Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Everybody involved in the negotiations prior April 24 agrees that Papadopoulos did not negotiate. Even Omirou admitted this and before he decided to tie himself to the Lissarides band wagon he told his friends that if the people find out how Papadopoulos behaved in the negotiations the President will have to escape from Cyprus, in the night. Christofias has always been upbeat on the inability of Papadopoulos to claim Karpasia, when it was their for the taking. I am sure more will be revealed as we approach February.

What many people seem to forget, though, is that we do not have many hands to play in our quest for solution. Our options are extremely limited and there real reasons for this, political, historical and possibly most important (despite the fact we do not want to admit it) we should do well to remember that the agenda has never been controlled by the losers in any conflict. For this reason we seem to concentrate on legal issues and this of course is another one of our fallacies, since we seem to be hell bent to solve the issue on legal grounds alone. This may work in fairytales but the real world has nothing to do with these childish games. I would probably say that this is understood by many people by now and what they simply do is that they have arrived at the conclusion that the current situation is better than the best solution we can negotiate. Papadopoulos has not said this as yet but all his supporters are currently hammering home exactly this. I think this is extremely dangerous (the situation staying as it is) in the long run and the Annan Plan, with all its shortcomings, was miles better. I believe Klerides would have negotiated a better version that would have worked fine, once the whole of Cyprus was in the EU. Another thing, every time I hear of adjectives put in front of the sought solution (ie viable, workable etc) it immediately comes to my mind that the person uttering them does not really want a solution, for the simple reason that by introducing vague terms that can be interpreted differently by different people, one really wants to avoid solution. Well, it's been 34 years already, do you need better proof? First it was Denktash, now it's our side, ruled by the most nationalist, chauvinistic forces in the Greek community (thanks to wise old Christofias).

[DT.]

Everybody involved in the negotiations prior April 24 agrees that Papadopoulos did not negotiate. Even Omirou admitted this and before he decided to tie himself to the Lissarides band wagon he told his friends that if the people find out how Papadopoulos behaved in the negotiations the President will have to escape from Cyprus, in the night. Christofias has always been upbeat on the inability of Papadopoulos to claim Karpasia, when it was their for the taking. I am sure more will be revealed as we approach February.

What many people seem to forget, though, is that we do not have many hands to play in our quest for solution. Our options are extremely limited and there real reasons for this, political, historical and possibly most important (despite the fact we do not want to admit it) we should do well to remember that the agenda has never been controlled by the losers in any conflict. For this reason we seem to concentrate on legal issues and this of course is another one of our fallacies, since we seem to be hell bent to solve the issue on legal grounds alone. This may work in fairytales but the real world has nothing to do with these childish games. I would probably say that this is understood by many people by now and what they simply do is that they have arrived at the conclusion that the current situation is better than the best solution we can negotiate. Papadopoulos has not said this as yet but all his supporters are currently hammering home exactly this. I think this is extremely dangerous (the situation staying as it is) in the long run and the Annan Plan, with all its shortcomings, was miles better. I believe Klerides would have negotiated a better version that would have worked fine, once the whole of Cyprus was in the EU. Another thing, every time I hear of adjectives put in front of the sought solution (ie viable, workable etc) it immediately comes to my mind that the person uttering them does not really want a solution, for the simple reason that by introducing vague terms that can be interpreted differently by different people, one really wants to avoid solution. Well, it's been 34 years already, do you need better proof? First it was Denktash, now it's our side, ruled by the most nationalist, chauvinistic forces in the Greek community (thanks to wise old Christofias).

As you say yourself Tpap might have behaved in a shameful manner in these negotiations....he might have not...It doesn't matter. What i am saying is the result of either tpap's mafia or Turkish one-sidedeness was a plan that would have led to a worse life for the average Costas than the one he leads now.

You said it yourself, we could have had so much more on that plan for us...but the plan we were given to vote for did not have so much more....can you still support it?

