Cypriot Permanent Representative: Cyprus does not oppose Turkey‘s accession to the EU but will block negotiations on certain chapters unless Ankara changes its policy on Cyprus
Bulletin Quotidien Europe 9516 - 5/10/2007
The 2004 proposal of the European Commission to put an end to the economic isolation of the Turkish community of Cyprus, by means of the establishment of a system of direct trade with the European Union, has no possibility of being approved by the Council of Ministers, where Cyprus will maintain its veto on this text “whatever happens”, the Cypriot ambassador to the EU, Nicholas Emiliou, told EUROPE in an interview. “We cannot accept this regulation and we will not accept it”, he said, stressing that this position was defended not only by the current government, but also by all political parties in Cyprus.
At the basis of the Commission's proposal on direct trade lie the conclusions of the General Affairs Council of 26 April 2004. Two days after the Turkish Cypriot community approved the Annan Plan (by referendum) and its simultaneous rejection by the Greek Cypriots (also by referendum), the Council - made up of the 15 “old” member states at the time - agreed 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”. The Commission was invited to present detailed proposals to this end. It did so on 7 July 2004, putting forward two proposed regulations:
- one on granting Community financial assistance of €259 million (this regulation 389/2006 was approved by the Council on 27 February 2006 and entered into force on the same day);
- and another on facilitating direct trade between the Turkish part of Cyprus and the EU, by means of the creation of a preferential regime for products originating from the northern part of the island. From the word go, and to this day, this second proposed regulation has remained blocked by Cyprus within the Council of Ministers.
Direct trade
Mr Emiliou cited several reasons for this strict opposition to direct trade between the
north of the island and the EU. Firstly, Nicosia disagrees that there is any “economic
isolation” of the Turkish Cypriot community.
This community lives, he acknowledged, under “its own specific conditions, but this is the result of the Turkish invasion and occupation by the Turkish troops”, the ambassador explained. Furthermore, he added, if Cyprus had been a member of the EU when the Council adopted its conclusions on April 2004 (Ed: it joined five days later, on 1 May 2004) “the language would not have been the same and I can assure you that the word 'isolation' would not have figured in those conclusions”. But the main reason for Cyprus's veto is political.
“If the direct trade proposal was adopted as proposed by the Commission, this would legalise and upgrade the political status of the entity in the north and would eventually create a new type of Taiwan situation in the north of Cyprus”, with two states existing on the island, only one of which - the Republic of Cyprus - is internationally recognised.
“This would be a very serious incident”, said Mr Emiliou. In order to avoid this kind of scenario, “we will not accept any proposal which would involve directly or indirectly legalising the ports and airports in the north of Cyprus”, he stressed.
The accession of Turkey
Cyprus is not opposed to a future accession to the EU by Turkey, but will keep a very careful eye on ensuring that the process is constantly subject to strict conditions, the ambassador explained. “We are a constructive partner, also in the Turkish accession negotiations.
We are not philosophically opposed to Turkish membership of the EU, but this will exclusively depend on Turkish willingness to comply with the conditionality of membership.
If it does, it can become a Member State like any other member state. We want to give Turkey a fair chance”, he said. The decision of the Republic of Cyprus to give its green light to the opening of accession negotiations with Ankara at the European Council of December 2004 was strategic in nature: “We hope that the accession process will lead to a transformation of Turkey into a more European Turkey, particularly with the army in the right place as in the other member states”. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the issue of Cyprus must be resolved before Turkey can accede to the EU, whatever happens. “I don't think that anybody seriously believes that Turkey can become a member of the EU unless the Cyprus problem is resolved. It would be paradoxical to have a member state party being occupied by troops of another member state”, the ambassador stressed.
Veto in accession negotiations
Accession negotiations with Turkey, which were launched in October 2005, are of an eminently “political” nature and will move forward only if Ankara fulfils the conditions laid down by the Union for the various chapters of negotiation, the ambassador stressed.
“Without being unreasonable, we are very strictly applying the conditionality on each negotiation chapter”. To put it simply: for each of the very many decisions which the EU27 will have to take - unanimously - during the long process of negotiations (opening and closing of chapters, adoption of common positions), Cyprus will decide on its position on the basis of the Turkish attitude to the dossier in question. And like any other member state, Cyprus can use its right of veto to block negotiations on one or more chapters, if it feels that Turkey's attitude justifies such a decision. “I wouldn't preclude it [the possibility of using its veto], but I wouldn't say 'yes' either”, stated the ambassador. “Each of the 35 chapters has a different political context. For instance: CFSP is a very political chapter.
Turkey does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus. As a result of this policy of nonrecognition, Turkey systematically vetoes Cyprus's accession to other international organisations, such as the OECD, or multilateral agreements.
How can we accept the opening of membership negotiations with Turkey on this CFSP chapter if Turkey pursues a policy of vetoing Cypriot accession to all other international associations?”, explained Mr Emiliou. The chapter on “judiciary and fundamental rights” is another example of this. “A lot of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg concern violations of the human rights of Cypriots by Turkey, such as rights to property. Turkey refuses to comply with these decisions, and we will not consent to the opening of the Human Rights chapter until Turkey complies with the decisions of the Court of Human Rights concerning our citizens”, continued Mr Emiliou.
The Cyprus issue
Although the EU has an “important role” to play in facilitating the solution to the problem of the division of the island, “all of the member states, the European Commission and even Ankara and the Turkish Cypriots agree that the Cyprus problem should remain within the domain of the UN”, Mr Emiliou pointed out. But Cyprus's accession to the EU changed the situation, the ambassador stressed. “We are now a full member state and any future solution to the Cyprus problem must take into account at least the basic parameters of this new reality.
Cyprus's membership of the EU will de facto establish some of the basic parameters of the future solution”, such as the freedom of establishment of Greek Cypriots in the northern part of the island, he explained. “It would be inconceivable that the Greek Cypriots have the right of establishment in all 26 other member states but not in the northern part of their own country”, the ambassador pointed out. Mr Emiliou went on to defend the decision of the Greek Cypriot public and people to reject the Annan Plan in April 2004. “Our wish was to have a solution for the Cyprus problem before we joined the EU, but we did not promise to anyone that we would accept any solution that would be put on the table. The Annan Plan was the result of the pro-Turkey arbitration. The balance was not right”, he said.
Monitoring the “green line”
In a recent report, the European Commission criticised the Cypriot government for having neglected its monitoring of the demarcation line which separates the Republic of Cyprus from the northern part of the island, thus allowing a “worrying” number of illegal immigrants to cross the “green line” and request asylum in Cyprus (in 2006, of the 3778 illegal immigrants who arrived in Cyprus, only 16 arrived on the coasts; all others came through the northern part of the island). In the same report, the Commission called on Nicosia to fulfil its obligations under the “Green Line” regulation (EC 866/2004) and to step up the control measures (see EUROPE 9508). Mr Emiliou is not challenging the facts, but points the finger at Turkey for direct responsibility for the situation. “Turkey has a responsibility in this. They give people from third countries the right to visit the northern part of Cyprus. This practice should stop”, he said. In the view of the Cypriot ambassador, Turkish responsibility is all the greater as, from the northern part, the green line is classified as a “military zone”, in principle inaccessible to civilians. “This must mean that they are closing their eyes if they are not seeing such a large number of people crossing the line”, pointed out Mr Emiliou, who was disappointed that the Commission had not made this connection clear in its report.
No comments:
Post a Comment