Nami: We can get over the deadlock

Under the headline “Talks deadlocked”, Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris newspaper reports that Turkish Cypriot foreign minister, Ozdil Nami, has said that the negotiating process is deadlocked and that this is unacceptable. He added that the main reason of this deadlock is the fact that the Greek Cypriot side refuses to respect the convergences achieved in the past. He said deadlocks had occurred in the past but that the Turkish Cypriot negotiating team had managed to overcome them. “We believe this can be done again and this difficulty which is derived from the Greek Cypriot side, can be overcome with a very much more active policy by the Turkish side”, he said.

He said that the negotiations have not brought about anything concrete, contrary to the expectations of the people, something that saddens him. He reiterated the readiness of his government and ministry to contribute towards overcoming these difficulties, and that he was waiting for a positive answer to their call for cooperation with Eroglu.

Nami revealed that Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu had admitted to him that President Anastasiades had not stormed out of the talks, as the Turkish Cypriot press had reported on Friday, but that he left because he had a meeting with the Troika.

Later on, Eroglu reacted to Nami’s statements, criticising him of behaving like a “defender of Anastasiades”.

Moreover, Turkish Cypriot daily Yeni Duzen reports that Kutlay Erk, general secretary of the Republican Turkish Party – United Forces (CTP-BG), criticized Eroglu’s stance at the talks. In a statement issued on Saturday, Erk said that the CTP feels the need to once again warn that Eroglu’s approach “which hopes for help from the deadlock in the negotiations is a product of a strategy which does not coincide with the Turkish Cypriot people’s interests and will cause results against us”. He said the information that appeared that the Greek Cypriots had abandoned the table and that the negotiations had collapsed, was a “deliberate propaganda”. Erk noted that Eroglu should explain to the Turkish Cypriot community what kind of future he promises them, in the event that the negotiations do not end with a federal solution.

The so-called realists

Thanasis Fotiou writing in Phileleftheros says the word ‘realist’ is being completely misinterpreted in Cyprus. Some people argue, how come despite the fact that ‘realists’ have been in government for at least half the time since independence, the Cyprus problem still hasn’t been solved, what with five years of Vasiliou, five of Clerides, five Christofias and now Anastasiades?

The writer says, on the contrary, it’s doubtful if in Cyprus we have any ‘realists’ at all. We may have had some politicians who were briefly realists but none who were consistently so. That’s the bitter truth. In fact most of our leaders have been non-realists, if not outright rejectionists, with whom anyone who may have started out as a ‘realist’ has gradually aligned themselves.

In what way can Akel and Disy be considered realists? How can they be parties who want a solution and are working for it, when  Akel put Tassos Papadopoulos forward as president, a man whose positions were diametrically opposed to theirs? When the party decided overnight to say ‘no’ in order to cement the ‘yes’, was that realist? Or is it being realist now that it finds common ground with Nikolas Papadopoulos? Or when Clerides demonised Vasiliou’s Ghali Ideas? Or when Disy thought of putting Omirou forward as president? Or when Akel again cooperated with Spyros Kyprianou, was that realism? Or when Clerides and Christofias were voted by the rejectionists?

Asking how come the Cyprus problem hasn’t been solved with all these realists, is like asking how come we haven’t won Constantinople back with all these patriots? After 40 years of ‘realism’ on the one hand, and ardent patriotism on the other, the only thing that’s real is the existence of the clearly Greek state on 63% of the island. At least if we had the guts to tell it like it is, instead of trying to sell false dreams to the people that only serve their own interests of political survival.

And by the way, the writer concludes, the fuss around the lesson on federation in schools is futile. The bird has flown and we’re arguing over whether we should clean up the cage. As if it matters any longer.

The most blatant mockery of negotiations

Loucas Charalambous writing in the Cyprus Mail and Politis says forty years after the Turkish invasion we are still organising events and gatherings to hear the same idiotic rhetoric, the same slogans and the same ‘patriotic’ nonsense about the ‘anti-occupation struggle’ we are supposedly waging.

The only comment we do not hear is the self-evident and blatantly obvious – 40 years later the last thing we are interested in is solving our problem. The only concern is how everyone will hold on to his ‘chair’.

Forty years since 1974 – and 50 since 1964 – the official mythology uses even the same words and phrases. We are blameless and have no responsibility for anything that has happened. Others are to blame for everything. And for the perpetuation of the problem there has always been one guilty party – Turkish intransigence.

He says he read the document on the ‘comparative presentation’ of the talks proposals that President Anastasiades gave to the party leaders, could reach only one rational conclusion – Greek ‘intransigence’ is greater than Turkey’s.

We only have to look at some examples. The first and worst was our astonishing proposal that the Turkish Cypriot vice-president of the federal state would be elected by both communities and by absolute majority. In other words the Greek Cypriots would choose who would represent the Turkish Cypriots.

In the document’s introduction the Turkish Cypriot side is accused of refusing to submit proposals and it is stressed that “the proposals submitted must be comprehensive and substantive and not constitute a mockery of the procedure.” But our proposal is the most blatant mockery of the procedure. When, 50 years after the breakdown of the Republic and with a Turkish occupation force in Cyprus, Anastasiades is seeking to deprive the Turkish Cypriots of a right they had in the 1960 state, it is not just a mockery of the procedure but a conscious attempt to kill off any prospect of a settlement.

