The Cyprus Crisis
Looking back at the Truth
By Dr Christian Heinze
By Chris Elliott
Cyprusscene.com receives many messages asking questions and also giving information and a recent message was from Dr Christian Heinze who was the Assistant to the President of the Constitutional Court of Cyprus in 1962/63 and his comments were very interesting and informative and after correspondence, this is what Dr Christian Heinze had to say to my questions about the history of the Cyprus Crisis and the current state of affairs:
Reply from Dr Christian Heinze
“I agree with your observation that interest in, or at least respect for truth, is increasing in and around Cyprus. I am afraid, however, that this is essential but not sufficient for building bridges on which the inhabitants of the shores can travel.
Of course everybody shares the ideals of reconciliation and peace and harmony. But most of the world is still unwilling to realise the obvious: That the Greeks of Cyprus continue to strive for the possession of the island with the Greek “majority” ruling the Turkish “minority”, forcing the Turks to maintain their defence. Greek rule over the Turks of Cyprus would probably have been possible if the Greeks of Cyprus had continuously supported and even cared for the Turkish islanders and given them a feeling of equality, as any good sovereign would, and thus convinced them that this would continue in safety. Instead, since 1950 (Makarios becoming Archbishop) until this day the Greeks of Cyprus have done their utmost to subjugate the Turkish islanders and turn them into a second-class population. The Greeks, experiencing Turkish resistance (the strength of which the Greeks had unwisely underestimated), have designed schemes of sorts to harm and expropriate and expel and even kill the Turkish Cypriots wherever they were able to. Continued feeling of superiority and hate, particularly for the successful Turkish resistance, fills the hearts of and governs the clever use of their resources by – if not of the majority of Cypriot Greeks, then – their religious and political leadership and that powerful part of the population which forms the political scene.
To turn this history and situation into harmony, these steps are essential – and exactly in this and in no other sequence: First – recognition of two (50 years old) states enjoying equal rights in the island, second – give and take to reconcile justified mutual interests, and third – careful attempts at institutionalizing cooperation step by step until, after another 50 years, the ground shall be paved for harmony and the creation of a federal State. Recognition must come first, because: how can effective agreement be expected between an all-entitled and all-powerful party and a non-existing party? Only after recognition and practice of political equality true negotiations can begin. They will then, by natural necessity, be guided by real mutual substantial interests instead of aggression and defence, taking into account the whole scope of real powers, advantages, chances and disadvantages involved. There is a good chance then that damages can be equalized, and in particular agreed territorial adjustments will be within reach. Only after the two communities will have liberated themselves from motives of hate and aspiration for superiority and the necessity of defence by truly agreeing to settle the past once and for all, the process of reconciliation can begin.
A main barrier for this path consists in the unbelievable political self deception or ignorance, untruthfulness and arrogance of the governments and the United Nations Organization and particularly the European Union that have supported Greek usurpation since 1960, in spite of having glorified the “settlement” of that year, and are still very effectively supporting it. It does not help to marvel about such an attitude in view of the fact that USA and Europe possess such a wealth of political knowledge and experience and wisdom as history and their many renowned philosophers have taught them. It is true that unless international support for Greek usurpation is terminated it would be a miracle if harmony in and about Cyprus came about.
Only one additional idea: If you start with publishing my recent interview, you might add a link to <http://cy.pro-re-publica.de/Cyprus1964.php> (in English), because this is an original sound-track of 1964.”
