How near are we to the targeted federal solution aimed at solving the Cyprus problem?

This year, I would like to touch on why we are far from the targeted federal solution to the Cyprus problem. First, let's take a look at the history of the Turkish Cypriots' desire for a separate state.

As is known, the unitary constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, which was established in 1960, encountered some difficulties in implementation and after the 13-article amendment proposals announced by President Makarios on November 30, 1963, these proposals were rejected by Turkey before the Turkish Cypriot leadership on the grounds that they would only grant minority rights to the Turkish Cypriots and the intercommunal clashes began on December 21, 1963.

Dr. Küçük announced on December 30, 1963 that "the Constitution is dead" and that he no longer saw himself as Vice President and that he and the Turkish Cypriot ministers refused to attend government meetings. The Turkish leadership also began to establish parallel services in the regions under Turkish control. Turkish Cypriot civil servants stopped attending their duties.

In the French newspaper Le Monde on January 10, 1964, Vice President Dr.   Küçük told the reporter that “the 35th parallel would be the ideal line for the division of Cyprus, and he wanted the northern half of the island, including the ports of Kyrenia and Famagusta, to be given to the Turkish Cypriots. Dr. Küçük added: “We want to create a separate state. Mixed Greek Cypriot-Turkish Cypriot villages can no longer exist. My citizens live under the terror of their Greek Cypriot neighbours. The Turkish Cypriots are not a minority. They are a people with their own language, religion and traditions. We have as much right to this island as the Greek Cypriots.”

In the summer of 1964, President Makarios rejected the proposal presented by the US representative Acheson in Geneva, which was to annex the island to Greece on the condition that Turkey (NATO) would be given a military base on the Karpas Peninsula.

Prof. Nihat Erim, who participated in the negotiations on behalf of Turkey, wrote the following in his memoirs:

“General Turgut Sunalp explained the need for a region larger than the Karpas Peninsula in terms of military needs. Mr. Acheson and American officers accepted the Akanthou region line from the Boghaz to the north of the Gulf of Famagusta. The surface area of ​​Cyprus is 3572 square miles. With the accepted border, 300-350 square miles of this would be the region given to the Turks, that is, approximately 11% of the island... There would also be at least 5 Turkish canton regions. Thus, the Turks would have a say in 25-30% of the island.” (Cyprus within the scope of what I know and see, Ankara 1975, p.374)

The following very important words spoken by Prime Minister İsmet İnönü in the Turkish Grand National Assembly on September 8, 1964 clearly show what the Turkish side perceived from the very beginning about a new constitution to be made for Cyprus: “In order to be within the scope of the treaty, we started the discussion not with the official word of taksim (partition) but with the form of federation.”

INTERCOMMUNAL NEW CONSTITUTIONAL TALKS (1968-1974)

The new constitution to be created in the intercommunal talks that started in June 1968 was based on a “unitary state”. It is recorded that the Turkish Cypriot negotiator Rauf Denktaş made various concessions on constitutional issues and accepted the reduction of the 30% communal representation rate in the state to 20%. However, President Makarios refused to grant the Turkish Cypriots autonomy in their own regions, which they formed by gathering in certain areas of the island and corresponding to 3% of the island’s territory, in return for these concessions. Because he thought that this could lead to the partition of the island in the future.

The Greek Cypriot negotiator Glafkos Kleridis, who has covered these issues in detail in his memoirs, wrote that when discussing with Makarios on April 10, 1973 the inclusion of Article 185 of the 1960 Constitution, which banned both enosis and partition, in the new Constitution, Makarios said that he would not sign any constitution that excluded “enosis” again until Greece and Turkey accepted these prohibitions with a protocol. (Cyprus: My Deposition, Volume: 3, Lefkoşa 1990, p.270)

It is known that the intercommunal talks ended with Prime Minister Ecevit proposing a federal solution to the Cyprus problem after his meeting with Rauf Denktaş on April 2, 1974.

It is also recorded that during the NATO meeting in Lisbon on June 4-7, 1971, the Greek representative Christos Palamas and the Turkish representative Osman Olcay prepared a plan to get rid of the President of Cyprus Makarios and declare "double enosis". This plan was implemented through the double betrayal of July 15 and 20, 1974, and our island was divided into two regions.

EVALUATION OF THE ANNAN PLAN VOTE HELD IN THE NORTH AT THE END OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION TALKS (1977-2017)

After the summit agreements in 1977 and 1979, it was decided to continue the inter-communal talks on the basis of a "federal state". This process, which went through various stages, ended on April 24, 2004, with the "Annan Plan", named after the UN Secretary General, being submitted to the approval of the parties.

This solution plan could not be implemented and was eliminated, because it was accepted by 64.91% on the Turkish side and rejected by 75.38% on the Greek side in referendums held in both regions of the island. In fact, this plan, supported by the EU and the US, did not touch the British bases in Cyprus, but foresaw the recognition of the separatist structure in the north. On the other hand, it was striking that the Turkish settlers, who had moved to the part of the island occupied by Turkey since 1974, in violation of the 1949 Geneva Convention, were allowed to vote in the referendum. The nearly 65% ​​positive vote rate in the referendum held north of the partition line was exaggerated and misinterpreted by both the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey for many years. However, the results of a survey conducted by Kudret Akay, Director of the Cyprus Social Research Center (SOAR), among 960 people between June 4-11, 2003, were not promising us a reunification. They can be summarized as follows:

The views of voters in the north who voted “yes”:

1. 69.7% believed that their state would be recognized internationally and foresaw a positive course of events.

2. 67.3% supported EU membership.

3. 66.1% were in favour of separate sovereignty.

4. 58.5% believed that the land they were using would legally be owned by them.

5. 57.7% thought that the TRNC would be part of an internationally recognized state.

6. Those who considered a common state with the Greek Cypriots were 33.7% of those who voted “yes.”

7. Those who said “I said “yes” for the reunification of my homeland” were only 28.1%.

The views of the voters in the north who voted “no”:

1. 54.3% did not want to return the “land that was made a homeland”.

2. 44% did not want to join the EU without Turkey becoming a member.

3. 36.5% were against partnership with Greek Cypriots.

4. 29.2% believed that they would be negatively affected by new property relations.

5. 27.3% believed that they would be negatively affected by territorial adjustments.

6. 19.2% thought that they would not have a state of their own that would be recognized internationally. (Radikal newspaper, Istanbul, July 30, 2004)

As can be clearly seen from all these answers, the majority of the participants in the survey were motivated by nationalist feelings regarding “homeland”, “land” and “Turkey” and believed that the separatist “TRNC” statelet under the auspices of the Republic of Turkey would be recognized with EU membership.

THE POINT REACHED BY THE LAST ROUND OF TALKS

The Talat-Christophias talks, which began in September 2008, continued until 2013, when Eroğlu was elected president in 2010. Anastasiadis was elected in 2013, but the talks could only begin a year later, when the two leaders reached an agreement on February 11, 2014. Akıncı took over in 2015. He achieved significant rapprochement in the talks with Anastasiadis in Mont Pelerin in January 2017 and in Crans Montana in June 2017.

Despite the hundreds of pro-federation statements made in the past 50 years, it is known by political observers who have been following the events closely that the Turkish side, when talking about federation, actually wants the island and the Republic of Cyprus to be divided. In fact, Cyprus President Vasiliou spoke openly in a statement he gave to the BBC and said that the solution proposals of the Turkish Cypriot side were based on a different perception: “We are talking about a federation, but it is a federation for a single country. The Turkish Cypriot proposals want us to talk about two separate countries, two independent states. We cannot talk on this basis.” (Cyprus Mail, 5.3.1989)

The blockages in the intercommunal talks are due to this difference in understanding. The contradictions between what was said during Turkey’s military intervention in the summer of 1974 with the excuse of “restoring the constitutional order in Cyprus that had been disrupted” and what was done later are obvious. Moreover, contrary to the agreement signed by the three guarantor countries in 1960, the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus could not be protected and the 36% of the land in the north of the island has been subject to ethnic cleansing and military occupation for 50 years.

We should note that Rauf Denktaş officially mentioned the confederation for the first time in his Presidential Oath speech at the Cyprus Turkish Federated State Assembly on July 9, 1983. However, after that, whenever the Turkish side sat down for negotiations for a new federal constitution, it proved with all its behaviours and statements that it was not sincere. However, there are certain principles and concepts of international law that have been determined for years. Politics cannot be made without perceiving these. Different meanings cannot be attributed to them according to the interpretations of individuals. Federation cannot be interpreted instead of taksim, or federation cannot be interpreted instead of confederation.

FEDERALIST CANDIDATES IN THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS HELD ON BOTH SIDES OF THE TAKSIM LINE

As is known, on July 7, 2017, the negotiations were interrupted again in the Swiss town of Crans Montana. The federal constitution was almost finished and while the last "Security" chapter was being discussed, a disagreement arose and then the Turkish side moved away from the UN parameters and turned to the "two separate states" policy.

Of the candidates who participated in the first round of the presidential elections held in the occupied area on October 11, 2020 and who were in favour of resolving the Cyprus problem with a federal constitution, independent candidate Mustafa Akıncı received 35,053 votes (29.84%), while CTP candidate Tufan Erhürman received 24,008 votes (21.67%). Independent candidate Kudret Özersay, who resigned from the People's Party General Chairmanship, received 6,574 votes (5.74%).

A week later, in the second round held on October 18, 2020, Mustafa Akıncı, who ran as the sole candidate of the supporters of a federal solution, received 62,910 votes (48.31%). But the winner was Ersin Tatar, who defended the new policy of the occupying power Turkey, “two separate states”. The difference in votes between Tatar, who was elected with 67,322 votes (51.69%), and Akıncı, who lost the election, was only 4,412. A report was published by the supporters of a federal solution stated that Turkey interfered in these elections held in the occupied area. The rate of those who did not participate in the elections was 32.71%.

In the presidential elections held south of the division line on February 12, 2023, the votes received by the candidate of the supporters of a federal solution, Mavroyannis, were 189,335 (48.03%), but Christodoulides won the race with 204,867 votes (51.97%). Here, the difference between the winning and losing candidates was 15,532 votes, while the rate of those, who did not participate in the elections was 27.55%.

As can be seen from the figures, while the federalist votes on both sides reached 48%, unfortunately a common federal Cyprus front could not be established. Because there is no consensus among the federalists on both sides. Neither AKEL nor CTP has prepared a summary containing the issues on which convergence was reached in Crans Montana. The communities have not been enlightened on this issue.

WHAT IS THE PROPORTION OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF THE FEDERAL UNION OF THE ISLAND?

According to the statement made by the Republic of Cyprus authorities for the elections held on June 9, 2024 for the Cypriot representatives to be sent to the European Parliament, the number of registered Turkish Cypriots over the age of 18 who are eligible to vote was 104,118. Of these, 103,281 resided in the occupied northern part of the island, while 837 resided in the southern part.

In the meantime, let us also recall that the number of Turkish Cypriots with a Republic of Cyprus ID is 110,734, and 83,950 of them have obtained a passport. (Fileleftheros, April 1, 2018)

The overall voter turnout in the European Parliament elections was 58.86% across the island. It is thought-provoking that only 5,676 out of 104,118 registered Turkish Cypriot voters (6.8% of the total number of voters) voted. The number of voters who came from the north occupied by Turkey was 5,523.

