Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou assured on Tuesday that the Greek government would continue to support the negotiating effort of the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus for a solution of the island`s political problem.``We will not be mere observers in this effort,`` he said in a speech before an extraordinary plenary session of the House of Representatives, attended by the state, political, religious and military leadership of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as representatives of organisations, foreign ambassadors, and media representatives from Greece and Cyprus. Papandreou said Greece would undertake initiatives, in the framework of the close cooperation and coordination between the two countries, adding that ``there is no alternative to the reunification of the island`` and ``we will not accept division.`` He said the Cyprus question was a problem of invasion and occupation, and that the aim was to terminate the military occupation, be rid of the threat it constitutes to Cypriot Hellenism, and end the drama of the relatives of missing persons.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
The Greek Connection
Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou assured on Tuesday that the Greek government would continue to support the negotiating effort of the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus for a solution of the island`s political problem.``We will not be mere observers in this effort,`` he said in a speech before an extraordinary plenary session of the House of Representatives, attended by the state, political, religious and military leadership of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as representatives of organisations, foreign ambassadors, and media representatives from Greece and Cyprus. Papandreou said Greece would undertake initiatives, in the framework of the close cooperation and coordination between the two countries, adding that ``there is no alternative to the reunification of the island`` and ``we will not accept division.`` He said the Cyprus question was a problem of invasion and occupation, and that the aim was to terminate the military occupation, be rid of the threat it constitutes to Cypriot Hellenism, and end the drama of the relatives of missing persons.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
EU Warns Turkey
The EU will officially warn Turkey that it has failed to fulfil its obligation to open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot ships and aircraft, it emerged yesterday.The warning is contained in the European Commission’s (EC) draft report on Turkey’s accession progress, a copy of which was obtained by Bayrak TV in the north of Cyprus. Bayrak TV featured the report in a broadcast on Wednesday, and it received wide coverage in the Turkish press the following day. The report, which is due to be published officially on 14 October, refers to the autumn deadline set for Turkey to comply with this obligation as part of its EU candidacy process. Turkey’s continued non-compliance with this and other obligations resulted in eight of the 35 chapters (policy areas) of its accession negotiation being suspended in December 2006.According to Turkish English-language newspaper Today’s Zaman, “the draft report states that negotiations between the Turkish and Greek Cypriots are continuing, and that no other chapters are planned to be suspended unless there is a demand from member states.”On Thursday, Turkey’s Deputy Prime Minister Egemen Bagis – who is also his country’s chief EU negotiator – reiterated his government’s position that Turkey had no intention of opening its ports and airports to Cypriot-flagged ships and aircraft until the EU establishes direct trade with the Turkish Cypriots.“There are certain expectations that we will reopen our ports, but there are guarantees Turkey must receive to meet these expectations that have to do with ending the isolation imposed on Turkish Cyprus,” Bagis said.He added: “Until EU countries begin direct trade with Turkish Cyprus and land their planes at Ercan airport, I don't find it sincere or believable that Greek Cypriot planes and ships can use our airports and harbours.”Government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou said yesterday that Turkey’s obligation to open its ports and airports to Cypriot ships and aircraft is not conditional on any other commitment towards Turkey either by the European Union or Cyprus. He added that the attempt by Bagis to link the lifting of the port embargo with the EU lifting the so-called isolation of the Turkish Cypriots “is outside the letter and the spirit of Ankara’s commitments to the EU and its member states, including Cyprus.”The Foreign Ministry had no comment to offer on the leak of the EC report, other than to say that they “await the publication of the report in October”.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
Monday, July 13, 2009
Cyprus Problem: the negotiations
The ongoing negotiations on the Cyprus problem are almost devoid of political context. They are 'stand-alone', predominantly bureaucratic and do not reflect the political nature of the problem.
The negotiations must be complemented by a setting in a broader international context in which Turkey has a clear inducement to help achieve and implement a solution. Uncorrected, both deficiencies will derail the negotiations or lead them to a dead end. This would have serious international repercussions and a far broader impact than on Cyprus alone. The two communities in Cyprus will have to agree on the terms of an arrangement whereby they can peacefully live together and experience a common evolution. Given real political will, it should not be too difficult to quickly agree on the basic outlines of a solution, most of which could be adapted from previous proposals.
