue developed tension in the Turkish Cypriot side, while it developed an expectation that would be absolutely reassuring in the Greek Cypriot sector. The two sides will be affected by these sensitivities, thus reaching a stage where conciliation is more difficult. This map cannot be accepted from the perspective of its options and from the perspective of the territorial integrity and economy of the Turkish Cypriot people.

    The lands that will be transferred to the Greek Cypriots are fields where oranges, which are export products, are particularly produced. The plan has been drawn up in such a way that in appearance, it looks like as if it has been drawn up in a humane manner. They claim that this map has been drawn up in such a manner that only a small number of people will be made uneasy. While drawing up this map, they are making calculations on making uneasy the Turkish Cypriots who have settled here during the course of time and not the Turkish Cypriots who have settled there since the outset.

    The decisions adopted during the 1977-1979 summits contradict this map. Each of the two sectors is being requested to run its own economy. Should these maps be accepted, the Turkish Cypriot sector will not have the opportunity to run its own economy.

    Question: The UN plan contains different propositions on the exchange of property. Does the plan contain a solution that is acceptable to the Turkish Cypriots from this perspective?

    Answer: This is one of the sections that contain the largest amount of flaws. They are proposing the [solving of the properties issue] on an individual basis instead of the group solution and compensation method that we earlier introduced and that was accepted by the United Nations. They have been inspired in this regard from the controversial Loizidou lawsuit filed at the European Court for Human Rights. These are options that will create tension on the island.

    Question: How do you assess the maps from the security perspective?

    Answer: The soldiers use an important military concept called "deepness." This concept is being eliminated with these maps. The withdrawal from the Mesaoria lands extending to Lefkoniko Airport, which is important from the military perspective and from the lands in the west, would require the redeployment of two military land divisions.

    Question: How will the solution process of the Cyprus problem proceed after the reply that you will give to the UN plan?

    Answer: I am not very hopeful. I am concerned that the solution process will fracture itself against our desire. The failure of the Greek Cypriots, who are expecting EU membership during the forthcoming Copenhagen summit, to take any steps in this regard is making the finding of a solution difficult. Despite all the flaws found in the UN plan, we want the continuation of the talks process by regarding this plan as a document that is useful in the talks process.

    However, the process of finding a solution to the Cyprus problem will inevitably be affected when the Greek Cypriots are granted EU membership during the Copenhagen summit. At that time we, for our part, will set certain conditions for the continuation of the process in question. This condition will be the lifting of the embargoes on the Turkish Cypriots after recognizing īTRNCī and the entry of Cyprus into the EU together with Turkey.^‘

    The Turkish private TV channel NTV (26.11.02) broadcast Mumtaz Soysal^“s statement in NTV that there are pressures within Turkey, to accept the plan as a basis for negotiations.

    [11] Rauf Denktas said that plan has to be assessed with the people

    According to KIBRIS (26.11.02) the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas has stressed that he felt the need of assessing the plan submitted by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan with the so-called ^”TRNC^‘ Assembly, the pseudo-government, and the people. Denktas replied to illegal BRT correspondent's questions on his health and the Annan plan. Explaining that his health is improving, Denktas said: ^”I cannot return to the island because of my situation even though I have no fever and have less pain^‘.

    Commenting on his meting with Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis, Denktas described the meeting as quite useful. Noting that he conveyed all his views to Yakis and explained the shortcomings of the plan, Denktas said that the Turkish Foreign Ministry is also assessing the issue. Denktas continued: ^”I can say anything I want personally; however, as a leader I have to consult with my īgovernmentī, īAssemblyī, and the people. Noting that the United Nations also knows this, Denktas added that the 12 December should not be a source of pressure and worry for the Turkish Cypriots. Eventually, he said, we will see what the EU will do on the issue of Cyprus and Turkey on 12 December.

