PROF. R. ERGEC(l): I'd like to make some remarks on what Dr. Heinze said about confederation. He said something very interesting. If I understood him correctly, he said that Cyprus constitution of 1960 did not create a unitary state, did not create a federation but created confederation. Why? Because he said nothing happened on the Island without the consent of both parties; each party has the right of veto. Decisions should be taken by unanimity. Now, I would like to draw a parallel with Belgium, because Belgium is, people think that in fact say Belgium is a confederation, but the Constitution of Belgium, Art 1 says that "Belgium is a federation" but if you look carefully at the way the Belgium federation functions, it is in fact a confederation for the same reasons as those developed for the Cyprus constitution of 1960.

So, when we talk about confederation, it must not be a taboo subject. It is very important. When we have, in a given territory, two competences which should cooperate on an equal basis, the confederal structures become inescapable. Thus, what I would like to know is, if Mr. Heinze agrees with my remarks and the second question Mr. Chairman, the right of self-determination now people... When you have a state, a component of that state cannot secede because it is forbidden by the constitution of that state and that also international law which does not allow such secession. If you have a federation this is generally accepted but confederation is different.

DR. CHRISTIAN HEINZE: To the first question, I am afraid I did not make myself hundred percent clear. My point was that in my view, there was no state founded or established in 1960 for the simple reason that a state is only there, when you have in certain basic decisions concerning the organization, the material political values of the state. A decision of a homogenous body and we need a power that is above and stronger than any other power which is inclined or which could be inclined to cause civil strife so it is because these two elements were not given in 1960 that no state existed at all and states were created only when in defined territories these two requirements were fulfilled in each of them separately; so I did not say that a confederation started. The idea of confederation I used, or the idea of it I used, is in another context. I said when the third parties that are England, Greece, and Turkey agreed to have to help to create the state, I mean they could not really create it. As the facts have shown, they were not really willing to use their power to make the state work but they agreed on the idea that among themselves they would guarantee and they would wish this state with the constitution of 1960 to function. I made the point; I said you couldn't force anybody to agree. So, what's left? They don't agree when one uses the notion of agreeing or disagreeing. One thinks of at least two entities this was the context in interpreting the treaties of 1960 not the state of Cyprus. State of Cyprus was proved to be non-existent in 1963 because it lacked the basic prerequisites of the state.

Now, the other question about self-determination is a very difficult one and I think in self-determination one has to distinguish firstly the self-determination of the state. A state belongs to the sovereignty of the state to be self-determining. I think this is undisputable. But the question of self-determination arises in the context of a wish to separate. So, in this context, it has another source, another basis, and another political basis and must refer to the individual self-determination. If it is not, if we don't talk of self-determination of a state, the only alternative is that we talk about individual self-determination of people. Now if you want individual self-determination, the only way to have it is democracy by majority. There is no possibility to envisage a body politic in which every individual has the possibility to determine his own fate. There will always be... that are against his interests that one has to obey. So, there is no such thing as complete individual self-determination.

The only possibility closest you come to self-determination is democracy. Democracy is the idea of majority The idea of majority and democracy functions only within a homogenous body. There must be a people as a body. People is a very difficult notion. Let's say a body that is homogenous enough so that everybody can be content with the idea that the majority rules, which means, purifies among other, that he feels he can form part of the majority. Majorities change, have to change. One time I am a part of the majority, another time I am not. This requires homogeneity so if we have a situation where such a body win come about like in Canada, probably could I don't know, where in a certain territory you find this homogeneity, this body by democratic means we decide we want to be a state, we want to govern ourselves as a state, that is okay. This is in line with the traditional, general and correct theory of the state. But there are instances where this simply is not possible to work and this is where you have the inter-medient population later you do not have, or where you do not have the possibility of homogeneity of the sort. There is no, absolutely way of common self-determination cannot be. It is impossible. So, to answer the question of secession finally from the general theory of state, secession is only possible when you have this homogeneity an9 of course secession also requires that previously there was the state where I argue was not the case in Cyprus. So, it wasn't a question of secession there. But even if there was a state, secession would be possible, it has it would have come about because now you have homogenous populations, societies, in certain defined territories. Who actually exercise self-determination in the democratic way. Now there is another question involved of course in secession, and that is the constitutional question. It is another thing if you have a constitution like in Canada which works-where you have the state you have the sovereignty-secession would probably be forbidden by this constitution and the question arises whether there is still a possibility for secession? I should say from the constitutional point of view, of course does not exist everybody who attempts will be punished, he will be the traitor, but if there is a revolution and the revolution succeeds permanently, and you establish a new state, the illegality transforms into constitutional legality.

PROF. ERGEC: Within the Canadian Supreme Courts reasoning under the constitution.

PROF. HEINZE: No, not under the constitution. It is a new constitution, it is a revolution.