[Pyrpolizer]

Well, Papadopoulos is very predictable, that is why certain voices in Ankara have expressed the wish he is reelected. He is also very predictable with his incoherence's. here is a recent example:

21/08/2007
The meetings must always have a fixed agenda.

22/08/2007
This is the prerequisite for the meeting, that there would be no terms and prerequisites

The above were uttered by the same man, within the space of 24 hours.

Incoherent????

Perhaps if

a)You quote another 2 sentenses out of context or
b)Translate those from Greek to English using wrong words

Sure that would do it!

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

In the long run what counts is a community's survival on land it has owned for centuries. For many of us the Annan plan put this basic survival at risk. A few changes would have made the plan acceptable, like the UN taking over the areas to be returned to Greek Cypriots, but this was refused. In the end it became a take it or leave it deal with all the demands of the Turkish side being satisfied right away and most of the Greek ones happening from 6 months to 15 years down the road with no guarantees. We were asked to commit a leap of faith and accept that no one involved would backtrack after they got what they wanted.

Since the only assets we have in this business is our ability to legitimize any proposed solution, and not much else given Greece's unwillingness to get involved with Cyprus now or in the foreseeable future, we chose the lesser of all evils, a no to Annan.

It is indicative of the suspicion that the plan caused in people that the biggest NO came from former inhabitants of northern Cyprus. like me.

Blaming the no vote entirely on one man, credits that one man with almost magical abilities to influence people. Whatever Papadopoulos is, he aint no magician! Some of us sensed danger, that is all.

[Pyrpolizer]

Everybody involved in the negotiations prior April 24 agrees that Papadopoulos did not negotiate. Even Omirou admitted this and before he decided to tie himself to the Lissarides band wagon he told his friends that if the people find out how Papadopoulos behaved in the negotiations the President will have to escape from Cyprus, in the night. Christofias has always been upbeat on the inability of Papadopoulos to claim Karpasia, when it was their for the taking. I am sure more will be revealed as we approach February.

What many people seem to forget, though, is that we do not have many hands to play in our quest for solution. Our options are extremely limited and there real reasons for this, political, historical and possibly most important (despite the fact we do not want to admit it) we should do well to remember that the agenda has never been controlled by the losers in any conflict. For this reason we seem to concentrate on legal issues and this of course is another one of our fallacies, since we seem to be hell bent to solve the issue on legal grounds alone. This may work in fairytales
but the real world has nothing to do with these childish games. I would probably say that this is understood by many people by now and what they simply do is that they have arrived at the conclusion that the current situation is better than the best solution we can negotiate. Papadopoulos has not said this as yet but all his supporters are currently hammering home exactly this. I think this is extremely dangerous (the situation staying as it is) in the long run and the Annan Plan, with all its shortcomings, was miles better. I believe Klerides would have negotiated a better version that would have worked fine, once the whole of Cyprus was in the EU. Another thing, every time I hear of adjectives put in front of the sought solution (ie viable, workable etc) it immediately comes to my mind that the person uttering them does not really want a solution, for the simple reason that by introducing vague terms that can be interpreted differently by different people, one really wants to avoid solution. Well, it's been 34 years already, do you need better proof? First it was Denktash, now it's our side, ruled by the most nationalist, chauvinistic forces in the Greek community (thanks to wise old Christofias).

Have you ever thought of publishing a Gossips newspaper?
I promise I would read it. (only if its free of charge on the net.

[Bananiot]

Despite its shortcomings, the Annan Plan was much better than the current situation. We have almost reached the point of no return and partition stares into our eyes while the international community is sympathetic to the Turkish Cypriots. A partitioned Cyprus and a Turkey outside the EU is a time bomb for the Greek Cypriot community. This is not difficult to see. Papadopoulos and his supporters hate the idea of a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus and no matter how good the Plan was they would have rejected it anyway, simply because they do not like its philosophy. Papadopoulos set out to bring in front of the Greek Cypriot community as bad a plan as possible. Then he would be legitimised to call for its rejection. It is peculiar that no one touches on this subject. If Papadopoulos is such an able negotiator, how come the Turks got everything they wanted on a plate? Was he as a negotiator so incompetent? Or perhaps, was he following a certain strategy which was well thought of in order to deceive the Greek Cypriots? Is this why he did not ask for Karpasia? Is this why he sent Iacovou to Russia to ask them to keep low and not ask for Security Council safeguards? These are important questions DT and you can not overlook them so lightly.

