The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Were we mislead?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby rengarenk » Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:31 am

You post your opinion of some plans that happened several years ago. I am sure in the future you will say that "G/C in 2004 rejected a perfectly balanced plan that would allow 100 thousand refugees to return to their homes, the return of a part of land, and almost all Turkish troops would withdrew" We all know that this just your opinion and that the Annan plan is not balanced and it doesn't serve our interests.


I have n't given my opinion on any of those plans. You do know what quotes are dont you? Those little " symbols that indicate the text within them are from another source and not from the writter. I am giving you a historical context but you just shout about opinions and become irrational. Go back and read properly what I wrote.

Turkey would have been thus deprived of any reason, and of any excuse to invade Cyprus.

This is just your theory and nothing more. Maybe the result would be the exact opposide: Create more nationalism and division that would again lead to the coup and later to the invasion and maybe Turkey would have occupied even bigger part of Cyprus.


You really are a silly reactionary who should read things properly before replying. The quoted text was from the memoires of Glafkos Clerides, your president of 10 years and was not my opinion. I try to give you some historical context and you just respond with nonsense and slogans. Since he was doing the negotiating for probably more years than you are old he knows what he is talking about.

So to suicide because it fits you and the Americans? Just take it out of your head. This will NEVER happen.
We accepted that your small minority of 18% can have a federal state, and you are asking for more???? You can either take that or leave it. As I see you are going to leave it, so bye bye, we will talk again in a future time.


What are you taking about? You are starting to talk nonsense now. The G/C have never submitted any plan to the T/C what-so-ever, there has only been the "high level" agreements between the two sides. The G/C leadership have repeatedly called for the solution of the cyprus problem based on security council resolutions and I gave you for example the Security council 774, point 3 "Endorses the Set of Ideas including suggested territorial adjustments reflected in the map contained in the annex to the Secretary-General's report as the basis for reaching an overall framework agreement". I quoted a quick overview of the Set of Ideas to show you where the main provisions of the Annan Plan comes from for the benefit of readers who did n't know.

The G/C leadership knows all this and if they have led you to believe that any settlement would be significantly different to what is being presented now then they have misled you. This is why diplomats say the UN will not want to be involved with the cyprus problem for a long long time after this latest episode.

I have a link for the Set of ideas on a G/C government web site, however considering your outburts you can go and find it yourself if you want to become educated.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Apr 17, 2004 8:23 am

If you want to become educated you should go and read that the UN calls for the immediate withdrew of the Turkish occupation forces from Cyprus.
That the UN (and EU) recognizes the Republic of Cyprus representing the whole island.

Everything else, like e.g. the Annan plan are just suggestions. As you said "nothing is agreed until everything agreed".

What is agreed is Republic of Cyprus. If you don't like my offers then ok, there are non. Return the grounds of the Republic of Cyprus that you illegally occupy and obey to the resolutions of UN. What you have is illegal, what you do is illegal.

You are placing one paragraph quotes from some documents to intentionally create a wrong impression. How about going now and ask your friend Cleredes to give a fair solution? It seems that you trust him, so i don't think you should have a problem, right?

If the word of leaders was enough then no referendum would take place. We have the final word, and we will decide if a solution is acceptable or not. And for the Annan plan we decided that it is not.

Go get some education to learn what democracy means. To understand that what you are is a small minority that is trying with the force of weapons to harm the interests of the great majority of this island.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby mehmet » Sat Apr 17, 2004 9:57 am

In England there is a saying 'possession is nine tenth's of the law'. What more do you want the United Nations to do for you? Pass more resolutions, have more debates? If you are serious about peace you negotiate on the basis of what reality is on the ground. You don't have to like or agree with the reality but to ignore it will get you nowhere. You will still have more rights in Paris than in Famagusta if Plan is rejected.
mehmet
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)

Postby Piratis » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:28 am

I know the realities very well.
I was answering to Rengarenk (multicolored??) and his very bad attitude.

Sure, I want peace, but I also want democracy independence and human rights. People go to war and die for democracy and their human rights, therefore:
Democracy + human rights + independence > peace.

To accept peace without democracy, independence and human rights is called capitulation. This is what you want us to do?

If you want to live together we have to respect each other, not to say "I have the military power so you have no other option".
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby mehmet » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:43 am

Plan is for Turkish soldiers to leave so that there are 650 left (similar to 1960. Before 1974 those soldiers couldn't protect us in such small numbers. That's what is on offer. Plus territory, plus limited rights of return to Turkish Cypriot federation. Plus freedom of movement. If that is not enough and you think Papadopoulos will get you more fine. As you keep saying we shall see. If you think the Russian, Indians and Chinese are going to work for you to get better deal, fine, we shall see.

The only thing that can make Turkey change position is EU entry, but we both know that wont happen, even Israel and Armenia will get entry before Turkey. So Turkey doesn't need to use military power to remain in Cyprus and there is no incentive for Turkey to negotiate once Government in Turkey realise they are stringing Turkey along. What circumstances in the future do you imagine will lead to Papadopoulos or any other leader you may have getting more favourable terms?
mehmet
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)

Postby Piratis » Sat Apr 17, 2004 11:46 am

I didn't say that anything "better" will be given to us any time soon.

