Cyprus-Forum.com

In the Financial Times newspaper today there is an article with the wording "Partnership State" for Cyprus in it - I would appreciate it if you could all read it.

According to my understanding, I believe that we are once again starting this entire negotiations process under the influence of too many external bodies and on the wrong foot, again.

I believe that we, the Greek Cypriots on the island, amount to 82% of the entire Cypriot population, while the Turkish Cypriots amount to 11%, including the other two main ethnic minorities sealing the 100% (7%) gap.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear, but did the Annan Plan not succeed due to the Confederal structure - two state theory within a single state?

I agree with the Bi-Communal part of a solution, but definitely not the Bi-Zonal part. If talk about a "Partnership State" continue within the same context, then I am afraid that we will once again be confronted with an Annan type of plan - What a waste?

Facts are facts, and can not be denied. In my opinion, I do not see any logic in seeking a "Partnership State" when one community amounts to 82% of the population of the island, while the other (Turkish Cypriots) only amount to 11%.

18%

the other 2 communities are in the 82%

Cyprus must overcome challenges and set up a partnership state

Published: March 5 2008 02:00 | Last updated: March 5 2008 02:00

From Mr Mehmet Ali Talat.

Sir, Last month's elections on the Greek Cypriot side have opened a new chapter in the history of our island. The newly elected leader of the Greek Cypriots, Demetris Christofias, and I now share a grave responsibility: to reach a settlement for Cyprus acceptable to both peoples, based on political equality in a new partnership structure.

Much has changed since 2004, when the Turkish Cypriot people voted in favour of the comprehensive settlement plan proposed by then United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, while Greek Cypriots voted against. Ironically, a few days later the Greek Cypriots, who had rejected the UN settlement proposal, were admitted to full membership of the European Union, whereas we, who had just voted to end the division of the island, remained excluded. Despite that disappointment, we remain committed to a European approach and a UN-sponsored comprehensive solution for Cyprus.

It will be a comprehensive solution, with a great deal of input from our friends in the EU; but the process must be led by the UN. For four decades the UN has been at the centre of peace-making efforts. There is a vast accumulation of work on the Cyprus problem, which will be the basis of any future discussion and should not be wasted.

There will be difficult issues to deal with. Mr Christofias starts from a 75 per cent No vote, whereas I start from a 65 per cent Yes vote. The questions of property rights, of the preservation of our cultural heritage, of security arrangements, and most importantly for partnership in the future government of our island, will not be easy to resolve.

But they can and must be resolved. The details can be worked out; the goal is to establish a new partnership state in Cyprus, based on the political equality of the two peoples and the equal status of two constituent states. Only a settlement on that basis will be approved by the peoples of the island in a simultaneous and separate popular vote.

The election result demonstrates the desire of Greek Cypriots to change and move forward. I am unreservedly committed to the search for a settlement. I believe a settlement to be in the interests of my people, of the Greek Cypriots, of the island as a whole and of the European Union and the wider international community.

I am realistic. There will be tough talking ahead, and problems will inevitably arise. But I am determined to overcome them.

Mehmet Ali Talat,

President of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1923bdbc-ea58 ... fd2ac.html

NOTE:

I did not include this "report" in my "International News on Cyprus" because this was a letter written by Talat himself and not by a Independent Reporter. It appears that Talat is "Burning the midnight Oil" to try and get his wishes to be heard by the International Community on the BBF.

Kikapu,

What recently concerns me is Talat's trip to Ankara in order to get his briefing - Why?

And, how Mr Talat has drammatically changed his Socialist view to one of being Ankara's man of a solution must include the gaurantorship of Turkey, two inner constituent states and that he now calls himself a "Turkish Cypriot". Did this man not once say, prior to becoming a so-called President of a country he still wishes to sell, "I am not Turkish, I am a Turkish Speaking CYPRIOT"?

I seriously do not think that Mr Talat is able to hold his umbrella straight in the wind, let alone wonder how many times he will be contradicting himself in a serious Cypriot unification process. In simple terms, I don't think Talat can be taken seriously. Especially considering all of the promises he had made to his own Turkish speaking people prior to the Annan Plan, and what he recently said against the "Greek Cypriot Nation".

And I thought that Denktash was Ankara's puppet - this man appears worst!

Talat is very disingenuous with this remark.

There will be difficult issues to deal with. Mr Christofias starts from a 75 per cent No vote, whereas I start from a 65 per cent Yes vote.

Lets take the 65% that the TC's said yes to AP. If we accept that anything below 50% would have been considered as a NO vote, then the difference here as a positive is only 15% yes votes that saved the day for the TC's.

The 75% NO vote for the GC's was actually only 25% that saved the day for the GC's, given the fact, that anything below 50% would be considered as a NO vote anyway.

