Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

The Cyprus Government was invited to attent and air its views. In fact, two prominent members of the government were on the speakers' list, Chrysostomides and Karoyan. Papadopoulos, then, had second thought and ordered them to withdraw. You win no prizes for guessing why!

[brother]

So where are we going with this all bananiot.

[Bananiot]

I am very pessimistic about the future of Cyprus brother. I think the GC leadership is pondering with the idea of a velvet partition, so to speak. It is a disaster for all of us that have invested so much hope of a common future in a bicommunal, bizonal, federal Cyprus. Once again we have been defeated by a bunch of no good, outdated nationalists who care only for clean solutions and of course want to safeguard their own interests, political and financial.

[brother]

I still believe in the power of the people and that they will see through them and halt this abnormal solution coming to life, but i have always been an optimistic person.

[brother]

Top officials all spurned invites
By Jean Christou


Government blasts conference ‘secrecy’ but refused chance to attend

DOZENS of high-raking government officials and politicians were invited to the controversial closed-door Wilton Park conference on the Cyprus issue, but they almost all declined to attend, the Cyprus Mail learned yesterday.

Government Spokesman Kypros Chyrsostomides was listed as one of the original speakers at the three-day conference, which got under way on Tuesday, as was Marios Karoyan, the director of the Presidential press office.

Chrysostomides was to talk on how workable the constitutional provisions of the Annan plan were, and Karoyan was to speak on the thorny issue of Turkish settlers.

Chrysostomides told the Cyprus Mail yesterday the reason he had turned down the invitation to speak was because he did not have time.

He said the only issue that concerned the government was why the conference was being held behind closed doors.

“We thought that a seminar like that should be for the benefit of the people,” he said. “We don’t even know who is there,” he added, despite the list of participants having been sent to all those invited, and despite the attendance of a Foreign Ministry and a PIO official at the conference.
“I have not seen the list of participants,” Chrysostomides insisted.

Others who were invited but declined to attend were senior Foreign Ministry officials and its permanent secretary, as well as politicians such as EDEK leader Yiannakis Omirou and DIKO leader Nicos Cleanthous.

The only Greek Cypriot politician who addressed the gathering during Tuesday’s session was AKEL spokesman Andros Kyprianou, and the only government representatives were people who attended to take notes. Organisers were not given any particular reason by those who declined, except that they were unavailable.

Most of those who attended were people from the ‘yes’ camp, although the organisers wanted all views across the political spectrum to be aired.

Around 140 participants from the two Cypriot communities, along with British and other foreign participants, are taking part in the conference, which is being held under the Chatham House Rule. This means the content of speeches and addresses are off the record unless the particular speaker deems otherwise.

However, a full report of conclusions from the conference will be published, but not attributable to any of the individuals who spoke.

Wilton Park, which is affiliated to the British Foreign Office, is one of the world’s leading centres for discussion of international issues and has a track record of provoking frank and productive discussion by operating on an off-the-record basis. This is the first time the conference is being held in Cyprus.

President Papadopoulos added to the controversy on Tuesday night when he returned from an official visit to Hungary, questioning why the conference was taking place behind closed doors.
“Cyprus is a democracy, they organised their seminar according to how they think it can better serve their purposes,” he said, adding that anyone could reach their own conclusions on what was going on.
“Do they want to say secretly want they want to say? Research centres are supposed to want to enlighten and inform people,” he said.

“If this conference is an effort to persuade more people that the Annan plan can or should return in a second referendum, if this is the main topic of the conference, well then I think you know better than me.”

Omirou, who was one of those invited but who declined to attend, said Cyprus was a democracy and the British were entitled to organise any lectures or seminars they wished.

”Beyond that we send a message that if the objective of this seminar is to bring back the Annan plan, then this is a grave error,” he said.

Omirou said the 76 per cent ‘no’ verdict of the Greek Cypriots in the referendum should be respected.

“Unfortunately Britain supports opinions and it adopts policies that collide with the interests of the Cypriot population,” he added.

