Sir,
As we mark the 30th anniversary of those dark days in July 1974 that opened the door to the Turkish invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus, we will undoubtedly be deluged once again by a torrent of words from our professional politicians, who are strong on the rhetoric of unbridled nationalism, and weak on pragmatic solutions to the Cyprus problem.
To those, like our President, who repeat ad nauseam that the ‘no’ vote in the April referendum was merely the rejection of a specific proposal, and not a rejection of a solution based on federalism, bi-zonality and bi-communalism, one should reply that the Annan Plan was no sudden and unexpected piece of work clumsily thrown together to do a ‘quickie’ on the Cyprus problem.
It was an elaborately tailored piece of constitution building resulting from years of discussions and negotiations between the sides and among them, the UN, and the regional powers, Greece and Turkey. The trade-offs contained in the plan were based on careful assessments of the stated positions of the sides over several years. It was a delicately balanced effort by the UN to accommodate the expressed views of the parties to the dispute and their respective ‘red lines’. In short, a very comprehensive attempt to reconcile the irreconcilables and to seek a result that was both realistic and principled and within the framework set by Archbishop Makarios and Rauf Denktash in 1977.
Having rejected the plan and thereby stifled the ‘good offices’ initiative of the UN Secretary-general as mandated by the UN Security Council, it is incumbent on President Papadopoulos to tell the people of Cyprus how he intends to bring about the desired result. The people must know that neither the UN, nor the EU, nor anyone else in the international community has any interest in resuscitating any initiative to solve the problem without the clearest prospects for its success.
Having handed Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots a massive diplomatic victory on a silver platter, President Papadopoulos cannot hide his cards, as he likes to put it, until a new initiative comes along. There will not be another initiative until the Greek Cypriot leader shows through actions that he is sincerely and seriously intent on the goal of a federal solution and not simply paying lip service. The only way he can do that is by making public the changes he wants to see made in the plan. Only then will the people of Cyprus and the world know whether there is any realistic prospect for further negotiation leading to a solution.
If the President thinks that we can simply use our membership in the EU to extract more concessions from the Turkish side when it is ready to join the EU, he is sadly deluded. The EU, with the sole exception of Greece, is quite satisfied that the Turks have fully met what was expected of them to facilitate a solution. For the EU, the Annan plan is a European solution, and is fully concordant with the EU’s governing structure.
It is our side, not the Turks, who will come under constant EU pressure to compromise and demonstrate our bona fides going forward. Unless we get our act together quickly, President Papadopoulos will go down in history as the Greek Cypriot politician who handed Rauf Denkatash and the partitionists in the north their victory in the most paradoxical of ways.
An own goal indeed.
Nicos A. Pittas, Halifax, NS, Canada
