Displaced persons in Cyprus


Material Information

Displaced persons in Cyprus
Physical Description:
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Special Study Mission to Cyprus
Eilberg, Joshua
McClory, Robert, 1908-1988
United States -- Congress. -- House. -- Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. Govt. Print. Off. ( Washington )
Publication Date:

Record Information

Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 22386382
System ID:

Full Text

94th Congress XITEPRN 2d SessionC0 ITEPIN



-' JAN :





PETER W. RODINO, JR., New Jersey, Chairman
JAMES R. MANN, South Carolina CARLOS J. MOORHEAD, California

In my role as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law, which has general jurisdiction over refugee matters, I have been deeply concerned over the tragic consequences of the hostilities which occurred in Cyprus in the summer -of 1974.
Serious humanitarian problems resulted from that conflict and it, is apparent that they will not be fully resolved until a just and peaceful solution to the Cyprus issue is reached.
More specific ally, the plight of some 200,000 persons displaced, by military hostilities has not been satisfactorily resolved and little progress can be expected until there are "good faith" negotiations regarding the issues of territorial readjustment, resettlement and sovereignty.
Because of my concern, and in order to discharge the oversight responsibilities of my subcommittee with regard to refugee problems, I travelled to Cyprus on May 12, 1976, after participating in the deliberations of the Executive Committee meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) in Geneva, Switzerland.
My visit was followed one week later by that of the Honorable Robert McClory, who spent several days reviewing all aspects of the Cyprus problem. Representative McClory's valuable report, which gives a keen insight into this complex problem, is set forth in its entirety in this committee print.
In addition, at my direction, the subcommittee staff made an investigative trip to Cyprus in November of last year in order to obtain a first-hand view of the situation.
During each of these study trips, there were extensive meetings and discussions with: William B. Crawford, U.S. Ambassador to Cyprus and other U.S. Embassy officials; representatives of the U.N. 'High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) ; representatives of the United Nation's Forces in Cyprus (UNFICYP); officials of the International Committee of the Red Cross (JCRC) ; and officials of both the Government of Cyprus and the Turkish authorities.
In particular, I had the opportunity of meeting with the following individuals during my brief visit: Mr. K. Lyonette, Acting Chief of Mission, UNHOR; Akrchbishop Makarios, President of Cyprus, the Israeli Ambassador to Cyprus as well as the U.S. Ambassador and his staff.
A detailed listing of the meetings held by, and activities of, Representative McClory can be found later in his report.
The subcommittee staff met with the following individuals during their earlier visit: Roman Kohaut, UNHCR, Chief of Mission: R. Hoffman, ICRO, Chief of Mission, and Alain Lenartz, Deputy Chief; Osman Orek, Minister of Defense, Government of Cyprus (VicePresident and Minister of Defense of the Turkish Authorities);


George Pelaghias, Director General, Ministry of Foreign Affairs; and Achilleas Kallimachos, Acting Director, Special Services for the Care and Rehabilitation of Refugees. Ministry of Labor, Government of Cyprus; and Petros Paris, Camp Director, Nicosia Stavros Refugee Camp.
In addition to these formal meetings and discussions, Representative McClory and I, as well as my staff, observed and inspected various refugee camps, housing projects and villages which were either abandoned or destroyed during the hostilities. We also took this opportunity to speak with many persons who resided in the temporary "tent camps" which were established. During the trips, interviews were conducted with public officials and private citizens in both the Turkishoccupied and government-controlled areas.
It is my hope that this report, based on our field investigation of this difficult problem, will be of value to the Members of the Judiciary Committee and will assist them in the exercise of their legislative responsibilities regarding this subject.
Chairman, Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and International Law.


Foreword ---------------------------------------------------------iii
Introduction -------------------------------------------------------I.~~~~ Bcgon inomtn-----------------------------------------34
I. Background information ....D 1. International relief efforts ----------------------------------- 5
A. United Nations Peacekeeping Force on Cyprus (UNFICYP) 5
B. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) 5
C. International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) --------------- 7
D. Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM) 7
III. Relief efforts-Government of Cyprus ----------------------------- 8
IV. U.S. relief efforts ----------------------------------------------- 9
V. Problem areas:
A. UNHCR's role in Cyprus -------------------------------------11
B. Greek Cypriots in Turkish-controlled area ---------------------- 11
C. Colonization and Turkish troops -------------------------------12
VI. Report of Hon. Robert McClory, -CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC 13

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2013


The July 1974 conflict in Cyprus had a devastating impact on the people and economy of that country. It produced massive population shifts and resulted in a "1de, facto" partitioning of the country, with .a Turkish-occupied area in the North comprising 40 percent of the land area of the entire island.
Thousands of families were uprooted by the hostilities and almost
-one-half of the total population intially required some form of relief assistance. Those in need included: Greek Cypriots displaced to the South; Greek Cypriots remaining in the North; and Turkish Cypriots remaining in the South and to a much lesser degree Turkish Cypriots displaced to the North. The primary concerns of these displaced and needy persons at that time were to obtain adequate food, shelter, medicines, and other necessities of life.
The international community and the United States immediately responded to these needs and the International Committee of the Red Cross became operative in Cyprus in August 1974 to provide relief assistance and to protect the civilian population.
This report will focus on these human consequences of the Cyprus crisis, and will briefly discuss some of the social, political, and economic problems stemming from the 1974 hostilities in that country.
It will also assess the changing needs of the Cypriots with the passage of time and examine the programs of humanitarian assistance which have been established for the Cypriot refugees.