“Britain has biggest responsibility for the national tragedy of 1974. As a guarantor power it should have acted to prevent Turkish plans. It acts in a way that amounts to undermining the sovereignty and international standing of the Cyprus Republic.”

[Saint Jimmy]

HAIL TO THE CHIEF! He's back!

Hi, Alex

All right enough greetings, let's have it...

[insan]

Yeah! Tell us what's new, Alexandros. Personally I don't want to hear the usual part of the story.

Welcome back!

[insan]

Alexandros has gone

does that mean there is nothing new

[Saint Jimmy]

Alexandros has gone

does that mean there is nothing new

No it means we're going to have to wait another couple of decades until he reads every thread in here, till he gets to the top one, to respond

[Alexandros Lordos]

Hi everyone!

I am sure you are all dying to find out what went on at the conference ...

However, I am not home yet, and am working from my laptop on a dial-up connection, so I will just give you a brief summary here.

Firstly, I have to say that there were lots and lots of people there, dozens of key diplomats from various European Countries, various top academics, many Turkish Cypriots, and somewhat fewer Greek Cypriots.

The first day got off to a bad footing, with Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot representatives speaking at cross-purposes, one GC trashing the Annan Plan altogether and one TC spending twenty minutes to insist on direct trade, instead of talking about a comprehensive settlement. So after this session, everyone was feeling dejected and depressed.

In the afternoon, I got to talk along with my Turkish Cypriot colleague with which we prepared the Survey (I am not supposed to mention names here). The conclusion of my presentation was that a revised Plan could get as much as 65-70% "Yes" from each community, and that it would not just be a case of "making it better for the Greek Cypriots" but that the Turkish Cypriots had valid concerns also (e.g about economic convergence and about the effective social integration of the two communities), and that these could also be addressed in a future Plan - thus making it more attractive for everyone involved.

Everyone found my presentation very interesting, some said it gave them hope for the future - that the problem could indeed be solved - and various ambassadors were asking that I send them copies of my full report. So in that sense, mission accomplished!

I think the most important result of the conference (and this came not just from my presentation but also from the presentations of others as well) was that the participants became convinced that the Annan Plan does in fact need substantial revising if it is to become acceptable to the Greek Cypriots.

On the matter of Security, it was generally acknowledged by everyone (with the notable exception of Lord Hanney, who spoke "on the record" so I am free to mention him) that the Treaty of Guarantee is out of date, and that a new Security System involving the European Union would be the way ahead - and that Turkey would likely not have a problem with that, once she too was a member of the EU.

On the matter of property rights, it was acknowledged that the relevant clauses in the Annan Plan were very complicated, unfair to Greek Cypriots and perhaps unworkable financially. If one thing will change from now on because of the conference, it is that foreigners will no longer be saying "we have to satisfy Greek Cypriot concerns in Security" but rather "we have to satisfy Greek Cypriot concerns in Security and Property"

On the issue of settlers, a consensus was reached between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots on the number of the settlers - 60,000 "with citizenship", 100,000 "including illegal workers". This agreement on facts was seen as a breakthrough. Ohe helpful suggestion that will probably be taken up, was that the European Commission should conduct a census of persons and properties in the north, to prepare the ground for a comprehensive settlement but also for the application of the "acquis communitaire" in the north.

From a Turkish Cypriot point of view the most important theme was "how to achieve economic convergence with the south" , ie how to raise standard of living in the north to the same level as the south. Many suggestions both for pre-settlement and for post-settlement measures were made, the most notable being to encourage bicommunal business ventures.

The conference ended on a good note, all the conclusions were summarised in a final speech, and we went on our ways ...

There was a lot more that went on but this is what I can remember now. Feel free to ask me about anything I might have forgotten.

By the way, my report is now complete - however I do not have the software to upload it from my laptop. When I go home tomorrow I will put it up on my download page, as well as the PowerPoint presentation that I made at the conference.

Have a very good night everyone!