Another absurd proposal was the one about the composition of the federal government for which we proposed 10 ministries and six sub-ministries. To be fair, the Turkish Cypriot proposal is no less absurd as it talks about 15 ministries. It should be noted that the responsibilities of the federal government, on which both sides agree, would be four – foreign relations, economy, justice and vital services, such as telecommunications, postal services etc. It was no accident that the Annan plan envisaged just six members for the presidential council that would have these responsibilities. Could Anastasiades explain on what logic he based this foolish proposal?

In the same document, the Turkish Cypriot side was criticised for its position that the issue of territory had to be discussed when all other aspects had been agreed because “it is a matter that would upset the population.” But this is a reasonable position. Everyone understands what protests there would be if maps containing areas that would be returned were published, in the north by those who would have to move out and in the south by those whose villages would not be returned.

Another point for which the Turkish Cypriot side was criticised in the document was that through its proposal for citizenship the number of settlers staying on would be higher. This, of course, is the inevitable result of the rejection of a settlement 10 years ago. Anastasiades was not responsible for this. It is those who rejected the plan back then (our negotiator Andreas Mavroyiannis was among them) that should feel guilt over this development.

Forty years later, we are continuing with the same thinking, the same demagoguery and the same slogans which caused all our problems and will ensure that worse is yet to come.

We need a Troika in the cyprob as well

Dionysis Dionysiou in his column in Politis says we have failed as a society to solve our problems. But how could we? Our politicians are mediocre and populist, our economic elite is corrupt, our intelligentsia nonexistent, our citizens participate in politics like sheep gathered in their fold, guided and incited by the rubbish put forward by the media.

Since this is the reality prevailing in our country how can we possibly expect to tackle the complexity of the Cyprus problem, faced with a Turkish Cypriot community which is just as bad as us, if not worse. Perhaps what we need in the Cyprus problem, is a tough memorandum which will force Greek and Turkish Cypriots to compromise, no matter how hard it sounds. Perhaps we need a Troika in the Cyprus problem as well.

Yes, we should teach federation

Former government spokesman in the Christofias government, Stephanos Stephanou in an op ed in Politis says the same thing is happening now that happened when the Christofias government tried to inform citizens about federation. How can we support a bizonal, bicommunal federation, yet be afraid of any information as to what it entails?

Of course, we should we inform society about federation for a number of reasons. First, this is how we will solve the Cyprus problem and it has been in our high level agreements and UN resolutions. Informing the population about what federation means would show the international community we are committed to a solution and to implement what we agreed.

Secondly, with a solution, Cyprus will go from a unitary bicommunal state, which the Greek Cypriot community has been ruling on its own since 1964, to a bizonal, bicommunal federation. People need to know in general lines what bizonality and bicommunality means. They need to know how the state will be governed. Knowledge overcomes fears, and will help the population face developments calmly and correctly.

Thirdly information will destroy a number of myths that have arisen around the issue over the years, such as whether basic human rights and freedoms can still be implemented in such a system, which they can.

Lastly, information will clarify how we Greek Cypriots tackle a series of issues related to bizonal, bicommunal federation, in contrast to what the Turkish Cypriot side is presenting, which is confederation. This will stop the tactics that certain people have been following for years of presenting the Turkish Cypriot side’s positions as being what federation means, and then rejecting it.

So, yes, let’s talk about federation. We’re already late in doing so, he concludes.

A reply to critics of federation

Kritonal Dionysiou in an article in Politis says the argument put forward by critics of a federal solution to the Cyprus problem that there is no bizonal bicommunal federation (BBF) anywhere else in the world like the one being proposed in Cyprus, plays on people’s fears of the unkown and untried and untested. Of course, these people fail to point out that there is NO federation anywhere in the world that is alike. Every federation is unique, since each one is determined by an array of political, historical, geographical, cultural and social conditions.

BBF presupposes ethnic divisions and therefore is racist, is another argument the antifederationists put forward. But the German, Canadian, Belgian and Swiss federations also have divisions along ethnic lines. For example, in Switzerland a canton of 50,000 Italians can by referendum overturn the decisions of another canton that may have a million Germans. Now is this ‘fair’? On the basis of the principle of ‘one man one vote’ of course it isn’t. But let’s not forget that federal systems were created in order to overcome intense nationalistic conflict, and convince ethnic populations that they can effectively participate in the functions of the state without fear of being sidelined.

In other words, federal systems are a way that different ethnic groups can compromise and avoid conflict. They stress the benefits of cooperation as opposed to the catastrophes that conflicts bring about.

The hypocrisy of critics of federation can also be seen in their attitude to Cyprus being in the EU. On the one hand they accept that Cyprus with a population of 800,000 can have with, say, Germany of 80 million.

In any case, supposing that federation is racist and anachronistic, as the critics maintain. Why not teach kids anyway, and let them make up their own minds. If they are right, they will reach that conclusion on their own, he concludes.

It’s all ‘gossip’, says government

The government yesterday rubbished Turkish Cypriot reports that President Nicos Anastasiades had walked out of the peace talks on Thursday as “unjustifiable gossip”, the Cyprus Mail reports.

Government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said reports of Anastasiades banging his hand on the negotiating table, throwing his glasses down and storming out were mere “gossip” that bore no relation to reality and were “unjustifiable”.

He put the reports down to “weakness” and “embarrassment” on the part of the Turkish Cypriot negotiating team, who were not able to respond to the president’s arguments.

