Future t/c state size.
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Future t/c state size.
by boulio » Thu Apr 02, 2009 3:43 am
How do all previous agreements put the t/c state at 27.5 to 30% of the new state in a BBF?How and why?
- boulio
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 2575
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 6:45 am
by Piratis » Thu Apr 02, 2009 4:33 am
The answer is similar as to why they give so much power to an 18% minority. Turkey keeps as hostage our land and they are using this as a way to blackmail us and force an agreement that would benefit them on our expense.
After Turkey invaded there were UN resolutions that demanded the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the respect of the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus. We really didn't have to agree on anything less than this. We could have simply insisted on the implementation of the UN resolutions issued after the invasion.
However our leaders because they knew we couldn't push Turkey out militarily, and they knew that nobody else would sacrifice any of their people to enforce the UN resolutions either, they decided that we should make huge compromises in order to find some sort of solution in a peaceful way.
Personally I believe this choice has been proven wrong. It is now obvious that the Turks will accept nothing even remotely fair or acceptable, and by us indicating that we are willing to make compromises to our rights and with negotiating with them we gave to them more power to put forward their partition aim.
Looking back, it is now clear that since a solution by peaceful means will never be found due to the Turkish uncompromising stance, it would have been much better if we insisted on the 100% of our rights and made it clear that we will not surrender anything as a result of the Turkish blackmail.
Unfortunately our side choose the totally wrong "good boy" policy, and indicated we would be willing to make huge compromises, and since the UN got the impression that we were willing to accept just about anything, they put their efforts into making agreements that would be accepted by the Turks, and the result was something which is totally unacceptable to the Cypriot people. The land distribution proposal is a result of this process.
After Turkey invaded there were UN resolutions that demanded the withdrawal of all foreign troops and the respect of the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus. We really didn't have to agree on anything less than this. We could have simply insisted on the implementation of the UN resolutions issued after the invasion.
However our leaders because they knew we couldn't push Turkey out militarily, and they knew that nobody else would sacrifice any of their people to enforce the UN resolutions either, they decided that we should make huge compromises in order to find some sort of solution in a peaceful way.
Personally I believe this choice has been proven wrong. It is now obvious that the Turks will accept nothing even remotely fair or acceptable, and by us indicating that we are willing to make compromises to our rights and with negotiating with them we gave to them more power to put forward their partition aim.
Looking back, it is now clear that since a solution by peaceful means will never be found due to the Turkish uncompromising stance, it would have been much better if we insisted on the 100% of our rights and made it clear that we will not surrender anything as a result of the Turkish blackmail.
Unfortunately our side choose the totally wrong "good boy" policy, and indicated we would be willing to make huge compromises, and since the UN got the impression that we were willing to accept just about anything, they put their efforts into making agreements that would be accepted by the Turks, and the result was something which is totally unacceptable to the Cypriot people. The land distribution proposal is a result of this process.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
4 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
