Cyprus Mail
Opinion

Concern over Republic a smokescreen for partition

Ambassador of the Russian Federation Stanislav Osadchiy

By Loucas Charalambous

 

NOW THAT the rejectionist parties have decided to join forces in order to prevent a possible settlement of the Cyprus problem, we can all sleep easy. We are in no danger of a solution.

Heeding the desperate pleas of Costis Hadjicostis, owner of the Dias media group, Nicolas Papadopoulos and his fellow inmates of the political madhouse at a conference last Tuesday took the first step towards officially forging the front that will campaign to continue partition. Now, we will wait for them to proceed with implementing Hadjicostis’ other directive – holding a referendum  on whether the peace talks should be terminated.

This is what his mouthpiece, Simerini newspaper wrote in an editorial on December 3: “President Anastasiades is humiliating the national history of the country, shatters the values of Cypriot Hellenism and is preparing to sign the dissolution of the state… Here and now, the opposition must demand the holding of a referendum for the interruption of the talks.”

On December 7, the Suslov of the rejectionist front issued the following orders to the leaders of the alliance for partition through his organ: “They must go together to Athens and with one voice enlighten the government, parties and the Greek people on the imminent suffering of Cypriot Hellenism, but also on the dangers that would emerge for Greece if a bizonal confederation solution was implemented.”

I think, however, that Hadjicostis’ biggest achievement was not that he persuaded the parties of the madhouse to join forces in support of partition. It was he, so it seems, that persuaded his neighbour, the ambassador of the Russian Federation Stanislav Osadchiy, to attend the partition seminar. At the time of writing this, there had been no reaction from the president or the government about the ambassador’s behaviour.

This, I suppose, should have been expected as the previous time the same ambassador behaved in an equally rude and undiplomatic way, asking the president to sack Makarios Drousiotis who was working at the presidential palace, because he had written a book Osadchiy did not like, again there was no reaction.

Meanwhile, at the seminar, Papadopoulos, who appears to have taken over the leadership of the rejectionists by hereditary right, made sure he stressed their main objective, which is “the maintenance and continuation of the Cyprus Republic”. The question raised here is which Republic is being undermined and who is actually undermining it?

When Papadopoulos and his fellow travellers say that the Cyprus Republic must be safeguarded, do they mean the current Cyprus Republic, the one that ends at the Ledra Street checkpoint? Is this the Republic they want to protect, half of Cyprus, that is, partition? This is what they did in 2004. In reality, the other half does not interest them. They have neither personal nor party interests there.

It is the reason why irrationality dominates their sloganeering which unfortunately is fomented by the president and his associates. They do not accept, they say, even an amendment of the guarantees; they do not accept gradual withdrawal of the Turkish troops, but pretend they do not understand that this would mean the continued presence of 40,000 troops.

Nor do they seem to understand their guilt for the continued presence of the troops, given that if we had not rejected the Annan plan in 2004, by the end of next year there would have been only 650 Turkish soldiers (plus 1000 Greeks) stationed in Cyprus. They consider the return of Morphou a red line, but forget that if they had not rejected the plan back then, Morphou would have been under Greek Cypriot administration since October 2007. They rant and rave about the increase in the number of Turkish settlers but ignore the fact they are to blame for the tripling of the number in the 12 years that passed since their pseudo-patriotism rejected the settlement which envisaged the presence of just 41,000 settlers.

It is the same pseudo-patriotism that is now preparing to reject a settlement once again. They can, therefore, carry on organising seminars, displaying their stupidity and pseudo-patriotism, but they certainly cannot abrogate the huge responsibility they bear for cementing partition and all its consequences.

Related posts

Our View: Unflattering report of president’s ties to Russian money cannot be ignored

CM: Our View

Our View: The farce of politicians’ asset statements must stop

CM: Our View

Impressions, assumptions, drunks and queues

CM Guest Columnist

Our View: HIO move will only serve to encourage abuse of Gesy

CM: Our View

Korea and Japan: the festering wound of history

Gwynne Dyer

Our View: Guterres wants to see real progress, not just provide a photo opportunity

CM: Our View

26 comments

Comments are closed.