Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Can you explaing why partition on the 82-18 lines would be fatal in the long run, when partition along the 63-37 lines has not been fatal in the last 34 years? I am really curious to know what dangers you perceive.

Nikitas, I am surprised at your question. De facto partition is what we have had over 34 years which is not ordained by law. Here we are talking about de jure partition with our blessings and the blessings of the international community. Two hundred and fifty K borders with a potentially dangerous neighbour and above all extinction of Cypriot culture.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas

First of all, if you were to "classify" me in anyone of the 3 so-called categories, the nearest you may possibly have come to is the 1st one, and not the 3rd. That tells a lot about your IQ, because it was only a few days ago that I explained my approach.

Nevertheless, since "sociologist" Takis Konis has named all of them as rejectionists, what makes those described in the first category as "rejectionists" and "desperates?" Why wouldn't that make them realists or pragmatists instead?

Is it a secret that a BBF solution, one that we may possibly tolerate and realistically accept, is no where near the horizon given the Turkish illegitimate positions? Is it a secret that such a solution is rather unfeasible, unless someone or something is able or willing to twist Turkey's arm? Is it a secret that as the years pass, the prospects of re-unification are evaporating, and thee only outcome is the danger of partition on the basis of the current occupational territory, and the only sensible thing to do is to become pro-active and think in a lateral way, by making a case in the international forums on the basis of partition, in exchange of substantial territorial adjustments that should represent the fair share of each community?

You and your "sociologist" may wish to brand the above as "rejectionism" and "desperation.” I call it logic and reason!

You did explain your position Kifeas but as you know I do not have to take for granted what you "explained". I will judge you and of course others will judge me. This is how it goes.

The three categories are Konis's idea. I did not make them up. If I were asked I would probably include other categories too. For example, those that do not want solution for the fear that their properties will be devalued. Many Paphians fall into this category and since they do not want to admit it they dress their rejectionism in a cover of patriotism. Of course, here is where immortal Samuel Johnson’s aphorism comes into play "Patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels". Then there are those who are simply scared of the unknown.

Your clever lateral thinking however is a gem. After 34 years you have come to the conclusion that Rauf Denktash was right all along and that we are legitimised to see things the way he does, as long as we are clever enough to get back territory that amounts to 82% of the total area of Cyprus. No kifeas, even if you do fall in the first group, there is no excuse for you to propose such a path. Still, people that belong to group 1 can only be grouped with the rest of the rejectionists because what they propose is not a solution but partition which would be fatal for Cyprus in the not so long run.

Bananiot, it is dogmatic minds like yours that will end us up with what you fear most! But what you will end us up will be even worse than what I suggest and you so much detest. At least I suggest we pro-actively campaign for partition on the basis of 82:18 split, which is the only fair basis. You instead, will only manage to end us up with partition on the basis of the current 37% of Cyprus that Turkey occupies! I wonder what you will have to say then.

[Kifeas]

Can you explaing why partition on the 82-18 lines would be fatal in the long run, when partition along the 63-37 lines has not been fatal in the last 34 years? I am really curious to know what dangers you perceive.

Nikitas, I am surprised at your question. De facto partition is what we have had over 34 years which is not ordained by law. Here we are talking about de jure partition with our blessings and the blessings of the international community. Two hundred and fifty K borders with a potentially dangerous neighbour and above all extinction of Cypriot culture.

Bananiot is trying to scaremonger the unaware, with twisted data and numbers. The current ceasefire line, with 37% of Cyprus under occupation, amounts to only to 170 kms. With 18%-20% of Cyprus, it will drop down to less than 100 kms, far less than the 250 kms he quotes. Furthermore, a 10 meter high concrete wall and electric wires on top and cameras, will do wonders in terms of controlling such a significantly reduced borderline.

[pantheman]

Can you explaing why partition on the 82-18 lines would be fatal in the long run, when partition along the 63-37 lines has not been fatal in the last 34 years? I am really curious to know what dangers you perceive.

Nikitas, I am surprised at your question. De facto partition is what we have had over 34 years which is not ordained by law. Here we are talking about de jure partition with our blessings and the blessings of the international community. Two hundred and fifty K borders with a potentially dangerous neighbour and above all extinction of Cypriot culture.