The sequence of events which led to the current situation in Cyprus is well known and consequently will not be recited in detail in this report.
Suffice it to say that the coup d'etat by the Greek National Guard and the subsequent Turkish military intervention had a devastating effect on the lives of the Cypriot people and on the economy of that island.
Since July 1974, the Turkish authorities have occupied and maintained control over the northern portion of the island, with the asssistance. of Turkish military forces, ranging from a maximum of 40,000 to approximately 28,000 today.
As a result of the Turkish invasion, a substantial percentage of Greek Cypriots living in the North, particularly in the Kyrenia area, were displaced from their homes and fled or were transported to government -controlled areas in the South. While most were able to find refug~oe in the homes of relatives and friends, many thousands were unable to locate suitable shelter, as of November 1975, the number of people residing in temporary tent camps was about 17,800. In facet it was estimated that initially there were approximately 200j000 Cypriots who were in need of food. shelter, medicine and other essentials of life. It became clear that the Government of Cyprus was unable to provide the necessary assistance.
The flow of displaced and needy persons (Greek Cypriots to the government -controlled area in the South and Turkish Cypriots to the Turkish-occupied area in the North) continued at a high level for many months and at the time of the subcommittee staff's visit in November 1975 the estimated refugee breakdown was as follows:
Greek Cypriots:
Persons displaced In the south------------------------------- 183, 100
Of which receiving assistance---------------------------- 3$4, 600
Persons not displaced but needy in south----------------------- 14,.300
Persons in the north receiving assistance----------------------- 10, 100
By Housing:
Living in tents--------------------------------------------- 17. 800
Living In shacks ------------------------------------------ 7,700
Turkish Cypriots receiving assistance in the south--------------------42)
Turkish Cypriots receiving assistance in the north---- -------------- 40, 100
Despite resource limitations. the Government of Cyprus undertook immediate relief efforts and did a commendable job in providing food ,supplies, temporary housing, water and medical facilities. Tt soon becam, e apparent, however, that international asistance on a large scale would be required. Cotnseouentlv. shortly after the invasion, the U.N. pence-keeping force ( UNFICY-P) and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRO) joined in the effort to respond to the htimanitarian needs of the Cypriot people.


One month later, on August 20, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugee (UNHCR), in response to appeals by the Government of Cyprus, was designated by U.N. Secretary General Kurt Waldheim to coordinate U.N. humanitarian assistance for Cyprus.
In addition to the hunumn tragedy on Cyprus, the turmoil and the "de facto" partition of the island caused severe economic problems for both the Greek and Turkish-Cypriot communities. While the Turkish authorities gained control of 40 percent of the territory, the TurkishCypriots comprised only 18 percent of the island's population of 650.00u at the time of the invasion. As a result, there was an acute shortage of manpower in the Turkish-controlled area. There were few who could successfully operate the factories, manage the hotels, or cultivate and harvest the crops in the North. The effect on tourism and agricultural production was therefore substantial.
The government-controlled area, on the other hand, consisted of many acres of underdeveloped land, as well as rugged and mountainous terrain. As such it was not as economically productive as the land in the Northern portion of the Island. Because of the inability to ,bsorb the vast influx of displaced Greek Cypriots from the North, severe unemployment resulted and many departed from the Island in search of temporary employment. There was also a serious shortage of produce and dairy products in the South which made it difficult to provide adequate food supplies for the Greek Cypriot refugee population.
This critical economic situation continues. However, the importation of workers from mainland Turkey (a subject which will be discussed later in this report) and various reforestation projects in the North as well as increased cultivation and industrial projects in the South, have somewhat alleviated the economic difficulties in both areas.
Further. housing was not a significant problem in the Turkish zone, since the Turkish Cypriots were able to occupy the homes of the Greek Cypriots who fled to the South. On the other hand, the provision of adequate shelter for the homeless Greek Cypriots in the South became an extremely serious problem due to the larger numbers involved and the o1rcial and personal reluctance to occupy those homes which had been abandoned by the Turkish Cypriots. There were several possible reasons tor this initial reluctance: (1) fear of retribution in the event of a Tilkish takeover of the Tland; (2) occupation of Turkish Cynriot homes could he interpreted as an official recognition that nartition was inevitable or as an indiention that ethnic Greeks would not he returnimr to their homes in the North: and (3) bnuse of the snbtnndard condition of mannv of these abandoned residences the Greek
-vnrints in temporary refnfe camps preferred to await the construction of new permanent housing.
The economic and human consequences of the Cyprus conflict have beon a continuing concern of the ntern.ntional community and concern particular of the United States Government. The remainder of this report will detail th relief effort ts which were mounted to respond to this traedv and will discuns the progress which has been made in ameiorating the plight of the Cnypriot people.

In 1964 the UN Security Council created UNFICYP to act as.a peacekeeping force in Cyprus and to maintain a climate which would be conducive to establishing a lasting peace in that country.
In order to maintain UNFICYP, approximately $27 million 'is required annually and the U.S. contribution to these forces has been substantial.
Following the July 1974 conflict in Cyprus, UN Secretary General. Waldheim appealed for increased contributions to UNFICYP which was required to expand the size of the force in order to respond to the situation. At the time of staff's trip to Cyprus in November 1975, there were approximately 3,000 persons serving UNFICYP composed of troops from Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Sweden., and the United Kingdom. The U.S. contribution to JUNFICYP in fiscal year 1975 was $9.6 million. In addition to its routine activities of maintaining peace and insuring the security of the civilian population on Cyprus, UNFICYP also delivered food and relief commodities to the Turkish and Greek Cypriots and assisted both the UNHCR and ICRC in providing various forms of humanitarian relief assistance (i.e. evacuating the sick, pregnant and aged, in both zones; providing medical evacuation services). In addition, UNFICYP currently patrols a neutral area or buffer zone commonly. called the "green line" between the Turkish-occupied and governmeytcontrolled sections of the Island. -.
As noted previously in this report, UN Secretary General Waldheim requested- the UNHCR on August 20 to assume responsibility for coordinating UN humanitarian assistance in Cyprus. On August' 22 the UNHCR traveled to Cyprus to assess the situationand issued an appeal on September 6 to the international community for contributions. At that time it was estimated that approximately $22 million would be required to provide the necessary assistance for the remainder of calendar year 1974. The financial contributions provided' by more than 40 governments in response to that appeal (both in cash and- in, .kind} amounted to approximately $24.5 million, of which the U.S. donated $7.8 million. These funds were used to provide the foowin types of relief assistance: emergency accommodations, food supplies; transportation; domestic and community equipment; and program support and contingency reserve.
A second appeal was issued in January 1975 for $9.3 million for food and medical supplies, and other relief programs in both the Turkish-occupied area and the government-controlled area. The period covered by this appeal was January to April 1975. Once again th United States contributed one-third to the total amount requested in the appeal-$3.1 million.


