Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

With the current climate that many GC are encountering following the referandum and the ROC ministers and even tassos waging the war of words with many powerful countries i thought this piece would be of great interest and a good debate for us on the forum.




A nightmarish scenario
By Nicos Rolandis


MANY people in Cyprus today are concerned about the miserable dead end brought about in the wake of last year’s referendum. A referendum of which the outcome was distorted due to AKEL’s election campaign commitments that never saw the light of day. A referendum founded on misleading promises by the government and others of a so-called European solution, which did not exist, does not exist now and will never exist in the future.

But today matters have taken a turn for the worse. As a result of our overall policy, we now find ourselves in the sights of the powers that be; we are in a position that any country (even a large country that can pull its weight on the international scene) would take pains to avoid. We, on the other hand, do not seem to realise that we are just a drop in the ocean, the other countries being the ocean. With our political thoughtlessness, our aggressive language, our provocative statements and our stubborn stance, we have achieved the impossible: namely, to be abhorred by the United Nations, treated with hostility by the Americans, and having the Europeans constantly trying to upgrade the breakaway regime. And yet we carry on provoking everyone…
Naturally, no one is saying that we should render ourselves subordinates or the stooges of the powerful of the earth. But there is a huge difference between subservience and arrogance. There is also a middle road, one that is trod by most countries, who in this way protect their existence, their economy, their future. In 1950, the great Georgios Papandreou remarked that because Greece inhaled with two lungs – one American, the other British – it did not run the risk of choking on the Cyprus problem (see the book by Ploutis Servas Responsibilities, volume 1, page 152). So what makes us think that we can afford to heckle, mock and provoke the United Nations, the British and the Americans, when Greece could not? Is there any point in behaving like the D’Artagnan of the Mediterranean? Do we not comprehend that many of the things that are happening – including the recent damning US human rights report – are not unrelated to the dangerous and explosive situation we are gradually cultivating through unnecessary confrontations?

Spyros Kyprianou, with whose negative handling of the Cyprus problem I strongly disagreed, was very careful when it came to international relations, especially when dealing with the major powers. He would immediately correct any mistakes he made, as he did for example in the summer of 1978, when he dispatched me to meet German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher and mend relations with the Federal Republic of Germany. Kyprianou was always watchful of maintaining good relations with the Americans, even though they accused him of being intransigent.

We managed to arrange meetings at the White House with Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan within less than five years, a record for a president of a small country. During the early years of the Thatcher administration, Kyprianou twice went on an official visit to 10 Downing Street (and was also the guest of honour at a luncheon). He also met officially with Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and François Mitterrand. He met with Brezhnev and the presidents or prime ministers of important countries. Kyprianou always advised me that we should take the utmost care to keep up foreign relations. He was fully aware of the risks facing a small and partitioned country if it incurred the wrath of the powers that be.

The tragic thing is that our very existence as a nation may be torn asunder if we persist with this uncalled for confrontation with important countries. For instance, Foreign Minister George Iacovou’s injudicious threat that Cyprus might not work alongside the Americans in the war on terrorism was a major error, because this is an extremely sensitive issue that affects the Americans, Europe, Russia and all mankind.

In practice, a nation’s existence is never guaranteed, simply because that does not depend on us, but rather on other countries, particularly the powerful. Were some of the major powers to shift recognition to the “government” in the north, then in time we might well find ourselves referred to in inverted commas, whereas today this applies to the Turkish Cypriot side. In the event of such a nightmarish scenario, there is a risk that the north, and not our side, might be recognised as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus; and that this government might question (or even usurp) our seat at the United Nations and the European Union. Hard to believe, you say? Yet this is precisely what happened in the past on certain occasions (Cambodia 1979, Chad 1980, Afghanistan 1980).

One such case, that of a country far more important than ours, stands out: in 1971 the People’s Republic of China was accepted into the United Nations, acquired a seat as China, and eventually dislodged Taiwan, which had held a seat there for several years (UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, 1971). It was the United States which played the vital part in bringing about this sensational upset, with the two visits to Peking by Kissinger in 1971, followed by Nixon’s official visit in 1972 (and this despite the fact the Americans would have preferred Taiwan to remain within the United Nations fold and play it off against China).

In other words, there is more than a risk of transforming the breakaway regime into a sort of Taiwan. There is also the nightmarish possibility (if we take this confrontational stance too far) that we might become a Taiwan, with the breakaway regime recognised internationally. In Cambodia’s case, the invasion government, backed by Vietnam and the Soviets, was recognised by 35 countries (including India) in 1981. Similarly, the government set up in Afghanistan by the invading Soviets was recognised in 1980 (I was present at international organisations when these events happened).

It’s astonishing what the powerful can accomplish, especially if provoked. In this respect, Tassos and Iacovou’s “en garde!” to US President Bush is tantamount to committing national suicide.

Do they not realise this? And does AKEL, with its 80-year-old experience, not see this?

[insan]

In other words, there is more than a risk of transforming the breakaway regime into a sort of Taiwan. There is also the nightmarish possibility (if we take this confrontational stance too far) that we might become a Taiwan, with the breakaway regime recognised internationally. In Cambodia’s case, the invasion government, backed by Vietnam and the Soviets, was recognised by 35 countries (including India) in 1981. Similarly, the government set up in Afghanistan by the invading Soviets was recognised in 1980 (I was present at international organisations when these events happened).

It is highly possible if Turkish side can manage to build far better relations with super powers.

[Piratis]

By Nicos Rolandis

The americans decided to bring this one out of the naphthalene also?

Insan, if you expect your criminal invasion to be legalized so you can keep forever what you stole from us, then sooner or later you will have to pay the prize of your arrogance and greediness. We have been on this island for 3.500 years, more than any Turk or American has existed. We've seen many like them before.