    Denktas continued: ^”We have to conduct comprehensive meetings with Annan and de Soto in order to understand the essence of this document. Unfortunately, we have not yet held a meeting. There is no other way to reveal the traps and shortcomings in the plan. The people do not know the contents of the plan, which is reported on the papers only. It is not known where each sentence will lead to. It is not right to stage protests, demonstrations, and call for a reply immediately. Denktas said: ^”It is a 130-page document and has to be assessed carefully. Have these leaders already assessed this document? Did these leaders talk about it in a cool-headed manner? Did they look into what this plan will lead to? We will look into these things. We are in contact with the UN secretary general. It is meaningless to take action and take this document as a basis as though it is perfect and the people know everything. I hope that I will return soon, and the necessary response will be given after the assessments are conducted. We are saying that this document, in the way it is with its maps, cannot constitute a basis for the talks. It goes without saying that we will meet with the people in order to discuss the document.

    Question: What do you have to say on reports that you have already accepted the 29 percent plus formula?

    Denktas: Each issue should be assessed in its context. The 29 percent plus was accepted under the conditions prevailing at that time. The 29 percent plus formula was shelved as soon as Kyprianou rejected the idea. The 29 percent plus formula was put forward by us and it was supported by Turkey and the UN Secretary-General. It is not clear what it encompasses. It has an open door because of the fear that it can be rejected by the people once they see it on the map. After the 29 percent plus formula was no longer on the agenda, we said that border changes will be made. Both Turkey and the ^”Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus^‘ insist to this end. Turkey will have a chance to assess all these issue in the coming days. We have to show patience and we will act together. It is not right to commit the destiny of the Turkish Cypriots by protests and hastily.

    Question: Do you know about a tripartite meeting with Clerides and Annan?

    Denktas: No. Annan will come to New York on 5-6 December. The Greek Cypriot reports, therefore, are unfounded. I repeat: we have to show patience. Let us assess this document at universities with experts. Let us not be hasty. We are doing everything necessary so that we can discuss this document with Annan. Clerides wrote asking several clarifications from Annan before he can make a decision. On the one hand, he is shouting that he is against 71 percent Greek Cypriot territory, on the other; we are wasting time on protests. I am greatly saddened by this.

    Question: Will you write a letter to Annan as well?

    Denktas: We have already expressed our views on this plan and its shortcomings.

    [12] KIBRIS: Turkey is ready for a ^”Give and Take^‘ process

    According to KIBRIS (26.11.02), the Turkish Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said yesterday that they told the European Union (EU) countries, ^”You give Turkey a date to open entry negotiations and then, they could try more about the Cyprus question and European Security and Defence Policy (ESDP).``

    Yakis told reporters prior to his departure for Portugal that the maps presented together with United Nations (U.N.) Secretary-General Kofi Annan^“s plan for Cyprus totally gave the water resources in the occupied area to the Greek Cypriots.

    ``The border has to be re-drawn to give the water resources to Turkish side, `` Yakis claimed.

    Yakis noted that the ``Europeans said that they could more easily make their public accept giving a negotiation date to Turkey if a right step was taken towards a solution to Cyprus question.``

    ``This is a political will and a political decision. We used to say that the Cyprus question is not linked with Turkey^“s EU membership till today, but we acted with courage when we faced this issue and said, `let you give us a date and we will try more about Cyprus question and ESDP.` Thus, we put forth that we were also expecting similar things from them, `` Yakis said.

    Yakis stated that the European countries did not have a common stance about giving a date to Turkey and every country was assuming a different attitude.

    Drawing the attention that occupied Morphou was the only water resource in occupied area, Yakis said: `` The whole of Morphou, that is the centre of water resources, is being given to the Greek Cypriot administration in two maps presented together with Annan^“s plan. Since Troodos mountains and other water resources are in the Greek Cypriot administration, there will be no water in Turkish side and this will cause difficulties for people who will live in `TRNCī. We regard sensitivity of `TRNCī authorities about this issue as right. The border should at least be drawn in a way to give water resources to Turkish side. ``

    Noting that they expected Rauf Denktas to make a statement in coming days in which he would say that he was not closed to negotiations, Yakis said, ``then, the foreseen processes of the plan will become operational.``

    Stating that: ``the Turkish Cypriots had never closed the door``, Yakis said that ``Turkey supported this stance `` and added that ``they would always be beside the Turkish Cypriots^‘.

