Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

The person I referred to knows exactly what I meant. In another forum he writes exerts from the Akritas plan and in this forum he questions the very existance of the plan. Doctor Jenkyl and Mr Hyde syndrome, but private lessons come expensive these days, don't they?

Bananiot,

Can you please talk in a language other than riddles?

If you are aiming things at a specific person then USE PM! If you expect others to understand what you are saying or suggesting then don't use riddles!

[MicAtCyp]

Thanks Alex for your analytical reply, you are right to most of the points you raised. Reading your posts I think we in here discuss on superficial matters rather than real, and this makes our perceptions totally wrong and our discussions a waste of time most of the times. I agree many of our discussions are on extreme positions too, but at least as far as I am concerned I do it on purpose... Anyway I will herebelow reply to some points I think need further discussion.

Having said that, there are some ways in which the plan can be improved for the TCs, which in no way affect GC interests - for instance, economic convergence, the economic health of the TCCS - so I wouldn't agree that any give and take will inevitably lead to the same denominator.

Don't forget this is the way we tried to negotiate last March and we ended up having the 11 bombs on top of everything. For such a procedure to succeed you need 100% the full understanding anfd cooperation of the other side. Unfortunately the other side is not thinking like that. They are thinking in the classic way of negotiating to get us much as you can. Even De Soto though that way, by balancing our neutral requests with one of the "classic" demands of the other side.

I also find some problems with the BBF model, especially the fact that each person will end up having three identities (Cypriot, Constituent State, Ethnic) in order to make it work.

This is one of the most minor problems I see in a BBF system. The serious problems I see are
a)There must be a substantial loss of land and properties by the GCs in favour of TCs and settlers on exchange of nothing.
b)There must be a system with borders and checkpoints to constantly monitor who is living/staying on the TCCS. It leads to 2 separate States!
c)There must be long deprivation of basic human rights of GCs in major fields like property ownership and enjoying, travel, setting bussiness(=getting back their share from the development they are paying for) etc etc

Capital ownership is not to be equated with land ownership, because not all land has the same capital value. The real question is, who will own the factories and the hotels and the office space and the shopping malls in the TCCS, and most of that can remain under TC control without compromising the average GC's property rights.

I agree, but don't forget the majority of the GC refugees and TCs are not "real capital " owners. In the end of the day the majority of the voters will be of that "little capital" people and will have to look at the solution with their own sight glasses. You sound optimistic, but on the other hand it remains to be seen how this compromising will affect the average person.What i can certainly quarantee is that any agreement that directly refers to losing property has zero chance to pass, whereas disguised losing will be revealed soon and cause even more negative reaction. The agreement on the property issue must be as crystal clear as possible, and must be on exhange of equal to equal plus full return of the rest. And if this will require the TCCS to be smaller it should get smaller.The absolute figure is not bigger than 18% no matter how many GCs will return to that 18% and how many TCs (existing and expats) will return or stay to the CSCS

What perhaps we can insist on in negotiations, is that the constitution of the BBF should be seen as transitional, and that 15 or 20 years later a Constitutional Assembly should be called in order to inquire whther we are ready to evolve the state into a Unitary system of governance

I fully agree. That would influence possitively many GCs who wonder between a yes and a no..On the other hand how will it be taken by the TCs given their past experience for the 13 points and taking away their "earned" rights away? In my opinion the TCs want a solution that will be valid for eternity no matter how bad that would be for the GCs.
I remember prior to the referendum many moderate TC politicians were telling us, take the Anan Plan, don't miss this chance, and after we get rid of Turkey we will arrange everything between ourselves. Well if all the TCs were like them we shouldn’t hesidate, but are they? Don't forget we have the Eroglus and the Denktashes who are almost 50% we have the grey wolves and all sorts of ultra nationalists, that in the end will allow nothing to change. Besides don't forget that even the worst systems finally get embeded because they themselves in depth of time create embeded interests.

Actually I suggested RoC authorised direct trade only, in response to the return of Varosha - flights from Ercan were Turkcyp's suggestion.

Woops yes you are right, I apologise for that. I guess I mixed up your position with that of Turkcyp.

