Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
They did negotiate in good faith. It was Annan who didn't negotiate in good faith. Annan knew from Annan Plan 3 that the Greek Cypriots were very willing to concede the rights vouchsafed to them by the Aquis. The Acquis Communitaire also contains a bill of rights. The Greek cypriots willingly conceded to forego many of the rights therein. When the two sides didn't come to an agreement after negotiations in Annan 5, Annan took it upon himself to alter the document, and he largely wiped out many of the Turkish concessions. I'll ask you: do you know which Turkish concessions were wiped out in Annan 5? Why did Annan do this?

I have no idea how you can argue that Cyprus' accession to the EU is null and void. That just boggles the mind. They are in. Surely you know that accession for the entire 10 new EU countries would have been VETO'd entirely had Cyprus not joined. The argument goes like this: why should a democratic European country be punished from acceding to the EU just because a foreign army has invaded it? That's a pretty compelling argument, especially when you consider that Cyprus has a strong economy and is a NET contributor to the EU.

No one is in favor of the UN pulling out. The Greek Cypriots are in favor of a plan that looks more like Annan 3 (which contains both Turkish and Greek Cypriot concessions) as opposed to Annan 5 (which contains mainly Greek concessions).

As for the British leaving Cyprus, oh how I wish that were true. But it will not happen under any circumstances, unfortunately. You see, they have military bases there, and really that's what the conflict is all about. The Western powers do not want to give up this unsinkable battleship, and they have maintained sovereignty over the island by artificially dividing the Cypriots on it. Divide and Conquer so they can keep their bases. Hitchens' Cyprus book makes this argument pretty clear.

As for your last line, can you be more clear? I have no idea what you're getting at. Can you be more specific?

by Upstate NY on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 05:09:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Actually in Cyprus the British ARE the UN in terms of patrollingthe Green Line. It would in fact be entiely possible for them to withdraw to the bases and let the two sides get on with it. The bases there have very little stategic importance but do make considerable contributions to the Cypriot economy both directly and by  increasing tourism.

The problem with the aquis compliance is the question of the rights of the northern Cypriots who do not have right of abode in the south. As you rightly state, in international law northern Cyprus has no legal status and therefore the citixens are EU citixens (although arguably the Turkish immigrants since the invasion and their children do not have this status). As full compliance with the aquis is required before admission, the Cypriot government have breached those terms and therefore they have breached treaty requirements.

The Greek Cypriot government most certainly were obstructive in the negotiations which is why the final compromise was not to their liking. As you seem to have bought in entirely to their propoganda on this, it is probably unproductive to argue the toss on this point much further.  

YOu make the point that the referendum result in the south should be respected. The same could well be said of the north which voted for the agreement. There are huge outstanding problems of residence and property rights than need to be resolved. The northern population had reservations about the the final outcome and  how it would work in practice. They were willing to put aside their worries and take what was a real risk. The south, as you indicate, quibbled and wanted  every i dotted and t crossed in the agreement when these could have been resolved after a yes vote.    

by Londonbear on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 08:58:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We have to disagree on the strategic importance of the bases. I would point you to the Downing Street Memos, which in 2002 underlined the importance of the bases. The invasion of Iraq pinpointed Cyprus as one of the two most important bases for its execution. Many military commentators have oft-cited Cyprus' military strategic benefits for its proximity to the Middle East (a stone's throw away).

You are mistaken about the Annan plan. I suggest you look up the terms. It's the Greek Cypriots who would absolutely love full compliance with the Acquis Communitaire. If the EU and UN would grant them that, they would have signed on 40 years ago. In fact, the Greek Cypriots agreed to much less than the rights granted to all other EU members, when they accepted less property rights and restrictions on freedom of movement and work privileges in Annan 3. Annan 5 went much further in violating the Acquis Communitaire, and for that reason it was rejected.

In point of fact, the property controversy in Cyprus mainly addresses the loss of Greek Cypriot property in the North after the Greeks were removed from the north by the Turkish Army in 1974. See the Loizidou case in the European court of Human Rights which ruled in favor of a private citizen regaining her property rights. For its part, the Cypriot gov't has stated that Turkish Cypriots can regain their properties in the south upon unification. This is part of the Annan plan. They can move south. That same right is not given to 50% of the Greek Cypriots who own land in the North. Only 50% will be reimbursed and/or retain the property rights.

I'm afraid you have the positions of the North and South exactly reversed.

Can you be specific about the compromises that you are referring to in Annan 5? Let's cut to the chase and talk about specifics. You say the Greek Cypriots did not like the final compromise. What did Turkey compromise on? What was not to the Greek's liking?

Your last paragraph is a good one. Since the actual Annan 5 agreement violated the Acquis Communitaire, no one actually knows how much of it would have stood the test of time, given the legal ramifications of joining the EU. It could be the Greek Cypriot side erred, and that had they accepted it, the Annan 5 plan would have been null and void regardless. However, it's clear the Greek Cypriots were not very willing to take that risk. If I lived on the island, I'm not sure I would have. Even clearer, given last week's referendums in France and Holland, there is no longer any guarantee that Turkey is bound to join the EU, and thus the requirement for Turkey to ascribe to EU laws isn't a strong stick either. They might have insisted on the Anti-EU provisions of Annan 5 regardless. Obviously, Turkey, if it were to remain a non-EU entity, would not have to attend to EU laws.

by Upstate NY on Wed Jun 15th, 2005 at 10:16:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series