Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

"Actually it was the U.N. that devised and supported a plan of virgin birth in 2004 "

Another masterful and cynical manipulation of events to suit their plans!

The Annan plan provided a long and detailed description of the CONTINUITY of the legal personality of the RoC with which the new federal state would be endowed. And it could not be otherwise.

If you note carefully the Annan plan did not say that the new state would make new applications to join international bodies, like the UN, or ICAO etc. It would carry on as normal, because it was an EVOLUTION of the RoC which is PRECISELY what was agreed with Britain and Russia.

But evolution does not suit the long term plans of Turkey to use the TCs and the settlers to take over the WHOLE of Cyprus. Hence the newly invented theory of virgin birth inorder to get the much desired recognition of the bastardised TRNC even at the final minute. Typical cynical ploys. Cheap bazaar tricks.

If you think that we are not able to see through the bullshit you got another thing coming.

Every time these bazaar tricks surface I keep thinking of Kifeas' proposal of an 18-82 split and to hell with this crap. Take your virgin birth and shove it.

[Kikapu]

Actually it was the U.N. that devised and supported a plan of virgin birth in 2004 and despite the storm of negative campaigning by your politicians a whole 24.17% of GCs were in favour of it at the time. .

If I were a GC, I would have had a hard time in supporting the 2004 AP, and to my surprise, 24% of the GC's did vote YES, foolishly.!

As foolish as what the 24% of the GC's did by voting YES for the 2004 AP, what was even more foolish, was the 35% of the TC's voting NO on the 2004 AP.

I have a hard time understanding in just how much more the 35% TC's were expecting to have come from the 2004 AP in order to give their YES vote to it, and equally astonished, just how much worse were the 24% GC's were expecting from the 2004 AP, before they would have voted NO on it.

On balance, the 35% "NO" TC's made a bigger mistake in their their vote than the 24% "YES" GC's voters, in my humble opinion.

[Viewpoint]

"Not the UN officially"?.... Was it a plan that our leaders happened to outsource to a guy named Kofi because they liked his outfit? Was it an unofficial plan? Was the U.N. seal on the plan just a mere a coincidence? Was it something that Kofi wrote on his own in his spare time on the beach? Get a grip. It is true that the Annan Plan is not on the table at this time, but it is also true that the Annan Plan was a U.N. plan, it embodied a virgin birth, it was supported by many countries, and it was supported by a notable portion of the GC community despite the storm of negative campaigning by your political leaders. And all on this planet.

On the other hand, U.N. Resolutions and the Agreements that they refer to (made between our COMMUNAL LEADERS) in regards to the general principles of a solution are still on the table. The fact of the matter is that your leader is making false accusations that that U.N. resolutions that provide guidelines on the principles of solution and the Agreements that they refer to (in this case 77-79 High Level) state that the solution be based on the evolution of the existing "state". THEY DO NOT. Get it?

Murat, I know perfectly well what you (your side) are trying to promote and achieve, and as I said, “good luck,” but unfortunately for you, you won’t go too far on it! Trust me; you have no case on this issue!

No, the UN did not officially endorse the A-plan, as the ultimate solution of the Cyprus issue; neither the plan bared the official UN seal or its name on it! Don’t you wonder why? What the UN did, was to authorize the SG to offer his offices and services in helping the two sides reach an agreement, as a mediator, and the two sides accepted such a role without this meaning that whatever he would offer would be binding to them, or it would become the official UN position as to how the problem should be solved. It is very simple, really!

We have this in Cyprus, almost every week, when the labor unions and the employer unions negotiate for the renewal of their collective agreements, and when they reach a deadlock they ask the Minister of Labor to play the role of the mediator between them. What ideas he offers in order to overcome the dispute, are his ideas only, and not the official government positions, or that his ideas become the law as to how the two sides will solve their differences. Sometimes, the two sides decide to assign to the minister the role of not just the mediator, but also that of the arbitrator, and they may even go as far as agreeing that his /her arbitration will be a binding for one or both of the two sides in the dispute. In our case, we accepted Kofi Annan not just as a mediator, but also as an arbitrator, but we did not accept that the result of his arbitration will be binding (only that we will put it to a referendum,) nor that his arbitrating result will become the official UN position or law as to how the solution will look like! It so happened that his arbitrating result deviated from what the UN law and the UN resolutions provide, but still it was up to us to accept! Once we rejected it, it became null and void! It would have become the official UN position, had the UN endorsed his plan in the form of a new UN resolution on Cyprus, something which never happened (Kofi Anan did not even try –knowing that he would have failed, to ask for such a resolution,) and which is unlikely to ever happen.

