Cyprus-Forum.com

[PEACE]

A new Annan Plan released on 31 March 2004 ! It seems it didn't satisfied Greek Cypriot side.I want to hear to see what are the common objections and their suggestions ! Don't forget suggestions! Thanks!

[Piratis]

If you read this forum carefully you will see what the objections are, why repeat them again and again?

The new plan was created to satisfy Turkey, and it did - just listen to what Erdogan is saying and all the Turkish newspapers (even Denctash said is better!!).

Suggestions are mentioned several times in this forum also.
Unfortunately the goal of the Americans/British was not to find a plan that would satisfy most Cypriots (G/C and T/C) but one that would satisfy Turkey so they could blame our side and give Turkey "the date".

This just proves that unfortunately discussing anything with T/C is just a waste of time since Turkey is the one who takes the decisions based on its own interests (and not the interests of T/C).

[metecyp]

If you read this forum carefully you will see what the objections are, why repeat them again and again?

Previous objections were always too broad. For example, I remember you talking about "human rights" as one of your objections. But the fact is we have a concrete 5th plan on the table, so it will be very helpful if you tell us what you don't like about it specifically. For example, I don't like the fact that Turkish/Greek soldiers will remain on the island forever, I think they should all leave when all sides are in EU. So what are your objections?

The new plan was created to satisfy Turkey, and it did - just listen to what Erdogan is saying and all the Turkish newspapers (even Denctash said is better!!).

Yes it did satisfy Erdogan, but not totally. For example, derogations are not going to be permanent and this was a major issue for Erdogan. On the other hand, Denktash said he couldn't find any major changes to the plan that would change his opinion from "No" to "Yes". Denktash Jr. is still complaining about it, and not sure to say eother "Yes" or "No". The extremist newspaper Volkan declared the new plan to be unacceptable. I'm just trying to show you that the plan does NOT satisfy everyone on the Turkish side but I believe most T/Cs agree that they can live with the plan even if they are not totally happy about it.

Unfortunately the goal of the Americans/British was not to find a plan that would satisfy most Cypriots (G/C and T/C) but one that would satisfy Turkey so they could blame our side and give Turkey "the date".

And here, you use the same trick. You know and I know that by "most Cypriots" you mean Greek Cypriots. This is always true in a majority/minority situation. If UN proposed a plan that satisfied all G/C demands, and left T/Cs totally devastated, you would be happy right? Because "most Cypriots" would be satisfied.

What you need to understand is that no plan is ever going to satisfy most Cypriots, it is impossible. This plan was proposed long time ago, there were many negotiations about it. Then we had the last 3 months, and more negotiations. Then, Turkey and Greece tried to help, and still no agreement. This shows that we cannot agree, so somebody else had to stand in the middle and bring two sides as close as possible, and that's what Annan did. If you read the plan carefully, you'll see that it's very finely balanced, and maybe that's why you're complaining.

This just proves that unfortunately discussing anything with T/C is just a waste of time since Turkey is the one who takes the decisions based on its own interests (and not the interests of T/C).

You're acting as if T/Cs do not want a solution based on Annan plan, they want to go back to Republic of Cyprus, or even go further to minority status, and they are forced by Turkey to agree on Annan plan. I don't know where you got this impression from but it's wrong.

[Piratis]

To say what I don't like about it specifically, on each and every point, I would have to sit here and type for several days.

I don't like a ton of things. Some of them are not critical and I would be able to compromise. Some other points though make me feel like a second category EU citizen, living in a non-democratic country under the direct control of Turkey. (this sounds like what T/C have now, isn't it?) And I simply cannot accept those points.
If you read my numerous posts you will find out what I mean. You know my views and I know yours. No need to repeat everything again.

When I say most Cypriots I mean most Greek Cypriots and most Turkish Cypriots (excluding of course the settlers).

You already said that you wouldn't want Greek and Turkish troops to remain on the island forever. What about the Turkish settlers? It would be for your own interest also if most of them left. This were 2 of the main points of our side still "your" side kept fighting for the opposite.

I do not believe that a plan can exist that 100% of G/C and 100% of T/C will vote for it. But I believe that a plan could exist that a 65% of G/C and a 65% of T/C (excluding settlers) could say yes.

It might sound nice to you when the UN give you on paper so many things. For 30 years the UN had given us many papers and resolutions also. We never got what was written on the paper though.

If you don't take your destiny in your own hands and you leave Turkey to "take care" of everything for you, then Turkey will get what it wants and we (all Cypriots) will just keep winning or loosing on paper.

[metecyp]

I'm not getting into a long argument, since we both know each other, but I can't resist presenting couple of short comments.

t might sound nice to you when the UN give you on paper so many things. For 30 years the UN had given us many papers and resolutions also. We never got what was written on the paper though.

Yes, we need to make sure that what's on paper is implemented. If you remember, what was written on paper in 1960 RC agreements has never been fully implemented and that's why we have so many problems right now. If all sides stick to what they sign, then I don't think that we'll have problems.

If you don't take your destiny in your own hands and you leave Turkey to "take care" of everything for you, then Turkey will get what it wants and we (all Cypriots) will just keep winning or loosing on paper.