Look, lets leave all justice and past and everything aside for a moment.

Imagine that you are a Greek Cypriot non-refugee living in Limassol, having a good job, everything is going well for you. Now your country is entering the EU and you feel safe that the events of 74 can not repeat. Your country has functioned smoothly and democratically for several decades and has achieved what was called an "economic miracle".
Would you risk with something like the Annan plan? A complicated "thing" that has never been applied anywhere in the world before. Something that gives a minority and a foreign country the ability to control your own future? You know the events in the 60s you know the events of 74, you know that Turkey is a non-democratic country that didn't keep its promises several times in the past. You see how the US and their partners have screwed up in Iraq and other places. Personally you have nothing to gain. Unlike T/C, we will not get richer, we will be in the EU anyways.

The same way I can perfectly understand why most Turkish Cypriots will vote yes (as I said I would do the same if I was a T/C) instead of trying to prove to me that I am misinformed or stupid, you should try to understand why the majority of G/C will vote "no". Its not hard, just try to think like a G/C and you will see that if you were a G/C you would also vote "no".

When you understand this, instead of thinking: "How can we force a solution on them" (in which case even if you succeed it wouldn't last) , try thinking: "What is the minimum I should demand? Can I live with less than what is given in Annan plan?"

Thats how I think too. Of course for me a unitary state would be the ideal, but I can live with less. I can accept that a minority of 18% will have its own federal state. I can accept that this state will be larger than the 18% of the ground. I can accept that inside this state T/C will have a lot of autonomy. I can accept that I will have to pay higher taxes to bring this other state to the same level, I can accept that settlers that were married or born in Cyprus can stay etc.
But I can not accept additional settlers to stay, I can not accept that Turkey will always have army in Cyprus and can intervene in our independent country whenever it decides, I can not accept that Turkish Cypriots can have a veto on every matter etc.
If you start thinking like that too you will see that we can agree.
If you want we could start a thread to discuss all there issues one by one with goodwill and desire not to blame each other or "win" but to find an agreement.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby rengarenk » Sat Apr 17, 2004 10:44 pm

Piratis, as usual you are taking things entirely out of context and moving the subject thinking that I am trying to convince you of anything. If you look at my posts on things like FIR, G/C voting rights, citizenship, etc I've either corrected your wrong assertion or put forward another perfectly valid point of view which you seem to think is a "bad attitude".

I've told you before we're NOT negotiators, this a chat board but you continously go on about me "accepting" and "signing" as if I was the leader of T/C.

If you want to become educated you should go and read that the UN calls for the immediate withdrew of the Turkish occupation forces from Cyprus.


Again you're moving the subject along to something else, I was talking about the G/C position on insiting negotiating within the UN and on UN resolutions. I know very well the UN resolutions I dont need you to educate me on anything.

The subject of this thread which you seem to have forgotten is "where we mislead?" and I have stated here that according to your leadership a UN plan would be based on security council resolutions. Resolution 750 and 774 explicitly state that the UN endores that a new state of affairs which will solve the cyprus problem be based on the "Set of Ideas" of the secratary general.

These "Set of Ideas" and its map can easily be seen as the basis for the Annan plan. The matter is have your leaders over these five or so years misled you into thinking that a UN sponsored plan, the Annan plan, would be majorly different than what you is on offer now?

This is not a matter of you accepting it or not, as I've stated previously I'm not here to make you accept anything.

That the UN (and EU) recognizes the Republic of Cyprus representing the whole island.


And how has the ROC existed since 1963? You do realize that the UN ackowledges via UN resolutions again that the solution to the problem will result in a new state of affairs that will effectively end the ROC dont you? Infact if you read the EU accession treaty for cyprus, it does n't actually mention the ROC by name because they know it wont exist after a solution too.

Everything else, like e.g. the Annan plan are just suggestions. As you said "nothing is agreed until everything agreed".


Again as usual you did n't bother to read what I wrote and using my quote out of context. I gave that quote as to explain the reason why Annan was authorised by G/C, Greece, T/C and Turkey to "fill in the blanks" because the UN recognised that the leaders would never agree and hence there would never be an agreement if left to agree 100%.

What is agreed is Republic of Cyprus. If you don't like my offers then ok, there are non. Return the grounds of the Republic of Cyprus that you illegally occupy and obey to the resolutions of UN. What you have is illegal, what you do is illegal.


Hold on, you agree to the ROC and in affect its constitution? If that was the case then it there would be no problem at all, the T/C agreed with the ROC all the way until the coup of 1974.

Now please dont even try and use legality here, I have said previously that the TRNC was illegal and I have never said the permenant presence of more than 650 soilders from Turkey was legal. In addition the fact that enosis was illegal and any unilateral change of the 1960 constitution is illegal seems to have passed you by completely.

The fact of the matter is you dont agree with the ROC, you agree to some of it but ignore the major parts such a political equality and vetos. So basically what you are saying is that you are very concerned about the territorial integrity of the ROC but not so concerned about its constitution. This paradox has to be one of the most intellectually bankrupt things you have said so far. It also goes some way of proving suspicions that if the army was not there you would be under no inclination to reach an agreement as was the case between 63-74. The only reason you claim to uphold the ROC is because it serves a purpose for you.

