Cyprus-Forum.com

[quattro]

Just saw Eroglu's proposals for power sharing. They include spearate sovereignty for each constituent state, the power of each to sign internatioanl agreements, the continued guarantees of BOTH states by Turkey, Greece and UK, and a proviso which really is cute: in the event of one state leaving the union it will not remove the satus of the other state.

I would love to hear Bananiot's interpretation of these proposals. No doubt there will be the usual "each new proposal is worse than the last one, it is our fault for not accepting the last one". To which the counter is that the new proposal shows us what the Eroglus had in mind when we were discussing the last one.

While we talk BBF and such bullshit they are really talking partition. IF partition is on the table then let us call it by its name and stop the crap about unitary states and federal structures. Negotiating partition openly and realistically puts a whole different slant on things and changes the international situation radically. Using the word reunification to disguise it obviously helps the invader.

Who is fooling who in this idiotic game anyway?

These are nothing new, Nikitas. This was all in the Annan Plan, albeit disguised, but were in the AP all the same. The NeoPartitionist know that there is no going back to the AP again, so they figured, why not spell out what the AP was all about, but this time in English. As you have also pointed out, Turkey does not want just any partition. They want a partition which allows them to have control over the whole island as well as have influence in the EU through the secessionist state. It is also possible, that Eroglu and Turkey want out of the talks so not to be nagged all the time by world leaders such as Angela Merkel and the UNSG Ban Ki-moon for a solution they cannot deliver adhering to the EU Principles, so why not go "nuclear" with their proposals just to bring the talks to an end, knowing full well they will be rejected by the GCs. Perhaps they are hoping the GCs will get the blame for walking away from the talks to try and get sympathy support from the likes of Jack Straw to try to get direct trade for the north.

BBF with True Federation along with EU Principles can work if both sided really wanted to unify and not seek disguised partition with the terms which you coined the phrase a while back, that the "TCs want to be masters in the north and partners in the south". You see what happens when you give the NeoPartitionist ideas like that, Nikitas.

Well, at least it confirms one thing, that the Taksim Dreams are still alive and well in the north.! I can't imagine any GC would vote for such a plan. Bananiot voted for the AP, which I told him that it was a very irrational vote on his part, specially when he believed and said that "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", and if he were to vote for what Eroglu is asking for now in plain English, it will no longer be irrational voting on Bananiot's part, but more like the case of, temporary insanity.!

Most nationalist TCs thought exactly the same Kiks. Seems only your nationalists won!!!

wrong here Zan the Gc nationalists lost by 70% in AP voting .

They sure did. If that same 70% had voted yes instead of OXI we might have been on the road AGAIN to total unity!!!!

talking about unity we mean for cyprus and not a handover to Turkey.

[Klik]

-f

[zan]

Just saw Eroglu's proposals for power sharing. They include spearate sovereignty for each constituent state, the power of each to sign internatioanl agreements, the continued guarantees of BOTH states by Turkey, Greece and UK, and a proviso which really is cute: in the event of one state leaving the union it will not remove the satus of the other state.

I would love to hear Bananiot's interpretation of these proposals. No doubt there will be the usual "each new proposal is worse than the last one, it is our fault for not accepting the last one". To which the counter is that the new proposal shows us what the Eroglus had in mind when we were discussing the last one.

While we talk BBF and such bullshit they are really talking partition. IF partition is on the table then let us call it by its name and stop the crap about unitary states and federal structures. Negotiating partition openly and realistically puts a whole different slant on things and changes the international situation radically. Using the word reunification to disguise it obviously helps the invader.

Who is fooling who in this idiotic game anyway?

These are nothing new, Nikitas. This was all in the Annan Plan, albeit disguised, but were in the AP all the same. The NeoPartitionist know that there is no going back to the AP again, so they figured, why not spell out what the AP was all about, but this time in English. As you have also pointed out, Turkey does not want just any partition. They want a partition which allows them to have control over the whole island as well as have influence in the EU through the secessionist state. It is also possible, that Eroglu and Turkey want out of the talks so not to be nagged all the time by world leaders such as Angela Merkel and the UNSG Ban Ki-moon for a solution they cannot deliver adhering to the EU Principles, so why not go "nuclear" with their proposals just to bring the talks to an end, knowing full well they will be rejected by the GCs. Perhaps they are hoping the GCs will get the blame for walking away from the talks to try and get sympathy support from the likes of Jack Straw to try to get direct trade for the north.

