Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Polis Poliviou has written his fourth book in a year titled "Το Κυπριακό πρόβλημα: Παραλογισμοί και προβληματισμοί". I think GR and all cloud climbers should buy it and read it, unless they want to remain blind for the rest of their days.

Poliviou writes about misconceptions and points to the misconception from which many GC's suffer, that is, they think that we are 100% justified and have all rights on our side. However, their irrational logic tells them that we suffer because the powers conspire against us. These people, Poliviou says, believe in the illusion that we can totally reverse the current de facto situation but they also they have a static conception of Turkey and the foreign policy of this country. They also suffer from the misconception that we can force a solution on Turkey and lastly, the misconception that the legal path can provide a solution to a political problem.

Poliviou, as though talking to GR, writes that many have the illusion that it is possible to solve the Cyprus issue on the basis of "justice and international law". This kind of thinking is totally wrong, Poliviou points out, because:

a. As history and international diplomacy teach us, disputes ans crisises between countries and nations are always tackled and fixed on the basis of strategic interests and the balance of power and never on the basis of the principles of justice.

b. The principles of justice are never static, constant or absolute. On the contrary, they are subject to interpretations which are constantly changing too, according to the strategic and political facts that exist at the time the effort is made for solving the problem.

[MrH]

cymart wrote:
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!

Quote:
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!

Get Real, exactly whose "Cyprus" are you referring to - the old one that the GCs stole and made it their own, the one before that (1960-1963) that the GCs were preparing to steal, or the new one of Northern Cyprus (TC)and Cyprus (GC). You need to be clear my good man. There's more of a chance of the Palestinian and Israeli issue being resolved than the Cyprus problem as how you want it to be!!!

Northern Cyprus? or Cyprus? There are two "sides", two "Republics", two "States"......call them what you will, but remember that the UN currently now refer to them as "Two Sides" and not "Two Communities".......the rest will follow. Also, the Bad language on your behalf my good "Cyprus" friend gives me the impression that the Island of Cyprus issue is clearly going over your head...........

[Get Real!]

Thank God for the National Guard is all I say…

[Get Real!]

Get Real, exactly whose "Cyprus" are you referring to

The one I inherited from my 10,000 year old Choirokitian ancestors… it’s YOUR “relation” to Cyprus I cannot see!

[Bananiot]

Kikapu, I am forced to give again what I said in 2004, because you have tried to make me appear unbalanced, in a way, because I voted for a plan that I disagreed with. Somehow, you have never pondered on the reasons I gave for voting for the plan and which of course explain precisely what I did back then.

The year 2004 was immensely significant for Cyprus. It was the first time in more than 30 years that a comprehensive plan was offered to the two communities of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks, for a solution to a problem that has lasted for a very long time. The Turkish Cypriots voted in significant numbers for the proposed solution while the Greek Cypriots heeded the advice of their President and gave a resounding “NO” to the Secretary General of the UN that prepared the plan. April 2004 was the month when the people of Cyprus were called upon to decide for the future of their island.

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. As someone said, even the proposed new flag of the unified island looked really bad. However, one needed to decide on more complex issues and really it was not about saying a simple “YES” or a simple “NO”. The most important question we had to answer was: Could we hope for something better in the future and thus dismiss the proposed plan of the UN Secretary General or go for it, because the alternative would be partition and eventual accession of the occupied part of Cyprus by Turkey. President Papadopoulos had an ace under his sleeve. He called upon the Greek Cypriots to give a loud “NO” because we were only a week away from becoming a full member of the European Union. “Why rush and vote “YES” when we can wait for another week and then ask for a better, European solution” he told the people.

The Annan Plan was a plan that was supported by the international community (UN and EU). There were many things in it that could have been better. Papadopoulos did not negotiate it with a view of making it better for the Greek Cypriots. He in fact made it worse (Annan 3 was much better than the final plan) so that he could justify the loud "NO" he was asking. I suppose he sincerely believed that the EU would step in with a better plan after we joined this exclusive club. Some think that he had never the stomach for a Bizonal, Bicommunal Federation and he used the EU hand to trick the people into rejecting the plan.

