Does he want the withdrawal of the troops as well?

[brother]

Does he want the withdrawal of the troops as well?


Under the above title Sener Levent writes the following in his regular column in Turkish Cypriot daily AFRIKA newspaper (04.10.05):

The Republic of Cyprus, they say, celebrated the 45th anniversary of the proclamation of its independence. Those who hear this ask: Which independence? Is Cyprus not under occupation? If it is under occupation what is this celebration for the independence? Until today where have you seen people under occupation celebrating their independence with military parades?

Neither Papadopoulos nor Christofias made a call to the Turkish Cypriots during this independence festivity of this republic. They did not say to them: Come take your place in this republic. They did not say: The 24 of the seats in our parliament belong to you. No one said that the Turkish Cypriots are one of the equal partners of this republic and that this partnership right continues. Only Mustafa Akinci said this. He said: Those 24 seats are our right. Even if this is a demand that came late, it is still a valid demand. Have the Zurich - London Agreements died? They have not! Is Turkey not continuing its rights of guarantee based on these agreements? Are the British bases not a result of these agreements? Is it not thanks to these agreements that the Republic of Cyprus not still exists?

Very well, everybody preserves his rights. Why do the Turkish Cypriots not preserve their rights? This is actually a question that should have been asked a long time ago. However, the Turkish Cypriots, who after 1974 began looting and plundering, preferred living in a puppet state under the patronage of Turkey, by putting aside their rights in this republic. They did not want to return to their rights in the Republic of Cyprus, because the conquest mentality of 1974 had a strong influence (on them). That is, the Turkish Cypriots must search the blame in themselves, if the Republic of Cyprus has been turned into a Greek Cypriot Republic for many years. Some Turkish officials, who say we have demanded this, but the Greek Cypriot side did not agree, are not telling the truth. If this right has really been demanded, there were reliable legal ways to seek it. If the Greek Cypriot side rejected it, why did we not recourse to the legal means? Has anyone taken the issue to the European courts?

The first who replied to Mustafa Akinci was Dimitris Christofias. First he explained what the return to the Republic of Cyprus means and then he made a wish. According to Christofias, this would mean the end of the occupation in Cyprus and the withdrawal of the troops. His wish was the following: Let the Turkish Cypriot leadership submit Akincis view and let us unite again under a common roof.

After this answer of Christofias, the following question could easily be asked to Akinci: Do you want the withdrawal of the troops and the occupation to end? Until today Akinci did not say that Cyprus is under occupation. He said many times that the political will of the Turkish Cypriots is usurped by Turkey, but he never used the word occupation. He did not also say that the Turkish troops should withdraw from the island before the solution. In this situation, I wonder, what answer will he give to such a question. Can he say: I want the demand of our rights in the Republic of Cyprus, but I oppose to the withdrawal of the troops? If he says this, will he not fall into an amazing contradiction? Is it possible on the one hand to demand your rights in the Republic of Cyprus and on the other not to accept that there is occupation in Cyprus? While Akinci demands the 24 seats, at the same time should he not oppose to the occupation of Cyprus by Turkey?

Look what the dervishes discussed between them:

When will the solution and peace come in Cyprus?

When the troops go away.

And when the troops will go away?

When the solution and peace come.

Is it not now the time for us to break this vicious circle?