The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Changes needed in Annan Plan

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Changes needed in Annan Plan

Postby Agios Amvrosios » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:26 am

Greek American Organizations call for changes in the Annan Plan in the interests of the U.S.

WASHINGTON, DC – The American Hellenic Institute founder, Gene Rossides, announced today that the major Greek American membership organizations are calling for serious changes in the Annan Plan in the interests of the U.S. to make it democratic, workable, financially viable and just. The organizations are the Order of AHEPA, the Hellenic American National Council, the Cyprus Federation of America, the Panepirotic Federation of America, the Pan-Macedonian Association of America and the American Hellenic Institute. Their joint statement on the Cyprus problem follows:

"Turkey’s 1974 invasion of the sovereign Republic of Cyprus and the Turkish army’s continuing occupation of 37.3 percent of the island with the illegal use of U.S. arms are violations of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the UN Charter, article 2 (4), the North Atlantic Treaty, and an affront to the international legal order, and a continuing threat to regional stability.


There is no legal distinction between Turkey's 1974 aggression against Cyprus and Iraq's 1990 aggression against Kuwait. The Cyprus problem is one of aggression and occupation by Turkey. Viewed objectively, Turkey in 1974 committed war crimes in Cyprus.


Then Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger bears the major responsibility for the Cyprus problem because he encouraged and supported Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus on July 20, 1974 and Turkey’s second wave of aggression on August 14-16, 1974, three weeks after the legitimate government of Cyprus had been restored.

Kissinger violated his oath of office by failing to halt immediately arms to Turkey as required by U.S. law and refused to denounce Turkey's aggression, as Britain and most other nations did. As Ambassador Thomas Boyatt, the Cyprus Desk Officer in 1974, has stated, the U.S. bears a moral responsibility to redress the situation.

We support a settlement of the Cyprus problem through negotiations based on a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation in a state with a single sovereignty and international personality, incorporating the norms of a constitutional democracy embracing key American principles, the EU acquis communautaire, UN resolutions on Cyprus, and the pertinent decisions of the European Court of Human Rights.

Annan Plan needs serious changes in the interests of the U.S.

The "Annan Plan," submitted by UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan in the fall of 2002 as the basis for a settlement is regarded by Cyprus, Greece and the international community as a basis for negotiations. As currently written the Annan Plan is undemocratic and unworkable. It needs serious modifications to make it democratic, workable, financially viable, just and compatible with American values and the EU's acquis communautaire and democratic norms, the European Convention on Human Rights and key U.N. resolutions.

It is in the interests of the U.S. to press for such changes for a settlement that will last and which could be a useful model for other international problems including Iraq.

The Annan Plan is a more complicated version of the 1959-1960 London-Zurich agreements imposed on the Greek Cypriots by the British during the Cold War.

The British had the primary influence in drafting the proposal, with U.S. acquiescence. The Annan Plan perpetuates the undemocratic features and ethnic divisions of the London-Zurich agreements. The Cold War is over yet the British continue their policy of setting one ethnic group off against another.

The Annan Plan is harmful to U.S. efforts to build democratic institutions in Iraq because it tries to rationalize a system based on ethnic separatism with a weak central government. The U.S. has rejected any such solution for Iraq.

The U.S. should in its own best interests be the champion of democratic norms throughout the world, not obvious undemocratic constitutions like the one proposed. The U.S. should support changes in the Annan Plan to make it democratic, workable, financially viable and just.

The Annan Plan would foster division and strife. Secretary-General Annan himself should seek changes in the plan because the interests of the UN are served only if the plan is democratic and viable.

The proposal is undemocratic.

The parliamentary system under the Annan Plan creates a minority veto for the 18% Turkish Cypriot minority. The following key legislative matters among others would be subject to the Turkish Cypriot veto:

1. Adoption of laws concerning taxation, citizenship and immigration;

2. Approval of the budget; and

3. Election of the Presidential Council.


This arrangement is clearly undemocratic, a recipe for stalemate and harmful to all Cypriots.

The minority veto is also present in the Presidential Council which exercises the executive power of the component state. Political paralysis in the exercise of executive power will be the result.


The Annan Plan vetoes exceed the minority vetoes of the London-Zurich 1959-1960 agreements, which vetoes led to the breakdown of the Cyprus constitution.


Is the U.S. prepared to propose the Annan Plan’s minority veto provisions for the 20% Kurdish minority of 15 plus million in Turkey? Is Turkey prepared to give its Kurdish minority rights it seeks for the Turkish Cypriots? What about the Arab minority in Israel, Turks in Bulgaria, Albanians in FYROM, Greeks in Albania and minorities in Africa, Asia and North and South America?