[insan]

By Nicos Rolandis

The americans decided to bring this one out of the naphthalene also?

Insan, if you expect your criminal invasion to be legalized so you can keep forever what you stole from us, then sooner or later you will have to pay the prize of your arrogance and greediness. We have been on this island for 3.500 years, more than any Turk or American has existed. We've seen many like them before.

And if you expect your dirty domination game will last forever, so you can keep forever what you stole from us, then sooner or later you will have to pay the price of your arrogance and greediness. We have been on this island for 400 years, more or less than any GC or Greek has existed. This does not mean we will be the prisoners of your dirty, inhumane domination game.

[cannedmoose]

Insan, Piratis... instead of just throwing your toys out of the pram and engaging in a battle of meaningless and mutually distasteful rhetoric, are you actually going to discuss the substance of this article... if not, this thread is off down an unsuccessful path already...

[insan]

Koumpare mou cannedmoose, may I have your opinions about the substance of this article, please?

[cannedmoose]

Koumpare mou cannedmoose, may I have your opinions about the substance of this article, please?

Sorry koumbaros re, I'm up to my neck with work for tomorrow... hence why I was trying to get your views... rather than my own! I expect greatness insan, write away!

[insan]

Koumpare mou cannedmoose, may I have your opinions about the substance of this article, please?

Sorry koumbaros re, I'm up to my neck with work for tomorrow... hence why I was trying to get your views... rather than my own! I expect greatness insan, write away!

I shortly stated my opinion about the substance of this article. If you have some specific question to ask me about it, I think you may spare a 5 mins. to ask. Otherwise I don't want to interrupt your work you rush to complete for tomorrow.


I wish you easiness and success with all of your works

[turkcyp]

Comment - The protocol, the recognition and the bitter reality
By Katie Clerides

THE ongoing debate over Turkey’s signature of the Customs Protocol with the 25 member states of the EU prompted me to freshen up my reading of international law books in order to have a more informed view on where we stand as far as this matter is concerned. According to classic interpretations of international law such as Oppenheimer, the signature of a multi-lateral agreement does not amount even to implied recognition. Furthermore, a written clause providing for that particular reservation is not even needed.

This is why, Turkey, sooner or later, will sign the Protocol without giving as much as an inch on her legal argument which backs up her political position of not recognising the Republic of Cyprus. This is why the Democratic Rally did not consider that the issue of the Protocol signature ought to be put first on the high priority aims list in the first place.

Moreover, there is still another weakness as far as the Protocol signature is concerned, and this is that the Protocol, similarly with the acquis communautaire, will only apply to the areas under the control of the Republic of Cyprus, therefore the Protocol signature does not in itself constitute the de-recognition of the pseudo state by Turkey. At the end of the day, the signature of the Protocol by Turkey will only further the development of a “Taiwan” status of the occupied territories.

The impression that has been formed in public opinion both in Cyprus and in Turkey is that the issue of the Protocol signature is something very important from a political standpoint, due to the manoeuvring of the two sides at Brussels on December 17, 2004. However, this perception is likely to gradually change in view of the arguments that Turkey will call upon in order to excuse the signature of the Protocol in the eyes of the public in Turkey and within the Turkish Cypriot community.

Once this happens, our side will realise, once more, that while we invested on a Turkish ‘no’, that ‘no’ will transform before our surprised eyes into a ‘yes’, when Turkey judges that it is to her best interest to do so. Turkey will, once more, accept the congratulations of our European partners and the international community for the flexible and co-operative attitude she has demonstrated. As for us, we will be left gaping, trying to find out where it all went wrong.

What should concern us much more than the issue of the Protocol is the gradual upgrading of the illegal state within the international community. If one takes as an example the recent ‘elections’ in the occupied areas, one will see that, whilst our government was using belittling adjectives to describe the ‘elections’ in the occupied areas, the European Commission and the Foreign Affairs Ministry of the USA hailed the election of Mehmet Ali Talat and considered it as confirmation of the Turkish Cypriot community’s will to achieve a solution. At the same time they repeated their determination to help the Turkish Cypriot community to come out of its “isolation”.

We have to realise that the stance of the EU vis-à-vis the pseudo-state has changed dramatically since the Turkish Cypriots voted ‘yes’ in the referendum. It is crystal clear that people elected by the ‘elections’ that take place in the occupied areas, even if they are not considered to represent a legitimate state, are still considered to represent the Turkish Cypriot community. This is also proven by the formula developed by the Council of Europe in order to allow Turkish Cypriots to be represented (the ‘members of parliament’ who represented the Turkish Cypriots in the Council of Europe were elected in illegal elections).

Whilst we console ourselves that the illegal status of the occupied areas will remain and that the pseudo-state will never be recognised as a legitimate, official state, the bare fact of the matter is that third countries (our European partners included) are acting as though it is a similar case as that of Taiwan, that is to say there exists a community that they wish to have relations with. The dangers behind a constant burying of our heads in the sand are visible. The only chance we have of reuniting Cyprus is if we pull our heads out of the sand and face the issue by entering a new round of real negotiations.

Otherwise, we may save the “Republic of Cyprus” in name, but the price will be to have a “TRNC” with a “Taiwan” status next to us.

n Katie Clerides is an MP and Democratic Rally Vice President

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 3&cat_id=1

[boulio]

guys i understand that you love posting the cyprus mail articles but can you post a little bit of both sides of the spectrum,cyprus mail is one paper that is 1000% pro-annan plan anti-papadopoulos,so i dont consider it objective as im sure that many g/c in here feel they same.