Cyprus-Forum.com

[cymart]

We accepted 72/28 approximately, decades ago so there is no way we can go back on that!I never believed Turkey want the whole of Cyprus anyway because the Greek-Cypriots under their control would cause them non-stop problems!
Increasing the guarantees to include the E.U. might be possible but to remove Turkeys altogether is non starter so it would be better to re-negotiate unilateral intervention rights by any of the powers.As for Britain,I cannot conceive them considering changing anything that would affect their bases etc,not because they have anything against the Cypriots but on purely strategic grounds,especially with the way the international situation is developing.
The rest of the points are quite feasibly negotiable and should be agreed by the Cypriots themselves-after all,they will have to make them work!The E.U. already has enough problems to deal with and I'm sure they would go along with whatever we decide.....
But all this is immaterial when we can't even agree on how to open Ledra St yet...
p.s. Papad has suddenly said that the positive points in the Annan Plan COULD be used in future negotiations-I thought he said it was all totally negative and 'disastrous' before???Has the cold weather spell here affected his clarity of thinking for the better at last???

[zan]

We accepted 72/28 approximately, decades ago so there is no way we can go back on that!I never believed Turkey want the whole of Cyprus anyway because the Greek-Cypriots under their control would cause them non-stop problems!
Increasing the guarantees to include the E.U. might be possible but to remove Turkeys altogether is non starter so it would be better to re-negotiate unilateral intervention rights by any of the powers.As for Britain,I cannot conceive them considering changing anything that would affect their bases etc,not because they have anything against the Cypriots but on purely strategic grounds,especially with the way the international situation is developing.
The rest of the points are quite feasibly negotiable and should be agreed by the Cypriots themselves-after all,they will have to make them work!The E.U. already has enough problems to deal with and I'm sure they would go along with whatever we decide.....
But all this is immaterial when we can't even agree on how to open Ledra St yet...
p.s. Papad has suddenly said that the positive points in the Annan Plan COULD be used in future negotiations-I thought he said it was all totally negative and 'disastrous' before???Has the cold weather spell here affected his clarity of thinking for the better at last???

I think he is fishing for votes and is using illegal trawling nets. This net has holes of all sizes instead of the usual one.

[raymanuva]

I was watching Live Big Brother feed from VOULI this afternooon
I dont think Tasos will make it for a second term... there is just no way.

[Pyrpolizer]

Is Turkey’s crisis proof we were right to say ‘no’?

EACH time Turkey is going through a crisis, there is a renewal of the argument that it would never have implemented the Annan plan and, therefore, a solution based on it was far from being a guaranteed option. The manner in which this argument has been used by those who had stoutly supported a ‘no’ vote contains a number of contradictions. Their 2004 position was that it was a blatantly pro-Turkish plan, dissolving our state and turning it into a Turkish protectorate. Today, they have recanted this argument and admit that since the plan was not so favourable for Turkey it had every reason to circumvent its implementation.

It is a politically naive position to argue that “since Erdogan cannot elect a President of Turkey how could he implement the solution of the Cyprus problem”. If the Cyprus problem had been solved, the whole of the island would have been part of Europe. Today, the acquis is suspended in the occupied areas and the whole island is only theoretically part of Europe. The European Union is not concerned by the uncontrolled influx of mainland Turkish settlers but only by the danger that they could easily move to the south. In other words, a solution of the Cyprus problem would have meant that the borders of Europe were in Kyrenia. Today, the de facto reality is that they end in the Ayios Pavlos suburb of Nicosia.

A failure to implement the solution on behalf of Turkey would have meant that the sovereignty of an EU member-state was under dispute, a development that by itself would have been sufficient to cause extensive complications to the functioning of the European Union.

Such a move by Turkey would be tantamount to a Russian attack against Estonia. It is inconceivable that this step could ever have taken place because Europe would never tolerate it. Does Turkey have the strength to confront the whole of Europe? Is it possible that the EU would accept this large-scale deviation from what had been agreed?

Moreover, the Security Council and the United States were the guarantors of the agreement and it is inconceivable that they would have allowed Turkey to jeopardise an agreement for resolving an international dispute, which was projected as a model for similar disputes around the world.

Is Turkey so strong that it can brazenly confront the whole world? Finally, if Cyprus cannot trust the European Union and the United Nations as credible guarantors of a solution, then why are we insisting that the Cyprus issue should be resolved through negotiations?

If in 2004, with the whole world standing by our side, we believed that the guarantees for implementing the solution were not strong enough, then what more can we gain from an agreement based on the July 8 procedure, which oddly enough is supported by those who have been arguing that Turkey would never have implemented the solution? Unless the July 8 agreement is yet another communications ploy, like the one of 2003, when we never tired of accusing Denktash in various international fora that he accepted the Annan plan only as a point of reference, whereas our side believed it was the basis for a solution!

