Cyprus-Forum.com

[BirKibrisli]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

What TCs voted for in 2004 was for partition. Annan plan was a partition plan, not a unification plan. This is why the TCs who want partition voted for it, while the GCs who want unification rejected it.

Partition has been the aim of TCs since the 1950s, and this has never stopped being the case. The only reason why partition is not official today is that the Turks can not legalize their illegality, and not because they ever had second thoughts about what is an ideal "solution" for them.

After Cyprus entered EU the TCs thought "Hey, how about having partition and EU, both with one solution", and that "solution" was called Annan plan, a "solution" which would also solve the main problem of EU accession of Turkey. Or maybe you think it is a coincidence that the Annan plan came just months before the accession of Cyprus in EU?

After the TCs (and their Imperialist friends) have failed to fool us with the so called "unification" plan, apparently they decided that there is no need to keep pretending that they want unification and they reverted back to their usual ways of trying to achieve partition.

If the TCs truly wanted unification then we could come to an agreement within a day. But the so called "unification" that they want includes splitting everything in Cyprus in two.

Here is a quote from Sevgul Uludag that describes how TCs view "unification"

The main problem concerning `reunification` of the island for the mainstream Turkish Cypriot media is that it is subconsciously based on `two separate entities coming together`, not seeing that this is a remnant of `Taksim` policies… The focus is on `Bizonality` and with this, the `legitimization` of `the results of 1974`… No one is contesting that any future cooperation of our communities should be based on multiculturalism, rather than on the `hegemony` of the Greek Cypriot community in all fields… But how `bizonality` is perceived is a big problem because deep down, the ideology of `Taksim` is still there and has not been wiped out from the subconscious thinking of `duality` and `separatism` from the minds of some mainstream Turkish Cypriot journalists.

Thank you,Piratis...Just to clarify one thing...Are you saying that you will always oppose a solution that would involve Bi-zonality and Bi-Communality??? Is there any BBF solution that you might consider acceptable???Or do they all intrinsically involve Taksim as far as you are concerned???

A BBF would be acceptable (but still not desirable) if the "TC Zone" would include only lands where the TCs have been the majority before 1974 and it would be no more than 18%. Also the Federation should be a strong one, with a strong central government elected directly by the population as a whole, as is the case for example in the Russian Federation.

Is there one such zone where the TCs were in the majority pre 74???
Or are you envisaging a cantonal solution adding up to 18 %???

[Piratis]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

What TCs voted for in 2004 was for partition. Annan plan was a partition plan, not a unification plan. This is why the TCs who want partition voted for it, while the GCs who want unification rejected it.

Partition has been the aim of TCs since the 1950s, and this has never stopped being the case. The only reason why partition is not official today is that the Turks can not legalize their illegality, and not because they ever had second thoughts about what is an ideal "solution" for them.

After Cyprus entered EU the TCs thought "Hey, how about having partition and EU, both with one solution", and that "solution" was called Annan plan, a "solution" which would also solve the main problem of EU accession of Turkey. Or maybe you think it is a coincidence that the Annan plan came just months before the accession of Cyprus in EU?

After the TCs (and their Imperialist friends) have failed to fool us with the so called "unification" plan, apparently they decided that there is no need to keep pretending that they want unification and they reverted back to their usual ways of trying to achieve partition.

If the TCs truly wanted unification then we could come to an agreement within a day. But the so called "unification" that they want includes splitting everything in Cyprus in two.

Here is a quote from Sevgul Uludag that describes how TCs view "unification"

The main problem concerning `reunification` of the island for the mainstream Turkish Cypriot media is that it is subconsciously based on `two separate entities coming together`, not seeing that this is a remnant of `Taksim` policies… The focus is on `Bizonality` and with this, the `legitimization` of `the results of 1974`… No one is contesting that any future cooperation of our communities should be based on multiculturalism, rather than on the `hegemony` of the Greek Cypriot community in all fields… But how `bizonality` is perceived is a big problem because deep down, the ideology of `Taksim` is still there and has not been wiped out from the subconscious thinking of `duality` and `separatism` from the minds of some mainstream Turkish Cypriot journalists.

