Back
Statement by the President of the Republic of Cyprus Tassos Papadopoulos and replies to the Foreign Media
Nicosia, Cyprus
April
25, 2004
Over the last year I have made abundantly clear that I have been willing to
negotiate on the basis of the Annan Plan in order to find a functional and
viable solution of the Cyprus problem within the parameters of the relevant
Security Council Resolutions and in full respect of the UN Purposes and
Principles and effective protection of human rights. It was in the context in
these beliefs that I agreed in New York on 13 February to engage in the current
process in order to reach a comprehensive settlement to be put to separate
simultaneous referenda so as to ascertain the free choice of all Cypriots as to
the political, social, economic and constitutional future.
It is in this spirit that I submitted, in the course of the talks, my suggestions for improvements to the Annan Plan. The United Nations have confirmed to me that all my suggestions were within the parameters of the Plan and did not, in any way, take away any rights from our Turkish Cypriot compatriots.
What is more disconcerting, however, is the fact that the United Nations never pointed out to the Turkish side that since their proposals and demands were outside the agreed basis of the negotiations, they should not have been the subject of any discussion.
In spite of a unanimous decision of the National Council, I agreed to the finalization of thee Plan by the UN Secretary General, exercising his discretion, following assurances that during the first two stages of the process serious negotiation would have taken place, thus allowing the two sides to reach an agreement on all key issues. Unfortunately, the prospect of the finalization of the Plan by the Secretary General has proved to have been a counterincentive for substantive negotiations in Cyprus and in Switzerland. Nobody took these talks seriously except me. Everybody else seems to have been bidding their time until we reached the finalization stage.
Thus, throughout the process, no real negotiation took place. Most of the time had been consumed by the other side putting forward suggestions that either were not genuinely within the parameters of the Plan, or were contrary to its fundamental principles, or important “trade-offs” agreed by my predecessor or contradicted its core provisions. Sadly, these demands appear to have been satisfied, almost in toto, in the revised Plan of 31 March through the adoption of all 11 demands made by Permanent Undersecretary Ziyal, of Turkey, particularly those in an EU context. Let me point out, that, in contrast, basic concerns of the Greek Cypriot side, within the spirit of the Plan, have been disregarded. It seems that everybody involved in the talks were anxious to bring on board Turkey and ensure a “yes” vote by the Turkish Cypriot community ignoring the fact that the far bigger Cypriot community had also to be convinced to vote “yes” on the Plan. Thus, this process has failed in addressing the legitimate concerns, need and interests of both sides.
In the light of the above, it became necessary for me, as leader of the Greek Cypriot community, to decide whether the Plan, now revealed in all its details, should be recommended by me. Such matters have ultimately to be decided by the people, and in this respect I have, as democratically elected leader, had to give the best guidance. At the end of the day, people had to choose between “yes” and “no”. There was simply no other option. Under these circumstances why some circles would not accept “no” for an answer? And if that was the intention (that is, to effectively preclude one of the available options), why a referendum was called? Were the people expected simply to rubberstamp through their vote a decision already taken by others?
In the run up to the referendum there has been a lively public debate conducted in calm and civilised manner with full respect to freedom of opinion and of expression and the right to freedom of information in the media and elsewhere. Never before in Cyprus, a political proposal received such attention, was subjected to such a profound analysis and was commented upon so extensively in the media, where the two sides of the argument were equally represented. Suffice to say that even though six political parties representing 65% of the electorate were for a “no”, whilst two parties representing 35% of the people argued for a “yes”, both sides shared the television time available on a 50-50 basis, according to statistics released by the independent Radio and Television authority. I, myself, spent, since April 1st, two hours and forty five minutes on television. I did not make any interventions on other TV shows, radio programmes or write any newspaper articles.
Any interventions aimed at influencing the outcome of the referendum did not originate from within Cyprus, but from abroad through statements calculated at instigating sentiments of fear, insecurity and uncertainty among the voters.
In a democracy, the sovereign will of people is expressed through voting procedures like the one yesterday. When the people/s verdict is expressed, it should be fully respected. I note with pleasure statements to that effect by the UN Secretary General, the Presidency of the Council of the European Union and the European Commission.
What did the Greek Cypriots choose not to accept in the referendum?
