Sunday papers

Makarios Droushiotis in Politis says that the good climate was disturbed this week by Christofias’ interview in Simerini and Talat’s reaction that it is the G/Cs who must convince that they want a solution. Still they managed to overcome the blip and launch the negotiating process. The T/C side is particularly pleased at the composition of the committees. A source close to Talat told the paper that Christofias’ selection strengthened his conviction that he genuinely wants to get to the end. The writer says that at their meeting on 21 March Talat told Christofias we are the leaders who can reunite Cyprus. If we don’t succeed then partition will be final. When he saw Christofias’ eyes brim over, he was convinced he would work for a solution in all honesty. Why then their public sparring? The reason is, he says, that what lies behind it is that they disagree as to Turkey’s role in the talks. Christofias believes Talat should free himself from Turkey’s embrace, whereas Talat’s position is that the Turkey of today is very different from that during the Ecevit-Denktash period. He says we need Turkey in order to solve the Cyprus problem and the Turkish government is honest when it says that the solution to the Cyprus problem is urgent. We had their full support in 2004 and we still have it today, Talat says. Apparently Talat had also asked Christofias not to make any statements requesting the T/C side to differentiate itself from Turkey. It isn’t necessary, a source told the paper, a) because Turkey does support the new effort, b) we need Turkey for a solution, and c) clashing with Turkey and the army now would be unproductive. The source admits that the moves Christofias made such as inviting T/C trade unionists to the Presidential Palace, his statement that G/C bear responibility for the collapse of the Zurich agreements in 63, his statement about returning to Kyrenia under T/C rule and his appointment of a T/C on the Board of the English School, go a long way towards contributing to the good climate, however, there is no chance that the T/Cs will separate themselves from Turkey before a solution. The G/Cs have managed to separate themselves from Greece, but they have a recognised state and economic independence. The T/Cs are totally dependent on Turkey both economically and diplomatically. They cannot ask us to separate ourselves and keep us isolated as well, the source said. Talat believes Christofias is wrong. Maintaining good relations with Turkey is essential in order to reach a solution and the T/Cs’ relations with this particular Turkish government are impeccable. That’s why Talat reacted to Christofias’ comments even though he truly believes that together the two of them can reach a mutually acceptatble solution, one that the Turkish government will support. The only danger is if Erdogan is overthrown, which is why he is urging the G/Cs to hurry up.

Dionysis Dionysiou refers to the slogan “I don’t forget” that has been used on the G/C side since 1974 and wonders what we didn’t want to forget. Clearly, the occupation of our land, the 200,000 refugees, the presence of Turkish troops. But perhaps in the end we did forget something. Perhaps our memory has been selective. Perhaps we forgot the period before 1974. We forgot that we destroyed the state we had created with the T/C. We forgot the hard times the T/Cs went through in their enclaves without water, electricity, dignity. Basically we forgot what didn’t suit us. We G/C forgot our racist behaviour against 18% of our people. The T/C forgot the pain they caused to 200,000 of their compatriots. G/C forgot that the first country to violate the Treaty of Guarantee was Greece with its coup and focused only on Turkey. The T/C forgot the second invasion wave in August 74 which sent the message that Turkey didn’t just want to restore constitutional order but was here to stay as an occupying force. Today we are faced with the prospects of a solution. Perhaps our last chance. Although it won’t be easy because all these years we have learned to think negatively and fearfully, perhaps we should try and think differently now.

Yiangos Mikellides asks, supposing Talat and Christofias do manage to reach a solution in the end, how after all these years of poisoning our people will the people accept it? When 40% won’t even go across to the north. The people must start being told the truth otherwise partition will be unavoidable unless something drastic happens to change the media.