Now, let me refer to another one of your impossible missions, that of trying to convince the world and us that the solution should be based not on the evolution of the RoC, but instead will be one based on a new partnership agreement between two fictitious (non existing for the time being) separate and legitimately existing state entities in Cyprus, which will come together and form a (con)federal government in-between them, and to which they will “delegate” some of their “sovereign” “rights and powers,” so as to function.

It is a joke really, to believe that such an idea has a chance to ever be adopted, not just by us but also by the UN or the EU, or anyone else in the rest of the world, just because in all or our side agreements or UN resolutions there was no mention to the easily meant premise that any agreement to the dispute, will only constitute an evolution of the legally existing UN member RoC.

If one takes the history of the Cyprus dispute, from 1964 and onwards –to this date, the two sides negotiating are not any two leaders or presidents of any two separate state-entities in Cyprus, but it is only the leaders of the two communities in Cyprus. This is also evident in all UN resolutions, be it before or after 1974. The only premise and /or framework explaining or justifying why the two particular communities are negotiating, from an international law perspective, is only due to the fact that they are recognized under the RoC constitution to be the two main components of both the RoC constitutional framework, and the Cypriot society in general. If that was not the basis, then there would have been no reason or framework based on which the two sides (two communities) would ever have started negotiating in the first place. Such a notion existed before 1974, and it never ceased to exist even after 1974. You have no chance in a million convincing anyone outside Turkey and /or your community that this is not the case, but it is a different one instead!

Now, why are the two communities negotiating with each other, since 1964, and up until this date? We are negotiating, not because the RoC collapsed and dissolved as a subject of international law and it no longer exists as a sovereign UN recognized entity; but because there is an internal constitutional dispute between the two component communities as to what each ones rights are or should be, and how they are or should be observed or practiced! The reason why we -the two communities negotiate, both before and after 1974, is only to resolve the internal dispute, within the framework of the RoC, because this is the only basis or framework as to why both of us exist as communal entities in the first place! This is what the international community understands, and this is how every single UN resolution or side agreement between us can possibly be read!

The international personality of the RoC did not collapse due to this internal dispute, as we and the rest of the world know and accept. It is there and continues to be recognized, no matter what one single country on this planet (Turkey) thinks about it, and in that respect, neither we nor anyone else outside Cyprus (except Turkey) feels or thinks that there is anything that needs to be resolved on that level. If it was a different case, neither the UN would have allowed a seat to the same RoC that was admitted in 1960, to continue occupying it with the same rights and /or privileges, nor the CoE would have done the same, nor the EU would have admitted this same RoC as one of its members states, on behalf and representing the whole island.

In that respect, any agreement between the two communities (because these are the ones negotiating and not any two separate states in Cyprus,) will only resolve the internal constitutional dispute between us, and will only be an evolution of the existing (since 1960) international personality and status of the RoC. You are the only people on this planet who think differently. Good luck in your mission impossible! As far as I am concerned, you are trying to beat up a large thorn bush with a roll of a newspaper, in order to make a fox hiding inside to come out and let you catch it (this is what I once did, when I was a child.) The only thing you will achieve is to destroy your only “weapon,” after the first couple of strikes, and frustrated and heartbroken as you will become, will abandon the bush and the fox.

So in short you do not accept a virgin birth approach as a solution but demand that the continuation of the "RoC"? Was it not the GCs who wanted to change the 1960 constitution eg Akritas? they believed that the agreements signed by them in 1960 gave TCs to many rights and therefore had to change, will you accept that we go back to those exact same agreements where we have veto rights and Turkey has intervention rights or how long will it take before you cry wolf with a revised Akritas 2???

[Nikitas]

VP

YOu are playing dumb again. When there is an agreement the RoC will gain a new constitution, approved by referenda by both communities, and it might even be renamed, but it will be one state all along.

What has the situation after a solution have to do with the problem of 1963. The idea is to solve the problem not reinforce it.

