Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Bananiot said:

"Nikitas, I have writen my views time and time again but you still ask the same questions. "

I am not referring to a generalised position with phrases like "power sharing", "political equality" etc. I want specifics.

Since my emphasis is on territory I have a very clear map in mind when I talk of a fair territorial arrangement which is defnsible, deals with the sovereign bases and the eventuality of their removal and so on.

I think most people like to skip over the first two parts of BBF, ie the Bizonal, Bicommunal parts and go straight for Federation and the implied power sharing. The two first two are far more complex than they appear and more likely to cause problems in the future. That is why I want to see how the proponents of the Annan plan see the post settlement future and every day details- like the pursuit of criminals past the bizonal frontiers for istance, or the ownership of land in the "other" zone.

Given the cynicism shown by the Turkish side in its pursuit of Taksim we are entitled to some details. And for the same reasons some of us see this BBF deal no more than a stepping stone to the final phase of partition which will be the seeking of recognition after some manufactured crisis in the context of BBF. Some are concerned about the day after such an event.

[Bananiot]

Your emphasis is on territory? But only a while ago it was on property. Nikitas, we are on the verge of major happenings and the coming three months are going to be very hot regarding the Cyprus issue. Perhaps you subscribe to the view that the ECHR decision on the Dimopoulos case has more or less resolved, albeit unfairly for our side, the properties issue. In my mind, the Annan Plan provided a better arrangement and mark my words, this will surface real soon now.

You are now concentrating on the territory issue. I also think that the Annan Plan arrangement was fair for our side, especially with part of Karpasi thrown in. Of course, the other side was willing to discuss this but Papadopoulos did not want to hear about it for obvious reasons.

Our only hope is to bring back the Annan Plan, to revive it, and because the other side has already accepted it, it would be very difficult to avoid it. We should be asking for improvements to the plan and with a move as such we will gain the support of the international community. If not, as things stand internationally, the UN will probably declare the Cyprus issue as unsolvable and at best ask for an international conference. Things will not be the same after December. The Turkish side considers that direct trade is a real possibility now and this will be a huge blow at our psychology, mainly because we will be losing another battle. However, I am not sure that this will be the final target of Turkey. After Kossovo, Turkey may try for recognition and the environment is not hostile for such a move.

In the meantime, there may be a change of government in Turkey come next year and things will get very tough. The north will be swarmed by more settlers - Turkey has done this before in other parts of the world - and the Turkish Cypriots will probably find sanctuary in the south where, they will claim back their properties in order to stay here or sell and go elsewhere, as EU citizens. Since we are bound by the EU acquis, we will share the south with the TC's per 1960 Constitution and those who think that we can achieve a better solution than the one provided by the Annan Plan better think again, but in a rational manner, if they can still think rationally.

[Kikapu]

Your emphasis is on territory? But only a while ago it was on property. Nikitas, we are on the verge of major happenings and the coming three months are going to be very hot regarding the Cyprus issue. Perhaps you subscribe to the view that the ECHR decision on the Dimopoulos case has more or less resolved, albeit unfairly for our side, the properties issue. In my mind, the Annan Plan provided a better arrangement and mark my words, this will surface real soon now.

You are now concentrating on the territory issue. I also think that the Annan Plan arrangement was fair for our side, especially with part of Karpasi thrown in. Of course, the other side was willing to discuss this but Papadopoulos did not want to hear about it for obvious reasons.

Our only hope is to bring back the Annan Plan, to revive it, and because the other side has already accepted it, it would be very difficult to avoid it. We should be asking for improvements to the plan and with a move as such we will gain the support of the international community. If not, as things stand internationally, the UN will probably declare the Cyprus issue as unsolvable and at best ask for an international conference. Things will not be the same after December. The Turkish side considers that direct trade is a real possibility now and this will be a huge blow at our psychology, mainly because we will be losing another battle. However, I am not sure that this will be the final target of Turkey. After Kossovo, Turkey may try for recognition and the environment is not hostile for such a move.

