Issy1956 wrote:Kifeas,
Its obvious that you and I dont read the same newspapers.Show me where and how the GC side are making any efforts to meaningfully negiogate with TC's to come to a solution. I see none. I do however hear lots of threats about vetoing Tukeys EU talks and the "European solution" which is nothing more than an absorption of the TC's into a "Greek State" with priveledged minority rights at best. Damn it Tpap has even recently let slip that he wants a unitary state solution going back on previously agreed parameters although he hasitly withdrew these remarks it does show what he is really about.That is the basis of my assertion.
Actually I did read the Annan plan and whilst it was less than prefect it would have meant a lot of people's homes being restored and a lot of troops going home. No bad thing. OK you didnt like it. You have had 2 years to come up with amendments and changes. Lets hear them.
And ofcourse typically you reject anyone else opinions which disagrees with yours as being Anglo-american and pro turkish. What crap.
Yeah your are probably right there will never be a solution
Issy, it is obvious from the regurgitated clichés and slogans that you spell out in this and some other of your posts, that you do not fully and intensively follow developments relating to Cyprus, but instead you read the shallow reporting and analysis of mainly the Turkish and T/C media. It also seems therefore that you are miles away from knowing and comprehending the real facts in all their multidimensional perspectives and aspects.
The first wrongful assumption that you make, comes out from the second sentence of yours, in which you ask me to show you “where and how the GC side are making any efforts to meaningfully negotiate with T/C's to come to a solution.” First of all, you wrongfully assume and /or believe that the T/Cs alone (their leadership under Talat,) have all the necessary power (from Turkey) to freely negotiate with the G/C side on most of the crucial issues and ingredients of a solution, in a direct and face to face negotiation. No they do not, and this is what every sincere T/C that knows things from the inside will acknowledge.
Second, you ignore that the solution of the Cyprus problem is a problem that has been and will continue to be negotiated under the auspices and the umbrella of the UN, as it is required by the many UN SC resolutions on Cyprus, and therefore this requires the mediating initiative of a UN representative /envoy, which since the pull out of the unsuccessful Mr. Alvaro De Sotto after the failure of his plan, has not been appointed yet by Mr. Kofi Annan. We only recently observe the upgrading of Mr. Muller -the UFICYP representative, to a somewhat mediating role between the 2 or 4 sides, in order to facilitate the commencing of talks on the various technical committees that the two sides have agreed to form.
Third, you ignore the fact that even though the two leaders in Cyprus have not met yet since the referendums, the two sides have had many contacts on immediately lower levels (special bi-party committees both between Akel and CTP, and Disy with CTP and DP,) in which the prospects for a common ground were tested, but without much success. Fourth, you ignore the fact that representatives of the two sides have met several times under the EU Dutch and Luxemburg presidency umbrellas, in order to discuss the two EU aid packages for the T/C community (financial aid and direct trade,) but without much success either. What came out of all these meetings is the inability of the T/C side to negotiate freely and outside the influence and directives of the Turkish government and the deep state, and this is something the EU itself has understood already.
Fifth, you ignore the fact that Papadopoulos has met already with Kofi Annan at least 4-5 times since the referendums (the last one being in Paris about 3 months ago,) in which he re-affirmed his readiness for a new round of talks under the UN auspices, provided that certain conditions were met (careful preparation, not suffocating and artificial timetables, no arbitration, and involvement and informing of all 5 permanent members of the UNSC council about the minutes of any initiative, instead of only the Anglo-American duo which we rightfully cannot trust anymore to be impartial.)
Sixth, you ignore that upon the request of the UN SG Mr. Annan, Papadopoulos one year ago (May 2005) has send special representatives to the UN and conveyed a list of the areas in which the G/C side demands or wants changes to be negotiated in the last version of the Annan plan, and this list of “areas of concern” as it was coded, is already unofficially and informally been published at least in the G/C press, long time ago (for example in “Politis” newspaper on 25/11/2005.) You ignore the fact that based on the above forwarding to the UN of the G/C positions, Mr. Annan has send last June (2005) his then second in command of the UN, Mr. Prendergast in the region, in order to have further consultations with the two sides (G/C and T/C) and Greece and Turkey. Mr. Talat, upon instructions from Ankara has immediately once the positions of the G/C side have been conveyed to them by Prendergast, has rushed to publicly condemn them and declare them a non-starter. Mr. Prendergast has left the region and went to NY in which he prepared and presented his findings report to the UN SC. His findings, as they were reported to the UN, have been published then in the press. The bottom line of these findings is that there is still a big gap between the positions of the two sides, and that unless this gap cannot be bridged, it is not possible or advisable that the UN should start anytime soon a new initiative under its auspices. He also made direct hinds to the positions of the Turkish side, in which he said that Turkey must realize that the Cyprus problem must be solved on the basis of its own merits, and not on the basis of the interests of her (Turkey.)
