EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT. Committee on Petitions

Transcription

1 EUROPEAN PARLIAMT 2004 Committee on Petitions REPORT on the Fact Finding Visit to Cyprus - 25 to 28 November 2007 concerning petition 733/ Famagusta Refugee Movement. Committee on Petitions Members of the delegation Marcin Libicki, Carlos José Iturgaiz Angulo, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Willy Meyer Pleite Adopted by the Committee at its meeting of July 16, DT\ doc PE v05-00

2 Objectives of the Visit This fact-finding visit was organised by the Petitions Committee under the terms of article 192 paragraph 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament and authorised by the Bureau of Parliament on September 12, The primary objective of the mission was to visit the sealed off section of Famagusta- widely known as Varosha- and meet with the petitioners and competent authorities in the context of petition 733/2004 submitted on behalf of the Famagusta Refugee Movement. The above organisation, representing over EU citizens who were forced to flee from Famagusta following the Turkish occupation in August 1974, is seeking the assistance of the European Parliament to ensure that the Commission s initiatives to stimulate the economic development of northern Cyprus include the return of the closed area of Famagusta, referring in this connection to the Council proposal for a regulation for the creation of an instrument to stimulate the economic development of the Turkish Cypriot community 1. The Petitions Committee sought access to the sealed off section of Famagusta - Varosha, Several attempts were made by the delegation, via contacts with the Turkish authorities in Brussels, Ankara and the occupied areas, to gain access to Varosha, but there was a persistent "lack of response" from the Turkish military which never gave us the requested authorisation. Although the purpose of the Petitions Committee is to seek solutions, in cooperation with the member states involved, to issues raised in the petitions submitted to it, it naturally recognised that the particular situation which continues to prevail on the island of Cyprus and a negotiated settlement of that situation is the clear responsibility of the United Nations, The European Union and the states involved. During the course of the visit, which was essentially of a humanitarian nature, the members of the delegation held discussions with representatives of the Famagusta community both in the city itself and in other parts of the island, notably Limassol, and also with persons who have been displaced. 2 Members were also privileged to have been able to hold detailed discussions with Mrs Erato Kozakou Marcoullis, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus and with Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Community.. 3 Members also met with a senior representative from the United Nations in Nicosia. 1 This extract is taken from the petition itself as this was sent to the European Parliament. 2 The focus of the Petitions Committee activity is the European citizen and the rights pertaining to European citizens under the Treaty. Article 194 of the Treaty provides all European citizens with the right to petition the European Parliament on issues which fall within its area of activity. 3 Two members of the delegation, Mr Meyer and Mr Iturgaiz decided not to participate in the latter meeting. PE v /10 DT\ doc

3 Introduction. The petition which was originally submitted in July 2004, following the accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU on May 1st 2004, and the April 2004 referendum 1 is a powerful statement on behalf of some 30,000 persons who have lost their homes in the Famagusta area after the Turkish military invasion and occupation in 1974 which led to the forcible displacement of some 200,000 Cypriots thus causing a major humanitarian crisis and a flagrant violation of human rights. Turkey continues to illegally occupy through its military forces over 36% of the Republic of Cyprus territory. The petitioners acting in accordance to the ultimate goal of reaching a settlement of the Cyprus question call for the return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants as a measure to be included in the European Union s initiatives to stimulate the economic development of the northern part of the island and to facilitate the reunification of Cyprus. They believe that the adoption of their proposal would serve as an impetus toward reaching a solution to the Cyprus problem, as it would allow the two communities of the island to peacefully coexist and cooperate in Famagusta, developing ties of economic interdependence. They point out that while Famagusta was the leading tourist destination on the island prior to 1974 and the most prosperous city, it remains today grossly underdeveloped and financially stagnant, with the ghost-town serving as its reference point. As a petition, its content is much more complex and highly charged in political terms than almost all the other high-profile petitions received by the Committee. Yet, the Committee agreed to support the petitioners and deal the issue as best it could in a pragmatic and constructive perspective. It did so because it believed that a number of fundamental principles on which European citizenship is based were raised in the context of the petition, including respect for the integrity of each European citizen and respect for their fundamental right to their legitimate property and freedom of movement. In spite of Cyprus now being a full member of the European Union several rather large political obstacles remain in the way of the enjoyment of these principles which almost all other European citizens now take for granted. The return of the sealed-off section of Famagusta, called Varosha, to its lawful inhabitants is urgent. So is an overall solution to the Cyprus problem. Indisputably, the linkage between the two is umbilical, and yet as is repeatedly envisaged and declared by the UN, and the EU, the restoration of the Famagusta sealed off section to its lawful inhabitants constitutes a priority and should be implemented without awaiting a comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. The Cypriots expected that the prospects of a solution could increase after entering the European Union. The opening of the fenced off area of Varosha was among the issues included within the Anan Plan. However, following its rejection, the government of Cyprus, in August 2004, proposed the "return" of Varosha combined with the re-opening of the port of Famagusta under the control of the EU Commission. At the same time, this would contribute both a confidence building measure, since Greek 1 The question asked as set out in Annex IX of the Fundamental Agreement is the following: "Do you approve the Fundamental Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the Constitution of the Greek-Cypriot Constituent State and the provisions as regards the laws that will be in force, in order to create a new state of affairs with which Cyprus will accede united to the European Union?" YES NO DT\ doc 3/10 PE v05-00

