Get Real Wrote:
Why would Christofias help Denktash have a free “sovereign state” at his expense?
Turkish Cypriot logic baffles the brain…
You just don't get it mate. This has nothing to do with Denktas, but to do with the realities of the Cyprus Conflict. Both peoples (Turkish and Greek Cypriots) clearly can not agree, both are clearly at loggerheads regarding almost every issue aimed at forcefully forging a Bogus Federal government.
The Greek Cypriot logic is simple, domination: Live under a Greek Cypriot dominated Federal government with the 10 additional changes imposed by Makarios in 1963 and accept the Turkish Cypriot minority (in your terms, although the UN has clearly pointed out that the Cyprus issue is not based on a Minority/Majority basis but one on an equal footing - Remember Mr Annan's words?) status. In other words, NO GOVERNMENTAL Control of Cyprus in any way. Come on Get Real, do you really believe we are THAT Stupid?
It's either a Two State agreement or Nothing - it's that simple. Where, if all fails and there's no agreement at the end of these talks, I would bet my holiday Pad in Girne that the UN will ultimately wash its hands with ALL the people of Cyprus, pack its bags together with the EU and declare the "Cease-Fire" line as an official border.
If you don't believe the above to be the case Get Real, just keep on pressing for the "OXI" vote in a future referendum, although, I believe that Christofias is playing his people for a bunch of fools as, according to my understanding and the Greek Cypriots in London - Chris with bail out well before any completion of a UN Plan! Read the following from the Cyprus Mail.......
Christofias’ policy can only work in the short term
“DESPITE our intensive efforts, after four months of work, I do not have real progress to report,” President Christofias announced on Monday. This was his pessimistic appraisal of four months of negotiations with Mehmet Ali Talat that are supposed to pave the way for a compromise deal.
Opponents of the talks used this admission to have a dig at the UN, which had been taking a positive line about the meetings of the two leaders. The implication was that the UN was giving out misleading information and that the process was doomed to failure, as its opponents had been predicting all along.
Why did the president feel obliged to make his feelings public, considering there was still a long way to go and important topics have yet to be touched? It is too early to prepare people for a collapse of the talks, considering he has no intention of walking out when most topics have not even been discussed. He knows this would be a big mistake as the Greek Cypriot side would be burdened with the responsibility for the failure.
Is he trying to put pressure on the UN and the international community to turn the screw on the Turkish side? This also seems implausible as pressure could only be applied when the discussions are completed and the two leaders enter the give-and-take phase. For now, the two sides are merely stating their respective positions, between which there was bound to be some distance.
Another explanation is that his comments were primarily directed at opponents of the talks who have frequently criticized him for allegedly making too many concessions to the other side. By slamming Talat’s demands and lamenting the gulf separating the two sides’ respective positions he is depriving the hard-line camp of ammunition to fire at him.
Had he said that most topics relating to governance were agreed, he would have come under a barrage of criticism and accused of making too many concessions to Talat, because for the hardliners, the negotiations will always be a zero sum game. They always perceive agreement on an issue as a sell-out, because they work on the assumption that what the Turkish Cypriots accept must, by definition, be bad for the Greek Cypriots.
Christofias, therefore, not only has to complain about the lack of progress, but also accuse Talat of making demands that were outside the UN framework. But would a weak federal government which Talat, reportedly, has been demanding, be outside the UN framework? If the two sides agreed to this, would the UN mediators object to it? By being specific he may be looking to reassure the hardliners about his tough stance.
While this tactic may serve him well for now, there is the danger that it would eventually turn everyone against a compromise. If he carries on slamming Talat and his demands, there would be nobody left supporting a settlement, long before the procedure is concluded.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2008
