Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

May I also give a piece of information about the so called dead AP, do you know that it is being used as a basis for the current talks? Lawyer friends taking part in the negotiations confirmed this fact to me, so dismissing it the way you do is very comical.

Annan Plan 2004 was over 9,000 pages long VP. Nobody ever said that all 9,000+ pages were bad. However, 9,000+ pages of the AP 2004 as a total package was rejected that would have transformed a Unitary state of the RoC into a Confederacy states or worse, with vilotions of Cypriots Democratic and Human Rights. Once corrections are made to those violations to protect all Cypriots in a True Federation as in the BBF, then you can call the next package "Annan Plan" once again if it makes you feel better.

Did you know, that percentage wise, if you combined all Cypriots vote on the AP 2004, approximately 55% Cypriots said NO to the AP 2004 versus 45% who said YES. That is a landslide with 10% more saying NO to the AP 2004. Let the next "AP" be a True Federation and True Democracy, and you will see those numbers change to 55% YES and 45% NO. Isn't that what we want in peace, to have the majority of Cypriots say YES to any peace plan and not just the minority.

What you advocate is a unitary state which is in reality what we do not have, we have 2 sides with equal weight on a solution so your mathematical wizardry does not mean democracy, you have to digest the fact that our YES is also vital for a solution just as the GCs NO stopped the last attempt. The basis for any solution will be the AP all that work and cost will not be allowed to go the drain just because GCs don't like it, a few alternations to accomadate GC concerns are the name of the day the rest will remain the same, so dismissing it the way you and other GCs do is really like putting your heads in the sand.

No VP, I'm not advocating a Unitary state as in the 1960 Constitution, and you know this from my support for a True Federation in the BBF, unless of course you call any Federal government a "Unitary State". Cyprus is one country, and will remain so, so this is what you have to get to use to, and within this country of Cyprus, there will be a 2 Federated states, north and south with single citizenship, and not the 2 seperate individual states (countries) that you and the AP 2004 had and hoped for. The GC's are not going to grant 30% of Cyprus to the TC's and Turkey to legally be separated from the rest of the island, because the present situation for them will be better than the above. Lets see how far the new "AP" will be improved to accommodate a True Federation and not a "sugar coated" Confederation-Partition.

The balance is very important because don't forget the TCs said YES to the AP in its current form any major changes will have to accommodate their concerns and if not addressed they have no fear of saying NO as it wont make a blind bit of difference as you have already said promises are never kept eg EU/UN and we will not fall for that one again. TCs are very complacent right now and they are not holding out much hope for the current talks, no one takes them seriously as these leaders appear to be coming into a deadlock situation which was expected due to our past track record. Business as usual in the TRNC, everyone is still eating drink and living their lives to the full, not the doom and gloom you guys seem to think or dream about in the TRNC.

[Kikapu]

May I also give a piece of information about the so called dead AP, do you know that it is being used as a basis for the current talks? Lawyer friends taking part in the negotiations confirmed this fact to me, so dismissing it the way you do is very comical.

Annan Plan 2004 was over 9,000 pages long VP. Nobody ever said that all 9,000+ pages were bad. However, 9,000+ pages of the AP 2004 as a total package was rejected that would have transformed a Unitary state of the RoC into a Confederacy states or worse, with vilotions of Cypriots Democratic and Human Rights. Once corrections are made to those violations to protect all Cypriots in a True Federation as in the BBF, then you can call the next package "Annan Plan" once again if it makes you feel better.

Did you know, that percentage wise, if you combined all Cypriots vote on the AP 2004, approximately 55% Cypriots said NO to the AP 2004 versus 45% who said YES. That is a landslide with 10% more saying NO to the AP 2004. Let the next "AP" be a True Federation and True Democracy, and you will see those numbers change to 55% YES and 45% NO. Isn't that what we want in peace, to have the majority of Cypriots say YES to any peace plan and not just the minority.

What you advocate is a unitary state which is in reality what we do not have, we have 2 sides with equal weight on a solution so your mathematical wizardry does not mean democracy, you have to digest the fact that our YES is also vital for a solution just as the GCs NO stopped the last attempt. The basis for any solution will be the AP all that work and cost will not be allowed to go the drain just because GCs don't like it, a few alternations to accomadate GC concerns are the name of the day the rest will remain the same, so dismissing it the way you and other GCs do is really like putting your heads in the sand.

