Cyprus-Forum.com

[Saint Jimmy]

Ok, here goes... I am new on this forum, and I keep reading people's opinions about the Annan Plan and its partitionist philosophy. But I happen to have a different view.

I think that any provision of the Annan Plan can be seen in two (if not more) different ways. It can be 'partitionist' or it can be 'conciliatory', depending on how you want to see it. This is because it is a plan that attempts (on paper) to solve a problem (in practice). Therefore, if the proposed solution is not evaluated in practice, we will never know!

The reason I am optimistic about a possible successful implementation of the plan is that we all know what can happen if we go back to being what we were in the past. All the people who still speak with the voices of the past will not dare to resurrect the past, because they now know what that can do...

I would like someone who disagrees to post some of his or her arguments as to why the Plan could never work. The point I am trying to make is that any 'prediction' as to what the plan will bring can be counterargued from across the bridge.

[magikthrill]

IMO, no one can say for sure why the Annan plan could ever work. However, the reason why so many GCs voted against the Annan plan is because its unfair. Particularly becase of the two following:

a) It does not allow the right of return to ALL GCs (a violation of human rights laws as stated by the UN Charter)

b) It allows settelrs (ie non Cypriots) to become citizens of Cyprus.

Of course there are many other reasons but I believe these are the two most important ones.

[Saint Jimmy]

a) It does not allow the right of return to ALL GCs (a violation of human rights laws as stated by the UN Charter)

b) It allows settelrs (ie non Cypriots) to become citizens of Cyprus.

a) It allows some GCs to return and the rest to be compensated. No solution allows neither. Would we rather have that?

b) These settlers (non-Cypriots) may become citizens of Cyprus via the legal way, provided they fulfil some criteria. No solution simply increases their number.

The reason the plan's provisions are benchmarked against the alternative of 'no solution' is not because it just suits me. It's because I take it as granted that if we do not accept (hell, if we don't seek!) a solution based on the Annan plan, 'no solution' is exactly what we're going to get.

[magikthrill]

filaraki (as they say in my country),

a) It allows some GCs to return and the rest to be compensated. No solution allows neither. Would we rather have that?

I don't care what percentrage they allow. If they don't allow everyone to return, then that is a violation of int'l law. And since no solution has proposed this, the GCs have not accepted a solution yet.

b) These settlers (non-Cypriots) may become citizens of Cyprus via the legal way, provided they fulfil some criteria. No solution simply increases their number.

b) As Piratis said, the only legal way they can become citizens is after they go back to Turkey and get a visa.

It's because I take it as granted that if we do not accept (hell, if we don't seek!) a solution based on the Annan plan, 'no solution' is exactly what we're going to get.

No solution is what you have. It's not what you're gonna get.

[Piratis]

This is because it is a plan that attempts (on paper) to solve a problem (in practice).

Yes, the question is which problem is trying to solve.
Why do you think they rushed to solve this problem before May 1st? We had our problem for 30 years, why they were rushing now?

The answer is because the problem they were trying to solve was not our problem. The problem that the Annan plan was solving was Turkeys problem. It would legalize the results of their invasion, and it would tie the hands of Cyprus so Cypriots could not create any problems to Turkey in their EU accession process.

[Saint Jimmy]

filaraki (as they say in my country)

Co-incidence: they say that in my country, too:)

I don't care what percentrage they allow. If they don't allow everyone to return, then that is a violation of int'l law. And since no solution has proposed this, the GCs have not accepted a solution yet.

Hold on... since you suggest that we should return to the pre-1974 Cyprus, what is your suggestion on the feeling of insecurity that TCs feel against us? How do we solve that? My point is, we did things that caused mistrust (as in, fear for their lives - I'm sure that breaks some sort of law, too), and it's still there. They did things that created refugees, and it's still there. We can't fix everything. And before you come to the wrong conclusion, my father is a refugee.

b) As Piratis said, the only legal way they can become citizens is after they go back to Turkey and get a visa.

So, if they do that, we accept them? What's the real difference?

No solution is what you have. It's not what you're gonna get.

How's that? If it's not some form of the Annan Plan, what can it be? The solution of our dreams?


It seems to me like you don't accept the principle of the solution being a compromise. If so, what's your answer to the argument that we broke our own Constitution by overthrowing the legal government, with the explicit intent of uniting Cyprus with Greece? Was that not a mistake that we made and should pay for (obviously not by having a foreign country occupying our land, but by means of concessions to alleviate the mistrust that our mistakes have caused)?
And if you do accept that principle, what are the concessions, or compromises that we could make in a solution?

[Saint Jimmy]

Yes, the question is which problem is trying to solve.
Why do you think they rushed to solve this problem before May 1st? We had our problem for 30 years, why they were rushing now?

The answer is because the problem they were trying to solve was not our problem. The problem that the Annan plan was solving was Turkeys problem. It would legalize the results of their invasion, and it would tie the hands of Cyprus so Cypriots could not create any problems to Turkey in their EU accession process.

Yep! I'm with you on that one... So, don't you think we could have used their desire to solve the damn thing and get it out of the way to our benefit ('to our benefit' meaning not against TCs, but in favour of a solution)? True, they weren't trying to solve our problem, they were working on a larger scheme, but they still wanted the damn thing solved, right? We didn't try to use that, though! Because the President didn't want the Plan, to begin with! He could have improved it, but he didn't. And I don't think it's because he doesn't want to solve it at all. I think he's just trying to get the best deal for GCs.

[Bananiot]

Nothing short of a victorious war will see all the refugees back to their homes and all settlers repatriated back to Turkey. In any negotiated solution or an agreed solution as Papadopoulos likes to call it these days, settlers will stay and the longer the solution takes to arrive the more the settlers that will stay. All refugees cannot return and those politicians that promised and still promise that we will all return to our homes should make an effort to tell us how this can happen. Slogans to this effect win domestic support but do not solve issues. The Anan plan gave a considerable amount of land back to the GC's, including Famagusta and Morphou and almost half of the sovereign british bases. We were promised a better deal and we voted against the plan. Once in Europe, we were told, we could negotiate a better solution. We are waiting to see this better solution.

[insan]

There's a fact that GC leadership have never considered the TC community as their politically equal state partner. Neither under the British Rule nor in Republic of Cyprus and even when they have been obliged to accept bi-zonal, bi-communal federation afterwards the events of 1974.

The GC leading and ruling elites have never respected the TC community as their politically equal partner. They have always believed that %80 and %18 cannot be equal politically. It didn't matter whether TCs agree or not, with them. They have always considered TCs as a minority, furthermore a dangerous trojan hourse of Turkey.


The inevitable cooperation of two communities lasted until the events of 1974...

Who did win? Only the opportunist plunderers...

The 50 years lasted armed conflict caused thousands of human loss and a huge damage.


What has changed after all strifes, human losses and damages? Just a big nothing!


With the same old mentality we are dreaming a just unification of two communities under a federal state. Ain't it obvious that it is impossible under the same circumsatnces with the same mentality.


Do not forget that under the same circumstanses; the same reasons bring about the same results...

[Saint Jimmy]

Aaaaaah, but that's the point, insan!

The circumstances have changed. We now carry 30 years of experience: GCs have been walking around with a big stick up their (our) ass (a lost war, more than a third of their country lost and, for the sad minority, the burden and the stain of their fault) and the TCs in global (bar Turkey) political and economic isolation (at least in the direct sense of the terms - and I don't mean that offensively).

I think that people learn from their mistakes.

That is my hope.