|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
Allow me to start by expressing my appreciation for the invitation to
address one of the oldest and certainly one of the most prestigious academic
establishments in the world. I consider it a distinct honour to have been
given this opportunity to do so at this juncture. As you may know tomorrow I
shall have the privilege and honour of signing the Agreement on behalf of
the Republic of Cyprus with the Harvard School of Public Health for a
research initiative in Cyprus for environment and public health at an
investment of about $40 million US dollars.
Cyprus has recently found itself in the centre of international interest,
because of its accession to the European Union and the UN efforts to assist
in reaching a settlement to the Cyprus problem.
I assume that most people know, that in July 1974, after a coup staged by
the military junta which ruled Greece at the time, the Turkish army invaded
Cyprus and still occupies 37 per cent of the territory of the Republic of
Cyprus. A dividing line was then established, which is maintained to this
day by 35,000 Turkish troops.
About one third of the Greek-Cypriot population of Cyprus was forced to
leave their homes and properties, on which they lived for centuries and ever
since they live as refugees in their own country. The Greek-Cypriots form 82
per cent of the total population of Cyprus and the Turkish-Cypriots 18 per
cent. The Greek-Cypriots, also own about 88 per cent of the land in the
occupied areas and the Turkish-Cypriots about 12 per cent.
Ever since 1974, there were numerous efforts to reach a solution of the
Cyprus problem through negotiations under the auspices and “good offices
mission” of the United Nations Secretary General, culminating in the most
recent effort which commenced in 1999.
Under the new circumstances created by the 1974 Turkish invasion, we came to
accept that a solution should be sought through the evolution of the unitary
state of the Republic of Cyprus into a state structure of a bizonal,
bicommunal federal state, within which the rights and concerns of both
communities in Cyprus could be adequately met, but, at the same time a state
that would be functional so that it would be viable and durable.
From the Greek-Cypriot point of view, certain elements of the solution were
considered fundamental and indispensable, in order to make a bizonal and
bicommunal federation functional, bearing in mind that, in the case of
Cyprus, there would be only two federated entities with equal rights and
functions.
Let me mention indicatively some of the elements which we intended to pursue
through such negotiations:-
· The reunification of the country, its economy and its society, whilst
each community would preserve its own identity and culture and the control
of its own affairs in conditions of political equality.
· A functional solution in a functioning state structure, in which no one
community would impose its will on the other, but at the same time and more
important, neither community would be allowed to lead to and create
deadlocks in important functions and activities of the state.
· Respect for human rights, democratic principles and fundamental liberties
for all lawful citizens and their practical and effectual application for
all.
· Termination of the occupation and gradual withdrawal of all foreign
troops and elements from Cyprus, with the aim of the full demilitarization
of Cyprus. For a transitional period a multi-national peace-keeping force
would be established in order to ensure the feeling of security and good
order for both communities.
· Safeguards that the solution to be found, would actually be implemented,
through self-executing stages and effective guarantees as to the security of
the state, especially in the light of the trauma of the Turkish invasion.
Let me now start by sharing with you some thoughts regarding the late
intense efforts for the attainment of a solution to the Cyprus problem,
under the latest proposal by the United Nations, which is known as “Annan
Plan V”, and you may be the judge as to whether this Plan met adequately
these objectives.
When the dust settled, when the foreign diplomats and journalists had found
other matters to occupy their attention, when Cyprus would no longer have
been in the centre of the international scene, it would have been us,
Cypriots, Greeks and Turks, who would have had to live with the consequences
of the implementation of the fifth version of the Annan Plan. The Annan Plan
is not written in stone; it is carved in granite. One therefore has to be
assured and be sure that it would work; that it would prove to be functional
and durable.
The fifth version of the Plan, although in many of its respects different
from its predecessor, was once again touted, as comprehensive, complete and
indispensable. As having no alternative. Was it?
In part the answer is – “we cannot know and thus we do not know.” It
is a huge and involved set of documents which run to thousands of pages and
tens of thousands of words. It proposes a system of governance which has not
been tried in any other country – a Swiss inspired head, with a Belgian
inspired body grafted onto our little island which is neither Switzerland
nor Belgium. In its fifth version, due to lack of sufficient time prior to
the referenda, it has not been examined carefully by objective professionals
whose métier is political science and law. It may have worked. But what if
it didn’t?
In part the answer is that the latest version of the Annan Plan had a number
of positive elements but still leaves many problem areas and, in fact,
created new ones.
