insan wrote: TC community does not want to play this dirty game of GC leadership anymore.
Insan,
did you notice how you compared "TC community" against "GC leadership"? We tend to say the same thing, that the "GC
community does not want to play the dirty game of the TC
leadership anymore". Why do we speak like that?
"Communities" are composed of innocent civilians, what they ask for is generally to be respected. "Leaderships" are composed of lying, scheming and self-centred politicians, what they say is an obstacle to be overcome ... therefore, each side, in developing its rhetoric tends to present itself as an "innocent community" suffering at the hands of the "lying and scheming leadership of the other side". Of course, the motive behind such rhetoric is self-justification, and tends to lead nowhere.
I think one way to take the issue forward, is to recognise that there are four "players" involved here:
1. The GC community
2. The TC community
3. The GC (and Hellenic) leadership
4. The TC (and Turkish) leadership
It is true that the two communities are largely innocent, though not totally so: Extremists, fanatics, bigoted people are also members of the communities, though such people are usually the minority. The majority is usually well-meaning, though often ignorant of the concerns of the other side. This ignorance leads them to extreme positions, which sound similar to the positions of the fanatics but are actually not deeply held.
It is also true that the two leaderships tend to be "two-faced", because that is how politics work: They want everyone's votes, so they say whatever will please the audience. On the one hand, they want the glory of "being the one to solve the Cyprus Problem", on the other hand they fear the voters - and the history books - in case the solution they agree to turns out to be unpopular or, even worse, fails. Having said that, politicians tend to be pragmatic, more so than the people. They have more contact with the other side, and with the world at large, and are therefore aware of what is and what is not possible.
As for "maximum solution theses", I think communities and leaderships tend to share these: The GC side has the "maximum solution thesis" of "majority rule with a protected TC minority" while the TC side has the maximum solution thesis of "a two state solution with separate sovereignty". I think it is important to say that there is nothing inherently immoral or chauvinistic about either thesis: Both "majority rule with minority protection" and "separate ethnic states" are internationally accepted models of governance. The only thing wrong with them is that they are just not acceptable to the other side, and therefore not feasible options for attaining peace.
Now, how about the "compromise solution thesis" - i.e. a bizonal bicommunal Federation? Currently, it seems, the TC side (leadership and community) tends to accept this thesis, much more so than in the past, not least because it is being offered as a package which will also include the end of isolation and EU membership. GCs, on the other hand, tend to be more ambivalent: Now that the bizonal Federation thesis has been fleshed out (in the Annan Plan), many GCs (leadership and community) are finding it difficult to see how it is better than a simple two state solution. With a bizonal Federation, the way it has been expressed in the Annan Plan, GCs will still face many restrictions if they wish to live in the north, no less than if it was two separate states, but they will also have to tolerate a complicated system of governance, an inadequate system of defense, and the continuation of Turkey's role as a guarantor. The only real motive for a Greek Cypriot to vote in favor of the Annan Plan, even an ironed-out version of the Annan Plan, is just so that GCs and TCs can co-exist and co-operate more closely than they do now - and as we already know, no more than 20-25% of each side see co-existence as a primary motive for solving the Cyprus Problem.
(How much was the "Yes" vote of GCs? 24% ?)
In this grander scheme of things, I don't think any particular individual is highly important. Denktash was pursuing a maximum solution thesis, but his own community, along with the international community, overruled him. The Annan Plan made sense to the TCs, and in this popular current Denktash was swept away. Tassos - you, Viewpoint and others are saying - is also pursuing a maximum solution thesis. I say, and some others along with me, that I am not really sure what he is pursuing. It doesn't matter either way. His political position is no less precarious than Denktash (and his health is worse). The moment a solution thesis is presented to the Greek Cypriots which satisfies their primary concerns (return of refugees, Turkey to leave Cyprus, Settlers to leave), they will sweep away "any Tassos" that might dare to stand in the way ...
The really tough question is: How do we reach such a solution thesis, a solution thesis that will actually inspire GCs, while not making the TCs turn away in revulsion? That's where the US "road map" comes in, and that's why I praise it as an intelligent policy. By calling on the GC leadership to prepare "a road map", it seems that the US is well aware of the dynamics of our current situation. The problem with just "asking for a list of changes", the way Annan has been doing, is that most probably the list will be instantly rejected by the TCs: Example: "We want another 20,000 settlers to leave", say the GCs. "No way" answer the TCs. "We do not want any Turkish troops to remain", say the GCs. "No way" answer the TCs. "We want all refugees to have the right of return", say the GCs. "No way", answer the TCs. How does such a methodology solve the Cyprus Problem? Instead, a "road map" might go as follows: "We are concerned about the issue of Settlers and wish to discuss this further with the TC leadership in order to reach a mutually acceptable compromise", or "We are concerned about the presence of Turkish troops and wish to further negotiate the issue of security with the Turkish Cypriots", or, "we are concerned about refugee rights and want to further discuss with the TCs ways in which the rights of current occupants and the rights of original owners might be balanced". Isn't such a road map a more promising avenue for solving the Cyprus problem, rather than just "tell me what changes you want"?
Sorry for rambling on, I wasn't sure what I was trying to say until I actually said it.
