Cyprus-Forum.com

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:29 pm**

Tubegallery, I strongly disagree (but respectfully) with your opinion that the settlers are entitled to stay.

First, was Turkey acting as a WARRING nation against the GCs OR as a GUARANTOR? From what I can tell, the Turks say they are in Cyprus with their occupation troops as one of 3 GUARANTOR powers. A GUARANTOR is one who makes a GUARANTEE. Presumably, the 3 GUARANTOR nations in the agreements setting up the RoC were entrusted to guarantee the peace and NOT TO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE CYPRIOTS. Therefore, the Turks are NOT entitled to the spoils of war. Even during war, it is questionable if the "winning" side is entitled to impose demographic changes on the "losing" side. Is the US entitled to import Americans to Iraq and set up a colony there because they "won"?

Second, if the 35,000 Turkish troops are there presumably to make the TCs feel "safe," why have so many TCs left the island? Exceptions can be made for settlers who are in legitimate marriages to TCs. However, the bulk of settlers knew what they were getting into when they "moved" to Cyprus and I have no sympathy for them.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 2:33 pm**

tubegallery wrote:Nikiforos I know what your saying about the EU and whatever decisions they do make on their structure will be done with a lot of huffing and puffing. It wont be easy.

But the point of my posts about the EU is, that Cyprus shouldn't be waiting to see what the EU can do for it. It should be pro-active and making this solution happen on the best terms they can negotiate.

Standing back and waiting for the EU to draw concessions it may or may not get from Turkey is a defeatist strategy, speaks volume of how high highly the GC leaders trust their ability, and is a pathetic way to conduct the single most important issue to Cypriots.

On this issue of the Cyprus "problem" stuff the EU, get in the room with the TC's, Turkey and Greece, and hammer out an agreement which we can all live with, and do it on our terms, not the UN's, not the EU's. They dont have our (GC and TC) best interests at heart, only we can come up with the most suitable agreement, and not sell out to anyone else.

Overall, I do agree with you. We must be proactive.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:06 pm**

Tubegallery

Standing back and waiting for the EU to draw concessions..

What makes you think that this is what's happening??

GCs have, contrary to what Turks and the opposition in Cyprus say, submitted the areas of the Annan plan that need to change for this to become acceptable to GCs.

I personally disagree with the above areas, because not enough emphasis has been placed on the land sharing - but nevertheless they have been submitted.

It is now up to the UN (and Turkey) to start a new initiative provided they first confirm there is a reasonable expectation of success, given the required changes.

In the meantime, GC are not standing idle. The continue to push for the implementation of EU acquis, international and human rights law and ECHR decisions ordering Turkey to remove its troops and remove the illegality.

Within the EU, Cyprus is active and pro-active in the sense that it has stated clearly that Turkey will not become a member before she ends the illegal military occupation and that the effects of this occupation will need to be gradually lifted as Cyprus allows for Turkey to gradually progress through the 35 or so chapters.

And let's not forget that it is Turkey that illegally occupies Cyprus and keeps 200,000 EU citizens away from their homes. If Turkey wants a clean record and passport for the EU, it is Turkey that has to offer a settlement that is acceptable to GCs. Her only other alternative is to remove her troops and puppet state and for TCs to re-claim their 1960 rights.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 3:15 pm**

- but nevertheless they have been submitted.

Is more propaganda what we really need?

THE PRESIDENT of the European Parliament, Josep Borrell, put the government on the defensive during his visit here when he said that government should submit its positions to the UN, as regards the changes it wanted made to Annan plan.

The response of the pro-government camp was predictable: how could he say such a thing, considering that President Papadopoulos had submitted documents with all the changes he was seeking to the UN?

‘Borrell is uninformed about the Cyprus issue’, was the unanimous conclusion reached by most shocked newspaper columnists, who criticised the government for failing to brief EU officials about ‘our problem’, thus giving a free rein to Turkish propaganda.

