“It disregards and fully contravenes historical events,” government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said. “Such statements create problems in the ongoing dialogue, and to a considerable extent, it is statements like these that for years have hindered progress in the Cyprus problem.”Asked if the government intended to protest to the US, Christodoulides said: “the ambassador was expressing his personal positions; despite this, yes, the matter will be discussed with the American government.”
Koening made the comment during an open discussion at the University of Cyprus on Wednesday evening.
When one student brought up the issue of Turkish troops and settlers in Cyprus, Koenig said the US certainly did not support the occupation of another country, nor did it condone the practice of settling.
“The Cyprus conflict of course began 51 years ago and in that context of course it took a huge and tragic turn in 1974, and I am not in any way justifying what happened then, but it cannot be reduced to a problem of invasion and occupation,” he said. “That is in fact to ignore your own history. But I do not regard the Cyprus problem as a problem of invasion and occupation. If you don’t like it, I can’t help it. I do not regard that as the core of the Cyprus problem.”He then pointed out that the Greek Cypriot view was not necessarily shared by Turkish Cypriots and urged an honest inward glance as to why that might be. The ambassador was referring to the inter-communal strife that broke out on the island three years after independence.
The main clashes started in December 1963 although there had been violent incidents between the two communities even before the British gave up control of the island. The violence started after Archbishop Makarios proposed 13 amendments to the constitution, ostensibly to make it more functional following a deadlock in parliament caused by the vetoes of Turkish Cypriot legislators. There was disagreement and the Turkish Cypriots left their posts – they say they were forced out – in parliament and the government. By 1974, much of the island’s Turkish Cypriot population was living in enclaves, which started forming after 1963.
As expected, the ambassador’s statement infuriated Greek Cypriot political parties. House President Yiannakis Omirou described it as a “monument to insolence” and an “affront to American foreign policy”.
Main opposition AKEL said the statement was provocative and unacceptable.
Instead of trying to help the procedure, once more, the American ambassador makes it difficult with his misplaced statements.
“If the Cyprus problem is not a matter of invasion and occupation, then what are Turkish troops doing on the island for more than 40 years?” spokesman Giorgos Loukaides said.He also wondered why United Nations resolutions demanded the withdrawal of the troops.
“We do not need Mr Koening to convince us that the Cyprus problem has its internal aspect. From there however, to the claim it is not an invasion an occupation problem, there is a huge distance,” the party spokesman added.DIKO chairman Nicolas Papadopoulos said the ambassador made the claim because that was what the Turkish side considered.
EDEK said the government must immediately ask for the ambassador’s withdrawal.
The party said after his unacceptable and historically unfounded references, Koening was persona non grata.
Koening’s term ends this summer.
EVROKO said the statement caused grief, anger and disappointment to the Cypriot people, while the Citizens’ Alliance said he acted as an ambassador for Turkey and its expansionist designs.
The Green Party said it was not convinced Koening was expressing his personal position but rather that of the US government.
Posts
