 |
| Author |
Message |
April of '69
Villager
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 17
|
|
| brother wrote: |
Tpap is currently in the top job in cyprus and has imo pushed us backwards not forwards, while i personally despise him for his past discretions especially for what i see as direct involvement in the cyprus problem, i can get over that if he was to approach the cyprus problem with a positive outlook and a pragmatic approach and im not expecting him to bend over backwards either but when he goes around pretending to represent all cypriots and then makes a big speech that he is the protector of the hellenic people and he is leading the fight to protect the hellenes in cyprus hardly makes me want to believe anything that comes out of his mouth and also is an insult to all non Greek Cypriot and add to that for 4 years he has refused to meet the democratically elected Turkish Cypriot president until a few weeks ago just to gain some votes leads me to the conclusion that this man has not changed one iota and if anything is now more dangerous then back in the 60's and 70's.
|
All the above may well be true and furthermore I may agree with most of it. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Tassos Papadopoulos, and you are perfectly free to express it. But I still maintain attacking Papadopoulos from the Turkish Cypriot corner doesn't achieve much. Especially when the attack focuses on his delivery of empty rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots.
A Greek Cypriot - in fact, this particular Greek Cypriot - could very well tell you that, quite arguably, Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years than had been done in all the previous years since at least 1977, which I suppose makes his rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots twice as irritating. Myself, I am treating the coming elections as an experiment in just how much of this twaddle the Greek Cypriots can withstand before they actually wake up to the fact they're being taken for fools.
I would be much more interested in hearing from you your opinions of the choices made in the last three years by Mehmet Ali Talat, for example. Has he done, and is he doing, all he could be doing in the light of the circumstances to keep the door to re-unification open? Or is he finding that the line Papadopoulos is choosing to follow is making it easy for him to allow the door to slam shut? Are his choices the best possible under the circumstances for the Turkish Cypriots themselves - quite besides the Greek Cypriots, or reunification?
What if we all didn't have a Papadopoulos to blame? I find myself agreeing with Mete:
| Mete wrote: |
I'm actually excited about Christofias being elected and then I'll sit back with my pop-corn and watch the drama episode untold. It'll be a tragey/comedy to watch the so called "leftists" on both sides blame each other since there won't be a Denktash or Papadopoulos to blame anymore.
|
All the best to everyone. |
|
| 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.
|
|
| April of '69 wrote: |
| brother wrote: |
Tpap is currently in the top job in cyprus and has imo pushed us backwards not forwards, while i personally despise him for his past discretions especially for what i see as direct involvement in the cyprus problem, i can get over that if he was to approach the cyprus problem with a positive outlook and a pragmatic approach and im not expecting him to bend over backwards either but when he goes around pretending to represent all cypriots and then makes a big speech that he is the protector of the hellenic people and he is leading the fight to protect the hellenes in cyprus hardly makes me want to believe anything that comes out of his mouth and also is an insult to all non Greek Cypriot and add to that for 4 years he has refused to meet the democratically elected Turkish Cypriot president until a few weeks ago just to gain some votes leads me to the conclusion that this man has not changed one iota and if anything is now more dangerous then back in the 60's and 70's.
|
All the above may well be true and furthermore I may agree with most of it. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Tassos Papadopoulos, and you are perfectly free to express it. But I still maintain attacking Papadopoulos from the Turkish Cypriot corner doesn't achieve much. Especially when the attack focuses on his delivery of empty rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots.
A Greek Cypriot - in fact, this particular Greek Cypriot - could very well tell you that, quite arguably, Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years than had been done in all the previous years since at least 1977, which I suppose makes his rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots twice as irritating. Myself, I am treating the coming elections as an experiment in just how much of this twaddle the Greek Cypriots can withstand before they actually wake up to the fact they're being taken for fools.
I would be much more interested in hearing from you your opinions of the choices made in the last three years by Mehmet Ali Talat, for example. Has he done, and is he doing, all he could be doing in the light of the circumstances to keep the door to re-unification open? Or is he finding that the line Papadopoulos is choosing to follow is making it easy for him to allow the door to slam shut? Are his choices the best possible under the circumstances for the Turkish Cypriots themselves - quite besides the Greek Cypriots, or reunification?
