[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 110 (Tuesday, July 21, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1869-E1870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             THE BLAME GAME CONTINUES WITH REGARD TO CYPRUS

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. DAN BURTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, July 21, 2009

  Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, Monday July 20, 2009 marked the 
35th anniversary of the day in 1974 that Turkey intervened to stop an 
ethnic cleansing campaign against Turkish Cypriots by militant Greek 
Cypriots. And as usual, a number of my colleagues have come to the 
floor of this Chamber over the last few days and weeks to lament the 
so-called ``invasion'' of Cyprus by Turkey. For many years I have taken 
to the Floor to no avail to respectfully ask my colleagues to lay aside 
the inflammatory rhetoric and stop throwing barbs at the Turkish 
Cypriots and Turkey in an attempt to lay all the blame for this 
complicated issue at their doorstep. This year my call takes on an even 
more urgent ring. All of us in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, 
want to see peace and prosperity come to all the people of Cyprus. We 
may be closer to peace on Cyprus today then at any time since 2004 when 
the U.N. plan for a settlement (the Annan Plan) won the support of 
Turkish Cypriots--by a clear majority of 65%--but failed to win the 
support of Greek Cypriots--who led by their leadership rejected it by 
even a larger majority of 76%. By continuing to distort the facts 
though we are potentially undermining our good faith efforts to see 
this conflict resolved.
  Since the rejection of the Annan Plan, the Greek Cypriot side has 
been trying to argue that the plan ``did not meet the interests of the 
country'' and that ``it did not provide for guarantees to ensure the 
complete implementation of commitments under the plan''. However, the 
fact is that impartial European Union diplomats, closely associated 
with the reconciliation effort, have said publicly and very 
undiplomatically, that the Greek Cypriot people had been ``lied to'' by 
the Greek Cypriot government as to the details of the Annan plan.
  As public servants I think the members of this House understand that 
no compromise worth its salt ever fully meets all of the demands of 
either side, nor could it do so or it wouldn't be much of a compromise. 
The fact is that the Annan Plan was a carefully balanced compromise 
that certainly from the Turkish Cypriot perspective represented immense 
sacrifices on the part of the Turkish

[[Page E1870]]