The negotiations must be complemented by a setting in a broader international context in which Turkey has a clear inducement to help achieve and implement a solution. Uncorrected, both deficiencies will derail the negotiations or lead them to a dead end. This would have serious international repercussions and a far broader impact than on Cyprus alone. The two communities in Cyprus will have to agree on the terms of an arrangement whereby they can peacefully live together and experience a common evolution. Given real political will, it should not be too difficult to quickly agree on the basic outlines of a solution, most of which could be adapted from previous proposals.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The European Elections 2009
The following article caught my attention in today's issue of The Cyprus Mail:
Time to overcome ingrained habits
IN LESS than a week’s time, Cypriots will join an estimated 375 million people across the EU in the opportunity to elect their representatives to a new European Parliament. Unlike their fellow Europeans, most Cypriot voters will dutifully go to polling stations and cast their ballot, exercising their democratic right in one of the world’s biggest elections.Of course, the turnout will have much more to do with the ingrained habit of voting than with any enthusiasm for the institution being elected – a result both of the compulsory participation in national elections, and of the hyper-politicisation of everyday life in a country where prime time talk shows still feature politicians rather than celebrities, and party political allegiance spreads its tentacles into everything from football to the coffee that you drink.It’s hardly a surprise that the European election campaign is being treated by the parties as a real-time opportunity to test the political waters, just over a year after the Presidential elections – an extremely useful gauge of popularity at a time when coalition partners appear to have increasingly itchy feet. Indeed, only a desperate idealist would expect genuine European issues to be at the forefront of the campaign, in a political society where the Cyprus problem juggernaut time and again crushes debate on any other issue – even those of immediate national concern, let alone those perceived as remote.But we should not be too harsh on Cyprus: how many people in the UK will vote on European issues? Indeed how many will vote at all? A far lower percentage than in Cyprus. And those that do cast their vote will do so based on very domestic concerns, such as the current MPs’ expenses scandal, likely to benefit fringe parties in protest at the mainstream. And it’s not just European elections: around the world, local elections are almost always fought on national issues, providing an opportunity to punish or reward the government of the day.And yet it’s a great pity that almost no one across the European Union gives the European Parliament elections the attention they deserve – especially given the repeated complaints about the democratic deficit in the EU. There’s a widespread misconception that the European Parliament is a pointless institution, little more than a gravy train for politicians past their prime.And yet anyone concerned about the democratic accountability of the European Union has a duty to vote on Saturday. The European Parliament is the one European institution to be directly elected by the people, and the EU’s executive is directly accountable to Parliament: MEPs must approve the President and members of the European Commission before they can take office, and Parliament has a right to sack them. What’s more, it is the European Parliament that holds the purse strings of the EU, and has the last word on its annual budget, and Parliament that passes laws that end up on the statute books of all 27 countries of the European Union.So while our politicians are spouting on about the Cyprus problem, MEPs in their last term have passed laws about everything from recycling to maternity leave, pollution caps to the right to cross-border health care, passenger rights to cheaper GSM roaming charges, working hours to airline safety, sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants to cleaner bathing waters on our beaches. And let’s not forget that it was the European Parliament that blew the whistle on CIA rendition flights and the complicity of European member states in the illegal transportation of detainees.MEPs are dealing with very real issues, their votes having a very real impact on our everyday lives. And while the six Cypriot representatives elected next weekend are unlikely to sway the votes in plenary, their role in looking out for their constituents’ interests cannot be overestimated. They will lobby to amend legislation, they will build alliances, they will work in committee, they will draft reports, and their success or failure will probably have a far greater impact on our daily lives than the work of our national deputies at the House of Representatives in Nicosia.Come Saturday at the polling stations, the voters should not reward the loudest patriot and the slickest slogans. In a Parliament of 785 members working in 23 languages, bombastic talk from one of the smallest members of the Union will carry little weight. In order to leverage influence, the members we elect must work hard, understand the nature of compromise, and above all grasp the bigger picture of the institution they will join. If they do that, they will build a credibility among their colleagues that will allow them to defend our interests in a forum that really matters to our daily lives.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
