 |
| Author |
Message |
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
However, I wonder what you regard as his mistakes in handling the Cyprus problem after the Annan plan referendum, as you have proclaimed, and which were of such critical significance that should they did not occur, always according to you, the cause of the Cyprus issue would have been any different than what it appears to be at the moment.
...
You sound like someone whose concern is only how to get a “yes” vote, and not how the Cyprus issue is best solved! You want to investigate how, by changing a few things here and there, a manipulated “Yes” result is extracted, rather than if the Cyprus problem will be solved on an as much as possible closer basis to that of justice, fairness, functionality, longevity, legitimacy and respect for peoples human, cultural and historical rights. You care more about how to cancel the “No” and extract the “Yes,” rather than having a good solution of the Cyprus issue! That is how you sound to me by the way you express yourself, and you are not the only one doing this pathetic mistake! You even go one step further, by claiming that this is also how the Akel electorate thinks and functions, something I believe you neither have the right nor the capacity to affirm with such a generalised certainty! |
Was it not indeed AKEL's view that a soft No followed by a limit number of changes would lead us to a solution of the Cyprus Problem?
I understand you do not agree with such a solution, but that is not the question here. The question is if that was AKEL's point of view and if Papadopoulos took this into account, or not.
I believe that AKEL's letter to the members now state that one of the advantages of nominating Christofias as a candidate is that there is a chance to solve the Cyprus Problem. That would imply that by staaying with Papadopoulos there is no chance of solving the Cyprus Problem.
Kifeas, I think it is quite possible that if the Cyprus Problem is solved with the AKEL plan X you will still claim it is not solved... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1243
Location: Nicosia
|
|
Yesterday, Nikos Kleanthous ex Deputy President of DIKO and DIKO's strongman in Larnaca, supported the candidacy of Christofias and was critical of Papadopoulos. Today, Christofias told him off and basically told him to mind his own business!!
Can someone offer a rational explanation? The best I can do is that the karagioz theatre will have much more to offer as we draw towards February. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1243
Location: Nicosia
|
|
DM, the members of AKEL on paper number about 14 000 but the active members are bearly 2 000. These are the people that reluctantly go to the meetings of the base cells. Do not forget that AKEL is a party that has a structure based on the so called democratic centralism principle.
You ask me where I base my estimations. I believe that AKEL likes things as they are. They "participate in the government but they do not govern". They can criticise the government if they so wish (euro etc) but can also boast of its achievements. Anything positive is registered to AKEL but anything negative can be pushed to the shoulders of the other partners. In the meantime they pay off their party faithfull with cushy positions in the government machinery.
Christofias lacks the moral and political stature to go against the grain and lead the people to a compromise solution of the Cyprob. He knows this only too well. He is quite contended with the Presidency of the House and acting the President when Papadopoulos is on holidays.
Furthermore, he knows that Papadopoulos has eroded the very fabric of his party and this will show alarmingly if he stands against him. Do you need an example? I ask you, do you think Lilikkas is an Akelite Minister? I put it to you that he only believes in one god that goes by the name of Papadopoulos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| pg wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
However, I wonder what you regard as his mistakes in handling the Cyprus problem after the Annan plan referendum, as you have proclaimed, and which were of such critical significance that should they did not occur, always according to you, the cause of the Cyprus issue would have been any different than what it appears to be at the moment.
...
You sound like someone whose concern is only how to get a “yes” vote, and not how the Cyprus issue is best solved! You want to investigate how, by changing a few things here and there, a manipulated “Yes” result is extracted, rather than if the Cyprus problem will be solved on an as much as possible closer basis to that of justice, fairness, functionality, longevity, legitimacy and respect for peoples human, cultural and historical rights. You care more about how to cancel the “No” and extract the “Yes,” rather than having a good solution of the Cyprus issue! That is how you sound to me by the way you express yourself, and you are not the only one doing this pathetic mistake! You even go one step further, by claiming that this is also how the Akel electorate thinks and functions, something I believe you neither have the right nor the capacity to affirm with such a generalised certainty! |
Was it not indeed AKEL's view that a soft No followed by a limit number of changes would lead us to a solution of the Cyprus Problem?
