European Parliament – conference
- Prerequisites for conflict resolution
The analysis which follow shall touch upon certain central issues related to approaches for a peaceful resolution of a conflict originating in the post-colonial practices of divide and rule. What is a viable solution? Ηow rule of law could prevail in Cyprus? What means democracy in re-united Republic of Cyprus? What
arrangements could prevent regional instability?
It should be made clear at the outset that the analysis which follows is descriptive and not prescriptive. That is, it refers to factors which manifestly interstate experience is telling as regards the causes of conflict and instability.
Certainly, by defining principles which experience tell us are conducive to viable interstate and intrastate stability we have no illusions that in contemporary international relations power, national interests and most importantly hegemonic antagonism are by and large defining the outcome.
Nonetheless, defining these principles is also important to the extend it creates a framework for more rational negotiations and for “solutions” that are conducive to stability. In the same context, it is crucial to underline that the Cyprus Republic is a full member of the European Union whose normative structures as it happens to all other members are incorporated in the internal legal system.
In this regard, I need not repeat here the comprehensive report written by an international panel in 2005. Its title is: “A principled basis for a just and lasting Cyprus settlement in the light of International and European Law of the international expert panel for a European Solution of the Cyprus Problem”. This report offers a full account of international and European rule of law and, indeed, an “arsenal” of objective arguments if international agreements and international conventions. The point or reference of this report is the “Anan plan” which was proposed in 2004 and was rejected in a referendum.
- International and European rule of law as a prerequisite for a viable Republic of Cyprus
A prerequisite for a peaceful resolution of the conflict in Cyprus necessitates on the one hand the application of the fundamental principles of International and European rule of law without exemptions and on the other hand the establishment –for the first time in the history of modern Cyprus– of all principles relating to internal and external sovereignty.
In fact, elementary knowledge of purely objective factors regarding the Cyprus conflict after 1960 is telling: At the outset it became evident that the colonial constitution which provided veto and firebreaks on national / racial basis couldn’t function. To put it otherwise, there is no viable outcome of the Cyprus conflict if the divisive arrangements of the Zurich Agreement are not abolished and if the so called guarantees as well foreign troops stationed on the island are not withdrawn.
Again, if we stick to international principles by and large acceptable by all states which are members of the UN, the UN charter stipulates that internal and external sovereignty, independence, equality among states and non-intervention are fundamental factors and criteria of the international regime established in 1945.
Also, the same applies for the states involved which are members of the conventions for human rights whose clauses are incorporated in their internal normative structures and which provide a legally binding framework.
To sum up at this point, a prerequisite for a viable solution which provides a viable state which is conducive to regional stability, is the respect of fundamental principles such as the prohibition of aggression, the non-recognition of its consequences, the respect of human rights and of international and European rule of law.
State normative structures democratically oriented, is certainly the single most important factor for a viable state whose political rights apply to all citizens irrespective national origin. The democratic orientation in viable civilized states is defined in their fundamental chapter, that is, their constitutions.
Irrespective anyone’s doctrinal views, by democratic orientation here we refer to the classical perception of the term democracy: The governing authorities are the assignee where by the assignor are the citizens. The citizens of a democratic polity, moreover, have equal political rights which apply to all of them irrespective racial or national origin.
In fact in the context of a state’s democratic structures so oriented, sky is the limit for political, cultural, religious decentralization and for checks and balances which secure full application of the socio-politically defined political rights.
Moreover, given that politics classically conceived refer to an ever going «contest» during which endlessly define and redefine political morality that underpins the distributive justice system and the corresponding compatible –to this system– normative structures, any prefixed legal system –especially if the state is so divided on national / radial basis– the state enterprise is programmatically condemned to failure resulting to conflict.
As the aforementioned Report of the international panel put it, “both the present state of affairs in Cyprus and the terms of the Annan Plan [proposed in 2004] are inconsistent with [these] fundamental principles”.