BBF with True Federation along with EU Principles can work if both sided really wanted to unify and not seek disguised partition with the terms which you coined the phrase a while back, that the "TCs want to be masters in the north and partners in the south". You see what happens when you give the NeoPartitionist ideas like that, Nikitas.

Well, at least it confirms one thing, that the Taksim Dreams are still alive and well in the north.! I can't imagine any GC would vote for such a plan. Bananiot voted for the AP, which I told him that it was a very irrational vote on his part, specially when he believed and said that "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", and if he were to vote for what Eroglu is asking for now in plain English, it will no longer be irrational voting on Bananiot's part, but more like the case of, temporary insanity.!

Most nationalist TCs thought exactly the same Kiks. Seems only your nationalists won!!!

What does a Tc nationalist consider an objective these days Zan? Recognition or union with Turkey?

Well! All indications are; Willing to accept a fair union of some sort or recognition or union with Turkey................I think its fair to say , In that order!

So the TC nationalists have as a first priority a fair union of the island? Why call them nationalists then?

I didn't, but then i don't know what your definition of a nationalist is? A bit of a grey area so am just assuming that you call anyone who doesn't want to be just a community in a greek Cyprus some sort of name so as good as any?

[Nikitas]

The irony of it! It took only 50 years to realise that the aim of Enosis was a TC ideal after all. See above comments on union with Turkey.

It is twice as funny for me because here in Athens there have been OpEd articles calling on the government to emulate the Cypriot example in economic management and public administration. The people who ridiculed GCs for their funny accent and stolid outlook now want to copy them, but note that they talk about them as a third country, a foreign example to be copied.

If this Cyprus thing has produced anything, then that is a self supporting, self reliant GC community. Everything else is a Greco Turkish foul up, and TCs have been fully caught up in it.

[Nikitas]

Zan said:

"You want to inflict a change that takes away my rights under the original constitution and Zurich agreement. It creates conflict and has come down to negotiation.

You also again contradict yourself. Does Turkey have an aversion to the word PARTITION or not. If they have then your original statement asking for honesty is rubbish!!!"

And you want change that will erase the rights of 200 000 GCs to their property.

As for the partition thing, it is one of those tempting titbits for the naive, but it does entail absolute rights for the other side, and that is the inhibiting thing, Turkey does not want to have independent nations in its periphery. Guys like Davut do not get the most simple principles in international politics, you knoe things like equality and independence, and they talk of spheres of influence and such bullshit. Is is this nonsense policy that has created what is essentially a land frontier, equal in length to the Greek Turkish frontier and a permanent enemy, where none existed before. Such skill in international diplomacy and statesmanship should be taught in universities as a case of "how not to do it".

[supporttheunderdog]

Both Takism and Enosis should have died as ideals in 1960, therfore I think in the context of the 1959 Agreement and the 1960 constitution the term Nationalist applies to anyone who stands for the existance of a single Cyprus as an independant state.

IMHO Takists and the supporters of Enosis are traitors to the Republic.

[Klik]

Signing a piece of paper removes ideals from the mindset?

[Kikapu]

Responding to Chancellor Merkel Erdoghan yesterday said: " Turkey will not return a single gram of Cyprus".

On the same day Eroglu demanded that each constituent state should have the power to sign international agreements.

So what the hell are we negotiating and why are we still insisting on defining the goal as FEDERAL? The other side obviously is hellbent on partition with no return of territory and will agree to a CONFEDERAL solution at best.

Predictably some here, notably Bananiot, Bir, Deniz, will rush to assure me that this is all political grandstanding. How is the clear statement about not returning one gram of Cyprus get reconciled with grandstanding? Where does this statement leave the TCs who supposedly are free to negotiate as "an independent entity"?

To the above add moves to take the Famagusta issue to Turkish courts and have ALL property in the new city of Varosi declared Evkaf land and deny the rights of the city's inhabitants.

We must wake up and realise who and what we are dealing with.

‘Cyprus talks going backwards’

Tuesday, January 18th 2011

TURKISH CYPRIOT leader Dervis Eroglu’s stated goal of replacing the single sovereignty of a reunited Cyprus with two sovereignties means that the talks are taking an “unacceptable step backwards”, said opposition DISY leader Nicos Anastassiades yesterday.

