Resolution on the issue of Cyprus 19.4.2004


RESOLUTION
Let us not mislead the people of Cyprus with so called guarantees


Following our Resolution of the 6 April 2004, in which we stressed out the discredit of the UN (the hope of peoples of the world, especially of the weak ones) and the recent alignment in the same direction of the EU as well, we consider it as our duty to point out that the promises for “guarantees” by the UN and the EU that are highlighted by some politicians are not legally binding; e.g., how can the Security Council of the UN be prevented from adopting a resolution opposite to one adopted in the past? Furthermore, they are unreliable, as the international experience has proved it until today.
With regard to the UN’s credibility, besides the contempt by itself of its resolutions, decisions etc. on the question of Cyprus, we will remind the following typical cases of resolutions adopted by its most powerful body, the Security Council, whose “guarantee” they suggest:
1. The non renewal of the mandate of Butros Ghali – fervent defender of Human Rights and weak peoples – as the Secretary General of the UN. Fourteen out of fifteen members of the Security Council voted for him, the USA exercised their right to veto and Butros Ghali was bypassed (1996, and in his place, Kofi Annan, the supported candidate by the USA, was elected).
2. All defenders of Human Rights saw to our great satisfaction the adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) that will be competent for the most serious international crimes (crimes against humanity, genocide and war crimes).
The Security Council during the last years, as a result of pressures of all kinds by the USA – that nevertheless had signed the treaty in question – excluded the USA from the jurisdiction of this Court for all kind of war crimes and crimes against humanity that their agents could possibly perpetrate in third countries!

As far as the EU is concerned which should normally be constantly strengthened as the hope of European peoples against the world-wide (universal) arbitrariness and oppression, unfortunately it takes a similar path.
1. The acceptance of Turkey as candidate member constituted an infringement of article 49 (ex O) of the Treaty on the European Union in combination with article 6, which require from the candidate member, not to obtain subsequently a democratic regime respecting HR but to have such a regime when the relevant application is submitted. Nevertheless the EU has accepted it as a candidate.
2. On the other hand, the competent Commissionaire Mr. Verheugen until his arrival at Lucerne was stating, correctly, that it is imposed that the regulation of the question of Cyprus is not including deviations-exceptions from the acquis communautaire. The acquis communautaire includes, among others, the respect of Human Rights, freedom of movement of European citizens in all member states, the free exercise of professions and the possession of any kind of property in any of the member States etc.. And yet in Lucerne, suddenly, the EU was ranged with the deviations from the aforementioned rules and in particular the ones related to the free movement, the possession of property etc. inside the member state itself (Cypriot Federation)!
In other words, the controversial and Turkish-friendly positions of the EU cannot inspire trust for credibility.
Finally, it must be highlighted that the de facto separation which exists today is regretful, but the legal (de jure) separation will be incomparably more painful and dangerous. If the “Federation” will not be proved viable – which is more than possible in view of the provisions and the multitude of turkishcypriot veto included in the Annan Plan – and if the “Federation” will be divided, the legal, then, and independent turkishcypriot state will be able to carry out a referendum for its unification with Turkey.
What consequences could have the conversion of the former “constituent turkishcypriot state” to Turkish territory for the existence of the greekcypriot state (also former “constituent state of the Federation”), is not hard to imagine. Let us not forget, among others, that the limitation for military forces etc. in the Turkish, then, territory will not be in force.
The citizens of the tortured island of Cyprus have proven until now political maturity and patriotism so as not to fall in those traps.
We believe that Greece will not play the role of the step mother. The disaster that the colonel’s Greece, produced by the “tergiversation”, has provoked to the island of Cyprus in 1974 suffices.

Athens, 19 April 2004

The Board of Directors of the MFHR