Cyprus-Forum.com

[DT.]

I never called anyone traitor DT. It is not in my culture. On the contrary I have been called traitor by a number of forumers and you hardly showed any sensitivity to this. I also never acted as "older and wiser" than you and if you perceived anything in this way then I am sorry.

Again, I fail to see why you resort to personal things while we discuss serious matters. Will I be oatronising you if I told you to stop this?

This are only some of your "non-personal" comments to me in this thread alone. Would you like me to dig up your patronising posts to me from before?

DT, with all due respect you have no idea of how thw worls is run.
Then. I suppose that if you were a German skinhead (nationalist) you would be calling Poland to give back to Germany places like Gdansk and Prussia at large, for the criminal mistakes were made by Hitler and the present Germans had nothing to do with 1940. Perhaps you would be calling France to hand over Strassburg, if you were Le Pen but as you probably know, these extreme nationalist have not even began to think like you.
I know, it is a cruel world, but this is how it works.

[Nikitas]

The defeatist approach, which Bananiot likes to adopt, goes something like this:

Turkey calls the shots in Cyprus, we must therefore bow to her desires, hoping to retains some semblance of freedom through this BBF system, but always accepting that Turkey will have a say in our future.

Well, Turkey does not call ALL the shots. There are courses of action open to us which can turn the tables on the Turkish dream of becoming the only power in the eastern Mediterranean.

If Turkey wants to turn the Green line into an international border, with Turkey in the north and Cyprus in the south then the response is to present her with Greece in the south. Remember that double union that ecevit found totally unacceptable? This is a nightmare for the Turks, but if that is what they want, instead of the proposed demilitarisation of the whole of Cyprus, then we can always let them have it. And that is only the start. We can come up with several more worrisome possibilities that will turn Cyprus into a vast sinkhole for Turkish resources.

Do I want this outcome, of course not, but it is ONE possible response to the much projected outcome of Turkey turning the north into a settler dominated armed camp. As long as Turkey is not willing to change its fundamental policy of narrow minded nationalism on Cyprus then partition remains the only option, whether it is described as Bizonality or plain outright partition or by any other name palatable to the intellectual GC elite.

The tragedy in all this is that the TCs will eventually disappear totally both as a community and as a political factor in Cyprus.

[Bananiot]

Double union, my God! Is this still an option? Papadopoulos used to be a fervent supporter of double union. He probably still is. I wonder, what does Greece have to say on this?

P.S. What has happened to the infamous distance between Greece and Cyprus? Has it shortened all of a sudden, or is it still a greek general's nightmare?

[halil]

Now live transmissiones started from TV.

first Talat arrived ,
now Chriostafias came too .

TC's can watc it from
www.brtk.net

from above link choose on line broadcast than from that link BRT1

[Nikitas]

Any option is open when you are being faced with danger Bananiot. And not, it was nor proposed as an option but as a possible RESPONSE to annexation of the north. Do not classify me as a Papadopoulos supporter or any other supporter.

The strategy of Turkey is to be the number one power in the eastern Mediterranean. Get out of this GC habit of thinking only in terms of legalities and see the situation in its geostrategic dimension. If the strategic aim of Turkey to be the top dog in the area remains, then BBF is nothing more than a stepping stone to the final goal for them. Which explains this insistence on maintaining troops on the island and their need for guarantor rights. You think that getting the paper signed is all it takes to bring about peace, well things do not work that way. Peace is won when the other side knows that you can punch them as hard as they can punch you. Crude but true.

[Bananiot]

So, is this how much you love Greece, Nikitas? Do you want Greece to fight a war with Turkey in Cyprus? Anyway, this is not the time to be cynical. You always interprete Turksih Cypriot sensitivities as having an alterior motive. We have to understand that in the same way we have sensitivities, the Turkish Cypriots have their own sensitivities. It is no good mocking their sensitivities, we have done this in the past and payed dearly for it.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

In past posts I have stressed that we must take the fears of TCs into account no matter how irrational these fears might appear to us. The TCs have a valid reason to be cautions and fearful of us. But that does not mean that we must relinquish our concerns for our survival on the island as a community.

