Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

I hope we can expand on this topic, as I believe it to be the most important element of President Christofias' task as leader.

In simple terms, I believe, and according to the statements made by TC leader Talat so far, that former President Papadopoulos may have actually been Wise not to have engaged in a deciding UN process after 2004!

Why?
Well, I think it's simple - Because that's exactly what Turkey's always wanted. Many people in Cyprus, and on this forum have argued that the so-called TRNC would have been recognised if Tassos Papadopoulos had won! Or it will now lead to its recognition if President Christofias chooses to adopt a similar no compliant attitude. Well, I differ!

In terms of Recognition, this can only be achieved via a "UN PROCESS", especially with the Cyprus problem question - it is different to let's say Kosovo. The Turks are now very happy indeed that President Christofias is full steaming ahead with a UN Process as it will do one of the following:

1) It will either prove that we, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, can NOT agree and will recommend a "No Compliant" dossier at the United Nations on the Cyprus issue - thus, falling into exactly what the Turkish/ and some Turkish Cypriots wanted hands, which would obviously lead to some kind of recognition for them as the UN process would have failed.

2) Or, President Christofias will be forced to lay down his demand for a "Pure" unification, thus presenting a UN Cyprus solution plan to referendum based on either the "1992 Set of Ideas" plan on Two Federated States (similarly to what TC leader Talat is saying today), or the dead Annan Plan 5.

Evidently, by engaging in a UN process - if there's no solution, we will lose, while if there's a similar plan to the former Annan Plan (or like the many others before it) we will lose again.

What, I believe, President Tassos Papadopoulos had proved was, that even after all of the criticism of the Republic of Cyprus after the 2004 referendum (on our President's stance), the so-called "Isolation" and "Recognition" had evidently failed to materialise!

Unfortunately, and even after so much time, many of our Greek Cypriot brothers and sisters are still being made to feel threatened that If We Do Not Engage In A UN Process, the So-Called TRNC Will Be Recognised. This is obviously not true, and, has now become clear, was only a form of scare-mongering in order to push our people into re-engaging in the Cyprus UN Process.

I believe that the Cyprus issue should now be solved via the EU only, the Turkish Troops should go home, and we should united under the "Republic of Cyprus". The answer is simple. Mark my words - if we engage in UN Talks based on a "NEW AGREEMENT" - Will, Greek Cypriot, amounting to 82% of the entire population of the Island of Cyprus, will be very disappointed!

Send the UN Home I say, and pressure Turkey into sending its Troops home - that is the answer, and not a doomed UN Process, with which we obviously know the outcome.

I hope you see the light!

Regards,
Andros

[Nikitas]

The most fundamental pillar in the new situation is the status of the British Bases. They stand by the RoC treaty of establishment of 1960. Dissolving the RoC dissolves the SBAs and the British will not stand for that. This much was hinted at by Christofias, and Greek politicians. If the UN process goes through the major players will then be Greece and Turkey and the British are not going to let that happen. That is why the first international call to Christofias was by UK Premier Gordon Brown.

You also forget that no agreement can stand if it violates EU aquis. It will be open to all kinds of legal challenges by individuals. A deal will be under UN auspices but must follow EU principles.

[Viewpoint]

The most fundamental pillar in the new situation is the status of the British Bases. They stand by the RoC treaty of establishment of 1960. Dissolving the RoC dissolves the SBAs and the British will not stand for that. This much was hinted at by Christofias, and Greek politicians. If the UN process goes through the major players will then be Greece and Turkey and the British are not going to let that happen. That is why the first international call to Christofias was by UK Premier Gordon Brown.

You also forget that no agreement can stand if it violates EU aquis. It will be open to all kinds of legal challenges by individuals. A deal will be under UN auspices but must follow EU principles.

The EU rubber stamped the AP.

[DT.]

The most fundamental pillar in the new situation is the status of the British Bases. They stand by the RoC treaty of establishment of 1960. Dissolving the RoC dissolves the SBAs and the British will not stand for that. This much was hinted at by Christofias, and Greek politicians. If the UN process goes through the major players will then be Greece and Turkey and the British are not going to let that happen. That is why the first international call to Christofias was by UK Premier Gordon Brown.

You also forget that no agreement can stand if it violates EU aquis. It will be open to all kinds of legal challenges by individuals. A deal will be under UN auspices but must follow EU principles.