IN LESS than a week’s time, Cypriots will join an estimated 375 million people across the EU in the opportunity to elect their representatives to a new European Parliament. Unlike their fellow Europeans, most Cypriot voters will dutifully go to polling stations and cast their ballot, exercising their democratic right in one of the world’s biggest elections.Of course, the turnout will have much more to do with the ingrained habit of voting than with any enthusiasm for the institution being elected – a result both of the compulsory participation in national elections, and of the hyper-politicisation of everyday life in a country where prime time talk shows still feature politicians rather than celebrities, and party political allegiance spreads its tentacles into everything from football to the coffee that you drink.It’s hardly a surprise that the European election campaign is being treated by the parties as a real-time opportunity to test the political waters, just over a year after the Presidential elections – an extremely useful gauge of popularity at a time when coalition partners appear to have increasingly itchy feet. Indeed, only a desperate idealist would expect genuine European issues to be at the forefront of the campaign, in a political society where the Cyprus problem juggernaut time and again crushes debate on any other issue – even those of immediate national concern, let alone those perceived as remote.But we should not be too harsh on Cyprus: how many people in the UK will vote on European issues? Indeed how many will vote at all? A far lower percentage than in Cyprus. And those that do cast their vote will do so based on very domestic concerns, such as the current MPs’ expenses scandal, likely to benefit fringe parties in protest at the mainstream. And it’s not just European elections: around the world, local elections are almost always fought on national issues, providing an opportunity to punish or reward the government of the day.And yet it’s a great pity that almost no one across the European Union gives the European Parliament elections the attention they deserve – especially given the repeated complaints about the democratic deficit in the EU. There’s a widespread misconception that the European Parliament is a pointless institution, little more than a gravy train for politicians past their prime.And yet anyone concerned about the democratic accountability of the European Union has a duty to vote on Saturday. The European Parliament is the one European institution to be directly elected by the people, and the EU’s executive is directly accountable to Parliament: MEPs must approve the President and members of the European Commission before they can take office, and Parliament has a right to sack them. What’s more, it is the European Parliament that holds the purse strings of the EU, and has the last word on its annual budget, and Parliament that passes laws that end up on the statute books of all 27 countries of the European Union.So while our politicians are spouting on about the Cyprus problem, MEPs in their last term have passed laws about everything from recycling to maternity leave, pollution caps to the right to cross-border health care, passenger rights to cheaper GSM roaming charges, working hours to airline safety, sanctions against employers of illegal immigrants to cleaner bathing waters on our beaches. And let’s not forget that it was the European Parliament that blew the whistle on CIA rendition flights and the complicity of European member states in the illegal transportation of detainees.MEPs are dealing with very real issues, their votes having a very real impact on our everyday lives. And while the six Cypriot representatives elected next weekend are unlikely to sway the votes in plenary, their role in looking out for their constituents’ interests cannot be overestimated. They will lobby to amend legislation, they will build alliances, they will work in committee, they will draft reports, and their success or failure will probably have a far greater impact on our daily lives than the work of our national deputies at the House of Representatives in Nicosia.Come Saturday at the polling stations, the voters should not reward the loudest patriot and the slickest slogans. In a Parliament of 785 members working in 23 languages, bombastic talk from one of the smallest members of the Union will carry little weight. In order to leverage influence, the members we elect must work hard, understand the nature of compromise, and above all grasp the bigger picture of the institution they will join. If they do that, they will build a credibility among their colleagues that will allow them to defend our interests in a forum that really matters to our daily lives.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009
This article is the subjective opinion of a "journalist" who doesn't even have the courage to sign off. Therefore, it is the newspaper's responsibility for publishing the subjective opinion of an anonymous person who, I am afraid, hasn't made a basic research:
- According to official polls more than 75% of the Greek Cypriots will cast their vote (and the number is expected to increase) not out of habit due to the fact that our national elections are compulsory, but because the Greeks of Cyprus have decided to make their own choice!
- Of course domestic issues will play an important role! Is it different in other European countries, I wonder? Of course, we will vote those who we believe will represent us best in the European Union. Luckily, the anonymous writer acknowledges, more or less, this fact! Kind of contradicting himsself / herself or what?