Then we need to ask: Why did the 62,910 Turkish Cypriot voters who voted for the federalist candidate Mustafa Akıncı in the north, who is in favour of the reunification of the island under a new federal constitution, refrain from participating in the EP elections? We have stated above that the CTP, which claims to be in favour of a federal solution, received 34,008 votes in the first round. This means that they are not sincerely in favour of a federal union either.

The sincerity of those in favour of a federal solution within the Greek Cypriot community can be assessed by the reluctance to establish a common political front with the Turkish Cypriot federalists.

Since April 23, 2003, when the division line between the Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communities was opened with some crossing points, the political forces that will fight for the federal union of all Cypriots have unfortunately not yet been organized within the framework of a common political program, and we are far from the targeted federal solution to the Cyprus problem.

(Read at the 6^th Annual Conference of the “Left and Cyprus Problem” Group, held at the Home for Cooperation in Nicosia on 16^th November 2024)

THE MOVEMENT THAT PAVED THE WAY TO THE OPENING OF THE CHECK-POINTS

I was the T/C Coordinator of the Movement (Contact Group) for Independent and Federal Cyprus. Our Movement was the first bi-communal establishment of T/Cs and G/Cs since the first terror wave of the TMT in 1958.

On 13-16 May 1989, about 20 Cypriots gathered in West Berlin with the call of a German environmental group “Bildungswerk für Demokratie und Umweltschutz” and we initiated our “Movement for Independent and Federal Cyprus” with a mass participation in Nicosia in the garden of Lidra Palace Hotel on 23-24 September 1989. A document entitled “Views and Basic Principles”, which was adopted at the same place on 20-21 January 1990, was presented to the public in Greek, Turkish and English. (See the English text here: http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-first-bi-communal-movement-for.html )

We carried out various activities for the realization of our basic principles. The most important of these were the conferences of three T/C opposition party leaders on 14 December 1989 by Alpay Durduran (New Cyprus Party), on 19 January 1990 by Mustafa Akıncı (Communal Liberation Party) and on 23 February 1990 by Özker Özgür (Republican Turkish Party). The conferences took place in the G/C part of Nicosia, where opportunity was given to explain the G/C community their views on various aspects of the Cyprus problem. This was the first time in the near history of the two communities. The G/C wing of the Movement informed us that these conferences were very useful and were widely reflected in the G/C press.

In the third and last joint meeting that we held on 10-11 February 1990, five papers, written by the G/Cs and T/Cs, were discussed. Unfortunately, we did not have the opportunity to continue our discussions on issues such as the views of the G/C side on the equality and guarantees, the structure of the federal state, and how this will be reflected in everyday life in a federal solution. The T/C leadership banned our intercommunal contacts by citing the demonstrations of the nationalist G/C students that started in March 1990. After this incident, only 5 of the 44 applications we made were allowed. The most important was the participation of Aziz Nesin, the famous Turkish humourist writer, in the events organized between 17 and 19 December 1990, due to his visit to the free part of our island. About 80 T/Cs attended cultural meetings in the G/C part of Nicosia for three nights. Journalists, writers and artists had the opportunity to meet their colleagues. Aziz Nesin held a press conference in the occupied northern part of Nicosia and about 20 G/C artists and writers were allowed to accompany him during his visit.

On 26 February 1991, our activity about the Federal State in the US was held at the Ledra Palace Hotel in the buffer zone, but the one about Yugoslavia on 22 March 1991 was not allowed.

In addition, we made various attempts to bring together journalists, doctors, cartoonists and writers from both sides of the divide. Some of these were allowed, but we could not get the permission for most of them. (http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-list-of-attempts-to-have.html )

On 6 May 1991, a three-man delegation of our Movement visited Mr. Atakol, the Foreign Minister whose department was responsible for giving the permissions. We were asked once again to make a statement that we are not coming from the occupied area, when we meet with our compatriots. I, as the T/C coordinator of the Movement, told Mr. Atakol that I accepted the occupation as the reality. Later Mr. Atakol reported this incident to Mr. Denktash, who wrote a letter to the Commander of the “Turkish Peace Forces”, telling him not to give ever any permission to the T/C coordinator and to the other three persons accompanying me during that visit.

On 13 May 1991 the T/C Committee of the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus filed a complaint with the Council of Europe, Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg in order to protest the restrictions imposed on our freedom of travel in our own country. This application (No.18270/92, Ahmet Cavit An and others v. Cyprus) made the T/C leadership furious, which reacted in the press against us. (Vatan newspaper, 25 May 1991)

Within the three years of our Movement (24 September 1989 – 8 September 1992) , I applied 87 times for myself or for the T/C members of the Movement to get permission for contacts in political, cultural, medical and social fields. Unfortunately, only 15 of these applications received a positive response.

As my freedom of organization in my homeland was restricted, I decided to lodge an application to the ECHR against Turkey on 8 September 1992 and it was declared admissible in 1998. (Case of Djavit An v. Turkey, Application No.20652/92)

From 8 September 1992 until 14 April 1998, I filed 147 applications to the occupation authorities to allow me to visit the free area (58 for political reasons, 47 for cultural reasons, 25 for medical reasons and 17 for social reasons.) From the 147 applications, 122 were rejected by the Denktash regime and 22 were approved. It should be noted that most applications were filed for participation at bi-communal meetings. (A detailed report can be read here: http://myislandcyprus.blogspot.com/2014/01/affidavit-of-drahmet-djavit-an.html )

On 20 February 2003, a press release was published about the judgement of the ECHR. "The Court considered that all the meetings the applicant wished to attend were designed to promote dialogue and an exchange of ideas and opinions between Turkish Cypriots living in the north and Greek Cypriots living in the south, with the hope of securing peace on the island," the release said. "The refusals to grant these permits to the applicant in effect barred his participation in bi-communal meetings, preventing him from peacefully assembling with people from both communities" it added. Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and 4,715 euros for costs and expenses.” Two months later the check-point at Ledra Palace was opened for crossings, which was the most important development since the division of our island in 1974.

T/C State Attorney, Zaim Necatigil, who was defending Turkey at the ECHR, wrote the following in Turkish in his book “The Cyprus Conflict and Turkey in the grip of ECHR: Cases brought against Turkey by the Greek Cypriot Administration and the Greek Cypriots before the European Commission of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights,  Ankara 2005”:

"The TRNC Government took a very dramatic decision on April 21, 2003 with the number E-762-203 number and lifted from 23 April 2003 onwards, except some formalities, all the restrictions in order to facilitate the crossings, mutually from North to the South and from South to the North." (p.189)

 “There was a great impact of the Cavit An’s application to the European Court of Human Rights, which announced its decision on 20 February 2003,  on the opening of the gates on the “Green Line” on 23 April 2003. It is not possible to see the opening of the gates as a coincidence that came after this provision." (p.189)

"A compensation should have been paid to Cavit An. The Attorney-General of the TRNC contacted Cavit An, the Euro account was opened in a bank in the TRNC and the compensation and the judicial expenses were credited to that account. After the court's decision, the gates were opened and the objectives of the decision were fulfilled."(p.190)

 On 6 January 2019, the G/C newspaper Politis reported that in 2018, the T/Cs made 1,000,076 crossings and the G/Cs made 1,000,014 crossings from the 9 check-points on the dividing line. But unfortunately my wish of having a common political party has not yet been established!

THE COMMON ACTION PROBLEMATIC OF THE CYPRIOT LEFT: FROM PAST TO PRESENT

When we speak of the Cyprus Left, we must first clarify what we mean by this. Greek Cypriot writer Kyriacos Djambazis, in his book "Disclosure of a Myth", emphasizes that the nationalist leadership of the Greek Cypriot community does not include Turkish Cypriots in the definition of "Cypriot people" with an "expansionist" understanding. In this case, since the Cypriot people will consist only of the majority Greek community living on the island, the exclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community, which does not comply with their demands for union with Greece, becomes a necessity in terms of political integrity.

AKEL AND EXCLUSION OF MINORITIES

Djambazis writes that the Communist Party of Cyprus (KKP), which was founded in 1926 and developed a policy against the nationalists' goal of Enosis, has set the island's full independence as its main goal and argues that this can only be achieved through the joint struggle of the two communities (Lefkoşa 2013, p.55).

On the other hand, the leadership of AKEL, which replaced the KKP and defined itself as the "Progressive Party of the Cypriot Workers", adopted the definition of "Cypriot people = Greek Cypriot community", like the nationalist Greek Cypriot leadership, and excluded from the common political struggle foremost the Turkish Cypriot community, as well as other religious groups like the Maronites, Armenians, Latins.

Djambazis, who also gives us information about the existence and views of the members who criticize AKEL's policy of Enosis and its mistakes in its approach to Turkish Cypriots, referred to an article titled "AKEL and the Turkish Cypriots", written by Pavlakis Georgiou, a member of the AKEL Politburo and responsible for the Turkish Cypriot community. In that article titled "Minorities" (No: 12, 1954, pp. 294-297), Pavlakis Georgiou stated:

“AKEL both did not educate the Greek people about the difficulties of the struggle and underestimated the role of minorities. For this reason, it has never addressed minorities, never enlightened them or called them to struggle... Moreover, the ignoring or belittling of the Turkish minority by our progressive party is nothing but an obvious expression of this chauvinism.” (p.31)

In his footnote to this quote, Djambazis makes the following assessment:

“The contempt mentioned in the quote is limited to the non-use of the Turkish language in workers' meetings and party documents. Of course, while linguistic communication is a major factor, it is not the only factor. The reaction of the Turkish Cypriot workers was related to the Enosis policy supported by AKEL. AKEL management interpreted this as not being able to explain their theses because of language and refused to examine the underlying causes.” (p.31)

At the meetings held by the "Left and the Cyprus Problem" group, I also discussed these issues in my papers titled "Language Problem in the Common Class Struggle in Cyprus" (1924-1954) in 2018 and "The Enosis Problem of the Greek Cypriots and Political Cooperation with the Turkish Cypriots (1902)" in 2020.

FROM ENOSIS TO FEDERATION

At a press conference with Turkish Cypriot journalists in 1989, AKEL Secretary General Dimitris Christofias answered a question directed to him regarding the issue of enosis as follows:

“Our current program was approved in 1962 and still hasn't changed. At that time the goal was complete independence. In the conditions of those days, the Turks were scattered and there were no conditions for federation. After 1974, conditions were created for two separate regions and federation. In our opinion, Turks should live in the North, Greeks should live in the South, and Turks should be in the majority in the North. All these views are new and naturally unpredictable in the conditions of 1962. Our program needs to be changed. That program is not valid today. The valid ones are the party decisions, taken after 1974. What is on the agenda now is federation, and enosis and partition must be buried forever. We are divorced from Enosis, enosis is now buried.” (Halkın Sesi, 19-23 April 1989)

Speaking at an event, organized by AKEL on the evening of October 13, 2000, Party Secretary General Dimitris Christofias said that Cyprus gained its independence after many years and tough struggles, that the majority of the people took part in this struggle, but there were some mistakes on the domestic front and the Turkish Cypriot factor was not given the necessary attention. (Kıbrıs newspaper, 16 October 2000).