4 Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots would live together and co-operate for the functioning of the port, but also a measure to promote the development of the city and the economic progress of the Turkish Cypriot community. The negotiations carried out during the Finnish Presidency of the EU, which itself stands out as an exceptional and unique period in terms of EU diplomacy, were not successful. Bilateral talks between the then President of the Republic of Cyprus, Tassos Papadopoulos in his capacity as leader of the Greek Cypriot community and the leader of the Turkish Cypriot community Mehmet Ali Talat, involving the United Nations took place in September 2007 and both sides presented outline plans to Ban Ki-moon, Secretary General of the U.N. Varosha. The once thriving district of Varosha was the hub of the developing economy of Famagusta in the early 1970's and the focus of much domestic and foreign investment. It includes the seafront area and beach hinterland which made it a magnet for tourism on the eastern coast. At the time it was the shopwindow of Cyprus in terms of culture and modernity. It is a prime property site. Following the second phase of theturkish invasion of Cyprus following the coup d'état against Archbishop Makarios in 1974, Varosha's 37,000 inhabitants fled for their lives in advance of the fighting to find safety towards Nicosia and, in particular, towards the southern part of the island. Their homes and their offices, their hotels and their schools were left abandoned and the district was seized and occupied by the Turkish military authorities. They are still there in a garrison; but the whole district has been left and abandoned. It is entirely fenced off by a decaying length of wire fencing and rusty oil-drums, by concrete barricades and pathetic military warning signs erected by the Turkish army, which continues to prevent all access to all Cypriots and to all other European citizens. The subordinate administration in the occupied part of Cyprus 1 has no practical authority over Varosha as a result. The UN monitoring station in Varosha is constrained in its operation by the Turkish military and visitors cannot gain access without the permission of the Turkish military authorities. According to all Reports of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Operation in Cyprus, UNFICYP operations in Varosha continue to be hampered by restrictions, imposed by the Turkish Forces, on access to and movement within the fenced area. The United Nations continue to hold the Government of Turkey responsible for the status quo in Varosha. 2 The northern end of the Varosha is adjacent to the port area of Famagusta from where one can stroll to the beach. From the fence, which obstructs the stroller from gaining access to the Varosha shoreline, the sea-front hotels, apartment blocks and restaurants are no more than decaying concrete skeletons - massive urban gravestones standing resolutely against the march of time. The memories and the souls of the former occupants, many of whom were met by members of the delegation, still inhabit those walls. Nature has occupied Varosha as well. Trees and shrubs have grown through the cracks in the decaying thoroughfares where the ground has sunk to fill the underground sewage systems. Cats and rodents roam the alleys. Churches have suffered the same fate as the other buildings and have been desecrated and left to bear their own silent witness on behalf of the once predominantly Christian community. Schools and playgrounds remain deserted. The Republic of Cyprus has records for 5567 plots of land in Varosha, of which about 80% belong to Greek Cypriot. Ownership by Turkish Cypriots amounts to 4 plots. The resettlement of Varosha has been the subject of several United Nations Security Council 1 Terminology used by the European Court of Human Rights. 2 S/2007/328. PE v /10 DT\ doc