- The person who wrote this article hides behind anonimity because he / she is the one to be the victim of ingrained habits - not the average Greek Cypriot who is fully aware of his European identity.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Empire and the Law
The impassioned debate currently taking place in the United States as to whether to hold an inquiry into the revelations that captives in the “war on terror” were tortured, indicates that America is at a turning point that will determine the image and substance of its democracy.
The United States has not left any physical marks that will allow the people of the future to grasp the power and influence of the mightiest military and economic power the Earth has seen. It did not build pyramids nor Parthenons nor great roads and aqueducts, like so many empires before it. The great achievements of the Americans have been mostly intangible: the development of technology that empowered the individual, the spread of open markets and the globalization of trade and affluence. Above all, though, the United States was the driving force in the spread of democracy and human rights in countries whose citizens were suffering. Even though US governments cooperated with brutal, autocratic regimes and took part in regional wars, the image of justice that they radiated created a standard that every nation wanted to reach.
With the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989, it appeared that the model represented by the United States – that of democracy and capitalism – had triumphed. This illusion did not last long: The terrorist attacks of 2001, the ill-advised invasion of Iraq in 2003, the collapse of the global credit system, the widespread recession and the rapid climate changes shook the new order.
The United States found itself facing an unprecedented challenge: How could it protect its people and its interests without endangering the ideals on which the Americans’ global influence depended? It was a great misfortune for the United States – and the rest of the world – that George W. Bush was president at this critical time.
He did not waste time before deciding that what was good for America was good for the world. He adopted the dogma of “preemptive war,” along with extrajudicial killings, the kidnapping of suspects in foreign lands and harsh interrogation tactics (i. e. torture). Not only did these violate US and international laws but, in the eyes of the world, the American model lost the precious sense of its moral superiority. What once took place in the dungeons of dark regimes was now being carried out by Americans.
Beyond its moral decline, however, the Bush government’s greatest crime was its violation of the law. Scrapping punishment for those who break the law leads directly to arbitrary behavior, corruption and widespread cynicism. It destroys the fabric of society.
It’s irrelevant whether torture helped gain valuable information (as its supporters claim) or whether it lead simply to forced and useless confessions born of fear and despair (as others counter). Nor can we know whether the fear of torture dissuaded anyone from committing a terrorist act. What we do know is that undermining civil society is far more dangerous than the threat of terrorism – both for the United States and the countries whose governments might like to do the same.
In his desire for political consensus, President Barack Obama would like to avoid a confrontation with Bush administration officials and the CIA. But this is not a matter of personal choice. Just as the administration officials and CIA agents had no right to break the law, the president has no right not to order an investigation and the possible punishment of those responsible. (Let’s not forget that the revelation by US newspapers of the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison, painful though they were, saved the reputation of the American media and, to a great extent, cleansed their country’s name of the taint.)
Only the imposition of the law – however belatedly – can heal the wounds of its violation. And only by adhering to the law can a society show its true face.
Thursday, April 2, 2009
The G20 Summit
The outcome of the G20 summit in London is looking rather bleak, as its objective is quite unattainable: The international economic slowdown requires a concerted effort that is much easier said than done. The fact that everyone is voicing strong opposition to protectionism means that the threat is probably more real than officials would like to admit.
The crisis threatens, to a greater or lesser degree, every economy in the world and in this sense it is a common enemy. On the other hand, however, it has also highlighted the differences between the G20 countries.
The London summit is, in fact, a first informal and fundamental effort at international governance and this group was chosen by Washington because it suited it best. The G7 group had too much of a Cold War balance of power and the addition of Russia, to make it G8, did little to redress this. Without the participation of the new emerging economic powerhouses (first of all China and to a lesser extent India and Brazil), any synchronized response to the crisis on a global level will be ineffective.
US President Barack Obama is looking to rally the West so that, through it, America can preserve its hegemony with greater consensus and keep a lower profile. His policy, however, is being undermined by the Franco-German axis.