It should be noted that the 'UNHCR is not functioning in its tradi-tional role in Cyprus since relief assistance is being provided to "displaced persons" rather than "refugees" as defined in the UNHCR mandate. Nevertheless, at the personal request of the UN Secretary General, tbi mandate was expanded in order to respond to the crisis, and all concerned parties on Cyprus have on several occasions requested the UNHCR to maintain a presence on the island beyond the original termination date. Another important distinction is the fact that the UNHCR's activities now include economic development rather than emergency, short-term relief and rehabilitation assistance.
As a result, the UNHCR's role on Cyprus has been on
several occasions. Nevertheless the U.N. Secretary General has agreed that the UNHCR should continue to channel international assistance in Cyprus for the time being because of the requests which have been made repeatedly by all interested parties.
Discussions with UNIJR officials, revealed that some international organization would be required to provide continuing assistance in Cyprus but questions were raised as to whether the INHCR should be involved in providing long-term economic and developmental assistance.
According to UNHCR officials, funds are distributed based on the following criteria: (1) the number of those in need; and (2) the nature and extent of their needs. In other words, allocations are not made solely on the basis of the refugee population or population ratios, but rather on the basis of a flexible distribution formula. Expenditures are authorized only after agreement is reached with both the Turkish authorities and the Government of Cyprus. In summary, both the UNTHCR and the ICRC operate in a non-political fashion and attempt to provide relief on the basis of "need" rather than allocating such an aid according to a predetermined ratio of the Turkish Cypriot and Greek population.
During a meeting with Roman Kohaut, UNHCR Chief of Mission, the following categories of relief recipients were described: 1) displaced persons; 2) persons not displaced but in need; and 3) those residing in the north.
One of the issues that has been actively discussed is whether relief assistance should also be provided to those persons who were displaced or disadvantaged by events which occurred in Cyprus in 1963 and 1984. The Turkish authorities have consistently maintained that such individuals should also be eligible for aid on the grounds that it i ill ical to restrict assistance solely to those who were affected by the 1974 hostilities. Despite this constant criticisms, the Turkish authorities have acquiesced in the manner in which relief funds have been allocated to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities on the basis of displacements resulting from the 1974 hostilities. The future role of the UNRIll in Cyprus is now in question. but there is little likelihood that there will be a long-term presence of the TIMICR in Cyprus because the UNTICR's normal function is to respond to emergency situations. Some have questioned the propriety of the UN.TIC's current operation in Cyprus and have argued for a

phasing-out of its activities. Nevertheless, all are agreed that some organization should continue to channel humanitarian assistance from the international community and there is ample justification for continuing to "internationalize" such assistance to both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots
The primary concerns of the ICRC in Cyprus have been: treatment of detainees; protection of civilians; tracing missing persons; and other humanitarian matters such as providing food, shelter, and medical assistance.
The ICRC was the first international organization to respond to the humanitarian problems in Cyprus and despite the later designation of the UNHCR as the prime coordinator of UN relief activities, the ICRC continued to provide food and medical supplies in order to supplement the UNHCR's relief program.
Over the last year ICRC has attempted to phase out its initial relief activities and at the beginning of this year it was only handling humanitarian cases rather than operating general relief programs. In fact, at the time of the staff's visit, ICRC was no longer an operational organization but was essentially providing "moral security" to the international relief programs which had been established. It was indicated that ICRC would continue to consider some of the problems confronting Greek Cypriots who remained in the north such as the availability of education and medical services. According to ICRC officials, no problems were encountered in obtaining suitable access to the Greek Cypriots in the north, and this position was also shared by the UNIJR officials who were interviewed.
As mentioned earlier, one of the primary responsibilities of ICRC shortly after the conflict was attempting to locate missing persons. The total number of persons who have not been located as a result of the conflict ranges between 1500 and 2000 and this represents one of the most tragic aspects of the 1974 hostilities. According to ICRC all leads in these cases have been exhausted. Likewise no precise statistics are available concerning the number of persons who died during the 1974 conflict, but one official of the Government of Cyprus estimated the number to be about 5,000.
It is indeed disturbing that more accurate data could not have been obtained on the dead and missing: but ICRC officials indicated that the chaos and confusion which followed the Turkish invasion of the island impeded the efforts of ICRC's Tracing Agency in securing better information.
Practical relief efforts through emigration were also examined. It was learned that upon the initiative of the Cypriot government, a selective migration program to Latin America was established for Cypriots desiring to emigrate to that area.


This was accomplished through the cooperation of the Intergovernngntal Committee for EurQpean Migration (ICEM), an international emigration and refugee org anization active in a number of emergency refugee situations over the past twenty years, which was initially established to assist the large number of displaced and distressed persons in Western Europe after World War II. Since that time, its programs functions and activities have been revised periodically to meet emergent refugee problems which have arisen around the world.
In N ovember 1975, an official of the Ministry of Interior of the Government of Cyprus was placed at the disposal of ICEM to recruit eligible and qualified applicants for this program which is designed to place, transport, and assist in the resettlement of Cypriot nationals.
Experience has shown that the selective migration program to Latin America has proved extremely difficult to attract qualified applicants. Thus far. sixty applications representing 149 persons had been received. Of these, five Cypriots were moved to Argentina and ten cases are presently pending approval for Brazil.
SAlthough a tentative allocation of $200,000 had been included in U.S. Aid Funds administered through the United States Embassy, the Government of Cyprus did not approve the use of these funds for this purpose. Consequently, there are currently no United States funds involved in this migration program. However, it is anticipated that in the near future the Government of Cyprus will make available $200,000 to ICEM for a loan program to assist Cypriot emigration.
Canada and Australia have ongoing emigration programs in Cyprus (in which ICEM is participating) and an expansion of the Australia program is expected in the near future. Recently the Cyprus Government has officially requested ICEM to assist in the resettlement of some 6,000 refugees from Lebanon for which the Government is now providing some care and maintenance. Emigration relief, although relatively minor when considering the overall Cypriot problem, can possibly be of greater benefit to the government in the future.
In addition to interviewing the ICEM representative in Cyprus, Representative Eilberg and the subcommittee staff also discussed the subject with U.S. embassy officials and representatives of the ICEM Mission in Athens which has overall supervision of the Cyprus eniigration program.

