sadik wrote:The changes in the Annan plan, in general, were more favourable to the Turkish side. Part of the reason is that Americans wanted to please Turkey in Cyprus because they needed it in Iraq. But I also think that the GC leadership was not really negotiating and they didn't really try to get positive changes in the plan. It seems to me that they were more focused on having the plan rejected in the referandum than getting it into an acceptable shape.
Sadik, I am glad that you can at least see the nasty game that the UN and the Anglo-Americans have played against the interests of all Cypriots. Because the last solution attempt was indeed a very crucial missed opportunity and this unfortunate reality affects and troubles equally, both communities. If they were serious with Cyprus and it’s people, they should have never attempted this scandalous act of pleasing Turkey’s desires at the last moment. They should have also allowed much more time for real and actual negotiations between the two sides, something which did not occur, but instead they tried to do as much as they failed to do during so many years, in just 3-4 weeks. In the end they undermined their own effort to help us reach a solution and even worse, they played with and damaged the feelings of the people of our two communities. Setting aside the content, the very procedure it self, all that rush and all that nearly forceful attempt to get the problem “solved” in this way, should have been enough reason for the two communities to have rejected it.
I agree with you that Papadopoullos, at some stage towards the end of the procedure, having realised that the game was more or less prearranged or fixed, gave up hope and instead he let the let the plan go down the drain even more, so that he could get an easier “No” from the people. I do not think though that this was his initial intention, nor that he did not try at any stage of the process to negotiate in good faith.
One wonders however, at what stage there was a real chance for meaningful and potentially productive negotiations between the two sides?
Up until one week before the “famous” finalisation of the plan by De Sotto in Switzerland, the negotiator of the TC side was Mr. Denktash. One whole month of “negotiations” in Nicosia airport was wasted between Papadopoullos and Denktash, with each one refusing to examine the positions of the other for different reasons. As you may remember, up to the last moment, Denktash was asking for separate sovereigneities, intermediate agreed recognition of a separate state before the entering into force of the new state of affairs, absolute and complete bizonality and political equality of the two states, etc, etc. His entire approach was that of a confederation of two independed states rather than a federation on the basis of the A-plan. Papadopoullos was adamant and refused to discuss anything along Denktash parameters and consequently Denktash was adamant and refused to negotiate along Papadopoullos proposals. One month was wasted just like that.
Then the process moved on to Switzerland for the final 5 days in which the two “motherlands” were supposed to participate in order to facilitate the agreement between the two sides. Talat supposedly took over from Denktash, only to hide behind the Turkish Delegation, which carried out all the contacts. Talat wouldn’t agree to negotiate with Papadopoullos separately because Turkey was supposed to be a party to the negotiations and not just a facilitator, Papadopoullos on the other hand wouldn’t accept the two motherlands to be integral parties of the process but stay on the perimeter and only to be consulted when needed, etc. No real negotiations took place there either and instead the UN were carrying papers from one side to the other, until the days passed and De Sotto and Annan made their job to finalise the plan that was going to be send to the people in the referendums.
Sadik wrote:Nevertheless, I believe in politics of good will, i.e., making gestures of good will and sending positive signals, even when it is unilateral. Taking a hardened position of no concession is not condusive to a solution, so, if our goal is obtaining a 'YES-YES' result, the TC leadership should take a more open position and show more willingness to discuss the issues that lead to the rejection of the plan.
I absolutely agree with you on this paragraph. I would like to read your opinion on what such good will gestures on behalf of the GC side towards the TC side, would have made some difference, given the current situation that we are going through at the moment and which are feasible in your opinion, for the GC side to undertake.