    [13] Erdogan said that EU should give date and a solution should be found to Cyprus

    According to Ankara Anatolia News Agency (26.11.02) the leader of Justice and Development Party (JDP), Mr Recep Tayyip Erdogan, said early today, ^”If a road map will be drawn, Turkey should be given a date at Copenhagen Summit of the European Union (EU) on December 12, 2002. If such a date is set at the summit, we can negotiate the solution plan of the United Nations about Cyprus^‘.

    Erdogan replied to the reportersī questions aboard the plane on his way from Portuguese capital Lisbon to Finnish capital Helsinki.

    When asked whether or not a step back was in question in the JDP^“s package including the Cyprus question, Erdogan said: ^”No. The Cyprus question has been perpetually brought onto the agenda in Turkey^“s EU full membership process. Although Cyprus is not a precondition, it was brought to the forefront. In response, we said that the issue could be taken up as a package^‘.

    ^”We are still talking about the same issue. However, all problems cannot be solved the same day. If a road map will be drawn, Turkey should be given a date at the Copenhagen Summit of the EU on December 12, 2002. If such a date is set at the summit, we can negotiate the solution plan of the United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan about Cyprus. We are ready to negotiate the plan. We are in favour of finding a solution to the Cyprus question. Meanwhile, we expect the Greek Cypriot side to make the same self-sacrifices with us. As you know, Rauf Denktas has been in New York for medical treatment. And the new government has just been formed in Turkey. Everything will become clear in the first week of December^‘, he said.

    When a journalist recalled that so-called Prime Minister Dervis Eroglu said that the plan could not be negotiated, Erdogan said: ^”It is the personal view of Eroglu. During our visit to the ^”TRNC^‘, we put forward our thesis. Politicians are obliged to find solutions instead of creating problems. If a politician refrains from holding negotiations, it means that he does not have any thesis. If you rely on yourself, you sit on the negotiation table and put forward your thesis.^‘

    Responding to another question, Erdogan said: ^”The issue cannot be solved within a week. We say that we can negotiate the plan. It is wrong to say that we accepted it. The plan includes both positive and negative matters. We should negotiate it^‘.

    Erdogan said that Cyprus question is brought onto the agenda in many places and the question is tangled up in Copenhagen criteria from time to time and he added that their first mission is Copenhagen criteria.

    He said that pre-conditions do not include the Cyprus question, adding that they are obliged to carry out the promises which were given in the national program.

    Noting that Turkey has been implementing the necessities of EU adjustment bills for 18 months, Erdogan said that now EU countries mission is to give positive response.

    Upon a question whether his idea about Cyprus question has changed after the meeting of Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis with the Turkish Cypriot leader Rauf Denktas, Erdogan said that his view has not changed, adding that the U.N. plan can be negotiated. He said that some points can be changed in the plan.

    When he was asked the priority of the Cyprus question, Erdogan said that their first agenda is Copenhagen criteria and he added that the life standards of people in Turkey and ^”TRNC^‘ should be increased and a part of EU adjustment bills which was newly prepared can be completed until December 12.

    [14] Potable water has been found in the occupied Pergamos village

    KIBRISLI (26.11.02) reports that the efforts of finding water in the occupied Pergamos Village finally bared fruits. According to the paper, the potable water was high in quality and ample in quantity. It is such that it could meet the water needs of the area.

    According to the director of the so-called Department of Geology and Mines of the pseudostate, Mustafa Alkaravli, the water was found after 17 days of work at a depth of 127.50 meters. The rate of water flow was 13.8m3. Following chemical and microbiological analysis the water was found suitable for domestic use.


