Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Nikitas, surely you have heard that we are looking for a settlement that involves a single state, with common citizenship for all Cypriots. This is not a loose confederation between two states and this was agreed by Christofias and Talat and as far as I know it still forms the basis of the negotiations. BBF is not partition and I find it difficult to understand your argument. Furthermore, it is our only hope for solution and you should stop daemonising it unless you can suggest another feasible alternative.

[Nikitas]

I am not demonising it, just calling for what it will be in practice. It is better to know ahead of the settlement that the rights of settlement, property, establishment will be judged by ethnicity and that there will be glaring injustices.

A for instance, any EU citizen who is neither GC or TC will have the right to set up residence anywhere in Cyprus, but not GCs or TCs. These "safeguards" were in the Annan plan and no doubt will be repeated, at the insistence of the Bizonalists this time round too. So we will have one nationality and one sovereignty in theory but limited in practice.

I have no problem with that. It is the pretence that it will be as in every other federation in the world that bugs me. It won't and let us say so now, not in the days just before a referendum.

And because I have no problem with the Bizonalist interpretation I keep insisting that territory is vital now, and will be more vital in the future when some Bizonalists will be calling for secession of the north due to very easily foreseeable reasons. And also insist that the Dhekelia base must be dealt with now, not left to cause problems in the future. I am very worried about the ability of the British to throw a spanner in the works via the "equitable sharing of the base land" etc. How much does it cost to incorporate a clause setting down clearly that the bases burden the GC consituent state? Why is it imprudent to clear that issue now, before it becomes a fighting cause?

[vaughanwilliams]

I am not demonising it, just calling for what it will be in practice. It is better to know ahead of the settlement that the rights of settlement, property, establishment will be judged by ethnicity and that there will be glaring injustices.

A for instance, any EU citizen who is neither GC or TC will have the right to set up residence anywhere in Cyprus, but not GCs or TCs. These "safeguards" were in the Annan plan and no doubt will be repeated, at the insistence of the Bizonalists this time round too. So we will have one nationality and one sovereignty in theory but limited in practice.

I have no problem with that. It is the pretence that it will be as in every other federation in the world that bugs me. It won't and let us say so now, not in the days just before a referendum.

And because I have no problem with the Bizonalist interpretation I keep insisting that territory is vital now, and will be more vital in the future when some Bizonalists will be calling for secession of the north due to very easily foreseeable reasons. And also insist that the Dhekelia base must be dealt with now, not left to cause problems in the future. I am very worried about the ability of the British to throw a spanner in the works via the "equitable sharing of the base land" etc. How much does it cost to incorporate a clause setting down clearly that the bases burden the GC consituent state? Why is it imprudent to clear that issue now, before it becomes a fighting cause?

Why is that a problem? If the final part of Cy that becomes the TC state amounts to, say, 20% why shouldn't Dhekelia be divided up similarly?

[Nikitas]

"You are ignoring the given situation and that people might work towards FULL unity if the honeymoon works out.......Stop taking things out of context!!!"

Thirtysix years after the Turkish military victory, the achieved total security of the TC community, we get a dude like Eroglu obviously advancing partitionist interpreations of Federation. So some people figure that this approach will not abate in the future, that it might in fact gain strength and we want to cover all bases and our asses.

The rule of military conflicts is that each successive one is more destructive than the previous one, so the idea is to prevent one in the future, because if it happens it will make 1974 look like a picnic. Calling things by their names, avoiding self delusions, being brutally honest with the public is the way to prepare.

If things turn out to favor an impetus for a closer union, that is fine. But it is not a wise thing to build on at the start, especially when three successive TC leaders stress Bizonality and Bicommunality and Turkey talks of two separate people etc.

[Tony-4497]

Bananiot

With such bash patriots around it is a wonder that Turkey still exists. They write these anonymous nonsense and think that they are engaging a struggle against Turkey, albeit from the comfort of their sofas....Now, tell us where Cyprus needs to look to find a "protector". If we are looking for a symbiotic relationship, what will we give in return to the "protector"?

You are completely missing/ avoiding the substance of what I said. I never supported starting a war on Turkey. I believe that if you are small and you have a big bully threatening you, you have only 2 options: Either bend over and try to enjoy it (aka "think of England", aka the "Annan position" as first demonstrated in the 2004 edition of the Kama Sutra), Or you align your interests with someone as big or bigger than the bully and then negotiate on equal footing and on the basis of principles.

