Annan’ın Kıbrıs sorununun çözüm planı, adanın güneyinde iki tür tepkiye neden oldu. Bir tanesi, Kıbrıslı Türkleri yok etmek ve saf bir ‘Helenistik Kıbrıs’ yaratmak isteyenlerden, diğer tepki ise Kıbrıslı Rumlara ve Türklere barış, refah ve uzlaşma getireceği dayanağıyla Annan Planının avukatlığını yapanlardan geliyor. Plan üzerine benzer tepkiler kuzeydeki Kıbrıslı Türklerde de ortaya çıktı, bir tarafta planı felaket olarak algılayan milliyetçiler, öbür tarafta önerilen planın tecrit, sefalet ve mahrumiyetten kurtulmak için son şans olduğuna inananlar.

Kuşkusuz, yeşil hattın hem kuzeyinde hem de güneyindeki milliyetçiler ancak tam bir ‘etnik çözüm’ ile tatmin olabilirler. Böyle bir çözümü sağlayabilmek için bizi yeni bir krize ve savaşa sürüklemekte bir an bile tereddüt etmeyeceklerdir. Bundan dolayıdır ki, EOKA Savaşçılar Birliği’nin plana karşı ‘etkin tepki verecekleri’ beyanatı ile kuzeyde de Bozkurtlar tarafından benzer demeçlerin verilmesi tesadüfi değildir.

Ancak, durum hiç de göründüğü gibi değil!

Annan Planı bu gerçeklikleri yansıtıyor. Kıbrıslı Rumlar, sunulan plana göre, kaybettikleri toprakların bir bölümünü geri alacaklar ve Merkezi Hükümet kanalıyla adanın kuzeyi üzerinde bir tür kontrol kazanacaklar. Ayrıca, Kıbrıslı Rum kapitalistler, göçmen işçilerin yerine Kıbrıslı Türkleri geçeceğini düşündüklerinden, ucuz bir işgücü piyasasına ulaşabilecekler.

Kısacası, Annan’ın ‘barış’ planının arka planını, Bush ve Blair’in Irak’a karşı hazırladığı vahşi saldırı oluşturuyor.

Birçokları, Annan planını, bu planın Kıbrıslı Rumların ve Kıbrıslı Türklerin barış içinde bir arada varolabileceğinin güvencesi olduğuna, Kıbrıslı Rumlar ile Kıbrıslı Türklerin ortak mücadelesini kolaylaştıracağına ve ilerleteceğine (sözde bugünkü coğrafi ayrılık ve bölünmeye nazaran bir ilerleme sağlayacağına) inandıkları için destekliyor. Ne var ki, plan ne coğrafi birlikteliği ne de genel olarak insanların serbest dolaşımını getiriyor. Kaldı ki, Kıbrıslı Rumlarla Türklerin coğrafi olarak birlikte yaşayacakları durumda bile, bu durum ille de birlikte mücadele edileceği anlamına gelmeyecek. Geçmişte, adada Kıbrıslı Rumlarla Türkler birlikte yaşıyordu, fakat bu durum savaşı ve kan akmasını engellemedi. Asıl ihtiyacımız olan, siyasi birliktir.

Hem Klerides hükümeti, hem Kıbrıslı Rum siyasi çevreleri, Kıbrıslı Türklerin Denktaş’a karşı harekete geçmesinden ‘duygulandıklarını’, ‘saygı ile’ karşıladıklarını ilan ediyorlar. Oysa, aynı zamanda, Kıbrıslı Türklere karşı ekonomik ve siyasi ambargo uygulamakta, onları kültürel ve spor etkinliklerinden dışlamakta tereddüt etmiyorlar. Kıbrıslı Rum tarafın uyguladığı bu saldırgan politika, Kıbrıslı Türklerin Türkiye’ye tamamen bağımlı hale gelmesinin ve bugün içinde bulundukları berbat duruma düşmelerinin başlıca nedeni olmuştur. Kıbrıslı Rum taraf, Kıbrıslı Türkleri AB dışında bırakmakla tehdit etmekte ve Simitis’in dediği gibi ‘Türkiye’nin AB’ye girmesinin yolu Yeşil Hattan geçer’ iddiasında bulunmaktadır. Aynı zamanda, tüm Kıbrıslı Rum siyasi liderleri Kıbrıslı Türklerin sözde kurtarıcısı havasına girmekte ve Kıbrıslı Türklere ‘yardım’ etmek için Partiler Arası Dayanışma Komitesi’nin kurulmasını desteklemektedir. Maalesef, ‘yakınlaşma’ politikası, milliyetçiliğe karşı ve sınırın iki yanındaki kitleler arasında dostluk ve karşılıklı güven yaratma politikası olmaktan çıkarılıp, öbür tarafa karşı kullanılan bir diplomatik silah haline dönüştürülmüştür. Tesadüf değildir ki, Demokratik Ralli’nin sağcı lideri Anastasiadis ‘yakınlaşma’dan söz edebilmektedir.