The Cyprus Crisis – Looking back at the Truth
There follows a question and answer session Dr Christian Heinze had with the Kibris Gazetesi and this can also be read in English on his website click here and you may find his article “Turkish Republic of North Cyprus Appreciated by the International Crisis Group” to be very interesting which you can also read by clicking here
QUESTIONS by Kibris Gazetesi / ANSWERS by Dr Christian Heinze (an Interview)
QUESTIONS by Kibris Gazetesi / ANSWERS by Dr Christian Heinze (an Interview)
|Cyprus state formed by the 1960 (nineteen-sixty) Constitution is generally defined as a functional federation, which components or elements were taken into consideration in preparing that constitution?||The basic consideration in preparing the so-called constitution of 1960 was to protect the Turkish community against Greek domination. Elements of federation were involved insofar as the two communities constituting the republic-to-be were given a status of legal corporate political identity.|
|Archbishop Makarios had proposed 13 amendments to the 1960 Constitution. In your opinion, what was his motive which guided his actions or policies for wishing to make those amendments to the Constitution||The motive of Makarios in ordering rather than proposing the 13 amendments was to get rid of the restrictions for Greek domination which formed the basis of the constitution. Makarios had taken an even more important step to this end earlier by abolishing the Constitutional Court of Cyprus.|
|Greek Cypriot side claimed that 1960 Constıtution established a political and constitutional division between the two Communities. They also asserted that this constitution was unworkable? Do you think that, this constitution had really encouraged the political and constitutional division between the two communities, and also in you opinion, was it in fact unworkable?||Two communities existed long before 1960. Between them, a communal conflict originated from Greek nationalism in the face of Turkish and later British sovereignty. Greek nationalism became violent in the course of Greek strife for Enosis by means of terrorism from 1954 and again from 1963 onwards.Enosis is incompatible with the Turkish desire for self-rule. The constitution was an attempt at a compromise. When it did not work it was not because it was not workable but because the Greek side rejected even the idea of letting it work but have always declared that they considered the constitution as a stepping stone towards Enosis or, at the least, towards full Greek domination of the island only. They refused to apply the Articles of the constitution protecting the Turks against domination and prevented their application and interpretation by abrogating the constitutional court.Because of this rejection and refusal a legitimate or legal Republic of Cyprus never came into existence at all. Where there is no constitution, recognition, even by the UNO, cannot create a state.|
|Almost 52 years had passed since the declaration of 1960 Republic of Cyprus. Looking back at the dominant discourses of Greek Cypriot side and Turkish Cypriot side, particularly in the topics of sovereignty, political equality and guarantees, do you observe any similarities and/ or disparities between the discourses of the two communities?||The Greek and Turkish sides connect different meanings to the notions of sovereignty, equality and guarantee. The Greek side claims that guarantee does not comprise military intervention, but there is no effective guarantee against violence other than armed intervention. When the Greek side speaks of single sovereignty they mean Greek domination, while Turks trust in divided sovereignty which is a contradiction in itself. Equality in the Greek mind is equality of the value of the individual vote of each Cypriot, so that Greeks form the ruling majority. From a Turkish point of view equality must be attributed to the two communal states of Cyprus.|
|Recently, The European Court of Human Rights fined Turkey to pay 90 million euros for its military intervention to Cyprus in 1974, what is your opinion about the decision of ECHR and what do you think about the timing of that decision?||I suggest to forget about the timing because it is of no relevance for the liability adjudicated. The judgment, together with other judgments by European Courts, is important in demonstrating the very low degree of justice to be expected for the Turkish Cause in Cyprus from what is considered as International and unadapted European Law in prevailing legal opinions.|
|In your opinion, what steps should be taken by and which new ideas should be introduced by parties in regard to resolving the ongoing Cyprus negotiations with the joint consensus of both sides.||In my opinion, as long as the Greek side together with the European Union, of which the Greek side is a member, do not agree with full Turkish sovereignty over the North of Cyprus, true consensus is practically impossible, whatever new ideas might come up.The two sides could, however, find themselves forced by external powers or circumstances to accept a compromise disregarding their basically conflicting interests. This would, in my opinion, not be enhancive for peace.|
|Lately, we have observed an increased interest of the United States on Cyprus. In recent days, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden visited the island and met with the leaders of both communities. Recently, U.S. Secretary of State is expected to come to the island! As well. What are your views on these visits?||I believe that the US policy about Cyprus is unselfishly directed at peace as enhanced by the principles of the NATO. But I am afraid the US administration has never evaluated the Cyprus Conflict in its full extent.
In any case, if I am correctly informed, the US Vice President mentioned that if the Greek and Turkish sides cannot agree, they cannot be forced. This, in my view, indicates a chance for continuation and eventual recognition of TRNC statehood.