Cyprus-Forum.com

[utu]

This might be a stupid question, but is the unification issue the only issue that these candidates are pushing? It seems to me that other issues such as fiscal policy, energy, and agriculture would need to be addressed by them...

[Piratis]

CopperLine, I disagree with you about the "all peace plans" part. It is not necessarily all. A war can end without winners or losers, in which case nobodies rights need to be compromised, and no land has to be transfered from one to another. Everybody simply keeps what they legally own, the troops withdraw to the positions they had before the war had started, and the human rights of all people are restored.

What you are referring to is the subset of peace plans, where there is a winner and loser, and the losers makes compromises while the winner makes gains. These "peace plans" are otherwise known as surrender and capitulation agreements.

I hope you understood by now that we do not want any such "peace plan" and if you continue to insist on gains or our loss then peace will never come.

Then why don't we go back to when the Ottomans owned the island

The Ottomans never owned the island. They ruled it by means of force. The island belongs to the Cypriots, not to any foreign invadors.

[zan]

CopperLine, I disagree with you about the "all peace plans" part. It is not necessarily all. A war can end without winners or losers, in which case nobodies rights need to be compromised, and no land has to be transfered from one to another. Everybody simply keeps what they legally own, the troops withdraw to the positions they had before the war had started, and the human rights of all people are restored.

What you are referring to is the subset of peace plans, where there is a winner and loser, and the losers makes compromises while the winner makes gains. These "peace plans" are otherwise known as surrender and capitulation agreements.

I hope you understood by now that we do not want any such "peace plan" and if you continue to insist on gains or our loss then peace will never come.

Then why don't we go back to when the Ottomans owned the island

The Ottomans never owned the island. They ruled it by means of force. The island belongs to the Cypriots, not to any foreign invadors.

Still going on about the Greeks took over the world by peaceful means hey Ghandi

[Piratis]

Zan, I know how hard it is for you to understand how civilized people existed and exist.

Because the Turks have always been nomadic barbarians who invaded, killed and stole what others created and never did much on their own, you think that everybody else must like that. Not true though.

The Greeks first came to Cyprus 1000s of years ago when the population of Cyprus was just a few 1000 people and most of the island was uninhabited. They came 100% peacefully founded their own new cities, traded with those few people that existed in Cyprus already, and those that came after, and naturally the much higher Greek civilization spread all over the island which has been Hellenized since.

Sicne then Cypriots spoke Greek and followed the Greek traditions customs and religion - first the 12 Gods of Olympus (one of which was Cypriot), and later Christian Orthodox with their own Autocephalous Church.

So after this quick lesson to you, back to the topic:

We will accept a peace plan that will come with respect to democracy and human rights. The capitulation kind of "peace plans" will not be acceptable so forget of ever being able to enjoy what you stole from us. It will not happen.

[zan]

Zan, I know how hard it is for you to understand how civilized people existed and exist.

Because the Turks have always been nomadic barbarians who invaded, killed and stole what others created and never did much on their own, you think that everybody else must like that. Not true though.

The Greeks first came to Cyprus 1000s of years ago when the population of Cyprus was just a few 1000 people and most of the island was uninhabited. They came 100% peacefully founded their own new cities, traded with those few people that existed in Cyprus already, and those that came after, and naturally the much higher Greek civilization spread all over the island which has been Hellenized since.

Sicne then Cypriots spoke Greek and followed the Greek traditions customs and religion - first the 12 Gods of Olympus (one of which was Cypriot), and later Christian Orthodox with their own Autocephalous Church.

So after this quick lesson to you, back to the topic:

We will accept a peace plan that will come with respect to democracy and human rights. The capitulation kind of "peace plans" will not be acceptable so forget of ever being able to enjoy what you stole from us. It will not happen.

And does Atlas still support the world on his shoulders on the back of a giant Turtle.......

[Bananiot]

So, Joe, you see plagiarism in this:

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.

From this?

They were all there, to honour and pay tribute to Cyprus’s elderly statesman Glafkos Clerides, at the official launch of his book, 'Documents of an Era'.