Alex can you elabotate on the "EU-carrot" regarding the TCs? I mean to most of them it only means direct flights and some economic aid. On the other hand they object the EU aquis as they consider it contrary to their interests. Is there anything I miss?

[MicAtCyp]

Bananiot dont push me to describe the type of forum you are ARE one of the greatest. May I remind you that I joined for only 2 months and had the guts to leave when I realised beyond any doubt there was no hope there. You are always using excuses and always trying to avoid the essense of messages. You even try to personalise the Cyprus problem on Papadopoulos, and you can't even see the only thing you can achive with this is Polarising. If you think it serves you to cause polarising between the 76% and the 24% then fine, no problem with me.

[Bananiot]

Ok, this is my last message on this issue. I stand accused of leading to polarisation (?) by denouncing the policies of Papadopoulos. This is typical in a banana republic. The master's wisdom must never be questioned. I am one of the greatests in the other forum, you say. This is ridiculus and only a distorted mind can reach such conclusions.

Mikkie, now, amazes me. He sees riddles in my messages and advices me to use PM. I wonder, has he given the same advice to the person that started all these calling me names such as idiot etc, not privately, but for anyone to see? No he hasn't. I was even called a turkish name, but mikkie kept quite, he did not feel like responding. So please stop the patronising mikkie.

I have never hidden the fact, in this forum or anywhere else, that I hold Papadopoulos responsible for the predicament of this country and the partition that will follow. If this annoys some members then let it be, but, this is a voice that will not be silenced. Intimidation will not pass ...

As I said before, I will not respond to other fascist-like attacks. I apologise to other members who had to put up with me in this dog fight.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

Ok, this is my last message on this issue. I stand accused of leading to polarisation (?) by denouncing the policies of Papadopoulos.

No sir, you accused him of being a murderer, a chauvinist and Turks hater and someone who intentionally drives your country to partition. This is what I got from your messages. You are free to express your opinions and not to reverse into aphorisms and lies.

[MicAtCyp]

Oh. C’mon MicAtCyp,

I was not expecting this from you. You know very well that (a) and (b) are completely false accusations, and (c) is partly false. I would expect you to come up with well worded rational criticisms not scare tactics.

Turkcyp, I am really surprised of what you said!! It's not the first time I am saying these things in this very forum!

Well in many discussions I had you , I agreed almost completely but please do review them and you will see that I never agreed on the matter of compensation other than for lost properties for public use. Anything beyond that will mean a massive compensation by thin air, which anyway can only be paid by very heavy taxation 90% of which will be on GCs shoulders. In other words the losers will compensate themselves!
I even discussed with you the possibility of this compensation be in cash (which is actually impossible anyway) and I supported than unless the TCCS issues it's state land for sale this cash will create tremendous inflation etc etc. We never agreed to that but anyway I thought you knew my positions.

Regarding the checkpoints you are free to ask any TC politician to tell you. Did they agree that the checkpoints would just increase from 3 to 10 after a solution as per Anan Plan yes or no?

Now if you are referring to some other form of BBF other than that of the Anan Plan I will be more than happy to see it and evaluate it.For me the BBF of the Anan Plan was simply 2 separate states one of which would in fact be a protectorate of Turkey.

I am not rejecting the BBF for the sharing of the political power, in fact I almost never cared to discuss this issue with anyone. (I passed through the anarchist school you know, but they kicked me out as a heretic, but still, whatever has to do with authority and concentrated power drives me nuts- so whatever you agree with your GC compatriots is fine or should i say shit for me, but I will respect you deal anyway). The specific things I don't like about BBF were described before. That's why I proposed so many times a Unitary state with autonomy equal sharing of power etc etc, I mean anything that will not deprive the peoples right to get back their properties after an equal to equal exchange is fine with me. Plus freedom.

[-mikkie2-]

Mikkie, now, amazes me. He sees riddles in my messages and advices me to use PM. I wonder, has he given the same advice to the person that started all these calling me names such as idiot etc, not privately, but for anyone to see? No he hasn't. I was even called a turkish name, but mikkie kept quite, he did not feel like responding. So please stop the patronising mikkie.

