Cyprus-Forum.com

[reportfromcyprus]

Reportfromcyprus , have noted your comments re: AP . Let us not forget the plan was rejected by the people . Th e people exercised their democratic right and casted their votes. They did not vote against a solution they voted against a solution that was unacceptable to the vast majority .That the Plan was unacceptable to the majority is a matter that the UN , USA , and Brittain ought to take on board. No solution can survive if it does not have the support of the majority.

You have read some of my posts I'm sure , and I know that my views are shared by all those Cypriots who want a solution to the problem but a solution that will not take us back to conflict. Foreign powers such as Turkey and Greece as well as the UK must reduce drastically their influence in Cyprus and allow the Cypriots to adopt their true identity.
In one of my posts I stated that nothing would make me happier than to have a T/C as leader of a political party working for the benefit of the nation , and should this party come to power I will applaud the President regardless of ethnicity. Likewise may T/Cs would be ready to afford the same respect to a party whose leader is a G/C but working for the benefit of the nation and not for a foreign power.

I always respect your views, miltiades, I want peace and I am against war and violence of any type, verbal, physical or psychological.

That the people rejected this plan is not in question, that they were manipulated into doing so through mass media propaganda of the basest sort is also not in question.

The fact that there has been no further substantial movement on peace talks or reunification doesn't reassure me that our leaders have any better intentions than they did in 2004. Change for the better, enlightened visions for the future, this is what is missing.

[miltiades]

Reportfromcyprus , I have the highest respect for your person as well as your intellectual capacity I was hoping however that you would not so easily dismiss my rejection of the AP purely on the grounds that I was manipulated or influenced by any one other than the contents of the AP . I have made a point of studying the plan constantly searching for a phrase , an action proposed that could be even slightly considered as a unifying plan. I have tried to imagine the likely outcome had this plan been accepted and the scenarios leave me stone cold. And yes I objected to my accepting to enter a police station in my Cyprus where the foreign flags of Turkey and Greece , (both of which have been anathema for Cyprus ) were flying.


"""that they were manipulated into doing so through mass media propaganda of the basest sort is also not in question. ""
Your above analysis can be applied incidentally to any Election result anywhere in the world and such generalisations are detrimental to the democratic process embracing all aspects where voting has to take place. Are you therefore suggesting , which I'm sure you are not , that the election process is cast aside since the result of such election will have been influenced by the leadership. You are a journalist and must take on board that dismissing a democratic process as merely resulting in a manipulative result is dangerous and unwise.
My opposition to the plan was my own decision based on the contents . I WAS NOT MANIPULATED OR THE VICTIM OF PROPAGANDA . Your apology would be appreciated.

[reportfromcyprus]

I apologise to you, miltiades, if you got the impression that my point was that you personally were a victim of propaganda.

My comment is more general and not based on individual cases. In an election, such a speech as made by Mr. Papadopoulos, would immediately have been castigated by the opposition as unfair and a sheer emotional manipulation of the people seeking guidance as to the best way to vote.

A rally with speeches supporting the NO cause, banners, leaflets, all these are fair use of campaigning. A speech which strikes at the emotional weakness of thousands of people and is broadcast on the television without the chance of opposing views...goes too far and does distort the democratic process.

Were you in Cyprus during the campaigning?

[Kifeas]

I apologise to you, miltiades, if you got the impression that my point was that you personally were a victim of propaganda.

My comment is more general and not based on individual cases. In an election, such a speech as made by Mr. Papadopoulos, would immediately have been castigated by the opposition as unfair and a sheer emotional manipulation of the people seeking guidance as to the best way to vote.

A rally with speeches supporting the NO cause, banners, leaflets, all these are fair use of campaigning. A speech which strikes at the emotional weakness of thousands of people and is broadcast on the television without the chance of opposing views...goes too far and does distort the democratic process.

Were you in Cyprus during the campaigning?

Report, in any one single case of a political debate, be it for the election of MPs or for the election of the president of the country, or for a referendum debate on some issue, and even going down to municipal elections for towns and villages; manipulation, distortions and exaggerations on the part of opposing sides, are all part of the game. If you think that unfair and excessive manipulation, distortions and exaggerations took place during the referendum debate, then these happened from both sides, but you should go to the US before presidential elections to see what it really means to be within a pre-election campaign as far as the above issue is concerned. You will be shocked!

