Time for some real debate

AT LAST, thanks to AKEL’s decision to contest next year’s presidential election and Archbishop Chrysostomos throwing his considerable weight around – as if the presidency and the national question require his interventions – the Greek Cypriot community is finally embarking on the debate as to the form of desired solution to the Cyprus problem.

This is a debate that should have preceded the referenda in 2004 but was drowned in a sea of nationalistic rhetoric designed to evade the essential question of whether we, as a community, truly are committed to a solution that is federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal.Interestingly, the president’s apologists attempt to slip away from this uncomfortable (for them) issue by stating repeatedly that what matters is not the name of the solution but rather its content.

As if words do not have meanings and agreements in principle are open to any interpretation we want to place on them. One is reminded of the Abe Lincoln’s political adage that you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

Terms such as federal and bi-zonal have inescapable meanings and if we think we can evade their consequences by treating them as mere labels to other forms of solution, one is either being extremely na?ve or delusional.

The core meaning of federalism is that of a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. True there are many different federal states, each with its own distinctive features, but all share this fundamental core element where the sovereign powers of government within a given territory is divided among a central authority and two or more constituent political units.

The issue is always not whether power will be divided, but which powers go to the central authority and which powers go to the constituent units.As for bi-zonality, it means that the constituent units will each have its own territorial zone in which each one will exercise the powers assigned to it under the constitution of the federation.

Essentially, in the Cyprus context it means that the two communities have agreed not to discuss a multi cantonal federation in which a constituent unit could have pockets of territory surrounded by the territory of the other constituent unit, and that each zone (namely the smaller Turkish Cypriot zone) would be economically viable.

These are meaningful words agreed to some 30 years ago to describe the form of solution we are working toward. Either we are committed to seek the agreed form of solution or not. If we are, well and good. We can continue to talk to the other community and the international community honestly and in good faith.

If not, we had better tell the other side and the UN, because I suspect neither will have much interest in continuing a dialogue where the sides are talking at cross purposes.Let us be abundantly clear: we cannot call the constitution of a unitary state as being federal or a federal constitution as being unitary.

We cannot call a federal state with constituent units bi-zonal unless each constituent state has its own zone that is not fragmented in pockets or cantons. It means two continuous zones, neither more nor less.These are matters that are absolutely basic and we need to be clear about them before we proceed to the further and even more important discussion of the division of powers.

This is where we haven’t even begun to come to grips with the reality of a federal solution. More than anything else we, again as a community, need to think long and hard about which powers should be vested in the central authority and which ones to the constituent units and possibly which ones should be shared.

It may in fact be in our interest to have most basic powers that relate to the day-to-day lives of the citizens – health, education, domestic security for example – vested in the constituent units rather than the central authority. And if most of the basic powers which will consume most of the revenues of the state are in the hands of the constituent units, then they will also need to be vested with adequate taxation powers.

The point is simply that we need to go beyond hurling superficial epithets and superannuated nationalistic rhetoric at each other and address once and for all what type of a solution we want. If we really don’t want a solution that is federal and bi-zonal we had better let everybody know because the world has bigger problems to deal with than those of a small insular community that can’t get its political act together.

The day when political debate could be stopped by accusing your opponents of being Turks – as if that were the greatest political insult one could hurl – should have long ago been tossed in the dustbin of history.

That sort of political ejaculation does a great disservice to Cyprus and the cause of reconciliation of its people. When it comes from a person who supposedly speaks as the leading Christian cleric on the island, and who should espouse the rhetoric of unity and amity among all the people of Cyprus, regardless of ethnicity, race or religion it becomes a matter of great concern.

One can only hope that clearer lights within the Church and the body politic will find the moral strength to restrain the Archbishop as we move closer to the election.

If the presidential campaign helps the Greek Cypriot community come to grips with the issue of whether we are truly supportive of a federal and bi-zonal solution we will have taken a major step towards the more important stage of the debate that even after 30 years we have put off, namely on the division of powers of the proposed Cyprus federation.