Concerns about the implementation of a solution could easily be viewed from the opposite perspective. We had to predict the future complications arising in the path of Turkey’s accession process, either because of internal reasons (such as the current crisis) or because of external ones (such as the election of Nicolas Sarkozy). We had to take advantage of that particular moment in history, when Turkey was fervently seeking a date for the start of accession negotiations with the EU and there was a strong prospect that it would join as a member.

Instead, we have followed a policy based on the pursuit of a solution in the long term, while simultaneously taking advantage of our position as an EU member. Such a policy, however, carries bigger and more dangerous risks than those that would have resulted had we accepted the proposed plan.

Another arguments used, and one that has a wide appeal among public opinion, is that we would have dissolved our state and left ourselves exposed.

Our state is not a simple object that can be lost. A state consists of territory, population, institutions and its recognition. Our state would have become stronger and bigger. Stretching from the Cape of Saint Andreas to the harbour of Paphos, it was going to become a member of the most powerful political and economic club in the world.

The Turkish Cypriots, for political, economic and, even, for reasons of self interest, would have chosen Europe over Anatolia. Through a proper policy (not like the one we followed between 1960 and 1963), the implementation of the solution would not be dependent on Turkey. Any attempt by Turkey to try and complicate the situation could become a boomerang and irrevocably cut the umbilical cord between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots. Provided, however, that we had leaders with a vision and not scare mongers.

Makarios Drousiotis

Cyprus Mail

20/05/2007

Zan, the Gcs are not stupid. They evaluated those possibilities you know. When they realized they would be loosing their properties nothing else mattered anymore.
Have you noticed Droushiotis haven't said a single word about it?
We need a plan where ownership rights are fully restored.

[Bananiot]

Yeap! Papadopoulos is now talking about the positive points in the Annan Plan. Really, can any one take him seriously?

[zan]

Is Turkey’s crisis proof we were right to say ‘no’?

EACH time Turkey is going through a crisis, there is a renewal of the argument that it would never have implemented the Annan plan and, therefore, a solution based on it was far from being a guaranteed option. The manner in which this argument has been used by those who had stoutly supported a ‘no’ vote contains a number of contradictions. Their 2004 position was that it was a blatantly pro-Turkish plan, dissolving our state and turning it into a Turkish protectorate. Today, they have recanted this argument and admit that since the plan was not so favourable for Turkey it had every reason to circumvent its implementation.

It is a politically naive position to argue that “since Erdogan cannot elect a President of Turkey how could he implement the solution of the Cyprus problem”. If the Cyprus problem had been solved, the whole of the island would have been part of Europe. Today, the acquis is suspended in the occupied areas and the whole island is only theoretically part of Europe. The European Union is not concerned by the uncontrolled influx of mainland Turkish settlers but only by the danger that they could easily move to the south. In other words, a solution of the Cyprus problem would have meant that the borders of Europe were in Kyrenia. Today, the de facto reality is that they end in the Ayios Pavlos suburb of Nicosia.

A failure to implement the solution on behalf of Turkey would have meant that the sovereignty of an EU member-state was under dispute, a development that by itself would have been sufficient to cause extensive complications to the functioning of the European Union.

Such a move by Turkey would be tantamount to a Russian attack against Estonia. It is inconceivable that this step could ever have taken place because Europe would never tolerate it. Does Turkey have the strength to confront the whole of Europe? Is it possible that the EU would accept this large-scale deviation from what had been agreed?

Moreover, the Security Council and the United States were the guarantors of the agreement and it is inconceivable that they would have allowed Turkey to jeopardise an agreement for resolving an international dispute, which was projected as a model for similar disputes around the world.

Is Turkey so strong that it can brazenly confront the whole world? Finally, if Cyprus cannot trust the European Union and the United Nations as credible guarantors of a solution, then why are we insisting that the Cyprus issue should be resolved through negotiations?

If in 2004, with the whole world standing by our side, we believed that the guarantees for implementing the solution were not strong enough, then what more can we gain from an agreement based on the July 8 procedure, which oddly enough is supported by those who have been arguing that Turkey would never have implemented the solution? Unless the July 8 agreement is yet another communications ploy, like the one of 2003, when we never tired of accusing Denktash in various international fora that he accepted the Annan plan only as a point of reference, whereas our side believed it was the basis for a solution!

Concerns about the implementation of a solution could easily be viewed from the opposite perspective. We had to predict the future complications arising in the path of Turkey’s accession process, either because of internal reasons (such as the current crisis) or because of external ones (such as the election of Nicolas Sarkozy). We had to take advantage of that particular moment in history, when Turkey was fervently seeking a date for the start of accession negotiations with the EU and there was a strong prospect that it would join as a member.

