mrfromng wrote:The TC side (and Turkey) are insisting that this should be based on the “fact” or the “reality” that there are already two existing nation /state entities in Cyprus, the GC one in the south and the TC one in the north, that should retain their existing mono-cultural and mono-ethnic structures but come together and form -as constituencies- a connecting bond in the middle (central government,) in a form of a confederation (or loose federation,) so that they can share together mainly the international representation of Cyprus, while each one of them will be free to more or less do as it wishes in its internal matters. This is the philosophy and approach of the Turkish side, and which we do not even want to hear about and there is no way we can ever accommodate it because it is no different than partition –in fact even worst than partition.
Kifeas,
Thank you for your detailed and articulate response. Though the above is the model you oppose it is the one that the Tc's look warmly to. The latter part of your post is more or less what was in place in 1960, that was tried and for obvious reasons failed miserably. You go on to say the The GC side views Bi-communal and Bi-zonal federation as a mere evolution of the 1960 bi-communal unitary RoC. The bi-communal unitary RoC will evolve into a bi-communal and a bi-zonal federal RoC. Am I right in thinking this could in time evolve into the model we are looking for to begin with? If so why not begin the process of reunification on the model that appeals to us more?
I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say with the above.
What exactly has been "tried and for obvious reasons it miserably failed" in 1960?
I am also not sure what you are trying to say with the last two sentences of the above.
Do you understand why we cannot possibly ever accept the Turkish Cypriot approach?