Incumbent Tassos Papadopoulos lauded the ex-President as a man of sound political judgement and clear thought _ though the two of them had their differences, especially over the Annan Plan.

The other three presidential candidates _Akel’s Demetris Christofias, MEP Ioannis Kasoulides, and Costas Themistocleous _ took time from their campaigning to attend the gathering.

Former President George Vassiliou also turned up, as well as Disy leader Nicos Anastassiades, Foreign Minister Erato Marcoullis, Attorney-general Petros Clerides and leading figures from across the political spectrum.

Their presence was a sign of "high political culture", commented Journalists Union president Andreas Kannaouros, who acted as moderator.

Clerides, now 88, was in good spirits as he laughed and joked with Tassos and Demetris, sitting on his right and left. He received a standing ovation when he walked up the steps with the help of friends, to deliver yet another brief speech_urging Cypriots to accept a "realistic" and "feasible" solution , and warning about the dangers of partition if the status quo was allowed to drag on for long.

Useful

The 549 -page book, already on sale, documents events during his two terms in office (1993-2003)_including rounds of talks with Rauf Denktash, his successful efforts to get Cyprus into the European Union, but also the abortive attempt to bring the S-300 Russian missiles to the island.

With many pictures and confidential letters, the book adds to the four "Deposition" volumes he wrote earlier, and is a useful handbook for scholars, historians, politicians and diplomats.

The former President defended his stand in favour of the Annan Plan, saying it envisaged a federal Cyprus, with one sovereignty and international personality and providing for the withdrawal of the Turkish troops in 14 years. But it also highlighted the political equality of the two communities as defined in U N resolutions.

Clerides explained that he wrote the book in order to show "the difficulties we faced in promoting a solution to the Cyprus problem, and underline the shortcomings of the United Nations".

One had to be realistic and understand that "a settlement could not be the one we desire, but it has to be a compromise, the result of a consensus, a feasible solution".

In the section "Quo Vadis Patria Mea", he also referred to the dangers that Cyprus faced "if we continue to think that we can achieve a just solution as we want it, without taking into account the shortcomings of the U N". The world body could only offer theoretical support, not practical help, and its resolutions, while upholding rights and the rule of law, were like cheques without any value since they could not be implemented.

Separate

He warned that if the stats quo was allowed to drag on, then there was the danger at some stage of the Turkish occupied north gaining recognition as a political entity, even without sovereignty.

In such an event, the U N and the European Union would treat ports and airports in the north as legal and therefore the regime would be able to have free trade and other links with the outside world.

In the "epilogue" to his book he also warned that if the Cyprus problem remained unresolved for a long time, then the result would be this kind of recognition, just to ease the isolation of the de facto regime in the north.

The unproductive passage of time would lead to the kind of solution that the Turks (Denktash and Ankara) sought but could not achieve for the past 33 years_the island’s partition into two separate states.

This would satisfy the wish of Bulent Ecevit, Turkey’s prime minister who ordered the 1974 invasion who used to boast that he had "solved the Cyprus problem on the ground" and that time would legitimize that solution, therefore he was not in a haste to support a federal settlement.

Tassos Papadopoulos , once Clerides’ adviser in earlier talks with the Turkish Cypriot side, went into great length to heap praise on the former President.

Esteem

He said he had accepted the invitation to address the gathering "because first and foremost I want to express, once more, my deep respect and sincere esteem for Glafkos Clerides, the man and the politician".

He referred to the "common struggles and common anxieties" they shared in the past for the establishment of the Cyprus state and "at times of great concern for the future of the country".

There were differences but these were "the traits and privileges of democracy". Glafkos Cleroides was a bright example of "calm political dialogue, with the gentleness of his character, his tolerance and politeness, his ethos, style and his magnanimity."

He conceded there were times of disagreement between them, but no one could question Clerides’ love for his country, his political judgement and thought, the clarity and calmness of his political speech , during his long involvement in public affairs.