We have already achieved the latter to a certain extent, through our EU accession. It is inconceivable under current circumstances and it will be at least difficult under any future circumstances for Turkey to invade EU ground. However, we need to strengthen our position further by building alliances and shared interests and, yes, ideally through giving military bases to the EU army (in due course) and, failing this, credible countries (if we manage to convince them) e.g. France and Russia. None of these will go to war with Turkey for us - however, every little helps in building an overall environment that will deter Turkey from starting a war against us.

It is my belief that Turkey will eventually become a full member of the EU. This will not make the negotiation for a fair solution any easier as Tony thinks. Do not forget that the AP drafted by the UN was endorsed by the EU. At best, we will get a slightly better version

.

Your above comment is a contradiction in itself. Turkey will simply never enter the EU unless a solution which is very, very different to the AP is put forward. The UN and EU will support ANY solution that is agreed between the parties. If our incapable leaders continue to tell the world, WITHOUT the GC people's authorisation, that we are ready to accept a solution like the AP, then that is what the UN and EU will continue to propose to us.

Continuing the above strategy leads straight to disaster or "suicide" as Anastasiades called it - in other words, the agreement of an Annan-type plan by Christofias and subsequent rejection by GCs at referendum. The man is suffering under the illusion that he will tell GCs to vote for such a plan and they will just obey the great leader. He is spitting on the face of the 76% of GCs who rejected this - instead of FIRST establishing what is the minimum acceptable to GCs and THEN negotiating to achieve this. And Cyprus will pay the price of this incompetence.

Your second scenario Tony, which B25 marked down as excellent, is hilarious to say the least. You seriously reckon that the West (why the inverted commas?) will encourage Turkey to turn the screw on the RoC. But the West, since it favours Turkey, as your little mind tells you, can please Turkey twice over by accepting Turkey into the exclusive club of EU. Do you mean that the West will on purpose deny Turkey's accession and give her Cyprus as a sweetener? This is just as absurd as the thought that the accession of Turkey will eventually be decided with the Cyprus issue in mind.

By "West" I obviously meant the US and UK, who are not the main decision makers on Turkey's EU process (France and Germany are), but could easily allow (not encourage) Turkey to get certain compensating benefits in Cyprus. Also, as explained before, my "little mind" tells me that a solution in Cyprus is not the criterion for Turkey's entry - it is however a necessary but not sufficient condition. It is also the ONLY reason for which Turkey SINCE our EU entry has accepted the existence of the Cyprus problem (for 30 years before then it had stated otherwise). This ONLY reason still exists today.

Obviously, you do not care if the current situation continues for ever, as long as the Turkish army does not move over Limassol and Paphos way.

I own a lot of property in the occupied areas which I want back. Trust me, the minute a solution is put forward that guarantees my family's long-term survival and way of life AND the return of my property (or even equivalent property somewhere else), I will be supporting it all-out.

[Get Real!]

BBF is not partition

Maybe you should reflect on what the abbreviation stands for...

B = Bizonal = two separate sections!

B = Bicommunal = two races!

F = Federation = the useless race takes advantage of the prosperous one to survive!

Not only is this partition, but it’s the worse kind as the useless Muslim community become official blood suckers off the prosperous one!


No sale....

[EPSILON]

BBF is not partition

Maybe you should reflect on what the abbreviation stands for...

B = Bizonal = two separate sections!

B = Bicommunal = two races!

F = Federation = the useless race takes advantage of the prosperous one to survive!

Not only is this partition, but it’s the worse kind as the useless Muslim community become official blood suckers off the prosperous one!


No sale....

And if you add guarantees provisions, is not even a partition but just a facking hole for one community to jump in.

[Nikitas]

Tony said:

"He is spitting on the face of the 76% of GCs who rejected this - instead of FIRST establishing what is the minimum acceptable to GCs and THEN negotiating to achieve this. And Cyprus will pay the price of this incompetence. "

Well said. In addition to secret diplomacy, a curse we have suffered since 1955, if not earlier, now we have secret opinion polls too, as if it were hard to determine what the citizens of each side really want and will accept in a referendum. It is arrogant for anyone, let alone a political leader, to assume that he knows best.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu, let me spell it out. The ideal solution for me would be a unitary state of Cyprus but as you know we need to be pragmatic and accept that this sadly will not happen. I am sure you understand well the reasons for this. In the GC community, many of the supporters of this utopian position, are directly responsible for the current situation, but this is another story and you might not be interested in it.