Some of my most profound worries about the Plan did not concern those areas
where we felt that the compromises offered or imposed were simply not fair
to us. They were prompted by my concern for the kind of Cyprus that would
have resulted from this plan, by its ability to play its proper role in the
European Union, in the world. A concern for the ability of the Cypriot
government to ensure for its citizens the prosperity and well being and the
ability to live in an efficient and prosperous State which respects
democracy and the rule of law.
Here are just some areas of concern:
Twenty-four hours after the Annan Plan V is approved by the separate
referenda, the Republic of Cyprus ceases to exist and the United Cyprus
Republic comes into being with its new governmental structure and the new
decision-making process.
The Turkish-Cypriot community and the Turkish-Cypriots, would have received
all the benefits provided under Annan 5, up-front, on the same day, whilst
the Greek-Cypriots would have had to wait in order to get the benefits
promised to them under the Plan, such as return of some of their land,
properties or compensation in lieu or rights to return to their homes and
properties, in the depth of time in the future, stretching up to three and a
half years for the land to be returned to them and stretching to 18 or 21
years for the right to return.
We must in all honesty say that we do not believe that the Plan did justice
to very large numbers of Greek-Cypriots, whether displaced persons or
dispossessed property owners. We hear lip-service paid to human rights and
absence of discrimination, but the details of the Plan meant that a
considerable proportion of the dispossessed would only have received a
limited and uncertain amount of monetary compensation, paid after a delay of
up to 20 years, and at great cost, possible even threatening the financial
viability of both the federal state and the Greek-Cypriot constituent state.
Similarly, very few of the persons displaced, or, speaking non-technically,
“the refugees,” would have been able to return to reside in the
Turkish-Cypriot constituent state. This outcome was dictated by the Turkish
doctrine of bi-zonality, which prescribes ethnic separation between Turkish
and Greek-Cypriots, to the maximum degree the international community and EU
could tolerate without having to admit that there was discrimination. This
separatism was, by virtue of the Plan´s provisions, designed to be
permanent.
We were willing to accept, on humanitarian grounds, that many long-staying
“settlers”, from Turkey, young people born and who had no other home
than Cyprus, and, of course, all who married Turkish-Cypriots, should have
the right to stay in our country as citizens under the new state of affairs.
But we were not willing to accept that each and every settler, indeed all,
should be entitled to remain here and ultimately acquire citizenship.
These and other concerns were raised by me during the negotiations which
took place in Cyprus from the 19th February until 27th of March 2004, both
orally and in extensive written proposals. They went unheeded. In
Burgenstock in Switzerland no real negotiations took place. There was not
even one face to face meeting between the two sides.
It seems that everybody was so keen to get Turkey and Turkish-Cypriots on
board, after 30 years of consistent intransigence and flat denial by Turkey
to participate in serious negotiations, that the mere acceptance at long
last by the Turkish side, to engage in negotiations, was deemed to be such a
great improvement on past attitudes, that it had to be rewarded by
satisfying all demands made by the Turkish side.
It was no surprise, therefore, to all serious and objective observers of the
Cyprus scene, that a resounding 76 per cent of the Greek-Cypriot electorate
rejected the Annan Plan V. Perhaps it is very telling that about 70 per cent
of the refugees, that had hopes of returning to their homes and properties
or getting compensation in lieu, voted against the Plan. They cannot all be
naïve. They cannot all be misguided or deceived. The people of Cyprus are a
highly literate society, very politicized and have a proud tradition of
democratic process and freedom of expression.
From ancient times, in every democratic society, the supreme source of power
is the people and the supreme expression of the will of the people, in a
democratic society – as the Cyprus society is – is the peoples’s
decision in a referendum. The decision of the people must be respected by
all. And I, certainly, am obligated and bound by political morality and
Constitutional provisions to respect it. Nobody has the right to criticize
the people or be vindictive or punish a whole people in the exercise of its
supreme right in a democratic way rejected a plan designed by others and
determining its future and that of generations to come.
We respect the view and assessment of outsiders to consider the Annan Plan V
as “a unique opportunity missed” or as “a uniquely balanced and fair
plan”. We demand the equal right for ourselves to judge otherwise. After
all the issue concerns mainly us and the generations to follow us.
We understand that the international community was very disappointed by the
decision of the Greek-Cypriots. But we expect the international community to
understand that our disappointment with the provisions of the Anna Plan V is
greater. Because after all, it is our country which is under occupation and
we are the ones who suffer most the results of the Turkish military
occupation.
We are really disappointed and disheartened, that the provisions of the
Annan Plan V, geared to satisfy the demands of Turkey, did not allow the
people of Cyprus to accept this Plan, on account of the adverse result of
certain of its provisions.
