Western Meddling in Cyprus: Unwanted Interventionism, Ominous Implications

Kofi Annan's plan for the re-unification of Cyprus is being billed as the decisive moment in this divided island's modern history. On Saturday, Greek and Turkish Cypriots will vote on the plan, deemed "fair and balanced" by Washington and a "unique and historic opportunity" by the honorary EU head, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern. Numerous apologetic media outlets have repeatedly referred to the allegedly "historic" nature of the moment (as if history weren't being made every minute). Yet the real concern is that the Annan Plan might make history out of peace itself.

According to the BBC, the plan has the backing of around 60 percent of the Turkish Cypriot population, besides the Turkish government in Ankara. However, over 70 percent of the Greek Cypriot majority are opposed, as are their political leaders. The demise of Greece's PASOK Socialist-led government in March has also eliminated support from Athens. Turkish Cypriot ultranationalist leader Rauf Denktash loathes the settlement, and Turkish nationalists are violently opposed as well.

In short, no one is overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the plan, except for the UN, the EU, Britain and America. Any time all of these characters are lined up on the same side of a debate, the cause must be truly good – or truly atrocious. In the case of Cyprus, it's the latter.

The Annan Plan: a Compromise or Not?

Despite all Western whitewashing to the contrary, the plan is no compromise. Recently we argued that the plan's fatal flaws are bound to cause anger, simmering discord, and perhaps even future violence. Its authors seek to establish a weak federation composed of 2 autonomous states – thus more or less recognizing the illegal 'Turkish Republic of North Cyprus' declared after the Turkish invasion of 1974 (recognized by no other country). For many Greeks, this would be tantamount to confirming that violence gets results. That America is now sending its best wishes for "…a hopeful vision of a peaceful and prosperous future for all Cypriots as citizens of a unified state" is more than a bit rich, considering that it was the dirty dealings of Henry Kissinger which helped unleash the destructive violence of 1974.

However, the federalization issue is not the biggest. Greek Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos has stated that federalization of one kind or another was always the only real option. What really irks Greek Cypriots is that their rights of repatriation would be limited under the Annan Plan. Only a proportion (18 percent) of the 167,000 dispossessed would be allowed to return to homes seized by Turks in the north, and Greeks would be prohibited from buying property there for at least 15 years, by which time it will all have been eaten up by fat German bankers and their ilk anyway. Most worrisome of all, Turkey's military presence on the island would only be reduced – not eliminated. That said, it's no wonder that the Greeks should be less than eager to vote for a deal that gives them absolutely nothing in return for sharing political power, recognizing and funding the impoverished Turkish north, and tolerating a foreign power's military presence.

The Interventionists Step Up the Pressure

Annan and the rest of the West have been adamant that this deal is as good as it gets. "There's no other plan out there," declared Annan on Wednesday. Annan's advisor on Cyprus, Alvaro de Soto, added, "I have no reason to believe that the parties, if they have more time, will come up with anything better."

At the same time, however, the interventionists are pretending to be innocent bystanders. "…It is for the people of Cyprus alone to decide" whether to accept the plan, stated the European Council's Prime Minister Ahern on Wednesday. Yet he also felt it worth noting, according to the Cyprus News Agency, that "…the overwhelming majority of political leaders across Europe" are calling for a yes vote.

Annan waxed poetic on Thursday when he told the Cypriots, "…we cannot take that fateful decision for you; we await your call." But he and his numerous allies have made no attempt to hide their disdain for the Greek Cypriots and Denktash, with EU enlargement boss Guenter Verheugen going so far as to accuse the Greek Cypriot government of 'cheating' him: "…I did everything to create the conditions allowing Greek Cypriots to accept the UN plan – apparently in vain."

Indeed. Vain about sums it up. With this tantrum we are reminded of another major reason for the internationals' drive for a 'yes' vote: nurturing their insatiable personal career ambitions. As the Associated Press put it last month, acceptance of the plan "…would represent a huge feather in Annan's cap if he could pull it off." When the interventionists speak of this as a "historic" moment, it's because they're salivating over winning their own place in history.

With the referendum almost upon us, the final frenzied days of lobbying are underway. The entire Western diplomatic apparatus is now bearing down on those stubborn Greek Cypriots, who just can't seem to reach the sublime and lofty heights of reason that the would-be architects of Cyprus seem to inhabit (even if they don't actually inhabit the island that will be affected by the outcome of the vote). Yet like people anywhere, the Greek Cypriots are reacting according to practical concerns. Will they get their property back? Who will govern them? Will their economy and standard of living suffer? Will they be safe? As Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos put it, by voting for the plan his people would merely be "buying hope" and the vague promise of future support – nothing more substantial.

The West: an Honest and Dependable Broker?

A UPI analysis of April 19^th entitled "Shadows Over Cyprus" (no link available) pointed out this critical danger, questioning the trustworthiness of the recently pledged international donors, and the ability and bravery of international peacekeepers. The article cites the example of Afghanistan, where only a fraction of the West's promised aid has arrived. Another aspect of the role of donor's conferences can be taken from the example of Macedonia, where promised funds were delayed in 2002 by Western interventionists, in order to expedite regime change in that country's elections.

