The truth about Famagusta

Article by Christos Christofides, AKEL Secretary of Nicosia-Kyrenia District Organisation, AKEL Political Bureau member

Sunday 18th October 2020, “Haravgi” newspaper

In the face of the tragic developments for our homeland and people, with the opening of the enclosed city of Famagusta, speculation has began in recent days on the part of Turkey claiming that Famagusta was offered to the Greek Cypriot side in 1978 with the American-British-Canadian plan and that this offer was rejected. Indeed, it is claimed that Famagusta subsequently had again been offered several times to the Greek Cypriot side, but was also rejected by it for some evidently inexplicable reason.

Supporters of this position are divided into two categories:

1. Leading members and supporters of the ruling DISY party who in the face of the tragic developments and consecutive defeats the Greek Cypriot side has suffered turn to 1978 to justify the unjustifiable and assign responsibilities elsewhere.
2. Those forces and circles who believe that the history of the Cyprus problem from 1974 to date is a history in which the main responsibility for the non-solution of the Cyprus problem lies with the Greek Cypriot side. This approach ignores the fact that for 30 years Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot leadership considered that the Cyprus problem was resolved in 1974 and did not even discuss a federal solution. All this time the Greek Cypriot side committed serious mistakes and omissions. However, from this fact to someone claiming that the lack of progress on the Cyprus problem for decades is due to the Greek Cypriot side is not true.

The truth is that whenever the issue of the enclosed city of Famagusta was raised, with the exception of 2004 and 2017, this issue was raised either in general and vague terms, or with the “return of territory in exchange for recognition” approach. This approach arguing for the return of territory in exchange for recognition in essence means a two states solution and the definitive loss of half of our homeland.

The truth about the 1978 American-British-Canadian Plan

The Vice-President of ruling DISY party Haris Georgiades, in an article published last Sunday, supported the narrative about the return of Famagusta in 1978 and the rejection of the “offer” by the Greek Cypriot side. Indeed, the text begins by playing with words and recalling that in 1978 the city of Famagusta was lit regularly and that the buildings were standing and in a condition to be made use of immediately. This is correct. However, we must remind Mr. Georgiades and his Party that a few years before, in 1974, there were people living in the city and the beautiful city was flourishing before the coupist traitors opened the back door (to the Turkish invading army) and handed over the city of Famagusta to Turkey the occupying power. Mr. Georgiades’ Party know this fact very well. Of course, for certain forces and circles any reference to 1974 is seen as “backward looking”, while resorting to 1978 in order to justify today’s wretched condition is not considered as “backward looking” of course.

It has also been reported in the press that the 1978 American-British-Canadian plan was rejected after the Soviet ambassador had supposedly imposed his views on AKEL. It is true that in the 1970’s, as before and later, various individuals and factions were indeed taking orders, money and other valuables from foreign embassies. This has now been substantiated historically with lots of proof and evidence. In any case, how we got to the twin crime committed in 1974 is very well known. AKEL is certainly not included in this category. Others were the ones taking orders from foreign embassies.

This story too is part of a myth cultivated by the Right in Cyprus from time to time to justify the unjustifiable. As, for example, the Right’s argument that “the coup d’état and the invasion took place because Makarios did not want Cyprus to join NATO”.

But what is the truth about the American-British-Canadian plan of 1978?

This Plan was a sketchy rough plan which was formulated under special circumstances. In fact, the involvement of other European countries as well was included in the initial plans. One can read about the sloppiness of the handlings made as regards the formulation of the Plan in the book of the current Foreign Affairs Minister Nikos Christodoulides “The plans for the solution of the Cyprus problem” in chapter 9, beginning on page 200. A draft text was formulated which was not even written in a legal wording, so that its various aspects would be clear, which included huge gaps with regards the international aspect of the Cyprus problem (for example, issues of sovereignty and citizenship), while assigning a very limited number of responsibilities to the Central Government. Famagusta would not have been returned directly to its inhabitants, but would depend on the course of the talks. All that is being said about an unconditional return to the city is not serious. The first serious precondition was the acceptance of the Plan itself, which could not have been done for the reasons we have mentioned previously.

It is true that the handlings made of the proposal were problematic and the rejection or filling of the gaps could have been attempted in a more diplomatic way. From this point to the approach arguing that Famagusta was offered to us and that we rejected it, there is an enormous difference.

The “other” proposals on Famagusta

With the exception of the Annan Plan in 2004 and Crans Montana in 2017, there was no serious discussion about Famagusta. There is a terrible paradox on the part of the DISY leadership concerning these two initiatives. On the one hand, its main argument with regards the collapse of the talks at Crans Montana is that Turkey insisted on the continuation of guarantees. At the same time, whenever an issue is raised either about Famagusta or the difficult situation we are in today, the DISY leadership’s “argument” is that they themselves supported the Annan Plan – which of course included Turkish guarantees.

At the end of the day, both these arguments can’t be true. Either the Turkish guarantees are a matter of principle so for that reason they could not be supported neither in 2004 nor in 2017, or they do not represent a problem, so Anastasiades and ruling DISY party as they accepted them in 2004 could have discussed them in 2017. AKEL’s position is clear. We do not accept the continuation of the guarantees.

From there onwards, any soundings that were made in the past were very vague and connected the handing over of the enclosed city of Famagusta with the upgrading or recognition of the illegal regime (in the occupied areas), something that would have constituted the finalization of partition. On the contrary, I would like to recall that Demetris Christofias had elaborated a proposal on Famagusta which was not accepted by the other side.

The various forces and circles should therefore focus on how to address the current tragic situation surrounding Famagusta and the Cyprus problem as a whole and they should leave the attempt to falsify history for later…