Sevgul Uludag in an article in Politis describes her trip to the memorial in Dali for
Dervish Ali Kavazoglu and Costas Mishiaouli. The bus was full of T/Cs from Morphou, Famagusta, Kyrenia, Nicosia and they met up with hundreds of G/Cs. She wonders if there is anyone who doesn’t know about Kavazoglu. He was a progressive figure amongst T/C in the 50s who stood up against the divisive tendencies of those days. He was an activist far ahead of his time. He wrote in newspapers, worked for the PEO trade union, was a communist and of course was quickly on the TMT’s “death list” and had to disappear in 1958. He managed to survive until 1964 living in hiding amongst the G/C. He was a member of Akel’s central committee although he was against Akel’s policy in favour of “enosis” (union with Greece) just as he was against the policy of the T/C leadership for “taxim” (partition). He was a true Cypriot, one who put the interests of Cypriots above all else, and would pay for it with his life, being killed by friends of his who he drove to meet together with Mishiaouli. They died in each other’s arms. So much destruction on this island, yet there is renewed hope. Kavazoglu and Mishiaouli have not been forgotten. Sunday in Dali has shown this to me clearly, she says. I came to Nicosia, laughing, remembering, loving everyone I met there, old faces, new faces, Greek Cypriots readers of mine who spoke to me in Turkish. In the end Kavazoglu’s dream didn’t die, so we can all work a little harder in order to achieve an island where the interests of Cypriots come first.

Pambos Charalambous in Alithia says that Christofias’ choice of people to sit on the committees shows he is committed to a solution. If rejectionists had been chosen to sit on the committees noone would have been convinced that the G/C side wants a solution. Some people have criticised his choice as being a going back on his pre-election promise not to bring back the Annan plan. It’s not a question of revival of the Annan plan but whether we want a solution or not.

Simerini’s front page article says that 6 out of 10 G/C believe that a solution is possible and that the prospects today are better than ever. Over 55% agree with the government’s decision to open the Ledra Street crossing point, while 37% thought it was wrong.

Savvas Iacovides in the same paper wonders why the British are such ardent proponents of Christofias’ position of “a solution for the Cypriots by the Cypriots”. The obvious answer is that they don’t want to burn their fingers again after the rejection of the Annan plan on which their fingerprints were clear for all to see. The more cunning answer is that they know full well that a solution cannot be found for the Cypriots by the Cypriots without Turkey’s consent. But what will happen if there is deadlock in the talks? Will the British let the opportunity slip away thereby causing problems for its own interests? We cannot exclude the possibility of drastic anglo-american intervention in that eventuality, not so much in order to help the Cypriots, but in order to help Turkey.

Phileleftheros says that the UN will follow “salami tactics” in its approach to the negotiations, with bits of the Annan plan being presented for discussions without it being named as such. The paper also says that the Turkish side will come to the talks with hardline positions, red lines, and delaying tactics. It says the positions they will present will be prepared by the Turkish Foreign Ministry that go even beyond the Annan plan so as to give the impression that they are seen to be making concessions.

Phedon Nicolaides, a Professor at the European Institute of Public Administration, Maastricht and Visiting Professor at the Cyprus International Institute of Management, in an article in the Sunday Mail gives suggestions as to how Christofias and Talat should conduct their negotiations:
1.They should be aware that they will not satisfy everybody and they will be criticised and denounced by those whose interests will be sacrificed for the broader benefit of each community. If they cannot tolerate criticism, they should stop now.
2. They need to prevent critical voices from becoming a chorus of dissent. They have to manage public opinion and prepare it for concessions, some of which are bound to be painful by emphasising the positive effects of a settlement and show the tangible benefits not just the need for peace and reconciliation. They need to include people on the teams with fresh ideas because prejudices create blind spots.
3. They need to keep the public informed. They should be given a sense of ownership of the results.
4. Too much information on sensitive issues is counterproductive. Naturally, all those who fear that they will lose out will take pre-emptive action.The two leaders should commit themselves to the principle that no one will be penalised and those who end up bearing the brunt of any concessions will be compensated.
5. They should go for easy wins first.
6. They should not place themselves in an impossible time schedule. They should give themselves ample time to do their work properly, but towards the end when negotiations will become more difficult they should set binding deadlines.
7. They should not be tempted to “screw” the other side and extract maximum concessions. If they do that they will make it even more difficult for the other side to secure consent from its people.
8. The negotiations are bound to get stuck at some point. They need to think at the outset what they will do when they reach an impasse eg they may request mediation by an independent party.
9. They should commit themselves to support whatever agreement they reach.
10. They should be willing to take a risk. If they like their jobs too much, then they are not the right persons for this kind of negotiation. Risk, however, brings rewards. They may lose their jobs, but if they do it right they may also secure a place in history.

