Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

The year 2004 was immensely significant for Cyprus. It was the first time in more than 30 years that a comprehensive plan was offered to the two communities of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks, for a solution to a problem that has lasted for a very long time. The Turkish Cypriots voted in significant numbers for the proposed solution while the Greek Cypriots heeded the advice of their President and gave a resounding “no” to the Secretary General of the UN that prepared the plan. April 2004 was the month when the people of Cyprus were called upon to decide for the future of their island.

The Plan itself left many things to be desired. One could almost find reasons to vote against it in every paragraph and every clause of it. As someone said, even the proposed new flag of the unified island looked really bad. However, one needed to decide on more complex issues and really it was not about saying a simple “yes” or a simple “no”. The most important question we had to answer was: Could we hope for something better in the future and thus dismiss the proposed plan of the UN Secretary General or go for it, because the alternative would be partition and eventual accession of the occupied part of Cyprus by Turkey. President Papadopoulos had an ace under his sleeve. He called upon the Greek Cypriots to give a loud “vote” because we were only a week away from becoming a full member of the European Union. “Why vote “yes” when we can wait for another week and then ask for a better European solution” he asked the people.

The Annan Plan was a plan that was supported by the international community (UN and EU). There were many things in it that could have been better. Papadopoulos did not negotiate it with a view of making it better for the Greek Cypriots. He in fact made it worse (Annan 3 was much better than the final plan) so that he could justify the loud "no" he was asking. I suppose he sincerely believed that the EU would step in with a better plan after we joined this exclusive club. Some think that he had never the stomach for a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation and he used the EU hand to trick the people into rejecting the plan.

Of course, in the world we live, there are no ideal solutions but options (according to the great author Stanislav Lem) especially for a tiny weenie country such as Cyprus. We have been offered some better options in the past but declined to take them, making sure that the Turks received the blame for the stalemate. This worked quite well while Denktash ruled supreme in the north. Basically, we kept the flame going for a different kind of solution that would see Cyprus becoming a unitary state once again with the majority running the country and the minority enjoying all legitimate rights. Of course we were thinking wishfully, as always, but when things did change in the north, our shortcomings were quickly exposed. The whole world now thinks that we are the community to blame and that the Turkish Cypriot community is to be rewarded for maintaining a positive and helpful stance. The victims became the guilty part and Turkey got a resolution at the UN asking her to continue her good efforts for a solution. The amazing thing is that Papadopoulos put his signature on the print.

Some questions need to be asked at this late hour, when partition of Cyprus is quite ominous: Can we climb down from the clouds and face realities? Realities that were formulated not only by Turkey but mainly because of our own incredible lust to turn the island into a part of Greece (Makarios's speeches in Panayia and elsewhere in the early 60's pay testament to the fact). Papadopoulos and his government have been in charge for almost four years. Doesn't it strike as odd that he has not made a single proposition as to how we can go about solving our problem? Does Papadopoulos give the impression that he wants a quick solution? Does anyone understand what he actually wants? Why do people not trust him? Has the whole world teamed up to conspire against us? Is it okay for us to shout "thieves" at the Anglo-Americans in such an undiplomatically resentful way? Are we offering the best service to our country by alienating ourselves from the most influential countries that control this part of the world? Is this a patriotic thing to do?

I supported the Annan Plan and voted, among others, for the Turkish army to leave Cyprus and the number of settlers to be restricted to a few thousands. I voted for the Plan because I knew fully well that it was an option that we could not afford not to take. Simitis, the Prime Minister of Greece for more than ten years, urged us to vote for the plan, along with other politicians in Greece. He knew only too well that it was the best we could do, under the circumstances.

Furthermore, even with the benefit of hindsight, if I had to choose, I would probably still choose the Annan Plan, even compared to a plan that offered a unified Cyprus, because with our mentality it is probably better if the two communities are separated, for the immediate future, into their respective geographical regions that are mutually decided. From this point of view the Plan was a masterpiece and took well into account, both our recent history and the mentality of a people with zero political culture.

Yet, what weighed even more heavily in my mind prior to the referenda was that I knew all too well that Papadopoulos will never be able to manage the "no" of the Greek Cypriot community. Klerides and Vassiliou would have done it in an elegant and a diplomatically acceptable manner. They could have easily shown the world that the Greek Cypriot community did not reject a solution but a specific plan. Papadopoulos will never be able to do this.

Remember how he cried on TV when he asked the Greek Cypriots to give a loud "no"?

A politically cultured man would have cried if he had asked his people to vote "yes".

