Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Erol what we agreed is well known and everybody can refer to our previous discussions to read it. And I am very happy after so much time spent, we agreed on at least one point.

What I meant is what we agreed has nothing to do with the terminology used to address the RoC. I am not going to answer your comments as I am perfectly sure you understood what I meant. They are 2 different issues.

Now I have a question for everybody.Are you willing to discuss towards agreeing on some points or are we going to continue finding excuses to disagree on everything?

I think the only way possible to proceed in this direction is to agree on the principle that the rights and interests of the GCs or TCs cannot be hurmed by any law or action (after a solution) and that the framework of a solution cannot benefit anyone on the expense of the other.

Is this agreeable yes or no? Do you want a change in the wording, if yes tell us what change you want. If everyone of the 4 active debators in here agrees then we can start multiple threads on each one of the issues that constitute the Cyprus problem. If not then I think we are just wasting our time scaring and disapointing each other.

[erolz]

Now I have a question for everybody.Are you willing to discuss towards agreeing on some points or are we going to continue finding excuses to disagree on everything?

To be honest I am not here to agree anything per se. I am here in an attempt to understand the postion of (some) GC and why they hold these positions and to try and achieve the reverse in return (help GC understand my (personal) position and why I hold it. I am happy to 'agree' things as part of this process of increasing mutal understanding (and hopefuly respect as well)

I think the only way possible to proceed in this direction is to agree on the principle that the rights and interests of the GCs or TCs cannot be hurmed by any law or action (after a solution) and that the framework of a solution cannot benefit anyone on the expense of the other.

I agree with (what I understand) of this principal but do not see how it can work in some circumstance or how 'agreeing this principal' actualy helps move things forward?

For me the core issue remains what the repsective accepted status of the two communites is to be and their relationship to a 'unifed' Cypriot state. I have concerns about any agreement on this that is 'outside' current international definitions because any such agreement based on such could easily be 'attacked' afterthe fact because it is 'atypical' and 'outside current interntaional definintions and norms'. Thus we have need to agree that either both commuites are a minority within a unifed Cypriot state (which means that in issues realting to the will of a unifed Cypriot people a simple majority of all Cypriots does not equal the will of the Unifed Cypriot state but that a majority of both the GC component part and the TC component part are required before there is a majority that reflects the will of the unfied Cypriot people - ie a democratic principal of one community one vote within the unifed state). Or we can agree that both communites represent a 'people' within Cyprus but that these rights can not be absoloute in a unifed Cyprus and that both communites will only have compromised and limited rights as a people (equally). Solutions based on the commuintes being 'minorites' but the unifed Cypriot state will is determined by a simple one cypriot one vote concept (and not a one community one vote) with some 'special' 'legal' protections for the numericaly smaller community (TC) that go beyond its rights as a minority are not to me acceptable or likely to be stable over any period of time?

Is this agreeable yes or no? Do you want a change in the wording, if yes tell us what change you want. If everyone of the 4 active debators in here agrees then we can start multiple threads on each one of the issues that constitute the Cyprus problem. If not then I think we are just wasting our time scaring and disapointing each other.

I would like think that we could 'agree' something that is acceptable to all here (which first requires understanding of our repsective positions as I see it). I am not looking to diasagree simply for the sake of it. However it does seem to me presently that before we can do anything in detail (re land, residency, settlement etc etc) we have to have agreed what the basis of the realtionship and status of the two communites is toeach other and to the unifed state. Does this make sense?

[Piratis]

I am not looking to diasagree simply for the sake of it. However it does seem to me presently that before we can do anything in detail (re land, residency, settlement etc etc) we have to have agreed what the basis of the realtionship and status of the two communites is toeach other and to the unifed state. Does this make sense?

Yes, it does make sense and I agree.

Therefore the conclusion is that there is no reason to go into details because we disagree on on the fundamentals. This is the reason I am not answering on your previous post, and not because I want to avoid the answers. If we could agree on the fundamentals, then I would gladly answer, but for the time being it seems like a waste of time.