When you make such claims, exercise some self questioning first. For example, ask yourself why T/Cs would want to depend on Turkey for their rights. You know the answer. If it wasn't for Turkey, T/Cs would be a mere minority in Cyprus, and you can't deny that. T/Cs would not only be minority but they would be forced out of Cyprus.

If G/Cs really believed in RC as it was on paper, then we wouldn't have all these problems right now. How did you expect T/Cs to react when the whole aim of your side was to remove T/Cs from the government and control the destiny of whole island?

It's like that two boys story that we wrote a while ago. First the strong boy beats the crap out of the weak boy, and when the weak boy brings his brother for protection, the strong boy gets upset. Well, why did the strong boy beat the weak boy in the first place?

[antonis]

The bottom line is the following.

The UN has given out this plan. The GC side has always insisted that all negotiations are under the auspices of the UN CG, as we believed that the solution would be "fair". Well, this is what the UN thinks is fair.

Most GC are emotionally against it, without having read the new plan, but because of the emphasis that the media has given on the fact that the turkish side is satisfied.

There are 2 strategies. Since any NO answer annihilates the process, if you don't want the plan, you either convince your side to say NO or the other side to say NO. The first strategy will cost you a lot. The second one is what Turkey is doing now. So if one side doesn't want the plan, it has to convince its people to vote YES using arguments that will make the other side shiver...

This is why the GC side should think and act rationally, not out of emotion. The plan is unbalanced, this is true. It may not provide a viable, functional solution. The derogations may be permanent. The eternal presence of the greek and turkish army on the island and the huge number of settlers are also negative issues.

[eracles]

On the one hand it is the only viable solution realistically speaking. On the other....
"The plan is a masterpiece. My plan proposes two governmental groups, two population segments, two election procedures, two armies, two police forces, two parliaments, inability of free movement, quotas on visiting terms, restrictions on the free movement of capital and the presence of Greek and Turkish soldiers on Cypriot soil for the next 20 years"
You can't help the feeling that Turkey has gained too much from an illegal invasion. Not even paying towards the cost of unification is dispicable. That most basic of human rights, the right to live in your own house has not been respected. Sometimes I think a 'no' is the only honourable answer....but a 'yes' may be the most positive realistic answer.

http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i2755

[metecyp]

The plan is unbalanced, this is true.

Is this really true? Because I remember we were talking about the 3rd Annan plan being fairly balanced. What has changed from that plan that made the new plan so unbalanced? Yes, there were some changes in favor of T/Cs, but I don't see any major change in the whole philosophy of the plan, am I wrong?

For me there are only 2 things that I don't like. First, the eternal presence of the greek and turkish army on the island. And the huge number of settlers.

I don't like the permanent presence of troops on the island, but I can live with 650 Turkish and 950 Greek soldiers. I think we're making a big deal out of little things. Why don't we look from the bright side and realize that 650 Turkish troops is much better than 40.000?

Secondly, does anyone know how many settlers are supposed to stay on the island? And also please provide the definition of a settler. For example, do you consider the children of settlers who were born and lived all their lives in Cyprus as settlers? Do you think their children should be able to stay in Cyprus? And do you think a settler married to a Cypriot could stay on the island?

For me, anyone born in Cyprus have the right to stay in Cyprus. Similarly, anyone married to a Cypriot should be able to stay. If you count those people out, how many settlers are going to stay on the island? Again, I think this issue is being exaggerrated.

[metecyp]

You can't help the feeling that Turkey has gained too much from an illegal invasion.

I see your point, but at the same time, G/Cs did not share RC in the past 40 years, and they gained a lot from that as well. I'm not trying to argue that two wrongs make a right, but you have to understand that both sides benefitted from certain aspects of a non-solution.

That's why we need to make sure that we have a viable solution so the trust between the two communities grow into peaceful coexistence. Once we have the trust, nobody will be able to manipulate Cypriots for their own ends, but we have to have build that trust first.

[Piratis]

Metecyp,
you keep going back to the past which is really strange because if you compare the suffering that Greeks caused to Turks with the suffering that Turks caused to Greeks over history you will see that we had a lot more dead, missing, and refugees and we were a lot more oppressed by you. You selectively pick a couple of years in history, forgetting the centuries of Ottoman rule and the decades of the Turkish occupation.
You are trying to prove that we made the mistake first and therefore we deserve all the pain we received and we deserve even more injustice in the future. I really do not want to start talking about the Ottomans and the fact that Greeks lived in Cyprus 2500 years before Turks found out where Cyprus is located.

There are forums with other Greek Cypriots that would love to talk to you about history and argue with you for as long as you want about it.

I only care about the future. I want to live in a democratic country where all my human rights are respected and be an equal EU citizen. Am i asking for too much?

But does it provide a viable, functional solution?

1)No
2)Viable and functional are not enough. For example the ancient Egyptian Kingdoms were functional and viable since the lasted for many centuries. Many slaves had to die to build those pyramids that we admire today.
Even today in some parts of the world we have countries that exist for many years and they function OK, still the majority of the population is not free and their human rights are not respected.

So yes, viable and functional, but also democratic with respect to human rights.