www.talkcyprus.org

[cypriotandproud]

on July 8, 2006, President Papadopoulos and Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat, agreed, under the auspices of the United Nations Under Secretary General Ibrahim Gambari, to a set of principles to begin a process of bi-communal discussions;

Whereas the set of principles agreed to are--
(1) commitment to the unification of Cyprus based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and political equality, as set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions;

(2) recognition of the fact that the status quo is unacceptable and that its prolongation would have negative consequences for the Turkish and Greek Cypriots;

(3) commitment to the proposition that a comprehensive settlement is both desirable and possible, and should not be further delayed;

(4) agreement to begin a process immediately, involving bi-communal discussion of issues that affect the day to day life of the people and concurrently those that concern substantive issues, both of which will contribute to a comprehensive settlement; and

(5) commitment to ensure that the `right atmosphere' prevails for this process to be successful; in that connection, confidence-building measures are essential, both in terms of improving the atmosphere and improving the life of all Turkish and Greek Cypriots; and also in that connection, an end must be put to the so-called `blame game'


What is happening with this agreement - I feel we need to address this in a post.

Seems like a fair and sensible agreement to me. Why do the turks stall?

[repulsewarrior]

I would say, taking your point of view, that you expect a leader from the Turkish Cypriot population who acts toward their representation in affairs of State. It would be nice if Talat and TPap were to meet as brothers, in secret, for the end of this subjugation, and the illegal occupation, and in my deepest dreams I hope it to be true, but for the fact that Talat is not much more than a mayor, of a large town, that is a part of Turkey, and that seems to be the role he is ready to play.

That said, there is no Greek Cypriot Party, or leader who aspires to be a representative of anything other than "Greek".

Nothing could seem to be worse except for the movement of time. New ideas will be embraced that are futuristic, less attached to the discord of the past compelled to act in a manner most suited, given natural laws of choice, hopefully toward the betterment of the Human condition.

[Bananiot]

Over the last year more than 50 meetings took place between the representatives, Tzionis and Pertev, and absolutely nothing happened. Such is the rift between the two sides at present. The Secretary General has not singled out one side as the culprit and only the other day he said that basically he is scared to start a new initiative. Talat said that he wants to make sure that the process is speeded up because Papadopoulos is biding his time by proposing that the committees deal with about 96 different subjects. Contrary, Papadopoulos seems to think that this process is the only option left open.

It takes two to tango.

[Mete]

Bananiot wrote:
Over the last year more than 50 meetings took place between the representatives, Tzionis and Pertev, and absolutely nothing happened.

What a shame, my friend Bananiot. My question is though why doesn't anyone on either side ever question about why we cannot get anywhere after 50+ meetings?

[Bananiot]

I am pretty much certain that Papadopoulos does not want a solution based on any type of federation. He can fool the locals but he cannot fool the international community. He has totally lost any credibility he might have left. Talat, I believe, is sincere in his wish for solution. However, Turkey does not feel under any sort of pressure now to hurry towards a solution. The policies followed by Papadopoulos have in fact deguildified Turkey and her European aspirations, at least until 2009 have been disassociated from the Cyprus issue. This suits Papadopoulos quite well because he prefers the present status quo than a solution which inevitably will be based on federation.

You see Mete, the planets that aligned so well in 2003-2004 are now randomly dispersed and of course much will depend on the February elections.

[Bananiot]

Just seen this excellent article in today's Cyprus mail, Mete. Please read it.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=35457&cat_id=1

[Mete]

Thanks, Bananiot. That was indeed and excellent article. The question is though do people in the south see things the way they are or are they simply blind?

We need leaders with vision. Are we ever going to get them or are we simply going to wait for planets to align once in a while and hope for the best with our mediocre politicians who cannot see beyond their noses?

[Bananiot]

I wish I could offer some hope my friend. Probably all is lost but, we might just be presented with another opportunity, if Papadopoulos is sent packing in February.

[Mete]

Hey, at least that's something to look forward to! 4 more months and we shall see.

[stavrizatz]

Quote: Seems like a fair and sensible agreement to me. Why do the turks stall?

Yes I think so too, that the July 8th agreements are a good start for renewed nagotiations as the two leaders showed commitment to unify our island.

At this point I am quit sure who wants to back up, Talat or Turkey.

[Bananiot]

Just take the first point:

Quote: (1) commitment to the unification of Cyprus based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation and political equality, as set out in the relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions;

Papadopoulos will never agree to the above. In fact all his close associates have denounced the principle of bizonal, bicommunal federation. He becomes sick just by hearing of political equality of the two communities. This kind of behaviour was observed between 2003 and 2004 when Papadopoulos was portraying himself as an ardent supporter of the Annan Plan. Of course he was lying, because he knew that Denktash was against. Once Denktash was ousted his real self came out.

