Cyprus-Forum.com

[bilako22]

Christofias gave in!

Today it should be marked as a dark day in the annals of the Greek Cypriot community! Christofias, knowingly or unknowingly - intentionally or unintentionally, has given in to the Turkish demands for the dissolution of the RoC and the via “virgin-birth” establishment of a new entity which will be based on the partnership of two separate and ethnically based and owned entities! Not only he gave up the sovereignty of the RoC, by recognizing sovereignty to the “TRNC,” as a constituent partner of the new “federal” entity, but he also gave up the RoC as an entity -in its entireness, and accepted its devaluation to a Greek Cypriot constituent state!

The following line in the joined communiqué, after today’s meeting between Christofias and Talat, will be proved detrimental to the future of re-unification of Cyprus, and to the historical rights of the Greek Cypriot community in the northern part of our country! It is a disaster! No matter what will be said about this meeting and the joined communiqué, the damage is tremendous, and history will prove me right! I have no hope to any re-reunification solution! Unfortunately my fears about Christofias are proved to have been justified! He has proven himself inferior to his undertaken position and role!

``They reaffirmed their commitment for a bizonal bicommunal federation with political equality, as defined by relevant Security Council resolutions. This partnership will have a federal government with a single international personality, as well as a Turkish Cypriot constituent state and a Greek Cypriot constituent state which will be of equal status,``

http://www.cna.org.cy/website/english/a ... 2.asp?id=1

Christofias did not "bother" securing that this "partnership" will be on the basis of the two communities, as such, instead of the two states! He further did not "bother" securing that this "partnership" is not an entirely new partnership but a re-development of the existing 1960 bi-communal RoC partnership! He did not bother seeking a definition of what the adjectives "Turkish Cypriot" and "Greek Cypriot" states should imply, living in this way the cultural and political rights of the members of the Greek Cypriot in the north under jeopardy and potential eradication! He even accepted the use of the term "constituent" states, instead of "component" states; allowing in this way the Turkish side to claim and insist that the two states will be the constituents (will constitute) the central government, instead of being mere components of a one and single federal nation-state! He accepted the same philosophy of the rejected by the 76% of the GCs Anan plan 5! What a shame!

PS: And before some idiots will tell me that I did not comment on the closure for a “single international personality,” I say before hand that this is nonsense! It means nothing! It is just like saying that the EU has a one single international personality, or that the UN as an organization has one single international personality! It is meaningless, because if under the veil of this “single international personality,” two separate entities may function and regulate the everyday life of the people (citizens) of this country in separatist and apartheid ways, and under prejudicing constitutions and laws (as the case seems to be,) this is what counts to the individual citizens, and not if the international personality of such a monstrosity will be single or multiple!

Congratulations to the GC President for his wisdom.

[pantheman]

I can't believe Christofias just walked in there and gave it to them on a plate.

I would need more evidence before I either jump for joy or cry.

We always need to remember that what ever we do manage to do, it will be sealed in concrete for ever and there will be no going back. As I have always said we would like a solution, but a fair and just one, not any one.

I agree totally with Piratis that better the devil you know .......

"H Patrida, the tha dothi pote", One man cannot decide for the whole nation on such a critical matter, we need to wait and see before we hang him.

[humanist]

In my opinion a virgin birth is a good positive step. It shows that Christofias is genuine about creating a united Cyprus for all Cypriots those who speak Turkish and those who speak Greek, Armenian, Jewish and Latin and others. One that is fair for all. One that advocates for the right of return for all refugees. And political equality in the northern state, regardless of whether the majority of residents are Greek speaking or Turkish speaking.

[Oracle]

Sounds like we all, with the exception of Bananiot and Turk-TCs, would see such a turn of events as undesirable, and especially coming so close to signs of a real solution worked towards for so long.