5 Resolutions, UN initiatives seeking to implement Confidence Building Measures and the High Level Agreements of In 1979, under UN auspices, the Kyprianou-Denktash Agreement dedicated item 5 to the district as follows: "Priority will be given to reaching agreement of the resettlement of Varosha under UN auspices simultaneously with the beginning of consideration by the interlocutors of the constitutional and territorial aspects of a comprehensive settlement. After agreement on Varosha has been reached it will be implemented without awaiting the outcome of the discussion on other aspects of the Cyprus problem." The UN Security Council Resolution 550/1984 is the most eloquent of several UN Resolutions with a direct reference to Varosha: "Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations." The European Parliament expressed its support for UNSC Resolution 789(1992) calling: in particular on the Council and the Commission, in cooperation with the Cyprus Government, the UΝ Secretary-General and other interested governments and international organizations, to: i. Help in conducting studies and in initiating action for the restoration of Famagusta (Varosha) as soon as the town is placed under UN administration according to Security Council Resolutions 550(84) and 789(92); 1 The mission. The delegation were met, following their arrival at Larnaca Airport, by Loizos Afxentiou and Christofides Kikis from the Famagusta Refugee Movement (FRM) and by Mr Alexis Galanos, elected Mayor of Famagusta City Council in exile. Members were able to have a preliminary briefing with several of the main spokesmen and women from the FRM in the course of the evening in order to be brought up-to-date with developments on the island in relation to Famagusta and Varosha. The meeting with the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Cyprus, Ms. Erato Kozakou-Marcoullis was most informative and allowed the members to fully appreciate the position of the Cypriot Government in relation to the subjects raised by the petitioners. In particular, the Foreign Minister presented each member with a photographic record of the physical state of Varosha to illustrate the extent of the damage and decay experienced by this district, now categorised as a ghost town. Mrs Kozakou- Marcoullis, placed emphasis on the humanitarian aspect of the issue, respecting, as she clearly stated, the mandate and the scope of the mission. The Foreign Minister briefed the members of the delegation on the background to the current situation and informed members that Famagusta was the jewel of Cyprus throughout the centuries. During its heyday, she said, half the island's tourist income came from Famagusta but since the Turkish invasion the city, and Varosha in particular, it has been left to decay. She explained that, as it is clearly stated in the Treaty of Accession, the entire territory of the Republic of Cyprus has acceded to the EU, although according to Protocol 10 of the said Treaty, the acquis communautaire is suspended in the areas that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus does not exercise effective control. She referred to the humiliation felt by the many Cypriot citizens who were displaced by the war and who now had to obtain "visas" to visit their own country. Referring to the programme of the visit, the Minister expressed her formal disapproval of the planned meeting between the delegation of the Petitions Committee with the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr Talat. 1 B3-0058, 0065 and 0069/93. DT\ doc 5/10 PE v05-00