BANANIOT

[Piratis]

The Annan plan was a plan rushed to close and not solve the Cyprus problem days before Cyprus entered the EU. This American made partition plan had only one thing to solve: The problems that Turkey might encounter in her EU accession process if Cyprus entered the EU without a solution. Solving the problems of Cypriots, and especially the problems of the great majority of Cypriots, the Greek Cypriots, was not important for them. Since our problems were not solved by the "solution" plan, we rejected it.

The Annan plan was not a reunification plan, but a partition plan. We had agreed for Federation. However the plan was modeled after the Swiss confederation and in fact it was made even weaker than that, making it nothing less than a partition plan.
For example in the constitution of the Swiss confederation, the central government has authority over the cantons. In the case of the Annan plan the central government would not. We would basically have two separate countries that would associate in some ways. Like Cyprus and Finland are associated within EU.

I voted no and I am glad I did. We didn't sign away our country and our rights, and we at least have an almost normal country to live in. If we had said "yes" to the Annan plan, today we would be broke, trying to make something work in the totally dysfunctional government that would result from Annan plan, and we would be pleading for partition since that would be the only available option that would be better than the crap that the Annan plan would put us in. Then the Turks would have achieved their objective to the 100% with our agreement. In fact Serdar has even told us clearly that Annan plan was a stepping stone to complete partition following the Czechoslovakia and Serbia-Montenegro models.

People didn't vote no to the Annan plan because they expected something better to come soon. The polls and the subsequent elections prove this. "no" voters didn't change their mind about their choice. People in their majority voted "no" because the Annan partition plan was so bad it is even worst than the status quo.

If they wanted us to vote "yes" then they shouldn't have satisfied all the demands of the Turks. It is obvious that all they cared was to have the Turks vote "yes" to present them as the "nice" ones ahead of their EU accession process, and they didn't give a damn to solve the Cyprus problem.

Here is what Turkey's most knowing journalist said about Annan plan a few months ago:

02 11 2006

Mehmet Ali Birand

Before the vote on the Annan plan, I personally believed the Turkish Cypriots were faced with a historic opportunity and did everything I could to ensure that the plan was a success. I believed that, with the plan, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) would be able to stand on its own two feet. The KKTC would enter the European Union with Greek Cyprus and consequently, the Cyprus issue would no longer be an obstacle to Turkey's EU aspirations. I am still of the same opinion.

It is obvious why the TCs voted "yes", and why the GCs voted "no".

[miltiades]

Bananiot , you are entitled to your opinions and you have exercised your right as a citizen of a free Western world nation to cast your vote accordingly. The majority rejected the AP and agreed with Piratis and my self.
Piratis has more than covered the crucial aspects that were the decisive reasons for rejection so I shall refrain from further repetition.
A solution will come sooner rather than later , but a solution that the majority imperatively find at least partly acceptable.

[Bananiot]

So Miltiades, you agree with the simpleton that says that the plan was manufactured by the evil Americans (the west) who want to see our downfall? Please tell me that the Americans and the British have more sense than to work incessantly for our demise, as Piratis likes to believe, for if this is their purpose in life it will take all of Piratis's patriotism to resist them.

[Viewpoint]

Bananiot , you are entitled to your opinions and you have exercised your right as a citizen of a free Western world nation to cast your vote accordingly. The majority rejected the AP and agreed with Piratis and my self.
Piratis has more than covered the crucial aspects that were the decisive reasons for rejection so I shall refrain from further repetition.
A solution will come sooner rather than later , but a solution that the majority imperatively find at least partly acceptable.

miltiades this is not like missing a bus and waiting for another one to come along. Annan plans do not appear everyday and are not to be taken lightly. The chance was missed and you to have witnessed that the EU solution is just not out there, even they have passed the buck back to the UN who have near enough wash their hands of the whole mess and are unwilling to attempt another round ending in failure.

Bananiot it totally right this was an historical chance to start again missed and people like you and Piratis will only understand this in 40 years time when the division is slowly but gradually a norm something tollerated by all other states until a time well after we are long gone when a decision to recognize the TRNC will occur.

[Piratis]

Bananiot, the only simpleton in here is you. The Turks wished all of us would be simpletons like you so they could "solve" the Cyprus Problem their way. Oh, wait, if all of us were like you there would be no Greeks or Cypriots after the centuries of Ottoman rule. We would just take the easy way and just accept what the powerful wanted to force on us.