Turkey has a policy on Cyprus, and the presence, NOW of 40 000 soldiers tells a lot about that policy. One way to resolve Turkey's strategic concerns about the island falling in enemy hands is to demilitarise it. But they will not accept that road, they insist on having their troops and guarantees for ever. This goes way beyond protecting TCs, this is an active policy of maintaining their hand in the island's affairs.

What I pointed out above is that giving in to these Turkish demands is not a one way road. There are options out there which can be used to counteract this insistence by Turkey to maintain a strangle hold on Cyprus. I do not want war, but can you say the same for Turkey? Why do they hold those large scale exercises in the eastern Mediterranean? Who is the adversary in their exercise scenarios? They had invasion scenarios in the 60s and we saw how they materialised. Not realising what is going on now is inexcusable in view of our past experience.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu and Kifeas, more than three years ago, I explained why I voted for the Annan Plan and I do not understand why you are making all the fuss. I am sure you have read what I wrote then. I will single out one paragraph from Kikapu's last response.

However, a no solution during these talks will not be the end of the world for Cyprus. It will be for Turkey and Talat, but Cyprus can wait until Turkey gets the message, that they will be living the rest of their lives in Asia once the EU hopes are taken away from them, and for the "trnc", much like Turkey I'm afraid. TC's who are able to get the hell out of the north will do so with their EU passports, and the remaining TC's will be at the mercy of the settlers.

For a start I would like to point out that the fervent anti Annan Plan supporters are veheminously apposed to the forthcoming talks. They claim that we would be left very much wounded in the sure event of no solution (by the way, today Talat and Christofias are expected to announce direct talks in September).

Secondly, the worse case scenario for Cyprus will be the prolonging of the stalemate. The north is being transformed at an alarming rate and pretty soon there will be nothing left to be returned or to return to. If Turkey is to pay the penalty for no solution (something I doubt very much – Erdogan said Turkey will always be one step ahead and I believe him *) then our future will be very bleak too. In fact we will have no future. Just imagine, not a single refugee returns, not one yard of territory is returned, the Turkish army stays forever and the settlers keep arriving by the thousands. Soon the population of the north will exceed that of the south and many Turkish Cypriots will be forced to leave. Cyprus will have a 250 km border with a Turkey that is "rotting in Asia".

Under these conditions the Annan Plan, despite its shortcomings, is a blessing, but only visionary people that see further than their nose can understand this. Simitis was such a person as well as Klerides and Hadjidemetriou, all decent people, whose patriotism cannot be questioned by anyone.

* Turkey can always fall back on her positive stance in 2004 and can be pretty persuasive in this regard. All thes, because of Papadopoulos’s criminal inability to bank on Annan Plan no. 3, as Mikkie noted. Many people support that he on purpose did not negotiate Annan Plan no. 3 to affect further improvements, because he wanted to put in front of the people the worse possible plan so that he would get his resounding “no”. After all, he is the father of the notion that partition is the second best solution. Of course, BBF has never been his first choice. On federation alone, he wrote thousands of pages in his newspaper “Kirikas” condemning it as a choice for solution.

Bananiot,

Few weeks ago, Kifeas posted this topic and I do not recall you making any contribution towards it. Perhaps you were away. Regardless, if you haven't already read this article by Perry Anderson, I would recommend that you will do so, and then you might understand why the Annan Plan was turned down by the GC's.

The Divisions of Cyprus
by Perry Anderson

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n08/ande01_.html

A Cyprus issue perspective by a world widely very well known and respected British intellectual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Anderson

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... ons+cyprus

Let me give you one item from this long article that can be said in few words about the failure of the AP.

When votes were counted, the results said everything: 65 per cent of Turkish Cypriots accepted it, 76 per cent of Greek Cypriots rejected it. What political scientist, without needing to know anything about the plan, could for an instant doubt whom it favoured?

[Tim Drayton]

I don't really see how one EU member state can annex the territory of another.