Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

These are the main articles (pre-amble and 1st article) of the Annan plan.

Code: Select all

MAIN ARTICLES
i. Affirming that Cyprus is our common home and recalling that we were co-founders of the Republic established in 1960

ii. Resolved that the tragic events of the past shall never be repeated and renouncing forever the threat or the use of force, or any domination by or of either side

iii. Acknowledging each other’s distinct identity and integrity and that our relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other

iv. Deciding to renew our partnership on that basis and determined that this new bi-zonal partnership shall ensure a common future in friendship, peace, security and prosperity in an independent and united Cyprus

v. Underlining our commitment to international law and the principles and purposes of the United Nations

vi. Committed to respecting democratic principles, individual human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as each other’s cultural, religious, political, social and linguistic identity

vii. Determined to maintain special ties of friendship with, and to respect the balance between, Greece and Turkey, within a peaceful environment in the Eastern Mediterranean

viii. Looking forward to joining the European Union, and to the day when Turkey does likewise

We, the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots, exercising our inherent constitutive power, by our free and democratic, separately expressed common will adopt this Foundation Agreement.

       __________________________________
             Article 1 The new state of affairs
1. This Agreement establishes a new state of affairs in Cyprus.

2. The treaties listed in this Agreement bind Cyprus and the attached legislation shall apply upon entry into force of this Agreement.

3. The Treaty of Establishment, the Treaty of Guarantee, and the Treaty of Alliance remain in force and shall apply mutatis mutandis to the new state of affairs. Upon entry into force of this Agreement, Cyprus shall sign a Treaty with Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom on matters related to the new state of affairs in Cyprus, along with additional protocols to the Treaties of Establishment, Guarantee and Alliance.

4. Cyprus shall be a full member of the European Union as of 1 May 2004.

5. Cyprus shall maintain special ties of friendship with Greece and Turkey, respecting the balance in Cyprus established by the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Alliance and this Agreement, and as a European Union member state shall support the accession of Turkey to the Union.

6. Any unilateral change to the state of affairs established by this Agreement, in particular union of Cyprus in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession, is prohibited. Nothing in this Agreement shall in any way be construed as contravening this prohibition.

[Kifeas]

I have a few questions to make here, and I would like to get everyone's reaction, comments and replies.

I begin with the first set.

Since the historical founders (or co-founders) of the RoC in 1960 were evidently Greece, Turkey and the UK (they negotiated the whole deal among themselves, agreed it among themselves, put themselves down as guarantors, and then gave it to us to sign and implement it;) and since nowhere in those agreements -nor in the 1960 constitution- there is any mention or reference whatsoever as to who the founders or co-founders were, set aside any mention that the two founders or co-founders were the Greek and Turkish Cypriot communities instead the people of Cyprus as a whole; why does the preamble of the Annan plan begin with the above affirmation? (Main article, i.)

Based on which evidence I should have to accept and affirm that the co-founders of the 1960 RoC were the Greek and the Turkish Cypriot communities?

Why if in the 1960 constitution the only reference that is made is one calling about members of the Greek Cypriot community and members of the Turkish Cypriot community (always not in relation to founders or co-founders, but in relation to other issues,) the above preamble makes reference to the two “sides” (instead of the two communities that is the termed used in the 1960 const.) and why at the end of the pre-amble it it indicates that the "we" at the beginning is made on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots in an open ended sense that can also be interpreted as the TC people and the GC people, instead of the "we" to have been on behalf of the members of the TC community and the GC community?

Why the preamble so carefully avoids to make use of the term "communities," and instead it talks only about "the two sides" or "the Turkish Cypriots" and "the Greek Cypriots," suggesting in this way that they are not mere parts (communities) of one people (the Cypriot people,) as the 1960 constitution also provides, but instead they are two separate sides /entities or two separate entity peoples?

As they always say, “the devil is always in the details!” And there are many devils in the details of the entire plan! This is just the beginning! Later, I will show you bit by bit how the above devils ("details") gradually and cleverly take form, flesh and shape into candidly constructing a two "nation /states" confederation, through a “virgin birth” magic.

Comments please!

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,

Perhaps this shows that the TC's and the GC's should live seperately from each other after all, and were only forced to live together by the constitution, kind of a forced marriage if you will. So, will you now support a full partition.??

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

Perhaps this shows that the TC's and the GC's should live seperately from each other after all, and were only forced to live together by the constitution, kind of a forced marriage if you will. So, will you now support a full partition.??

I am not sure I undertand what you are saying.

Which "this" shows that "the TC's and the GC's should live seperately from each other?"

[Kikapu]

Why the preamble so carefully avoids to make use of the term "communities," and instead it talks only about "the two sides" or "the Turkish Cypriots" and "the Greek Cypriots," suggesting in this way that they are not mere parts (communities) of one people (the Cypriot people,) as the 1960 constitution also provides, but instead they are two separate sides /entities or two separate entity peoples?!

I mean this part that suggest that the two sides are really not a community.

[Kifeas]

Why the preamble so carefully avoids to make use of the term "communities," and instead it talks only about "the two sides" or "the Turkish Cypriots" and "the Greek Cypriots," suggesting in this way that they are not mere parts (communities) of one people (the Cypriot people,) as the 1960 constitution also provides, but instead they are two separate sides /entities or two separate entity peoples?!

I mean this part that suggest that the two sides are really not a community.

And?

what is your question? or suggestion?

[miltiades]

Those Cypriots who have no wish to live amongst us have a choice that they should take. I refer to all those who , on one hand want to be part of a prosperous , modern nation with a vibrant economy , on the other want to be part of a foreign nation.
The Cypriots are the majority , the Cypriots are the natives of this island , the Greeks and the Turks are foreigners , they , between them have caused all the problems in Cyprus. To the Turkish mainlanders I say fuck the hell out of Cyprus, you have enough on your plate , 20 million Kurds , and to the Greeks I say you too fuck off and leave us in peace . We are miles ahead of either of you , you have nothing to offer us only blood and tears.
From an irate Cypriot , who is proud to stand on his hairy Cypriot legs with out the support of either of the cancers that have afflicted our island for so many years.

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,

The question is, do you support a partition, based on the fact, on what you wrote, that the two sides are not a community.

[raymanuva]

Miltiades, i totaly agree... read my post "Raymanuvas Plan"

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,

The question is, do you support a partition, based on the fact, on what you wrote, that the two sides are not a community.

I am sorry Kikapu but I find it difficult to undertand what you are saying.

I am not the one supporting or suggesting that the two sides are not referred to as communities of one single people, but the Annan plan! If you haven't realized it, I am simply analyzing and interpreting the Annan plan, and I am commenting on what and why it provides or claims what it does. Why should that mean that I personally support partition? Where did I say that I support partition?