turkish cypriots look to ottoman archives in land bid

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 11:53

Turkish Cypriots look to Ottoman archives in land bid

By Simon Bahceli



OTTOMAN archives compiled in Cyprus between the sixteenth century and British rule could provide the Turkish Cypriot side with ammunition to counter Greek Cypriot property claims in the north, it was claimed yesterday.



The revelations were made by the Turkish-language daily Star and were confirmed by an anonymous source close to the Turkish Cypriot authorities who told the Cyprus Mail, “A group of foreign experts have been working on a report [based on archival material]. Some of the findings will give strength to the Turkish Cypriot position on properties”.



Although the source did not confirm details, the Star’s article claimed some 100 experts had been combing Ottoman archives since 2005. The Ottomans ruled the island for over 300 years from 1571 until 1878. The experts, it said, had compiled a 250-volume report entitled ‘Cyprus Land and Property’. It also said the report’s findings would “come as a s

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 11:55

shock to those Greek Cypriots trying to extract money and land from north Cyprus” and that the shock would be delivered when Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat unveiled the report at a news conference next week.



The Cyprus Mail was unable to confirm yesterday whether Talat would indeed be hosting such a media event. Rather, a source within the administration said it was yet undecided how or when the report would be used.



“No such political decision has been made,” the source said, adding that the report was seen as a “supportive element” in ongoing negotiations for a settlement with the Greek Cypriot side, rather than as evidence that would be used in court to justify Turkish Cypriot possession of Greek Cypriot properties in the north.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 11:56

"Sometimes you have a document that you use only for political purposes. To put such things before a court, you first have to be sure there are no inconsistencies. If there are, these can weaken your argument,” it said.



The source added, however, that political factors could sometimes be used to influence a court decision – a factor especially true in Cyprus’ case.



Commenting on the prospect of Turkish Cypriot property lawyers and negotiators taking such a tack, Greek Cypriot lawyer Achilleas Demetriades told the Cyprus Mail that such an approach was known as the “Evkaf approach” and was not new. It had already been used by Turkish lawyers, he said, during a case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in which his Greek Cypriot client Myra Xenides-Arestis had sought to regain possession of her property from Turkey in the fenced-off area of Varosha, near Famagusta.



Evkaf is the umbrella organisation that oversees the running of all Turkish Cypriot religious foundations

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 11:57

in Cyprus and is said to own vast amounts of land and property.



The Evkaf approach, however, “was dismissed by the court,” Demetriades said. Turkey was ordered to pay Arestis €850,000 in compensation for denying her access to her property.



The Greek Cypriot lawyer added, however, that if there was basis to the Evkaf argument, its claims “do not lie against the Greek Cypriot owners but perhaps against the colonial powers, namely the UK”.



Prior to gaining independence from Britain, Demetriades said, “Britian paid over one million pounds to the Turkish Cypriot community [their leaders] in full and final settlement of all claims that the Turkish Cypriot community may have had to [Vakif] properties”.



He added that a possible use of the archival information would be for Turkey to open an interstate case against the UK for having illegally disenfranchised the Turkish Cypriots of large amounts of public property.



“That would be a very interesting case to follow,” he said.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:13

ilovecyprus

from what i understand the ottomans owned all the land and rights over the land were held by private people so to speak on a leasehold type thing. even tree's had kochans.



the land registry with the ottomans is nothing like the one we see today.



instead of turkey taking the blame it seems they are now blaming someone else, the uk. they gave up the land in cyprus to the british, so i don't see how its the brits fault?

as before then nobody under the ottomans actually owned anything. it was all state owned.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:15

ILC,



Great article. I dont know where we would go from here. Presumably if The British paid £1,000,000 in Full and final settlement of all claims, that would seem fairly clear to me.

What happenned thereafter I assume, would be a matter of record.



