By Michaela Koller
ROME, JUNE 2, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Benedict XVI’s upcoming apostolic visit to Cyprus, which begins Friday, will be one of his most politically charged trips, says an expert in the island nation’s history and international law.
ZENIT spoke with Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, a professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, who is also an expert on the Cyprus issue, about the political and legal aspects of the upcoming apostolic visit.
Although Father Federico Lombardi, director of the Vatican press office, has explained that the Pope is going to Cyprus primarily as a visitor and a pilgrim, several media sources are speculating on the impact of the Pontiff’s visit on the island’s political situation.
The Holy Father plans to meet with Archbishop Chrysostom II, leader of the Cypriot Orthodox Church, while on the Orthodox-majority island.
Another Orthodox bishop, Metropolitan Athanasios of Limassol, expressed the expectation in the Cypriot newspaper Phileleftheros that the visit of Benedict XVI would be related to the national issues.
The Orthodox Church of Cyprus has been auto-cephalous, or self-governed, since the 5th century, when it became independent of the Patriarchate of Antioch after the Council of Ephesus.
Its foundation is mentioned in the Bible, in the Acts of the Apostles (13:4-13). In the year 45, the Apostle Paul, accompanied by Barnabas and Mark the Evangelist, arrived at Salamis and traveled to Paphos, a place that Benedict XVI will also visit.
The success of this mission made Cyprus the first country under Christian governance, as the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, was the first Roman official to convert to Christianity.
Much later, as Catholic kings took the throne of Cyprus, the Orthodox hierarchy was oppressed, until 1571, when the Ottoman Empire conquered the island and made the Orthodox Church the only legal Christian church.
From the 17th century onward the Orthodox hierarchy was also given political leadership of the Christian people in Cyprus, collecting taxes for the empire and dealing with other matters. The archbishop of Cyprus also held the position of an «ethnarch,» the leader of the people.
In the 20th century the church on the eastern Mediterranean island was still strongly involved in the secular policy of the country.
The first president of the Republic of Cyprus was Archbishop Makarios III, one of the predecessors of the present leader of the Cypriot Church, Chrysostomos II. It was his diplomacy that opened the way to independence. He resisted the Greek military regime (1967-1974), which intended to extend itself to Cyprus. After this, Athens instigated a revolt against him, which was taken by Turkey as a pretext for the invasion.
In this interview with ZENIT, de Zayas explains how the situation with Turkey has still not been resolved, and is still a cause of political instability as Benedict XVI prepares to visit.
ZENIT: Benedict XVI will travel to Cyprus on Friday and stay there until the Sunday evening. According to the published program no stay in the northern part of the island is scheduled. How do you see this decision from the point of view of international law?
De Zayas: Pope Benedict would give the wrong signal if he were to visit Northern Cyprus.
Turkey illegally invaded the Republic of Cyprus in 1974 and occupied 37% of its territory.
Now, 36 years later, Turkey continues to occupy Northern Cyprus in breach of the U.N. Charter and numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions, while pretending to escape responsibility by setting up a puppet State and puppet government, the so-called Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), an entity that is not recognized by any State other than Turkey and which has been declared
illegal by the Security Council.
In 1974 Turkey expelled 200,000 Christian Cypriots from Northern Cyprus, a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), for which it has been repeatedly condemned.
As long as Turkey continues to disregard U.N. resolutions and judgments of the ECHR, it would be a mistake to grant the TRNC indirect recognition by an official visit by the Vatican. Such diplomatic discretion would be appreciated by the Christian population of Cyprus.
ZENIT: On April 24, 2004 three quarters of the population in the Republic of Cyprus acknowledged by international law voted against the so-called Annan plan, by which the United Nations tried to solve the Cyprus conflict. Did the Greek Cypriots have good reasons for this?
De Zayas: Annan had very little to do with the plan that bears his name. This fundamentally flawed plan was not the product of democratic negotiations with the Cypriot people, but a top-down imposition reflecting the interests of some countries, notably Great Britain and Turkey.
In the light of international law, the plan violates the principle of self-determination and countless resolutions of the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly.
It would have been truly surprising if the Greek Cypriots had accepted a plan that essentially set aside the previous U.N. resolutions and accepted the illegal invasion of Turkey in 1974, allowing impunity for the crimes and injustices that ensued.
Moreover, the «plan» did not provide for the full implementation of ECHR judgments, the right of the expelled Greek Cypriots to return, the right to full restitution and compensation, but would instead have allowed a large proportion of the 130,000 illegal Turkish settlers to remain in Cyprus, in violation of article 49 (6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.
ZENIT: Ecclesial monuments, cemeteries and monasteries in the northern part of the island were destroyed by the Turkish occupants and valuable sacred treasures were sold illegally. Are there chances for reparation?
De Zayas: Thanks to Interpol a certain number of mosaics and other sacred objects stolen from churches and monasteries in Northern Cyprus have been found and returned to the Republic of Cyprus.
According to international humanitarian law and numerous UNESCO conventions and declarations, the cultural heritage of a people must be protected from destruction and, if destroyed or damaged, reparation must be paid.
It is sad how little the Council of Europe and the European Union have done in order to persuade the Turkish authorities to restore the property of the Cypriot Patriarchate.
ZENIT: Has the European Union membership since May 1, 2004 lead to relaxation in the whole situation?
De Zayas: Hardly. Although Cyprus is a member of the European Union, it is still subject to considerable political pressures from Great Britain and other States with vested interests in Cyprus.
It is disconcerting that the European Union has started negotiations with Turkey concerning its potential membership, without demanding that it fully implement the judgments of the ECHR, return Greek-Cypriot properties, restore churches and monasteries, withdraw its illegal presence in Cyprus and its recognition of the puppet TRNC.
I am not sure that time is working in favor of the Republic of Cyprus, because the European Union is an economic and political entity that applies international law à la carte and, as proven by the case of Cyprus, only gives lip service to the principles of article 6 of the Treaty on European Union: liberty, democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law.
ZENIT: You are also experienced in issues of the protection of minorities and ethnical groups. Benedict XVI will encounter some of the few thousand Maronites. Their cultural identity and language, as the Cypriot Arabic, is seriously endangered. The village of Kormakitis in the northern part of the island, from which most of the Maronites have been expelled, has been a center for this dialect. How can it be re
scued?
De Zayas: Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 guarantees the rights of minorities and imposes an obligation on States to ensure that minorities can enjoy their culture.
This entails the need for affirmative action. If properly implemented, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of 2005 and the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages of 1992 should provide the necessary protection.
Ultimately it is a question of political will and mechanisms of enforcement.
The Church can play a role in giving a voice to the Maronite minority.
[Translation by ZENIT]