Foreign powers have no business criticising Papadopoulos

As a British subject in former government service and living in Cyprus, I am appalled by the report, entitled, “Top Brussels think tank: Tassos obstacle to solution”, attributed to the International Crisis Group (ICG) and published in the Cyprus Mail on August 21.

In the setting of upcoming elections set for Feburary 2008, President Tassos Papadoupoulus is subjected to constant criticism, by various international interest groups who fail to completely grasp key complexities of the Cyprus problem – or who chose simply to overlook selected issues that conflict with a range of external agendas and competing national policies.

As one of the founders of the modern Cypriot Republic, President Papadoupoulus chose not to encourage his constituency to vote in favor of the Annan Agreement, during a referendum slated to decide the fate of that Agreement – a draft memorandum which he inherited upon assuming the Presidency.

If my recollection is accurate, there were 17 major clauses in the agreement to which he took exception, and fortunately the Greek Cypriot citizens followed his guidance. Yet, having cast a few tears during a very emotional speech on the subject, he was heavily criticised for his stance.

However, had he not shown the leadership that he did, and if not repudiated in the referendum – the Annan plan would have been irreversibly enforced overnight, and as such the Cypriot Republic would have ceased to exist. For all intents and purposes, President Papadoupoulus saved us from the Annan plan!

Divided Cyrus has been compared, incorrectly, to British Hong Kong vs. China, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, as well as East and West Berlin – the latter in the sense that we have not after 33 years forgiven or forgotten.

Let’s set the record straight – no comparison can be drawn. The basic fundamental issues here are not territorial claims, historically-set religious boundaries, or geopolitical flash points. Rather, the issue is the transition zone between occident and orient, between European Greece and the Anatolian gateway to Asia – and the upset in the regional balance that Turkey’s geopolitical influence in Cyprus poses as a threat to stability.

The President is correct in maintaining that, “dealing with the leader of the Cypriot Turkish minority – Talat – is analogous to reaching an agreement with Turkey.” Cyprus is a small country with powerful enemies who have partitioned it.

Imagine having to deal with these complexities on a daily basis as President. Regardless of what anyone says, secular or not, Turkey is a Muslim state with borders on the ex-Soviet Union and Northern Iraq’s rich oil fields! Just in case the rest of the world hasn’t noticed, the Greek majority in Cyprus is Christian Orthodox, church bells ring and we go to a church, and not to a mosque. Its Turkish minority on the northern side of the island does the opposite.

Thus, this critical balance between West and East, Occident and Orient needs to be preserved.President Papadopoulos has been repeatedly unfairly characterised as a hardliner or someone living in the past – simply for his efforts in protecting this balance by protecting the integrity of the Cypriot Republic from those who would destroy the stability which it imparts to a region that may best be described as a tinderbox.

Perhaps, if one would search for real prejudice against a Turkish minority, one should look north to the very Europe which is levelling these accusations against our President. In Germany, Turkish citizens (originally designated as Gastarbeiter) and other foreign immigrants are treated as second class citizens. Until recently, nationals of these countries could not gain citizenship, nor even could their children or grandchildren born in Germany, because citizenship remained determined by blood (ethnic origin) rather than soil (place of residence or birth).

Therefore, before our Northern European neighbours cast blame in our direction, perhaps they should clean up their own back yard and assist President Papadouplous in his quest to find a reasonable and accept solution for Cyprus instead of constantly critising him.

Forced marriage not an option, says Turkish Cypriot president

Frustration over the failure to find a solution to the deadlock on Cyprus will not result in Turks of the island succumbing to pessimism, said the president of northern Cyprus.

Warning that they would start assessing their alternatives if a solution was not found, President Mehmet Ali Talat explained in an interview with the Turkish Daily News that they would not sit idly and allow events to dictate their future.

Speaking ahead of the Sept. 5 meeting with Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos, Talat said their efforts would be directed at a settlement and that they expected the resumption of peace talks.

“But if the Greek Cypriots do not want a united island, then we cannot go for a forced marriage,” Talat said at his residence near the Green Line dividing the capital Nicosia.