In the meantime, there may be a change of government in Turkey come next year and things will get very tough. The north will be swarmed by more settlers - Turkey has done this before in other parts of the world - and the Turkish Cypriots will probably find sanctuary in the south where, they will claim back their properties in order to stay here or sell and go elsewhere, as EU citizens. Since we are bound by the EU acquis, we will share the south with the TC's per 1960 Constitution and those who think that we can achieve a better solution than the one provided by the Annan Plan better think again, but in a rational manner, if they can still think rationally.

Bananiot,

These were your words in 2007.

"The Plan itself left many things to be desired. One could almost find reasons to vote against it in every paragraph and every clause of it."

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... 4&start=30

Could you please tell us which part of the 2004 AP you would like to have it changed so that,

a) the GCs would accept the whole "new" AP afterwards, and

b) that the TCs (Turkey) would accept the "new" AP after those changes are made.

More directly, what makes you think that the TCs (Turkey) would accept the "new" AP with all the changes that stands to be acceptable to the GCs and be unacceptable to the TCs (Turkey). Surely, the only reason why ONLY 65% of the TCs accepted the AP of 2004 was because of what was in the AP and the reasons as to why 76% of the GCs rejected the AP. Despite your above statement in 2007, you had accepted the AP as a whole along with your fellow 24% of the GCs, but you must also not forget, that 35% of the north also said "NO" to the AP, despite the AP being far more in favour of the north than the south. The question then arises, how many more TCs will walk away from the "new" AP with all the changes that will be required to be acceptable by the GCs.??

To be more to the point, Bananiot, I cannot understand how an intellectual person such as yourself would accept the AP of 2004 despite knowing how bad it was, because you knew yourself that it was bad. I can make a blanket statement and say that the vast majority of the 24% GCs who had said "YES" to the AP in 2004 were politically ignorant and took the AP at face value as a "peace plan", but I cannot understand how you could, when today you would like to see changes made to the AP of 2004.? Surely, if you think AP of 2004 needs changes today, the same AP couldn't been voted on by the GCs in 2004 with a "YES", unless one was ignorant to the details in the AP. You are far from being a politically ignorant, but yet you voted "YES" to the AP. To me, what you did comes across as someone being totally irrational, that you know something is terribly bad for your people and country and yet you would vote for it and now suggest chances to the AP 6 years later, that you believe is necessary to make the "new" AP to work for the vast majority of Cypriots. But had the majority of the GCs had followed your irrational thinking back in 2004 and had voted for the AP also, does that not mean then, that today's Cyprus would have been in a very unworkable and unsatisfied position to the vast majority of Cypriots. I can commend for you to suggest the AP should have changes made to it now, but your insistence that you were correct in your reasons for voting "YES" on the AP in 2004 leaves me wondering about your rational thought process. I'm having a very hard time understanding you, Bananiot, just because you now believe worse things will become of Cyprus unless the GCs demand in bringing back the failed AP of 2004 and suggest some changes to it, just as you did in 2004, that same would happen if the AP was refused by the GCs.

Once again, please tel us what changes should be made to the AP of 2004 that will be accepted to the vast majority of all Cypriots and Turkey. I don't want to sound insulting to others intelligence, but I thought the new rounds of talks since 2008 were in fact designed to make changes to the unacceptable parts of the AP, which for the most part, at least in the press anyway, are not acceptable to the TCs and Turkey, so what makes you think bringing back the old AP and make it into a new AP would be acceptable to the TCs and Turkey with new changes.! Surely if the old AP was returned to the table to make adjustments, who decides how much adjustment is needed without the danger of the vast majority of the old AP becoming the new AP just because it was allowed by the GCs to be used as a guide toward a new AP. I do not intend of being rude to you or question your motives in the positions you had/have taken over the AP since 2004, Bananiot. I just don't understand your irrational thinking, that's all.!

[Bananiot]

Kikapu, I actually wrote that in 2004, after the referendum and if you hadn't isolated just those two lines you would have clearly seen that the alternative to the Annan Plan (as I said in my article which a I was asked to writwe by a university student who did research for his masters degree at the time) would be partition and disaster for Cyprus. I talked about options many times and I still instist that there are no solutions but options.