Thank you,Piratis...Just to clarify one thing...Are you saying that you will always oppose a solution that would involve Bi-zonality and Bi-Communality??? Is there any BBF solution that you might consider acceptable???Or do they all intrinsically involve Taksim as far as you are concerned???

A BBF would be acceptable (but still not desirable) if the "TC Zone" would include only lands where the TCs have been the majority before 1974 and it would be no more than 18%. Also the Federation should be a strong one, with a strong central government elected directly by the population as a whole, as is the case for example in the Russian Federation.

Is there one such zone where the TCs were in the majority pre 74???
Or are you envisaging a cantonal solution adding up to 18 %???

I don't think there is such a single zone of 18%. But if the TCs can demand 29%+ of land (and 50%+ of coastline!!) and they don't see the problem with such a demand, then in the same way I could say that the TC Zone should be 8%. We agreed that the solution will include bi-zonality we never agreed on how much territory each zone will have.

But because I want a fair solution (unlike those who demand 29%+ for the "Turkish Zone") then I would have no problem to accept a cantonal solution. But that of course would not be "Bi-Zonal" but "Multi-Zonal".

[Bananiot]

I think we should be looking at various factors that have played a role, some to a greater, some to a lesser degree.

1. In 2003-2004 we deeply dissapointed the TC's.
2. Financially, the TC's were light years behind us in 2004.
3. We spread our wings into Europe and contrary to our promises, we changed strategy and now we long for a european solution.
4. After the referendum, we did not even want to have a cup of coffee with Talat, till 2008, that is when nature intervened.
5. Eroglu addressed the fears of TC's and especially of the settlers promising them that not a single one would leave Cyprus.
6. Inhabitats of Morphou and other places that would have been returned switched allegiance as Eroglu promised them that Morphou will not be returned, despite the fact that in 2004 they overwelmingly voted for solution and effectively rendering theirselves refugees, some for the third time in 40 years. These people want to get on with thier lives now.
7. Personal reasons, vendettas etc. Denktas family wanting to get their own back as Talat dethroned them in 2004.

I am sure there are other reasons too. These are just off the back of my head. I cannot agree with DT that Talat was voted out by those that want solution. This is just not supported by facts.

[Piratis]

I think we should be looking at various factors that have played a role, some to a greater, some to a lesser degree.

1. In 2003-2004 we deeply dissapointed the TC's.
2. Financially, the TC's were light years behind us in 2004.
3. We spread our wings into Europe and contrary to our promises, we changed strategy and now we long for a european solution.
4. After the referendum, we did not even want to have a cup of coffee with Talat, till 2008, that is when nature intervened.
5. Eroglu addressed the fears of TC's and especially of the settlers promising them that not a single one would leave Cyprus.
6. Inhabitats of Morphou and other places that would have been returned switched allegiance as Eroglu promised them that Morphou will not be returned, despite the fact that in 2004 they overwelmingly voted for solution and effectively rendering theirselves refugees, some for the third time in 40 years. These people want to get on with thier lives now.
7. Personal reasons, vendettas etc. Denktas family wanting to get their own back as Talat dethroned them in 2004.

I am sure there are other reasons too. These are just off the back of my head. I cannot agree with DT that Talat was voted out by those that want solution. This is just not supported by facts.

Conclusion: Partition is what TCs want and what suits them most. They settled on OUR lands in Morfou and everywhere else and they don't want to move. We didn't give to them the disguised partition that they wanted and in this way we disappointed them (did they really expect us to be that stupid?) and now they reverted to their usual ways of seeking partition.

[Piratis]

By the way Bananiot, can you explain me why our refugees who live in some crappy temporary refugee housing want to "become again refugees" by ... returning to their own lands, while the TCs in Morfou and elsewhere don't want this?

