Cyprus-Forum.com

[boomerang]

thats not entirely true Kikapu, many times Erdogan pointed Paps to Talat, and when he actually gets to Talat, Talat receives instructions from Erdogan not discuss anything apart from the Annan plan...

[Realist]

Thanks for the heads up Pyrpolizer, though not a very regular poster here, I have had run ins with Bananiot. Cypezokyli is a new guy to me.

To answer you (cypezokyli) is that with all due respect, i find your idea that by changing a president you can change the course of events is too simplistic.

Firstly Tassos is in power because the GC people voted him in. Just like Denktash was in power as long as he had the support of the Turkish people (both in the occupied areas and in Turkey). Their policies are a reflection of what the people feel. This is generally the case unless you have a dictatorship. I don't believe either side feels they live in a dictatorship. If we want to unilatery remove these leaders then we are going against the principles of democracy.

The nationalist card is successfull because both sides naturally feel proud of their roots. You can't then expect one side to somehow give their identity up for a promise that there 'may' be peace. Plus there is nothing nationalistic about wanting a settlement that allowed everyone back home. What were the TC going to give up in terms of their national heritage within the A Plan?

I think people who dislike TP need to be clear of what they actually dislike and how this sits with general public opinion. To be honest I also sometimes question such peoples motives because why would someone who is inteligent support a strategy so distructive to their own people. I have still to find a TC willing to protest against the development on GC property in the occupied areas. In the south we readilly find supporters of actions that are ultimately self harming.

My fear is that as the weaker side, we cannot afford to be so compromising because we have very little left to compromise on. A lot is being placed on having good faith, but history has proved that the dominant power rarely gives anything up because it has nothing to lose if it refuses. That is why people respect TP actions because they feel that he acknoledges this reality however uncomfortable it is.

I would be happy to forget the past and start a new, but what I won't forget is the present. There is no will on the TC to either recognise the injustice of what the situation is now on the ground. There is no sign that Turkey wishes to meet us half way (as was evident with the Annan Plan; which was proven to be a context by which Turkey would further cement her position on the island). All I see is that a solution is looked upon as a way to yet again further only one sides cause.

Before anyone says it, I'm not an old man with old ideas. I'm in my twenties and I was born well after the invasion. I have always been open enough to admit that there are good and bad TC just as there are good and bad GC. Having lived in London I've seen this first hand. But I don't believe that this changes the facts as they stand.

I've rambled a bit here. But I hope at least some of it helps to clarify what a lot of GC feel about the situation and why TP is popular not only on the south of the island but amongst the Diaspora across the world.

If 37% of Turkey was captured by Russia, would the Turkish people be agreeing to allow her to keep it (even if they couldn't win the war, they would still voice their desire to go home). Moreover what would Turks feel about fellow Turks who not only wished to overlook the truth, but offer Russia a possible future excuse to launch yet another invasion?

[cypezokyli]

interesting long post.
i ll try and give some answers...

To answer you (cypezokyli) is that with all due respect, i find your idea that by changing a president you can change the course of events is too simplistic.

i didnot say that. but since you mentioned it.
no, it is not enough for us to change the president. it needs to happen, on both sides at the same time. the "window of opportunity" was present when the tc were in the streets protesting , and decided to change from denktash to talat.
now, how talat turned to be.... well if you indeed follow the realist theories , then it is perfectly clear what he is doing.

Firstly Tassos is in power because the GC people voted him

nobody ever challanged that

Their policies are a reflection of what the people feel.

and then you are calling me simplistic
are you familiar with effects of propaganda , rally-around-the-flag , etc ?
if you follow the histories of civil wars , usually it is a bunch of elites that just use either nationalism or religion (or ideology) , usually with catastrophic results for their people. after they suffer enough, then they turn to moderates.
democracy is the best system we have , but we have been warned how it works already from plato (the power of the poets) and aristotel (made a clear distinction between democracy and ochlocracy) .
the fox-news democracy of the US , is the most clear example.
in short , how people feel is most of the times a creation.