Only by keeping EU officials informed about our positions, can “we avoid the traps by Turkey and the CIA,” warned a Haravghi editorial. More money should be spent on enlightenment campaigns abroad, suggested a Simerini columnist.

The government spokesman had a different take on the issue, insisting that the Spanish EU official was the victim of blatant misinformation by someone on the Greek Cypriot side. President Papadopoulos acknowledged that Borrell was not fully informed about the submission of the changes sought by him. “We gave him the documents we had submitted to the UN and President Borrell expressed his surprise,” said Papadopoulos, without elaborating.

Was Borrell surprised by the fact that he was unaware that we had submitted documents to the UN or because the sheer scale of the changes sought would mean a complete re-drafting of the Annan plan? Perhaps he was surprised because he realised that the prospect of a settlement was non-existent given the sweeping changes we were seeking.

This was the conclusion reached by Kofi Annan, after his envoy Sir Kieran Prendergast’s talks with Papadopoulos in Nicosia last June, which is why he has not even entertained the idea of undertaking a new initiative.

Had Papadopoulos’ documents contained pragmatic demands, Annan may have considered an initiative and Borrell would have heard about it. But it would appear that the changes contained in the president’s documents were not taken very seriously by the UN, because, by their very nature, they ruled out the possibility of a new initiative. In short, the only purpose they served was to ensure against a new settlement drive by the UN and the return of the Annan plan to the negotiating table.

This is the truth of the matter and Borrell was not as ignorant about the Cyprus issue as the president and his supporters would have us believe. “If the two sides desire a solution to the problem they must repeat the high level contacts as soon as possible,” said Borrell, who is unlikely to have bought the claim that the document he was presented proved Papadopoulos’ desire for a settlement.

from todays Cyprus Mail

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 4:44 pm**

bg_turk

Thank you for confirming my above statement, i.e. that GC HAVE submitted the requested changes, despite the claims to the contrary by the various "Annanists" in Cyprus and abroad.

The pro-Annan plan newspaper mentioned above believes that the requested changes are not pragmatic or realistic and it is likely that Annan himself may think the same, because those imply substantial changes to his plan.

So what?? What matters is the opinion of 76% of GC who have buried the suicidal Annan plan!

The changes may seem unrealistic to Mr Annan, Turkey, and the Cyprus-based Annanists because their starting point is the present situation and the acceptance of the current "realities" which have been created by violence and illegal occupation.. i.e. they are comparing the solution to the current illegal situation.

Unfortunately for them, the vast majority of GC are NOT prepared to negotiate on this basis, because it is illegal and includes an advantage that was gained through violence.

The comparison of any new plan should be made against only the 1960 agreements, as this is the only legal fallback for both parties.

In other words, assuming Turkey NEEDS a solution, which is the case if she will ever enter the EU, the Greek-Cypriots need to be convinced that any proposed plan is better or about the same as the 1960 agreements. If this is not the case, any plan will be rejected and GC will continue their campaign to remove the occupation through legal means (i.e. international and EU courts, ECHR etc).

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:21 pm**

Tony-4497 wrote:bg_turk

Thank you for confirming my above statement, i.e. that GC HAVE submitted the requested changes, despite the claims to the contrary by the various "Annanists" in Cyprus and abroad.

the list (quite an understatement considering how long it is) of changes as far as I know has been submitted orally, not in written form. Care to expalin why?

In fact it is not even a list, it is areas of concern.

Posted: **Thu Oct 13, 2005 6:56 pm**

bg_turk

the list (quite an understatement considering how long it is) of changes as far as I know has been submitted orally, not in written form. Care to expalin why?

I don't think I have to, because they were actually submitted in writing. This is also confirmed in the article you cited, i.e.

We gave him the DOCUMENTS we had submitted to the UN and President Borrell expressed his surprise,

Oh, and the fact that the list was extensive simply indicates how unbalanced and unfair the original plan was.. hence its characterisation as a "Turkish Victory" and "Plan a la Turka" on the front pages of turkish newspapers the day after it was revealed!

Cyprus-Forum.com

An idea to talk about