Cyprus-Forum.com

[anlarm]

I think you may be right in your intrepretation. And I hope you are right soon. I am eagerly waiting for another initiative (from either side) so parties sit down for a quick round of negotiations soon. This problem has lasted too long.

[PEACE]

Yes,i think that Papadopulos is a Turkish Cypriot hater.
He said no Turkish Cypriot was killed during period 1963-1974.He refuses what happened during that period.

If i'm crictisizing Papadopulos this never means Denktas is Ok.No,he is same with Papadopulos.

[cannedmoose]

To be honest, I don't see that it's relevant whether Papadopoulos is a 'Turk-hater' or not. His past record illustrates his views and these are well-known and understood. What matters is that he will be a block on making progress to resolve the conflict on our fair isle.

When he was first elected, I gave him the benefit of the doubt, in the hope that he would continue Clerides policy of constructive engagement. What ensued was a facade of the continuance of this policy, with the underlying belief that rapprochement between the two sides could only take place if the majority of GC demands were met. In other words, less a flxeible negotiating stance than sticking to old principles.

I don't think Tassos (or many GC's) yet appreciates that the mantra of 'return of land, return of refugess, expulsion of settlers' is no longer achievable, even with the EU as a potential vehicle for the forwarding of these aims. It is unlikely that Cyprus will win many fans in Europe if it one day holds the Union hostage to achieving these aims. Hence his Makarios-esque appeal to his fellow GC's to reject a pragmatic plan produced by Kofi Annan and a whole host of constitutional experts. Annan was not perfect, but it trod a fine line between the demands of both communities. His speech went a long way to promoting the crushing rejection that followed and also went a long way to alienate him in the halls of Brussels (he's not quite persona non grata, but near enough).

The worry should be that his continuing leadership will lead to the Denktash-isation of GC policy - with Tassos as a block on further progress. Thankfully, it looks like we'll be rid of Rauf in the Spring, sadly we can't say the same for Papadopoulos. With a hopefully more flexible leadership in the north, a progressive leadership in Turkey, a Greek government desperate to solve the issues between themselves and their neighbour, and an EU eager to turn the Eastern Med from a hotbed of tension to a peaceful corner of the Union, all of the pieces are in place for an endgame to the conflict. If a plan is put forward and again supported by all these players, Tassos will again stand alone and isolated. His Presidency is winning no favours for Cyprus.

Thus, rather than merely denigrating Papadopoulos, we must ask who is a suitable future replacement for his hard-line attitude? Which of the future leaders in the wings could be expected to display a more conciliatory line. I personally don't know the answer, but I'd be interested to hear other perspectives.

No doubt this interpretation will not go down well with some people and I don't claim it as truth, it's just my perspective.

[Bananiot]

Very well put. One thing, however, Papadopoulos is consistent with his decades old policy. He remains an out and out rejectionist. I am sure he prefers partition to an agreed solution that will see share of power between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. Who will suceed him? I think we need a pragmatic politician with a realistic attitude towards the likely solution to our problem. However, party politics are placed way above the salvation of this island of ours and this is how one can explain the inexplicable stance of AKEL. I am not optimistic that its possible to salvage anything from this mess. Christofias is quite happy to play second string to Papadopoulos. In this way he reaps the benefits of power without actually paying the cost of unpopular decisions of the government. The recent semi government employee crisis illustrates the above. What about the Akelites that supported the proposed solution in April? Well, they have been threatened to be sidelined and they have conveniently shut up. Hadjigeorgiou, for instance, is a sorry case, he knows the party apparatus will not allow him to be reelected as an MP but he does nothing about it. He will probably be removed from Astra too. The rejectionists are well on top in AKEL too. Christofias has led AKEL to calamity. So, brace youselves for another 8 years of Papadopoulos reign. Cyprus, my friends, has been partitioned.

[Bananiot]

Just seen the lead article in Sunday Mail, possibly the most serious newspaper on the plantaion. Here it is:

"PRESIDENT Papadopoulos shattered the last few remaining hopes of a settlement during his term, in a speech he made at a book launch on Wednesday night. He re-iterated his theoretical commitment to a solution that would re-unify the island, but set one non-negotiable condition – the preservation of the Cyprus Republic – which would preclude any settlement in the foreseeable future. It was the official laying to rest of the Annan plan, which offered the only realistic opportunity of a deal.

“We fought for the evolution of the state to a new constitution of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation, but not for the dissolution of the state and the virgin birth of a new state of affairs,” he said. He added: “The safeguarding of the trustworthiness and prestige of the Cyprus state is not a matter of personal preference, or a matter of routine obligation. It is a debt and a responsibility of the people and the leadership.” Honouring this debt “is directly linked with the prospect of success of our struggle for national and physical survival.”