Would any member care to enlighten us further?



wyn

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:24

It will be interesting to see if Talat calls a press conference. He would be wise not too if there is nothing new and substantive in the report. If he does use it as a bargainng tool, then it may suggest that there is something fresh in it's compilation that would make it useful.



Guess it's a case of watch this space.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:35

Read Sir Samuel White Baker's



Cyprus, as I Saw it in 1879



Chapter XVII

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:38

Hi Groucho



I don't happen to have a copy by my bedside table Whats the gist of it?

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:41

ILC



Good article I always wondered why little of substance has been published to date about the historical breakup of land ownership in Ottoman times and how this was changed under British and ROC rule.



Off course Cyprus was initially annexed in World War 1 (after previous British administration) later ratified at the treaty of Lausanne. So even then ownership passed at the barrel of a gun so to speak.



The 1 Million pound settlement payment is also interesting as you would expect there would be formal documentation held by both sides.



Another interesting question is how were the leaders of the Turkish (Cypriot) community chosen (presumably not democratically) and did they have the right to approve such a settlement ? Did they have the ownership control of the land ?



Even if it doesn't mean anything legally now its a worthwhile exercise to counter the old argument that Cyprus was always Greek owned as in Historical terms this is comparatively modern/ recent.



Aussie

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:51

ILC

Have sent you a copy by e-mail (hopefully!)

AJ

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:56

msge 10



Hi Aussie



Do you know when the British paid the settlement? I guess it was made in 1923 when Britain declared Cyprus a crown colony?



I am not sure that it offers any support in the negotiations, if it has no legal value. The GC's will just say, we have been here before and the courts deemed it has no merit.



If you have time Aussie, could you say a little more about your point. I am not sure I understand.



"Another interesting question is how were the leaders of the Turkish (Cypriot) community chosen (presumably not democratically) and did they have the right to approve such a settlement ? Did they have the ownership control of the land ?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 12:58

msge 11



Thanks AJ. I have just received it safe and sound

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 13:19

Hi Aussie



Actually the findings might be worthwhile politically should the negotiations be carried out in good spirit. I suspect thought that the negotiations are tense

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 13:30

Alsancakjack,



If its only a matter of pressing a forward key, I would very much appreciate a copy also.



Thanks in anticipation,



wyn

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 14:38

Wyn

Sorted (hopefully!)

AJ

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 14:50

Alsancakjack,



Acknowledged with grateful thanks,



You are a scholar and gentleman,



wyn

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 23:14

Alsancakjack,

Any chance you could press that forward key for me as well really interesting stuff,

Paul.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
17/10/2008 23:52

ILC



I was just speculating on the issue of what authorities the British would have paid the 1 million pounds compensation to.



I thought that the Evkaf lands where held for the benefit of the community in an arrangement that would appear similar to that of a trust in British law giving rise to some form of fiduciary duty to use it for the benefit of the community.



Given that the British at that time were administering Cyprus how was the TC community represented at the time as it was no longer being directly ruled by Ottoman Sultan who would have appointed Pashas (i.e. governors etc) before. If this payment was made much later say after 1914 then the Ottoman Empire/ Turkey woudl have no legal role anymore anyway with respect to the TC community.



Presumably the TC community wouldn't have conducted elections for its representatives so there could be raised a question as to their legitimacy in accepting money for the lands and if this was in communities best interests



Cont

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 00:02

ILC Cont



The next question is who got the $1 million pounds and was it used in the interests of the TC community in such a way as to justify the loss of the lands.



The Ottoman Empire was notorious for much of its in its later period for corruption and local officials taking bribes and enriching themselves as the expenses of those they governed in many cases.



I guess I thought of this as this type of issue sometimes came up in banking when lending money and in law generally with Trusts etc where the Trustees of those in control had to act for the benefit of the beneficiaries at all times. Where this was not the case contracts could be held invalid particularly if the other party should have been aware that they were acting outside of their powers/ mandate.