Probably it has something to do with how much stolen land they were given compared to what they left behind? What do you think? Or you think that if those TCs in Morfou were living in some temporary crappy refugee housing, while they had much better lands in the south, they would still not want to "become refugees"?

[Bananiot]

Ever thought of changing yout tune Piratis? There is another world beyond the narrow one you can see. What about your answer to a legitimate question asked by Bir?

Here is another reason, after reading your very last (ridiculous post)

8. The TC's do not want to have anything to do with people calling them thieves. And I am talking about your average, ordinary TC, not those that made capital gains after 1974. The vast majority, in other words.

[Piratis]

Ever thought of changing yout tune Piratis? There is another world beyond the narrow one you can see. What about your answer to a legitimate question asked by Bir?

Here is another reason, after reading your very last (ridiculous post)

8. The TC's do not want to have anything to do with people calling them thieves. And I am talking about your average, ordinary TC, not those that made capital gains after 1974. The vast majority, in other words.

Are you saying those people in Morfou that you were talking about earlier got less in Morfou than what they left behind in the free areas?

What you will find is that the "average TC" got more not less. It is only a minority of TCs who got less in the occupied areas than what they left behind in the free areas, and I can bet you that those people didn't vote for Eroglu. (and I am referring to TCs that live in Cyprus, not those who live abroad and who didn't vote)

[Tim Drayton]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

I don't wish to propose an answer to your question, but simply extend the scope of it. In February of 2003, an estimated 80,000 people - arguably the entire Turkish Cypriot population remaining on the island - thronged into İnönü Square in a demonstration in favour of a solution and EU membereship. Many people carried placards reading "Denktaş bizi temsil etmez" ["Denktash does not represent us"]. The whole Turkish Cypriot population appeared to be rebelling against its leadership of the past few decades and the partitionist policies that had driven them into a dead end. Where have we come from those heady days? Last year the arch-partitionist UBP party won the parliamentary elections, and now the UBP leader has been elected president. It is astonishing that the spirit of that rebellion has vanished in a few short years.

[wallace]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

Does it really matter what happened? What matters is that a majority voted for exactly the same thing now that they voted for in 2004. Partition....that's what they wanted in 2004 with that shitty Annan plan and that's what they want now with the clown they voted for. No difference.....so nothing really happened. Compromises made by Christofias clearly made no difference in the way of thinking in the north the last couple of years. So you tell us Bir....what do you think happened?

[Piratis]

Time for us all to put on our thinking caps...

In 2004 Turkish Cypriots voted by an overwhelming majority of 65% FOR a solution to reunite Cyprus...In 2010 they voted,albeit by a slim majority,FOR a President who is well known for his wish for a 2 state solution...So,what happened,or what did not happen,during the ensuing 6 years to bring about such a different result??? Please spend at least a couple of minutes seriously pondering this issue before putting fingers to keyboard...Thanks...

I don't wish to propose an answer to your question, but simply extend the scope of it. In February of 2003, an estimated 80,000 people - arguably the entire Turkish Cypriot population remaining on the island - thronged into İnönü Square in a demonstration in favour of a solution and EU membereship. Many people carried placards reading "Denktaş bizi temsil etmez" ["Denktash does not represent us"]. The whole Turkish Cypriot population appeared to be rebelling against its leadership of the past few decades and the partitionist policies that had driven them into a dead end. Where have we come from those heady days? Last year the arch-partitionist UBP party won the parliamentary elections, and now the UBP leader has been elected president. It is astonishing that the spirit of that rebellion has vanished in a few short years.

There is no magic Tim. Everything can be explained in a very easy and logical way.

Those TCs you are talking about did not support a real unification. They supported the Annan partition plan.

If in 2003 or 2004 those same TCs were asked to vote for a plan that would truly unify Cyprus, without any divisions between "Turkish Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus", and where all Cypriot people would be equal citizens, again without any racist divisions, how many of those people do you think would vote in favor of such plan in 2004?