Cyprus-Forum.com

[CBBB]

By George Vassiliou

“SINCE THE Cyprus problem has recently entered its most critical phase and major initiatives as well as brave decisions are required for it to come out of the present stalemate, in seeking the desired solution within the framework of the achievable, which does not always coincide with the desirable, I cannot continue my services as a President without the renewal of my mandate by the people.”

With this statement, on January 12, 1968, President Makarios embraced the politics of the achievable rather than the politics of wishful thinking.

Recognising how crucially important a new pragmatic approach was, Makarios urged the people to ratify this choice with their vote. As is well- known, in the elections of February 25, 1968, the people triumphantly backed Makarios’ new policy. He took 95 per cent of the vote.

It is precisely in this spirit that three years after the invasion in 1977, he signed the High Level Agreement which paved the way for the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.

When President Makarios was signing the High Level Agreements, he was perfectly aware that the desirable solution would have been a return to the London/Zurich agreements and the single state, but he was pragmatic enough to recognise that his only option was the achievable – the federation.

Several politicians do not like the idea of federation and keep advancing the view that Turkey must be pressured to accept a solution closer to our desired objective. They seem to ignore the fact that all Presidents of the Republic, from Makarios to Demetris Christofias – as well as successive Greek leaders – have done their utmost to ensure that pressure was exerted on Turkey.

All this noise about putting pressure on Turkey serves one purpose: to excuse all the mistakes, omissions and miscalculations by certain politicians over the years and to question the policy of the President of reaching settlement through negotiations, with the help of the international community.

What has been the result of these negotiations so far?

Undoubtedly there are substantial differences between the two leaders in all the chapters, but to talk of failure – as some have – is misleading. The negotiations are substantive and useful. Agreement was reached on certain issues, while on other issues they came close and it was clear why there had been divergence.

We would like to believe that in the second round, which has just begun, they will make further progress. Eventually though in order to succeed and arrive at an agreement, compromises need to be made. I have no doubt that we will witness some vicious attacks on President Christofias because he will have to make compromises for the sake of a reunified Cyprus.

Unfortunately there are plenty of armchair patriots who will take the moral high ground and attack the president, simply because they never accepted Archbishop Makarios’ compromise on a bi-zonal bi-communal federation with political equality.

Perhaps we should take note of what President Kennedy once said: “Compromise does not mean cowardice. Indeed it is frequently the compromisers and conciliators who are faced with the severest tests of political courage as they oppose the extremist views of their constituents.”

I am certain that the President will do whatever it takes to achieve a solution that will be approved by our people and that will benefit both the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots.

Of course nobody could guarantee success. So what would happen in the case of failure?

In such a case, unless the responsibility for the failure of the process is attributed exclusively to the Turkish side, I am afraid there will be increased pressure to end the “isolation” of the Turkish Cypriots and this will pave the way for direct trade and the opening of ports and airports of the occupied area. Thus, the process of turning the occupied area into Taiwan-type entity would commence.

There will be other equally negative developments in Cyprus. Today the Turkish Cypriot properties in the unoccupied area amount to almost 450,000 donums that represent 14.2 per cent of the total properties. Being a member-state of the EU, it is impossible for anyone to entertain the idea that a Turkish Cypriot could be prevented from being given his property, as long as he has lived in the free areas for six months. The Guardian Law, which has very little chance of being upheld by the ECHR, is not applicable in this case.

We do not have ability to do the same in the north because it would remain a non-recognised area which, without a solution, would continue to exist under the control of Turkey which would act as it pleases.

Failure of these negotiations would open the way for an increase of the number of settlers in the occupied area and speed up the marginalisation of the Turkish Cypriots. In other words, the so-called status quo that many people consider desirable could change drastically if there was no solution.

It is no secret that some people, openly and without any scruples, support partition. I would like to remind them that we secured the accession of the whole of Cyprus and the EU would never accept the division of Cyprus into two states both of which would be members of the EU. Unless of course, what they want, when they call for partition, is the assimilation of the occupied areas by Turkey. If this is the case they should openly say so, for people realise where their rejectionist policy would lead.

All this leads us to one conclusion – we cannot afford to allow the negotiations to fail. Of course this does not mean, as some may rush to claim, that we support “unconditional surrender to Turkey”. So far, the negotiations and the positions taken by President Christofias make a mockery of such a claim. He is though, fully aware of the risks and difficulties that a non-solution would cause.

