Is there any use in discussion the Annan Plan?

Is there any use in discussion the Annan Plan?

Sabahattin ISMAIL (Basyazi)

Up until now, the UN, US and EU representatives have been saying that the Annan Plan was a finely balanced document and that its balance would be upset if one touched its basic points. “Besides, that invites demands for changes from the other side”, they would say and would add, “So, it is better to take it as it is or leave it altogether.” In the face of the resistance put up by the Turkish Cypriot people, these very same people have now begun to say, “Signing is not so important. The main thing is to start negotiating. You can later have it put to a referendum and let the people decide.”

Mr. Tayyip Erdogan, who until recently used to say that “Guzelyurt and Karpaz can not be returned, that in Cyprus there are two states, two people two republics, that the Turko-Greek balance of power should be preserved has changed his tune. Erdogan used to say that these elements are no where to be found in the Annan plan despite the fact that Annan had told him that they were included. Erdogan use to say that Annan mislead him now says that “Denktash should take the Annan Plan seriously. He adds: “It is wrong to reject it completely… Denktash should discuss the plan. We have reservations about the five points of the Plan. The Plan should be changed according to these reservations”.

Perhaps, Prime Minister Erdogan is under pressure or thereat of blackmail from the US or the EU when he says they ought to negotiate and try to change the five points they have reservations on.
Well, is there any use in negotiating the Annan Plan? Would it be possible to change the plan? First of all, there is the War Security Council Resolution about the matter saying that the essentials can not be changed. So what is needed is a new Security Council Resolution stating that the Plan could be discussed and changed, including the spirit and the philosophy of the Plan.
Because, the philosophy of the Plan is wrong. The TRNC, in the Plan, is nowhere to be seen. Neither is our sovereign existence nor the reality of our existence as a people. Our right to self-determination or bi-zonality, or the Turko-Greek balance of power is not in the Plan. However, on the other hand, the separation of Cyprus from Turkey is there, the likelihood of the Turkish Cypriots fourth displacement or the return of a hundred thousand Greek Cypriots to the Turkish area is there together with a multinational security force. The melting away of our people in an EU without Turkey, their dispossession and the ultimate disappearance of the Turkish existence from Cyprus, and the end of an independent and sovereign TRNC are all in the Plan. What is the use of discussing the details of a plan whose basic philosophy is this? Wouldn’t such a discussion be nothing but a mere waste of time? And for what? Simply to be branded as “uncompromising” and to find oneself under pressure for new negotiation dates under new put up meetings!
For this reason if a new plan is to be negotiated such a plan should clearly provide for two equal states, two equal peoples, two equal republics, two equal rights for self determination, two zones whose boundaries should be clearly defined where the property matters will be steeled by means of compensation and that the Turkish Cypriot people should not have to emigrate once again. The Plan should also provide for a Turko-Greek power balance and that Turkey’s membership to the EU should take place at the same time as the membership of Cyprus.

There is no need to discuss any plan that doesn’t include the vital points mentioned above. Even if discussions take place on it nothing can come out of them. There is no point in negotiating for the sake of negotiation. Despite all these to insist on saying that “you should negotiate” is nothing but to invite further pressures and find oneself being branders as “uncompromising”. That is a great danger to our internal peace