Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Now if you replaced the consuming crescent mouth with the encircling EU 'stars', the flag would be more accurate.

Why does the argument of securing and protecting Cyprus from Turkey through EU accession suddenly collapse when it comes to incorporating the whole of the island into the EU through AP ? For those who thought Cyprus' EU accession was a good thing have to explain why it is suddenly a bad thing if part of an AP-type settlement.

The EU accession of Cyprus is not part of an AP-type settlement. This is why it is good.

We will not accept any kind of settlement that gives to Turkey the control of the whole Cyprus through her TC puppets. We would rather have 2/3rd of Cyprus free, rather than being "united" under Turkish rule.

We are not going to return to the era of Ottoman rule. The Turkish minority in Cyprus is welcome to stay as equal citizens, but not as our overlords who can overwrite our democratic choices.

[Piratis]

This is how 2010 would have been if we had accepted the Annan plan:

Cyprus would be officially partitioned with the north part of our island being officially Turkish. "United Cyprus"? We are more united with Lithuania, where we can move and settle without any restrictions, than we would be with what would now be officially recognized as "Turkish Cyprus".

Democracy would be replaced with some racist apartheid system that would allow Turkey to control the whole Cyprus via her well known puppets. The Cypriots today democratically rule 2/3rds of their country. If we had accepted the Annan plan we would be able to democratically rule 0%. No important decision could be taken by us democratically without it being approved by Turkey. The whole Cyprus would be a banana republic of Turkey, in the same way that the "trnc" is today. Our aim is to liberate the 1/3rd of Cyprus which is under Turkish occupation, not to allow the Turks to enslave our whole island. Cyprus was united under Ottoman rule, but we'd rather have 2/3rds of our island free, instead of being "united" under Turkish rule.


10s of thousands of Settlers would be recognized as Cypriot citizens and be free to roam over the whole island.

The obstacle of Cyprus in the EU accession of Turkey would be removed.

Turkish Cypriots would get everything from day one. An end to the "embargoes", direct flights, EU, recognition etc. Greek Cypriots would get nothing from day one, apart from a promise that in the future 7% of our land would be returned to us and some Turkish troops would leave. Would the Turks keep their promise? I highly doubt. Today the Turks refuse to obey UN resolutions. In the past they violated all agreements they had with Greece regarding the Greek populations in Asia Minor and the Imbros and Tenedos islands. It would be extremely easy for them to create another incident, like they did in 1958, initiate some conflict, and use that as an excuse for not returning even that 7% of territory. But in that case it will not be an issue of illegal occupation of Cyprus by Turkey. It would just be a territorial dispute between "Turkish Cyprus" and "Greek Cyprus". And since we would be downgraded from a country to a community, we will not even have the little powers that we have today as Republic of Cyprus.

The list about the negatives of Annan plan is endless, but I will stop here. Annan plan was nothing more than a partition plan that served the Turks. It did NOT liberate Cyprus from the Turks, on the contrary it made the north part of our homeland officially Turkish. It did NOT restore our human rights, on the contrary it legalized the violations of our human and democratic rights and made us second category EU citizens.

This pure PARANOIA.

What is paranoia VP? The fact that Turkey refuses to obey UN resolutions? The fact that Turkey has not honored any agreement they had with Greece regarding the Greek populations in Asia Minor and the Imbros and Tenedos islands? The fact that the TC leadership are nothing more than Turkish puppets?

[Nikitas]

Copperline said:

"Neither do I think that the question of "firepower" is relevant because under no conceivable circumstances would Turkey resort to a military resolution of a political problem in a post-settlement scenario. "

In the sense that Turkey would not attack, then yes, I agree. But Turkish use of military power since 1974 has been to create a situation which stands as a challenge to others, inviting them to react to overturn a series of faits accomplis- Cyprus, the Aegean, Imia, the daily grind of air and sea violations. It would only take a hiccup in the Annan territorial readjustments for Turkey to freeze the process and then there would be no recourse.

As for the plight of the TCs, that is one problem which the TCs will have to face eventually. The longer they leave it the worse it gets. I can empathize with the ambivalence TCs feel at treating the Turkish army as a savior and an enslaver. But the TCs are the only ones who can reverse the anachronistic policy of Turkey in Cyprus. And this reversal does not mean substituting GC dominance for that of Turkey. The GCs obviously would rather Turkey left, that is no news, when that message is shouted by TCs it will have a wholly different value.

Reactions like those of the teachers' union are the way to remind Turkey that the TCs have had enough of its kind of liberation. Such reactions will be condemned as the actions of ingrates by the Turkish press. A process that has already started judging by the recent articles about TC laziness and luxurious living.