Turkey is also aware of the negative consequences of being blamed for a possible failure to reach a settlement. She would lose all the advantages that she gained internationally from the acceptance of the Annan Plan.

She would also send out the message that, in reality, her ultimate aim was to maintain the occupation of half of Cyprus. As a consequence, Turkey’s efforts to play a leading regional role in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East and the Caucasus would go to waste, while her EU membership hopes could be thwarted for good.

A detached and objective examination of the developments and of the present process reinforce the view that a Cyprus solution would be in the best interest of Cyprus – the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots – of the EU and the international community in general. That is what I meant when I stated that the two leaders are “doomed” to succeed.

So far we have considered the consequences of a non-solution. It is important though to consider briefly the benefits of the solution.

* The refugee problem will finally be resolved and there will be an end to illegal settlement

* The solution of the property issue would lead, among others, to an influx of hundreds of millions in euros and would create the conditions for an unprecedented development in Cyprus despite the global financial crisis

* Cyprus would finally be able to play its role as a financial, educational and medical centre, without any obstacles

* Tourism would grow significantly and would pave the way for more foreign investment

* The opening of the Turkish market would offer many opportunities for Cypriot businessmen and traders

* It would contribute significantly to tackling the water and energy problems through pipelines from Turkey

* The Cyprus problem would cease to be a problem for the EU and the UN and Cyprus would be able to raise its profile and have a role to play in the region

The fact that Cyprus is now a full member of the EU could greatly help in finding a solution. Issues that could give rise to endless disagreements and ultimately deadlock are today the principles on which the operation of EU is based and are binding for all its member-states. I am referring, among others, to the four basic freedoms, the respect of human rights and the security that the European Union provides to all of its members.

The drive to find a settlement is not an easy one. The national interest dictates that we offer our full backing and help to President Christofias, even if we disagree on specific points.

n George Vassiliou is former President of the Republic of Cyprus

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

[halil]

lots of trutht in it .............

[B25]

George Vassiliou is full of shit.

Suddenly he has all the answers, well why didn't he implement them when he was in power?

It is easy to stand aside and give this advice when you ignore it yourself.

The benefits he claims are no acheivable because we would never be allowed to acheive them. Turkey would always be on our backs.

Waste of space that man.

[insan]

We would like to believe that in the second round, which has just begun, they will make further progress. Eventually though in order to succeed and arrive at an agreement, compromises need to be made. I have no doubt that we will witness some vicious attacks on President Christofias because he will have to make compromises for the sake of a reunified Cyprus.

Unfortunately there are plenty of armchair patriots who will take the moral high ground and attack the president, simply because they never accepted Archbishop Makarios’ compromise on a bi-zonal bi-communal federation with political equality.

Most probably, Vasiliou wrote this article before the national council meeting... Otherwise he could easily analyze and conclude that Chris has already fallen into clutches of those plenty of armchair patriots... just like how AKEL switched from supporting independence to pursueing Enosis policy from 1964 to 1967... Bah! the summary of National Council decisions clearly indicate that we r rapidly going through the final round of the talks which will end up with Taiwanisation of TRNC and after a while, full recognition will follow...

Oddly enough, all GCs here except 2 or 3 have a mentality exactly same with those "armchair patriots".

[CBBB]

George is the one you have to thank for us getting in to the EU, if he had gotten a second term (he only missed out by a couple of thousand votes) he might have had a chance to progress some of the things he wrote about.

[halil]

George is the one you have to thank for us getting in to the EU, if he had gotten a second term (he only missed out by a couple of thousand votes) he might have had a chance to progress some of the things he wrote about.

He is a very cleaver man CBBB . He knows where are we going .

[Get Real!]

Bah! the summary of National Council decisions clearly indicate that we r rapidly going through the final round of the talks which will end up with Taiwanisation of TRNC and after a while, full recognition will follow...

Then you've got nothing to worry about...

[Get Real!]

George is the one you have to thank for us getting in to the EU, if he had gotten a second term (he only missed out by a couple of thousand votes) he might have had a chance to progress some of the things he wrote about.

He is a very cleaver man CBBB . He knows where are we going .

Yeah, he thought he was going to St Mamas the other day but alas… some other people even more “clever” than he is reminded us all why you must NEVER negotiate with criminals...

[Piratis]

No wonder that the party of Vasiliou today receives less than 1% of the votes.

