Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

upon who the pressure is going to fall, is matter of personal prediction.

That is PRECISELY why we must NOW tell Turkey, the EU and the UN that we will only discuss plans that have 80% under GC rule AND that we will block Turkey's accession unless she agrees to a fair solution within a reasonable time frame.

Turkey's accession should never be allowed to reach the very final approval stage without a solution. The acceptance of such a solution needs to be gradually effected during, and tied to, Turkey's accession process.

This will be the strategy of The 80% Party!

Tony! There are people way more clever and knowledgeable than you, dealing with the Cyprus problem, and such an approach has never been considered! Your way of thinking is very simplistic! Cyprus has already entered the EU as a whole and as one entity, at least on paper! To this end, the only logical and real option we have is to unite on the ground as well under some political agreement with the TCs, so that Turkey will have no choice other than to pack and go from here, and never step foot here again, once and for ever! If we did not propose something like this from 1974 until perhaps 1980, where 200,000 people were living in tents, why should we propose it now?

I know the reason you are proposing it is perhaps because you like easy, clean, neat and straight foreword solutions and not complicated power sharing ones! Well, easy solutions do not exist, although it would have been the ideal! If this was the case, the EU itself would have never been materialized ...and that is a complicated system!

[cypezokyli]

finally!!!

[bg_turk]

Let us not joke with ourselves, Turkey cannot become a member of the EU even with maximal concessions on Cyprus. Should Turkey make any political concessions over a lost cause?

Go tell this to Erdogan to enlighten him. You really think he doesn't know? Turkey asks for lots (full accession) so in the end they will manage to get as many as they can (e.g. some sort of association that Germany proposed).

Just the accession process is a huge deal for Turkey. If tomorrow this process stops then the Turkish economy will go downhill, foreign investments will be halved and Turkey could be pushed into instability.

Turkey is a torn country with no identity. Her future is very uncertain and the shift in the balance of power I am talking about is something very possible.

The accession process has been derailed many times in the past but it has never been abandoned, because it is not in the political and economic interests of all major European countries to abandon their strategic partnership with Turkey.

Every country follows its interests and has a responsibility to ensure the well being of their own citizens only. Out of solidarity with their fellow half-state of the EU family, EU states may harden their stance on Turkey and cause some bilateral damage, but this clearly will be against their own interests. But there is a limit to how far they would go in the case of a half-country which is clearly exploiting the solidarity of EU members to further its own narrowminded political objectives of a unitary state.

You are trying to make it appear as if the accession process is critical for Turkey. It is not that critical. Turkey expereinced many economic crisis before, which although lead to significant hardship for the turkish nation, never endangered its territorial integrity. Turkey has the biggest army in NATO and is capable of defending itself adequately against any internal or external attack. As for Turkey being without identiy, the Turkish identity is stronger today than it has ever been before.

On the other hand if the accession process is critical for Cyprus, because it is the only instrument, the only card that it has in order to impose political demands. The very existence of a Cypriot state critically hangs on the balance today.

[cypezokyli]

That system itself will create divide, the BBF is just a form of stealth partition anyway.

unfortunately the majority of gcs party have accepted that ...at least oficially.

besides the SC resolutions all refer to bbf.

All I am demanding is that for negotiations to start, there is one pre-condition -proportionality!

i am not arguing about the fairness of your argument
i am just afraid that you will not find anyone to negotiate with.
if you do, u have my full support.

[bg_turk]

Slaves!? Is that what they teach you in history books?
A slave is someone who does not own himself, and thus cannot own property either. Were you like that?

A slave is one who doesn't have his freedom. This was the case with Greek Cypriots during the Ottomans. If you disagree then I guess you wouldn't have a problem if TCs are treated in the same way that GCs were treated during the Ottomans?

How can a serous person ask such a stupid question? Clearly you can return to the medieval times if you wish to.

I have just corrected your overexaggeration of sayin ottoman rule was a time of slavery for Greek Cypriots. During the ottoman times in Cyprus the feudal system was abolished, and the freed serfs were enabled to acquire land and work their own farms. Although the small landholdings of the peasants were heavily taxed, the ending of serfdom changed the lives of the island's ordinary people.
In fact pople in cyprus were slaves before the ottomans came under the feudal system.

[Simon]

Cyprus has already entered the EU as a whole and as one entity, at least on paper! To this end, the only logical and real option we have is to unite on the ground as well under some political agreement with the TCs, so that Turkey will have no choice other than to pack and go from here, and never step foot here again, once and for ever! If we did not propose something like this from 1974 until perhaps 1980, where 200,000 people were living in tents, why should we propose it now?

