The Editorial (July 10), “Divided island”, on the reunification of Cyprus, attempts to shed light on the outcome of the latest round of peace talks on Cyprus, divided since 1974 when Turkish troops invaded, and subsequently occupied, a third of the island in gross disregard of international law and in clear violation of the UN Charter as well as relevant UNSC resolutions.
Nonetheless, a number of references and assumptions are misleading. For example, the references to the “Greek Cypriot”, Republic of Cyprus, “Turkish Cypriot state” and “Northern Cyprus” are unfortunate. The recent state visit to India by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Anastasiades, was enlightening enough in so far as India’s principled position on Cyprus is concerned.
The essence of the problem is not adequately reflected in the Editorial; that is, Turkey’s objective is not a truly independent Republic of Cyprus, “in control of its affairs”, without interference from third countries. Turkey’s objective is to control Cyprus, hence its insistence “on an indefinite Turkish military presence on the island.” This was the reason voters were reluctant to accept similar demands under the 2004 Annan Plan and one of the major stumbling blocks in the latest round of negotiations.
I would like to reaffirm the commitment of the Government of Cyprus to reaching a just and viable solution to the Cyprus problem within the framework of the relevant UN Security Council Resolutions, the Good Offices Mission of the UN Secretary General, and international law.
Michalis Hadjikyrou,
Chargé d’ Affaires a.i.,
Cyprus High Commission,
New Delhi
