by Mills Chapman » Sun Mar 26, 2006 9:56 pm
Agios Amvrosios,
Many thanks for your post. Regarding this sentence that you quoted,
"Both parties have offices in the U.S. and in the U.K., and thus these two countries are seen as relatively neutral ,"
I meant that the U.S. and U.K. are seen as more neutral by Cypriots towards the Cyprus situation than they are by Arabs towards the Israeli/Palestinian situation and by North Koreans toward the South Korea/North Korea situation. That does not mean that Cypriots see them as neutral, just relatively more neutral than the local participants in other conflicts do.
I do realize that my comment about funding was a stretch. However, I did try to back it up with quotes and references. As much as any citizen would hate to think of their conflict as a proving ground for resolving other conflicts, I do think this school would have no problem with funding if it can be explained that a successful outcome in Cyprus could lead to similar schools in conflicts that are even more heated (Jerusalem, the Korean DMZ, the India/Pakistan line, etc.)
Regarding your comments about the Annan Plan, in 2003 I applied for a Fulbright scholarship to do research in Cyprus, and in my essay I explained why the Annan Plan was flawed, albeit for a different reason than your reason. I said that it did not give any specifics for integrating the schools and for how subjects such as history would be taught. Needless to say, I didn't get the scholarship since it was sponsored by the U.S. Dept. of State who was also sponsoring the Annan Plan.
I didn't understand your comment that linked the Annan Plan and unity. Did I say that somewhere?