Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Touching on some of the postings of Nikitas, Phoenix and Get Real, I thought it best to start a new topic on what I believe to be the essence of the Cyprus issue: What is our Government's Plan and Strategy for Unification?

In other words, how will our government, or should I say the Cyprus government, secure a unification deal other than the infamous "Set of Ideas" or "Annan Plan" model, which clearly appears to be the UN's preferred route?

What do you believe our government is doing to secure a unificatinon deal with no component, constituent etc states? And why has it taken since 1974 for our people, an unrecognised state in the north and many other political muddles for our government to realise what type of future it prefers?

Why did President Papadopoulos originally agree with the "Framework" of such a plan like the Annan Plan, surely even a newly graduate in Political studies could have seen the pitfalls of such a dead-end UN plan?

However, most importantly, can anyone list how we are now going to achieve unification without the dissolution of the Republic of Cyprus, the dissolution of the so-called TRNC and remove Turkey from the Guarantor situation?

Or, as said in the many articles being published recently, are we going to eventually have to accept Partition of some sort in order to protect our "national" Cypriot interests. Please can you provide sensible answers to the questions above where we can perhaps even help the Cyprus government and our politicians in best understanding what we believe can practically be done. Here's my short list to date:

1) Apart from trying to use the EU to force Turkey in accepting such an agreement based on what they believe is removing "their sensitivities" for the bigger slice of the cake (EU membership for Turkey), I am seriously struggling to visualise how the so-called Cyprus peace process under the UN will achieve anything other than another patronising Annan type of plan.

2) My second option would be to set in motion a series of ground-shock policies in using our EU Veto against Turkey now as opposed to waiting for the last minute, which may render our vote insignificant. At least they may force Turkey into perhaps meeting the majority or our conditions, if not all of them, in order for them to progress in their dream for EU membership - or, have I just touched on the most important aspect of the Cyprus issue (In other words, do our leader want Partition but are not telling us as they want it to be achieved in a controlled manner?).

3) If we are unable to use the EU membership card, then perhaps we could increase our lobby activities in persuading other countries of the world in forcing Turkey to give up its hold on the so-called TRNC, or am I wasting my typing ability.


And, what I DON'T WANT:

Is: The continuation of the status quo - as I believe will lead to catastrophic situation for us, in terms of a resolution - or is that what the Cyprus government wants?

My posting may be of a sensitive nature, but at least we can perhaps pin-point the real issue as to why a Cyprus solution hasn't been found after so many decades!

Rgds,
Andros

[Nikitas]

Andros,

Maybe it is me, but over the years I have been following the developments in Cyprus never once did I hear or read of concrete proposals made by either side. It was maddening after talks lasting hours to have the leaders of both sides com out, face the press and give those cryptic statements that meant all things to all men (and women).

Excepting this forum, I don't think I ever came across detailed rational discussion of what each type of solution (federal, confederal, partition etc) would mean in practice.

One example about federation- will I be able to move about the whole island freely? will I be able to have a business or branch in the "other" component state? Can I own property there? All these details were necver discussed and finally we got the whole shebang in 9000 pages of the Annan plan and naturally we said NO.

So what we need now is open, public, candid discussion of what exactly the people desire to see incorporated in a solution, and, just as important, what they will not accept. It is probable that the people will prove more broadminded and tolerant than our politicians- onboth sides.

To get anywher we must also start acting like grownups and negotiate directly with each other without intermediaries. This will not go down well with the guarantor powers and the USA but they will have to lump it if both sides show determination and solidarity.

Pressuring Turkey, with any means does not seem to work. Using the veto in the EU is a move of last resort. In our case the veto becomes more menaingful and effective as Turkey nears the end of the accession process, not the beginning. That will be years from now.

As to the status of the Republic after a solution. Angelides, the politician put it in logical and straightforward terms: we retain the Republic and simply alter its constitution to incorporate the terms of any settlement. This solves the problems of legal personality, state continuity, membership in international organizations etc.
Turkey does not like this idea, but then our job is to suit ourselves as Cypriots and not to accomodate the Turks or anyone else.

Now I am very interested to see what ideas others will propose.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas,
Just in response to one of your points

"simply alter its constitution to incorporate the terms of any settlement. This solves the problems of legal personality, state continuity, membership in international organizations etc."

Actually in respect of legal personality, continuity and membership of international organisation, or treaty obligations there is not really a problem to be solved with the exception of certain bilateral agreements for example the T of Guarantee. Whatever the new form of the Cypriot state it is customary to inherit all the legal obligations (including international/foreign debt, for example) of the predecessor state. Then, depending on the nature and terms of international agreements the new states could then choose to withdraw from such and such treaties. However in the first instance the point is that the treaty obligations are automatically inherited.

The growing difficulty in modern international law which would face the new Cyprus is that treaties are increasingly couched in "single undertaking" and effective "non-withdrawal" terms. Thus for example Cyprus is a WTO member and it would be virtually impossible for the new Cyprus to withdraw from the WTO if it wished to do so.

There's another point which might be worth raising here : it might not be necessary and it might not be desirable to incorporate the terms of a settlement into the new constitution. Why ? Because if there are underlying and unresolved issues related to the settlement you would not want this to 'contaminate' the new constitution. A new consitution, one might argue, should be precisely that - new - a clean break from the past. If you do incorporate the settlement somehow into the new constitution then a crisis of settlement simultaneously becomes a constitutional crisis. Of course there are other arguments around this relationship, but for my ha'penny worth I'd keep settlement and constitution quite separate.

[zan]

Nikitas,
Just in response to one of your points

"simply alter its constitution to incorporate the terms of any settlement. This solves the problems of legal personality, state continuity, membership in international organizations etc."

Actually in respect of legal personality, continuity and membership of international organisation, or treaty obligations there is not really a problem to be solved with the exception of certain bilateral agreements for example the T of Guarantee. Whatever the new form of the Cypriot state it is customary to inherit all the legal obligations (including international/foreign debt, for example) of the predecessor state. Then, depending on the nature and terms of international agreements the new states could then choose to withdraw from such and such treaties. However in the first instance the point is that the treaty obligations are automatically inherited.

The growing difficulty in modern international law which would face the new Cyprus is that treaties are increasingly couched in "single undertaking" and effective "non-withdrawal" terms. Thus for example Cyprus is a WTO member and it would be virtually impossible for the new Cyprus to withdraw from the WTO if it wished to do so.

There's another point which might be worth raising here : it might not be necessary and it might not be desirable to incorporate the terms of a settlement into the new constitution. Why ? Because if there are underlying and unresolved issues related to the settlement you would not want this to 'contaminate' the new constitution. A new consitution, one might argue, should be precisely that - new - a clean break from the past. If you do incorporate the settlement somehow into the new constitution then a crisis of settlement simultaneously becomes a constitutional crisis. Of course there are other arguments around this relationship, but for my ha'penny worth I'd keep settlement and constitution quite separate.

Why do you think they have put so much effort into blaming Turkey for everything.....