Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Top secret talks document leaked
By Elias Hazou

IT WAS déjà vu all over again after a classified document on the Cyprus talks was leaked to the press less than 24 hours after it was handed to politicians.

The document, circulated to the National Council at the body’s meeting on Friday, lists the points of convergence and disagreement on key issues of a reunited state, covering governance and power-sharing.

Simerini newspaper yesterday ran a full-page story, quoting extensively from the document and publishing snapshots of excerpts. The document’s cover page is stamped “Secret.”

The 35-page manuscript records serious disagreements between the two communities. In a nutshell, the Turkish Cypriots are said to want a weak central government—anathema to Greek Cypriots.

According to the leaked document, the Turkish Cypriot side states: “The relationship between the Federal Government and the Constituent States shall not be one of dominion, supremacy or hierarchy”—a view the government interprets as advocating a loose association where the two constituent states are not accountable to the central government.

“The Greek Cypriot side cannot accept the use of wording which is incommensurate with federal systems and which harks to a confederal rather than a federal system,” the document notes.

It was hardly the first time the National Council’s laundry was exposed to the public eye.

“We express our grief, disappointment and intense concern that National Council documents were not only leaked, but also delivered unedited to the mass media,” government spokesman Stefanos Stefanos told a news briefing.

“This is irresponsible and unacceptable behavior on the part of a member, or members, of the National Council, in clear violation of a commitment for confidentiality and discretion.”

Stefanou said the disclosure came hot on the heels of a renewed pledge by members of the NC to maintain secrecy.

“Such behaviors therefore undermine the function and role of the National Council itself. Worse, they undermine the President’s efforts to achieve a solution on Cyprus that would reunite the island and its people within the framework of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation.”

The document describes the Turkish Cypriot position thus: “…neither the executive, the legislature nor the judiciary of the Federal Government shall exercise superiority over the organs of the constituent states. Likewise, the organs and officials of the federal government shall not claim a right to issue orders or instructions to the respective organs of the constituent states.”

Moreover, “the Federal Government shall entrust the implementation of federal laws, including the collection of specific taxes, to the constituent states.”

And, “Any measure enacted by federal organs shall not supersede measures enacted by the competent authorities of the constituent states.”

It’s a disagreement that strikes at the core of the Cyprus problem. Conventional wisdom has it that Turkish Cypriots, as the minority, want as much self-rule as possible. Greek Cypriots, on the other hand, are pressing for a strong central government as a safeguard against possible secession.

Citizenship of the new state was one of a handful of issues on which the two communities see eye to eye.

Vast disagreements exist also on the structure of the federal government. The Turkish Cypriots want a Presidential Council to be elected by the Senate on a five-year term. The President and Vice-President (one from each community) would alternate every 12 months.

By contrast, the Greek Cypriot side proposes that the President and Vice-President be elected on a single ticket “via universal secret ballot by the citizens of the Federal Republic.”

On the thorny issue of security guarantees, the Turkish Cypriots call for Cyprus to “maintain the special bonds of friendship [with Turkey and Greece] and to respect the balance between Greece and Turkey…Cyprus shall afford these two countries equal treatment until such time as Turkey becomes a member of the European Union. Issues of equal treatment shall be regulated by enacting relevant laws.”

During Friday’s three-hour session of the National Council, President Christofias briefed on the course of direct talks with Turkish Cypriot leader Mehmet Ali Talat. Party leaders are to give their feedback in writing when the body next convenes on March 10.

Coming out of the meeting at the Presidential Palace, a number of party chiefs said they were left with the impression that the Turkish side was veering toward a confederation. The leaders included DIKO’s Marios Garoyian, EDEK’s Yiannakis Omirou and the European Party’s Demetris Syllouris.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

Can somebody post the full document so we can all read it please?
If anybody can take the trouble to translate it to English would also be doubly appreciated

[Kifeas]

There is nothing new in the leaked document that we did not know about. It is a well known fact that what the Turkish /TC side are up to, is a formula of disguised partition under which they aim at claiming exclusive right of ownership to 1/3 of the island's territory and more than half of its coastlines, in a loose federative formula through which they will be able to blackmail the GC side on a constant basis, with the use of a permanent and formal splitting threat that will leave them with a substantially larger and much more valuable part of the island than the TC community's fair share would require. They do not want the federal government to have any saying in either state, simply because they want to secure the right to practically do as they please with such a large part of Cyprus (55% of the coastlines according to the maps of the Annan plan,) and serve in this way the geo-strategic interests of Turkey in the region. That is why they also want the federative states to be able to also carry forward any international agreements they would see fit, as if they would be independed states on their own. Partition from the back-door, in other words.