You are placing one paragraph quotes from some documents to intentionally create a wrong impression.


Those quotes where a reply to your statement blaming turkey without exception for the reason there was no solution all this time. That was just an example to show that your assertion was wrong but as usual you throw accusations at me.

How about going now and ask your friend Cleredes to give a fair solution?


Why should I ask for anything from any G/C leader? As a T/C I know my position and dont need to ask for anything when it comes to a solution, your superiour attitude towards T/C surfaces again.

It seems that you trust him, so i don't think you should have a problem, right?


Again your talking about me as if I was negotiating and by moving the subject matter out of context. Also dont use the word "seems" please use rational arguments as a reason to think that instead of vague words. The two parties implicitly trust each other when comming to an agreement since otherwise there is no point negotiating at all, in the context I mentioned it was Denktas and Clerides so they must have implictly trusted each other it's not anything to do with me trusting Clerides.

If the word of leaders was enough then no referendum would take place.


The word of leaders in the past have been enough to start and end conflicts that have been much much worse then the cyprus problem. The reason there is a referendum is so that in the future neither side could use the argument that their leaders imposed something on them and then insight violence based on them being "traitors". G/C have often in the past used the argument of imposition against the 1960 agreements.

We have the final word, and we will decide if a solution is acceptable or not.


Never did I argue against the referendum, please dont try and make impressions that I did.

And for the Annan plan we decided that it is not.


What?! I missed the referendum? Is it the 25th? Opinon polls are one thing but as we both know they do change, please be accurate with what you write. I've never had a problem with the G/C having their final say and like all T/C if there is a 'No' vote we will move on from there.

Go get some education to learn what democracy means.


I know exactly what democracy means. You are using the word in its purest, its definition because it suits you. But in actuality it does n't work that way, the reality of it is that lots of democratic countries have different systems because every place is different and has different electoral regimes. Your patron, Greece has a threshold system of 3%, this means that even if there was a party that represented the "muslim minority" and got all their votes they would be excluded representation in parliment.

Your democracy/human rights/independance rants are becoming tiresome, we had all those things in 1960 but the G/C choose to ignore them so stop trying to use this argument. The 1960 system implemented democracy and human rights and as I said before the EU agrees with me because it is with this constitution you claim to uphold you are entering the EU with. According to the EU the Annan plan also is democratic and has human rights, so you cant have any complaint here. You may have a problem with it personally but that is not my problem and like I said I am not here to try and make you agree with anything.

To understand that what you are is a small minority that is trying with the force of weapons to harm the interests of the great majority of this island.


The hypocracy of this is sentance is amazing, previously you say you ackowledge the 63-74 period but this massive freudian slip indicates that it's all crocodile tears. What do you think your national guard and thousands of soilders of greece were using to pressure us? flowers? The T/C carried on negotiating with the G/C even under these circumstances and now bring up the issue of force of arms? Of course I forgot it's all turkeys fault even though it had right-of-intervention after the coup. When will you come to terms that it is not all black and white and that actions have consequences?
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby nathar » Mon Apr 19, 2004 12:48 am

Might hurts but the very truth is that this solution is a compromise and we should expect it to be one.
It is a political solution.
The process of this solution was activated on our request due to violations of justice but ironically the absolute justice will be and it is within the attainable and according to the political coincidences and balances where sentiments are secondary issues.
Towards this realistic approach the necessity of correct information, based on pure documentary facts, to all involved is a must, while fanatism is harmful.
Historical facts and experiences with relation to the present international status are invaluable knowledge and give to people the assets to form there own opinion, an opinion based on objective inputs and arguments, an opinion leading to mature decisions with vision.
The plan might not be ideal but within Europe is a good one!
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby rengarenk » Mon Apr 19, 2004 5:01 pm

nathar, everything you say is correct of course but what concerns me, and probably most T/Cs, is that a 'No' vote seems to be being pushed in a most agressive way; that a rational argument between 'Yes' and 'No' is not taking place and in some ways is not being allowed to take place by people in the state machinary, the media and those with powerful vested interests.

Some of the things I've read litterally scare me, like for example a few days ago I read a teacher in Nicosia was teaching their 2-year old class to chant 'No' to the Annan plan or today that a bishop says voting 'Yes' means going to hell. Like I said very agressive, in these circumstances if I was a G/C I dont know if I would feel comfortable walking around in a 'Yes' t-shirt.

I'm not saying that the T/C is perfect either by any means, this is just my perception and I really hope that I'm wrong.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby nathar » Mon Apr 19, 2004 7:52 pm

dear rengarenk your point of you is more than realistic and I cannot say anything different, after all my original post express this idea with similar or other words
All your previous replies/arguments I read them with interest
I know and I am sure we Greekcypriots and Turkishcypriots can live and cooperate for a stronger Cyprus in EE
I try my best and I will be more than happy for my country if an objective approach replace the negative attitude in time.
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests