Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Then I read a comment by an obviously well-informed and intelligent Greek Cypriot claiming that not a single Turkish Cypriot wants or dares to speak up and defend Cypriot interests. This is what psychologists call denial. Now, if I could only understand the reason for this denial I might gain some useful insights into the Greek Cypriot psyche.

Tim, first of all, I did not claim that "not a single Turkish Cypriot wants or dares to speak up and defend Cypriot interests!" I said that "none of them -and I mean from those that have some minimum influencing power, seems to want or dare to speak up! Did you see any reaction from the part of any TC leader representing any sizeable political party, or any mass circulation newspaper, dare say a word -set aside a "shut up," to Erdogan or any other mainland Turkish political or military figurehead, for their continues intervention into the nature, parameters and details of the solution in Cyprus, like for example in the above case? If Morfou is "non-negotiable," why doesn't Talat say so? Why does it have to come from Erdogan's mouth? Is he the one negotiating with the GCs? Are we GCs going to have a solution agreement with the TC community, or with Turkey? Did you see any TC -set aside Talat, react against all these interventions? Don't they have dignity and self respect? They seem not to, besides the fact that they also seem to be in agreement with Erdogan's proclamations on the issue of Morfou!

Don’t talk to me about 5, 10 or 15 years ago! Tell me about what you and me see now, to be the situation and the facts!

[Kikapu]

Then I read a comment by an obviously well-informed and intelligent Greek Cypriot claiming that not a single Turkish Cypriot wants or dares to speak up and defend Cypriot interests. This is what psychologists call denial. Now, if I could only understand the reason for this denial I might gain some useful insights into the Greek Cypriot psyche.

Tim, first of all, I did not claim that "not a single Turkish Cypriot wants or dares to speak up and defend Cypriot interests!" I said that "none of them -and I mean from those that have some minimum influencing power, seems to want or dare to speak up! Did you see any reaction from the part of any TC leader representing any sizeable political party, or any mass circulation newspaper, dare say a word -set aside a "shut up," to Erdogan or any other mainland Turkish political or military figurehead, for their continues intervention into the nature, parameters and details of the solution in Cyprus, like for example in the above case? If Morfou is "non-negotiable," why doesn't Talat say so? Why does it have to come from Erdogan's mouth? Is he the one negotiating with the GCs? Are we GCs going to have a solution agreement with the TC community, or with Turkey? Did you see any TC -set aside Talat, react against all these interventions? Don't they have dignity and self respect? They seem not to, besides the fact that they also seem to be in agreement with Erdogan's proclamations on the issue of Morfou!

Don’t talk to me about 5, 10 or 15 years ago! Tell me about what you and me see now, to be the situation and the facts!

They probably do not want to lose their 13th month pay from Turkey, Kifeas.!!

Or is it down to 12th now...

Or is it down to 11th now...

Or is it down to 10th now...

Or is it down to 9th now...

Or is it down to 8th now....................I've lost track already.!!

[Oracle]

All the effort of the TCs are to establish independence from the Turks, and none are to regain co-operation with the GCs.

The TCs remain as selfish as ever.

They were happy for Turkey to gift them the north of Cyprus, now they want Turkey to stop Turkifying them but nowhere do they show the slightest inclination to re-unify Cyprus and integrate, let alone assimilate with the GCs.

The TCs want it all ..

No GCs and no Turks ...

[CopperLine]

Kifeas,
You wrote amongst other things I sympathise with,

If Morfou is "non-negotiable," why doesn't Talat say so? Why does it have to come from Erdogan's mouth?

There is the rub, though. The entire GC case is actually built on the claim that Turkey is the occupying power with and occupying army upon whose responsibility it rests to do the right thing under international law. If so then it is Turkey which has the legal standing to negotiate and not the 'illegal' and unrecognised TRNC. It is Erdogan, not Talat, who has the formal and recognised legal power to act.

I agree with you that I wish it was TCs who could decide their own fate - and when asked to do so they voted for a settlement that would have removed Turkish troops, and, in the case of the residents of Morfou/Guzelyurt district they overwhelmingly voted for this even though they would lose their homes - but it is not TCs who are allowed to do this. Further, if GCs were to insist that it was only TCs and not Turkey that determine their future then that would entail at least a minimal recognition of a political community which currently is self-styled as TRNC.

It seem that we can't have our cake and eat it as well.

[Nikitas]

I take the point made by the chronology Tim set out above. But now, today, while both sides are going through the final prepping for the negotiations next month, I see no sign of self criticism by the TC side. Christofias has done so on several occasions. Not expecting anything earth shaking, just some recognition that at some point they too were a little at fault. Instead we get Erdogan saying that basically the territorial issue as a whole is non negotiable, since he put the criterion of investment by mainland Turks, all parts of the north have such investments.

If that is the Turkish approach, which TCs seem to tacitly accept, then what are we going to negotiate in September, how the south will be controlled by TCs via the central federal system?

In a compromise both sides achieve less than their total objectives, but neither side feels it has achieved proportionally less than the other. Neither side is meant to come out of a compromise worse than before or feel cheated.

