Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Nikitas,didn't Britain say they would be willing to hand back one of the bases if that would help find a solution??? Perhaps this is the right time to talk about the future of the so-called British Sovereign areas,don't you think???

It is not just half, they offered to give it all back except an airfield. They wish to have a very small presence on the island, till the oil runs out.

[BirKibrisli]

Nikitas,didn't Britain say they would be willing to hand back one of the bases if that would help find a solution??? Perhaps this is the right time to talk about the future of the so-called British Sovereign areas,don't you think???

It is not just half, they offered to give it all back except an airfield. They wish to have a very small presence on the island, till the oil runs out.

Well,there we go...They should bring Britain into the negotiations where necessary,before they change their minds,probably with pressure from the Jewish lobby...

[Nikitas]

Bir, the proposal of the British was a weasel proposal. They would offer the eastern base to be apportioned between the two constituent states. In effect the proposal would introduce another argument into the process and would still divide the GC sector into two parts, necessitating a whole lot of provisions about the right of passage, flyovers underpasses etc. These are unnecessary complications in a small place like Cyprus.

The process is simple if we revert to the term "Island of Cyprus" which means the WHOLE of the island, as opposed to the "territory of the Republic of Cyprus" which leaves out the bases, they not being considered Cypriot territory but British now. So we talk percentages of territory of the island. The TCs get X percentage of the island and forego claims to the rest. That leaves the Rest to the GCs and it includes the bases. It is vital that the British will have to deal with ONE side and not both. Dealing with one side means their scope for trouble mongering is cut down by at least 50- per cent.

Leaving the British as a third party in the process will be paid for in the future, and very dearly.

[YFred]

Bir, the proposal of the British was a weasel proposal. They would offer the eastern base to be apportioned between the two constituent states. In effect the proposal would introduce another argument into the process and would still divide the GC sector into two parts, necessitating a whole lot of provisions about the right of passage, flyovers underpasses etc. These are unnecessary complications in a small place like Cyprus.

The process is simple if we revert to the term "Island of Cyprus" which means the WHOLE of the island, as opposed to the "territory of the Republic of Cyprus" which leaves out the bases, they not being considered Cypriot territory but British now. So we talk percentages of territory of the island. The TCs get X percentage of the island and forego claims to the rest. That leaves the Rest to the GCs and it includes the bases. It is vital that the British will have to deal with ONE side and not both. Dealing with one side means their scope for trouble mongering is cut down by at least 50- per cent.

Leaving the British as a third party in the process will be paid for in the future, and very dearly.

Don't be silly Nikitas, why would we need flyovers and what is wrong with the GC sector being in 2 parts? Can we not have a traffic light system, are the GCs that opposed to red light. We seem to be back in 1963 in our mentality.

[Nikitas]

"They wish to have a very small presence on the island, till the oil runs out."

The reports I have read about the bases say different. The main facility of the British is the spy base in Dekhelia. According to the British themselves the base can fish radio signals from deep inside Asia, and obviously Iran. This is the main value of the bases to the British and not as an intermediate landing facitlity for troops going to the Middle East if needs be. If the British did not value the Dekhleia base they would hav closed it down by now, but they have not.

Any fragmentation of the two constituent state will bring about new strategic games by our respective "mothrlands". The dangers are obvious. Consolidation and obviously defensible demarcation lines inspire confidence and give a sense of secutiry. This is valid in national as well as domestic borders, and has been proven in dozens of psychological studies of territorial issues. We disregards these obvious factors at our peril.

[Nikitas]

YFred, the fragmentation of the GC sector into 2 or 3 parts will enhance a sense of insecurity, it will foster the feeling that the thing is not complete and a new "struggle" to consolidate will be available to any two bit politician and "super patriot" to exploit. The idea is to prevent such thoughts, not encourage them with some idiotic and avoidable territorial arrangement.

And because I have studied this at some depth, I can assure you that in the event of a referendum, a map which shows a fragmented GC sector will lead to a resounding NO vote by the GCs. Not because of some analytical process but because of an emotional response to the visual impact of such a map.

[YFred]

"They wish to have a very small presence on the island, till the oil runs out."

The reports I have read about the bases say different. The main facility of the British is the spy base in Dekhelia. According to the British themselves the base can fish radio signals from deep inside Asia, and obviously Iran. This is the main value of the bases to the British and not as an intermediate landing facitlity for troops going to the Middle East if needs be. If the British did not value the Dekhleia base they would hav closed it down by now, but they have not.

Any fragmentation of the two constituent state will bring about new strategic games by our respective "mothrlands". The dangers are obvious. Consolidation and obviously defensible demarcation lines inspire confidence and give a sense of secutiry. This is valid in national as well as domestic borders, and has been proven in dozens of psychological studies of territorial issues. We disregards these obvious factors at our peril.

Primary use of the bases are the Arab lands and control of communication. Wilson would have removed the bases in the 60's but US said no. Listening to Iran and beyond is non starter, as they have a listening posts in Higher peaks in Turkey. The listening post on Trodos is for the med basin.

As to the fragmentation? nonsense. If you want to see fragmentation look at enclaves. Lets not start splitting hairs and playing with words.

[Nikitas]

Precisely because we know the enclaves situation neither side should bear even the remotest risk of that reocurring.

Believe me, the visual impact of a map showing fragmented areas will be rejected. The notion of defensible space was studied a long time ago in connection with the "projects" the council flats in the USA. Later the idea wa examined in terms of nations. It is a powerful factor in the settlement of territorial disputes.

Lookd at it from the point of view of a GC who has to cross foreign territory to go from his home to his job, while no TC has to bear the same process. Also look at the situation where there is no clear and easy to read demarcation line and you do not know in which jursidiction you are travelling.

The rule here is that good fences make good neighbors.

[YFred]

Precisely because we know the enclaves situation neither side should bear even the remotest risk of that reocurring.

Believe me, the visual impact of a map showing fragmented areas will be rejected. The notion of defensible space was studied a long time ago in connection with the "projects" the council flats in the USA. Later the idea wa examined in terms of nations. It is a powerful factor in the settlement of territorial disputes.

Lookd at it from the point of view of a GC who has to cross foreign territory to go from his home to his job, while no TC has to bear the same process. Also look at the situation where there is no clear and easy to read demarcation line and you do not know in which jursidiction you are travelling.

The rule here is that good fences make good neighbors.

Well I have to cross enemy territory called Putney to go to work every day. I seem to do alright.

What you are asking for cannot be done. I think it is easier to walk to the moon and back then solve the Cyprus with two complete separate entities.
Defense should not have to come in to it. RoC will be disarmed whether the GCs like it or not.

[Nikitas]

YFred, you are confusing the emotional sense of defensible space which has nothing to do with military ideas.

Defensible space means feeling your are/property is secure. It is a well established concept and used daily in town planning and in international agreements.

If you think it is irrelevant why not accept a return to the enclaves as per the 1973 agreement? For the simple reason that they do not inspire a feeling of security.

Look at a map that has the GC area cut into 2 or 3 pieces, as in the Annan plan, and now compare it with a map that has the same area in square kilometers in one piece. Which do you think looks more appealing to the average GC? Which do you think would be easier to "sell" to the voter? Which would be easier to reject?

Another point- if the base issue is not important why not make a declaration from the start that should the bases be vacated they revert to the GCs. Thus increasing the cohesion of the GC area as well as the coast line? Why leave that issue as one of future apportionment between the two sides? Who gains from such open issues?