As prepared for delivery...

Remarks by Ambassador Michael Klosson

October 14, 2003

Good afternoon. It’s a pleasure to be here today with such a distinguished group. Architects and engineers form a pillar of society. You hold positions of respect and influence, so I am as interested in hearing your views on Cyprus’s future as I am in sharing U.S. perspectives.

This is a crucial period in this island’s history, one we hope within 7 months will see a comprehensive settlement. We believe the effective arrangements for a settlement that secures the rights of both Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots in Europe are embodied in the Annan plan. This proposal, which remains on the table to be finalized in negotiations, provides political equality and security for all in a bizonal Cyprus. It is not a plan imposed from the outside. At the end of the day, it should be up to Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots to decide for themselves whether the negotiated plan secures their future.

Through your education and experience, architects have the unique ability to look at a document or plan and envision the building it represents. You have the ability extrapolate from the conceptual to the concrete. You can see the strengths and weaknesses of design and recognize when a plan will in fact result in a strong and lasting structure.

In architecture and engineering, the design process is relatively straightforward as long as you are dealing with a single client. Those of you with experience in public architecture or complex civil engineering projects, however, will appreciate the difficulties inherent in balancing the competing interests of multiple stakeholders. The goal then is to develop a model or design that will satisfy multiple needs. There are always trade-offs.

The Annan plan is one such design. As a negotiated document, it has all of the compromises and trade-offs that implies. It is also, however, a workable, durable and well-designed solution to the long-standing problems of this divided island.

S

o, I would like today to discuss the way forward based on the plan and address some misperceptions about the plan itself as well as U.S. support for the plan that have surfaced in public debate.

Way Forward: Annan Plan

The Annan plan is a comprehensive document that provides both a blueprint for a functioning government and a roadmap to a brighter future in the European Union for Turkish and Greek Cypriots. It does this by embracing the idea of a bi-zonal, bi-communal island with a single international personality. That idea has been a touchstone for both sides of the Cyprus dispute for many years.

Meetings in Copenhagen last December and The Hague in March represented the best chance for a settlement. They were not, however, the final chances. A window of opportunity remains open through at least next May when the Republic of Cyprus will formally enter the European Union (EU). If there is no settlement by then, progress and success will be more difficult, as U.S. Secretary of State Powell said October 2. If that window closes with no action being taken, a tremendous opportunity will have been lost -- an opportunity to build a better future for all.

Despite disappointment over The Hague’s outcome, we believe a settlement can be achieved in the time remaining, provided both sides summon the necessary political will to work on the basis of the Annan plan. A variety of developments, both off and on the island, will hopefully continue to push towards resolution. Let me review them.

Pushing For Solution

The key external factors are the impending EU accession of Cyprus and Turkey’s progress towards EU membership. There should be no misunderstanding on this point, however. Until May, Cyprus’ accession to the EU adds to momentum behind the Annan plan. After May, the situation becomes more difficult. The Republic of Cyprus’s accession to the EU will fundamentally alter the negotiating landscape on the island.

The Annan plan includes provisions that diverge from European norms. Everyone understands that such departures are necessary to preserve the agreed bi-zonal nature of the solution. The EU Presidency recently reiterated the EU’s willingness to accommodate such a settlement. If the Annan plan is completed and supported in referenda on both sides before next May, then the settlement can be integrated into the accession process. Its provisions will carry the legal weight of treaty obligations ratified by the 25 EU member states. After next May, that opportunity will be gone.

On the island, the prospect of a solution and membership in Europe has become more concrete for both Turkish and Greek Cypriots. A solution is no longer an abstract goal to which everyone pays lip service. It is no longer something left to everyone’s imagination, or dreams. A real solution – one with tremendous benefits and opportunities, and, yes, also some uncertainties and costs – is now at hand. It is tangible. It can be realized.

With the Annan plan on the table, everyone can now visualize the architecture of the solution -- how the United Cyprus Republic’s institutions will be organized, what safeguards exist to protect one’s rights, how security will be reinforced, what benefits result from membership in the European Union, etc. And there’s something more – with last April’s relaxation of restrictions on travel across the buffer zone, large numbers of Turkish and Greek Cypriots can now put faces on “the other side.” They now have recent, first-hand experience with those with whom they will share the island.

What’s more, after more than one and a half million crossings, the experience has been overwhelmingly positive. True, both sides have further work to do to promote genuine reconciliation, but the experience of the past six months certainly defies claims that Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots can’t work together or live in peace in modern day Europe. For the architects here today, who have a tradition of considerable bicommunal cooperation over the years, this is not a new lesson.

Don’t get me wrong. The past six months have not turned 50 years of history on its head. Safeguards are required. Given Cyprus’s difficult past – 1958, 1963, 1967, 1974 – there must be safeguards. But look at the plan in light of recent events: there is a secure and functional structure set forth in the plan that we can now say will be established on a foundation of recently confirmed goodwill between individuals. That is the way to a better future, a way to avoid reliving a difficult past. That is the way to build on the process of reconciliation we have witnessed in recent months.

