Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

By Loucas Charalambous

THE VERBAL attacks on the Annan plan have been the most fashionable political activity of the last couple of years. Some people are so fanatically opposed to it, they give the impression they would not accept any settlement plan that included a single sentence from the Annan plan. If this was just the view of the super-patriots of Phileleftheros, it would not be so bad, but the problem is that we hear the same sentiment from official lips.

During the election campaign, the Papadopoulos camp had based its main message on this. The basic argument was that Papadopoulos should have been re-elected as a reward for the leading role he had played in the rejection of the plan and because he would ensure that the plan would never be brought back. Obviously, the people were not convinced by this message, which is why Papadopoulos lost badly in the election.
Now the elections are over, we all need to get serious, particularly the new president. If we genuinely want to solve our problem, there is no other way apart from a brief round of negotiations, aimed at making some changes to this plan (which is wrongly referred to as the Annan plan, as it is a UN plan). It is the only comprehensive settlement plan ever formulated, and whatever else is proposed would be very similar. Even if we implement the July 8 agreement to the letter, the result, 30 years later, would be yet another Annan plan. Only fools could believe that it is possible for there to be another, substantially different, plan on offer.

The entire political leadership accepted this reality after the referendum – even Papadopoulos, who stated that such plans never disappeared and that only limited changes could be made to it. This reality was even recognised by the big polemicist of the plan, EUROKO chief Demetris Syllouris, who, in August 2004 suggested that we tried to secure some changes so we could accept “Annan 5.5”. This was the line taken by all the political parties which proposed a limited number of changes and modifications in the National Council.

But even AKEL, President Christofias’ party, accepted this reality. Party representatives, until as late as October, had been discussing with representatives of Mehmet Ali Talat’s CTP the changes that would be made to the Annan plan; the discussions were public knowledge. So how can the very same people who had been discussing “limited changes” until recently, now vilify the UN plan? And how does this turnaround affect our trustworthiness? Are we deluding ourselves, like the late Archbishop Makarios 40 years earlier, that we can fool everyone?

President Christofias must stop talking about “suffocating” time-frames, as we are the side in a hurry for a settlement. Turkey has no reason to be in a hurry. The Cyprus problem, at this stage, needs neither time nor dozens of committees. I would say that only one committee is required – to deal with the property issue. This is the issue that needs to be tackled in a more efficient and practical way. The complex provisions of the plan regarding the property issue and the proposed resolution over a period of time was its biggest weakness.

People with knowledge and a practical mind need to sit down and find a practical solution to the problem. Everything else, are issues that can be resolved with political decisions in the space of a few days. No more committees are needed; they would be a waste of time.

The Cyprus problem could be resolved tomorrow as long as we are prepared to take the necessary, bold decisions. If we are not ready to take the necessary, bold decisions and prefer engaging in word-games and slogans, even the target year 3000 for a settlement would be considered a “suffocating” time-frame.



Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008

[Piratis]

Loucas Charalambous and his kind can not apparently accept the democratic choice of the Cypriot people. Like fascists that they are, they want to ignore what the people decided, and force their minority opinion in order to serve Turkey and officially divide our island with the partition plan called "Annan plan".

During the elections there was only one candidate who supported the Annan plan or anything similar to it. And that candidate didn't receive even 1%. (Surely Loucas Charalambous was one of those few that voted for him)

All the other candidates rejected the Annan plan and gave a promise to the Cypriot people that if elected they will not allow anything like the Annan plan to come back.

What Cyprus will do is what the majority of Cypriot people want it do. Not what Loucas Charalambous wants or any party official.

[Piratis]

The Cyprus problem could be resolved tomorrow as long as we are prepared to take the necessary, bold decisions. If we are not ready to take the necessary, bold decisions and prefer engaging in word-games and slogans, even the target year 3000 for a settlement would be considered a “suffocating” time-frame.

Of course. Just accept what the Turks want and problem "solved" tomorrow. Is this guy for real? Doesn't he understand the difference between a solution which means solving our problems, as opposed to just capitulating and accepting whatever the invader demands?

[shahmaran]

You sound like Erdogan who uses "democratic choices" as an excuse to force backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century.

[shahmaran]

So what one should preserve, democracy or modernization?

[Piratis]

You sound like Erdogan who uses "democratic choices" as an excuse to force backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century.

Really? So democracy, equality of all people regardless of ethnic background, human rights for all, and all the other universally accepted principles are "backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century"??

On the contrary, what is backward are your demands for an undemocratic system based on the segregation and discrimination of people based on their ethnic background, and the legalization of human rights violations and stealing of land. As if we are in the era of the Ottomans!

[Piratis]

You sound like Erdogan who uses "democratic choices" as an excuse to force backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century.

And one more point on this: Freedom of religion is a right for all. There is a big difference between being free to believe in whatever religion you want, and being imposed a religion (e.g. the Attaurk religion).

A true democracy exactly ensures that people are free to believe whatever they want, without the state trying to impose anything on them.

Personally I am atheist and I believe that people who believe in Gods are naive. However I have no right to force my opinion on them. I can simply say my opinion, and if they do not accept it and they prefer their Gods instead, thats their right. (similarly, they have no right to force their religion on me)

[shahmaran]

It was only a comparison, Erdogan might be all for democracy, like you, but only because it suits his twisted views of the world, kind of like yours.

What would you do if you were on our side and that democracy meant you becoming just another foreigner in your own country? Not mentioning the Enosis attempt being also another "democratic right" according to you.

[shahmaran]

You sound like Erdogan who uses "democratic choices" as an excuse to force backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century.

And one more point on this: Freedom of religion is a right for all. There is a big difference between being free to believe in whatever religion you want, and being imposed a religion (e.g. the Attaurk religion).

A true democracy exactly ensures that people are free to believe whatever they want, without the state trying to impose anything on them.

Personally I am atheist and I believe that people who believe in Gods are naive. However I have no right to force my opinion on them. I can simply say my opinion, and if they do not accept it and they prefer their Gods instead, thats their right. (similarly, they have no right to force their religion on me)

Ataturk religion, whatever it means to you i don't know, is anything but the lack of freedom in various beliefs, everyone is free to believe and practice what they like, what they are not free to do is bring these belief into the government! No one can tell me what to do simply because i happen to live in a Muslim country and i have to respect their belief by limiting my freedom, that's utter crap and that's what democracy means in Turkey at the moment.

[zan]

You sound like Erdogan who uses "democratic choices" as an excuse to force backward religious beliefs on people in the 21st century.

And one more point on this: Freedom of religion is a right for all. There is a big difference between being free to believe in whatever religion you want, and being imposed a religion (e.g. the Attaurk religion).

A true democracy exactly ensures that people are free to believe whatever they want, without the state trying to impose anything on them.

Personally I am atheist and I believe that people who believe in Gods are naive. However I have no right to force my opinion on them. I can simply say my opinion, and if they do not accept it and they prefer their Gods instead, thats their right. (similarly, they have no right to force their religion on me)

Ataturk religion, whatever it means to you i don't know, is anything but the lack of freedom in various beliefs, everyone is free to believe and practice what they like, what they are not free to do is bring these belief into the government! No one can tell me what to do simply because i happen to live in a Muslim country and i have to respect their belief by limiting my freedom, that's utter crap and that's what democracy means in Turkey at the moment.

What have you gotta do..You tell them you tell them but kafa Golon!!!!