In addition to the aforementioned efforts by the international community, the Government of Cyprus itself also made diligent efforts to respond to the crisis. Responsibility for all relief matters was assigned to a specially-designated Director of Special Services for Care and Rehabilitation of Refugees in August of 1974. Following the initial emergency phase, the relief efforts of the Government of Cyprus were nevaluated early in 1975 and emphasis was then placed on employment 1ass1istance anid improvemIllent of conditions at the refugee Camps.

In order to obtain an overview of the relief activities undertaken by the Government of Cyprus, meetings were held with representatives of the Ministries of Labor and Foreign Affairs of the Government of Cyprus.
Mr. Achilles Kalimachos, the Acting Director of Special Services for Care and Rehabilitation of Refugees, indicated in November 1975 that a major effort was under way to build permanent housing for displaced Greek Cypriots. Since the proposed housing was not prefabricated, substantial manpower would be required to construct these homes; thereby alleviating to some extent the severe unemployment problem in the south.
Mr. Kalimachos indicated that his office employed some 200 persons who are working on various programs to provide shelter and food for the displaced Greek Cypriots. In addition to these programs his office was also responsible for developing and funding agricultural programs and reforestation projects, and for accomplishing in the various refugee camps and centers handicraft and cottage industries including embroidery, weaving, woodcarving, leather, pottery and sewing. One of the most serious problems cited by Mr. Kalimachos was the lack of educational materials and school supplies for those children housed in temporary facilities. However, the primary problem confronting the Government of Cyprus in planning and developing adequate relief programs is the political uncertainty surrounding the Cyprus situation.
This same uncertainty as well as the lengthy stay of some individuals in temporary tent camps has also had a most serious effect on the morale of many of the displaced Greek Cypriots, virtually all of whom have expressed the hope that they would one day be able to return to their homes in the North.
While past programs have involved the provision of food, clothing, medical care, and educational services, new projects have been undertaken by the Government of Cyprus to create employment opportunities and to bolster the Cypriot economy.

Most assistance which has been provided by foreign countries to distressed and displaced persons in Cyprus has been channeled through the various international relief agencies such as the UNTICR and ICRC. The U.S. government has also followed this general policy and has avoided any bilateral assistance.
A provision contained in the "Foreign Assistance Act of 1974" made available $25 million of Famine or Disaster Relief Assistane funds for displaced persons in Cyprus. This entire sum was allocated through the international agencies as follows: $20.8 million to the UNHCR in response to his appeals to the international conimmuitv, and $4.2 more to the ICRC. These funds along with about $"5 mlion contributed by other governments and private sources were intended to finance relief activities through early 1976. According to a report


entitled "Disaster Relief-Cyprus Civil Strife," issued by the Agency for International Development these U.S. funds were committed as follows:
Through ICRC:
Cash grants to ICRC ------------------------ $ 1, 725, 000
Aid-in-kind consigned to ICRC ----------------- 2, 493, 600

Total through ICRC ------------------------4, 218, 600

Through UNHCR:
In support of the UNSYG's appeal for 1974 needs:
Cash grants ------------------------------7, 400, 000
Aid-in-kind-5,600 tent flys (including air transport) ------------------------------------400,000
In support of appeal for first four months of 1975:
One-third of total $9.3 million appeal ---3, 100, 000
In support of continuing 1975 relief needs -------- 9,872,105 Other various support costs ---------------------- 9,295

Total through UNHCR -----------------20, 781,400
Total U.S. Government Assistance ---------- 25, 000,000
In addition to the forms of relief described above. the U.S. contributions to the UNHCR also helped to finance a refugee feeding program, some low cost housing for refugees, as well as reforestation and various small refugee welfare projects. The U.S. assistance channeled through ICRC was expended for emergency relief commodities and to enable ICRC to perform its various functions as the instrument of the Geneva Convention (i.e. protecting prisoners of war, tracing missing persons).
On June 30, 1976, Congress authorized $30 million "for the relief and rehabilitation of refugees and other needy people in Cyprus" (P.L. 94-161, section 495). With the enactment of Public Law 94-329 (section 402), this authorization was increased from $30 million to $40 million. These funds will be used in order to provide project assistance through the UNHCR in the amount of approximately $91 million and the remainder will be used to provide: administrative budget support and food in the North (UNHTCR) ; humanitarian program support (UNFICYP); project development support (U.S. Embassy) and reforestation equipment in the South.
In short, the Congress and the U.S. government have responded generously to the humanitarian problems in Cyprus. Unfortunately, participation by other members of the international community decreased after the initial emergency period. Many countries, after reviewing the circumstances surrounding the Second Phase Assistance period(l (beginning in June 1975) substantially reduced the amount of their contributions.