But Christofias is a seasoned politician and we have not yet become familiar with his Presidential style. However one thing is obvious is that he is not so naive as to make such a cataclysmic error so early in his Presidential career. He is wiser than that. And since he has not actually said anything to indicate such a phenomenal about turn himself ... then he may yet surprise us all with the most devastating "pulling-the-rug" from under the Turks' feet forever ....

[humanist]

well am not going to lie and say that I would love to see that moment. Signing n the dotted line engraved as part of the Cypriot history of Europe

[Oracle]

In my opinion a virgin birth is a good positive step. It shows that Christofias is genuine about creating a united Cyprus for all Cypriots those who speak Turkish and those who speak Greek, Armenian, Jewish and Latin and others. One that is fair for all. One that advocates for the right of return for all refugees. And political equality in the northern state, regardless of whether the majority of residents are Greek speaking or Turkish speaking.

Humanist far be it from me to correct anyone on a misunderstanding of the political variety ...

But the "virgin birth" referred to I think means a recognition of the "trnc" .... not a new united Cyprus. But I could be wrong!

However, let's wait and see what our President is really up to first .....

[Kifeas]

Kikapu, I can only debate real options that may stand a chance of providing an answer. What is the point of debating about a unitary Cyprus, for instance, when this option simply does not exist? Nevertheless, you are not being fair when you claim that BBF (as defined in the Annan Plan) means confederation. It certainly does not. That particular Plan provided for a united Cyprus made up of two component states (constituent, whatever - the tyranny of words!) with one nationality, single sovereignity and one international representation.

Bananiot pretends he doesn't know which terms were used in the various versions of the Anan plan (component vs. constituent,) even thought he has voted in favor of it; he pretends he doesn't understand who and why wanted the terms to be substituted; and he further pretends he doesn't understand the material difference between the two terms (tyranny of words he regards the whole thing.)

Well, let me explain the whole story behind this "tyranny of words" and why I insist bringing it up so often, and then live it to everyone’s judgment whether it is indeed a mere "tyranny of words" or it has potential further implications.

First of all, it is true that the two words (component and constituent) may have in many cases an almost identical meaning, depending on the context in which they are used. The word "component" means something that is an integral part (ingredient) of something bigger or more complex. In Greek it would translate as "systatiko!" The world "constituent" may mean the same thing, however -depending again on the context, it may accept a second definition, such as something or someone that constitutes (produces) something else! In Greek, it would translate as "syniston," i.e. something or someone that "synista" or "systinei" something! In other words, the first term ("component") usually implies a passive connotation (i.e. it is a dependent of the larger scheme and is energized by it,) whereas the second term ("constituent") implies an active connotation (i.e. the larger scheme is dependent one, and is energized by the constituting element.)

Tyranny of words, Bananiot claims! Okay then! If it is a mere tyranny of words, then Bananiot owes to explain why while in the first 3 versions of the A-plan, the term "component states" was used, and why as a result of Turkish demands it was substituted by the term "constituent states" in the last 2 versions (4 & 5?) Why the insistence by the Turks, and why the substitution, if it is mere tyranny of words? "Constructive" ambiguities? No Bananiot, it is destructive "ambiguities," more so when dealing with the Turkish side, which has distorted the meaning and context of the “3rd Vienna agreement” of August 1975 and was selling it for years to its people and the entire world as a “population exchange agreement,” or which claims in all seriousness that Homer (Omiros) was an ancient Turk whose original name was …Omer!

Does anyone remember Kifeas barking at me for daring to criticise the "democratically elected President of Cyprus"? He, along with the chauvist, nationalist dynasty of the forum, cried out loud "traitor" at anyone that dared to say anything even mildly critical of Papadopoulos. Now, he has no problem accusing Christofias of selling Cyprus to Turkey. He is a fool who probably puts his own personal financial interests above Cyprus but I suspect, most people have realised this by now.