The post war history of Cyprus can be seen in many ways. One way is to see it as a gradual distancing of outside powers. Two have been dealt with, that leaves the third before full independence is achieved.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu,
I take your objections to the AP seriously. However I do not accept at all the analogue with climbing aboard an unairworthy aircraft. That is a superficially attractive but actually quite misleading and inappropriate metaphor.

Not really CopperLine, because the "trnc" did climb aboard that "sick plane" where as the RoC did not. Are we to assume that the "trnc" had a death wish by climbing aboard such a "sick plane". Of course not, and the reason why they did so it's because they all had their parachutes already fastened on to jump out of the "sick plane" the moment it started to fall out of the sky because it was predictable that it would fall out of the sky. So the "trnc" came prepared. The only problem was, the RoC were not given the same protection by supplying them with parachutes also, so they said...Errr, no thanks, we'll wait for the next plane that does not require only some wearing parachutes and not others.!!

So you object to my "sick plane" analogy and that's fine, but strangely enough, you did not object to the claim I made that the AP was a "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play." Am I to assume that you accept the above findings and that you have no objections to them.?

Your opening comments about having to trust people and powers that had directly contributed to the mess in the first place is exactly what virtually all peace settlements are about. That is to say, the f**ckers who were screwing you over yesterday are the ones you have to negotiate with today and who'll be your partners tomorrow. And the point of any negotiations is to make arrangements which will furnish the best chances and mechanisms of post-settlement problem solving. Your assessment is that AP just didn't provide the necessary means; my assessment is that it did. In the end our differences of assessment are irrelevant because the AP was rejected, but that just leaves us both with the same question : is there another game in town that we can both address ?

But CopperLine, the main f**ckers who put the 1959 Zurich agreements together to produce the results it would produce in 1963, just because that too was just an another "sick plane", were the same main f**ckers who put the AP 2004 together, that the whole plan was based on, "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play."

Now, just how many times does one need to burn by these f**ckers before one says, enough is enough already. How about having a plan that is not based on "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play."??

[Viewpoint]

Nikitas

And this reversal does not mean substituting GC dominance for that of Turkey.

How will you guarantee this? do you expect us to take a leap of faith on the word of the GCs?

[Nikitas]

I never expect a leap of faith. Like the GCs, the TCs have also been screwed over and are justified not to trust anyone.

The ten years of enclaves are an experience with which I empathise and can understand how they helped to form the view and attitudes of today and can see why TCs would never want to risk repeating that experience.

On the other hand, not wanting to relive the enclaves cannot justify the slow but certain eradication of TCs from Cyprus. The only people that can move against that are the TCs themselves. And if and when they do it does not mean having to submit to any new master, either GC or Turkish or anything else which is the reason we are talking political equality of the two communities.

It is legtimate for TCs to want to be free of any subjugation, but that should not involve an exchange with Turkey in the form "you released us from the enclaves so now you can colonise the island". That is not being freed, it is something else entirely.

It is silly to claim that such a move can be risk free. The alternative, the redutcion of TCs to a small community with folklore value, for the settlers to show to tourists, is a way to gauge how much risk is worth taking.

[CopperLine]

Kikapu,
I take your objections to the AP seriously. However I do not accept at all the analogue with climbing aboard an unairworthy aircraft. That is a superficially attractive but actually quite misleading and inappropriate metaphor.

Not really CopperLine, because the "trnc" did climb aboard that "sick plane" where as the RoC did not. Are we to assume that the "trnc" had a death wish by climbing aboard such a "sick plane". Of course not, and the reason why they did so it's because they all had their parachutes already fastened on to jump out of the "sick plane" the moment it started to fall out of the sky because it was predictable that it would fall out of the sky. So the "trnc" came prepared. The only problem was, the RoC were not given the same protection by supplying them with parachutes also, so they said...Errr, no thanks, we'll wait for the next plane that does not require only some wearing parachutes and not others.!!

So you object to my "sick plane" analogy and that's fine, but strangely enough, you did not object to the claim I made that the AP was a "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play." Am I to assume that you accept the above findings and that you have no objections to them.?

Your opening comments about having to trust people and powers that had directly contributed to the mess in the first place is exactly what virtually all peace settlements are about. That is to say, the f**ckers who were screwing you over yesterday are the ones you have to negotiate with today and who'll be your partners tomorrow. And the point of any negotiations is to make arrangements which will furnish the best chances and mechanisms of post-settlement problem solving. Your assessment is that AP just didn't provide the necessary means; my assessment is that it did. In the end our differences of assessment are irrelevant because the AP was rejected, but that just leaves us both with the same question : is there another game in town that we can both address ?