This important statement of Christofias about the policy of AKEL, the biggest party of the Greek Cypriot left, which excludes the Turkish Cypriot community, reminded me of an article published in the newspaper "Demokratis" in 1952 and I wrote under the pseudonym "Yusuf Aydın", an article titled “AKEL and the Turkish Cypriot Factor”, in which I felt the need to emphasize this important point once again:

“But unfortunately, AKEL itself, which prides itself on being the party of the Cypriot working class, still does not pay due attention to the Turkish Cypriot factor.” (Kıbrıs’ta Sosyalist Gerçek, No:58, November-December 2000)

This historical article, which puts its finger on this burning issue and asks for due attention to the issue half a century ago, was taken from AKEL's publication "Demokratis" and it was translated into Turkish and was published in the newspaper Halkın Sesi, dated March 19, 1952 under the title “The Liberation Struggle of the People of Cyprus. (Written by G.Ioannidi, K.Koliyannis, P.Rusu, Translated by K. Muhtaroğlu) In this article titled “=Turkish Minority=", among other things, it was said:

“AKEL should explain to the Turkish minority in concise and sensitive words that the independent administration to be provided in case of the annexation with Greece will provide the Turkish Cypriots with ample autonomy, national, linguistic, political, religious and other development. AKEL will not be the leader party of the struggle of the Cypriot people unless it succeeds in influencing and winning over the Turkish minority workers in the political arena and as an organization.”

The justification of these warnings, which appeared in Demokratis in March 1952, was accepted at that time, as the PEO established a separate Turkish Office for Turkish Cypriot members in November 1952. The news that AKEL also established a separate Turkish Bureau appeared in the Turkish Cypriot press in June 1954. The first statement signed by "AKEL Turkish Branch Office", which was distributed to the public, was published in full text in the newspaper Halkın Sesi, dated October 20, 1954. (A.An, Transition from Class Unionism to Ethnic Unionism and Workers' Opposition among Turkish Cypriots, Nicosia, 2005, pp.208-212)

In his book, Djambazis writes the following regarding the attitude of Turkish members on the issue of Enosis defended by AKEL: "Unfortunately, there is no written document showing how the AKEL administration informed the Turkish party members, or even if they did, how these members reacted." (p.25)

I also wanted to cover the important and sensitive issue of AKEL's Enosis policy and Turkish Cypriots in my book titled “The First Pioneers of Our Working Class - Turkish Cypriots in the Labour Movement Until 1958” (Khora Publishing, Nicosia, January 2011), but only what I could obtain. I quoted two anecdotes. (p.141)

FEDERAL STATE

The fascist Greek coup in the summer of 1974 and the subsequent partition of the island by Turkey forced the Greek Cypriot leadership, including AKEL, to accept the federation model. On what grounds was AKEL now accepting this model, which contradicted the USSR's view that "a form of federal state can also be considered" in 1965?

As the author of these lines, I had been wanting to ask the AKEL leadership, whom I sympathize with, some questions that have plagued my mind since I started to look at the world from the perspective of the working class. As a matter of fact, in a letter I forwarded to AKEL on December 20, 1977, I requested the explanation of the reasons for the adoption of the federal solution, which was strongly opposed by the party before, and asked the following questions:

“Wouldn't it be helpful to hold a conference on theoretical and organizational issues regarding Turkish Cypriots before the 14th General Assembly of AKEL? What will be the future of ethno-political integration in Cyprus?”

Unfortunately, this proposal was not even responded to and the “approach to Turkish Cypriots and the nationality problem” continued to prevent the two communities' relations from improving as a bleeding wound.

JOINT FRONT OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS AND GREEKS

The following decision, taken at the AKEL Central Committee Plenum Meeting on February 24, 1989, is still relevant today:

“Another prerequisite for the victory of our struggle and the liberation of Cyprus is the joint front of the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. According to AKEL, the idea of establishing a joint struggle front is maturing today. The necessity of a common struggle on the Greek Cypriot side is accepted by the wider public. (...) AKEL, which has a wide prestige in the Greek Cypriot community and also in the Turkish community, will take the initiative to bring the idea of rapprochement and establishing a common front into practice. This task is not easy at all. There are many issues that need to be discussed and clarified in order to reach the desired level of consensus with our Turkish Cypriot citizens.”

In a series of articles titled “What AKEL's 80th Anniversary Theses Reflect” that I wrote in May 2005, I stated the following:

“On April 23, 2003, after the Turkish Cypriot side allowed mutual free crossings to both sides of the green line, albeit limited, we did not witness new expansions in AKEL's rapprochement policy. Interestingly, the case filed by Ahmet An, the Turkish Cypriot Coordinator of the Contact Group for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, against Turkey, the sovereign power in the north of Cyprus, was won in the European Court of Human Rights on February 20, 2003, after a waiting period of 12 years. The main theme of the case was the inhibition of “freedom of association”.

In the first month after the attainment of this freedom, a negative response was given to the question “When will the Turkish Bureau open, which AKEL closed in 1974 on the grounds that contacts were no longer possible”, by the Secretary General of AKEL Dimitris Christofias. His explanation was on the grounds of “safety of comrades”. It was a sign of how difficult the struggle that had to be fought was going to be. Moreover, it is known that nearly 30 letters I sent to the party between December 2, 1974 and November 4, 2003, requesting opinions on theoretical and organizational problems related to Turkish Cypriots, were left unanswered.

Another reason we were told during our meetings with other AKEL supporters was as follows: “Turkish Cypriot progressive parties are against AKEL establishing a separate Turkish branch. It is sufficient to support the progressive parties that still exist in the north.”

However, as far as we know, this support has been maintained for years in the form of purchasing tickets from the solidarity lottery of the CTP held every year. Unfortunately, those who "own without any criticism" of the party policy also achieve a zero-to-none result due to the struggles to "not be a mug stuck in AKEL's tail"! In other words, the "agents" of once have just turned into a "bad copy"!

Since the gates were opened, AKEL has yet to hold any political meeting for Turkish Cypriots living in north of the division line. Another disadvantage is that the joint commissions created together with the CTP do not work, regardless of the reason. Especially during the voting of the Annan Plan, AKEL's saying "no for a strong yes" led to the loss of sympathy for AKEL in the Turkish Cypriot community. Despite the fact that the party has adopted the federal solution, it has emerged that it has not sufficiently enlightened both its members and the Greek Cypriot community in general on what the federal state is and what it is not, and on the sharing of power. (…)

NO UNITY TO FIGHT CYPRUS TURKISH LEFTISTS

AKEL preferred to stay away from Turkish Cypriots, both after 1968, when the youth of higher education was closely interested in leftist ideology, and under the extraordinary conditions created by the coup and occupation in 1974, just at a time when a guiding Turkish Office was needed.

Especially, AKEL made a big mistake by closing the Turkish Bureau, and under the new conditions, it caused the Turkish Cypriot workers to be deprived of a leadership that would enable them to equip themselves with an internationalist policy against the separatist policies of the nationalist Turkish Cypriot leadership. It is an important shortcoming that this vital mistake made in organizing is not mentioned in the 80th year theses.” (These critical articles were published in Afrika newspaper between 15-22 May 2005.)

IMPERIALISM DOES NOT WANT THE UNITY OF THE CYPRUS LEFT

In the 1990 Edition "Yearbook of International Communist Affairs", which is published every year in the USA, there is the following assessment of the Turkish Cypriot left:

"If the north and south of Cyprus were to reunite in a "Federal Republic" one day, it can be predicted that the combined voting power of the left-wing parties in both communities could secure a majority of the votes in a Presidential election.

This fear of American imperialism, first expressed in the 1989 Yearbook and more clearly formulated a year later, explains why the United States pursued a two-state confederal solution based on partition of the island. It also reveals the reason for the "hostility against the Greeks" and "not having contact between the communities" policy of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, which has been a collaborator of British and American imperialism. (A.An, The U.S. View of the Turkish Cypriot Left, Sosyalist Gözlem, October 1993, Issue:5)

In the 1991 Yearbook, the following evaluation is made:

“Although AKEL is not banned within the Turkish Cypriot community, the party has chosen not to be active in the north due to the difficulty of establishing contact via the “green line”.

There are three left-wing parties among Turkish Cypriots: CTP, TKP and YKP. All three left-wing parties advocate a federal solution to the Cyprus problem and believe that intercommunal rapprochement is a tool in achieving this. According to the CTP leader, “all three left-wing parties are unique in their own right, and none of them copy any party in the south of Cyprus or anywhere else in the world.” (Learned from personal communication between Özker Özgür and writer Thomas W. Adams on 6 November 1990.)”

LEFT PARTIES OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS

When the island was partitioned after the events in July 1974, Turkish Cypriots gathered in the north and formed various political parties, unions and associations. The struggles of those who are mentioned on the left are known for their successes and mistakes. The parties that represent today the Turkish Cypriot left politically are as follows:

The Republican Turkish Party (CTP), which was founded at the end of 1970 and defended a left social democratic line for many years, has adopted a liberal policy today. The old left line of the CTP has to some extent been taken over by the New Cyprus Party -YKP. YKP was founded in 1989 by the left wing that broke away from the Communal Liberation Party-TKP. Those who left the CTP together with Özker Özgür formed the Patriotic Unity Movement (YBH) in 1998 by merging with the YKP, but later left and founded the United Cyprus Party (BKP) in 2002. The Right Social Democrat, Communal Democracy Party-TDP- is the continuation of the TKP, which was founded in 1976, and it cannot develop because the party cannot reproduce itself.

Some of the members and supporters of these four political parties are the projections of those views in the unions of workers, teachers and other civil servants. Other elements of the Turkish Cypriot left, who are independent of these structures and have a political view, can occasionally convey their thoughts in certain publications or in their own magazines or newspapers, or they maintain their existence in the form of certain narrow friend groups. The Cyprus Socialist Party, which was founded by the "Socialist Reality in Cyprus" magazine in 2002, and the Independence Path established in 2018 by the "Baraka Cultural Association" can be given as examples.

It is noteworthy that, with a few exceptions, all these organizations did not adopted the accumulated experience of the Turkish Cypriot left, which were silenced by the bloody terror and oppression applied by the TMT in 1958. These parties, which do not base their current policies on the principles that the old left tradition defended with the mistakes and merits, cannot clearly show the Turkish Cypriot community the way out of the political, economic, social and cultural impasse they are in, and in the final analysis, they leave the people helpless and melt away.

Almost all of the political parties in the Greek Cypriot part are against the partition of the island and demand that the Cyprus problem be resolved with a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal state structure and an end to the fait accompli that has been imposed on the island for 49 years by military force. Let us remind you that the candidate of AKEL, the largest organized party of the Greek Cypriot left, won 48% of the votes in the last presidential elections.

OBSTACLES TODAY

The Turkish and Greek Cypriot left, which should join forces to re-organize the Republic of Cyprus under a federal roof and to re-establish friendship and cooperation between the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, the two main ethnic-national communities living on our island, against the partitionist and separatist policies of the Turkish Cypriot leadership, should immediately make a new assessment of the situation. In order to overcome the difficulties on the way to an independent and federal Republic of Cyprus, it has become an inevitable necessity to get rid of fake leftists and reorganize the struggle.

Unfortunately, we are far from the goal of a unified federal state, although advocates of a federal solution make up 48% of voters on both sides. Akinci and Mavrogiannis, the federalist presidential candidates on both sides, resigned from politics after failing to win the elections. Already after the collapse of the inter-communal negotiations in Crans Montana, the Turkish Cypriot side abandoned the UN parameters based on a federal solution and began to advocate the policy of “two separate states”.

But now is the time to form an All-Cyprus Federalists Front to fight for a united Cyprus whose federal constitution is at the signing stage. In this struggle, it is inevitable that those who seem to be in favour of a federal solution but support the confederal solution or the final partition will be exposed. What we mean here is the so-called federalist policy of the CTP. CTP Chairman Tufan Erhürman, who says he is a "Federalist", did not continue the struggle for a solution in this direction and left the scene to the separatists.

