Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

I agree. I thought the A plan was a masterpiece in the way it took into account the realities, the historical perspectives and also the interests of all players that have shaped the Cyprus issue. It was based on the expressed will of both sides for a bizonal, bicommunal federation. However, it seems that people are not honest in their declarations and Papadopoulos has shown in practice that he does not care for such a solution. He basically wasted the time of everybody and he became a sorry figure when the TC's heroically sidelined Denktash. Papadopoulos could not hide behind the intransigence of Denktash and of course he had to come clean. He tried to fool the international community but of course he failed miserably. Until today he does not state clearly what he wants and talks faintly about a "european solution".

[Piratis]

Now since they're so ignorant of TCs and Turkey, they cannot see the Annan plan as a balanced plan because they look at the plan from their perspective and see how far it is from their views.

What is "balanced" according to you? If one side asks for 0 and the other for 100 then balanced is 50? What if the other side asks for 1000? The balance will be at 500?

Deciding what is "balanced" is useless because any side can have an unlimited number of demands. If we say that we want the whole Turkey, that means that if they give to us half of Turkey it will be balanced?

What we ask for is fair because we ask nothing more than democracy, return to a legal situation and human rights. Our fair expectations can not be balanced by unfair, un-democratic, outrageous demands that do not respect human rights.

It was based on the expressed will of both sides for a bizonal, bicommunal federation.

It was based on the needs of Turkey, US and UK and it had nothing to do with a real federation. A bizonal, bicommunal federation was a big compromise from our part. When Turkey and TCs accept a bizonal, bicommunal federation then we can talk again. Partition plans like the Annan plan will never be accepted.

[Bananiot]

You are just shouting slogans my friend. In reality, it is president Papadopoulos, his party, EDEK, NEO, the new party of Prodromou, Denktash, Eroglu, Ecevit and some army people in Turkey that do not want bizonal, bicommunal federation. Some have come up open on this, others think they can trick the whole world.

Yet I detect a defetist attitute in your sayings. If, as you write, the UN, Brittain and the USA are all trying their hardest to harm us, I wonder what sort of a chance do we have? Might as well dig our own grave. Yes my friend, you are sending doom scenario messages. Hoever, you probably have another slogan that can take care of these ...

[Piratis]

Slogans? Many times in this forums I explained with details why the Annan plan can not be accepted. You on the other hand, simply say that everybody that voted "no" was either misled or nationalist and you avoid discussing the real reasons that forced the great majority of GC to vote "no". If there is one who is throwing slogans ("last great chance" etc) this is you and not me.

I talk with facts, and the facts are that this plan creates something 1)un-democratic, 2)does not respect basic human rights, 3)dysfunctional. It also makes Cyprus a protectorate of Turkey and it officially partitions the island. I gave the reasons and details about all these in several of my posts. Do a search with my nick name and you will see.
Why you avoid talking about these, and instead you prefer to throw slogans and accuse our democratically ellected president (from the first round) with baseless accusations?

[Piratis]

If, as you write, the UN, Brittain and the USA are all trying their hardest to harm us

What they are trying their hardest is to serve their own interests. This should be obvious. Or you thought that they got involved so much because they love us and want to find a nice solution that will make Cypriots happy?

Their job is to serve their own interests and our job is to protect ours. Thats what we are trying to do. It doesn't mean that because we are a small country we have to give up our just and peaceful straggle for liberation and human rights.

[MicAtCyp]

Hi Bananiot,
"iyiyim, sen nasilsin" like our TC compatriots say.

You said " ...... when you insinuate that my position on the A plan has to do with my place of birth..." and " .... It was very mean of you to even consider that I may have an alterior motive that directs my kind of thinking. Your only excuse is that you do not know me ...."

No, no, no, you took me all wrong my friend. Bananiot I did not mean any of that, I would never fall that low.... What I wanted to urge you is to present arguments supporting the position (if of course you agree) that all refugees should be allowed to have the right to their properties either they are allowed to return or not. That’s all.In my opinion bi-zonality can exist without having to expropriate anyones properties. In other threads of this forum I supported the idea that the property committe described in the Anan Plan should only deal with exchange of equal properties.The 1/3 regaining 2/3 expropriating is a fascist clause in my opinion and is totally in contradiction to the EU Aquis concerning the basic human right on property.
If you read my post carefully you will notice I was not even sure you were a Varosiotis how could I insinuate anything against you? Anyway for what it worths I tell you that my wife is a Varoshiotou and has a lot of property at Chrysi Akti 30m from the beach.I would never question or try to influence any decision of hers regarding a yes or no vote.The fact is however she had decided for a NO much much earlier than me!

I hope this matter is now clarified my friend, and I really feel sorry for upseting you.Obviously it was a misaunderstanding!

