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.