Category: EU Members

Makarios proved untrustworthy and erratic, periodically expressing support for Enosis despite having declared it unfeasible

By George Koumoullis

THE FORGERIES of Cyprus’ history are increasing cumulatively, like the galaxies. One forgery gives rise to another worse one and these in their turn to even worse ones. The historian who studies the history of Cyprus over the last decades must record a chain of colossal forgeries.

I have neither the space nor the conceit to undertake such a Herculean task, so I will focus on the uproar created by the recent comment made at the University of Cyprus by the US ambassador John Koenig who said the Cyprus issue, in the main, was not an issue of invasion and occupation.

This view that the Cyprus issue has deeper roots, and that the invasion and occupation were just part of problem, is shared by several respected Greek Cypriot writers and journalists, living and dead. If they were given a chance to speak, they would explain that the Cyprus problem came into being in the 1960s and that its root cause was not the Turkish invasion but the undermining of the independent state by us, who remained fixated on Enosis.

They would claim that our politicians are incapable – either calculatingly or through shallowness – of separating causes from symptoms. The Greek invasion of July 1974 (which we hypocritically and misleadingly refer to as a coup – another forgery of history) and the Turkish invasion in the same month, despite being consequences and not causes of the Cyprus issue, undeniably have added another tragic text to the narrative of our problem.

True love for a country does not involve trying to distort the history of Cyprus ‘in our favour’. Unfortunately, the version propagated by the political parties, which maintains that the Cyprus problem exists exclusively because of the Turkish invasion and occupation, is nothing more than another distortion of history.

The Cyprus problem would not have existed if we had honoured our signature of the London-Zurich agreements which, rightly or wrongly, we had accepted. If we want to look at the gist of the matter, we bear the biggest responsibility for our national problem. Before the ink of our signature on the London-Zurich agreement had dried, the parades for Enosis began.

On 15 January 1961, the anniversary of the Enosis referendum, a mass rally for Enosis was held in Nicosia and almost the entire political leadership attended. In July 1967, our deputies unanimously approved a resolution supporting union with the ‘mother country’, thus breaking their oath to respect the Constitution, which clearly excluded union with any other country. For this outrageous act, a book should be written entitled, ‘The perjurers of the 20th century’, even though a cynic might suggest that ‘The lunatics of the 20th century’ would be more appropriate.

After November 1967, Makarios understood – at long last – that Enosis was not feasible and in the following year the Clerides-Denktash negotiations began with the aim of reaching a new agreement based on independence. Unfortunately, even Makarios proved untrustworthy and erratic, periodically expressing support for Enosis (e.g. his speech at a memorial service in Yialousa in 1968) despite having declared it unfeasible.

And what could anyone say about the Akritas plan? Instead of the leader of the newly created state being a messenger of freedom, generosity, democracy and harmonious relations with our Turkish Cypriot compatriots, he turned himself into a shady schemer plotting the dissolution of the Cyprus Republic.

Despite the adverse conditions, in 1973 Clerides revealed that the Turkish Cypriots had agreed to a model of strengthened local self-government. We were, back then, very close to a solution and relatively grounded compared to 1960. Unfortunately there was another collapse because Makarios objected to the article in the agreement that ruled out union of Cyprus with another country. He refused to give up the objective of Enosis and thus an opportunity that would have averted the events of July 1974 was lost.

We do not have the guts to carry out some self-criticism and admit that we committed a crime against ourselves and future generations. On the contrary, the official line of the political parties is that in the 1960s we were immaculate and untarnished compared to the Turkish Cypriots who were ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘insurgents’.

The painful reality is that in the 1960s we behaved irresponsibly, recklessly and opportunistically. Alas the bill we were called to pay for this dangerous living between 1960 and 1974 was excessively high. We gave the opportunity to the Turks to invade, seize, dishonour, pillage and vandalise, while one in three Greek Cypriots became refugees in their own country.

And to cover up the root cause of the Cyprus issue, the parties point to imaginary hallucinations and obsession in the statements of Koenig, Downer, Eide, De Soto and I don’t know who else among the diplomats and UN mediators that have dealt with Cyprus.

George Koumoullis is an economist and social scientist

Just as the peace negotiations are about to begin (15.05.2015) bad news coming out of South Cyprus. This rejection of the Federal Solution (BBF) which has been on the table for the past 35 years is an indication of further Greek Cypriot resistance to the peace process. The support of the second central party AKEL is also expected.