Greek Cypriots did not accept the presence of Turkish troops in Cyprus in perpetuity as well as the continuation of the Treaty of Guarantee for an indefinite period of time and the expansion of its scope in comparison to the 1960 agreements. It is this Treaty that Turkey used as a pretext to justify its 1974 invasion of Cyprus.
Greek Cypriots failed to understand why, under the Plan, 45,000 Turkish settlers were to be given citizenship of Cyprus plus a further 20-25,000 (in addition to those who are married to T/Cs or have been born in Cyprus) were to be given permanent residence with citizenship in 4 years. People did not understand why the principle laid down in the judgment of the International Court of Justice “requiring a free and genuine expression of the will of the people concerned” and also the precedent applied in East Timor is not being applied in Cyprus because all Turkish settlers, who constitute a majority of persons on the “electoral rolls of the TRNC” have been permitted to vote yesterday.
Greek Cypriots said no to a Plan that stipulated that there may be a permanent flow of settlers from Turkey due to the right permanently to keep the population of mother-tongue Turkish language-speakers at 66.6% of permanent residents in the T/C state.
Greek Cypriots disapproved of a Plan according to which the right of return to their homes in safety of “refugees”should be denied to the great majority of displaced persons”, so that even in 2023, they may only total 18% of the population of the Turkish-speaking area, 50 years after Turkey’s occupation of Cyprus and expulsion in or denial of the right of return to such persons.
Greek Cypriots did not consent to a Plan which contains provisions inserted, without the agreement of both sides, and which will have the effect of perpetuating ethnic divisions both physically and politically in Cyprus, and would have been asking the EU to agree to this.
Greek Cypriots disavowed a Plan that would have established a complicated and dysfunctional state, through continuous deadlocks on clearly political issues unsuitable for judicial arbitration. This would have, with a high degree of certainty, led to a paralysis. The distance between paralysis and dissolution is a very short one.
Greek Cypriots rejected a Plan imposing a liability on them to pay the large claims for loss of use of properties in the occupied area
I should emphasise that the Greek Cypriots have not rejected the solution of the Cyprus problem. They have rejected this particular solution on offer for obvious reasons.
The Greek Cypriots are not turning their backs to their Turkish Cypriot compatriots. On the contrary, we shall work for a solution that will meet the hopes and expectations of both communities. In the meantime, further to the measures adopted in favour of the Turkish Cypriots last year. We shall very shortly, as soon as tomorrow Monday at the General Affairs Council meeting in Luxembourg, announce measures that will enable the Turkish Cypriots to enjoy as much as possible the benefit of their country/s accession to the European Union.
I regret that the Plan presented to us did not allow both communities to respond positively so that today we could both be celebrating.
The rejection of the Plan is no victory for anyone. The future of our country belongs to all of our citizens irrespective of the way they have voted today. Any difference of opinion prior to the referendum should be followed by unity in order to secure a better tomorrow in a reunited country. Greek and Turkish Cypriots deserve a better future. A secure future for us and the generations to come. I will spare no effort in order to achieve this goal.
=============================================================
Question: You spoke about serious and important changes on issues that are included in the Annan plan. So you are not just looking for security as far as implementing the present plan. You want real changes. Given that the Turkish Cypriot side has accepted the specific plan and you are asking for changes, do you think there is a possibility for a second referendum based on such major changes? And do you intend to make phone calls to foreign leaders given the fact that there seems to be some negative climate towards Cyprus these days?
