Cyprus-Forum.com

[Yiannis]

Thanks for the article Erolz, trully shocking.Keep posting more articles like that if its possible.

[erolz]

Thanks for the article Erolz, trully shocking.Keep posting more articles like that if its possible.

I will do within the constraints of time (scanning ocring and then correcting the orced output is pretty time consuming).

[Bananiot]

Ha, ha, ha, very nice very nice. Why don't you tell the whole truth about what the article said Bananiot? Was Klerides and the rest so idiots to risk it when Turkey was simply holding a few Km of land around Kyrenia? What was the other demand of Turkey Bananiot? Come on tell the forum loud and clear. Everybody is waiting! Why Klerides said he would risk it and then commit suicide?

Please show me where in the interview Klerides says he would risk it and then commit suicide. In doing so you will prove your point and tell all of us the whole truth and only the truth.

Also, the whole idea was to stop a second push by the Turkish army, unless of course you believe that we had the Turks cornered in a small area and we were about to throw them into the sea. In this case, yes it would have been a tactical error to succumb to the ultimatum. Perhaps we took a calculated risk, or rather not so calculated risk ...

[Kifeas]

Ha, ha, ha, very nice very nice. Why don't you tell the whole truth about what the article said Bananiot? Was Klerides and the rest so idiots to risk it when Turkey was simply holding a few Km of land around Kyrenia? What was the other demand of Turkey Bananiot? Come on tell the forum loud and clear. Everybody is waiting! Why Klerides said he would risk it and then commit suicide?

Please show me where in the interview Klerides says he would risk it and then commit suicide. In doing so you will prove your point and tell all of us the whole truth and only the truth.

Also, the whole idea was to stop a second push by the Turkish army, unless of course you believe that we had the Turks cornered in a small area and we were about to throw them into the sea. In this case, yes it would have been a tactical error to succumb to the ultimatum. Perhaps we took a calculated risk, or rather not so calculated risk ...

The Turkish proposal which Klerides felt inclined to accept on the eve of the of the Attila II was to hold onto the areas that Turkish troops occupied by that time, which as you know it was the entire Kyrenia area plus some other areas south of the kyrenia mountain and also establish Turkish military presence by transferring troops in all the other areas around Cyprus in which TC population was living, i.e. Pafos, Polis Chrysochous, Limassol, Larnaka, Lefka-Limnitis and Famagusta, and also accept a Bicommunal, Multi-zonal Federation. This proposal meant that all these enclaves would have had also access to the sea, which means that all the harbors of Cyprus would have been under the control of the TCs and Turkey, since Famagusta and Limassol harbors were adjoining to these harbors and Larnaka port not very far from it. Effectively this proposal would have meant that the entire of Cyprus would have come under Turkish occupation and with our signature under it.

Not only this proposal was a non-starter but also in fact it would have been even worst than the current occupation of just one part of Cyprus. At least now they occupy what they occupy but without our signature below it.

[Bananiot]

For a start, my comments were directed at the person who claimed that

I did not tell the whole truth about what the article said

I expect MikAtCyp to show me the corrected article.

As far as your contribution goes I must commend you for your imagination. In a nutshell you are implying that if Turkey were to repeat the suggestion to agree on a "functional federation" as it did in March 1974 we should again refuse flatly because all our ports will be controlled by Turkey and the TC's. You should be carefull, you are giving hints to Turkey regarding their Cyprus policy!

[Kifeas]

Mr. Bananiot,
Sometimes you make me smile with your attempts to twist around your arguments. You were initially referring to the Turkish proposals in Geneva on the eve of the second phase of the Attila operation, which the Turks in an ultimatum fashion and with the gun on the temple, conveyed to our side, and how Klerides felt inclined to accept them but was stopped by Makarios.

You said:

In yesterday's "Politis" newspaper there is an interesting interview of former president Klerides which is very enlightening. He referred to events on August 13 1974 when talks were held in Geneva and Turkey asked for geographical federation. At the time the Turkish army occupied a small area in and around Kyrenia. Klerides was representing Makarios at the talks and despite agreeing he had to consult with Makarios who flatly rejected the Turkish proposal. Greece was also divided on this. Karamanlis (senior) accepted but foring Minister Mavros rejected the offer. Thus followed the second push by the Turkish army.

MicAtCyp replyied to you and said:

Ha, ha, ha, very nice very nice. Why don't you tell the whole truth about what the article said Bananiot? Was Klerides and the rest so idiots to risk it when Turkey was simply holding a few Km of land around Kyrenia? What was the other demand of Turkey Bananiot? Come on tell the forum loud and clear. Everybody is waiting!
Why Klerides said he would risk it and then commit suicide?

You replied to him back and said:

Please show me where in the interview Klerides says he would risk it and then commit suicide. In doing so you will prove your point and tell all of us the whole truth and only the truth.

Also, the whole idea was to stop a second push by the Turkish army, unless of course you believe that we had the Turks cornered in a small area and we were about to throw them into the sea. In this case, yes it would have been a tactical error to succumb to the ultimatum. Perhaps we took a calculated risk, or rather not so calculated risk ...

