It is a special talent which Cypriot politicians have been possessing over the past 60 years. When a hope for springtime appears in the horizon, when the halcyon days, which Zeus has granted to mankind, are about to shine on the skies, some politicians know how to bring winter back again.
Even in countries where a very difficult political and social system exists and religious fanaticism pervades the grassroots, realism has started emerging. In a recent article of his, the new President of Iran Hassan Rouhani writes:
“When I campaigned to become President of Iran I promised to balance realism and the pursuit of the Islamic Republic’s ideals and won Iranian voters’ support by a large margin. By virtue of the popular mandate that I received, I am committed to moderation and common sense, which is now guiding all my government’s policies”.
This is what islamist Rouhani says: A balance between what is feasible and what is desirable. On the contrary here in Cyprus, whenever even a small possibility appears to get rid of the suffocating feeling of the Turkish occupation which poisons our lives, some politicians try to think of one hundred reasons why this should not happen. They try to think of one hundred reasons to “kill” what is feasible. This has been the attitude for years and years.
I remember, when the Anglo American Canadian plan was proposed in 1978, and later, in 1983, when the “Indicators” were submitted by the United Nations my office was inundated with dozens of studies and comments of all sorts by “experts” from Greece and Cyprus, who were splitting hairs. So, year after year, the occupation and the faits-accomplis were rooted deep into the ground, so deep that I personally have many doubts whether a reversal of the situation is possible. As a result of the perennial inaction the occupied part of Cyprus has been turned into Asia Minor, Pontos, Constantinoupolis.
President Anastasiades signed recently a Joint Declaration, which, after 40 years of occupation, was very difficult to achieve. It provides for a single legal international personality, a single sovereignty and a single united Cyprus citizenship. It also provides that the union in whole or in part of Cyprus with any other country, its partition or secession or unilateral change to the state of affairs, are prohibited.
So, what is it that we fear? How could our country be ever divided into two parts or united wholly or partly with, say, Turkey, as long as such actions are prohibited?
However, if things go wrong again, if the blunders and sins of the past reoccur, irrespective of what a “Joint Declaration” may provide, is there anything which may stop a strong and ruthless country like Turkey, from turning everything upside down as she did in 1974? Who is going to prevent her in practical terms? Besides, who stopped her in 1974? Could a “correct” joint Declaration ever stop her?
It is more than clear that the future of Cyprus will depend much more on the wisdom and correct judgment of her people, than on anything else.
In addition there are recently two questions which hover in the air and have to be addressed:
1. Has Turkey made even one concession thus far, to justify a new negotiation?
It is a fact that the Turks are very hard negotiators. UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim had told me 35 years ago, that he considered the Turks as the most difficult negotiators, after the South Africans and the Israelis.
In the case of Cyprus however, there has been some giving away by our side and also by the Turkish side, compared to the initial stands of the 1950s/1960s. In those years we were after union with Greece (enosis), whilst the Turkish Cypriots were fighting for partition (taksim). Through the High Level Agreements of 1977 and 1979 and in the years that followed, a golden mean, a compromise was struck, the bizonal, bicommunal federation, with political equality as described in the Security Council Resolutions.
In addition there is something else we must have in mind in connection with the above question. We may have given away in the past a little more than what the Turks have. However is it the Turks or ourselves who have lost a war in 1974, which was the direct consequence of the Greek coup d’ etat? Is it the turks or ourselves who have lost their land, their homes, their churches? Is it the Turks or ourselves who are threatened by a mighty army of 40,000 soldiers, covered by air and navy forces, which we cannot confront in an effective manner if the worst comes to the worst? So, in whose interest would a solution work? Which side has a good reason to negotiate? Is it our side or the Turkish Cypriot side?
2. The existing process of talks has not yielded any results. So, we must look for something else.
Of course nobody says in a clear language what this “something else” might be. Is it war? Is it partition? Is it an endless inaction, which has already solidified the status of occupation? Is it a campaign to enlighten the world community? (quite ludicrous, 50 years after 1963).
However, let us see how correct is this allegation that the process of talks has not resulted in anything at all:
In an article of mine of the 30th January 2008, I set forth 15 Plans which were proposed to us from the year 1948 (Consultative Assembly) until the year 2002 (Annan Plan) for a solution to our problem. We rejected almost all of them. So, which are the ineffective processes to which we refer? Are they the ones we have been rejecting during the past 60 years? Which are getting worse and worse as time goes by, because the faits-accomplis are gradually solidified?
I believe that the most important initiative we had after the invasion, was the Anglo-American-Canadian Plan of November 1978. I handled the Plan throughout from the very beginning to the end. The Plan was supported by three important countries, which could exercise a lot of influence on Turkey. The U.S. President Jimmy Carter received us in the White House in October 1978, a month before the Plan was handed over. The Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, the Deputy and the Assistant Secretaries Warren Christopher and Matthew Nimetz were all directly involved. The Plan in real terms provided for the conversion of the 1960 unitary state into a federal state. The residents of Varosha would go back to their homes when the talks would commence and would stay there irrespective of the outcome of the talks. The above Plan, despite the efforts of some of us to get it through, was rejected by our side. We also rejected all other initiatives which ensued. And nowadays we complain that the dialogue process is ineffective!
President Anastasiades has an extremely difficult task ahead. The Americans support his efforts , 36 years after their 1978 Plan. At that time Nimetz had told us that Ankara was contacted and the response was positive. Back in 1978 there were neither settlers, nor huge Turkish investments, nor Greek Cypriot properties occupied. Time had not killed the potential for a solution.
I personally wish the President the best of success. I do not know what will follow. Forty years of occupation cannot be easily written off. So the task will be anything from difficult to impossible. This is something which was never realised by the supporters of negation and of the long term struggle, who have in reality destroyed this country.
Let us give another chance to the halcyon days, even if their appearance in the skies seems unlikely.
 |
| READ THE ORIGINAL POST AT www.neurope.eu |