Bananiot is trying to scaremonger the unaware, with twisted data and numbers. The current ceasefire line, with 37% of Cyprus under occupation, amounts to only to 170 kms. With 18%-20% of Cyprus, it will drop down to less than 100 kms, far less than the 250 kms he quotes. Furthermore, a 10 meter high concrete wall and electric wires on top and cameras, will do wonders in terms of controlling such a significantly reduced borderline.

Can I request a 50m wall just to stop the shit flow to the southern direction?

Never mind wire, all we need is guns, do as they did on the berlin wall.

[DT.]

Its one thing negotiating a good land split in a BBF which is acceptbale and another to begin a negotiation on a final split. If an acceptable BBF is not accompished where Turkey has no say on the island then the best we can do is kick up such a fuss against partition that it is sugar coated entirely in our favour in order for us to accept it.

Start a negotiation on tyring to achieve 82-18 split and we will end up with an official Turkish state on 40% of the island.

As a Cypriot I do not accept anyone dictating to me that one part of my island cannot be my country anymore. No one has the right to divide this island and condemn all future generations to half of it. If a BBF is not agreed then the struggle needs to continue.

[Nikitas]

Every option has plused and minuses. DT stresses the pain in letting go of any part of the island. True, it is painful, but on the other hand the part that is left will be truly independent, a state of being we have never experienced as Cypriots. So we must balance total independence on part of Cyprus to permanent suzerainty on the whole of the island. As long as the TC community insist on "guarantees" by Turkey we will be under Turkey's thumb, therefore not truly independent.

Bananiot refers to de jure and de facto partition. In the end the reality is the same- Turkish soldiers are there, the whole structure and system in the north is Turkish, flags fly in our face reminding us of the fact. Maybe the hope is that under BBF things will be different, but no one has yet to detail the differences. From what has leaked out of the talks so far the one thing we can infer is that the TC establishment will insist on maintaining the distinct character of the north. How is that going to save Cypriot culture is not clear.

On a totally hypothetical level, we have to ponder about the relations between two independent states on the island. Is it a foregone conclusion that relations would be hostile because the TCs will be replaced by mainlanders? If yes, what would stop that situation from arising under a BBF where each component state controls immigration and the issuing of passports?

[Bananiot]

DT I mostly agree with you. However, partition can never be in our favour or in favour of Cyprus no matter how much we kick and shout. Only an agreed solution can remove Turkey from Cyprus and then the matter of guarantees can be taken up with the help of the EU if we can persuade our Turkish Cypriot compatriots that they will be safe away from the embrace of mother Turkey. You see, historically, we pushed the Turkish Cypriots into this association with Turkey by our sheer stupidity in the early 60's when we were dragging patients out of hospital beds and executing them in cold blood.

If we can work out a deal whereby, let's say, Turkey will be allowed to remain a guarantor for a limited period of time but interventions rights would only be granted with EU approval, perhaps we can live with this in order to prevent partition. We must however understand that in the struggle against partition we need to have as our allies the Turkish Cypriot masses. In 2003 we did have them on our side on this one but once again we sent the wrong signals thus repeating the same historical mistake of sending them into the warm embrace of Turkey. I am not talking about the Annan Plan, but on a lost opportunity to make a common stance with the majority of the Turkish Cypriots who were crying for freedom from the stranglehold of Denktash and the Turkish deep state.

That is why picking fights with Turkish Cypriots (even in this forum) ad nauseum is a stupid thing to do and does not help Cyprus. Even the most negative ones can be softened with the right approach. However, we must be sincere and steady in our approach. There can be no going back and for them, political equality of the two communities is not negotiable and I agree with them that this is their safeguard in a united new Cyprus. I do not trust our nationalists either. They proved themselves to be unforgiving and ruthless in their quest to Hellenise the island. I believe that it is up to us, once again, to win back the trust of the Turkish Cypriots but time is running out. If we do not succeed, next stop is partition.

P.S. Nikitas, which two independed states are you referring to?

[Piratis]

Can you explaing why partition on the 82-18 lines would be fatal in the long run, when partition along the 63-37 lines has not been fatal in the last 34 years? I am really curious to know what dangers you perceive.

Nikitas, I am surprised at your question. De facto partition is what we have had over 34 years which is not ordained by law. Here we are talking about de jure partition with our blessings and the blessings of the international community. Two hundred and fifty K borders with a potentially dangerous neighbour and above all extinction of Cypriot culture.

