Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

The UN Chief of Political Affairs Lynn Pascoe has said that Turkey is strongly supporting efforts to find a solution to the Cyprus Problem


Pascoe was speaking to reporters after presenting a report to the UN Security Council regarding the latest developments on the Cyprus Problem.
Speaking to the reporters, the UN Undersecretary General for Political Affairs reaffirmed his optimism for a settlement in Cyprus, noting that he presented the UN Security Council a positive and optimistic report.

He said that Turkey was strictly committed to finding a political settlement on the island.
Responding to a question as to whether the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon was considering appointing a special Cyprus Representative as he did in the past, Pascoe said that this could be possible in the second phase of the process after the working groups completed their work.

Replying to another question, the UN Chief of political affairs said that the whole world would be pleased to see progress achieved in the Cyprus negotiations process.

And if anyone wants the UNCUT version from the Herald Tribune

UN political chief very optimistic about Cyprus reunification but still many difficulties ahead


UNITED NATIONS: The U.N. political chief said Tuesday he is very optimistic about prospects for reunifying Cyprus, but warned that there are many difficulties ahead and declined to give a timeframe.

"I think the entire world would be delighted to see Cyprus move forward on its negotiations," B. Lynn Pascoe, the U.N.'s undersecretary-general for political affairs, told reporters after briefing the Security Council on his three-day trip to the divided Mediterranean island earlier this month.

Asked whether 2008 would be the year for ending the 34-year-old division of Cyprus, Pascoe said, "I've always thought we have to give these things time to work, but I would very much like to see the Cyprus issue settled just as soon as it possibly can be."

Cyprus has been divided between a Greek Cypriot south and a Turkish-occupied north since 1974, when Turkey invaded after an abortive Athens-backed coup by supporters of union with Greece. In a 2004 referendum, a U.N. reunification plan was rejected by Greek Cypriot voters and accepted by Turkish Cypriots.

The election in February of communist-rooted Dimitris Christofias as Cypriot president rekindled efforts to end the country's division, and optimism grew following his meeting last month with Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat.

The two leaders agreed to restart talks and they also agreed to open a crossing at Ledra Street, a popular pedestrian shopping street in Nicosia's medieval center.

"I was really optimistic after my discussion with both sides," Pascoe said. "I gave the council a fairly optimistic report today, all of us recognizing that there are many, many difficult issues out there that have to be resolved."

He said working groups on key issues have been set up and the U.N. is looking forward to the groups starting discussions next week, "so I hope the process is moving forward."

Responding to a question, Pascue said, "I believe Turkey is very much behind the settlement."

He also said that if the working groups start moving, "and if that process is positive, and we believe it will be," Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon will consider appointing a personal envoy to help promote progress as the two sides get into more substantive discussions.

[observer]

UBP LEADER SAYS CHRISTOFIAS’S STATEMENTS `PROVOCATIVE AND UNREALISTIC’
The leader of the main opposition National Unity Party Tahsin Ertugruloglu has described the Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias’s latest statements on the Cyprus Problem as ‘provocative and unrealistic’.

In a written statement issued today, the UBP Chief accused the Greek Cypriot leader of trying to poison relations between the Turkish Cypriot people and Turkey as well as to impose Greek sovereignty on the island.

The UBP leader also claimed that the policy pursued by President Mehmet Ali Talat to counter the Greek Cypriot leader’s efforts was inadequate.

Pointing out that the Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias desired the reunification of the island under a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation; Ertugruloglu said that a new state will not to be created on the island.

He argued that attempts were being made to assimilate the Turkish Cypriot into the so-called Cyprus Republic as a minority through a planned set of constitutional amendments to be introduced.

Ertugruloglu also said that the Turkish Cypriot people should defend and maintain their sovereign state as well as Turkey’s effective guarantee.