He said the mood was changing in the international arena due to their approval of the United Nations peace plan in 2004, arguing that no one was blaming Turkish Cypriots for the continued division on the island.

Marcoullis insists Cyprus resolution up to Turkish army

Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou Marcoullis has insisted that the key to the Cyprus issue is in the hands of the Turkish military and not in those of Turkish Cyprus's political leadership or the Turkish government.

Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou Marcoullis said that the key to the Cyprus issue was in the hands of the Turkish military. Marcoullis' latest remarks on the controversial issue came in an interview published in Sunday's edition of Greek Cypriot daily Phileleftheros, the Anatolia news agency reported from Lefkosa (Nicosia).

During the interview when she expressed hope over a planned meeting between Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos scheduled for next month, Marcoullis was asked whether she has changed her mind and believed that "the key to the Cyprus issue has passed to the Turkish Cypriot side since the leaders' meeting would take place.

"The key has always been in the hands of Ankara, particularly in the hands of the Turkish military," Marcoullis replied at the time.

"As we have stated many times, it is the Turkish army that controls all kinds of developments with its permanent presence, with its control over the Turkish society, with its fundamental interests which it believes are present in Cyprus and with its statements over the eastern Mediterranean," she added.

Voicing strong support for the presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of Cyprus, the Turkish Foreign Ministry on Friday harshly slammed the newly appointed Greek Cypriot foreign minister over controversial remarks critical of the chief general staff and the presence of Turkish troops on the divided island.

Earlier this month, in her first remarks to the Turkish media since being appointed in mid-July, Marcoullis, targeting the Turkish military, said the key to the Cyprus issue was in the hands of the Turkish military and not in those of the political leadership of the country, leading to a harsh reaction from the Turkish Foreign Ministry.

"Marcoullis is not a counterpart of Turkey who can state opinions and make evaluations concerning the country's domestic issues. Moreover, belaboring the Turkish Armed Forces and our revered chief of general staff is also beyond Marcoullis' limits," the Foreign Ministry said in a written statement released on August 17, a day after Chief of General Staff Gen. Yaşar Büyükanıt reportedly complained of silence in the Turkish capital against the Greek Cypriot remarks.

The Foreign Ministry also said the Turkish troops stationed on the island within the framework of Turkey's guarantorship rights stemming from the 1960 Guarantee Treaty have brought peace and stability to the island since 1974, while describing Marcoullis' comments as "indecent."

"The assurance of the peace in Cyprus is Turkey and the Turkish Armed Forces. Turkey's Cyprus policy is a national policy and will continue to be pursued with determination. The statements by our revered chief of general staff reflect this policy," the ministry said at the time.

Meanwhile, Talat said over the weekend that Papadopoulos has eventually agreed to meet with him due to presidential elections scheduled to be held in February 2008, while he still voiced hope for the meeting with the Greek Cypriot leader which will be held on Sept. 5.

"We will get what we wished for if this meeting brings us closer to the goal of reaching a comprehensive resolution," Talat told the Anatolia news agency, expressing expectation that the Greek Cypriot administration to participate in the meeting with good will

The Asia Minor disaster

ONE of the most inane arguments used against Yiannis Kasoulides is that, back in 2004, he had expressed the view that a rejection of a settlement by Greek Cypriots would be tantamount to an Asia Minor disaster.

Though unable to find the actual transcript, I am prepared to accept that Kasoulides did make a statement to the effect that, in the event of a rejection of the Annan plan, the situation arising would be analogous to that of the Asia Minor disaster of 1922.

I must say that I too have many times used in this column the example of the Asia Minor catastrophe in comparing it to the consequences of the Turkish invasion in Cyprus. And I agree with Kasoulides that these two events are comparable. In fact, proportionately speaking, the aftermath of the destruction in Cyprus was far more serious than that in Asia Minor, as I am about to argue below.

But before moving on, I think it important to note Kasoulides’ unfathomable omission to respond to the silly accusations hurled by these clueless slogan peddlers.

