Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Sir,
I am disappointed about Mr Matsakis’ comments about partition being rubbished and rejected out of hand by the political establishment without even being considered.
It is precisely this attitude towards varying ideas which has helped lead to the present situation in Cyprus.
It is what led to attempts on President Makarios' life when he was in favour of an independent state when everybody else was wanting enosis.
The slogan then was Enosis, until it became apparent that this was never going to work, now the slogan is bizonal, federal solution, I wonder how long it will take before the reality of this ever being achieved will sink in.
To me, Matsakis was only trying to be realistic. The reality is that having two separate states is a possible solution, one that would work. Whoever said that there is only one possible solution to the Cyprus problem?
If done properly, partition is not such a bad solution, look at the positive aspects of it, we would get Famagusta and Morphou back, a major city and town, and the villages which where offered to us in the Annan plan. A limited amount of refugees could be given the option of going to live in the new statelet if they desired and there could still be some form of compensation to property owners.
The present status quo is also partition, expect with us having less land so I'll let the readers use their common sense and decide which is better.
The way things are going, we are going to have the present situation forever, except without Famagusta, Morphou and the surrounding villages, so we might as well negotiate having them back before it is too late.
After another generation or two, the whole world will see it as being ridiculous to find a solution after all those years and they will recognise the northern half or even worse recognise it as being part of Turkey.
Our leaders go on about a bizonal, federal solution, but nobody has given us an idea what of what exactly this is and how they are going to achieve it and even more so how they are going to get Turkey to agree to it the way they want it.
I want to see on paper an exact model of the solution which the Greek Cypriot side wants before I can support it, I can't just support blindly the words bizonal, federal solution without knowing what it is and if it is achievable.
What our side should do is come up with a proper working model of the limits of what they will accept and how they want this federal solution to function; if the Turkish side rejects this model and it becomes obvious that it cannot be pressured by the international community into accepting it, then our side should stop wasting time and instead opt for two independent states.
As far as I can see, all that is going to happen is that we will be presented more and more federal models from the UN, which will continuously be rejected by our side as happened in the past until eventually the present status quo will be the solution.
The people who are angry about Matsakis and others such as myself who give partition serious thought should turn their anger towards Eoka B and the Greek military junta which gave Turkey the excuse to invade; they are the ones who are responsible for putting us in this present mess.
To those who say that no politician has the right to right off the property of refugees by negotiating partition, all I can say is this: it is our duty to get what is best for the numerous generations of Greek Cypriots ahead of us, even if it means upsetting the one generation of refugees which are already established and pretty well off in the south.
Y. Paphitis
Sheffield, UK


Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2007


A man with his feet firmly on the ground and taking into account the realities of the situation, I applaud his honesty and bravery well done.

[74LB]

VP, the following article in todays Cyprus Mail also echoes the sentiments above where questions are being asked on the efforts made by the RoC to find a solution ............

So what exactly would make a good solution for our leaders?
By Nick Pittas

THERE is a widely held view in the Greek Cypriot community that no solution to the Cyprus problem is preferable to a bad solution.

To those who hold this view, the Annan plan in all its five iterations was bad, all the various UN sponsored plans that were tabled between 1978 and 1999 were bad, the tentative agreement reached between interlocutors Glafcos Clerides and Rauf Denktash in 1973 and rejected by Makarios was bad, the 1964 Acheson plan was bad, the Zurich and London Agreements that established the Republic in their time were considered bad (but not so bad now with the benefit of hindsight according to President Papadopoulos who advised Makarios not to sign at the London conference in 1959). All the various proposals made by the British colonial government in the 1940s and 1950s to address the self-determination claims of Greek Cypriots and the fears of the minority Turkish Cypriots were bad, and on and on.
What we are never told by the rejectionists is what would make a settlement plan good, or at least acceptable to the Greek Cypriot community.

We know that in principle we are prepared to accept a solution for a federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal Cyprus, based on the political equality of the two main communities, provided the solution is ‘workable’ and capable of being ‘long lasting’. What exactly would satisfy those conditions we are never told. All we know is that every UN initiative since 1977 did not reach the mark.
The strategy it seems, is to create a Dunkirk spirit within the Greek Cypriot community, whereby our current President is all that stands between us and those unnamed but nefarious forces within the international community that day and night are working to undermine the Republic and to serve it up to satisfy the voracious appetite of their friends in Turkey.

