Bananiot wrote: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".
Bananiot wrote: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.
Well, I did not use the term "unbalanced" Bananiot, you did. To me, the word "unbalanced" means that one is mentally not all together, which would be far from me to label you as such. You do not come across as someone who is mentally challenged individual. Being an intellectual and politically cultured as you are, but making an irrational voting on the AP is far from being "unbalanced", however difficult it may be for me to understand your actions, despite all your reasons you had pointed out in your above post. Despite your valid concerns on the AP as to why it should be rejected at every paragraph and every clause , you had voted on it in the hopes that some of the things you had wished for would come true, just because it was in the AP as a "Foundation Agreements", but in reality, as I've made the points on my previous post to you as to why the AP was a disguised partition, which you did not respond to by the way, non of the "Foundation Agreements" in the AP was worth anything on the paper it was written on. It's OK to have a little faith that what you hoped for would come true, but what you hoped for was going to be beyond any one's control, other than Turkey's of course, the same country who is now occupying parts of Cyprus.
For me to ponder on the reasons as to why you voted "YES" is a non issue for me, Bananiot, because your irrationality in how you voted outweighed any rationality you may have had within yourself, specially when you only thought you can gain few things from the AP as a positive, despite even those gains not being guaranteed against you making the claim that the AP had plenty of reasons to vote against it at every paragraph and every clause. Clearly, even you saw the negatives in the AP far outweighed any possible positives, even if they were to come true, which was another irrational assumption you were making on your part, considering how the AP was written as I've pointed out on my previous post to you.
You talked about there not being any ideal solutions, but options. No ideal solutions for whom, Bananiot.?? Surely not the north side who said "YES" to the AP. They most definitely saw the AP as an ideal solution for them and more. While you were making statements like "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." our good friend Halil, whom you spend a lot of time together made this statement.
halil wrote:"Annan plan was giving all of it for us . We were going to be our own EFENDİ."
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=140
The option you chose to make was to vote for a bad plan that you already knew it was a bad plan. Your other option was to vote "OXI" and wait for a plan that was going to be Fair & Just for most Cypriots and not just for Halil and friends. When was the last time Halil said that the AP was not a good plan.?? Why do you think all the NeoPartitonists in the north are so upset that the AP did not go through and still today, they dream of it. Is it because they would have gotten everything they wanted from an ideal solution and that you only gotten an option to say just "NO" or a "YES" to such a plan. You and Halil could not have come from such different views on the AP, and yet you had both voted "YES" on it. The only difference between the two of you was, that while he was voting on an "ideal solution" for himself, you were voting on an "option" only.
As for you making this statement, "Simitis, the Prime Minister of Greece for more than ten years, urged us to vote for the plan, along with other politicians in Greece.", what did you expect them to say when they were helping to "arm twist" the EU to get the RoC into the EU. Using Greece as an example is a very poor one I'm afraid. They wanted the RoC in the EU club, so they said anything to please the listeners. I don't see them or anyone else supporting the AP of 2004 today, other than the north and Turkey.
Once again, Bananiot, I'm not being critical of you or your decision to vote "YES" on the AP. That was your democratic right. I just don't understand you voting "YES" on the AP, that's all.!