No VP, I'm not advocating a Unitary state as in the 1960 Constitution, and you know this from my support for a True Federation in the BBF, unless of course you call any Federal government a "Unitary State". Cyprus is one country, and will remain so, so this is what you have to get to use to, and within this country of Cyprus, there will be a 2 Federated states, north and south with single citizenship, and not the 2 seperate individual states (countries) that you and the AP 2004 had and hoped for. The GC's are not going to grant 30% of Cyprus to the TC's and Turkey to legally be separated from the rest of the island, because the present situation for them will be better than the above. Lets see how far the new "AP" will be improved to accommodate a True Federation and not a "sugar coated" Confederation-Partition.

The balance is very important because don't forget the TCs said YES to the AP in its current form any major changes will have to accommodate their concerns and if not addressed they have no fear of saying NO as it wont make a blind bit of difference as you have already said promises are never kept eg EU/UN and we will not fall for that one again. TCs are very complacent right now and they are not holding out much hope for the current talks, no one takes them seriously as these leaders appear to be coming into a deadlock situation which was expected due to our past track record. Business as usual in the TRNC, everyone is still eating drink and living their lives to the full, not the doom and gloom you guys seem to think or dream about in the TRNC.

VP,

This is a post I came across on the forum that's couple of years old. Do you disagree with any part of this report, and if you do, please point them out. Judging from this report, the TC's have a long way to go in making concessions on the AP 2004 before they can be seen as meeting "half way" with the GC's. This report does not even get into the power sharing mechanisms that was in the AP, which also includes the TC veto power in the government. Then there was the limitations of GC not being able to vote in the north, gain government jobs unless they spoke Turkish, cannot transfer property to their heirs, the GC's would have had to give their allegiance to Atatürk, plus many other non democratic and racist conditions. If you disagree, please tell us why.

Reasons for the approval of the Annan Plan Turkish Cypriot view

Reunification was desired for economic reasons.
Many Turkish Cypriots no longer perceived the Greek Cypriots as a threat, especially in the light of the strictly bi-zonal proposition of the Annan plan.

Turkish Cypriots would receive considerable constitutional power in the United Cyprus Republic that the Annan plan proposed, over-proportional to their percentage of the population.

The Turkish Cypriot component state would still, even after territorial cessation of some areas to the Greek Cypriot component state, make up 28.5 percent of the total area of Cyprus, including large economically important areas that where inhabitated exclusively by Greek Cypriots prior to the division of Cyprus in 1975.

The right of return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the areas coming under the control of the Turkish Cypriot component state would be strictly limited if not, insome cases, forbidden, thus the possibility of Turkish Cypriots becoming a minority in their respective component state would not exist.

The guarantor powers to the constitution of Cyprus would retain their powers as such, thus Turkey would still have the arguable right to intervene in Cypriot affairs, most definitely on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots.

Reasons for the rejection of the Annan Plan Greek Cypriot Point of view

The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. (2001) The Annan plan equates the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the to be Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation to the two communities. The majority becomes minority in important decision centers.

The plan created a confederation even though it utilized the term "federation" because there was no hierarchy of laws, while central authority emanated from the so-called component states. Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable. In 1789, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot (77% of population) and Turkish Cypriot (18% of population) judges, plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.

The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.
Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.
The Plan simply disregarded the plain language and clear meaning of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, article 49, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. Article 49 states in its last paragraph: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

The Plan did not deal in full with the demilitarisation of the illegal 'TRNC', and Greek Cypriots felt they had no reason to believe Turkish promises concerning the withdrawal of troops.

Cyprus would be excluded from the European Common Defense and Foreign Policy, while Turkish troops would remain in Cyprus even after the accession of Turkey to the EU with intervention rights (a military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically) in the Greek Cypriot component state.

Many Greek Cypriots interpreted the Right of Return policy as to be seriously flawed, meaning only 20% of Greek Cypriot refugees would be able to return over a time frame of 25 years, whereas Turkish Cypriots would have had full right of return.The plan denied to all Cypriots rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens (right of free movement and residence, the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services, the right to vote).

Turkish Cypriots would have gained all the basic demands it made, from the first day of the implementation of the solution. To be exact, 24 hours after the holding of the referendum. In contrast, everything that the Greek Cypriots were aspiring to achieve, would have postponed without guarantees and depend upon the good will of Turkey to fulfil the obligations it undertakes. They are also subject to the precondition that all would have gone well.