Instead, we have followed a policy based on the pursuit of a solution in the long term, while simultaneously taking advantage of our position as an EU member. Such a policy, however, carries bigger and more dangerous risks than those that would have resulted had we accepted the proposed plan.

Another arguments used, and one that has a wide appeal among public opinion, is that we would have dissolved our state and left ourselves exposed.

Our state is not a simple object that can be lost. A state consists of territory, population, institutions and its recognition. Our state would have become stronger and bigger. Stretching from the Cape of Saint Andreas to the harbour of Paphos, it was going to become a member of the most powerful political and economic club in the world.

The Turkish Cypriots, for political, economic and, even, for reasons of self interest, would have chosen Europe over Anatolia. Through a proper policy (not like the one we followed between 1960 and 1963), the implementation of the solution would not be dependent on Turkey. Any attempt by Turkey to try and complicate the situation could become a boomerang and irrevocably cut the umbilical cord between Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots. Provided, however, that we had leaders with a vision and not scare mongers.

Makarios Drousiotis

Cyprus Mail

20/05/2007

Zan, the Gcs are not stupid. They evaluated those possibilities you know. When they realized they would be loosing their properties nothing else mattered anymore.
Have you noticed Droushiotis haven't said a single word about it?
We need a plan where ownership rights are fully restored.

That just is not going to happen Pyro. I don't like saying that but it is true...The problem has gone way beyond that and compensation or these government bonds are the way it seems it is going to go. I do not like the idea but I hate the idea of mass movement of people even more. We need to let that happen naturally again.... after a period it will.

[Piratis]

You are not referring to facts Piratis. These are the facts:

1. The plan did safeguard the unity of the federation with only one sovereignty, international representation and nationality.

2. The plan constituted 10 000 or so pages because it included the laws for the functionality of the federation (this was asked by Papadopoulos, so that in the future his cronies would be able to call it a complicated and cumbersome plan).

3. The plan safeguarded the return of about 9% of the occupied territory.

4. The plan safeguarded the return of about 120 000 refugees to their places under Greek Cypriot administration.

5. The plan safeguarded the return or compensation for properties that were to remain in the TC component stat.

6. The plan safeguarded the restoration of human rights and the basic freedoms.

7. The plan safeguarded that no permanent derogations of the European acqui would exist.

8. The plan safeguarded the freedom of movement and the right to own a second residence in the TC component state.

9. The plan safeguarded the gradual withdrawal of the Turkish occupation army.

10. The plan safeguarded the demographic composition of the population of Cyprus.

Not bad after all, is it Piratis. I do not deny that there were negative points but I will not mention them just like Papadopoulos who promised to give a balanced evaluation of the plan but failed to mention one positive thing, just in case the "no" vote fell below 70%. You see, if the "no" vote was close to 50% he would probably have to take initiatives and suggest changes to the plan which would make it workable etc but this would be an anathema to Papadopoulos who does not care about federation.

1) The plan would officially make Turkish 29% of our country. We would have absolutely no control over that part of our island. So it would be partition as it is now, but a legal one this time.

2) Yes, Cyprus would have only one international representation. But guess what, the country of Cyprus would not represent the Cypriots anymore, since the minority of Turks would be able to block everything they wished, and then the foreigners would take the decisions, not us. All we would be left with would be 2/3rd of the island, without an international representation at all.

3) The plan promised the return of about 7% of land, but it definitely did not safeguard such thing. Turkey today is illegal occupying 36% of an independent state against international law and UN resolutions, what would stop them from doing the same with just the 7% of some "component state" without international representation and voice?

4) Turkey would not have to pay a cent for compensations. We would have to compensate ourselves. Great fucking compensation indeed.

5) The plan legalized the violations of our human and democratic rights.

6) The plan legalized the presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus, replacing the UN resolution demanding their immediate withdrawal of their troops from our island, with some agreement that there troops would leave over a period of 10 years. Today Turkey has to violate international law and UN resolutions in order to keep her troops in Cyprus. With Annan plan she would just have to "delay the implementation of some agreement because the TC constiduent state deemed that such is necessary for their security", therefore making it much easier for them to keep their troops on our island.

7) The plan legalized the presence of 10s of thousands of Settlers, and there was no plan on how all the rest would leave. They didn't bother to make one since such thing would need to happen anyways.


The Cyprus problem: That the human and democratic rights of Cypriots are violated by foreign troops who restrict our self-determination by using the TC minority on the island as the excuse and the means to impose their control over us.

The Annan plan not only it didn't solve the problem, but it made it worst.

[Piratis]

Pyrpolizer, the way you think is like some supporters of a mediocre team who keep changing their manager blaming him because the team didn't get the championship.