The U.S. position in support of the British maneuvered Annan Plan is, frankly, an embarrassment to our foreign policy. Rather than supporting undemocratic norms, the U.S. should promote with vigor the democratic policy espoused for Cyprus by Vice President George H.W. Bush on July 6, 1988: "We seek for Cyprus a constitutional democracy based on majority rule, the rule of law, and the protection of minority rights; " and by presidential candidate Governor Bill Clinton in 1992: " A Cyprus settlement should be consistent with the fundamental principles of human rights and democratic norms and practices."

The proposal is unworkable.

It is useful to recall that the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research called the 1959-1960 London-Zurich agreements dysfunctional. It predicted the problem areas. The Annan Plan is even more complicated and creates conditions for continuous squabbling, disagreements and deadlock.


A report by the U.S. Department of State Bureau of Intelligence and Research on the London-Zurich agreements concluded "[The Cyprus settlement] also endeavors to codify in detail the position and rights of the two communities instead of relying on constitutional custom as other countries have done in similar situations. There are dangers inherent not only in the comparative rigidity of the structure of the new state but also in the detailed codification of community rights which will tend to perpetuate rather than eliminate the communal cleavages." (BIR Intelligence Report No. 8047, July 14, 1959 p.22). The same criticism and danger applies to and is inherent in the Annan Plan.

The proposal subverts property rights


One of the most pernicious effects of the illegal Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus is that the rightful owners of real property there continue to be excluded from their property by the Turkish military. The Annan Plan proposes a highly complicated, ambiguous and uncertain regime for resolving property issues and is based on the principle that real property owners can ultimately be forced to give up their property rights which would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and international law.

In 1996 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) held in Loizidou v. Turkey that persons who held title under the laws of the Republic of Cyprus to real property in occupied Cyprus were the only rightful owners of that property and that Turkey was responsible for those rightful owners being excluded from their real property. Since that decision, the ECHR has issued three more decisions upholding that decision and Turkey has paid a substantial judgment in Loizidou.

The proposal fails to fully demilitarize Cyprus

There is no need for Turkish or Greek soldiers to remain in Cyprus. The U.S. should insist on full demilitarization now.

The proposal does not provide for the return to Turkey of the 100,000 illegal Turkish settlers in the occupied area.

Central to a proper solution is the return of the 100,000 illegal Turkish settlers to Turkey.

The proposed territorial adjustment is clearly unfair

The two proposed maps—A 28.6% and B 28.5% reward Turkey, the aggressor and penalize the Greek Cypriots, the victims. The Turkish Cypriots comprise 18% of the population and have title to about 14% of the land. A map proposal should provide for no more than 18% under the Turkish Cypriots.

The proposed maps are contrary to the policy enunciated by President George H.W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev in Helsinki on September 9, 1990 when they condemned Iraq’s aggression against Kuwait and declared "that aggression cannot and will not pay."

The U.S. should seek changes in the Annan Plan to reflect U.S. values and interests

The Cold War has been over for more than a decade. Turkey’s March 1, 2003 "no" vote against helping the U.S. did occur and we should not forget it! And Turkey’s attempt to extract more billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars, a veto on U.S. Iraqi Kurdish policy and access to Iraqi oil also occurred! As one senior administration official said, Turkey’s actions are "extortion in the name of alliance."

The U.S. Special Coordinator for Cyprus, Ambassador Tom Weston, should be seeking changes in the Annan Plan to make it democratic, workable, financially viable and just. The U.S. bears the major responsibility for Turkey’s aggression and should now be willing to stand up and hold Turkey accountable for its aggression by calling for:

Turkey’s armed forces and settlers to leave Cyprus now;
Turkey to pay damages for all the destruction and loss of life she caused;
Turkey to pay to all property owner’s the losses they have suffered from Turkey’s occupation of their property since 1974 as Turkey was forced by the Council of Europe to pay Titina Loizidou under threat of expulsion; and
Turkey to pay for the costs of resettlement of the Greek Cypriot refugees.
To achieve a settlement, the U.S. should apply forceful economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Turkey, including sanctions if necessary, to get Turkey to remove its 35,000 armed forces and its 100,000 illegal colonists from Cyprus."
Agios Amvrosios
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:18 am

Postby insan » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:28 am

GREEK PROFESSOR IRAKLIDES SAYS GREEK CYPRIOTS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR CYPRUS ISSUE

Assistant Professor of International Relations Aleksis Iraklides from the Faculty of Political Science and History at the University of Athens stated that while observing the second round of talks between TRNC President Rauf Denktaş and the Greek Cypriot leader Glafcos Clerides, where the issue of missing persons was taken up, relatives of the so-called missing persons were protesting outside the building where the meeting was taking place, and that in Athens there was the impression that in Cyprus there were only Greek Cypriot missing persons. He said that this was not the case because there were also many Turkish Cypriot missing persons who were the victims of the EOKA-B terrorist organization and the Greek Junta. He also added that some of the so-called missing Greek Cypriots were in fact murdered by other (left-wing, Makarios supporters) Greek Cypriots.