Don't say I did not warn all you people who insist on putting the 2004 Annan Plan on the table as a starting point for the "TRNC" in the new peace talks. Christofias is not going to fall for that one and have another referendum, so that the GC's will once again turn it down, so that the TC's can claim moral victory by saying "yes" again to get the embargoes lifted. What the "TRNC" is not hearing is, that the Annan Plan is DEAD & BURIED and if real negotiations are to be taking place, then it's going to be around True Federation & True Democracy and not the 2004 AP version, which is a Confederation with a "virgin birth" concept as an added touch. As long as the "TRNC" insists on the RIP 2004 AP, then Christofias is going to put Turkish Occupation and Guarantorship on the table as the main obstacle to peace, and you will find many around the world will see it the same way.

It does not take a genius to figure that one out.

Last I heard Christofias and the GC establishment were still talking of a Bi-communal, Bizonal Federation, which they have been saying for the last 34 years. The trouble, is that that they are unable to swallow the 'bizonal' bit, so dress it up like our friend Kikapu here in fine sounding phrases like a True Federation and a True Democracy.

The Annan Plan was a True Federation (or tell me what was false about it) and a True Democracy (or tell me what was undemocratic about it).

You can shuffle the terms of any agreement around anyway you like, but the number of TCs who want to be in a GC run state is minimal (why else have so few ever moved to the South) so there is going to be part of the island where TCs have autonomy or there isn't going to be an agreement.

[Viewpoint]

This minority-majority thing is convenient as an excuse. Those that use it forget realities like taxation, where the majority is taxed, as it should be on the basis from each according to his income, to finance projects for the whole, and for the financially weaker, as it should be, again on the basis to each according to his needs. That is how modern states work. Here we are told that the system should not only disregard numbers in population but also taxation burden and contribution to the budget of the state, and all because the TCs are not willing to accept minority status or "be ruled" by GCs.

These phrases "ruled" and "power" have no place in a democracy. There are ways to safegurad the rights of all sections and all communities, whether in the majority or minority, without having foreign armies pemanentely stationed on the island.

S youd be quite happy for the TC to rule the whole island without GC contribution, if so then what are we arguing about, put the idea forward that here will be a reversal of roles and the GC will accept minority and rights in a TC state run by TCs.

[Kikapu]

UBP LEADER SAYS CHRISTOFIAS’S STATEMENTS `PROVOCATIVE AND UNREALISTIC’
The leader of the main opposition National Unity Party Tahsin Ertugruloglu has described the Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias’s latest statements on the Cyprus Problem as ‘provocative and unrealistic’.

In a written statement issued today, the UBP Chief accused the Greek Cypriot leader of trying to poison relations between the Turkish Cypriot people and Turkey as well as to impose Greek sovereignty on the island.

The UBP leader also claimed that the policy pursued by President Mehmet Ali Talat to counter the Greek Cypriot leader’s efforts was inadequate.

Pointing out that the Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias desired the reunification of the island under a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation; Ertugruloglu said that a new state will not to be created on the island.

He argued that attempts were being made to assimilate the Turkish Cypriot into the so-called Cyprus Republic as a minority through a planned set of constitutional amendments to be introduced.

Ertugruloglu also said that the Turkish Cypriot people should defend and maintain their sovereign state as well as Turkey’s effective guarantee.

Don't say I did not warn all you people who insist on putting the 2004 Annan Plan on the table as a starting point for the "TRNC" in the new peace talks. Christofias is not going to fall for that one and have another referendum, so that the GC's will once again turn it down, so that the TC's can claim moral victory by saying "yes" again to get the embargoes lifted. What the "TRNC" is not hearing is, that the Annan Plan is DEAD & BURIED and if real negotiations are to be taking place, then it's going to be around True Federation & True Democracy and not the 2004 AP version, which is a Confederation with a "virgin birth" concept as an added touch. As long as the "TRNC" insists on the RIP 2004 AP, then Christofias is going to put Turkish Occupation and Guarantorship on the table as the main obstacle to peace, and you will find many around the world will see it the same way.

It does not take a genius to figure that one out.

Last I heard Christofias and the GC establishment were still talking of a Bi-communal, Bizonal Federation, which they have been saying for the last 34 years. The trouble, is that that they are unable to swallow the 'bizonal' bit, so dress it up like our friend Kikapu here in fine sounding phrases like a True Federation and a True Democracy.

