The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


A new perspective regarding the Annan Plan

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

A new perspective regarding the Annan Plan

Postby insan » Mon May 10, 2004 8:51 am

Annan Plan doesn't contain anything that the relevant parties and their western "allies" didn't demand... but the fact is that it was dominantly based on Turkish thesis in the final round of the negotiations... that's the problem with the Annan Plan imo... and that's the reason of Papadopulos rejection as he stated in many of his speeches...


The plan contains everything regarding the region we have been in... but it's not fair I agree... It would not only legalize the the results of invasion but all illegal actions of 1963-74 period as well...

I'd like a solution which I've mentioned before; all illegal actions of 1963-2004 period even if you claim that 60s treaties too are illegal we can expand it to 1957- 2004 period; must be reanalysed, interrogated, prosecuted and bring to a conclusion which respects justice and human rights of Cypriots... In addition of that Cypriots must be aware of their duties in the region as an "ally" of western world...but as far as I've observed till now there has been an anti-AngloAmerican reaction in south. Naturally this attitude too, have been affecting the relations of "allies" and South and even encouraging the conflict among the relevant parties(RoC, North, Greece, Turkey, EU, UN, US)
Last edited by insan on Mon May 10, 2004 7:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby metecyp » Mon May 10, 2004 3:51 pm

but the fact is that it is dominantly based on Turkish thesis in the final round of the negotiations... that's the problem with the Annan Plan imo... and that's the reason of Papadopulos rejection as he stated in many of his speeches...

First of all, the reason why the last Annan plan is more biased towards the Turkish side is because Greek side didn't even try to negotiate the plan in Switzerland while the Turkish side was bringing proposals to the table. There was no reason for Annan to suddenly stop being neutral and favor the Turkish side.

Secondly, Papadopoulos did NOT reject the Annan plan because the last version was biased towards the Turkish side. All the excuses he gave on TV in tears were against the philosophy of the plan. For example, he said TCs would gain full benefits with the plan while GCs would wait for years to achieve their benefits. Or he said if he signs the plan then he'll reduce his state (RC) to a constituent state and he couldn't do that. All these excuses have nothing to do with the changes made to the last plan. Even if we signed the first Annan plan, he had to accept these anyway. So this shows that he wasn't really supporting the plan right from the beginning.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Mon May 10, 2004 10:54 pm

I think the argument that we were given less because we didn't ask for more is ridiculous. It was all a game of balance of power and it is obvious where the balance will go if on one side we have the interests of US - UK and Turkey and on the other side a community of less than a million people.

Also, why you keep confusing Papadopoulos with the majority of Greek Cypriots? If people followed Papadopoulos blindly do you think his party (DIKO) would get just 16% in last elections? We supported Papadopoulos on this because we agreed that this plan was a very bad one for us.
The leaders inform and advice, but people decide. Ansatasiades (DISY) that supported "yes" now has huge problems in his party and you will see that DISY supporters will punish him in the EU parliament elections. We (most of us) do not follow blindly any person or any party.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Mon May 10, 2004 11:43 pm

It was all a game of balance of power and it is obvious where the balance will go if on one side we have the interests of US - UK and Turkey and on the other side a community of less than a million people.

I think it's equally ridiculous that you consider the whole world is working against yourself (like Denktas does). What makes you think that US-UK and Turkey have common interests?
We supported Papadopoulos on this because we agreed that this plan was a very bad one for us.

If it was so bad, then why did Papadopoulos say that he's looking for minor changes to the plan when Denktas was refusing the plan alltogether? The reasons he gave on TV were not minor reasons. They were completely against the plan not just the latest plan but all versions. He obviously tried to seem like the good guy until the latest minute so GC side could get into EU with no problems and once EU bid for GC side was complete, he refused the whole plan and its philosophy, just like Denktas, only Denktas did it long time ago.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Tue May 11, 2004 12:24 am

What makes you think that US-UK and Turkey have common interests?


Have you ever wonder why the US wants Turkey to enter the EU so much? Turkey has been one of the best US allies for decades, I am not going to sit here and analyze that. Go read some books.

why did Papadopoulos say...

Ask Papadopoulos.

He obviously tried to seem like the good guy until the latest minute so GC side could get into EU with no problems and once EU bid for GC side was complete

This was true until spring 2003. After that nobody could stop Cyprus entering the EU.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Tue May 11, 2004 12:32 am

By the way, recently they called me from RAI consultants for a survey, and in the question how I judge the policies of Papadopoulos for the Cyprus problem during the last year I answered: "rather bad".

I am not here to support him. I support him only with what I agree (e.g. rejecting Annan plan). As I already said I never voted for his party.

For me it was a mistake to agree what they agreed in New York. He shouldn't ask Annan to resume the talks and he should have never gone to NY in the first place. He should have waited until Cyprus entered the EU. Huge mistake.

See, I have no problem to criticize him.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm


Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests