Cyprus Dispute

Loucas Charalambous´Commentary

on a historical Mistake

Intro by Ralph Kratzer

Anyone who looks at the recent history of the divided island of Cyprus remembers the referendum on the Annan Plan which was held in the Republic of Cyprus [South Cyprus] and the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus on 24th April 2004. The two communities were asked whether they approved the fifth revision of the United Nations proposal for reuniting the island, which had been divided since 1974.

The question put to the electorate of the two communities was:

Do you approve the Foundation Agreement with all its Annexes, as well as the constitution of the Greek Cypriot/Turkish Cypriot State and the provisions as to the laws to be in force, to bring into being a new state of affairs in which Cyprus joins the European Union united?

While it was approved by 65% of Turkish Cypriots, it was rejected by 76% of Greek Cypriots.

Nevertheless, South Cyprus then became an EU Member State, while Northern Cyprus (TRNC) is still not recognized as a state by the world community and remains punished with embargoes.

Here comes a comment, written by my favourite author Loucas Charalambous for Cyprus Mail, about the utterances of Greek Cypriot opposition politicians regarding the currently held reunification negotiations.

The questions Papadopoulos

should be ashamed to ask

By Loucas Charalambous

I HAVE written on countless occasions that this country [South Cyprus] is an open political lunatic asylum. A day does not go by without statements by our political clowns (they do not only have them in Athens) to remind us of this.

The leader of the Citizens’ Alliance Giorgos Lillikas on August 27 urged the government and DISY chief Averof Neophytou “to start thinking about the deconstruction of the image of sainthood they had created for Mr Akinci [TRNC president]”. I have met Akinci personally and heard him talk on many occasions. He is a serious man and Lillikas is not fit to lace his shoes. Next to him, he is a midget.

N. Papadopoulos

Another prominent member of our political circus, Nicolas Papadopoulos speaking on Sigma TV on August 31, made a different demand. “It would be useful for the president of the republic, DISY and AKEL, all those who accepted the exemptions, [to say] how many Famagustans would return,” he said.

A few days earlier, on August 26, addressing the annual jamboree of the overseas Cypriots, he posed more questions: “Have we seen a map of the territories that would be returned? Has Turkey agreed to the departure of the settlers? Has it agreed to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops?”

This smart-ass nonsense reveals the incredible political nerve of Papadopoulos. He can accuse Anastasiades of many things, but not for stuff that he and his fellow travellers are guilty of. He should be ashamed to ask today how many Famagustans would return to their town. If his father [Tassos Papadopoulos], Demetris Christofias and Lillikas had backed the settlement of 2004, Famagustans would have returned 11 years ago (4/8/2004) to the fenced area and nine years ago (24/10/2006) to rest of the town.

But if there is a settlement tomorrow none of the Famagustans who passed away in the last 11 years would return. This is the achievement of his father, Christofias and their accomplices in the ‘no’ camp. He should therefore not seek from Anastasiades answers to questions he should have asked his late father.

Divided CyprusAnd, of course, we have seen the 2004 map of the territories that would have been returned and enabled their residents to return, if Papadopoulos senior and his accomplices had not killed the settlement back then and cemented partition. Instead of feeling utter shame over the political crime of his father, Christofias and Lillikas, he has the temerity to attack Anastasiades who had supported the settlement and the return of territories.

What can one say to the rest of his idiotic question? Where was Nicolas when Turkey agreed in 2004 to the withdrawal of the troops and only 41,000 settlers remaining? Now, thanks to his father, Christofias and Lillikas, 160,000 settlers would remain. Quadrupling the number of Turkish settlers that stay put after a settlement is their achievement.

Stupidly, he also asks, with insufferable arrogance, whether Turkey “agreed to the withdrawal of the Turkish troops”. Of course Turkey agreed and if his father and Christofias had not taken a stand in favour of perpetuating partition in 2004, today there would only be 3,000 Turkish soldiers instead of 40,000. From 2018 there would only have been 650 Turkish soldiers together with 950 Greeks. But his father, Christofias and Lillikas did not allow them to leave. They voted for them to stay, as we were told by Ahmet Davutoglou who was mocking our stupidity.

Papadopoulos, Lillikas and their accomplices who, by their stance in 2004, prevented Famagustans and tens of thousands of others from returning, allowed the quadrupling of Turkish settlers and blocked the withdrawal of the occupation troops, would do well to show a little restraint, instead of brazenly accusing Anastasiades for their own outrageous political crimes.

It is not Akinci’s image that is in need of deconstruction. The deconstruction that is desperately needed is the deconstruction of political charlatanism, political dishonesty, political audacity and impudence that reign supreme in our political loony bin.

Source: Cyprus Mail