Christofias will be stupid if on the chapter of territorial adjustments does not start with the position that the TC state should exceed no more than 18% of the territory and no more than 25% of the island's coastlines, and should stick to this position, no matter what. There is no reasonable counter-argument against such a position, since this is perfectly justified by both the demographics and the property ownership ratios. The ridiculous idea or notion that the TC state should be large enough to be economically viable, does not hold water and should never be accepted to used by any foreign intermediaries, and as an example there is the case of Malta which is only 4% of Cyprus, with no water or other natural resources, yet it is the home of 3 times more Maltese people than the TCs (400,000) who also enjoy a per-capita income almost equal to that of the free areas of the RoC, and 3 times more than that of the TC’s nowadays. Ai siktir bastards!!!

[YFred]

There is nothing new in the leaked document that we did not know about. It is a well known fact that what the Turkish /TC side are up to, is a formula of disguised partition under which they aim at claiming exclusive right of ownership to 1/3 of the island's territory and more than half of its coastlines, in a loose federative formula through which they will be able to blackmail the GC side on a constant basis, with the use of a permanent and formal splitting threat that will leave them with a substantially larger and much more valuable part of the island than the TC community's fair share would require. They do not want the federal government to have any saying in either state, simply because they want to secure the right to practically do as they please with such a large part of Cyprus (55% of the coastlines according to the maps of the Annan plan,) and serve in this way the geo-strategic interests of Turkey in the region. That is why they also want the federative states to be able to also carry forward any international agreements they would see fit, as if they would be independed states on their own. Partition from the back-door, in other words.

Christofias will be stupid if on the chapter of territorial adjustments does not start with the position that the TC state should exceed no more than 18% of the territory and no more than 25% of the island's coastlines, and should stick to this position, no matter what. There is no reasonable counter-argument against such a position, since this is perfectly justified by both the demographics and the property ownership ratios. The ridiculous idea or notion that the TC state should be large enough to be economically viable, does not hold water and should never be accepted to used by any foreign intermediaries, and as an example there is the case of Malta which is only 4% of Cyprus, with no water or other natural resources, yet it is the home of 3 times more Maltese people than the TCs (400,000) who also enjoy a per-capita income almost equal to that of the free areas of the RoC, and 3 times more than that of the TC’s nowadays. Ai siktir bastards!!!

As much as I appreciate your opinion, It would be helpfull to see this here document.
Assikdir squared back. Or shall we say cubed so it can than resemble a cylindrical shape.

[kurupetos]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

[YFred]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

You are missing the whole point.
I can't believe what I am reading. Just like Turkey is afraid of the Kurds, you are terrified that the TC's will want independence and you would like to pulverise them into submission. You don't make friends by punching people. Turkey tried it and it did not work. Grow up.

What ever the agreement is today, it is going to be such to satisfy the needs of the community of today. Our children in the future will decide to get closer or further. Human nature I am afraid.
If GCs continue to treat TCs like they did from 1960 to 1974, yes there will be partition. If they genuinely want to live together equal under the law, then they will move closer.

How can I stress that we are all temporary and should deal with today and leave tomorrow to the next generation.

No I am not a partitionist. I have always believed in peaceful coexistence.

[kurupetos]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

You are missing the whole point.
I can't believe what I am reading. Just like Turkey is afraid of the Kurds, you are terrified that the TC's will want independence and you would like to pulverise them into submission. You don't make friends by punching people. Turkey tried it and it did not work. Grow up.

What ever the agreement is today, it is going to be such to satisfy the needs of the community of today. Our children in the future will decide to get closer or further. Human nature I am afraid.
If GCs continue to treat TCs like they did from 1960 to 1974, yes there will be partition. If they genuinely want to live together equal under the law, then they will move closer.

