Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

After 1967, Makarios was of the view that enosis was not going to be realised and he put all his eneries in defending Cyprus as an independent state.

The actions of 1974 also proved that the interests of Turkey were partition. However, the 1st operation of the Turks found sympathy in the west. The 2nd operation that created partition was received with hostility particularly after the attrocities that were committed came out. The aim of intervention was to reinstate constitutional order. Turkey did not do that. It pursued the aim of partition with vigour.

Insan is correct that most issues regarding our problem were being negotiated and solutions were actually found. The only outstanding issue was the municipalities issue. We were CLOSE to a solution unitil the idiots that supported enosis, the junta and EOKA who were vastly in the minority, decided to overthrow the legitimate government and gave Turkey her excuse to invade.

It is also correct that after 1967, intercommunal violence was virtually nil. However, what is also not told is that TC areas were no go areas for GC's and vice versa. For example, GC's going backwards and forwards on the Kerynia highway had to be escorted by UN convoys.

My point is that as Cypriots we were close to solving OUR problem. Then the outside interests took over and ever since then our future has been out of our hands. The only way for that to happen again is for the TC's to come back to the RoC, to regain their rights, to negotiate on the same playing field, to negotiate with OUR interests in mind, to solve the problem ourselves.

Now, if people think this is a pipe dream, then I am afraid that the A plan is also a pipe dream as well. It was NOT the path for Utopia in Cyprus. Far from it.

I am still yet to be convinced by the YES proponents of this plan. Please give me a convincing argument to say that it was a good plan.

[Bananiot]

Have you any details of Makarios's visit to Ankatra to meet Inonu, Insan? That was a very interesting period and addresses, I beleive, Piratis's point of Turks being willing to think the proposals over.

I would like to point out that Makarios was the one that stood between a solution and a stalemate in 1971. He rejected the proposals reached by the negotiators which were very fair and would have solved the issue fair and square. The reason, I believe, is enosis, which was always at the back of his mind.

Asking the TC,s to come back to the RoC is without practical value. This could never happen and since it takes 2 to tango, we need an alternative, which we signed twice! Will we go back on our word and signature? God help us if we did.

[insan]

The actions of 1974 also proved that the interests of Turkey were partition. However, the 1st operation of the Turks found sympathy in the west. The 2nd operation that created partition was received with hostility particularly after the attrocities that were committed came out. The aim of intervention was to reinstate constitutional order. Turkey did not do that. It pursued the aim of partition with vigour.

I don't think that the interests of Turks were partition in 1974 because it was clearly stated in the treaties of 60s that partition was not allowed. In my opinion Turkey's aim was creating a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation which both parties agreed upon between the dates 1975-77. Since than the core of the problem is "political equality" of two communities. Nevertheless an impossible dream of return all refugges and immediate abolition of foreign power's intervention right.


As I said Taksim was impossible as Enosis was but some extreme right wingers made their sneaky plans, tried their chance but failed. The essential of Turkish thesis is based upon "political equality" of two communities, restricted right to buy property and settlement in order to keep the balance of the powers TC's federative zone and protecting TCs at least till the vast majority of two communities has got along fairly good. There have been times that this main policy exploited by many of the Turkish governments and Denktash regime. The settlers issue is one of the main evidences of their exploitations.


What I'm wondering is why didn't GCs react to settlers import earlier. Denktash and all of the GC leaders went to negotiate the Cyprus problem to find out a solution; do you remember when did the settlers issue first appear on the table. I don't know when but I'm sure not before 90s ...


Why? I can't find the answers of some of the questions I ask myself? I sometimes think that the things politicians have been doing regarding the Cyprus problem is all about a dirty game to delude the other side and destroy completely.


Why did Denktash claim %32 of the Cyprus land belongs TCs than agree on %29 including the land of GCs who would live in TC federative zone? This means that the land belongs to TCs aren't more than &20.


Why did Turkey and their extensions in North bring 10.000s of settlers to Cyprus as it was clearly a violation of Geneva convention and wouldn't help the solution of the Cyprus problem. And of coarse the settlers weren't benefit of the TCs.


It is a well known fact that no power on earth can make TCs to submit domination of GCs, so why did GC leadership still insist on not accepting the "political equality" of TC community?


It is a well known fact that due to past experiences and being numericaly less than GC community makes majority of TCs to fear about their future in Cyprus. Why did GC leadership still insist on abolition of foreign powers intervention right and removal of all foreign forces?

In my opinion, first of all GC community which is numericaly bigger community should prove that honestly and genuinely wishes to share the responsibilities and benefits of fedral state by all means; with TCs. As long as they don't prove it and give TCs trustful feelings; none of them will support the abolishment of foreign powers intervention right and withdrawal of foreign forces. It is as clear as the waters of the blue oceans...

[-mikkie2-]

Bananiot,

You still do not give me a convincing argument. Please give me a convincing argument, other than the doom and gloom scenario, in order to say yes to this plan.

The central government in the A plan will NOT work. It will result in two autonomous regions, that control themselves with an impotent central government that will lead to partition anyway.

I would rather accept obvious partition rather that the disguised partition we would end up with.

[Bananiot]

We have spent endless time discussing the A plan in this forum. But, why do you complain about me? You have just made a statement which is not substantiated by fact. You claim that the central government will not work and it will lead to partition, just the same. Where did you get this? Its a wild statement. The plan is a masterpiece, regarding this issue. It even looks for turgo-greek alliances to be formed within the central government based not on a racist division but on group interests etc. This is exactly what is needed for long lasting peace and eventual "merging" of interests that will take us out of the spiral.

[insan]

The central government in the A plan will NOT work. It will result in two autonomous regions, that control themselves with an impotent central government that will lead to partition anyway.

The authorities, rights and responsibilities of two autonomous administrations and central government will be defined in Cyprus constitution. Can any of the parties act against it? NO! Let's say any of them acted against the Cyprus constitution, there will be a supreme court to bring a lawasuit about it.

In my opinion the unfairness of A Plan arises of its provisions concerning the properties, settlers and political rights of GCs who would return and live in TC administered zone.

[brother]

i think that was the main concern the return of properties, settlers and the turkish army, if these were to the gc liking i believe the plan would have been approved.

[MicAtCyp]

We agree here. It would get more than 50% perhaps a marginal win. In my opinion we need a plan in which both communities can vote yes by about 65-70%. In this voting the settlers must not be allowed to vote except those who will be allowed to stay according to the provisions of the agreement.

[brother]

that is not unreasonable now go see if you can get it to happen.

[-mikkie2-]

MicAtCyp writes:

In this voting the settlers must not be allowed to vote except those who will be allowed to stay according to the provisions of the agreement.

Brother responds

that is not unreasonable now go see if you can get it to happen.

Surely that is down to you the TC's to sort out!