by Bananiot » Sun Nov 20, 2005 9:31 pm
I say that the paper is probably the most serious newspaper in Cyprus. Here is today's editorial of Sunday Mail:
FOR THE LAST year and a half, people in Cyprus as well as visiting foreign officials have been trying in vain to understand where the government stands as regards a peace deal with the other side. Does it still accept the federal settlement as had been agreed between the two sides in the 1970s, is it prepared to have the Annan plan as the basis for a deal or would it rather play a waiting game in the hope that conditions might become more favourable for the Greek Cypriots in the future? Or could it perhaps be banking on the possibility of exacting major concessions from Turkey during its EU accession negotiations?
Nobody knows because, for the past 18 months, President Papadopoulos has been sending out mixed messages confusing everyone including his own supporters. One day, the Annan plan is dead and buried and the other it is a basis for negotiations. The government insists that it would agree to a new UN initiative only if it was well prepared, yet at the same time regularly predicts the unfolding of a new initiative, which never materialises. On the one hand, it attacks the bias of the UN, for abusing its authority in the last round of negotiations, but also insists that any peace talks should be within the framework of the UN. These conflicting sentiments are bound to cause confusion and raise the question, what does the government really want?
This question was answered, to a large extent, by the Head of the President’s Diplomatic Office Tasos Tzionis in an interview published last Sunday, in which he said that the Annan plan could not be a basis for negotiations. The plan was heavily biased in favour of the Turkish side and no substantive changes could be made to it without the agreement of the Turks. This was why the government had been ignoring calls to submit a list of changes it wanted made to the plan, preferring instead to give the UN a document, outlining the kind of settlement that the Greek Cypriot side would agree to. It was the first time the government’s thinking on the peace talks had been so clearly and precisely presented.
Tzionis’ comments should have opened up public debate and sparked an exchange of ideas about Greek Cypriot objectives, how they could be achieved and the consequences if they were not. Instead of this, the politicians engaged in an absurd debate over whether Tzionis, a top diplomat, had the right to express his views in public and whether these were shared by the president. AKEL lambasted Tzionis, not only for daring to speak publicly but also for his hard-line positions, and was at pains to persuade us that his views were not shared by the president. Papadopoulos tried to appease his irate government partners with some generalities about the plan, and by Wednesday the government spokesman and AKEL declared the matter closed.
Instead of seizing this opportunity for a public debate, the politicians did everything in their power to avoid it by focusing on points of order. Here was the president’s closest and most trusted associate informing us, in clear and precise terms, what his boss’ position on the national problem was, and the politicians were debating whether he had the right to speak and whether he was expressing his personal views! It suffices to say that only a complete idiot would entertain the idea that the president’s top advisor would express views that were not shared, down to the last detail, by his boss. So why has everyone avoided discussing the substance of the government’s philosophy on the national issue so clearly defined by Tzionis?
Although he argued his case extremely well – why the Annan plan should be consigned to the scrap-heap of history – his analysis had one fundamental weakness. He did not address the issue of how the government would persuade the UN, the EU and the US that the Annan plan should be scrapped and a new framework for negotiations submitted. And how would Papadopoulos persuade the Turkish side, which is perfectly happy with the plan, that a completely new talks framework would be in its interest? It is very easy to rubbish the existing plan and propose a different basis for talks, but surely people need to know how this would be achieved. The UN, the US and EU governments continue to support a settlement based on the Annan plan, so how pragmatic is Papadopoulos being in demanding a drastic change to the basis of peace talks? And how long would he need to achieve this, two, five or 15 years? Has there been any indication that the UN would consider formulating a new plan? Does this policy not carry the risk of permanent partition if it fails? And should this risk not be explained to people?
Unfortunately, none of the political parties bothered asking these questions, creating the impression that imposing a new talks framework, without support from anywhere, is the easiest thing in the world for the Cyprus government. The possibility of failing to achieve this objective and the consequences were not addressed either, confirming the fear that wishful thinking is the main component of the new strategy announced by Tzionis. And when wishful thinking plays such an important role in government planning, there is nothing to debate, as everything will turn out fine.