Öbür tarafta mücadele eden iţçilere, emekçilere sunabileceđimiz tek anlamlý ve gerçek dayanýşma şudur: kendi tarafımızdaki milliyetçilere ve Kleridis hükümetine karşı mücadele etmek, ambargonun derhal kaldırılması için savaşmak ve Kıbrıslı Türklerin kendilerini tehdit altında hissetmelerini engellemek için AB üyelik sürecinin dondurulmasını talep etmek. Ayrıca, silahlanma harcamalarının derhal sona ermesini ve sınırın açılmasını talep etmeliyiz. Kleridis’e açıkça belirtmeliyiz ki, adaya barış getirecek olan demokratik bir planı gerçekten istiyorsa, Kıbrıslı Rum taraf Kıbrıslı Türk tarafın istediği her tür otonomiyi vermek zorundadır. Zorla dayatılan, şantaj ve tehdit yollarıyla uygulanan bir barışçı birliktelik olamaz.

Bu durum, ilk defa, Kıbrıslı Rumlar ile Kıbrıslı Türkler arasında savaşa karşı politik bir ittifak kurma olanağını yaratmaktadır. Her iki tarafta da, yöneticilerimizin emperyalistlere teslim oluşlarına ve adadaki İngiliz üslerine karşı, ortak ve paralel bir mücadele yürütebiliriz. Örneğin, Dhekelia Garnizonundaki üslere karşı gösteriler örgütleyebiliriz. Avrupa Sosyal Forumu, 15 Şubat gününü Avrupa çapında savaşa karşı eylem günü olarak ilan etti. Bu, sınırın her iki tarafındaki kitlelere hedef göstermek için eşsiz bir fırsat: emperyalistlerin tepeden inme barış planı değil, aşağıdan ortak mücadele; savaşın, ırkçılığın ve neo-liberalizmin Avrupa’sına karşı ortak mücadele.

Ocak 2003

Tel: 22349959 / 99698503 / 99625620 E-mail: wd@workersdemocracy.net

Web: www.workersdemocracy.net

Struggle from below in common with the G/Cs and T/Cs from below

The Annan’s plan for the settlement of the Cyprus problem has produced two kinds of responses in the southern part of the island. One coming from the nationalists who seek to exterminate the T/Cs and create a pure “Hellenic” Cyprus. The other response coming from those who advocate Annan’s plan on the grounds that it may bring about peace, prosperity, and reconciliation between Greek Cypriots (G/Cs) and Turkish Cypriots (T/Cs). Corresponding reactions regarding to the plan exist among the T/Cs in the north; on one hand the nationalists who consider the plan as calamitous and, on the other, those who believe that the proposed plan offers their last opportunity to escape from their isolation, the misery and destitution.

Without doubt, the only thing that the nationalists across the green line, both in the north and the south, have in common is that they would only settle with a clean “ethnic solution”. In order to secure such a solution they would have no hesitation to in leading us into a new crisis and a war. Hence, it is not accidental the statement made by the “EOKA Fighters Association” that they will ‘react vigorously’ against the plan is not accidental and, of course, the similar declarations were made by the Grey Wolves in the north.

The advocates of Annan’s plan and supporters of the EU argue that all of that belongs to in the past, and claim that the proposed plan can offer a way out while the European Union provides the necessary guarantee.

However, things are not at all what they seem to be!

Annan's plan for the settlement of the Cyprus problem constitutes a compromise, which reflects today’s correlations and balance of power between the Greek Cypriot (G/C) and Turkish Cypriot (T/C) sides. The G/C ruling class has lost the 19’74 war, their dominance over the T/Cs and a significant territory as a result. The T/C and the Turkish ruling class lost the war on in the economics and political spheress, which continued since 1974.

Annan’s plan reflects these factualitiesrealities. The G/Cs, according to the proposed plan, regain back part of the lost territory and regain some sort of control in the northern part of Cyprus through the central government. They may also get access to a cheap labour market since the G/C capitalists see T/Cs replacing the guest workers.

The Greek PM Simitis attains aspires to become a figure in Europe playing an important role in these developments and to consolidate Greece’s role as a regional power. The T/Cs join the EU and hope to escape from misery. Turkey gets the EU to set the date for starting talks for accession, financial support and hopes to overcome its economic and political crisis.

In other words Annan’s plan offers a gift for each party involved in the Cyprus issue on the condition that everyone will accepts the “new state of affairs” as it is called and will collaborates with the imperialists in the impending war on Iraq, but also in any other military operations that will follow.

The finalized finalisedfinalized ‘Foundation Agreement’, which may eventually be submitted by each side to referendum, does not refer only to the constitutions of the “common state” and the two “component states” and to the territorial adjustments, but it also refers to the acceptance of the British bases in the island, the accession of Cyprus in to the EU, the recognition of all the treaties signed to date by both parties and the respect of the critical interests of Israel.

There should be no doubt that Annan’s plan was first of all composed to serve the interests of the Anglo-Americans and their strategic plans in the Middle East. Therefore, the way that Annan’s plan will function is, in effect, by recycling and intensifying the existing antagonisms in the region. Furthermore, most of the clauses and provisions of the Constitution contain the elements seeds of distrust and conflict.