Kifeas, this is a very simplistic way of thinking. We didn't propose it back then, because OBVIOUSLY we had hopes of getting it all back. However, as each year goes on, this is becoming more and more unlikely. The North is already slowly becoming recognised. For example, they can now give remedies to GCs in their own courts, if it wasn't for the South, the EU would also probably be trading with the North now aswell, Jack Straw is meeting Talat in his presedential office (which isn't supposed to exist) etc. You need to remember, the island is already partitioned, I am merely saying that if this is the way it is going to stay, we must have our proportional part. I have said before, if we can agree a BBF (which I don't think we can, 30 years of talks have proved this) I will support it if it is fair. However, TCs want too much, simple as that. It seems more of them will accept fairness if the island is divided, so this is why I suggested it.

So what it has entered the EU as one entity, that entity can remain, THE SOUTH, the north can then start its own accession process. Under the proposal on this thread, Turkey can go from here and never return aswell. I believe if worked on, this solution can work.

[Kifeas]

So what it has entered the EU as one entity, that entity can remain, THE SOUTH, the north can then start its own accession process. Under the proposal on this thread, Turkey can go from here and never return aswell. I believe if worked on, this solution can work.

What you are saying here is not possible! The EU will never accept such a scenario, namely to negotiate a new accession with an additional entity from Cyprus, and they made this pretty much clear, already. Furthermore, how under the proposal in this thread, Turkey will pack and go as well. If an entity becomes recognized as a legal and a sovereign one, it has the right to invite the army of any other country to stay on its soil, without anyone having the right to ask for the reasons.

[Tony-4497]

Kifeas

Tony! There are people way more clever and knowledgeable than you, dealing with the Cyprus problem, and such an approach has never been considered! Your way of thinking is very simplistic! Cyprus has already entered the EU as a whole and as one entity, at least on paper! To this end, the only logical and real option we have is to unite on the ground as well under some political agreement with the TCs, so that Turkey will have no choice other than to pack and go from here, and never step foot here again, once and for ever! If we did not propose something like this from 1974 until perhaps 1980, where 200,000 people were living in tents, why should we propose it now?

First, let's not forget that the huge achievement of the RoC joining the EU was effectively a result of the fact that Greece stated very clearly that it would VETO any expansion without Cyprus i.e. enforcement and not cleverness of our wise leaders in Cyprus.

Their cleverness and ability will be judged on the basis of results achieved. For 30 years they have failed to produce a solution.

At the beginning they envisaged an 1960 type solution with some regional autonomy/self-governance for TCs, as they had illusions about actually controlling the entire island (that is the BBF Makarios and Kiprianou signed up to). In such a solution, land % was not that important, as the central government effectively controlled the whole country. Turkey, however, would not and will not accept this as she wants a SOVEREIGN part of Cyprus, which she can control to eternity (also see Ozkok's statements last week).

As a result of the above failed policy, subsequent leaders (Vasiliou & Clerides) started bending over more and more and negotiating solutions totally unacceptable to the GC population, secretly and without authorisation from the very people they were supposed to represent (through lying about the nature of the plans they were negotiating). Hence the shock of GCs last year upon finding out what those leaders had accepted, and the shock of the rest of world upon realising what the true views of the GCs are. So let's not hide behind our finger - any more!

The referendum was the single most fundamental and direct expression of GC's views on a BBF-type solution involving political equality, as the UN understands it (i.e. 2 equal, sovereign states losely connected at the top). It is clear that such a solution is unacceptable to GCs, at least on a 70:30 land sharing. Following this, the Government has an obligation to be pro-active and undertake a strategy that leads to a solution that can be accepted by both GCs and TCs/ Turkey. The only such solution is the one proposed in this thread and supported by The 80% Party.

[Simon]

The EU will never accept such a scenario, namely to negotiate a new accession with an additional entity from Cyprus, and they made this pretty much clear, already

Where have they made this clear? Can you give me proof of this please, because I don't think I have seen that anywhere.

Furthermore, how under the proposal in this thread, Turkey will pack and go as well. If an entity becomes recognized as a legal and a sovereign one, it has the right to invite the army of any other country to stay on its soil, without anyone having the right to ask for the reasons.

Because there will be no more reason for the Turkish troops to stay. For what reason would they be invited in the north? The North would be an independent state, so troops would not need to be there. Further, they would no longer be occupying GC land. Furthermore, even if they wanted to invite the Turkish army (which they would have no reason to) it would have nothing to do with us anymore.

[Kifeas]

First, let's not forget that the huge achievement of the RoC joining the EU was effectively a result of the fact that Greece stated very clearly that it would VETO any expansion without Cyprus i.e. enforcement and not cleverness of our wise leaders in Cyprus.

