Biz Türkler diplomaside, genelde ileri yönde ve doğru adım atmakta hep gecikiriz. Rumların veya Yunanlıların Kıbrıs konusunda yıllardır yaptıkları gibi karşımızdaki kişiler veya ülkeler, ileri doğru ve bize karşı bir diplomatik atak yaptıklarında aklımız başımıza gelir ve hemen savunmaya geçeriz.
Yanıt olarak biz de bir karşı hamle yaparız ve bize yöneltilen okları bir başka yöne çevirmeye, bu ataktan gelecek zararı savuşturmaya veya asgariye indirmeye çalışırız.
Siyasette çok geçerli bir sözcük vardır, “Gündemi belirleyen, Politikaya hâkim olur” tümcesidir bu.
Eğer gündemi bir başkası belirlemiş ise, size kalan o gündemin yarattığı dümen suyu içinde çırpınmaktır. Oluşturulan güçlü akıntının yönü bellidir ve siz artık bu akıntıya karşı kürek çekemezsiniz. Bütün çırpınışlar boşunadır.
Aresti davası da şimdi aynı aşamaya girmek üzere.
Aresti davası ile ilgili olarak AİHM’nin aralık 2006’da aldığı karara yapılan itirazlar Büyük Daire (Grand Chamber) tarafından reddedilince karar kesinleşti ve yürürlüğe girdi.
Bayan Aresti hemen Ankara’ya bir yazı gönderdi ve parasını talep etti. Burada dikkatinizi çekerim, yazı KKTC’nin yetkili makamlarına değil, Ankara’ya gönderildi.
Amaç, parayı aldıktan sonra hemen ve derhal Maraş’taki araziye geri dönmek talebi olacak ve Ankara’ya ikinci bir yazı gönderilerek “Ankara, Maraş’ı açta topraklarımıza geri dönelim” denilecektir bu mektupta.
Maraş’ın açılması talebi de, AİHM’nin bu kararına istinaden yapılacaktır. Türkiye’nin Maraş’ı açmaması durumunda da konu hemen ve derhal Lahey Adalet Divanına gidecek ve Türkiye’ye yaptırım kararı çıkacaktır.
Olacaklar belli.
Köyün minareleri gözüktü ve artık oraya gitmek için rehber istemez.
AİHM’nin Arestis davasında almış olduğu kararın ardından Türkiye’nin Arestis’in kapalı bölge Maraş’ta bulunan taşınmaz malına geri dönmesine izin vermesi konusu, önümüzdeki hafta içinde Strasbourg’ta yapılacak olan Avrupa Konseyi Bakanlar Komitesi’nin gündemine girdi bile.
Arestis’in bütün iddiası ve güvencesi, söz konusu toprak üzerindeki şaibeli mülkiyet hakkının da bu karar ile onaylanmış olması. Arestis bu iddiada.
Tabi, Arestis davası AİHM’de görüşülürken, söz konusu toprağın yalan ve dolanla Aresti’nin dedesi olan Mavrodi Haji Hambi Mavreli adına, 15.09.1913 tarihinde, Mülhak Vakıf olarak kayıtlara geçmiş Abdullah Paşa Vakfından sahtekarlıkla ve tapu oyunu ile gasp edilip adına geçirildiğine dair belgeler niye sunulmamış bu da ayrı bir konu. 2000 yılında Mağusa Mahkemesinde açılan tespit davasında söz konusu belgeler mahkemeye sunulurken, 2003, 2004 ve 2005 yıllarında AİHM’de Arestis’in iddialarına karşı yapılan savunmalarda bu belgeler maalesef sunulmamış ve bu yüzden de Arestis’e tazminat ödenmesi ve malının iadesi kararı çıkmıştır. Tarih bir gün bunların sorumlusunu elbet ortaya çıkaracaktır. Sıçan deliği bin para olacaktır o vakit.
Geç kaldık mı?. Hayır.
Daha hala geç değil. Yapılacak akıllıca işler ve atılacak stratejik adımlarla bu saldırı çok kolay savuşturulabilir ve Türkiye çok sağlam bir pozisyona getirilebilir.
Gazi Mağusa Kaza Mahkemesinin 271/2000 ve 272/2000 sayılı Davalarında verilen Tespit Kararları, Arestis’in mülkünün de içinde yer aldığı Maraş’ın %90’ının Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakfı ile Abdullah Paşa Vakfı’na ait olduğunu karara bağlamıştır.