I understand you do not agree with such a solution, but that is not the question here. The question is if that was AKEL's point of view and if Papadopoulos took this into account, or not.
I believe that AKEL's letter to the members now state that one of the advantages of nominating Christofias as a candidate is that there is a chance to solve the Cyprus Problem. That would imply that by staaying with Papadopoulos there is no chance of solving the Cyprus Problem.
Kifeas, I think it is quite possible that if the Cyprus Problem is solved with the AKEL plan X you will still claim it is not solved... |
Pg, I believe you are more clever than that!
It is one thing what the 5 or 10 top leadership of Akel has announced outside, and another thing what each and every member of Akel thinks or thought about the issue, why the voted for or against the plan, and whether it was a soft or a tough "Yes" or "No!" Akel’s members were as much split on this issue, as the supporters of other parties were! Disy's voters for example voted by 65% against what the leadership of the party decided. Akel's voters were 50:50 split, even when Akel was initially considering a "Yes" call for the Annan plan! They went up at about 78:22 when the party line became a "No," instead of the initial "yes!" Can you claim that that initial 50%, at a time the party was even considering a "Yes," opted for soft "No," as you make it sound? What guarantee there is that Christofias will take with him this initial 50% of the party that were negatively positioned to the Annan plan 5, right from the start, if he opts the policy of bringing back the AP 5 with some limited changes, as it was the decision of the party when it called for a "soft No?"
More importantly, I had the chance to talk with a few high ranking officials from Akel, after the referendums, and I asked them what was the meaning of this so-called soft “No” call, before the referendums, and what Akel considers as satisfactory under the notion of “limited number of changes?” Their reply was that the decision was drafted and announced in such a way, out of fear or concern that a more directly negative stance, like that of Papadopoulos for example, would have irritated the key international players and the UN an may have produced unpredictable vengeance reactions towards Cyprus, such as possible recognition by some countries, etc! This was their main consideration when coming out in the way they came with their initial communiqué, and not that they were less concerned than Papadopoulos about all the negatives in the Annan plan, and the way things turned out in Burgenstock!
As for Akel’s letter to its members, I do not know what it contains, but if it does what you say, then it is just nonsense! As if the solution of the Cyprus problem depends on the Greek Cypriot side alone, as if the Turkish side is willing to opt for a solution outside its unacceptable “red lines,” and all that it takes for it to materialize is to elect Christofias as president so that we have a “chance” to solve the problem! What nonsense indeed!
Last edited by Kifeas on Tue May 22, 2007 10:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Bananiot wrote: |
Yesterday, Nikos Kleanthous ex Deputy President of DIKO and DIKO's strongman in Larnaca, supported the candidacy of Christofias and was critical of Papadopoulos. Today, Christofias told him off and basically told him to mind his own business!!
Can someone offer a rational explanation? The best I can do is that the karagioz theatre will have much more to offer as we draw towards February. |
Yes indeed, including potentially observing the splitting of Akel in two, by the end of the day! I bet this would have made you the happiest person on earth!
I do not know if Christofias will in the end of the day run as a candidate, or not! Assuming that he does so, especially on the basis of the so-called “soft No” theory, as some here assure us, then I see as much as 30% of Akel electorate going for Papadopoulos, right from the first round! Even in the unlikelihood scenario that Christofias manages to regain this lost voting pool from other directions that are dying for a “yes” on the Annan plan, then this brings him only up to a 30%! If he passed to the second round with Papadopoulos, then he has a potential for another 10% add-on, from the Disy party’s pro-Annan plan electorate. Remember that 65% of Disy party opted for a “No,” disobeying the party line. This brings him to a mere 40%, versus a 60% for Papadopoulos. The same scenario will be repeated if kasoulides goes to the second round against Papadopoulos! Papadopoulos passes to the second round, hands down, with a 40-45% in his bags right from the first round, assuming that both Kasoulides and Christofias run as co-candidates. This is the 18% from Diko, 8% from Edek, 5% from Evroko, 2% from the Greens and as much as 10-15% from both Akel and Disy “descendants.”
