Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Another fact-observation:

In 2004, the RoC left (with the notable exception of EDI) united to elect the most reactionary right winger this place has ever known. Papadopoulos eventually turned GC's into scared, xenophobic and solution-phobic people who in their majority now prefer partition even if they don't say it.

If you and your Turkish friends believe that most GCs want partition then I challenge you to have another referendum with two options:
1) Partition
2) A true unification with no division of land and people.

If you are right then we will all vote for partition, and the Cyprus issue will end there. But of course this is not what will happen and you know it.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of TCs will vote for partition (because this is what they want), while the vast majority of GCs will vote for a true unification (because this is what we want).

So stop saying bollocks that most GCs want partition.

What confuses your small brain probably is that the majority of Cypriots prefer the "de-facto" partition from an Annan plan kind of partition, that not only would legalize the partition of Cyprus but would also give to Turkey the control of the whole island.

[Piratis]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

[Viewpoint]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

You forget one small but very important point (because it doesnt suit your cause) that you physically like it or not lost all rights to 37% of the island, now anything you get back is a compromise on our behalf just as anything we lost in the south if granted back is a compromise on your behalf. Otherwise without give and take = compromise no one gets anything and the status quo continues.

[Oracle]

Another fact-observation:

In 2004, the RoC left (with the notable exception of EDI) united to elect the most reactionary right winger this place has ever known. Papadopoulos eventually turned GC's into scared, xenophobic and solution-phobic people who in their majority now prefer partition even if they don't say it.

If you and your Turkish friends believe that most GCs want partition then I challenge you to have another referendum with two options:
1) Partition
2) A true unification with no division of land and people.

If you are right then we will all vote for partition, and the Cyprus issue will end there. But of course this is not what will happen and you know it.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of TCs will vote for partition (because this is what they want), while the vast majority of GCs will vote for a true unification (because this is what we want).

So stop saying bollocks that most GCs want partition.

What confuses your small brain probably is that the majority of Cypriots prefer the "de-facto" partition from an Annan plan kind of partition, that not only would legalize the partition of Cyprus but would also give to Turkey the control of the whole island.

Another precise clarification ...

[YFred]

Another fact-observation:

In 2004, the RoC left (with the notable exception of EDI) united to elect the most reactionary right winger this place has ever known. Papadopoulos eventually turned GC's into scared, xenophobic and solution-phobic people who in their majority now prefer partition even if they don't say it.

If you and your Turkish friends believe that most GCs want partition then I challenge you to have another referendum with two options:
1) Partition
2) A true unification with no division of land and people.

If you are right then we will all vote for partition, and the Cyprus issue will end there. But of course this is not what will happen and you know it.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of TCs will vote for partition (because this is what they want), while the vast majority of GCs will vote for a true unification (because this is what we want).

So stop saying bollocks that most GCs want partition.

What confuses your small brain probably is that the majority of Cypriots prefer the "de-facto" partition from an Annan plan kind of partition, that not only would legalize the partition of Cyprus but would also give to Turkey the control of the whole island.

Another precise clarification ...

What did you use for units of measurement, I hope you have a nanometer available or an electron microscope be ciracik.

[Piratis]

I can see a clear theme emerging from this thread...As far as most GCs are concerned the Annan Plan was Partition in disguise,so the TCs voted for partition in 2004 and they voted for a Partitionist in 2010,nothing has changed...

Perhaps this is where the problem lies...Those TCs who voted for the Annan plan did not think they were voting for Partition...They thought were voting for Reunification with a lot of compromises...Remember that the arch-partitionist,Denktash and his former party,he UBP were srongly against the AP...Varosia and Morphou were to be returned. Turkish Army would be withdrawn,albeit according to a timetable...All but 45000 of the settlers would depart...A certain percentage of the GC refugees would be allowed to return....and of course the ultimate compromise for the TCs,the trnc would be abolished...All this certainly did not seem like partition to the TCs..So the two sides had very different perceptions of what was on offer...There was also a lot of hype and perhaps even some exaggeration regarding the potential EU benefits,but this could not have played such a big role,in my opinion...The TCs knew they would get all the benefits as individuals anyway...As long as they could get themselves an RoC citizenship identity card...The promise of lifting the embargoes and the ensuing turn about did not help the matters either...The TCs saw the GC rejection as a slap in the face...A solution was withing their reach,the long decades of political and social uncertainty and dependence on the goodwill of Turkey were about to come to an end...It would have been a terrible disappointment...Emotions play a big part in most Cypriots life,sometimes to the detriment of sensible and logical analysis of the events...Bloody civil wars and decades of continuing and escalating disputes and animosity often deprive people of objective judgement...This is playing an important part in the current impasse I believe...Neither side really understands or appreciates the other's predicament...Hence what seems to be a big compromise for one side can easily be dismissed as insignificant for the other...This is what happens if you try to solve a long standing dispute without coming to terms objectively with the historical reasons underlining it...

What is a "compromise" according to you?

If Republic of Cyprus allows you to have your own land in Paphos does this count as a compromise from our side? If GCs say that after a solution there can be some TC ministers in the government, some TC members in the parliament and a TC member in the EU parliament, is this a compromise from our side? If we say that we will allow TC teams to play in international games, is this a compromise? If we say that the "Cyprus Turkish Airlines" can fly direct from Cyprus to anywhere they want, is that a compromise?

If TCs believe that giving some land back to the rightful owners is a compromise from them, or if they believe that the removal of the Turkish troops and Turkish settlers who are illegally in Cyprus is a compromise from them, then obviously they don't know what "compromise" means.

I believe that the right way to measure how much compromises each side made is to measure against the 1960 agreements (which favor the TCs to begin with). When you do that you will realize that it is only the GCs who made compromises, and no compromise whatsoever was made by the TCs.

You forget one small but very important point (because it doesnt suit your cause) that you physically lost all rights in 37% of the island now anything you get back is a compromise on our behalf just as anything we lost in the south if granted is a compromise. Otherwise without give and take = compromise no one gets anything and the status quo continues.

We didn't lose any rights. What you do is to illegally stop us from exercising those rights. Illegalities however have consequences. So you might illegally keep 37% of land, but we (legally) keep the 100% of representation.

So the "give and take" works like this: You give back our lands and our rights, and we give to you the powers and your rights according to the 1960 agreements.

But you want to take all your rights according to 1960 agreements plus a lot more, plus 29% of land, and you only want to allow us to have back a small part of what rightfully belongs to us.

Well, you know already what our answer is to this unbalanced "give and take".

How about if it was reversed? If we got all our land back, plus a lot of your land (say we ended up with 95% ownership), and in return we gave to you only part of your 1960 rights. Would you agree to this "give and take"?

[Lit]

Another fact-observation:

In 2004, the RoC left (with the notable exception of EDI) united to elect the most reactionary right winger this place has ever known. Papadopoulos eventually turned GC's into scared, xenophobic and solution-phobic people who in their majority now prefer partition even if they don't say it.

If you and your Turkish friends believe that most GCs want partition then I challenge you to have another referendum with two options:
1) Partition
2) A true unification with no division of land and people.

If you are right then we will all vote for partition, and the Cyprus issue will end there. But of course this is not what will happen and you know it.

There is no doubt that the vast majority of TCs will vote for partition (because this is what they want), while the vast majority of GCs will vote for a true unification (because this is what we want).

So stop saying bollocks that most GCs want partition.

What confuses your small brain probably is that the majority of Cypriots prefer the "de-facto" partition from an Annan plan kind of partition, that not only would legalize the partition of Cyprus but would also give to Turkey the control of the whole island.

Excellent. Well said.

[georgios100]

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...

After reading a few pages of comments I conclude:

1. TCs & settlers are in the end people, just like everybody else on the planet. They are fed up with Talat, waiting for a solution (BBF or partition)... they want a solution... period! what ever that is! People want closure to move forward. The Cyprob is dragging too long. Hence Eroglu, a new guy with lots of promises, Talat had his chance.

2. The TC side is participating in the talks for a solution to enter the EU immediately. The partition would put the EU entry on hold for another 10-15 years. Eroglu made them think EU entry is given no matter what is the outcome of the talks (or no talks).

3. The difference in the vote was the settlers favoring Eroglu. These people are not true TCs. The true TCs are getting outnumbered as the years go by... settlers think like Turks, not Cypriots, hence Eroglu.

Both GCs & TCs must realize their political leaders are a joke. The non-solution 36 year period is heaven for them, thriving on the need for a solution. These leaders will not negotiate a solution simply to extend the survival of their own political parties and themselves. Over 35 political parties exist in the whole of Cyprus... a good "business" to be in instead of working as a plumber, electrician etc. Suit, tie, nice car, good salary, excellent pension...

Hey, I am thinking of forming a political party... next week... why not?

Georgios100

You are so way off the mark, I will only deal with just the first mistake. Eroglu is not a new guy, he was there at the begining. 1963 to be precise. Probaply the leader of TMT in Magosa, otherwise how did he get to rise in the party.
It's a bit like asking Hitler to solve the riddle of the second world war as a new comer becasue he was out of office for one term.
George you have so much to learn my friend. Stay on the forum.

YFred, I am talking to Bir, not you.

[Nikitas]

Was the Annan plan offering something better to the GCs than what they already had? No

Any settlement to work must offer something which is an essential improvement on the present to both sides. It must also address the security issue of BOTH sides. Since 1974 the GC side has a major security issue and pretending not to accept it nixes the chances for a settlement. Bizonality should solve the TC security issue. The Federal choice addresses the GC concern over property and settlement.

Trying to interpret bizonality as a means to enforce geographic separation and exclusion of people from any part of the island then we are talking veiled partition. In that case we might as well settle for clear partition as we have now while retaining a legal claim to property in the north. This is how most GCs see the situation.

[Acikgoz]

The issue of immigrants to the north is one that is a change for the 2004-2010 period - trying to stick to the topic.
As Georgios said they are people too - they are now, more than ever, to remain permanent fixture. With another 5 years of no change, as everyone acts according to script, the ability to make the differentiation will become harder between TC and immigrant.
It is a topic raised so frequently on this forum (by both GCs and TCs), and what to do about it, but the relevance of its discussion is rapidly becoming one for the anthropologists rather than the politicians.
Personally there are many more prickly issues.