I am sure you know that the Greek Cypriots represent one of the two communities, be it the largest one (82%) living on the territory of the Republic of Cyprus, which comprises the whole of the island of Cyprus, save for the area covered by the two Sovereign British Bases.
There is only one Government in Cyprus and that is the one recognised by the all countries of the world, except Turkey. Turkey on the other hand recognises the illegal regime set up in the part of the island which is occupied by its army, since the Turkish invasion of 1974. In that occupied area, Turkey has brought thousands of Anatolian Turks as settlers, on the properties of Greek Cypriots , while the latter were forcibly expelled (myself and my family happen to be amongst the 200 000 who suffered this fate). The advent of these settlers has caused a 3-4 fold increase of the population in the occupied part of Cyprus. These settlers have, illegally, been given "citizenship as well as voting rights", and hence no one can any longer speak of "Turkish Cypriot Authorities" or expression of Turkish Cypriot free will. Anatolian settlers in Cyprus cannot be regarded as Turkish Cypriots.
1) The following paragraph of your report, as you correctly indicate, represents the position of Turkey. One, however, would have expected to see, in your report, the position of the Cyprus Government as well, if only, for the purposes of a balanced presentation. Your report states:
In saying that Turkey "evokes its status as a guarantor state under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee to protect Turkish Cypriots’ rights", one may be led to the erroneous conclusion that, indeed, this was the role of Turkey as a Guarantor power, which in fact, was NOT the case.
Articles I & IV of the Treaty of Guarantee provide verbatim (the capital letters in the text of the articles, are mine):
ARTICLE I : "The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or PARTITION of the Island".
ARTICLE IV : "In the event of a breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom undertake to CONSULT TOGETHER with respect to the representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the SOLE aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty".
Turkey invoked the above Article IV in order to invade Cyprus but in doing so, she violated both of the above quoted Articles, because what had been declared as illegal, under Article I, ie PARTITION of the island, Turkey went ahead and put it into practice.
So, using the pretext of protecting the Turkish Cypriot rights, Turkey invaded Cyprus, in 1974, and applied ethnic cleansing, (long before the term had even been coined as a phrase, during the Yugoslavian crisis). Turkey expelled all Greek Cypriots from their homes and properties, in order to enforce its long pursued policy of partition. The very fact that "partition" had always been some Turkey's aim can be deduced from Article I above, which states: "It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or PARTITION of the Island".
Turkey not only proceeded to partition the island but in 1983 declared the occupied part into an INDEPENDENT STATE. One loses count of the number of times Turkey violated the very articles invoked for "justifying" its Invasion of the Republic of Cyprus.
2) Regarding the following paragraph of your report,
I would firstly comment that "Greek Cypriot drilling" was carried out on behalf of the Republic of Cyprus and NOT on behalf of the Greek Cypriots. Despite being 82% of the legal population of Cyprus Greek Cypriots are regarded as no more than one of the two communities referred to in the 1960 London-Zurich Agreements.
3) Your report finds enough courage to state that:
How should any intelligent person interprete "the pledge" to which you refer? Do you mean, by any chance, that the Republic of Cyprus, as rightful owner of the undersea wealth in its Exclusive Economic Zone should subsidise the so called "independent state", declared and maintained by Turkey, in the occupied part of Cyprus? Can anybody cite another example of such unintelligent action by any country, in any part of the world?
Rationality dictates that what your report calls "promises of sharing" nature's gift should come into effect at the time of reunification of the Island.
The following relevant statement in the report is unfair: "Vague Greek Cypriot promises of sharing gas revenues in the future do not satisfy the Turkish Cypriot community".
What you call "vague promises" are not so vague and the time scale as fixed by the phrase "in future" does not mean anything incomprehensible. It simply means "when the occupied part of the island is restituted to the Republic of Cyprus". Then it would be, not only natural, but also an obligation, to proceed with sharing of the wealth in an equitable manner! But, not before reunification. The reference in the report to "the Turkish Cypriot community" is nothing more than a euphemism of the thousands of Anatolian settlers whom Turkey transported to Cyprus, whose view is of no consequence to Cypriots.
4) Your report further down states:
5) Regarding your suggestions for resolving the problem it appears, to me, that not enough due consideration had been given, during preparation of your report, to the various issues raised, as I shall explain below:
a) You support the view that:
I shall refrain from repeating the comment on your reference to "the Greek Cypriot leadership" so as to concentrate on the essence of your suggestion. The application of a policy, such as the one put forward in your report, is a recipe for Turkey to continue paying lip service only, to its commitment to reunification efforts, without in fact doing anything towards that end. In the meantime the Republic would be subsidising the breakaway occupation regime. I think it would be, at least naive, to expect the Republic to consent to such an arrangement. The phrase used for any daily commercial transaction is, "Payment upon delivery". That would make sense.
b)The following suggestion in your report is also quite unrealistic:
"Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus should agree, possibly with third-party mediation, to discuss eastern Mediterranean energy issues, without prejudice to the UN-facilitated talks, or to any official recognition that will follow a settlement. They should study the feasibility of and consider possible cooperation on a gas export pipeline to Turkey, and onwards to Europe, with strong third-party arbitration clauses".
Turkish ambitions of becoming the sole or the main "energy corridor" to Europe are well known. The reasons for such ambitions are not difficult to imagine. A pipeline from the the levantine basin to Turkey would mean the dependence of the gas exporting countries, Israel and Cyprus, and in future possibly Lebanon and Syria, on the political whims of Ankara. Furthermore, Europe itself, as an energy consumer would become solely, or at best, mainly, dependent on Turkey's "Energy Corridor".
c) Finally, the proposal put forward in the report that:
The other suggestion for a recourse to the ICJ would, indeed, have offered a possibility of resolving not only the problem of delineating the EEZ of the two states , but also many other issues relating to the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Such a recourse, however, may only be made by states after they sign an agreement to refer their dispute to the ICJ . By refusing to even talk to the Government of the Republic, Turkey renders such agreement an impossible venture.
In conclusion the work done prior to the preparation of your report that preceded your report , appears not to have delved into the requisite depth of study necessary for resolving a long standing problem.
One thing that needs to be said, is that as presented, the report is one sided, leaning favourably towards Turkey's positions, to the extent that it makes one wonder, whether in fact the actual text had been vetted by the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
It is indeed a great pity that in this particular case, your group has not lived upto the expected standard of impartiality.