sadik wrote:Did the President reject the agreed basis for a solution?
By Elias Hazou
UNITED Democrats leader Michalis Papapetrou yesterday kept up the heat on President Papadopoulos for a controversial interview given last week to a French news magazine.
The lengthy interview covered aspects of the Cyprus problem, possible procedures for talks, and Turkey’s position toward the issue.
Papadopoulos’ contentious remark came in response to the question about the prospects of reunification.
It read: “To me, there could be no agreement that does not envisage the reunification of territory, society, the economy and, finally, reunification of institutions within the same state. None of the above was part of the Annan plan…
“This is why Greek Cypriots rejected the plan: we categorically reject a state that would comprise two separate zones and two types of community structures, given that about 82 per cent of the population is Greek.”
The statement was later taken by a Turkish Cypriot newspaper to suggest that Papadopoulos opposed a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, for long the agreed format for a settlement.
In his defence, Papadopoulos argued his comments were taken out of context and misinterpreted.
But Papapetrou said yesterday that, just to double check, his party had invited French speakers and translators to look at the text.
“They all agree that the meaning of the comment is unmistakable. There is no way this has been mistranslated,” he said.
According to Papapetrou, Papadopoulos was merely trying to duck trouble by shifting the blame elsewhere.
“At the end of the day, this administration is all about keywords. We’ve seen certain [controversial] phrases make their way into speeches. Then translators make mistakes, or it’s the journalists’ fault for erroneously reporting what the President says.
“These kind of phenomena appear so often, that it’s clear that the culprit is none other than the person who utters these comments, namely the President himself,” added Papapetrou.
Only last week, Papadopoulos caused more confusion when he told an Athens-based newspaper that version 3 of the Annan plan had elements that he considered binding on the Greek Cypriot side, as it was the product of negotiation between the two sides, whereas versions 4 and 5 had been imposed.
Does anyone know what Papadopoulos is after? Does he support the 1977-79 agreements for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation which has been the basis of negotiations ever since or reject a solution "that would comprise two separate zones and two types of community structures"? With this mentality there is no point in having any negotiations. What will the negotiations be for? Papadopoulos' position is not clear at all!
Without the target of a bizonal, bicommunal federation, we have no basis for negotiations. This means that we need to start from the scratch, throwing everything that has been negotiation in the last 30 years and trying to agree on a new basis. It will at the very best take another 30 years.
I suggest people to stop earning their news and information and /or forming their opinions on what some circles such as the Cyprus Mail and the EDI party say about Papadopoulos. These forces are acting together in order to overthrow Papadopoulos in a political coup d'etat fashion.
Here is the actual transcript of Papadopoulos interview with “L'express” magazine.
http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... endocument
The above report from Cyprus Mail, and Papapetrou from EDI, were made after the transcript was released, which proved that the journalist of “L'express” made a mistake in the way he interpreted his words in the interview, yet those coupists continue to distort the facts and engage in mad slinging against him.
The relevant extract from the actual trascript:
.....Now I lose no opportunity in stressing Greek Cypriots did not reject the Plan because they do not want a solution; they rejected it because it did not provided for reunification of the country; on the contrary it perpetuated all the partitionist, separatist provisions. When we say we need reunification of the territory, people to be free and allowed to settle; secondly, reunification of the Society not everything being done separately; in duality – one Turkish – one Greek; reunification of the Economy and possibly joined Economic activity in investment and all this. Finally, reunification of the Institutions. Of all the Institutions of the State. None of these exists in the Annan Plan. So the Greek Cypriots rejected that particular Plan, not a solution of bizonal, bicommunal federation to which we still remain committed. But each one of these terms, Federal – there are various types of federation – Bizonal – what does bizonal mean? Ethnically cleansed areas? When all over Cyprus 82% were Greek Cypriots? Are we talking about pushing them out for ever and prohibiting them from returning? And bicommunal; Bicommunal does not mean duality in everything. I say sometimes when I am asked: We shall have a Federation which will be bicommunal and there are many countries in the world, Canada, Belgium - so that no one community can impose its will on political matters on the other, but at the same time no community should be able to bring the state to paralysis, to deadlock, because from deadlock then you have partition. So this is the outline of the issues we now have to face. ......
