DOES THE BI-ZONAL, BI-COMMUNAL SOLUTION
TO THE CYPRUS PROBLEM SAFEGUARD
THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF THE CYPRIOT POPULATION?
By Stelios Theodoulou,
President of the Pancyprian Association
for the Protection of Human Rights

The experience of the Republic of Cyprus gained as a result of the demands for the respect of the human rights of Cypriots before various European bodies has been positive, both in the case of inter-state recourses, as well as in the case of recourses by individuals, climaxing with the recent case of  Titina Loizidou

Unfortunately, the leaderships if the Gypriot state failed, or did not wish, to utilise these formidable legal-political weapons which were added to the political armament for reasons that I have never been able either to understand or to accept.

It is worth noting here the consequences on human rights likely to follow on the basis of the proposed settlement of the Cyprus problem.
This settlement has been clearly outlined by the UN Secretary-General. and the various emissaries of states "interested" in the solution of the Cyprus problem, through their statements or their various documents.

The ''federal'' Cyprus state emerging from these plans, ideas and documents (non-papers or otherwise) will be definitely based on the following foundations:
A.  An artificial geographical separation of the Republic of Cyprus, without a historic, practical or legitimate basis.
B. An artificial creation of ''peoples'' based on violent movement and displacement, without political, cultural, historic or any legitimate basis.
C. The creation of artificial, controlled majorities in the «federal» states, without a valid demographic or other basis and in complete contradiction to the social, cultural and historic reality.
D. Imposition of technical balances in the federal organs with the result of substantive control of the minority over the majority.
E. Violation of explicit and strict provisions of international law in the case of the settlers that Turkey, being the occupied power, has transfered into the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus. It is noted that such Turkey’s action is classified as an «international crime», both by existing provisions of international law, as well as on the basis of the International Criminal Code which has recently been adopted in Rome.
F.  Perpetuation of the serious ecological problem which has been created by the violent uprooting of Cypriots from their land and the termination of their cultural continuity, as well as the overturning of the unity of the Cypriot space, in violation of the principles and regulations included in the European avis.

Taking all these points into account, as well as many others which are not mentioned because it is not definite that they have been finally adopted, it IS IMPOSSIBLE for any one to claim that these provisions incorporate the safeguarding and defence of the human rights of the citizens of Cyprus.

More simply, the settlement being outlined IS INCOMPATIBLE with the very sense of the defence of human rights. Having in mind that even a genuine federation is legally, and in reality, inapplicable in the case of Cyprus with the legally existing geographic, demographic, historic, cultural and other factors, the monstrous concoction being prepared for presentation to us effectively amounts to the self-abolition and dissolution of the state, and the interruption of the historic continuity of the Cyprus people.

This will effectively include the additional factor of the curtailment of the enjoyment by Cypriots of human rights and fundamental freedoms, the selfsame rights and freedoms which are enshrined in connection with every human being on our planet.

It is worth noting that the mediator appointed by the United Nations on the basis of the Security Council Resolution of March 4, 1964 stresses in his report that a federal solution, which was then proposed by the Turkish Cypriots, «is inapplicable», and could result in the transfer of populations, as well as «possible pressures in the direction of the partition of the island».
It Is worth noting that the mediator of the United Nations was not a hopeless dreamer, but an independent technocrat.

l would be understood better if I made a clear reference to the rights and freedoms of Cypriots which would be legally(!!!) violated (if such an absurdity were possible) on the basis of the provisions of «federal»(!) Cyprus constitution.
1. The right of equality before the law and the state, due to the artificial introduction of racist criteria in dealing with the population.
2. The right of freedom of movement within the territory of the federal state.
3. The right of settlement in any part of the territory of the federal Cypriot state.
4. The right to acquire, enjoy and utilise immovable property.
5. The right to elect and be elected.
6. The right of participation in community affairs and the undertaking of public office.

But beyond this definite violation of specific rights, the settlement envisaged will violate basic principles of the modern democratic state as these have been developed, interpreted and applied through the decisions of international bodies, and are included in international law texts.

I specifically refer to the violation of the fundamental democratic principle that the majority rules safeguarded the rights of the minority.
The tragic confirmation of the negative parameters of the settlement being outlined began with the very first statements of the United States presidential envoy Richard Holbrook and through the framework of the new initiative of the United Nations Secretary GeneraI, without underestimating the substantial  contribution of the constantIy cunning British approach, as expressed by the British envoy Sir David Hannay.

In conclusion, I would like to point out the indeed delicate proposal, voiced during his recent visit to the island by Hans van den Broek, the European Union's Foreign Affairs Gommissioner, that if a Cyprus settlement includes restrictions on the protection of the Cypriots' human rights, the European Union would be ready to accept a digression from the treaty obligations of the future federal Cyprus state in the human rights sector. In this way, the people of Cyprus, by seeking to join the great European family, will by its own signature and free will accept the restriction of those rights for whose safeguarding is seeking to join the European Union. .

The question that arises is whether certain human rights will be applicable within the territory of the federal state of Cyprus for all citizens of the European Union, on the basis of the European avis, but not applicable in the case of the citizens of the federal Cyprus state.

Can the United Nations and the European Union give clear and satisfactory answers to these vital questions? Have these fundamental issues ever been given serious consideration by their officials? I am afraid the answer is negative, since the Cyprus problem is considered by them as an intercommunal dispute and not as a flagrant aggression of Tyrkey against the Republic of Cyprus.

It is imperative that even at this late hour the international community start implementing a policy demanding the rights and freedoms and what is just for the cypriot population, in accordance with the principles that the major powers themselves have proclaimed as just.



PANCYPRIAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Back to INDEX