Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

PRESIDENT Papadopoulos shattered the last few remaining hopes of a settlement during his term, in a speech he made at a book launch on Wednesday night. He re-iterated his theoretical commitment to a solution that would re-unify the island, but set one non-negotiable condition – the preservation of the Cyprus Republic – which would preclude any settlement in the foreseeable future. It was the official laying to rest of the Annan plan, which offered the only realistic opportunity of a deal.

“We fought for the evolution of the state to a new constitution of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, but not for the dissolution of the state and the virgin birth of a new state of affairs,” he said. He added: “The safeguarding of the trustworthiness and prestige of the Cyprus state is not a matter of personal preference, or a matter of routine obligation. It is a debt and a responsibility of the people and the leadership.” Honouring this debt “is directly linked with the prospect of success of our struggle for national and physical survival.”

By the end of the speech, the alleged objective of a solution gave way to the preservation of the state at all costs. There could have been no more emphatic a rejection of the Annan plan, the philosophy and essence of which is based on the “virgin birth of a new state of affairs” or, to put it more simply, the replacement of the Republic of Cyprus by a new state. In short, the President was never remotely interested in the UN-proposed solution, but went along with last year’s peace process only because there was no way out of it, especially as he had given assurances to the EU that he was committed to a solution.

Since the referendum, Papadopoulos has flatly refused to say what changes to the plan would make it acceptable to him, on the spurious grounds that he did not want to give his negotiating position away. He has also gone out of his way to antagonise all the parties – UN, EU, US and Britain - that could contribute to a new initiative aimed at making the plan more palatable to Greek Cypriots and gave his approval to the start of EU-Turkey accession talks without even attempting to get any commitment to the resumption of talks from Ankara; it was the last thing he wanted. In the last few weeks he has taken a page out of Rauf Denktash’s book by setting certain inviolable conditions for agreeing to any new negotiations – no time-frame and no arbitration, which would ensure inconclusive talks.

The president’s objective is obvious. He is making it abundantly clear to the international community that any attempt at a new initiative would be doomed to failure because he would never agree to the abolition of the Republic; and his presidency, which is an integral part of it. The communist party AKEL is on the same wavelength and employing similar tactics. Initially, the party leader Demetris Christofias wanted certain guarantees on security and the implementation of the provisions of the plan and then he wanted substantive changes that would be mutually agreed with the Turkish Cypriots. Now he has decided he wants the whole plan re-negotiated, without time-frames and arbitration.

The only solution that president and his political allies seem prepared to accept is a return to the 1960 constitution. In Wednesday’s speech Papadopoulos waxed lyrical about the London and Zurich agreements which established the Cyprus Republic, even though he had been vehemently opposed to the agreements at the time. That the political parties and the government are currently discussing an amendment of the constitution to increase the number of seats in parliament to a hundred and reserving 30 of these for the Turkish Cypriots, if and when they return to the Republic, is indicative of the prevailing thinking. If they were genuinely focused on a securing a settlement they would not be amending the constitution now, and in a way suggesting that we intend to maintain the status quo indefinitely.

There is no doubt that the notoriously secretive Papadopoulos has his own agenda, which he is unwilling to share with anyone but his closest associates. While it is his constitutional prerogative to forge national policy, this does not give him the right to keep people completely in the dark about his plans on an issue which, one way or another, will affect everyone’s future. People need to know where he is leading them, rather than having constantly to second-guess his moves and try to make sense of his conflicting statements, not to mention the empty promises of a European solution peddled by his political allies. The referendum result was not a carte blanche for Papadopoulos to bury the hope of a settlement for the foreseeable future.

All his actions indicate that this is his objective, which may or may not have the support of the people. This is why, we believe, he has a moral obligation to tell the people what he is trying to achieve, how he proposes to do it and what risks are involved. Could it lead to partition without the Greek Cypriots getting any territory back, or the constant threat of future clashes? Are people really willing to pay this price for the sake of preserving the Cyprus Republic, as the president implied in Wednesday’s speech? How does he know? But if he is going to cite the people’s wishes as justification for his high-risk policies, he should at least have the decency to inform them what he is actually playing at and what is at stake.

We had thought we had moved on from the era of autocratic rule when the leader supposedly knew best what was good for his people and did not even bother to tell them what this entailed.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I don't know who wrote this article, but it seems to me that he/she is over-reacting ...

All that Tassos said in his speech, was that he wants the new state of affairs to be the evolution of the RoC into a Federal State, as opposed to a "Virgin Birth". What Tassos is proposing would in fact be one of the simplest things to fix in the Annan Plan ... just by changing a few words in the preamble. (In fact, most legal experts agree anyway that the Annan Plan was the evolution of the RoC, because if it was a new state all international treaties would have to be renegotiated from scratch - which was not the case with the Annan Plan. The authors of the Plan were just being devious in not saying so outright in the preamble, so as not to offend the sensibilities of ... Raouf Denktash!)

I don't know therefore how this journalist concludes from this particular speech of Tassos that he wants to bury the Annan Plan for good ... unless the journalist has already deemed this to be the case because of other reasons, and now pursues his argument whatever the evidence (or lack of).