At the request of the U.N. Secretary General, as well as the Govenment of Cyprus, and the Turkish authorities, the UNHCR has continued its humanitarian work in Cyprus.
It must be recognized that the UNHCR's efforts are beyond the scope of its mandate and these activities are now funded to a large degree by the United States Government.
There is serious concern on the part of many individuals that a "Palestinian refugee situation" is developing in Cyprus, and every effort should be made to prevent such an occurrence.
If it is determined that long-term care and maintenance programs or rehabilitation projects are required, the U.N. should consider requesting another international entity to assume those duties now being carried out by the UNHCR.
In this regard, the current policy of "internationalizing" assistance should be maintained and bilateral programs, particularly insofar as the United States is concerned, should be avoided. It is conceivable that direct bilateral assistance could increase tension between the Turkish administration and the Cypriot government; thereby creating an additional obstacle to a final political solution to the Cyprus problem.
Recognizing that negotiations are currently deadlocked and that the UNHCR is normally involved (under its traditional mandate) with short-term, emergency relief programs, the international community, with the assistance and cooperation of the Cypriot government and the Turkish authorities, must develop an alternative method for channeling international assistance to Cyprus.
Whatever procedures are eventually developed, it is clear that relief assistance must continue to be distributed primarily on the basis of need and those programs which are established must be continuously reevaluated to reflect the changing needs and circumstances of the Cypriot people.
Life has been extremely difficult for those Greek Cypriots who did not flee or who were not evacuated to the Government-controlled area in Southern Cyprus after the Turkish invasion.
In the two years since the invasion numerous cases have been reported involving harassment, intimidation, deprivation of educational and medical services, restrictions on movement, and confinement to certain areas.
There has also been severe criticism by Cypriot Government officials that the international relief agencies do not enjoy "free and unimpeded" access to Greek Cypriots living in the North.

UNHCR and ICRC officials denied that any "access" problems exist, but they did indicate that claims relating to the education of Greek Cypriot children in the North and access to ethnic Greek medical doctors were being carefully reviewed.
Officials of the Cypriot Government referred to the provisions contained in the Vienna Agreement of August 2, 1975, which assured Greek Cypriots in the North that they would be given assistance in leading "a normal life, including facilities for education and for the practice of their religion as well as medical care by their own doctors and freedom of movement in the north".
Specifically, Mr. George Pelaghias. Director General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that the Vienna Agreement was not being properly implemented and in view of the difficult conditions confronting Greek Cypriots in the North, he predicted last November that additional persons would be forced to relocate in the South. Since that time. some 2000 Greek Cypriots were expelled or have departed from the Turkish-occupied area.
As a result, only about 8.000 currently reside in the North and it is ee.ential that the Turkish authorities carry out their obligations under the Vienna Agreement. In addition, UNFICYP personnel must be given "free and normal access to Greek Cypriot villages and habitations in the north", as promised in that agreement.

Two of the most sensitive and troublesome issues discussed during each of the field trips were: the influx of mainland Turks to, and the continued presence of several thousand Turkish troops in, the Turkishoccupied zone in northern Cyprus.
Estimates as to the number of mainland Turks who have entered the island since the 1974 conflict have varied considerably. Independent sources indicated that between 10.000 and 15.000 Turks had immigrated to Cyprus by the end of 1975, but it was unclear whether they were temporary workers or permanent immigrants.
Officials of the Turkish authorities maintained that the importation of mainland Turks was necessary in order to cultivate and harvest the fields and to reactivate the economy in the North. In essence, they were charaiterized as temporary laborers, who were needed to normalize conditions in the North and to reduce the dependency on imported products, particularly food supplies.
Cypriot Government officials, on the other hand, sharply criticized the immigration of mainland Turks as an attempt by the Turkish Cpr )nt J1 ministration: (1) to colonize the North; and (2) to enhonco their negotiating positions by changing the population ratio on the Island.
The continmled )reence of Turkish military forces on Cypru!s has
-1-o had disruptive consequences on regions between the two sides. The Turkish authorities maintained that such troops were essential in inaurinir the safety and security of the Turkish Cypriot pomnlltion. The Greek Cypriot community firmly believes there is ahvolutelv no just iffiction for fthse troops to remini on the Tslwnl 9d they oite for support the U.N. resolution which was ,dopted by the General As-


sembly on November 20, 1975 by a vote of 117-1 (with 9 abstentions) demanding "the withdrawal without further delay of all foreign armed forces and foreign military presence and personnel from the Republic of Cyprus."
It is evident that the problems of immigration and Turkish military forces in the North have increased intercommunal tension and according to one official of the Cyprus Government they will be a definite "irritant" in any future negotiations. Moreover, these issues have seriously concerned the U.S. Congress and provisions concerning this subject were contained in the recently-enacted "International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976." (P.L. 94-329).
Section 403 of that Act specifically relates aid to.Turkey to the size of Turkey's "military forces" and "civilian population on Cyprus."
It is clear that the Congress is strongly opposed to any actions by the Government of Turkey which would increase its military strength or expand its control in Cyprus. At the same time, many members of the Turkish-Cypriot community advised the study group that they feel secure under the existing situation and would vigorously resist any reduction in the civilian or military population in the North.
There are, however, some indications that cultural differences between the Turkish Cypriots and the mainland Turks in Cyprus could become a problem in the future.
My recent visit to Cyprus as a Member of the House Judiciary Committee served to fulfill a responsibility for refugees, which is an important part of the work of this committee. My brief stay in Cyprus (May 18-20) was preceded by numerous conferences in Washington with Garner J. Chline, Staff Director of the House Judiciary Committee and Counsel for the Immigration Subcommittee, Lowell Laingen, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, James Morton of the State Department's Cyprus Desk, and others.
Many Greek Americans and several Greek Cypriot Americans have discussed the Cyprus problem (and our relations with Turkey) with me, including Dr. Nikos Panacos. President of the Waukega n, Illinois, Chapter of AHEPA, and Dr. Christopher Costis, Past President of the Illinois Chapter of the Congress of American-Hellenic
I had planned to accompany my Colleague, Congressman Joshua Eilberg of Pennsylvania, Chairman of the Immrigration Subcommittee, and Garner Cline. committee counsel to the regular meeting of the Intercovernmental Committee on European Migration (ICEM) in Geneva, Switzerland, on May 9-10, and then proceed to Cyprus. Other Committee work delayed my departure.
Following Chairman Eilberg by about one week. I conferred first in Geneva with John Thomas, Dire'ctor of ICEM, re narding that organization's involvement in the Cypriot refugee problems and was briefed on the activities of the U.N. HIigh Commissioner on Refugee and the