The nationalist card is successfull because both sides naturally feel proud of their roots. You can't then expect one side to somehow give their identity up for a promise that there 'may' be peace. Plus there is nothing nationalistic about wanting a settlement that allowed everyone back home. What were the TC going to give up in terms of their national heritage within the A Plan?

what you call "natural" is very debatable.
can you define what exactly do you mean by "giving up their identity" .

you are right that there is nothing nationalistic of wanting to go back home. nobody ever claimed otherwise. which it make us turn, back to the democracy. the majority of the political parties have accepted BBF. the second "B" in that (bizonality) makes it very difficult - if not impossible for all to return. that was sth that our democracy terribly failed to explain to the people and kept giving them false illussion for years.
now, in AP5 was not satisfactory and can be easily imprtoved to allow as many as possible to return , but we can never again be a majority in the north. it is the essense of what we "democratically" accepted.
i still have my doubts that the average gc knows or accepts BBF - while his leadership does (remember your democracy argument ? )

I think people who dislike TP need to be clear of what they actually dislike and how this sits with general public opinion

i said it before.
at the time of the AP i felt against it.
but i expected that , the next day we would be back on the negotiating table , trying to find sth better. i dont mind tpap voting no. but i do question his tactics before and after...especially after...

To be honest I also sometimes question such peoples motives because why would someone who is inteligent support a strategy so distructive to their own people.

you are surprised by a reality that you created for yourself.
when you say "destructive" it is not sth that it is a matter of fact , but it is an opinion.

I have still to find a TC willing to protest against the development on GC property in the occupied areas. In the south we readilly find supporters of actions that are ultimately self harming.

in the south, just in the north , there are people who critisize their leadership. a number of those tcs even write in greek in our papers!

My fear is that as the weaker side, we cannot afford to be so compromising because we have very little left to compromise on. A lot is being placed on having good faith, but history has proved that the dominant power rarely gives anything up because it has nothing to lose if it refuses. That is why people respect TP actions because they feel that he acknoledges this reality however uncomfortable it is.

compromise , through our media , carries unfortunately a negative conotation. somehow we have came to believe that "compromise = defeat" .
history has also proven, that leaders usually prefer to stay in office rather than compromise. which is the best strategy we can find numerous examples and counter examples

I would be happy to forget the past and start a new, but what I won't forget is the present. There is no will on the TC to either recognise the injustice of what the situation is now on the ground.

bc that is what it suits us.
a tc argument for that is : the injustice of today is a result of the injustice of yesterday.

There is no sign that Turkey wishes to meet us half way (as was evident with the Annan Plan; which was proven to be a context by which Turkey would further cement her position on the island). All I see is that a solution is looked upon as a way to yet again further only one sides cause.

once again , you have to understand that our constructed reality is not the same as the constrcted reality of turkey. moving from the position "cyppro was solved in 1974" to BBF is for the turks a compromise. ofcource we dont see it that way.

I've rambled a bit here. But I hope at least some of it helps to clarify what a lot of GC feel about the situation and why TP is popular not only on the south of the island but amongst the Diaspora across the world.

most of the diaspora i met lives in a time bubble.
did you know that the world bank , considers the diaspora , one of the prime reasons that lead to bloody civil wars?

Moreover what would Turks feel about fellow Turks who not only wished to overlook the truth, but offer Russia a possible future excuse to launch yet another invasion?

you are a realist.
tell me why , under what conditions , and why would it be in the interest of turkey to launch a second invasion ?
or why they would sign an agreement , only to breach it with an invasion ?

[Kifeas]

Cypezokyli,
May I ask you to explain us in which ways does Papadopoulos play the “nationalist card” today? What is he saying or doing which one may interpret as such? Which particular of his policies is based on the use of the “nationalist card”? When did Papadopoulos promoted or called for a “rally around the flag” (and which flag) campaign? Have the words lost their meaning in this country?

