The Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation (TCHRF) is an NGO set up two years ago by a large group of human rights activists from all fields including academia, law, journalism, art and business. The aim was to establish a human rights organization that complies with contemporary international norms and gives priority to those issues that most affect the Turkish Cypriots both as individuals and as a community. The Foundation works to assist complainants with advice and legal support and it also records and reports the full spectrum of how the continuation of the Cyprus problem has negative effects on human rights in general and Turkish Cypriots in particular.

In his report dated 28 May 2004 on his mission of good offices in Cyprus, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for individual states and international organisations to “eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots”. Similarly, the European Council of Ministers made a statement dated 26 April 2004 that it was “determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community”. Unfortunately, the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots referred to in these statements continues even though it is no longer justifiable as a sanction that will contribute to a solution of the Cyprus problem.

What is presented in this book is a compilation of a few case-studies and comments that shed light on what living in "isolation" means. We have used as our source applications and complaints communicated to our Foundation as well as our overriding observations on the possibilities for reconciliation on the island.

 

 

Emine Erk

Chairperson of the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation

November 2006- North Cyprus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATION

 

A major disadvantage faced by the Turkish Cypriots is the infringement of their basic human right to have their voice fully heard through their democratically elected representatives. This point is well illustrated by the comments below of Mr. Özdil Nami who is currently a Member of Parliament in the TRNC Legislative Assembly from the ruling Turkish Republican Party. Mr. Nami is a young politician from the business community. Through the persistent efforts of the Turkish Cypriot political groups, in December 2004 he became the Elected Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. He also represents his political party as an observer at the Socialist Group in the European Parliament.

 

Statement of Mr. Özdil Nami, Member of the Parliament of the TRNC:

 

“There are comprehensive isolations on Turkish Cypriots’ participation in international political platforms. In the European platform "Elected Representatives" of European countries have two major organizations which are available for them to be heard. Despite accepting a United Nations plan to reunify Cyprus, which had been strongly supported by Europe as well as the rest of the world, Turkish Cypriots are still denied voting rights in both of them.

 

The Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly

In the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Turkish Cypriot Parliamentarians are invited to participate in the work of the Assembly as "Elected Representatives of the Turkish Cypriot Community". We are, however, denied the right to vote. When it joined PACE "Cyprus" was allocated three seats, one of which had to be filled by a Turkish Cypriot. Since 1964 and the expulsion of Turkish Cypriots from the Parliament of Republic of  Cyprus through use of arms by Greek Cypriots, this one seat with a right to vote remains empty to date.

 

The European Parliament

Turkish Cypriots are denied any representation in the European Parliament. The only platform where they can participate is the group meetings of the Socialist Group which invited its sister party in North Cyprus, Turkish Republican Party (CTP), to send an unofficial observer to its meetings. Unlike PACE, the EU Parliament does not allow Turkish Cypriots to have the right to speak either in the Assembly or in its numerous committees even if the subject of discussion is Cyprus and the very interests of the Turkish Cypriot people.

 

A striking example of the effects of denying Turkish Cypriots political representation in the EU was seen during the discussions held at the Foreign Affairs Committee of the EU Parliament on the Report on Turkey prepared by the Dutch MEP Camille Eurlings. In his report, Mr. Eurlings called on Turkey to open her ports and airports to Greek Cypriots ships and planes, claiming that this was Turkey's legal obligation. Upon our request, a paragraph that also called for the implementation of the EU Council decision to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots was also inserted. However, after hard lobbying by Greeks and Greek Cypriots in it’s second version, not only was this paragraph removed but also all reference to the UN Plan that was described by the EU as “the only chance to settle the problem”. What made matters even worse was a last minute amendment proposed by a Greek Cypriot MEP to add the "Acquis" as a basis to settle the Cyprus issue. As Turkish Cypriots have no right to speak in the Committees, we could not explain to the members that this was contrary to the Accession Treaty of "Cyprus" which both in its preamble and in Article 4 clearly states that the EU will accommodate a settlement and decide on the modalities vis-à-vis the Turkish Cypriot community when the island is reunited, which meant the Accession Treaty of Cyprus. In other words the situation is that the Acquis will change in accordance with a Cyprus settlement not the other way around. By listening to only one of the parties to this conflict the EU Parliament not only produced a biased report but also ended up adopting a paragraph which was contrary to its primary law.

 

It is totally in contradiction to all concepts of human rights and democracy that decisions affecting the Turkish Cypriots should be taken via a process that prevents their representatives from being heard.”