The return of the Turkish occupied land will take place in the period between three and a half months and three and a half years from the moment the solution is signed with no guarantees whatsoever that this shall be implemented. The Cypriot-Greek proposal of placing these areas under the control of the UN Peace Keeping Force and not the Turkish army has been rejected.

The Plan did not address the issue of the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the island, although parts of the SBAs would be transferred to the governments of the two consituent states.

The British were granted rights to unilaterally define the continental shelf and territorial waters along two base areas and to claim potential mineral rights. Under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements, Britain did not have such rights (see the 2nd annex to the Additional Protocol to the 1959 Treaty of Establishment).

The plan absolved Turkey of all responsibility for its invasion of Cyprus and its murders, rapes, destruction of property and churches and looting and forcing approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property. The Cyprus government filed applications to the European Commission on Human Rights on September 17, 1974 and on March 21, 1975. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the two applications on July 10, 1976. In it the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... c&start=70


Here are couple of quotes from "The Divisions of Cyprus"
by Perry Anderson

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

"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?"

"the constitution of Zurich had proved unworkable enough, leading only to communal strife and breakdown. The constitution of Bürgenstock, far more complicated and still more inequitable, was a recipe for yet greater rancour and paralysis."

[Viewpoint]

Would you then finally accept the chasm is to wide to bridge so as I have always supported partition should be on the table not BBF, the information above supports my arguement 100%

[Kikapu]

Would you then finally accept the chasm is to wide to bridge so as I have always supported partition should be on the table not BBF, the information above supports my arguement 100%

You really have not answered any part of the above post VP, unless of course, you do not want to answer them, because it would mean that it is the TC's that need to move towards the center to meet the GC's half way, than the other way around..

No, I don't think the above support your argument for a partition and I do not think that the chasm is too wide that it cannot be solved for peace. You say you want a comprehensive settlement, but in order to do that, you will need to move toward the center to solve the problem, or else there is no way of solving it. But since Partition is your main aim, you have no intentions on moving towards the center, which means that the present situation will remain in place until Turkey makes the decisions for you on her own terms when the right time comes, at which point, you may find yourself nowhere close to the middle, but at what ever deal Turkey will cut with the RoC to enter the EU. The only way you are going to convince the GC's to give you a agreed partition, is when you give up 50% of the north, and even then, forget about ever getting into the EU along with Turkey, so I do not think partition is in the mind of Turkey, and if it's not in the mind of Turkey, it's definitely not in the mind of the "trnc", since Turkey controls the "trnc's" mind.!.

[Viewpoint]

Would you then finally accept the chasm is to wide to bridge so as I have always supported partition should be on the table not BBF, the information above supports my arguement 100%

You really have not answered any part of the above post VP, unless of course, you do not want to answer them, because it would mean that it is the TC's that need to move towards the center to meet the GC's half way, than the other way around..

No, I don't think the above support your argument for a partition and I do not think that the chasm is too wide that it cannot be solved for peace. You say you want a comprehensive settlement, but in order to do that, you will need to move toward the center to solve the problem, or else there is no way of solving it. But since Partition is your main aim, you have no intentions on moving towards the center, which means that the present situation will remain in place until Turkey makes the decisions for you on her own terms when the right time comes, at which point, you may find yourself nowhere close to the middle, but at what ever deal Turkey will cut with the RoC to enter the EU. The only way you are going to convince the GC's to give you a agreed partition, is when you give up 50% of the north, and even then, forget about ever getting into the EU along with Turkey, so I do not think partition is in the mind of Turkey, and if it's not in the mind of Turkey, it's definitely not in the mind of the "trnc", since Turkey controls the "trnc's" mind.!.

How can you be so blind as not to see that every point raised and objected to by the GCs is exactly the chasm Im talking about, if these are to be bridged then they must not effect the TC YES, any demand for the TCs to move closer to middle ground which by the way you say is middle but from this side of the table is looked upon as a GC gain and therefore a TC lost means that we are more likely to vote against a future plan.

As for Turkey selling us out when the time is right for them is an empty threat by you, Turkey has not opened her ports and continues to go against EU demands for those TCs you feel she will just abandon, you obviously do not and will never understand the strong relations between TCs and Turks.

I have always stated that return of land for partition is the way to go and I do not support entry into the EU if partition should be agreed, non entry into the EU is not the end of the world, there are plenty of countries doing well who are not.