The Annan Plan was a True Federation (or tell me what was false about it) and a True Democracy (or tell me what was undemocratic about it).

You can shuffle the terms of any agreement around anyway you like, but the number of TCs who want to be in a GC run state is minimal (why else have so few ever moved to the South) so there is going to be part of the island where TCs have autonomy or there isn't going to be an agreement.

I'm sorry Observer, but the 2004 AP was Confederation based on the Swiss Model, said so by the author himself, Kofi Annan. It had all the trade marks of a Confederation, by making the North a "Turkish State" and the South a "Greek State" through a "Virgin Birth" concept, with a very weak central government. Once this was established, there would have been nothing to prevent the North or the South to declare an Independence, since each state was now "owned" by their respected citizens. Had the AP 2004 passed, there would not have been a "United Cyprus" today, but 2 Independent countries, hence the term often used for the 2004 AP, the "disguised partition".

If we have a USA style of True Federation, we can still have a Bi-Zonal regions, North and South, even at today's boundaries, but under a strong Central Government, and the whole country is owned by all citizens, with both states falling under the Federal Rules and Laws. It does not give the North to the TC's and the South to the GC's. Anyone can live in any state they like, pay taxes, vote and be elected in local government. There would not be official ethnic division. Now, that is what a True Federation is. Compare that with 2004 AP and tell me if AP was a True Federation.??

The undemocratic part was pointed out by Kifeas a way back, where the GC's would have been restricted in many aspects in the North, such as everyone was required to speak Turkish and give their allegiance to Ataturk in order to work in the Government and government jobs. The GC's were not able to pass their properties to their heir in the North, but needed top sell them to a TC. This only effected the GC's and not other foreigners. They could leave their properties to their heirs, but not the GC's, in their own Country.

[observer]

I think that there is a bit of blurry thinking going on here.

The distinction between a confederation and a federation is blurry at the best of times. The Annan Plan may well have been based on the Swiss model but since the Swiss Confederation has been going since 1291 it can’t be that bad a model. The only other Confederation that I can think of at the moment is the Confederation of Canada, founded in 1867 and still going strong, with no departures and at least a couple of joiners (Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island). You are right is saying that in principle the difference is the powers of the Central government, and TCs want them to be weak – primarily concerned with overseas relations.

I find no requirement in the Annan Plan for anyone to speak Turkish or give their allegiance to Ataturk. In a part of Cyprus where the majority speak Turkish it seems sensible to require government workers to speak Turkish, just as within the various regions of Switzerland I imagine that government workers have to speak French, German or Italian, and I know that it is a requirement for government workers in Quebec to speak French. It used to be the case in Canada that in order to achieve promotion you had to be bilingual at different levels of competency according to the level of promotion you were aiming for. I don’t know if that’s still true. I suspect that it is the same in Switzerland, although I don’t know for sure. In a Cypriot Federation (Confederation if you prefer) the same sort of thing would probably happen.

I can not find any requirement for GCs not being able to pass on their property to their heirs either, though as I have said, it’s a big document so if you can guide me to it I would be interested to read it. Since heirs were allowed to claim property upon implementation, it seems odd to introduce this at a later date.

In brief, every country has its constitution and manner of government formed by its past experiences. The past experiences of the TCs lead them to be concerned at direct government by GCs, so they want a weak central government. The demand for a strong central government is looked at with suspicion – GCs govern yourselves, why do you want to govern us also?

[DT.]

I think that there is a bit of blurry thinking going on here.

The distinction between a confederation and a federation is blurry at the best of times. The Annan Plan may well have been based on the Swiss model but since the Swiss Confederation has been going since 1291 it can’t be that bad a model. The only other Confederation that I can think of at the moment is the Confederation of Canada, founded in 1867 and still going strong, with no departures and at least a couple of joiners (Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island). You are right is saying that in principle the difference is the powers of the Central government, and TCs want them to be weak – primarily concerned with overseas relations.