The EU rubber stamped the AP.

Primary Law VP....the holy grail of solving the Cyprus Issue. Research it and ye shall find.

[observer]

Now here are a few simple truths

As frequently mentioned in this forum, the GC demand is for:
1. All Turkish troops off the island.
2. End of the Turkish guarantee.
3. All ‘settlers’ removed.
4. All property returned.

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. If GCs want to go on relying on decades old UN resolutions, and making unrealistic demands, no-one will stop them. However, they will be more and more regarded as the embarrassing uncle at the party, who has to be around but no-one really wants to spend much time with. Both the EU and newer UN resolutions ask for compromise, and however difficult GCs find it to bear, they will have to compromise or gradually loose more and more, just through time, not ill-will.

[Viewpoint]

The most fundamental pillar in the new situation is the status of the British Bases. They stand by the RoC treaty of establishment of 1960. Dissolving the RoC dissolves the SBAs and the British will not stand for that. This much was hinted at by Christofias, and Greek politicians. If the UN process goes through the major players will then be Greece and Turkey and the British are not going to let that happen. That is why the first international call to Christofias was by UK Premier Gordon Brown.

You also forget that no agreement can stand if it violates EU aquis. It will be open to all kinds of legal challenges by individuals. A deal will be under UN auspices but must follow EU principles.

The EU rubber stamped the AP.

Primary Law VP....the holy grail of solving the Cyprus Issue. Research it and ye shall find.

Derogation's exceptions to the rule research it and ye shall learn.

[Andros]

Interesting Comments - However, I still stand by what I said about aborting all UN talks - not that I want partition of course, but rather that I believe the continuation of the talks and its almost certain lead to a UN settlement plan will ultimately lead to partition - as it stands today; with the Turkish Cypriots retaining 37% (or should I say Turkey!).

With regards to President Papadopoulos' stand, I believe that it would have eventually, when TURKEY's EU aspirations had neared its head towards its end stages- around 2019 - have forced them to hand over northern Cyprus as part of their EU entry negotiations - Why do you think Turkey's President was very happy to express his comments on President Christofias' appointment as the new Cyprus President (I thought Turkey didn't recognise the Republic of Cyprus!). I know many of my Greek Cypriot brothers argue this, espeically on this forum, but I strongly believe that we, Greek Cypriots and those who are true to living in the "Republic of Cyprus", know that this method is the only way, while those who were tricked to believing that the UN would recommend that the so-called TRNC would be recognised due to Papadopoulos's firm stance are truly fooled. The UN, in ANY case, could never recommend such a move - please understand more about Russia's influence on Turkey and the EU's natural resource supply envrionment before commenting of this particular area.

[humanist]

I think Nitkitas is correct the British pricks are the key to the whole issue. If only the TC community recognise that.

[Oracle]

Andros ... you are a Turk .... come out and admit it ....

I really hate these dishonest posters that come on with their hidden malicious agendas ..

This time it is your leaving out the quotation marks around "TRNC" and instead placing them around "Republic of Cyprus" ... if you carry on like this I think any self respecting GC will from now on ignore your posts until you come out and admit you are in fact a Turk-TC ...

There's no shame .... just be honest (although again I know you won't be ... but the evidence is mounting against you ... no smoke without fire ).

[zan]

Now here are a few simple truths

As frequently mentioned in this forum, the GC demand is for:
1. All Turkish troops off the island.
2. End of the Turkish guarantee.
3. All ‘settlers’ removed.
4. All property returned.

When you have lost an armed conflict (which the GCs have done) there are only two ways to get back what you have lost – fight for it (scarcely practical for GCs) or negotiate for it. The loser of an armed conflict rarely gets back everything in negotiations, and never gets to a position better then he started from. Items 1 and 2 above would be (from the GC position) a better position than they started from. Items 3 and 4 above would be a return to where they started from, and might have been possible if negotiations had concluded 30+ years ago. It is doubtful if even those items are practical now, given the length of time many ‘settlers’ have been here, and the changes in property use.

The world has changed since the end of the Cold War. If GCs want to go on relying on decades old UN resolutions, and making unrealistic demands, no-one will stop them. However, they will be more and more regarded as the embarrassing uncle at the party, who has to be around but no-one really wants to spend much time with. Both the EU and newer UN resolutions ask for compromise, and however difficult GCs find it to bear, they will have to compromise or gradually loose more and more, just through time, not ill-will.