Greek Cypriot sources confirmed that the meeting was “difficult” and had its fair share of ups and downs, but that reports of drama were “exaggerated”. They noted one positive, that all positions on the key aspects of a solution have now been tabled by each side.

Sources told the Mail that Turkish Cypriot leader Dervis Eroglu had rejected three proposals by Anastasiades to document and lock down convergences between the two sides before entering phase three of the talks, the give-and-take process. Eroglu also reportedly refused to accept the Downer document, which lists convergences reached between 2008 and 2012 under the Demetris Christofias government.

Anastasiades had also refused to adopt it when coming to power in 2013. But a source said yesterday that almost 95 per cent of the current proposals tabled by the Greek Cypriot side are the same as those in past convergences. The main change Anastasiades seeks is to remove the proposal on a rotating presidency because he does not agree with the weighted voting element included in the package.

Two sources close to the talks countered this version of events saying Eroglu never proposed adopting the Downer document. One source maintained that his negotiator, Kudret Ozersay, proposed the exact opposite. He said if one were to study Eroglu’s proposals, excluding the chapters on the EU, Economy and Territory, they would find 29 divergences from the Downer document.

The sources said Turkey is otherwise engaged and, after having reached an agreement on the joint declaration in February, had  left Eroglu to his own devices, adding the hope is they will get more involved after Turkish presidential elections in August.

Turkish Cypriot foreign minister, Ozdil Nami, tried to temper the opposing accounts somewhat, explaining that Anastasiades had not walked out of Thursday’s meeting but left earlier to meet with the Troika. Nami expressed regret for the deadlock, before adding that the Greek Cypriots are to blame for refusing to accept past convergences.

One commentator also involved in the talks told the Cyprus Mail  said: “They tried face-saving measures instead of confidence-building measures, but they couldn’t even do that.”

Another argued it seemed obvious Anastasiades does not want anything to do with Eroglu and is waiting for next year’s elections in the north. “But by the time April comes, much damage will have been done.”

A third commentator likened the talks to Dante’s inferno, saying they had reached the eighth circle of hell, one step before the final level, but could still make it out and even up. “If Thursday’s meeting was a trip in an ambulance, you could say that the patient has made it to the hospital but the outlook is grave.”

Coffeeshop

The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column, Coffeeshop, says the Turks were not very nice about Prez Nik after Thursday’s majestically pointless four-hour meeting with Dervis Eroglu.

In order to deflect attention away from Eroglu’s total negativity, which has been displayed very forcefully since Ankara loosened his leash, his associates leaked information to the Turkish Cypriot press about Nik’s allegedly bad behavior at the meeting.

The prim and proper Turkish Cypriots were shocked because Nik supposedly banged his fist on the table, berated his advisors, scolded the UN, threw his spectacles on the table and stormed out of the meeting. The government spokesman denied there was any truth in the Turkish press reports, but why did he bother. There is nothing wrong with someone losing his temper when throwing the odd tantrum.

In fact we would all have been very proud and happy if Nik became mad enough to throw an ash-tray or a punch at Eroglu, instead of just banging his fist and glasses on the table. I bet his advisors would not have leaked that to the press.

Crisis at the talks

“Anastasiades has abandoned the negotiating table,” Kibris’ headline read yesterday, echoed by the rest of the Turkish Cypriot press. The paper says that Anastasiades stormed out of the five-hour meeting between the leaders, acting “intransigently and aggressively” on the issue of confidence-building measures and past convergences.

“Anastasiades twice stood up and hit his hand on the table, reprimanded his own delegation, scolded UN officials, and then stormed out of the meeting,” the paper writes.

Sources told the paper that President Anastasiades angrily threw his glasses on the table. They said he had insisted that the convergences of the past should not be binding and should not be on the table.

He reportedly said that the only thing which he accepts that is agreed by the sides is the content of the joint declaration and wouldn’t even approve the eight confidence-building measures agreed last Friday by the negotiators.

Under the headline “Crisis at the talks”, Yeni Duzen reports that the negotiations are deadlocked. It says there were moments of tension at the meeting between the two community leaders, that Anastasiades “could not control his anger, threw his glasses on the table” and then stormed off.

Kibris Postasi writes that President Anastasiades had explained that he was feeling tense because of the negotiations and the Troika’s visit to Cyprus and had asked if he could smoke. The paper says that after chain-smoking three cigarettes, Anastasiades stood up, threw his glasses on the table, gathered his documents and left, leaving the Greek Cypriot delegation behind.

Havadis reports that “the negotiations are in a mess”, that the talks were deadlocked and that the UN is worried about their future. It says Anastasiades reiterated his proposal that a document should be prepared containing all the convergences and divergences, while Erolgu insisted on the acceptance of the “Downer Document”.

Halkin Sesi also reports that Anastasiades abandoned the meeting and notes that “this unexpected action shocked both the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot negotiating delegations.”

Talks take a break until September

The talks on the Cyprus problem ended yesterday for a break until Septemeber and without a statement by the leaders.

Yesterday’s meeting between the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus, Anastasiades and Eroglu, lasted over four hours, ending because the former had a prior engagement. No statement were issued afterwards, but the two negotiators, Mavroyiannis and Ozersay met later at the UN Special Representative’s house to see if they could hammer out a statement about the talks.

The two men will meet again on 2 September, while the two negotiators will meet on 26 August. 