6 The Chairman explained that the programme had been approved by the Committee and it was designed to focus entirely on the substance of the case made by the petitioners, and meet with all available interested parties, as each fact-finding visit of the Committee does as a matter of principle. Nevertheless, two members of the delegations, Mr Iturgaiz and Mr Meyer, expressed their opposition to the meeting with Mr Talat and said they would not attend the meeting with him which had been planned. They explained that since the objective of the mission was to visit the fenced off area and they were not allowed to do so by the Turkish troops which have actual control, there was no-one else who is competent to discuss the issue. Therefore they decided that on this occasion they should not visit Mr Talat. From Nicosia, the delegation travelled to Limassol for meetings with the Mayor of Famagusta Mr Alexis Galanos and all the members of the city council. The Mayor explained that 45% of the refugees from Famagusta now live in the Limassol area (25% live in the Larnaca area.) The most recent elections to the city council took place in December 2006 and it has a five-year mandate. The Mayor explained to members of the delegation that in order to show goodwill his Council has no objection to the members of the delegation meeting with Turkish Cypriots and their leaders in order to talk about issues of concern to the petitioners and about human rights provided that the delegation would be granted a permission to enter the sealed off area.. The Mayor, supported by all members of the Council, said that he trusted the committee to do what was right. A formal declaration was pronounced by Mr Galanos, and officially handed over to the delegation by the Mayor. It was supported by two huge volumes containing more than 20,000 signatures. The declaration included statements to the effect that the imprisonment of a part of the city of Famagusta constitutes a crime against Europe and the whole world. The declaration "calls upon the European Union and its competent bodies to play a leading role in the return of the residents of a European city and to live up to the European principles." The statement continues: "We are fighting together with all the refugees to safeguard our inalienable right to return to our homes. At the same time, we believe that the return of Famagusta to its lawful inhabitants will create the preconditions for the further progress and a solution to the Cyprus problem. At the same time it will also create the conditions for productive cooperation at all levels with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. For all these reasons we declare our irrevocable decision to continue in the most decisive manner the struggle for the return of our homes and properties and we call upon the rest of the people of Cyprus to join us in this fight." Members were introduced and talked with two former mayors of Famagusta before holding a full meeting with the Famagusta Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The President, Mr Andreas Matsis, informed members of the work of the Chamber and presented a memorandum to the delegation including its vision of the Famagusta of the future, as a model of development and creativity and a bridge of cooperation between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Supported by the Mayor, Mr Galanos, they called for a coordinating committee to be set up between the two sides to plan for the future of the city and its infrastructure and services. They also mentioned the need to preserve and restore the archaeological sites of Engomi and Salamis. The memorandum concludes:" We live in an era where the borders are abolished and countries merge into greater unities. Let us not create another partitioned town (like what Berlin had been in the past and Nicosia continues to be today). Let us plan together, cooperate and share the vision of a united town in a common country." The delegation then walked to meet with local people, including the Parish Priest, who had originally come from Famagusta to Limassol on It was a very emotional encounter as people expressed their hopes to return to their houses and their homes. Members were shown old photographs, some of which represented people who had gone missing and were feared to have been killed by Turkish troops in Many expressed their views that they joined the EU for precisely this situation to be solved. The priest said he wanted to be able to celebrate mass in his former church in Famagusta. They PE v /10 DT\ doc

7 wanted the foreign troops to leave and they wanted to meet and live together their Turkish Cypriot friends again. A meeting scheduled for later in the afternoon between the delegation, the Mayor of Famagusta, Mr. Galanos and the representative of the Turkish Cypriot community in Famagusta, Mr. Oktay Kayalp at the Ledra Hotel within the UN buffer zone in Nicosia, did not take place. Mr. Kayalp s office informed around noon that Mr. Kayalp was not aware of this meeting and so he would not participate. The meeting was therefore cancelled. Before leaving early the following morning to visit the Famagusta area and continue with the programme of meetings, the delegation met to discuss the planned meeting with the leader of the Turkish Cypriot Authorities, Mr Mehmet Ali Talat. The Chairman announced that he would meet Mr Talat with Ms. Geringer de Oedenberg as this was what had been decided by the Committee and this was also in the interests of the petitioners. Mr Meyer and Mr Iturgaiz maintained their position that they would not attend, largely as a result of their concerns regarding the competence of people whom they would meet over the issue of the fenced off area of Varosha.. 1 The members of the delegation drove close to the buffer zone between the two parts of the island to the Strovila crossing point where, following a laborious control procedure, they were given "visas" and allowed to proceed with their mission to go to the non sealed- off area of the occupied city of Famagusta.. (Mr Matsakis, who joined the members at Strovila had expressed the wish to accompany the delegation, ex-officio, was not admitted and he chose to return directly to Brussels.) On reaching Famagusta the delegation headed directly towards Varosha.. Due to a lack of permission to enter the sealed- off section the delegation travelled along the fenced-off area visiting various vantage points to observe. Members stopped at the Famagusta seafront and walked along the beach observing the empty hotels, apartment buildings and houses, some bombed by the Turkish air force in 1974, now abandoned to the elements, until they reached the fence prohibiting entrance to the sealed- off section. Members also stopped by the houses of petitioners and witnessed where, as children they had ridden their bicycles and bought ice-cream, where their parents had greeted them and where they had been happy. They saw the school playgrounds and the churches. They saw the Turkish garrison and the Turkish military vehicles and the rusting signs forbidding entry into the area. For the petitioners who accompanied the delegation at this point, time stopped. From there, the members of the delegation travelled to the centre of the old town of Famagusta for a meeting with the representative of the Turkish Cypriots in Famagusta 2, Mr Oktay Kayalp,. Having been asked to meet with the delegation he had replied to the Committee by letter of November 21, 2007, of his willingness to meet and to engage in cooperation with the Committee. In his letter he also referred to the support given by the EU through its aid package to the city of Famagusta, for which he thanked the EU, through the delegation. 2 million had been used to preserve the old walls of the medieval city and parts of the old city where the meeting was taking place. He attached great importance to the preservation of the old city as a heritage site. The representative of the Turkish Cypriots in Famagusta, Mr Kayalp, expressed his disappointment that the Annan Plan had not been adopted even though 70% of the Turkish Cypriot population had 1 On November 22nd 2007 Mr Meyer had written to the Chairman urging him to "avoid all those interviews that go beyond the objective of the mission". 2 UN used terminology DT\ doc 7/10 PE v05-00

