Bananiot wrote:So naive. Do you think Papadopoulos fell into deep depression because Talat was not cooperating? Papadopoulos fought hard to get a "no" vote because he hated the philosophy of the plan, that is, BBF. He has rejected seven plans in his long career, all of which were miles better than the last one. Did you expect him to accept a plan that provided for the two communities to share the country as equal partners? The question everyone should be asking is "what does Papadopoulos really want"?
Back in 2003 he tricked AKEL to put him in the top position by declaring openly that if he was elected President he would work on solving the Cyprus issue on the basis of the Annan Plan No. 3 which he accepted and he would negotiate it to better it. He did everything possible to make it worse so that he could ask for a loud "no". This proves that the man is against any compromise solution.
Papadopoulos has always been a proponent of "clean" solutions. He would rather have half a Cyprus that would be totally Greek than a whole Cyprus with the Turkish Cypriots achieving equal political status as a community. Because he does not have the clout, political and military, to achieve his goals, he is heading for disaster and this is why he will lose the elections in February, because the people have begun to understand him better and are not willing to go down the drain with him.
Banana, at least when you use terms and concepts, make sure you understand their implication and how they relate to the issue! You say the philosophy of the plan was that of a BBF! Nonsense! BBF is not a (the) philosophy! This has already been agreed back in 1977, and is not a "philosophy!" BBF is the supposed (hypothetical) end result! It is the outcome or the conclusion, if we assume that the plan was indeed that of a BBF! When we talk about the “philosophy” of the plan, we only mean the sum of all the underlying assumptions we make as to how we get to the outcome! It is the set of considerations that one takes into account, based on which to formulate the end result, i.e. the final product! Part of the “philosophy” of the plan would be for example whether the new state of affairs will emerge as an evolution (a continuation) of the RoC, from a unitary bi-communal state into a federal and a bi-communal one; or whether it will emerge through a "virgin birth" approach on the basis of “two equal founding states under the roof of federation," as Talat stipulates in the above SABAH article! This is what we mean by referring to the “philosophy” of the plan, and in that sense, Annan plan 5 had only one philosophy, that of endless and very dangerous “constructive ambiguities” (read destructive ambiguities!) Yes, the "philosophy" of the failed A-plan had a name that was called “constructive ambiguity,” that is how and why the Turkish side came up with that despicable “constitution” for the so-called TC Constituent State!
Philosophy in this case, is not the "where do we get to," but the "how do we get to" somewhere, i.e. what methods, assumptions, techniques, tactics and strategies do we use, and more importantly, why do we choose these and not some others!
