Bananiot wrote:Kikapu, some time ago, perhaps as long ago as 3 years, I was asked why I voted for the Annan Plan. At the time I gave the following answer:
The year 2004 was immensely significant for Cyprus. It was the first time in more than 30 years that a comprehensive plan was offered to the two communities of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks, for a solution to a problem that has lasted for a very long time. The Turkish Cypriots voted in significant numbers for the proposed solution while the Greek Cypriots heeded the advice of their President and gave a resounding “No” to the Secretary General of the UN that prepared the plan. April 2004 was the month when the people of Cyprus were called upon to decide for the future of their island.
The Plan itself left many things to be desired. One could almost find reasons to vote against it in every paragraph and every clause of it. As someone said, even the proposed new flag of the unified island looked really bad. However, one needed to decide on more complex issues and really it was not about saying a simple “yes” or a simple “no”. The most important question we had to answer was: Could we hope for something better in the future and thus dismiss the proposed plan of the UN Secretary General or go for it, because the alternative would be partition and eventual accession of the occupied part of Cyprus by Turkey. President Papadopoulos had an ace under his sleeve. He called upon the Greek Cypriots to give a loud “no” because we were only a week away from becoming a full member of the European Union. “Why vote “yes” when we can wait for another week and then ask for a better European solution” he asked the people.
The Annan Plan was a plan that was supported by the international community (UN and EU). There were many things in it that could have been better. Papadopoulos did not negotiate it with a view of making it better for the Greek Cypriots. He in fact made it worse (Annan 3 was much better than the final plan) so that he could justify the loud "no" he was asking. I suppose he sincerely believed that the EU would step in with a better plan after we joined this exclusive club. Some think that he had never the stomach for a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation and he used the EU hand to trick the people into rejecting the plan.
Of course, in the world we live, there are no ideal solutions but options (according to the great author Stanislav Lem) especially for a tiny weenie country such as Cyprus. We have been offered some better options in the past but declined to take them, making sure that the Turks received the blame for the stalemate. This worked quite well while Denktash ruled supreme in the north. Basically, we kept the flame going for a different kind of solution that would see Cyprus becoming a unitary state once again with the majority running the country and the minority enjoying all legitimate rights. Of course we were thinking wishfully, as always, but when things did change in the north, our shortcomings were quickly exposed. The whole world now thinks that we are the community to blame and that the Turkish Cypriot community is to be rewarded for maintaining a positive and helpful stance. The victims became the guilty part and Turkey got a resolution at the UN asking her to continue her good efforts for a solution. The amazing thing is that Papadopoulos put his signature on the print.
Some questions need to be asked at this late hour, when partition of Cyprus is quite ominous: Can we climb down from the clouds and face realities? Realities that were formulated not only by Turkey but mainly because of our own incredible lust to turn the island into a part of Greece (Makarios's speeches in Panayia and elsewhere in the early 60's pay testament to the fact). Papadopoulos and his government have been in charge for almost four years. Doesn't it strike as odd that he has not made a single proposition as to how we can go about solving our problem? Does Papadopoulos give the impression that he wants a quick solution? Does anyone understand what he actually wants? Why do people not trust him? Has the whole world teamed up to conspire against us? Is it okay for us to shout "thieves" at the Anglo-Americans in such an undiplomatically resentful way? Are we offering the best service to our country by alienating ourselves from the most influential countries that control this part of the world? Is this a patriotic thing to do?
I supported the Annan Plan and voted, among others, for the Turkish army to leave Cyprus and the number of settlers to be restricted to a few thousands. I voted for the Plan because I knew fully well that it was an option that we could not afford not to take. Simitis, the Prime Minister of Greece for more than ten years, urged us to vote for the plan, along with other politicians in Greece. He knew only too well that it was the best we could do, under the circumstances.
One of the important reasons why I voted for the plan, as I explained, was my firm belief that Papadopoulos could not sell a "no" vote. I think Christofias also realised this and this was an important fact that led him become a candidate for President.
I am sure that any plan that appears on the negotiation table in the near future, will contain many provisions from the Annan plan. Of course I would like to see changes but remember these have to be agreed by the two communities. I would like to see the time frames for the implementation of certain provisions become much shorter, for a start. The property issue should be looked at again and it would be very helpfull if more land is given back to the Greek Cypriots. I would like to see Famagusta returned straight away. What is the point of applying time frames in this case? I would like to see the complete demilitarisation of Cyprus but this will not be a red line for me. I can live with some Turkish and some Greek soldiers remaining for a set period of time. Some settlers will stay after solution. President Christofias is willing to accept as many as 55k. This is okay with me. The Turkish guarantees could have an expiry date when the EU could take over the guarantorship.
The philosophy of the solution cannot change. We have agreed on this and the two communities signed agreements on this. As long as one community objects to a change in philosophy such an action will be foolish to take. Dreaming about a unitary Cyprus is a midsummers night dream. This can only cement partition, which is the worse scenario.
Bananiot,
Interesting piece that you wrote 3 years ago....thanks.
I'm a supporter of a True Federation with True Democracy for Cyprus and for all Cypriots, since a Unitary State is no longer possible, which was very evident from the provisions placed into the 1960 Constitution and the 2004 AP was in fact worse than that, so a true Federation is what I believe to be our only avenue left to keep the island in one piece .
You have made some changes that you will like to see happen now than what was in the 2004 AP, but even though they are important, you have not changed the real "meat" of the rejection of the 2004 AP by the GC's, which was the 50-50 power share, veto power, "Virgin Birth" conversion of the North to be a pure TC land, GC's not able to vote in the North should they wish to live in the North, and most importantly, the 2004 AP was not a Federation but a Confederation, which is still what is presented today by the "TRNC" under the disguise of a Federation in BBF. Just like me, you do not wish to see Cyprus partitioned, but if you agree to the above provisions that I have outlined, and settlement is agreed on those terms, then there are zero guarantees that partition will not happen with a legal claim for Independence.
Even your "friends" in the North are telling you now that they want a partition, and since the last 30 years did not bring recognition to the North by illegal partition, they have shifted their claim to have a "agreed partition" by giving some land back for full recognition. As you can see, partition is the desire for those who are in the position of power and wealth. What the average TC's may want that you think you have common cause with, ie peace on the island, the contrary will occur if the main parts of the 2004 AP are not thrown out. Anything that has Confederacy "flavour" in the new negotiations that is acceptable to you, then you should also accept the probability of a legal partition in a form of Independence that will come sooner than you think.
So Bananiot, please tell me why I should support anything that comes close to the 2004 AP in the new negotiations, when I do not wish for a partition to occur, and I know you feel the same way. But how is it, that you do not see the negetive aspects of what I fear and that you have a different view of outcome than me. Do you even buy the idea, that 2004 AP's BBF and what is presented today by the "TRNC's BBF is not a Federation, but a Confederacy, and once the North has been made to become "pure" TC land, how can you prevent Partition down the road. It will be the North's and South legal right to seek Independent self determination. Please set me straight if I missed something in BBF that you support.
