As we all know now, the Annan Plan contains two maps, irrespective from the fact that initially the experts used to say that there was no map at all. Here, we will try to analyze the strategic meaning of this move.
No matter how the Plan is, since there has been an invasion and yet a violent one, the only map that could have been accepted by the Cypriot population would be Cyprus itself. And as this possibility does not exist on a negotiating level, any map that could have been proposed by the Annan Plan would not have been acceptable. So, the only solution, not to the Cypriot issue, but simply for the publication of the Annan Plan was to propose two maps at least. From a strategic point of view also, the question of the map is of no interest. Because neither the first nor the latter is better in comparison and none of them is good. What is important is the division of the opponent.
Firstly, the opponent, namely us, by taking in hand the Annan Plan and by discovering the existence of the map A and map B, wonders which one is the better for his part. Namely, without fully realizing it, one enters the context of choice without conceiving that there is no choice at all. Thus, in this way, the Plan breaks the opponent’s front and has even room to move by using the opponent’s mass media themselves. For, the first thing that the opponent would do would not be to resist the Plan, but to analyze and comprehend the best choice; though this one does not exist, since choosing is by itself an erroneous move. The system knows it; what matters is the average citizen not to know it.
At a second stage, the opponent by a habit of learning and owing to democratic conscience will go through the polls to know the so-called people’s average thinking and will ask: Which of the two scenarios as regards the territorial part of the Annan Plan would you prefer?
A) The one providing for returning the additional part of the area of the central Karpasia with the villages of Proasteio, Limnia, Skylloyra and Pyrga.
B) The one providing for the part of Karpasia with Gialoyssa, Rizokarpasso and Apostle Andrew.
And even though the majority of people won’t accept either of the above scenarios, the analyst will continue his strategy by aiming at economic and sentimental goals to explain the results.
The third and more effective stage of this strategy is that even if there is a resistance of the people, this may be explained by stating that it comes from a population that belongs to an area that is not to be returned to the Cypriots, as Keryneia, meaning that it is normal, since there is nothing to be gained.
The mental scheme of the Annan Plan strategy is relatively simple: Neutralization of the most significant element, of the resistance, securing interpretation of the Plan and division of the opponent’s front by making him to choose by using his normal inertia. As we see, this strategy is only to the benefit of the Plan itself and not our Cyprus, for the Plan’s territorial part is a move of diversion.