Bananiot wrote:Rejectionists are the people who have never agreed to a compromise solution to the Cyprus issue. Papadopoulos tops the list of rejectionists because he rejected all proposals to solve the Cyprob since 1959. These people want a unitary Cyprus with a Greek governing majority and a Turkish minority, at best. These people want Cyprus to be a Greek island and would never accept the Turkish Cypriots to be equal partners in any constitutional arrangement. "Simerini" newspaper is the darling of all rejectionists and some of us, old enough to remember, it was the newspaper that embraced the coupists after 1974, calling the military coup "epananges", that is, a necessity.
Furthermore, I thought Copperline summed things rather well in his last post. I can just add that in my opinion the Annan Plan was not confederation and to the most important point raised by Kikapu, the option for divorse for the Turkish Cypriot component state will simply not be there because of the European Union. Before Cyprus became a member this would have been a real issue. Now it is not. Can anyone imagine the Flemish part of Belgium deciding to leave the EU? This would mean a total disaster, economic and political.
Kikapu, I do not understand why you bring Denktash into this argument. Denktash campained staunchly against the Annan Plan and he also said that acceptance of it would mean the end of the Turkish Cypriot community. He even thanked the Greek Cypriots for voting "no".
The thorny issues which you referred to are there and need to be addressed. They would be the acid test of this new initiative, no doubt.
Furthermore, I thought Copperline summed things rather well in his last post. I can just add that in my opinion the Annan Plan was not confederation and to the most important point raised by Kikapu, the option for divorse for the Turkish Cypriot component state will simply not be there because of the European Union. Before Cyprus became a member this would have been a real issue. Now it is not. Can anyone imagine the Flemish part of Belgium deciding to leave the EU? This would mean a total disaster, economic and political.
I'm sorry Bananiot, but the fact that the TC's does not embrace a True Federation and would like to stick to the AP, is because it is a Confederation. But if that was not bad enough, some TC's and Turkey insists on "two sovereign states for two seperate people", which is way beyond being a Confederation. Had the AP 2004 passed, we may well have had "two sovereign states" today, just because there would have been very little one could have done to stop it, being in the EU or not. All it would have taken was to blow up few kids in their schools by the NeoPartitionist fanatics or the NeoNationalist fanatics, and the EU would have given in to demands to have two Independent states. The TC's does not even respect the EU now to be their safeguard for their safety to protect their Democratic and Human rights and insist on keeping the Turkish Army close by, so why would they care what the EU says later on if they wanted their Independence.
To compare the situation in Belgium and Cyprus cannot be the same. What they have in Belgium is a political power struggle by civil minded people who are not out to seek revenge and start killing people for their cause, but what we have in Cyprus is totally different. We have too many fanatics who are likely to "burn the place down" in order to achieve their objectives. In short, we can't be trusted to be "civil" with each other, therefore the EU will just throw in the towel just to keep the two sides apart. If all these possibilities are not considered by the fanatics to cause problems, then why not play it safe and go for a True Federation where the possibilities will not be there, hence be a deterrent for temptation to break up the country by the fanatics. As a non partitionist Bananiot, don't you want to cut off the possibilities to discourage the fanatics, because once we declare the north to be "true Turkish Land" and the south a "True Greek Land", there will be very little can be done to avoid True Partition.??
Kikapu, I do not understand why you bring Denktash into this argument. Denktash campained staunchly against the Annan Plan and he also said that acceptance of it would mean the end of the Turkish Cypriot community. He even thanked the Greek Cypriots for voting "no".
The reason why I brought Denktash is, he is one of those "rejectionist" that you were talking about earlier. PapaD may have been a rejectionist too, and you know the GC politicians much better than I, but our own rejectionist Denktash out lasted 5 of GC presidents to one of ours.
Lets take a closer look why Denktash said "NO" to 2004 AP. The reasons are first of all, is the fact that he is a rejectionist to any settlement, because as far as he is concerned, as bad as the AP was for the GC's and for peace in general, it was better not having any peace at all, so that
a) the north will remain divided from the south
b) no land would be given back to the GC's, because he considered every inch of the north to be "Turkish land".
c) no GC's will be allowed to live in the north, because he is Racist after all
d) he still had dreams of getting recognition for the north so why negotiate
e) the Turkish Army will remain to keep him in "power" along with the settlers
f) he can keep the alleged 30,000 donums of GC land he has "gifted" himself
g) still had dreams of becoming the President of the "TRNC" in a recognised Independent state
I could go on, but you get my point I think. By agreeing to the AP, as good as it was for the TC's, it was going to be bad for him.
I bet Denktash thanked the GC's for saying "NO" to 2004 AP.:wink:
But Denktash is not alone in his thinking. Look at what our TC friends are saying.
VP said "he did not want any Greek spoken around his children in the north". VP also said, "giving up the "TRNC" would have made the last 40+ years in vain".
Halil said "the north is Turkish, and that's where he lives".
Zan said "he will appose any TC's moving from the properties in the north to make room for the GC owners returning back to their homes".
Unitedwestand said "he would much better live in Zimbabwe than live with the GC's in the north" or something to that effect.
Do you now see why a True Federation is not sought and the AP did not provide one, therefore, if the TC's can't get "two sovereign states" to have a settlement from the beginning, then they want two Confederate states instead, to start the process towards a "two sovereign states" in the future.