Hardliner new EDEK leader Marinos Sizopoulos

The committee decision will be tabled before a party congress to be held on June 14. Members of the congress may approve, reject or amend the decision.
In its decision on Sunday, the Committee outlined the reasons for which the party did not accept this form of solution, noting that “it is racist, it promotes ethnic and communal partition, it is undemocratic because it equates the minority with the majority, it deprives citizens of their right to be elected at their place of residence.”

Moreover, “it introduces restrictions to the establishment and the purchase of property, it makes Cypriot citizens second-class EU citizens, it legalises and reinforces illegal settling and the distortion of the demographic character, it establishes a state under guarantee, it is defined by a complex decision-making process and by complicated international representation, which leads to deadlock and intractable problems and provides for the presence of foreign troops.”
EDEK maintains that the proposed bi-zonality provides for borders and that bi-communality includes guaranteed majorities of people and property. It provides for political and human rights restrictions, elements which do are not consistent with a federation but with a confederation.

At the same time, the central committee said the party would struggle for the continuation of the Republic of Cyprus, noting that the state that will come out of a solution must be really democratic, must safeguard political and human rights for all its citizens all over the island, exclude foreign troops and illegal settlers and ensure that all refugees have the right to return to their ancestral homes.

Furthermore it noted that it must make sure that third counties are not entitled to exercise guarantees over the Republic of Cyprus in any way, and called on all Greek Cypriot parties and that Turkish Cypriot leadership to express clearly their positions on these principles for a Cyprus settlement.
EDEK Central Committee said that cooperation and co-existence with Turkish Cypriots, with no racist or other limitations, must be developed.

Opposition forces have been gathering momentum since the Turkish Cypriots elected a new leader last month, and since obstacles to the resumption of talks have been removed.

UN Special Envoy bringing leaders of both sides together at dinner in Nicosia (10.05.2015)

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry holds a news conference with Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that the division of Cyprus was begging for an international solution and progress in peace talks was possible this year.

Speaking before a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu at the State Department, Kerry said the dispute over Cyprus had gone on for too long.

He added that the problem “just goes on for far too long and it is begging for international efforts to try to help bring about a resolution, a lasting settlement”.

The United States and Turkey both support the UN lead negotiations to reunify the island as a bi-zonal bi-communal federation, Kerry noted.

Kerry said that he has discussed the issue at length with Cavusloglu`s predecessor, Turkey’s  Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.

“We believe that the parties can make real and lasting progress in the year 2015. And that will be very positive for the region and obviously a terrific boost and opportunity for a better life for all Cypriots” the US Secretary of State said.

Cavusoglu said Cyprus was included in the agenda of his talks with Kerry, along with a series of other international issues.

He noted that his side aims at reaching a lasting solution in Cyprus this year and referred to comments made by UN SG Special Adviser on Cyprus, Espen Barth Eide on the possible resumption of settlement talks.

The Turkish foreign minister said finally that the role of the US is very important in reaching a lasting and fair solution in Cyprus.

Government spokesman Nicos Christodoulides said everything would be judged at the negotiating table.

“We will see the real intentions there. We will see if (Turkey’s) public statements correspond to reality,” he told reporters.

The Greek Cypriot side has already stated its intention to engage in a substantive and honest dialogue, Christodoulides said, and it was now awaiting the other side to reciprocate.

The spokesman said those countries interested in helping to resolve the issue were welcome.

“We are expecting for example, what I have told you: to see public statements about a desire for a solution of the Cyprus problem as soon as possible, through proposals submitted at the negotiating table,” he said.

President Nicos Anastasiades had suspended his participation in the talks following a Navigational Telex or NAVTEX, issued by Turkey in October last year, as Turkish seismic research vessel Barbaros entered the Republic’s exclusive economic zone.

Repeated calls for the withdrawal of Barbaros went unheeded by Ankara, which extended the NAVTEX in January until April 6, 2015.

Earlier this month, Eide met with the leaders in Cyprus and said that the resumption of talks was possible, after the elections in the Turkish Cypriot community.

AA Photo

A U.N. envoy for the divided island of Cyprus said April 7 he expected stalled peace talks to resume “within weeks,” following a six-month suspension in a row over offshore gas reserves.

Norwegian diplomat Espen Barth Eide said he had met Greek and Turkish Cypriot leaders earlier in the day and that they both agreed the “circumstances were now right” for the resumption of negotiations.

“I see no obstacle to a very early resumption of talks once the election process in the north of Cyprus is done,” said Eide, who oversees the Cyprus peace process for the United Nations.

Northern Cyprus will hold presidential elections on April 19.

Girne (TRNC)
Greek Cypriots suspended their participation in peace talks last October, furious at moves by Turkey to send research ships into areas Nicosia had unilaterally licensed for offshore oil and gas exploration.