Answer: It is no secret that the UN, the EU, every country want a solution as quickly as possible. Let me stress that we are even more eager than they are in getting a solution. To use a phrase by a predecessor of mine, we want a solution yesterday, not just any solution. So it is understandable that people who are not deeply involved in the negotiations, who perhaps do nït correctly appreciate the implications of this plan, want to see a solution. But this solution is to be judged by the people here. We will live with it, they will be away. All of us want a solution, but we want in addition a viable solution. Surely, security and more important for me, the safeguarding that whatever other provisions of the plan, good or bad, they would be truly implemented in time, are two very important considerations. Please don't forget that under the plan we give up front, 48 hours after the referenda, to the Turkish Cypriot side and to Turkey all their demands but whatever benefits for the Greek Cypriots will be given in a depth of time ranging from three years to 18 years. So I think it is reasonable that we would need safeguards, that those to be given to us in a span of 18 years will be truly be delivered at the time - such as areas to be returned, the rights of refugees to return in the fixed percentages over the fixed period of time, expanding to over 18 years. I also want changes, but I repeat what I said in my statement. These are the changes I submitted during the talks. They are all within the parameters of the Annan plan. They do not aim at undermining the plan or canceling out the core issues of the plan, its philosophy, its concept. I want changes which will make the state functional, thereby viable. We want a solution to survive not just closing up the Cyprus problem. These changes have not received, in my view, proper consideration during the talks that preceded and certainly they were not adopted in the finalization phase by the Secretary General. We are going to insist on these changes which are vital to making the plan functional Not necessarily demanding all the changes we wanted during the talks, in view of the circumstances, and we hope tat the Turkish Cypriots will realize that it is to the benefit of both communities that a viable, functional solution should come about. Their yes doesn't give them all they deserve and all they need. It may give them some kind of public acclaim of their positive vote after years and years of negative attitude, but it doesn't solve either their problems, or ours or of Cyprus' and of Europe's.
About the phone calls, yes I have already made some yesterday and continue to make them.
Question: You said that you will announce measures tomorrow to ease the isolation of the north. What specific measures will you be announcing. And second, you said you wanted a new solution but under whose auspices do you want to see it negotiated. The UN, the EU, anyone else?
Answer: It would be improper for me to state the measures which will tomorrow be announced by our Minister of Foreign Affairs who is now traveling to Luxembourg. These are measures which will give effect to what I announced in my press conference. We don't want to walk to the EU alone. I will try to see that our Turkish compatriots will get as many of the benefits that the EU may bring to us if there was a solution, get financial aid and help the economic development of that area. I don't believe it is a question of patronizing, or charity, I think it's sound, political principle, that we cannot leave any segment of population of a community of a state left in poverty and ignorance, and because that would be a permanent source of friction. So, I think that improving the economic position of our Turkish Cypriot compatriots is a sound policy for the future and the present. However there are certain limitations under the EU acquis. We have certain obligations to the EU which concern checks and restrictions as to the trading of certain items, that they must first be up to the level expected by the EU, the implementation of laws as to the movement of persons, services and capital. We have these obligations towards the EU and that is why I used the word possible and permissible. We may be able to bend a little bit the rules, but we cannot ignore them without being accused as violating our own obligations toward the EU.
Question: What is your reaction to the closure of the UN offices and what makes you think that the Turkish Cypriots will want to compromise or even come back to the negotiating table after these results, especially keeping in mind that they did get signals from the USA and the EU that there would be some sort of easing the embargo on the northern side?
Answer: First of all there are no embargoes in Cyprus. There are limitations which are imposed by the demand of the Turkish Cypriot "authorities" to be recognised as a sovereign state. As long as this is not pursued there are no embargoes or limitations. Most of these limitations which you have called embargoes are the result of either decisions of international organisations such as IATA, the World Trade Organisations, which is not up to us to remove. It is an internationally accepted practice which is giving effect only to recognised states. The second restrictions are those imposed by the Court of the EU in Luxembourg which has taken two decisions imposing restrictions on the trade of certain items concerned with their origin, which are binding upon all member states. It is neither for me or for any of the EU states to ignore a decision of the Court which has been there for some years and maybe others will follow. Now we say that lifting these restrictions it will ease the situation. Of course why not Were are all for it, but I don't believe that they will be just content that they should be now in a position that such restrictions will be partially eased, without getting along with us as full participants in the EU benefits.
Now concerning the closing of the UN offices. These were temporary offices which
were set up in pursuance of the good offices of the UN in this round of talks.
They were temporary offices and of course they were expected to close as soon as
that process would end either in success or failure. Now you ask why should they
agree to accept a compromise. First of all, I think I made it clear, but I will
repeat it again. None of our demands take away rights from the Turkish Cypriot
side. If we demand that only those settlers, who for humanitarian reasons should
remain here, should remain and the rest will leave, does this affect the rights
of the Turkish Cypriots? If we ask that there should be one unified economy, one
unified monetary policy and one unified public economic policy, is that denying
rights for the Turkish Cypriots? Can a small state like Cyprus, I would say any
state, live without having a unified monetary policy? Can one side of one state
follow an austerity policy in order to bridge its fiscal deficit and the other
follow an expansionist policy, borrowing money, which in addition will be
guaranteed by the federal state? Can these financial obligations function?