The wonder is that the people of Cyprus can still be sold this jejune bill of goods after all these years.
The candidates for the presidency should have their feet put to the fire and be required to tell the voters exactly what sort of a federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal plan they envision could realistically form the basis for a comprehensive settlement. This does not mean they have to produce a draft constitution and map, or the other terms of a settlement to address the various aspects of the problem. What the people have a right to insist on is for each candidate to come forward with their vision in concrete terms of what would satisfy the requirement for a ‘workable’ and ‘lasting’ solution that could be accepted by both sides.
The time for vague generalities has long passed. The public can only make an informed and constructive choice among the candidates if they know what each one submits as the principles and the essential conditions that would render a plan acceptable to the two main Cypriot communities. If they want to talk about a ‘European settlement’, they will have to tell us what that means, as the EU is a cultural and political mosaic with many different forms of government resulting from political compromises and historic rapprochements. Let us not forget that at the time the Annan plan was considered quite European by the EU.

For a candidate to say only what he rejects – arbitration, tight time frames, every existing plan tabled to date – is simply not good enough. Sure, the next round of talks has to be carefully prepared, but the best prepared talks will not go anywhere if there is not the willingness to advance reasonable positions and engage in some give and take.

Eventually, we will have to sit down at the table and stop talking about process and negotiate the terms of settlement based on the principles already agreed to.
Our leader did not negotiate effectively at Burgenstock, and having accepted arbitration by the UN Secretary-general he got the plan that we rejected massively in 2004.
The world, however, does not stand still and we cannot develop a forward looking policy if we fixate on the past and all the plans we have rejected.

I suspect the international community and the EU is prepared to give us another chance to put Humpty Dumpty together again in 2008 and 2009. If there is another effort that fails, the party or parties that the international community decides is responsible will have to wear it. If that party is us, as it was in 2004, it will mean almost certainly the legitimisation of the so-called TRNC, and effectively put an end to any efforts by the international community to sponsor a settlement. The world, to the extent that it thinks about Cyprus at all, will be happy to allow Turkey to police the area, and accept the so-called TRNC as the de facto administration in northern Cyprus.

With one exception, over 60 years we have rejected every plan and initiative put forward to solve the Cyprus problem on terms acceptable to both sides. Even the exception, which established the independence of Cyprus, was widely attacked at the time as ‘unworkable’ and a ‘sell-out’ of Greek Cypriot ideals. We undermined the bi-communal nature of the Cyprus Republic between 1963 and 1974, and by our fanaticism and civil divisions we opened the doors to the Turkish invasion of 1974.
During this sad period of history every plan that was undermined or rejected by our side resulted in changed circumstances to the detriment of Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot community. Each rejected plan is succeeded by another that is worse.

One of these days, we have to wake up and realise that we are largely the authors of our own woes and misfortunes. Until and unless we face our problems honestly, and with a willingness to negotiate an honorable compromise with our Turkish Cypriot brothers and sisters, we will continue our dreary march to a permanent partition.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2007

[Pyrpolizer]

Those idiots cannot understand that by the minute we propose partition the occupied will be recognised and we will then be spending 4000 years negotiating how much we will get back.

Politically even the thought for partition is a suicide for the GCs. Of course there are always a few idiots (the biggest one being Matsakis) who think about it.
Anyway partition is out of the question for the vast majority of GCs. We will NEVER give away any part of our own country. Furthermore we are NOT idiots.

NB. Even Turkey has never been such an idiot to propose partition....
We can only agree on a decent Federal structure. Nothing else.

[humanist]

VP You do not have my support on your partition plans. I comend you for standing up for what you believe though.

[Piratis]

If Turks want a chance of having partition be accepted by the majority of GCs then they should propose an 18%-82% partition, and accept that they should first return the agreed land to RoC and then have any kind of recognition.

If that does not happen then the current situation will simply continue for as long as it takes for the balance of power to change and RoC to reclaim its own land.

There is no chance in a billion that any "trnc" can be recognized without our agreement since the pseudo state is the result of an illegal invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing. The north part of Cyprus is the homeland of 5 times more GCs than TCs.

Even in the case of Kosovo where the AngloAmericans are openly pushing for its recognition as separate state, and where the majority of Albanians is something that happened legally and not by ethnic cleansing and invasion, and still they can not achieve it.