Same Erhürman spoke at a meeting of the United Cyprus - Bi-communal Peace Initiative, held with the leaders of CTP, TDP, DISI and AKEL on February 11, 2019 under the title "Bi-communal Discussion Panel" in the buffer zone in Nicosia against the speech of KTOEÖS President Selma Eylem, who stated that “The north of the country turned today into the backyard of the Republic of Turkey”, Erhürman reacted by saying that “even if I were not the Prime Minister of the TRNC, I would reject her statement completely” and stating that he did not agree with what was said. This was the clearest proof of the CTP's policy of not blaming the occupying country.

In addition, Erhürman took the floor after the speech of POGO Women's Movement General Secretary Skevi Koukouma, who attended the 10th Ordinary Congress of the CTP Women's Organization on May 28, 2022 and repeated again: "I am under the obligation and responsibility to openly state that we, as CTP, do not accept some of the terms used in her speech here, and that we reject the terminology of the occupied area."

The most important factor underlying the election failure of the supporters of the federal solution, besides the interventions of the occupying power, is the use of the "citizen-made" settler population transferred here as a vote depot in the race for seats in the Parliament.

The day-to-day criticisms of the government by hiding the occupier and the invader serve no purpose other than "we cooperate better". The solution forces that are in favour of the federal Cyprus should gather and come together and seek ways to meet with the federalists in the Greek Cypriot side as soon as possible on a COMMON POLITICAL platform! It is not enough to just publish joint statements, we must make our voices heard in the international community!

(This is the English translation of the original Turkish text of the paper, presented at the 5^th Annual Conference of the “Left and Cyprus Problem”, held on 14 October 2023 at the “Home for Cooperation” in the buffer zone in Nicosia, where the subject was the “Common Action by the Cypriot Left”. Because of time constraint, only the text of the last two subtitles was read.)  

 

THE PROTOCOL SHOULD ALSO BE EVALUATED IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION

Civilian persons in areas of armed conflict and occupied territories are protected by Article 159 of the 4th Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949, concerning the protection of civilians during war.

Occupations are temporary and the occupying forces are responsible for securing the interests of those protected under their rule.

Article 4 of the Convention defines the protected person. Part 3 of the same convention laid down the rules determining the status of “protected persons” in the occupied zone and how they should be treated (Articles 27-141). Thus, civilian persons are protected from murder, torture or brutality and are protected from discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion or political opinion.

According to the article 49(6) of the Convention, the occupying power shall not forcibly send or transfer a portion of its own population to the occupied territory.

In various resolutions and statements taken by the United Nations organization regarding the Cyprus problem, the regret for the change in the demographic structure in Cyprus has been expressed. For example, in the UN General Assembly resolution 3395 dated 20 November 1975 says, “all parties are called to avoid unilateral actions that would contradict resolution 3212, including making changes in the demographic structure of Cyprus”. In the UN General Assembly resolution 33/15 dated 9 November 1978, it is expressed that it regrets "all the unilateral actions that have changed the demographic structure of Cyprus". The UN General Assembly reaffirmed this in its resolutions of 20 November 1979 (No. 34/30) and 13 May 1983 (No. 37/253).

As it will be remembered, with the resolution of the UN Security Council dated 18 November 1983 and numbered 541, all countries were asked not to recognize any other Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus.

In the resolution of the UN “Sub-Commission on the Elimination of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities” dated 2 September 1987, it is stated: “There is also concern about the policy and practice of bringing settlers into the occupied areas of Cyprus, which constitutes a form of colonialism and is an attempt to illegally change the demographic structure of Cyprus.”

This population, which is also spoken at the negotiating table from time to time and transferred from Turkey to the occupied parts of Cyprus, is always indirectly mentioned in all UN documents. However, it constitutes one of the main issues that must be resolved during the resolution of the Cyprus problem.

I mentioned this situation in an article I wrote in 2003 titled "The situation of the Turkish population transferred to Cyprus" and I made the following determination at the beginning of the article:

“The Turkish population, who moved to the island under the name of “seasonal workers” after Turkey occupied 37% of the northern part of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus in the summer of 1974, has recently started to be a topic of discussion in the Turkish Cypriot public opinion. The place of the Turkish population in international law, who has disclosed that they have been used as a vote depot to give political support to the occupation regime, by being given TRNC citizenship, is now rightly questioned." (Afrika newspaper, 3-4-5 September 2003)

With the "Agreement on Economic and Financial Cooperation between the Government of the Republic of Turkey for the Year 2022 and the Government of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" signed in Ankara on April 14, 2022 and published in the Official Gazette on May 20, 2022. Further changes, which are intended to be made in the region of the Republic of Cyprus Turkey, occupied by the Turkish Armed Forces since the summer of 1974, exceed the purpose stated in the protocol and make it necessary to re-evaluate the issue in the context of the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949.

(23 May 2022, Nicosia) 

 

Researcher-Writer Ahmet Cavit An denied entry to Turkey

Researcher-Writer Ahmet Cavit An also denied entry to Turkey

Yenidüzen, Kıbrıs, Havadis, Diyalog, Avrupa (12 July 2021 – press.cydialogue.org)

The list of Turkish Cypriot intellectuals and opinion leaders banned from entering Turkey continued to grow on Sunday after Turkish Cypriot research and writer Dr Ahmet Cavit An (MD) was denied entry into Turkey.

An, a harsh critic, is the second person to be banned from entering Turkey on grounds of constituting a threat to the country’s national security.

Former Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akıncı’s press advisor Ali Bizden was the first person to be denied entry last week on similar grounds. Dr Ahmet Cavit An was also told that he was a “threat to national security” (of Turkey) and informed that he could obtain detailed information from the Turkish Embassy in north Nicosia.

Nonetheless, Cavit An, who is a paediatrician by profession, was allowed to return to the north with the next flight after he was kept in a room with a sign reading: “Immigration Administration.”

Cavit An is also famous for his research papers and books on Cyprus as well as Maraş (Varosha).

Havadis: The UBP plays dumb and deaf (13 July 2021 – press.cydialogue.org)

Following Ali Bizden, Dr Ahmet An’s entry into Turkey was also denied. The National Unity Party (UBP) claims “It is not our problem” While the list of people entering Turkey keeps growing, the senior coalition partner UBP’s General Secretary Oğuzhan Hasipoğlu in response to a question on Havadis web TV, said “This is not UBP’s problem. They (the people barred from entering Turkey) could file lawsuits in Turkey.”

 

Turkey bans second Turkish Cypriot from entering

By George Psyllides - July 12, 2021   -Cyprus Mail

Turkey has expelled a Turkish Cypriot researcher and columnist claiming he had engaged in activities against national security, reports said on Monday.

Reports said Ahmet Cavit An arrived in Istanbul on Sunday and was told that he was banned from entering.

An was quoted as saying that he was travelling from the north to Smyrni through Istanbul when he was told at passport control that entry was banned as part of a decision made in September 2020.

Airport officials told An that he could get more information regarding the decision from the Turkish embassy in the north.

An, a paediatrician, has been exercising the profession since 1982 and at the same time he does research and writes books on Cyprus.

His expulsion on Sunday followed that of Ali Bizden, former Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci’s communications officer, on July 6 for the same reason. Bizden was banned from entering Turkey for five years.

Bizden said at the time that when he arrived his wallet and mobile phone were confiscated and he was told that by order of September 8, 2020, he was to be deported on the next flight back.

 

FES (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung – German Foundation of the SPD Party) Cyprus Newsletter No. 110 - July 2021

Former Turkish Cypriot leader Mustafa Akinci’s press advisor Ali Bizden and researcher, Dr Ahmet Cavit An were barred from entering Turkey on the premises that they were regarded as a threat to Turkey’s national security. It turned out that the decision was made in September 2020 and is valid for 5 years. Bizden on July 7 and Cavit An on July 11 were denied entry into Turkey and were deported back to the island. The decision to bar them from entering Turkey had sent shockwaves through the Turkish Cypriot community and the opposition, reigniting a never-ending debate on relations with Ankara while the government and Tatar maintained their silence. Reportedly, ‘the list’ made in September 2020 includes many more people. (pp.9-10)

 

Avrupa: The blacklist is quite long

12 July 2021 – press.cydialogue.org

Following Ali Bizden, Ahmet An was also barred from entering Turkey and deported back to Cyprus from Istanbul airport. It’s not only Mustafa Akıncı who is on Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s blacklist but every other Turkish Cypriot who is known for his/her opposition stance. Researcher and writer Dr Ahmet Cavit An who flew to Istanbul yesterday was prevented from entering Turkey. He was also provided with the same excuse given to Ali Bizden, that he was a threat to Turkey’s security. An had won a case filed at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) against Turkey after being prevented by authorities in the north from crossing to the south in 1992.

 

Debate on the ban of TCs from entering Turkey continues

Yenidüzen, Kıbrıs, Havadis, Diyalog, Avrupa (13 July 2021 – press.cydialogue.org)

The issue concerning the banning of certain Turkish Cypriots from entering Turkey on grounds they posed a threat to the country’s national security continues to occupy the north’s agenda.

Commenting on the issue, National Unity Party (UBP) General Secretary Oğuzhan Hasipoğlu said that the Turkish courts could provide more clarity on the matter. He added that individuals could apply to the courts to revoke and challenge the decision. “This is about Turkey and its public interest,” Hasipoğlu, who is a lawyer by profession, said.

Speaking on Havadis web TV Hasipoğlu said that every state could exercise a decision to bar individuals from entering its territory and that the issue was not unique to Turkish Cypriots. Responding to the claims that the so-called blacklist is being kept at the Turkish Embassy in north Nicosia, Hasipoğlu said he was not aware if the government launched an inquiry into the matter.  “This is not a matter for the UBP nor is it for any political party. This is a matter for the government, and should they see any need, the Foreign Ministry will take the necessary steps to launch the necessary initiatives,” Hasipoğlu noted.

In the meantime, Ali Bizden in a social media post on Monday said he has asked to meet with the Turkish Cypriot leader Ersin Tatar. Bizden said he will share his viewpoint on him being barred from entering Turkey, adding that “I also would like to listen to Tatar’s evaluation on the issue.”   “I have also asked to be informed if it is not possible to allow me in the office of the president as well,” Bizden concluded.

Ahmet Cavit An who spoke to Yenidüzen questioned the justification and legality of the decision taken. He questioned who had instructed the Turkish authorities to take such a decision.

Head of the Turkish Cypriot Bar Association Hasan Esendağlı who also commented on the issue, expressed concern over the developments, arguing that relations between the north and Turkey were at a breaking point.

Bizden on July 7 and Cavit An on July 11 were denied entry into Turkey and were deported back to the north. Both had been deemed as a “threat to Turkey’s national security” in a decision adopted in September 2020 for five years.

The decision to bar them from entering Turkey had sent shockwaves through the Turkish Cypriot community and the opposition, reigniting a never-ending debate on relations with Ankara while the government and Tatar maintained their silence to date other than a benign statement from the Turkish Cypriot foreign ministry claiming to have “launched the necessary initiatives with the Turkish authorities.”

 

Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu did not deny the allegations that some TRNC journalists and politicians were not admitted to Turkey.

The Minister described the decisions taken regarding foreigners entering the country as 'sovereignty'.

