Piratis wrote:Very few Cypriots (both TCs and GCs) want no solution. The great majorities want solution and you can therefore call them "pro-solutionists" if you want. The difference is that most GCs want solution A and most TCs want solution B.
So, the problem is: where is the point between solution A and solution B (let's say these are the maximum demands) where both sides can meet? Sorry for the misunderstanding there, but "solution" for me is still sth that is acceptable to both sides in the conflict - everything else would be "demand" or "proposal".
Piratis wrote:The difference between legal and legitimate is that the first is mostly objective and the second quite subjective. This is why I use the word legal.
By the way, have you read the Annan plan? You talk about "guarantees for security and possibilities of political participation" for the TCs. Do you think we denied to the TCs such things? The demands of TCs are not just these obviously legitimate things but a ton of other outrageous things that no objective person can describe as legitimate.
e.g, are the bellow legitimate:
Demand that the 18% will control the 29% of the ground.
Demand that a foreign country should have the right to intervene in the independent and sovereign Cyprus.
Demand that the 18% should have 50% power and a blocking power on everything (1 TC vote to equal 4 GC votes)
mark my words - nowhere did I say that the Annan Plan provided a good solution (for instance, the proposed flag REALLY sucks!). But citing the bare legal facts, without seeing them in their context, in my opinion distorts the reality quite a bit. The ground demands for instance should be seen in the light of the 63-74 events (especially the displacements and casualties among TCs). For the foreign country intervention rights - I would favour Cypriots ruling their own (demilitarised) island, w/o guarantor powers (as this concept failed in the past). For the veto power - I think this should only apply to certain policies that affect the vital interests of Turkish Cypriots (GCs being the majority anyway); as there are: International Relations, EU relations, inner security. For quorae (how many percent should be TC/GC in certain institutions etc), I think a non-discrimination policy would get Cypriots much further than, say, 20% of places being guaranteed.
Everybody. Not all of them will actually go to live there again, but non wants to just give up its own property or to be given a compensation by some authority that will most probably not reflect the real value of the property (and actually, as per Annan plan, in the end we would compensate ourselves!!!, or you though Turkey or the TCs would give the billions needed for a true compensation?)
I see the sentence: Not all of them will actually go to live there again - i.e., they would also accept a (decent) compensation for their property. I agree that in theory, Turkey should pay for the compensations, but whether that is possible in practice? Maybe this should be part of the TR EU negotiations?
ps: please note that while I might defend certain positions, it is sometimes only to highlight "the other point of view" as well - not because I endorse a certain point of view.