Papadopoulos ended his speech by calling for a "calm, productive political dialogue" among Greek Cypriots, as the only way to reach the right "synthesis" in seeking a correct solution to the Cyprus problem. Extreme positions, tensions and fanaticism harmed unity.

The book was presented and analysed by two academics, the Dean of Cyprus University Dr Stavros Zeikos and the Dean of Nicosia University Dr Michalis Attalides.

Well, your imagination is running wild but your rest assure I know the attitude. Instead of dealing with the essense of what I wrote you are looking for ways to undermine me.

Those who have been in the forum for some years can testify that I have written on numerous occasions about the "desirable" and the "feasible". In fact only last month I had a slinging match with Phoenix on this. She claimed that if Colombus was not after the desirable we would't have discovered the Americas, just to refresh the memory. On numerous occasions over the last few years I wrote about the limitations of the United Nations and also about the need to understand the realistic options we have in front of us before it is too late.

You, Joe, instead of engaging in meaningful debate on these important issues you chose to turn the attention on something else for some reason which only you understand and I wouldn't like to speculate on.

P.S. I do not read the Cyprus Mail. It is only a weekly newspaper and Andreas Hadjipapas is not one of my favourite writers. Is that okay with you Joe?

[Bananiot]

One more thing. I was at the launch of the book and greatly enjoyed the roasting of Papadopoulos by the Dean of Cyprus University Dr Stavros Zenios (not Zeikos as Hadjipapas reported) who explicitly called "toxic" the behaviour of Papadopoulos over the last four years. Papadopoulos got up and left, hereafter.

[Pyrpolizer]

Piratis,
You point out an important factor in any political settlement namely

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

But here is the strategic choice that *all* peace plans oblige one to make : EITHER, a peace plan/settlement basically says 'here is the broad proposed settlement between states, between warring parties, between erstwhile enemies; we don't pretend to address (let alone remedy or redress) the individual human rights abuses and democratic violations that occurred during the war or as a consequence of the war; all we are trying to do is establish a general peace; that general peace may contain many individual injustices, but a general peace is worth the continuation of some, even many, individual injustices.'
OR, forget a general peace plan/settlement and instead try to secure, redress and remedy for all the individual cases human rights violations and other injustices.

The Annan Plan certainly had dangers that it prioritised a peace settlement over the settlement and remedying of individual violations or abuses. By contrast, the pursuit of individual cases through the ECHR might more obviously secure individual justice but it does not (can not) bring a general peace settlement.

In the first option it is states that have rights and duties that are to be upheld, whilst in the second case it is individuals a who have rights and duties which must be upheld. The trouble is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to pursue both paths at the same time. Each path compromises the ability of the other to realise its objectives. For example, suppose you favour a comprehensive peace settlement negotiated between the parties to the dispute then those parties might say 'forget the detail of who owns that particular acre of ground because we're going to transfer the whole of this district to that federal state'. But if you as an individual were the rightful owner of that particular acre this ignoring of your particular claim would be a further insufferable cost, a further violation of your rights, a further source of animosity .

Thus, with general peace plans we're always faced with the danger or dilemma of accepting peace without justice, or in rejecting a general peace plan, trying to pursue justice in the absence of peace. As both paths are pursued and as time goes by, each confounds the chances of the other being realised. Thus, in time, because a timely strategic choice could not be made, neither strategy can be fulfilled. And that, in my view, is the nature and origin of the current stalemate.

And that is why the government bond scheme was thought up. They are tradable, sellable and appreciate as would property prices.

They were NOT tradeable (at least for the first 10 years if my memory serves correctly) they were not sellable, and the market price was totally unknown.They were not even having a secure interest rate. And they represented nothing, your property would just go as a gift to someone else. guess what upon maturity date you would be lucky if those bonds would be enough to buy a bicycle.
Man do you know ANYTHING about bonds that represent nothing???