A maritime advisory for seismic research Turkey issued over the area expired on April 6, and companies licensed by Greek Cyprus have ceased drilling for gas after coming up empty.

“The stated reason why talks could not happen are gone, at least for the foreseeable future,” said Eide, speaking to reporters at Nicosia airport, a protected compound in a “buffer zone” splitting the sides and headquarters to one of the world’s oldest U.N. peacekeeping missions worldwide.

Speaking on what was once an airport apron, with the bullet-riddled, padlocked airport terminal in the distance, Eide added: “This problem is perfectly solvable.”

Turkey, and Turkish Cyprus, do not recognize Greek Cypriot sovereignty and say any natural resources should be equitably shared by both communities.

The island was split in a Turkish military intervention in 1974 triggered by a Greek-inspired coup. The stated aim of the talks is to achieve the reunification of Cyprus.

Eide is the latest in a small army of mediators who have attempted to make headway, but failed. Twenty-four have preceded him, and Eide said he hoped he would be the last.

“I think I will be the last one, but for a good reason,” he said, referring to settlement prospects. “There is of course the alternative, that the international community gives up.”

April/07/2015

UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide

AS IT IS certain the UN Secretary-General’s Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide will not be arriving in Cyprus tomorrow for the Holy Week church services, we can deduce that his visit might have something to do with fixing a date for the resumption of the talks. All the causes of the interruption – the Turkish NAVTEX, the incursions of the Barbaros in the Cypriot EEZ, the exploratory drilling by ENI-KOGAS – no longer exist and neither side can stay away from the negotiations.

Turkish & Greek Cypriot Leaders Eroglu and Anastasiades

Only President Anastasiades seemed to be unaware of the reason for the visit. Asked on Wednesday whether Eide would announce a resumption of the talks, he responded negatively and playfully claimed not to know the reason for the visit. He conceded that the envoy would have consultations to establish whether conditions for the resumption of the talks had been created, but expressed doubts about the existence of these conditions.

As the Barbaros left Famagusta port on Monday and the NAVTEX expires tomorrow, both conditions set by Anastasiades for returning to the talks have been satisfied. Last Sunday, however, he appeared to have set a new condition, when he said: “Our participation in a procedure that would, in effect, accept the disputing of the national sovereignty of the Cyprus republic should be expected by nobody.”

He repeated a milder variation of this condition on Wednesday saying the “sovereign rights of the Cyprus Republic should not be disregarded.”

Was he being playful, setting new conditions in order to avoid going to the talks or was this just a rhetorical flourish? Then again, the president’s rhetorical flourishes have of late adopted the phraseology of those who are opposed to the talks and a settlement, although he has stopped short of endorsing their vacuous call for a new strategy. After attending the April 1 church service he again said he was waiting for the creation of the conditions for the resumption of negotiations and once these were created “there would certainly be the appropriate consultations with the political forces.”

But what need is there for consultations with political forces that are openly opposed to the resumption of the talks and have been expressing fears that the president was being pressured into returning to the talks as if this were a bad thing? In the last few days all parties, except AKEL and DISY, have bluntly told Anastasiades not to return to the talks or at least to set such conditions that would be certain to prevent their resumption.

On Friday, one newspaper, quoting unnamed government sources, said Anastasiades feared the possibility of Turkey sending the Barbaros into the Cypriot EEZ while talks were in progress, but neither the UN nor the US was prepared to give an assurance this would not happen.

The truth is Anastasiades would welcome a return of the Barbaros to the EEZ once talks have resumed because this would give him a legitimate reason to walk out. What he really fears is that this time the talks would not be allowed to drag on indefinitely and that Eide, who has the full support of the international community, is determined to achieve a result within the next few months.

This is why the idea of talks at a venue abroad, with the participation of Turkey and Greece, has been mentioned although there is no such plan at present.

Despite his alleged commitment to settlement, Anastasiades is terrified of the prospect of being locked into a negotiation process which would have no escape route until a deal is reached. He is also aware this could be the last chance for a settlement – a point repeatedly made by the Norwegian envoy – and that delaying tactics, to which he had resorted so far, would not be an option.

There might not be suffocating time-frames, but it is highly unlikely the process would be allowed to last much longer than a few months before an overall settlement is put on the table or, failing that, the UN winds up the whole process.

In short, once the talks begin there will be no turning back and big decisions, one way or the other, will have to be taken. Anastasiades is fully aware of this which is why he has been setting new conditions and looking for excuses not to return to the talks. Like his predecessors he appears unwilling to sacrifice his presidency for a settlement, which is not a good sign, even if Eide secures the president’s grudging agreement to the resumption of the talks.