Kathimerini says that the long break was considered necessary as the possibility for reaching some kind of agreement with Eroglu remain small to non-existent. It says the only hope is that Turkey makes a move after August’s presidential elections, according to indications the Turkish Foreign Ministry has given to the US and EU.

It says the two leaders were unable to agree on even the smallest confidence-building measures, nor issue a statement about the missing. It also proved impossible for Eroglu to agree to the convergences and divergences to be put in writing, as Anastasiades suggested.

The paper says that the atmosphere at the meeting was tense from the start and did not improve as the day wore on. Towards lunch things heated up to such an extent that they had to take a break to calm down. In the end they couldn’t even issue a statement.

Eventually the UN issued a laconic statement later on, in which no reference was made as to the substance of what had been discussed. All it said was that the leaders had agreed that both sides completed the submission of proposals on all issues related to the Cyprus problem and exchanged views on confidence building measures and on methodology. It concludes by saying that they had instructed their negotiators to continue discussions with the view to reaching an agreement on these issues in advance of the next meeting of the leaders which has been scheduled for 2 September 2014.

Kathimerini adds that it was true that the sides had submitted proposals on all the aspects of the problem, including territory, security and guarantees, something which the Turkish side had always refused to do before an international conference. The Greek side submitted 17 documents, while the Turkish side 14 or 15, according to a source. A diplomatic source told the paper that from a brief look at what the two sides had submitted, convergence could be achieved on 70-80% of the proposals.

However, Eroglu steadfastly refused to allow any convergences to be put down in writing, rejecting all compromises. He implied that he objects to any reference to the role that the EU would play, even though it’s contained in the joint statement. The UN Special Representative had to step in at this point to remind him that the joint statement binds all the parties, including the UN. It was at this point that they had to take a break to calm down. 

The Greek Cypriot side is not prepared to go to the third phase of talks which is the give and take phase, as Eroglu insists, unless there is a document recording the convergences on which this give and take can be based.

The methodology on which to continue was not the only stumbling block. Anastasiades agreed that another passage be opened at Lefka, but Eroglu would not discuss that the same be done in Athienou. They couldn’t even agree on a statement regarding the missing persons, after their visit to the missing person’s laboratory. Anastasiades proposed they continue negotiating over the next few days in the hope that agreement will be reached at another meeting of leaders at the end of the month, but Eroglu rejected this as well, saying that 31 July was Bayram and August is a period of summer holidays.

Taking all this into account, the paper concludes that the talks are on the verge of breaking down. The Greek side harbours the slimmest of hopes that Turkey will make a move on the Cyprus problem in September, as they are hinting to the Americans and Europeans they will do, a few weeks after the presidential elections there, which Erdogan is expecting to win.

2. We don’t want a solution, dammit

It’s time we admitted it, says George Kaskanis writing in his column in Politis, we DON’T want a solution to the Cyprus problem. We prefer living in a state that’s divided but that at least has all its executive powers intact. Yes, we are our own bosses, so what if it’s just in a little neighbourhood.

This is the only explanation, he says, for the furore that has broken out over the issue of including teaching about federations in schools. It seems we don’t want to discuss anything regarding what we may be asked to implement, if we ever get to that, which supposedly the majority of political parties say they support.

It’s total madness.  Teaching our youth about federal systems that exist in other countries so that they can make up their own minds about ideas and proposals that are being discussed for us, never crossed their minds. They didn’t even think that this could strengthen their ability to see whether the various proposals being submitted foresee a workable federal system or not. They just said NO again, as they always do, without a second thought. Just to prove yet again that all they want is their own survival. But we must also acknowledge that we have a responsibility for all this nonsense because we continue to accept it, to listen to it, despite all that we have gone through.

We need to be a little more honest with ourselves. We need to admit that we have already chosen “the next best solution”, as Tasos Papadopoulos used to say. In other words the situation we have today. So that all those romantics stop believing that we are capable of building a state of peaceful coexistence, where we will use our brains towards achieving progress rather than the rubbish we have been recycling for fifty years now.

We don’t want a solution, sior!

3. Another barbaric invasion

Economics teacher, George Koumoullis, writing in Politis, says that the media keep on using the adjective ‘barbaric’ whenever they talk about the Turkish invasion. They’ve been overdoing it, these days, it being its fortieth anniversary. But the truth is, all wars are barbaric, after all you never hear of a velvet invasion.

However, we are guilty of another barbararic invasion in Cyprus which we have tried to cover up and are still doing so. I’m talking of an invasion in the broad sense of the word, as in an invasion into the Turkish area in the Famagusta district, which was made up of the villages of Salandari, Maratha and Aloa. Perhaps some would prefer the word incursion, rather than invasion, but the essence is the same.

The majority of the Cypriot population does not know about the crimes that were committed in these three villages in August 1974. Very briefly, “unknown Greek Cypriot fighters” invaded the villages, raped young girls and killed 126 women, children and elderly, throwing their bodies into the rubbish.

Unfortunately all our governments to date have been concerned with collecting as many votes as they could so refused to carry out any investigations into this hideous crime. I hasten to add that there are also Turkish Cypriots who are equally guilty of barbaric crimes against us, but that doesn’t excuse this heinous crime one bit.

Two issues arise. First, is the complete inaction of the police. How come the perpetrators are well known to the inhabitants of the surrounding villages, yet ‘unknown’ to the police? Who can believe the police’s excuse that there is no incriminating evidence for any of the 126 murders?

