Kifeas wrote:However, the Annan plan, imo, did not take this approach but instead it was yielding substantially more towards the TC “ideal” approach, which is that of a strict and almost absolute political equality between the two communities. I do not say that there were no elements favouring the GC “ideal” approach of simple majority, but they were of a very minimum level. Furthermore, the TC leadership seems to be entrenched behind this issue and doesn’t give any signs of willingness to accommodate the GC concerns. That in my opinion constitutes one of biggest psychological barriers for the GC side and gears it towards a hardening position on other issues.
The changes in the Annan plan, in general, were more favourable to the Turkish side. Part of the reason is that Americans wanted to please Turkey in Cyprus because they needed it in Iraq. But I also think that the GC leadership was not really negotiating and they didn't really try to get positive changes in the plan. It seems to me that they were more focused on having the plan rejected in the referandum than getting it into an acceptable shape.
Nevertheless, I believe in politics of good will, i.e., making gestures of good will and sending positive signals, even when it is unilateral. Taking a hardened position of no concession is not condusive to a solution, so, if our goal is obtaining a 'YES-YES' result, the TC leadership should take a more open position and show more willingness to discuss the issues that lead to the rejection of the plan.