Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Bananiot,

You still do not give a convincing argument as to why the A plan is a good plan. You base your assumptions on Papadopoulos?

You consider the A plan better than nothing?

And can you please tell me what is the price we pay for getting back 6-7% of land back? The fundamental aspect is not the land! I for one would be happy if there was no territorial adjustment if we got a proper, federal, democratic country to run. We do not. We get a confederation with a 'federal' government that is ruled by foreign judges, and that will in many cases be in deadlock. It will essetially lead to seperate governance of two seperate areas. Doesn't that sound like partition?

Please convince me that the A plan is a good plan. I cannot yet see what good this plan will bring to us.

So, what are your argumets for this plan?

[Bananiot]

We have been talking about the pros and cons of the A plan for almost 2 years now. I do not think its a good idea to start all over again. Just a word about your idea that eventually we will get two different governments. The A plan makes sure that this does not happen. The plan provided for a central government and one country with one international profile only. The present situation is leading us exactly where you say we should not go. Even if the north is never recognised, it will reap all the benefits of an independent state. Even as we are talking, the americans are looking for ways to start direct flights to Tympou and soon direct trade will start between the EE countries and the north. In the meantime, our government is openig new fronts with the most powerful nations, institutions and people of the world. If this does not make your hair stand on end I do not know what will.

[MicAtCyp]

Your dancing will.

[Bananiot]

Comment - Are witch hunts part of the European solution?
By Yiouli Taki

IN PRE-modern, Europe whispered accusations were enough for an angry mob to descend on some poor unfortunate’s house. Accused of witchcraft, the due process of law amounted to placing the unfortunate ‘witch’ in the local village pond. A superstitious public given to believe in rumour and in the absence of the due process of the law, subjected those who were different to them to unfounded allegation and painful death. A verdict was delivered on the basis of whether the ‘witch’ was able to sink or swim. If she swam to the bank she was deemed guilty and stoned to death on the spot. If the poor woman sank and drowned she was pronounced innocent. In a community demanding absolute conformity, anyone who stepped outside the orthodoxy of village life was seen to be in the possession of dark forces granted to them by the devil.

Rumours abound that witches continue to exist in contemporary Cypriot society. The mob is stoked up and on the march. This mentality recently prompted one member of parliament to assert that anyone promoting the Annan Plan was as good as either being a recipient of Turkish liras or just plain foolish.

Who are these culprits who it is said are driven by common criminal instincts rather than principle? They are representatives of civil society who do not have the institutional or political power effectively to fight back against these bullying tactics. It really is worth asking ourselves what kind of European solution we are referring to when common practice and principles that characterise Europe are so blatantly abused on this island. The Europe we aspire to be a part of is one that values plurality, nurtures civil society and promotes dialogue.

Recent statements made by the President and his foreign minister created the ground for a range of these paranoid reactions we have experienced over the past week. First, it was claimed by President Papadopoulos that the UN provided funding for the promotion of the Annan Plan. In making this initial claim, he was presumably seeking to raise an objection in relation to alleged interference from abroad in the referendum process. The effect was to promote the mob to speculate over the domestic actors in this foreign inspired interference.

Secondly, he asserted that it was impossible to verify who were the recipients of illegitimate funding since receipts are not exchanged in this process. The shadow of guilt was left to hang over many heads. Consequently, anyone and everyone who actively promoted the Annan Plan were cast as potential recipients of dubious funding from abroad. Additionally, a largely uninformed public was encouraged to believe that UNOPS employs irregular financial practices, in general casting suspicion over any programme in receipt of UNOPS funding. The list of potential culprits subsequently became much more focused when the President eliminated from suspicion those who can best defend themselves - newspapers and political parties.

Then came the Foreign Minister’s statement that the press release issued by the UN in response to the mob baying for blood confirmed the President’s initial allegation. The UN press release claimed that funding was directed towards supporting bicommunal activities and activities aimed at the provision of information in relation to the Annan Plan. With the minister’s claim that the press release somehow verified the President’s original allegation, the list of domestic culprits was focused even more tightly. It now included all those funded by UNOPS to promote intercommunal activities or provide basic information on the Annan Plan.

