Oh my god, Annan

Turks and Greeks on Cyprus have continually failed to reach an accord to solve the issue since 1968. In the past, after a war, the victor made the vanquished side accept everything it wanted and then everything was solved. In modern times, wars ended before one side emerged as the clear victor. The losing side tries to regain its losses through negotiations. Sympathy of the international community are usually with the weaker side. No one remembers why the conflict started in the first place. Statements like, "Times have changed. The old regretful mistakes won’t be repeated," can be heard and disagreements continue.

Under these conditions, the U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan thinks that he has no other option other than forcing the sides to accept an agreement. If you think along these lines, you can even accept his arguments. However, there are certain standards accepted in solving international conflicts. These cannot be amended by making judgment calls. The proper and more realistic method would be to try to find a solution by using these tested international conflict resolution methods.

In other words, to ignore amendment proposals just before they run counter to the Annan plan’s fundamentals, to personally fill in the issues where both sides are in disagreement, to formulate a set timetable for negotiations and to put the final document to a referendum even before either side signs it, contrary to what he believes, will only make it harder to reach an agreement. Both sides will find it hard to make their people accept this "agreed" document that was produced using this strange method. It is likely that an agreement produced in such a way will be rejected by the Cypriots. To have negotiated until the end is very important to show that everything was done in order to protect national interests.

"Political will" loses its meaning in the context of Annan’s preconditions. Political will means to start negotiations with the aim of producing a solution. Constant give and take during negotiations, produce the need to formulate new balances. There can be no negotiations without amending the fundamental principles of the plan. Moreover, if it is Annan who will have the last say, the sides will try to convince him, instead of each other. Handing Annan a blank check without knowing what he will do is more resignation than political will.

In this context, tactics also lose their meaning. Being seen as accommodating and flexible at the beginning and during the negotiations will bring many advantages. However, at the point of decision, there is no need to be seen as accommodating. The most important thing then is whether you will accept the agreement or not. Can you accept a lousy agreement, just because you fear being perceived as inflexible? Greek Cypriot leaders, who think that being perceived as extremely accommodating and deceiving the international community and its own people, as an advantage, may have been seen as flexible on March 10, 2003, but they are showing their true faces now.

Annan cannot violate the sixth section of the U.N. law on conflict resolution. Annan’s preconditions in the U.N. Cyprus report’s 148th paragraph violate the law and the U.N. Security Council resolution 1250, describing the U.N. secretary-general’s good-will mission. Additionally, he is the head of the organization whose peacekeepers just sat and watched as Turkish Cypriots were being crushed between 1963 and 1974. He should formulate his attitude under the light of this fact and approach the issue more modestly. He should also make us forget that he is the author of the disrespectful report attached to resolution 1475.

Actually, Annan had two options available to him. If he wants a solution by May 1, he will narrow down the plan and negotiate the document in full. If not, he will ignore his time table, and try to ensure the plan is negotiated in its entirety before December 2004.

If he insists on both sides accepting his preconditions, he will be responsible for the end of the negotiations. And then no one else but those liberals, who dismiss country’s interests as nationalism, but when faced with international pressure are first to bow, would feel sorry about that.