As it seems now, the only chance that Papadopoulos is not the president for another term, is if he himself chooses for whatever reasons not to run as a candidate! |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
I do not know if Christofias will in the end of the day run as a candidate, or not! Assuming that he does so, especially on the basis of the so-called “soft No” theory, as some here assure us, then I see as much as 30% of Akel electorate going for Papadopoulos, right from the first round! Even in the unlikelihood scenario that Christofias manages to regain this lost voting pool from other directions that are dying for a “yes” on the Annan plan, then this brings him only up to a 30%! If he passed to the second round with Papadopoulos, then he has a potential for another 10% add-on, from the Disy party’s pro-Annan plan electorate. Remember that 65% of Disy party opted for a “No,” disobeying the party line. This brings him to a mere 40%, versus a 60% for Papadopoulos. The same scenario will be repeated if kasoulides goes to the second round against Papadopoulos! Papadopoulos passes to the second round, hands down, with a 40-45% in his bags right from the first round, assuming that both Kasoulides and Christofias run as co-candidates. This is the 18% from Diko, 8% from Edek, 5% from Evroko, 2% from the Greens and as much as 10-15% from both Akel and Disy “descendants.”
|
I do not think that people will vote according to the AP referendum in the first round - and I would predict that all 3 candidates will get between 30% and 40% in that first round. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| As if the solution of the Cyprus problem depends on the Greek Cypriot side alone, as if the Turkish side is willing to opt for a solution outside its unacceptable “red lines,” and all that it takes for it to materialize is to elect Christofias as president so that we have a “chance” to solve the problem! What nonsense indeed! |
It is not good enough to have a plan for handling the Cyprus problem that only works when the other side behaves as expected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| This was their main consideration when coming out in the way they came with their initial communiqué, and not that they were less concerned than Papadopoulos about all the negatives in the Annan plan, and the way things turned out in Burgenstock! |
Let's do a reality check here...
Are the quiet grass rotes of AKEL happy with Papadopoulos, or not? |
|
| Back to top |
|
DM
Villager
Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 26
|
|
Kifeas, I do understand where you stand and what is your opinion about the Cyprus Problem and how this should be solved. I completely respect this, however, let me point out some things here:
(a) The No vote to the Annan plan indeed in absolute terms could have only one outcome and this was the rejection of the plan. However, not everyone that voted No did it for the same reason. Maybe DHKO voters in their great majority voted No because they considered that particular plan as disguised partition as you seem to believe. However, this cannot be said for the great majority of Akel's members and voters. It seems that the great majority of Akel members and voters voted No because according to the party's decision there was a need for gurantees about safety (this includes armies staying indefinately, the guarantor powers and guarantees for the implementation of the plan) plus some other limited number of changes regarding economy, right of movement etc.
The 50-50 split you quoted was before the party even expressed any view about the plan itself and under an atmosphere where Koutsou and mainly DHKO leadership were openly attacking the plan for several months without anyone really countering them. As for Akel's members let me remind you that the central comittees decision for a No vote was passed from the General Assembly with a majority of 65%-35%. This was the closest vote ever recorded in Akel's history after a clear proposal was made from the central committe. What do you think would have been the outcome if the central committe suggested a Yes vote?
I myself that Akel correctly selected a tactical No as the plan as it was needed more time to be negotiated and crossed the red lines of the Greek Cypriot community on a number of issues, the most important of which were those of securityand real independence. A soft No vote would have pushed the international community to reconsider those crucial issues.