In 2003 tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots were demonstrating for a solution to the Cyprob (some of them brandishing RoC flags) calling for the resignation of Denktash. We remained in our homes and watched in fear as our compatriots tore out an idol who seemed untouchable until then and demanded solution to a problem that supposedly had been solved in 1974. During this crucial period we had the bad luck to have as our President an outright rejectionist. Repeating the stupid mistakes of the past we started sending the wrong type of signals to the Turkish Cypriots and eventually we threw a NO to their face which was interpreted as "bugger off, we do not want you". Once again we sent them reeling to the warm embrace of mother Turkey and brought partition a lot closer.

P.S. Pyrpolyser, if you want to make a constructive contribution, go right ahead, otherwise punish me with your silence.

[Viewpoint]

Despite its shortcomings, the Annan Plan was much better than the current situation. We have almost reached the point of no return and partition stares into our eyes while the international community is sympathetic to the Turkish Cypriots. A partitioned Cyprus and a Turkey outside the EU is a time bomb for the Greek Cypriot community. This is not difficult to see. Papadopoulos and his supporters hate the idea of a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus and no matter how good the Plan was they would have rejected it anyway, simply because they do not like its philosophy. Papadopoulos set out to bring in front of the Greek Cypriot community as bad a plan as possible. Then he would be legitimised to call for its rejection. It is peculiar that no one touches on this subject. If Papadopoulos is such an able negotiator, how come the Turks got everything they wanted on a plate? Was he as a negotiator so incompetent? Or perhaps, was he following a certain strategy which was well thought of in order to deceive the Greek Cypriots? Is this why he did not ask for Karpasia? Is this why he sent Iacovou to Russia to ask them to keep low and not ask for Security Council safeguards? These are important questions DT and you can not overlook them so lightly.

In 2003 tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots were demonstrating for a solution to the Cyprob (some of them brandishing RoC flags) calling for the resignation of Denktash. We remained in our homes and watched in fear as our compatriots tore out an idol who seemed untouchable until then and demanded solution to a problem that supposedly had been solved in 1974. During this crucial period we had the bad luck to have as our President an outright rejectionist. Repeating the stupid mistakes of the past we started sending the wrong type of signals to the Turkish Cypriots and eventually we threw a NO to their face which was interpreted as "bugger off, we do not want you". Once again we sent them reeling to the warm embrace of mother Turkey and brought partition a lot closer.

P.S. Pyrpolyser, if you want to make a constructive contribution, go right ahead, otherwise punish me with your silence.

Excellent post, pity there are not many like you, I would let you rule anyday without question but unfortunately the majority are like Kifeas and Piratis very very dangerous.

[denizaksulu]

Piratis, does this really bother you, if Talat has the illusion that he is the President of a country? I wonder, should we be talking to this fellow if he is such a liar? Isn't this a good excuse to condemn him to iternal hell?

If there is Hell then he is already condemned.

And no, there is no really point in talking with puppets. Any such talks will be just part of the game we are forced to play and could not possibly have any positive result first because Talat will not accept anything less than partition, and secondly because even if he would personally accept something else, those that control him like a puppet would not let him.

Tpap doesnt mind talking to 'puppets'. Is he crazy then?
Regards
DA

[humanist]

Baniot

I think this is extremely dangerous (the situation staying as it is) in the long run and the Annan Plan, with all its shortcomings, was miles better.

it all depends on which side of the fence you sit, Baniot. The AP continued the division of the Cypriot people and culture and the fact that there was to be an ongoing military presence both from Greece and Turkey, it assumed that Cypriots cannot create an independant identity and hence nation, forever creating them and us. Clearly not a recipe for unity. I still cannot understand as to why the Turkish Cypriots and some Greek Cypriots cannot let go of the notion that they are Cypriot first and Greek/ Turkish later or not even at all. When does a country gain its own independence and identity.

