Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Kikapu what you seem to forget like every GC is why we want agreed partition because we do not see any light at the end of the tunnel when you demand we capitulate to a situation where we will forced into minority status in a GC state run by GCs.

VP, besides the reasons why you want agreed partition, which we do not want to know; do you also realize that this can only be possible if it is based on an 82:18 territorial split, and if you do, have you also made up your mind which 18% part of Cyprus will you be taking? If you have, can we at last see your map of this 18% you have reserved, because I have a suspicion you have made a deliberate mistake and have included some more territory that amounts up to 19%, therefore we need to re-calculate it our selves in order to agree?

[Nikitas]

Kikapu has put his finger on it when he said"

"Anything that has Confederacy "flavour" in the new negotiations that is acceptable to you, then you should also accept the probability of a legal partition in a form of Independence that will come sooner than you think. "

And this much is more than clear from statements of the National Security Council of Turkey when it said earlier this week that no matter what solution is reached, there should be at least a 24 hour period of recognition of the TRNC just prior to the formation of the new state. The reason is obvious, so that when, not if, secession of the northern "constituent state" is declared there will be a prior established legal personality available, with full recognition by the GC side. A state of affairs that will guarantee international recognition.

To this effect we had statements by Gul during his visit to the TRNC last year when he talked of separate states, separate peoples, separate religions.

We will not have to wait long before we hear the rejection of the doctrine accepted by Denktash in his agreement with Clerides which excluded separate self determination for the two communities and separate sovereignty.

We are being led down the garden path and we are too dumb to see it. Talat especially has proven himself to be a doughnut rather than a tough nut. The generals will have him for breakfast.

[Kifeas]

Kikapu has put his finger on it when he said"

"Anything that has Confederacy "flavour" in the new negotiations that is acceptable to you, then you should also accept the probability of a legal partition in a form of Independence that will come sooner than you think. "

And this much is more than clear from statements of the National Security Council of Turkey when it said earlier this week that no matter what solution is reached, there should be at least a 24 hour period of recognition of the TRNC just prior to the formation of the new state. The reason is obvious, so that when, not if, secession of the northern "constituent state" is declared there will be a prior established legal personality available, with full recognition by the GC side. A state of affairs that will guarantee international recognition.

To this effect we had statements by Gul during his visit to the TRNC last year when he talked of separate states, separate peoples, separate religions.

We will not have to wait long before we hear the rejection of the doctrine accepted by Denktash in his agreement with Clerides which excluded separate self determination for the two communities and separate sovereignty.

We are being led down the garden path and we are too dumb to see it. Talat especially has proven himself to be a doughnut rather than a tough nut. The generals will have him for breakfast.

I am sure they will think about it twice in a year’s time, when they will get the "boot" from their EU accession process by the state they want to see dissolved!

Have you ever heard of the saying “whoever digs someone else’s grave, in the end falls himself inside?” That is exactly what will happen to the “oddment” of the Ottoman Empire!

[Bananiot]

Kikapu wrote

Bananiot,

Interesting piece that you wrote 3 years ago....thanks.

I'm a supporter of a True Federation with True Democracy for Cyprus and for all Cypriots, since a Unitary State is no longer possible, which was very evident from the provisions placed into the 1960 Constitution and the 2004 AP was in fact worse than that, so a true Federation is what I believe to be our only avenue left to keep the island in one piece .

You have made some changes that you will like to see happen now than what was in the 2004 AP, but even though they are important, you have not changed the real "meat" of the rejection of the 2004 AP by the GC's, which was the 50-50 power share, veto power, "Virgin Birth" conversion of the North to be a pure TC land, GC's not able to vote in the North should they wish to live in the North, and most importantly, the 2004 AP was not a Federation but a Confederation, which is still what is presented today by the "TRNC" under the disguise of a Federation in BBF. Just like me, you do not wish to see Cyprus partitioned, but if you agree to the above provisions that I have outlined, and settlement is agreed on those terms, then there are zero guarantees that partition will not happen with a legal claim for Independence.

