Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

Many misconseptions on the Annan plan!

One of the fundamental basics of the plan was the security arrangements and guarantees that were supposed to be agreed upon prior to the plan coming into effect.

Greece and Turkey FAILED to agree the security aspects of the plan. Essentially, there was no guarantee that the plan would be implemented. This was one of the great dangers of this plan, but the question is, would it have been worth the risk to say yes to it?

[Piratis]

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.

Of course the agreement didn't change. Thats why you illegaly occupy the north part of our country. With Annan plan you would get to keep what you stole from us

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

No, you had the possibility to block anything you wanted. As we have seen you are not just trying to protect your rights and what belongs to you, but to gain on our loss. Otherwise you being the 18% you wouldn't demand the 29% of land and 50% of power. It is obvious that you would use your veto to continue blackmailing us for further gains on our loss just like you have done during that last 3 decades.

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

What I am asking for is you to first give back what you stole before you get anything more. Not to keep what you stole, take even more, and just leave us with some promise for giving back some peanuts back later

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

Every Cypriot pays you mean. Because Turkey wouldn't have to pay a cent. Or maybe the millionaires the TCs would compensate us? No mate, with Annan plan we would compensate ourselves. Great compensation indeed!

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

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

Bullshit? Really? What about the 10s of thousand of refugees that their land would not be returned to them? What about our democratic right to rule our country with equality among all citizens without racist discriminations? We would have become second category citizens in a state that discriminates against us.

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.

"So bloody what!!!We need protection...simple as that" is what you would tell us after those 10 years would elapse. And in that case instead of violating a UN resolution and international law, you would be just "delaying the implementation of some agreement because you need protection", makes it much easier for you, isn't it?

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.

Really? So you are not ashamed that you forced 100s of thousands of people from the lands they and their ancestors existed for 1000s of years and you dared to call those people's land as supposedly being "Turkish", but now you would be ashamed for sending some foreign settlers back to Turkey?

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..

Really?

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.

The plan was already there when Papadopoulos was elected at the last moment to try and save Cyprus from the worst

.

[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.

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.

in your opinion of course

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

You sound like the most conservative peasant Piratis. Potatoes he learned to grow, potatoes he wants to continue growing. Even though there is so much late blight around.

If my dog ever becomes a President be sure he will do the exactly the same thing like Papadopoulos. He will not accept anything, and we will not be running any danger to have something like the Anan Plan back.

In the meantime however the occupied will be viewed by our EU masters like the only part of Cyprus that has a leader they can communicate with.

Papadopoulos IS A DISASTER because he stuck us into the rejection of the Anan plan. That was not enough. I am not saying anyone can solve the Cyprus problem by himself. However if our inactions are such that the occupied are just one step away from "acknowledgement", then soon there won't be any Cyprus problem to solve on the first place.
And this is exactly where we stand today. Another 5 years with Papadopoulos and it's over.

Let's try growing "red" grapes Piratis shall we?

[Bananiot]

Piratis, you have refused stubbornly to understand what I have been saying over the last four years or so. I tried to put across that what we desire has nothing to do with what we can achieve. Our options are limited, basically because of the limitations of the United Nations that have given us very nice resolutions but no one is interested to implement them, no matter how much we kick and bark.

If we really want a solution we need to take the best available option. If not, the situation cannot continue to stay as it is and time itself will put a gravestone over Cyprus. Your idea that we should wait for the balance of power to change in our favour in order to impose the solution we want absolutely stinks. It is a nightmare senario that only the worst enemies of Cyprus could wish. It is a pity you cannot see this but, mind you, this is what Dountas advised us before he died and Papadopoulos was an admirer of this man.

[Pyrpolizer]

Bananiot what if the best available option is to give our 1000 pounds worth of gold in exchange of a dime?

[joe]

Piratis, you have refused stubbornly to understand what I have been saying over the last four years or so. I tried to put across that what we desire has nothing to do with what we can achieve. Our options are limited, basically because of the limitations of the United Nations that have given us very nice resolutions but no one is interested to implement them, no matter how much we kick and bark.

Your statements sound familiar, my friend Bananiot.

Admit it, you copied these statements from an article I just finished reading titled "Full house as Clerides launches new book", from the Cyprus Weekly. You just changed a few words around, man, that’s pathetic.

Common Bananiot, cant you use your own thought process instead of parroting others?

[Kifeas]

Papadopoulos IS A DISASTER because he stuck us into the rejection of the Anan plan. That was not enough. I am not saying anyone can solve the Cyprus problem by himself. However if our inactions are such that the occupied are just one step away from "acknowledgement", then soon there won't be any Cyprus problem to solve on the first place.
And this is exactly where we stand today. Another 5 years with Papadopoulos and it's over.

The above is not an accurate assessment! Papadopoulos did take initiatives that eventually let to the adoption of the "8th of July" agreement, or the Gambari process, which opens the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the problem between the two communities! This was quite an achievement, considering the fact that the Turkish side was dead in favor of sticking to the Anan plan as the basis for a solution! Nowadays, with the exception of the Turkish side (primarily Turkey,) all the other international players -EU, UN and all the 5 Security Council permanent members, are in favor of continuing negotiations, not on the basis of the Anan plan but on the "8th of July" agreement, which calls for the establishment of committees to negotiate the various aspects and parameters of the solution. It is another issue if the Turkish side -after realizing that this puts the solution of the problem outside the favorable to them strict –essentially non negotiable parameters of the Anan plan, now chooses to backtrack from this agreement! It is evident that it is not Papadopoulos fault, the fact that we have no progress in this process, even though it is the only one on the table!

I wonder what else more positive someone else in charge of the GC community would be able to do, add or propose towards the direction of a solution, apart from the "easy" way out which is to bring back the Anan plan with some cosmetic changes!

[joe]

_______________
Cyprus is one, indivisible & belongs to its Cypriot people!

I like that sig, it’s good to see your back, Kifeas! Do me a favor, no more talk of partitions

[Viewpoint]

Papadopoulos IS A DISASTER because he stuck us into the rejection of the Anan plan. That was not enough. I am not saying anyone can solve the Cyprus problem by himself. However if our inactions are such that the occupied are just one step away from "acknowledgement", then soon there won't be any Cyprus problem to solve on the first place.
And this is exactly where we stand today. Another 5 years with Papadopoulos and it's over.

The above is not an accurate assessment! Papadopoulos did take initiatives that eventually let to the adoption of the "8th of July" agreement, or the Gambari process, which opens the prospects for a negotiated settlement of the problem between the two communities! This was quite an achievement, considering the fact that the Turkish side was dead in favor of sticking to the Anan plan as the basis for a solution! Nowadays, with the exception of the Turkish side (primarily Turkey,) all the other international players -EU, UN and all the 5 Security Council permanent members, are in favor of continuing negotiations, not on the basis of the Anan plan but on the "8th of July" agreement, which calls for the establishment of committees to negotiate the various aspects and parameters of the solution. It is another issue if the Turkish side -after realizing that this puts the solution of the problem outside the favorable to them strict –essentially non negotiable parameters of the Anan plan, now chooses to backtrack from this agreement! It is evident that it is not Papadopoulos fault, the fact that we have no progress in this process, even though it is the only one on the table!

I wonder what else more positive someone else in charge of the GC community would be able to do, add or propose towards the direction of a solution, apart from the "easy" way out which is to bring back the Anan plan with some cosmetic changes!

Ban ki Moon blamed both sides for the lack of progress, you like to think your leader is squeeky clean and is not the staller he really is, you need to see the negativity coming out of the south on a daily basis.