 

TRADE

 

The “isolation” of Turkish Cypriots through restrictions on trade is detrimental for two reasons. Firstly it stifles economic vitality which is the basic right of all individuals and communities. Secondly, it has a negative impact on the prospects for a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Mualla Çıraklı is the Brussels representative of the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce which has been working since its foundation in 1958 to support the economic and trading activities of the Turkish Cypriots. On behalf of her organization, Ms Çıraklı makes the following assessment of the present situation on this issue:

 “The Economic and trade embargoes on the Turkish Cypriot Community

Economic levelling, reciprocal equal treatment and the creation of mutual interdependency are essential for convergence and sustainable reunification in Cyprus. These can only be achieved through the lifting of all economic and trade embargoes on Turkish Cypriots and enabling their free trade with Europe and beyond as democratic citizens of the European Union and the world. It is necessary therefore to understand exactly what is meant by “economic and trade embargoes” on the Turkish Cypriot Community.

The Turkish Cypriot economy, which is mainly composed of Small and Medium Enterprises (SME’s) is highly powered by the tourism, services and education sectors, while citrus and potatoes constitute the main agricultural products. Turkish Cypriot international trade has been conducted through the Famagusta port, which has been operating under Turkish Cypriot management since 1974. A European Court of Justice ruling of a case put forward by the Greek Cypriot Administration in July 1994 questioned the validity of the documents issued by the Turkish Cypriot Authorities and held that Member States of the EU could only import fruits and vegetables carrying the certificates of origin from the “Republic of Cyprus”. As it is not practically possible for Turkish Cypriot exporters to get certification from South Cyprus, the decision of the ECJ eliminated preferential access to the EU for Turkish Cypriot exports. Since then, all trade has been conducted via the ports in Turkey, substantially increasing the cost of trade for Turkish Cypriots.

Following the Greek Cypriot refusal of the UN comprehensive settlement plan presented to Greek and Turkish Cypriots in twin referenda on 23 April 2004, a divided Cyprus became a member of the European Union on 1st May 2004 with the sole participation of Greek Cypriots. Protocol 10 attached to the Accession Treaty declared the acquis was suspended in North Cyprus putting the latter outside the fiscal and customs area of the EU.  For this reason, the European Council of Ministers adopted, on 29 April 2004, the Green Line Regulation[1] in order to regulate the movement of goods and people from North to South Cyprus.  Following the bizarre outcome of the referenda where the Turkish Cypriot party who voted for the reunification of the island and EU membership was left out in the cold, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called for individual states and international organizations to “eliminate unnecessary restrictions and barriers that have the effect of isolating the Turkish Cypriots.” The European Council of Ministers stated in a resolution passed on 26 April 2004 that it was “determined to put an end to the isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus by encouraging the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community”.

In this respect the European Commission proposed, on 7 July 2004, a comprehensive package of aid and trade measures: the Financial Aid[2] and Direct Trade[3] Regulations.

The Green Line Regulation is a temporary instrument based on Protocol 10, covering only the movement of goods and people from North to South Cyprus while the services dimension remains underdeveloped. As an institutional partner of the European Commission in the implementation of the Regulation, the Turkish Cypriot Chamber of Commerce is fully aware of the serious technical, structural and psychological restrictions and difficulties that strain this intra-island trade which produces an average monthly trade volume of only €160,000.  Limited in both scope and value, the Green Line trade, which the Greek Cypriot administration farcically claims to be an adequate tool for the Turkish Cypriot economy, is totally inadequate for reducing the economic disparity between the two sides and for progressing towards trade convergence and reunification.


The Financial Aid Regulation envisaged €259 million in financial assistance to encourage the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot Community.  It took the EU Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) until February 2006 to reach a compromised decision on the Financial Aid Regulation, decoupled from direct trade, because the Greek Cypriot administration brought about numerous obstacles and conditions throughout the decision-making process.  The Greek Cypriot obstacles continue even today as the technical PHARE committee tries to take decisions for the disbursement of the funds to be implemented through an EU office set up in North Cyprus in September 2006. While Turkish Cypriots, who were prevented from receiving any international assistance under embargoes for years, welcome the Financial Aid Regulation, financial aid alone can not establish the necessary economic climate in North Cyprus that will lead to stable economic development. Free and direct trade has to accompany aid.

The Direct Trade Regulation is a significant proposal that envisaged a system to facilitate trade between North Cyprus and the European Customs Territory. The Greek Cypriot side has strongly blocked the regulation in the Council for the last two years, wrongly claiming that this will result in recognition of North Cyprus and that Turkish Cypriots can export via Greek Cypriot ports over the Green Line if they want to trade. This claim is totally unfounded. Direct trade does not aim to and will not automatically bring political recognition to North Cyprus, just as it did not before the 1994 ECJ judgement. Forcing Turkish Cypriots to trade only via the Greek Cypriot ports is a shameful discrimination in light of the European norms and values. It is no less unacceptable than the Flemish in Belgium forcing the Walloons to trade only via the ports in Flanders. Direct trade should be realized as a logical consequence of the current situation on the island and should not be treated as a concession subject to Greek Cypriot charity.”