In brief, Annan’s ‘peace’ plan has as its background one of the most savage attacks like the one that Bush and Blair are preparing on Iraq.

Therefore we should not in any way have in any way confidence in the plans designed and promoted from above or from the EU who co-starred together with USA and the UN in all the recent wars – in Iraq ’91, Somalia, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and in Palestine where Sharon continues its the slaughter against the Palestinians with the connivance of the EU.

The hope for peace, democracy and prosperity in the island does not lie in Cyprus’s accession to the EU or in the “peace” plans of the imperialists, but in the unity and joint action of the ordinary people in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey.

Many have supported Annan’s plan believing that it will secure the peaceful co-existence of G/Cs and T/Cs and that the plan will facilitate and promote the common struggles of G/Cs and T/Cs, supposedly an improvement on today’s geographic separation and division. However, the plan secures neither the geographic co-existence nor the free movement of people in general. But even where G/Cs and T/Cs will co-habitat geographically, it does not follow that there will be cooperation between G/Cs and T/Cs and struggling in common. In the past there was coexistence of Greeks and Turks in the island and we worked together, but it did not prevent the war and the bloodbath. What is really needed is political unity.

We need to have a policy which will oppose on each side the options of the ruling class of each community and the ulterior designs in general of the imperialists in the region. We need, first of all, to fight against nationalism each on ‘our side’. To fight not only against the extreme nationalists who seek a “clean ethnic solution”, but also the nationalists in disguise - the ones described as ‘compliant’.

Both the Clerides government and the G/C political establishment declare that they are “emotionally touched” and show “admiration” about the mobilizations of the T/C masses against Denktash. While at the same time they have no hesitation in impossing on the T/C side an economic and political embargo and various forms of exclusion from cultural and even sporting events. This aggressive policy which the G/C side has pursued is one of the main causes which rendered T/Cs totally dependent on Turkey and led them to today’s deplorable situation against which they revolt. The G/C side browbeats the T/Cs by keeping them out of EU and they state in the words of Simitis that “Turkey’s accession to the EU passes via the Green Line”. While at the same time the entire G/C political leadership poses as saviors of the T/Cs and supports the formation of an All-Party Solidarity Committee to the T/Cs. Unfortunately, the policy of rapprochement, instead of being a policy aiming against nationalism and trying to build friendship and mutual trust among the ordinary people across the border, has been converted into a diplomatic weapon against the other side. It is not accidental then that the right wing leader of Democratic Rally Anastasiades pretends to a right to rapprochement.

The only real solidarity we can extend to the fighting workers on the other side would be our own fight against our nationalists, against the Clerides government, demanding the immediate lifting of the embargo and the freezing of the accession process so that the T/Cs do not feel under threat. Furthermore, we should demand the discontinuance of arms expenditures and the opening of the borders. We have to state explicitly to Clerides that if he really wants a democratic plan which will bring peace in the island, then the G/C side should grant to the T/Cs any degree of autonomy they wish. There can be no peaceful co-existence imposed coercively, by blackmailing or under threat.

The hope for peace, democracy and prosperity in the island does not lie in Cyprus’s accession to the EU or in the “peace” plans of the imperialists but it lies in the unity and joint action of the ordinary people in Cyprus, Greece and Turkey.

Many have supported Annan’s plan believing that it will secure the peaceful co-existence of G/Cs and T/Cs and that the plan will facilitate and promote the common struggles between G/Cs and T/Cs, supposedly an improvement from today’s geographic separation and division. The plan itself though does not secure neither the geographic co-existence nor the free movement of people in general. However, what is really needed is political unity. We need have a policy, which will oppose in each side the options of the ruling class of each community and in general, the ulterior designs of the imperialists in the region.

In order to build such a political unity, both as Greek Cypriots and Greeks, we have to fight against the measures taken by ‘our’ side against the ‘other’ side, like for example the economic embargo, the EU accession, the military expenditures. We have to state explicitly to both Simitis and Clerides that if they really want a democratic plan, which will bring peace in the island then they should grant to the T/Cs any degree of autonomy they wish. There can be no peaceful co-existence imposed coercively, by blackmailing or under threat.

The military bases of the Anglo Americans in Turkey, Cyprus and Greece will play an instrumental role in the new war on Iraq. Already the British bases in Cyprus began have begun preparations for the war.

This makes possible for the first time to set up a political alliance between the G/Cs and T/Cs against the war. In both sides we can fight in parallel and jointly against the concessions of our rulers to the imperialists and against the British bases in on the island. For example, we can organize mobilizations mobilisationsmobilizations against the bases at the Dhekelia Garrison. The European Social Forum has declared February 15^th as a pan- European day of action against the war. This will be a unique opportunity to show to ordinary people in on both sides across the border where their orientation should be: to on the common struggles from below and not to on the imperialist’s ‘peace’ plans from above, but also against a Europe of war, racism and neo-liberalism.

December January 20032

Tel: 22349959 / 99698503 / 99625620 E-mail: wd@workersdemocracy.net

www.workersdemocracy.net