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.
