The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Were we mislead?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Were we mislead?

Postby nathar » Thu Apr 15, 2004 11:44 am

Everybody including media and political leaders declare that the president of CY all this time spent the negotiations time without taking advantage of real bargain leading the Anan Plan to rejection and at the same time an artificial echo well orchestrated cultivated a climate of pessimism leading to the today’s negative polarization.
Why our representatives didn't go fwd and stop this situation in time as to prevent this sick attitude towards today's reality?
Why we the civilians were not alerted loud and clear for this climate?
Why we were mislead by our leaders?
Why we don't all go fwd and reject a policy that lead to a pre-orchestrated information?
Why we don't go fwd, expose the whole matter and ask help and time from UN to neutralize the fanatism that the President and its surrounding spread among the Greek Cypriots?
Why our leaders closed their eyes and ears and let the people arrive to a decision that in reality has nothing to do with the Anan Plan but is based to fanatism reminding old unforgettable times that most of the time lead us to mistakes for which we still pay?
Why the Greek leaders let this situation to grow and arrived to a point that now the danger is imminent for unpleasant consequences not only for Cyprus but for Greece as well?
Is there still anything we can do to change this threat?
Where do we go from here?
Whom can we trust?
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby Piratis » Thu Apr 15, 2004 7:20 pm

The only question is why we were even discussing such a plan in the first place. It should have been rejected long time ago.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby nathar » Fri Apr 16, 2004 1:19 am

rejection is an easy word, a 30year negotiations arrived to a plan
a plan within the criteria established by the UN and approved by us
the plan itself is a compromise result ,couldn't be otherwise
is not the absolute perfect plan but is a good plan but still refugees return to their homelands, properties are returned,exchanged or recovered. the island is united and free to all cypriots. the legal system is ready
the goverment's procedures also. the US, UN and EE are ready to assure the correct application of the plan.
ofcourse it will take time for people to take advantage of the reunification of the island and the solution but after all this is a solution for the generations to come otherwise they will inherit either a national problem with even wrse prospects or a divided country
we owe the present plan to the present geopolitical situation and we don't know when the same opportunity wil occur again and worst of all the international opinion and mainly the parties involved directly or indirectly agree that we should take this plan and make it work
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby michalis5354 » Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:04 pm

Everybody including media and political leaders declare that the president of CY all this time spent the negotiations time without taking advantage of real bargain leading the Anan Plan to rejection


Yes I do agree with this. Having Papadopoulos were seriously negotiating the UN Plan , He would may have come up with a Plan mutually acceptable by both communities. He had been to switzerland for a pre- planned approach to reject the UN plan .

But I do not think serious negotiations have been undertaken. Most of the time had been spent to criticising the whole plan and identifying weaknesses rather than using the negotiating time with a more constructive approach towards producing a win - win settlement for both communities. It was very obvious that having not met a mutually accepted settlement , Kofi Annan would fill the gap and propose the plan according to what has been discussed on the negotiating table.

Anyway I do believe that the 5th version of the UN plan is a win- win solution and both communities ought to accept this.
User avatar
michalis5354
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:48 am

Postby nathar » Fri Apr 16, 2004 12:33 pm

I couldn't agree more!
and wish that more people will start looking to this plan with open mind
Am I too optimistic?
I wish not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby rengarenk » Fri Apr 16, 2004 7:02 pm

Here is my analysis of the point we are at now. For the last 40 years since 1963 we have been negotiating on a "zero-sum" basis, that is "nothing is agreed until everything agreed" unfortunately when you negotiate this way unless one side is willing to back-down chances of agreement are always close to zero.

The UN started to realise that after all this time if there was going to be a solution the UN would have to be much more involved than it was before. So first you had the Ghali set-of-ideas and now the Annan plan.

The UN also realized that since our leaders are playing the zero-sum game they needed a way to get round this problem, so they came up the the secratary general making changes in areas where both sides could n't agree and finally putting the plan to referenda.

With regards to one months of negotiations not being enough, up until that point everything was done via proximity with the UN. When we had direct negotiation nothing was agreed on, infact the last week or so turned back to proximity via the UN because it got so bad. Nothing was also agreed on in switzerland which is saying something considering Denktas senior was n't there.