Absolutely observer......It even mentions those facts here:


The Akritas Plan

The rising tensions of the early 1960s spurred the formation of paramilitary groups on both sides, and as the constitutional crisis came to a head in 1962-63, both prepared for violence. The Greek Cypriots were better armed and more ideologically driven, and appeared to welcome the crisis---possibly including Makarios's Thirteen Points, which it sets out as a course of action---as a likely provocation to Turkish Cypriots. An expected reaction from the Turkish Cypriot community, either to Makarios's constitutional gambit or some other incident, would in turn set the Greek Cypriot cadres into action. The plan for that action, revealed by a Greek Cypriot newspaper after the fact, was the so-called Akritas Plan, which is reproduced below.



The recent public statements of His Beatitude have outlined the course which our national issue will follow. As we have stressed in the past, national struggles are neither judged nor solved from day to day, nor is it possible to fix time limits for the achievement of the various stages of their development. Our national cause must always be examined and judged in the light of the conditions and developments of the moment, and the measures which will be taken, the tactics, and the time of implementing each measure must be determined by the conditions existing at the time, both internationally, and internally. The entire effort is trying and must necessarily pass through various stages, because the factors which influence the final result are many and varied. It is sufficient, however, that all should understand that the

measures which are prescribed now constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and unalterable national objective, i.e., to the full and unfettered exercise of the right of self-determination of the people.

Since the purpose remains unalterable, what remains is to examine the subject of tactics. It is necessary to divide the subject of tactics under two headings, that is: internal tactics and external, since in each case both the presentation and the handling of our cause will be different.

A. External tactics (international).

During the recent stages of our national struggle the Cyprus problem has been presented to diplomatic circles as a demand for the exercise of the right of self-determination by the people of Cyprus. In securing the right of self-determination obstacles have been created by the well-known conditions, the existence of a Turkish minority, by the inter-communal conflict and the attempts to show that co-existence of both communities under one government was impossible. Finally, for many international circles the problem was solved by the London and Zurich Agreements, a solution which was presented as the result of negotiations and agreement between the two sides.

a) Consequently, our first target has been to cultivate internationally the impression that the Cyprus problem has not really been solved an the solution requires revision.

b) Our first objective was our endeavour to be vindicated as the Greek majority and to create the impression that:

(i) The solution given is neither satisfactory not fair;

(ii) The agreement reached was not the result of a free and voluntary acceptance of a compromise of the conflicting views;

(iii) That the revision of the agreements constitutes a compelling necessity for survival, and not an effort of the Greeks to repudiate their signature;

(iv) That the co-existence of the two communities is possible, and

(v) That the strong element on which foreign states ought to rely is the Greek majority and not the Turkish Cypriots.

c) All the above has required very difficult effort, and has been achieved to a satisfactory degree. Most of the foreign representatives have been convinced that the solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under pressure and without real negotiations and that it was imposed under various threats. It is significant argument that the solution achieved has not been ratified by the people, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to ratify it by a plebiscite, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have done if called upon.

Generally, it has been established that the administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks have confined themselves to a negative role.

d) Second objective. The first stage having been completed, we mus programme the second stage of our activities and objectives on the international level. These objectives in general can be outlined as follows:

(i) The Greek efforts are directed towards removing unreasonable and unfair provisions of administration and not to oppress the Turkish Cypriots;

(ii) The removal of these oppressive provisions must take place now because tomorrow it will be too late;

(iii) The removal of these provisions, despite the fact that this is reasonable and necessary, because of the unreasonable attitude of the Turks is not possible bv agreement, and therefore unilateral action is justified;

(iv) The issue of revision is an internal affair of the Cypriots and does not give the right of military or other intervention;

(v) The proposed amendments are reasonable, just, and safeguard the reasonable rights of the minority.

e) Today it has been generally demonstrated that the international climate is against every type of oppression and, more specifically, against the oppression of minorities. The Turks have already succeeded in persuading international opinion that union of Cyprus with Greece amounts to an attempt to enslave them. Further, it is estimated that we have better chances of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand to exercise the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for union with Greece (Enosis). In order, however, to secure the exercise of complete and free self-determination, we must get free of all those provisions of the constitution and of the agreements (Treaty of Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance) which prevent the free and unfettered expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which create dangers of external intervention. It is for this reason that the first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was the first that was stated to be no longer recognised by the Greek Cypriots.