Even your "friends" in the North are telling you now that they want a partition, and since the last 30 years did not bring recognition to the North by illegal partition, they have shifted their claim to have a "agreed partition" by giving some land back for full recognition. As you can see, partition is the desire for those who are in the position of power and wealth. What the average TC's may want that you think you have common cause with, ie peace on the island, the contrary will occur if the main parts of the 2004 AP are not thrown out. Anything that has Confederacy "flavour" in the new negotiations that is acceptable to you, then you should also accept the probability of a legal partition in a form of Independence that will come sooner than you think.

So Bananiot, please tell me why I should support anything that comes close to the 2004 AP in the new negotiations, when I do not wish for a partition to occur, and I know you feel the same way. But how is it, that you do not see the negetive aspects of what I fear and that you have a different view of outcome than me. Do you even buy the idea, that 2004 AP's BBF and what is presented today by the "TRNC's BBF is not a Federation, but a Confederacy, and once the North has been made to become "pure" TC land, how can you prevent Partition down the road. It will be the North's and South legal right to seek Independent self determination. Please set me straight if I missed something in BBF that you support.

Thank you for your reply Kikapu. Thank you also for the civilised manner in which you express your views.

I will address the points you have raised. Just like you, I am not interested in confederation. The adversaries of the Annan Plan were quick to daemonise it and one of the accusations they projected was that it called foe confederation. The Annan Plan was indeed a complicated plan but it did not provide for confederation. Suffice to say that the EU accepted it and as we all know, under no circumstances Brussels will accept a confederal country. The Annan Plan did provide for a federal system in which the new Cyprus would have one sovereignty, one voice one nationality and one international representation. The components states of the new Cyprus would not have the right to break away and declare of independence. The new Cyprus would have been a federal Cyprus! The EU, as stated earlier, would never accept in its ranks a confederal country.

The two component states would guarantee majority for the respective community of each component state. It is a waste of time to try to introduce the notion that the the Turkish Cypriots could become the minority within their component state. This will not be bought, as simple as that. I have no problem with this. As I said, this is a small price to pay in order to get Cyprus reunited.

Regarding the most recent developments one needs to exercise political insight in order to understand them. The first sessions of the working groups and the technical committees have started, as you know. Over the past few days we have witnessed recriminations by both sides. I have no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this. Christofias probably gave in to Papadopoulos in February in order to get his support and become the President. He probably reassured Papadopoulos that he will not accept the Annan Plan to become the basis of any forthcoming negotiations. Christofias has been under attack by the Papadopoulos supporters and the church ever since he announced the names of the Greek Cypriots in the groups and committees. In order to appease his critics he declared that the Annan Plan will not be accepted as the basis for negotiations. He did not need to do this, even if he believed so himself. By doing this he pushed the Turkish side to more extreme positions (parthenogenesis etc) from which they will probably climb down so that the two can meet at somewhere at the Annan Plan level.

This is how politics works my friends and those that take on statements at face value and put them under the microscope without looking at the underlining facts are simply clueless and time wasters.

[Kifeas]

Thank you for your reply Kikapu. Thank you also for the civilised manner in which you express your views.

I will address the points you have raised. Just like you, I am not interested in confederation. The adversaries of the Annan Plan were quick to daemonise it and one of the accusations they projected was that it called foe confederation. The Annan Plan was indeed a complicated plan but it did not provide for confederation. Suffice to say that the EU accepted it and as we all know, under no circumstances Brussels will accept a confederal country. The Annan Plan did provide for a federal system in which the new Cyprus would have one sovereignty, one voice one nationality and one international representation. The components states of the new Cyprus would not have the right to break away and declare of independence. The new Cyprus would have been a federal Cyprus! The EU, as stated earlier, would never accept in its ranks a confederal country.

The two component states would guarantee majority for the respective community of each component state. It is a waste of time to try to introduce the notion that the the Turkish Cypriots could become the minority within their component state. This will not be bought, as simple as that. I have no problem with this. As I said, this is a small price to pay in order to get Cyprus reunited.