So in actual fact, Talat only has 15% positive votes to work with and Christofias only has 25% negative votes to work with, therefore the task that needs to be tackled by the two leaders is not as large as Talat makes it out to be, if he is really serious about finding a settlement. As a matter of fact, Talat is in more danger of losing his 15% positives than Christofias is seeing an increase in the 25% negatives, which will reduce the difference between the positives and negatives. If we are to believe VP that the TC's only want a solution based on BBF, then Talat will also be working with Negatives, if BBF is not the only plan on the table. Therefore, Talat riding mighty on his "high horse" of righteousness may not be as high as he thinks he is.

Andros wrote:Kikapu,

What recently concerns me is Talat's trip to Ankara in order to get his briefing - Why?

And, how Mr Talat has drammatically changed his Socialist view to one of being Ankara's man of a solution must include the gaurantorship of Turkey, two inner constituent states and that he now calls himself a "Turkish Cypriot". Did this man not once say, prior to becoming a so-called President of a country he still wishes to sell, "I am not Turkish, I am a Turkish Speaking CYPRIOT"?

I seriously do not think that Mr Talat is able to hold his umbrella straight in the wind, let alone wonder how many times he will be contradicting himself in a serious Cypriot unification process. In simple terms, I don't think Talat can be taken seriously. Especially considering all of the promises he had made to his own Turkish speaking people prior to the Annan Plan, and what he recently said against the "Greek Cypriot Nation".

And I thought that Denktash was Ankara's puppet - this man appears worst!

Denktash was replaced with Talat before the 2004 referendum on the AP, because Denktash was going to be a "lightning rod" for a NO vote for the GC's, so Talat was brought in to make believe he was the "man for United Cyprus" until the GC's did not buy into the AP, and since then, Talat has pretty much has shown his true colours. Now before any meeting has taken place with Christofias, he is out there peddling the AP version of the BBF which was turned down decisively by the GC's. He is once again playing the
"we want to be united" role, but only on the terms on the AP version of BBF. So he is trying his best to be seen as the progressive leader in finding a solution. Talat will once again be himself, soon after the first meeting with Christofias takes place, when he will be told that the AP version of BBF will not be accepted by the GC's.

We'll wait and see if I'm right or not. Not too long to wait now.

Andros wrote:Kikapu,

What recently concerns me is Talat's trip to Ankara in order to get his briefing - Why?

And, how Mr Talat has drammatically changed his Socialist view to one of being Ankara's man of a solution must include the gaurantorship of Turkey, two inner constituent states and that he now calls himself a "Turkish Cypriot". Did this man not once say, prior to becoming a so-called President of a country he still wishes to sell, "I am not Turkish, I am a Turkish Speaking CYPRIOT"?

I seriously do not think that Mr Talat is able to hold his umbrella straight in the wind, let alone wonder how many times he will be contradicting himself in a serious Cypriot unification process. In simple terms, I don't think Talat can be taken seriously. Especially considering all of the promises he had made to his own Turkish speaking people prior to the Annan Plan, and what he recently said against the "Greek Cypriot Nation".

And I thought that Denktash was Ankara's puppet - this man appears worst!

... and should I be concerned that Christifias' first overseas trip after becoming RoC President is to Greece to get his briefing? Should I think that Papadopoulos was Athen's puppet - Christofias appears worst?

The reality on the ground is that Turkey is TRNC's biggest ally. Greece is RoC's biggets ally. Both are guarantors. Both have military here. It would be strange if the respective presidents didn't go to Ankara/Athens.

observer,

Then I would say that our leaders are not truly independent, and that their efforts are seriously dependent, not in seeking unification, but in seeking the best deal for Greece and Turkey.

However, concerning the Republic of Cyprus - unlike your side, the ROC is an independent country, not financed by Greece, and not rule by Greece either. Also, we are seeking a resumption of talks based on the REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS and its promotion, and not its dissolution, while, it has become clear that your so-called TRNC is expendable. I mean, why does your leader bother to call himself the "President of the TRNC" when he is willing to sign it away in a flash, like he did with the Annan Plan.

Personally, I believe that your side will agree to anything that suits Turkey only! Which makes your true intention for unification pointless, as I thought unification was about being "Cypriot" and not whether it should benefit the other external parties. Regardless, President Christofias only went to Greece to seek advise as to Greece's handling of Turkey's sneaky position, and NOT to be ordered!

halil wrote:of course he gets his orders from Greece ....... first trip to motherland......

all the plans were done with Greece since ........ it is easy to blame one side ...... Ankara ,Ankara , Ankara.......

Athens is always innocent ,blameless, sinless, guiltless, clear, harmless, immaculate, ingenuous, lamblike, white, wide-eyed But Ankara ffender, criminal, culprit, con, convict, delinquent, evil doer, felon, malefactor, misdemeanant, transgressor.

what a well planed game .......... what is rightful........

rightful is with these heads there will be no solution ........

repeat it as much as you like Halil but the reality is Cyprus decides Greece supports.