Cypriots, on such key issues as land, resettlement, property and 
security. The Greek government and several former Greek government 
leaders fully supported the plan and the Turkish government was also 
pivotal in encouraging the Turkish Cypriots to approve the plan. In the 
end, the only people who were not willing to make the sacrifices 
necessary to bring peace to this troubled island were the Greek 
Cypriots. This is a critically important point to reiterate Madam 
Speaker; when offered the chance to vote for peace which side rejected 
peace, Turkish or Greek? The answer is Greek.
  To their credit, Turkish Cypriots continue to seek a settlement to 
the issue. This is testament to their hope for the future; and the 
latest round of direct negotiations between Turkish Cypriots and Greek 
Cypriots began in September 2008. These talks following a joint 
statement issued on May 23, 2008 where the two leaders reaffirmed their 
commitment to a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political 
equality, as defined by relevant United Nations Security Council 
resolutions. The statement adds ``This partnership will have a Federal 
Government with a single international personality, as well as a 
Turkish Cypriot Constituent State and a Greek Cypriot Constituent 
State, which will be of equal status.'' As recently as June 2009 
Turkish Cypriot President Talat declared his support to ``find a 
comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem as soon as possible and 
make Cyprus a full-fledged member of the European Union as a unified 
Cyprus. That is our main target and the ongoing negotiations I hope 
will lead to an ultimate solution.''
  Are negotiations proceeding as rapidly and as smoothly as everyone 
would like; no, but progress is being made. And it is important to 
remember that the Cyprus conflict is more complex and convoluted then 
portrayed by many of my colleagues. This conflict did not start in 1974 
as many people want to believe. Instead, the origins of the conflict 
can be traced back to the Greek Cypriot drive for Union with Greece 
(Enosis), a movement with roots in the waning days of the Ottoman 
Empire. Even the more modern history of the conflict, stems from the 
1950s and 1960s rather then 1974.
  The fact is that when the Island of Cyprus gained its independence 
from Great Britain in 1960, the Republic's constitution specifically 
defined a power-sharing arrangement which required a Greek Cypriot 
president and a Turkish Cypriot vice-president, each elected by their 
constituency.
  The fact is that in 1963 Greek Cypriot President Makarios proposed 
sweeping constitutional modifications which heavily favored the Greek 
Cypriot community. The changes removed most of the checks and balances 
which had been built into the constitution to ensure the safety and 
equal status of the Turkish Cypriots. The inevitable result was a 
serious deterioration of relations between the two parties which came 
to a head in December 1963 when armed Greek Cypriots attacked and 
killed many Turkish Cypriots who were unable to escape. The armed 
conflict quickly spread with the Turkish Cypriots eventually being 
forced to withdraw into enclaves to defend themselves. For the next ten 
years, the campaign of the Greek Cypriots cost the Turkish Cypriots 
many lives and untold suffering, as well as their equal partnership 
status in the Cyprus government.
  Former United States Undersecretary of State, George Ball, who, among 
others, was actively dealing with the crisis at the time, remarked in 
his memoirs entitled The Past Has Another Pattern, that Makarios has 
turned: ``This beautiful little island into his private abattoir'' (P. 
341). Ball went on to say that: ``Makarios'' central interest was to 
block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could 
go on happily massacring the Turkish Cypriots'' (p. 345).
  The fact is that in 1974, Archbishop of Cyprus Makarios--the Greek 
Cypriot leader at the time--escalated the crisis by embracing Enosis, 
or Union with Greece, as his election platform. Although Makarios won 
reelection he also created a power struggle between the military junta 
in control of mainland Greece and himself for the control over the 
Island. That power struggle culminated in a coup which forced Makarios 
to flee Cyprus and renewed ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots.
  In his address to the UN Security Council on July 19, 1974, Makarios 
himself described the coup as ``a clear attack from the outside and a 
flagrant violation of the independence and sovereignty of the Republic 
of Cyprus''.
  The fact is that in the face of a bloody coup that not only 
threatened the independence of Cyprus but also resulted in renewed 
massacres of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey, which was treaty-bound to act as 
a Guarantor State, was compelled to undertake action on July 20, 1974. 
And the fact is that as a result of this legitimate and timely action, 
Turkish Cypriots were saved from imminent destruction, bloodshed among 
the Greek Cypriots was ended and the independence of Cyprus was 
protected.
  The fact is that the Turkish intervention was legitimate and was 
internationally confirmed by, among others, the Consultative Assembly 
of the Council of Europe (CACE). CACE resolution 573, dated July 29, 
1974, clearly states, ``Turkey exercised its right of intervention in 
accordance with Article IV of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960.''
  The fact is that Greek Cypriots, having already forestalled UN 
efforts to resolve the Cyprus issue--and been inexplicably rewarded for 
it through EU membership--may not truly feel under pressure to seek a 
just solution as the status quo benefits Greek Cypriots significantly 
more than Turkish Cypriots.
  Madam Speaker, facts are stubborn things; and as the facts in this 
case clearly show, the crisis on Cyprus is significantly more complex 
than the ``blame Turkey'' special interest groups would like people to 
believe. The facts also show it seems to me that if either side has an 
incentive to drag its feet at the negotiations; and I'm not suggesting 
necessarily that either side does, but if one side did, it would be the 
Greek Cypriots.
  It's time for the ``blame Turkey'' groups here in the United States 
to end the `blame game' and redirect their misspent energies towards 
the real work of reshaping Cyprus into a Cyprus that respects human 
rights and the fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots. And it's time for 
the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots to demonstrate political 
will and negotiate in good faith for the future of all Cypriots.

                          ____________________