Cyprus-Forum.com

[iskismet]

I make no excuses for posting this article from the Cyprus Mail - it seems such common sense to me.

Two approaches to the Cyprus Problem.
By Kate Clerides

IT HAS become apparent to me that among the Greek Cypriot political leadership there are two distinct schools of thought on the Cyprus problem, which are total opposites of one another. One can be described as the ‘one-dimensional approach’, and the other as the ‘composite/compromise approach’.

The one-dimensional approach bases its attitudes on the following absolutes:

· The Turkish side is entirely to blame for the invasion and division of the island
· Justice and international law are on the Greek Cypriot side
· Thus we are entitled to put forward maximalistic demands
· We should not sign any agreement until we convince the international community of the justice of our claims
· The solution will take us back to the pre-1974 situation

The composite approach, on the other hand, can be characterized as follows:

· The political conduct of both sides has led to the present situation
· The Cyprus problem is a political problem that cannot be solved by international law alone
· Neither side’s demands can be fully satisfied
· Time is working against us since it leads to further entrenchment of the faits accomplis
· The solution will be a compromise and lead to a new relationship between the two sides

The main proponents of the one-dimensional approach are of course DIKO and EDEK, while the main proponents of the composite approach are DISY and the United Democrats. I must confess that at the moment and, wanting to give them the benefit of the doubt, I do not know where to place AKEL. Traditionally, they were of course proponents of the composite approach; however, since their alliance with DIKO and their backing of Papadopoulos for the presidency, their political discourse and inaction at this crucial point in time leaves little doubt that they have now moved into the one-dimensional camp. (my comment - she went a little astray here ref AKEL)

One of the reasons for this difference in approach is the differing concept of what one can expect from a political solution. As Abraham Burg, an Israeli Labour Party Knesset member, has pointed out, “ a political solution is not a place where dreams become a reality but a place where dreamers meet and agree on the parameters within which their dreams become a possibility.”

Any vision of the future which excludes the other by failing to take account of the other’s needs cannot bring lasting peace. A vision which can be realised is one which begins from a recognition of current realities and an acknowledgement that the wrongs of the past cannot be put right because each “litigant” can in turn point to their rights and the wrongs that they have suffered at the hands of the other.

The proponents of the compromise approach accept that both sides have committed wrongs that can never be totally righted and accepting their share of the blame for the current situation they realise that a political settlement is a stepping stone on the way to a better future for all the parties concerned and for future generations. The proponents of the one-dimensional approach want to believe that a solution can give them back all that they have lost in the conflict. For them, any solution that does not achieve this is a worse alternative than no solution.

Even though supporters of the one-dimensional approach pay lip service to the compromise of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, deep down they do not accept it, as they perceive it as being unjust, since the minority shares political power with the majority. They are not ready to accept the idea of a consociational democracy along the lines of Belgium, Switzerland and Northern Ireland, as to them it does not seem democratic.

In fact in countries that are made up of different ethnic groups, particularly if they have been in conflict, this model is actually more democratic than majority rule as it means that no ethnic group can impose its will on another. Everything has to be decided by consensus and in order to achieve consensus there has to be a dialogue and negotiation. At the end of the day, there is no winner and no looser and everyone gets some of what they want but not everything.

The international community through the UN Security Council, as well as the EU, the USA and the guarantor powers, has made it clear that it favours the compromise approach. The tragedy for Cyprus is that President Papadopoulos and the parties that support him have made it clear that they prefer the lonely path of the one-dimensional approach, which, over time, will, I am very much afraid, lead us to the two-state solution, which was always the aim of Turkey and Denktash.

Kate Clerides is an MP for the Democratic Rally (DISY)

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2004

Common sense or not?

[brother]

She should also add it is the ambition of tassos as well.

[MicAtCyp]

I make no excuses for posting this article from the Cyprus Mail - it seems such common sense to me.

There is no need to make excuses. Everybody can have his view as long as he can support it. Can you support what she said? If yes then answer me this:
Did she tell where the limits of the compromise she advocates end? Did she ask the people and got the answers required to set those limits? Her father was all these years agreeing secretely behind the back of his people, things beyond their wildest nightmare. Whereas at voting time he was stealing the votes of people by promising exactly the opposites. . .

If someone tells me to marry a woman, who will need a hell lot of money just for her personal expenses, on the condition that her empty back account and my account get joined, and she would instist in sleeping in a separate room, on a separate bed, have children and sex with other men, but not with me, have her father living in the house constantly pointing a gun into my head (supposely for her pretection) and the only relation we are going to have is to appear together as a couple at social events, can this be considered a compromise for marriage? I would say the hell I don't want such a compromise and I don't want such a woman to be my wife. And let everyone call me "one - dimensional approacher".

[iskismet]

You've lost the plot.

Put in a sensible comment and I'll try to respond.

[iskismet]

You are right - you are just one dimension - I tried to tell you this in a posting sometime ago. Only now have you admitted it.

[metecyp]

We're completely wasting our times here if anyone believes that the Cyprus problem can be solved with the "one dimension".

[brother]

You feel that you are wasting time because they do not agree with you, let be known that while there is dialogue then there is opportunity for things to happen.

That is one persons view which must be respected as you would expect you're opinion to be respected.

[iskismet]

Yes brother you are right - but you didn't respond like that to the Turkish guy recently!

[brother]

His was not an opinion but a blatant insult.

[iskismet]

It was one persons view - I'm only going by your own statements brother.