by Nikitas » Mon Jul 20, 2015 7:05 pm
Maximus put bluntly what I epxressed more delicately.
Kikapu, splitting the GC state into two was part of the Annan plan and the main reason I went against it.
The Annan plan, and the games the British play with Turkey over the SBAs are a geopolitical expression of the Cyprus problem, neithr Greece nor the RoC seem concerned about geopolitics, their big focual point is governance. This is not the first instance when the Greek side has shown total disregard for the strategic aspects of the problem. The Annan plan annexes regarding interim forces in Cyprus provided for crushing firepower advantages for the Turkish armed forces, with no protest at all from the Greek side.
The obvious question is why not? The Greek General staff go to the same NATO colleges and training seminars as their Turkish counterparts, they obviously knew the reasons for these provisions yet they said nothing publicly.
Personally I fear that if a settlement is left with a whole bunch of potential "unfinished businesses" there are groups on both sides that will use those issues to created problems just like in 1963 and in 1974. Failing to foresee and plan ahead is bad statesmanship, in my opinion.
Lordo sees the problem of a court case arising from, for example, a water line going from TC land over GC land to TC land, as miniscule. In which courts would the compulsory purchase order be resisted? Where would an appeal be heard? And what popular feelings would it fuel? Just think of the headline "poor GC farmer evicted over Turkish water pipe" and you get the pitcure. These are the questions that must be answered even over "miniscule" problems.