The only people within the GC society that imagine such “ghosts” are people like Bananiot, simply because they have nothing else to do other than engaging themselves in sterile anti-Papadopoulos propaganda, simply because they obey calls from abroad to promote a solution that will convert Cyprus into a banana republic so that it serves the Anglo-American interests in the region. Such people are recruited by them in order to undermine the GC society in a political coup fashion, and they try to throw dirt against Papadopoulos for every possible and always foolish reason and occasion, similarly to what some others were doing against Makarios before 1974. Then they used the army to overthrow Makarios. Now, because it is impossible to do something similar since the government fully controls the army, they try to create the conditions for Papadopoulos overthrowing through mad and dirt throwing articles in newspapers and in the forums, both in Cyprus and in Greece, just in order to achieve (in vain) precisely the same thing. They constantly dig into Papadopoulos past and misrepresent and even fabricate events and facts, simply because they cannot find anything serious in the present to promote their above aims.

Why is by-zonality, if carefully and appropriately designed on the (map,) makes it difficult or impossible for every GC to return back to their original places, and still have an area in which the TCs will remain the majority, even without permanent restriction on Cypriot population movements? I proved many times in the forum, and I even designed and posted a map, that such a case is perfectly possible and feasible. Therefore, I wonder why you claim that the GC leadership should have told the GCs that under any BBF formula not all of them will have the chance or the right to return. Just because the Annan plan failed to provide this outcome -simply because those behind it wanted to satisfy all the illegitimate political demands of the Turkish side; that doesn’t mean the above possibility is entirely unfeasible!

Which are Papadopoulos tactics after the referendum that you did not like? What else did you expect under those circumstances, which he failed to deliver?

[Viewpoint]

Papadopoulos is just another reason why we will never agree any solution while he is in power and his staunch supporters would try to explain away even if they saw him shooting a TC in the back at point blank range, they would have the gaul to say the TC asked for it, or someone else planted the gun in the Papadops hand etc etc thats how blind they are....these types of people do not realize how wrong he is for Cyprus until it is too late and even then they will defend him as they do not have the courage to stand up and say we were wrong to support him he did nothing to solve the problem but only took steps to safe guard his position.

I recall him saying Icannot take over a republic and hand over a constituent GC state... so the likelihood of him solving anything is non existent.

[cypezokyli]

Cypezokyli,
May I ask you to explain us in which ways does Papadopoulos play the “nationalist card” today? What is he saying or doing which one may interpret as such? Which particular of his policies is based on the use of the “nationalist card”? When did Papadopoulos promoted or called for a “rally around the flag” (and which flag) campaign? Have the words lost their meaning in this country?

do you really want an answer at the level of tpaps political ethos ?

its not me who is accusing , but he who is accused who has to prove it otherwise . as a concequence , am just following the example of my president.
i hope you dont have a problem with the above argument - bc in practise then you have a problem wiht the political ethos of our president



....................
just on top of my head :
1. the ambivalent atmosphere which he to a big extent initiated

2. the complete delegitimazation of any critisism (mainly from his party and often from his spokesmen) by just saying : that side voted yes.
3. the continuation of conspiracy theories , which partly are rejected , but neertheless commented upon , that people outside cyprus wake up everymorning with the one and only purpose to overthrow him
4. the fiasco , with not meeting straw (and now the american representative) and in practise through the media initiating demonstrations , while at the same time he doesnot mind meeting UN representatives, who have met talat in his palace.
i wouldnt mind if he really had values and really believed in what he sais and had rejected ALL officials that visit talat in his palace. but the fact that is selective , really weakens his arguments. and imo he is just using it to polarise the climate
...

Why is by-zonality, if carefully and appropriately designed on the (map,) makes it difficult or impossible for every GC to return back to their original places, and still have an area in which the TCs will remain the majority, even without permanent restriction on Cypriot population movements? I proved many times in the forum, and I even designed and posted a map, that such a case is perfectly possible and feasible. Therefore, I wonder why you claim that the GC leadership should have told the GCs that under any BBF formula not all of them will have the chance or the right to return. Just because the Annan plan failed to provide this outcome -simply because those behind it wanted to satisfy all the illegitimate political demands of the Turkish side; that doesn’t mean the above possibility is entirely unfeasible!

true, it is possible to be done.... whether and how it possible to be agreed upon is a whole different story.
and i am sure that thats exactly what our political leadership thought when they accepted bizonality. ....or
when they (including tpap) have accepted the first 3 AP as basis for negotiations. was it in the philosophy of the first versions of the AP (which we accepted as a basis) that all refuggees would have returned ?
if not , why did they accept it ?