---

Cyprus: Annan Plan

My Lords, as the two previous speakers have reminded us, it is well over a year now since the Turkish Cypriots voted by a substantial majority to accept the Annan plan and the Greek Cypriots by an even greater majority voted to reject it. In the immediate aftermath of those two votes—and thus also well over a year ago—the European Union committed itself to bringing the Turkish Cypriots closer to the Union by means of aid and trade measures. It is timely, therefore, for the noble Lord, Lord   Maginnis of Drumglass, to have provided the House with an opportunity, through this Unstarred Question, to take stock of where matters stand in respect of fulfilling that commitment, even if his speech did bear a passing resemblance to those history lessons I used to receive from Mr Denktash, sitting on his sofa.   He is now, of course, enjoying a well-earned retirement. It is important to recall that that commitment by the European Union was entered into by all 25 members of the enlarged European Union—that is to say, by the government of Cyprus too—because, although the decision itself was taken just before actual enlargement took place, it was during a period when the candidate countries already participated in EU decision taking and when they were fully bound by any such decisions. So far as I am aware—the Minister will enlighten us—there is not much, if anything, to show so far as fulfilling that EU commitment is concerned. Has any EU aid been committed, let alone disbursed, to the   north? Has trade between the north and the EU been facilitated? Have any of the obstacles to direct communications between the north and the member states of the Union been eased or removed? Above all, has the narrowing of that yawning gap between the prosperity of the Turkish Cypriots and that of their Greek Cypriot neighbours in the south—which was of course the basic objective of the commitment given by the European Union—been advanced in any way? I   fear that the answer to all of those questions is ““No””.   There has been a sorry tale of obfuscation and   obstruction in Brussels, with the government of Cyprus using the requirement for unanimity on the measures needed to implement the commitment to block every effort to honour it. It is argued by some tortuous form of logic that implementing the EU’s commitment would somehow reduce the incentive to the Turkish Cypriots to come to a settlement of the Cyprus problem, and yet during the   period in question the Turkish Cypriots have twice voted, in parliamentary and presidential elections, for candidates firmly committed to the early implementation of the UN settlement plan, which was endorsed by the European Union, and they have rejected candidates who wished to reverse that support. It is reasonable, therefore, to ask what the incoming British presidency of the EU intends to do about bringing an end to this impasse. Would it not make sense to sever the link between the aid and the trade measures so that European Union aid funds could rapidly be put to use to the benefit of the Turkish Cypriots? Is it not possible following Turkey’s acceptance of the protocol extending the provisions of its customs union with the EU to the new member states, including Cyprus, to find some imaginative way of freeing up trade all round—between Turkey and Cyprus, between the north and the European Union, and across the Green Line in Cyprus between the two parts of the island? Is it really impossible to find some way of establishing direct communications links between EU member states and the north without in any way altering or undermining the legitimate refusal of EU member states to recognise the TRNC as such? Surely in other parts of the world, such direct communications links do exist without recognition of the status of disputed territories. In addition to these questions, I have a specific further one about the recruitment of Cypriots to the staff of the various European Union institutions—the Commission, the Council Secretariat, and so on. Presumably this recruitment has been in full swing since Cyprus joined the European Union last May. Can the Minister say what proportion of the Cypriots who have been so recruited are of Greek-Cypriot origin and what of Turkish-Cypriot origin? Can she, moreover, confirm that any discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin between different Cypriot candidates would be illegal under European Union law and regulations? And can she give an assurance that no such discrimination has been, or is, taking place? All these matters are something of a temporary sideshow in comparison with the desirability, at some stage, of resuming progress towards a negotiated settlement on the basis of the Annan plan, which would permit a reunited, bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus to take its place within the European Union. Can the Minister say whether the government of Cyprus are still declining to give to the United Nations any indication of the priority points in the Annan plan which would need adjustment before they could support it? Is there any prospect of that unwillingness being overcome? And until it is, what point would there be in even contemplating a resumption of a negotiating process which would be only too likely to lead to a further setback to any hope of a settlement? As so often in the case of Cyprus, it is all too easy to fall prey to pessimism, to conclude that these matters are simply too complex and sensitive to hope for progress. I suggest that that would be a mistake. The European Union committed itself to the Turkish Cypriots last April, and it has so far been prevented from delivering on that commitment. This is hardly the moment in the European Union’s development when it can afford to be seen to renege on its obligations. Moreover, in October, with the opening of negotiations over Turkey’s accession to the European Union, a new door will be opened to the eventual settlement of the Cyprus problem. It is surely as difficult to envisage Turkey entering the European Union with the Cyprus problem unresolved as it is to envisage the Cyprus problem being resolved if the door to Turkish membership is slammed in its face. There is a great deal at stake in the months ahead, and I hope that the Minister will be able to speak of the opportunities as well as the difficulties and to send a message of encouragement to the Turkish Cypriots to stick with the strategic decision they have taken in the past two years to work for a settlement based on the Annan plan and to turn their backs on the rejectionist policies of their previous leadership. In conclusion, perhaps I may ask whether it is the intention to discuss all these matters with the president of Cyprus when he visits London later this month. That visit should surely provide an opportunity to dissipate the rather sour mood which has fallen on this country’s relations with Cyprus in the past year. I was very struck, when I visited the island in February for a Wilton Park conference on the future of Cyprus, how extraordinarily beleaguered and defensive the mood   had become. Even participation in a Wilton Park conference was seen by the government of Cyprus as a sign of surrender. But if progress is to be made towards settling the Cyprus problem, it is hard to see that happening if Britain and the government of Cyprus are not talking frankly and in a spirit of co-operation to each other and working together to move forward.