If Eroglu’s reported proposals turn out to be true and he really is aiming for two sovereignties “which in essence means were talking about a confederation, this is certainly a negative and unacceptable step backwards in terms of progress on the Cyprus problem”.

Any objective observer can see who is working for a solution within the agreed parameters and who is not, said government spokesman Stefanos Stefanou yesterday, commenting on Eroglu’s preconditions of two sovereignties and continued guarantees in a reunified Cyprus.

“There is a basis to the negotiations which is mutually agreed and in the UN resolutions, and through the positions both sides put on the negotiating table. It is easy for an objective observer to see who is moving within the framework of UN resolutions based on the agreed basis and who is not,” said Stefanou.

Turkish Cypriot daily Kibris quoted Eroglu on Sunday saying at a public gathering that the existence of “two peoples and two states” and Turkish guarantees in Cyprus were indispensable conditions or “sine qua non” for the Turkish Cypriot community.

Addressing a ceremony marking the 27th anniversary of the death of former Cyprus Vice President and Turkish Cypriot leader Fazil Kucuk, Eroglu reiterated the view that progress could be achieved next week in Geneva if the Greek Cypriot side “has good will and comes closer to an agreement on the basis of the realities”.

Otherwise, he added, the Turkish side expects the UN to “do its duty”.

“There are two peoples, two states, two areas in Cyprus. The active and effective guarantees of motherland Turkey is a sine qua non for us. We have never accepted and we will never accept the bizonality to be watered down and the property issue to be concluded in a manner that will take us to the pre-1974 period and scatter our economy and social life,” said Eroglu.

He highlighted the work done by Kucuk to transform the status of Turkish Cypriots from a minority to a community, adding, “and from there to the point where a people will be partners of a founding state”.

In a separate article in the same publication, Kibris writes that Eroglu’s proposals on governance and power sharing revise the work done by his predecessor Mehmet Ali Talat, moving away from the notion of single sovereignty of a reunited Cyprus and towards the establishment of “two sovereign areas” where the two “founding states will be sovereign”.

Also on Sunday, Eroglu’s top aide, Kudret Ozersay was quoted in an interview with Kathimerini making the same comment, that Turkish guarantees are a “sine qua non” for the Turkish Cypriots.

“The best answer to those policies that don’t serve a solution based on bizonal, bicommunal federation is to remain consistent with the objective of a solution to see who is constructive and who isn’t,” said Stefanou yesterday in response.

In the event that a solution cannot be found, the international community can see who is constructive or not.

“Even if they want to blame our side, they cannot. Our positions are clear and consistent and within the framework of the UN resolutions,” he added.

DIKO spokesman Fotis Fotiou said Ozersay’s “unacceptable” statements did not allow for any optimism regarding progress in the talks.

“These are positions and theories which confirm the consistent goal of the Turkish side for a confederal solution, undermining the basis and procedure of the talks while confirming Turkish intransigence and arrogance,” said Fotiou.

Ruling AKEL leader Andros Kyprianou said he would wait for President Demetris Christofias to brief the parties tomorrow in the National Council, noting however that the president himself had expressed disappointment following the last meeting with Eroglu.

Asked whether Christofias was right to stick to his proposals on governance submitted during Talat’s tenure, Kyprianou lent his support to the president, highlighting that Christofias maintained the right to withdraw them at any point.

Let’s leave the president to decide if and when that time will come, he said.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/cypru ... s/20110118

[quattro]

Both Takism and Enosis should have died as ideals in 1960, therfore I think in the context of the 1959 Agreement and the 1960 constitution the term Nationalist applies to anyone who stands for the existance of a single Cyprus as an independant state.

IMHO Takists and the supporters of Enosis are traitors to the Republic.

i must agree with you
We have the republic of cyprus and we must be supportive and not going backwards .

[Hermes]

My guess is that Turkey's strategy is to collapse the current talks in Geneva then push for an international conference which will lead to a timetable and UN arbitration. A repeat of the process which led to the Annan Plan.

Their plan B is when Christofias refuses they will then blame the G/Cs and push for recognition of the north.

This is why Merkel's visit was important as it undermines the Turkish strategy and makes it clear that Turkey is the responsible party. Regardless of Merkel and Papandreou's warnings, the Turks are committed to this path and won't back down.

The ROC needs to stick to its guns and play the long game.