Papadopoulos can not solve the Cyprus problem, nobody can today or in the near future under the current balance of power. What Papadopoulos did is to save us for the relegation called Annan plan. If you vote for anybody else, then not only we will not get the "championship" as you hope, but the chances of getting relegated with something like Annan plan would be far greater.

I am not saying that Papadopoulos is ideal. You are right to criticize him for many things. But the other two options would simply lead us into disaster. So the best choice among the available option is Papadopoulos without a doubt.

[Piratis]

We accepted 72/28 approximately, decades ago so there is no way we can go back on that!

I don't know what you accepted, but we didn't accept anything like that my friend. I guess you were dreaming again.

[zan]

You are not referring to facts Piratis. These are the facts:

1. The plan did safeguard the unity of the federation with only one sovereignty, international representation and nationality.

2. The plan constituted 10 000 or so pages because it included the laws for the functionality of the federation (this was asked by Papadopoulos, so that in the future his cronies would be able to call it a complicated and cumbersome plan).

3. The plan safeguarded the return of about 9% of the occupied territory.

4. The plan safeguarded the return of about 120 000 refugees to their places under Greek Cypriot administration.

5. The plan safeguarded the return or compensation for properties that were to remain in the TC component stat.

6. The plan safeguarded the restoration of human rights and the basic freedoms.

7. The plan safeguarded that no permanent derogations of the European acqui would exist.

8. The plan safeguarded the freedom of movement and the right to own a second residence in the TC component state.

9. The plan safeguarded the gradual withdrawal of the Turkish occupation army.

10. The plan safeguarded the demographic composition of the population of Cyprus.

Not bad after all, is it Piratis. I do not deny that there were negative points but I will not mention them just like Papadopoulos who promised to give a balanced evaluation of the plan but failed to mention one positive thing, just in case the "no" vote fell below 70%. You see, if the "no" vote was close to 50% he would probably have to take initiatives and suggest changes to the plan which would make it workable etc but this would be an anathema to Papadopoulos who does not care about federation.

1) The plan would officially make Turkish 29% of our country. We would have absolutely no control over that part of our island. So it would be partition as it is now, but a legal one this time.

What! As in the Zurich agreement that you claimed earlier on has never been changed.

2) Yes, Cyprus would have only one international representation. But guess what, the country of Cyprus would not represent the Cypriots anymore, since the minority of Turks would be able to block everything they wished, and then the foreigners would take the decisions, not us. All we would be left with would be 2/3rd of the island, without an international representation at all.

The possibility of blocking things that went against us and not what is good for the country. Why the hell would we do anything else. That is just a crock of shit mate and you know it

3) The plan promised the return of about 7% of land, but it definitely did not safeguard such thing. Turkey today is illegal occupying 36% of an independent state against international law and UN resolutions, what would stop them from doing the same with just the 7% of some "component state" without international representation and voice?

So what exactly are you asking for if not a signed declaration of an agreement. Perhaps you would like a school full of children to hold as hostages in case we do not do as we say we will. What a plaonker..Really!!

Now lets explain something to you...One is a resolution passed against us and the other is an agreement....Spot he difference

4) Turkey would not have to pay a cent for compensations. We would have to compensate ourselves. Great fucking compensation indeed.

Government bonds that are freely traded Piratis...Everyone pays...As should be the case....Where is my compensation

5) The plan legalized the violations of our human and democratic rights.

Bullshit! Bullshit! Bullshit!.....That is why you have not bothered to explain.

6) The plan legalized the presence of the Turkish army in Cyprus, replacing the UN resolution demanding their immediate withdrawal of their troops from our island, with some agreement that there troops would leave over a period of 10 years. Today Turkey has to violate international law and UN resolutions in order to keep her troops in Cyprus. With Annan plan she would just have to "delay the implementation of some agreement because the TC constiduent state deemed that such is necessary for their security", therefore making it much easier for them to keep their troops on our island.

Only the number designated by the Zurich agreement....How many times have you got to be told that before it sinks in......The 10 year period.....So bloody what!!!We need protection...simple as that.

7) The plan legalized the presence of 10s of thousands of Settlers, and there was no plan on how all the rest would leave. They didn't bother to make one since such thing would need to happen anyways.

The same goes for your side but that does not count does it. The conditions you set in 1963 allowed for the rest to happen so uprooting innocent people all over again is not going to happen...If Cyprus ever did that then I would be the most ashamed person in the world.

The Cyprus problem: That the human and democratic rights of Cypriots are violated by foreign troops who restrict our self-determination by using the TC minority on the island as the excuse and the means to impose their control over us.

Though some are unhappy about the situation..The vast majority of TCs would make you eat those words..

The Annan plan not only it didn't solve the problem, but it made it worst.



And your lovely Tpap was sitting there planning total domination while he plan was being drawn up under his nose.

.