Anyone flipping through
cable television channels with his or her remote control has
undoubtedly come across programs about British and other retirees from
Northern Europe seeking to escape the harsh climate where they live by
venturing to one of the well-known vacation spots along the
Mediterranean coast. The difficult problem that these buyers face is the
soaring prices of properties over the last decade in places like
Marbella, Spain, the French Riviera, or Italy's Amalfi Coast, which
leads many to look for more economical alternatives. As a result, many
European buyers after 2002 have been flocking to Northern Cyprus, where a
villa with a swimming pool can be bought at discount prices.
The main legal question
that is not addressed with this new European property boom is the legal
status of the area where these new homes are being built. It should be
recalled that in 1974 the Turkish army invaded Cyprus, which had been an
independent state since 1960 and took over 37 percent of the island.
Tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots were expelled in this period in what
they viewed was a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing by the Turkish
army. In the aftermath of the invasion, the U.N. Security Council
adopted Resolution 353 which demanded "an immediate end to foreign
military intervention" and called for "the withdrawal without delay from
the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel."
The Turkish Cypriots
declared their independence in 1983 by forming the "Turkish Republic of
Northern Cyprus," an act that the U.N. condemned as "null and void."
Over the years, an estimated 160,000 "settlers" who came from Turkey
moved into Northern Cyprus. In many cases, properties that had been left
behind by Greek Cypriot refugees were given by the Northern Cyprus
administration to Turkish Cypriots and to the Turkish settlers, who sold
them to European buyers. To date, some 5,000 British citizens have
purchased homes in Northern Cyprus despite it being a clear-cut case of
an "occupied territory." According to a BBC report, as many as 10,000
foreigners have bought up former Greek Cypriot properties in Northern
Cyprus.
Is there any basis for comparing Northern Cyprus to the situation with the West Bank?
A number of glaring
differences stand out. First, Israel entered the West Bank in a war of
self-defense in 1967 when it faced an Arab war coalition that was
massing forces along its borders. In contrast, the circumstances of the
Turkish invasion were very different. Turkey did not face imminent
attack from Cyprus, but rather was concerned with intercommunal tensions
in Cyprus.
Second, there was no
established sovereignty in the West Bank in 1967 that Israel violated;
there was no Palestinian state while Jordan's claim to sovereignty was
rejected by most of the international community except for Britain and
Pakistan. Moreover, there were earlier Jewish rights under the British
Mandate, which never expired. Looking at the Cypriot case, prior to the
Turkish invasion in 1974, the Republic of Cyprus was the undisputed
sovereign over the entire island, including the area of Northern Cyprus.
Finally, the
resolutions adopted by the U.N. Security Council in the two conflicts
were very different. In the aftermath of the Six-Day War, the U.N.
Security Council adopted Resolution 242 which did not call for an
Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it captured as a result of
the conflict. The resolution suggested that the old armistice lines be
replaced with secure and recognized borders.
Yet in the case of
Northern Cyprus, the U.N. did not qualify its demand for a Turkish
withdrawal by allowing, for example, the Turkish military to remain in
even part of the island. Looking at these different considerations, it
appeared that the international community should have judged the dispute
over Northern Cyprus far more severely than the way it viewed the
dispute over the West Bank, where Israel had multiple rights that it
could exercise if it decided to do so.
However, in practice,
that was not the case. As usual, on Dec. 10, the European Union declared
yet again that it was "deeply dismayed by and strongly opposes Israeli
plans to expand settlements in the West Bank, including in east
Jerusalem." Its statement made wild charges that Israeli construction in
E1 "could also entail forced transfer of civilian population."
It finally added that
"the European Union reiterates that settlements are illegal under
international law and constitute an obstacle to peace." Ironically,
while the EU releases harsh statements of this sort against Israel for
any construction activity in West Bank settlements, it has nothing to
say about tens of thousands of Turkish settlers that have moved into
Northern Cyprus.
Nor are European
governments condemning their own citizens who are seeking to build
beachfront villas with swimming pools in territory that is technically
still under Turkish occupation. European governments have warned their
citizens that former Greek residents of Northern Cyprus may initiate
legal proceedings in European courts against those who take over their
properties. But there is no objection being stated in principle against
European citizens moving into these territories in order to build
vacation homes.
How does international
law apply in these situations? There is a long-standing dispute over
whether Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for the protection
of civilians, should be understood narrowly as prohibiting an occupying
power from forcibly transferring its population into an occupied
territory (the traditional Israeli and U.S. view) or should be
interpreted broadly so that it even prohibits an occupying power from
letting its citizens voluntarily move into an occupied territory (the
European and Arab view).
But the European foreign
ministries cannot have it both ways: they cannot condemn Israelis who
build homes in the West Bank for violating international law, while they
approve, in principle, or are at least silent about Turkish settlers
and their European business partners who benefit from the lands Turkish
Cypriots have taken over, as they develop what has been one of the
hottest Mediterranean real estate markets for Europeans seeking a place
in the sun.
No comments:
Post a Comment