Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

That may well be your view but whether it will achieve anything or it will go on forever remains to be seen. I am sure we shall all be around to see the changes!

probably. I don;t see any other policy our side can follow.

[askimwos]

eskimwos wrote:

Bringing the TC community to par with the GC one will take some 5-10 years to realise, but I do not think that 5 years of turbulance in the economy is such a high prize to pay for the unification of our country.

I fail to understand what "economic turbulance" will be delivered to the South by allowing TCs trade their goods with the outside world or increase their tourism activities!

TCs never asked for financial aid from RoC or anyone else for this purpose. Neither have they asked the South to sacrifice any of their own current trade. All they are saying is:

"if you are serious of a solution and do not see the TCs as the enemy, then stop acting like one by encouraging economic embargoes on TCs in the international arena. Let us be, and based on mutual trust, in the long run unification will naturally follow."

Many in this forum look at the above approach as a "trick", or some kind of "hocus - pocus" - that is very far from truth. TCs are just as eager to find a sincere solution for the ongoing controversy. As I always stated, "trust" is the basic ingredient - and how do you trust your next door neighbour who keeps inviting you round for cups of coffee, but talks against you when visiting others?

That's the whole point BigOz, no political party in the RoC will allow direct trade to happen since we all know very well that the Turkish side will never want to negotiate. TCs will have 37% of the land, 50% of the natural resources and a taiwan like recognistion. What will be the point of reunifying the island again and in the process having to make concessions with regards to land, property etc? I am sure that you are old and logical enough to understand that this cannot be allowed to happen as it will certaintly lead to a permament partition. In the same way that TCs are asking for political equality because they feel that they may be assimilated by the majority, the GCs feel that any direct trade policy will signal a permament partition.

The point is to get back to the negotiation table and try to understand each other. In order to do that we need to disengage from the Cypriots plight of serving the "motherlands" interests first.
I myself belive that the CyProb can only be solved with some sort of long awaited "revolution" in the sense that GCs and TCs sit together, decide a solution and leave the "motherlands" out of the equation and just go to the UN and announce their agreement. Utopia? Well maybe.
The current policies by both sides do not help at the moment, on th eone side you have TP who is a stubborn politician of the 60's and on the other side you have Talat who managed to hook himself on Turkey by following the same deadlock policy of "direct trade" and back door recognistion.

[MR-from-NG]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

[askimwos]

No surprise Akel and its members chose to distance themselves from such a strategy and go it on their own in the forthcoming elections.

this is not a fact yet.

but if you are part of the "base" of the party, I hope you know better and that you will support such strategy

Do you really believe that Akel would kick-start such a process if the broader concesus within the party was to disengage from TP strategy? Personally I see a Christofias candidancy as an alternative who could potentially bring some hope to both sides of the line.

[askimwos]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

[MR-from-NG]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

askimwos,
With all due respect none of the examples given above have any bearing on the Cyprus issue. Are you forgetting the 1960 constitution? We are not Kurds of Turkey nor is Turkey Iraq.

There is no point in going into a discussion why all this happened in the first place as we all know where that will end up.

One of the things that bother me is the fact that up until your entry into the EU you sang a different tune, as you you got in it things changed.

I bet my bottom dollar the same applies to the 1960 constitution, all the time you agreed and signed it you had an ulterior motive. There was never any intention in honoring or respecting the agreement. How can you expect us to trust you this time round.

[Viewpoint]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

askimwos the GCs can see this as payment for imposing embargoes on us for the past 44 years and not allowing us to develop economically. Your point about just the 2 sides sitting down to decide on a joint future, if the TCs are not economically independent can you not see this is impossible? Would the "Roc" be willing to cough up 2/450million us dollars to support the north or wouldnt it be more logical to allow TCs direct trade and flghts so they may stand on their own 2 feet and come to the negotiating table without Turkey.

[DT.]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

askimwos the GCs can see this as payment for imposing embargoes on us for the past 44 years and not allowing us to develop economically. Your point about just the 2 sides sitting down to decide on a joint future, if the TCs are not economically independent can you not see this is impossible? Would the "Roc" be willing to cough up 2/450million us dollars to support the north or wouldnt it be more logical to allow TCs direct trade and flghts so they may stand on their own 2 feet and come to the negotiating table without Turkey.

think its a really risky policy. If you guys become too independent, stop depending on turkey all the time (including coming to the negotiating table without Turkey) then you're in grave danger of being invaded by Turkey. Take it from someone thats been there.

Its a dangerous neighbourhood we live in.

[Viewpoint]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

askimwos the GCs can see this as payment for imposing embargoes on us for the past 44 years and not allowing us to develop economically. Your point about just the 2 sides sitting down to decide on a joint future, if the TCs are not economically independent can you not see this is impossible? Would the "Roc" be willing to cough up 2/450million us dollars to support the north or wouldnt it be more logical to allow TCs direct trade and flghts so they may stand on their own 2 feet and come to the negotiating table without Turkey.

think its a really risky policy. If you guys become too independent, stop depending on turkey all the time (including coming to the negotiating table without Turkey) then you're in grave danger of being invaded by Turkey. Take it from someone thats been there.

Its a dangerous neighbourhood we live in.

DT how on earth can we be more invaded than we are now? If we cannot stand on our own 2 feet we cannot tell Turkey to go home and you will not be able to get only the 2 sides to the negotiating table.

[DT.]

A blind man can see this is the wrong policy to adapt. If this was to be likened to a marriage in crisis and the GCs as the husband and us as the wife the marriage counselor would be amazed at the treatment the wife is getting and no doubt would see the marriage as one that is doomed and destined for divorce.

Why aren't you reversing the fact so that you can see the other side's view as well? What if Iraq attacked and occupied 37% of Turkey? What if the Kurds in order to return to Turkey wanted some kind of BBF? What if the Kurds set a similar term like recognition and just offered Turkey just a "promise" that they will accept unification?

I am being pragmatic here and in order to have a serious discussion people need to be pragmatic as well.

As for the "economic turbulance" thing, it is obvious that in the event of a solution the wealthier side will have take the burden for the building of the infrustructure (roads, electricity, major development projects) of the poorer side. It happened in Germany and is bound to happen here. It is obvious also that in the first years of a solution the GCs are bound to lose financially and the TCs to gain. This is a sucrifice that the GC have to make in order to see their country reunified and this need to be explained to the people - in the long run both communities stand to benefit. However, GCs need to realise that they will be called to make a few sacrifises for their COUNTRY and not for the TC community. The latter explains why I disagree with GR andPiratis views on the issue of economy.

askimwos the GCs can see this as payment for imposing embargoes on us for the past 44 years and not allowing us to develop economically. Your point about just the 2 sides sitting down to decide on a joint future, if the TCs are not economically independent can you not see this is impossible? Would the "Roc" be willing to cough up 2/450million us dollars to support the north or wouldnt it be more logical to allow TCs direct trade and flghts so they may stand on their own 2 feet and come to the negotiating table without Turkey.

think its a really risky policy. If you guys become too independent, stop depending on turkey all the time (including coming to the negotiating table without Turkey) then you're in grave danger of being invaded by Turkey. Take it from someone thats been there.

Its a dangerous neighbourhood we live in.

DT how on earth can we be more invaded than we are now? If we cannot stand on our own 2 feet we cannot tell Turkey to go home and you will not be able to get only the 2 sides to the negotiating table.

VP do you believe Turkey would put aside its strategic interests in the area in favour of the will of the TC people? It will always be Turky on the table whatever you or we do. (please do not give me the annan plan acception as an example of the will of the TC people because Turkey's interests were acknowledged, accepted, cemented and legalised in that document.)