Regarding the most recent developments one needs to exercise political insight in order to understand them. The first sessions of the working groups and the technical committees have started, as you know. Over the past few days we have witnessed recriminations by both sides. I have no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this. Christofias probably gave in to Papadopoulos in February in order to get his support and become the President. He probably reassured Papadopoulos that he will not accept the Annan Plan to become the basis of any forthcoming negotiations. Christofias has been under attack by the Papadopoulos supporters and the church ever since he announced the names of the Greek Cypriots in the groups and committees. In order to appease his critics he declared that the Annan Plan will not be accepted as the basis for negotiations. He did not need to do this, even if he believed so himself. By doing this he pushed the Turkish side to more extreme positions (parthenogenesis etc) from which they will probably climb down so that the two can meet at somewhere at the Annan Plan level.

This is how politics works my friends and those that take on statements at face value and put them under the microscope without looking at the underlining facts are simply clueless and time wasters.

I won't waste time arguing with you on your wishful interpretation of an otherwise full of "constructive" ambiguities Anan plan. Hundreds of analyses have been made on the Anan plan and its philosophy, including many in this forum, and numerous evidence was presented that clearly showed that your above assessment is in the minority of the most overoptimistic ones.

I will only comment on your views on the recent developments, and tell you again that such a moronic interpretation and approach, as the one you offer above, is only shared, even secretly or in private, by a very negligible percentage of GC extremists! You have all of suddenly forgotten your latest slogans about the "democratically elected new president of Cyprus, and the need to respect the democratic will of the GC electorate that decided to put an end to Papadopoulos anti-solution regime, and elect Christofias as the president!" These were your most recent “arguments,” if you remember! You are like a wind mill, when it comes to putting forward your "arguments!"

[Viewpoint]

Thank you for your reply Kikapu. Thank you also for the civilised manner in which you express your views.

I will address the points you have raised. Just like you, I am not interested in confederation. The adversaries of the Annan Plan were quick to daemonise it and one of the accusations they projected was that it called foe confederation. The Annan Plan was indeed a complicated plan but it did not provide for confederation. Suffice to say that the EU accepted it and as we all know, under no circumstances Brussels will accept a confederal country. The Annan Plan did provide for a federal system in which the new Cyprus would have one sovereignty, one voice one nationality and one international representation. The components states of the new Cyprus would not have the right to break away and declare of independence. The new Cyprus would have been a federal Cyprus! The EU, as stated earlier, would never accept in its ranks a confederal country.

The two component states would guarantee majority for the respective community of each component state. It is a waste of time to try to introduce the notion that the the Turkish Cypriots could become the minority within their component state. This will not be bought, as simple as that. I have no problem with this. As I said, this is a small price to pay in order to get Cyprus reunited.

Regarding the most recent developments one needs to exercise political insight in order to understand them. The first sessions of the working groups and the technical committees have started, as you know. Over the past few days we have witnessed recriminations by both sides. I have no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this. Christofias probably gave in to Papadopoulos in February in order to get his support and become the President. He probably reassured Papadopoulos that he will not accept the Annan Plan to become the basis of any forthcoming negotiations. Christofias has been under attack by the Papadopoulos supporters and the church ever since he announced the names of the Greek Cypriots in the groups and committees. In order to appease his critics he declared that the Annan Plan will not be accepted as the basis for negotiations. He did not need to do this, even if he believed so himself. By doing this he pushed the Turkish side to more extreme positions (parthenogenesis etc) from which they will probably climb down so that the two can meet at somewhere at the Annan Plan level.

This is how politics works my friends and those that take on statements at face value and put them under the microscope without looking at the underlining facts are simply clueless and time wasters.

I won't waste time arguing with you on your wishful interpretation of an otherwise full of "constructive" ambiguities Anan plan. Hundreds of analyses have been made on the Anan plan and its philosophy, including many in this forum, and numerous evidence was presented that clearly showed that your above assessment is in the minority of the most overoptimistic ones.