- How could the EU membership prove decisive and the concept of national interest as a principle consideration
As already mentioned, a central issue concerns the fact that the accession of the Cyprus Republic into the EU makes it imperative to incorporate in any solution all the principles and all the criteria on the basis of which the European Community was established. As already underlined, by joining the EU, Cyprus incorporated the “acquis communautaire” which by itself provides a democratic state governed by the rule of law principles.
The decision on the basis of which the full accession of the Republic of Cyprus into the EU was achieved, was, precisely, based on a deliberate purposeful approach in the search for a viable state whose orientations and functions are safeguarded by incorporating the aforementioned fundamental principles in the negotiating process and by providing a normative framework which apply to all Cypriot citizens without discrimination.
Let’s be more specific: Conflict-resolution is not an altruistic approach. It could prove productive only if it serves the lawful and legitimate interests of all actors involved. That is, primarily the interests of the Cypriots themselves (Greek Cypriots, Turkish Cypriots and the other communities), of Greece’s (as Greek Cypriot security would be compromised if a conflict between Greece and Turkey erupts) and Turkey’s (the security of the Turkish Cypriots and Ankara’s often declared fear for a possible strategic encirclement by Greece if union takes place).
Security is in fact a core concept of conflict-resolution. Against all trivial approaches to conflict-resolution we could cite the core arguments of Hans Morgenthau as regards diplomacy: «… 1. Diplomacy must be divested of the crusading spirit. This is the first of the rules that diplomacy can reflect at the risk of war. … 2. The objectives of foreign policy must be defined in terms of national interest and must be supported with adequate power. 3. Diplomacy must look at the political scene from the point of view of other nations. Nothing is so fatal to a nation as an extreme of self-partiality, and the total want of consideration of what others will naturally hope or fear”. 4. Nations must be willing to compromise on all issues that are not vital to them (Five additional prerequisites of compromise) 1). Give up shadow of worthless rights for the substance of real advantage. 2) Never put yourself in a position from which you cannot retreat without losing face and from which you cannot advance without grave risks. 3) Never allow a weak ally to make decisions for you. 4) The armed forces are the instrument of foreign policy, not its master. …”.
Precisely, respecting the lawful and legitimate national concerns of all countries involved is a core concept for conflict-resolution. Defining “lawful-legitimate”, however, is not a matter of subjective judgement but a matter of attachment to the principles of international governance which is compatible with international law and to the Charter of the United Nations. No aggression and respect of international order, as we know, are high principles of the contemporary system. In this productive sense, the primary concern is the interests of Cypriots themselves:
a) Greece’s and Turkey’s lawful and legitimate national concerns and the purpose of peace and stability in Cyprus are fully served if they both disengage completely from Cyprus.
b) The interest of the people of Cyprus are served if all armies, the military bases and all external neo-colonial tutelage are swept away.
c) The interests of the people of Cyprus are served in a lasting way if European rule of law –as the Treaty of Accession provides– applies on the whole island.
Furthermore, as it is correctly and pointedly noted in the aforementioned report, “a principled basis for a just and lasting Cyprus settlement in the light of International and European Law”: “International law, as well as EU law, is founded upon the recognition of independent and sovereign states. Consequential principles include the obligations of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states and respect for the territorial integrity of all states. In addition, the right of self-determination provides that while people within a state have the right to participate in the governance of that state, the free choice of the people of a state, conforming to fundamental international and European values must be respected on the international level” (points 10 and 17) “Democracy refers to the establishment and continued existence of a genuinely representative government responsive to the people. It requires that the basic rules establishing and organizing the state and its relationship with society be accepted by the citizens. It further requires full respect of the will of the people as expressed by the voters and/or their legitimate representatives. Democracy is founded on majority rule, in full recognition and application of individual, minority and group rights, as appropriate. The principle of democracy is an increasingly important part of international law, and at the very heart of European law. Article 3 of the Statute of the Council of Europe refers to pluralist democracy, respect for human rights and the rule of law as principles of the Council system”. (Point 15) “the rights enshrined in the European Convention constitute fundamental principles of the European Union, which itself is based upon the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and rule of law. The European legal order, therefore, both through the European Convention of Human Rights and the acquis communautaire, provides the most stringent and efficient system of protection of human and minority rights worldwide. Moreover, both Cyprus and Turkey are parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 1 of which lays down the right of self-determination, and to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination” (point 15). (Emphasis added).