Continuing Assistant Professor Iraklides said the reason why the Cyprus State only lasted for three-years before it was abolished is perfectly clear. He said the reason for this was the fatal 13-point plan proposed by Makarios on 13 November 1963, whereby the fate of the neighbouring community (Turkish Cypriots) would depend on the Greek Cypriot majority, who would basically put them (Turkish Cypriots) in the position of a minority.

He also said that the partition of Cyprus was as a result of the start of the bloody events of December 1963 and 1964, which led to the arrival of the UN Peace Keeping Forces to Cyprus, the gathering of most Turkish Cypriots into enclaves, and which also paved the way for all state organs to be in the hands of the Greek Cypriots.

Assistant Professor Iraklides also said that on the issue of the continuation of the inter-communal violence there are two main views; firstly that there was joint responsibility, and that secondly the main responsibility lies with the Greek Cypriots, who were responsible for starting the attacks.

He said that although the first view is generally supported by Hellenes or the friends of Hellenes, the second view is more reliable and even the UN Secretary-General, U Thant, considered this view to be correct.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby insan » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:30 am

On Sunday October 20, 2002 the annual UN Day celebrations took place at the Ledra Palace Hotel in the UN-controlled buffer zone. While thousands of Turkish Cypriots attended only a few hundred Greek Cypriots showed up.

As a volunteer who took part in the event I followed the Greek Cypriot TV news in the evening to see how it was reported. I was amazed at the speaker's interpretation of more Turkish participation. She said they had come for the free food being served. And one Greek Cypriot youngster asked to comment said the same thing. I cannot find words to describe such mastery of distortion in order to hide their own reluctance towards peace and friendship. Apart from reflecting how they look down on Turkish Cypriots, this mentality also shows that they do not share the same feelings for peace and friendship.

What was served was but a sandwich along with a small apple pie.

So how could anyone imagine that Turkish Cypriots are so destitute.

Beraat Mustafaoglu.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby insan » Thu Feb 24, 2005 4:30 am

CYPRUS MAIL October 27, 1995


THE TRUTH IS OUT?


Out with the Truth

So now the truth is out. We are not talking about 300 dead, or 45 dead, but 96 people killed during action in 1974 — and that is only from an initial examination of 487 files out of 1,619 examined at the Attorney General’s office.

Successive governments have a lot to answer to. First, why these people were put on the list of missing people in the first place., and why, now that the truth is out, relatives are not put to rest once and for all on the fate of their loved ones.

News of the existence of dead persons on the list was made public more than a month ago, a fact officially confirmed by President Clerides before his departure for the United States three weeks ago.

And for all this time, 1,619 families have been virtually sitting on hot coals wondering whether one of the numbers bandied about so nonchalantly concerns a person they haven’t seen or heard for 21 years.

Eighteen of the 96 people mentioned are buried in the free areas, with no apparent reason why their relatives should not be informed immediately on their fate. But like so many other things, this will also be bogged down in government red tape, with nobody really knowing whose shoulders the unpleasant task of informing the relatives will fall upon.

The government needs to save its credibility on the matter at all costs.

But how seriously can one take authorities which have been fully aware of the existence of dead people on a list of persons whose fate has been supposedly unknown since 1974?

--------------------------

Holdwater adds: Only 96 people killed!! (Not to minimize the importance of those poor, lost souls... My point is, a hundred people is nothing — in context to the exaggerated numbers killed, presented by lying Greek propaganda all these years.)

And WHO do you think killed them? The TURKS? If that's what you think, travel back up and re-read THIS.

Just like with the Armenian "Genocide." Naturally, the big, bad Turks are blamed for everything the sun shines and doesn't shine on. And yet, who winds up as the guilty, murdering party, when you dig down deep? The people recognized as the VICTIMS.

What an outrage...

Here is a take from a Northern Cypriot editorial counterpart, relating to the article shown here... and shedding further light on the shocking tale:
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]


Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests