Cyprus-Forum.com

[Agios Amvrosios]

The Annan Plan purported to create a "United" Cyprus. Yet its main effect would have been to institutionalise division rather than unite Cyprus in a real way.

How "United" would Cyprus really be when some citizens would be allowed to vote only in part A and some would only be allowed to live and vote in part B?

Maybe the referendum would have been more successful if they called the new state which they planned to be set up like a palougin was called " The Sort-of United Cyprus Republic"

[-mikkie2-]

How about the 'Dis-united Cyprus Republic"?

That about sums up the Annan plan.

[erolz]

The Annan Plan purported to create a "United" Cyprus. Yet its main effect would have been to institutionalise division rather than unite Cyprus in a real way.

How "United" would Cyprus really be when some citizens would be allowed to vote only in part A and some would only be allowed to live and vote in part B?

Maybe the referendum would have been more successful if they called the new state which they planned to be set up like a palougin was called " The Sort-of United Cyprus Republic"

It seems (and I may have got you wrong here?) that your defintion of united then means the TC community living in Cyprus as a political minority and not as an equal partenr community. Just as this is some peoples defintion of a democratic Cyprus. If this is your idea of what united means (TC under effective political conbtrol and domination of GC) or democratic for that matter then yes let's stop talking about wanting a united Cyprus - for such 'unity' has never been acceptable to TC and this still remains the case.

[Alexandros Lordos]

It seems (and I may have got you wrong here?) that your defintion of united then means the TC community living in Cyprus as a political minority and not as an equal partenr community. Just as this is some peoples defintion of a democratic Cyprus. If this is your idea of what united means (TC under effective political conbtrol and domination of GC) or democratic for that matter then yes let's stop talking about wanting a united Cyprus - for such 'unity' has never been acceptable to TC and this still remains the case.

Erol,

I think your question in brackets is full of insight ...

It's not just Agios Amvrosios who doesn't believe the Annan Plan would have led to a United Cyprus, almost every GC I know (including myself) feels exactly the same way.

The Annan Plan would have led to segregated voting, segregated business, segregated education, and segregated residence in two ethnically pure constituent states. The Annan Plan has Denktash's paws all over it, who resisted every suggestion that would have led to true re-unification and insisted on apartheid provisions on every level. Denktash rejected integrated schooling, he rejected cross-voting, he insisted that residence restrictions should be aspyxiating, and then ... he rejected his own creation, the Annan Plan.

Therefore, the complaint of Agios Amvrosios above has nothing to do with "political equality", but whenever a GC expresses concern about a certain aspect of the Annan Plan, the knee-jerk reaction of most TCs is to say "GCs don't accept political equality, they want to dominate us, so let's forget about re-unification and focus on ... direct trade instead".

[erolz]

It's not just Agios Amvrosios who doesn't believe the Annan Plan would have led to a United Cyprus, almost every GC I know (including myself) feels exactly the same way.

I understand this. However the part of AA post I was refering to was this bit (and not the reference to the annan plan)

How "United" would Cyprus really be when some citizens would be allowed to vote only in part A and some would only be allowed to live and vote in part B?

That to me seems like a claim that anything short of total freedom to settle anywhere and have full political represntation rights where ever you chose to settle is not a united Cyprus. Which in turn means any solution where TC are not effectivly a political minority in Cyprus can not be considered a 'united' Cyprus. I did however accept that I may have misinterpreted his meaning here (though in reality I hold little hope of any clarification from AA given his posting behaviour to date).

Therefore, the complaint of Agios Amvrosios above has nothing to do with "political equality",

Are you so sure? Can you really read the section of AA post I quote above and seriously say it has nothing to do with 'political equality'? If you can explain to me how we can achieve AA's 'criteria' for a 'united' cyprus whilst at the same time protecting the TC communites right to a a degree of political equality then I would love to hear them?

but whenever a GC expresses concern about a certain aspect of the Annan Plan, the knee-jerk reaction of most TCs is to say "GCs don't accept political equality, they want to dominate us, so let's forget about re-unification and focus on ... direct trade instead".

I am sorry Alexandros and with all due respect that is simply not a fair allegation to raise against me - at least from where I am sitting. I have made very few comments about the GC no vote to the annan plan and my 'knee jerk' reaction above was not in relation to the annan plan but to the general statement made by AA above. I have never argued that we should forget trying to work on an agreed solution and consentrate on direct trade instead - not in this thread or anywhere else.

Maybe the section of my post you considered to be 'full of insight' could also apply to you re my post?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Maybe the section of my post you considered to be 'full of insight' could also apply to you re my post?

OK, maybe it's me with the "knee-jerk" reaction here ...

You are right, I've read AA's post again, and he does seem to be asking for zero restrictions to residence, and essentially two federated states where GCs will be the majority. So your criticism of him was fair - my apologies.

Having said that, I do not retract my more general criticism, that TCs on the whole tend to disregard GC concerns about the Annan Plan.

[brother]

I don't think TC disregard the gc concerns but in a long time its the best thing we have been offered to end this isolation which has caused tens of thousands of our people to migrate and be replaced by settlers.

We are an understanding people but we also can only take so much under the given circumstances and hence in the last 30 years it was our only hope upto date of reclaiming our lives and drawing our own destanies.

Our gc brothers who feel that we do not understand them are wrong as we do, we are suffering as much as they are but while their circumstances are better they have more resiliance against time then we do, everyday that passes another tc family leaves the island with no choice only to be replaced by a settler.

My end comment is lets unite before you have no tc brothers left to unite with and get stuck with thousands of settlers who you all know are not anything like a tc.

[MicAtCyp]

It seems (and I may have got you wrong here?) that your defintion of united then means the TC community living in Cyprus as a political minority and not as an equal partenr community. Just as this is some peoples defintion of a democratic Cyprus. If this is your idea of what united means (TC under effective political conbtrol and domination of GC) or democratic for that matter then yes let's stop talking about wanting a united Cyprus - for such 'unity' has never been acceptable to TC and this still remains the case.

Erol lets suppose this is the case.Lets suppose in a United Cyprus you will be "dominated" the same way your father as an insignifigant minority immigrant was dominated when he emmigrated in the UK.Do you honestly beleive that in such a united Cyprus, in 2005, inside Europe: you will be killed, you will be deprived your properties, you will be attacked, you will not have free movement, you will not be able to prosper, have bussiness, earn money, get equal salary, have the same opportunities, you will not have everything a human person wants exactly the same way every other citizen of the republic would have?Or you think you will have 99% of all those or 98% or lets say 50% of those? Specify me the percentage please. I will insist on that, I want to know the percentage!!

Metecyp I want to know your answer too please, in view of your previous argument that the RoC should be "foxy" to invite the TCs back.I suppose you agree those who return would live under the "dominative" control of the GCs.

PS. Erol you may go to Limassol and see with your own eyes what our dominance has done to the very very poor TCs who returned there. Most of them were gypsies by the way, never lived in a house before, even refused to let their children go to school before. Go and see with your own eyes. Ask them yourself if they are happy or not.

[Piratis]

It is quite unfortunate that some TCs use the word "dominance" in such an inappropriate way.
In democratic countries were full human rights are implemented and communities have additional rights to protect the culture, language and religion of their community as a whole there is no such thing as "dominance".

What TCs are seeking are not protections against the "dominance" of GCs. Such protection is provided 100% by the laws, and now even by the EU. Domination can happen only if the laws are not followed, in which case the agreement for solution would not matter anyways.

What TCs want is independence, but because after 30 years they realized they can not get it, they decided to try for a disguised one since it had additional benefits for them.

[Saint Jimmy]

The Annan Plan purported to create a "United" Cyprus. Yet its main effect would have been to institutionalise division rather than unite Cyprus in a real way.

This seems to me like a very 'easy' statement to make. Could you elaborate?

How "United" would Cyprus really be when some citizens would be allowed to vote only in part A and some would only be allowed to live and vote in part B?

Is that the definition of 'unity'?
I think that's not all there is to it. From where I'm sitting (which is somewhere on the fence, to be honest), the A-Plan would have effectively brought about unity in the long-run, because of two abstract and somewhat 'unprovable' reasons:
a) it would have forced us to work together, ultimately creating a common cypriot 'conscience', or else it would fail, and we'd be left with the mess again, and
b) our 30-year old experience with last time we f***ed up, would have prevented us from allowing it to fail.
Functional difficulties would have been addressed with an eye for a solution, instead of one for getting one's way (as we so miserably tried the first time around).

Maybe the referendum would have been more successful if they called the new state which they planned to be set up like a palougin was called " The Sort-of United Cyprus Republic"

Maybe. Maybe not.
Does it matter now? Its supporters should leave the 'opportunity' behind. It's been missed.
Its opposers should do the same. It's been avoided.
We've seen the last of Annan 5. Annan 6 is going to be a different chapter in the book. Hopefully the last one.

I don't see the point of discussing the difference of opinions in this way anymore ('in this way' meaning aphorisms of the 'it's no good' or 'it was a missed opportunity' kind). Perhaps this thread could be tagged constructive debate if it were intended to address a given point of discussion.
Apologies if that was the intention.