I said it many times before and I will say it again: Either we will all share the whole Cyprus proportionately in a democratic way, or we will split it proportionally. If the Turks want to gain land on our loss they should be sure we will not capitulate, and they should be sure that without our agreement they can not legalize anything.

[Nikitas]

Can anyone clarify what will happen with those Turkish Cypriots who do not want partition? In the event of partition do they lose their property in the south? Do they lose their right to reside there? Will they be able to claim nationality of the south?

In other words can the majority vote in a referendum re partition bind individuals on the issues of nationality, property, residence etc?

Before people rush to say things are obvious consider the case of a Turkish Cypriot, born of Turkish Cypriot parent in lets say UK after 1974. What nationality will this person get after the hypotheticl partition? Can anyone force him to accept a nationality he does not want? Under the European Convention of Human Rights is the division of Cypriots imposed by the 1960 Consitution along ethnic and religious critieria be legal today? Today it is illegal to print peoples' religion on their ID card, as it is considered private data and not subject to disclosure.

Partition sounds like a neat clear cut solution but those that propose it have not thought it through. There are political, legal and military considerations that stand in the way. It is no accident that Turkey does not demand partition, Bulent Ecevit ruled it out years ago. Perhaps the partitionists here should read what he had said in 1974.

[Viewpoint]

If Turks want a chance of having partition be accepted by the majority of GCs then they should propose an 18%-82% partition, and accept that they should first return the agreed land to RoC and then have any kind of recognition.

If that does not happen then the current situation will simply continue for as long as it takes for the balance of power to change and RoC to reclaim its own land.

There is no chance in a billion that any "trnc" can be recognized without our agreement since the pseudo state is the result of an illegal invasion, occupation and ethnic cleansing. The north part of Cyprus is the homeland of 5 times more GCs than TCs.

Even in the case of Kosovo where the AngloAmericans are openly pushing for its recognition as separate state, and where the majority of Albanians is something that happened legally and not by ethnic cleansing and invasion, and still they can not achieve it.

I said it many times before and I will say it again: Either we will all share the whole Cyprus proportionately in a democratic way, or we will split it proportionally. If the Turks want to gain land on our loss they should be sure we will not capitulate, and they should be sure that without our agreement they can not legalize anything.

Piratis you know full well that if the bigger nations want to recognize the TRNC they will, at the current time it does not suit their aims, like you wait for that swing we also wait for recognition doesnt change anything. What these posts are saying is that like it or not partition has already occured and maybe you GCs should realistically take the land for recognition deal, you personally have taken a step in that direction with 18% but you must also allow for land disputes to be settled before this % is final. I feel that the majority of Gcs would accept this deal if the land return was enough to clinch the deal, then we could all go our merry ways with the GCs not having to share power and we not having to fear GC domination/assimilation, you in the EU and us out of it, problem solved.

[Get Real!]

It's funny how from time to time VP digs up the frustrations of a worn out and weak natured GC begging for some change to the Cyprus problem stagnation and posts them here to see if like minded weaklings have grown in number!

[Viewpoint]

It's funny how from time to time VP digs up the frustrations of a worn out and weak natured GC begging for some change to the Cyprus problem stagnation and posts them here to see if like minded weaklings have grown in number!

Isnt partition just another solution, you obviously dont agree with it but at this rate and the chasm which exsists we will end up there anyway at which stage you will get no land back. Are you willing to take that risk when you can see the reality that we are already divided and that recognition is just a state of mind nothing else. If I were a GC I would try and get as much land back as possible in exchange for recognition and tell the TCs to go it alone.

[Get Real!]

It's funny how from time to time VP digs up the frustrations of a worn out and weak natured GC begging for some change to the Cyprus problem stagnation and posts them here to see if like minded weaklings have grown in number!

Isnt partition just another solution, you obviously dont agree with it but at this rate and the chasm which exsists we will end up there anyway at which stage you will get no land back. Are you willing to take that risk when you can see the reality that we are already divided and that recognition is just a state of mind nothing else. If I were a GC I would try and get as much land back as possible in exchange for recognition and tell the TCs to go it alone.

There's like 800,000 people here VP and the chances of them agreeing to give you a worthwhile chunk onto which you can form a legal state is next to zero.

The ONLY obstruction to the RoC extending her rightful control to all four corners of the island is a very illegal Turkey desperate to fit in with the West so she can't keep up the charade forever! I predict that very soon Turkey will make a very pivotal decision for her future…