Everybody hoped that the two peoples of the island or the new partners of the Republic of Cyprus would be able to live peacefully after the declaration of the new state on Aug. 16, 1960. In a very short time it became obvious that this was not going to be possible and that the Greek Cypriots and Greece did not intend to abide by the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. They did not give up their 164-year-old am-bition for “enosis,” the annexation of the island to Greece, and the Greek Cypriot leadership sought to unlawfully bring around constitu-tional changes.
In effect this would negate the “partnership” status of the Turkish Cypriots and clear the way for annexation with a Turkish minority.
The only way the Greek Cypriots could achieve their aims was to destroy the legitimate order, by the use of brute force and arms to overtake the joint state.
The “rule of law” unfortunately collapsed on the island in 1963 as a result of a ruling by the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriots took the Greek Cypriots to court because the Greek Cypriots refused to obey the mandatory provision of separate munici-palities for the two communities.
The court ruled against the Greek Cypriots and as expected they ignored the court’s ruling. After this the Greeks tried to get 13 basic articles of the 1960 agreement abolished. These articles were there to protect the rights of the Turkish Cypriots, so by removing them the Turkish Cypriots would be reduced to a minority subject under the control of the Greek Cypriots.
Christmas 1963 saw Greek Cypriot militia attack Turkish Cypriot communities and villages across the island, killing many men, women and children. Some 270 mosques, shrines and other places of worship were desecrated.
The constitution became unworkable because of the refusal on the part of the Greek Cypriots to fulfill the obligations to which they had agreed. The bi-national republic that was imagined by three treaties ceased to exist after December 1963.
The Greek Cypriot wing of the “partnership state” took over the title of “Government of Cyprus” and the Turkish Cypriots, who never accepted the seizure of power, began to set up a “Turkish administra-tion” to run their own affairs, independently.
1964 was an eventful year in the history of Cyprus. It was a year of unprecedented and accelerating military trouble between the two peoples and of intense diplomatic activity aimed at bringing the conflict to an end. For the first time United Nations troops were stationed in Cyprus and the two peoples were in effect divided with even sharper lines compared to the first one in 1958.
For the Turkish Cypriots, the next 11 years would see them hav-ing to seek survival in traumatic and violent conditions. About 30,000 Turkish Cypriots were forced out of their homes and became refugees in enclaves making up a mere 3 percent of the overall territory of Cyprus.
They lived under siege; they had no freedom of movement and were deprived of the basic necessities to survive.
The Greek Cypriots, with assistance in the form of the Greek mil-itary, once again undertook a campaign of terror by raiding and at-tacking the Turkish Cypriot quarters of various towns. This time the campaign led to the destruction of 103 Turkish Cypriot villages along with mosques and other holy places. Hundreds of Turkish Cypriots were murdered, wounded or taken hostage. Over 200 Turkish Cypriots went missing during the course of this outbreak of violence. Thousands fled the island, and those who stayed and managed to survive, were deprived of their land, their salaries and their means of livelihood and survival.
A military junta had assumed power in Greece and differences were beginning to develop between the junta and the Greek Cypriot leadership, mainly over the method of achieving annexation. Over 20,000 troops had been sent to the island with the knowledge of the Greek Cypriot leadership as part of the enosis strategy.
This worsened the situation in the island.
July 15, 1974 saw a coup d’état take place in Cyprus that was planned and executed by Greece as a shortcut to enosis. This resulted in yet a further violence and bloodshed against the Turkish Cypriot people.
Although Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee stated that Britain would guarantee the state of affairs that was set out under the 1960 Constitution, they decided to leave any action that needed to be taken to the UN troops stationed in Cyprus. Turkey on the other hand inter-vened as a guarantor power under Article IV of the Treaty of Guarantee.
After the intervention of Turkey an international conference be-tween Turkey, Greece and Britain was held in Geneva within a couple of days. During this conference the parties agreed that all Greek and Greek Cypriot forces would leave the Turkish Cypriot enclaves. This, however, did not happen. Showing their now customary disregard for international agreements they instead proceeded to murder almost the entire population of the Turkish Cypriot enclaves in both the north and south of the island. All this happened despite the presence of the UN forces on the island.
Only after 43 years did the Cypriot Committee on Missing Persons manage to locate the burial places and bodies of these unfortunate Turkish Cypriots.
It was declared as a result of the Geneva conference that a con-stitutional government no longer existed in Cyprus and it recognized the existence in Cyprus of two autonomous administrations — one Turkish Cypriot and the other Greek Cypriot.