What Bananiot doesn't understand is that with something like Annan plan the partition would again be de jure, with us officially recognizing that the north part of Cyprus belongs to the Turks. North Cyprus would then officially and with our signature be a "Turkish Cyprus", with the only difference that instead of this "Turkish Cyprus" being totally independent, it would be in a loose confederation along with "Greek Cyprus".

Something like what Serbia-Montenegro used to be and even more loose.

Such loose confederation therefore would make de jure the partition of the island along ethnic lines, and what we will have would be a partnership between "Turkish Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus" that would give disproportionally large amount of land and power to TCs, and would also give the power to Turkey to control the whole island. Turkey would then be able to do whatever she feels like against Cyprus, and we would not even be able to complain at the EU or UN as a state, since the TCs would use their veto to stop Cyprus from doing so. This is like the dream solution for Turkey.

After an Annan kind of partition we would be the ones begging for a clean partition (since there would be no other alternative, having already recognized that north Cyprus belongs to the Turks), but of course the Turks would not accept such thing until they gained everything they wanted from us (EU accession for Turkey, our tax money for their development, take any potential oil in our sea etc).

And if/when they decide that they want a total partition there will be nothing that can stop them since we would have already agreed that north Cyprus is Turkish, giving to them self-determination rights over what would then be officially regarded as their own separate land. And please don't tell me about some legalistic parameters in the constitution that can stop such thing from happening. Such parameters existed in Czechoslovakia, in former Yugoslavia, in former USSR etc. History proves that such parameters mean absolutely nothing.

Its one thing negotiating a good land split in a BBF which is acceptbale and another to begin a negotiation on a final split. If an acceptable BBF is not accompished where Turkey has no say on the island then the best we can do is kick up such a fuss against partition that it is sugar coated entirely in our favour in order for us to accept it.

Start a negotiation on tyring to achieve 82-18 split and we will end up with an official Turkish state on 40% of the island.

As a Cypriot I do not accept anyone dictating to me that one part of my island cannot be my country anymore. No one has the right to divide this island and condemn all future generations to half of it. If a BBF is not agreed then the struggle needs to continue.

I agree with DT. 18%-82% should be the land distribution within a BBF with a right content in general. This way if the Turks ever decide to split off they would at least know that they can not get more land than what proportionally belongs to them.

If such BBF can not be achieved then the best thing we can do is to continue our just struggle, and maintain the right of Republic of Cyprus for sovereignty over the whole island. The partition would then continue to be only de facto and not de jure, and as Bananiot just admitted a de facto partition is less bad than a de jure partition.

This way, in the short term we can guarantee that our enemy would suffer consequences for their crimes and illegalities against us, and also that they will not be able to develop as much and compete with us, harming our economy.

In the long term, maintaining our sovereignty rights over the whole of our island could prove essential in the liberation of our country. The balance of power does change, despite what some short sighted people here seem to think. Turkey is an unstable country torn between Islamists and Secularists and between Turks and Kurds. Many things can go extremely wrong in Turkey, and if Turkey ever finds its way in the wrong side of a conflict then giving back north Cyprus to their rightful owners would be the first thing that will be done to punish Turkey. Something like what happened with Rhodos and the Dodecanese that were given to Greece after Italy lost WWII.

[Get Real!]

I believe that it is up to us, once again, to win back the trust of the Turkish Cypriots but time is running out.

You have a strange way of seeing things… the problem is not us winning their trust, but us dealing with their dubious intentions that have nothing to do with us and everything to do with their ENOSIS seeking aspirations.

The GCs have long abandoned the ENOSIS crap but the TCs are still there like nothing has changed from 50-60 years ago.

[Piratis]

I believe that it is up to us, once again, to win back the trust of the Turkish Cypriots

You are living in an Utopia my friend.

Human beings of planet earth put their own interests above everything else. This is the case with TCs as well and it has been proven over and over again during our history.

When the TCs would have gained land and power on our loss because of the brute force and blackmail applied by Turkey, do you seriously think they would turn their back to Turkey risking to loose the unfair gains they received on our loss? Why do that? Because they will love us so much?

If the TCs were such selfless angels then we wouldn't have a problem to begin with. The fact is that the TCs have always been more than happy to accept the offerings of the Turks and the British who have always promised gains to the TC minority on our loss in order to apply their divide and rule practices. And naturally the TCs were always willing to cooperate with those foreigners, because as I said it is their own interests that they care about above everything else.

And then you call yourself a realist?