 

 

 

 

PROPERTY

 

A founder and member of the Board of Trustees of the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, Asst. Prof. Dr. Tufan Erhürman has been working intensively on the property issues arising from the unresolved Cyprus problem. Dealing with countless complaints to the Foundation and analyzing the legal intricacies on both sides of the Green Line, Tufan Erhürman summarizes his observations as follows:

“The property issue is one of the most controversial issues related to the Cyprus problem. Since 1963, Turkish and Greek Cypriot refugees, who had to leave their homes and other properties on “the other side” because of the conflict between the two communities, have been waiting for a solution to the Cyprus problem. It is evident to all that, after so many years, it is impossible to solve the problems related to property rights without finding a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem.

 

After 23rd April 2003 when it became possible to travel freely to each side, most of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot refugees found a chance to see their properties for the first time since 1974. This was like a dream come true for the refugees and this historical event reinforced the hopes that a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus dispute and a just solution to the problems related to property rights were possible. But unfortunately, with the outcome of the referenda of 24th April 2004, it was the end of the dream for many refugees on both sides. The Greek Cypriot Administration (GCA) which worked very hard to persuade the Greek Cypriots to vote “NO” in the referendum had to find a way to convince Greek Cypriot refugees that it would be more beneficial for them if the Annan Plan was rejected. According to the GCA, the only acceptable solution to the property problem was to recognize the rights of all refugees to return to their homes. No other solution was acceptable. But one of the underlying principles of the Annan Plan was bi-zonality (which was the basic principle of all the agreements and plans since 1977 summit agreement between Makarios and Denktaş) and according to this principle, it would not be possible for every refugee to return to their homes after 30 years of partition (for people displaced in 1963, it had been 41 years). Because of this, not only restitution but also compensation was regulated as important tools by the Annan Plan to find just solutions to the property problems of the refugees.

 

 

Finally, the GCA managed to persuade the Greek Cypriots to vote “NO” in the referendum and all Cypriots lost a golden opportunity to find a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Losing the chance to solve the Cyprus problem has meant losing the chance to find a solution to the property problem as well. It was then necessary for the GCA to find a way to reinforce the hopes of the Greek Cypriot refugees that their “NO” votes would be rewarded and every single Greek Cypriot will return to their homes. The way found by the GCA for this purpose was the way used since the Loizidou judgment of the ECHR. They kept stressing that all Greek Cypriot refugees would receive compensation for the loss of use of their properties and restitution if they bring suits against Turkey in the ECHR. But in reality this was not possible. Because, it was clear for everybody working and thinking for a just and permanent solution to the Cyprus problem that it is impossible to resolve the property problems of all Cypriot refugees on an individual basis in the ECHR in the absence of a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. Realizing that the number of cases related to the property rights of the Greek Cypriots is increasing by the day, the ECHR, in its Xenides-Arestis judgment, declared that it would accept an effective and just mechanism in the north as a domestic remedy which must be exhausted before bringing a case to Strasbourg and for this purpose allowed a period of three months time for the Turkish side to establish such a mechanism. The ECHR stated in its decision that, to be accepted as a domestic remedy that must be exhausted before taking the case to Strasbourg, the mechanism that will be established in North Cyprus must have the authority not only for compensation but also the possibility of restitution as well. The criteria declared by the ECHR about the mechanism that would be established in North Cyprus were similar to the characteristics of the Property Commission of the Annan Plan. At first sight, it can be thought that for the Turkish Cypriots who had voted “YES” in the referendum, this solution was easily acceptable. But it should not be forgotten that this solution to the property problem was accepted as a part of a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem; a solution, which would also include an internationally recognized federated state and EU membership for the Turkish Cypriots. Accepting the part of the Annan Plan related to property was the “give” part of a “give and take” and there was an expectation that the Turkish Cypriot community would gain something in response to accepting tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots to be displaced once more. Besides that, the dominant nationalist idea related to property that “even a single pebble of the TRNC cannot be given up” was gaining support in the community again after the referenda because the Turkish Cypriots were deeply disappointed by their Greek Cypriot compatriots who voted “NO” in the referendum. Under these adverse conditions, the TRNC Assembly managed to enact the Property Law of 2006 and once more the Turkish Cypriots showed that they were still searching to find a way for a comprehensive solution in line with the basic principles of the Annan Plan. By means of this Law, the Turkish Cypriot side also managed to make a unilateral step for decreasing the distress of the Greek Cypriot refugees, because the GCA continues to deny compensation to the Turkish Cypriot refugees for the loss of use of their properties in the south and also compensation for expropriation saying that this must wait for the comprehensive solution of the Cyprus problem.     