1974 also saw a formal exchange of populations with the Turkish Cypriots moving to the north of the island and the Greek Cypriots moving to the south. Both sides suffered as a result of this, losing homes and possessions although an international aid program was put into action to help the Greek Cypriots but not the Turkish Cypriots.
From 1974 on, the Greek Cypriot side has continued to claim so-vereignty over the whole of the island, despite the established principle that a federation can only be built between equal partners.
The latest public poll shows that the 45 percent of the Greek Cy-priots are willing to live in separate states rather than a united Cyprus. This ratio is now over 65 percent among Turkish Cypriots.
Establishment of a Cyprus confederation between the two entities of the island and that the 1960 guarantee system should continue to be part of the confederation of Cyprus seem to be the best and the ideal solution for the island.
Neydi Bolonya sürecinin özü.
AB üyesi 27 ülke içinde yer alan yüzlerce üniversite arasında denklik, müfredat, derecelendirme ve işbirliği sisteminin kurulması. İşin özü bu.
Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi Kurucu Rektörü Dr. Suat Günsel’in, dün Doğu Akdeniz Üniversitesi Rektörü Prof. Dr. Halil Güven’i makamında ziyaret etmesi KKTC’de de bu sistemin hayata geçirilmesinin ve yükseköğretim kurumları arasında stratejik işbirliğinin başlatılmasının temelini oluşturacak.
KKTC’de halen mevcut olan 6 üniversitede 41,760 öğrenci okuyor. Her üniversite, kendi olanakları içerisinde ve YÖK’ün kuralları dışına çıkmadan çalışmalarını sürdürüyor.
Bir elin nesi var, iki elin sesi var misali, üniversitelerimiz arasındaki işbirliği arttıkça, güç artımı, verim artımı ve kalitenin daha da yükselmesi beraberinde gelecek.
Bu yapılan ziyaret ile KKTC’nin en büyük iki üniversitesi arasında stratejik işbirliğini başlatıldı. Bu işbirliğinin ana hedefi, KKTC yükseköğretiminin gelişmesi ve sağlamlaşması için ortak bir vizyon aramak.
Hedeflerden bir tanesi KKTC üniversitelerindeki yaklaşık 42 bin düzeyinde olan öğrenci sayısını 2012 yılına kadar 60 bine yükseltmek, bir diğeri de AB’nin kendi üniversiteleri arasında başlattığı Bolonya sürecinin gereklerini yerine getirmek.
Hem YDÜ hem de DAÜ Avrupa Üniversiteler Birliği üyesi. Her iki üniversite de bu birliğin şemsiyesi altında Bologna sürecinin gereklerini yerine getirirken ve de kalite güvence mekanizmalarını oluştururken, sıkı bir işbirliği içerisinde olacaklar.
Dünkü ziyaretten sonra YDÜ ve DAÜ arasındaki akademik işbirliğinin boyutunun belirlenmesi amacıyla komisyon kurulacak ve işbirliği protokolü da bir olasılıkla güz dönemi bitmeden imzalanacak.
Yapılması düşünülen işbirliği çalışmaları içinde;
Uluslararası konferansların ortak organizasyonu,
Bilimsel araştırmalar konusunda işbirliği ve bilgi alış-verişi,
KKTC üniversitelerinin Türkiye’de ve dış ülkelerde daha etkin tanıtımının yapılması,
Üniversitelerin farklı olanaklarının ortak kullanılabilmesi,
Üniversitelerimizde var olan potansiyelin birleştirilmesi ve ortak bir güç oluşturulması düşünülüyor.
Bunlara ilaveten;
Yakın Doğu Üniversitesi rektörlüğünün, son 2 yılda yaklaşık 55 milyon kaynağa ulaşılabilir seviyeye gelen YDÜ Büyük Kütüphanesini, DAÜ ve diğer üniversitelerin öğrencilerine ortak kullandırmanın yollarını arama çalışması başlatması;
Aynı paralelde gelecek haftalar içinde temeli atılacak ve kasım ayında bittiği vakit, Yakın Doğu Üniversitesini dünyada 8’inci en hızlı akıllı bilgisayara sahip üniversite konumuna getirecek olan İnovasyon Merkezi’ni, kendi akademisyenleri yanında DAÜ’deki tüm bilim adamlarının da ücretsiz kullanabilmesi düşüncesi, üniversiteler arası işbirliğinin başlatılması doğrultusunda yeni ve mükemmel bir gelişme olacak.
Doğal olarak bu işbirliği, üniversitelerimizin atak yapmasına da kapı açacaktır.
Bir diğer olumlu gelişme de, bu sene KKTC üniversitelerinin YÖK’ten talep ettikleri kontenjanların eksiksiz olarak verilmiş olması.