    [15] A Columnist said that UN plan is a good opportunity and criticized Denktas rejection

    Columnist Ismet Berkan, writing in RADIKAL (22.11.02), under the title "Denktas is the same", publishes the following text:

    ^”After having stated for days on all TV channels that Kofi Annan's plan is one that can be negotiated, the īTRNC` finally spoke out yesterday, saying, īThe plan is not worthy of being discussed.ī

    What is the meaning of Denktas' refusal to discuss the plan, while the people who run Turkey have been saying; īWe shall not try to avoid discussing the planī? Apart from himself and a few advisors, who did Denktas consult before he made this decision? What is the position of the people of Cyprus? What is the position of the government of Cyprus?

    In my opinion, we have once again understood that the real goal of Rauf Denktas -- who has joined those who claim that the plan is ībad, ī or that īit is full of trapsī, and that it should be rejected -- is not to solve the Cyprus problem but to continue the state of non-solution.

    Those who insisted on finding a trap in Kofi Annan's plan and who said that the ībig trapī is the number of Greek citizens, who will migrate to the Turkish side, apparently have not read the original of the plan; they simply make do with the summaries that appeared in the press.

    First of all, the plan talks about a transitional period of 20 years. The number of Greek citizens that will move to the Turkish side every year is limited to one percent of the Turkish population. In other words, at the end of the first year if the population on the Turkish side is 200,000 then 2,000 Greeks will be able to come to the Turkish side. At the end of 20 years, the number of Greeks will not exceed one third of the Turkish population. In other words, if we consider the Turkish population as constant, in 20 years a maximum of 70,000 Greeks will be able to live on the Turkish side.

    However, this is not the only parameter that concerns the issue of migration.

    But in any case, what is being overlooked is this: īIf the migrant Greeks want to become a political entity on the Turkish side, and then they will have to become citizens of the Turkish sideī. In other words, they are going to have to be subject to the constitution and the laws of the Turkish side.

    There is one other point that is being forgotten. At the end of the day, these figures too can be negotiated. How is it possible that even I can understand and notice this, and that Rauf Denktas -- who, after a struggle of 40 years, has gained a great victory with Kofi Annan's plan -- cannot? I am sure he can. What is important for the Turkish Cypriots? Is it territory or sovereignty? Kenan Evren, the 7th president of Turkey, who appeared two days ago in Mehmet Ali Birand's program on CNN Turk, said that he had asked this question of Rauf Denktas at the time, and he added, "Of course, sovereignty is more important. We had, anyway, obtained extra territory thinking that we would give it back at the negotiating table in the future. At the time, Denktas had accepted returning up to 29 percent of the territory."

    Then, why is it that, despite this testimony of Kenan Evren, Denktas is still saying, "I shall not approach the negotiating table?" Why is he rejecting co-presidency of the Cyprus Republic? It is really impossible to understand.

    It is said that Denktas, who underwent a very serious operation and is still struggling with the complications resulting from this operation, will not be able to recover before 12 December.

    While the situation is still so urgent, and while his illness constitutes an obstacle to his sitting at the negotiating table, is it not possible to appoint somebody instead of Denktas to conduct the negotiations? Can the government of Cyprus not discharge Denktas from this duty until he recovers?

    We shall see within the next few days the extent to which Ankara is determined regarding the Cyprus issue. In Cyprus, after so many years, the goals have been achieved: the Turks who constitute 20 percent of the population, have obtained 28.5 percent of the territory and 50 percent of the state.

    This is an opportunity that should not be missed.

    Cyprus must sign the basic agreement by 12 December.^‘

    [16] European Security and Defence Policy is solved

    Under the above title, columnist Zeynep Gurcanli writing in STAR (23.11.02) publishes the following text:

    ^”Yes, you have not misread it. The European Security and Defence Policy [ESDP] issue, which blocked the realization of cooperation between the European Union army being established and NATO, and which was presented to Turkey as a "condition that is not a condition" for a negotiating date, has been solved. Turkey has decided to accept the "ESDP solution proposal" brought to Ankara last week by ESDP representative Javier Solana.

