The Turkish ambassador's letter (The Cyprus problem is not one of 'invasion', 5 September) by which he protests over the terminology used by your paper adds insult to injury. It is not the Guardian's style guide that needs amendment, as Ambassador Çeviköz claims, but rather the unacceptable status quo in Cyprus that needs to be rectified by Ankara. No euphemism can change historical facts, nor the reality on the ground. Since its invasion in 1974, Turkey has been stationing more than 40,000 troops in Cyprus, occupying a third of its territory, in blatant disregard of repeated calls by the UN security council.
Mr Çeviköz conveniently recalls only the rejection of the Annan plan in 2004, without offering any explanation for the failures of all previous attempts to reach a settlement over a period of 30 years nor for the efforts since then. For Turkey, it is as if time in Cyprus has started and ended on that very year. Needless to recall that the Annan plan was rejected in a democratic referendum, in accordance with its own provisions. I would sincerely prefer to address issues related to ongoing efforts to reach a comprehensive settlement. I firmly believe that a forward-looking, less confrontational and international law-abiding policy on behalf of Turkey, is the only way to reach a solution, securing peace and prosperity for both Cypriot communities, as well as for the entire region.
Alexandros N Zenon
Cyprus high commissioner
• The way the Turkish ambassador flicks between speaking of Turks and Turkish Cypriots is highly selective. If the northern region of Cyprus is indeed a self-governing democracy representing Turkish Cypriots, perhaps the ambassador could explain the presence of roughly one Turkish soldier for every two Turkish Cypriots, as well as a large population of settlers from mainland Turkey? One can surely be forgiven for thinking of that northern portion of Cyprus as more of an Anatolian colony.
Sotirios Hatjoullis
London
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.guardian.co.uk |