 

Two of the seven members of the Property Commission established under the Property Law 2006, are not citizens of the TRNC and the Commission has the power to order restitution. These regulations are in line with the “guidelines” declared by the ECHR in the Xenides-Arestis decision. To date, 65 applications have been filed with the Property Commission and judgments were given in 9 of these applications. The decision of the Commission was restitution in 3 of these 9 applications. It must be noted that the Property Commission is doing its best to satisfy the applicants but certainly it must be stressed once more that this Commission cannot and shall not solve the controversial problem of property in Cyprus. This issue is a part of the Cyprus problem and can only be settled after finding a comprehensive and permanent solution to that problem.                           

 

 Asst. Prof. Dr. Tufan Erhürman

Member of the Board of Trustees of

The Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation

EMPLOYMENT

Derya Beyatlı, is a Turkish speaking European Citizen and a young graduate with experience in economic NGOs and who wishes to pursue a career in the EU organisation where she believes she can use her full potential. Ms. Beyatlı explains the difficulties she continues to face as a Turkish Cypriot applicant in the following way:  

“Shared European Values Democracy, Freedom and Social Justice?  

“Europe is a continent with many different traditions and languages, but also with  shared values such as democracy, freedom and social justice. The EU defends these values. It fosters cooperation among the peoples of Europe, promoting unity while preserving diversity...” [4]

That’s the simplest way of defining the European Union. I, myself am a firm believer in these values and the European Union’s commitment to them. However, my first hand experience indicates that, at times practicality and cost-saving can be preferred, at the expense of these values.  

Being very interested in the European Union and believing in the prospects of EU membership for all Cypriots, in 2002, I made my way to Brussels as a ‘Stagaire’ to find out more about the complicated EU machine and the infamous Brussels corridors. My five months work experience at the European Commission gave me an insight into the EU system together with a strong desire of becoming a part of it. Being from an isolated part of the world, I cherished the idea of Turkish Cypriots taking part at different institutions of the European Union and having their voices heard within the International Community.

When I applied to the European Personnel Selection Office for an Open Competition (EPSO/A/1/03) organised to constitute a reserve pool amongst citizens of Cyprus[5], I was confident that the requirement to have a “thorough” knowledge of the mother tongue- assumed to be Greek for all Cypriots-at the competition had resulted from the political mistake of not making Turkish an Official language of the EU. A mistake could not have deprived Turkish speaking Cypriots’ chance of having any success in the Competition, at least so I believed. My confidence was based on a number of reasons;

 

·        Turkish is one of the Official Languages of Cyprus based on 1960 Constitution and it goes without saying that it’s the only mother tongue of Turkish Cypriots.

·        Article 21(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and Article 1d of EC Staff Regulations
prohibit any discrimination based on any ground such as sex, race, colour, ethnic or social origin, genetic
features, language, religion or belief…

·        The Accession Treaty stated that Turkish would be an official Language once Cyprus Problem was solved. However, I was continually assured by many EU officials that Turkish Cypriots would not fail the Competition because of the language requirement, provided that they passed the EU competency tests.

Yet, when I received the competition results, they were basically telling me and two other Turkish Cypriots that despite the fact we were as successful as other Cypriots in the Competency tests we could not work for the EU, simply because we could not speak GREEK, supposedly our mother tongue. Two of us took the issue to the European Court of Justice where the case’s admissibility is still to be determined after two years. Meanwhile, with an attempt of not discriminating against Turkish Cypriots, EPSO reviewed its language requirements and made an exception for “Cypriot citizens who don’t have Greek as their main language”.

Turkish Cypriots now do not need to speak Greek but any second European language instead in order to be eligible to apply for an open competition, whereas the language requirement for any other European Citizen is to be able to speak one European language other than their mother tongue.

With the current political impasse of the Cyprus Problem and no progress what so ever with regards to the Court Case, I am now in Brussels to learn French, my second European language and retake the whole Competition, despite having passed the competency tests.

Although I remain trustful to EU justice and believe that the language issue will be settled to give Turkish Cypriots their rights back, I still cannot understand why my good friend Giorgos can get a job at the Commission by speaking only English as a foreign language and I cannot.”

HIGHER EDUCATION

The right to an education is a fundamental human right. As Advisor to Rector of Eastern Mediterranean University, Kaya Arslan has first hand experience of difficulties faced by Turkish Cypriot Universities attempting to operate as international centres for higher education.

‘What is happening in the field of Higher Education?

Through the April 2004 referenda, the Turkish Cypriots demonstrated that they are in favour of peace and a just settlement in Cyprus; and since the referenda, EU institutions have expressed their support for the economic development of Turkish Cypriots and for the reduction of economic disparities between the two sides in Cyprus with the intention of facilitating and contributing to an enduring solution.