Regarding the role of the British, watch the following video from BBC if you didn't already:
http://media3.filewind.com/g.php?filepath=1624

There you will see how the British brought in Turkey into the Cyprus issue by proposing partition from 1957, to ensure that Cyprus would not follow the destiny of the other Greek islands, using the TC minority as the key.

If you can not see how USA and Co. are trying to help and use Turkey in everything for their plans for our region then one thing I have to say my friend: you are blind.

And no, it doesn't mean that because the powerful are against us that we should just accept whatever. We have past worst times before that lasted for centuries and we didn't give up and we didn't sell off our island. So don't expect us to do it now just because the current balance of power does not favor us.

[pantheman]

So Miltiades, you agree with the simpleton that says that the plan was manufactured by the evil Americans (the west) who want to see our downfall? Please tell me that the Americans and the British have more sense than to work incessantly for our demise, as Piratis likes to believe, for if this is their purpose in life it will take all of Piratis's patriotism to resist them.

Banana idiot,

I don't know you koumbare, and with a thought process like that i don't want to, but if you believe that the USA and the UK are not guilty and do not want our demise then you must be a f#cking idiot not worthy to be called a GC (i have made the assumption you are).

Hell, it is because of them we are in this shit in the first place. The annan plan, was completely fabricated by the USA/UK to turkeys specification and i thank god and allah that the GC (or most of them) had the good sense to say NO.

This wasn't a plan for the GC, it was totally onesided. And to expect the GC to vote yes just because it was presented to them then you must be mad.

Here is a little analogy, you were asking the GC to get onto a bus that was heading for a cliff because there may not be another bus coming up behind. Really, would you have climbed onto that bus ( stupid question you did - idiot) well that is what the annan plan was to the GC people.

So, please spare us the bullshit excuses in your super long post to try and justify the selling off of you country, would you sell your mother for the same price ?

I say the same to all those GCs who voted yes, whoever they are. I would rather the satus quo than be sold.

Pantheman

P.S. I want a united cyprus, but a fair one, and not at any price.

[Bananiot]

Would someone be kind enough and close the door of the loony house? We do not want another one escaping.

[souroul]

Reasons for the approval of the Annan Plan Turkish Cypriot view

* Reunification was desired for economic reasons.
* Many Turkish Cypriots no longer perceived the Greek Cypriots as a threat, especially in the light of the strictly bi-zonal proposition of the Annan plan.
* Turkish Cypriots would receive considerable constitutional power in the United Cyprus Republic that the Annan plan proposed, over-proportional to their percentage of the population.
* The Turkish Cypriot component state would still, even after territorial cessation of some areas to the Greek Cypriot component state, make up 28.5 percent of the total area of Cyprus, including large economically important areas that where inhabitated exclusively by Greek Cypriots prior to the division of Cyprus in 1975.
* The right of return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the areas coming under the control of the Turkish Cypriot component state would be strictly limited if not, insome cases, forbidden, thus the possibility of Turkish Cypriots becoming a minority in their respective component state would not exist.
* The guarantor powers to the constitution of Cyprus would retain their powers as such, thus Turkey would still have the arguable right to intervene in Cypriot affairs, most definitely on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots.

Reasons for the rejection of the Annan Plan Greek Cypriot Point of view

* The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. (2001) The Annan plan equates the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the to be Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation to the two communities. The majority becomes minority in important decision centers.
* The plan created a confederation even though it utilized the term "federation" because there was no hierarchy of laws, while central authority emanated from the so-called component states. Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable. In 1789, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot (77% of population) and Turkish Cypriot (18% of population) judges, plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.
* The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.
* Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.
* The Plan simply disregarded the plain language and clear meaning of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, article 49, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. Article 49 states in its last paragraph: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
* The Plan did not deal in full with the demilitarisation of the illegal 'TRNC', and Greek Cypriots felt they had no reason to believe Turkish promises concerning the withdrawal of troops.
* Cyprus would be excluded from the European Common Defense and Foreign Policy, while Turkish troops would remain in Cyprus even after the accession of Turkey to the EU with intervention rights (a military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically) in the Greek Cypriot component state.
* Many Greek Cypriots interpreted the Right of Return policy as to be seriously flawed, meaning only 20% of Greek Cypriot refugees would be able to return over a time frame of 25 years, whereas Turkish Cypriots would have had full right of return.The plan denied to all Cypriots rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens (right of free movement and residence, the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services, the right to vote).
* Turkish Cypriots would have gained all the basic demands it made, from the first day of the implementation of the solution. To be exact, 24 hours after the holding of the referendum. In contrast, everything that the Greek Cypriots were aspiring to achieve, would have postponed without guarantees and depend upon the good will of Turkey to fulfil the obligations it undertakes. They are also subject to the precondition that all would have gone well.
* The return of the Turkish occupied land will take place in the period between three and a half months and three and a half years from the moment the solution is signed with no guarantees whatsoever that this shall be implemented. The Cypriot-Greek proposal of placing these areas under the control of the UN Peace Keeping Force and not the Turkish army has been rejected.
* The Plan did not address the issue of the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the island, although parts of the SBAs would be transferred to the governments of the two consituent states.
* The British were granted rights to unilaterally define the continental shelf and territorial waters along two base areas and to claim potential mineral rights. Under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements, Britain did not have such rights (see the 2nd annex to the Additional Protocol to the 1959 Treaty of Establishment).
* The plan absolved Turkey of all responsibility for its invasion of Cyprus and its murders, rapes, destruction of property and churches and looting and forcing approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property. The Cyprus government filed applications to the European Commission on Human Rights on September 17, 1974 and on March 21, 1975. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the two applications on July 10, 1976. In it the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

