In his article published in your newspaper recently, Mr. Kypros Chrysostomides, the Spokesman for the Greek Cypriot administration of Southern Cyprus, distorted the current realities and the historical background of the Cyprus issue.

As your readers are well aware, separate simultaneous referenda were held on 24 April 2004 in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and South Cyprus on the comprehensive settlement plan of the UN Secretary General, Mr. Kofi Annan. The Turkish Cypriot people approved the plan by an overwhelming 65% of the votes, clearly demonstrating once again that their expressed will is in favour of a comprehensive settlement. On the other hand, 76% of the Greek Cypriot people rejected the plan as called for the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Tassos Papadopoulos, who demanded a “resounding no” to the “Annan Plan” from the Greek Cypriots.

However, Mr. Chrysostomides attempts to lay the blame on the others. He is openly critical of both the UN Secretary-General and the whole international community. He blames the world for not punishing Turkey for intervening on the island (to save the Turkish Cypriots and restore constitutional order) as well as for being “intransigent” and this despite for Turkey’s effective support for the very Plan aimed at the unification and demilitarization of the island rejected by the Greek Cypriots. He blames the UN for providing for the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee to continue which is vital for the security needs of the Turkish Cypriots and a principle agreed by all the signatories to the said Treaty apart from the Greek Cypriots. He blames the UN for not rendering 40,000 Turkish Cypriots immediate homeless refugees yet again so that 85,000 perfectly rehabilitated so-called displaced Greek Cypriots can be placed to the areas thus vacated. He even implies that the world should not have cared for the relocation and rehabilitation of these 40,000 Turkish Cypriots in return for the misgivings unfortunately brought upon the Greek Cypriots by the events of 1974 perpetrated by the then Greek Cypriot leadership. He criticizes the settlement of the property issue in a manner fully respecting the right to return and the right to property instead of providing for thousands of cases coming before the European Court of Human Rights and inevitably resulting in never ending disputes threatening peace on the island.

The following remarks of the UN Secretary-General taken from his address to both sides in Burgonstock need no further elaboration. “The process of negotiation is not a football match. It is not a question of keeping score of goals and own goals, or winners and losers. Rather, we have tried to accommodate the expressed concerns of both sides, so as to create a win-win situation.... This Plan (Annan Plan) is inevitably a compromise. It does not satisfy everyone’s demands. But I believe it meets the core interests, and addresses the key concerns, of people on both sides.”

It is true that the Annan Plan did not satisfy all the demands and needs of the Turkish Cypriot people. A very long list of why the plan should have been rejected exists in the minds of each and every Turkish Cypriot let alone the leadership. However, having paid a dear price for protecting their vested rights and vital interests, the Turkish Cypriot people are well aware of the fact that a durable solution also has its price and requires a good deal of compromise. On 24 April 2004, the Turkish Cypriot people declared their will to pay the cost for a liable settlement and voted in favour of the Annan Plan. The Greek Cypriots, on the other hand, expressed their will for no compromise and thus, voted for no settlement. “Should they now be punished for expressing their free will?” asks Mr. Chrysostomides.