WHEN asked for his views of the meeting between Kofi Annan and President Papadopoulos, the UN’s Under-Secretary-general, Ibrahim Gampari, pointed out that the UN was trying to take very careful steps on the Cyprus issue. “We do not want to jump into an empty swimming pool,” he said. A little earlier, Annan had done just that – he dived into the empty swimming pool of the Bristol Hotel in Paris.
I hate to say it, but about a year ago, this column had predicted this specific move by Papadopoulos and Demetris Christofias as well as its timing. I had written at the time that they would try to persuade the UN Secretary-general to embark on a new procedure, with the supposed objective of a settlement, in an attempt to fool those among their supporters who were dissatisfied with the rejection of the Annan plan. I had even predicted that such procedure would be as close to the parliamentary elections as was possible.
As is well-known, about 20 per cent of the supporters of the parties which opposed the Annan plan, voted in its favour. AKEL appears to have the biggest problem in relation to this issue. A section of the left-wing electorate seems determined to punish the leadership of the communist party, by not voting for AKEL in May’s parliamentary elections, as it had done in the European elections. The objective of the latest scam was to persuade Annan to take a few steps on Cyprus that could be presented as a new initiative for a settlement and thus persuade the disaffected to cast their votes for AKEL again.
I am under the impression that the scam has, more or less, worked. Annan has been used, by Papadopoulos and Christofias, who have already began boasting that they have paved the way for a settlement. One could point out that the Secretary-general did not satisfy their main demand for the “immediate appointment, before the elections” of a new Special Representative for Cyprus. One could also point out the coldness and reserve with which Annan spoke at the joint press conference, referring to the gap between words and actions in Cyprus and the assertion that the time was not ripe for the appointment of a special envoy.
But these are far too lofty concepts for the average Cypriot to grasp, especially when he is bombarded with the triumphant reports of the television stations. They will tell him, “look we’ve started negotiations for a settlement, so give time and your vote.” And he will buy the tale. Nobody will ask how the Cyprus problem has become an issue for technical committees and whether this is a big backward step. Nobody will ask how it is possible for Famagusta, the property issue, the presence of the troops – in short the quintessence of the Cyprus problem – to be discussed and resolved by technical committees.
And nobody will ask how Papadopoulos and Christofias had reacted to similar developments in the past. Back in 1994, when the UN Security Council had proposed the discussion of ‘confidence-building measures’, Papadopoulos dismissed them as “the fourth Attila” and engaged in idiotic word-play about the “Famagustisation of the Cyprus problem”. We would be discussing matters of no importance while ignoring the substance of the Cyprus problem, he maintained at the time.
Now he is celebrating because technical committees will be discussing confidence-building measures and ignoring the substance of the Cyprus problem. As for Christofias, in June 1994, he had proposed standing up to the UN and refusing to discuss confidence-building measures. “If the need arises, we will clash with the Security Council. We will tell them, ‘gentlemen, we refuse to put water in our wine, we want negotiations on the substance of the Cyprus problem.”
All this fuss we are witnessing now is nothing more than a pre-election publicity stunt. UN personnel based in Cyprus are well aware of what is going on. A few days before the Paris meeting, one UN official in Cyprus was asking: “Why do they want to use the Secretary-general for their domestic issues?” This would suggest that Annan willingly took part in the theatre acted out in Paris, knowing exactly what it was about. This raises the question of why had he agreed to be used?
Should we perhaps accept the theory – which I found rather simplistic – that the Paris development also suits Turkey? With the Cyprus problem being discussed at technical committees for an indefinite period, nobody would contemplate raising objections relating to the Cyprus problem, during its accession negotiations with the EU.