By the end of the speech, the alleged objective of a solution gave way to the preservation of the state at all costs. There could have been no more emphatic a rejection of the Annan plan, the philosophy and essence of which is based on the “virgin birth of a new state of affairs” or, to put it more simply, the replacement of the Republic of Cyprus by a new state. In short, the President was never remotely interested in the UN-proposed solution, but went along with last year’s peace process only because there was no way out of it, especially as he had given assurances to the EU that he was committed to a solution.

Since the referendum, Papadopoulos has flatly refused to say what changes to the plan would make it acceptable to him, on the spurious grounds that he did not want to give his negotiating position away. He has also gone out of his way to antagonise all the parties – UN, EU, US and Britain - that could contribute to a new initiative aimed at making the plan more palatable to Greek Cypriots and gave his approval to the start of EU-Turkey accession talks without even attempting to get any commitment to the resumption of talks from Ankara; it was the last thing he wanted. In the last few weeks he has taken a page out of Rauf Denktash’s book by setting certain inviolable conditions for agreeing to any new negotiations – no time-frame and no arbitration, which would ensure inconclusive talks.

The president’s objective is obvious. He is making it abundantly clear to the international community that any attempt at a new initiative would be doomed to failure because he would never agree to the abolition of the Republic; and his presidency, which is an integral part of it. The communist party AKEL is on the same wavelength and employing similar tactics. Initially, the party leader Demetris Christofias wanted certain guarantees on security and the implementation of the provisions of the plan and then he wanted substantive changes that would be mutually agreed with the Turkish Cypriots. Now he has decided he wants the whole plan re-negotiated, without time-frames and arbitration.

The only solution that president and his political allies seem prepared to accept is a return to the 1960 constitution. In Wednesday’s speech Papadopoulos waxed lyrical about the London and Zurich agreements which established the Cyprus Republic, even though he had been vehemently opposed to the agreements at the time. That the political parties and the government are currently discussing an amendment of the constitution to increase the number of seats in parliament to a hundred and reserving 30 of these for the Turkish Cypriots, if and when they return to the Republic, is indicative of the prevailing thinking. If they were genuinely focused on a securing a settlement they would not be amending the constitution now, and in a way suggesting that we intend to maintain the status quo indefinitely.

There is no doubt that the notoriously secretive Papadopoulos has his own agenda, which he is unwilling to share with anyone but his closest associates. While it is his constitutional prerogative to forge national policy, this does not give him the right to keep people completely in the dark about his plans on an issue which, one way or another, will affect everyone’s future. People need to know where he is leading them, rather than having constantly to second-guess his moves and try to make sense of his conflicting statements, not to mention the empty promises of a European solution peddled by his political allies. The referendum result was not a carte blanche for Papadopoulos to bury the hope of a settlement for the foreseeable future.

All his actions indicate that this is his objective, which may or may not have the support of the people. This is why, we believe, he has a moral obligation to tell the people what he is trying to achieve, how he proposes to do it and what risks are involved. Could it lead to partition without the Greek Cypriots getting any territory back, or the constant threat of future clashes? Are people really willing to pay this price for the sake of preserving the Cyprus Republic, as the president implied in Wednesday’s speech? How does he know? But if he is going to cite the people’s wishes as justification for his high-risk policies, he should at least have the decency to inform them what he is actually playing at and what is at stake.

We had thought we had moved on from the era of autocratic rule when the leader supposedly knew best what was good for his people and did not even bother to tell them what this entailed".

[Saint Jimmy]

Christofias is quite happy to play second string to Papadopoulos. In this way he reaps the benefits of power without actually paying the cost of unpopular decisions of the government.

Bananiot, allow me to disagree with you on these two points. This depiction of politicians in general as being totally, ruthlessly and irreversibly macchiavellian sounds to me as much a fairy tale as an idealistic portrayal of them. Obviously, personal ambitions and partisan schemes do play a role, but I hardly think it's all about backstabbings and getting as much power as possible. My opinion is that Christofias is trying to influence Tassos's strategy without coming into direct conflict with him (the first part being a sincere effort for progress towards a solution, and the second what you said above - it's a balance of some sort). Whether he succeeds or not remains to be seen, probably within the year.

So, brace youselves for another 8 years of Papadopoulos reign. Cyprus, my friends, has been partitioned.

Do you really think Papadopoulos has any chance of being re-elected, if he does not solve the problem??? It was pretty clear to me that 'GCs didn't vote 'no' to a solution, they voted 'no' to this specific plan'! Presumably, then, if they realize that he doesn't want to solve it (which, I think, is going to be the consensus, if this year proves fruitless, too), whereas they do...

[Piratis]

The Annan partition plan was created by the Americans and the British to serve their own, and their good allie Turkey, interests. It was not pragmatic, it was was a "new order" plan, where the Americans think they can do whatever they feel like without giving a shit about human rights and international law.

Papadopolous did what we elected him to do: Represent us and defend us. This is how we are correctly represented, and not by some "good boy" who would sell us so he will be invited in high class European dinners.