I did not brand Christofias as a traitor, but I am afraid he is weak and incompetent to effectively deal with the Cyprus issue! I wish and hope I will be proved wrong! As for placing my financial interests above Cyprus, what financial interests “re asshole," when I am now a property-less employee, while I have more than 5 million pounds worth of properties seating in the hands of the Turkish army for 35 years now, and any solution would have at least made me earn something more than what I have now? Is it a case of me putting my personal financial interests above Cyprus, by arguing the way I do, or is it in fact exactly the opposite which is true?

I would have welcomed from Bananiot any logical argument which is contrary to my arguments! Bananiot avoids talking with arguments, and instead he is merely contented with using slogans, clichés, aphorisms and generalities! He never attempts to touch the essence of what is discussed, and offer his own input! He could have for example contradicted what I have said in this thread with a few counterarguments such as:

1. The way the critical sentence was phrased, with the term “partnership” coming first and then the terms “Turkish Cypriot constituent state” and “Greek Cypriot constituent state,” implies that the two “constituent states” are the by-products of this partnership, and not the other way around, i.e. that the partnership is the by-product of the agreement between the states!

2. He would further argue that because the two leaders negotiate with their capacity as the leaders of the two communities, and not as the presidents or leaders of any two constituent states, that naturally the term “partnership” is one deriving from and is based on an agreement between the two communities, and not between the two “constituent states,” therefore the connotation deriving from the use of term “constituent” is neutralized in this way!

3. Furthermore, he could argue that because the 3 states, i.e. the federal government and the 2 states, follow in order the reference to a “partnership,” that they are all by-products of this partnership agreement (between the two communities,) and more so if one considers that the reference to a federal government comes before the reference to the 2 states, something which implies that the federal government cannot logically be regarded as a by-product of the two “constituent states” but all 3 are simultaneous by-products of a partnership agreement between the two communities as they emerged and were defined in the 1960 constitution.

All the above would have been logical arguments which Bananiot may have used to combat my initial thesis, even though I insist the joined communiqué is a badly conceived one, at least on this part of its content! Instead, Bananiot resorts to his usual slogans, aphorisms and generalities, in an attempt to shadow my arguments!

[pantheman]

File Kifea,

Don't waste your time with the Bananaidiot.

he ain't worth it. For as long as he is riding a Turkish cock he will spew their shit for them.

Bananaidiot, I cannot for the life of me understand you, and why you want to so easily give up our country to Turkey. You cannot be from Gypsou thats for sure, they never had cowards and traitors in that village, but only freedom fighters.

You should be ashamed of yourself, don't ever say you are a GC, you are a disgrace to your community. lambro na se kapsi

[unitedwestand]

File Kifea,

Don't waste your time with the Bananaidiot.

he ain't worth it. For as long as he is riding a Turkish cock he will spew their shit for them.

Bananaidiot, I cannot for the life of me understand you, and why you want to so easily give up our country to Turkey. You cannot be from Gypsou thats for sure, they never had cowards and traitors in that village, but only freedom fighters.

You should be ashamed of yourself, don't ever say you are a GC, you are a disgrace to your community. lambro na se kapsi

Shame on you. I know for sure these words are not just for Bananiot, they are aimed at anybody with decency and respect for his fellow man. Your only problem is that the decency and respect shown by Bananiot is for his compatriot the TC.

Well my friend, we the TCs will live happily with the Bananiots of Cyprus.

This has nothing to do with Cyprus politics or Christofias letting you down, this is purely your hatred for the TCs. We are here to stay and share Cyprus with you, GET USED TO IT.

[Oracle]

So when making a cake .... the flour would be the constituent ingredient. Whereas the few drops of vanilla merely a component of the said cake.

One is vital (flour) the other is a superfluous additive (vanilla) easily substituted by another flavouring (rose etc) .... which may have invaded the mixture once and is carried along by tradition!

Thanks Kifeas, I think I understand

P.S. I've just swapped the words around and re-submitted and now I am back to being further confused after re-reading Kifeas' post