Unfortunately there are plenty of armchair patriots who will take the moral high ground and attack the president, simply because they never accepted Archbishop Makarios’ compromise on a bi-zonal bi-communal federation with political equality.

First of all, if I remember correctly, "politically equality" was not something that Makarios accepted. Secondly, if some leader gave in under blackmail and pressure and accepted something that it is not acceptable to the majority of the Cypriot people then who is wrong is that leader, not the people. Cyprus belongs to the Cypriot people, and it is the Cypriot people who should have the ultimate say of what happens in their own island.

Thirdly a "BBF" is nothing more than a vague term. Most people would accept a BBF if the content was right. Example:

Two states, one made by the 88% of land and another by the 12% (current population ratios). GCs are the majority in the 88% state, and TCs are the majority in the 12% state. The territory in that 12% state is made out of areas that TCs are naturally the majority, and this would mean that all refugees can return to that area and TCs will still be the majority in it. And of course we are talking about a true federation with a strong central goverment, modeled after say the Russian Federation, where each state is just an administrative region with certain internal authorities, more or less like the districts we have now.

What I describe above is a BBF and can be easily accepted by the majority of Cypriots. So why Vasiliou is telling us that we do not accept BBF? That is simply not true. What we do not accept is how the Turks interbred BBF, and they interbred it to mean partition. Of course that is something we will not accept.

I disagree with Vasiliou who argues that partition can be a solution. Are we really going to accept that 1/3rd of Cyprus will become officially Turkish so that we can open the Turkish market for Cypriot businessman and get water from Turkey. (only an idiot would suggest that putting our lives on the hands of our enemy is a good idea!)

Lets also examine the other benefits for the partition "solution" that Vasiliou wants:

The refugee problem will finally be resolved and there will be an end to illegal settlement

It will not be "illegal settlement" because we would legalize it. The refugee problem would be solved for some refugees (if Turkey honored the agreement - something which I doubt) but it would not be solved for many others. Even worst, we would have to compensate our own refugees and Turkey wouldn't have to pay a cent. At least now we can take Turkey to the ECHR and make Turkey pay the compensations.

The solution of the property issue would lead, among others, to an influx of hundreds of millions in euros and would create the conditions for an unprecedented development in Cyprus despite the global financial crisis

Sacrifice 1/3rd of our country for short term financial benefits? Only a traitor could think like that!

Cyprus would finally be able to play its role as a financial, educational and medical centre, without any obstacles

Cyprus can play this role now. It is with the "solution" that Vasiliou supports that we will have obstacles. They will be the Turkish veto, and the unstable, dysfunctional system that such a "solution" will create.

Tourism would grow significantly and would pave the way for more foreign investment

It could grow in the occupied areas. How would it affect the tourism in say Limassol and Paphos. The only way it could affect it is negatively since (1) it will be easier for tourists to visit the occupied areas and (2) the unstable system in Cyprus could result in the kind of troubles we had in the 50s or 60s and make Cyprus a high risk destination.

The Cyprus problem would cease to be a problem for the EU and the UN and Cyprus would be able to raise its profile and have a role to play in the region

So close the Cyprus problem with some partition "solution" just to get over with it?

So with the exception of some refugees that could return to their homes, none of the other "benefits" that Vasiliou presents is a real benefit of such a partition "solution".

On the other hand there are many serious disadvantages. I will need a lot of time to list them all. The most important ones are: (1) Official partition of Cyprus with a "Turkish Cyprus" part (2) Turkey to be controlling the whole of Cyprus via their minority on the island. In essence instead of liberating the 1/3rd of Cyprus currently under occupation we would be enslaving the other 2/3rds as well. (3) We would give up democracy and change it for some undemocratic dysfunctional system that will create all sorts of problems.

[Nikitas]

Vassiliou stresses the full implementation of the four basic freedoms on which the EU is founded.

Is Talat ready to implement those four basic freedoms?

Vassiliou is a marketing consultant and has the gift of writing in a way that appeals to everyone, in a style full of positive messages. He manages to exclude from his text what he would not accept in a negotiation. But even he, with all this positive attitude, could not negotiate with the Turkish side. This is interesting, he managed to negotiate succesfully with the whole of the EU but not with the TCs, and that should tell us something.

Christofias is even more flexible than Vassiliou, he accepted the permanent residence and naturalisation of 50 000 settlers and the rotating presidency before the talks began. What response has he had to that goodwill gesture? None so far. The other side is a tight fisted miser when it comes to good will.