(b) TP in most of Akel members minds "hijacked" the No vote of Akel and never considered the will of a substancial part of the electorate. For TP the No vote of Akel was in par with that of DHKO and EUROKO which was not the case. You cannot compare the reasons that let an Akel member to the No vote with that of TP or Koutsou simply because the thinking that went into reaching that decision was in many ways different. Christofias recent outburst when informed about Pashiardis statement that the plan is on the mortuary table says it all.
(c) You state that the biggest problem was the philosophy of the plan. Let me remind you that the national council decision in 2005 was that the Greek Cypriot side wanted a number of changes in the plan that would not change the philosophy of the plan and that wouldn't remove anything from the Turkish Cypriot side. Also TP stated the same thing in numerous occasions after the referendum. Up to the end of 2005 it seems that Akel was happy with TP following this policy, however, things changed early in 2006 after TP made a turn and followed his own agenda leaving Akel in the position of having to appease its members with things such as "we are discussing with the president and we are trying to get our views forward". Obviously Akels did not get through with the exception of some good will moves from the government regarding Ledra etc. Only yesterday during a TV program Andros Kyprianou, the Akel spokeman, said directly to DHKO's Kolokasides "Do not to take Akel members for fools, we know very well where you are leading us". This response followed an earlier statement by Kolokasides that there are no differences between Akel and TP on the handling of the Cyprus Problem even after January 2006.
(d) You also mentioned the 8 July agreement. The agreement itself is not an agreement that will seek to create a new plan. It is an agreement that will seek to prepare the path for negotiations. Do not be fooled about the international community not mentioning the Annan plan there. Of course they wouldn't, the plan was rejected, however the essence of the plan is there and any new plan will be mainly based on that. The starting point in any negotiations is bound to be the same plan so if one starts to reject the whole plan from the start then it is obvious that any new negotiation is a non starter.
(e) Also to Akel members it has became obvious that the tactical moves of TP and the policies and tactic he followed made him a persona non grata in the minds of the international community and even more in the eyes of Turkish Cypriots. Of course Turkey is the main reason for the negative stance it adopted after the referendum. However, TP even if we accept for the sake of discussion that he is right in everything he does, the fact that his credibility is so badly damaged both abroad and among Turkish Cypriot offer an allibi to anyone that has in mind the upgrading of the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus". I believe that this is one of the things, among others that touch rel policies, that Akel's leadership in the document approved today called Christofias the "Solution Canditate".
I understand that there are a number of other things that you raise in your post but allow me not to discuss this at least in this thread as these are not directly relevant in the context of this thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DM
Villager
Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 26
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Bananiot wrote: |
Yesterday, Nikos Kleanthous ex Deputy President of DIKO and DIKO's strongman in Larnaca, supported the candidacy of Christofias and was critical of Papadopoulos. Today, Christofias told him off and basically told him to mind his own business!!
Can someone offer a rational explanation? The best I can do is that the karagioz theatre will have much more to offer as we draw towards February. |
Yes indeed, including potentially observing the splitting of Akel in two, by the end of the day! I bet this would have made you the happiest person on earth!
I do not know if Christofias will in the end of the day run as a candidate, or not! Assuming that he does so, especially on the basis of the so-called “soft No” theory, as some here assure us, then I see as much as 30% of Akel electorate going for Papadopoulos, right from the first round! Even in the unlikelihood scenario that Christofias manages to regain this lost voting pool from other directions that are dying for a “yes” on the Annan plan, then this brings him only up to a 30%! If he passed to the second round with Papadopoulos, then he has a potential for another 10% add-on, from the Disy party’s pro-Annan plan electorate. Remember that 65% of Disy party opted for a “No,” disobeying the party line. This brings him to a mere 40%, versus a 60% for Papadopoulos. The same scenario will be repeated if kasoulides goes to the second round against Papadopoulos! Papadopoulos passes to the second round, hands down, with a 40-45% in his bags right from the first round, assuming that both Kasoulides and Christofias run as co-candidates. This is the 18% from Diko, 8% from Edek, 5% from Evroko, 2% from the Greens and as much as 10-15% from both Akel and Disy “descendants.”