My own feeling is that Tassos is seeking to re-open all chapters of the Annan Plan for negotiations, not just security, guarantees, settlers, and the economy (which is what most mediators are willing to contemplate) but also issues relating to the structure of the Federal State, decision making, and deadlock resolution (and of course also the status of the Federal State, as evidenced in the article above).

Now, what I am not sure about, is the extent of the changes that Tassos will demand concerning Federal Structure. If he asks for moderate improvements in this set of issues (such as, international judges to come from EU countries, a re-examination of the issues for which qualified majorities will apply) I don't believe it would cause the negotiations to collapse. But if he goes all the way, and starts insisting for simple majority voting in all Federal bodies, no international judges on the Supreme Court and so on, then the talks will definitely collapse.

[brother]

We are both intelligent people, can we not agree that tassos will do whatever it takes to ensure the talks collapse, and the reasoning behind this is his belief that the veto is more powerful than a nuclear weapon, and believes that he can get maximum concessions out of turkey.

Well what springs to mind is the old saying; a bird in the hand is more valuable than two in the bush.

[Alexandros Lordos]

We are both intelligent people, can we not agree that tassos will do whatever it takes to ensure the talks collapse, and the reasoning behind this is his belief that the veto is more powerful than a nuclear weapon, and believes that he can get maximum concessions out of turkey.

I don't know, brother, I am still confused about Tassos' intentions, to be honest ...

I am still not sure whether he is realistically working for a solution ,or whether he is striving for maximalist goals ...

If he was a "maximalist" of the Koutsou or Lyssarides type, then why did he not veto Turkey last December, as most GCs in fact demanded?

But, as you say, we are both intelligent people. Do you think that Tassos should have been in favor of a Yes to the plan last April? Does the fact that he was in favor of No make him a "maximalist"? If you are getting our drift in this forum, you probably know already that most Greek Cypriots also didn't like the Annan Plan, does that make us all "maximalists"?

[brother]

I accept a democratic decision but i also recognise a maximalist person, i have always stated that tassos influenced the 'no' vote for the wrong reasons, but if i was a gc i would have voted 'no' also, having got his(tassos) result he could and still can come to the negotiating table in a strong position and assist in bringing peace, but as always he is choosing the stance of doing a denktas and make this process impossible to come to conclusion.
My opinion is his underlying EOKA past and deep desires to make cyprus a hellenic island or keep the division going till the day comes and he gets what he wants, if ever.
We the tc are a community who have been suffering this under denktas and we have finally broken our ties with him and will be rid of his taksim fuelled posion forever but you cannot say that in the south, you are now under the same dilusion with tassos.

You may/may not agree with me now but in time you will see the signs of a man who is traitor to his people for telling them one thing and doing another.

Alex for the record i hope i am wrong and tassos turns out to be the maker of the ever lasting peace in cyprus as this is what all of us want, peace and stability to live without fear.

[insan]

He is in EU as he wished. He played the delaying tactics in order to strenghten his hand against Turkey(Or to get what he wants i.e dreams). It's been 8 months he has been in EU but still we don't see his will towards a better solution. What does he wait for?

1- Election results of North. 2- Election results of zart 3- Election results of zurt. 4- Watermelon season 5- Peach season zart-zurt.

[-mikkie2-]

To me, the evidence suggests that Tassos is trying to get the problem solved without having Turkey dictate terms. That is the real issue that Tassos has I believe. For so long Cyprus has not been able to influence the Turkish stance whatsoever. Now he has that opportunity with EU membership.

I do not blame him for wanting to do this to Turkey. I genuinely believe that he is working for something that will benefit everyone. If he was a 'maximalist' and a 'Turk hater' he would have vetoed Turkey and that would have been it.

It seems that this year will bring another opportunity to solve the problem. Tassos should be judged on what he does next, not on what happened before, so we can hope that he is following a path that will lead to a solution. I have said before that he should not be underestimated!

[brother]

Look mikkie stop pretending you do not know the real reason he did not veto, but just in case you are not yourself today, the reason no veto, his E.U peers did not allow him to veto including the big boss greece.

We can all sit here and pretend that the E.U is truely democratic but we are not here to dream, they want turkey chasing the dream of membership and little cyprus will do as it is told.

[insan]

I do not blame him for wanting to do this to Turkey. I genuinely believe that he is working for something that will benefit everyone. If he was a 'maximalist' and a 'Turk hater' he would have vetoed Turkey and that would have been it.

Tassos alone would never be able(dare) to veto Turkey. That's why he couldn't veto Turkey not because he is not a Turk hater or maximalist. If his Christian Democrat mates have given him a go to veto Turkey which I think one of the things he waits for; would veto Turkey togther with those Christian Democrat dominated EU countries.

[-mikkie2-]

I am sorry guys, but are you all mind readers or something?

You have to give this guy a chance. It is obvious that given the choice of prospective EU membership as the RoC or accepting the Annan plan he would have taken the RoC into the Eu every time. He is no fool, and the more you guys belittle and accuse him the more humble pie you are likely to eat!

The 'disastrous' consequences that everyone has predicted have not happened. The EU and other parties rushed to pat Turkey on the back and make promises they couldn't keep - the people you should be blaming are those people that made promises to you, not Tassos!

Round 1 is over, round 2 is about to begin, so lets hope that this will be the KO and and we won't be sitting here discussing this in a years time!