Thus we have two possibilities that hardly bode well for a peaceful unified Cyprus. First, should the promised money not arrive, someone will have to subsidize the poor Turkish north – and it will no doubt be the more affluent Greek Cypriots. This is a recipe for increasing already ingrained resentment. Second, accepting foreign aid will make Cyprus, already weak as a loose federal state – even less capable of maintaining an independent foreign policy. Rather than being influenced separately by Athens and Ankara, it will increasingly come under the control of America – which is all part of the plan, considering the island's proximity to Syria, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt.

The UPI article thus asks,

"…what guarantees have been extended to assuage the concerns of Greek Cypriots? Nothing firm. This is why the Greek newspaper Kathimerini editorialized, 'The large majority of Cypriots are obviously reacting to a solution that seems to invest more in ideas and goodwill for coexistence between the two communities than in practical measures that are instantly applicable.'"

Shoring Up the Rhetoric of Human Rights: a Paradox

Yet the forces of the Good in the West deal in nothing other than ideas and goodwill. If abstract values were a commodity, they'd be rich enough to feed every starving person in the world ten times over.

Ironically, the Annan Plan violates a basic human right envisioned in the EU constitution: freedom of residence and employment, as pointed out by a worried Turkish analyst who foresees that rectifying the reality with the rhetoric will be detrimental to his side:

"…[the Annan Plan] is not compatible with the EU's jurisprudence regarding integration and constitutional principles. According to the constitutional principles in the EU law, the expectations of individuals such as property, capital, circulation of labor and services, and the desire to settle in any EU country cannot be prevented.

An individual can seek employment or work anywhere and he/she can reside anywhere. Within this context, since the basic legal norms and philosophy depend on the removal of the obstructions before the basic rights and freedoms of the individual, the European Court of Human Rights accepts any kind of application on these issues and decides in favor of the individual.

This situation invalidates all the derogations talked about in the Annan Plan context; in other words, the EU law neither recognizes the Annan Plan nor takes it as a reference."

To be sure, the backers of the plan do not intend to adhere to the EU's ruling. If they did, the Greeks would have to be allowed back, and the Turkish settlers either rehabilitated or sent back to Turkey – neither likely options, considering their poverty and Ankara's nationalistic interests. Cyprus is therefore a special case; an exception to the rule. Yet should it be? How can it become a member of the EU at this time, when to do so would mean violating the highest values of that body? Save for its economic clout, Cyprus is less prepared for the EU than any Balkan state besides Kosovo – another UN experiment in human rights gone disastrously wrong.

The End of All Conflict, or Conflict in the End?

When we consider the hysterical frenzy being whipped up now by those pushing the plan, and their prevailing obsession with solving the "problem" right now, one must ask why Cyprus was asked to negotiate in the first place. The thinking seems to have run in a vicious logical circle: pushing for Cyprus to join would give its leaders an incentive for unification, and pushing for unification would at the same enable those leaders to adhere to that grand unified vision for Europe, so lovingly and so deceitfully maintained in Brussels and Strasbourg. In the brave new Europe, all dissent is stifled, all disharmonies swept under the rug. Any thought of conflict is immediately suppressed as being "un-European," and as transgressing the cherished values of a continent whose subconscious is still haunted by the terrible memories of Nazism. Visible lines of division, maintained in Cyprus for 30 years, are not to be tolerated – not because of what they are, but because of what they symbolize.

And that is exactly the point. In refusing to allow any open divisions, Europe may be heading for a greater fracture at some point in the unknowable future. The high-minded countries of the Union, new and old alike, sweep over their own human rights problems, while at the same time savaging them in lowlier states. Yet it's not in allegedly intolerant Macedonia where gypsies are killed regularly, it's in the Czech Republic and Hungary. When faced with an embarrassing public furor over asylum seekers, the "progressive" government of Tony Blair last year tried to hide Britain's unwanted in a holding pen – forgotten and faraway Albania.

No, what the interventionists are so terrified of is that a 'no' vote in Cyprus will be a blow to their high-minded ideals, not to any geopolitical reality. The Americans alone are purely committed to the latter, never really having believed in the former. For them, hiding behind the lofty rhetoric is just a means to an end (unless you happen to be personally fulfilling God's will on earth, of course).

In saying that "the world is behind my plan," and that he's presenting an opportunity "not to be missed," Kofi Annan is desperately trying to realize his own career ambitions, while seeking to prove the UN's relevance in a world where its input and verdicts are increasingly being travestied and ignored – as with the debacle of the Hague, the failure in Kosovo, and especially the Bush Administration's invasion of Iraq.

Ignoring at his peril the very real ambivalence both Greeks and Turks have for his plan, Kofi Annan runs the risk of alienating both sides further in forcing a settlement. In the long run, the potential problems that could crop up from accepting this particular plan right now far outweigh the benefits. Contrary to the frenzied warnings of the interventionists, the Cypriots will not turn into pumpkins if they fail to unite by midnight on Saturday. The one thing that everyone has plenty of is time. The last 30 years have been largely peaceful; is a sudden and disorganized change of the status quo really advisable?

If interventionist pressure means that an accord is railroaded through, the very principles of the European Union will be transgressed, and no guarantees will be made to any of the people who will actually have to live with the new status quo. How this would be a victory for peace, justice and democracy is beyond me.

Note to Readers

Yesterday I was interviewed on the topic of Cyprus by Pacifica's Free Speech Radio News. Their story, which will feature some of my comments, should be broadcast on Friday and will be made available shortly on their website's audio archive.