As it seems now, the only chance that Papadopoulos is not the president for another term, is if he himself chooses for whatever reasons not to run as a candidate! |
Kifeas, I don't think so that Akel will choose to focus on the Annan plan in the first round of the elections. It is TP and Kaoulides that will choose to do that and naturally as they represent the two extreme trend they will be firing at each other. Kasoulides will simply choose not to attack Christofias as they no that they stand no chance in the event of a TP Vs Kaoulides showdown in the second round. Akel will simply point our that neither of the two extremes about the Annan plan are correct and that Christofias and Akel as seen as moderate and have historically good relationships with the Turkish Cypriot side while TP credibility is at zero among the international community and Turkish Cypriots. Akel will also chose to attack TP on socioeconomic issues that are VERY important for the grassroots of Akel's members and voters. TP and DHKO seriously miscalculated the resentment that the issues of benefits, pensions, tax and the insistance of joining the Euro in 2008 brought among Akel members.
By the way you forgot the scenario of Kasoulides Vs Christofias in the second round that is the one more likely to happen if Akel manages to win the 3-4% that lost during the last 4 years. Also do not underestimate the enthousiasm that will inevitably be created among Akel members and mechanism in the event that Christofias is chosen as a canditate.
The bet for TP is to accumulate the 33% that it needs to get to the second round. If he manages that at the expense of Christofias then a secondterm is in the bag. If he manages this at the expense of Casoulides then he has a 70%-30% chance to be elected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| DM wrote: |
| You state that the biggest problem was the philosophy of the plan. Let me remind you that the national council decision in 2005 was that the Greek Cypriot side wanted a number of changes in the plan that would not change the philosophy of the plan and that wouldn't remove anything from the Turkish Cypriot side. Also TP stated the same thing in numerous occasions after the referendum. |
DM, can you possibly direct me to any press material of the time that verifies the above claims, as you have made them here, since I doubt the validity of the above?
Furthermore, are you aware that there was a notable gradual shifting in the philosophy of the Annan plan, from the initial version in November 2002 down to the last (5th) version that went to the referendums; regardless of the fact that the only "complete" version we ever had and seen was that of the last one?
Are you aware that the core philosophy of the last version of the plan -always hiding behind the so-called "virgin birth" condition, was disguisedly yet solidly assumed, originated and based on the concept of two pre-existing separate "nation-sates" (instead of two pre-existing communities within one "nation-state,) with their own separate "historical," "ethnically owned" geographic areas; that were supposedly coming together to form a "virgin-birth" bond in the middle in a quasi-federative, quasi-confederative type of relationship?
Last edited by Kifeas on Wed May 23, 2007 12:59 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
| What's the timeline for this "karagoz" performance? In other words, when is AKEL supposed to make a decision? |
Think it is July 8... |
|
| Back to top |
|
DM
Villager
Joined: 21 May 2007
Posts: 26
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| DM wrote: |
| You state that the biggest problem was the philosophy of the plan. Let me remind you that the national council decision in 2005 was that the Greek Cypriot side wanted a number of changes in the plan that would not change the philosophy of the plan and that wouldn't remove anything from the Turkish Cypriot side. Also TP stated the same thing in numerous occasions after the referendum. |
DM, can you possibly direct me to any press material of the time that verifies the above claims, as you have made them here, since I doubt the validity of the above?
Furthermore, are you aware that there was a notable gradual shifting in the philosophy of the Annan plan, from the initial version in November 2002 down to the last (5th) version that went to the referendums; regardless of the fact that the only "complete" version we ever had and seen was that of the last one?