But CopperLine, the main f**ckers who put the 1959 Zurich agreements together to produce the results it would produce in 1963, just because that too was just an another "sick plane", were the same main f**ckers who put the AP 2004 together, that the whole plan was based on, "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play."

Now, just how many times does one need to burn by these f**ckers before one says, enough is enough already. How about having a plan that is not based on "Racist, Undemocratic, Anti EU Principles, Human Rights violation, International Law violations, an Apartheid system to name a few, a totally unworkable plan which was a "perfect storm" for disaster that would have made the 1960 constitution a child's play."??

As I said, I don't accept the metaphor - it doesn't fly.

As it happens (of course) I don't accept your characterisation of the AP as racist etc. I thought that it was a deliberately silly comment to be immediately discounted as such. Whoever the f**ckers are doing the burning they're the ones you have to deal with - GCs, TCs, RoT, UK, EU and everyone in between. If you get burnt by a match as a kid the answer is not "never touch matches" but learn how to use matches properly.

[CopperLine]

I never expect a leap of faith. Like the GCs, the TCs have also been screwed over and are justified not to trust anyone.

The ten years of enclaves are an experience with which I empathise and can understand how they helped to form the view and attitudes of today and can see why TCs would never want to risk repeating that experience.

On the other hand, not wanting to relive the enclaves cannot justify the slow but certain eradication of TCs from Cyprus. The only people that can move against that are the TCs themselves. And if and when they do it does not mean having to submit to any new master, either GC or Turkish or anything else which is the reason we are talking political equality of the two communities.

It is legtimate for TCs to want to be free of any subjugation, but that should not involve an exchange with Turkey in the form "you released us from the enclaves so now you can colonise the island". That is not being freed, it is something else entirely.

It is silly to claim that such a move can be risk free. The alternative, the redutcion of TCs to a small community with folklore value, for the settlers to show to tourists, is a way to gauge how much risk is worth taking.

Nikitas,
I appreciate your comments here. I wonder whether it was the case in the 1960s and into the 1970s that the TCs had sufficient power to enclave themselves (enclaves seem to me to be necessarily twin processes of internalising self-defence and external enclosing) but that following 74 an certainly following 83 that TCs as a distinct community has largely lost power, again in a twofold manner : first re GCs and second re Turkey.

Basic power and capacity to determine the future of Cyprus and the future of TCs by TCs has almost certainly been lost, perhaps permanently. We should not be fighting the battles of yesterday but those of today.

[Viewpoint]

Nikitas

I never expect a leap of faith. Like the GCs, the TCs have also been screwed over and are justified not to trust anyone.

Thank you for acknowledging where we are coming from and our zero trust of GCs.

The ten years of enclaves are an experience with which I empathise and can understand how they helped to form the view and attitudes of today and can see why TCs would never want to risk repeating that experience.

Totally correct.

On the other hand, not wanting to relive the enclaves cannot justify the slow but certain eradication of TCs from Cyprus.

What if the alternative is much worse? whether you accept our mindset and belief that a bad union with GCs is much worse is in this matter irrelevent as whatever you say will not change our minds.

The only people that can move against that are the TCs themselves

Correct but we have no reason to do so.

And if and when they do it does not mean having to submit to any new master, either GC or Turkish or anything else which is the reason we are talking political equality of the two communities.

Which GCs want to water down so that we can have this removed within a short period of time and call it democracy.

It is legtimate for TCs to want to be free of any subjugation, but that should not involve an exchange with Turkey in the form "you released us from the enclaves so now you can colonise the island". That is not being freed, it is something else entirely.

What makes you think this? if we have a deal we can commit to with GCs and it isproven that we are better of this way why should we want what you claim?

It is silly to claim that such a move can be risk free. The alternative, the redutcion of TCs to a small community with folklore value, for the settlers to show to tourists, is a way to gauge how much risk is worth taking.

I can think of far worse scenarios under GC rule.

[Nikitas]

VP,

Once we accept BBF as the way forward I really do not see how that could ever bring the TCs under GC rule.

I am not referring to a rebellion by the TCs to kick out the Turkish army and bring things back to pre 1974 status.

If a settlement were achieved tomorrow, even then I see friction in the north between the indigenous TCs and the settlers. When things like government jobs, local, regional and federal have to be filled there will be arguments. There will be a similar situation in the south too, but not on ethnic grounds, more on political ones.