Of course, in the world we live, there are no ideal solutions but options (according to the great author Stanislav Lem) especially for a tiny weenie country such as Cyprus. We have been offered some better options in the past but declined to take them, making sure that the Turks received the blame for the stalemate. This worked quite well while Denktash ruled supreme in the north. Basically, we kept the flame going for a different kind of solution that would see Cyprus becoming a unitary state once again with the majority running the country and the minority enjoying all legitimate rights. Of course we were thinking wishfully, as always, but when things did change in the north, our shortcomings were quickly exposed. The whole world now thinks that we are the community to blame and that the Turkish Cypriot community is to be rewarded for maintaining a positive and helpful stance. The victims became the guilty party and Turkey got a resolution at the UN asking her to continue her good efforts for a solution. The amazing thing is that Papadopoulos put his signature on the print.

Some questions need to be asked at this late hour, when partition of Cyprus is quite ominous: Can we climb down from the clouds and face realities? Realities that were formulated not only by Turkey but mainly because of our own incredible lust to turn the island into a part of Greece (Makarios's speeches in Panayia and elsewhere in the early 60's pay testament to the fact). Papadopoulos and his government have been in charge for almost four years. Doesn't it strike as odd that he has not made a single proposition as to how we can go about solving our problem? Does Papadopoulos give the impression that he wants a quick solution? Does anyone understand what he actually wants? Why do people not trust him? Has the whole world teamed up to conspire against us? Is it okay for us to shout "thieves" at the Anglo-Americans in such an undiplomatically resentful way? Are we offering the best service to our country by distancing ourselves from the most influential countries that control this part of the world? Is this a patriotic thing to do?

I supported the Annan Plan and voted, among others, for the Turkish army to leave Cyprus and the number of settlers to be restricted to a few thousands. I voted for the Plan because I knew full well that it was an option that we could not afford not to take. Simitis, the Prime Minister of Greece for more than ten years, urged us to vote for the plan, along with other politicians in Greece. He knew only too well that it was the best we could do, under the circumstances.

Furthermore, even with the benefit of hindsight, if I had to choose, I would probably still choose the Annan Plan, even compared to a plan that offered a unified Cyprus, because with our mentality it is probably better if the two communities are separated, for the immediate future, into their respective geographical regions that are mutually decided. From this point of view the Plan was a masterpiece and took well into account, both our recent history and the mentality of a people with zero political culture.

Yet, what weighed even more heavily in my mind prior to the referenda was that I knew all too well that Papadopoulos will never be able to manage the "NO" of the Greek Cypriot community. Klerides and Vassiliou would have done it in an elegant and a diplomatically acceptable manner. They could have easily shown the world that the Greek Cypriot community did not reject a solution but a specific plan. Papadopoulos will never be able to do this.

Remember how he cried on TV when he asked the Greek Cypriots to give a loud "no"? A politically cultured man would have cried if he had asked his people to vote "yes".

[Get Real!]

Kikapu, I am forced to give again what I said in 2004, because you have tried to make me appear unbalanced, in a way, because I voted for a plan that I disagreed with.

God forbid!

[Bananiot]

Get a mouth wash GR!

[-mikkie2-]

In hindsight, i believe that the Annan plan would have had some pluses, even though on the whole it was a botched plan. The main positive is that many of its provisions would have been challenged in EU courts in both governance and property. Its main negative is that many of its provisions would have been challenged in EU courts. basically, we would be in an even bigger mess than what we are now. the key to the no was to push to make it a yes by our side as well. unfortunately, cyprus is gifted by donkeys that masquerade as politicians and as such were found wanting. papadopulos wasted four years pissing in the EU wind. then comrade chris comes along and wastes another two years trying to avoid asphyxiation by time, by which time talat went to grass and eroglu appeared from his retirement hole to represent the settlers and turkey! what another fine mess we got ourselves into! ive gone past caring. unfortunately, we probably deserve what is coming to us.

[Bananiot]

Mikkie, a large number of our politicians are quite contented by the status remaining as it is. They support themselves, their families and their loyal supporters off the back of the Cyprus issue. If it is ever solved, they will be looking for a job which they will not find because no man in his right senses will employ incompetent nobodies. What if in the meantime Cyprus is lost? You see, every person has a selling price. Cypriots are very cheap and the more patriotic they sound the cheaper they are.

[Get Real!]

You see, every person has a selling price. Cypriots are very cheap and the more patriotic they sound the cheaper they are.

What was YOUR price Bananiot I wonder... for spending at least the last 5-6 years on forums defaming every successive government and/or representative of the RoC while holding a government job?

Surely it must’ve been a lot more lucrative than what you stood to lose during this period but then again you’ve already informed us that “Cypriots are very cheap” so how cheap are you?