Cyprus-Forum.com

[supporttheunderdog]

as I recall even some TC who read the Annan Plan, Deniz for one, a voice of reason sadly silent (or driven to silence by some) indicated that he could see the unfairness and why the Greek Speaking Cypriots were justified in rejection.

The UN basically dropped trow to Turkey...and wanted the ROC to do the same....

[Sotos]

It may be worth noting that Varosha was set to return to Greek Cypriot control under the 2004 Annan Plan, but the latter plan was rejected by about 75% of Greek Cypriots in a referendum and did not come into being.

As I said, the Turks want to give back just Varosha and keep everything (or almost everything) else that they took from us with the invasion. With the Annan plan not only they would keep for themselves the 29% of Cyprus, but their minority was given so much powers that democracy would cease to exist and the whole Cyprus would be turned into a vassal state of Turkey analogous to the "trnc" today.

[Tim Drayton]

It may be worth noting that Varosha was set to return to Greek Cypriot control under the 2004 Annan Plan, but the latter plan was rejected by about 75% of Greek Cypriots in a referendum and did not come into being.

It may be worth nothing that the 2004 Annan Plan also included a clause where the Turkish army would maintain a sizeable military force in the island.

There would be a phased demilitarisation of Cyprus. All Cypriot security forces would be disbanded while Greece and Turkey would each be allowed to keep up to 6,000 troops in Cyprus until 2011. That would be reduced to 3,000 each by 2018 or earlier if Turkey joined the EU before that date.

After that, numbers would be scaled down to the original 950 Greek and 650 Turkish troops envisaged under the 1960 Treaty of Alliance. This would be reviewed every three years with the aim of an eventual total withdrawal of all Greek and Turkish forces.

http://cyprus-mail.com/2016/12/29/peace ... nnan-plan/

Don't want to get into a discussion on the dangerous mistakes within the Annan plan (and I have many), how do you think Cyprus would have faired under Erdogan during the coup in Turkey?

By coup in Turkey, I am not sure if you are referring to the puzzling events of 15 July last year that are widely referred to as a 'coup attempt' and have not yet been explained with sufficient clarity in my view, or the real ongoing coup attempt that has been taking place for a number of years aimed at overthrowing the secular republic and replacing it by an Erdoğan dynasty (and of which the events of 15 July may be a part), but it seems clear to me that if Cyprus is reunited and its sovereignty restored, it will be affected less by any event in Turkey than it is now, with about one-third of the island being under the effective control of Turkey.

[supporttheunderdog]

The genuine concern of many is that the plans still give too much to Turkey to allow them to intervene and that it allows for creeping control of the whole Island. I do not dismiss those concerns.

[Tim Drayton]

In the first place I just mentioned by way of fact that Varosha would have returned to the Greek Cypriots had the Annan Plan been accepted in 2004. I did not actually express an opinion on it (although, just to express an opinion, I do think, especially with hindsight, that it was an opportunity lost).

Secondly, as somebody who believes in a reunited, independent Cyrpus exercising the maximum degree of sovereignty possible for a small country, I would have thought that it was axiomatic that the less any event in an external country can affect the country the better, and I am puzzled as to why the events in Turkey on 15 July, if that is what was referred to, should be considered to be a special case. So, yes, the more independence a mooted plan grants to Cyprus, the better, and the more influence a mooted plan gives to outside countries, the worse. I am of the view that the continuation of the status quo will most likely lead to Turkey eventually gaining control of the whole island, a lot depending on whether the EU flourishes or collapses.

[umit07]

I am of the view that the continuation of the status quo will most likely lead to Turkey eventually gaining control of the whole island, a lot depending on whether the EU flourishes or collapses.

How do you see such thing happening, with the "continuation of the"status quo" ?

Many GC's will tell you all past "solutions" would have led to Turkey having an insurmountable foothold over the island.

[Tim Drayton]

I am of the view that the continuation of the status quo will most likely lead to Turkey eventually gaining control of the whole island, a lot depending on whether the EU flourishes or collapses.

How do you see such thing happening, with the "continuation of the"status quo" ?

Many GC's will tell you all past "solutions" would have led to Turkey having an insurmountable foothold over the island.

1- Turkey continues to consolidate its hold over the one-third it controls. Perhaps it annexes it as a province of Turkey. It ends up having it populated almost entirely by people from mainland Turkey and the business world controlled by companies from mainland Turkey.

Then 2? Who knows. I think Turkey is just biding its time and waiting for the opportunity. Major turmoil, major regional or world war. Something or other will probably come along. The more it has consolidated its hold on the north, the easier the task will then be. A point Zeki Beşiktepeli keeps making is that none of Turkey's actions ever contravene the 1960 agreements, which suggests that it is hedging its bets, too.

Obviously, a good solution will not give outside countries any hold over the island.

[Sotos]

I am of the view that the continuation of the status quo will most likely lead to Turkey eventually gaining control of the whole island, a lot depending on whether the EU flourishes or collapses.

How do you see such thing happening, with the "continuation of the"status quo" ?

Many GC's will tell you all past "solutions" would have led to Turkey having an insurmountable foothold over the island.

I also do not understand Tim's argument. From a military point of view Turkey can take the whole Cyprus any time she wants. However with a solution, and especially a bad solution, Turkey can create deadlocks, tension and problems and use that as an excuse to take over the whole Cyprus to "end the problems". Without a solution finding an excuse to take over the south part of Cyprus is much harder. Also, since we control our own government we are much more capable to defend our rights in EU and UN ... with a bad solution we wouldn't even be able to complain against Turkey's actions without the agreement of the TCs! And with a bad solution Turkey might not even need to invade again to take over the whole of Cyprus. All they would need to do is have mainland Turks flood Cyprus. If we have no control of the northern ports and the police in the north, then who is going to prevent those Turks from coming in, and who is going to arrest and deport them? Certainly not the TCs who are indebted to Turkey in every way possible.

[Sotos]

Then 2? Who knows. I think Turkey is just biding its time and waiting for the opportunity. Major turmoil, major regional or world war. Something or other will probably come along. The more it has consolidated its hold on the north, the easier the task will then be.

If they want to invade without any excuse they can do it regardless of anything else. But if they need an excuse then they can create one much easier with a bad solution than they can now. If by "easier" you mean militarily, because they will have troops stationed in north Cyprus, then again you are wrong because with a solution Cyprus will be either demilitarized or our military will be even weaker and not even fully controlled by us.

[Tim Drayton]

If a united, sovereign Cyprus was accepted internationally, including by Turkey, what legimate excuse would Turkey have for invading?
You feel safer with 40,000 Turkish troops in the north rather than than 6,000 in 2011, set to fall after that? OK.