services of the International Red Cross. Apart from the limited relief work performed in the Fall of 1974. ICEM's Cyprus role has been quite limited, principally because the President of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, refuses to acknowledge that the some 200,000 Greek Cypriots who fled or who were driven from Turkish-occupied Cyprus were refugees. Makarios takes the formal position that the Greek Cypriots are temporarily displaced persons waiting to return to their communities which are being occupied illegally by the Turkish military forces.
Thomas lauded the humanitarian relief work being performed in Cyprus by the U.N., including service to both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. His comments were confirmed by my later on-the-scene observations, including:
(a) U.N. relief and refugee assistance,
(b) U.N. peacekeeping activities separating the two warring
parties alonz a cease-fire line extending across the island, and
(c) The U.N. mediation or peace negotiation role.
Later. in Nicosia, I met and discussed in some detail the U.N. activities in Cyprus with the chief U.N. spokesman, George Yacoub. Also, I observed the U.N. peacekeeping forces from Finland, Sweden, Canada, and elsewhere, as well as their bases. On the road from Nicosia to Kyrenia, the armed Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot forces are separated by less than 100 yards. But in between these armed enemies, the U.N. personnel stand guard, respected by both sides, and maintaining a fragile, but increasingly durable, peace.
I cannot help but express the highest praise for the multiple activities of the United Nations in Cyprus. Its activities provide the greatest assurances that acceptable solutions to the "Cyprus problem" will be found.
My escort officer throughout my Cypriot visit was Bruno Kosheleff, the Economic and Commercial Officer at the U.S. Embassy in Nicosia, a most knowledgeable and objective expert on the complex "Cyprus problem."
My principal interest being the refugee situation. I had occasion to visit a number of refugee camps in the areas of Larnaca, Nicosia, and Dhekelia (the British Sovereign Military Base). While there are reported to have been some 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees following the landing in July, 1974, of some 40,000 troops from Turkey, most of the Greek Cypriot refugees who were cared for previously in refugee camps have now been relocated in permanent homes. The fighting, looting, killing, and property damage in extensive areas of Cyprus have left serious scars from which the Cypriots will be able to recover only with great difficulty and the passage of many years.
I observed at least two large refugee camps which had been abandoned, one of which is near Larnaca and the other in the Dhekelia area. Only the electrical wires, toilet facilities and other remnants of large tent camps remained. Other camps, including the tent camp near Akhna, have been greatly reduced in size as refugees find more permanent lodging and employment in other parts of the Greek portion of Cyprus.
The large housing project at Aradhippon while not yet completed affords permanent homes for several thousand displaced Greek Cypriots who were accommodated previously in tents. This project was fi-


nanced primarily wth U.S. AID funds administered through thle United Nations. Thei development was executed by private Cyprioto contractors, materialinen and building tradesmen.
The large housing development in Nicosia, described as the Strovolos project B (on which Pefkios Georgiades was one of the architects), will provide atractive townhouse-type homes for some 6,000 Greek Cypriots. These appear to be well-designed, solidly built structures, consistent with the tradition of sound construction practices which prevail throughout the island.
While there are an estimated 50,000 Turkish Cypriots who have moved from the South to the Northern Turkish-occupied part of Cyprus, there do not appear to be any Turkish Cypriot refugee camps. Instead, the Turkish Cypriots -are occupying dwellings abandoned by Greek Cypriots, there being far more such abandoned dwellings than there are Turkish Cypriots to occupy them.
My general observation is that the Greek Cypriots are adjusting rapidly to their new environment. Their new homes, although small, are well constructed of masonry and concrete. A large building block plant has been established in the Dhekelia area to accommodate the new home construction. The Greek Cypriots, including refugees, are, for the most part, more resourceful, industrious, and more skillful than their Turkish counterparts. They have laid concrete floors even in the tent camps. Their places are neat, clean and orderly.
However, when I stopped to visit with some of the Greek Cypriot refugees, and asked whiat they wished particularly to impart to me, as a Representative in the United States Congress, their uniform response was, "We want to return to our homes in the North."
The refugee. camp at Akhna presents a disheartening picture. Reduced substantially in size from its maximum estimated population of 6000 homeless Greek Cypriots, some 1200 former residents of Akhna now reside in a tent village within sight of their unoccupied homes to which they cannot return because of the armed Turkish soldiers who have set up their line in the village. Most of these refu gees are farmers, many of whom escaped with their large farm tractors and other mechanized farm equipment. They have been waiting almost two years for the Turkish soldiers to retire. One farmer told me that 5 acres of his 40-acre farm lie on the Greek side of the cease-fire line. The rest is in the Turkish zone. He would be fired on even if he tried to work the 5-acre portion. So, he and several hundred other families wait and hope, perhaps in vain, to return to their homes.
The unlikely return of Akhna to Greek Cypriot jurisdiction is based on the circumstance that the community lies on the border of the British Sovereign Base of Dhekelia. The 'Turkish forces believe, with some possible justification, that the British may abandon their claims to Dhekelia in the near future, at which time (if the Turks continue to occupy the adjoining territory) they will simply move in and take over this 10 square mile area.
In the course of my visit to the Turkish-occu pied area including Kyrenia (renamed Gire by the Turks) and Lapithos, it appeared that the Turkish Cypriots were far less capable of improving or maintaining the properties taken over from the Greek Cypriots. Instead