KKTC Vakıflar İdaresi hiç gecikmeden KKTC Devleti ile Xenides-Arestis aleyhine KKTC Magosa Kaza Mahkemesinde derhal bir dava açmalıdır. Bu davada tapu kütüklerinin düzeltilmesini ve söz konusu taşınmaz malın Vakıflar İdaresine teslimini öngören Hüküm ve Emir alması gerekmektedir.
Bu davanın sürdüğü sürece de ara emri alarak, bayan Arestis’e tazminat ödenmesini ve söz konusu malına geri dönmesini durdurması gerekmektedir.
Böylesi bir işlem hem Türkiye’nin elini güçlendirecek, hem de Maraş’ta gasp edilmiş Türk mallarını sahiplenmiş Rumların AİHM’de açacakları davaların haklılığına şaibe düşürecektir.
Maraş’taki Vakıf mallarının Abdullah Paşa ve Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakıfları adına yeniden tescil edilmesinden sonra da, Kıbrıs konusunun seyri ve etkin parametreleri çok değişecektir.
Özellikle Direk Ticaret tüzüğünde, Mağusa limanının ortak çalıştırılmasına karşılık talep edilen Maraş’ın iadesi koşulu da ortadan kendiliğinden kalkacaktır.
Eğer Rum avukatların dediği gibi Maraş’ta gasp edilmiş Türk Vakıf Mallarının sahiplerinin sayısı gerçekten beş bin kişi ise, Abdullah Paşa Vakfı ile Lala Mustafa Paşa Vakıflarının talep edecekleri tazminat miktarı ortalama otuz milyar avro, tekrar sahiplenilecek mülklerin güncel değeri ise bundan onlarca kat daha fazla olacaktır.
Hadi KKTC yöneticileri, bu sefer geç kalmayın.
The decision in the Myra Xenides-Arestis case of December 2006, for which there had been an application for referral to the Grand Chamber by both Turkey and the applicant, has not been accepted and the judgment [of December 2006] became final. Concerning the ownership of this property, her grandfather, Mr. Mavrodi Haji Hambi Mavreli, managed to register illegally — probably with trickery, this property to his name on Sept. 15, 1913, in the land registry office of Cyprus, although it was already the property of a Mulhaq Vakf, named Abdullah Pasha.
After 35 years, on Oct. 5, 1949, he granted this property to his daughter Anna Mavroudi Haji Hambi and finally Mrs. Hambi granted this very property to her daughter, then Mira Xenidu, on Feb. 28, 1974.
This is a representation of the property fraud and spoliation that happened in Cyprus with regard to Turkish-owned land.
If the compensation for the violation of Mrs. Arestis’ property and home rights for the past 33 years is around 2 million euros, then the compensation for the past 94 years of spoliation should be around 6 million euros, plus interest.
The decisions of the Court of Famagusta, concerning the files 271/2000 and 272/2000, clearly state that around 90 percent of Va-rosha, in the Famagusta district, belongs to the Abdullah Pasha Vakf (Foundation) and the Lala Mustapha Pasha Vakf. The previously men-tioned property of Mrs. Arestis is also one of the lands owned by the Abdullah Pasha Vakf.
Surprisingly, the documents to prove the ownership of the above mentioned property were never submitted to the court by the KKTC authorities and the original deeds by Mrs. Aresti. She only claimed to be the owner of the property by submitting a document, written and stamped by the Ministry of the Interior, stating she was the owner.
During the British period, when the island was under Imperial governance, some of the properties, including the Vakf properties, we-ren’t properly registered in the Land Register. The then Government of Cyprus issued the “Registration and Valuation of Immovable Property (12/1907)” rule in 1907, to enable the registration of these properties.
While this law protected the rights of the properties owned by the Orthodox Churches, it contained some items against some specific type of Vakf properties, irrespective of the Protocol dated July 1, 1878 annexed to the Defense Treaty Agreement of June 4, 1878 and signed by Great Britain and Ottoman Empire and principles of Ahkamul Evkaf, which was in effect on the island since 1571.
Of course, while this new rule was put in effect without taking into consideration these contradictory items, the Ottoman Sharia Judicial System and Ottoman rules were still prevailing. This means that the properties owned by the Ottoman Vakfs all over the island of Cyprus, including the ones in Varosha, were still under the rule of Ottoman Land Law. The Principles of Ahkamul Evkaf are still in effect today.
Although this new rule (12/1907) was edited in the English lan-guage, all the relevant law terms used were in Ottoman.