17 November 2021 14:47 - t24.com.tr

 Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu did not deny the allegations that some TRNC people who were close to former president Mustafa Akıncı or who were warm to the federal solution were not admitted to Turkey.

Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu was asked about the allegations that some people from Northern Cyprus, including politicians, writers and journalists, were not allowed into the country on the grounds that there was an "entry ban to Turkey" against them.

Answering the questions of CHP's Utku Çakırözer, Minister Çavuşoğlu did not deny that some TRNC members were not admitted to Turkey, but described the decisions taken regarding foreigners entering the country as "sovereignty".

Reacting to Çavuşoğlu, Çakırözer said, "The fact that TRNC members are not allowed into Turkey cannot be explained solely by 'sovereignty'. On the one hand, you say, "We will defend the rights and law of the Cypriots", on the other hand, you are violating the law, by not allowing Cypriot journalists, politicians and intellectuals to the country! The reason for this unlawful treatment should be immediately disclosed to both the TRNC residents and the public.”

News about the fact that Ali Bizden, the communication consult of former TRNC president Mustafa Akıncı, was sent back to Cyprus from Istanbul on 6 July and researcher-writer Ahmet Cavit An on 12 July on the grounds that they were banned from entering Turkey. It took place in the Turkish press. Then, in October, there were news that the President of the Press Workers' Union, Ali Kişmir, was detained at Istanbul Airport on his return from Croatia and was not boarded on the plane.

A newspaper published in Cyprus, on the other hand, stated that they had reached the Embassy of the Republic of Turkey in Nicosia and shared the "forbidden list" that allegedly imposed an entry ban on 42 Cypriot dissidents, including intellectuals, writers, journalists and politicians.

 

Rising anger with Turkey drives calls for reunification in crisis-hit northern Cyprus

With the economy in freefall and allegations of political interference, people have taken to the streets to advocate for federal future

Helena Smith in North Nicosia - Sun 9 Jan 2022 - theguardian.com

In his sun-filled office in north Nicosia, Şener Elcil is plotting his next protest. Anger, he says, is in the air in Turkish-occupied northern Cyprus.

The economy is in freefall, thanks to the self-declared republic’s financial and political dependence on Turkey. Thousands have taken to the streets, spurred by inflation rates that have left many struggling to make ends meet; ahead of parliamentary polls later this month, calls for a boycott are mounting, while a blacklist of Turkish Cypriot dissidents, reportedly drawn up at the behest of Ankara, has spawned consternation and fear.

“Turkey is our biggest problem,” says Elcil, who heads the Turkish Cypriot teachers’ union and is a vocal proponent of reunification of the war-divided island under a federal umbrella with the Greek-run south. “It should keep its hands off Cyprus and take its lira and go away.”

Sener Elcil in the teachers’ union of northern Cyprus. Photograph: Helena Smith/the Guardian

Elcil, 58, is among the statelet’s most outspoken opponents of the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and his unorthodox economic policies.

The recent gyrations of the Turkish lira – adopted by the territory in 1976, two years after the Turkish invasion – have had a devastating effect on daily life for a populace that remains under international embargo and cut off from the rest of the world. The use of foreign currency for property transactions and the purchase of imported goods has made a bad situation worse – even if the lira has regained some of its dramatic loss in value against the dollar.

Amid rising desperation, along with demands for the entity to adopt a “stable” currency, Elcil is far from alone.

“People are tired of international isolation, and they’re aware that it will only get worse,” he says. “Five years ago, a teacher first entering our system earned the equivalent of €1,100 (£920) a month. Today, because of the lira, they’d take home €350 a month.”

The protests come as hopes of reuniting Cyprus have rarely been as bleak. Last week, nearly 15 months after Ersin Tatar, a nationalist hardliner, won presidential elections in the north, the UN secretary general, António Guterres, issued his starkest report yet, warning that “without decisive action” further efforts to reach a negotiated peace settlement appeared increasingly slim.

 “Partition is so close,” says Izzet Izcan, who heads the United Cyprus party, one of three leftwing groups that have announced they will be abstaining from the 23 January parliamentary vote. “Tatar is Ankara’s puppet who was elected only after Turkey intervened in our democratic process. His pro-partition policies are not in the interests of our community. The only way to oppose them is to fight all together.”

In the 38 years since the breakaway republic unilaterally declared independence, Turkey’s interference in the entity’s affairs had never been as flagrant, claimed Izcan, echoing a widely voiced concern. “Elections are no longer representative of the real will of ordinary Turkish Cypriots. They’re like a game planned and played by Turkey,” the former MP said. “Our main problem is political. Our economic difficulties are the result of a political situation, of Turkey continuing its military occupation of the north by means of the lira.” Cyprus has been split between a Greek Cypriot south and Turkish Cypriot north since an Athens-backed coup, aimed at union with Greece, prompted Ankara to launch a military operation to seize its northern third. Although Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of reunification in a referendum in 2004, the island entered the EU as a divided state after its majority Greek Cypriot population rejected the prospect of power sharing. Until reunification is achieved, EU laws are suspended in the north despite it also formally being part of the bloc.

The growing disgruntlement follows alarm over the deportation from Turkey of prominent Turkish Cypriots opposed to Ankara’s policies.

Until recently the self-styled state – acknowledged solely by Ankara – was regarded as a safe zone for opponents of Erdoğan and his governing AKP party, one in which Turkish Cypriots and exiled mainland Turks indulged freely in criticism of the president’s authoritarian leadership.

But the appearance of a blacklist, published by Avrupa, a local newspaper, in October has heightened anxiety over the lengths to which Turkey is willing to go to silence dissent. The paper identified 42 politicians, writers, journalists, lawyers, trade unionists and artists as being on the list.

“It’s created fear and uncertainty,” says Mehmet Harmancı, the mayor of North Nicosia, drawing on a cigarette in a cafe near the divided capital’s UN-patrolled buffer zone. “Nobody knows exactly who is on it. All we know is there is a list, a blacklist of people seen as a security threat in Turkey who are blocked from entering the country.”

People previously unafraid to voice opinions were increasingly concerned, he said, about the consequences if they did so. Turkish Cypriots expelled from Turkey had learned of the ban only upon arrival in the nation.

“Even if ours is an unrecognised country we’ve had a longstanding democratic tradition of freedom of speech, of respecting each other’s values and ideas,” says Harmancı. “Since the election of Ersin Tatar, that has changed.”

Tatar, who was raised in the UK and educated at Cambridge before returning to Cyprus, has used his term in office to advocate for a two-state solution to the island’s division after years of failed negotiations to reunite it as a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation – a proposal flatly rejected by the EU. He has defended the travel ban, saying: “Every country has the right not to allow entry foreign nationals on the grounds of security when faced with threats and insults.”

However, Turkish Cypriots thought to be on the list are united in their desire for reunification and opposed to any suggestion that the EU’s most easterly member state should remain partitioned.

For Ahmet Cavit An, who co-founded the Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus, the island’s first such organisation, the memory of being stopped by immigration officers at Istanbul airport last summer is still painfully vivid. “I was at the passport control when they said I was persona non grata,” says the 71-year-old retired paediatrician. “I was then told I should write to the Turkish embassy in Nicosia for more information. Five months after my lawyer sent a registered letter demanding an explanation we’ve still not had a reply.”

In a landmark case, won in 2003, An took Ankara to the European court of human rights for being prevented from crossing into the island’s buffer zone to participate in bi-communal meetings. “What I want to know is the duration of this ban so I can get on with my life,” he says.

In October the European Federation of Journalists condemned the arrest of Ali Kismir, who heads the north’s press trade union, after he was detained at Istanbul airport and denied entry into Turkey.

 “I was taken to a special deportation area where my photograph and fingerprints were taken,” he recalls. “It makes me very angry to think that I was treated like a terrorist when all I do is write the truth.”

Kismir, the fourth Turkish Cypriot to be barred entry to Turkey, is a well-known columnist who took issue with Ankara’s electoral meddling to ensure Tatar’s election. His convictions are such that he sports a tattoo bearing the word “peace” in both Greek and Turkish on his right arm.

In recent weeks, Turkish opposition MPs have also raised the plight of Turkish Cypriots being banned from Turkey, arguing that this runs counter to the motherland’s professed desire to protect the minority.

But, like almost every Turkish Cypriot opposed to Ankara’s policies, Elcil says time is running out for a community already outnumbered by settlers imported from the mainland. About 2,000 Turkish Cypriots have relocated to the south, lured by jobs and better living standards.

“There have to be more protests that target Turkey, because Turkey is the biggest obstacle to a solution of the Cyprus problem and reunification,” he says. “They call us traitors and Turkish-speaking Greeks but we’re not giving up. We’re here to stay and we’re here to fight.”

THE FULL TEXT OF MY INTERVIEW WITH HARAVGI NEWSPAPER (12 September 2021) ABOUT THE RE-WRITING OF HISTORY TEXT BOOKS

Below are my answers to the questions asked by Haravgi correspondent Costas Pitsilloudes: 

a) How likely is it that the announcements of Ersin Tatar, and also of the Turkish ambassador, Ali Murat Bashcheri, that will change the teaching of history in the schools of North to enter into force?

Turkey has an agenda for Turkifying the occupied part of our island since 1974. The governments in Turkey wanted to make the T/Cs feel “more Turkish and more Moslem”. This policy was intensified especially during the power of the “Justice and Development Party” (AKP). On the other hand, they aim mainly the Anatolian settlers and their children who have been living here in the last almost half a century. They were given the citizenship of the “TRNC” and they vote together with the indigenous Turkish Cypriots, who are less in number than the newcomers.

It is well known that Tatar won last year the “Presidency of the TRNC” in the second round only with 4,412 more votes. This was an increase of 9% that was made possible with the interventions of the officers of the “Turkish Embassy” in Nicosia. The votes came especially from Famagusta and Trikomo areas, where the settlers are mostly settled.

It is interesting that 29 governments and 43 cabinets have served in the occupied area of ​​our island in the last 46 years. Turkish ambassador functions as an appointed governor of the “subordinate administration”. With the help of the local collaborators of the occupation regime, many changes were put into force in the past and new history text books will not be an exception!   

b) If this event takes place, what impact can it have on the Turkish Cypriot community, but also and to G/c?

Certainly, the new books will propagate the “two states” policy of the separatist T/C leadership and define the free part of the RoC and the G/C community as a potential enemy like it was done in the previous history text books.

As you know, I, as a retired paediatrician and author of 24 books on Cyprus politics and T/C history, was one of the T/Cs who were denied entry to Turkey on 11 July 2021 according to a list of T/C federalists, a list made in September 2020 before the “Presidential election”. I had also won my case against Turkey at the ECHR in 2003 that started the crossings over the dividing line for the first time after 1974. It must be a political revenge of the Turkish state to put a ban on my entry to Turkey, after the new policy, which brought the separatist Tatar to power in October 2020.

The G/Cs used to make touristic visits to Turkey before the COVID pandemic. I don’t know if they will be allowed to do so, when the “two states” policy of Turkey continues and enmity will be propagated also in the mass media against the Republic of Cyprus.   

 The curriculum taught in T/C schools are very similar to the one in Turkey. All the text books are imported from Turkey. Only the books about the history of Cyprus were written and printed in Cyprus until 2000’s. The author was Vehbi Zeki Serter, who was a chauvinist history teacher and later a member of the governing “National Unity Party” (UBP). Serter’s books were taught for nearly 30 years in the T/C secondary schools and lyceums. They were written with an ethno-centric Turkish nationalist perspective, legitimizing the “national goal” of the T/C community and denying the legitimacy of the “other” community. 