Not only! The fact that we managed to present a robust economy and a political and social environment that adheres to European values and principles are also factors that contributed to our accession, and this reflects the political leadership of all parties, not just the government; besides the flexibility and industriousness of the private sector and the people in general. Do not forget that we finished the accession process toping up the list of the 10 new members and even had better results than some already existing members.

Their cleverness and ability will be judged on the basis of results achieved. For 30 years they have failed to produce a solution.

We would have achieved one easily, should we have yielded to the unreasonable demands of the other side. Unfortunately we are dealing with the country that has the secret (and not only) backing of the superpower, mainly due to its military size and its assigned role in the region by the Americans, and it is not easy to match up such a political advantage. What is needed is patience! We have survived many such difficulties in our history. Do not forget the 300 years of the ottomans and all those before them and even after them, and we did not get destroyed nor surrendered. Thirty years is nothing in front of what our ancestors have endured! This country, the whole of it, has been our homeland for 3500 years. Who are you to sign off any part of it now, just because a stronger country invaded and forced you out of it temporarily?

Turkey, however, would not and will not accept this as she wants a SOVEREIGN part of Cyprus, which she can control to eternity (also see Ozkok's statements last week).

And? I also want to become the president of the US, in order to rule the whole world! Since when, just because any Ozkok says he wants something, this is what he will get! Ozkok will rather make a better service to his country should he concentrates his attention to what happens inside his country, and more importantly what might happen to it should it loses its EU accession hopes, since the Kurds, the islamists and all the others have placed all their hopes in this basket, and live his illusions of grandeur aside.

As a result of the above failed policy, subsequent leaders (Vasiliou & Clerides) started bending over more and more and negotiating solutions totally unacceptable to the GC population, secretly and without authorisation from the very people they were supposed to represent (through lying about the nature of the plans they were negotiating). Hence the shock of GCs last year upon finding out what those leaders had accepted, and the shock of the rest of world upon realising what the true views of the GCs are. So let's not hide behind our finger - any more!

I do not think this is the case as you describe it! Perhaps they have unintentionally given the wrong impression that our side might accept just about any solution plan that will be presented in front of us by the UN, wrongfully assuming that the UN SG would have stayed within the parameters of the UN SC resolutions and the international law and human rights court decisions in general. Unfortunately and as it was proved in the end, they backed down and made substantial discounts on those issues, acting under US and British political and other pressures which wanted to favor Turkey. Mind you that on the political aspect, Annan plans 1,2,3 could have been acceptable to us, should certain marked improvements on the property aspect and also on the security (guarantees, troops, etc) and timetable aspects would have been made. Instead, not only they were not made in the final version, but in fact they became worst, as well as they other political (governance) aspects, which we could have accepted before.

The referendum was the single most fundamental and direct expression of GC's views on a BBF-type solution involving political equality, as the UN understands it (i.e. 2 equal, sovereign states losely connected at the top). It is clear that such a solution is unacceptable to GCs, at least on a 70:30 land sharing. Following this, the Government has an obligation to be pro-active and undertake a strategy that leads to a solution that can be accepted by both GCs and TCs/ Turkey.

You are making a deliberate misrepresentation! You are deliberately capitalizing on the outcome of the referendum in order to draw all the wrong conclusions, and those which help your thesis at the same time. The people and the parties that did not accept the final version of the plan did not show that they do not favor any agreement that will be based on a BBF concept. There are many federation forms and formats that can accept the title of a BBF, and not just the one presented by Annan in the last version of his plan. Annan plans 1, 2, and 3 were also based on this concept, but they were different than 5. Who says to you that what Annan presented in his plan as a BBF, is what the UN understands to be a BBF? Is it written in some UN document hat I am not aware of? Let me say something here. What Annan presented, has nothing to do with what he himself believes in. I said before why he presented it at the end, in the way he presented it. Should he have tried to put his after the referendum conclusions report in the Security Council, something which would immediately have given the opportunity and the right to our side to contest both his report and his plan in front of it the council, not only his report would have failed to be adopted by the council, but he would have receive very severe criticism from most of its members, simply because his plan departed in one way or another from all the previous resolutions of the SC itself, set aside its departure away from basic international human rights guidelines and norms. The basic reason why, up to this date, he did not do it, despite pressure by Turkey, speaks by itself. Nevertheless, Annan is out of office in just 8 months from now, and we will deal with a new SG, one that will hopefully has the chance to approach the problem with a cleaner head, since he/she will not carry the emotional baggage that Annan carries due to his previous failure.

The only such solution is the one proposed in this thread and supported by The 80% Party.

Which party is constituted by two people, you and your self!