Therefore, I hope it will be appreciated by the Turkish Cypriots that better
than having an easier life, they must aim at the prospect of welfare and
prosperity, which a unified Cyprus economy can offer to both sides. Without the
one community imposing its will on the other, but at the same time without one
community or one person being able to lead serious decisions which are necessary
for the functioning of the state to a deadlock.
Question: With whom or who do you expect to set a second round of negotiations, the UN or the EU or whom?
Answer: In spite of what people might think, political developments are not like the electric light you switch up or down and there is light or darkness. They take some time. I don't expect that in the very immediate future, say the next weeks, there will be a new initiative. People will have to reflect, people will have to consider and analyze what went wrong in this effort. People have to review the negotiating process and procedures which have been followed in this round of talks. Then they will assess whether there is a new opening or not. On our side it is a constant policy of ours that all talks should be under the auspices of the United Nations. These good offices of the UN are mandated by the Security Council and it is not up to anybody in particular, to say I continue or I discontinue the mandate of the Security Council. So a process must be devised for the Security Council to express their wish on the matter. Since then we have and it's a fact, a new factor intervening, that is the European Union, the accession of Cyprus on the 1st of May. I would say that the reasons, the causes which prompted so many people from the UN, from the EU, from so many friendly countries to try and push for a solution are still there. The need for finding a solution will still be there, and therefore answers will be needed. If you ask now who in particular is going to take that initiative, I am sorry I cannot reply and I believe nobody involved can give you a reply now. But if the causes are there and the result desired remains, yes I think there will be movement, a new initiative.
Question: I would like your comments on two imaginary situations. Please comment on whether there is a possibility to be realized. Is there a chance that Turkish Cypriots could participate as candidates in the upcoming Euro Parliamentary elections? And is there any possibility for the two communities to negotiate with no mediators ever?
Answer: To your second questions, we are always open to negotiations. In fact, despite the result of yesterday's referenda there have been previous direct meetings between political leaders of the two communities and I hope this will be continued. I think, however, that in a complex issue such as this one, we would need if not the leadership lets say the prompting of an international organization like the UN.
About the European Parliamentary Elections, let me say that we have passed a law inviting legal Turkish Cypriot nationals of the Republic of Cyprus if they wish to come and join with the electoral roll and vote, because its their right too. Under the European Law the whole of Cyprus is considered to be one constituency. There cannot be two constituencies. So the European Members of Parliament will be elected by one electoral roll in one constituency. Now I have heard some people say, "why don't you leave two seats open until such time that there might be a solution, so Turkish Cypriot candidates can fill this post"? This cannot be done. The EU does not allow for any vacant seats, so all six seats must be filled. That has to do with the balance established between the various states and it does not allow for repeat elections. There are two cases of the European Union Court on that. The one concerned Mr Lepen. No vacant seats, no repeat elections. The second concerned East Germany. The elections for the European Parliament were carried out in one year, 81 members, all from the then Federal Republic of Germany. Within one year the Berlin wall came down and 21 million of East Germans were not represented. So they went to Court. They said "now there should be a reduction of the representatives of West Germany and fill in the seats by elections of the East German residents". The Court said this cannot be done. Those elected will continue their term of office and you have to wait until the next elections. So there is no chance if the elections are held on the 13th of June that two seats for the Turkish Cypriots can be left vacant. Or if soon after there will be a solution that so many would resign and replaced by Turkish Cypriots. This cannot be done. If they resign they will be replaced by runners up. What I will urge all the parties in Cyprus is to include in their ballots, their lists, Turkish Cypriots with strong urging on our part that two Turkish Cypriots should be elected. It is not up to me. There are elections, there is democracy, and voters will decide.
Question: When do you expect to restart negotiations before or after the Summer? And the second question concerns the presence of Turkish troops on the island. According to the Annan plan 650 could be allowed to stay on the island. Could you accept having a multinational force instead of them or an EU force?