Furthermore we are talking here for a new Government where the GCs would finance by 90%+ at least for the first 10 years. Supposing those bonds had some value (which they wouldn't anyway) 90% of that value would come from taxing the GCs themselves. In other words the GCs would compensate themselves by 90% for their own lost properties so that the TCs+settlers get a free present.

How clever you are Zan!!!

You can bet your last dime that any plan that dares touch on property ownership rights will never be accepted by the GCs.

Btw how many bonds would you like to receive for your property in the Green line?

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyrpolizer, during the last presidential elections the debate was between those that wanted the Annan plan as a basis for a solution (Cleredes, Markides) and those that said that the Annan plan should only be a basis for negotiations (Trimeris).

The only ones at that time that were saying that Annan plan should not even be a basis for negotiations where Neoi Orizontes. I am guessing that Papadopoulos would prefer to scrap the Annan plan altogether from then, however he had to make compromises in order to gain the support of AKEL. So he didn't lie to us, and he had clearly said that he would negotiate with Annan plan as the basis.

So it is ridiculous those that wanted the Annan plan as a basis for a solution, and during the referendum supported the Annan plan (this includes DISY and the central committee of AKEL, which had voted in support of AP but was later forced to change direction because they realized their supportees wouldn't follow them) to accuse Papadopoulos because he negotiated the plan.

If when you voted for Papadopoulos you didn't know that Papadopoulos had to compromise with AKEL and he agreed to negotiate the AP, and you were surprised that such thing happened, then before you vote this time it would be good to know what the candidates offer. What do you think Christofias offers? Either he will follow the exact same policy as Papadopoulos, or he will bring back a re-cooked Annan plan. Do you think he will do something else? If yes, what? Because listening to your arguments in here I can tell you that they have nothing to do with what Christofias is planing to do.

Christofias bases his hopes for election on two factors: 1) The sheep of his party who are a lot and will vote whoever the party says, and 2) the Annan plan supporters like Bananiot, Vasiliou, Papapetrou (hoping for the DISY ones in second round) because it was apparently promised to them that he would bring back the Annan plan.

But why are you voting for him? You are neither an AKEL sheep, nor you want the AP back. Can you justify your choice, or it is just a change for the sake of change, even if that change will be for the worst?

Oh I see. Everybody will bring us back a re-cooked version of the Anan Plan and the only one who will not is Papadopoulos.

[CopperLine]

Piratis,
The reason thatI mentioned all peace settlements is that it is almost impossible to imagine let alone record any wars in which some human right or civil right has not been violated or abused. Thus irrespective of whether there are winners or losers or neither, any general peace settlement tends to discount or even ignore the indvidual rights abuses and violations in favour of concentrating on the broad political settlement. If, however, indviduals pursue their rights claims - as they are of course entitled to do so - then, I was arguing, this complicates and even inadvertently subverts efforts to secure a general settlement.

You say that

A war can end without winners or losers, in which case nobodies rights need to be compromised, and no land has to be transfered from one to another.

May be so in principle; but I can't think of a single historical example in which a war has been fought in which someone's rights have not been abused or violated. Not really a war is it ?!!!

You also say that

What you are referring to is the subset of peace plans, where there is a winner and loser, and the losers makes compromises while the winner makes gains. These "peace plans" are otherwise known as surrender and capitulation agreements.

Except many if not most wars do not have clear cut winners and losers; in fact it is the exception rather than the rule that wars end in either unconditional surrender or capitulation. Most wars end with some kind of ... err ... peace plan in which negotiations between erstwhile warring parties result in a compromise agreement. Sure that agreement might be tilted in favour of one party rather than another but it is rare that it unambiguously accords with the demands of just one side.

My point is that during the last couple of decades, and certainly within Europe (largely because of ECHR provisions), in addition to the formal peace negotiations between state parties to conflict has been added the individual pursuit of justice especially on human rights grounds. All I'm saying is that the pursuit of both paths, and the crossing of these two paths, has served (a) at minimum to complicate matters and (b) quite often served to inhibit progress in the other path. I can see merits in pursuing each path but I also see how each may contradict or impede the other.