Unless I’m mistaken, the first person to have used this catchphrase was President Papadopoulos, who incidentally is well known for his ignorance of historical affairs but also for his obsession with twisting historical truth in relation to events in which he was personally involved, such as the bloody intercommunal clashes of 1963 (“How many Turkish Cypriots were murdered from 1964 to 1974? The answer is none.” – Papadopoulos, interview with the Khaleej Times, September 4, 2004. Correct answer: about 620.)

But let’s get to the point.

What was the result of the 1922 disaster? Some 1.4 million Greeks lost their property and were moved to mainland Greece, which at the time had a population of 3.5 million. In other words, the refugees amounted to 40 per cent of the host population.

What were the corresponding figures in Cyprus? According to official data, there were 200,000 refugees out of the 500,000-strong Greek Cypriot population in 1974. That is, the refugees amounted to 40 per cent of the population that took them in, which is exactly the same percentage as in the case of 1922.

Now, what were the results of the ‘No’ in the 2004 referendum? These people definitively lost their properties and remained in the south, just as the refugees of 1922 stayed in Greece. So where did Kasoulides go wrong, and where did he exaggerate?

Proportionately speaking, was the outcome not the same? I also said, however, that by comparison the case of Cyprus is worse. This is because in 1922 the tragedy ended with the resettlement of the refugees, who from there on could live in their new homes in safety. But what about Cyprus? Do our refugees, or even non-refugees, live in safety? Certainly not.

The ‘No’ of the referendum has left here two divisions of the Turkish army, and no one knows whether these troops shall one day reach Paphos, in which case 100 per cent of the population would become refugees.

Moreover, because of the ‘No’, half of the refugees missed the chance to have their properties returned in Famagusta, Morphou and other areas. Even refugees hailing from other places lost the opportunity to reclaim part of their property or exchange these with Turkish Cypriot properties in the south or receive compensation, even if under a timetable.

But the refugees of 1922 never missed these opportunities, as they were never asked to vote in a referendum. Also, one should bear in mind that the Greeks in Asia Minor comprised just 19.2 per cent of the population, whereas in Cyprus they made up 82 per cent. So who can deny that the case of Cyprus is comparatively far worse than that of Asia Minor, as far as its aftermath goes?

Is it Kasoulides who is wrong, or rather Papadopoulos and the clueless demagogues who sarcastically tell him to apologise? Instead, it is they who should apologise for voting for partition, allowing the Turkish military to remain in Cyprus and for giving away Famagusta and Morphou to Turkey.

Federation wars in Greek Cyprus

The discussions on the Cyprus issue are getting increasingly heated as the presidential election draws near. The rightists, especially the Democratic Party (DIKO) of which Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos was the chairman, are claiming that comments suggesting a bi-zonal and bi-communal federal state as a solution to the Cyprus issue are made to damage the trustworthiness of the president.

It seems that Mr. Papadopoulos is suffocating from the offensives built up on his fruitless Cyprus policy and for dragging the Cyprus issue to a dead end because of his ideologies still resting on the conditions of the 1950s.Each candidate plays a different tune on the federation concept.

Archbishop Hrisostomos II, who is not a politician but an ecclesiastic, also joined the band playing his own tune on the federal solution for Cyprus issue. He made an official call and asked the Greek Cypriots to gather around DIKO. He also commented that the “Cyprus problem” is the only political subject the Cyprus Orthodox Church is fighting about.

These comments of Hrisostomos II clearly show that the Cypriot church is politicized and mixing politics with spiritual matters. According to Hrisostomos II, when Archbishop Makarios signed the 1977 top-level agreement with Denktas there were no settlers from Turkey, and Greek immigrants were supposed to return to the northern territories and Turkish Cypriot immigrants to the south.

As the Greek Cypriots would return to the north, the population ratio would change in favor of the Greeks, and the majority would again be Greek Cypriots in the north as well as the south. The movement of Turkish Cypriots who fled to the north in 1974 heading back south would only contribute to a Greek majority in the north.