Ipso facto and rightly so, these points answer adequately and satisfactorily the claims for the so called “equality clause”. Equality in a federation could not possibly mean “a right for veto” in line with racists and national criteria. Paralyzing the state along these lines is self-defeating and self-destructing.
Furthermore, it contradicts all conceivable ideas regarding the
State as a normative structure appropriate for a collective way life. One should not confuse safeguard clauses or the need for check and balances with the right of some groups to paralyze the functioning of the political institutions.
A principle purpose of the Accession of Cyprus in the EU where rule of law prevails was, precisely, the creation of opportunities for additional safeguards, in both legal and political terms.
- Two states trapped in inefficient and dysfunctional miniature state is not a Polity but a source of conflict and war
A state is not a trap or a prison.
Designing a normative structure which safeguards equality of the citizens and its constituent groups should not therefore be conceptualized as two states trapped in a single and non-independent “federal state” whose institutions could not possibly function. This is self-defeating, dead ended and a prescription of conflict and bloodshed.
As noted above, in a democratically oriented polity sky is the limit of increasing the role of the citizens and at the same time safeguarding the political rights for everyone.
There is no limit for arrangements which provide adequate decentralization and self-governance in a multitude of issues and levels as long as it does not lead decision-making into a stalemate, an impasse and a conflict.
It is not the purpose of this paper to describe and elaborate methods and approaches pertinent for Cyprus. Certainly, however, in the context of governance involving decentralization and self-governance compatible to International and European rule of Law, there are innumerable thoughts as regards approaches which provide procedures, co-decisions among the various levels irrespective nationality and methods of qualified majorities, simple majorities and checks and balances that implicate all the citizens and groups of the Cyprus Republic irrespective of national origin.
Let’s however not go further but just stress the fact that self-autonomy and self-governance in the context of any federal structure could not possibly mean splitting the people or worse, inserting divisive logics which could cause conflict and bloodshed. This was the intention of the colonial power when they imposed the unworkable constitution of 1959. Let’s not repeat the same mistake by accepting, this time voluntary, a dynastic and divisive institutional structure. Nowadays the Cypriots dispose a state, the Republic of Cyprus, a member of the EU where rule of law prevails. Let’s not abandon it but just reform it in order to make compatible to the concerns of the composing communities.
Before proceeding, let’s make it abundantly clear that invoking International and European Rule of Law and other principles or approaches to conflict-resolution has nothing to do with legalistic ideas which overlook the dynamic political character of international relations or the causes of war that cause conflicts in inter-state or intra-state relations.
The principles to which we appeal here are legally binding clauses for all states involved in the Cyprus conflict and the citizens of the Republic of Cyprus should claim that they should apply in full. In fact application of the principles of International and European Rule of Law are as an appropriate approach to conflict resolution, as already mentioned, were the core idea of “conflict-resolution through accession into the EU”.
Cypriots, irrespective nationality or culture, properly understanding their common interests, by accepting to apply these principles shall immediately and effectively terminate the main cause of war in Cyprus, that is, external interferences and external interventions.
The Cypriots have vested interests in claiming to apply International and European Rule of Law, an approach that by and large offers the framework of binding rules which could establish internal-external sovereignty, democracy, popular sovereignty and thus real independence. By so doing, if they succeed, they have a chance to take their fortune in their hands and the fact that the Republic of Cyprus is a full member of the EU, precisely, secures the legal and political and legal framework to fulfil all these purposes (by all means in terms of political civilization noble purposes).
Reversing this argument, we could also point out that if a non viable Cyprus state is agreed it could undermine the functioning of the EU and establish a precedent which runs against of all principles and ideas on the basis of which the European Union was constructed.
- External interferences as causes of war and the accession to the EU as an opportunity for a viable solution
Understanding the nature of the dangers lying ahead, it is important to make a flashback on lost opportunities as regards conflict-resolution in Cyprus. Above, I just referred to the “European option as a conflict-resolution” approach. It is time to understand the causes, in fact, the causes of war which had a negative impact in 2001-2004.