 

After the turbulent discussions on Annan Plan, the Republican Turkish Party (CTP) came into power in 2004 and the new Minister of Education and Culture decided to change the history text books. The new text books were written by local T/C teachers, using modern teaching technics of multiple perspectives and critical thinking. The new illustrated text books were far from the previous ethno-centric approach, following new pedagogical methods that encouraged discussion. The new history textbooks focused more on social history.     

Besides the books on history of Cyprus and history of Turkish Cypriots, other locally written books were also introduced: Geography of Cyprus, Human Rights, Traffic and Information about Life. But when the UBP came to power again in June 2009, all these books were left aside since they were regarded as “far from our national identity”. A new commission was appointed by the UBP, comprising of Turkish and T/C teachers of history that prepared new history text books.

This last call from Erdoğan will be the third change of the history text books, taught at the secondary schools and lyceums. It will certainly have an Islamic-fascist perspective, which will be dehumanizing the G/C community as an enemy again.

c) Do you think that the act to change the history books, is placed in a broader context promoted by the Turkish Cypriot Right (UBP, DP etc.) and Turkish government?

 

Of course. When we look at the participants of the panel discussion on “Turkish Cypriot History and its teaching”, which was organized on 11 August 2021 in Kyrenia, we see the following directors as speakers of the institutions in Turkey: Directors of the Turkish Historical Society, State Archives of the Republic of Turkey, Ataturk Supreme Institution for Culture, Language and History. The panel was organized on the order of President Erdoğan who wanted history to be used as “a device for building an identity with future values and to reveal the unknown Ottoman history of Cyprus”.

Various speakers addressed the panel by saying that “the T/Cs were the grandchildren of the Ottomans who stepped foot on the island 450 years ago and they needed to know their heritage, religion and history”, as if they knew nothing before and as if no other communities live on our island.

(published in Haravgi newspaper on 12 September 2021 and on  https://dialogos.com.cy/proothisi-toy-ethnikismoy-sta-nea-vivlia-tis-istorias-sta-katechomena /) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT AND CENSORSHIP IN THE TURKISH CYPRIOT PRESS DURING THE BRITISH COLONIAL PERIOD (1878-1960)

By Ahmet Djavit An

Researcher on Turkish Cypriot Political and Cultural History.

Abstract

With the beginning of the British Administration, various weeklies were published in Cyprus with the building of the first Printing Houses. When these newspapers made critics against the policy of the Ottoman Authorities in Istanbul, they were forced to close by the Turkish Cypriot owners in Cyprus. The weekly newspapers “Yeni Zaman”, “Kıbrıs”, the satirical “Kokonoz” and “Akbaba”, “Feryad”, “Mirat-ı Zaman” were closed after their publishers surrendered to the Sultan’s wishes.

The “Doğru Yol” newspaper was under the censorship in May 1920, when it published some columns as blank. The owner of “Söz” weekly, Remzi Okan, was put into prison for two months, because he wrote critical articles about Sait Molla, who was a pro-British Ottoman, sent to Cyprus for exile by the Sultan.

The “Masum Millet” newspaper of the advocate M.Rifat also had problem with the censorship of the British in the first years of 1930’s. The Kemalist newspapers, “Söz” and “Ses”, which were using the words “fatherland” and “our Atatürk” frequently, were put under censorship before the Turkish military school ship “Hamidiye” made a visit to the island.

There were also other cases of censorship, when a book on the “Turks of Cyprus”, published in Turkey by an author of Turkish Cypriot origin, was not allowed to be distributed in Cyprus and a film about the funeral of Kemal Atatürk was not given permission to be screened again at the end of 1930’s.

The last closure of a T/C progressive weekly newspaper “İnkılapçı” was in December 1955, when the Emergency Laws were enforced and all the left-wing newspapers in Cyprus were closed.

 

Keywords: Cyprus, Ottoman Sultan, Turkish Cypriots, censorship, Kemalism, British colonial administration

 

Introduction

 

The rule of Cyprus was transferred from the Ottoman Empire to the British Empire in 1878, but Cyprus remained as an Ottoman territory until the annexation of the island by Britain in 1914. The Muslim-Turkish community, together with the Greek-Christian community, continued to have the Ottoman nationality until then.

           

This paper shows the oppressive character of the Ottoman Sultan, which resulted with the closure of the critical Turkish newspapers published in Cyprus from 1878 until 1914. After the annexation of the island to Great Britain, the situation did not change. Especially the newspapers that disseminated the modern Kemalist ideas from the new Turkish Republic embarrassed the British colonial administration in Cyprus, since it caused a rivalry between the emerging Greek Cypriot nationalism with the aim of Cyprus’s union with Greece and Turkish Cypriot nationalism, which developed a religious community into a national one in this process.      

 

The title of this paper was given to me years ago by my Greek Cypriot friend Andreas Sophocleus, who asked me to look into the old collections of Turkish Cypriot press. I was already doing a research with my Turkish Cypriot friend, Harid Fedai on the history of Turkish Cypriot newspapers. Mr.Fedai was a Turkologist and he could read those old newspapers with Arabic letters published before 1930 and he had a rich collection of Turkish Cypriot newspapers. I remember both of them with respect, who are not among us today. Since this will be the first study on the subject, I used mainly the newspaper material I read in the old collections of Turkish Cypriot newspapers.

 

First Turkish Cypriot Newspapers

 

The publication of the first newspapers in Cyprus started with the coming of first printing machine to the island in 1878. Although we do not have a copy that has survived to the present day, the first Turkish newspaper published on the island by a Turkish Cypriot, was the “Saded” (Topic) newspaper. According to the records, the first issue of this weekly newspaper was published on 11 July 1889 by Mehmet Emin Efendi, who was a retired person from the Property Directorate. The “Saded” was published only 16 issues.[1]

 

Two years later, on 25 December 1891, we see the first issue of the “Zaman” (Time) newspaper, which was published until 2 September 1900 and we have its whole collection. Therefore, some people prefer to begin the Turkish Cypriot press history with this newspaper. The “Zaman” newspaper was published by the “Osmanlı Kıraathanesi” (Ottoman Reading Room), which was established by a group of Turkish Cypriot notables, who were worried about the future of the island. The merchant Hacı Derviş Efendi was the owner of the newspaper and Muzafferrüddin Galip, who was brought from Istanbul, was the chief author. Journalist Mehmet Remzi (Okan) made the following assessment regarding Zaman’s publications: “When we look at the publication of the daily “Zaman”, we can say that the main purpose of this newspaper was to serve Sultan Hamid and to smother the young ideas that were awakened in favour of legitimacy and freedom at the time!”[2]

 

After one year of publication, Derviş Efendi had a dispute with the members of the administrative committee of the Ottoman Reading Room. In the second year, Hacı Derviş Efendi continued to publish the newspaper on his own name. Because his publication was in favour of the Sultan, the merchant Hacı Derviş Efendi, the publisher of the daily Zaman, was rewarded with the rank of “mir-i miran” (grand seigneur) on 10 February 1895 and he was started to be called “Derviş Paşa”. A few years later, when the writers of the newspaper started to criticize the Istanbul government and to publish articles that supported the “Young Turk Movement”, the rank of Derviş Paşa was withdrawn by the Sultan. Thereupon, Hacı Derviş Efendi began to intervene in the articles, published in the newspaper and some of the writers, who did not like this, left the newspaper. “Zaman” newspaper continued for a while, until the publication ended on 2 September 1900, with the issue No. 423.

 

After the Ottoman Reading House separated its way with “Zaman” newspaper, “Yeni Zaman” (New Time) newspaper started to be published on 22 August 1892. As in “Zaman”, the writers of this newspaper were Muzafferüddin Galib and Mehmed Faik Bey. Faik Bey once again criticized Memduh Paşa and one day he left Cyprus for Istanbul and never came back. As the two writers left the island and settled in Istanbul before the end of the year, “Yeni Zaman” newspaper had to stop its publication on 27 February 1893 with its last issue No. 28.

 

Upon the closure of the “Yeni Zaman”, Kûfizade Mustafa Asaf Bey obtained permission from the colonial government to publish a new newspaper in his name. On 6 March 1893 he began to publish the weekly newspaper, called “Kıbrıs” (Cyprus). In every aspect, this newspaper was considered as the continuation of the “Yeni Zaman” and therefore its first copy had the No. 29. The “Kıbrıs” newspaper, like the “Zaman”, first published in loyalty to the Sultan of the time, but later was influenced by the “Young Turk” movement and began to be popular among the people with its articles. As journalist Mehmet Remzi (Okan) stated below, these publications continued until 1898 and one day the newspaper suddenly closed down:

 

“Despite all our research, it has not been possible to learn the real reasons for the closure of the “Kıbrıs” newspaper. However, according to the information given to us by a person, who was involved in these drafts at that time, the Cypriot newspaper owner had an agreement with Memduh Paşa, the Minister of Internal Affairs, and closed the newspaper upon the orders and signs he received from him. If we have to believe the claim of the same person, Asaf Bey agreed to close down “Kıbrıs” on the condition of receiving 500 kurush per month and he received this money regularly until the declaration of the constitution (1908).” [3]

 

Ahmet Tevfik Efendi, who was one of the writers that left “Zaman” newspaper after Derviş Paşa interfered with the writers, started to publish the first Turkish Cypriot humour newspaper named “Kokonoz” (Old Man) on 27 November 1896. However, “Kokonoz” ended its publication with the 22nd issue of 17 September 1897. “Kokonoz” was prevented from entering the Ottoman territory, according to an order dated 10 August 1897 and an additional letter sent to the Ministry of Interior, Customs, Zaptiye and the Ministry of Post and Telegraph.[4]

Immediately after “Kokonoz” stopped its publication, a humour newspaper, called “Akbaba” (Vulture), was published by Ahmet Tevfik Efendi on 1 October 1897, which was accepted as the continuation of “Kokonoz”. After a while, the “Kokonoz” adopted the ideas of the “Young Turk” movement and Ahmet Tevfik Efendi started to attack the Sultan with open and very sharp satire. We learned from an article titled “The Consequence of Wrongfulness” published in this newspaper on 27 May 1898 (No: 17) that the “Akbaba” was banned by the Sultan for a second time, because the newspaper “advocated not to give back Thessaly”. Perhaps the transition from “Kokonoz” to “Akbaba” was in order to bypass this ban.

 

According to Mehmet Remzi, “That is why the number of readers of “Akbaba” has decreased and poor Tevfik Efendi has fallen into a very affectionate state. As if this problem was not enough, Sultan Hamid sentenced him to death and has prohibited him to go to Turkey with this decision.” [5] After three months, Akbaba had to stop its publication on 19 August 1898 (No.23).

