Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

Nikitas

As for those that yearn for the TRNC to become a province of Turkey, the antidote is hanging in the air- the RoC becoming a district of Greece with an international Greek Turkish border to the south of Turkey's much toute "soft underbelly" and all that crap that Davutoglu loves to write about in his deep strategy nightmares.

That is a horror scenario for Cyprus. You have advocated double union for a while now Nikitas. Have you asked Greece about this? There will never be a serious Greek government that will will have anything to do with this. The Cyprus problem is a pain in the neck for Greece and much more for the international community as a whole. They will not put up with us much longer. Perhaps until the end of the year and as the UN General Secretary has hinted loudly, he will apportion blame after November and you can be sure that Turkey, the aggressor, will not be on the receiving end.

Kikapu

I do not believe anyone is a traitor for voting YES on the AP

That is what you say, Kikapu. We have been accused of receiving money from the enemies of Cyprus. We were told by the President himself that we are traitors and your opinion is of little comfort. In Brussels, Cyprus is the black ship and serious European diplomats lough with us. These are not coming from me but from Cypriot europarliamentarians who have repeated this very often and have painted a bleak picture of how Europe and the world at large faces Cyprus.

Finally, just to inform the crazy woman that I do not own anything in Cyprus or anywhere else in the world and thus I have nothing to donate. I have never hidden behind nicks (like some who behave as cyber tigers), everybody knows who I am and you are welcome to check out my claim and report me if I am writing lies.

the same result could be achieved with out cyprus becoming a province...greece arms cyprus to the teeth...

nikitas is right in what he is saying...comes december and blame appointed on the roc, greece arms the roc and give the turks something to scream about...

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

I have NEVER ADVOCATED double union. What I have often said is that every measure has a possible countermeasure to show the folly of those who advocated northern Cyprus becoming a district of Turkey.

In the event of annexation and subsequent recognition Cyprus would have no choice left. It cannot face a Turkish border on its own. Neither would the other nations in the area want a relatively weak Cyprus facing Turkey. They too would expect a stronger power facing Turkey and thereby we come to what Ecevit had said is unacceptable to Turkey- Greece becoming a Middle Eastern power. See, it has nothing whatever to do with what I want or advocate, it is a possible scenario.

What I have advocated is a fair agreement that minimises the number of people who will feel cheated and a comprehensive deal that will leave no possible future problems like the British bases. This is what I have advocated.

[Bananiot]

So, you expect Greece to come over to Cyprus, some 600 miles away, and appear to be the boggy for Turkey which is merely 40 miles from Cyprus and has a strong military presence on the island. The Greek army, stretched from Thrace to Cyprus! This is ridiculous, I am sorry.

If the worse comes to worse and partition is cemented, we will have no future in Cyprus, and Greece, will not even dream of dispersing her relatively small army over such areas. Greece will go her own way and as I said before, even mother greece is totally fed up with us. Greece has her own agenda on the Greek-Turko relations and it does not include a scenario of confrontation with Turkey. Greece genuinely and actively supports EU accession of Turkey and strenghtening of the ties with Turkey. Venizelos himself understood this a long time ago but again the bash patriots of the time shouted "traitor" when he signed a treating of non agression and friendship with Turkey, only a few years after the Asia Minor disaster. The financial ties that bonds the two countries are also important and always they play an important role in the shaping of international relations.

Full recognition of the northern part of Cyprus is highly unlikely at present. However, opening of their airports and ports for international trade is a realistic possibility if the UN concludes that we are responsible for the impasse. Taiwanisation will be the order of the day at first and given such an environment, where people can move forward and society can develop and prosper, nobody will care if the north is an officially recognised state or not.

Nikitas, I want to return to the first point which you raised. I am really amazed that you cannot see the dangers for both Greece and Cyprus in the case we counteracted recognition with annexation of Cyprus by Greece. Can you really not see that this will be the best present for the enemies of Cyprus? Really, you are suggesting we commit suicide and this scenario, which had many supporters in Cyprus before 1974 (from thefar right) can only be considered as dead.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

Last week the Turkish navy had been conducting exercises off the coast of Zakynthos and Kefallonia. Take a look at the map and see if you can discdern any other reason for such an exercise other than confrontation. Greece is not the one creating the problem in the Aegean and now the Ionian, Turkey is, helped along with crappy thinking of Davutoglu and his strategic depth nonsense. Even some Turkish papers are now seeing throuhg his bullshit and call it "arrogant depth".