The Republic of Cyprus concluded the accession negotiations and the application of international and European law would had been the axis for conflict resolution. Foreign interferences had the following results:
a) It would had transformed the UN into a depended variable of hegemonic interests which contradict International Law by producing proposals incompatible to Rule of Law and the Chapter of the UN (ironically so, submitted in the name of the GS of the UN).
b) It would had created a negative momentum which if the Anan plan would have been accepted it would had nullified the aquis of EU membership prior to full entry on May 1st 2004 (and thus nullify all prospects for a viable conflict-resolution).
c) It would had created a divisive logic along the logic of the illegal fait accompli of 1974 instead of a logic of unity in accordance to European rule of law.
The opportunities for conflict-resolution created in 2001-2004 when the Republic of Cyprus effectively entered the EU were annihilated owing, once more, to foreign interference, alas, often academically veiled. If we do not reach the correct conclusions out of this unfortunate experience, whatever chances we have for a peaceful conflict-resolution in Cyprus, shall vanish.
The correct conclusion is that the spirit and letter of the Anan plan should completely eclipse from the peace process at all levels and instances. Despite the fact that some politicians and some intellectuals who are deeply implicated in supporting the illiberal Anan plan continue to pay lip service for this abortive divisive approach, the logic that incarnated in the plan which was basically drafted by the British diplomat Lord Hanay, is not appropriate for the ongoing attempts to resolve the Cyprus question.
- The abortive “Anan plan”
At this point, it is probably worth underlining further some points which highlight the fact that the abortive Anan plan rejected by the Cypriots in 2004 in a referendum, incorporated all causes of war of modern times:
a) Strategic planning intended to establish full control of an independent state, its people and its resources making it thus a depended variable to great powers’ and regional powers’ antagonisms and conflicts.
b) It suggested unscrupulous proposals to abolish democracy, human rights, the acquis communautaire, the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the High Principles of International Law.
c) It was attempted to impose the fait accompli of illegal use of force imposed on a sovereign state (one should also not sightsee war crimes committed in 1974).
d) It is a clear case of coercive diplomacy against a small and weak state to which the United Nations became an accomplice.
e) We had the sad phenomenon many members of the Academic community becoming some sort of instrumental soft power propagandists in the service of abusive and unlawful purposes so well exposed in the report sided above (“A principled basis for a just and lasting Cyprus settlement in the light of International and European Law” of the international expert panel for a European Solution of the Cyprus Problem”).
In retrospect, and in order not to repeat the same mistakes, one should always have in mind that the Anan plan served two distinctive strategic purposes:
a) The perpetuation of Great Britain’s military bases and the acquisition of neo-colonial control over the island’s sea and air resources and
b) the often proclaimed of nationalist-chauvinists posture of officials in Ankara that Cyprus is a vital strategic space for Turkey (even if a single Turkish Cypriot was not living there!).
- A viable solution presupposes termination of external interferences and divide and rule practices
Any presumption that the causes of war in Cyprus have the roots in the nationalist-chauvinist feelings of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots is either based on grossly mistaken a-historic assumptions or is intentionally propagating erroneous perceptions in order to serve unlawful political expediencies (see below and appendix).
As regards the specific case of Cyprus, it is unworthy not to see straight on the main cause of war which was British divide and rule, Turkey’s interference, and Greece’s coup d’ etat in 1974 by the junta stirred, as we all know today, by the United States. The culmination is that the coup d’ etat was followed by the Turkish invasion, that is, a double violation of Rule of Law that lasted more than four decades.
Secondly, the Cyprus Republic is not a future candidate for tutelage, trusteeship or guardianship in the context of the so called guarantees. These are colonial relics that should be rejected by all Cypriots irrespective nationality. They contradict, moreover, Rule of Law in a full member of the EU, a fact that establishes a worrying precedent.