I amaze you? If you are aiming something to a particular person, then make that clear! MicAtCyp made his clear. The reason why I didn't respond is because I know MicAtCyp's style and I know where he is coming from. And I know better than to get offended. I have been attacked as well but I don't take it personally, I just get even! You know, at least he backs up what he says and builds an argument. All you seem to do is throw comments around and don't actually push through your comments. All you prophesies are doom and gloom, with no real explanation or any constructive arguments of your own to back up what you say with constructive (or destructive) ideas of your own. So rather then accuse me of being patronising, perhaps you should look in the mirror first.

I have never hidden the fact, in this forum or anywhere else, that I hold Papadopoulos responsible for the predicament of this country and the partition that will follow. If this annoys some members then let it be, but, this is a voice that will not be silenced. Intimidation will not pass ...

As I said before, I will not respond to other fascist-like attacks. I apologise to other members who had to put up with me in this dog fight.

Ok, back to the substance of your post. So why do you hold TP responsibe? Do you hold him responsible for the last 40 years? The last 30 years? Or the last 2 years where he was actually in power?

Wasn't it he who formulated the bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal ideas in the high level agreements of 77 and 79? Wasn't it these that eventually led us to the A plan? Just want to see where YOU are coming from with this. If so, then do you blame him for coming up with those ideas in the first place or do you blame him for not sticking by them. What exactly?

Do you think the A plan was true to the BBF ideals? More importantly, do you think that the A plan could have been better negotiated by him? Furthermore, does it not actually bother you than even if we did get a plan that everyone voted yes to, that the two main powers (Greece and Turkey) that were to implement the security guarantees for whatever the new state of affairs would bring actually FAILED MISERABLY to agree these vital security issues which would make or break the plan?

I personally am glad that we said no, because even if we did agree the plan, there would be no guarantee that Turkey, and for that matter Greece, would uphold this plan. And in so doing we were entrusting our future to other main players, the Americans and British and yet more fruitless UN resolutions which would probably come to nothing yet again. Could you see the yanks making bombing runs on Ankara in order to force her to comply?

I personally believe that Papadopoulos did not have enough time to get to grips with the negotiations so soon after he came to office, and I am willing to give him another chance to make good what he promised the people of Cyprus. What we see in the public eye is only part of the story and basing our judgements on what can been seen with knowing what goes on with what we can't means that we can only guess at what may or may not happen. One thing is for sure though, our EU membership is now focussing efforts for a solution. Turkey is pissing off the EU in many ways with her crude and uncompromising negotiating tactics. By all accounts Cyprus has been considered a pain as well but not in the same way as Turkey. At least Cyprus has yeilded and not acted irresponsibly with the veto for example.

[Bananiot]

"Wasn't it he who formulated the bi-zonal, bi-communal, federal ideas in the high level agreements of 77 and 79?"

In 1963 Klerides formulated the 13 changes to the Constitution of the RoC. He was dead against the move, yet he was the one who formulated the changes, acting on instructions from Makarios.

Papadopoulos does not want a bizonal bicommunal federation. His actions today as the President of the republic indicate quite loudly this. He does not respond to calls for the changes he wants to the A plan. He asks for so many prerequisites to be satisfied before talks are convened that practically he denies negotiations. Give him another plan (ie return of the TC's to the RoC) and he will jump to the opportunity.

He did not negotiate in Switzerland because he rejected the philosophy of the A plan, that is, the very nature of bizonal, bicommunal federation. Even the best of the best changes will not make him badge an inch from his stance. This is so easy to see. You only have to read between the lines of what he says or the occasional errors of his tongue or even his generals in his party who are vociferously against the A plan to understand what Papadopoulos want.

[-mikkie2-]

Bananiot,

You are speking with generalisations again.

I specifically asked who was involved in drawing up the high level agreements of 77 and 79 which formulated the BBF solution.

You then go and talk about the 13 points of 1963!

I am still not convinced by your conclusions. Why? Because Papadopoulos knows that it won't be possible to achieve a unitary state. He knows that partition is not an option as many GC's just would not accept it. We gain nothing with partition. If he sees that things will lead to it then he has no option but to negotiate a federation. So I still insist that the next round of negotitations will bring to light the true intentions of everyone. Until such time anything we say is guesswork and pure conjecture!