 

The pro-Young Turk “Feryad” (Scream) was a fortnightly newspaper, published by Hocazade Osman Enveri, only four issues between 11 December 1899 and 31 January 1900.  Mehmet Remzi made the following assessment regarding the “Feryad” newspaper: “Although Feryad appeared as a genuine Young Turk newspaper, it stopped after 4 issues and never appeared later. According to the information we received privately, the newspaper “Feryad” was again closed on the sign of the Ottoman Government and the owner was allocated three hundred kurush per month! At that time, while the Greek Cypriots established newspapers one after another, we were setting up printing offices in order to grab a few kurush and closing it at the first opportunity. When one examines these events, one feels like to curse the Sultan and the vizier of that time!” [6]

 

According to the information provided by Mehmet Remzi, the first four issues of “Mirat-ı Zaman” (Mirror of Time), the first issue of which was published on 3 March 1900, were published by Ahmet Tevfik Efendi, the owner and director of the newspaper, as a stone print. Later, he interrupted his publication and published regularly every week after 27 April 1901. The newspaper “Mirat-ı Zaman” ceased its publication between 25 November 1901 and 16 June 1902. Later, the publication continued at intervals.  The writers of “Mirat-ı Zaman” were Ahmet Tevfik Efendi and Rıza Bey from Vize. According to a document, dated 19 June 1901, they were tried in absentia, on 14 July 1901, according to the Ottoman Penal Code. It was alleged that “they dared to make some harmful and treacherous publication” in this newspaper.  They were sentenced for “a life-long stay in a walled city” and “to be rendered from the civil law” and “the already-foreclosure of their property has been decided to be managed.” [7] But despite this decision, “Mirat-ı Zaman” continued its publication with intervals and eventually stopped its publication on 18 April 1910 (Issue No.368)

 

The pro-Young Turk “Mirat-ı Zaman” newspaper, which had mutual discussions with the “Sünuhat”  (in Arabic it means “the issues that came to mind”) newspaper, published in 1906, was supporting the “Vatan” (Fatherland) newspaper of Bodamyalızade Mehmet Şevket Bey, a member of the Legislative Assembly, which appeared in 1911 and it was opposing the pro-Evkaf newspaper, Seyf (Sword). According to Harid Fedai, “Because of the influx of the Turkish newspapers, coming to the island after the Second Constitutionalism in Turkey, the circulation of the “Mirat-ı Zaman” fell down. Ahmed Tevfik Efendi would also try his luck again by publishing the humor newspaper “Kokonoz”. [8] Between 2 May 1910 and 28 June 1910, Ahmet Tevfik Efendi re-published the weekly humour newspaper “Kokonoz”, but he stopped publishing after 9 issues. Mehmet Remzi made this evaluation for him: “Regarding the difficulties he was confronted for the sake of his profession and his persistence and strength, we are in the opinion that Ahmet Tevfik Efendi was the most valuable deceased Cypriot journalist.” [9]

 

Hacı Mehmet Arif Efendi was the owner of the “Sünuhat” newspaper, which had 246 issues, published between 1 October 1906 and 3 November 1912. His son, Professor Ahmet Şükrü Esmer, in an interview with Cemalettin Ünlü, described the Sünuhat’s political attitude as follows: “As for our newspaper, being pro-Sultan at that time, meant being on the side of the Sultan and being from Istanbul. The loyalty to the meant loyalty to Turkey. As a matter of fact, the policy of our newspaper changed after the 1908 Constitutional Monarchy and started to publish articles in favour of the Committee of Union and Progress. That is why our newspaper opposed the British policy of Evkaf, confronted Musa Irfan Bey at the head of Evkaf and started a fight with the newspaper Mir’at-ı Zaman, which supported them. (...) There was freedom in the Cyprus press, I can say. The British were tolerant to the press. In fact, this was their traditional attitude towards the press. I can say that they would never interfere.” [10]

 

Let us continue with the Printer Mehmet Akif’s account of the events: “(After the closure of the “Kıbrıs” newspaper on 21 December 1914, due to World War I) no Turkish newspaper was published in Cyprus until 1919, because England was at war with Turkey. Already the Turkish community was not used to giving money for a newspaper. The newspapers appeared to the benefit of the community, but in fact, they were simply snatching a cone or holding a personal grudge or hunting the community for someone else’s account.” [11]

 

According to an article, titled “Apology to our readers” published in “Doğru Yol” (Right Path) newspaper on 14 April 1920 (Issue: 29), it was understood that some of the articles of the newspaper, published at that time, were censored by the British colonial administration and therefore the censored places appeared in white. The referred article wrote the following: “The profession that “Doğru Yol” has followed since its first publication is known to our readers. For this reason, we do not say much about it, we leave the appreciation to commentators. From now on, our newspaper will not be able to subjugate the readers’ view as pleasant as before. Therefore, we ask that they have no bad opinions about us. On the ground that our newspaper has been subjected to censorship by the Directorate of the War Department since this week, the places of the free articles seen in our previous issues will be seen as white. We hope that our readers will appreciate our position under this obligation and will not spare the abundance of affection they have shown for us until so far.”

 

In 1925, the advocate Ahmet Raşit, editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Doğru Yol”, was opposing to İrfan Bey, the Director of the Department of Evkaf and he also published dissenting articles by Dr.Eyyub Necmeddin in his newspaper.

 

 

Kemalist “Söz” newspaper of Mehmet Remzi Okan

 

According to the information quoted by Oktay Öksüzoğlu from Vedia Okan, Mehmet Remzi Okan’s article, titled “There are treacherous and seditious persons among us, beware” was published in “Söz” (Word) newspaper on 3 April 1926, which caused the imprisonment of Mehmet Remzi Okan for two months. [12] In “Söz” newspaper of 15 June 1926, Mehmet Remzi Okan announced to his readers his two months’ imprisonment, because of a personal attack on Sait Molla, who was a pro-British Turkish statesman, residing in Cyprus.

             

After the declaration of the Republic of Turkey, “Söz” and “Doğru Yol” newspapers were supporting the right of the Turkish Cypriots to immigrate to Turkey, according to the Lausanne Treaty. On the other hand, the “Birlik” (Unity) newspaper of Hacıbulgurzade Ahmet Hulusi was against the immigration.

 

I continue with Printer Akif’s account, as he describes these two tendencies:

“On 4 September (1926), Mr. M. Fehmi and his brother A. Retmi went to the prison with some of his friends and took Remzi Okan out. When Remzi Okan saw the article against the immigration in “Söz” newspaper that they gave him in the carriage on the way, he became angry against Fehmi Bey and he could not calm his anger until he came to the printing office. As a reaction to Remzi Okan’s angriness against Fehmi Bey, Fehmi Bey only responded with the following short sentences: “Remzi Efendi, my conscience orders me to warn the Turks of the island by writing against such embarrassment. If you are happy with it, OK. If you’re not, it’s your problem.” Akif continues: “On the other hand, “Birlik” newspaper continued its seriousness. At that time, an article was sent by the Pharmacist M. Münir to the newspaper “Söz” and “Doğru Yol” against the immigration, but neither of the newspapers published this article. Since its author had a copy of the article, the same article was sent to “Birlik” newspaper and it was published there.” [13]

 

The first issue of “Masum Millet” (Innocent Nation) newspaper was published on 11 April 1931. After its issue, published on 14 March 1932 (No: 43), it did not come out due to censorship for more than 5 months. On 18 August 1932 (No: 44), there was only a publication of a “Supplement to “Masum Millet”.  The main newspaper was not published again for three and a half months. The owner and the editor of the newspaper “John Rifat” (nick-name of Cengizzade Mehmet Rifat) explained this interval as follows: “Since the censorship intervened to our articles, which were not related with the government, but with our national affairs, we put our publication on holiday in the first week of April until 3 December 1932, when the new governor arrived.” [14]

 

“Masum Millet” was re-published on 3 December 1932 as a “Supplement to “Innocent Nation” (Issue: 45). (This time the title of the newspaper was not printed in Arabic letters, but in Latin letters.) “John Rifat”, who learned from the British press the arrival of Sir Reginald Edward Stubbs as the new governor of Cyprus, said “Welcome” to him in this issue and introduced the problems of the community to him in 11 points. “John Rifat” published 13 open letters addressed to the Undersecretariat of the Colony of Cyprus in the issues published between the 10 December 1932 (Issue 46) and 11 March 1933 (Issue 59).

 

Starting from 8 April 1933 (Issue: 63) onwards, the “Masum Millet” newspaper was published two times in a week. On 23 August 1933 (Issue: 102), “John Rifat” complained about “Söz” newspaper and wrote the following under the title of “Söz’s derived reign of censorship”:

“Mr. “Söz” must know well that the “Masum Millet”, who succeeded in abolishing the Government’s censorship administration with bayonet, will no longer submit to the derived reigns of censorship that have emerged as such.” The last issue of “Masum Millet” newspaper had the date of 29 August 1933 (Issue: 203).

 

As stated in British secret reports, when World War II began, “Söz” newspaper was described as Turkish nationalist and against the British colonial government. According to a report, dated 29 October 1937, from Governor Palmer to the British Secretary of State, the publication of the “Söz” was suspended for a month in 1937 (between 17 August 1937 and 17 September 1937).[15] In an article published in “Söz”, it was written that “there was a life of imprisonment on the island and the only way to escape from this prison was through Turkey”. Therefore, the newspaper had been placed under constant censorship since June 1938. The British officials stated that no other newspaper, except the “Söz”, was subject to constant censorship on the island. Mr. Remzi had petitioned the authorities to abolish this censorship.

 

When the Turkish Cypriot newspaper “Ses” (Voice) wanted to publish on its issue of 14 June 1938, an article with the title “Turkish Cypriots Help to the Earthquake (Victims)”, originally published in Cumhuriyet newspaper on 7 June 1938 (in İstanbul), it was censored. In this article, “The greatness of the feelings of brotherhood between the Turkish Cypriots and the homeland Turks” was mentioned and the attitude of the Evkaf administration was criticized.”[16]

 

It is known from the official records that both “Söz” and “Ses” newspapers, which were being published on the same ideological line, were censored on the occasion of the arrival of Hamidiye School Ship to Cyprus on 20 June 1938. Censorship began before the ship arrived in Cyprus and “Söz” newspaper announced this on 4 June 1938 as follows: “CENSOR: By the order of the Reverend Colonial Undersecretary, our newspaper will be censored from yesterday onwards until the order that will terminate it.”

 

The censorship was also applied on the “Ses” newspaper of 14 June 1938. However, Hasan İzzet Asım Bey, owner and director of “Ses” newspaper, died on 23 June 1938 and the publication of “Ses” ended. [17]  The headline of the “Söz” on 21 June 1938 was “Hamidiye in our Island” and since the news was censored, the underneath of the headline was blank. In a secret report, dated 24 June 1938, sent from the British Colonial Governor Palmer to MacDonald, the following was reported: “The “Söz” and “Ses” newspapers have been making propaganda for Turkish nationalism for a long time, while they attack the Evkaf administration and frequently include concepts such as “Motherland” and “Our Atatürk’. Therefore, these newspapers were censored before Hamidiye arrived.”[18]

 

The following information was included in a “secret and personal” letter, dated 30 June 1938, sent by the British Colonial Governor Palmer from Nicosia to the British Ambassador in Turkey Percy Lorainne: “The arrival of Hamidiye spurred the feelings of nationalism (among the Turks here). Moreover, the articles of the “Cumhuriyet” (Republic) newspaper (published in Turkey) on 24 May and 7 June issues are also of concern. The “Cumhuriyet” is a publication that can find a considerable readership in Cyprus. Finally, the Cyprus Governing Council had to take a decision, advising me not to forbid this newspaper from entering the island. I wanted to get your opinion on this issue before taking this prohibition and preventing it from entering Cyprus. Probably, the Republic of Turkey does not want its relations with Cyprus to be deteriorated. [19] The “Söz” of 27 August 1938 wrote the following: “The Jubilee of the “Söz” will not be held.” The newspaper also published a letter signed by “Acting Colonial Secretary Stanley”. Censorship continued.