Paris and Berlin demand that stringent supervisory measures are imposed on the market. Washington and London want to see more rescue packages to boost the international economy. These are two very different issues rather than different positions and both, in fact, are necessary.
The reason why the G20 summit may come up empty is that the one side does not really want financial markets to be monitored while the other, and Germany especially, does not want to loosen its purse strings. So, not only is there no rallying of the West against the “others,” but the internal rift is actually stealing the show.
The crisis threatens, to a greater or lesser degree, every economy in the world and in this sense it is a common enemy. On the other hand, however, it has also highlighted the differences between the G20 countries.
The London summit is, in fact, a first informal and fundamental effort at international governance and this group was chosen by Washington because it suited it best. The G7 group had too much of a Cold War balance of power and the addition of Russia, to make it G8, did little to redress this. Without the participation of the new emerging economic powerhouses (first of all China and to a lesser extent India and Brazil), any synchronized response to the crisis on a global level will be ineffective.
US President Barack Obama is looking to rally the West so that, through it, America can preserve its hegemony with greater consensus and keep a lower profile. His policy, however, is being undermined by the Franco-German axis.
Paris and Berlin demand that stringent supervisory measures are imposed on the market. Washington and London want to see more rescue packages to boost the international economy. These are two very different issues rather than different positions and both, in fact, are necessary.
The reason why the G20 summit may come up empty is that the one side does not really want financial markets to be monitored while the other, and Germany especially, does not want to loosen its purse strings. So, not only is there no rallying of the West against the “others,” but the internal rift is actually stealing the show.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Politics : A Game for the Big Boys
Stefanos Manos, Thanos Veremis and Yiannis Boutaris are among a group of serious folk who announced the formation of a new political party. These are people with the drive to bring change. They are stubborn and they are known for their constant quest for something new. I am not at all certain that they will succeed, but that really doesn’t matter after all. The greatest danger they face is their party ending up doing little more than lamenting the country’s fate.
We can only wonder why neither of the two big parties have room for people like Veremis or Boutaris. What would George Papandreou of PASOK have lost if he had chosen Boutaris for Thessaloniki mayor rather than opting for the lackluster selection of candidates put forth by the party mechanism? Or, what would Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, have lost by inviting Boutaris to work with New Democracy? As far as Veremis is concerned, it is obvious that he believed in New Democracy’s reformist vision and he took his fair share of risks before realizing that the government did not have the gumption to move ahead with any real change.
Manos is what most people would call a difficult kind of guy, but he has brains and could certainly have made a meaningful contribution. Neither of the two leading parties were ever able to assimilate him into their ranks, either because they saw him as a killjoy or because he simply raised the bar even higher than he himself could handle.
The new party will go on its way. It may even develop into a useful think tank, but the real game for Greece’s stability and development lies in the hands of the two big parties. And on the one hand New Democracy is paying the price for not protecting itself with serious politicians and a serious plan, while on the other PASOK is little more than an anachronism from the 1980s.
The game, whether we like it or not, is played in the political arena and not in the parlors, where, however, you may still hear a few good ideas.
We can only wonder why neither of the two big parties have room for people like Veremis or Boutaris. What would George Papandreou of PASOK have lost if he had chosen Boutaris for Thessaloniki mayor rather than opting for the lackluster selection of candidates put forth by the party mechanism? Or, what would Costas Karamanlis, the prime minister, have lost by inviting Boutaris to work with New Democracy? As far as Veremis is concerned, it is obvious that he believed in New Democracy’s reformist vision and he took his fair share of risks before realizing that the government did not have the gumption to move ahead with any real change.
Manos is what most people would call a difficult kind of guy, but he has brains and could certainly have made a meaningful contribution. Neither of the two leading parties were ever able to assimilate him into their ranks, either because they saw him as a killjoy or because he simply raised the bar even higher than he himself could handle.
The new party will go on its way. It may even develop into a useful think tank, but the real game for Greece’s stability and development lies in the hands of the two big parties. And on the one hand New Democracy is paying the price for not protecting itself with serious politicians and a serious plan, while on the other PASOK is little more than an anachronism from the 1980s.
The game, whether we like it or not, is played in the political arena and not in the parlors, where, however, you may still hear a few good ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