Yes, the above did happen, but they happened from both sides of the debate, the yes” and the “no!” If in the end, more media, more newspapers and TV stations and more influential political figureheads sided with the “No,” and therefore the debate was won by the “no” more easily because a critical mass of people was convinced in favor of the “no,” than the other way around, this doesn’t mean that this was outside the rules of the game, or that the one side used only conventional means and the other did not, neither does it diminish the value of the fact that 76% of the people had chosen one thing, and the rest the other. Such a clear victory cannot be attributted only to the fact that manipulations and distortions took place, but definitely must also be attributed to the fact that the quality of the basic views and arguments of the winning side, the "no" in our case, were better than the other ones. The people are not so stupid as you are trying to make them appear.

[Viewpoint]

People can make as many excuses as they wish as these are very easy to do but the immaturity of the democratic process in the south can no longer be hidden from international press or bodies, the emotional outburst of your ex eoka leader Tassos coupled with the block on information from Verhugen or De Soto and you have a return to the 1960s when it was the TCs that were gagged. You successfully manipulate a people 70% who did not read or understand the Annan plan. The average GC looked to sources they trust for guidance they turned to the influential church who told them you will burn in hell if you vote yes and then to their illustrious leaders who cried and begged for a resounding no, school children were brought into the picture wearing t shirts saying no to a comprehensive solution, cars were attacked and people were spat on for supporting the only real opportunity both communities have had at reunification and are likely to have for a very long time to come, most if not all of us will be dead and long gone, so think about that when you continue to support the alternative a "European solution" which was your choice not ours.

[reportfromcyprus]

With all due respect Kifeas, I have not called anyone stupid, and understand well that all sides will try to use the media to make their point. Where do we draw the line between propaganda (which distorts the process) and the legitimate right for leaders to make their opinions known (which adds to the credibility of the process)?

Your point is very well made that leading political figures sided with the No vote and therefore influenced a great number of people to vote that way. That's legitimate. Where the whole thing veered over into propaganda is the emotional appeal and manipulation, the tears, the instilling of fear that things will go terribly wrong, and the use of mass media to do it.

For example, the claim that the financial times is a mouthpiece of the foreign office is propaganda, not backed up by facts, not calmly reasoned and therefore, not terribly credible.

[miltiades]

report fromcyprus perhaps you may like to study the following :

Reasons for the approval of the Annan Plan Turkish Cypriot view
Reunification was desired for economic reasons.
Many Turkish Cypriots no longer perceived the Greek Cypriots as a threat, especially in the light of the strictly bi-zonal proposition of the Annan plan.
Turkish Cypriots would receive considerable constitutional power in the United Cyprus Republic that the Annan plan proposed, over-proportional to their percentage of the population.
The Turkish Cypriot component state would still, even after territorial cessation of some areas to the Greek Cypriot component state, make up 28.5 percent of the total area of Cyprus, including large economically important areas that where inhabitated exclusively by Greek Cypriots prior to the division of Cyprus in 1975.
The right of return of Greek Cypriots to their homes in the areas coming under the control of the Turkish Cypriot component state would be strictly limited if not, insome cases, forbidden, thus the possibility of Turkish Cypriots becoming a minority in their respective component state would not exist.
The guarantor powers to the constitution of Cyprus would retain their powers as such, thus Turkey would still have the arguable right to intervene in Cypriot affairs, most definitely on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots.