As an academic I would have said exactly the same arguments with regard to all other societies, including Turkey. In fact I tell this daily to my students. All Cypriots should therefore reject forcefully and angrily, any insolence or pretention that stability in a sovereign state depends upon destructing the ontologically founded societal distinctiveness and historic anthropological structures.
There is no conflict-resolution if, inter alia, the approaches followed destruct national feelings, turn the face away from national symbols, abandon national identity, sightsee religious beliefs, give up one’s language and spoil one’s cultural heritage.
All Cypriots have a strong interest to keep at bay external interventions and external interferences attempting to attack their culture and anthropological structures. There is abundant historical evidence that the two communities lived in peace, basically until the late 1950s and early 1960s when divide and rule and foreign interference intensified.
The key term for a viable solution the conference should focus on, therefore, is the re-unification of the Republic of Cyprus and its people. To the extend the Republic of Cyprus is a member of the European Union, the form and the content of a just, viable and lasting solution is one way. Designing a Constitutional Conference should take this crucial fact fully into account: Only application of International and European Rule of Law shall re-establish Cypriot internal and external sovereignty and safeguard against future foreign interventions or interferences. As already noted, there is no limit for domestic arrangements which safeguard both democracy and the legitimate interests of all the citizens respecting at the same time their historic and cultural identities.
Like all peoples on earth, Cypriots as well, are not political masochists, that is, they are not willing and they are not able to construct the Political on a monstrous institutional setting in a way that all decisions shall depend upon unanimity along internal vertical national/racial lines. If Cypriots do not understand this relentless truth they should the soonest possible talk for permanent divorce. Such a course, however, does not guarantee peace and it would be utterly unfortunate to follow such a course. There is still time to reunite Cyprus. Our support for the entry into the EU purported, precisely, to provide another, maybe the last, chance. This chance has a name: Full and immediate application of International and European Rule of Law, something we should claim without delay.
 At this point it is worth commenting the decisions of the Security Council of the UN in 1974, 1983 and subsequently the confirming decisions calling, at the same time –and given that the Cyprus government was sitting on the negotiating table instead of claiming as a precondition for these negotiations the implementation in accordance to the principles of international order– all parties to negotiate for a peaceful resolution of the conflict. We consider the following as crucial aspects of a rational approach for a viable solution of the Cyprus question:
1. The SC in 1974 when we had the Coup d’ Etat and the Turkish invasion, and in 1983 when we had an illegal proclamation of independence in the occupied areas, decided –an indeed rare event, given the stalemates in the SC since 1945 owing the disagreements of the permanent members– in favor of re-establishing international order, that is, calling everyone to respect of the integrity and sovereignty of the Cyprus Republic.
2. In each subsequent decision calling for the continuation of negotiations we had references as regards the state of affair during the previous phase of negotiations. So the Greek side gradually yielded politically to non-functional terms by accepting to negotiate on the basis of bizonality, bicommunallity and most importantly of “political equality” (on a racial/national divisive basis!). Standard negotiating practices make it imperative that those political postures would had been withdrew given the other side’s consistent intransigent postures and its interpretation of these terms in ways that create an indeed dysfunctional monstrous state which exists nowhere else and never existed.
3. Those supporting that there is a “negotiating acquis” of “equality” on racial/national basis in ways that clearly violate the principle of democracy are crossly mistaken. As it was correctly explained by the GS of the UN –para. 11 report of 3.4.1992 (S/23780), confirmed in SC resolutions beginning with 774 – 1992, 26.8.1992– it is not an arithmetic equality of the 82% to the 18% (which is an aberration improper for democratic states). What was said in the past is that a) Changes of the constitution shall be agreed by both communities. b) That both communities should have an adequate participation in all Federal structures. c) Provision of safeguards that no decision could be taken at the Federal level which turn against the two communities. d) Identical functions and jurisdictions.
4. Last but not least, may I add that if anything else is meant it should be abandoned even if the Security Council “decides” otherwise. The sole role of the SC is international order. “Peace and Security” stipulated in Charter 7, moreover, does not concern the Cyprus Republic which was twice the victim of illegal external aggression (by the dictators of Athens and then by Turkey when it invaded). According to the Charter of the UN article 2 the SC has no right to define the internal regimes of its member-states. In addition, it is also against the Charter of the UN if anyone imposes on an independent state member of the UN arrangements which are not viable, are undemocratic and are leading to instability and conflict.