PROF. ERGEC: The Supreme Court applied the principles of Canadian federal constitution and there is clear majority. The federal Government has to negotiate.

PROF. HEINZE: So, he interprets the Canadian constitution as one you have a true federation and components of the federation form actually states that can decide to secede.

PROF. DR. DELCOIGNE: Any other question?
QUESTION: I have a question for Mr. Olgun. You said before that one of the preconditions you have for the solution of the Cyprus problem is that the Greek Cypriots represent no one. They don't represent Turkish Cypriots.

OLGUN: They represent themselves.

QUESTION: Yes, they represent themselves. Wouldn't that defeat the Island's road for accession to the European Union? Because if they don't represent Turkish Cypriot interests, this would entail deep destruction and the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus. So, now the Republic of Cyprus made and application in 1994 for accession. Wouldn't that statement delay Cyprus' accession to the EU? Wouldn't that cause confusion? Wouldn't that prove contrary to the Turkish Cypriot interests as well? And finally, don't you think that the last negotiating tool for Greek Cypriots to find a peaceful solution to the problem because they have been victims of this problem like 200.000 refugees in 1974? Don't you think that delaying Greek Cypriots and with the presence of 18.000 troops on the Island? Don't you think that the Greek Cypriots would be very naive to abandon their last negotiating tool, which is accession to the EU? And if I am right, and that is the Greek Cypriots' last negotiating tool, perhaps it is probably the Turkish Cypriot community which is loosing time at present by pushing forward for confederation instead of federation of course the distinction as used may... People find a mutual agreement on the term but I think the EU accession would be a catalyst for both solving the problem and accommodating all.

OLGUN: Thank you. Of course when you say 'EU accession will be a catalyst', it depends on how you look upon EU accession. If you are looking upon EU accession as a Greek Cypriot led process, fhen what you say, from your perspective, would be OK. But I don't think that this is the priority issue in the island of Cyprus today. And I don't think that, if we focus on leverages and negotiating tools and work on the basis of how we are going to use these against the other, we will, achieve any settlement of the Cyprus issue. The focus on negotiating tools imply to me that you would be working on a win-loose kind of approach; a zero-sum approach. I do not think we can have a settlement with such a mentality. At this juncture, I think, a problem solving approach, whereby the two parties' basic needs are equally satisfied through negotiations, would be more appropriate. This is unfortunately not the case today for the Greek Cypriots. Unlike the status of the Turkish Cypriots, their status is clear and defined. They now have recognition, to them this is no problem. Turkish Cypriots are still in the limbo and they naturally want to see their status defined, so that they will know as what they will be engaging in a ELJ process. So, it is important to provide the same opportunity for the Turkish Cypriots, if we are really interested in an approach that will be problem solving. This means embarking on a journey together in which we will not be trying to hurt each other but we will see ourselves as partners, real partners. This is what we would like to see in the Island. That is the Turkish Cypriot strategy today. The Turkish Cypriots are not interested in hurting the Greek Cypriots in any way, shape or form. Why should they? The idea is for you to keep your identity, your security needs to be satisfied, your statehood is there and has to be respected, but at the same time the Turkish Cypriots, your previous partners, want to satisfy the same things. You have to make it possible for them to do that. If taken up in this context, I don't think that, regarding your first question, the Greek Cypriot application would have been wasted. Two comments on that: the island of Cyprus does not only mean the Greek Cypriot side. The Turkish Cypriots have their own economy which also needs to be aligned to the EU. They have their own equal political status, which needs to be respected by the EU and by the Greek Cypriot side. We need a process of alignment like you. So, I would rather say that if a political decision was made in Cyprus regarding some kind of agreement on the way forward together, based on the fact that we have two states and two peoples committed to linkages through agreement, the EU will be more then prepared to immediately process a joint EU membership application of the "confederation". So, I don't think that we will need to start from the back of the queue if and when the time comes.

But may I also add that our two mother countries are part of the system we are operating in. We cannot forget that Turkey is a crucial element of the system and we cannot divorce the EU membership process of "Cyprus" from Turkey. That has to be kept in mind as has been explained by the previous speakers. Turkish Cypriots would be under threat and would not accept a situation where Greece as a member ofEU has the means to come and buy properties in EU member Cyprus, in the South or in the North, and have all the advantages of a member state, while Turkey will be left out and the Turkish Cypriots will be left defenseless under those circumstances. Such a position is perceived by us as a position of ill intent.

QUESTION; (The same person) Yes, but you now say that Turkey's interests have to be accommodated in Cyprus in term ofEU membership. How is that to happen taking into account that Turkey realistically and optimistically will take 15 years to become a EU member? How do you intend to accommodate such a Turkish interest?

