Posted on 05/02/2004 3:47:20 AM PDT by Doctor13
Unlike many media reports of the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan plan, Andrew Borowiec of The Washington Times gives an impartial report in his "Greek Cypriots Dash Confederation Plan" of 23 April. However, it is very important to delve further into some of the reasons why the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan.
Just as the Greeks said "NO," (OXI) to Mussolini's ultimatum for Greece to surrender on 28 October 1940, over 75% of Greek Cypriots also said "NO," on 24 April 2004, to the EU reunification plan brokered by Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general. They knew a bad deal when they saw it.
Gregory Copley, Editor of The Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily," writes, "The essence of the current dilemma is that the 'modified Annan plan' is unworkable, but that an attempt is being made to force it on the Greek Cypriots, in part because the prestige of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan is at stake at a time when he is being assailed by major corruption scandals." Copley correctly predicted, "The Turkish-occupied sector of Cyprus — even including Anatolian Turkish settlers brought illegally into the country by the occupying Turkish forces — seemed set to overwhelmingly vote in favor of the plan, which would essentially legitimize the 1974 Turkish military invasion of Cyprus and give disproportionate rights to the Turkish minority while also allowing the illegal immigrants the right to stay in Cyprus, essentially as European Union (EU) citizens after the May 1, 2004, accession of Cyprus to the EU."
In 1974, Turkish troops invaded Cyprus on the pretext of protecting the 19% Turkish minority. As a result, the Turkish minority today occupies over 39% of the island, and 30,000 Turkish troops remain, not to mention an unknown number who have shed their uniforms and become Cypriot citizens. The Annan plan offers no provision for Turkish troops to return to the mainland.
The Turkish invasion of the island resulted in mass displacement, deaths and the disappearances among the Greek Cypriots. Some 200,000 Greek Cypriots were forced from their homes, and more than 1,600 civilians are still missing and presumed dead, including five Americans. On September 22, 1996, Brian James wrote in Night & Day, a British publication, "Their homes are plundered, their children banished. The Christian Greeks of north Cyprus live in fear of the Muslim Turks. And they blame the British for abandoning them."
Theodoros Karakostas, founder of The Byzantine Cultural Project wrote, "The outcome of events in Cyprus will have repercussions for Greece. If Cyprus is undermined in its efforts to enter the European Union by being forced to accept the Annan Plan, a further loss of Hellenic soil will occur. If this happens, Washington can only be emboldened in its efforts to impose a settlement of Greek-Turkish issues by imposing insurmountable pressure on Athens to capitulate to Ankara not only in the Aegean and Thrace, but on all future claims made by Turkish Generals to Greek territory."
We Americans take our democracy seriously, in having the freedom to vote for whomever we wish and for whatever issue we feel is in our best interests. This is what the Greek Cypriots did. Yet undemocratically, even before the overwhelming vote by Greek Cypriots to reject a plan which they believe to be corrupt, they were faced with threats of retribution, as reported in The Financial Times article titled, "Greek Cypriots could face EU wrath," which stated that "Greek Cypriots face swift retribution by European Union member states if they vote against a plan for reunification of the divided island in Saturday's historic referendum." There has even been talk of ostracizing Cypriot Greeks for voting their conscience. The demonizing of Greek Cypriots has begun. In other words, "You either vote the way we want you to vote, or you pay the price." Before they know it, Greek Cypriots can expect to be accused of harboring weapons of mass destruction.
The Financial Times of 23 April further reported, "Although many European politicians have warned Greek Cypriots that they risk joining the EU under a cloud of hostility and disappointment, it had so far been unclear what price they would have to pay and when. But on Friday, several diplomats said that an initial response would be a veto by Britain and possibly several other EU countries, of legislation that determines the status of the line that separates the two sections of the island. The law, known as the line regulation, serves to support the Greek Cypriot claim that the line is not a real border - a view that is central to the political beliefs of Greek Cypriots. Without this legislation, the line would become an external EU border. This would undermine the Greek Cypriots' pretension that they represent the entire island. If the line regulation were replaced by another piece of legislation, it would be certain to be more favourable to the Turkish Cypriots, particularly in matters of trade. British diplomats told their EU counterparts in meetings this week that any rejection by the Greek Cypriots should not punish the Turkish Cypriots. The line regulation should therefore be replaced with rules that would boost economic prospects for the northern territory. In particular, UK officials want to ease the flow of Turkish Cypriot goods into the EU."
