North issues mixed response to PACE Varosha resolution

The north’s ‘foreign ministry’ on Tuesday issued a mixed response to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE)’s resolution regarding Varosha.

The resolution, written by PACE’s rapporteur for Varosha Piero Fassino, described the re-opening of Varosha to tourists in 2020 as an “unacceptable change” to its status, while also praising both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Famagusta Municipalities for their “constructive and future-oriented dialogue”.

Additionally, he highlighted the work done by the Immovable Property Commission (IPC) and its compensation, exchange, and restitution of properties abandoned by Greek Cypriots in Varosha and elsewhere in the north, but did note that for some Greek Cypriots, applying to the IPC is “not politically acceptable or practical”.

This was reflected by the north’s ‘foreign ministry’, which said the IPC’s validity “was confirmed” in a European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decision.

However, despite their appreciation of the reference to the IPC, they were scathing about large parts of the remainder of the resolution.

“The decision, which distorts historical facts, ignores the atrocities and the human rights violations to which the Turkish Cypriot people were subjected, while creating the false perception that the only victims in the Cyprus problem were the Greek Cypriot people,” the ministry said.

“This decision is, in general, a manifestation of the fact that the Council of Europe is once again marching to the tune of the Greek Cypriot administration of southern Cyprus,” it added.

Additionally, it accused the resolution of making “baseless allegations about our country” and “ignoring the fact that the Greek Cypriot leadership is responsible for the failure to reach an agreement in Cyprus to date”.

It then returned to the matter of the IPC, saying it will “continue to take all the necessary steps to protect [its] effectiveness.

“Varosha is within the borders of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is under the full sovereignty of our state. We would like to remind the world once again that the initiative to open it has been designed to respect property rights guaranteed under international law and the European Convention on Human Rights.”

It added that it is “high time for PACE to support a two-state solution in light of the current realities on the island”.

Earlier, the two Turkish Cypriot PACE observers had issued differing opinions on the resolution.

Oguzhan Hasipoglu, who belongs to ruling coalition party in the north the UBP, insisted that the resolution “cannot divert us from our path”.

He also described the resolution as “not fair” in “only discussing the rights of Greek Cypriots”.

Additionally, he said the resolution was “full of contradictions” as it used both the word “occupation” and “intervention” to refer to Turkey’s actions in Cyprus in 1974.

Armagan Candan said it is “important to focus on possible areas of cooperation with the aim of preparing a better future for our next generations”.

He added that the Varosha issue “could be taken as part of a confidence building package deal for the benefit of both communities which would in effect help rapprochement between the two communities”.