Immediately after the referendum I also pinpointed the changes we would go for, not many and not substantive so that both sides could agree to. Basically, they are the same changes Christofias asked for in order to "cement the yes vote".

Kikapu, you do not live in Cyprus and one can excuse your idea that only politically ignorent GC's voted for the plan. The fact of the matter is that the plan was accepted by the most politically pragmatic sections of our society from all aspects of the political spectrum. Here are some names: Vasiliou, Papapetrou, Anastasiades, Klerides, Markides, Hadjidemetriou, Dinglis, Stylianides, Pourgourides, Sofokleous, Hadjigeorgiou and other AKEL high ranking officers such as Kikis Kazamias who resigned from office (Minister) in order to vote "yes". On the other hand, the nationalist part, hand in hand with the remnants of EOKA B', the fascist owners of private TV stations and the most reactionary institution, the church, led the "no vote", with President Papadopoulos, a well known Turk hater and anti communist, who later admitted that plans such as the A Plan never leave the negotiating table.

[Get Real!]

Our only hope is to bring back the Annan Plan, to revive it, and because the other side has already accepted it, it would be very difficult to avoid it.

Who are you? The Annanists? The Annanians? The Bananians?

Without hope = hopeless!

[Kikapu]

Kikapu, I actually wrote that in 2004, after the referendum and if you hadn't isolated just those two lines you would have clearly seen that the alternative to the Annan Plan (as I said in my article which a I was asked to writwe by a university student who did research for his masters degree at the time) would be partition and disaster for Cyprus. I talked about options many times and I still instist that there are no solutions but options.

Immediately after the referendum I also pinpointed the changes we would go for, not many and not substantive so that both sides could agree to. Basically, they are the same changes Christofias asked for in order to "cement the yes vote".

Kikapu, you do not live in Cyprus and one can excuse your idea that only politically ignorent GC's voted for the plan. The fact of the matter is that the plan was accepted by the most politically pragmatic sections of our society from all aspects of the political spectrum. Here are some names: Vasiliou, Papapetrou, Anastasiades, Klerides, Markides, Hadjidemetriou, Dinglis, Stylianides, Pourgourides, Sofokleous, Hadjigeorgiou and other AKEL high ranking officers such as Kikis Kazamias who resigned from office (Minister) in order to vote "yes". On the other hand, the nationalist part, hand in hand with the remnants of EOKA B', the fascist owners of private TV stations and the most reactionary institution, the church, led the "no vote", with President Papadopoulos, a well known Turk hater and anti communist, who later admitted that plans such as the A Plan never leave the negotiating table.

Those two lines says everything needs to be said on what you thought of the AP at the time, Bananiot, which you acknowledge and went and voted for it anyway. If the majority of the GCs had done the same, it would have been too little too late for any alternative AP Plan that you would have like to have seen, which is what you are asking now to make some changes to the old AP to make it into a new AP. But by voting "YES" on the old AP with all it's faults and if the majority of the GCs had done the same, all you would have today would have been nothing but a faulty AP plan and no chance for you to even ask to make any changes to it.

I stand corrected on the date you had written that article, Bananiot. Unfortunately for you, it makes it even worse that you knew changes were required in 2004 and that you did not only realise it 3 years later in 2007, therefore, it really reinforces my view that you were totally irrational in voting for a faulty plan which you deemed to have enough reasons to be turned down in every paragraph and every clause of it. With such a conviction, how could anyone vote for such a plan and not be either politically ignorant or be totally irrational. I did state that I was making a "blanket statement" that most of the 24% had to have been politically ignorant, but you claim that most were politically savvy and were not ignorant and to prove your point, you had named names. I'm sorry my friend, but I don't know which is worse, to be politically ignorant of the AP or to be totally irrational in voting for the AP knowing full well it was not a good plan. One can understand if one votes on a plan that was bad through ignorance, but how does one excuse irrational voter when they knew full well what they were voting for was bad plan for their people and bad plan for their country.

