Cyprus-Forum.com

[Anglo]

Don't mean to be pedantic but isn't there plenty of oil in west Africa around the Nigeria area?

[detailer]

It just does not work like that brother. I guess it would be great if the US government were as simple and coordinated as people think. There are very different elements of the American government from known agencies to private interest groups. Nobody is coordinating one specific plan. The Department of Defense has their needs and concerns the Department of State has theirs, don’t’ forget about the unnamed people like DEA, and the FBI.

Richard Clarke says similar things in the book "Against all enemies". American, what do you think about that book by the way( off topic sorry)

[detailer]

The new negotiating points are going to be very hard for the TCs to swallow. The GoC have asked not only for better property allowances, but also relocation and transportation fees from your current point to your old property. We doubt the TRNC will pay for the cost of relocating you back to the old property, but who knows.

What do you mean by this? Do you mean that TC will have to accept these GC wishes as a reference in the negotiations?

[MicAtCyp]

Like I said, the US government or the State Department did not support this trip.

Fine explanation, thanks. A have a final question though.What about the office the embassy keeps at the occupied part of Nicosia.What were their actions regarding this event? Did they do nothing as well?

Basically, the executive
leadership did not want the plan, but would look
ridiculous rejecting it publicly. So they tried to use
other methods. This is a very natural occurrence in the
diplomatic world. The deal you are getting is sometimes
not what you really wanted. We along with other
interested parties "sniffed out" the method of
communicating and understood their dislike of the plan.
What was said and what they did to undermine the plan is
not discussed publicly.

Well it is a fact that the executive leadership did not like the plan.However you are wrong that they did not reject it publicly.Papadopoulos himself rejected it on TV giving also his reasons.
You talked of the way you "sniffed out" their dislike for the plans and I respect your unwillingness not to discuss this matter publicly.
However please allow be to disagree on your assumption that is only the executive leadership that did not like the plan.It was people that did not like the plan.I remember when the first plan came (at the time when Klerides was the president) he did not even have the gutts to go on TV and speak to the people.Instead he led the Attorney General (Markides) go on TV and explain the legal aspects of it. Perhaps you might not know that the people literally "froze: on hearing the details.Yet however soon the people rested assured that nothing like that would happen because Denktash would as usual reject it. That "easiness" is what gave the impression that the GCs would be so stupid as to accept almost anything.However it was NOT like that....

Regarding the Anan Plan 5, I totally disagree with you that actually the executive leadership played a dirty game so that the people come to reject it.The game was actually neutral, and more directed into information rather than deliberately cause a NO result.
The information and the discussions on the media were always very balanced, and we had a parade of equal numbers of yes and no supporters every night on TVs. Personally I received more leaflets in favor of the Anan Plan than against. Personally scrutinised for a whole weak on the plan. I remember everywhere I was going there were people discussing it.Last weekend before the referendum I went to a wedding, man it was so funny people were discussing the plan so pationately at the wedding that the bride and groom had to intervene saying is their wedding day and ask everyone to respect that...In my opinion whatever the leadership might have adviced the people would still vote down the plan, simply because the plan was bad for the GCs in general and totally unacceptable by the refugees.

Was the process to help unify or help the TC in the
north? You tell me, who will benefit more with
unification, my next-door GC neighbor in Strovalos with
his Audi A-3 and BMW Si or the family of 8 TCs (not
settlers) hitch hiking on a 36-degree day because they
have no transportation public or private in the north?
Economically, only the TCs benefit from unification. How
would your family benefit?

So you compare a rich GC (most propably non refugee) with a poor TC? Why don't you compare a GC refuggee with all those rich TCs who visit the free areas with their brand new fully Airconditioned Mercedeses?By the way did you see anyone of them visiting the free areas driving anything less expensive?
Anyway to answer the original question the truth is, those who will benefit from a solution are mainly the TCs and the GC refugees. The rest of the population will also benefit and everybody knows that.Of course in the case of Anan Plan the majority of GCs would lose and the ones who would lose the most were the GC refugees.That's why it was turned down.

PS. I don't know your rank in the US Embassy, but the way you described the role and the interests of your country here, seems very superficial to me.Are you trying to hide something or you really don't know?

******************

who's the 'GoC'?

Government of Cyprus I suppose?

[MicAtCyp]

The GoC have asked not only for
better property allowances, but also relocation and
transportation fees from your current point to your old
property. We doubt the TRNC will pay for the cost of
relocating you back to the old property, but who knows

From what I know our side just described the areas of concern without entering into details.What you said is one of the finest details that anyone could expect, and I have no doubt is just in your dreams.
Anyway for the sake of discussion lets say our side did ask for such a thing.I did NOT see the US side having any objections to the identical claim of the TC side that was finally included in the Anan Plan as per Koffis so fair and unbiased arbitration. I did NOT see any objections to the fact that the Anan Plan talked for complete restitution of the current illegal user including finding him a job that he will approve!

By the way may I remind you of Guls statement prior to the agreement for arbitration: that the Turkish side is not oblidged to abide to any outcome of the negotiations.And his totally oposite statement after Erdogan met with Bush after the agreement for arbitration passed. What do you think Bush promised the Turks? What did you see in the end happening other than legalising the results of the Turkish Invasion?

If people in the US Embassy are so blind that cannot see that Koffi Anan and De Soto were actually pulled by the ear all along by your government, then what is the point of discussing with you in here? From what you post I already started having serious doubts as to the level of proffesionalism and political knowledge in your Embassy anyway.It would help of course if you give us a hint of your rank in the Embassy. If you among the decision makers, then really all I can say is "Lord save the King"!

Wait a few weeks until the negotiating points that
the GoC brought to the new round of talks is made
public. Re-settlement fees have been asked for to
include the transportation and moving expenses of a
refuge back into their old property.

Wait a month and we will see.

I will be here.Hope you will be too.

The oil to US interest correlation is a theory that is
used when the public is unaware why the US is involved
somewhere. Prices of oil have gone UP in the US since we
went into Iraq, so much for that motive. Not very
profitable for Americans.

Ha,ha,ha.You are really funny.You once say you have interests because of the oil, and then you say the oil interests are a theory. OK lets see how true this theory is: Most oil in the world is is pumped out by American multinational companies. What do they get for just pumping it out? About half the value of it? The countries that have the oil then sell. Where the money goes?To a handful of people like for example to the Royal families of the Sheihks in the Gulf. What do they do with that money?20-30% goes as free salary to their people to stay calm at home without working and without revolting. Another 20-30% goes to the US for their protection and running their military bases hidden under the desert sand. You should go there and see the US military aircrafts landing inside the sand and disapearing to realise the extend of military "protection". The rest gets invested back in the Western world by the Royal families themselves.
Is there anything missing from the whole picture? Yes there is!!! It is the part of oil the US gets for free.Some people prefer the term "stealing...".
So please get out of your mind this idea that the US buys its oil and is affected by its price increases because it does NOT. If there is some buying this is "iconic" and is just to suck money from the US public to fill the accounts of a handful of people in the US.

Do you know when really the US started having a problem?It is when the Shah of Iran fell and Homeini took over, cutting the free/stolen oil supply to the US and their Israeli satelite.
Do you know what is happening now in Iraq? Exactly the same thing that has happening before in Iran. Stealing of oil.
One way of explaining the recent price increases of oil is to compensate for the US expenses during the Gulf war.I am not sure to what extend that is true, but it seems logical to assume some truth to it.

If we finance the UN then why can’t we fire those
executives caught in the oil for food scandal? It should
be pretty easy since we are the UN paymasters?

Why should you fire them?As long as they do what they tell them, do you see any problem? I don't.