One wonders what kind of compromise is contemplated by the other side. Cant help but recall that statement of Erdogan after Burgenstok "we achieved all our objectives without returning a single inch of territory or removing one soldier". It just does not sound like a statement of somenoe who has compromised or is willing to meet the other half way.

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,
You wrote amongst other things I sympathise with,

If Morfou is "non-negotiable," why doesn't Talat say so? Why does it have to come from Erdogan's mouth?

There is the rub, though. The entire GC case is actually built on the claim that Turkey is the occupying power with and occupying army upon whose responsibility it rests to do the right thing under international law. If so then it is Turkey which has the legal standing to negotiate and not the 'illegal' and unrecognised TRNC. It is Erdogan, not Talat, who has the formal and recognised legal power to act.

I agree with you that I wish it was TCs who could decide their own fate - and when asked to do so they voted for a settlement that would have removed Turkish troops, and, in the case of the residents of Morfou/Guzelyurt district they overwhelmingly voted for this even though they would lose their homes - but it is not TCs who are allowed to do this. Further, if GCs were to insist that it was only TCs and not Turkey that determine their future then that would entail at least a minimal recognition of a political community which currently is self-styled as TRNC.

It seem that we can't have our cake and eat it as well.

CopperLine, just hold on a minute. Was Talat not "crying" his eyes out that Pappadapolous did not want to negotiate with him, because Papadopoulos said that any negotiations had to be between the RoC and Turkey, but the TC's always claimed that they were their own people and any negotiations was to be done with them, and now that Christofias has done just that, Turkey is calling the shots after all and the TC's are not saying anything. So, looking back, can we now say that Pappadapolous was correct in not wanting to talk to Talat, but instead with Turkey. So 4-5 years was wasted, all for nothing. So, should Christofias now refuse to deal with Talat and bring Erdogan to the table instead, or what.??

[CopperLine]

To be honest I'd not overstate Erdogan's comments in relation to 'Morfou being off the table'. He is a supreme politician with hypocrisy being his middle name. What he says today he'll contradict tomorrow; what he promises tomorrow he'll have conveniently forgotten the following day. His (and Gul's) modus operandi is much more akin to the spinsters of new labour or the sheer mendacity of Kissinger and Cheney than the puritanical crypto-islamists that they're usually portrayed as.

They're after power and holding power. If selling Cyprus today suits them they'll sell it, just like they'd sell their grandmothers. If saying today that they 'll keep Cyprus no matter what, it is because it suits them today. Tomorrow is another day, another constituency to speak to and another interest to manipulate.

[CopperLine]

Kikapu,
Fair point. I'm not trying to justify or defend one course of action over another. I'm trying to find out why the settlement process is seemingly intractable, and I think that one major reason is that there is a bloody huge contradiction in the whole set up which for various reasons interested parties are trying desperately to hold together. Or to mix the metaphor, the emperor has no clothes but all parties to this ghastly sight have got strong (and often contradictory) reasons to deny that he's butt naked. There are at least two logics at work here, and which have been picked up and set down at different times :

Logic 1 : Turkey is the occupying power, TRNC is illegal. If negotiations are to be conducted at all it must be between RoC and Turkey.

Logic 2 : TCs are the corresponding political community in a divided Cyprus. If negotiations are to be conducted at all it must be between RoC and TRNC.


Logic 1 satisfies Turkey but not TCs (or many GCs). Logic 2 doesn't satisfy Turkey (or many GCs).

[Kifeas]

Kikapu,
Fair point. I'm not trying to justify or defend one course of action over another. I'm trying to find out why the settlement process is seemingly intractable, and I think that one major reason is that there is a bloody huge contradiction in the whole set up which for various reasons interested parties are trying desperately to hold together. Or to mix the metaphor, the emperor has no clothes but all parties to this ghastly sight have got strong (and often contradictory) reasons to deny that he's butt naked. There are at least two logics at work here, and which have been picked up and set down at different times :

Logic 1 : Turkey is the occupying power, TRNC is illegal. If negotiations are to be conducted at all it must be between RoC and Turkey.

Logic 2 : TCs are the corresponding political community in a divided Cyprus. If negotiations are to be conducted at all it must be between RoC and TRNC.


Logic 1 satisfies Turkey but not TCs (or many GCs). Logic 2 doesn't satisfy Turkey (or many GCs).

What about a 3rd logic?

Turkey is the illegal occupying power, TRNC is illegal too. The TCs is one of the two main communities in Cyprus and a political entity under the RoC constitution, but not a territorial entity or a state representing any separate part of Cyprus's territory. Negotiations are conducted with the TC community, in order to resolve the political and constitutional dispute in Cyprus, between the two communities, while Turkey continues to remain an illegal occupier of part of Cyprus's territory!

[CopperLine]

Kifeas,
That's logic 2a. Get rid of the name 'TRNC' and you're still left with the question of who or what represents the TC community as a negotiating partner. It still, of course, leaves out Turkey and international law, including RoC, places legal demands and responsibility on Turkey.