Our position should not be mistaken or misunderstood: We do not “reject”
the Annan Plan. We still believe it is a good basis for an eventual
solution. We still accept a bizonal, bicommunal function federation, but
this version of the Plan was not. But it is too important to expect us to
rush into such a fundamental and irreversible change with what can only be
described as an unseemly haste which would not be acceptable to any other
state. We do not accept that it is either this, or nothing. After all, this
is what we were told last year with a plan which has changed significantly
since. The proper way is to continue to work hard until we reach a plan that
is both workable, equitable and acceptable to all of us. Political disputes
in this enlightened era should be solved by free negotiation and adherence
to international law and principles and not though imposition in the service
of extraneous contingencies and foreign interests.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The Republic of Cyprus and the United States of America are bound together
by common interests, a long tradition of friendship and close co-operation,
and excellent bilateral relations. The strong historic ties between the two
countries have their roots in the respect and promotion of the same
fundamental values and principles. We have long shared the same legacy of
democratic ideals, respect for human rights, prevalence of international
legality and the rule of law. Cyprus and the United States remain strong
advocates of these values, the advancement of which constitutes a priority
in their policies.
Numerous American citizens of Cypriot origin live and work in the United
States and form an active community, with valuable contribution to all
aspects of social and economic life. This large community is an important
asset in our traditionally close relationship and a living proof of the
common values that our two people share.
Cyprus with a vibrant and stable economy, as an international business and
service centre lying at the crossroads of three continents, and as a member
of the European Union, has its doors open to American business eager to
invest and promote business in our country.
Through Cyprus, a multicultural, diverse, cosmopolitan centre of economic
and social progress in the Eastern Mediterranean and a member of the
European Union, American business corporations can now have direct access to
the large EU market.
Our intense co-operation and partnership has moved to another level since
the tragic events of September 11th. We stand together in our common aim to
fight effectively international terrorism in all its manifestations and
forms. Experience has shown to us that our efforts in combating this
phenomenon, which is an assault each and every country and against the very
principles upon which our countries are founded, need to be further
intensified.
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, Cyprus joined immediately and in
an active manner the United States in the international coalition to fight
terrorism. Since then, we have taken in close co-operation with the United
States, many concrete and active steps in the war against terrorism. This
intense co-operation continues and during the Operation Iraqi Freedom the
Government of the Republic of Cyprus granted overflight rights to the United
States, along with facilities for humanitarian purposes and emergency
situations.
The USA and Cyprus remain committed in the intensification of all efforts to
eliminate the scourge of terrorism in all its aspects, through both
multilateral and bilateral co-operation. The same determination must
continue to be shown in other fields of common interest, like combating the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, effectively dealing with the
phenomenon of money laundering and addressing the environmental challenges
of the 21st century.
Our accession and active participation in the EU provides not only new
opportunities for economic development, but makes Cyprus the eastern border
of the Union in the sensitive area of the Eastern Mediterranean. Through
Cyprus the European Union is brought to the doorstep of the Middle East.
From a Western point of view Cyprus is the gateway to the Middle East and
the guardian of the southern and eastern flank of Europe. Cyprus
traditionally has maintained for decades excellent relations with both
Israel and the neighbouring Arab States. From the view point of Middle
Eastern countries, Cyprus can be the vital link to the West.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The people and Government of the Republic of Cyprus, are determined to
strive in order to achieve new levels of co-operation between our two
countries. At the same time, as a member of the European Union we will add
our modest contribution to the efforts for consolidating the Transatlantic
relationship between the United States and the European Union. To this end,
one can also effectively take advantage of the new perspectives offered by
Cyprus’ accession to the EU and its natural transformation into the border
of the EU in the sensitive area of Eastern Mediterranean.
The United States has always shown special interest in finding a solution to
the Cyprus problem and putting an end to the longstanding division of the
island. The American role in the peace efforts in Cyprus is of special
weight and its contribution is of crucial importance. Cyprus, the region of
the Eastern Mediterranean, Europe and the world in general are in need of a
continuing active involvement of the United States in our efforts to attain
a lasting settlement to the Cyprus problem.
What we need is a mutually acceptable truly negotiated solution to all
parties concerned, through which the aspirations and legitimate interests of
all Cypriots will be adequately addressed in permanent manner. Finding such
a solution will be beneficial not only for Cypriots, but will also serve as
model of hope to other similar situations and will promote stability and
security in the wider region of the Mediterranean.
|