I find no requirement in the Annan Plan for anyone to speak Turkish or give their allegiance to Ataturk. In a part of Cyprus where the majority speak Turkish it seems sensible to require government workers to speak Turkish, just as within the various regions of Switzerland I imagine that government workers have to speak French, German or Italian, and I know that it is a requirement for government workers in Quebec to speak French. It used to be the case in Canada that in order to achieve promotion you had to be bilingual at different levels of competency according to the level of promotion you were aiming for. I don’t know if that’s still true. I suspect that it is the same in Switzerland, although I don’t know for sure. In a Cypriot Federation (Confederation if you prefer) the same sort of thing would probably happen.

I can not find any requirement for GCs not being able to pass on their property to their heirs either, though as I have said, it’s a big document so if you can guide me to it I would be interested to read it. Since heirs were allowed to claim property upon implementation, it seems odd to introduce this at a later date.

In brief, every country has its constitution and manner of government formed by its past experiences. The past experiences of the TCs lead them to be concerned at direct government by GCs, so they want a weak central government. The demand for a strong central government is looked at with suspicion – GCs govern yourselves, why do you want to govern us also?

Ill respond on the rest a little later observer but as a starter the TC constiuent state constitution declared that all its citizens swear an allegiance to Ataturk. I posted the doc a while back i'll see if i can find it.

[Kikapu]

I think that there is a bit of blurry thinking going on here.

The distinction between a confederation and a federation is blurry at the best of times. The Annan Plan may well have been based on the Swiss model but since the Swiss Confederation has been going since 1291 it can’t be that bad a model. The only other Confederation that I can think of at the moment is the Confederation of Canada, founded in 1867 and still going strong, with no departures and at least a couple of joiners (Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island). You are right is saying that in principle the difference is the powers of the Central government, and TCs want them to be weak – primarily concerned with overseas relations.

I find no requirement in the Annan Plan for anyone to speak Turkish or give their allegiance to Ataturk. In a part of Cyprus where the majority speak Turkish it seems sensible to require government workers to speak Turkish, just as within the various regions of Switzerland I imagine that government workers have to speak French, German or Italian, and I know that it is a requirement for government workers in Quebec to speak French. It used to be the case in Canada that in order to achieve promotion you had to be bilingual at different levels of competency according to the level of promotion you were aiming for. I don’t know if that’s still true. I suspect that it is the same in Switzerland, although I don’t know for sure. In a Cypriot Federation (Confederation if you prefer) the same sort of thing would probably happen.

I can not find any requirement for GCs not being able to pass on their property to their heirs either, though as I have said, it’s a big document so if you can guide me to it I would be interested to read it. Since heirs were allowed to claim property upon implementation, it seems odd to introduce this at a later date.

In brief, every country has its constitution and manner of government formed by its past experiences. The past experiences of the TCs lead them to be concerned at direct government by GCs, so they want a weak central government. The demand for a strong central government is looked at with suspicion – GCs govern yourselves, why do you want to govern us also?

I don't have any time right now and the information you have asked for will have to wait for a while, but just let me say this. I do not have a problem with a Confederation state, since I live in one in Switzerland. The problem is, in order to a Confederation type of system in Cyprus, both North and South will have to be declared a TC and GC land respectively, then enter into a "marriage" of unions. But once that is done, then it's done, there's no going back, then each state can do pretty much what they want except for few National laws that can't be altered. If each state wanted to declare Independence, it will be their right. So basically, the GC's will have to agree to give the Northern part of Cyprus to the TC's while keeping the rest for themselves. I don't think that's what they have in mind, when it comes to reunification.

[Viewpoint]

Of course that is not what they have in mind they want the whole island under GC control run by GCs to do with as they please, sharing equally with TCs is not in their vocabulary.

[DT.]

Of course that is not what they have in mind they want the whole island under GC control run by GCs to do with as they please, sharing equally with TCs is not in their vocabulary.

off course we can share equally. Me and you will have an equal share to this country.

[Viewpoint]

Of course that is not what they have in mind they want the whole island under GC control run by GCs to do with as they please, sharing equally with TCs is not in their vocabulary.

off course we can share equally. Me and you will have an equal share to this country.

I am happy to share with you but who will rule? will we be able to say on sensative issues?