of new construction, which characterizes the Greek-held areas, the buildings including most private dwellings in the Turkish-held zone appear to be neglected and in a state of deterioration.
The fruit in the large citrus groves is rotting on the trees. Farm properties seem generally to be abandoned. Hotel and other business properties are in partial or total disuse.
However, Bruno Kosheleff and I stopped to visit with a group of Turkish Cypriots in Laithos, and after the usual ceremonial and genuinely hospitable cup of Turkish coffee, one of the roup, an elementary school teacher, invited us to visit his home. While our visit took the teacher's wife and three children by surprise, we were most impressed with the order and comfort which characterized this twostory, three-bedroom masonry residence which belonged previously (and may still belong) to a Greek Cypriot family. The teacher was quite fluent in English, as typically amiable and hospitable as all Cypriots appear to be, and very forthright. He explained that the Turkish Government had assigned the home to him, that he paid no rent, and that the interior furnishings belonged to him and his family. He drove a medium-size modern automobile that was parked alongside his home.
The rest of the dwellings in the area seemed almost uninhabitable. Turkish Cypriots are just beginning to be moved into the dwellings vacated by the Greek Cypriots who formerly occupied them. But, in contrast to the active building and improvement programs which I witnessed in the Greek zone, there was no improvement program underway in the few Turkish communities I visited.
In commenting upon the prospects of a durable peace in Cyprus through negotiations, I should emphasize that I am not trying to assume prerogatives that belong rightfully to our State Department and our diplomatic personnel, including our capable and knowledgeable Ambassador William R. Crawford, Jr., with whom I conferred at length in Nicosia.
Nor do I wish to attribute any of my observations to specific named individuals with whom I conferred in Washington, Geneva, Athens and Nicosia.
The most negative, and at the same time the most prevalent, view advanced is that there will be no peace negotiations in the foreseeable future: that both Makarios and the Turks are satisfied with the status qiuo; that a settlement would diminish Makarios' authority and p restige; that the Turks will never relinquish the advantage they hIve ained for the first time after centuries of subservience to a Greek Cypriot majority.
Another negative view advanced from the Turkish side was that there can be no peace negotiations until Makarios is out. Since Archbishop Makarios appears to be solidly "in" as President of the Government of Cyprus, to suggest postponement of talks until Makarios is out is tantamount to rejecting all peace negotiations.
The principal obstacle to meaningful negotiations is the absence' of authoritative spokesmen for the two sides. Neither the Greek Cypriot Chief Negotiator, Tassos Papadopoulos, nor the Turkish Cypriot


Chief Negotiator, Umit Suleyman Oran, have any real authority to act for their respective sides. The only person capable of speaking for the Greek Cypriot Government is Archbishop Makarios. The Turkish military command appears to be the responsible spokesman for the Turkish Cypriot side. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kurt Waldheim, is the acknowledged mediator. However, in response to my inquiry, it was suggested that a representative of the West German Government, presumably that nation's Foreign Minister, might be acceptable to both sides as the mediator. .The Greek Cypriot leaders are reluctant to propose terms for a settlement. They contend that they have nothing to give, that all of the cards are in the hands of the Turks. However, there are definite indications that the Greek Cypriot Government is prepared to accede to a permanent division of the Island into Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot zones, a bi-zonal federation, with most powers vested in the two relatively autonomous states.
Territorial adjustments, which would include the return of some communities now under Turkish control to the Greek Cypriot side, would seem to be an important element in any peace discussions.
In short, it would appear to me that pressure should be applied to both sides to encourage resumption of negotiations with the U.N. Secretary General, or other acceptable person, as mediator, and predicated only on the assurance that both sides would be prepared to submit specific proposals for settlement, upon which continuing discussions and an ultimate agreement might be based.
The Greek Cypriot officials, to a man, contend that an unequivocal ban on future military and economic aid to Turkey is the kind of pressure needed to bring the Turkish authorities to the negotiating table. The Turkish side argues with equal force that the Cyprus question must be dealt with independently of the questions of U.S. military and economic aid programs.
It must certainly be recognized that pressures to settle the Cyprus problem should be applied by other countries than the United States, especially our other NATO allies, as well as the governments of the Middle East. The defense capacity of NATO and the protection of the Mediterranean by the U.S. 6th Fleet require the continued cooperation of the United States, Greece and Turkey. The Cypriot tinder box must not be permitted to embroil us in a major conflagration.
As a supplement to this statement, I am attaching hereto as an appendix the following: (a) cable from Ambassador Crawford to Secretary of State Kissinger relative to my Cyprus visit, and (b) letter from Bruno Kosheleff providing chronology of my Cyprus visit.
1. Congressman McClory arrived May 18 at 1400 and left May 20 at 1000 for return to Washington via Athens and New York.
2. Embassy Economic/Commercial Officer met Codel at airport, took visitor to following places directly from airport: Aradhippou Housing Development for displaced Greek Cypriots (project was partially financed by USG aid program); Dhekelia Sovereign Base Area (SBA) U.K. Forces facilities; Akhna Forest within SBA where approx. 1,200 displaced Greek Cypriots are living in tents as well as permanent structures erected by the occupants; Town of Xylotymbou (GOC