8 voted in favour of it. Had that been the case, he suggested, Varosha would already have been returned to its original owners and reconstruction would have begun. He expressed full support for the restoration of property in the Varosha district to its lawful owners and inhabitants. He said that as things now stand, this can only proceed as part of a comprehensive package deal and that no solution is possible in isolation. He wanted a quick and durable solution as he said, the longer it is not resolved the longer there will be a blight on the whole city. It constitutes, he added, an ongoing physical disturbance to communication and development which is in the interests of nobody, and he would be willing to continue to work to find a solution to the matter as long as the main objective is to end the overall problem. There is also an ongoing difficulty about the freedom of people to move around the island to work, he added. This obstruction also hinders sustainable development in Famagusta. Mr Meyer expressed his views about the need to respect UNSC resolutions and in particular that the Turkish troops should leave immediately, so that the petitioners could return to their homes. In reply, the representative of the Turkish Cypriots in Famagusta said that while he respected that view, he feared that a unilateral handover would weaken the peace process. He believed in dialogue with all parties and would be willing, following a negotiated settlement, to act within a bi-communal administration. He hoped for good solutions to be found so the people of Varosha could return, he concluded. Already behind schedule, and following Mr Iturgaiz' departure, the delegation set off for Nicosia to meet with the Turkish Cypriot leader. The Chairman and Ms Geringer de Oedenberg, apologised for their late arrival. Mr Meyer, as already mentioned, had declared his disagreement regarding the appropriateness of this meeting given the mandate and objectives of the mission, as well as Mr Iturgaiz, and therefore did not participate. Mr Talat welcomed members and officials present and emphasised in his introductory remarks his ambition to find a suitable perspective to resolve the problem represented by Varosha as soon as possible. He said that in his view some parts of the petition, which he had studied carefully, resembled the proposals made by President Papadopoulos in Nevertheless he fully respected the Petitions Committee efforts to contribute to the process, he said, but this was only possible in an overall framework. He also suggested that the question of Varosha would have been resolved if the result of the referendum had been different.. Before 1994 he explained, Varosha had been seen as part of a confidence building package; but since then he alleged that it had been part of a comprehensive solution of territorial adjustment to hopefully unify the country. If we reach agreement he said, it will be given back to the Greek Cypriot side and the lawful owners. He suggested that a piecemeal solution is not a solution as it would consolidate the division of the island., It is necessary to recall that the regulation of property rights on other parts of the island is a much more complicated issue than it is in the Varosha district which is the only place where there is uncontested property rights, and double ownership does not exist. In Mr. Talat's opinion the Turkish Cypriot community want to be in the European Union, he concluded, but the Greek Cypriot side seemed so far content with an endless process which does not lead to a viable solution for all inhabitants of the island. Mr Talat did not see a way to solve Varosha's problem separately when questioned by the delegation. The Chairman, expressing his personal opinion, told Mr Talat that the people of the Turkish Cypriot community were considered to be European citizens by the European Union and that they should PE v /10 DT\ doc

