reportfromcyprus wrote:Kifeas, with respect, I disagree with your definition of 'negotiate'.
I do not think I gave a definition of the term “negotiate” anywhere, so that you may disagree with it!
reportfromcyprus wrote:You always have the choice to walk away and specify a future date for further negotiations. For example, Denktash flatly refused to appear at the negotiations at some stage, that way he signalled he didn't agree with what was on the table.
I know that you have such a choice to walk away, or not appear at all, provided that you do not commit yourself not to do so, beforehand, as it was in our case. In NY, we committed our selves not to do so, stay at the negotiating table -initially in Cyprus and then in Switzerland, accept arbitration if negotiating efforts fail, and then put the end product to a referendum. If there was a time we should have walked away, this was in NY, before committing our selves into anything further. If you remember, both sides went there with the promise to negotiate and try to find a solution on the basis of the Annan plan, like they were supposedly doing before talks collapsed in Hague a year earlier, but both leaders -Papadopoulos and Denktash, were adamant not to give to anybody else the final word to conclude the plan, should negotiations fail. However, after the first couple of days, Turkey (Erdogan) ordered Denktash to accept Kofi Annan’s terms for arbitration and referendum, something which our side did not anticipate at all, and then it was also inclined to do the same, despite its initial position not to do so. This was a mistake on the part of the G/C side, because as it was proved afterwards, when Turkey was taking the decision to order Denktash to do so in NY, despite his own objection, it did so on the basis of behind the scenes assurances that they were offered to her from the US that the final arbitration would have been done in such a way as to turn the plan favorable to her own positions. The assurances must have been so strong, that it did not hesitate to give such a blank check to Annan, something which our side did not evaluate properly at this stage and thus it was tricked to accept Annan’s terms as well. Of course, this became more obvious later, when negotiations begun in Nicosia airport, and then even more profound in Switzerland. Under such a setup, the Turkish side had nothing to lose should it appeared indifferent to accommodate any of the G/C concerns, (as in fact it was the case,) because it knew before hand that in the end, what it was asking was going to be handed to them at the stage of the final arbitration and conclusion of the plan. Of course, Papadopoulos understood the trick and the setup, but he had no evidence to prove it, and further he had already committed himself to the whole procedure, back in NY. His only hope then remained the people, which would eventually have had the final word in the referendum.
At what stage do you believe the G/C side had a chance to walk away?
reportfromcyprus wrote:Pleading that the other side had an 'advantageous' position after the fact is not good negotiation, it's just going back on what was agreed at the table with the mediators.
I am not sure I understand what you mean here! Our side did not accuse Annan or anyone else for acting in a setup way, because you cannot do such a thing in diplomacy, especially if you do not have evidence. However, the fact remains that the a Turkish side was favored in the arbitration, and this in combination with the fact that they so easily changed their initial position not to accept arbitration, by 180 degrees, and give a complete blank check to Kofi Annan, is enough indication that they have receive prior assurances that this would have been done in their favor. Can you imagine what it means for Turkey, the military, the bureaucrats and the government, to give so easily the green light (or the order) to Denktash to accept Annan’s terms, when for 32 years now they have been shouting against the UN for issuing it’s known resolutions on Cyprus which were always against their thesis and which they always refused to take into consideration, for being “one-sided” in their view? They would have never done something like that, without knowing that Annan wouldn’t do anything to harm their “interests,” but instead he would have accommodated their positions!
reportfromcyprus wrote:I fully understand your point and agree with you that there was a different philosophy in the final UN plan, and that a 900 page document would not be easily understood by everyone it would affect. The government didn't go out of its way to make it any easier to understand, either.
My point here is regarding the media and government control of people's perceptions. We have to think freely, not in the narrow channels they pre-program us to follow.
At least then we have the chance of making an informed decision. It was a mistake to put the UN plan to referendum because we would never have had a real chance to understand it clearly given the misinformation and distortion of facts handed out on a daily basis by the government controlled media.
They can't help having the bias, it's inevitable, and in their favour, I do think they genuinely believe they are serving national interests by giving us our opinions on a platter.
You keep repeating that it was a mistake to put the plan to a referendum, and you keep failing to realize that under the circumstances, Papadopoulos had no other choice. Should he have done otherwise, he -as the president of the RoC and the leader of the G/C community, would have lost all credibility in the eyes of the international community and the EU, for not acting according to his own stipulated commitment towards the UN.
Nevertheless, to not expect, under any circumstances, that the average citizen is able to ever make an informed decision on such a technically, legally and politically complicated issue like the Annan plan, or any other solution proposal on such a multidimensional problem like the Cyprus one, no matter how simplified it can be made for them. This is a myth! Not even most people with higher education have the necessary capacity to make a completely informed decision, because there are many multidimensional factors, notions, issues, technicalities, concepts and conflicting interests that someone has to take into consideration. Therefore, naturally the average citizen down the road will look at what the leadership –those that have been handling the Cyprus problem for a long time now and they are supposed to know better, will say about the plan. People will rely and follow the advice of those at the top, who they feel they can trust more and whom they consider the more experts, even if they will alone manage to read the plan, once or twice. This is a fact! I know lawyers with whom I have been discussing the plan that were unable to offer their own independed assessment, even after they have studied the plan them selves, and instead they were simply reproducing the rhetoric of the party which they were traditionally favoring. Imagine the average elementary or high school graduate citizen! Not everybody
To this end, I do not believe that your approach for a longer and less propaganda intensive campaign would have made much difference either! For me it is clear that, unless the majority of the political leadership -especially those that come out of parties with a strong electorate basis, and the president himself who is the chief negotiator, do not approve, support and campaign in favor of a given solution proposal, no majority of people will ever approve if it in a referendum ether, no matter how “informed” their decision will be allowed to be made. People will always look at the top and see what those they consider to know better, have to say about it. If they majority of them, especially the majority of those they trust more, will say go for it, people will follow. The reason as I said is because the nature of the issue is a hugely complicated one for each average individual to trust his own feelings and perceptions more than those of the “experts” at the top. It is not a matter of deciding whether one should invest his savings into a bank account, or start a particular business venture, something which the average person can relatively easily do by putting the pros and cons down and decide accordingly.
