Bananiot
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Papadopoulos will do nothing that may mean starting negotiations. He keeps well clear of such a development because he knows damn well that any negotiations will be based on the Annan Plan. Talat can extend his arm until it comes out of his shoulder. There is no way Papadopoulos will reach out for it. Let us look at history for a minute. There are important deductions to be made. I have borrowed the points below from my good friend and colleague Dionisis Dionisiou, a regular columnist in "Politis":
1. On 10/3/2003 at the Hague, Papadopoulos accepted the Annan Plan 3 as is. He won many friends then and Turkey alone with Denktas, became even more isolated. Annan 3 was negotiated by Klerides and gave the Greek Cypriot's the Karpas Peninsula. Also, the property issue was tackled in a satisfactory manner (Greek Cypriot properties in the north would be returned to their rightful owners in 20 years).
2. On 17/12/2003, Papadopoulos sent a letter-ultimatum (almost) to the GS of the UN asking for the urgent convening of bicommunal talks based on the Annan plan.
3. On 10/2/2004 Papadopoulos agreed to the resumption of negotiations and further more he agreed to arbitration and undertook to hold a referendum.
4. From February to April 2004 we had hard negotiations that culminated in Annan Plan no. 5, which Papadopoulos considered a disaster and called upon the people to vote against it.
The above are undeniable and are well substantiated. Based on the above, an objective observer can deduce the following:
(a) Papadopoulos failed to better Annan Plan 3. This makes him a poor negotiator.
(b) Papadopoulos was bluffing at the Hague and followed the usual path, to bank on the normal intransigence of the Turkish side. If this is the case, he did not evaluate correctly the international environment and the intentions of Turkey nor did he understand the importance of the opening of the barricades. As a result, he asked from the people to cover his shortcomings with our "NO" in the referendum.
(c) Papadopoulos did bluff at the Hague but he accepted on purpose arbitration and the referenda, because he knew that this was the only way to lay the Plan to rest. If this is true, then Lyssarides, Koutsou, Perdikis and Sillouris (all these people called for Cyprus to use its veto right) were correct to ask for our veto to be used, because in this way we could bring Turkey to the negotiation table under our rules. This makes the President politically very inconsistent and extremely dangerous, since instead of the hard line he planned, he allowed Turkey to become a member of the EU in 10-15 years without getting anything in return. |
|