 When it was published it was published in many periodicals, newspapers and in the internet. See for example (in four languages) «A principled basis for a just and lasting Cyprus settlement in the light of International and European Law»By the International Expert Panel convened by the Committee for a European Solution in Cyprus. [ΚΥΠΡΙΑΚΗ ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ: «Πλαίσιο αρχών για μια δίκαιη και βιώσιμη λύση του Κυπριακού με γνώμονα το διεθνές και Ευρωπαϊκό δίκαιο»] http://wp.me/p3OlPy-1lW. See also in http://www.ifestosedu.gr/32RuleofLaw.htm (it includes articles which highlight many aspects of the main report).
 See in footnote below concerning CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY, Article 12: non-discrimination on grounds of nationality.
 See “The Cyprus problem and the Greco-Turkish conflict: Causes of war and the European option” in Irini Chila (ed.),La Grece dans le sud-est europeen: enjeux regionaux et perspectives (Herodotos, Paris, 2004). Also, see (in Greek) “In memoriam Γιάννου Κρανιδιώτη Ειρηνική επίλυση των ελληνοτουρκικών διαφορών και ο Γιάννος Κρανιδιώτης στο Στ. Περράκης (Επιμ.), In Memoriam Γιάννου Κρανιδιώτη (Εκδ. Σιδέρη, Αθήνα 2010) also appended in http://www.ifestosedu.gr/42memoriamkranidioti.htm. See also articles regarding the follow up of the aforementioned expert panel for the Cyprus and the international and European rule of law in http://www.ifestosedu.gr/84ConventionforCyprus.htm.
 Hans Morgenthau, Politics among nations, The struggle for power and peace, revised by K. Thompson and D. Clinton (McGraw Hill 2005), citations from pages 559-566
 By adopting this argument, one should not sightsee that the Greek side in 1959 compromised on an important domain, that is, self-determination on the basis of the de-colonization principle “one man one vote”.
 This was precisely the divide and rule heritage of the colonial era along the lines of which the former colonial power designed a state structure doomed to conflict, interference and intervention. No surprise that the separatist logic of the colonial era combined with foreign interference led to conflict and bloodshed few years after the Republic of Cyprus was created. The historical evidence proving this strategy of foreign powers is abundant and Cypriots should close their ears to innumerable propagandistic accounts dressed in academic veils. See analysis and substantiated facts in the Appendix of “The Convention way and EU membership; UN implications”, http://www.ifestosedu.gr/84ConventionforCyprus.htm#_ftn34. An additional prerequisite to conflict-resolution in Cyprus it is, precisely, to understand the real causes of war and the real sources of mistakes. Foreign powers wishing to perpetuate rights and methods of intervention that serve unlawful strategic footholds, are the only beneficiaries of wrong, distorted and ideologically driven and thus perverse historical accounts that overlook the real causes of war. For example, such macabre hegemonic purposes are served when supposedly academic accounts of the conflict in Cyprus attribute to the peace loving historic communities of Cyprus nationalist-chauvinist intentions. Those are, argue some unhistorical essays, the causes of war. No surprise these essays often end up supporting foreign intervention and eventually abolition of democracy, human rights, popular sovereignty and external-sovereignty.
 The Treaty of the EU is a source of inspiration of such approaches providing for cooperation which do not lead to a stalemate along national or racist lines. See CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY. For example, Article 12: non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, which stipulates that: “Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited”. Further on, article 251 defines methods of decision making which could serve as an inspiration for approaches compatible to the principle of rule of law, which exclude impasse and which provide innumerable checks and balances and safeguards against abuse and arbitrary decisions. Even in the EU which hitherto consists of sovereign states, splitting along national or racist criteria is rejected. To put it otherwise, at the federal level, dividing the people of the Cyprus Republic is a self-defeating approach to governance contrary to the acquis of the European Union of which Cyprus is full member.