Of course, one can argue that those were chaotic days and the law could not be implemented. But how come in the 40 years that ensued no criminal procedure was enacted? That too much time has passed is not an excuse. In Europe they are still chasing World War II criminals. Now that the Republic of Cyprus has matured, why aren’t the guilty pursued? 

The second issue is a question of our double standards. On the one hand we (correctly) accuse Turkey of war crimes, while on the other we turn a blind eye to our own. Some may argue that this crime was carried out by irregulars so cannot be considered a war crime. But when the state tolerates such crimes, it automatically becomes complicit. No one has gone to jail. No one has been arrested. No one was questioned. Undoubtedly, tolerance equals guilt.

President Anastasiades claims to be president of all Cypriots. He should prove it with actions not just words. He cannot be present at memorials of Greek Cypriots who died in 74 and ignore our murdered Turkish Cypriot compatriots.

Our leadership should in fact apologise to the Turkish Cypriots for the crimes perpetrated in 74 and at the same time the leadership of the Turkish Cypriots should apologise to us. We should set a date when we can all commemmorate all murdered Cypriots. There cannot be a stronger confidence-building measure, one that would expose all the chauvinists on both sides of the divide.

Leaders’ meeting today

The leaders of the two communities, Anastasiades and Eroglu will be meeting this morning in what Politis newspaper describes as a ‘crucial’ meeting as regards the course of the talks.

They are expected to discuss issues related to the negotiating process and confidence building measures.

According to the Cyprus Government Spokesman, the aim of the meeting is to overcome the difficulties that have come up at this phase and for there to be positive outcomes before the summer break.

The current agenda of the talks was finalized yesterday at a meeting between the two negotiators, Mavrogianni and Ozersay, and the UN Special Representative in Cyprus, Lisa Buttenheim.

The two leaders will also be paying a visit to the laboratory investigating cases of missing persons.

Mavrogiannis and Ozersay discussed economic issues, security and guarantees, the relationship between the federal government and the federal states and the relation between independent and federal government officials. The spokesman told Cyprus News Agency that the two sides submitted documents on aspects of the Cyprus problem that had not yet been submitted.

According to Kathimerini newspaper of Cyprus, in statements after the meeting, Kudret Ozersai said that the Turkish Cypriot side had submitted a document on territorial adjustments, without submitting maps or quotas. He said they had agreed to discuss maps and quotas at the final stage of the talks and that the document they submitted took that into account. 

He also said that they didn’t view the Greek Cypriot proposal on a system of security and guarantees coming from the Security Council as realistic, nor did he think that the Greek Cypriot side themselves truly believed in it.

He said that the two sides had honoured their commitment to submit proposals on all issues.

He said that Anastasiades and Eroglu will be discussing the second phase of the talks, but that they would also have to take decisions on the third phase, something the negotiators had also discussed.

He said the aim of the leaders’ visit to the missing persons committee laboratory was to appeal to all who have information on missing persons to come forward.

Living with the fait accompli we so vehemently decry

In an editorial on the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion, the Cyprus Mail says that for almost three-quarters of its existence as a sovereign state, the Republic has had more than a third of its territory occupied by Turkey.

It says that a sizable proportion of the population has never known Cyprus without a dividing line and for whom the official slogan – ‘I don’t forget’ – is meaningless as they have no memories of the north. In another 10 years, reminiscing about Kyrenia or the Karpas will be an old age pensioner’s pastime.

Our politicians may still be talking about their desire for a settlement and condemning Turkish intransigence as preventing reunification in 10 years time but nobody will be listening.

The Cyprus problem industry, which has made many political careers, cannot last forever. Its best days are in the past and its peak – the 2004 referendum hysteria – was 10 years ago. It has been in decline ever since as a vote-winner and career-maker. People are not just fed up of listening to the same old nonsense from dishonest politicians they no longer care.

The reality is that, despite the rhetoric, the overwhelming majority of people seem comfortable with the status quo and have accepted the division as part of their life; we suspect the Turkish Cypriots think the same way. Why would people want reunification when the four decades of separation offered uninterrupted peace and security, in stark contrast to the period before 1974 which was plagued by intercommunal fighting and bloodshed?

This is the thinking behind our politicians’ fiery rhetoric about a settlement being fair, just, viable, workable, respecting all human rights etc. They know they are in no position to achieve this utopia, but they keep banging on about it, because they are afraid to say that permanent partition is, for them, the best of all options. They are happy to achieve it through their childish, patriotic stance that rejects every compromise proposal for the chimera of the perfect settlement.

Partition has another big benefit for our political establishment – it ensures against the anathema of power-sharing. Greek Cypriot politicians do not want to share the spoils of power they have been enjoying for decades with Turkish Cypriots and operate in a system that would impose unprecedented checks and balances on them.

It is no coincidence that the last two presidents, both supposedly pro-settlement, in practice, have not been too committed to achieving a deal because they do not want to surrender their power or have it curtailed by a new constitution.

In 40 years of division the only major change that has taken place in relations between the two sides has been the opening of the checkpoints in 2003 by the Turkish Cypriot leadership. In the 11 years since there has been no violence or any major incident and many thousands of people now visit the other side routinely, without fear. This showed that the two communities could live peacefully as good neighbours, but it is also an indication that this might be as far as they are prepared to go.

There would be many, big opportunities for a settlement that did away with the dividing line and reunited the island but nobody is prepared to make the big leap of faith because partition seems to suit both sides, not only the Turkish Cypriots.