Are you aware that the core philosophy of the last version of the plan -always hiding behind the so-called "virgin birth" condition, was disguisedly yet solidly assumed, originated and based on the concept of two pre-existing separate "nation-sates" (instead of two pre-existing communities within one "nation-state,) with their own separate "historical," "ethnically owned" geographic areas; that were supposedly coming together to form a "virgin-birth" bond in the middle in a quasi-federative, quasi-confederative type of relationship? |
Kifeas, unfortunately I cannot locate any article on the net quoting the national council decisions back in 2004 and 2005 when DHSY was also participating. The archives of the Greek Cypriot newspapers, at least, only go as back as mid 2006. However, I do recall watching on the news at the time reports that quoted national council decisions that the objective was changes to the plan that would not alter the philosophy of the plan and would not take anything away from the Turkish Cypriots. This, however, does not necessarily mean that only decorative changes, as you call them were to be seeked. The goal of totaly demilitarising the island and setting a deadline for the cease of the guarantor agreements in say 10 years time is not in my mind a decorative agreement. At the same time it does not take away anything from the Turkish Cypriot side. TP himself after the referendum in many occasions stated that he does not want to take anything away from the Turkish Cypriots (I suggest you try and find what TP stated during his first interview after the referendum - I tried to find the interview on the net but couldn't find anything). TP also in numerous occasions stated in 2004 and 2005 that the Annan plan was not going to go away. Now, how this ties up with the 2006 and 2007 statements that the Annan plan is on the mortuary table. I do understand that TP may well have stated the above in an attempt (tactical move) to avoid any serious concequences from the international community after the "No" vote.
Now on the isuue you raised about virgin birth of the new state I believe that this is how DHKO view this particular aspect. Other parties do not have the same opinion as nowhere in the plan it states this. On the contrary it states that the the new Cyprus will continue to be member of the international bodies that it participates (i.e. UN, EU etc) and no new application is needed. Protocol 10 of the EU accession treaty states exactly this. Isn't this a strong enough proof that the new federal Cyprus is a continuation of the Republic of Cyprus? |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
After watching the 1h interview with Christofias last night - where he said nothing and really was on thin ice only when possible tactical voting of DIKO and EDEK came up - it appears to me that AKEL will take its decision based on opinion polls in June.
Basically, they are giving a window of a few weeks where it is allowed to openly discuss Papadopoulos 'to be or not to be' - mainly so that the opinion polls will be more reliable. Clearly Christofias will win the internal vote (so the vote is pointless in itself), but the decision will be based on the opinion polls.
The main reason AKEL even considers the option is that they find it unlikely that DISY will get it together with DIKO and/or EDEK this time. This makes it necessary to keep talking about the coalition - in the end since they want to bet on at least two horses in the race. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1243
Location: Nicosia
|
|
Did anyone watch Christofias last night on the box? He was a sorry figure of a man who finally realizes, it appears to me, the huge blunder he committed five years ago in proposing Papadopoulos for President. Now he is stuck with him and he and his party will be shouldering the burden of partition as a result of the extreme policies of the man he helped elevate to the top job.
In the meantime the karagioz theatre will continue as long as the bananiots of this banana republic are happy to stay in the litharge these marginal people have thrown them in. What is important now is for AKEL to convince its faithful that it did everything in its power to move on with its own candidate, only for the objective realities to stand (once again) in the way and thwart the noble aims of the party. Whenever AKEL finds itself in dire straits it takes recourse to the proven formula used in 1985 when DIKO looted the party and AKEL came third in the elections then. They throw the ball into the court of the “base” and allow the members to let off steam while the leadership carefully “notes the points made by the members”. Then, they appeal to the patriotic sentiments of the members in the usual fashion, that is, by going heads on against … DISI. Once they ride the storm they look forward to … another day. Christofias, in other words, is committing the cardinal sin for any politician. Instead of leading his people he is looking for a way out through being led by the people.
He, let me repeat this, does not have the political and moral stature to be the leader that can bring a solution to our problem. This was made obvious in early 2004 when Simitis turned to him and said “Demetris, you do realize that you will lead the implementation of the agreement and the new Cyprus”. Christofias turned red and felt as though the earth swallowed him because his shoulders are too weak for this job. He knows this very well and he would rather stay the President of the House of Representatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
2.033002036E+23 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home