By George Koumoulli
Much has been written about Nicos Anastasiades’ revelations about the two-state solution. The late Archbishop Chrysostomos II and Mr. G. Kasoulides, to whom he confided his innermost desire, severely rebuked him for this downward spiral, while Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, to whom he also confessed his “sin”, was stunned. The last person expected to propose a solution to the de jure partition of Cyprus would be the President of the Republic.
However, the reaction to Anastasiades’ statements about two states, which raises questions, is that of Mr. Mavrogiannis. In at least two interviews with the press, he told us that these statements by Anastasiades are “brainstorms” (from the English compound word brainstorm), but in the diplomatic/misleading way he put it, the concept of brainstorm has been perceived by the general public as a “pellara” that was said for has and, therefore, irrelevant.
That is why he did not cauterize her, as he ought to have done. And yet, the brainstorm is neither trivial, nor “pellara”, nor funny. On the contrary, brainstorming, or brainstorming as some call it, is one of the most creative ways of solving problems in which we work on various problems. With an ideological storm, we can either come up with a new idea or improve an existing idea as well.
In other words, one of the main objectives of the brainstorming, in terms of trying to resolve the Cyprus problem, is to explore all kinds of new ideas at the negotiating table.
Therefore, if, according to Mavrogiannis, Anastasiades was overwhelmed by the brainstorming to move towards a two-state solution, we would expect the former to sharply criticize Anastasiades’ attitude and, if necessary, to resign as an interlocutor, rather than to regard this issue as insignificant and pass it by.
There is another section of Anastasiades’ supporters who attribute his “blunder” of a two-state solution as a “verbal slip-up”, i.e. he did not want to say exactly what he said or formulated.
Such a slip-up can occur when someone is not an excellent user of the language.
For example, Pope Francis, whose mother tongue is Spanish, in an (oral) sermon in Italian at the Vatican in 2014 went viral for saying cazzo, which in Italian means “damn”, instead of caso (which he wanted to say), which means “case”. But our President’s verbal slips are not of that nature.
Undeniably, Anastasiades’ Greek is excellent, since, as we see, he uses a wide and rich vocabulary with great flexibility and precision, using elements of coherence. In addition, Anastasiades can express himself spontaneously and skilfully bypass any difficulties in monologue situations for describing political goals, argumentation, answers to journalists, public announcements, and addressing audiences.
So the problem lies elsewhere! Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, did not consider it enough to simply listen to his clients say what they think. Their true, deep desires, according to Freud, lay in the faults of language.
These verbal slips can reveal forbidden and repressed desires, which had been successfully repelled (until that moment) in the unconscious. Verbal errors, then, according to Freud (known today as “Freudian slips”) are by no means accidental – they are important parts of the picture that can reveal a truth to us.
Besides, the well-known Greek proverb itself states it, “A latent language, the truth is told”.
In conclusion, whether the phenomenon of the brainstorm or that of the Freudian slip is true, Anastasiades is judged through the scientific lens as a devotee of the two-state solution.
Anastasiades and his colleagues had set as their life’s goal the maximization of their wealth, which, however, was not compatible with the solution of the Cyprus problem.
The “golden” passport industry would not only not flourish, but, on the contrary, would wither with the presence of a Turkish Cypriot vice-president and a Turkish Cypriot assistant prosecutor, not to mention other institutions.
I do not have the space or the will to prove that Anastasiades torpedoed the talks in Crans Montana.
I think, however, that someone is burning for a deal and is imbued with indomitable patriotism, does not thunder and leaves the negotiating table first, as the PD did in July 2017. Nor does it reject Akinci’s proposal made in 2018 that the Guterres framework be adopted by both sides as a “strategic package deal”. Of course, this suggestion was rejected, because 2018 was a time when well-known law firms were unbridled in the furious competition for passport issuance.
In other words, it was the golden age of “golden” passports.
In summary, on the altar of enrichment, the solution of the Cyprus problem and the future of our country was sacrificed.
The most tragic thing is that Cypriots have not realized the crime that has already taken place.
The establishment has succeeded in drugging our thoughts, and we have become the easiest targets of demagogues, plutocrats, profiteers and laoplanes.
The historian of the future will probably write about the developments at the beginning of the 21st century: “Never in the history of Cyprus have so few caused so much unspeakable destruction to so many.”
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of CypriumNews.