Answer: On your second question. We proposed an international force to remain in Cyprus as long as it is needed, as long as both sides will decide they are needed or if both sides decide they are no longer needed. We make no claims as to the composition of that force and we are willing to accept any composition of that force from many countries or Organisations. Now, about the so called withdrawal of Turkish troops, which are about 35.000- 40.000. During the pre-referendum period, few were saying "wouldn't it be better if 35.000 troops would be reduced to 6000? " . Of course it is. It would be better if 35 or 40 thousand reduced to 20 or 15 thousand, or any number. But is it really the main issue? The main issue is the following: The first any withdrawal of troops will take place in 14 years from now on fixed time schedules and then they will be reduced to 650. But the important issue is the right of guarantee, the right of these troops being here permanently for ever. We do not accept that they have a unilateral right of military intervention. Now there are legal opinions, there have been recourses to the UN saying that such right does not exists under the Treaty of Guarantee which is being inserted in the Annan plan. But unfortunately, neither the resolutions, nor the Court decisions, nor the legal opinions of universally acclaimed experts have stopped the 1974 invasion. Turkey until now claims that they have the right of unilateral military intervention. All we asked during the negotiations was "let's find a machinery which will be a triggering off mechanism that no claim whether real or unreal or illegal, of intervention can be exercised, before this triggering off mechanism says so. Triggering off mechanism being a committee with the participation of the UN, the Security Council, for whatever value that might have and bear in mind that under the Annan plan the Treaty of Guarantee and of Alliance of the 1960 is not simply being reproduced. It is enhanced in scope, increased in effect, whilst in the past that Treaty of Guarantee was guaranteeing the status of a Constitution established by the 1960 agreement of the Constitutional order of the then agreement, is now being expanded to guarantee the territorial integrity of both constituencies, the constitutional order of both constituencies and security. And I think where one decides on the future of the state, not for today but for the years to come and generations to come, you don't take risks in the political argument. Now in the era of the EU in the era of compromise are you really afraid that there would be any intervention possible? Well I'm sorry I will not be there to answer these questions by the time something happens, if there is interference in 20 or 30 years.
Let us not forget that the number of Turkish troops on the island is unimportant, if one accepts that they have the right of intervention because Turkey is only 40 miles away and within eight hours they can bring a whole brigade in Cyprus with their tanks and artillery needed..
Question: Is it possible that the EU will decide because of the 'yes' of the Turkish Cypriots to lift some of the embargoes against the northern part of the island? As a new member in a week, would you intend to exercise a veto concerning these embargoes?
Answer: I think I have answered fully the question on the embargo. Now, on the 16th of April 2003 the Republic of Cyprus signed a treaty with another 24 member states of the EU and future member states. That agreement says in explicit terms that the whole territory of the Republic of Cyprus is to become part of Europe with the suspension of the acquis communautaire being applied to the Turkish occupied areas for the reason stated in the Treaty. So there is no question of two states being recognized by the EU, that's for sure. You asked whether a veto will be used to stop the embargoes. If there are no embargoes how can they be stopped? The restrictions are imposed, first, by court decisions binding on all states. If we fail to observe these restrictions we are subject to sanctions for disregarding a court decision, a final court decision of the Appeal Court not of an Ordinal Court. Two, the other restrictions are imposed by international organizations, not only European Union states, but many states of the world. I think all of them. What you are asking I suppose is on our attitude towards Turkey and a veto. Because a veto for the embargoes is not there. It doesn't arise.
Question: How much damage do you think has been done to your reputation personally by Mr. Verheugen's comments and how much damage has been done to the Republic generally by the results of this referendum? And a second point, you said that you want to reach some sort of agreement with the people in the north, given that 100% of them voted for the retention of Turkish troops on Cypriot soil? What sort of accommodation can you reach with them?