 

The higher education sector makes up 40% of the economy of North Cyprus, and the annual financial contribution of this sector to the Turkish Cypriot economy, together with tourism, has been the primary force for the economic development of Turkish Cypriots. Moreover, it plays a crucial role in producing high quality human resources, through disseminating scientific discovery and advanced knowledge through teaching, adapting to the constantly emerging needs for new competences and qualifications, and educating future generations in the European context.

 

From an academic point of view, the educational consequences of the international isolation of North Cyprus have been serious: this has prevented free movement of students and staff and constrained and deprived them of academic freedom, exchange of ideas, international competition and intercultural experience; there has been political obstruction of academic cooperation agreements, research and development projects, and funding which would benefit students, staff, the people of Cyprus and the region. The right to education is a fundamental human right which plays a foundational role in society, and is essential and indispensable for the exercise of all other human rights and for development.

 

 

Turkish Cypriot universities should have their name added on the list of UNESCO’s World Higher Education Database, or in its Directory of Higher Educational Institutions for recognition of their diplomas in the world. However, Turkish Cypriot universities are excluded from the Bologna process and the ERASMUS/SOCRATES programs and have not been listed in UNESCO’s World Higher Education Database, or in its Directory of Higher Educational Institutions. Within the next two years our universities will find themselves unable to compete for either students or staff.  The problem can be illustrated by describing some of the experiences of The Eastern Mediterranean University (EMU).

 

 

1. Erasmus/Socrates Process:

 

In November 2004, EMU sent an application for an Erasmus University Charter. A precondition for acceptance into Erasmus was that the “National Authority” of the “Member state” should confirm EMU’s status as a higher education institution. The “Ministry of Education” of “The Republic of Cyprus” is designated by EU as the “National Authority” for “Cyprus”. Directorate General responsible for Education and Culture did not accept the letter of registry sent from the higher education authorities from the North. Yet no written response was sent to EMU about the status of its application whatsoever. It should not be forgotten that the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus which is relied on by Cyprus and the EU for the purposes of EU membership provides that each community separately shall be responsible for education within its own community. Therefore the decision to accept the Republic of Cyprus which excludes the Turkish Cypriots as the “national authority” for this purpose is completely unfounded.

 

2. Process of Joining the UNESCO’s World Higher Education Database:

EMU is a full institutional member of the UNESCO-Affiliated International Association of Universities (IAU).  The IAU provides data on over 16,500 higher education institutions in over 180 countries. EMU has not been listed in UNESCO’s world higher education database, or in its directory of higher educational institutions. The Turkish Cypriot Universities are not able to provide students with the “diploma supplement” which is based on the Lisbon Recognition Convention between Council of Europe and UNESCO. As a result, some universities and Ministries of Education are now refusing to recognize our students’ diplomas.

 

3. Exclusion from the European Union’s Bologna Process:

Turkish Cypriot Universities are currently excluded from the Bologna Process (BP). Bologna process is open to all countries party to the Cultural Convention of the Council of Europe (total of 48).  Universities in these 48 countries make up the “European Higher Education Area” (EHEA). Although Turkish Cypriot universities are in the EHEA, they are discriminated against and not admitted to the Bologna Process—they are not listed in the BP universities since they do not have a ‘national’ educational system affiliation. In 2010, when Bologna Process ends, diplomas from EMU and other universities in the north will not be granted automatic recognition in Europe.  BP specifically refers to the Lisbon Recognition Convention between Council of Europe and UNESCO. Similarly, the Lisbon Recognition Convention between council of Europe and UNESCO is open to all countries party to the cultural convention of Council of Europe. Turkish Cypriots are represented in the Council of Europe as “elected representatives of Turkish Cypriot community”.

 

It should be noted with utmost attention that, the continuation of exclusion of Turkish Cypriot Universities from Higher Education Databases and Directories will not only affect the fundamental scientific, educational and cultural rights of students and scholars, but it will also have an irreparable negative impact on EMU and other Turkish Cypriot institutions of higher education, and ultimately as a consequence, on the Turkish Cypriot economy.

 

Kaya Arslan

Advisor to Rector of Eastern Mediterranean University


THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION

Turkish Cypriot children living in the south are systematically denied an education in their mother tongue as provided for by the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus and as recognized by international conventions including the EU of which the Republic of Cyprus is a member.