Loucas Charalambous writing in the Mail and Politis says Christofias is totally unjustified in stating that the Cyprus problem will not be solved “if Turkey does not change its stance”, before the peace process agreed has even started. Nor is he justified in stating now that, “if there is no substantive progress at the committees, I will not meet Talat.” He is undermining the procedure before it has even begun. A sensible person would have given a chance to the procedure and if at the end of the three-month period he was not satisfied with the work done, say so then. If Christofias believes that an anti-Turkey statement every few days secures him a certificate that he is no less patriotic than Tassos Papadopoulos, which he can show to his government allies Karoyan, Colocassides and Omirou, he is deluding himself. He must understand that he simply cannot pursue a settlement and at the same time keep the political heirs of Papadopoulos and Dr Lyssarides happy. These are mutually exclusive objectives. Christofias needs to get serious and exercise some restraint when speaking publicly, before his behaviour creates a permanent rift with Talat. Unless, he is pursuing the same objective as Papadopoulos – no solution – through different means.

The Sunday Mail’s “Coffeeshop” cannot understand why the bash-patriotic disciples of the deposed Ethnarch and defenders of our national dignity in DIKO and EDEK are giving comrade presidente such an easy ride on the Cyprob. The comrade has done everything that their omniscient leader had refused to do because it would be nationally disastrous and they have still not gone on TV and radio to report his deficient patriotism to the people: he opened Ledra Street without sorting out the buffer zone question, accepted a watered down version of the July 8 agreement, discarding all the Tassos safeguards that ensured the committees would never have got anywhere if they were ever set up, and, worst of all, agreed to start settlement talks in three months’ time. So why is the duet not protesting, why is it not warning us about the impending disaster, why is it not exposing the presidente’s national treachery to the people?Perhaps their apathy was caused by the unexpected departure of the Ethnarch. True, they have lost their leader who used to tell them what to say in public, but surely they can call his political office and seek advice. I cannot believe that comrade presidente has bought Marios’ support for the sell-out of the Repulic to the Turks by giving him the House presidency. Marios is just too patriotic to put his personal advancement above the interests of the country and too loyal to betray the proud legacy of the Ethnarch for a public post. As for Yiannakis, there is no way he would sacrifice the national interest for the two crummy ministries given to his party, one of which is agriculture. Whatever the reasons, our establishment is deeply disappointed that in our country’s hour of need two of its most fearlessly patriotic party leaders are behaving like spineless yes-men, toadying to a presidente hell-bent on bringing back the Satanic plan and sharing power with the Turks. They could not even bring themselves to say a bad word about the leading role taken by our bad demons the Brits in the peace efforts, another radical departure from the Ethnarch’s policy. Remember how our Tassos had announced that the Anglo-Americans would be prevented from calling the shots on the Cyprob and he would insist that the UN did nothing without having the approval of all permanent Security Council members? He had even coined a new phrase – “Did you ask the Chinese?” Well nobody is asking the Chinese or the Russian anything and the Brits have been allowed by comrade presidente to run the show on their own. He is showing a hell of a lot of trust in the country he used to call our bad demon, whose support for a settlement must make every right-thinking Greek Cypriot – not just the journalists of Simerini – suspicious and wary.The only patriotic stirrings we heard in the last week related to the comment by UN Under-Secretary-General Lynn Pascoe, who had said that settlement talks would be based on past agreements, UN resolutions and peace plans. This was taken to mean, quite rightly, that the A-plan would be back on the negotiating table, sparking some restrained hysteria, which barely lasted a day. But the idea that the negotiations will not be based on the A-plan is one of those myths promoted by the presidente that you choose to believe if you have been made House president or your party has been given a couple of ministries.