Bananiot, even I know that a unitary state at this juncture is not feasible between the sides, therefore it's not even worth talking about it. But supporting a plan in what the AP was, was in fact supporting partitioning the island formally to have a "Turkish" owned state in the north and a "Greek" owned state in the south. That's what the "founding states" or "virgin birth" concepts were all about. If you can't accept these concepts as being a formal partitioning of the island regardless of what the "foundation agreements" were in the AP, I would then need to interject irrational naivety into your understanding of the AP, along with your irrational voting. I'm sorry Bananiot, but I don't know how else to describe your irrationality when it comes to the AP.

After years of stalemate, the UN came up with a comprehensive plan to solve the Cyprus issue in 2003. I remind you that it was the RoC government that asked the UN to hurry up and draw up the plan because we thought at the time that if May 2004 came and we had not solved the problem, we would be faced with europartition (see letter sent to K.A. by Papadopoulos in December 2003).

You put too much trust into believing the AP was a UN/EU plan to solve the Cyprus problem rather than questioning the motives behind some individuals who were morally corrupted such as Blair, Bush, Annan and others. If the AP was a Fair and Just plan supported by the UN/EU, then why would they make it such a lob sided plan that would favour one side over the other, which would create many reasons for one side to say "NO" to the AP, where even you found it objectionable, unless it was a deliberate attempt by those involved to do away with the RoC altogether. Further more, if the AP was so great, why isn't it demanded by the UN/EU as being the only plan to vote on again, but instead any new plan needs to incorporate EU principles as well, which were not there in the AP, which the north and Turkey are dead against, if we are to believe the news reports.

The RoC , just like Greece, had to go along with the make believe disguise that they supported the AP. How else could they get the pressure off them if they did not.? In all honesty, I question the naivety off all those who thought that the GCs in fact would say "YES" to such a plan. The biggest suckers of them all were the TCs and Turkey. They actually believed that the RoC would gift half the island to the "Turks" and still have the whole island to be under the guarantorship of Turkey, while the north "Turkish" state would be in the EU with a loose Confederation under BBF, where a simple majority referendum in the north would be enough to secede from the Union to become a independent north EU state under the control of Turkey. Just by you saying you do not think the AP was a disguised partition plan, only demonstrate that you actually put too much trust into all the morally corrupted individuals I have mentioned above as well as too much trust into Denktash's fascistic ideology that after the AP's "YES" vote by all Cypriots, that his Taksim dreams were over, as well as Turkey's desires to once again have full control of the island by populating the island with Turkish nationals as EU citizens, given to them by the new "Turkish" independent EU state in the north. You may take the AP at face value and believe in what the AP's "foundation agreements" said, but the majority of the GCs did not, and in my view, they were correct, no matter what may happen to the island in the future as far as partition goes.

If partition in the future should happen, as you fear would happen, just because the AP was turned down, it would only mean Cyprus losing part of it's territory and as regrettable as that may be, with the AP passing, Cyprus would have bleed to death slowly, starting from day one of AP's passing. Not only this would have been detrimental to all the GCs, but also the TCs also. The only winners would have been Turkey which both the TCs and the GCs would have jointly invited Turkey with their signature to allow Turkey to rule the island from then on. It seems like the Cypriots would not have learned anything with the faulty plan of 1959 Zurich agreements. Fortunately, most Cypriots had learned their mistakes from the past and had voted "OXI" on the AP. If nothing else, they have bought time and become an EU member state that has given the island much needed political power, how ever slight it may be within the EU, but a major one against Turkey's desires to become an EU member and a counter political force of Turkey's EU dreams. This major advantage Cyprus holds over Turkey cannot be ignore, Bananiot.

The plan that was proposed had many elements of previous efforts made at solving the issue by the UN. Now, you write about the "irrational manner" in which you think I voted. I put it to you that if there is irrationality to be found is with those who urged the ordinary folk to give a resounding "no" vote, when only a few months before, they were shedding tears and begging the SG to save Cyprus from partition.

Once again you are buying into the disguised support for the AP by the RoC. It was a "con job" to keep everyone happy in believing that the GCs would say "YES" to it, no mater how unfair it was, even by your own admission. The EU membership was the main aim for the RoC, and not the faulty AP. I can only say, that Tassos Papadopoulos had in fact outfoxed everyone, including the mighty Turkey. He really did pull a rabbit out of the hat with such a con game that everyone bought into it. No wonder all the Fascists and NeoPartitionist hate Papadopoulos even after his death. Not because he was a "Turk Hater", but in fact standing in the way of officially losing half the island to the "Turks" as well as losing the RoC and as well as leaving Turkey as the guarantor for the entire island for them to do as they wished.