2007-08 ders yılı için üniversitelerin kapasiteleri ölçüsünde talep ettikleri kontenjanların tamamının onaylanması, bu yıl KKTC’ye yeni bir öğrenci akınını başlatacak.
Geçtiğimiz yıl içinde üniversitelerimizde mevcutlara ilaveten yeni fakültelerin açılmış olması, üniversitelerimizin kapasitelerinin talebi karşılayacak düzeyde bulunması ve de geçen yıl içinde mevcutlara ilave olarak yapılan 9,000 yatak kapasiteli öğrenci yurtları, bu yıl KKTC’ye gelecek olan yeni öğrencilerin her hangi bir sıkıntı yaşamayacaklarını da işaret etmektedir.
Maraş’taki taşınmaz malların neredeyse tümünün sahibi olan Abdullah Paşa Vakfı ile Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakfının Türkiye’deki varislerinden şimdilik sadece 23 tanesinin, Avukat Aslı Aksu vasıtası ile “vakıf evladı” olarak tescillerine karar verilmesi için Ankara 25. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’nde tespit davası açması konusunda, AKEL’in Meclis Sözcüsü Nikos Katsuridis’in yaptığı yorum, tam bir saçmalık ve konudan ne kadar uzakta olduğunun güzel bir göstergesi.
Anlaşılan, AKEL’in en yetkili kişilerinden birisi olan bu Milletvekilinin, ağzından çıkanı kulağı da duymuyor. Konu hakkında uzaktan yakından hiçbir bilgisi olmadığı da kesin.
Eskilerde bir deyim vardı, “At Martini Debreli Hasan, dağlar dinlesin” diye. Uyduruk hikayeler anlatan ve söylediklerine kendisi de inanan kişiler için söylenirdi bu söz. Günümüzde ise “Desteksiz Atma” deniyor buna.
Güney Kıbrıs’ın en büyük ve 66 yıllık partisi AKEL’in Meclis Sözcüsü Nikos Katsuridis konu ile ilgili evvelki gün bir açıklama yaptı. Açıklamasında “Gerek Kıbrıslı Rum, gerekse Kıbrıslı Türk malı olsun, bir Kıbrıs taşınmazının talep edilmesi amacıyla Türkiye mahkemesine başvurulması, Kıbrıs’ta işgalin var olduğunun tanınması anlamına gelir” iddiasında bulundu ve söyleyecek başka bir gerekçe bulamadığı için de iyice saçmaladı.
Ne bilsin Katsuridis ki, Abdullah Paşa ve Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakıflarının iki tane kayıt ve tescil yeri bulunduğunu ve bunlardan bir tanesinin Ankara’da, T.C. Vakıflar Genel Müdürlüğünde, diğerinin de KKTC Vakıflar İdaresinde olduğunu.
Osmanlı devletindeki arşivcilik geleneğine hayran kalmamak elden değil. O denli düzenli ve güzel ki, inanılır gibi değil. Her evrakın üç kopyası çıkarılmış ve devletin ayrı ayrı birimlerinde ve şehirlerinde saklanmış bu evraklar.
Rumlar istedikleri gibi 1878-1960 yılları arasında evraklarda tahrifat yapıp sahtekarlıkla üzerlerinde Osmanlı mallarını geçirmiş olsunlar. Hiç fark etmiyor. Kıbrıs’ta bulunan evraklar ilaveten, Ankara ve İstanbul’da da birer orijinal kayıt belgesi bulunuyor.
Ankara’da tespit davası açan kişiler, Abdullah Paşa’ya anne tarafından akraba olan kişiler. Ailenin bir de baba tarafından gelen varisleri var. Her iki taraf da Kıbrıs’ımızın çeşitli yerlerinde binlerce dönüm arazi ve çiftlikler sahibi olan Çorlulu Ali Paşa Vakfı’nın ve diğer vakıfların mirascıları aynı zamanda.
Hak sahibi olabilmek ve Vakfın haklarını Mahkemelerde arayabilmek için öncelikle varislerin tespit edilmesi, sonra da Mütevelli heyetinin oluşması gerekiyor.
Türkiye’deki, 1925 Lozan Anlaşması ve 1924 T.C. Cumhuriyeti kurucu yasaları kökenli Vakıflar Yasası ile Kıbrıs’taki “Ahkam-ül Evkaf” ve Vakıflar Yasası birbirinden farklı uygulamalar ve işlemler gerektiriyor.
Türkiye’deki bir mahkemeden alınacak veraset ilamı, KKTC’de ve Kıbrıs Rum tarafında geçerli oluyor.
