---

Cyprus: Annan Plan

My Lords, I am sure that all Members of the House will agree wholeheartedly with the final sensible words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He followed three speeches that also displayed great wisdom. There was a hint in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis—to whom I add my thanks for launching this interesting debate—had been slightly more jarring and partisan in his remarks than was the case with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and that of the noble Lord,   Lord Faulkner of Worcester. However, one can   understand that in many ways; the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, is quite rightly concerned with the future development of proper international human rights for the people living in northern Cyprus, whatever the final political settlement is. One can compare the long agonies of the Israel/Palestine dispute with the dispute between Turkey and Turkish northern Cyprus and the official republic in the south of the island. Many painful and pessimistic suggestions have been put forward regarding which is the worse of those disputes and which stands the greatest chance of being solved in the near future. There are enormous differences as regards those two disputes and therefore I shall not draw a prolonged comparison between them. However, the United States has foolishly and unwisely imposed its own vetoes far too many times on the sensible resolutions of the UN Security Council. For understandable reasons the United States built up Israel into an unbeatable military power in the Middle East, with nuclear weapons, but then did not insist as a quid pro quo that Israel should negotiate a proper, longed for peace with the Palestinians. The United States insisted on taking leadership in that complex matter. Surely there are similarities between the position of Israel and that of the republic in the south of Cyprus. All the support that that republic has been given by so many people should surely impose a significant obligation on it to do that which is right. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, inferred, the republic should show leadership within the European Union framework rather than the negative attitude that is sometimes shown in various discussions on the EU’s very commendable but so far frustrated attempts to offer means to reduce isolation in the north. An increasing number of disturbing property disputes are now occurring. They are fomented by all sorts of forces although in many cases we are not sure who they are. The property boom in the north was fuelled by the panic in the press on both sides of the dividing line that a settlement would not be reached for a long time and therefore people might as well get on with taking property purchasing decisions. Foreign Office advice has been given regularly with regard to property transactions in Cyprus. The Foreign Office advised after 1974 that where authentic transactions had occurred involving legitimate and genuine owners there should not be a problem. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, referred to his own experience in that regard. However, it is crazy for people to fall for glossy estate agents’ brochures and purchase properties in the north without proper title. That situation is even affecting commercial businesses such as the illustrious Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank, which is involved in a dispute regarding its branch in Kyrenia. That branch has been subject to a notional rent for many years but suddenly a dispute has arisen in that regard. The advice of the Foreign Office—namely, caveat emptor—is right but it clashes with basic human rights. There must be ingenious ways of trying to marry up the two matters. The attempt to revive talks on reunification under   the UN framework led by Sir Kieran Prendergast has already been mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was the British Special Representative in Cyprus for a while. He exhibited heroic patience in that role, which he did not mention today. We thank him for the work that he did in trying to reach a settlement. We were all confounded, disappointed and amazed by the results of the twin referenda last year. The disappointment felt in this country and elsewhere regarding the result in the official republic was enormous. In Greece as well, many Greeks were upset about it. For the first time, with the removal at long last of the rather heavy and oppressive hand of ““Uncle”” Denktash—a blessed retirement, as has been said—there was suddenly much more freedom in the north. I noticed on my visits that the younger population there is not at all imbued with the old thoughts of isolation, separation and, indeed, domination by Turkey itself and the excessive presence of Turkish military force. Those people wanted to get together with the south. All those were great opportunities, but then we had the disappointment of the southern result. I do not intend to be discourteous to President Papadopoulos or to his government; he is a very distinguished man. However, in this country, there is still enormous disappointment on the matter. We look to the government of the Republic of Cyprus to bring forward new proposals to show that they are serious about reaching out to their confreres—their brothers and sisters—in the north in all the ways in which it can be done. There have been human contacts on a larger scale than before; that has to be acknowledged. Many people in the republic want their own government to act in that way. If we have more and more nationalism and confrontation on both sides, things will not be successful at all. The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Commons was itself critical, more so than the Government’s reply, although the Government mainly disagreed with what the committee said in paragraph 2, I think. I quote deliberately from the report, because it has to be a warning to the republic that it now has the obligations from EU membership to act responsibly, as an EU member state has to do under the international codes drawn up within and across the frontiers by the European Union’s instruments of legal co-operation. Paragraph 2 states:"““We conclude that there is as yet little evidence that the Republic of Cyprus has fully taken on board that its membership of the EU involves obligations, as well as opportunities. We recommend that the Government work on a bilateral level, and with its European partners””—" we are beginning our own presidency of the Union—"““to encourage Cyprus to adapt to European Union values and methods of working””." That is regarded as unfair comment by some, including the Government in their reply, but elsewhere the Government very much support the suggestions in that excellent report. This is an opportunity. Britain has a significant role to play. We are often inhibited. We have made some sensible suggestions such as giving up more than half of the sovereign base areas, if that comes out in the context of an international agreement. There are many other suggestions that we can make. We should not be too shy, because rational and moderate members of the population on both sides of the green line would like us to act, as would Greece and Turkey. People no longer want Turkey’s putative future entry to the Community to be seriously affected by the dispute. The Cypriots on both sides of the divide must recognise that. I need to refer rapidly to a number of other things, because our party is very keen to endorse any efforts in this House, in the other place, and by the United Kingdom Government at the start of the presidency to   get the beginnings of a solution. We support the Annan plan and Mr Prendergast. Direct flights to the north need to be considered; perhaps the Minister will have time to refer to that. The demilitarisation steps that have been regularly enunciated as sensible proposals should be returned to as a strong thematic input into a future settlement. Also important is the return of Turkish settlers and soldiers. I believe that I am right in saying—I am happy to be corrected—that many of those settlers came to the northern republic not on a permanent basis, but on a temporary basis to see what it was like. That reality has to be taken into account. My final comment is on the awful question of the   trafficking of women in Cyprus. That too needs government attention here and in the republic. We urgently need the views of people in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which remains an illegal republic not sanctioned at all by any international agreements, as at least two noble Lords mentioned with emphasis. Turkey must recognise that. With all those difficult elements coming together, we have to be optimistic in the future. Is it limited optimism, the classic definition of which is a 95 year-old man who gets married for the fifth time and buys a new house near a school, or is it stronger optimism? It has to be stronger, because the future welfare of that part of the European Union depends on the two entities coming together in future.