Seventh, you ignore the fact that since the rejection of the Annan plan by the G/C side, and even though the UN have been requesting from the g/C side to convey to them the changes that it sees necessary for the plan to be afforded by her, the US has been relentlessly propagandizing publicly until recently that they only support the return of the failed Annan plan on the table and its adoption by the G/C side as it is or with some decorative changes, something which profoundly encouraged the Turkish and the T/C side to remain adamant on their positions and do not come up with a more reconciliatory and compromising attitude, while on the other hand it discouraged the G/C side and Papadopoulos to be more active and forthcoming to a direct meeting with Talat and /or eager for a new UN initiative as soon as possible, because we all know the influence that the US has in the global scene on such issues. If there was one single factor outside the Kemalist Turkish deep-state policy formulating circle that has been the most unhelpful, this was the US one, with its relentless encouragement and support of the Turkish positions and its insistence that the Annan plan is the only solution they favor. This alone has helped the Turkish side remain adamant and intransigent ever since.
You said that you “hear lots of threats about vetoing Turkey’s EU talks and the "European solution" which is nothing more than an absorption of the TCs into a "Greek State" with privileged minority rights at best.” This is nothing less than a fallacy which you are right to say it is the only thing you hear, because the only thing you hear and read is the Turkish and the T/C shallow anti-G/C propaganda press. First of all Papadopoulos doesn’t speak about a “European Solution,” (he never uses such a term,) set aside about one aiming to convert and /or absorb the T/Cs into a “Greek State.” These clichés are nothing more than untruthful blackmailing and scaremongering slogans of the Turkish and T/C propaganda, aiming only to defame the G/C side and Papadopoulos in the eyes of the T/C society and the international community, and hide at the same time their own maximal and intransigent positions and demands. All I hear from you is the repetition and reproduction of these very same clichés and slogans in the forum, without any ability on your behalf to substantiate them whatsoever!
Papadopoulos doesn’t speak about a so-called European solution (some circles within the G/C community yes do speak about such an approach, but not Papadopoulos, neither his government nor the parties supporting it in the collision.) Papadopoulos speaks about a solution that will be based on the 1975 /1977 high level agreements which call for a Bi-zonal, Bi-communal Federal solution, as they were also adopted by the UN SC resolutions and at the same time a solution that will be found under the umbrella of the UN, based on its own resolutions, international law and human rights principles, values and court decisions, and also the principles based on which the EU -of whom we are a member (the whole of Cyprus and both communities,) is founded. This is now also precisely the official EU policy on the solution of the Cyprus problem, as it was adopted by the EU and reflected in the EU counter declaration of last September (2005) and Turkey’s EU accession negotiating protocol of October the 3rd 2005. The T/C and the Turkish side refuse to accept to negotiate within the above framework, and they only say that they recognize and accept the Annan plan as the solution basis of the Cyprus problem, even though there were major deviations from all the above guidelines that the EU now also accepts should be the solution framework.
Furthermore, if one reads the list of areas of concern that Papadopoulos conveyed to Kofi Annan last May 2005, and which Talat declared as a non-starter, there is nothing in them to suggest that what Papadopoulos aims is to absorb the T/Cs into a “Greek State,” with a privilege minority status as you suggested. He doesn’t reject BBF, and he also does not also reject political equality of the two Communities and the two States per se! He only has a different interpretation and views as to how the above should be formulated and /or expressed in the solution framework, nevertheless he doesn’t reject them in principle.
Another comment that you made and which shows how poorly informed you are, is your misguided claim that “Tpap has even recently let slip that he wants a unitary state solution going back on previously agreed parameters..” You obviously refer to a recently published article in the French magazine “L’ express,” which makes reference to extracts from an interview that Papadopoulos has given to one of its journalist who quotes him to have said that he “categorically rejects a solution that will be based on two communal structures and two zones.” Well, the entire actual transcript of this Papadopoulos interview has been text-out from its taped version and then released, and if one reads it carefully in its entireness, the journalist clearly missquoted and misinterpreted Papadopoulo's sayings, in his effort to use his own shortened account of what he understood. In fact, Papadopoulos explicitly affirmed in this interview that he remains faithful in principle to a Bi-zonal, Bi-communal, federal solution.
Read the actual transcript here:
http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/A ... endocumentAnd this is the relevant extract from this transcript which the journalist misinterpreted and which you rushed to swallow as factual:
Now I lose no opportunity in stressing Greek Cypriots did not reject the Plan because they do not want a solution; they rejected it because it did not provided for reunification of the country; on the contrary it perpetuated all the partitionist, separatist provisions. When we say we need reunification of the territory, people to be free and allowed to settle; secondly, reunification of the Society not everything being done separately; in duality – one Turkish – one Greek; reunification of the Economy and possibly joined Economic activity in investment and all this. Finally, reunification of the Institutions. Of all the Institutions of the State. None of these exists in the Annan Plan. So the Greek Cypriots rejected that particular Plan, not a solution of bizonal, bicommunal federation to which we still remain committed. But each one of these terms, Federal – there are various types of federation – Bizonal – what does bizonal mean? Ethnically cleansed areas? When all over Cyprus 82% were Greek Cypriots? Are we talking about pushing them out for ever and prohibiting them from returning? And bicommunal; Bicommunal does not mean duality in everything. I say sometimes when I am asked: We shall have a Federation which will be bicommunal and there are many countries in the world, Canada, Belgium - so that no one community can impose its will on political matters on the other, but at the same time no community should be able to bring the state to paralysis, to deadlock, because from deadlock then you have partition.
by andri_cy » Fri May 19, 2006 10:46 pm 
Tell us who you mean 