Despite the brave and defiant words about never accepting the fait accompli of the invasion, the Greek Cypriot politicians have done exactly that as the facts of the last 40 years show, and not many people have been protesting.

After all, the objective is no longer reunification but the preservation of the Cyprus Republic, even if the cost is to surrender 37 per cent of its territory to Turkey.

The inane ramblings of our political parties

The Cyprus Mail in an editorial refers to the government’s plan to introduce the teaching about federation to the secondary school curriculum on political systems.

The paper says certain parties issued statements slamming the plan. While Education Minister Costas Kadis spoke said in a radio interview that the ministry wanted to broaden the curriculum so that students were made aware of the political systems used in different countries, and that these lessons would have nothing to do with the Cyprus issue, this did not reassure the parties.

They smelt a rat, the paper says. Within a few hours, DIKO released a statement saying it would table the matter for discussion at House education committee and demand to know about the content of the lesson and the “government’s real intentions”. The Greens were convinced the subject would “be more of a propaganda lesson,” doubting the government wanted to promote “pluralist thinking”. EDEK was concerned over what type of federation the schoolchildren would be taught, while the terrified Alliance of Citizens reckoned that a lesson on federation “would create students who were ready – instead of defending human rights and the freedom of their country – to negotiate the conditions of their subjugation.”

The paper concludes by saying that perhaps our morally superior politicians who know everything should stop and consider for once what kind of citizens this childish type of public debate creates. And then they wonder why a very big proportion of the population is completely disinterested in politics. How could any person with a modicum of intelligence take this type of political debate seriously? People can only laugh at the daily political utterances of the parties, if they can be bothered to pay any attention to them at all.

4. Tsielepis: rejection of bizonal federation would mean de facto partition

In an interview in Phileleftheros, constitutional expert and member of the negotiating team, Toumazos Tsielepis, says that rejection of bizonal federation means de facto partition.

He says even though it’s 40 years since the invasion, we are still arguing amongst ourselves what this bizonal bicommunal federation means and we all have different interpretations. For example, when we talk about federation we mean that there will be two levels of authority – the central authority and the regional ones. We mean that there will be a split of competencies. When we talk of bizonality, we mean what was contained in the Makarios-Denktash high level agreements, namely that there will be two regions and that each region will be governed by its respective community. When we talk of bicommunality, we mean that there will be effective participation of the two communities in decision-making processes.

However, he goes on, whenever we submit proposals along these lines a racist, apartheitist clamour arises to such an extent that it seems that the disagreement is not really because of different interpretations of the same thing, but a deliberate rejection of this type of solution.

The only possible outcome of the rejection of this type of solution, is partition, he says, which is the most unacceptable situation that could exist.

He said that the reason why the Cyprus problem hasn’t been solved all these years is because of Turkish intransigence, but that didn’t mean that nothing depends on us. We must undertake the responsibility that is ours and to try and overcome this intransigence. He said Turkey may pay lip service to federation, but the content of the proposals that are submitted smacks of confederation. If the problem hasn’t been solved it’s because Turkey hasn’t respected what was agreed, so our job is to expose this.

He emphasised that it was wrong of Anastasiades not to continue the talks from where they had left off under Christofias. We had got far with Talat, and then Eroglu came along and destroyed all the substantial convergences we had reached. We have always been saying that what we achieved with Talat would have been impossible to achieve with Eroglu. That’s why the talks should have continued where they left off, he concluded.

40th anniversary

Negotiators meet for nine hours

The two negotiators of the Cyprus problem, Andreas Mavroyiannis and Kudret Ozersay, earlier this week had an unscheduled meeting that lasted 9 hours during which they prepared the ground for the next meeting between the two leaders Anastasiades and Eroglu on 24 July.

In a statement to the Cyprus News Agency, the government spokesman Nikos Christodoulides said they had discussed confidence building measures and the next steps in the process.

Coffeeshop

What can you say on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion that has not already been said? Could anything be written that would not be utterly tedious, boring and clichéd and not come across as a send-up, says Coffeeshop, the Cyprus Mail’s satirical column.

I could write that we will continue our unyielding struggle for the liberation of every single village in the occupied area and the return of all refugees to their homes, but customers would think I had a screw loose.

Not even our courageously defiant politicians make such statements nowadays, preferring to talk about a fair and just settlement that would be achieved with a minimum of struggle and preferably without the need of negotiations with the intransigent Turks who, in contrast to us, have never been consumed by the burning desire for a settlement.

The Turks might pretend they want a settlement but their real objective is partition along the current dividing line which they have achieved without our politicians noticing because they had been too busy putting up a brave resistance to the Turkish designs and thwarting Anglo-American plots to impose suffocating time-frame on talks.

Meanwhile our illustrious party leaders decided to mark the 40th anniversary of the invasion by putting together a new strategy for the liberation of the occupied parts. Monday’s National Council meeting agreed that all the leaders would submit proposals for a new strategy when they meet again in September.

What new strategy these slogan salesmen will come up with is anyone’s guess, but I suspect they would agree on the re-branding and re-marketing of the Cyprob as an issue of invasion and occupation rather than as a bi-communal dispute, because this would help our unyielding struggle to go on for a few more years.