 This is the political rational, precisely, of the supporters of the “accession of the Republic of Cyprus to the EU as a conflict-resolution approach”, when they advocated, at the same time, a credible deterrence strategy against revisionist acts, threats and claims. For an essay (in Greek) explaining this strategy see “Ελληνική Εθνική Στρατηγική, έννοια, σκοποί προϋποθέσεις επιτυχούς εκπλήρωσης: η περίπτωση της ευρωπαϊκής προοπτικής της Κύπρου” in Χρ. Αλεξάνδρου, Θ. Μαλκίδης (επιμ.), Προσκλήσεις Ασφάλειας για την Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο (Εκδόσεις Παπαζήση, Αθήνα 2008) σελ. 113-137 also published in http://www.ifestosedu.gr/63GreekStrategy.htm.
 See point 10 of the “Report: A principled basis for a just and lasting Cyprus settlement in the light of International and European Law”, cited above.
 Lord Hanay was the key actor in drafting, promoting and attempting to impose the illiberal Anan plan which aimed at terminating the internal and external sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, perpetuating the colonial military installations of Great Britain in Cyprus and imposing a tutelage of foreign powers by perpetuating the so called guarantees and by abolishing democracy and popular sovereignty. One could read Lord Hannay’s book, the first ever he wrote by him after the Anan plan was rejected by the Cypriots. More and more books come up floodlighting this dark phase of Cypriot history. For an academic work proper see An International Relations Debacle: The UN Secretar-General’s Mission of Good Offices in Cyprus 1999-2004. By Claire Palley. Oxford, UK and Portland Oregon, USA. Hart Publishing, 2005.
 In academic life, avowal and acknowledging errors is an honourable stand and a precondition of scientific progress, not a humiliation. The process which produced the Anan plan and the events that preceded its rejection provide the basis for self-criticism of the community of scholars in Europe. A precondition of doing this, however, is our attachment to standard academic ethics. Alas, such virtues are more and more scarce in academic circles, whilst illegitimate mobilization to corrupting ideological and political purposes are more and more frequent. It is not without reason that a scholar deeply committed to the highest academic standards and intellectual values, Hedley Bull, noted: «The search for conclusions that can be presented as “solutions” or “practical advise” is a corrupting element in the contemporary study of world politics. Such conclusions are advanced less because there is any solid basis for them than because there is a demand for them which it is profitable to satisfy. Hedley Bull, The Anarchical Society. A study of order in world politics (Macmillan Press Ltd, London 1995), p. 308. Our purpose here, precisely, is not to search for practical solutions for the way of life of the Cypriots but to establish a process leading to self-determination of the citizens of Cyprus in accordance to International and European Rule of Law.
 This is well understood if ones scrutinizes the Anan plan, especially as regards the proposed –in the plan–new status of the military bases and the so called “guarantee” clauses
 It is not the place to elaborate this crucial issue. Suffice to point here that the struggle for independence was not turned against Turkish Cypriots, despite the fact that British colonialists in the context of their divide and rule policy mislead young Turkish Cypriots conscripted in the special police forces as torturers of the suspected Freedom Fighters. Inter-communal conflict begun when Ankara ordered the “burning of Nicosia” and when, as it was revealed recently, imported illegally over 10000 weapons between 1960 and 1964. During this period, regrettably so, some hundreds of Cypriot citizens were killed in battles, blood feud for revenge and murders by their own people for personal or political reasons. It is an “academic crime” and mere miserable propaganda to equalize these tragic events with the colonialist crimes and the crimes caused by strife generated by foreign intervention. More importantly, historic reality as regards these tragic events is intersubjective knowledge for most Cypriots. Honest non Cypriot academics referring to them should do that with caution and care for historical truth. First and foremost, they should guard against non credible secondary sources – which regrettably so distort historical truth in order to serve propaganda of those intervening in Cyprus. For further analysis see the Appendix in “The Convention way and EU membership; UN implications”, http://www.ifestosedu.gr/84ConventionforCyprus.htm#_ftn34 already cited above.