A similar situation with respect to commercial benefit applied to companies as well.



As I said this is purely my speculation I haven't read anything else on it.



Aussie

AlsancakJack



Joined: 14/08/2008
Posts: 5762

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 00:06

Paul

Sorted (I hope)

Check your e-mail.

AJ

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 00:09

Aussie,



Interesting line of thought.



I cannot imagine The British Authorities handing over £1,000,000 without checking out the Bona Fides of those involved. It was in full and final settlement.



Be interesting to see Talats Argument though......If there is one!.



wyn

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 00:47

hi guys

there are many conflicting interests about this so called million pounds,but what i have known it to be was that the ottoman empire suffered great losses in the turko russo war so they signed the cyprus convention with the british empire to help them against the russians who were in some parts of turkey and against future invasions

the t.c's was the mussulman cypriots and these people where represented by mussulman councils and the admin of property and funds was adminsterd by the evkaf and a member of the british commitee

and also that the britsh would pay any profit of the island to the ottomans aswell as compensation this was all listed

then in 1914 the brits annexed cyprus because the ottomans declared war on the allies with germany and by ten years later the ottoman empire crumbled so any more profits and compensation which was owed was not paid and cyprus became part of the crown colony

so there must be documents in the archives which state who owned land

ukturk

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 00:47

Alsancakjack,

Muchus grassias,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 01:00

Erkan,

You rise from your slumber.Do you think that it would be wise for Talat to bring up this issue as he will obviously seen by the majority (not me) i hasten to add as being non constructive towards the talks,

Regards,

Paul.

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 01:10

hi paul

im always around!!! lol

in my view it trully depends what way the talks go, it could be seen as non construtive but u cant deny the facts if you are going in to the ownership records of land u cant ignore the past owners and how they relinquished their ownership

regards

ukturk

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 10:58

ukturk

from what i understood the ottomans owned it all, it was leased to people.

when the brits took over it was upgraded to a different land ownership/land registry like the one in the uk. thats when people gained proper land ownership rights.



i think that the land ownership rights were given to the leaseholders at that time.

the system was very different under the ownership of the ottomans, so i think we need to understand how the kochans developed into what they are today. before we can decide, who was the owner of what?



we have been looking into this stuff as a friend has a land issue with his neighbour.

apparently the records in the south are not just based on maps but also historical information, so maybe the answer is there?

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
18/10/2008 11:27

Aussie and Erkan



Great posts guys. Very interesting

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
19/10/2008 00:48

If nothing else the archives should be the start of a good history lesson about property ownership here.



It would also be interesting background to understand how the Venetians and Lusignians allocated property ownership and associated rights as well.



Aussie

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
19/10/2008 09:21

ILC I've sent you a copy of Sam Baker's treatise on Cyprus in 1879

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
19/10/2008 09:42

The ownership of lands that passed to the British in consideration of £1,000,000 was only the Government lands... lands belonging to individuals with deeds, the church and evkaf were not part of the deal. This much is clear...



The islamic evkaf lands (vacouf) were not anybody's to sell so they should still be intact unless and if they were legally compulsorily purchased for infra-structure purposes for which documentation should exist. It could not pass to an individual under any circumstances... as it was land held in sacred trust.



The Greek Cypriot Church lands may have been sold as they (the Church) had complete dominion over their own property... not that it's likely unless corruption was afoot.

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 03:06

"The revelations were made by the Turkish-language daily Star and were confirmed by an anonymous source close to the Turkish Cypriot authorities..."



"Although the source did not confirm details, the Star’s article claimed..."



Which tells you all you need to know.

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 03:07

Aussie: "So even then ownership passed at the barrel of a gun so to speak."



As Turkey tried in 1974, eh?

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 10:25

Greece facing Cypriots tried from 1963 to 1974 if not earlier and they have not been able to since that God.... eh?

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 14:57

groucho

i thought that before the british all the land was owned by the ottoman goverment?

individuals didn't own any land?

