Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

"Well I have to cross enemy territory "

I did not mention "enemy territory", I referred to "foreign" as in British Sovereign territory exempt from EU aquis. Foreign in the sense that they can impose rules on transport through this area, things like insisting that police cannot enter, or if they do they should be unarmed etc.

I cannot fathom why doing away with this hurdle is impossible.

[YFred]

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?

Nikitas you are very funny. It is perfectly rational for the TCs to have these fears because of 63, whilst it is irrational for the GCs to fear TCs. Fearing Turkey is even more stupid because there is no defense whether you have one entity or two or three. Where as having two entities will alleviate the fear of the TC.
Now I realise how unprepared the GC population is for a solution. Having a referendum than becomes the real obstacle. We are doomed I say we are doomed Mr Jones.

[Nikitas]

You are still confusing the notion of emotional security with geopolitical stuff. How would you like to demolish the fence line on your property in London while your neighbors kept theirs? Would that make you feel more or less secure regadless of crime in your area?

The idea is to have a defined area where GC jurisdiction applies and an equally defined area where TC jursidiction applies. The whole point the TCs are pushing is bizonality and bicommunality. Confusing the issue with unnecessary territorial fudging does not help anyone but those that are planning to create problems in the future.

It is surprising that you cannot see the seriousness of a sudden pullout by the British from the bases in the future. And that you cannot see the advantage of settling that problem before it arises.

[YFred]

You are still confusing the notion of emotional security with geopolitical stuff. How would you like to demolish the fence line on your property in London while your neighbors kept theirs? Would that make you feel more or less secure regadless of crime in your area?

The idea is to have a defined area where GC jurisdiction applies and an equally defined area where TC jursidiction applies. The whole point the TCs are pushing is bizonality and bicommunality. Confusing the issue with unnecessary territorial fudging does not help anyone but those that are planning to create problems in the future.

It is surprising that you cannot see the seriousness of a sudden pullout by the British from the bases in the future. And that you cannot see the advantage of settling that problem before it arises.

If it is at that level perhaps we need 40 thousand psychologists rather than lawyers to solve this one.

[Gasman]

This one needs total openness from the start. Secret diplomacy on the properties issue is a recipe for failure.

I agree strongly with that. There has been very little 'openness' about any of it that I can see.

Are they going to 'talk' for years and then present it as a fait accompli only to have it rejected out of hand by their respective electorate?

And where are the GCs and their voices about what they want to see happen while all this is going on? I am really surprised that they do not demonstrate or harangue the government making it quite clear what they will and will not accept BEFORE Pres X goes in there to 'negotiate'. How can he negotiate about what 'his people' want if he is not discussing it with them at all?

And why on earth what seems to be the most important aspect for nearly everyone - property - has been left until now is a mystery to me.

What use getting blanket agreement on EVERYTHING else if you haven't even started discussing the most important issue yet? Could it be because both sides know that any decision that will satisfy the other will not satisfy their electorate and vice versa?

It's like kids leaving the bits they like least on their plate until they've eaten all the stuff they like and then throw a tantrum about not eating the rest!

[Nikitas]

Since 2004 I have been amazed at the unwillingness of anyone, Cypriot, Turkish, Greek or British , to discuss this simple issue.

Greek politicians focus on the settlement of the issue and the extrication of Greece from what they perceive as a quagmire.

Turks want a semnatical victory they can sell at home.

The Cypriots argue about the constitutional aspect and whether it will be a federation or confederation.

The British seem to be the only ones focusing on tangibles- whether their bases will have territorial waters and EEZ, and be exempt from EU aquis.

Why is this subject taboo? What is the problem with expressing clearly that from the start it had to do with territory and leave the nebulous stuff aside for a moment?

[Nikitas]

"It's like kids leaving the bits they like least on their plate until they've eaten all the stuff they like and then throw a tantrum about not eating the rest!"

Excellent insight into the minds of our leaders!