Thus, this agreement will not help us. Only if the leaders of the two communities get together on a daily basis and have honest talks and negotiations we may stand a chance. Committees have been invented in order to slow down processes.

[Chapfallen]

The 8th July agreement is an unofficial go fuck your self until the official results will stabilize a working division situation and a Turk orgy in Cyprus. Only if the international circumstances will make a similar with the Anan case situation we can have a solution. In simple words only if USA will have a reason to use their ways we have a chance because no one else can or have reason to force Turkey in a no way out situation like they did in the past.

[Chapfallen]

Is Turkey’s crisis proof we were right to say ‘no’?

EACH time Turkey is going through a crisis, there is a renewal of the argument that it would never have implemented the Annan plan and, therefore, a solution based on it was far from being a guaranteed option. The manner in which this argument has been used by those who had stoutly supported a ‘no’ vote contains a number of contradictions. Their 2004 position was that it was a blatantly pro-Turkish plan, dissolving our state and turning it into a Turkish protectorate. Today, they have recanted this argument and admit that since the plan was not so favourable for Turkey it had every reason to circumvent its implementation.

It is a politically naive position to argue that “since Erdogan cannot elect a President of Turkey how could he implement the solution of the Cyprus problem”. If the Cyprus problem had been solved, the whole of the island would have been part of Europe. Today, the acquis is suspended in the occupied areas and the whole island is only theoretically part of Europe. The European Union is not concerned by the uncontrolled influx of mainland Turkish settlers but only by the danger that they could easily move to the south. In other words, a solution of the Cyprus problem would have meant that the borders of Europe were in Kyrenia. Today, the de facto reality is that they end in the Ayios Pavlos suburb of Nicosia.

A failure to implement the solution on behalf of Turkey would have meant that the sovereignty of an EU member-state was under dispute, a development that by itself would have been sufficient to cause extensive complications to the functioning of the European Union.

Such a move by Turkey would be tantamount to a Russian attack against Estonia. It is inconceivable that this step could ever have taken place because Europe would never tolerate it. Does Turkey have the strength to confront the whole of Europe? Is it possible that the EU would accept this large-scale deviation from what had been agreed?

Moreover, the Security Council and the United States were the guarantors of the agreement and it is inconceivable that they would have allowed Turkey to jeopardise an agreement for resolving an international dispute, which was projected as a model for similar disputes around the world.

Is Turkey so strong that it can brazenly confront the whole world? Finally, if Cyprus cannot trust the European Union and the United Nations as credible guarantors of a solution, then why are we insisting that the Cyprus issue should be resolved through negotiations?

If in 2004, with the whole world standing by our side, we believed that the guarantees for implementing the solution were not strong enough, then what more can we gain from an agreement based on the July 8 procedure, which oddly enough is supported by those who have been arguing that Turkey would never have implemented the solution? Unless the July 8 agreement is yet another communications ploy, like the one of 2003, when we never tired of accusing Denktash in various international fora that he accepted the Annan plan only as a point of reference, whereas our side believed it was the basis for a solution!

Concerns about the implementation of a solution could easily be viewed from the opposite perspective. We had to predict the future complications arising in the path of Turkey’s accession process, either because of internal reasons (such as the current crisis) or because of external ones (such as the election of Nicolas Sarkozy). We had to take advantage of that particular moment in history, when Turkey was fervently seeking a date for the start of accession negotiations with the EU and there was a strong prospect that it would join as a member.

Instead, we have followed a policy based on the pursuit of a solution in the long term, while simultaneously taking advantage of our position as an EU member. Such a policy, however, carries bigger and more dangerous risks than those that would have resulted had we accepted the proposed plan.

Another arguments used, and one that has a wide appeal among public opinion, is that we would have dissolved our state and left ourselves exposed.

Our state is not a simple object that can be lost. A state consists of territory, population, institutions and its recognition. Our state would have become stronger and bigger. Stretching from the Cape of Saint Andreas to the harbour of Paphos, it was going to become a member of the most powerful political and economic club in the world.

The Turkish Cypriots, for political, economic and, even, for reasons of self interest, would have chosen Europe over Anatolia. Through a proper policy (not like the one we followed between 1960 and 1963), the implementation of the solution would not be dependent on Turkey. Any attempt by Turkey to try and complicate the situation could become a boomerang and irrevocably cut the umbilical cord between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots. Provided, however, that we had leaders with a vision and not scare mongers.

Makarios Drousiotis

Cyprus Mail

20/05/2007