enclave within SBA) where approx. 4,000 displaced Greek Cypriots live; view from within SBA of Turkish Army-controlled town of Akhna; Town of Ormldhia (GOC enclave within SBA) where approx. 6,000 displaced Greek Cypriots reside: Ammo Dump Refugee Camp inhabited by approx. 1,400 Greek Cypriot refugees living mainly in GOC-furnished "match-box" homes and a few tents; Town of Larnaca including visit of former Turkish Cypriot quarter. Codel made two stops to discuss general Cyprus topics with Greek Cypriot refugees, including at Akhna Forest where he spoke with group of nine farmers and at Xylotymbou where he interviewed Greek Cypriot housewife formerly of Lysi village. In Larnaca, Codel visited Turkish mosque presently being repaired by GOC.
3. Evening dinner by Ambassador provided opportunity for Codel to meet and exchange views with Tassos Papadopulos, Speaker of House of Representatives and Greek Cypriot negotiator, and Minister of Labor Markos Spanos whose Ministry runs the Special Services for Refugees.
4. May 19 Codel was taken on tour of UNFICYP headquarters, RAF Nicosia compound, and Nicosia International Airport. Codel had personal tour of recently opened First Cyprus International (Trade) Fair, then was taken to Presidential Palace destroyed during coup d'etat in July 1974. Codel spent half hour at Strovolos Refugee Camp where he interviewed several displaced persons and visited camp's kindergarten facilities. Codel then proceeded to site of Strovolos Housing Development presently under construction. Facilities will house Strovolos refugees by December this year. Project expected to be mostly financed from USG aid funds.
5. After morning tour Congressman McClory accompanied by Ambassador called in succession on Turkish Cypriot Negotiator Onan, President Makarios and Foreign Minister. Key points of these conversations by septeL
6. Codel lunched with Ambassador for briefing. Afternoon spent in Turkish North of Cyprus. Codel visited Kyrenia, Ambelia (overlooking Beliapals), viewed site of Turkish landings in summer 1974 and was shown USG radio station (closed) at Karavas. Codel visited Lapithos village where he interviewed several Turkish Cypriots formerly from Paphos District. At CODEL request Embassy es-cort took Codel to visit Greek Orthodox Church at Lapithos (damaged inside).
7. May 20. On way to Larnaca for departure Codel was taken to Menoyia village where GOC public works laborers were clearing rubble from homes formorly occupied by Turk Cypriots who in 1974 fled to Turkish-controlled North. Menoyia is being repaired for occupancy by Greek Cypriot refugees.
8. Congressman McClory did not meet with local press, made no public statements.
Nicosia, Cyprus, May 21, 1976.
House Committee on Judiciary,
U.-. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C.
DEAR CNWsMAN MCLORY : It was my very real pleasure to meet you and escort you during your brief stay in Cyprus. I cannot but feel that it was a memorable visit for you-Cyprus is nothing if not interesting.
Enclosed is a copy of the Embassy telegram Rent to the Department regarding your visit. The cable encapsules the highlights of your tour of the Island. As youm requested I am listing the various places you visited In chronological order; a few comments are also included:
MAY 18
Larnaca Airport (arrival in Cyprus).
Aradhipp~OU Housing Development, Larnae Distriet, occupied by approx. 6.000 displaced Greek Cypriots in 1.052 units. Project partly financed from ISOG aid program. Occupants previously lived in tents and other unsatisfactory conditions.
Dhekella Sovereign Rase Area (SRA). toward varius British fnree facilities.
Xylotynmbou refuge CAMIps, bth within Town of Xylotymbonu (Government of Cyprus enclave within the SBA) and on SBA territory. Visited new home of


Greek Cypriot family formerly from Lysi Village (now in Turkish-controlled North). Housewife explained they financed and constructed their own house without Government or other outside assistance.
The family receives monthly cash and food allowances, was also given blankets and a heater by the Government. Husband is a house painter, regularly employed. Turkish coffee was served.
Akhna Forest, within the SBA, where approx. 1,200 displaced Greek Cypriots are living in tents but also increasingly both in solid structure homes, selffinanced by the occupants, and in prefabricated temporary structures financed and provided by the Government. Coffee-house chat with nine displaced farmers formerly from Akhna Town.
Viewed from within the SEA the Town of Akhna which is now under Turkish control. Akhna used to have a Greek Cypriot population of approx. 2,000. The town has not been resettled but is under occupation by the Turkish Army.
Ormedhia Refugee Camps and the Town of Ormedhia (Government of Cyprus enclave within the SBA). Ormedhia's population jumped three-fold in August-September 1974 as Greek Cypriots from Famagusta District sought safety within the SBA. Most of the tent camps in Ormedhia have been disbanded although the refugee camp overlooking the Town, situated on the hill known as the "Ammo Dump," contains approx. 1,400 displaced persons. More and more of the inhabitants are constructing solid-structure homes or erecting Government-provided prefab temporary structures.
Larnaca Town, including a drive through the Turkish Quarter where formerly approx. 3,500 Turkish Cypriots lived. The Quarter is now inhabited by approx. 3,000 Greek Cypriots, most of whom were displaced from the North in 1974. Visited the Moslem mosque on the edge of the Turkish Quarters; the mosque was undergoing repairs to the damage caused in 1974.
Dinner at the Ambassador's Residence (for list of attendees, see schedule prepared for CODEL visit).
MAY 19
Tour of Nicosia including Presidential Palace destroyed in coup d'etat of July 1974; U.N. Forces (UNFICYP) Headquarters and R.A.F. Nicosia Station; Nicosia International Airport (under UNFICYP control), closed since summer 1974.
First International Cyprus State Fair which opened May 14. Viewed several pavilions and extensive exhibit of locally-assembled KMC-trademark trucks and buses.
Tour of Strovolos Refugee Camp, chat with several occupants as well as interview with Government Camp Administrator; visited camp's kindergarten facilities where children sang a "return to our homes" song.
Drove around construction site of Strovolos Housing Development on outskirts of Nicosia. The complex, when completed later this year, will house the Strovolos Camp families. The complex, which will have 710 individuals apartments, will for the most be paid for by USG aid funds.
Meeting with Turkish Cypriots negotiator Umit Suleyman Onan, accompanied by Ambassador.
Meeting with His Beatitude Archbishop Makarios, President of the Republic of Cyprus, with Ambassador.
Meeting with Government of Cyprus Foreign Minister Christophides, accompanied by Ambassador.
Drive around Turkish part of Nicosia in the Old City. 'Drive around Kyrenia including the port area. Viewed Bellapais Village from Ambelia.
Drive to the beach site of the Turkish military landings in summer 1174; drove by the U.S. radio station (closed) at Karavas.
Drove around former Greek Cypriot village of Lapithos, visited the Greek Orthodox Church (doors wide open, insides in disarray). Stopped at coffee house, discussed Cyprus problem with Turkish Cypriots who had moved to Lapithos since troubles of 1974. Interviewed a Turk Cypriot formerly from Kouklia (a mixed village in the Paphos District) and a Turk Cypriot primary school teacher recently assigned to teach at the Lapithos school. The teacher invited the visitors to his home where we were served a delicious sweetened grapefruit rind.
Return to Kyrenia to meet artist-restaurantor S. Mustafa.
Meze dinner in Nicosia with Embassy control officer and his wife.


MAY 20
On the way to Larnaca, stopped at Menoyla Village which up to 1963 had been ,a mixed village, from 1963-1974 a Turkish village-deserted from summer of 1974 to the present. A Public Works crew was clearing the village of rubble, in preparation for repair of the village for resettlement of Greek Cypriots displaced from the North.
Larnaca Airport (departure for return to Washington via Athens and New York).
Sincerely yours,
BRauNo KOSHELTF, Economic/Commeroial Oficer.


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 09114 1324