An even more radical strategy change would be for Prez Nik to put in a request to the UN Security Council to stop negotiating for settlement with the Turks and choose another country. For instance, we could negotiate for solution with the Maltese who are much more reasonable chaps than the Turks and are unlikely to demand political equality and rotating presidency because their army – if they have one – would be even more pathetic than ours.

This is the new strategy our leaders should be exploring as it would greatly improve the prospects of a fair and viable solution, so long as the devious foreign powers do not use the Maltese factor to press for a speedy closure of the Cyprob.

Anastasiades: The division must not become permanent

The island’s current division must not be allowed to become permanent, President Nicos Anastasiades said, ahead of the 40th anniversary of the Turkish invasion.

In a statement to Cyprus News Agency, Anastasiades expressed the belief that current conditions allow a win-win solution of the Cyprus problem, provided the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey understand this.

He noted that a solution that will safeguard the rights of Greek Cypriots, without denying the rights of Turkish Cypriots, was feasible and would have political, social and financial benefits.

“With the Cyprus problem solved, there will be more opportunities to exploit the hydrocarbon reserves in the Eastern Mediterranean and create conditions of reconciliation between Greece and Turkey,” he said.

“At the same time the solution will help consolidate feelings of stability and bring significant investments to the benefit of all the legal inhabitants of the country.”

Anastasiades added that the future of the country and its children would be brighter and more hopeful if the obstacles were overcome and the dividing lines were abolished through a federal Cyprus in which the EU acquis communautaire would be applicable from Paphos to Karpasia and from Limassol to Kyrenia.

Describing the invasion as a tragic event, the president said “the expulsion of the Greek population from the occupied part of Cyprus, the settlement of all Turkish Cypriots in the northern part of Cyprus and the organized colonization of the occupied areas by Turkey, have created a new reality on the ground.”

He warned of the risk of “this temporary” state of affairs turning permanent.

“What I am concerned and anxious about is not to allow the permanent division of Cyprus. My message on the occasion of this anniversary is that we have to prevent this tragedy from completing its course.”

Asked about current prospects of a political settlement, the president expressed the belief that “today we have the prerequisites that will allow a win-win solution as long as the Turkish Cypriot side and Turkey understand this.”

Cyprus, he added, has a regional role to play which is much greater than its size, once its political problem is resolved. “The geopolitical balance in the region is being redesigned,” he said.

Facts can’t be altered

Facts are what make history and cannot be falsified, President Nicos Anastasiades said on Tuesday, responding to accusations from opposition party AKEL’s general secretary Andros Kyprianou, the Cyprus Mail reports.


Kyprianou had accused the government and Anastasiades of a systematic attempt to “falsify history and whitewash the US involvement in planning the July 15 coup.”


Kyprianou was referring to Makarios Drousiotis, a journalist and researcher who recently published a book called The Invasion and the Big Powers in which he challenges the long-held belief among Cypriots that the coup was US backed and that the Soviet Union’s – and later Russia’s – support is just a myth.
Since Anastasiades came to power, Drousiotis has been working in the president’s press office.
According to reports in Alithia, Drousiotis will be appointed to Brussels to work with Christos Stylianides who is expected to be appointed as Cyprus’ EU Commissioner in the place of Androulla Vasiliou.

“Facts cannot be changed either by leaders or writers. Facts are what made history and facts cannot be changed,” said Anastasiades.
The president was talking to the press following a memorial service for those who died in the July 15, 1974 coup.

“The day is dedicated to those that gave their life to protect democracy and freedom,” said Anastasiades, adding that he hopes that events like that don’t take place ever again.

You’ve tired us

Giorgos Kaskanis writing in Politis wonders where else in the world are sad events in history commemorated with political wrangles.

This situation hasn’t just come about by chance. It’s the result of years of unaccountability, of the guilty being rewarded, of history being viewed myopically, of all of us being unwilling to face up to our own responsibilities. It’s the result of us only having a vague idea of what we want and how we will achieve it, of not having a collective culture which could provide the answers we are seeking and prevent the undesirable results. It’s also the result of our politicians trying desperately to differentiate themselves from each other, at a time when we all know all their policies have failed.

We’re tired of them. Instead of remembering the dead, thinking about how we got to where we are today and how we can move forward, we’re forced to listen to our politicians arguing with each other, and end up following their immaturities.

Dear Republic of Cyprus, I’m sorry but I will not be attending

Yiannos C Ioannou writing in his blog O Stroviliotis, publishes an invitation from the President and Party Leaders to an event at the Presidential Palace to commemmorate the Turkish invasion, saying that he will not be attending.

For forty years now we’ve been subjected to lies and deceptions about the Cyprus problem. Why should I go and be subjected to more fairy tales? Why should I go and listen to the party leaders taking us for a ride? I’ve lived my whole life with the Cyprus problem and its propaganda and I no longer see any meaning to an event without there being any sign of a will to put an end to these lost decades. I just don’t see it happening, he says. I don’t see it from this president in whom I believed would rise to the occasion when the opportunity arose, but in whom I see less and less a sign that he is in the slightest bit concerend for that day to come. Nor the parties DISY and AKEL who aren’t being proactive.

Turkish road map for solution

Turkish Cypriot daily Halkin Sesi reported last week that a five-point road map submitted by the Turkish Cypriot side at the Cyprus negotiations, was leaked to the press as follows:

1) The second stage of substantial negotiations, during which the positions are mutually determined, will be completed before the negotiators take their summer break.

2) The last stage which is the give and take will start at the end of August. The map, the security and the guarantees will be left for the next stage.