1.. Article 2 - by the killing of innocent civilians committed on a substantial scale;

2.. Article 3 - by the rape of women of all ages from 12 to 71;

3.. Article 3 - by inhuman treatment of prisoners and persons detained;

4.. Article 5 - by deprivation of liberty with regard to detainees and missing persons - a continuing violation;

5.. Article 8 - by displacement of persons creating more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees,and be refusing to allow the refugees to return to their homes.

* The plan failed to provide payment by Turkey:

1.. for the lives of innocent civilians killed by the Turkish army;

2.. for the victims of rape by the Turkish army;

3.. for the vast destruction of property and churches by the Turkish army; and

4.. for the substantial looting by the Turkish army.

* The Plan subverted the property rights of the Greek Cypriots and other legal owners of property in the occupied area:

•by prohibiting recourse to European courts on property issues;

•by withdrawing all pending cases at the European Court of Human Rights and transferring them to local courts;

•by allowing Turkish Cypriots and illegal mainland Turk settlers/colonists to keep Greek Cypriot homes and property they were illegally given following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and not having to reimburse the rightful owners of the property for 30 years of illegal use;

•by a highly complicated, ambiguous and uncertain regime for resolving property issues and which is based on the principle that real property owners can ultimately be forced to give up their property rights which would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and international law. The Greek Cypriot property owners would have to be reimbursed by the to be federal treasury which would be funded overwhelmingly by the Greek Cypriots, meaning that Greek Cypriots would be reimbursing themselves.

* The Plan would have the effect of protecting those British citizens who illegally bought Greek Cypriot property from settlers or persons who are not owners; in the occupied north of Cyprus. They would, in effect, not be held responsible for their illegal action.
* The cost of economic reunification would be borne by the Greek Cypriots. The reunification cost has been estimated close to $20b
* Following Annan 5 plan the Greek Cypriots would not have been allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village in the Turkish controlled areas in the north thus they would have been prevented from setting up their own schools for their children and would not have even been able to give birth once this quota was reached.

According to UN 260 resolution Genocide is: (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

* The agreement places time restrictions in the right of free, permanent installation of Greek Cypriots back to their homes and properties in the to be Turkish Cypriot state, which constitutes a deviation from the European Union practices. Those Greek Cypriot refugees that would return to their homes in regions under Turkish Cypriot administration would have no local civil rights, because the political representatives of Turkish Cypriot state would be elected only from Turkish Cypriots.
* The functional weaknesses of the Plan endanger, inter alia, the smooth activity and participation of Cyprus, with one voice, in the European Union. While the Greek Cypriots have with many sacrifices achieved Cyprus accession to the European Union, the Greek Cypriots could very easily be led to the neutralization of the accession until the adoption of all necessary federal and regional legal measures or the loss of the benefits of the accession or the facing of obstacles in Cyprus participation in the Economic and Monetary Union and other European institutions.
* The Economy of Cyprus would have been separate with the plan. There will be no common Monetary policy, fiscal policy and no investments by Greek Cypriot businesses shall be allowed in the Turkish Cypriot constituent state.

WIKIPEDIA

[Sotos]

Bananiot if tomorrow they propose a plan that will give us back 0.5% of land and allow 100 refugees to return you will accept it because they proposed it and because it is better than nothing? I mean we made many compromises but we have to draw the line somewhere between the acceptable and the unacceptable, don't we? Should we accept whatever they offer because they want to help Turkey?