[edit] Reasons for the rejection of the Annan Plan Greek Cypriot Point of view

The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. (2001) The Annan plan equates the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the to be Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation to the two communities. The majority becomes minority in important decision centers.
The plan created a confederation even though it utilized the term "federation" because there was no hierarchy of laws, while central authority emanated from the so-called component states. Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable. In 1789, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot (77% of population) and Turkish Cypriot (18% of population) judges, plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.
The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.
Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.
The Plan simply disregarded the plain language and clear meaning of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, article 49, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. Article 49 states in its last paragraph: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
The Plan did not deal in full with the demilitarisation of the illegal 'TRNC', and Greek Cypriots felt they had no reason to believe Turkish promises concerning the withdrawal of troops.
Cyprus would be excluded from the European Common Defense and Foreign Policy, while Turkish troops would remain in Cyprus even after the accession of Turkey to the EU with intervention rights (a military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically) in the Greek Cypriot component state.
Many Greek Cypriots interpreted the Right of Return policy as to be seriously flawed, meaning only 20% of Greek Cypriot refugees would be able to return over a time frame of 25 years, whereas Turkish Cypriots would have had full right of return.The plan denied to all Cypriots rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens (right of free movement and residence, the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services, the right to vote).
Turkish Cypriots would have gained all the basic demands it made, from the first day of the implementation of the solution. To be exact, 24 hours after the holding of the referendum. In contrast, everything that the Greek Cypriots were aspiring to achieve, would have postponed without guarantees and depend upon the good will of Turkey to fulfil the obligations it undertakes. They are also subject to the precondition that all would have gone well.
The return of the Turkish occupied land will take place in the period between three and a half months and three and a half years from the moment the solution is signed with no guarantees whatsoever that this shall be implemented. The Cypriot-Greek proposal of placing these areas under the control of the UN Peace Keeping Force and not the Turkish army has been rejected.
The Plan did not address the issue of the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the island, although parts of the SBAs would be transferred to the governments of the two consituent states.
The British were granted rights to unilaterally define the continental shelf and territorial waters along two base areas and to claim potential mineral rights. Under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements, Britain did not have such rights (see the 2nd annex to the Additional Protocol to the 1959 Treaty of Establishment).
The plan absolved Turkey of all responsibility for its invasion of Cyprus and its murders, rapes, destruction of property and churches and looting and forcing approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property. The Cyprus government filed applications to the European Commission on Human Rights on September 17, 1974 and on March 21, 1975. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the two applications on July 10, 1976. In it the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:

Can you see why I always post that if the AP f was orced on the people (without a referendum) it would in no time collapse , the reasons are numerous , just a few are listed above.

[observer]

So ... if the AP is unacceptable (most of the world thought it fair), Tassos refuses to say what he wants changed and refuses to speak to Talat, and neither side is willing to be dominated by the other side, what is left?

Partition?

[reportfromcyprus]

So ... if the AP is unacceptable (most of the world thought it fair), Tassos refuses to say what he wants changed and refuses to speak to Talat, and neither side is willing to be dominated by the other side, what is left?

Partition?

Good question, what's the alternative, and more importantly, where are the new efforts to create a solution? Annan also made this point in his address to Cyprus before the referendum (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sgsm9264.doc.htm):

"But all of its key concepts emerged out of four years of negotiation among your leaders. And most of its 9,000 pages were drafted by hundreds of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. Their extraordinary efforts produced one of the most comprehensive peace plans in the history of the United Nations.

On Saturday, you will be asked whether you wish to make this plan the basis for your common future. That decision is yours -– and yours alone.

I welcome the support the plan has received from political leaders on both sides, and in Greece and Turkey.

I acknowledge truly that this plan does not meet the full demands of either side. In fact, it is a compromise, as is inevitable in any negotiation. It is also the only foreseeable route to the reunification of Cyprus.

There is no other plan out there. There is no magic way of accommodating the maximum demands of one side while at the same time accommodating the maximum demands of the other. This is it.

The plan is a long and complex legal document. Why?

Because this is not a paper agreement. It is a serious plan, designed to provide certainty and security, with guarantees that it will be implemented. Its whole purpose is to ensure that the benefits it promises will be realized.

The plan envisages one independent and sovereign State, the UnitedCyprusRepublic. That State is based on the parameters agreed between the parties since the 1970s -– a bi-communal, bi-zonal federal structure, based on the political equality of the two communities.

The plan prohibits partition or secession, domination by one side, or union with any other country. The plan ends the status quo. It ends the division of the country. It safeguards the identity of Cyprus and of each community in it. It preserves the integrity of the citizenship of the country. These are prizes that have eluded us in all previous negotiations. They are prizes of which all of you could rightly be proud.

The federal government provided for in the plan is designed to function from day one. It is designed to function effectively. It cannot be blocked by one-man vetoes, and it has machinery to resolve deadlocks. It would allow a reunited Cyprus to speak with one voice internationally, particularly in the European Union.

The people of each community would largely run their own affairs, through constituent states which they administer. The plan fully respects individual human rights, including the rights of those of you who were forced to leave your homes. It allows many people to return, and to get all or some of their property back. Anyone who does not get all their property back would be paid full and secure compensation. The people who have to move to a new home, because of the territorial adjustment, will be helped to do so in a dignified and proper manner."

[Viewpoint]

So miltades all those thousands of experts including GCs who worked on the Annan plan were all wrong and wasting their time just so that the GCs could say no. You seem to forget that that maybe your demands were not reasonable ones and therefore rejected, thats the reality GCs have to face. Its obvious that no plan will make everyone 100% happy and never forget that changes to the current AP if perceived by TCs as a negative with only guarantee a resounding NO from us this time, if we ever get another chance.