The United States works daily, and I mean daily, to seek a Cyprus solution before next May based on the Annan plan. Secretary Powell discussed such a settlement recently in Washington and New York with the Turkish and Greek Foreign Ministers, and other European colleagues. Other senior U.S. officials reaffirmed our commitment in talks at the UN last month. Ambassador Weston, our special coordinator, will return to the region next week. It also is my top priority.

The Annan Plan

The way forward is clear. With the support of Greece and Turkey, the two sides should commit to negotiate the Annan plan and put it to the two communities in parallel referenda within a specific time period. As Secretary Powell said October 2, the Plan is a good basis for discussion. Changes can be made by mutual agreement through negotiations, but the Secretary also urged that the parties not go back to ground zero and try to rewrite the plan.

There is an opportunity at hand, but there is also the very real danger that this opportunity will be missed. The choice before us now is to negotiate the Annan plan or to live with no solution for the foreseeable future.

The Annan plan is not a “trap” sprung on one side by the other. The plan itself has a long pedigree in past UN proposals. Many of its provisions were borrowed from earlier proposals. It includes ideas that have been supported by the leaders of one or both communities at various times. For example, under the Annan plan, the Turkish Cypriot State would control slightly more than 29 percent of the island’s territory. This number was not pulled out of a hat. It was discussed extensively as far back as 1985, when the Turkish Cypriot side accepted it at a UN Summit. At the talks in 1992, the Turkish Cypriot side agreed to the eventual demilitarization of Cyprus, the desirability of a single sovereignty and single citizenship, and the importance of freedom of movement and settlement. All of these are reflected in the Annan plan. The plan thus has deep roots in the history of Cyprus negotiations.

I repeat: the plan seeks to meet the essential, legitimate interests of both sides; it draws heavily on past proposals to do just that. Any workable plan for a Cyprus settlement will entail complex trade-offs. No party to a good agreement ever gets everything it wants.

The Annan Plan: Myths and Realities

One of the difficulties in evaluating a settlement based on the Annan plan is the considerable amount of misinformation circulating about the plan itself. This is not an easy document to read. It is important that people have a clear understanding of the plan’s provisions.

Let me urge everyone to read at least the Secretary General’s April 1 report to the Security Council on his Good Offices mission in Cyprus. This report, which can be found on the UN website (www.un.org), includes a highly readable summary of his proposal and the plan’s implications. Our embassy website, www.americanembassy.org.cy, contains a link to this report and helpful links to various topics within the report. This UN document explains clearly what the Secretary General, in his own words, thinks his plan does to protect the rights of all on this island. When you read it, I think you will understand more clearly why the United States also strongly supports this path to a solution.

Let’s now explore briefly several of the most common misperceptions circulating about the Annan plan in its current form. Before I start, a disclaimer: don’t just take my word for it. *

When you hear claims about what the Annan plan does or does not do, check them out with the United Nations, starting with the web site I mentioned.

One hears often, for example, that the Annan plan does not take into account the realities of the island. This is the first view I want to address. An examination of the Annan plan does not support that conclusion. On the contrary, the Plan explicitly enshrines the principle of bi-zonality, asserts the political equality of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, and declares the two constituent states of the United Cyprus Republic are of equal status. The plan is based on a partnership of equals.

The principle of bi-zonality is implemented and protected through numerous concrete safeguards. For example, the plan provides for a gradual approach to the establishment of residency by Greek Cypriots who return to the Turkish Cypriot State. For six years, there would be a total moratorium (with certain exceptions). After that, limitations could be imposed by the constituent states so that even after 15 years, new residencies could be limited if 21% of the population in any given village came from the other constituent state.

Misperception Number 2 is that the plan is designed so the Greek Cypriot majority will dominate the Turkish Cypriot “minority” and erase Turkish Cypriots from the island. This too is incorrect. Let me clarify. The Annan plan includes multi-layered safeguards designed to protect -- not diminish -- the rights of Turkish Cypriots. Those safeguards include: the equal status of the two constituent states; the equal number of senators hailing from each constituent state; rotation of the chair of the Presidential Council among all its six members, which have to include two Turkish Cypriots.

Let me say that more clearly: a Turkish Cypriot will be the leader of the Presidential Council at least one-third of the time. And how will that Presidential Council take decisions? The plan proposes decisions by consensus. Where that is not possible, the plan stipulates decisions by simple majority provided at least one Turkish Cypriot and one Greek Cypriot vote with that majority. In other words, no decision can be taken by persons from one constituent state alone. That is an organizing principle throughout the plan: no decision can be taken in any federal organ without substantial support from both constituent states.

To see more clearly what the Annan plan means for one’s daily life, look also at the distribution of responsibilities within the governing structure. The federal government is empowered with the minimum authority necessary to ensure a coherent international personality and to function effectively as a member of the European Union. Virtually all matters important to individuals, those functions of government that most directly affect peoples’ lives -- such as education, health, direct taxation, industry, agriculture, transport, social security, the court system, and the police -- are vested in the constituent states. What does all that mean for your future? It means: under the Annan plan, Turkish Cypriots will continue to have control over their daily lives in their own region.

