If the Cyprus Question is to be understood it is vital that both of the two peoples of Cyprus have a fair and equal opportunity to be heard.

It is equally important that an academic institution such as this should re-examine all the issues ab initio, and should not consider itself bound by any position which the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, the United Nations, nor anyone else may have taken.

First of all, there is no Cyprus nation. We, the Turkish Cypriots, think of ourselves as descendants of the Turkish Nation, but with a separate and distinct political identity. Cyprus is 40 miles from Turkey, but 250 miles from Rhodes (the nearest Greek island), and Athens is 460 miles away. Cyprus has never been part of the Greek State.

Personal relations are not an issue in Cyprus, and many of us, including our President, have enjoyed excellent relations with Greek Cypriots. But our experience is that when we deal with them collectively, especially on matters concerning what they call their "national cause" they become completely different people.

We are grateful for the efforts made by Britain, America, and others to promote an agreement in Cyprus, but we realise that they act, as all governments do, primarily in the interests of their own people. My government does the same.

We are conscious of the security interests of NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean, and we understand the importance of the bases in Cyprus, especially the electronic facilities in the Troodos mountains. Turkey is a member of NATO, and the Turkish Cypriots share their commitment to the aims and purposes of that organisation.

Turkish Cypriots look forward to a future in which Cyprus can join the European Union, but only when we have reached a modus vivendi with the Greek Cypriots, and the two parliaments have agreed to apply for membership on a basis which is satisfactory to both. For us the position of Turkey in relation to Cyprus, and the maintenance of the regional balance established by the 1960 Treaties, is of paramount importance.

Our Republic was declared by its people through the democratic process. Its President was elected and re-elected by the people, and it is by their authority that I am London Representative of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Turkish Cypriots do not need to be told about the potential benefits of a Cyprus settlement. We know what they are but we also know the risks.

In order that you may understand the concerns of our people, and the difficulties which lie in the path of an agreement with the Greek Cypriots for the future, I have to tell you of the tragedies which we experienced during the past 35 years. This is not a history lesson. It is the key to an understanding of our position today.

We have lived in Cyprus for more than 400 years, and when Britain decided to grant independence we agreed with the Greek Cypriots in 1960 to establish a new state in partnership with them, regulated by a constitution agreed between us and guaranteed by international treaty.

It is important to remember that the new state was not a unitary state in which the Greek Cypriots by virtue of their greater numbers would have control. It was a functional federation in which each of the two peoples had entrenched rights and obligations. We would never have subjected ourselves to Greek Cypriot rule, and if necessary we would have fought for our survival as a free people, with whatever help we could get.

The Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are therefore political equals, not majority and minority, and this has been acknowledged by the UN Secretary General and the Security Council.

The 1960 agreement did not give either community everything it wanted, but we, the Turkish Cypriots, were willing to make it work. Sadly, it is now clear from their own statements that the Greek Cypriots never intended it to work, and saw it only as a stepping stone to make Cyprus a Greek island and subjugate or expel the Turkish Cypriots.

On 28th July 1960 President Makarios said "the agreements do not form the goal - they are the present and not the future. The Greek Cypriot people will continue their national cause and shape their future in accordance with THEIR will.

The current Greek Cypriot President, Glafcos Clerides, says in his memoirs "the Greek Cypriot preoccupation was that Cyprus should be a GREEK CYPRIOT STATE with a protected Turkish minority. The Turkish preoccupation was to defeat any such effort and maintain the partnership concept."

It was in August 1960, the same month as the new Republic was born, and before there had been any opportunity for the new Constitution to work, that the Greek Cypriot leadership approved the notorious Akritas plan - the blueprint for the destruction of the Turkish Cypriots.

In February 1963 Makarios declared on behalf of the Greek Cypriots that if the Supreme Constitutional Court ruled against them they would ignore it. On 25th April 1963 the Court did rule against them and they did ignore it. The President of the Court (a German citizen) resigned and the rule of law in Cyprus collapsed. The Greek Cypriots declared the Constitution dead and buried.

Many will know what the Greek Cypriots then did to our men, women and children at Christmas that year. In short they did to us what the Serbs are accused of doing to the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo. They did it again in 1964, in 1967, and in 1974.