So by this method the majority in both sections of the island would be Greek Cypriots and, according to Hrisostomos II, this is why Makarios signed the agreement.In fact he also accepted the intervention right of Turkey as a guarantor government as mentioned in the 1960 Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee.

Of course no Greek politician mentions this.

When I read this information, I suddenly remembered a picture taken on Feb. 12, 1977 right before the official meeting producing the 1977 top-level agreement. I haven’t forgotten this picture in the last 30 years, and has it stayed in my memory as fresh as the first day. In this picture Makarios sits in an armchair in the left corner of the photo and looks directly into the camera. UN Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim sits in the middle and is focused on a point somewhere below the camera. Denktas is in the right corner and sits on an armchair, looking to his left with a smile on his face.

The reason why I remember this picture so well was the look on the face of Makarios. It was mealy and had no connection at all to visage of the Makarios of the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, which tended to be lofty.The look on Makarios’ face in this picture was totally different than the one taken on Jan. 1, 1960, when Makarios was declaring the invalidation of the 1960 Cyprus Agreement, or when he was signing the “cease-fire” agreement with Dr. Fazıl Küçük on Jan. 7, 1964 as if he was a triumphant commandant, or even the one taken on July 26, 1967, in the Greek Parliament right after the unanimous acceptance of an “enosis” resolution, when the look on his face was of the “eternal hero of the Hellenic world.”

The look on his face right before the official meeting of the 1977 top-level agreement was not related at all with the face of the vainglorious Makarios during the genocide period for Turkish Cypriots or the dark years between 1963 and 1974. His face bore the look of a defeated, deplumed hen. In fact he did not live long after signing the top-level agreement with Denktas, passing away a couple months later from a heart attack.

The agreement he signed with Denktas consisted of four items that laid out the framework for a bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic, including the intervention right of Turkey as a guarantor government as mentioned in the 1960 Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee. Spyros Kyprianou and Papadopulos were both hand-in-hand against his signature, claiming this agreement would pave the road to partition on the island.

For the next 25 years, the Greek Cypriots pretended as though they were negotiating on the basis of the 1977 agreement, all in the hope of gaining time to solidify their position being recognized as the only government of Cyprus.

Now all the three candidates are calling for the Turkish Cypriots to discuss the “federation” as a solution to the Cyprus issue despite having never mentioned it for the past 30 years.

Of course, the “federation” in their minds is totally different than the federation concept in the minds of the Turkish Cypriots. While Greek Cypriots seek a solution, including the withdrawal of Turkish troops, return of the so-called “settlers” and cancellation of the guarantor rights of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriots think the opposite.

With the still-fresh bitter experiences of 1963-74 in their minds, they insist on the presence of the Turkish military, their Turkish collateral on the island, and particularly on solid guarantees for Turkey.

They no longer trust the Greek Cypriots.

Marcoullis: Key to Cyprus issue in hands of Turkish army


The new Greek Cypriot foreign minister targeted the Turkish military in her first remarks to the Turkish media since being appointed, saying that the key to the Cyprus issue was in hands of the Turkish military and not in the hands of the political leadership of the country.

Erato Kozakou Marcoullis "There are two aspects of the Cyprus issue. One of them is domestic affairs, which should be discussed by community leaders. The other one is its international dimension -- the presence of [Turkish] troops, the guarantorship system and the security of the Turkish Cypriots," Greek Cypriot Foreign Minister Erato Kozakou Marcoullis was quoted as saying on Monday in an interview with NTV, in her first remarks to the Turkish media after being appointed in mid-July.

Marcoullis said she didn't believe that Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat has had a say in matters concerning the presence of Turkish troops in the northern part of the island, the guarantorship system or in the provision of security to the Turkish Cypriots.

"The key is in the hands of Turkey on these issues. So, needless to say that we want to discuss these issues either with [Turkish] Prime Minister [Recep Tayyip] Erdoğan or with the Turkish military. If speaking frankly, we believe that the key is in the hands of the Turkish military, not in the hands of the politicians in Turkey," she said.