9 enjoy the rights which derive from that citizenship, including the right of petition. Members of the fact-finding visit were frequently confronted with some people who believed that if Varosha were to be restored unilaterally to its rightful owners that this would trigger of a chain of events leading to a final resolution of the island's division. Although this was not directly relevant to the mission's mandate, just as the meeting with Mr. Talat, the Members then met with the Turkish Cypriot Human Rights Foundation, represented by the Chairperson Emine Erk, who explained their role and their activity and their support for respect for human rights standards throughout the island of Cyprus. They also held a strong belief, she said, in the need for a comprehensive solution. They focus, in particular on the problem still posed by the 'missing persons', whose whereabouts had remained unrecorded after the conflict, the question of property rights and the active promotion of a constructive dialogue between both sides and between the Turkish Cypriot community and the outside world. Leaving Nicosia, the delegation proceeded to a large public meeting organised by the Famagusta Refugee Movement in Dherynia, just to the south of the green line, near Famagusta. Once again the delegation was met by about three hundred people in a very intense and emotional environment. Each member was able to express their views to the meeting and many had the opportunity of informing the delegation of their personal circumstances. Conclusions. It is clear that in Cyprus the status quo is not an option. The petition received from the Famagusta Refugee Movement, and many subsequent communications which support the same theme, 1 demonstrate to the Committee, and to the European Parliament, that the citizens of the island of Cyprus have a hope that they will not be denied, nor will they ever give up. The results of the mission in this respect are crystal clear. Their frustration and their disappointment that the European Union, and membership of the EU, had so far done nothing to move their agenda forward in any tangible form was a permanent thread in every discussion held. The delegation was met with a willingness to talk between citizens and between local representatives from both sides. It was confronted at the same time with the need to remain within its mandate and focus on the question of Varosha and its return to its rightful inhabitants. It is clear that Varosha will be returned to its rightful owners... It is clear that Varosha must be returned to its lawful owners and inhabitants... But for this to happen, the United Nations must continue to be primarily, directly and actively responsible. Varosha could be a laboratory of development and a symbol of the future of Cyprus. The European Union, its Presidency, the Commission and the Parliament should work towards this direction. Turkey must also realise that as a candidate country it is under an obligation to respect the fundamental principles of the EU and the acquis communautaire,, including respect for civil liberties and property rights. Quite clearly in such circumstances its continued occupation of Varosha, and its 1 For example10,000 signatures of support from the "Campaign for a Return of Varosha" forwarded by Anastasios Antoniou from the Cypriot Young Scientists Organisation, dated November 28, DT\ doc 9/10 PE v05-00

10 ongoing military presence in northern part of Cyprus is completely unacceptable assuccessive UNSC resolutions have also indicated. The United Nations is looking towards the European Union for a more active diplomatic effort backed up by its economic strength. A Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federation with freedom of movement and respect for the acquis communautaire is still possible, and this will allow for Famagusta and Varosha to be developed, and it is wanted by the majority according to all opinion polls. There is nevertheless a danger that time is running out. This is because of the fact that that on both sides of the island, people are forgetting how to live together and speak each other's language. Generations are growing up and many of those who remember Cyprus before 1974 have already passed away. Therefore the situation is urgent and it is critical. (Draft) Recommendations: UNSC Resolution 550 (1984) must be respected, and implemented without further delay by all parties and,with regard to the petitioners' concerns, the institutions of the European Union must actively support and promote a solution which leads to the full restoration of property to its legitimate owners in Varosha. Turkey must withdraw its occupation military forces from the Republic of Cyprus, an EU territory, starting with the return of the Famagusta sealed-off section to its lawful inhabitants in compliance with the above resolution. The Slovenian and the French Presidencies of the EU must give their support so that this issue is resolved by the end of 2008, and the European Parliament is urged in this context to give full backing to this objective., If there are no visible results by the end of the year, the PETI Committee could re-examine the current state of play and reflect on further actions I.E. possibility of bringing the issue of the Famagusta petitioners to plenary. PE v /10 DT\ doc