Blog

CYPRUS ZERO TIME

By Lieutenant General G. KORAKIS

The expected pre-approval of Cyprus for its accession to the EU was achieved. This fact is very important for the further course of Cyprus towards full integration. For the first time, since the Turkish invasion and occupation, the dawn of 2003 found Cyprus in an advantageous political and negotiating position. The non-signing of the Annan plan for a solution to the Cyprus problem in Copenhagen, which had the consequence of keeping the Republic of Cyprus alive, arose as a result of circumstances, such as the conflict of interests of the Franco-Germans with the USA and Britain and the strong resistance of the former to the unbearable pressures of the latter to set a date for the start of accession negotiations in Turkey, the prevalence in Turkey of the views of the Generals and Dektas and finally the failure of some circles on our side to embellish and impose the plan as a solution. We must not deceive ourselves. The Greek Cypriot leadership was ready, in my opinion, to sign the plan if the other side also advocated it, because how else can the statements about "crazy dissenters" and the admission that there is no room for negotiation of the plan under the present circumstances be interpreted.

The Annan plan is a reality that we will have before us in every effort to resolve the Cyprus problem.

For several years before 1974 the situation in Cyprus had been maintained in a certain balance because the Greek Cypriot majority on the island was balanced by Turkish power in the region. Since 1974 the Turks have had overwhelming power both in Cyprus and in the region.

The philosophy of the Annan plan that reflects this reality consists of full autonomy for the Turkish Cypriots with a significantly reduced Turkish military presence, the key words being recognition versus withdrawal. This is also the historic compromise of the 1977 and 1979 summit agreements.

The partition of Cyprus creates a different set of problems and is not accepted by the international community because an unclear border will be a point of friction between Greece and Turkey and a factor of instability in the region. The partition of Cyprus cannot have better results than those it had in other areas where it was adopted (Ireland - Palestine). Besides, military actions that occur outside a specific and politically acceptable framework do not legitimize what is happening. Israel is still trying to disengage from the consequences of the victorious war of 1967 and the military successes of the Serbs in Bosnia did not help them resolve the crisis with a solution favorable to them.

From 1974 until the last elections in Turkey, the political leadership of this state tried to provide a military solution to other internal problems (1980 coup, Kurdish problem, Islamic threat, etc.). The leadership that emerged from the last elections probably realized that the invasion of Cyprus has collateral side effects in achieving the goal of Turkey's accession to the EU. The need to change the approach to the Cyprus problem may be seen, but obstacles are being placed by the theorists of "military democracy" and especially by its exponent Rauf Dektas. Despite the fact that the majority of the "balanced", according to the international factor, Annan's plan is biased towards Turkey, Dektas nevertheless does not accept the plan and puts forward the claim that he is implementing the policy adopted by the Grand Turkish National Assembly in the Cyprus issue. (The cunning Dektas had foreseen the current political development in Turkey when some years ago he requested and achieved the issuance of a resolution on his implemented policy by the Grand National Assembly, which all parties participated in, so that in the event of a single-party government, he could invoke the claim that he is implementing a National Turkish policy and not the policy of a single party).

The Annan plan is based on the results of the invasion and not on the needs of a modern state, it serves the geostrategic interests of the US and Britain. The racial division, creates a protectorate state by providing for guarantor powers, violates human rights, legalizes the stay of settlers, distorts the acquis communautaire in a way that makes its viability doubtful if not impossible, violates the principle of democracy by elevating three foreign judges as the highest authority.

All Greeks want a fair, sustainable and clean solution for which they have fought for many decades. If the solution that will be given is not fair, it cannot be sustainable and if it is not sustainable it will not be a solution, it will be a dissolution. I believe that the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots desire peaceful coexistence, coexistence and cooperation. If there is no sense of security, respect for human rights and democratic principles, then coexistence will be an illusory dream. Within these principles, the solution to the political problem must be sought.

Our political leaders in Greece and Cyprus claim to be working for a just, viable and workable solution, but no one, no one, explains the content of this solution. I believe that the positions must be convincingly explained to foreign arbitrators and be absolutely clear.

In my opinion, a just, sustainable and functional solution must ensure respect for international law and UN resolutions, the possibility of implementing and implementing the European acquis, respect for the human rights of all Cypriots and basic and fundamental freedoms, proportional power sharing on a majority-minority basis, no right of intervention in another state, removal of settlers, a functional constitution (one state – one sovereignty – one citizenship). All other provisions serve expediency and operate in a disintegrating manner.

The content of the Annan plan legitimizes Turkish rule and international illegality, and maintains the division of Cypriot society along racial lines.

As it stands, the plan should not be accepted as a solution to the problem. Through negotiations we must ensure:

· Removal of all settlers. Settlement is considered an offense internationally. In the revised solution plan there is great ambiguity regarding the issue of settlers. A proposal is made for the stay of 33.000 and in addition those who have reached the age of 18^ο year and have entered into a marriage with a Turkish Cypriot. With these provisions, approximately 44.000 will remain and 80.000 will leave (The satanic Dektas foresaw to declare that the settlers are only 35.000 "economic and other immigrants" and the remaining 80.000 are already citizens of the illegal Turkish Cypriot state). So who and how many will leave? None. Thus, in Cyprus, the international crime of colonization is legalized with European and international seals. Woe to Cyprus and future generations if we accept this situation of the settlers.

· Abolition of guarantee conditions and intervention rights.

· Free movement and establishment of personnel, goods and services throughout the Cypriot territory.

· Ensuring the functionality of the state by abolishing all restrictive voting at all levels of power.

· Abolition of the provisions that provide for special relations with Turkey and Greece and of the provisions that subject any development of the system to the approval of Turkey and Greece.

· Provision of a democratic system of governance. It is confirmed that political problems are not solved in democracies by judicial decisions. The plan creates a state of judges with a limitation of popular sovereignty. After all, we have the experience of the London-Zurich Treaties where, with the first problems that arose, the foreign judge flew out of Cyprus.

· Security. The provision for equal forces from Turkey and Greece works in Turkey's favor for geographical reasons. In addition, the settlers who will remain have served in the Turkish occupation army and are a potential military parameter that is not counted.

 

Hellenism is steadily shrinking and as Greeks we have created the largest list of lost homelands. Pontus, Ionia, Constantinople, Imbros, Tenedos, Eastern Thrace, Eastern Rumelia, Monastir, Northern Epirus. We are shrinking because we have turned into a consumer society of Euro-Oligurians (in the Archbishop's words). We have lost the strength to defend the universal values ​​of Hellenism, what is fair, what is right and what is required.

In order not to increase the list of lost homelands, unless we secure a fair, sustainable and functional solution through negotiations, we must not proceed with accepting the Annan plan for a solution to the Cyprus problem, but rather methodically and carefully plan the next immediate and long-term moves with the aim, with the cooperation of the Turkish Cypriots, of rebuilding Cypriot independence, a Cypriot State, based on the principles of democracy and the rule of law.

In 1992, we rejected the ideas of Galli, which were inspired by the same philosophy, without having secured our European orientation.

It is time to end the embellishments and wishful thinking and face reality without blinders. Only in this way will we be able to make the right conclusions and follow the right policy under the imposed circumstances.

Let us ask the gentlemen who are interested in solving the problem to apply the principles that are also applied in their own states, the principles of Europe.

But as Socrates taught us, "until philosophers govern or those who govern philosophize, the city will be in danger."

Registered on 19-1-2003