Book Presentation of the book of Tim Potier

“A Functional Cyprus Settlement: The Constitutional Dimension”

Peleus

Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns

Band 38

Verlag Fanz Philipp Rutzen

(2007, pp. 764)

By Andreas Theophanous

Director General of the Research Center - Intercollege

Thursday, 5 July 2007

It is with great pleasure that I welcome you all to the launch of Tim Potier’s new book entitled “A Functional Cyprus Settlement: The Constitutional Dimension”. The book which addresses the Annan plan in several dimensions, consists of 764 pages and of 16 chapters but perhaps due to the subject’s peculiarities the bibliography is quite limited. It should be noted that the author was a strong supporter of the Annan Plan at the time of its submission and had the view that it was the only vehicle for the reunification of Cyprus.

In the course of time the author acknowledged that the Plan was indeed problematic. To that effect he has spent much time to study what possible changes could be made to the Annan Plan V in order to make it functional and acceptable to both sides. In doing this, I am afraid Tim Potier has ignored several politicians and foreign diplomats who have repeatedly indicated that the Plan belongs to the past. On the other hand, several analysts suggest that this conception is possibly an exaggeration. Inevitably, ideas, non papers and more so official plans remain on the table in one form or another. However, and this will not surprise you, I personally do not think that the fundamental pillars of this Plan can be used for the reunification of Cyprus. After all, Greek Cypriots rejected it overwhelmingly; they did not reject particular aspects of it but its underlying philosophy.

Let me share my thoughts on a few but fundamental issues. For the vast majority of Greek Cypriots any solution should take place within the framework of the Republic of Cyprus. Although Turkish Cypriots would have prefered that a new partnership should involve a new state, I think that there is deep down an understanding that especially after the accession of the Republic of Cyprus in the EU, trying to work a solution outside the framework of the Republic of Cyprus would not find many Greek Cypriots willing to cooperate. The Republic of Cyprus achieved accession to the EU, and now accession to the Eurozone. It has also been the vehicle toward sustained progress, economic growth and development, prosperity, democratization, stability and relative security.

I am confident that this state as a member of the European Union could be a source of identity to the Turkish Cypriot community as well; after all it is their country too. Ironically, in an era of multiple identities, Turkish Cypriots can maintain their distinct cultural identity only within the framework of the Republic of Cyprus.

And despite the harsh political realities Turkish Cypriots continue to apply for official documents, including passports, issued by the Republic of Cyprus. And various channels of communication and cooperation have already been established.

I strongly believe that the complications arise from Turkey’s refusal to recognize the right of the Republic of Cyprus to exist. The constitutional structure that Turkey prefers is similar to the one put forward in the Annan Plan. But that has been rejected. There are other issues too. The Republic of Cyprus is a member of the EU and of the UN. No state can accept to dissove itself for something ambiguous and volatile as the Annan Plan.

Just as problematic is the anachronistic provision regarding the clause for guarantor powers. Indeed the guarantor powers were part of the problem and they cannot be part of the solution. The Republic of Cyprus would prefer to have equitable relations with Britain, Greece and Turkey. But it does not wish to see the clauses of guarantor powers perpetuated.

Let me come back to the book. The author indicates that there are two major tasks: (1) First, to “identify the countless errors, gaps and inconsistencies in the current Plan”. I am particularly pleased by the author’s acknowledgement of this need. And I am sure that after the completion of this work he has a better understanding why Greek Cypriots rejected it overwhelmingly. (2) The second objective of the author is “to present a compromise acceptable to the two sides”.

I fully appreciate the noble ambition of Tim Potier to contribute toward a peaceful and viable solution. But I have very serious doubts whether the philosophy adopted in the book is the one which the majority of Cypriots would feel comfortable with.

In that respect allow me to say the following: If I were a Turkish Cypriot I would have voted Yes on April 24, 2004 given that the proposed Plan satisfied almost all major Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot concerns. But I would have been concerned about its viability given that the Greek Cypriots viewed it as a diktat. That is why the Greek Cypriots voted No. And this was not because of a Greek-Cypriot nationalism and/or maximalism.

For the majority of the Greek Cypriots who rejected the Plan in 2004, our perception was that the implementation of the Plan would have left us in a worse position than we were. And this entailed among other issues a state of uncertainty. The author makes a serious effort to improve on the Plan’s shortcomings. Certainly this is appreciated. However, I do not think that the changes that the author suggests lead to a change of the philosophy of the Plan.

Be that as it may, I am very pleased that the Research Center is hosting this event this evening. To the extent that this book brings together for its discussion two distinguished Cypriots – Mrs Emine Erk and Mr Kypros Chrysostomides, whichever way you look at it, this is a step in the right direction. At the end of the day it is Cypriots themselves who have to work together for a common vision.

Research & Development Center - Intercollege