Ankara 25. Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi’nde avukat Aslı Aksu tarafından açılan davanın dilekçesinde, davacı 23 kişinin, soy ağaçları ve nüfus kayıtlarından 1636 yılı doğumlu Esseyid Abdullah Paşa’nın soyundan geldikleri kanaatine varıldı ve Mahkeme baş vuruyu kabul etti.
Davacıların nüfus kayıtlarına göre Abdullah Paşa’nın soyundan geldikleri ispatlandıktan sonra bu kişiler, “vakıf evladı” olarak tescil edilecek.
Tescil işlemi bittikten sonra, KKTC ve Kıbrıs Rum Yasalarına göre, bu varisler “Gallehar”larını, yani kira toplayan ve mülkü idare eden kahya veya kişiyi, veya bu günkü adı ile “Vakıf Yöneticisini” seçebilecek.
Vakıf Yöneticisi belirlenip seçildikten sonra, Abdullah Paşa Vakfı’nın, Türkiye ve Kıbrıs’ta bulunan vakıf topraklarının geliri, sevk ve idaresi konusunda söz sahibi olunacak.
Söz konusu 23 kişinin veya doğru tanım ile “vakıf evladı” olduklarının tespit edilmesi ve Galleharın seçilmesi durumunda, Arestis’e Taşınmaz Mal Komisyonu tarafından ödenecek tazminattan Vakıf resmen hak talebinde bulunabilecek.
Buna ilaveten KKTC Vakıflar İdaresi ile birlikte, ödeme kararı üzerine tedbir koydurabilecek, Mağusa Mahkemesinin tespit kararlarına tuta, Maraş’ta 1913-30 yılları arasında hile ile gasp edilen tüm mülklerinin tekrar sahibi olabilecek ve Rum kesiminde dahi tapu iptal davası açabilecek.
Gerçekler aynen böyle.
Ben ve ASAM Kıbrıs uzmanı Sema Sezer hanım, Maraş’taki söz konusu Vakıf mallarının, Mağusa Mahkemesi tarafından alınan Abdullah Paşa ve Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakıflarına ait olduğuna dair tespit kararından sonra KKTC Vakıflar idaresine Maraş’ta gasp edilen Türk mallarını sahiplenmesi için dava açtırmayı başaramayınca, bu “Vakıf evlatlarını” Türkiye’de bulup dava açmaya ikna edebilmek için yıllarımızı harcadık. Adeta iğne ile kuyu kazdık.
Nikos Katsurides istediği kadar işgalden bahsedip hedef şaşırtmaya çalışsın, artık pek bir şey fark etmeyecek. Zaten her toplantıda, ağzından “işgal” ve “yerleşik” sözleri eksik olmuyordu. Kendisine 1963-74 dönemini hatırlattığımda da dut yemiş bülbüle dönüyordu…
International terrorism came into being when terrorist activities began to be directed against diplomatic personnel protected by inter-national codes, international organizations or their representatives and against the peaceful relations bet¬ween states with international agreements; in other words, when terror began to be used to threaten more than one country or the interests of more than one country.
In the decision on international terrorism taken by the Ministerial Committee of the Council of Europe on January 24, 1974, terrorism is described as “posing a general threat to human life, freedom and security; affecting the lives of inno¬cent people unaware of the aims of the terrorist activities, and making use of unacceptable and evil me-thods.”
Meanwhile, the “European Convention on the Prevention of Ter-rorism” lays down that the offences mentioned in its first article cannot be considered political crimes or offences connected with political crimes.
The offences in question are attacks on personal freedom, on dip-lomats and on persons given international protection, together with armed attacks on individual life and existing unions.
However, the fact that some states, instead of fighting interna-tional terror, adopt a different approach tantamount to official recogni-tion of terror organizations has led to an inconsistency in practice which seriously threatens interna¬tional relations. Greece and Greek Cypriot Administration, or in another words the Hellenic world, is a good example to this concept.
The whirlwind of terror Greece tried to create in Anatolia was stopped by Turkey in 1922 by the National Liberation War and the genocide attempt in Cyprus launched by Makarios and the terrorist organisations EOKA and EOKA-B and developed by the Akritas Plan was stopped, again by Turkey, in 1974 by the Peace Operation.
The leader of the notorious Kurdish terrorist organization (PKK) Abdullah Ocalan, backed by the non stop support of Greece and Greek Cypriot Administration, conducted ruthless attacks to innocent civi-lians in Turkey from his bases in Syria and Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley as from Nov 1992. In October 1999, after Turkey very nearly went to war against Syria, Damascus backed down, closed PKK camps and expelled Ocalan. He went to Russia first and from there he moved to various countries, including Italy and Greece.