How can I stress that we are all temporary and should deal with today and leave tomorrow to the next generation.

No I am not a partitionist. I have always believed in peaceful coexistence.

Do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? (Yes or No please!)

[YFred]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

You are missing the whole point.
I can't believe what I am reading. Just like Turkey is afraid of the Kurds, you are terrified that the TC's will want independence and you would like to pulverise them into submission. You don't make friends by punching people. Turkey tried it and it did not work. Grow up.

What ever the agreement is today, it is going to be such to satisfy the needs of the community of today. Our children in the future will decide to get closer or further. Human nature I am afraid.
If GCs continue to treat TCs like they did from 1960 to 1974, yes there will be partition. If they genuinely want to live together equal under the law, then they will move closer.

How can I stress that we are all temporary and should deal with today and leave tomorrow to the next generation.

No I am not a partitionist. I have always believed in peaceful coexistence.

Do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? (Yes or No please!)

I agree with any arrangement, so long as it has two federal governments and a single higher government. If by that you mean loose confederacy, then the answer is yes. Does it mean that it will lead to partition? No
Do I see it as disguised partition? Certainly not.

Talat has been talking peace now for a very long time. I do not believe for one moment that partition will even enter his mind never mind plan towards it.

You are oblivious to the TC's concerns and it is this that will lead to partition.
Not anything that the TCs do.

[DT.]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

You are missing the whole point.
I can't believe what I am reading. Just like Turkey is afraid of the Kurds, you are terrified that the TC's will want independence and you would like to pulverise them into submission. You don't make friends by punching people. Turkey tried it and it did not work. Grow up.

What ever the agreement is today, it is going to be such to satisfy the needs of the community of today. Our children in the future will decide to get closer or further. Human nature I am afraid.
If GCs continue to treat TCs like they did from 1960 to 1974, yes there will be partition. If they genuinely want to live together equal under the law, then they will move closer.

How can I stress that we are all temporary and should deal with today and leave tomorrow to the next generation.

No I am not a partitionist. I have always believed in peaceful coexistence.

Do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? (Yes or No please!)

I agree with any arrangement, so long as it has two federal governments and a single higher government. If by that you mean loose confederacy, then the answer is yes. Does it mean that it will lead to partition? No
Do I see it as disguised partition? Certainly not.

Talat has been talking peace now for a very long time. I do not believe for one moment that partition will even enter his mind never mind plan towards it.

You are oblivious to the TC's concerns and it is this that will lead to partition.
Not anything that the TCs do.

Then you've immediately disagreed with talat. Talat does not believe in a higher central govt but a parallel one.

[YFred]

YFred do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? Let's see if you are a partitionist or not!

You are missing the whole point.
I can't believe what I am reading. Just like Turkey is afraid of the Kurds, you are terrified that the TC's will want independence and you would like to pulverise them into submission. You don't make friends by punching people. Turkey tried it and it did not work. Grow up.

What ever the agreement is today, it is going to be such to satisfy the needs of the community of today. Our children in the future will decide to get closer or further. Human nature I am afraid.
If GCs continue to treat TCs like they did from 1960 to 1974, yes there will be partition. If they genuinely want to live together equal under the law, then they will move closer.

How can I stress that we are all temporary and should deal with today and leave tomorrow to the next generation.

No I am not a partitionist. I have always believed in peaceful coexistence.

Do u agree with the TC stance of promoting disguised partition with the form of a loose confederacy? (Yes or No please!)

I agree with any arrangement, so long as it has two federal governments and a single higher government. If by that you mean loose confederacy, then the answer is yes. Does it mean that it will lead to partition? No
Do I see it as disguised partition? Certainly not.

Talat has been talking peace now for a very long time. I do not believe for one moment that partition will even enter his mind never mind plan towards it.

You are oblivious to the TC's concerns and it is this that will lead to partition.
Not anything that the TCs do.

Then you've immediately disagreed with talat. Talat does not believe in a higher central govt but a parallel one.

It does not matter parallel or otherwise. You are twisting what is being said. Talat wants a weak upper tier.
Make that what you will. It is the only thing that will work. Strong Central government will fail just as it did in 63.

[YFred]

DT, please post that document, in greek if nothing else please.