Answer: Your second question first. I don't believe that the Turkish Cypriots voted exactly on the question of Turkish troops remaining on the island. It's part of the plan. If you vote for the whole plan one assumes that you also vote for that. But I don't believe that was the question asked to them. With a new accentuation of Turkey's course towards the EU - hopefully Turkey will join the EU- I believe Turkey itself may find out that guarantees of this nature, of the 1960's, are not necessarily the best way to assuring whatever interests Turkey might have. But, as I said, a new round of talks strictly limited on the matters I have described before might be thought by the Turkish Cypriot as being, on the whole, a better solution for them, than having to live separately under the glory of them having being vindicated, if you like, or gaining the impressions. The realities of life are more important than impressions whether they are temporary or not. After all, for a spell of 10, if not 20 years, Greek Cypriots were always been thought as the constructive side in the dispute, while Turkish Cypriots definitely negative, utterly negative. Yet people survived these impressions for both sides. Now, about Mr. Verheugen's comments, let me say from the beginning that I have the highest possible respect for Mr. Verheugen and I am grateful for his contribution in making the accession of Cyprus to the EU possible. People perhaps should read more carefully what he said. He said that when in 1999 there was the Helsinki Council decision, deciding that the accession of Cyprus to the EU should be separated from the solution of the Cyprus problem, that is Cyprus would join if Cyprus satisfied the requirements of the Copenhagen criteria and all the others, irrespective of whether there would be a solution or not. He said that in 1999 there were two sets of understandings, that's what he says, 'we on the EU side', Mr. Verheugen says, 'we will ensure the accession of Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot would not prove to be an obstacle to a solution or would accept a solution'. Let me say that in 1999, I was not President. Mr. Clerides was. I don't believe that Mr. Clerides could have said 'Yes I bind myself to accept the Annan Plan'. He could have not said that in 1999. The Annan Plan did not appear until 2002. That is three years later. What I believe happened is that Mr. Clerides certainly must have given assurances to Mr. Verheugen or to the EU that 'I will do all I can to find a solution, I will be very positive, very constructive in finding a solution'. I say he must have said that because that is what I have been saying since then. So Mr. Verheugen's reference to me obviously is that. Because I have given no other commitment and I have not bound myself that I would accept the Annan Plan as it is. I made no secret of that, I repeated it for I don't know how many times and, apart from a small section from the population of Cyprus saying to me 'you are so wrong not to accept the Plan as it is', the majority of the National Council agreed with me that we could not accept the plan as it is. So I don't feel that I have violated any promise I made to Mr. Verheugen and certainly I have not deceived him and I have not deceived anybody ever, either Mr. Verheugen or anybody else in any walk of life. Certainly comments by such a highly respected personality like Mr. Verheugen distress me very much and affect very badly the image of Cyprus and the image of myself. I hope, I only hope, I can't do nothing more, that I will be able to clarify to Mr. Verheugen this point. Certainly please remember that at the time Mr. Verheugen says the promises were given to him I was not around. If they were given, they were given by someone else, not by me.
Question: Is it expected that the Republic seem as the rejectionist by the results of the referendum?
Answer: Of course it is. In the first question I answered. I said everyone in the world expected an easy, nice passing of this referendum. Most people did. One of the senior Ambassadors here only as late as Thursday night was saying to a friend of mine that he thought the referendum would be touch and go, 50-50, and my friend told him 'you live out of this world, there is no chance of this happening' and he said 'no I am sure this will be the result'. Everyone was expecting the easy running. But then another Ambassador said ' Of course we leaned backwards to satisfy all Turkish demands both in Nicosia and in Burgenstock in Switzerland. We missed the point. Greek Cypriots also have a public opinion, they also have to give a yes'. Surely our image has been damaged, but let me say this, international organizations and the EU function under rules and regulations and laws. Of course there is always the spirit of compromise, the friendship and understanding. What doesn't exist is a spirit of vindictiveness. I don't believe there will be a demonstration of vindictiveness because the people of Cyprus, exercising their legitimate democratic right to answer on a question put to them 'yes' or 'no' freely, democratically they opted to say 'no'. Are they going to punish these people for exercising their democratic right they were asked to exercise it ? I don't believe so.
Question: The European Commission tomorrow is going to announce a list of measures for the Turkish Cypriots. Are you happy with those, are they going to run parallel to the measures you are going to announce? And if you are not happy with the European Commission measures, what do you expect Greece to do?