Under this rule, item 29, which regulates the Vakf properties, gives the right of ownership to the lessees renting the properties of Arazi-Mevcoufe and Idjareten Mevcoufe type of Vakfs after possessing it for more than 10 years, if not claimed by the relevant Vakfs.
But both Vakfs, the Abdullah Paska Vakf and the Lala Mousta-pha Pasha Vakf are “Mulhaq” type of Vakfs and cannot be included in the item 29 of law 12/1907.
In the original title deed of Mrs. Aresti, the owner of the property is clearly written as “Abdullah Pasha” and this Vakf is classified as “Mulhaq Vakf.”
Not any rule in the island, either Ottoman or English, even today allows sales or granting of the Mulhaq Vakfs.
It is very obvious that the grandfather of Mrs. Arestis registered this property to his name illegally and against the rules and regulations of the Ottoman Empire, British Empire, Government of Cyprus and the Ahkamul Evkaf.
The Directorate of Vakfs of the KKTC, should take the case to the Court of Famagusta and have a court decision amend the ownership of the property unlawfully owned by Mrs. Myra Xenides-Arestis, and re-register it to the name of Abdullah Pasha Vakf, as it was originally.
She should then be prosecuted and asked for 6 million euros in compensation for the unlawful use of the property for the past 96 years.
In 1959 Turkey, Greece and Great Britain agreed on a formula to settle the Cyprus problem. It was obvious that Enosis (union with mainland Greece) was out of the question as long as the Turkish Cy-priots refused to accept it and Turkey supported them. A compromise proposition for “double Enosis” had been turned down by the Greek side, so the only remaining solu¬tion seemed to be “independence” for Cyprus.
After full consultations with the leaders of the two peoples, the Zurich and London Agreements were drawn up. The Turks and Greeks of Cyprus were to become co-founders of the republic and Enosis in any form was to be prohibited, with its prevention guaranteed.
The two peoples were to be auto¬nomous in their communal af-fairs, while participating in the central government on an agreed ratio of 7:3. A functional federation was thus established by the two people who worked together for 18 months in preparing the Cyprus Constitu-tion.
Archbishop Makarios became the first president of this bi-national republic. His first executive action was to appoint Polycarpos Yorgadjis, a notorious National Organization of Cypriot Fighters (EOKA) killer with a pathological hatred for Turks, as minis¬ter of the interior. Subsequently other EOKA leaders were also given key positions in the government. This was the first step toward the undoing of the newly born Republic of Cyprus and its independence.
It soon became clear that Makarios had never intended to pro-mote and support the bi-national Cypriot state. He looked upon it as a Greek state and ignored virtually all Turkish rights enshrined in the Constitution.
He made no secret of his intention to amend the constitution at any cost and to abrogate the international agreements that pro¬hibited union with Greece. To this end he authorized the formation of under-ground armies to carry out a planned program of action known as the Akritas Plan, which was drawn up by Tassos Papadopoulos, the so-called president of Greek Cypriot Administration since 2003.
On Nov. 30, 1963, Makarios confronted the Turkish wing of the Cyprus government with a proposal for 13 amendments that he must have known in advance would not be accepted. He relied on Turkish resistance to any changes in the Constitution, which had not yet been fully implemented because of the Greek Cypriots and which had only been in force for three years.
For their part the Turks were fully aware of the real intention be-hind the proposal. They had been following Makarios’s increasingly strident statements about Enosis since independence.
For example, on Sept 5, 1963, Makarios had told a Uusi Suomi correspondent in Stockholm, “It is true that the goal of our struggle is to annex Cyprus to Greece.”
Barely a month before the declaration of independence, in a pub-lic speech, Makarios said: “The agreements do not form the goal; they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will con-tinue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with their will. The Zurich and London Agreements have a number of posi-tive elements but also negative ones, and the Greeks will work to take advantage of the positive elements and get rid of the negative ones.” (published in the local Greek press on July 28, 1960)
The negative elements Makarios referred to were of course the rights and the status the agreements gave to the Turkish Cypriots and the provision that barred Enosis.
On Dec. 21, 1963, Makarios unleashed his secretly formed armed forces against the Turkish people. Greece was hand in glove with the archbishop in this new conspiracy to destroy the Republic of Cyprus.
Within a few days a wave of violence broke across the island. Armed Greek Cypriot bands, assisted by the Greek Cypriot members of the Cypriot gendarmerie and police, attacked Turkish Cypriot homes in villages and towns in a ruthless rampage of murder and vandalism.
These attacks lasted till 1974, when the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) stepped in to save the lives of the Turkish Cypriots.