The TCHRF has received specific complaints about the right to education of Turkish Cypriots living in South Cyprus. Our observations on this matter reveal that the Turkish Cypriots living in Southern Cyprus, along with other matters, are being seriously confronted with discrimination in the field of education. While the Greek Cypriots living in the Karpas region in North Cyprus are receiving their education in their mother tongue and enjoying the right to choose their teachers and curriculum in primary and secondary schools, none of these amenities are recognised to the Turkish Cypriots living in the South even at primary school level.  This is contrary to the Cyprus Constitution, Article 3 which foresees the official languages of the Republic to be Greek and Turkish and articles 20 and 87 which regulate the educational rights of the Turkish Cypriots. The said articles provide that the Turkish Cypriots will have the right to receive education in their mother tongue and administer their own schools. Despite these clear provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, the Greek Cypriot Administration continuously hindered the opening of a Turkish primary school and even alleged that there was no such demand on the part of the Turkish Cypriots. In furtherance of this allegation, the Greek Cypriot Administration, through the Ministry of Education and Culture established, in violation of the Constitution, proceeded to solve the matter by opening, in a normal Greek Cypriot school in Limassol, where there is a concentration of Turkish Cypriots, a class in which a few lessons are conducted in Turkish. Furthermore, these lessons conducted in Turkish, are being given by people without the help of a textbook and whose profession is unrelated to elementary education. Thus, the Turkish Cypriots are being made to receive education, apart from a few hours, in the Greek language which they do not understand. By this arrangement, the Greek Administration is preventing the Turkish Cypriot pupils from receiving education on the same standards as the Greek Cypriot pupils and thus, the Turkish Cypriot pupils are being faced with a lower standard of education.

 


This arrangement is in fact, indicative of the Greek Cypriot Administration’s denial of Turkish Cypriot status as equal co-founder of the Republic of Cyprus. The Greek Cypriot Administration does not even view the Turkish Cypriots as a minority, because according to international covenants regarding minority rights, minorities have the right to education in their mother tongues and parties to these covenants are obliged to take the necessary steps in the realisation of this right. Despite the above, the Greek Cypriot Administration denies to the Turkish Cypriots not only the right which emanates from the Constitution, but even the international rights recognised to minorities in the world.

 

Today, the denial of the Turkish Cypriots’ constitutional right to receive education in their mother tongue by the Republic of Cyprus, which is a member of the European Union is a situation the like of which does not exist in the world. The recognition of this right by putting an end to this arrangement is not only a legal requirement, but also an obligation on the part of a member of the European Union where human rights are most highly valued.    

Asst. Prof. Dr. Ali Dayıoğlu

Member of the Board of Trustees of

The Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation

ART

During the Summer of 2006, an opportunity arose for everyone living on the island of Cyprus, as well as their art-loving guests, to share an important international arts event. A great disappointment was suffered by all concerned when, instead of transcending barriers and implementing art as a tool for cooperation and unity, the entire event collapsed in a cloud of bitterness and litigation.

 

The European Biennale of Contemporary Art Manifesta 6 is an international event rated as one of the world’s top three contemporary art events.  In 2004 the host parties selected the Municipality of Nicosia as the location for the event of 2006. The divided city was selected specifically to contribute to reconciliation and cooperation and was to bring great prestige and attention to Nicosia and Cyprus. The conditions and contractual obligations were agreed in cooperation with the Greek Cypriot Ministry of Education and Culture and the Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism who were the main sponsors of the event. A special company, Nicosia for Art (NFA) was established within the Nicosia Municipality to manage the whole event. The activities proposed were to be bi-communal and embrace both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots and to take place on both sides of the Green Line.

 

Two years after signing the contracts, the event failed to materialise because the NFA terminated the contracts and as a result all parties resorted to accusing each other of breaching the contracts.  The cause of the dispute was that despite the structure of the project from the start, the sponsors objected strongly to activities taking place in the north of the city where the Turkish Cypriots live. The NFA’s reasoning was as follows:

“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 International Foundation of Manifesta (IFM) and curators on the other hand insist that NFA and the Nicosia Municipality were well aware that the project included locations in North Nicosia and that in fact this potential for cultural partnerships and forming bridges of peace was a major factor in choosing this city.

 

The IFM expressed shock at the way the NFA had behaved and also declared that the legal steps taken against IFM and the curators was an illustration that NFA deliberately undermines the individuals’ freedom of action which is in fact in flagrant breach of all international cultural conventions.[6] The curators  accused NFA of breaching its contractual obligations as a result of the political pressure from the Greek Cypriot leadership and stated that:  “The contractual agreement made with the local authorities clearly defined Manifesta 6 as a ‘bi-communal project’, therefore, we believed ourselves to be working within the parameters outlined and agreed upon at the outset of the project. Accordingly, we developed the project in the spirit of this ‘bi-communality’, and throughout the process, the Greek Cypriot Authorities not only agreed, but also encouraged this approach to working in both areas of the city and made numerous official public statements confirming their support”.[7]

The outcome is that unfortunately Manifesta 6 could not take place in Nicosia. NFA is taking legal action against IFM and its Curators for breaching their contractual obligations and has even obtained a court order against the Curators forbidding them to even speak about the failure of Manifesta 6!  The legal steps taken not only threaten the very existence of IFM, a highly prestigious international art and culture organization but also seriously curtail the curators’ basic freedom of expression.

