Cyprus-Forum.com

[MrH]

"Henry Hopkinson" said in his Time that Cyprus could "never be completely independent from Britain".

This, I believe, is still the case when you consider the existence of still the fully functional two large BRITISH Sovereign areas - in a so-called Indepenedent (from Britain) EU member country, the deep ethnic divide between the two main peoples of the island and failure of the Greek Cypriot administration in unifying the island under a deal without any constituent, federated, bi-zonal or even bi-communal emphasis - which is what we all now believe is the ultimate wish of all Greek Cypriots, especially those in this forum!

Now, according to nationalist Greek Cypriots, with the "forced introduction" of yet another Bi-Com, Bi-Zon federation scenario clearly against most Greek Cypriot wishes, they strongly believe that (once again in their eyes) their GC-Controlled ROC will slip away if they say "Yes" to a future federation with the lesser populated Turkish Cypriots, thus being demoted to a "Community" only from leaders of the GC administered ROC.

The Above are only a fraction of the issues and questions GC-Controlled President Christofias is having to deal with by the vehement GC-Opposition parties despite also having the pressure of trying to seek a peaceful resolution to the decades old "Cyprus Problem" with his Turkish Cypriot counterpart, Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, and his overwhelmingly "supported" demands for a Two-Constituent State Federation.

Therefore, my question is primarily to all the "Greek Cypriots" in this forum, only. Considering that even the U.S President has now confirmed it's Cyprus Unification policy to a Bi-Com, Bi-Zon Federation (of Two Constituent/Federated States), What other possible outcome do you believe your President can achieve besides a formula similar to that of the rejected "Annan Plan" of April 2004? And, how can you force YOUR IDEA of a Cyprus solution at this late stage of the talks when all of its parameters now appear to have been set?

Please answer as honest as possible without any foul language as this blog will be viewed by many. Thank you.

[Jerry]

The ROC is not truly independent because according to internationally accepted norms Cyprus can never be a sovereign State whilst other States have the "legal" right to intervene in the island's affairs. Without the right of intervention the existence of the bases is politically meaningless and does not detract from the island's independence.

A solution similar to the Annan Plan may be acceptable provided the area of the component States reflected the pre 1974 population ratios and in view of the above there is no legal right to intervene.

[YFred]

Don't worry Mr H, GCs will wake up sooner or later even if we have to throw a bucket of cold water over them.

[DT.]

"Henry Hopkinson" said in his Time that Cyprus could "never be completely independent from Britain".

This, I believe, is still the case when you consider the existence of still the fully functional two large BRITISH Sovereign areas - in a so-called Indepenedent (from Britain) EU member country, the deep ethnic divide between the two main peoples of the island and failure of the Greek Cypriot administration in unifying the island under a deal without any constituent, federated, bi-zonal or even bi-communal emphasis - which is what we all now believe is the ultimate wish of all Greek Cypriots, especially those in this forum!

Now, according to nationalist Greek Cypriots, with the "forced introduction" of yet another Bi-Com, Bi-Zon federation scenario clearly against most Greek Cypriot wishes, they strongly believe that (once again in their eyes) their GC-Controlled ROC will slip away if they say "Yes" to a future federation with the lesser populated Turkish Cypriots, thus being demoted to a "Community" only from leaders of the GC administered ROC.

The Above are only a fraction of the issues and questions GC-Controlled President Christofias is having to deal with by the vehement GC-Opposition parties despite also having the pressure of trying to seek a peaceful resolution to the decades old "Cyprus Problem" with his Turkish Cypriot counterpart, Mr Mehmet Ali Talat, and his overwhelmingly "supported" demands for a Two-Constituent State Federation.

Therefore, my question is primarily to all the "Greek Cypriots" in this forum, only. Considering that even the U.S President has now confirmed it's Cyprus Unification policy to a Bi-Com, Bi-Zon Federation (of Two Constituent/Federated States), What other possible outcome do you believe your President can achieve besides a formula similar to that of the rejected "Annan Plan" of April 2004? And, how can you force YOUR IDEA of a Cyprus solution at this late stage of the talks when all of its parameters now appear to have been set?

Please answer as honest as possible without any foul language as this blog will be viewed by many. Thank you.

Show me where the US President has said this.

Considering that even the U.S President has now confirmed it's Cyprus Unification policy to a Bi-Com, Bi-Zon Federation (of Two Constituent/Federated States),

[DT.]

And there is nothing wrong with a bi zonal federation. Its when you start calling the one zone Turkish and the other Greek that we mind.

Racists

[paliometoxo]

as long as we are free from the invading turks we will be ok..

[MrH]

DT Wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with a bi zonal federation. Its when you start calling the one zone Turkish and the other Greek that we mind.

