Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

Well we are constantly told on this forum that turkey pulls the strings and recent newspaper allegations state that tassos will next year ask turkey to directly negotiate the peace plan with him so its not in the tc hands.

[-mikkie2-]

Well its true isn't it?

Do you think that Talat or anyone else does things on their own initiative?

[brother]

Well if you insist then let it be known like that, but maybe you should go on some turkish forums and air your opinions and see what response you get.

that would be very interesting and if you do that please let me know how it goes.

[Bananiot]

I think the discussion on this matter has reached an interesting point. Also the Cyprus issue is heading for a climax in mid December when important decisions need to be taken. Greece and Cyprus formulated a policy dating back to 1999 whereby the Cyprob would be solved and a united Cyprus be accessed to the EU. Turkey would get her date.

Many people and institutions got involved in that process. No need for me to list them. Bargains were made on a give and take basis. Cyprus would never have got the EU ticket without agreeing to solve the problem and things looked all over until Papadopoulos was voted President of the RoC. He was voted in on the ticket of solution too. He claimed that in the bargains to follow he would get a better deal than Klerides.

All the actions of Papadopoulos and his close circle, showed that he had no interest in the proposed solution. This was obvious from the daily announcements of his close allies but also from his impromptu speeches where always he let go of his inner thought, only for Christofias to play the role of a fireman and come to his rescue with an excuse of the type "the phrase has trespassed into the speech". The writing was on the wall. Papadopoulos had already started methodically to prepare the people to vote no for a solution of the kind of a bizonal, bicommunal federation.

However, he did not want to jeopardise Cyprus's application for accession to the EU and he continued to play the game, even sending an urgent message to Annan in December 2003 to reconvene the talks in order to find a solution prior to Cyprus's acceptance. He kept assuring everybody that the RoC would not be the one to turn down a solution.

When the accession of Cyprus was almost over and the process became irreversible, Papadopoulos started showing his real intentions. He even revealed his thoughts to the TC side during secret talks with S. Denktash. Turkey knew now that Papadopoulos and Cyprus would reject the plan. In the meantime, Papadopoulos virtually refused to negotiate the plan because his sole interest was to bring back the worst possible plan so that the no vote could easily and readily be sold to the unsuspecting.

The rest is history. The international community asked for Turkey to cooperate with Annan to find a solution. In doing so, she would get her date and the Cyprob would be solved. Turkey can now say, and of course the point is pressed home constantly, that I have kept my side of the bargain. This will inevitable give Turkey the desired date. The dynamic of this argument is reflected by the turgo-greek relations which seem to progress outside now of the Cyprus issue.

I feel that the only losers in this affair are the GC's and the TC's who believed and fought for the solution. Fair enough, Turkey (and Greece) have their own agenda. This shouldn't surprise us. This is how the real world works. The question that Papadopoulos will be asked and he will need to give answers is how he behaved to achieve the maximum possible when the omens for a solution were finally right. Such a chance is unlikely to come along this century again.

Some ultra extremists in our side who heavily supported Papadopoulos are now calling for Cyprus to use veto and block the European policy of Turkey. They are thinking along the lines "at worse we keep this part of Cyprus to ourselves and forget about the north and within the relative security of the EU we make the life of Turkey really miserable in her efforts to get the ticket".

Anyway, these are my thoughts at this moment and the reason I thought of sharing them with you is because mikkie has challenged me several times to say what is good about the A plan. I believe the plan was used as an excuse in the hands of some politicians with an alterior motive. In a nutshell, those politicians that hold back the progressive forces in both communities from reaching a viable and long-lasting solution, are in essence holding Cyprus to ranson, slowly but steadily draining away every drop of blood from our country.

[Bananiot]

THE RECENT outburst of intra Greek Cypriot political banter on financing by UNOPS of initiatives designed to foster support for the Annan plan is, to paraphrase Macbeth, a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

Is it unknown to our President, his followers and fellow travellers that the international community has had for a very long time an interest in promoting a settlement of the Cyprus problem? Is the United Nations not in Cyprus to promote a peaceful settlement to our inter-communal problems? Was Secretary-general Annan interfering in our internal affairs when he addressed the people of Cyprus in support of the plan that bears his name before the referenda last April? By what logic can Mr Papadopoulos argue that the promotion of a peaceful settlement in Cyprus is a matter only for the Cypriots when our problem has been on the agenda of the Security Council for over 40 years on the basis that it represents a threat to international peace and security?

The notion that the international community violated international law by funding projects designed primarily it seems to promote understanding of the Plan in the lead-up to the referenda would be merely amusing were it not another sign of a long standing paranoia prevalent among a large number of Cypriots on both sides of the political spectrum that foreigners, usually the dreaded ‘Anglo-Americans’, are conspiring to impose on us a pro-Turkish settlement.