As a result, a politically motivated strategy of exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots has ruined what would have been a historical international event to be shared throughout the entire city and to include Turkish Cypriot artists and art-lovers. Not only has this incident shattered hopes for a joint display of cooperation and coexistence through the medium of art but has also caused severe damage to a reputable international organisation and its participants who are facing court action and possible bankruptcy.   

 

Mustafa Abitoğlu

Coordinator of the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation

CULTURE

A case study of the effects of isolation in the field of culture

The teenage members of the Gönyeli Municipality Folk Dance Group (GMFDG) and their trainers forwarded to the TCHR Foundation this account of an unforgettable experience of disappointment and frustration during their summer holiday of 2006.

                                                                                      

 

“For the past 3 years, the Gönyeli Municipality Folk Dance Group has been a member of CIOFF, (the Council of Organisations for Folklore Festivals and Folk Art).  In February 2006, they were invited to represent North Cyprus in the International Folklore Festival to be held in Seville, Spain between 28th June and 5th July 2006. As usual, the invitation included a list of conditions relating mainly to procedural matters such as accommodation and group programmes.

GMFDG welcomed the invitation and replied expressing their enthusiasm to attend such a festival organized by CIOFF as they had been doing for several years. In order to attend the festival, some members of the group with Turkish parentage had to apply for a visa from the Spanish Embassy based in Nicosia for their Turkish passports. Meanwhile all the preparations such as flight bookings, costumes and intense rehearsals continued up until the last day. At the Spanish Embassy however, a Greek Cypriot employee of the Spanish Embassy took copies of the details of the event and the participants and abused them for planning to attend, and threatened to inform her own authorities and prevent them from doing so.

 

The visas for Spain were obtained and all preparations completed by the GMFDG. The young teenagers had worked very hard and felt great excitement about displaying their culture through dance in a foreign country. When the group landed in Istanbul for the connecting flight to Spain, the trainer of the group, Mr. Öksüzoğlu checked his emails only to find a letter from the organisers in Spain. The letter said that their attendance at the festival was only possible under the stated conditions otherwise they would not be allowed to attend and should not go to Spain at all. The decision was said to be taken by them for ‘political reasons’. The President of the CIOFF Spain in his email apologised for the situation and listed the ‘political conditions’ as follows:

That the GMFDG should attend the Festival claiming to represent the Republic of Cyprus and only have their name mention on documentation of the Republic of Cyprus. They were also ordered to introduce themselves under the official symbols of the Republic of Cyprus such as flag and national anthem. (Interestingly there is no Cyprus national anthem – the Republic of Cyprus uses that of Greece!)

 

The GMFDG is a group attached to a local authority in North Cyprus and has no political aim or status other than to display its local cultural folklore. This NGO has complied with the conditions of the CIOFF and has been a full member for the past 3 years. The Turkish Cypriot community, from which this group of folk dancers come, voted in April 2004 for the comprehensive UN plan to reunify Cyprus within a federation made up of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot component states.

The Greek Cypriot side rejected the plan and succeeded in becoming an EU member to the exclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community. As a result, both the EU and the UN declared an end to the justification of any form of isolation of the Turkish Cypriot people.

 

Under these circumstances, to be ordered to participate in an international cultural event expressing an identity that they do not possess is flagrant disrespect for basic human rights and freedoms. The imposition of conditions unrelated to the purpose or the spirit of the event is a further disgrace.

 

The disillusionment and tears of a group of young people and their trainers who prepared hard and set out on a journey to display their cultural folklore only to be stopped on the way will always be the most memorable aspect of this experience.        

Mustafa Abitoğlu

Coordinator of the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation

SPORT

 

The situation regarding sports is illustrated by the statement below of Mr. Cengiz Uzun of the Cyprus Turkish Football Association.

“Embargoes upon Turkish Cypriot Sportsmen

 

The Cyprus Turkish Football Association (CTFA) was set up and has been an active lively organisation promoting and regulating football as a sport for the Turkish Cypriot community since 1955. To take part and to compete in sporting events is an internationally recognised basic right and it is also a way of developing tolerance and constructive interaction between people of all ages, race or creed.

 


Unfortunately the Turkish Cypriots face serious blockades which prevent them from enjoying this basic right. Despite the international call to end isolation of the Turkish Cypriot community after the April 2004 referenda on the UN Annan Plan, there is little progress in this direction. The Turkish Cypriots are still denied basic human rights including the right to compete with their counterparts in sports in the international arena. Our membership to international sports organizations are prevented mainly by the aggressive lobbying of the Greek Cypriots who use sport, including football, as a weapon to obtain political victories.

