Cyprus-Forum.com

[GAVCARoCOM]

Here i want to tell about Cyprus problem couple things for the GCs which i beleive it has to be accepted for both sides.
And on based this what kind of advice you are giving to solve the Cyprus problem. If you want more lands please indicate howmany persontage you want more or if you want different things please wriete it on your post
1- I know we can trust many GreekCypriots but whats happen in the past i dont think we can ever live mix !!!! (as we can see in the forum as well that some fachist people are stil exist)
2- I know you left your properties in North and may be you are right thet Turkish Army after they come and do the operation they should leave but i think untill we find a solition for the security of TRNCs they will stay .
3- On both sides we had many losts and we should stop counting who lost more because when you put persentage of the population this can be various. This is sensetive situation and we should try to forget the past and stop hating each other.we have to be a human first and respect each other.
4- TCs will never accept we will live under one goverment which will be controled with GCs and this is because whats happen in the past under RoC Goverment.
5- I could understand you dont like Mr Denktash because of his involvements with TMT but he is not our president anymore and Mr. Talat is the only last change to get peace in the island.And first you should stop supporting Mr Papadopullus because the involvments he had with Akritas Plan and the involvements with EOKA-B and the Greek Junta.
6- You should understand that the RoC which was belong to TCs and GCs is not the way for the solition. All of us Tried the RoC between 1960-1974 and the result is as you can see.
7- You have to force your president to come and speak with Talat before its too late. May be Mr Talat will accept to give you more lands and arrange the international security for the army withdrawal in case of solition.
8- All we have to stop talking about the bad experiences we had in the past and try to look our future.

THANKS
Here is the map which annan plan was offering. If it was Denktash he will never say yes for this plan but TCs said yes for this plan and the withdrawal of the army.
When you are looking the map Please do not forget we have many propertys and lands in the south Cyprus like Larnaca , Limassol and the Paphos
And take in consideration that in North cyprus already many lands belong to Brits and Jews and they have to pay you compensation

[Pyrpolizer]

The only way to proceed to a solution is to apply the same law all over Cyprus.

In this respect the currently occupied areas must adopt the EU law.

Then we proceed towards a solution easily.

[GAVCARoCOM]

The only way to proceed to a solution is to apply the same law all over Cyprus.

In this respect the currently occupied areas must adopt the EU law.

Then we proceed towards a solution easily.

As much as i know TCs are chainging the laws to fit in EU. Thats not a problem at all.

[Get Real!]

GAVCARoCOM didn't you announce that you were leaving the forum?

Second, a question like "Do you want a solution?" is far too relative to be taken seriously.

Third, if Cyprus is to be partitioned then it's in everyone's interest that territories be contiguous.

Regards, GR.

[askimwos]

GAVCARoCOM what you fail to clarify in your long list is whether you talk about a unified cyprus or a two-country solution.

Secondly there are a number of inacuracies stated in your post, for example associating Tpap with the Athens junta which is inacurate.

Another inaccuracy is the map that you pasted - this map was from the Annan III plan and not from the final Annan plan. The final plan did not include Karpasia even though that was maybe the only area of Cyprus inhabited only GC polulation.

In your post you implicitly say that for the GCs the biggest problem is the % of land under the TC federal state (assuming you talk about BBF) - this is wrong, the 4 main points that the GC identified as problematic in the Annan plan are:

a) the permament presence of foreign forces on the island, the treaty of guarantee which was somehow extendent and gave Turkey, Greece and UK more say on the internal affairs of the island and in effect created a country with problematic sovereingty

b) the property issue and the amount of property that GCs were allowed to keep even under TC administration.

c) the workability of the solution. The Annan plan proposed that each government department, service etc should have a GC Director and a TC Vice-Director and vice-versa with the Vice-director having the right to veto every decision. The GC side propose to share the director positions and even offered the TC side to choose first and in return the director's decisions could not be vetoed so that the government could wolk smoothly. Of course this was rejected by mr Talat and Turkey, I wonder why.

d) There was the issue of the British gaining sovereinty over the aerial space and national waters that dint have with the 1960 agreement

All the above points are things that do not take anything away from the TCs and are issues related to the pride of Cypriots (both GC and TC). I believe these are things that TCs should have been fighting for alongside GCs. The question is do we want a really united and SOVEREIGN country without foreign interventions anymore? - here is our chance to correct things and say to the world enough is enough we dont want any foreign masters, WE WANT TO BE RULERS IN OUR OWN LAND.

The GCs accepted BBF and this was the heavy prize they accepted to pay because of the "sinns" that a small minority of the GC community committed with the help of the Athens junta regime and CIA.

[Viewpoint]

GAVCARoCOM what you fail to clarify in your long list is whether you talk about a unified cyprus or a two-country solution.

Secondly there are a number of inacuracies stated in your post, for example associating Tpap with the Athens junta which is inacurate.

Another inaccuracy is the map that you pasted - this map was from the Annan III plan and not from the final Annan plan. The final plan did not include Karpasia even though that was maybe the only area of Cyprus inhabited only GC polulation.

In your post you implicitly say that for the GCs the biggest problem is the % of land under the TC federal state (assuming you talk about BBF) - this is wrong, the 4 main points that the GC identified as problematic in the Annan plan are:

a) the permament presence of foreign forces on the island, the treaty of guarantee which was somehow extendent and gave Turkey, Greece and UK more say on the internal affairs of the island and in effect created a country with problematic sovereingty

b) the property issue and the amount of property that GCs were allowed to keep even under TC administration.

c) the workability of the solution. The Annan plan proposed that each government department, service etc should have a GC Director and a TC Vice-Director and vice-versa with the Vice-director having the right to veto every decision. The GC side propose to share the director positions and even offered the TC side to choose first and in return the director's decisions could not be vetoed so that the government could wolk smoothly. Of course this was rejected by mr Talat and Turkey, I wonder why.

d) There was the issue of the British gaining sovereinty over the aerial space and national waters that dint have with the 1960 agreement

All the above points are things that do not take anything away from the TCs and are issues related to the pride of Cypriots (both GC and TC) and I think that TCs should have been fighting for. The question is do we want a really united and SOVEREIGN country without foreign interventions anymore? - here is our chance to correct things and say to the world enough is enough we dont want any foreign masters, WE WANT TO BE RULERS IN OUR OWN LAND.

The GCs accepted BBF and this was the heavy prize they accepted to pay before of the "sinns" that a small minority of the GC community committed with the help of the Athens junta regime and CIA.

Could you kindly tell us how you would want to resolve the above taking into account our past and the balance between jointly running the country and forced domination of one state over the other.

[ukman]

is this very important talk posted in the right section .

[Kikapu]

Could you kindly tell us how you would want to resolve the above taking into account our past and the balance between jointly running the country and forced domination of one state over the other.

VP,

If you always going to bring the past into the picture, then nothing will get done.

If the Japanese always talked about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would not be friends with the USA.

If the French and rest of Europe always talk about the past as to what the Germans did, they would not be friends today.

At some point, in order to move forward, one needs to leave the "old times" behind, because the world has moved forward.

2 states 1 country solution should be enough, to allow each community govern themselves, with the Federal State, handling mostly foreign affairs.

[askimwos]

Here is VP again feeling threatened and promoting his masters taksim agenda.

So I guess your problem is security? This can easily be sorted with an international UN force overseeing the implementation of the solution for say 10-15 years. This international force should be given the powers to intervene should one of the 2 parts fail to implement any part of the agreement. In order to do so they should be given the powers to intervene based on article 2 of the UN charta.

I do not see any state dominating one another in the Annan plan, what I see are problems with the workability and I expained how these could be solve in my previous post.
The 9-people cabinet allows both the two communities to stop something that may be seen as harming their communities. However, this can only be done if 2 of the 3 members of the TC side disagree with something and if at least 4 of the members of the GC side disagree. This is a step forward from the 1960 agreement where just the president or the vice-president could veto a decision. The 9 member cabinet can only be elected from the senate (24 GC, 24 TC) from a common ballot, i.e. one or more political parties from each community need to cooperate in order to elect the 9 member cabinet office.
I could go on and on discussing the governement structure of the Annan plan that most of GCs had no problem with as this in my opinion was balanced, and based on political equality and maybe better than the 1960's one.

The BBF means that the issues of education, health, local policing, local justice, transport, local economy etc are devolved to the local governments with the issues of federal policing, federal justice, defence, sovereinty, national resources, national waters and aerial space and national economy being controlled by the federal government.

I could go on and on writing about the fact that there is nothing that suggest forced domination of one state to the other.
As for your argument about what happened in the past and whether these can be forgotten, I guess you have to ask your own community about this - the last time I checked the TCs voted 67% for the Annan plan. I say accept the changes suggested above and I gurantee you that 90% of GC will also say yes to such a plan.

[Viewpoint]

Could you kindly tell us how you would want to resolve the above taking into account our past and the balance between jointly running the country and forced domination of one state over the other.

VP,

If you always going to bring the past into the picture, then nothing will get done.

If the Japanese always talked about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they would not be friends with the USA.

If the French and rest of Europe always talk about the past as to what the Germans did, they would not be friends today.

At some point, in order to move forward, one needs to leave the "old times" behind, because the world has moved forward.

2 states 1 country solution should be enough, to allow each community govern themselves, with the Federal State, handling mostly foreign affairs.

Who said anything about not being friends all I stated was that we should take into the past and future fears eg No Turkish Troops...it works both ways...why dont you forget what they did in the past and want them to stay?