However one thing that did happen was in that month where negotiations took place was that both sides handed alot of documents over to the UN. Now I know both our sides say there we being minimal in there demands with these documents but I doubt that either side would ask for less than they wanted considering past experience.

So we have the final changes to the Annan Plan, based on the middle ground between the two sides. Yes it's not perfect but compromise in itself is inperfection. One area of hope is that the 8800 pages of laws that accompany the core plan was jointly agreed to by the commissions so atleast I cant see any problems with the technocrats in the future.

I personally don't believe that the G/C people are against the ethos of the Annan plan because this time last year one opinion poll was 40% 'yes', 38% 'no' and 22% where undecided. I wont try to explain why things have changed on the G/C side because as a T/C I dont feel I have to authority to and the question really needs to be asked by G/C side themselves.

However what I can say is the T/C that have been pushing for Annan plan and voted for Talat and Akinci are profoundly disapointed with the G/C side, especially AKEL. Now there wont be anymore bi-communal youth events because the youth wing of AKEL are saying 'No' also even they signed an agreement with the youth wings of the CTP-BG coalition to promote the Annan plan. If the people who did so much to turn the situation around in the last few years in the T/C feel let down and the youth start to feel bitter what hope is there for the future?

I hope that it is a double 'Yes' on the 24th because as the diplomats have been saying this could be the only chance of a solution for a very long time.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby Piratis » Fri Apr 16, 2004 9:05 pm

- Nothing is agreed now either

- Solution for all these decades was not found because Turkey had no motive.

- The Annan plan is not balanced at all.

- 40% said yes at that time for the Annan plan to be the base of a solution but they did not accept the plan as it is. Most of those people expected major improvements that never happened. Also, at that time all parties (except 1 representing 2%) said that they accepted the Annan plan as the basis. Therefore that 40% is actually a very low percentage.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby nathar » Sat Apr 17, 2004 12:23 am

It is undoubtable that T/C and G/C share the same worries
and I undoubtly go along with the wish that the outcome of the referenda be "yes"
I respect different opinions but based on solid arguments
For this reason I feel disappointed that today, only few days before the day of the referenda, many Cypriots are ready to criticize in an absolute way and without specific and justified arguments a plan that a percentage, I am afraid bigger than that of the "no" at recent polls, has not even bother to read it. The complimentary booklet of 75 pages prepared by the official information desk with the complete plan in greek and maps has very low demand
Further I agree that political coincidences affect the prospect of solution and, I also dare say that concidences are out there today, this plan is the outcome and I dare further say: we better take advantage of it.
nathar
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 4:27 pm

Postby rengarenk » Sat Apr 17, 2004 2:38 am

- Nothing is agreed now either


I never said nor implied that it was. I said non agreement between leaders was the reason for having this process of "filling in the blanks" by the the secratary general.

- Solution for all these decades was not found because Turkey had no motive.


Of course I forgot it's always Turkeys fault, you sound like these brainwashed people you accuse the T/C's of being. Let me give you an example of on course of events during 1985-86 U.N. Draft Framework Exercise:

"In January 1985, Denktash and Kyprianou met in New York. The Turkish Cypriots accepted a draft U.N. document; Greek Cypriots considered it a basis for negotiations, but did not want to sign. The U.N. modified the document in light of objections. Greek Cypriots accepted an April 1985 version; Turkish Cypriots did not. Greek Cypriots opposed a March 1986 revision and called for an international conference or a new summit to revitalize the process."

In an other example taken from Clerides's memoires from events even before 1974:

"In the year 1972, despite the internal situation amongst the Greek Cypriot community, I reached agreement with Mr. Denktash on all constitutional issues; except on the issue regarding the central local government authority.

On that issue the Turkish side abandoned its demand for the grouping of Turkish villages together in order to form areas of Turkish local government. It accepted that the House of Representatives would legislate, by simple majority, the laws relating to local government and that the two Communal Chambers would issue regulations, within the Laws enacted by the House, to be applied by the respective Greek and Turkish local government authorities. The Communal Chambers would also act as co-ordinators of the respective local government authorities. Administrative supervision would be exercised by a government civil servant. Further, agreement had already been reached on the power and functions of local government authorities. . .

Looking back at that formula I cannot but state that a cardinal error was committed by Makarios . . . , [who] considered [the formula] to be a form of concealed federation. . . . In local government autonomy, the element of two separate and geographical cohesive areas did not exist. The Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots would have remained in their villages and towns and would have enjoyed local government autonomy under their respective communities. Furthermore the scope of local government agreed to was much more limited than that of the powers and functions of a federal province, canton or state. Makarios in rejecting the September 1972 formula on local government failed to evaluate correctly the internal situation in Cyprus, i.e. the growing danger of a coup by the Greek military forces in Cyprus acting on orders from the Greek Junta, the reaction of Turkey to such a development, and the warning given by the United States.

The internal situation amongst the Greek Cypriot community was such, the risk of a military coup by the Greek forces in Cyprus so great, and the danger of a Turkish invasion so real, that the formula of September 1972 on local government should have been accepted. Had it been accepted, an agreement would have been reached on the solution of the Cyprus problem, which would have left Cyprus with a much improved constitution. Turkey would have been thus deprived of any reason, and of any excuse to invade Cyprus. The Greek junta would have been prevented by the U.S. Government from attempting a military coup, and Cyprus would have been spared the Turkish invasion and its destructive effects."

- The Annan plan is not balanced at all.


This is your own personal opinion and you are entitled to it but in the eyes of the UN (who your leadership has been asking continously to solve the problem) think it is.

- 40% said yes at that time for the Annan plan to be the base of a solution but they did not accept the plan as it is. Most of those people expected major improvements that never happened. Also, at that time all parties (except 1 representing 2%) said that they accepted the Annan plan as the basis. Therefore that 40% is actually a very low percentage.


Again you say things without knowing what the question for the poll was. The question asked was "Would you approve a version of the Annan plan very similar to the one currently on the table". At that point the plan was in version 3 and as mentioned in the post above most people dont even seem to know the provisions. My point was that people all of a sudden became against it in principle.

Maybe your political leadership misled your people in expecting something better? This is probably true because as as long as I can remember the G/C want a solution based on UN resolutions but not telling you what is in them. Well let me tell you about Security Council Res. 774, August 26, 1992 that endorses the Ghali "Set of Ideas" which are:

"Secretary General Boutros-Ghali's April 1992 report suggested a bizonal federation of two politically equal communities, possessing one international personality and sovereignty. A bicameral legislature would have a 70:30 ratio of Greek Cypriots to Turkish Cypriots in the lower house and a 50:50 ratio in the upper house. 7:3 ratio would prevail in the federal executive. Each state would be guaranteed a majority of the population and of land in its area. Non-Cypriot forces not foreseen in the 1960 Treaty of Alliance would withdraw. In June, Boutros-Ghali presented a "non-map." Talks led to a new U.N. draft, providing for a separate referendum by each community within 30 days of an agreement, an 18-month transitional period, withdrawal of Turkish troops, guarantees consistent with Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe principles, an end of the Greek Cypriot embargo, free movement, a timetable for the return of Greek Cypriot refugees and their property, 3 constitutions (one for each community and one for the central government), a 7:3 ratio in the executive, vice presidential veto power (no rotating presidency), an island-wide referendum on EC membership, and the return of Varosha and about 30 villages to Greek Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots would receive assistance and compensation. Greek Cypriots would get Morphou, a citrus-producing region that is home to about 11,000 Turkish Cypriots. Denktash said that they and Turkish Cypriots to be displaced from other areas total 40,000 or about one-quarter of the Turkish Cypriot population. Vassiliou estimated that 82,000 Greek Cypriots would be able to return home and that Denktash's 40,000 figure was inflated."

Now this is very similar to the Annan plan and it's map that we have 12 years latter. Maybe it's time to come to terms with what a settlement will actually look like and not something you are wishing for.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49 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.
So what you say about those other plans is just how you see them, not necessarily the truth. If you post a link with the full text (like we have for Annan plan) then I can comment on the specifics.

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.


Maybe it's time to come to terms with what a settlement will actually look like and not something you are wishing for.


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.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests