Jimmy wrote: Who is this sentence referring to, if you don't mind my asking?
What I meant Papadopoulos was new at his post.He was succeptible to and even seeking advices from the previous President. Klerides has never hiden the fact that he accepted many outrageous proposals for the Cyprus issue, just to win points as a good boy, because he was absolutely certain they would finally be rejected by Denktash.
Papadopoulos, listened to him and perky and smelling sat down and wrote the letter to the UN to start negotiations based on the Anan Plan just to show off as a good boy.Although both him and Klerides made no mistake (Denktash in fact rejected everything) there came Turkey not bluffing anymore, who turned the game upside down by eliminating Denktash!.Thereafter the disaster started for us.
Jimmy wrote: think the Secretary General himself has answered these questions (at least the first one), in his report to the Security Council... He claims that the GC side never prioritized its demands, and tried to filibuster its way out of the talks, forcing them to collapse, in a form of 'panic' reaction, after they realized that Turkey was serious about going through with the talks. In essence, we didn't really tell them what we wanted (or, better still, we did tell them everything we wanted, but not which we wanted the most), so we didn't get anything! But, I guess the closing point of your post is answer enough for this whole paragraph.
Jimmy if you want to beleive that version so be it. Heres something just to think about: Gul went on
shouting and warning on the media that if the final outcome is not acceptable by Turkey they will NOT accept the result of arbitration by Koffi Anan, setting also conditions that would leave the final decision to their National assembly and the Generals. Then all of a sudden he silenced. What do you think might have happened that silenced him?
Our side was ridicculed there my friend.No matter what we said, no matter how we said it, no matter how much we shouted for Verhoigen to drag his feet and come, as long as the arbitration was there, they were just laughing at us. You may call that panic, I call it panic too, but if I were the president there, I tell you I would make such a scene at the closing ceremony at Burgenstock, that the whole world would remember it for years.
Jimmy wrote: Whoa! Is that going too far? I mean, I can't say you are wrong (or right, for that matter), but I think this stance is rather bold...? I just can't get myself to stomach it...
OK, Ok you are too young for that. My friend there is no single case in the whole world that moneywise can be evaluated to more than a million were there is not at least one key person lubricated. Just look how Denktash remained in power for so many years, look how he lubricated each and every retired General by giving him a free villa in Kyrenia. Look at how Kyprianou, perhaps the worst President we ever had, managed to rule for 10 years.He lubricated 1/3 of the population by increasing the salaries of the public servants by 50% through his famous scheme of re-organisation that ended up solely to salary increases.
Just see how many persons in Cyprus got money to print and distribute top-top luxury booklets explaining the goodies of the Anan Plan. Lubrication can be direct or indirect.Direct in pure cash, indirect through benefits or support.
Erol wrote: Are you suggesting these people (your politicans and the EU and UN people you mention) were paid money (by whom?) to purposely favour the TC community in the Annan Plan?
Of course that is what I am suggesting. Where do you live Erol in the Angels world?Correction though:To benefit Turkey, on the expense of the GCs and the UK and the US on the exense of all Cypriots. And through Turkey to benefit the TCs too, although the TCs were not their major concern anyhow. As from whom, I leave it to you to guess.
Alexandros wrote: actually what I said was that the UN was not impartial
Woops you are absolutely right. Apologies for the misunderstanding. Of course you presented a different aspect of that non impartiality, to which anyhow I don't disagree.