The fundamental disagreement is that for you the two communities should be equal (1 community -1 vote). For me they can not, because I can not accept to live in a country were less than 1 out of 10 people (50%+1 of TCs) will be able to block the decisions of my country.

You already said that the status of minority + legal protections (which include the modification of the constitution) are not enough for you.

I believe that your aim to understand the position of some GCs is achieved. We also understood yours, but we do not agree with your fundamental position because I believe is neither just, nor democratic, and it can not be justified by any kind of human rights or international laws. You believe the opposite, and it is your right. No need to start arguing about the same thing again.

I will once more say that we are ready for compromises, such as accepting a solution based on federation, but there are some main principles from which no compromises are possible.

Here are my positions, which are not extreme, and do whats possible to give us much to TCs as possible without hurting much the basic human rights and democracy:
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus211.html

Sorry if on some occasions I sounded extreme, and emotive. The truth is though, that I am not here to play the nice guy to gain sympathy.
I say what I believe, and it is indeed my opinion that an enemy, as long as he acts in a hostile way (and what can be more hostile than the occupation of our country?) should be treated as such. (this doesn't go personally for you, but for your side as a whole).

[erolz]

The fundamental disagreement is that for you the two communities should be equal (1 community -1 vote). For me they can not, because I can not accept to live in a country were less than 1 out of 10 people (50%+1 of TCs) will be able to block the decisions of my country.

I understand this but for me it is hard to accpet living in a country where one group within the country can determine vital and crucial question that can affect the other group in ways the other group does not wish. Its a difficult question. In such a deadlock it is hard to know what could be done other than accpetable (agreed and negotiaited) separation, which is not I would want for Cyprus.

You already said that the status of minority + legal protections (which include the modification of the constitution) are not enough for you.

I have said this but would just like to re iterate why they are not enough for me. They are not enough for me because I fear the extra legal rights are not 'protectable' or 'unalterable' in the future. I fear this because they would clash with the rights of Cypriots to self determination (if those rights are deemed to apply in a one person one vote manner - which means effective a right for GC to determine what is the will of all Cypriots) and thus could be taken away as well as given, should attitudes change. I fear the 'protectability' of these 'unalterable' 'extra rights' given that 'unalterable' rights given in the 60 constituion some 'special unalterable' rights were granted to TC community, yet within three years there was an attempt to alter these rights anyway (and to my mind in a totaly fundamnetal way).

I will once more say that we are ready for compromises, such as accepting a solution based on federation, but there are some main principles from which no compromises are possible.

I too am ready for compromise but I have to believe that any 'protections' granted to stop TC being totaly at the 'whim and will' of a GC numerical majority are 'protectable' and 'sustainable' into the future. If I believed that all this required was for them to be written into an agreed consitituion then I could happily get down to agreeing what these should be. Unfortuantely for me it is not sufficent protection for these things to just be written into a consitituion. Consistituions can change and to state that they cannnot is contrary to a fundamental human right of self determination and therefore any clause could be challenged on such a basis.

[Bananiot]

"Is there not something of a resemblance to the situation of Cuban exiles in Miami many of whom dream of a miracle by which everything that has happened in Cuba since the advent of Castro will be set aside and the status quo ante restored. It simply isn't going to happen.

Neither can there be a simple restoration of the status quo ante in Cyprus. Was it not Alexander the Great who said that one can never immerse one's hand twice in the same stream?"

Wise words if I might say so, with a slight historical mistake. Of course, it was Heracletos (born 540 BC in Ephesos, Asia Minor) who said that one cannot swim in the same river twice. Perhaps, though, this does not quite fit the axample given. If I understood well, europhile (as opposed to eurosceptic, not europhobe or are they the same?) is claiming that the solution of the Cyprob needs to take into account the realities that have been formed since the problem began in the early 50's. In other words its a fallacy to be looking for a united Cyprus as the eventual solution pretending nothing has happened since then. That is the main reason I supported the A plan as a reasonable and balanced plan for the solution of this long standing problem. I believe there can be no other solution; what comes after the latest failed UN effort is partition.

I must say that partition is knocking on our door and I am not optimistic it can be avoided. Papadopoulos knows this, he is not stupid, but he prefers partition than a solution based on a bizonal, bicommunal federation. He wrote countless articles on this matter before he became president and now, if one reads between the lines of what he says, one can only reach the same conclusion. He said in his infamous address to the GC community prior to the referendum "I am not willing to deliver a community when I received a state". Any solution based even on the best model of federation will have exactly the same effect for the President of the RoC. He is admitting thus that he does not care for a bizonal, bicommunal federation. He promised a european solution instead but nobody has told us what this solution entails and furthermore how we will go about to achieve it.

Of course I am not the only one who is seriously worried by the antiques of our President that lead us to disaster, because the worst solution is partition. He met George Papandreou the other day and they had a long chat. Speaking to reporters, and when asked, in the presents of Papadopoulos, Papandreou said " President Papadopoulos reckons that there must be changes to the A plan. What these changes are, when they will take place, whether they will ever take place, is another question". Our President is clueless and I am scared, albeit a scared traitor even if some reckon that everything I say is "in line with the propaganda of the foreigners against everything that has to do with a Greek aspect".

I would also like to point out a bit of news that was not reported in most GC newspapers (I think it was reported in just one). As you know, Russian president Putin is going to Ankara next month. The Russian Ambassador to Turkey gave an interview to a turkish newspaper and in this interview he reveals that Nicosia asked from Russia to excercise the power of veto at the Security Council when we were all unxiously awaiting for UN to guarantee the implementation of the A plan as AKEL asked in order to call its supporters to vote "yes". Quite interestingly, the same request was directed to Russia by Turkey! I reckon that Turkey foresaw our "no" and coupled with the TC "yes" was hoping for a big present from Papadopoulos. On 24 April Talat and Tagip unwrapt the present ..

[Piratis]

Bananiot, one question for you:

Why everybody was so eager to "solve" the Cyprus problem before 1st of May?

[Bananiot]

You are asking the wrong person. Please direct this question to Papadopoulos. He sent an urgent mesage to Annan in late December 2003 asking him to convene talks in order to solve the issue before May 1 baseed on the A plan. He obviously thought that if the problem was not solved by then we were heading for europartition.

[Piratis]

The right answer is that Turkey wanted to partition the island officially and legally so that they will not have to worry about the Republic of Cyprus causing them problems in their EU accesion process.

[MicAtCyp]

Frankly speaking I am extremely tired hearing the same arguments over and over again.Each thread ends up to 10-20 pages (80-160 A4 size printapble pages!!!!!!) and mainly constists of various versions of exactly the same arguments.

For Erol the reason he participates is

I am here in an attempt to understand the postion of (some) GC and why they hold these positions and to try and achieve the reverse in return (help GC understand my (personal) position and why I hold it.

For Piratis we cannot move forward because

there is no reason to go into details because we disagree on the fundamentals.

A friendly advice to Erol is that he should have already understood.
A friendly advice to Piratis is that he should have already put a fullstop.

[Piratis]

A friendly advice to Piratis is that he should have already put a fullstop.

I know, sometimes I just can't stop myself from replying though

Before I believed that it was possible to come to an agreement with TCs. It seemed to me that our compromisses should be more than sattisfing for them, but it seems that they are right when they say "appetite comes by eating".

It is apparent do me now that with the current balance of power an agreed solution is not possible.

So whats next for us? Should we switch to greek language discussions and see whats the best way for our side to act now?
There are many things coming up that will need careful and wise policies, with the most important one the accession date for Turkey in December.
Or we should just stop discussing anything at all related to the Cyprus problem and leave everything to those that "know better"?

P.S did you actually try to print these posts? Thats a lot of paper!!