[Viewpoint]

VP

YOu are playing dumb again. When there is an agreement the RoC will gain a new constitution, approved by referenda by both communities, and it might even be renamed, but it will be one state all along.

What has the situation after a solution have to do with the problem of 1963. The idea is to solve the problem not reinforce it.

Read Kifeas post carefully so you disagree with him and feel negotiating a new state of affaris which will bring about a new constitiution is the order of the day as the old one sucks, isnt that what everyone including the TCs have been saying all along? The current state of affairs wont work we have to find a new structure that will and one of those alternatives is a virgin birth approach as per the AP which was support by many, this you cannot totally disregard.

[Kifeas]

So in short you do not accept a virgin birth approach as a solution but demand that the continuation of the "RoC"? Was it not the GCs who wanted to change the 1960 constitution eg Akritas? they believed that the agreements signed by them in 1960 gave TCs to many rights and therefore had to change, will you accept that we go back to those exact same agreements where we have veto rights and Turkey has intervention rights or how long will it take before you cry wolf with a revised Akritas 2???

VP, in case you do not realize it, what a bizonal bicommunal federation entails –more so the way your side understands or wants it, is far worse and difficult for the GC side to live with, than what the 1960 RoC constitution provided. In case you do not realize it, it is you that now has the biggest problem with the 1960 constitutional setup, and as far as the GC side is concerned, it would have no problem returning back to it in full.

[Viewpoint]

So in short you do not accept a virgin birth approach as a solution but demand that the continuation of the "RoC"? Was it not the GCs who wanted to change the 1960 constitution eg Akritas? they believed that the agreements signed by them in 1960 gave TCs to many rights and therefore had to change, will you accept that we go back to those exact same agreements where we have veto rights and Turkey has intervention rights or how long will it take before you cry wolf with a revised Akritas 2???

VP, in case you do not realize it, what a bizonal bicommunal federation entails –more so the way your side understands or wants it, is far worse and difficult for the GC side to live with, than what the 1960 RoC constitution provided. In case you do not realize it, it is you that now has the biggest problem with the 1960 constitutional setup, and as far as the GC side is concerned, it would have no problem returning back to it in full.

Why don't your leaders put this on the table? I still feel the GCs will never accept sharing power whether it be a return to the current constitution which they would try to change immediately or a new arrangement via a BBF, they still have not gotten their heads around the idea of sharing anything with TCs other than throwing them a few morsels of you can be a minority in a GC state run by GCs.

[humanist]

Mr Talat appears to have forgoten who the President of the Republic of Cyprus is. Mr Chrostofias has every right to represent his country and people anywhere he chooses to do so within the boundaries of intrnational law. Unlike the TC leadership currently heaeded by Mr Talat who appears to have dealings with an unlawful regime that occupies 1/3 of the Republic of Cyprus and one that chooses not adhere to international law and UN resolutions.

So grow up cry baby Talat. Stop being a little Turkish puppet.

[Viewpoint]

Mr Talat appears to have forgoten who the President of the Republic of Cyprus is. Mr Chrostofias has every right to represent his country and people anywhere he chooses to do so within the boundaries of intrnational law. Unlike the TC leadership currently heaeded by Mr Talat who appears to have dealings with an unlawful regime that occupies 1/3 of the Republic of Cyprus and one that chooses not adhere to international law and UN resolutions.

So grow up cry baby Talat. Stop being a little Turkish puppet.

And President Talat is our elected leader he has every right to voice his opinion, you cannot shut him up anymore.

[DT.]

Mr Talat appears to have forgoten who the President of the Republic of Cyprus is. Mr Chrostofias has every right to represent his country and people anywhere he chooses to do so within the boundaries of intrnational law. Unlike the TC leadership currently heaeded by Mr Talat who appears to have dealings with an unlawful regime that occupies 1/3 of the Republic of Cyprus and one that chooses not adhere to international law and UN resolutions.

So grow up cry baby Talat. Stop being a little Turkish puppet.

And President Talat is our elected leader he has every right to voice his opinion, you cannot shut him up anymore.

I don't think we want to shut him up. The international consensus seems to be getting tired of the federation hype outside the talks and the confederation demands inside the talks. Christofias's agreements with the UK and Russia lay testament to that. Those agreements describe the true basis of the talks otherwise the British and Russians wouldn't bother writing them down for you.