Some Greek Cypriots, in an effort to appear reasonable, are willing to accept some blame, but always they say that in fact both sides were to blame. This is an evasion of the truth, which actually makes things worse.

Those of us who lived through that terrible time know what happened. The attacks always came from the Greek Cypriots, and all we ever did was to defend ourselves.

There are two short extracts from the contemporary newspaper reports. On 31st December 1963 The Guardian reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men on both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor - allegedly by a group of forty men, in army boots and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.

On 1st January 1964 the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. I found a twisted mass of bed springs, children's cots, and grey ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighbouring village I counted 16 burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."

Sir Alec Douglas-Home wrote "I was convinced that if Makarios could not bring himself to treat the Turkish Cypriots as human beings he was inviting the invasion and partition of the island."

Insofar as Greek Cypriots suffered in 1974 they have only their own political and religious leaders to blame for starting a war. Most of their missing persons were in any event killed in Greek versus Greek fighting before the Turkish army had even landed.

The American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, said "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots.

The 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights stressed that all persons who perpetrate or authorize criminal acts associated with ethnic cleansing are individually responsible and accountable, and that the international community should exert every effort to bring those legally responsible for such violations to justice. Many of these men are still living in southern Cyprus, and have never been brought to justice, despite demands even from members of the Greek Cypriot press. Some of these criminals are in senior positions.

Immediately after the 1963 massacre, the Greek Cypriots threw us out of all our official positions in the State, and from that moment there has been no lawful government of all Cyprus. They squeezed us from 32% of the island which we owned at that time, into defended enclaves comprising less than 3%, where we survived for eleven years, lacking for the first four years even the basic necessities. It was then, not in 1974, that Cyprus was divided.

The House of Commons Select Committee reported as follows: "Moreover in June 1967 the Greek Cypriot legislature unanimously passed a resolution in favour of ENOSIS, in blatant contravention of the 1960 Treaties and Constitution."

And what was the reaction of the international community? They did not threaten air attacks against the Greek Cypriots, as they did recently against the Serbs, they did not complain about ethnic cleansing, or "attempts to change the demographic character of Cyprus", they expressed no concern for our missing persons, nor for the homes, farms and businesses we had lost, and they did not complain about the 20,000 Greek troops on the island. Instead they rewarded the Greek Cypriots by treating them as the Government of all Cyprus.

They are still recognised as such today and this gives them an enormous advantage, to which they have no legal or moral right. They have access to Presidents, Prime Ministers and Parliaments around the world. They occupy the Cyprus chair at the United Nations and in all the councils of the world. They have used this power to extract one Resolution after another (with the willing help so far of Britain and America) and to convince the world that they are right and we are wrong.

They have created a professional political lobby, which is extremely well financed, and so effective that every time Cyprus is debated in the House of Commons or the American Congress one Greek Cypriot sympathiser after another jumps to his feet. It seems impossible to have a balanced debate on the subject. It appears from recent revelations in the British press that the activities of this lobby may now have become an embarrassment to Mr. Blair's government.

We have negotiated with the Greek Cypriots for 25 years on the basis of the UN formula - trying to agree a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. We accepted the March 1986 UN Plan, and the 1993 Confidence-Building Measures, but now it is clear to us that for the foreseeable future the Greek Cypriots will not agree to anything which excludes forever their chance to rule the whole island.

It is equally clear that the Turkish Cypriot people will never allow our leaders to agree to anything which might lead to any repetition of our past experiences at the hands of the Greek Cypriots, nor anything which ignores the existence of our State - now in its sixteenth year.

The Turkish Cypriots are a proud people, and my government will never accept the arrogant decision of the Greek Cypriots to apply for membership for the whole island, without even asking us. They thought it would further their aim to convert Cyprus into a Greek Cypriot Republic, but it has been counterproductive.

I have heard it said that no country has a veto on Cyprus joining the EU. This is incorrect. Britain has a veto, and Turkey has a veto, for the following reasons:

According to Article 1 of the 1960 Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee, Cyprus bound itself "not to participate in whole or in part in any political or economic union with any state whatsoever." It should be noted that this is not restricted to total political union only, and it is not restricted to union with Greece or Turkey.