And now we have a new "expert" this American dude who is supposedly experienced in such problems. How many of these "problems" are there in the world and which ones has this dude solved?

Territory and property is the number one issue which no politician wants to address head on. So we have enldess verbiage in the media about the intangibles, like federation and confederation etc, while the tangibles that can be measure in square meters are left last if at all.

Cannot wait for the cryptic statements at 5 pm today.

[YFred]

This one needs total openness from the start. Secret diplomacy on the properties issue is a recipe for failure.

I agree strongly with that. There has been very little 'openness' about any of it that I can see.

Are they going to 'talk' for years and then present it as a fait accompli only to have it rejected out of hand by their respective electorate?

And where are the GCs and their voices about what they want to see happen while all this is going on? I am really surprised that they do not demonstrate or harangue the government making it quite clear what they will and will not accept BEFORE Pres X goes in there to 'negotiate'. How can he negotiate about what 'his people' want if he is not discussing it with them at all?

And why on earth what seems to be the most important aspect for nearly everyone - property - has been left until now is a mystery to me.

What use getting blanket agreement on EVERYTHING else if you haven't even started discussing the most important issue yet? Could it be because both sides know that any decision that will satisfy the other will not satisfy their electorate and vice versa?

It's like kids leaving the bits they like least on their plate until they've eaten all the stuff they like and then throw a tantrum about not eating the rest!

It is far worse than that. They have no intention of solving it. Same as last time. Some people never learn . I spent 2 years discussing with my GC friendsin London the fact that TPapa had no intention of discussing a solution and they were adamant that he was seriously discussing a solution. To this day they refuse to see that he never was.

I still maintain that Muhtar X is the same as TPapa. It was obvious the way he had a meeting with him just before the second round and with eoka just after the election. He fooled us all into thinking that he would negotiate in earnest for a solution but went back to square one. Perhaps he should now be called Hemingway. That's how earnest he is.

The trouble with the GC population is that it is not ready for a compromise and without compromise there is no solution. TCs were ready but I now suspect have moved on and no longer are interested.

[DT.]

Question regarding the Larnaca Airport....

A government can use a PRIVATE land to BUILD PUBLIC FACILITIES (airports, parks etc...) whatever the situation!!!

That is what i know, but i need to find the excact documents to prove the point

If it was an roc decision I would agree, but it has not been since 1963. Unfortunately it was GRoC that made those decisions and it is as null and void as TRNC decisions. TCs will accept nothing less. If you accept those as being legitimate then TRNC is just as. These negotiations are proving and will finally prove that exact point.

One is a government representing the island and the other is an illegal regime.

Don't be daft.

You know what YFred is saying though,DT...
RoC might be a legitimate government in the eyes of the world. In TC eyes it is a pirated state lacking moral fibre...If you can't understand why the TCs feel that way, you are the one who is being daft...

I also "feel" many things Bir. I'm a big boy however and I have to go by how the world works, both in my business and my life.

The fact that you are disagreeing with me calling Yfred daft is an eye opener though.

The fact that YFred tells you things you don't want to hear does not make him daft...You are at a crossroads now,DT...You either believe the official GC propaganda line that the TCs walked out of government because TMT told them so,or believe that they left in fear of their lives,and the fear was real...I know which one I believe and which one YFred believes...And we both lived through those heady days...Now you tell us which version you believe,and we shall see if there is any point to keep talking to each other...

I hope you and Yfred are very happy with each other. Personally I just returned from 3 days in Bebek and I know which one of us has the more complete view of things.

P.S It ain't you and it sure as hell ain't that gimp you're hangin around with.

[Nikitas]

If there was a clear statement of the various options open for the property issue and the territorial settlement the GC population would indulge in an open and franck discussion and choose the scheme they find acceptable.

From what I see the same goes on in the north too. No one wants to tell some people that they will be asked to move, that they will have to enter into a land exchange system which might mean loss of money.

On this point both sides are fouling up big time because they left it last when it should have been the first issue to discuss.