I will only comment on your views on the recent developments, and tell you again that such a moronic interpretation and approach, as the one you offer above, is only shared, even secretly or in private, by a very negligible percentage of GC extremists! You have all of suddenly forgotten your latest slogans about the "democratically elected new president of Cyprus, and the need to respect the democratic will of the GC electorate that decided to put an end to Papadopoulos anti-solution regime, and elect Christofias as the president!" These were your most recent “arguments,” if you remember! You are like a wind mill, when it comes to putting forward your "arguments!"

You are clutching at straws Kifeas and this shows from the lack of content in your response to a great post by Bananiot whom we are hoping is reflecting the changing GC mentality towards understanding that they have to compromise just as the TCs have to in order to build a new Cyprus where both communities can unite under one identity in safety and prosperity.

[Bananiot]

I know the hundreds of analysises that foul-mouthed Kifeas refers to. Most are from extreme right wingers or sick anti-Turks that would "analyse" even the best of plans and shout "treason" because they do not want sharing this country with the perpetual enemy (Turks). If Kifeas can not understand this it is his problem.

Then, this foul-mouthed Kifeas pretend he does not understand my arguments regarding Christofias or any other President of RoC. It was he who asserted numerous times during the catastrophic reign of Papadopoulos (he even left us without water) that I had no right to criticise the democratically elected President and that I should be glad I did not get the sack from my job because I was critical of his demigod. I always insisted that any public figure is accountable to the people and no one is beyond criticism. This plain rule of modern democracy fell on deaf ears and all I did was to throw back at foul-mouth some of his own medicine. Anyone can see this. Almost anyone, at least Piratis kept quite.

Foul-mouth then forgot his principles and said that Christofias was behaving in an amateurish manner in his dealings with the "perpetual enemy". According to his twisted notion of democracy, he made the cardinal sin. He disrespected the democratically elected President. He even went as far as to assert that it was Christofias who forced Papadopoulos to send the notorious letter to Annan in December 2003 asking for urgent negotiations on the Annan Plan because "Cyprus was in danger of Euro partition if we joined the EU with our problem unsolved". As if we do not know what a stubborn man Papadopoulos has been throughout the 60 or so years he has been in the political scene in Cyprus.

Foul-mouth has never been one to understand how politics work in this complex world we live in. I made some assertions in my previous post and tried to understand the way Talat is managing himself at the moment. I also understand his difficulties. Of course I may be wrong. It could be that Turkey has decided to lead the current effort to a dead end and a slow death. This is another possibility. However, I have said that it could also be the fault of Christofias who hurried to propose that the Annan Plan is out of question as the basis for the forthcoming negotiations (contrary to foul-mouth I am allowed to criticise any elected lord because this is how I understand democracy). The Turkish side could be reacting to this and have put the bar far higher (two states, parthenogenesis) in order to climb down to positions which have in the past been accepted by both, the UN and the EE. This would leave us with our shields down, again.

Unless Christofias stops listening to the rejectionists and goes the distance we will lose badly!

[Kifeas]

Bananiot is very confused! Very confused indeed!

Just to show everybody how confused he is, read this first from his earlier post;

Over the past few days we have witnessed recriminations by both sides. I have no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this. Christofias probably gave in to Papadopoulos in February in order to get his support and become the President. He probably reassured Papadopoulos that he will not accept the Annan Plan to become the basis of any forthcoming negotiations.

And then, read this from his latest post:

I made some assertions in my previous post and tried to understand the way Talat is managing himself at the moment. I also understand his difficulties. Of course I may be wrong. It could be that Turkey has decided to lead the current effort to a dead end and a slow death. This is another possibility.

One moment he presents the wild affirmation, which I happen to know is not even shared by a large portion of the TC community –set aside anyone in the GC one, that he has “no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this,” and then, he turns around 180% degrees and says “Of course I may be wrong. It could be that Turkey has decided to lead the current effort to a dead end and a slow death.”