3) The leaders will visit the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in New York in September during the General Assembly, and will once more put their disagreements before the Secretary-General. They will plan the last steps together with the Secretary-General.

4) A four-party conference will be organized with the participation of guarantor powers Turkey and Greece, as well as the two sides in Cyprus. This will constitute the most important stage of the negotiations, during which the territory, the map, the security and the guarantees will be decided. At the same time as the guarantors are having discussions at the conference, the Cypriot leaders will continue to negotiate. If the differences are reconciled, the date of the referendums will be set. In the interim period, delegations of experts will enter the closed city of Varosha and the work for opening the city again for settlement will officially be launched.

5) In the fifth and last stage, a referendum will be held in Cyprus, ten years after the previous one. If the outcome is ‘yes’ from both sides, a new state will be declared. However, if the outcome is ‘no’, then it will be declared that this process has failed and that a solution cannot be found in Cyprus any more. In case the process fails, a broad conference will be organized in which all sides concerned with the Cyprus problem will be gathered. Here they will discuss what should be done for the solution of the problem.

2. The show must go on

Turkish Cypriot politician Mustafa Akinci, in a speech he gave at the University of Cyprus last Monday, said the reason why the Cyprus problem has not been solved yet is because politicians did not want to solve it, writes Loucas Charalambous in the Cyprus Mail.

Akinci said in his speech: “During the 1990s, at a reception, I approached the then special representative of the UN Secretary-General in Cyprus and asked him how the negotiations were going. ‘Not at all well,’ he replied. I persisted with my questions and asked him if this meant we would not have a settlement. ‘No, it will never happen,’ he said, prompting me to ask him why the talks were continuing. His response shocked me. ‘Because the show must go on,’ he told me.

“On another occasion Rauf Denktash invited us to his office for a briefing. I asked him if there was any hope of an agreement and he categorically replied that there was no prospect of a settlement. I said that if there was a will there could be a settlement. He became annoyed and told me: ‘Listen Akinci, as we are moving neither my grandchildren nor my grandchildren’s grandchildren will see the settlement’.”

The writer says that these two anecdotes of Akinci’s clearly illustrate why the Cyprus problem has not been solved in 50 years. It was not solved because the will does not exist. It was not solved because the show had to go on.

And why did it have to go on? The politicians in our country are only interested in their ‘chairs’, as we say in Cyprus. In 2004, not to go too far back, there was no settlement because Tassos Papadopoulos, his ministers, deputies, state officials had to keep their ‘chairs’.

The show went on under Christofias because he did not want to surrender his chair either and have to share power within the framework of a federal state. And Anastasiades is now keeping the show going because he is not prepared to get off his chair for the sake of a solution. This is the reason he has been dragging his feet and undermining the talks with irrational proposals that allow Dervis Eroglu to claim that he was the one in a hurry for a settlement which was being delayed because of the obstacles being placed by the Greek Cypriots.

A while ago it was Papadopoulos, yesterday it was Christofias, today it is Anastasiades and tomorrow it will be someone else. Presidents change, but the chair is always there and the person occupying it will never be interested in a solution, because he too will want the show to go on, the writer concludes.

3. Coffeeshop

The Cyprus Mail’s satirical column Coffeeshop says that this last week it was again confirmed that the latest bout of talks was going nowhere, with Nik and Dervis emerging from their meeting disappointed and dejected and engaging in the customary blame-gaming.


This lack of progress is of great concern to the UN and the Yanks who are keen to secure the settlement that would allow them to implement their energy plans for the region. It is believed that the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative Lisa Buttenheim is much too gentle and polite to knock heads together and force the two sides to cut out the diversionary tactics, giving them the leeway to wriggle out of real negotiations. This could be because she does not have the same mandate that Big Bad Al (Downer) had but also because she is not inclined to employ the Aussie’s bullying tactics.
 Without a bullying special envoy of the Bad Al type, it is believed the talks will eventually grind to halt. But the US has already found a man to take on the thankless role of Special Representative – former Under-Secretary-General of the UN Lynn Pascoe.
 However not all Cyprus’ political parties have given their consent to his appointment, the UN having decided to consult the parties before making its announcement. The commies of AKEL are opposing him. Apart from being American, he also committed the cardinal sin of having had a row with comrade Tof when the latter was president and has not yet been forgiven.

Pascoe, whom many of our journalists insist on referring to as Pasko-e, served as Under-SG at the UN Department of Political Affairs from 2007 to 2012 during which time he was actively involved in the Cyprob. He knows the problem inside out, which is why he is considered the ideal man to take charge of the talks.
And the Yanks obviously want one of their own. He had previously served as US Ambassador to Malaysia and Indonesia and as Deputy Assistant Secretary for European Affairs at the State Department; he was also the US Special Negotiator for Nagorno-Karabach.
However, Pasko-e had always received bad write-ups in our papers, when serving at the UN, especially from the omniscient Washington-based hack Michalis Ignatiou, who regularly portrayed him as another Turk-loving Yank, whose sole objective was to screw over the Greek Cypriots. Ig even wrote an article singing the praises of comrade Tof, for falling out with the scheming and ruthless Pasko-e. 
Nothing has been leaked about Pasko-e’s proposed appointment, probably because other parties apart from AKEL want to scupper it and fear publicity will ruin their plans to protect Kyproulla from the dastardly plans of our new strategic ally.