I jumped in and based on MicAtCyp’s question and your reply, I explained what the Turkish proposals of the 13th of August 1974 were:

The Turkish proposal which Klerides felt inclined to accept on the eve of the of the Attila II was to hold onto the areas that Turkish troops occupied by that time, which as you know it was the entire Kyrenia area plus some other areas south of the kyrenia mountain and also establish Turkish military presence by transferring troops in all the other areas around Cyprus in which TC population was living, i.e. Pafos, Polis Chrysochous, Limassol, Larnaka, Lefka-Limnitis and Famagusta, and also accept a Bicommunal, Multi-zonal Federation. This proposal meant that all these enclaves would have had also access to the sea, which means that all the harbors of Cyprus would have been under the control of the TCs and Turkey, since Famagusta and Limassol harbors were adjoining to these harbors and Larnaka port not very far from it. Effectively this proposal would have meant that the entire of Cyprus would have come under Turkish occupation and with our signature under it.

Not only this proposal was a non-starter but also in fact it would have been even worst than the current occupation of just one part of Cyprus. At least now they occupy what they occupy but without our signature below it.

I also add here that the total amount of territory that the Turkish side was asking for this multi-zonal federation was about 34%, as much as it occupied during the next 3 days of Attila II.

You came back to me with this reply:

As far as your contribution goes I must commend you for your imagination. In a nutshell you are implying that if Turkey were to repeat the suggestion to agree on a "functional federation" as it did in March 1974 we should again refuse flatly because all our ports will be controlled by Turkey and the TC's. You should be carefull, you are giving hints to Turkey regarding their Cyprus policy!

Have we been talking about March 1974, or about the “negotiations” in Geneva on the 13th of August 1974? In 1974, the so-called functional federation that the Turks were asking, did not include 34% of the Cyprus territory, did not include the entire Kyrenia area north of the mountains and more importantly, it did not provide for Turkish military presence in all the areas that TC population was living –as I described above. Absolutely no relationship between the two! I also wonder why you tried to relate them or mix them up in the discussion.

I repeat again what I said above:
Not only the Turkish “proposal” (blackmailing) of the 13/08/1974 was a non-starter but in fact it would have been even worst than the current occupation of just one part of Cyprus. It would have meant the entire occupation of Cyprus.
At least now they occupy what they occupy but without our signature below it.

[MicAtCyp]

Please show me where in the interview Klerides says he would risk it and then commit suicide. In doing so you will prove your point and tell all of us the whole truth and only the truth.

Where did you read the article from a printed copy or from an online source? I read it from a printed copy on Sunday 24/7/05. And it stated specifically what I said about Klerides.

Regarding the parts you left out Kifeas put them down very precicely already.No need for me to repeat them.They were all included in the article.
Just to add that (according to the article) Turkey did not demand to put soldiers in enclaves only but in each and every TC village, in each and every mixed village in each and every town. In other words EVERYWHERE! That's why Klerides said he would risk sign it and then commit suicide.

Well, he could commit suicide, but not everybody was oblidged to do the same.

PS.By the way this is an open discussion forum.Kifeas or anyone else, could by all means reply to you in my place.

[-mikkie2-]

I think that must be check mate!

The problem, Bananiot, when dealing with Turkey is that she can NEVER be trusted.

The EU is finally and slowly finding out what it means to deal with Turkey and her tantrums. Turkey always makes demands and expects to take but never give. This is the problem that Europe is facing. It won't take 15 years before Turkey joins the EU but as long as it will take for Turkish mentality to change. More like 150 years!

And you thought that Turkey would have upheld her commitments under the Annan Plan? The negative referendum results in France and Holland would have now brought that plan to a grinding halt leaving Cyprus in limbo.

Look at the way Turkey has continually delayed the signing of the Customs Protocol. They waited for Britain to come to the rescue. Yeah, right. Now will they finally understand what it means to be part of Europe? Will they finally understand that they must learn the art of compromise if they are going to get anywhere?

And that is precisely what they have to do regarding Cyprus, compromise.

[cypezokyli]

when dealing with Turkey is that she can NEVER be trusted.

is the problem tha plan itself or that turkey cannot be trusted?

and if turkey cannot be trusted why do we waste our time trying to negotiate?
with this way of thinking even if we would find a good enough solution for our side we should reject bc turkey is not going to keep her word in any case

[-mikkie2-]

cypezokyli

My point is the only way to push Turkey towards a solution and for her to be concilatory is to exert political pressure.

If we signed the Annan plan, then Turkey would have got away scot free from the resposibilities she has in Cyprus and we would have had zero political clout in international forums. We would have left our fate to third parties because we would not have a functioning state.

Seeing the no votes in France and Holland, Turkey would be stalling in implementing the plan, which in any case would have taken 15+ years to fully implement.

So, on the contrary, we are in a good position because we can exert pressure and slowly but surely that pressure will yield results. I think it already is starting to do so.