Answer: EU procedures concerning these measures have been discussed … not now. In fact I spent the whole of Friday and Saturday, except from the time I went to vote, in meetings with our officials and understanding with Greece as to what we would like to propose. We like to preempt EU - I use the word in a nice way not in a legalistic way- and show to the EU that we take initiative to announce, to request, if you like, measures from the EU for the economic development of the Turkish Cypriots. After all that's the decision of the Copenhagen Council, as you remember, that measures must be taken for the economic development of the Turkish Cypriots so as to bring them closer to the EU. This is the phraseology in those conclusions. It is not the measures themselves that are important. It is how they'll be given. They must be given to the Turkish Cypriots and there can't be no question of recognition of an authority, acknowledgement, if you like, of a state. We think the EU cannot recognize it. Subject to that, yes we are open to everything else. So there is no need for Greece to do anything more than support our views on that and this I expect, I am assured, Greece will do.
Question: I'd like to follow up on my colleague's questions on your image, Cyprus' image. You are going to be in the EU within a week's time and there are indications that you might get a rather frosty reception. What do you think your government can do and needs to do to overcome that?
Answer: Well, first we have to work very very hard -and that we intent to do- to explain our position to all the countries and I believe that our decision was not arbitrary or unjustified. We will do all I can myself, our Ambassadors, special emissaries, which I will send to as many countries as I can and I hope some of you nice ladies and gentlemen of the Press might be willing to give our side of the story as well, instead of just sticking on the easy answer that these are the bad guys, freeze them out and these are the good guys, praise them. I know most of the Press of the world goes far deeper than appearances.
Question: Mr. President, what you said last night and what you said today here suggest that you are in favor of the resumption of the negotiations in some way. And you suggested also that the Kofi Annan Plan is still on the table and therefore any future talks should probably be based again on the Plan. The comments made since yesterday, since the outcome of the referendum both in Ankara and on the Turkish side on the island is that the Annan Plan is dead, that it cannot be renegotiated and secondly the Turkish Foreign Minister has gone as far as saying that the present situation would lead to partition. I would like to have your comments on these points.
Answer: Yes, I have read these and other reports. I have been involved in the Cyprus problem for many years and it is my old assessment that these proposals, coming after a lot of effort and a very serious investment of man days and man hours and money being producing the proposals, they are not buried ever. They fade away, they don't just disappear. Let me say what it was stated in the opening two pages of the Annan Plan, the first Annan Plan, which was given in November, he started these proposals have not been picked up out of the sky, but they were the result of understandings being reached in previous round of talks and what our assessment is that the two parties might possibly consider as common ground. Let me remind you that in the past we have had De Cuellar's directives, the set of ideas of Mr. Ghali and none of them, although they were rejected at the time and were considered dead and buried, yet they reappeared. Provisions of those reappeared in the Annan Plan. So I am not agreeing and I am not pursuing a new framework of talks that would be completely divorced from the Annan Plan or would be disregarding the concept and philosophy, the core issues if you like, of the Annan Plan. Whether this will be termed Annan Plan or whether there will be a renegotiation of this Plan, I cannot tell you. It's not up to me. We'll be asking that we start negotiations on a limited number of issues, which, I repeat once more, are not necessarily aiming at getting away rights from the Turkish Cypriots. I use the word necessarily because I not mean to deprive their rights but I know that people may distort our demands and make them appear that certain of their rights are being diminished, depending what one conceives as a right. If it is a right to be able to block decisions, if it is a right to lead the working of the new state of affairs to deadlocks so, as I said in my statement, to cause paralysis and after that dissolution, yes that is a right I want to take away. I repeat my phrase. No one community should be able to impose its will on the other, but equally, simultaneously, no one community or one person -President, Minister or whatever- should be able to block the decision making process, because that could lead to paralysis and then dissolution. If such things, by any stretch of imagination, could be termed taking away rights form the Turks, I think we are losing the forest for a tree.
On the second part of your question, I am sorry that that phrase was used. As you know for many many years the policy of Turkey and certainly of Mr. Denktash was that of partition or in another framework of words that two separate sovereign states should be established in the small island of Cyprus. That's the interpretation of partition and perhaps this constant policy and the insistence of such a solution made the Greek Cypriots, those who voted in the referenda yesterday, were anxious not to see divisive provisions in the Annan Plan, divisive provisions, which perhaps in Holland or Belgium might go by without anybody bothering. Here is a real threat. Switzerland is called a confederation, but it's one of the ideal federations in the world. They have the Presidential Council with the rotating Presidency but only seven of the cantons are participating in the government.
I thank you all very much.
* * * * *
Back