And that is what the Annan plan is all about. Rejection by the Greek Cypriots is punishable by economic sanctions and isolation. Because of the West's past pro-Turkish bias, there is no doubt that the Annan plan is but another pro-Turkish attempt to favor the Turks. Reuters reported on 25 April, "Turkey Exults in Greek Cypriots Discomfort. . . Turkey proclaimed its biggest diplomatic victory in 50 years Sunday after Turkish northern Cyprus voted for a U.N-backed reunification plan and Greek Cypriots reaped international criticism by rejecting it. EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Veheugen said the result meant Greek Cyprus would enter the bloc under a 'shadow' on May 1."
One of the accusations that is now being hurled against the Greek Cypriots is "Nationalism!" Yet when Americans displayed thousands of American flags after 9/11 throughout the country, was this not "Nationalism?" Why then is it okay for Americans to be nationalists but condemn others, such as Greek Cypriots? Ask the Serbs. Accused of Nationalism, the Serbian people have literally been left without a country and isolated from the rest of the world.
The Greek Cypriot president, Tassos Papadopoulos, is to be congratulated for bravely standing up against all odds in the interests of his Greek Cypriot people. Unfortunately, the Greek government in Athens basically caved into demands made by U.S. and Britain for the Greek Cypriots to accept a plan that would favor the Turks, i.e., legitimize the 1974 invasion of the island, bottom line.
Pressure applied on Greek Cypriots by the EU, the Bush Administration and British parliament into accepting the Annan plan is not democracy at work, it is arm twisting at its worst. It is the mighty against the weak.
The Muslims are indeed moving on a global scale.
It's a spiritual war, folks ... and the attempts to remove God from the American consciousness is just a part of the overall plan.
Keep me posted, doc13
He's their buddy, and they asked him to help. (BARF but true)
It happened at the height of the Cold War.
Turkey was a key player in NATO. US missile bases in Turkey were pivotal in containing the Soviet Union.
Just my opinion, but I would suspect that it was thought that if any pressure were put on Turkey they might change sides.
From,
http://argument.independent.co.uk/letters/story.jsp?story=517605
Cyprus, Iraq and others
03 May 2004
Diplomatic response to Cyprus vote has been disappointing
Sir: As a former mediating officer in Cyprus, may I comment on your
coverage of the referenda in the island? You report on diplomatic fury
at the Greek Cypriots. Nowhere do you suggest that, as I believe to be
the case, it is the international community that has again failed Cyprus
and that rejection stemmed from flaws in the final version of the Annan
Plan ("Annan 5").
Sadly the plan stemmed from a top-down approach and sought for a
compromise with extreme Turkish military sentiment, rather than to build
on the social consensus that does exist and on UN and EU principles. The
timing imposed by EU-accession also proved unworkable, leaving no margin
for final consideration and amendment. And the pre-voting pressures
applied by the US and UK, whose policies during the Cold War were a
principal cause of communal separation, were clearly counterproductive.
Those known to me who worked most strongly for communal reconciliation
felt betrayed by Annan 5, believed that it would ultimately perpetuate
division and with great reluctance voted against it. And, in contrast to
his current demonisation, Tassos Papadopoulos is a pragmatist who was
the leading proponent of communal reintegration under Makarios and who
always has been committed to Turkish Cypriot rights. His stand has
consistently been against the improper meddling in Cypriot affairs of
the Turkish army and other foreigners.
The knee-jerk reaction to the vote so far displayed by EU and US
diplomats is discouraging. They should remember that it was the Turkish
invasion that dismembered Cyprus and the then failure of the
international community to secure the departure of the Turkish army that
created the problem with which they are now faced. They would do well to
analyse why Annan 5 was rejected and see how a positive way forward can
be facilitated.
MARTIN PACKARD
Banbury, Oxfordshire
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.