Moreover, political rights at the federal level are to be exercised on the basis of internal constituent state citizenship status. So Greek Cypriots who would live in the north -- a number which is expressly limited by the terms of the Plan -- would not necessarily become citizens of the Turkish Cypriot State and they would thus continue to vote in the Greek Cypriot State. In short, under the Annan plan, the Turkish Cypriot State would be the self-administered and political equal of the Greek Cypriot one, controlling its own political processes and territory.

A third argument claims that the Annan plan would end the Turkish security guarantee. That’s not the case. The Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance will continue, not end. The scope of the Treaty of Guarantee, in fact, is enlarged to embrace the territorial integrity, security and constitutional order of the two constituent states. That is an important enhancement, not diminution of Turkey’s guarantee. The number of Turkish troops allowed under the Treaty of Alliance will increase from 650 to 6,000 until Turkey itself joins the EU. A similar increase, of course, applies to Greece. In addition, a UN force will remain on the island to assist the parties with implementation of the settlement and to prevent any misunderstanding or incidents. The UN mandate, however, does not in any way diminish the rights and obligations of the guarantor powers.

The Fourth Fear: one hears often that if the Annan plan is adopted, half the population of the north will become refugees for the fourth time. That rhetoric grabs headlines, but the Secretary General’s report states otherwise. Under the plan, some people will have to move as a result of the return of some territory to the Greek Cypriot side. Not half, but some. But remember this: every feasible solution proposed during decades of UN talks, including even those supported in the past by the Turkish Cypriot side, has envisaged a territorial adjustment and thus relocation of some people. Promising that no one will move is simply to promise that there will be no solution ever.

Based on the current map, the number of people who potentially will be affected by the Annan plan, however, is far less than half of the population of the north. Go to the Secretary General’s April report and UN estimates, based on the 1996 census in the north. As many as 47,000 people, according to UN calculations, might need to relocate as a result of the territorial adjustment, not the 100,000 as some assert. But what does that amount mean in practice? Only up to half of the 47,000 would actually need to move to entirely different places. For the other half, those who live in Famagusta would likely move within their own town and those in Morphou/Guzelyurt to a suitable place nearby, where they would still be able to make a living from their orange groves.

We understand that these numbers are of little comfort to those individuals who do have to move and do not have sufficient resources. Since much of the burden of a settlement will fall on their backs, it is only appropriate that the plan, the federal government and the international community address their needs. That is why the international community has made clear that assistance will be made available to facilitate a settlement and ease the transition. In addition, the plan provides that no Cypriot will be required to vacate an affected property until alternative accommodation is arranged.

The costs of a settlement – although real – can be managed, and international aid will help smooth the inevitable disruptions of change. As recently as the end of May during his visit to the island, the Administrator of our Agency for International Development reiterated the U.S. commitment. Let me repeat it: the United States will participate in and contribute financially to the donors’ conference the EU will organize. Keep in mind as well the expected economic benefits that will accrue following the adoption of the Annan plan.

The Future

Now let’s look at the future. Through negotiation and adoption of the Annan plan, the Turkish Cypriot community would become part of the European family in the next seven months -- I repeat, seven months -- with all of the advantages that family membership entails. As part of the United Cyprus Republic, Turkish Cypriots would continue to have control over their daily lives in their own territory and live in a Turkish Cypriot State, which is the political equal of the Greek Cypriot State. Current obstacles to normal trade, foreign investment and international travel would be removed. A solution and membership in the EU would stimulate economic growth and give Turkish Cypriots access to all kinds of programs the EU has available to address economic disparities between regions. A solution would also help pave the way for Turkey’s eventual accession to the European Union. That is something the United States supports very strongly.

We are at a critical point in this island’s history. The Annan plan may not be perfect in your view. No compromise ever can be. We are convinced, however, that accepting the Annan plan would open up a brighter, more secure and more prosperous future for all of the inhabitants of Cyprus.

That is why the United States supports negotiation of the Annan plan as the way forward. Some claim we harbor sinister motives. I’m glad to have the opportunity to say: nothing could be further from the truth. We want to see a secure and stable future that safeguards the rights of all in Cyprus. That serves our interests as much as it does the interests of everyone in Cyprus and the region.

As you reflect upon what the Annan plan does to safeguard your rights, I suggest you ask yourself these two questions: “Will my children and grandchildren be better off in 10 years living in a Cyprus that is united, truly part of Europe and where my rights are safeguarded? Or will they be better off if we lose this opportunity and continue living in an ambiguous, uncertain situation on a divided island?”

Neither can be answered with real certainty. Yes, the prospect of a better future offered by the Annan plan involves uncertainties. But so does the absence of a solution have its costs and uncertainties as well. The region will not sit still; there is no certainty – no certainty at all – that things will get better, or even stay the same.

At the end of the day, I would urge you to trust in your best hopes rather than surrender to your worst fears. The United States does not want to see a return to the dark days of 1974 and before. This island has already known too much suffering. The Annan plan, embracing the principles of equality, bizonality and security, provides safeguards for people to be able to trust in their hopes, to live in peace and to enjoy the benefits of joining Europe. Thank you.