The fact that the 2 sides are nowhere nearer a solution now than they have ever been with differences continuing to exist supports my argument 100%, yours is just wishful thinking that both sides will compromise enough to meet halfway which is always seen as different to both sides, whats middle ground to you is way to far over to the side of the GC demand and vice verse.

[Get Real!]

Would you then finally accept the chasm is to wide to bridge so as I have always supported partition should be on the table not BBF, the information above supports my arguement 100%

You really have not answered any part of the above post VP, unless of course, you do not want to answer them, because it would mean that it is the TC's that need to move towards the center to meet the GC's half way, than the other way around..

No, I don't think the above support your argument for a partition and I do not think that the chasm is too wide that it cannot be solved for peace. You say you want a comprehensive settlement, but in order to do that, you will need to move toward the center to solve the problem, or else there is no way of solving it. But since Partition is your main aim, you have no intentions on moving towards the center, which means that the present situation will remain in place until Turkey makes the decisions for you on her own terms when the right time comes, at which point, you may find yourself nowhere close to the middle, but at what ever deal Turkey will cut with the RoC to enter the EU. The only way you are going to convince the GC's to give you a agreed partition, is when you give up 50% of the north, and even then, forget about ever getting into the EU along with Turkey, so I do not think partition is in the mind of Turkey, and if it's not in the mind of Turkey, it's definitely not in the mind of the "trnc", since Turkey controls the "trnc's" mind.!.

How can you be so blind as not to see that every point raised and objected to by the GCs is exactly the chasm Im talking about, if these are to be bridged then they must not effect the TC YES, any demand for the TCs to move closer to middle ground which by the way you say is middle but from this side of the table is looked upon as a GC gain and therefore a TC lost means that we are more likely to vote against a future plan.

As for Turkey selling us out when the time is right for them is an empty threat by you, Turkey has not opened her ports and continues to go against EU demands for those TCs you feel she will just abandon, you obviously do not and will never understand the strong relations between TCs and Turks.

I have always stated that return of land for partition is the way to go and I do not support entry into the EU if partition should be agreed, non entry into the EU is not the end of the world, there are plenty of countries doing well who are not.

The fact that the 2 sides are nowhere nearer a solution now than they have ever been with differences continuing to exist supports my argument 100%, yours is just wishful thinking that both sides will compromise enough to meet halfway which is always seen as different to both sides, whats middle ground to you is way to far over to the side of the GC demand and vice verse.

Have you come across any indication all these years that Turkey supports partition?

[Viewpoint]

Would you then finally accept the chasm is to wide to bridge so as I have always supported partition should be on the table not BBF, the information above supports my arguement 100%

You really have not answered any part of the above post VP, unless of course, you do not want to answer them, because it would mean that it is the TC's that need to move towards the center to meet the GC's half way, than the other way around..

No, I don't think the above support your argument for a partition and I do not think that the chasm is too wide that it cannot be solved for peace. You say you want a comprehensive settlement, but in order to do that, you will need to move toward the center to solve the problem, or else there is no way of solving it. But since Partition is your main aim, you have no intentions on moving towards the center, which means that the present situation will remain in place until Turkey makes the decisions for you on her own terms when the right time comes, at which point, you may find yourself nowhere close to the middle, but at what ever deal Turkey will cut with the RoC to enter the EU. The only way you are going to convince the GC's to give you a agreed partition, is when you give up 50% of the north, and even then, forget about ever getting into the EU along with Turkey, so I do not think partition is in the mind of Turkey, and if it's not in the mind of Turkey, it's definitely not in the mind of the "trnc", since Turkey controls the "trnc's" mind.!.

How can you be so blind as not to see that every point raised and objected to by the GCs is exactly the chasm Im talking about, if these are to be bridged then they must not effect the TC YES, any demand for the TCs to move closer to middle ground which by the way you say is middle but from this side of the table is looked upon as a GC gain and therefore a TC lost means that we are more likely to vote against a future plan.

As for Turkey selling us out when the time is right for them is an empty threat by you, Turkey has not opened her ports and continues to go against EU demands for those TCs you feel she will just abandon, you obviously do not and will never understand the strong relations between TCs and Turks.

I have always stated that return of land for partition is the way to go and I do not support entry into the EU if partition should be agreed, non entry into the EU is not the end of the world, there are plenty of countries doing well who are not.

The fact that the 2 sides are nowhere nearer a solution now than they have ever been with differences continuing to exist supports my argument 100%, yours is just wishful thinking that both sides will compromise enough to meet halfway which is always seen as different to both sides, whats middle ground to you is way to far over to the side of the GC demand and vice verse.