The Greek Cypriot application to enter into both an economic and a political union with the member states of the EU is in clear violation of Article 1. The legal opinion to the contrary obtained by the Greek Cypriots makes no sense at all, based as it is on the proposition that the EU is neither wholly nor in part an economic or political union between states.

Britain, as a member of the EU, has a veto on ANY new member under ordinary European Union law, and Britain as a party to the 1960 Cyprus Treaty is legally BOUND by Article 2 as follows: "to prohibit ....any activity aimed at promoting....union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other state" On 30th July 1997 in the House of Lords the British Government affirmed that the Treaty of Guarantee is still in force.

Britain is therefore legally bound to use its vote in the EU Council to veto Greek Cypriot accession. Turkey, as a party to the 1960 Treaty also has a veto in the sense that she is not willing to release Britain from her treaty obligation under Article 2 until the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots have settled their differences.

The Greek Cypriot application also violates the UN Security Council Resolutions on Cyprus which exclude union in whole or in part with any other country.

The Greek Cypriots have offered us a few seats in THEIR delegation, and some of our friends in Britain think it is an opportunity we should take. We regard it as an insult.

In any event, the task of the delegation is to negotiate with the other EU members the terms on which Cyprus joins the EU. We have first to agree a settlement among ourselves in Cyprus.

If the Greek Cypriots proceed further with their application without our consent we shall inevitably move closer to Turkey.

As far as our security is concerned, we have learned from experience that Turkish and Turkish Cypriot soldiers on the ground in Cyprus are the only safeguard on which we can rely.

Sir Anthony Kershaw, the former chairman of the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs referred as follows to the Turkish troops:

Sir Anthony continued:

The 1960 Constitution had in any event been repudiated by the Greek Cypriots expressly and by their conduct. It is astonishing that, having violated our constitutional and human rights on a massive scale, the Greek Cypriots have the nerve to rely, as they so often do, on legal principles.

The Security Council has never called for the withdrawal of Turkish troops, and no international court has ever ruled on their legal position, but by Resolution 353 the Council did call for the withdrawal of GREEK troops.

For the past 34 years Turkey has encouraged us to make a political settlement with the Greek Cypriots, but we have now concluded that there is no way forward unless the world abandons the fiction that there is only one Government of Cyprus, and deals with the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot State on the basis of equality.

If Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots could talk with each other on the basis of equality and mutual respect, then I believe we may be able to work out together a new political settlement for our island. Perhaps a Confederation, as President Denktash has proposed. Included in that settlement would be compensation to all people on both sides who lost their property.

In the meantime, the British and the Americans have the diplomatic power to ensure that Russian missiles are never installed in Cyprus, and they must exercise it if they have not already done so. If the Greek Cypriots get anything in return, that will only encourage them to further reckless action in the hope of further concessions.

The extraordinary arms build-up in the South has no military logic. The Greek Cypriots, even with Greek help, could not hope to prevail over a nation of 65 million people, and any idea they may have of a military solution to their problems is absurd. All they are doing is to raise tensions and make a settlement more difficult. The European Union and America should make it clear to the Greek Cypriots that if they start another war they will have to face the consequences alone.

Turkish troops have been in Cyprus for 25 years. They are not occupying Northern Cyprus, they are there at our request to protect us, the Turkish Cypriots, from any further aggression. They have never attacked the South and have no intention of doing so. By contrast the Greek Cypriots constantly threaten us with military action. I cannot disclose military secrets, but I can tell you that there are no more troops in the North than are necessary to guard our people 24 hours a day, every day of the year. Defence in depth is not possible in Cyprus.

Demilitarisation is not an option either. If the Turkish troops left we would be heavily outnumbered. Even if the political will to demilitarise were there, we could not be confident that the Greek Cypriots had "decommissioned" their weapons.

Some of our friends in Britain say, "Don't worry, the Greek Cypriots have changed. They are nice people now. Many of them were not even born at the time. And anyway the international community will protect you." Maybe they have changed. But if they have not, it would be our families, not yours, who would suffer.