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 17:15

Yes Pike my point applies in 1974 as well Turkey used military force then just as Sampson and many GC's were at the time too.



Aussie

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 17:33

Aussie,



Sampson was toppled after five days. Hardly compares with 35 years of Turkish foreign occupation, does it?

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 21:31

hi

in actual fact pike, sampson did not get toppled he resigned after eight days not 5, because his mickey mouse government which was put together by greece was not reconised internationaly

if you r talking bout comparision then dont forget bout grivas who first invaded parts of turkey before greece got kicked out of turkey then he started the enosis idea soon after the church of cyprus had voted for enosis in the 50's so 35 years of so called occupation does not compare because greece and g.c's failed in their attempts to totally take over cyprus not just a part of cyprus

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 22:09

Pike



"Sampson was toppled after five days. Hardly compares with 35 years of Turkish foreign occupation, does it? "



No the Sampson coup was crap.... Turkey has done a lot better.... which is good for the Turkish Cypriots. Rule and death under Sampson would have made Cyprus killing fields for the TCs... which let's face it was what they had in mind... given the plans for extermination of all TCs that existed....



Pike are you trying to tell us that Sampson would not still be the order of the day had the coup succeeded? So just because it failed it was not so bad in your book...



Sour grapes...

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
20/10/2008 23:04

groucho

dont forget he was defo no order of the day soon after he resigned he was charged with treason which one of the reasons was because he killed his own greek cypriot people and he was such a great man he served most of his 20 year term in hospital claiming illness



it does not matter who is in power enois has been around for many years before like the magali idea which was around at the end of the byzantine era, when the ottomans were in control of many of the countries which had a greek population and this is including cyprus, so if they would have succeded there would be no archives for the t.c's to look at

ukturk

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
21/10/2008 13:37

Groucho: "Pike are you trying to tell us that Sampson would not still be the order of the day had the coup succeeded? So just because it failed it was not so bad in your book..."



I don't buy the notion that a Greek junta would still be ruling Cyprus (and by extention Greece) today, 34 years after the coup. Look back yourself at when all the European dictatorships fell. Do you think Sampson and his successors would still be in power now? I had the dubious honour of meeting and interviewing Sampson and base my perspective on likely reality.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
21/10/2008 14:15

Maybe not in the form of most military juntas no but having had the opportunity to rid themselves of Turkish Cypriots the "democrasy" that might well have followed on would have been a terrible thing to behold... that is what I think the likely reality would have been had the coup persisted for any length of time....



The Hellenistic societies promoting union with Greece had been in existence and creating an atmosphere of distrust and hatred for some years even before the time the British rule commenced in 1878 and so little had changed in one hundred years... Greek Cypriot politics of envy has been the order of the day for so many years it's not easy to see them changing their spots even now... it's a real shame but I don't hold out much hope for unity

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
21/10/2008 19:59

The Cypriots don't need a whole lot of unity if settlement means a BBF (bizonal, bicommunal federation). It still means GCs in the south largely doing their thang and likewise TCs in the north running their own affairs - but under an international personality. I think most Turkish Cypriots would prefer to be citizens of a real country on the world stage with all the rights and privileges that go with it than even more decades of isolation. A "no" vote from them would be nothing short of daft and myopic. It's the GCs who are more likely to reject the deal, IMO. I hope the credit crunch hits sceptical southern voters hard enough to make them realize the prospect of an international minnow like Cyprus remaining divided into two even smaller minnows is a ludicrous prospect - and that frankly the rest of the world is getting rather fed up with it all.

Groucho



Joined: 26/04/2008
Posts: 7993

Message Posted:
21/10/2008 20:05

Well for once I agree with you Pike... I think the GCs will be the possible sticking point once again...



Certainly if settlement means wholesale movements of folk in either direction it will scupper the likelihood of any deal from both sides of the equation....