OLGUN: What I am saying is that with the kind of perspective that we see from the Greek Cypriot south today, including the behavior of the Church, it is going to take many many years before we resolve the conflict in Cyprus and are ready for membership together. The case ofKosovo is there vividly. We have not even been able to establish a property claims commission. We have not been able to exchange property. We have asked for this to be formed. We have not even started yet and you are imagining that all of a sudden miraculously, we are going to forget all our traumas of the past and resolve our differences in a few years. I don't think this is possible. We would need to live this through. It is going to be very painful. Together with the very difficult intangibles, we need to address the tangible issues like aligning our political systems and economies. We have to start today and it is going to take many years. The Turkish Cypriot economy has to align itself to the European Union and to the South. How many years do you think that is going to take? Do you think that we would simply expose ourselves to all your competitive advantages without preparing for the challenge? Surely not. So, we need transitional periods. Even when we decide that we will work together in Cyprus for certain common objectives, the Turkish Cypriots cannot accept a less advantageous position for Turkey in Cyprus as compared to Greece. If they did they would have destroyed their own pillar for security.

QUESTION: (The same person) Mr. Olgun, with your philosophy and policy, we will see a Cyprus joining the EU when Turkey will be ready to join. Because you haven't answered the question how Turkey's interests will be accommodated on Cyprus and the EU. If it cannot be accommodated that Cyprus in this decade and it will never be accommodated and what Turkish Cypriots would be doing, perhaps under the pressure of Turkey, is buying time until Turkey reforms itself so that it can be a member simultaneously. Is that pertinent?

OLGUN: No, I disagree with you in the sense that you are putting the cart before the horse. What I am saying is, if you believe that the future of Cyprus is a united Cyprus, Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots together, then we have to agree on the terms of togethemess as a priority. Instead you are putting EU membership as a priority in front of me. We cannot accept that. We are saying that first we have to put our house in order. Once we do, EU membership can be tackled in the context of the process that will devolve before us. At this juncture, I am very careful not to say in black and white, what can happen in the future. All I am saying is that one of our main security elements is the fact that we cannot allow Turkey to be at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis Greece. How can this be secured? We will have to think of ideas and ways of achieving it. What I am saying is, let's start in our house Let us do what Europe did after the Second World War, in our house. Let us build the culture of partnership. Let us feel that we need each other, that we are destined to share the island of Cyprus and develop institutions that will make it a possibility. If we put other things before this, it is going to obstruct and to prejudice what we are doing at home. This is all I am saying.

QUESTION: (Same person) Perhaps the Turkish Cypriot community's priorities at the moment is to accommodate Turkey because if I take the example of Germany, when Germany was reunified, they had the problem of alignment to the acquis communautaire. Couldn't that. be the same case in Cyprus? With transitional periods in everything? But I don't think that is the aim. The aim is to accommodate Turkey's interests with your own philosophy.

OLGUN: I think we have to give a chance to others to ask questions as well.

QUESTION: (Same person) Sorry, sorry but this was my final question.

OLGUN: OK. You have your own set of realities, Turkish Cypriots have their own I cannot blame you for what you are saying on the basis of your realities. However, what I am saying is that Turkish Cypriots have their own objective reality. They have been pushed into an isolation for 37 years. The only country, which has extended its hand to the Turkish Cypriots, is Motherland Turkey and it is because of Turkey that the Turkish Cypriots have survived the 37 years. The Turkish Cypriots cannot give their card, the only card they have, for free. They will cling to it for as long as it is necessary, for their self preservation and security. This is our reality and we have to accept these realities and develop, maybe, other joint ones in the future. We are not trying to impose this on you, but, we cannot accept your reality to be imposed on us. What we are saying is that for mutual benefit we have to change from where we are today and move toward something new. That something new has to satisfy both your vital interests and our vital interests. All I am saying is that our vital interests necessitate that we cling to Turkey because, that's where we breathe and that is where we open ourselves to the outside world.

M. GEORGE ZODIATES (l): I think it is just fair to say that I work in the Cyprus Delegation here in Brussels. I would like to thank you for this lecture. However, I should like to point out that in a sense this is one-sided. The distinguished speakers presented mainly one side in Cyprus in a way trying to sell the whole idea of confederation... However, organizing this kind of debate, the voice of the other side should be heard as well.