In my personal view any solution that does not discuss total demilitarisation of the Island is not a viable solution.

Kikapu a member of this forum put forward two possible solutions based on a federal system with two states. Both ensuring the rights of all Cypriots. Can I ask why the resistance to those possible solutions by the Turkish Cypriots on this forum, because this forum is only the voice of very few Cypriots and we do not by far represent the majority of our communities.

[EPSILON]

Despite its shortcomings, the Annan Plan was much better than the current situation. We have almost reached the point of no return and partition stares into our eyes while the international community is sympathetic to the Turkish Cypriots. A partitioned Cyprus and a Turkey outside the EU is a time bomb for the Greek Cypriot community. This is not difficult to see. Papadopoulos and his supporters hate the idea of a bizonal, bicommunal Cyprus and no matter how good the Plan was they would have rejected it anyway, simply because they do not like its philosophy. Papadopoulos set out to bring in front of the Greek Cypriot community as bad a plan as possible. Then he would be legitimised to call for its rejection. It is peculiar that no one touches on this subject. If Papadopoulos is such an able negotiator, how come the Turks got everything they wanted on a plate? Was he as a negotiator so incompetent? Or perhaps, was he following a certain strategy which was well thought of in order to deceive the Greek Cypriots? Is this why he did not ask for Karpasia? Is this why he sent Iacovou to Russia to ask them to keep low and not ask for Security Council safeguards? These are important questions DT and you can not overlook them so lightly.

In 2003 tens of thousands of Turkish Cypriots were demonstrating for a solution to the Cyprob (some of them brandishing RoC flags) calling for the resignation of Denktash. We remained in our homes and watched in fear as our compatriots tore out an idol who seemed untouchable until then and demanded solution to a problem that supposedly had been solved in 1974. During this crucial period we had the bad luck to have as our President an outright rejectionist. Repeating the stupid mistakes of the past we started sending the wrong type of signals to the Turkish Cypriots and eventually we threw a NO to their face which was interpreted as "bugger off, we do not want you". Once again we sent them reeling to the warm embrace of mother Turkey and brought partition a lot closer.

P.S. Pyrpolyser, if you want to make a constructive contribution, go right ahead, otherwise punish me with your silence.

Good points but there is an other possible scenario.Annan plan was no he result of Papadopoulos negotiaions but the agreement of Simitis, G.Papantreou and Clerides with EU, Americans and Turks to prepare such a solution against the entrance of Cyprus in EU!!!!!!

Do you remember Ferhoigen telling to the press that Gcs told him lies?What lies? The lies refer to their obligation to suceed a "Yes" vote from Gcs.

Now there are two possibilities, either the Three Greek politicians were trators, selling the rights of Gcs, (because this was the Annan plan) against the mmbership in EU or the indeed said lies to all the others.

In the begining I was considering the first possibility to be the case.However it was before the last elections in Greece , before the referendum!!!!i underline this- and I was invited by a friend to his house to here the speach of a Greek politician who was belonging the government party of PASOK.(Very ell known and famous here that time, being also a minister in PASOK Governmnt).I refer this last in order to show that he knew things from inside.

When he finished his speach several people were asking him questions about various problems. I was the last who put my question which was a very complain against G Papantreou who guided Cypriots to have these meetings in NEW YORK.

The politician becam very angy and the only thing he replied to me was exactly "and who told you that Cypriots will vote YES? You have to wait the result of referendum before you name us as trators"

By the years and viewing how the things guided i came to the conclusion that yes Annan plan was a very bad plan fo Gcs but fo first time in 33 years the Greek politicians in Greece and Cyprus cooperated and yes they told lies to all, Turks, Americans, Europeans.They gave us the membership against 2-3 years complains about the lies.

History looks to be very tricky woman, very difficult to be handled and understood, even by these who are considered as experienced!!!!!