It is indeed impossible for him to digest that who has always been calling the shots of the Turkish & TC side’s positions, is not the TC leadership or the (any) Turkish government, but instead the darkest nationalist, Kemalist, deep-state bureaucratic and military forces; not even during the pre-Anan plan referendum period during which in reality whatever “initiatives” have appeared to have been “taken” by Erdogan, always had the approval of these circles! It is indeed impossible for him to digest that these nationalist circles have always had -and continue to have, one and only one objective, which is nothing else other than to vindicate and legalize by all means every single (illegitimate) fait accompli of their 1974 adventure in Cyprus; i.e. to secure the permanent Turkification of 1/3 of Cyprus, as an irredentist national ambition and a trophy aiming to cure their low “national self-esteem,” due the fragmentation and loss of the empire of which Cyprus was also a component! It is impossible for Bananiot to digest that without severe external and /or internal turmoil and pressure, of the kind we have never seen during the last 34 years, there is not even a chance in a million that Turkey (or the circles calling the shots on its major national policies) will ever willfully back down from their irredentist ambitions vis-a-vis Cyprus; and that we have to either be prepared and wait for such an opportunity, or to even prepare the ground by our selves for it to materialize; otherwise there can be no solution to the Cyprus issue that will be of our minimal liking and tolerance! He foolishly believes that Erdogan’s Turkey, when it comes to the Cyprus issue, is a difference piece of shit than what it is under any other government, and that the military will ever allow him or any other Turkish PM to call the shots in a different way than what they and their institutionalized mechanisms and ideology prescribe.

It is impossible for him to digest that unless Turkey comes to the point of risking losing more on the scale of maintaining its perennial Cyprus policy, as oppose to what it may possibly gain from it; that Turkey will never back down and change such a policy, and that so far there has never been such a case! It is impossible for him to understand and digest that no matter what different tactics and approaches all consecutive GC leaders have used during all these years, none of them worked simply because the sole cause of this failure to solve the Cyprus issue was the Turkish unmoved positions, which all center around the sole objective of legalizing almost every single fait accompli they believe they have achieved in 1974! Instead, he prefers to choose the self-whipping approach, which is to criticize the positions of our side even when it is as plain as day light that the source of the impasse lies in Turkey! He was so much deceived by the 2002-2004 TC largely fake mobilizations, that he believes the TCs have done their homework and that what is now left is for the GCs do their own “revolution,” in order for the Cyprus issue to be resolved! He has become the Don Quixote of what could have only been termed as the silliest “revolution” in the history of this planet, if it had a chance to ever materialize!

Sorry Bananiot, but I am afraid you are confused and do not know what you are talking about!

[Kikapu]

Thank you for your reply Kikapu. Thank you also for the civilised manner in which you express your views.

Bananiot,

I respect those who respect me Bananiot, and over the last 2 years, we have had a very respectful approach towards each others postings.

However, you may feel differently after I "kick your butt" on the Badminton court one of these days.

I will address the points you have raised. Just like you, I am not interested in confederation. The adversaries of the Annan Plan were quick to daemonise it and one of the accusations they projected was that it called foe confederation. The Annan Plan was indeed a complicated plan but it did not provide for confederation. Suffice to say that the EU accepted it and as we all know, under no circumstances Brussels will accept a confederal country. The Annan Plan did provide for a federal system in which the new Cyprus would have one sovereignty, one voice one nationality and one international representation. The components states of the new Cyprus would not have the right to break away and declare of independence. The new Cyprus would have been a federal Cyprus! The EU, as stated earlier, would never accept in its ranks a confederal country.

The two component states would guarantee majority for the respective community of each component state. It is a waste of time to try to introduce the notion that the the Turkish Cypriots could become the minority within their component state. This will not be bought, as simple as that. I have no problem with this. As I said, this is a small price to pay in order to get Cyprus reunited.