There are two issues that I would like to raise. I was struck by the fact that none of the speakers referred to the Republic of Cyprus. Some of them denied the existence of the Republic of Cyprus all together in the beginning. Some of them simply ignored. Some of them simply referred to the Republic of Cyprus as a Greek Cypriot administration. Then, I think I would like to point out that in this issue that the views expressed on the Republic of Cyprus whether we like it or not is not shared by the international community. Let's not forget that the international community has expressed itself on this Cyprus issue, on the Cyprus Republic. It is internationally recognized by all states and all international organizations with one exception. Turkey doesn't recognize the existence of the Republic of Cyprus as its legitimate Government. I would simply like to remind that none of the speakers have referred to UN Security Council resolutions, particularly 451, 550 which make clear the position of the UN on the status of the Republic of Cyprus and its legitimate Government. One could say, "Well, these are politics. Politicians are playing with the best interests of them. Recognizing the Republic of Cyprus is just politics." Let me remind you that it is not just politics. We do have four appeals by Cyprus against Turkey decided by the European Commission of Human Rights. We also have the latest decision of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg on Loisidou case, which clearly rejected the argument, put forward by the other side that as the new separated administration in Northern part of Cyprus and held Turkey responsible whatever happened there; and in this particular case Turkey was found responsible for human rights violation and was asked to pay a certain price.

Embargo? I simply like to point out two things on embargo; it is something the Government of the Republic of Cyprus imposed on something on the existing situation, the Northern part set up its own administration. In this regard, I would like to remind that this is a decision of the European Court of Luxembourg 1994, which clearly states that certificates issued by authorities of the Northern part cannot be recognized because they are not legitimate. Now turning to the European Union; I don't want to keep arguing because you can keep arguing...

OLGUN: This is going to be more than my talk, I think.

M. GEORGE ZODIATES: I'll finish. I won't take much more time. For the EU, it's clear that if we keep on arguing whether Turkish Government has the right to veto application definitively. The fact is, we are going on with the negotiations. Two things that these new prospects can change the dimension of the Cyprus problem. I am, we know what the prospects are for the people of Cyprus. We might only be able to achieve that end.

We really think that by taking up the invitation to participate in the negotiations, this would give the Turkish Cypriot community the possibility to present its views and with the accession for the whole of the Island will at the end of the day will be to the benefit of the whole Island.

DR. MANGO: Very very briefly on the question of the legality of the United Nations. UN resolutions don't change white into black and black into white. It is as simple as that. When the Greek controlled Republic of Cyprus was recognized with certain reservations at the time in 1964 these were serious reservations about the status of the Island. Greek Cypriots are very intelligent in getting UN resolutions, but it doesn't change the essence of the situation that the Greek Republic which rules over the Greeks in the Southern two-third of the Island has no jurisdiction in the North whatsoever. And that is the fact of life.

OLGUN: On the subject of providing equal opportunities in this conference, I am not the conference organizer I am invited here. What I can say is that to hear this coming from a Greek Cypriot is astonishing for me. Because it is us who have been deprived for 37 years from having equal opportunities in international fora. Maybe it is the first time you have been confronted with such a situation and you are sort of angry. But please don't be selective about these principles. If you want to apply a principle, first apply it to yourself and then naturally we will have equal opportunities in all fora around the world. I will note what you said here and will challenge you if this promise is broken.

On the subject of embargoes, let us not hide behind cliches and resolutions. Your embargoes on the Turkish Cypriot people start from 1964. Your reference is to the 1994 ruling of the ECJ. There are embargoes imposed on the Turkish Cypriot people 30 years before that which are still continuing. Let us not forget about those. Furthermore it is the Greek Cypriot side and Greece who have together engineered the ECJ ruling of 1994.

On the subject of UN resolutions, we have a serious problem today. The fact is that to this date we have not been able to resolve the Cyprus issue and that we are looking for new ideas. This conference is about new perspectives, about new ideas as to how we can better deal with the problem. This conference did point out to new perspectives as to how we can move forward. As Professor Mango has pointed out, you are not the Government of the Turkish Cypriots and you cannot be. You may have one thousand resolutions, yet, you are not the Government of the Turkish Cypriots. Furthermore, before the resolutions that have been quoted, there is an international treaty which says that you cannot be the Government of Turkish Cypriots. That international treaty makes the Turkish Cypriot people an equal party in Cyprus. Furthermore, you cannot be selective about UN Resolutions and hide behind them. Other resolutions say that, the relations of the two communities is not one of majority and minority but of two political equals. All I am saying is that we need to put all these arguments behind us. If we continue with the blaming, I don't think that we will be able to open the way to the future. We have to be aware that zero sum approaches that have existed on the Island to this date cannot prepare the kind of future we would like to see. UN Resolutions have contributed to the sustenance of a zero sum status quo. What I am saying is that the Turkish Cypriot side is prepared to change the current stalemate. In spite of the embargoes and other unilateral Greek Cypriot initiatives, the Turkish Cypriot side has made the win-win confederation proposal. We are not seeking additional advantages for ourselves. So, basically let us move away from the failure strategies of the past. We need new strategies to change and there are some ideas on the table today that we can build on.

---------------------------------------------------

(1) Prof. Rusen ERGEC, Professor of International Law and Constitutional Law, Universite Libre de Bruxelles; Former Director of the European Studies Institute (U.L.B.)
(2) Counsellor at the Greek Cypriot Mission in Brussels