I talked about the possibility of partition many times, well before the AP was proposed, as a real threat that Cyprus faces that grows constantly more serious as time goes by. It is a fact that time eventually produces new facts on the ground and this has been highlighted only recently with the ECHR decision on the Dimopoulos case. Thus, in 2003, with the TC community in turmoil and the environment in Turkey favourable for the first time since 1974 for solution, we needed to take a serious shot at solution which would put a brake on the path to partition. The AP was not a partition plan, despite its shortcomings. It provided for a federal country, made up of two zones and safeguarded the unity of Cyprus with one sovereignty and a single representation in all international bodies, UN, EU etc. Secession was out rightly forbidden and the international community would not accept such a move by any of the constituent states. Thus, in the event it did happen, the chance for the guilty part for recognition would be zero.

I'm sorry Bananiot, but once again your interpretation of the AP dot not fit with reality. The AP was not going to give Cyprus a "Federal country" but a Confederation, and a very loose one at that. Each constituent state would have been a "sovereign state" separate from the "Federal Common State" which would have had equal power and not more than the constituent states. There would have been NO HIRERARCY between the constituent states and the "Federal Common State".

"There shall be no hierarchy between the laws of the {common state} and those of the {component states}."

In other words, each state could do what ever they wanted no matter what the "Founding Agreements" said in the AP. That was part of the disguised partition attempt to make people believe that the "Foundation Agreements" actually meant something. They did not, just as the provisions in the 1959 Zurich agreements were not adhered to, neither would have been the provisions that were in the AP. If you don't believe me, lets ask if Greece, Turkey, Britain, Makarios and Küçük/Denktash lived by those provisions or not. That was a rhetorical question by the way.!

As things stand now, we have the TC side pushing hard for direct trade and they have every chance to achieve this which will turn the north into another Taiwan. I think also, that the Turkish side will soon start pushing for recognition in the event that the current talks fail and the UN declare the problem unsolvable. Certainly, the 56 islamic states will not find it difficult to make this move, especially now that we have found a new love partner in Israel.

If all of the above were to happen, Bananiot, it would be something that would have happened anyway overnight and much worse along the way, with the AP passing in 2004, so I don't know what is it that you are concerned about if the above were to come true. How can you have concerns for the above coming true and not have concerns for losing Cyprus as we know it with the passing of the AP.??

So you see Kikapu that my fears that a "no" vote will be detrimental to the GC's are beginning to materialise. Perhaps, may be I was right in voting in favour of the AP, despite its shortcomings, for partiton in my view is a million times worse than the AP.

You voting for the AP was not going to save Cyprus from what you think is about to happen. What you think is about to happen has not been yet determined, but had enough voted for the AP back in 2004, what you fear that might happen in the future, would have been part of Cypriot history already.!

I think in my position you would also vote for the dreaded plan but, I find it rather strange that you would bring halil into our debate. Who is halil? Just an ordinary person, just like you and me. Why don't you bring Denktash into the equation and the deep state of Turkey who are far more appropriate in this case than halil?

Had I misread and misunderstood the AP and had trusted Turkey's good intentions and had forgotten about her doings in Cyprus and also trusted Denktash's fascist ideology of not wanting Taksim any longer, I too may have made that irrational "YES" vote for the AP in 2004 if I were a GC. As it happened, I'm not a GC but a TC, and if I were in Cyprus voting, I too may have voted "YES" for the AP, along with Halil. Lets face it, only an idiot would have voted "NO" for the AP in the north, which the 35% did just that. It is true, that you just can't please some people, no matter how much you give them!

The reason why I did not bring Denktash into the conversation, is because he supposedly voted "NO". Had you been Papadopoulos, who also voted "NO" and I was having a conversation with him and not you, an ordinary GC individual, then it would have been appropriate to bring Denktash into the conversation. Halil is someone you know very well who voted "YES" on the AP. Who can blame him, really. Bayram came early for him in 2004. He got everything he wanted in the AP so he voted "YES" while you had reasons to vote "NO" on the AP at every paragraph and every clause of it, and yet you had voted "YES". With all due respect, Bananiot, Halil voted rationally while you voted irrationally. Halil knew exactly what he was gaining from the AP by voting "YES", and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and say you did not know what you were losing with the AP, when you voted "YES" also. It is a mystery to me that I don't think I will ever understand, how an intellectual and politically cultured individual such as yourself voted as you did on the AP, and if that wasn't bad enough, seeing today what the north is asking openly now for a settlement, which is what would have happened anyway had the disguised partition AP passed, that even after 6 years since 2004, that you still defend your "YES" vote being correct.!!

[DT.]

Outstanding post.