Bananiot has a steady and unwavering approach to the Cyprus issue: Turkey's intransigence is a foregone conclusion to which all others must adapt.
Now, what do we have, let us see: Intervention by Turkey in 1974 that no international body considers to be an invasion since Turkey, along with Greece and Britain, were granted this right in order to restore the London - Zurich agreements, which we signed while proclaiming "nenikikamen" - "we have won". Turkey comes in, occupies one third of the island, seeks and gets relocation of people, thousands become refugees and to add insult to injury, encourages thousands of Anatolian settlers to move to the island and practically change its demographic character. The worse, once order is restored, the Turkish army remains and effectively controls the north.
One would think that this is a clear case of human rights seriously violated by a bully of a country. Yet, all the international institutions, the UN, the EU and all the not so important ones, are calling the two sides, since day one, to engage in talks, in order to find a solution. Isn't our case a clear cut one, a case of intervention and occupation? Why do they ask us to seek a compromise solution through talks? Have the international institutions that are here to uphold law and order, completely lost the plot here? Are they not equating the victim with the aggressor, in our case?
Could it be that they know something we do not know, or something our apprentice politicians hide from us? Do we shoulder part of the blame for our predicament? Can somebody speak to us frankly about what we got ourselves into? Do we need anyone to tell us the obvious? Things can never become as they were before June 20 1974, let alone become better (unitary state, one man - one vote) unless of course we can militarily defeat Turkey in which case, what is there, one might ask, to stop us from realising our national aspirations?
A sane person can easily appreciate these dilemmas which have been forced onto our backs by our "patriots" and their dubious agendas. Nikitas, who is a Greek Cypriot writes about Turkey's intransigence and he is not the only one. Just about everybody in our community talk constantly about the Turkish intransigence as the main culprit for the stalemate. Fine, we have identified the culprit, where does this take us? Have we managed to convince those that can help us that our woes are a direct result of the Turkish intransigence, and if not, why not? Just consider this: Even during the Presidency of Papadopoulos, the Security Council of the UN called upon Turkey "to continue supporting the peace efforts" of the two communities. Papadopoulos not only did not complain but endorsed the document with his signature! This shows the extend of our problem which in a nutshell means that the international institutions believe that we shoulder at least part of the blame for the current situation. Hence they call for talks to find a solution, an agreed solution which of course must be a compromise solution, if it is to be agreed by both sides. If not, nobody will blame Turkey and of the next step will be some type of recognition for the pseudostate which will then lose its pseudo prefix and will leave us with nothing.
These are the thoughts that bother me and when I ask "what is the alternative?" and all I get is "nothing" I become more convince that Nikitas, B25, Aikmeh and a few others we all can identify, are not really interested in the good of this place.