Given a context characterised by the selective use of information, innuendo and distortion it is hardly surprising that efforts to promote simplified, objective and empirically verifiable information on the Plan was castigated as the promotion of the ‘yes’ vote. Deputy Doros Christodoulides stated publicly on more than one occasions that information booklets – The Annan Plan for Cyprus: a Citizens’ Guide – initiated and produced by a team of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, including myself, were “at least in part promoting a ‘yes’ vote”. A wild accusation which he has not felt it necessary to demonstrate and which expresses a contemptuous, throwaway attitude to a serious and sustained effort to assist citizens make an informed choice at the ballot box.

This situation has been compounded by the abject failure of broadcast media organisations to contact those under assault and extend the range of opinions on the matter beyond the second hand views of politicians and journalists.

I have an interest and take great professional pride in the information booklets produced by our team. I challenge the AKEL deputy and other colleagues of his who have claimed that these booklets beautified the Annan Plan, presented a selective reading of its provisions or promoted a ‘yes’ vote, to demonstrate their claims.

The Government Spokesman made a public appeal to UNOPS to release the names of groups and organisations that received funding from the organisation. Is our government now communicating with the UN and its organisations through the mass media? Has this request been also placed in writing and signed by the President or one of his representatives? Would it not have been more responsible if, from the beginning, and well before making unverifiable declarations before the public, he had taken it upon himself to engage in a private exchange with the UN on this issue? If and when the allegations are substantiated, then the issue would rightly have been made public.

It is really about time that those doing the accusing either put up or shut up. Unlike pre-modern Europe, we are innocent until proven guilty. Or are we content with a political culture which frames citizens’ initiatives that aim to promote dialogue as the modern witches of Cyprus?

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2004

[mehmet]

Mikkie, what have you got against foreign judges? Don't you realise that being part of EU means you trade your sovereignty for the benefits of membership anyway? Part of it is being subject to EU laws, made by foreigners? In the English language the word 'foreign' is literally meant as a person who is a subject of enemy rule. Is that how you see non Cypriots?

[-mikkie2-]

How naive can you get!

Does the UK have foreign judges presiding over the High Court to decide things?

NO.

We will have a system that will bring us into deadlock all the time and we would be relying on foreign judges to arbitrate between us for fundmantal aspects that define a state. Taxation, policing, finance. All these things could ultimately be decided by 'impartial' foreign judges. Is that what we really want?

The best way is to have a system that has little chance of being deadlocked. Period!

[Bananiot]

The foreign judges will be used only when there is deadlock. It sounds like a pretty good idea to me, under the circumstances. Can you suggest a viable alternative that could be agreed upon by both sides?

[insan]

Does the UK have foreign judges presiding over the High Court to decide things?

Does UK have a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation? Why do you compare Cyprus with other countries since it has its own circumstances?

We will have a system that will bring us into deadlock all the time and we would be relying on foreign judges to arbitrate between us for fundmantal aspects that define a state. Taxation, policing, finance. All these things could ultimately be decided by 'impartial' foreign judges. Is that what we really want?

Are those judges the laws or they will be there to implement the rule of the laws? You want all those things which you mentioned above decided by GC community. You want TCs to rely on the mercy of GC leadership which majority of TCs, rgihtfuly don't trust .

[-mikkie2-]

Err, name a country that has foreign judges presiding over its supreme court.

I am not advocating a system where the GC's dominate over the TC's. I am advocating a system that minimises deadlock.

The A plan would regularly lead the federal government to deadlock. The system would be taken advantage of in order to get one over the other community. And that cuts both ways, GC on TC and TC on GC. We will end up going from one crisis to another.

To me it makes more sense to provide a system where deadlocks would be minimised.

In addition, how will the impartiallity of the foreign judges be guaranteed?

These are all valid questions, but unfortunately I have not seen adequate answers.

[metecyp]

These are all valid questions, but unfortunately I have not seen adequate answers.

Ok they're valid questions but do you ever suggest solutions? Tell us another way of dealing with this problem without foreign judges.

To me it makes more sense to provide a system where deadlocks would be minimised.

Tell us what that system is then. Let's hear what you have to offer.

In addition, how will the impartiallity of the foreign judges be guaranteed?

How will the impartiality of GC or TC judges will be guaranteed? What if a GC judge that wants Enosis deep down comes to the supreme court? Or a TC judge that wants Taksim deep down? Aren't these as bad as a foreign judge not being impartial?

It's easy to criticize an imperfect plan. It's hard to come up with an agreeable alternative.