    The earlier government had adopted a decision to accept the proposal, which was also approved by President Ahmet Necdet Sezer. Right after assuming power, the leader of the Justice and Development Party, (JDP) Tayyip Erdogan, was briefed by the Foreign Ministry bureaucrats on all the details of Solana's proposal. After he was informed of the Foreign Ministry's view that the proposal was acceptable, Erdogan gave his consent. However, at the same meeting, the Foreign Ministry bureaucrats cautioned Erdogan and his associates as follows: "Do not disclose Turkey's acceptance of this proposal now. If you disclose it officially, you will be harming Turkey's bargaining position."

    The motive behind the decision not to disclose the acceptance of the proposal, which was adopted by the leaders of the EU countries during their meeting in Brussels last week and which was conveyed officially to Ankara by Solana, relates to Turkey's expectations in Copenhagen. Ankara will be using the ESDP issue as a bargaining chip during the Copenhagen summit on 12 December. Turkey will announce at the summit its acceptance of the ESDP proposal in exchange for a negotiating date being given to Turkey.

    In this way, Turkey will be providing a excuse to the EU leaders to give Turkey a negotiating date despite the "deficiencies in application" on issues related to human rights and individual liberties. The European leaders will then be able to inform their people as follows: "The ESDP was of vital importance for the establishment of the defence dimension of the European Union. The road toward the establishment of the European army has now been opened. For this alone it was worth giving a negotiating date to Turkey." In fact, in Prague, French President Jacques Chirac also explained to President Sezer the importance of the ESDP for the European Union in the following words:

    "The EU wants to take over the command of the international force in Macedonia, which is made up of 800 soldiers. The command of an 800-men force does not constitute an important operation for NATO, but it is important for us because it will be the first task of the ESDP. We are currently not able to accomplish this because we lack agreement on the ESDP."

    What does the ESDP, accepted by Turkey, provide for after all?

    Solana came to Turkey right after the [3 November] elections, bringing with him a package with two possibilities. The first possibility assumed that the Greek Cypriot side would be admitted into the EU as a full member in the absence of a solution. The second possibility assumed that the whole of Cyprus would be admitted into the EU after a solution to be reached in the island on the basis of the Annan plan.

    The Solana proposal gave Turkey "legal assurance" that in both cases Cyprus would not take part in the operations, exercises, or missions that the European army would carry out using NATO facilities. Under EU rules, the "full member" countries of the EU automatically join the European army.

    Therefore, within the framework of the ESDP compromise, the full members would automatically participate in NATO information and planning work in the course of an operation or exercise that the EU would carry out using NATO facilities. Turkey objected to the Greek Cypriots' access to these NATO facilities by taking advantage of their membership in the EU. The EU will now put on record the 'sui generis' character of Cyprus, thus "legally" restricting the participation of the Greek Cypriots in the European army. For this reason, the treaties of guarantee will continue to be valid regardless of whether or not a solution is found in Cyprus. Turkey's fears will thus be removed.

    The First Step Was Taken in Prague

    Following the acceptance of the EU solution plan, Turkey took the first positive step in the ESDP process at the Prague summit, which President Sezer attended. Due to the lack of a solution on the ESDP issue, Turkey "vetoed" for several years the joint "virtual exercises" by the military experts from NATO and the EU, thus vetoing their first step toward cooperation.