[Bananiot]

I remember clearly Christofias greeting the A plan with some very positive comments in early April. Obviously he had a different view, much different, from that of Papadopoulos. He hailed the plan as one that ends occupation and the division of our country and preserves the integrity of Cyprus. All he asked in order to vote a huge yes, he said, were some guarantees that the plan would be implemented. He then asked for some more time to cement a yes vote.

Well, I wonder how much he has influenced Papadopoulos since then. It occurs to me that it has worked the other way round. But, I feel this is not the case either. The two men were together in this right from the begining. Why did he place the party at the service of the most nationalist person in Cyprus? What on earth do they have in common?

Corruption, Jimmy, is another thing. Papadopoulos probably has a strong hold over many Akelite top brass. I.e. Katsourides, his staunchest supporter in AKEL. New Marathon is the name of the game.

[Saint Jimmy]

Corruption, Jimmy, is another thing. Papadopoulos probably has a strong hold over many Akelite top brass. I.e. Katsourides, his staunchest supporter in AKEL. New Marathon is the name of the game.

Hmmmm...

You know, I read this article a few months back, by a GC journalist, where he mentioned, very briefly, but in a kind of winking-eye conspiratory note, the 'hold that Tassos has on Christofias'. I can't remember exactly why, but this reference gave me a feeling of sinister forces being at work in that collaboration. So, I contacted the guy and asked him what he was talking about, but he said he 'couldn't tell me over the internet' (via email, that is):!:

I wonder if this is (part of) what he was talking about...

[Bananiot]

Here you have it my friend. You have heard, I presume, of the latest mafia style killing in Cyprus the other day.

Anyway, here another relevant piece from todays Cyprus Mail.

ON THE LAST day of the year, Politis reported that according to a memo submitted by the finance ministry to the Council of Ministers, the European Central Bank had suggested the postponement of Cyprus’ entry into the Exchange Rate Mechanism because of some doubts about the Republic’s ability to deal with money laundering.

The report sparked a reaction from two officials – Central Bank Governor Christodoulos Christodoulou and the head of the financial crime unit (MOKAS), Eva Papakyriakou. A ‘source’ at the Central Bank, using terms and phrases very similar to those used by the Governor from time to time, told the newspapers that the ministry’s claims were groundless, adding:

“Such misleading leaks are not just unethical, but cause, without any justification, harm to the Cyprus case and serve dubious competitive interests.”

Ms Papakyriakou, upset that the finance ministry had not informed her about the European Central Bank’s suggestion, pointed out that the Council of Europe and the European Commission had put Cyprus through the magnifying glass and concluded that the level of checks and controls for money laundering activities were exceptionally high. She added that the Central Bank and MOKAS were receiving praise and positive comments in reports by international bodies for the measures Cyprus was enforcing against the laundering of dirty money.

I do not know how accurate her claims about Cyprus being put through the magnifying glass were, but if the European Commission and other international bodies have reached the point of praising us, then perhaps their people should be put through the magnifying glass. One of the biggest international, financial crimes of all time was committed with Cyprus’ help. An astronomical amount, estimated by the Serbian authorities to be in the region of $4.3 billion, was transferred to Cyprus from Serbia, between 1992 and 1998 and deposited in the bank accounts of eight companies controlled by the Milosevic regime.

The money was transferred in cash by an unorthodox method - cement bags were filled with banknotes and brought to Cyprus by plane. This money belonged to the Serbian people who were robbed by their president in an unprecedented case of fraud. This astronomical amount was stolen from Serbia’s customs and the reserves of its Central Bank.

As a result of this unbelievable scam, hundreds of thousands of poor people lost their savings. After the fall of the Milosevic regime, the government issued the people with bonds, thus showing that it recognised the rights of Milosevic’s victims and undertaking to return their money if it is ever found and returned to Serbia. This colossal financial crime took place in the knowledge of the Cyprus Central Bank, which played a disgraceful role.

How the millions arrived in Cyprus and were then laundered into the bank accounts of the eight ‘front companies’, which I have referred to in other articles, was described, under oath, by Cypriot bank employees in statements submitted to the International Crime Tribune at The Hague, on March 3, 2003. When Alithia began to publish excerpts from these statements, a furious Ms Papakyriakou called up to protest and demand that the newspaper stopped running them. It is the same woman who was outraged by Politis’ report and who spoke about the praise received from the European Commission and other international bodies.

As I am not sure that Ms Papakyriakou and the Central Bank ‘source’ were joking when they made the remarks mentioned above, I have prepared copies of the statements given by the bank clerks, plus a copy of the report by the tribunal’s investigator Morten Torkildsen, to send to the European Commission. Because if the officials it sent to inspect our checks and control praised a system, which allowed $4.3 billion to pass through Cyprus unnoticed, something is seriously wrong with Kingdom of Brussels.