 

We cannot accept that any political factor of the Cyprus problem can justify the exclusion of young enthusiastic Turkish Cypriot sportsmen and women from taking part in international events. To continue to put obstacles in front of thousands of Turkish Cypriot youngsters who desperately want to participate in sports, integrate with other youngsters from other countries and develop themselves, is not the kind of treatment they deserve especially when the political situation is not under their control. CTFA would like to see our member teams play football with other FIFA member federations and clubs as well as with Greek Cypriots teams.

 

Our association places great importance on the pursuit of the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and to a final just solution of the Cyprus problem. We do not intend or act to gain political advantage through participation in sport. However, all efforts to create modalities whereby Turkish Cypriot teams can play and compete in international sports have been unsuccessful.

Cengiz Uzun

Cyprus Turkish Football Association

Head of External Relations”

RECONCILIATION

 

The TCHR Foundation takes complaints and provides support for individuals and organizations relating to Human Rights issues. In addition to this work, the Foundation also places great importance on the search for methods of reconciliation and cooperation. Examples of methods used in other areas of conflict and divided societies are examined to see how they can be implemented within the Cyprus dispute to make constructive contribution towards finding a comprehensive and lasting solution acceptable to all.

Since 1963, it has been over 40 years of conflict and partition in Cyprus. Certainly, after so many years, reconciliation is not that easy. In 1963 Greek Cypriots attacked Turkish Cypriots and quite a number of Turkish Cypriots were either killed or wounded. During 1963-1974 Turkish Cypriots had to live in enclaves under conditions that were seriously against human dignity. Finally in 1974, because of the coup d’état of the Greek fascists and the Turkish military intervention, hundreds of Cypriots were killed or wounded on both sides.

 

Under these circumstances, it can easily be said that the history of Cyprus is full of pain and suffering for both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. So, both parties are injured and none of these parties must ignore the other’s injuries. Today’s task for all the Cypriots is to try to understand the feelings of the “other”. If the aim is reconciliation, empathy has to be the starting point. If the Greek Cypriot community continues to remember only the occasions that its own members were unjustly treated by the Turks or the Turkish Cypriots, reconciliation will not be possible. It is just the same for the Turkish Cypriot community. It must be remembered that, not only the members of our community but also the members of the other community were killed during the war and conflicts. Each Cypriot must learn to feel regret for what happened on this island. We must also learn to apologize to the members of the “other” community who lost their beloved ones, even if we were not the ones who used the guns that killed them during the conflict. Starting to feel regret not only for what happened to us but also for the pain of the  “others” and learning to feel shame for what happened in our history will certainly cure our souls.

 

 

It must be underlined that for the members of the two communities, it will not be easy to learn to feel empathy. It will not be easy for any of us to learn to take responsibility for being a part of what had happened on this island either. We certainly need a special organization for this and people who are specialized on problems like ours. This organization may be a reconciliation commission as was proposed in the Annan Plan. Further, we must not be content with a “reconciliation commission” and we must also think of finding ways to organize this Commission as a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”. Because, as in other divided communities of the world, without finding and declaring the “truth”, reconciliation will never be possible. We must also remember that people on both sides who benefit from the status quo in Cyprus owe their dominance to lies and invented stories about the demonized other. A “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” which will consist of members of both communities and specialized members from international organizations can be the only way to end the ideological power and dominance of those who benefit from the status quo on the island built on invented versions of history. We, the Cypriots must not forget that there is no other chance for us to convert today’s “cease-fire” into “permanent peace”.    

 

Asst. Prof. Dr. Tufan Erhürman

Member of the Board of Trustees of

The Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation   

[1] Council Regulation (EC) No 866/2004.

[2] Council Regulation (EC) No 389/2006.

[3] ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation on special conditions for trade with those areas of the Republic

of Cyprus in which the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control’

European Commission 2004.

[4] Quoted from the official web site of the European Union; http://europa.eu/abc/panorama/index_en.htm

[5] Open Competition EPSO/A/1/03 was one of a series, EPSO/A/1-10/03, published in Official Journal C 120A of 22 May 2003, for the recruitment of nationals of ten candidate members ( “ EU-10 ” ) which,  since 1st May 2004, have joined the Community.

[6] Press release by International Foundation of Manifesta(IFM) to explain why Manifesta 6 fell apart and respond to the allegations put forward by the NFA on 6 June 2006.

[7] Press release by Mai Abu ElDahab on behalf of the curatorial team defending curatorial team against NFA’s allegations, on 6 June 2006.