    Despite the fact that the ESDP issue has not yet been solved, Turkey has lifted its veto against the advance preparations for the virtual exercises to be carried out jointly in the next two years by NATO and EU experts. In fact, it will be announced before the Copenhagen summit that the ESDP issue has been resolved. This possibility has had an effect on the adoption by Turkey of such a decision. Turkey has taken yet another big step toward accession talks with the EU as a result of the solution of the ESDP issue. It is now the EU's turn to take steps.^‘

    [17] ^”Cyprus divided^‘

    Under the above title Mehmet Ali Birand comments in Turkish Daily News (26.11.02) his ^”Manset^‘ live program transmitted on CNN TURK last Friday from the occupied areas of Cyprus. Mr Birand notes, inter alia the following:

    ^”^ŇWe were the guests of the East Mediterranean University. We produced a highly meaningful program thanks to the excellent technical equipment available at the Communications Faculty and the self-sacrificing way the students worked.

    Due to my past experiences I had wanted to invite only the citizens of Cyprus to the program. However, in that case, those youths who had come over from Turkey to get an education and got organized in the conservative circles in Cyprus, would not have been able to make their voices heard.

    As a result, we would come under criticism on the grounds that we had discriminated against them. We should give those who viewed the "Cyprus solution" with scepticism, too an opportunity to speak up.

    So they too were allowed to come into the hall.

    Naturally, that caused all hell to break loose. Since we are yet to embrace the "debating culture", that is, since we are yet to cultivate the habit of hearing out the other side before attempting to respond, the program turned into a soccer game after a while.

    Naturally, we have failed to satisfy many a person. Some complained that the Turkish Cypriots were not given adequate time to voice their views during the program.

    Some others accused us of trying to sow discord between the two sides present in the hall and to have one side engage in propaganda in favour of a solution. It turns out that nobody was pleased with us. However, the way Cyprus has been split into two became apparent in a crystal clear manner.

    Before everything else it must be noted that everybody speaks in a different voice in Cyprus. Rumours totally based on lies are being spread. And what lies... Incredible tales are being recounted.

    According to these tales, all the migrants will be driven out of their homes, left out in the streets without any food or water, that the ^—TRNC^“ will be left without water and the Greek Cypriot police will be patrolling the streets.

    The "front" that does not want a solution not only fuels these rumours but also incites the people living in the areas that could be faced with the possibility of migration. These circles tell the people "Protect your rights. If you cannot make your voices heard you will be left out in the street." They suggest that they rebel.

    That approach became apparent also during our program, which was broadcast live.

    A significant part of those who are Cypriot nationals -- including those who have migrated from Turkey -- and of the young generation, want a solution. They do not hide the fact that if no solution can be achieved they will have to migrate in the future.

    These people are proud of being Turkish. Furthermore, they say that they are the children or grandchildren of the mujahids, that is, Turkish Cypriot fighters, whose fell while trying to protect these lands.

    And they cry out, saying, "Don't compel us to migrate. Let us join the European Union and let us clear Turkey's path."

    A great part of the "opposition front" comprises of persons who are in Cyprus temporarily, that is, persons who have come to Cyprus from Turkey in order to get an education. Naturally, there are, among them, Cypriots and persons who have come from Turkey and then acquired Cypriot citizenship.

    That group starts talking with the words, "We are not against a solution, but..." and then list so many reasons that they reach the conclusion, "This problem cannot be solved." They voice their opposition, drawing attention to the blood of the martyrs, the Crete example and the territory to be given back.

    The thing that upset me most was the way the two sides were at one another's throat. One group sees the other as a "traitor" and other reacts by referring to the "invading Turk".

    I think we have definitely done the right thing by showing this scene to Turkey. What have we gained by hiding the facts until now?

    To sum up, a very dangerous game is being played in Cyprus. Let us just hope that we will not fall into the trap we ourselves have dug^‘.

    Cyprus Press and Information Office: Turkish Cypriot Press Review Directory - Previous Article - Next Article
    Back to Top
    Copyright © 1995-2016 HR-Net (Hellenic Resources Network). An HRI Project.
    All Rights Reserved.

    HTML by the HR-Net Group / Hellenic Resources Institute, Inc.
    tcpr2html v1.00 run on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 - 16:00:38 UTC