Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

Cymart,

After today's warning from the US, Turkey seems to have lost a lot of kudos. However this is not going to improve things for us. Our problem is mostlly a PR and communications problem- we have failed to coin our demands in short sound bites that can be oft repeated on CNN and can therefore be easily understood by Anglo politicians.

Anglo is defined as any politician in the west who likes to present or receive issues in sports language.

Forget the dialectic, concentrate on sense shoud be the motto.

[zan]

They are not concessions Nikitas but REQUIREMENTS for a two state system. Reject those and you reject the two state system.

[Nikitas]

I thought we were talking ONE state federation. Just last week Mrs Clinton reiterated that the USA backs the UN proposal for REUNIFICATION as ONE state.

But I, the cynic, always believed that this BBF thing was partition with a pretty face, and as long as it has some eements of fairness and reasonable prevention measure against events like 1963 and 1974 reoccurring I was OK with it. Which is why I was set against the Annan trap.

[zan]

Inmy experience, it doesn't matter what you call it (as noone seems to be able to pin it down) it is still two states of equal status.

[Nikitas]

Two states means that every other state would be sending two ambassadors to Cyprus. Which is not how most world class politicians and diplomats see it.

[Bananiot]

Rotating presidency and 50 000 settlers remaining in Cyprus is no big deal. We all know that a number of settlers will stay in the event of solution and we will all be very happy if only 50 000 stay. In the eyes of the international community, Turkey made the biggest concessions in 2004, when they accepted the UN plan.

[Oracle]

How can any invader, without claim or stake in another country, be thought to make "concessions" when they walk away with gains upon that territory and have their crime internationally endorsed and legalised?

[zan]

How can any invader, without claim or stake in another country, be thought to make "concessions" when they walk away with gains upon that territory and have their crime internationally endorsed and legalised?

Just like that

[Nikitas]

Bananiot said:

"In the eyes of the international community, Turkey made the biggest concessions in 2004, when they accepted the UN plan."

You are presenting the international community as a bunch of illiterate idiots who could not read the clause that the plan was to be subject to twin referenda and if one side rejected it was to be regarded as null and void at its inception.

Secondly, how exactly is the acceptance of a plan by one side a concession?

And thirdly, accepting any number of settlers is a MAJOR concession, since it legalises an international crime, and accepts a permanent demographic change.

So Bananiot PLEASE TELL US WHAT YOU WOULD REGARD AS "REASONABLE" CONCESSIONS TO END THE DEADLOCK.

I am shouting because you often bring up concessions but never give an example of one.

[DT.]

Rotating presidency and 50 000 settlers remaining in Cyprus is no big deal. We all know that a number of settlers will stay in the event of solution and we will all be very happy if only 50 000 stay. In the eyes of the international community, Turkey made the biggest concessions in 2004, when they accepted the UN plan.

And why skip over the rotating presidency Bananiot? How does that freebie by your President figure in your mind? Fair?