As for the international community. They failed to protect us when we needed them. Britain was bound by Article 2 of the 1960 Treaty to GUARANTEE our basic constitutional rights, but Britain failed three times to take any effective action, even when Turkey's Prime Minister Ecevit proposed a joint intervention force in 1974.

United Nations troops also failed to protect us, and today they cannot even prevent an organised gang of women or motorcyclists from violating their buffer zone and attacking our border. They blame their mandate, but they have had 34 years to get their mandate right.

In view of the propensity of the international community, including the United Kingdom, to find legal arguments to justify their failure to comply with treaty obligations, and in view of the proven ability of the Greek Cypriots to tear up solemn agreements and to get what they want from the United Nations and the courts, we could not for a moment entrust the safety of our families, or our future as a free people, to legal instruments or promises of any kind.

A settlement with the Greek Cypriots will not happen so long as the world encourages them to believe that they are in the right, and can keep their unlawful status as "Government of Cyprus" forever. Their priority is to defend their unlawful title at all costs, and force their way into the European Union. This is becoming a farce, and US Presidential envoy Holbrooke has now publicly acknowledged that the Clerides administration is not the government of all Cyprus.

"Oh", say the diplomats, "but if we recognise the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus you will be getting the rewards without giving anything in return." Why should we give ANYTHING for the right to be treated equally - a right which is ours anyway? It is an outrage that the Greek Cypriots were ever treated as the government of all Cyprus, and this has got to be put right now.

Secondly, say the diplomats, "if we recognise you, perhaps you will no longer be interested in making a settlement with the Greek Cypriots". To this I reply, "We will always be interested in making a settlement with them, because Cyprus is a small island. They are our neighbours and we want to live in peace with them." But it is futile to think that by withholding recognition, anyone can force us into a settlement which our people cannot live with.

Our Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is recognised only by Turkey, but we know that many countries would recognise us if freed from diplomatic pressure by Britain and America. If the people of Slovenia, Croatia and Bangladesh can have recognition of their state, why not the Turkish Cypriots?

We are accused of making preconditions. But the real precondition is the demand of the international community that we should continue negotiating on the basis of the old UN formula, which for 25 years has been leading nowhere, and which Clerides himself discarded at the Glion meeting.

Greek Cypriots complain that large numbers of people of Turkish origin have been allowed to make their homes in Northern Cyprus since 1974, but they forget that far more Turkish Cypriots emigrated to Turkey, Britain, the United States and other countries during the period 1963 to 1974 and earlier periods, when life in Cyprus was made extremely difficult for us.

The people who have settled in Northern Cyprus since 1974 came to help rebuild our economy from the ruins to which eleven years of persecution had reduced it, and very many of them are of Turkish Cypriot origin. It would be impossible for my Government to introduce compulsory repatriation for those people. In any event they number only 30,000 out of a total population of 200,000. We do not complain about the many thousands of Greeks, Lebanese, and others who have been allowed to settle in the South.

It is true that our economy could be in better shape, though judging from the new buildings and new cars in our towns we are doing better than many people think. Soon we will have a secure water supply from Turkey, and our economy will be transformed.

To those countries who profess concern for our prosperity I say this, "If your concern is genuine you should stop participating in the Greek Cypriot trade and communications boycott, which has for 34 years obstructed our economic growth." This embargo has no moral justification, and no authority under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.

British diplomats have said that the boycott dates from the 1994 ruling of the European Court on our fruit and vegetable exports. The Greek Cypriot representative, Mr. Kassoulides, told this Institute on 4th November that the boycott was imposed in 1983 when we declared our Republic. It was in fact imposed on us by the Greek Cypriots in 1964, and has nothing to do with the declaration of our Republic. They thought they could starve us into submission - but they were mistaken then and they are mistaken today.

For the time being, we are resolved to go forward, trusting in our own people, and secure in the knowledge that our brothers and sisters in Turkey will never let us down. We have known hardships before, and we can live with our present situation as long as we have to.

One day the world will wake up to the dreadful mistake it has made on Cyprus, and then perhaps we will be able to work with our Greek Cypriot neighbours on the basis of justice, equality, and common sense.