 

The “Söz” Newspaper of 18 October 1938, published the following news: “According to what is announced in the official newspaper, published on Friday, the importation to the island of the book called “Turks of Cyprus” (Kıbrıs Türkleri), printed and published in Turkey, has been called strictly forbidden. The police administration carried out research in some businesses and establishments, but could not find the book. The author of the book is İsmet Konur, History Teacher of Denizli (city).” The writer was born in Cyprus.

 

A letter, dated 12 January 1939, sent to the Minister of Colonies by Mehmet Remzi Okan, owner and editor of “Söz” daily, included the following complaint: “The Cyprus administration censors my newspaper without giving any reason, and I am not allowed to publish even the articles on Cyprus published in the Manchester Guardian, Daily Telegraph, Morning Post. I hope you will justify my belief that freedom of the press and thought within the Commonwealth is not an empty concept.” [20]

 

The following information from Battershill to Acheson was sent from Nicosia with a record of 15 September 1939 (Confidential): “Söz” is the only newspaper in Cyprus today under censorship. You shouldn’t answer Remzi for another two months. It is not appropriate for us to remove censorship for now. Moreover, we believe that the sister-in-law of the new Turkish consul is behind this “Söz” headache. Let’s implement the “wait and see” policy on this issue.”[21]

 

The Turkish Cypriot press announced in December 1938 that the film, containing scenes from Atatürk’s funeral and life, would be brought to Cyprus and screened at the Papadopoulos cinema in Nicosia. But Governor Palmer forbade the film to be shown. This film about the funeral could only be screened in the mid-1940s. On 3 May 1939, speaking at the British Parliament, Mr. Foot criticized the Colonial Minister: “It is not right to prohibit the screening of the Atatürk film and the wedding film of the Greek Royal family, while films showing fascist movements and events are permitted on the island.” Colonial Minister MacDonald said in his reply that there was a censorship committee of civil and official authorities in Cyprus and that he had no control, and that he did not know why the film was banned.[22]

 

M. Necati Ozkan started a series of articles, entitled “What are the real reasons for our tendency to head autonomous administration?” in “Söz” newspaper on 5 June 1937. Despite the fact that it was said at the end of the second article “to be continued”, “Söz” newspaper made the following statement in its copy on 12 June 1937: “Open information for Mr M. Necati Özkan: We hereby declare that we will not be able to publish the further parts of the precious articles that you have sent to be issued in the sequence, and we kindly ask you to excuse us. Director of “Söz”: M. R. Okan.”

 

On 22 July 1937, the Cumhuriyet newspaper (of Istanbul) published a news, written from Cyprus, under the title “An event that causes for the Turkish Cypriots excitement” and the event was announced to the Turkish public opinion as follows: “The “Ses” newspaper is the publication organ of those who attack and accuse with national betrayal the ones who seem to support the autonomous administration. (…) A second and stronger front of them was emerged with the Manifests, published by a personality called, the advocate Cengizzade M. Rifat, who studied law (!) in Turkey, knows very well Greek and English.”

 

The “Söz” newspaper referred in its issue of 4 August 1937 to the above news in its headline “The Cyprus correspondent of Cumhuriyet gives false news to its readers” and wrote this: “We stopped the articles of Necati Özkan, because what we think is sufficient for now. When the time and the day comes, we will never hesitate to publish the further parts of the article. Let us also add that there were no complaints by any of our readers for publishing Necati Özkan’s articles, on the contrary, there were many who wanted us to continue publishing those articles.” [23]

 

M. Necati Özkan wrote a letter on 19 February 1939 to the Secretary-General of the Republican People’s Party in Turkey and complained that Mr. Remzi’s family was under the influence of the British and therefore his articles were no longer published.  He would like to ask for help in setting up a newspaper himself.

 

Advocate C.M.Rifat, one of the prominent figures of the Turkish Cypriot press, explained why he opposed giving autonomy to the administration of the island, with a series of manifests (Declarations), he issued in 1937. As Mr Rifat did not like the publication policies of the Turkish Cypriot newspapers “Söz” and “Ses”, he wrote in the “Kıbrıs” newspaper on 21 November 1949 the following about these hand-outs: “We had to publish these four manifests, since there were no other Turkish publication organ.” [24]

 

When Mehmet Remzi, the owner of “Söz” newspaper, went to Istanbul on 16 November 1941 for his illness, he died there on 22 January 1942. Vedia and Bedia, two of Mehmet Remzi’s daughters were not old enough to have a licence for a newspaper, therefore the publication of “Söz” had to stop on 10 February 1942. But a month later, this time, they put Dr. Fazıl Küçük as the licence owner and started to publish a new newspaper called “Halkın Sesi” (The Voice of the People) on 14 March 1942. According to Vedia Okan, 9 months later, because of an article by the columnist “Yavuz”, criticizing the government’s decision to move the schools to Lapta, the “Halkın Sesi” was sentenced to 3 months of closure and was forced to suspend its publication from 21 January 1943 until 21 April 1943. On the day, when the newspaper re-appeared, the “Halkın Sesi”, in an article titled “Getting Started Again” and signed by Dr. M. Fadıl Küçük, explained that “the newspaper had been closed for 3 months by the order of the Undersecretary. After that, the newspaper started to be published three times in a week, on Sunday-Wednesday-Friday. Dr. Küçük argued that this punishment was imposed by the British, who would allow the “Söz” to be published once again. Vedia Okan, one of Remzi Bey’s daughters, who had a disagreement with Dr. Küçük, got the licence of “Söz” newspaper, after she completed 25 years of age and started to publish “Söz” together with his sister Bedia on 5 March 1943, but this time on a daily basis.

 

Last years of British Adminstration

 

M. Necati Özkan, who was one of the Turkish Cypriot members of the Legislative Council, which was abolished in 1931, began to publish a daily newspaper called “İstiklâl” (Independence) on 28 October 1949. The newspaper informed its readers on 5 February 1950 as follows: “There was an ugly assault on our editor-in-chief by Enver Mustafa, the brother of Mehmet Ali Pamir, the Vice-President of the Turkish Cypriot Cultural Association in Ankara, This incident aroused sadness and hatred among our people. Necati Özkan’s glasses were broken in the first move and his right eye was seriously and dangerously injured.”

 

On 4 June 1950, Necati Özkan founded the “Turkish Cypriot Union Independence Party” and continued his political struggle for leadership against the political views of Dr. Küçük and his newspaper “Halkın Sesi” until the beginning of 1954. However, Necati Özkan had to close his newspaper with the its last copy of 13 January 1954 and withdrew from politics after his cigarette factory was burned “by unknown people” on the night of 6 December 1953.

 

The first issue of the newspaper “İnkılapçı” (Revolutionary) was published on 13 September 1955. It was owned by the Revolutionary Press Company Ltd. and its director was Fazıl Önder. In the first issue of the weekly “İnkılâpçı”, the purpose of the newspaper was described as follows: “The name of our newspaper is “Revolutionary”. We are revolutionaries. Our inspiration comes from the people of Turkey, who revolted against the internal enemies and external attackers in 1918-1922 and from Atatürks, who guided and led this movement.”

 

The newspaper began to be published on Mondays starting from its 11th issue of 21 November 1955 and wrote: ‘Now our goal is to come out twice a week very soon. We trust our people’. However, after the 14th issue, the Revolutionary had to stop publishing.  In its final copy of 12 December 1955 (No: 14) there were the following news: “On the occasion of the 7th Anniversary of the Declaration of Human Rights, we invite the administrators of the Court to respect the human rights (Revolutionary)”. An article had the title “On the occasion of Cox’s visit to our island” by Fazıl Önder and another article, titled “Threat” wrote as follows: “We observe that random letters of threat have been sent here and there recently. Two weeks ago, we received a letter from Mr. Sevim, a prominent sportsman, from Limassol. A letter of the same setting came to our office the other day. Contents: ‘Stop the “Revolutionary” newspaper’, ‘you will be killed’, ‘your head will be crushed’ etc. “

 

The “İnkılapçı” was among the newspapers that the British colonial administration banned in December 1955 when a state of emergency was declared on the island. The “Hürsöz” (Free Word) newspaper provided the following information in its issue of 16 December 1955: “The weekly Turkish newspaper ‘İnkılâpçı’ was officially declared illegal. Other newspapers, banned for one year, were the Greek newspapers “Neos Demokratis” and “Aneksartitos” in Greek”. On 8 January 1956, Hürsöz reported as follows: “The Greek Cypriot communist newspaper “Embros” was closed yesterday. Its rooms in the Zavalli Printing House were sealed.”

Fazıl Önder, the 32-year-old owner and editor-in-chief of the Turkish “İnkılapçı” newspaper suffered a brutal murder on 24 May 1958. In this first wave of terrorism, initiated by the Turkish Resistance Organization (TMT), an underground organization affiliated with the Turkish Cypriot leadership, other Turkish Cypriots known as left-leaning were either killed or injured. From now on, TMT intimidated both the Turkish Cypriot press and those, who thought differently from the leadership. Freedom of thought in the Turkish Cypriot community was suppressed for a long time after the British colonial rule ended in 1960.

Conclusion

The above narrative of events shows that the critical Turkish Cypriot newspapers were not tolerated either by the Ottoman Sultan or by the British colonial administration. The newspaper owners were bribed to stop their publications. The newspapers used blank columns in order to show the censored news or articles. There were cases that newspaper owners were put into prison or killed.

(This paper was read at International Conference on Colonial Cyprus (1878-1960) in memory of Aristides Coudounaris, held on 7-8 February 2020 at the University of Nicosia, organized by The Cyprus Society of Historical Studies in collaboration with the Department of History and Archaeology, University of Cyprus; the School of Law, University of Nicosia; and the Department of History, Political and International Studies, Neapolis University of Pafos.)

 

Bibliography (in Turkish):

1. An, Ahmet, The Political History of the Turkish Cypriots (1930-1960): The Forgotten Political History of the Turkish Cypriots and the Struggles for the Leadership in the Mirror of the Press, Nicosia 2006

2. An, Ahmet, The History of the Turkish Cypriot Press, Volume: 2, The List of Newspapers and Journals published by Turkish Cypriots (1878-2013, Nicosia 2013

3. Fedai, Harid and Ahmet An, The History of Turkish Cypriot Press with Excerpts (1891-1963), Volume: 1, Nicosia 2012

4. Gazioğlu, .Ahmet C., The Turks in the Circle of Enosis, Nicosia 1996

5. Gürel, Şükrü S., The History of Cyprus (1878-1960) Colonialism, Nationalism and International Politics, Volume: 1, Ankara 1984

6. Öksüzoğlu, Oktay, Portraits from the Turkish Cypriot Press: 1, Mehmet Remzi Okan, Nicosia 1990

7. Ünlü, Cemaleddin, The Press Event in Cyprus (1878-1981), Ankara 1981

THE TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE AND THE CHANGES IN ITS STRUCTURE AND IDENTITY

MR. ANASTASIADES WON THE PRESIDENCY FOR A SECOND TERM

EARLY GENERAL ELECTION DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF COALITIONS

EXTERNAL ASPECT OF THE CYPRUS PROBLEM

AN OVERVIEW OF THE CYPRUS PROBLEM

UNCERTAINTIES AT THE CYPRUS NEGOTIATIONS

THE FIRST BI-COMMUNAL MOVEMENT FOR AN INDEPENDENT AND FEDERAL CYPRUS