Bananiot, I know you are convinced that for you the AP was not a disguised partition plan but believed that by not voting a "YES" on the AP with all it's faults, Cyprus would be partitioned all the same, but when you knew full well of Denktash's Fascistic policies and ideology of Taksim before the 60's, why would you think the AP was not a disguised partition plan, no matter how much you want to believe the words of a Fascist on how glad he was that the GCs said "OXI" to the AP.?

Can you please tell me how the AP was not going to be a disguised partition plan when this provision was in the AP. What is your understanding of the words referring to "no hierarchy" between the "common state" and the "component states".?? With such a wording, how could anyone prevent permanent partition.?? Surely not by the "common state" or the other "component state".!

"The {common state} and the {component states} shall fully respect and not infringe upon the powers and functions of each other. There shall be no hierarchy between the laws of the {common state} and those of the {component states}."

Not when we had another provision in the AP which said below that made the AP a "Confederation Plan" , not to mention each component state was also the "founding states" of the union, which would have allowed any component state (canton) to leave the union no matter what the "Foundation Agreements" of the AP were to prevent such a move. All that was needed to ignore such "Foundation Agreements" to have a partition from the union was the use of the words that were in the AP which said "There shall be no hierarchy between the laws of the {common state} and those of the {component states}."!

"The status and relationship of the United Cyprus Republic, its federal government, and its constituent states, is modeled on the status and relationship of Switzerland, its federal government, and its cantons."

As to whether I lived in Cyprus during the 2004 AP referendum is neither here or there, Bananiot. I'm just trying to apply common sense as to why anyone would vote for a plan that's was deemed faulty and went ahead and voted anyway, specially by those who are intellectually and politically not ignorant, that's all.

I would still like to hear what changes you would like to have to the old AP to make it a new AP.!

[cymart]

Stella,I cannot believe that someone with such a high level of academic qualifications as yourself could be so ignorant of something that is blatantly obvious to everyone else!Even the chairman of the overseas Cypriots last week said that they had been very disappointed with the way the party leaders here used the conference forum to air their differences,rather than try to present a united strategy to get themselves out of the mess we are in!The sad truth is that after 36 years most countries now believe it is the G.C's who are delaying a solution,rather than Turkey who invaded the island....they haves imply failed to convince anyone that they know what they want or that that have any sense of reality iabout what they can feasibly achieve and much of this is because of lack of unity,lack of vision and an inability to understand how geo-politics work and how to use them to their advantage.Anyone visiting Cyprus for the first time would definitely say that the G.C's have a problem,not from the Turks but from their excessive consumerism,corruption and nepotism,over-eating,bad driving and lack of environmental consciousness etc etc and above all a superiority/inferiority complex that they know everything and are the centre of the universe!Humility is next to holiness...

[Get Real!]

The sad truth is that after 36 years most countries now believe it is the G.C's who are delaying a solution,rather than Turkey who invaded the island....

So why don't you remind them who isn't abiding by international law?

UN RESOLUTION 361 (1974)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

UN RESOLUTION 541 (1983)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr541.htm

UN RESOLUTION 550 (1984)
http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr550.htm

Or maybe you're just too stupid to have ever noticed...

[cymart]

But just clever enough to appreciate that resolutions passed by the U.N. are only implemented when it suits the big powers and this has been proven so many times in history,whether we like it or not!So when you cannot get what you want,you compromise on the basis that half a loaf is betetr than no bread at all,even if you baked the loaf and feel legally entitled to it!

[Get Real!]

But just clever enough to appreciate that resolutions passed by the U.N. are only implemented when it suits the big powers and this has been proven so many times in history,whether we like it or not!

In that case you can fuck off with them and bring back the "eisbraxi" as we say in Cyprus!

So when you cannot get what you want,you compromise on the basis that half a loaf is betetr than no bread at all,even if you baked the loaf and feel legally entitled to it!

Cyprus CANNOT be compromised... your mother's arse maybe, but not Cyprus. Sorry!