ioann wrote:Maximus wrote:ioann wrote:
Even if we somehow manage the ultimate victory and liberate Cyprus then the TCs would be demanding a return to the 1960 agreements which legally is their right.
Therefore instead of holding back for the highly unlikely ultimate victory I say that a two state 80-20% would be a nearly as good solution because in that case all Turks will be concentrated in that 20% and we will not have to deal with them. Let me tell you that Turkey would hate this arrangement because Turkey wants to take control of the whole Cyprus and such an agreement would finish off any claims they can have to the rest of Cyprus and to our EEZ.
Although you are right that the TC's would demand the 1960 arrangement if the liberation of the north comes to pass, I disagree that this is legally their right. Not now its not. Reverting back to that arrangement wouldn't amount to a liberation of the north anyway. It would amount to a Turkish victory and the whole of Cyprus would become what it would have been under the Annan plan, just without two constituent states. It would amount to the state of affairs in the 1960's and early seventies where conflict is highly probable.
I used to think like this too, that a two state solution would finish off any claims they have for the rest of Cyprus. What you are essentially banking on though is that Turkey will be a good neighbor and respect the RoC's sovereign rights, not interfere and that the TC's will stay in their "country". Given their track record in the region, I wouldn't bank on either or find solace that that would be the end of the problem or that you wouldn't have to deal with them. it would just be the beginning of the next chapter of their belligerence with a stronger political and legal standing than what they have today.
Why? because Turkey wants to take control over the whole island and the EEZ, just as you say.
They have "their" cake, they want to eat yours too
now. It wouldn't be any different tomorrow with or without an "agreement".
I don't like the 1960 agreements either but the BBF they plan to serve us is far worst. We would be celebrating if we could get a unitary state and return to the 1960 agreements. But those agreements were problematic also. Hoping that we will fully correct not only the result of the invasion but also what happened before that is a pipe dream. It is like hoping to win the lotto jackpot twice.
And I agree with you that Turkey will always be Turkey. They will never be a friendly nice neighbor. What we should do is be as strong as we can. A BBF weakens us. It downgrades us to a community status and we will not have control of the central goverment. The marionettes of Turkey would get veto power in all our decisions.
But a two state 20-80% would make us stronger than we are today. The TCs will have their own separate territory and own separate EEZ in the north and we will have ours in the south. Turkey will no longer be able to hide behind the TCs because our country will have nothing to do with TCs anymore and TCs will have no claims on our territory or EEZ. It is a win for us, a win for the TCs and a big loss for Turkey. This is why Turkey will not allow the TCs to do such thing and they need a very strong leadership if this is ever going to have any chance of happening.
There is no doubt, that some would see a reversion back to the 1960's agreement as something to celebrate. I see it as something to be concerned about. Under these agreements, the GC community would be downgraded to just a community status also and lose their sovereign rights to Cyprus. So essentially you are being pedantic between a BBF with elements of the 1960's agreements included or reverting back to the 1960's agreement's in full. The risk of conflict increases in any of these two situations. Both are also worse deals than the status quo. The perceived gain of territory is undermined by real loses in sovereignty, freedoms, human rights and social progress. Furthermore, the GC community will be paying for this for as long as they can tolerate it by giving the TC's 30% of the central governments budget.
So what you are essentially asking under either arrangement is for the GC's to give up their sovereign rights to Cyprus, be downgraded to community status, lose some freedoms and human rights and hand over about 10-20% net of the governments budget to the TC's. They wont contribute more than they will take. No thanks! The status quo is better than either of these two. Its also better than a straight 80:20 split. The GG's gain nothing with any of these solutions.
)
