There is no separate justice to a shared tragedy

Alkan Chaglar (archive article - Sunday, July 29, 2007)

IN A SPEECH made last week on July 20, Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat thanked the Turkish Army for its ‘peace operation’, urging Turkish Cypriots to fight for “Turkish Cypriot Human Rights” and to continue the “Turkish Cypriot struggle”.As if their struggle or fight for human rights was different to that of all Cypriots, Mr Talat erroneously elevated Turkish Cypriots as the sole victims of the Cyprus problem, insensitively and recklessly ignoring the enormous suffering and decades of pain brought about by the invasion for those Cypriots of Greek, Armenian and Maronite origin. What is sad is that Mr Talat’s speech was made just as the United Nations were still exhuming the bodies of Cypriot civilians taken from their families and murdered in 1974. Steering dangerously towards ethnocentric bias, Mr Talat exposed a familiar yet extremely contradictory and dangerous trend of thinking among the Turkish Cypriot community – Exceptionalism.As a Cypriot but above all a human being, I felt disturbed by Mr Talat’s rhetoric. Precisely what are “Turkish Cypriot Human Rights”? Does the term “human” not sufficiently cover Turkish Cypriots as far as Mr Talat is concerned? According to the preamble of the UN General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948, human rights is the “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family.” And my perception is that Turkish Cypriots, like Greek, Maronite, Armenian and Latin Cypriots are an integral part of that human family. So why would anybody with any degree of good will attempt intentionally to set up their community above this universal rule?Perhaps while preaching selective human rights, Mr Talat was oblivious to the suffering of Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots? But if this is the case, should he not refrain from dismissing suffering he has not personally witnessed himself? To take you back in time, the invasion was no ‘peace operation’. Over 200,000 Cypriots (a third of the population) were displaced and had to seek shelter in makeshift tents, thousands of innocent civilians were killed, thousands more injured and nearly 2,000 are still missing even to this day, while those who perpetrated these killings – whether Greek or Turkish Cypriots – are still free today. Since then, Christian places of worship have been desecrated, cemeteries destroyed, homes looted, land stolen and built over, while the island remains heavily militarised. Is this the ‘peace operation’ Mr Talat is so grateful for? For a leader who led the Turkish Cypriots to vote for peace and reunification in 2003, and for a politician who prided himself on his dialogue with Greek Cypriot leaders, Mr Talat’s justification of the invasion is totally insensitive to the common suffering during this period and more importantly, a contradiction to the claim that he seeks dialogue and peace. Claiming that “the aims of the July 20, 1974 operation are completely in line with the peace oriented Settlement Plan of the United Nations”, and treating the past inter-communal conflict as a pretext to a brutal invasion and a collective punishment of Christian Cypriots, Mr Talat attempted in his speech to maximise the suffering of his community while dismissing and ignoring that of other Cypriots communities. But such a game of blame, politics is fruitless. Mr Talat should realise that for every Turkish Cypriot story of injustice, there is a Greek Cypriot one. So what purpose is served other than division and distortion by the singling out and attempt to create the impression that one group of people, sui generic, are the sole victims of the Cyprus problem? Unquestionably in my mind, the main issue ought to be not how we best present ourselves as victim and convince the world of it to seek their pity, but how can we now come to terms with what has happened and reconcile with the aim of a lasting peace. Regrettably, Mr Talat is not alone in this exceptionalist way of thinking. Many Turkish Cypriots, among them self-styled human rights defenders, unashamedly and illegitimately assert the historical necessity the 1974 invasion and war crimes in the wake of attacks against Turkish Cypriots. Contradicting their own struggle for human rights, they subscribe to the extra-judicial view that one crime can be cancelled out by another, and thus they direct their compassion selectively. With more interest in blaming the Greek Cypriots, while desperately turning the tables around in a bid to reassure themselves of their righteousness, they snap: “What about our suffering!” “Why don’t you write about our atrocities committed by the Greeks?” But Turkish Cypriot refugees like my family know only too well their own suffering at the hands of a few Greek Cypriot militiamen, they do not need to be reminded of it, nor do they need to reconfirm it. No amount of repetition by Turkish Cypriots will address any of the injustices, but we can learn from our own errors and hope that Greek Cypriots will learn from theirs by openly and frankly admitting and talking about them. And yes, these include crimes committed by our ‘saviours’ and by our own irregulars against those we blame. As a community, we talk of “embargoes” on our community, but how about our embargoes on Greek, Maronite and Armenian Cypriots from returning to their homes? In the Republic, the custodian of Turkish Cypriot properties pending a solution protects Turkish Cypriot properties, yet our ethnocentric bias has led us to sell Greek Cypriot properties to tourists. While mosques are generally kept in good condition in the Republic, we desecrate churches, remove and sell their crosses and artifacts and use them as barns. Still there are Turkish Cypriot human rights activists who will argue, ‘but Turkish Cypriots were refugees in 1964!’ So was this crime justification for another crime? Can they try and explain this extra-judicial way of thinking to the entire world?Mr Talat demands the lifting of ‘embargoes against the right of Turkish Cypriots to trade and fly directly into Ercan’, but refuses to return Varosha to its 30,000 owners. Is the right to sell items such as potatoes in his view more important or more urgent than lifting the embargo we impose on Greek, Armenian and Maronite Cypriots from the right to return to their homes, the right to a school for the enclaved Maronites in their language, the right for information on the missing? Mr Talat obviously believes these issues can wait another 33 years. It is great to see where his priorities lie in terms of human rights.Echoing a distorted history of events, fighting for selective human rights together with an unashamed ethnocentric bias to one’s own community amounts to moral corruption and is not a solution to the Cyprus problem, nor is it a road map to peace. Above all, it demonstrates our inability to acknowledge the suffering of others caused by our own ‘saviours’ or irregulars, and exposes just how much Cypriots under-value the suffering of those with whom they seek dialogue for peace. Turkish Cypriot human rights and their struggle for justice is no different from those of other Cypriot communities. Calls for restoring these rights are just, but must be achieved within a wider solution that will benefit all Cypriots. Seeking a separate justice to a shared tragedy by focusing solely on Turkish Cypriot human rights is highly contradictory and will only entrench division.