GOC REACTS ANGRILY TO THE RELEASE OF THE HUMAN

C O N F I D E N T I A L NICOSIA 000410

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 03/16/2016
TAGS: PGOV PHUM CY
SUBJECT: GOC REACTS ANGRILY TO THE RELEASE OF THE HUMAN
RIGHTS REPORT; BUT BETTER THAN LAST YEAR


Classified By: Ambassador Ronald L. Schlicher; reasons 1.4 (B) and (D)


1. (C) Summary: Although somewhat more muted than last
year, GOC authorities have once again lashed out at the human
rights report on Cyprus. Privately, MFA officials criticized
us for producing a "political document" that was aimed more
at upgrading the Turkish Cypriot "entity" than at advancing
human rights. Justice Minister Theodorou slammed the report
in a March 16 press conference and insisted that the police
would no longer respond to "questionnaires" from the U.S.
Embassy without assurances that the report would be
"objective." (Note: Theodorou himself is mentioned in the
report in connection with allegations of nepotism.)
Meanwhile, the police published a 17-page rebuttal to our
report on the web. We intend to engage with both the MOJ and
the police to assuage their concerns and reinforce the
importance of open dialogue on these important issues. End
Summary.

MFA: REPORT IS A POLITICAL COMMENTARY ON A DIVIDED CYPRUS
-------------- --------------


2. (C) On March 8, Polchief presented the 2005 Human Rights
Report on Cyprus to Evangelos Savvas in the MFA's Cyprus
Question Division. We drew Savvas's attention, in
particular, to a number of editing changes we had made to
accommodate Greek Cypriot sensitivities. This included
replacing "north Cyprus" with "area administered by the
Turkish Cypriots" and restoring specific language that made
clear the United States did not recognize the "Turkish
Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)." Polchief urged Savvas
and other GOC officials to read the report carefully and
consider the changes we had made before commenting publicly.
Savvas stressed that the GOC was still highly displeased by
the fact that the report included a separate section on the
Turkish Cypriots. This division of the report into two
sections had nothing to do with human rights, but was rather
aimed at upgrading the status of the Turkish Cypriot entity.
The GOC viewed the U.S. Human Rights Report as a
fundamentally political document. The division of the report
was, he reiterated, unacceptable. Moreover, the report made
no mention of the objective fact that the vast majority of
human rights violations on Cyprus were a function of the
Turkish invasion and occupation. The report did not even
deign to use the word "invasion." This alone was incredibly
offensive to Greek Cypriots, he said. Savvas noted that the
government had been cooperative in providing the information
that the United States had asked for in preparing the report.
The GOC was beginning, however, to question the basis of
this cooperation given that Greek Cypriot sensitivities with
respect to the Cyprus issue were routinely ignored.

WAITING FOR THE OTHER SHOE
--------------


3. (SBU) Media coverage that followed the release of the
report was generally mild. A few papers offered the standard
charges of hypocrisy, but official circles remained largely
mute. A week after the publication of the report, however,
Justice Minister Theodorou (who was mentioned in the document
in connection with allegations of nepotism) held a press
conference in which he dismissed the report as "prejudiced
and pre-decided." He announced that, due to the report's
"inaccuracies," the police would "no longer respond to
American Embassy questionnaires unless it is given assurances
that they (the Americans) will be objective." Theodorou
pointed, in particular, to the report's failure to highlight
an independent board that had been formed to investigate
allegations of police corruption in relation to trafficking
in persons. He neglected, however, to mention that the board
had only been formed in February 2006. The Cypriot police, he
continued, had been instructed to respond to the Embassy's
questionnaire because the force operated in a climate of
"complete transparency." The police had nothing to hide,
since the level of respect for human rights in Cyprus was
"indisputably high." On March 17, the police posted a
17-page rebuttal to the human rights report on the web, along
with a press release noting the contents that had caused them
"grief, bitterness and disappointment." The press release
charged that the report was rife with inaccuracies and
"misleading references."


4. (C) COMMENT: The official response to the release of this
year's report was significantly less intemperate than the
firestorm of protest the GOC launched in response to the 2004
report. While the government is still clearly displeased

with the division of the report into two sections, our
willingness to address some of their linguistic concerns has
apparently helped to moderate the tone of the official
response. Equally important, the 2005 report did not include
the controversial issues of press freedom stemming from the
April 2004 Annan Plan referenda. While we are concerned
about the Justice Minister's insistence that the Police will
no longer respond to our "questionnaires" (note: the
authorities require us to communicate on this issue primarily
in writing),we intend to engage with both the MOJ and the
Police to discuss their concerns and reinforce the need for
an open exchange on such critical issues as human rights and
trafficking in persons.
SCHLICHER