Two options if talks fail

An article in Politis says that if nothing happens in the talks on the Cyprus problem by November, the international community is considering two alternatives.

The paper says that according to people closely connected with the talks, few now believe that substantial progress can be achieved by that time, which is when the UN S-G is due to present his report on Cyprus.

Specualation as to what he might say in that report focus on two possibilities – he will either declare the Cyprus problem unsolvable and put an end to this phase, or he will look for a new framework for discussion. The first is considered to be the ‘tough’ choice and least likely, while the second opens the doors to a multi-lateral conference and a massive give and take bargaining which would probably lead to a negotiated partition as opposed to an overall solution as sought today.

The key to the success or otherwise of the current phase, the UN believes, is the property issue and are waiting to see the outcome of the negotiations between the leaders on this issue. If Christofias and Eroglu manage to find the golden mean in the property issue (something that few believe they can), then the other aspects of the Cyprus problem will fall into place. The two leaders are committed to present new proposals on property in September, while Downer’s team has examined ideas that should bridge a a number of the existing differences. Progress here would favourably influence Ban Ki-Moon’s report, whereas failure would set in motion one of the two other scenarios.

The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop refers to the anniversary of the second Turkish offensive on August 14 which this year was inexplicably commemorated a week earlier. Anniversary-watchers and Cyprobologists were all wondering why the Famagusta municipality had broken with tradition. This was a bit like holding the rally to mark the anniversary of the coup on July 8. It just did not make sense. An explanation was provided on Friday by the Mayor of Famagusta, Alexis Galanos who revealed that the event was brought forward at the request of the comrade president who had informed the mayor that he had ‘urgent’ business on August 14 and would not be able to attend. It now transpires that the only urgent business the comrade had was his holiday at his Kellaki dacha which he obviously did not want to interrupt to speak at a boring anti-occupation event. Giving up a few precious hours of his holiday, for the sake of the annual Famagusta event was a sacrifice he was not prepared to make, and the anniversary date had to be changed.

The tension and bad vibes were palpable at the Derynia event when the angry comrade went to the podium to make his speech. The cause of the small trails of smoke coming out of his nose and ears were certain remarks made by Galanos in his address, about the need to pursue the return of Famagusta, which the comrade perceived as dig against his policies. He was so incensed that he did not read from his prepared text, allowing instead his wounded pride to do the talking.

His message was strong and clear and aimed at the doubting Galanos – nobody had done as much as him for Famagusta he explained.

“The president must speak responsibly, and what I say is very responsible and I want to stress again that for me, at least, Famagusta was never a slogan. Never. And I challenge anyone to say how much had been done by previous presidents and previous governments for Famagusta?“I say that all previous governments put together did not do as much as this government has done in these two-and-a-half years. ‘Famagusta’ is therefore not a slogan and does not aim to caress the ears of Famagustans. No.”

All this boasting, you’d think he’d arranged for the Turks to withdraw from the town and hand it over to the Greek Cypriots. In practical terms he has done just slightly more than the big zero all his predecessors achieved for Famagusta – he managed to change the anniversary date on which the town is remembered so it would not interfere with his holidays. And this is not a slogan, it is a practical step forward.

Columnist Loucas Charalambous who writes in the Sunday Mail and Politis, describes a recent visit to Famagusta with a childhood friend who lives in Athens. It was the first time he had seen Famagusta in 40 years. From the edge of the beach at Faliro we surveyed the coast with its abandoned hotels and other buildings.My friend was close to tears. “They were giving you back this whole town and you refused to take it?” he asked, not really expecting an answer. “We have Christofias to thank for this,” I said.“You are insane,” he concluded and I agreed with him. “If we were not insane we would not be in such a colossal mess,” I said.

Returning to Nicosia we heard about the president’s speech at the annual event held by Famagustans in Dherynia. He started his speech as follows: “Every year, for 36 years now, from this place we gaze at the silent and deserted town of Famagusta.” Further on he advertised to his audience his proposal for the return of part of the town, in exchange for the unhindered opening of chapters in Turkey’s accession negotiations with the EU and for the use of the town’s port by the Turkish Cypriots.

I could not help but admire the boundless, political audacity of our president. The main party guilty of Famagusta remaining “silent and deserted” is Christofias and the rest of the AKEL leadership, who killed every opportunity for the return of the town to us.

There had been three such opportunities that were spurned by the AKEL top brass. On July 20, 1978 Rauf Denktash proposed the return of Famagusta and the return of 35,000 inhabitants, immediately after the start of peace talks. On the night of that day, speaking at Elftheria Square, the then president Spyros Kyprianou, with the then leader of AKEL Ezekias Papaioannou, who had elected him, by his side, turned down the proposal, dismissing it as a “Denktash soap-bubble”.

In November of the same year Kyprianou and the AKEL leadership spurned another opportunity when they rejected the American-British-Canadian plan which envisaged the return of Famagusta on the resumption of negotiations. AKEL rejected the plan on the instructions of Moscow, despite the strong pleas by the Greek government to accept it. In both cases, the town would have been returned to us regardless of the outcome of the subsequent peace talks.
In 2004, the AKEL leadership, with Christofias in charge, killed off the third opportunity to have Famagusta returned, by voting against the Annan plan. The plan envisaged not just the return of the fenced off part of the town but the entire Greek part.

Three times Christofias and the leadership of AKEL have committed the same crime, condemning Famagusta to remain in Turkish hands. And today he has the nerve to beg for the return of a part of the town, offering big concessions in exchange.

It should be noted that in 1978 only four years had elapsed since the invasion. Back then, Famagustans would have returned to the town, carried out a cleaning operation and within a few weeks the town would have been buzzing with life. Today, even if they do return they would return to a town that would have to be demolished and re-built.

So if today, 36 years later, Christofias “gazes at the silent and deserted town”, he should consider his party’s and his own responsibility for this tragedy. And instead of peddling heroic slogans and shedding crocodile tears to Famagustans he should be asking for their forgiveness.