by Bananiot » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:51 am
Here are your answers, bulio:
The position of the GC's after 1974 was one that generated great sympathy worldwide. After all, Turkey invaded in order to restore constitutional order and not to permanently station her troops in Cyprus. Confronted with this, Turkey says that of course the troops will be withdrawn, as soon as a solution is found. For years we appeared as the side hard done by a neighbour bully, who avoided the issue of solution. We were quite good at persuading the world that Turkey was the intransigent part and quite rightly too. The EU made a giant stride in accepting us with the problem remaining unsolved. That was a huge favour done to the RoC. The TC's felt excluded from this process and did the unthinkable. They rose against their ethnarch (Denktash) but our side (Papadopoulos and AKEL and DIKO and others) told us that things are not as they seem but the TC's are merele playing the communication game of Turkey. To cut a long story short, the EU, the UN and all International Institutions, now have doubts, to say the least, that our side is the one that wants solution. Of course, when they say solution they do not mean the solution Piratis wants. The parameters of the solution are recorded in details and we all know what they entail. So, I cannot see how the positions of the RoC are supported and cemented in the EU nad the UN. That is your own conclusion which does not reflect reality.
Security Counsil resolutions that overturn republics are hard to find. I do not know from where you got this notion. What the UN mandate is, and we all support this, is for the two sides to arrive at an understanding through negotiations, that is the role of this Institution, to tread the middle ground, in conflicts such as this one.
Kossovo is an example we should avoid using unless we want to draw important lessons. Sudan also, can you not see the reasons?