Racists

That's a hard way of putting it DT. Was the Annan Plan not based on two Constituent State based on them being called a "Greek Cypriot Constituent State" and a "Turkish Cypriot Constituent State"? Is being know as Greece: The Hellenic Republic also racist considering that there are also non-Greeks living in the country, and the same goes for England, Taiwan, Serbia etc, etc. I think being known as the UNITED REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, as Similar to the UNITED KINGDOM for instance, and then the Constituent States as being Greek or Turkish Cypriot States, as also similar to Scotland, Wales and England not be a fair scenario? Or, should England, Scotland and Wales also all just be known as areas of the United KINGDOM without any consideration to their Ethnic majority - as they, in your eyes, are being racist?

It's the fact that the majority of Greek Cypriots, like yourself DT, who can't accept a power-sharing scenario for the island, just can not fathom Turkish Cypriots representing themselves. Cyprus is an island with many CONFLICTING elements, unfortunately due to its history, where the only way to solve them at this moment in time is to work together side-by-side and not as a married couple! This is a reality the GCs will soon have to wake up to, or accept the consequences of Partition.

[DT.]

DT Wrote:

And there is nothing wrong with a bi zonal federation. Its when you start calling the one zone Turkish and the other Greek that we mind.

Racists

That's a hard way of putting it DT. Was the Annan Plan not based on two Constituent State based on them being called a "Greek Cypriot Constituent State" and a "Turkish Cypriot Constituent State"? Is being know as Greece: The Hellenic Republic also racist considering that there are also non-Greeks living in the country, and the same goes for England, Taiwan, Serbia etc, etc. I think being known as the UNITED REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS, as Similar to the UNITED KINGDOM for instance, and then the Constituent States as being Greek or Turkish Cypriot States, as also similar to Scotland, Wales and English not be a fair scenario. Or, should England, Scotland and Wales all just be known as areas of the United KINGDOM without any consideration to their Ethnic majority - are they being racist?

It's the fact that the majority of Greek Cypriots, like yourself DT, who can't accept a power-sharing scenario for the island. Cyprus is an island with many CONFLICTING elements, unfortunately due to its history, where the only way to solve them at this moment in time is to work together side-by-side. This is a reality the GCs will soon have to wake up to, or accept the consequences of Partition.

The UK does not have quotas on how many English live in Wales and how many Scots live in England. The UK does not force a Scotsman that lives in England to vote in Scotland. Scotland, Wales and England are places that have had Scots, Welsh and English living on them in these areas. In 3000 years of Cypriot history when has the northern part of Cyprus been inhabited by a majority of Turks? (apart from the forced conditions of the last 34 years)

[MrH]

DT Wrote:

The UK does not have quotas on how many English live in Wales and how many Scots live in England. The UK does not force a Scotsman that lives in England to vote in Scotland. Scotland, Wales and England are places that have had Scots, Welsh and English living on them in these areas. In 3000 years of Cypriot history when has the northern part of Cyprus been inhabited by a majority of Turks? (apart from the forced conditions of the last 34 years)

They did when they were first established mate - when they first gained independence. There you go off on one again about

In 3000 years of Cypriot history when has the northern part of Cyprus been inhabited by a majority of Turks

AND, where in 3000 years did the White Americans inhabit the territorial area today known as the USA, or Australia, and etc, etc. Please stop building your self-suited GC-scenarios when it comes to the Cyprus situation. Politics as you clearly know is a complicated web that takes into consideration many elements, most importantly the right to self-determination of those people whom DO NOT WISH to live under the government of another - this is the call of the Turkish Cypriot people. This is a fact.

[DT.]

DT Wrote:

The UK does not have quotas on how many English live in Wales and how many Scots live in England. The UK does not force a Scotsman that lives in England to vote in Scotland. Scotland, Wales and England are places that have had Scots, Welsh and English living on them in these areas. In 3000 years of Cypriot history when has the northern part of Cyprus been inhabited by a majority of Turks? (apart from the forced conditions of the last 34 years)

They did when they were first established mate - when they first gained independence. There you go off on one again about

In 3000 years of Cypriot history when has the northern part of Cyprus been inhabited by a majority of Turks

AND, where in 3000 years did the White Americans inhabit the territorial area today known as the USA, or Australia, and etc, etc. Please stop building your self-suited GC-scenarios when it comes to the Cyprus situation. Politics as you clearly know is a complicated web that takes into consideration many elements, most importantly the right to self-determination of those people whom DO NOT WISH to live under the government of another - this is the call of the Turkish Cypriot people. This is a fact.

These people are very welcome to find their own land and to declare whatever they like. You can't have self determination on someone else's land. Czechoslovakia split amicable because the Slovaks lived in Slovakia and Czechs in their own area. The Tc's have always been spread across the island and the majority of the population of the geographic area you wish to determine its future has always been GC.