In 1998 the Turkish government requested the extradition of Öcalan from Italy, where he was located. Greece than was the only country which hugged him and wide opened the doors for his refuge.
What is certain is that in early February 1999, with no European country wanting to give him refuge, Turkey’s public enemy number one decided to fly to Greece.
Mr Ocalan enlisted the help of a retired Greek naval commander to get to Corfu.
When he landed in Corfu, the Greeks decided to take charge of matters. They knew Mr Ocalan’s presence in Greece would anger Tur-key, so the decision was made to fly him to Nairobi, Kenya.
He was finally captured in Kenya on February 15, 1999, whilst being transferred from the Greek embassy to the Nairobi international airport. He was holding a passport numbered CO15918, genuinely issued by the Greek Cypriot Administration to the name of Mavros Lazaros, with his picture on.
Historians of the late twentieth century and early twenty first century will no doubt pay much attention to the factor of terror, both within national boundaries and across them. Of course, terrorism has always existed, but it has never been so refined from the point of view of aims and methods as in our day.
And it should not be for¬gotten that states that support interna-tional terrorism in one way or another and seek to use it as a weapon of foreign po¬licy are themselves constantly in danger of being destroyed by the methods they support.
Britain won Cyprus as part of the break-up of the Ottoman Em-pire in 1914, and in 1925, it became a British Crown Colony after the approval of Turkey in Lausanne. But by then, Cypriots had had enough of being a pawn for superpowers and started agitating for in-dependence. Many Greek Cypriots wanted enosis, or unification with Greece. By 1950 the Cypriot Orthodox Church and 96 percent of Greek Cypriots voted “yes” in a referendum held for the enosis with Greece.
The Turkish Cypriots did not support the enosis idea of the Greek Cypriots and supported partition — taksim in Turkish – with a 100 percent majority.
In response to these demands of the two nations living on the isl-and, Britain proposed a new constitution, which was accepted by the Turkish Cypriots but opposed by the notorious National Organization of Cypriot Fighters (EOKA) of the Greek Cypriots, who wanted enosis and nothing else. This obsession of the Greek Cypriots led the island to face different disasters in the following decades.
So began a drawn-out guerrilla struggle by the Greek Cypriot na-tionalist organization EOKA against the British and the Turkish Cy-priots, the natives of the island.
The very first Green Line, originated from the famous US Mason-Dixon Line, was drawn on a simple map by a British colonel with a green pencil in order to set down the borders of Greek sectors and Turkish sectors in the town of Lefkoşa (Nicosia), the capital of the isl-and.
So was the first division of the island, in the year 1958, a long 16 years before 1974.
In the beginning of 1960, Greek and Turkish Cypriots had just emerged from a “liberation struggle” in which they were on opposite sides. There was no university or technical schools in Cyprus, no pri-vate business partnerships between Greeks and Turks and virtually no intermarriage at all. The one institution that was shared –the trade union — had been substantially (almost entirely) torn apart by the re-cent inter-communal clashes.
In 1960, after a bloody four-year campaign marked by violence between pro-enosis Greek Cypriots and pro-partition Turkish Cypriots, Britain retained sovereignty over two military bases on the southern shores of the island. Greece, Turkey and Britain all signed a treaty guaranteeing the new republic its independence.
There was, when Cyprus achieved independence in August 1960, no Cypriot nation at all — nor much sign of one emerging — despite the common experience of British colonial rule, which had left its mark on both nations and a common affection for the nature of the island.
Did a sovereign independent Republic of Cyprus solve the dis-agreements between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots? No.
The ongoing animosity between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots actually increased after 1960. In December 1963 the Greek militia and armed forces attacked the Turkish Cypriots to im-plement the changes in the three-and-a-half-year-old constitution. Severe fighting broke out after the Turkish Cypriots rejected proposals to amend the constitution, degrading them to a minority from the partner charter.
At that time there were Turkish quarters in all the main towns, and of the villages in 1963, 114 or about 18 percent, were mixed (though this was only a third of the number 70 years before). Even in the mixed villages, however, it was possible to tell which was the Greek and which the Turkish part. Intermarriage was almost nil and was normally frowned on by both sides. There were 392 purely Greek and 123 purely Turkish villages, but typically they were to be found cheek-by-jowl with villages of the opposite community.
The 230-year-old Megalo Idea obsession of the Greek Cypriots ended up in the partition of the island, with no hope of unification for the next 50 years. Recent polls indicate that more Cypriots on both sides of the line — Turkish Cypriots in the KKTC and Greek Cypriots in southern Cyprus — favor partition than reunification.