Our problem, as I see it, is that the other side leads us down the garden path for years, and always finding a reason not to settle on what was agreed, namely a Bizonal, Bicommunal FEDERATION. Now we have a new ploy, the idea od "dislocation" which precludes any territorial adjustment, plus the request for two separate economies and two separate countries, not regions any more. If that is the game, what on earth are we discussing with Eroglu? The only tangible promise right now is the retunr of Varosi, if the EVKAF claim does not foul that one, in exchange for legalisation of the occupation and compensation of land at 1/10 of its real value. And we are going to share power with the people who want to foist that kind of solution on what are supposed to be their partners and compatriots. It is one hell of a way of building trust and avoiding resentment in the future!

[repulsewarrior]

turkey, for her security, needs the whole island. a settlement splitting Cyprus in two, with or without Greece, will necessitate a militarised border and adversarial motivations. whether Turkey faces east or west, her large army will need a countervaling power (and there will be willing interlocutors) against it.

cyprus can belong to no one, and in that sense it will belong to everyone, if Turkey wants its troops in Cyprus, it should hurry and recognise its Sovereignty, adjusting its policy in this way makes her entry into the EU viable, as well opening the doors to NATO in Cyprus.

[Gasman]

if Turkey wants its troops in Cyprus, it should hurry and recognise its Sovereignty, adjusting its policy in this way makes her entry into the EU viable

I find that a bit confusing. I understood one of the main things the RoC have always insisted on is 'TURKISH TROOPS OUT OF CYPRUS'?

*It's what was emblazoned on the huge sign on the side of the road just as you entered Cyprus from old Larnaca Airport

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed, "TURKISH TROOPS OUT OF CYPRUS". i support this too. i think all troops should be removed from the island. however, when one considers all the variables at hand, it would be possible to have Turkish troops as allies stationed here. they would be barracked along with others on Bases that are Cypriot (and Sovereign to Cyprus), most likely as members of NATO, although a UN force is a possibility as well...

Makarios decided to keep warships off this island, and the Non-Alligned movement had an effect on the Cold War which by adding a third dimension, shifted the debate from two adversaries with weapons to the weapons themselves. in the end the Cold War was "won" by the US, communism was defeated, WMD's, their types are more widespread, so too their possesion, but without this voice of reason, "the military-industrial complex" (as eisenhower warned kennedy) would have remained without any opposition, except for the one they had made for themselves.

i am not for NATO as it is mandated today. i'd prefer if as a force they are more active toward enemies which pose bigger threats to our security than military forces, such as Natural Disaster. Hunger and Disease, for example, are the two adversaries where applied force could effect the Ignorance of people who willingly tolerate their presence or exploit it. cynically speaking, George Bush could have walked into Africa instead of Iraq (or Afgahnistan), demonstrating Christian Faith, with his troops feeding people, toppling the governments of Sudan and others instead. in this case, the "coalition of the willing" would have had quite a different complexion.

...new ideas, pushing luck would mean that the two leaders meet away from their secret meetings, conspiring if you will, as Cypriots, against interlocutors many of whom think only for themselves, without demonstrating their will towards the greater good of States as Humans.

[Gasman]

I've never understood why all the talks have to be so 'secret'. Not when the outcome is dependent on a referendum. What's the point of keeping the electorate in the dark until it is a done deal, if they can overturn it with their votes?

[repulsewarrior]

...i never understood why either. especially since no effort has ever been made to widen the debate with public audiences to promote new or clearer thinking. topics like: bizonal bicommunal what do they mean?, federation, two levels of government or two governments? however, we may not have reached this stage yet, there may still be an intention to amend their work if it becomes obvious through a public response that something completely different may be a better choice for all of us.

the all or nothing approach to the negociations allows for fluidity. keeping the talks secret allows them to continue uninterupted from external forces; so it's said, although in the decades that have passed something else has not been tested.

[Nikitas]

The talks are secret because neither side has a clear idea of what it wants in a solution. There is a weird poker game going on to see where each side can exploit the other.

An honest approach would be to declare publicly what each side wants in a BBF complete with maps. Negotiations where the two sides are trying to find a consensus are discussions, not negotiations.