When this is achieved no legal or moral power can prevent us from deciding our future alone and freely and exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.

From the above, the conclusion can be drawn that for the success of our plan a chain of actions is needed, each of which is necessary, otherwise, future actions will remain legally unjustified and politically unachieved, while at the same time we will expose our people and the country to serious consequences. The actions to be taken can be summed up as follows:

a) Amendment of the negative elements of the agreements and parallel abandonment of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is necessary because the need for amendments of the negative aspects of the treaties is generally accepted internationally and is considered justified (we can even justify unilateral action), while at the same time intervention from outside to prevent us amending them is unjustified and inapplicable;

b) As a result of our above actions, the Treaty of Guarantee (right of unilateral intervention) becomes legally and substantively inapplicable;

c) The people, once Cyprus is not bound by the restrictions of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance regarding the exercise of the right of self-determination, will be able to give expression to and implement their desire.

d) Legal confrontation by the forces of State of every internal or external intervention.

It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any chance of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed. For instance, if it is accepted that the above four stages are necessary, then it is unthinkable to speak of amendments in stage (a) if stage (d) is revealed. How can it be possible to aim at the amendment of the negative aspects of the constitution by arguing that this is necessary for the functioning of the State if stage (d) is revealed?

The above relate to targets, aims and tactics in the international field. And now on the internal front:

B. Internal Front.

1. The only danger which could be described as insurmountable is the possibility of external intervention, by force, not so much because of the material damage, nor because of the danger itself (which, in the last analysis, it is possible for us to deal with partly or totally by force), but mainly because of the possible political consequences. Intervention is threatened or implemented before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally debatable, if not justified. This fact has a lot of weight both internationally and in the United Nations.

From the history of many recent instances we have learnt that in not a single case of intervention, whether legally justified or not, has either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the invader without serious concessions detrimental to the victim. Even in the case of the Israeli attack against Suez, which was condemned by almost all nations, and on which Soviet intervention was threatened, Israel withdrew, but received as a concession the port of Eilat on the Red Sea. Naturally, more serious dangers exist for Cyprus.

If, on the other hand, we consider and justify our action under (a) above well, on the one hand, intervention is not justified and, on the other, it cannot be carried out before consultations between the guarantors Greece, Turkey and the UK. It is at this stage of consultations (before intervention) that we need international support. We shall have it if the proposed amendments by us appear reasonable and justifiable.

Hence, the first objective is to avoid intervention by the choice of the amendments we would request in the first stage.

Tactics: We shall attempt to justify unilateral action for constitutional amendments once the efforts for a common agreement are excluded. As this stage the provisions in (ii) and (in) are applicable in parallel.

2. It is obvious that in order to justify intervention, a more serious reason must exist and a more immediate danger than a simple constitutional amendment.

Such a reason could be an immediate declaration of Enosis before stages (a) - (c) or serious inter-communal violence which would be presented as massacres of the Turks.

Reason (a) has already been dealt with in the first part and, consequently, it remains only to consider the danger of inter-communal violence. Since we do not intend, without provocation, to attack or kill Turks, the possibility remains that the Turkish Cypriots, as soon as we proceed to the unilateral amendment of any article of the constitution,

will react instinctively, creating incidents and clashes or stage, under orders, killings, atrocities or bomb attacks on Turks, in order to create the impression that the Greeks have indeed attacked the Turks, in which case intervention would be justified, for their protection.

Tactics. Our actions for constitutional amendments will be in the open and we will always appear ready for peaceful negotiations. Our actions will not be of a provocative or violent nature.

Should clashes occur, they will be dealt with in the initial stages legally by the legally established security forces, in accordance with a plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.

3. Before the right of unilateral amendments of the constitution is established, decisions and actions which require positive violent acts, such as, for example, the use of force to unify the separate municipalities, must be avoided. Such a decision compels the Government to intervene by force to bring about the unification of municipal properties, which will probably compel the Turks to react violently. On the contrary, it is easier for us, using legal methods, to amend, for instance, the provision of the 70 to 30 ratio in the public service, when it is the Turks who will have to take positive violent action, while for us this procedure will not amount to action, but to refusal to act (to implement).

