akel positions...hopefully
Posted: Sun Jul 23, 2006 10:56 am
AKEL through antros kyprianou , in a think-tank conference in brussels , gave publicly its main concerns. these are not the only but the main concerns for akel, antros kyprianou said. " i have to make clear that we are not planning to delete any rights the AP has given to our Turkish Cypriot compatriots. the nonproportional representation of the Turkish Cypriots in all the goeverment bodies and decisions of the federal states is not an obstacle for a solution. its not an obstacle the fact that in a federation all the decision will be taken with the agreement of the Turkish Cypriots. A.Kyprianou concequently presented the concerns of akel in four mail areas :
http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... rticles&-p
comments :
1. finally some clear position!!
2. the "functionality" of the plan doesnot appear to be a great concern. nor does a state that turns itself into community , etc etc.
3. their points are imo , quite logical. the only one that appears rediculous is two years after the NO , to speak about long timelines of return. the roofs and the rest of the points could indeed be improved.
4. if their concerns are indeed these , it makes me wonder what prevents negotiations to begin ? why are we wasting time ?
any comments on AKELs position (if indeed their position is this one ) ?
1. settlers : we are willing to accept a logical number of settlers staying after the solution. a number that will exceed the number of Turkish Cypriots is not accepted
2. quarantor rights " its not clear in AP how exactly the guarantor rights are interpreted"
3. Armies : the time for the withdrawal os the armies is too long , while in the end some will stay permanently
4. return and property : the timeline for return for no reason is too long , ,and those who will have the right of return will only receive 1/3 of their properties. there are so many "roofs" that return appears to be rather an exception , and not the rule
http://www.politis-news.com/cgibin/hweb ... rticles&-p
comments :
1. finally some clear position!!
2. the "functionality" of the plan doesnot appear to be a great concern. nor does a state that turns itself into community , etc etc.
3. their points are imo , quite logical. the only one that appears rediculous is two years after the NO , to speak about long timelines of return. the roofs and the rest of the points could indeed be improved.
4. if their concerns are indeed these , it makes me wonder what prevents negotiations to begin ? why are we wasting time ?
any comments on AKELs position (if indeed their position is this one ) ?