Cyprus Mail 17 November 2024
 |
| A Nato meeting in Brussels (Depositphotos.com) • Credits: A Nato meeting in Brussels (Depositphotos.com) |
by Christos Panayiotides
A public declaration of intent is sufficient even if Turkey vetoes the move
I have read with interest the latest book by Chrysostomos Pericleous called “Leaders Inferior to Circumstances”. The book covers the last 20 years of Cyprus’ political history. The author openly criticises Tassos Papadopoulos, Demetris Christofias and Nicos Anastasiades and boldly groups them as being “leaders inferior to circumstances”, in contrast to Mustafa Akinci, who is described as “having risen to the occasion” and “has consistently strived for the reunification of Cyprus”.
The author does not mince his words. He systematically sets out and documents the irresponsible behaviour and the impaired competence of the three presidents of the Republic of Cyprus in the period from 2003 to 2023.
Interestingly, in all three cases, the election of these candidates was attained through ‘unnatural’ alliances. Tassos Papadopoulos was the candidate of the self-proclaimed ‘centrist’, but in reality ‘far-right’ Diko, and was elected with the support of the communist Akel. Demetris Christofias was a candidate of Akel and was elected with the support of Diko. Finally, Nicos Anastasiades was also elected in 2013 and re-elected in 2018 with the support of Diko. The common feature of all three presidents was that during their election campaign they presented themselves as supporters of the reunification of Cyprus, but in the course of their presidential term they revealed themselves as crypto-advocates of partition.
Tassos Papadopoulos initially presented himself as a supporter of the Annan Plan and, in fact, authorised the UN secretary-general to serve as an ‘arbitrator’ for bridging any unresolved issues at the end of the negotiation process. He did this on the basis of his erroneous assessment that the Turkish Cypriots would reject the plan. A few days before the referendum voting date, the Turkish Cypriots’ positive response to the plan forced Papadopoulos to attack it as being totally unacceptable. The plan was approved by the Turkish Cypriots, but was rejected by the Greek Cypriots, resulting in Papadopoulos being accused of deception by senior officials of the European Commission.
The rejection of the Annan Plan by the Greek Cypriots was achieved after Akel’s last-minute turn against the plan following ‘instructions’ from Moscow, which has always sought – and to this day seeks – the partition of Cyprus, in the hope that partition will pave the way for Moscow to set foot on Cyprus (as opposed to its exclusion from Cyprus, in the event of its reunification and its irreversible integration into the Western world). The deception of the Cypriot people by president Christofias took the form of the notorious ‘we vote NO, in order to cement YES’. Naturally, the ‘cementing’ never materialised.
Demetris Christofias had studied in Soviet Russia and his thinking had been influenced by the communist philosophy. As a consequence, he had difficulty to adapt to the conditions that prevailed after the global collapse of communism. His loyalty to Moscow led him to the disastrous and deadly storage at a Cyprus naval base of explosives destined for Syria’s pro-Russian Assad, while the senior bank executives he had appointed to manage the economy of Cyprus sponsored extremely high-risk investments in the hope of generating proportionally high yields. Instead, they led to Cyprus’ bankruptcy.
The chaos that prevailed during the last year of Christofias’ rule led to the election of Nicos Anastasiades, as a champion of the long-awaited reunification of the island. Unfortunately, Anastasiades eventually turned out, like his two predecessors, to be a crypto-partitionist, having gone so far as to propose to Turkey the partition of Cyprus into two separate states. This is a move he subsequently attempted to justify, by describing it as ‘a brainstorming session’! It is true that opinions as to whether Anastasiades was a crypto-partitionist right from the beginning or whether he succumbed to temptations or threats diverge. However, this issue is of secondary importance because what really counts is the end-result.
This brief review of the Cypriot political history of the last 20 years leads us to the crucial question: would Cyprus be serving its own interests by unreservedly joining the Western camp? Greece has made this choice. Cyprus gives the impression that it is still undecided. Statements by left-wing parties, such as ‘Cyprus must maintain friendly relations with all the countries of the world and, in particular, with all the permanent members of the Security Council’, disclose the lack of the necessary courage to take a calculated risk. These seemingly innocent positions suggest that there continues to be an emotional and economic dependence, primarily on Moscow and secondarily on Beijing. Occasionally, we even hear from some objectionists (fortunately few) that Cyprus must demand the ‘abolition’ of the sovereign British bases on the island, because they serve ‘colonialism’.
The unconditional accession of Cyprus to the Western camp will bring benefits for Cyprus, only if the West comes to a firm conclusion that Cyprus is a true ally and will discharge its obligations under an alternative Plan B (if the Turkey-based Plan A proves to be ineffective). For such a Plan B to be of practical value, it must be geographically established in territories and state structures that are independent of the state structures involved in Plan A. For Cyprus, the attainment of the goal of independence is a vital goal that will secure a long-lasting peaceful coexistence within the European Union. However, the attainment of this goal is of equal importance for the countries that will develop and adopt their stand-by auxiliary Plan B.
With this in mind, and given that Cyprus would never consider withdrawing from the European Union, Nato membership is, in my opinion, a one-way street for Cyprus, given that all other EU countries are integrated into Nato or Nato’s antechamber, which is the “Partnership for Peace”. And for those who will hasten to say that the accession of Cyprus to Nato is not feasible because Turkey will veto it, my response is that for the purpose of serving the interests of Cyprus, a public declaration of intent is sufficient, provided that it is supported by the president and the two major political parties of Cyprus.
So, if we want to serve our own interests and not foreign ones, let us hasten to officially declare our desire to join Nato or the “Partnership for Peace”, because, otherwise, it is certain that we will be left out in the cold, as has happened many times in the past.
Christos P Panayiotides is a Certified Public Accountant, writer and political columnist