Have you come across any indication all these years that Turkey supports partition?

Recognition.

[Get Real!]

Have you come across any indication all these years that Turkey supports partition?

Recognition.

Yeah, that's what I meant... have you?

[Viewpoint]

Have you come across any indication all these years that Turkey supports partition?

Recognition.

Yeah, that's what I meant... have you?

[Kikapu]

How can you be so blind as not to see that every point raised and objected to by the GCs is exactly the chasm Im talking about, if these are to be bridged then they must not effect the TC YES, any demand for the TCs to move closer to middle ground which by the way you say is middle but from this side of the table is looked upon as a GC gain and therefore a TC lost means that we are more likely to vote against a future plan.

So what you want VP, is to have a settlement based on 80%-20% in the TC's favour, just like the Annan Plan in order to give a YES vote to a settlement, then you complain why the GC's will not go along with your wishes, and you call me blind.

So what ever happen to being partners on a 50-50 basis.? What you demand is not a 50-50 basis at all. If it meant that, then the TC's and the GC's would meet at the half way line during these negotiations. It is very clear, that you would rather hold on to the stolen GC land in the north than negotiate in good faith. So now we know which of the two parties who is being totally unreasonable and once again would like to have a Undemocratic and Racist settlement just to please the minority 20% TC's with 80% of all the goodies, and of course, if we add the TC veto vote power, it will give the TC's 100% decision makings in the government. All this makes the 1960 Constitution into a joke in comparison, as bad as that one was.

As for Turkey selling us out when the time is right for them is an empty threat by you, Turkey has not opened her ports and continues to go against EU demands for those TCs you feel she will just abandon, you obviously do not and will never understand the strong relations between TCs and Turks.

Well, Turkey has been banking first on the AP 2004 to save her, then on the new settlement talks based on the AP 2004 which has not happened and now hoping for something with the present talks to bear some fruit to keep the north and become a EU member at the same time and since she still has some time given to her by the EU on opening and closing chapters, Turkey has not been forced to make any moves yet on her decisions. But wait and see when Turkey's feet are put to the fire with future deadlines given to her to solve the Cyprus problem once and for all. She will be given only two options, "shit or get off the pot" as far as her EU desires go. Once Turkey pulls out of the EU talks, then I will agree with you, that Turkey will not throw the TC's under the bus, what's left of them in the north. At that point, she will be protecting mostly the settlers.

I have always stated that return of land for partition is the way to go and I do not support entry into the EU if partition should be agreed, non entry into the EU is not the end of the world, there are plenty of countries doing well who are not.

Well, it may come down to that. Just be prepared to return 50% of the north back to the RoC, then you can help Kifeas build that 8 meters wall between the north and the south, because there is no way the GC's will want to maintain any kind of relationship with the north once those TC's who will choose to move to the south, they will close the border.

You say you will not need the EU, and I'm glad to hear that, even though I don't think you are being sincere. You take every part of the EU Dollars now. Without being in the EU, you will have the same economy as Turkey if not worse once Turkey holds back the money she spends in the north now, as well as the same legal penal code, starting with article 301. But that's OK, because you don't believe in True Democracy anyway, and as long as you are on top of the political food chain, you will be OK, and if you are not, then it will be like "Animal Farm" for the rest.

The fact that the 2 sides are nowhere nearer a solution now than they have ever been with differences continuing to exist supports my argument 100%, yours is just wishful thinking that both sides will compromise enough to meet halfway which is always seen as different to both sides, whats middle ground to you is way to far over to the side of the GC demand and vice verse.[/quote]

Haven't you been telling us for the last 2 1/2 years that I have been on the forum that you would like to see a comprehensive settlement to the Cyprus problems. Just what the hell did you think that meant, that you will only have peace if you can grab as much as you can or else it is no go, and then turn around and accuse the GC's of not wanting peace by not willing to compromise to your liking. Which peace settlement negotiation school did you go to that says, unless you get everything, do not sign any peace deals with the GC's, and you wonder why the GC's rather keep the present situation going than give into your outrageous demands. I will fight for what we deserve and what is ours VP, but it takes two to tango, and unless the GC's are also at the dance floor, you will be dancing alone, and without peace with the GC's to give the north any legitimacy in the future, you will be "dancing" with the settlers, and what are you going to do when they will do the same to the TC's in demanding everything from you as you are from the GC's. Poetic justice comes to mind for starters.!