The same applies to the issue of the separate majorities with regard to taxation legislation.

These measures have already been considered and a series of similar measures have been chosen for implementation. Once our right of unilateral amendments to the constitution is established de facto by such actions, then we shall be able to advance using our judgment and our strength more decidedly.

4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described above, without the Turks at tempting to create or to stage violent clashes. For this reason, the existence of our organisation is an imperative necessity because:

a) In the event of instinctive violent Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk effacing panic in the Greeks in the towns and thus losing substantial vital areas, while, on the other hand, an immediate show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to sporadic insignificant acts, and

b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible.

c) In either of the above cases, effective use of force in dealing with the Turks will facilitate to a great extent our subsequent actions for further amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will now that their reaction will be weak or seriously harmful for their community, and

d) In the event of the clashes becoming more general or general we must be ready to proceed with the actions described in (a) to (b), including the immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to wait nor room for diplomatic action.

5. At no stage should we neglect the need to enlighten, and to face the propaganda and the reactions of those who cannot or should not know our plans. It has been shown that our struggle must pass through four stages and that we must not reveal publicly and at improper times our plans and intentions. Complete secrecy is more than a national duty.

IT IS A VITAL NECESSITY FOR SURVIVAL AND SUCCESS.

This will not prevent the reactionaries and the irresponsible demagogues from indulging in an orgy of exploitation of patriotism and provocations. The plan provides them with fertile ground, because it gives them the opportunity to allege that the efforts of the leadership are confined to the objective of constitutional amendments and not to pure national objectives. Our task becomes more difficult because by necessity, and depending on the prevailing circumstances, even the constitutional amendments must be made in stages. However, all this must not draw us into irresponsible demagogy nor to bidding higher in the stakes of nationalism. Our acts will be our most truthful defenders. In any event, because the above task must make substantial progress and yield results long before the next elections, for obvious reasons, in the relatively short time in between we must show self-restraint and remain cool.

At the same time, however, we must not only maintain the present unity and discipline of the patriotic forces, but increase it. This can only be done by the necessary briefing of our members and through them of our people.

In the first instance, we must uncover what the reactionaries stand for. Some of them are opportunist and irresponsible, as their recent past has shown. They are negative and aimless reactionaries who fanatically oppose our leadership, but without at the same time offering a substantive and practical solution. We need a steady and strong government in order to promote our plans up to the last moment. These opponents are verbalists and sloganists, but unwilling to proceed to concrete acts or to suffer sacrifices. For example, even at the present stage they offer nothing more concrete than recourse to the United Nations, that is, words again without cost to themselves. They must, therefore, be isolated.

In parallel, we shall brief our members only ORALLY about our intentions. Our sub-headquarters must, in gatherings of our members, analyse and explain fully and continuously the above, until each one of our members understands fully and is in a position to brief others.

NO WRITTEN REPORT IS PERMITTED. THE LOSS OF ANY DOCUMENT ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO TREASON AGAINST THE NATION.

No act can damage our struggle as vitally and decisively as the revealing of the present document or its publication by our opponents. With the exception of word-of-mouth briefing, all our other actions, i.e., publications in the Press, resolutions, etc., must be very restrained and no mention of the above should be made. Similarly, in public speeches and gatherings, only responsible persons may make, under the personal responsibility of the Leader or Deputy Leaders, references in general terms to the plan. They must also have the authorisation of either the Leader or the Deputy Leader who must approve the text. ON NO ACCOUNT ARE REFERENCES IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION PERMITTED.

Tactics. Complete briefing of our people and of the public by word of mouth. Publicly we shall endeavour to appear as moderates. Projection of or reference to our plans in the Press or in writing is strictly prohibited. Officials and other responsible persons will continue to brief and to raise the morale and the desire for the struggle of our people, but such briefing excludes making our plans public knowledge by the Press or otherwise.

NOTES: This document will be destroyed by fire on the personal responsibility of the Leader and the Deputy Leader in the presence of all the members of the General Staff within 10 days from its receipt. Copies or part copies are prohibited: members of the staff of the Office of the Deputy Leader may have copies on the personal responsibility of the Leader, but may not remove them from the Office of the Deputy Leader.

The Leader AKRITAS