About Papadopoulos I think at some stage he realised that the whole procedure was a set up. Remember Ertogans statement that the Turkish side would always be one step ahead? How could anyone be so sure unless he had assurances from the very begining? Our side (including Papadopoulos) went to the negotiations in good faith in my opinion.At some stage they realised that everything would end up at a biased arbitration.This is when Papadopoulos gave up. And perhaps he let things turn as bad as possible, to enable his support for a NO. We were quite naive in my opinion trusting that Anan and DeSoto would excercise a fair arbitration given the fact that these 2 individuals could easily be handled by the Americans.
Besides do you remember Christofias desparate statement a couple of days prior to the end? "for God sake, the GCs are people of Cyprus too" he said.

You said ...." He prefers the situation to remain as it is rather than reaching an agreed solution. He said this and he wrote this many times before he became president, when he had more lineage to speak freely.... "
Could you you provide some links? I am not sure but I think what he used to say is that the present situation is better than a bad solution. This is basically the Dountas doctrine, that is repeated in various versions every now and then. Of course Dountas adds that the conditions for a better solution than the present situation may never exist. I am not a supporter of any politician, but I think it is our duty to credit Papadopoulos with goof faith. After all the Anan Plan was not a result of his own policy. We will have ample time to see his own policy and judge accordingly.

Have a nice weekend.

PS.What was the name of your village at 1974?

[Bananiot]

Fair enough, no hard feelings, I am relieved to read your explanations. I will be going out soon so I do not have much time right now. My village is Gypsos, next to Lefconico. Catch you later.

[metecyp]

Ok. Let's summarize what you said. Annan plan is a set up. UN is a puppet of US and hence useless. EU, UK and US are trying to preserve their interests in Cyprus and they don't care about well-being of Cypriots. Turkey wants to control Cyprus and not pay for any damages of 1974. So we cannot trust the EU, UK, US, UN and Turkey.

Now my question is: What's the next step? We can't have the Annan plan back because it's so against human rights and democracy according to you. We cannot ask UN, US, or UK for a solution since they cannot be trusted. What do you think will happen next? Who is supposed to take the next step and in what direction?

No matter how I look, I feel like the next step will be a step towards partition. I know some of you hope for a "EU based" solution (i.e. individual rights) but do you sincerely believe that such a plan will be acceptable to all interested parties? Even if it is possible, how long will it take for such a solution to fully solve the Cyprus problem? I don't know about you but I want a solution in my life-time. I don't want Cypriots to lose another 40 years of their lives.

I know you don't trust Annan but he was right when he said the only choice is between Annan plan type solution or no solution (and hence partition). I'm sincerely trying to see some other kind of solution that might be acceptable to everyone and I can't see it right now. Maybe you can help me.

[MicAtCyp]

Metecyp said
".....I think the problem with MicAtCyp and Piratis is that since they had no contact with TCs, they have no idea about the spectrum of views in the north. They are also unaware of the politics and the public opinion in Turkey (which ultimately shapes the Cyprus problem). Now since they're so ignorant of TCs and Turkey, they cannot see the Annan plan as a balanced plan because they look at the plan from their perspective and see how far it is from their views. And I can't blame them for that because there are exactly same people in the north who have certain views on Cyprus problem (partition, seperate state, no GC refugees returning, not an inch of land to be given back, etc.) and they also don't like the Annan plan because it's far from their views. ..."

Don't you think you are jumping into many, many, conclusions Metecyp? A balanced Plan??? You must be kitting. Do you want ti discuss the Anan Plan all over again to check if it is balanced? So if a thief steals a car and the Police cannot catch him, a balance solution would be to return the car and be rewarded with half its value? Sorry not half, 3 quarters of it because we forgot the public opinion (accomplices) in Turkey that you were soooo kind to remind us of. The moment you will understand that a solution must be a balance of rights and not a balance of demands, then a solution will not be far.The thief has no rights over a stolen car, and all he achives by keeping it is to stay unemployed. Besides there comes a time the car worths nothing anymore.
Did you notice that many "cars" in the occupied areas worth nothing anymore?

Time is not running in our favor.(when I say "our" I mean GCs+TCs). The more the existing situation continues the more TCs will abandon Cyprus and go to the UK.And more trashy settlers will substitute them in Cyprus.In the end there will be no TCs left.And then with whom are the GCs going to solve the Cyprus problem? In case you don't know it my friend there are currently only 70-80K TCs whereas the settlers are 110-120K.

PS.Did you really read any analyses of the Anan Plan? Did you check whether the analyses you read really correspond to specific paragraphs in the plan?Did you try at least to comprehend what is says about the properties?

[metecyp]

OK, let's assume that the Annan plan is totally unfair, serves the interests of Turkey and TCs and it's totally against the GC human rights. Now the question is why did Papadopoulos even bother to negotiate such a plan? Why did he say over and over last summer that he's not against the philosophy of the plan, and he seeks minor changes to it in order to make it more functional?

If you think that some version of the Annan plan was fair and with the changes it turned out to be unfair, then please point us to which version was fair and from what point on it was not fair anymore. If it was unfair right from the beginning, then my original question remains.