Regarding the most recent developments one needs to exercise political insight in order to understand them. The first sessions of the working groups and the technical committees have started, as you know. Over the past few days we have witnessed recriminations by both sides. I have no hesitation to admit that the Greek side is responsible for this. Christofias probably gave in to Papadopoulos in February in order to get his support and become the President. He probably reassured Papadopoulos that he will not accept the Annan Plan to become the basis of any forthcoming negotiations. Christofias has been under attack by the Papadopoulos supporters and the church ever since he announced the names of the Greek Cypriots in the groups and committees. In order to appease his critics he declared that the Annan Plan will not be accepted as the basis for negotiations. He did not need to do this, even if he believed so himself. By doing this he pushed the Turkish side to more extreme positions (parthenogenesis etc) from which they will probably climb down so that the two can meet at somewhere at the Annan Plan level.

This is how politics works my friends and those that take on statements at face value and put them under the microscope without looking at the underlining facts are simply clueless and time wasters.

First of all, let me say that Confederacy is not a "dirty" word and if it was appropriate to have one in Cyprus, I would not have a problem with that. However, it is impossible to take a country that has functioned as "one country" for almost it's entire history and then try to make it into a Confederacy, just because third of the country has been under occupation and about 200,000 Cypriots inhabitants have been evicted from those territories to make room for others Cypriots and Turkish settlers to move in since 1974. 2004 AP had a Federation system under a Swiss model, which happens to be a Confederacy "Confoederatio Helvetica" with Federal Parliamentary Republic Government. But guess what, the Swiss have a direct Democracy with one man one vote despite the Swiss Germans being 69%, the Swiss French 20%, Swiss Italians 10% and last but not least the Swiss Romansh at 1%, which the 2004 AP did not allow for the Federation-Confederation for Cyprus.

On the one hand, by having Federal States once the North and the South had been initiated as a Confederate states with the "virgin birth" concept to make the North pure TC and the South pure GC states from now on to eternity, that's how the North and the South would have stayed, and no matter what the EU demanded that no state could secede from the "Union", there was never any guarantee that this would not have happened, specially when most of the Foreign troops were to remain in Cyprus long after the 2004 referendum.

The EU would have settled for two Independent EU countries in Cyprus, once kids were blown up in their schools by their own radical separatist to create the atmosphere for Independence. This has always been the danger as to why the Confederacy components of the 2004 AP and now is the most risky issues for me, that it will lead to a legal partition down the road with possible further bloodshed, that neither one of us wants to see.

I would like to ask those whom insist on a BBF ( Confederacy) with "virgin birth" concept per each state to ask for a True Federation instead, and see what their answer is. For the sake of argument, lets even grant them the 50-50 power share and a veto vote, but under a True Federation much like in the USA. The North can still have a TC majority and the South a GC majority, but under a strong Central Federal Government. I would bet my bottom dollar, that this would be rejected, because, even though there are provisions for a state to secede from the Union in the USA, it is almost impossible. Had it been so easy, California which has the world's 7th largest economy with 30 million people, could have easily left the Union. However, with a Confederacy already established with the "virgin birth", leaving the Union would have been easier and legal.

I'm not so certain in your claim that the EU would not have accepted a Confederacy country within it's ranks. Switzerland has an "open invitation" to join the EU club anytime she wants, but the Swiss majority twice have rejected the idea in two separate referendums.

I think the Swiss said "EU !.... we don't want no stinking EU Club for Schweiz, Suisse, Svizzera and Svizra"

Bottom line is Bananiot, that if Cyprus cannot be trusted to function under a True Federation with True Democracy in 2008 being a EU member to guarantee every ones Democratic and Human Rights, then I have even less optimism that it will survive under Undemocratic with Human Rights violations as the 2004 AP asked for, and if the new peace talks does not move away from the "hard core issues" the GC's rejected in the 2004 AP and find a common ground by the two sides, then we will continue staying as we are, which will be music to the ears of the NeoPartitionist, because once again peace has not been achieved.

[Get Real!]

An excellent response Kikapu, but in the case of Bananiot it will go to waste because I’m sure you haven’t told him anything he doesn’t already know, therefore one can surmise that unfortunately it’s not in everyone’s interests that Cyprus be a free, democratic, and contiguous state.