On that logic people like Enlargement Commissioner Gunter Verheugen and Secretary-general Annan, when they declare support for a settlement on terms not entirely to our liking, are seen either as witting or unwitting tools of the ‘Lords’ as we like to label the perfidious Anglo-American conspirators.

Based on press reports of the actual amount spent by UNOPS to fund any activities that could remotely be seen as pro-Annan plan, I would hazard a guess that it adds up to less than some of the amounts borrowed by certain of our well-heeled politicians to finance their speculations on the Cyprus stock exchange during the bubble of 1999-2000. Not a big deal.

The reality is that by rejecting the Annan plan we have absolved Turkey of the responsibility of the stalemate in Cyprus. Whether we like it or not, the EU will not permit us to hijack its relations with Turkey and the accession negotiations by imposing conditions that would require Turkey to withdraw its forces from Cyprus or abandon the Turkish Cypriots to our tender mercies.

The most we can hope for now is that at some time during the course of the accession negotiations that will be approved in December, circumstances may once again augur well for a new settlement initiative. Once again, we will be faced with the reality that the international community will expect us to behave reasonably and not to reject terms of settlement because they fall short of our maximal demands and expectations.

At some point we have to throw off the mantle of the ‘pure as driven snow’ victim of Turkish militarism and acknowledge that we bear some responsibility for the events leading up to the 1974 invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus by Turkey. As such, we cannot expect the international community to support us as a countervail to Turkish military superiority unless we are prepared to make significant and painful concessions to secure a settlement along the lines set by the Annan plan.

The only realistic alternatives are partition or confederation of two sovereign states on Cyprus.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2004

[Piratis]

Anyway, these are my thoughts at this moment and the reason I thought of sharing them with you is because mikkie has challenged me several times to say what is good about the A plan.

But once again you said nothing about the plan itself.

You just wrote your own distorted version of what happened, spiced with several lies.

He claimed that in the bargains to follow he would get a better deal than Klerides.

Papadopoulos said that Cleredes was ready to accept the plan as it is. Cleredes refused this, but as it was proven later on Cleredes was lying.
The majority of Cypriots rejected the A plan long before Papadopoulos got elected. This is shown by several polls that show that GCs would be willing to accept the Annan plan only if it was improved significantly.

Papadopoulos simply did what the majority of Greek Cypriots wanted him to do. This is why we voted for him, and we are mostly satisfied with his actions so far. If Papadopoulos had accepted (or accepts in the future) a plan without the major improvements we require, this will mean that he would steal our vote. Fortunately, Papadopoulos doesn't steal votes, like Cleredes did. Cleredes was promising things to us to steal our vote, and behind our back was secretly giving promises to foreigners that we would accept something that had nothing to do with the promises he was giving to us.

Is the United Nations not in Cyprus to promote a peaceful settlement to our inter-communal problems?

Then why they supported a partition plan that would legalize the actions of an illegal invasion, a plan that goes against their own resolutions and declarations?
They were supposed to promote a peaceful settlement, but the UN today are simply acting on directions from the US and they serve the American interests.
The American dollars that people like Kaiti Kleredou and the Politis newspaper get to promote the American plans for Cyprus, show even more clearly the treason that has been committed and continues to be committed.

[metecyp]

They were supposed to promote a peaceful settlement, but the UN today are simply acting on directions from the US and they serve the American interests.

So you don't trust the UN? You don't also trust the UK, the US, and even the EU in some cases. So the whole world is your enemy. This mentality is very familiar (hint: his name starts with D!)

[Piratis]

I trust the part of the UN that Americans and the British are not the only ones who take decisions. The security council for example, where China and Russia exist.

The whole world is not against us. Against us are the Turks and their close allies: US/UK (and indirectly Israel). Of course the US is the only superpower and they have the power to press other countries and to force them to do what they want them to do (e.g. to accept Turkey in the EU). This is why it might seem that the whole world is against us, but it is not.

By the way, these enemies are not new. They were the same all along. Lets not forget against whom we were fighting until 1960, and who were behind the coup and the invasion.

[Bananiot]

Its the same mentality, Metecyp, spell it out. Denktash and Papadopoulos are the opposite sides of the same coin. Both want Cyprus to remain chained to the prejudices of the past. They can achieve this by cultivating xenophobia, which is the trade mark of all fascist, chauvinist and racist cretins.

[brother]

NOW I COULD NOT PUT THAT ANY BETTER, BUT WELL DONE BANANIOT SPOT ON ANALYSIS.