humanist wrote:NikitasOne more time I ask:
Exactlly how is BBF with or without the Annan plan different from partition?
It is obvious since 1977 when we officially accepted the principle of BBF that we accept partition. Bizonality equals partition. Bicommunality equals apartheid, Federation equals partnership of the north in the south, but the guarantees part stops the reverse from applying.
So why the lament by Charalambous and others like him?
So partition it has been since 1974 and partition it will be from now on, where is the alternative? Anyone ever suggested it and I missed it?
Am with you on this one. All points put forth above are partition, apartheid and discrimination. Positive discrimination will lead to further problems down the track.
Chrostofias needs to leave the TC's behind and out of the negotiations and should concentrate instead on the UN and its failure to apply its own resolutions to the problem. The Cyprus problem can half be solved if the UN put pressure on Turkey to accept and adhere to all resolutions in relation to the Cyprus problem. We need a different tact. That will avoid issues such as backward proposals put forth by the TC leadership which I may ad is doing the right thing by the TC's he wants to achieve maximum for his community and you can't blame him for that. However, if the long term affects are better for the TC community that is up to them to make that decision or they could direct their leadership to a meaningful compromise and accepting some of the offers put forth by Christofias. The first one being Famagusta.
"Changing tact" as you put it, the GCs have tried everything over the last 36 years even joining the Eu in the hope that they will hand Cyprus to them on a plate, well we all know that didnt work. The UN does not care enough about Cyprus to place sanctions on Turkey that must tell you something, you are not 100% correct so they also side with Turkey and TCs which you can cclcearly see by their inaction.