What if we all didn't have a Papadopoulos to blame? I find myself agreeing with Mete:
| Mete wrote: |
I'm actually excited about Christofias being elected and then I'll sit back with my pop-corn and watch the drama episode untold. It'll be a tragey/comedy to watch the so called "leftists" on both sides blame each other since there won't be a Denktash or Papadopoulos to blame anymore.
|
All the best to everyone. |
April 69, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with you regarding the anti-Papadopoulos futile and bitchy ranting of many Turkish Cypriots (and some Greek Cypriots) in here; where do you base your assessment that “Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years than had been done in all the previous years since at least 1977?” Is it because he rejected the Annan plan, or what? Can you please elaborate, so that perhaps you may also convince me of this assessment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
SP
Senior Villager
Joined: 16 Nov 2005
Posts: 267
Location: Girne
|
|
Hello April 69, I hope that I'm not the first to welcome you to this forum.
I believe that you have succinctly implied that Mehmet Ali Talat is not in a position to make decisions about Cyprob, and indeed thanks to the actions of Mr Papadopoulos his life has been made considerably easier.
I agree with you.
I disagree with Mete, however, because i believe that Mr Papodopoulos will win the Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus again. to the delight of many on both sides of the Green Line, including a number of forum members.
Once again, Welcome!! |
|
| 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.
|
|
| SP wrote: |
Hello April 69, I hope that I'm not the first to welcome you to this forum.
I believe that you have succinctly implied that Mehmet Ali Talat is not in a position to make decisions about Cyprob, and indeed thanks to the actions of Mr Papadopoulos his life has been made considerably easier.
I agree with you.
I disagree with Mete, however, because i believe that Mr Papodopoulos will win the Presidency of the Republic of Cyprus again. to the delight of many on both sides of the Green Line, including a number of forum members.
Once again, Welcome!! |
To me, anyone that will show to posses the will and the ability to fight to death, not allowing the unjust, divisive, unhistorical and illegitimate philosophy of the Annan plan to surface again as the basis of the solution to the Cyprus issue, is good enough to become the president! It doesn’t matter if his name will be Papadopoulos or Christofias or Kasoulides, or even Devil!
What we have accepted back in the 70’s, as the ultimate concession, due to the illegal Turkish invasion and occupation, was the evolution of the Republic of Cyprus from a unitary bi-communal independed and sovereign republic, into to a two-zone federal bi-communal republic! This was our ultimate concession towards the Turkish Cypriot community!
We have never said we will ever agree to a disguised virgin birth confederation between two “historically” pre-existing, separate, ethnically based and structured nation-states! Furthermore, we have never said we will ever agree to a partially sovereign and independed Cypriot nation-state; a protectorate so to say of mainly Turkish and British geo-strategic ambitions!
With the Annan plan, the puppet status of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” would have expanded and would have enveloped the central federal government of the so-called “United Cyprus Republic,” something which would have inevitably compelled the Greek Cypriot community to seek ways to dissolve the so-called partnership central government, thus gifting in this way to the Turkish Cypriot community, alone, the very best 30% of our for thousands of years historical homeland! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
With the Annan plan, the puppet status of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” would have expanded and would have enveloped the central federal government of the so-called “United Cyprus Republic,” something which would have inevitably compelled the Greek Cypriot community to seek ways to dissolve the so-called partnership central government, thus gifting in this way to the Turkish Cypriot community, alone, the very best 30% of our for thousands of years historical homeland!
|
Ok, you have those concerns which is understandable considering the recent history of Cyprus but as a Turkish Cypriot I have my concerns too. I'm concerned that in a future federal Cyprus, Greek Cypriots can choose not to implement what they signed, and they can try to eliminate any federal rights Turkish Cypriots might have that are not mere minority rights, just like before. Maybe Enosis cannot be used as a reason, but I can totally see some Greek Cypriots claiming that the new constitution is not "European enough" and it needs to remove special privileges for all ethnic groups including Turkish Cypriots.
I'm also concerned that my community might be thrown out of the federal government and Greek Cypriots, just like they did with the Republic of Cyprus, can end up on their own with the new federal government. And I'm most concerned that my community can be forced to live in isolation again for another 40 years in that situation.
So..I'm willing to acknowledge and find ways to ease your concerns. I'm willing to stress that Cyprus (and its sovereignty) is one and indivisible in a future solution. The question is are you ready to ease my concerns? Are you ready to sign an agreement that says if the agreement doesn't work out, not one side gets the title of "Republic of Cyprus" alone? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1244
Location: Nicosia
|
|
There is no doubt in my mind that Papadopoulos will never negotiate for a solution based on bizonal, bicommunal federation that is based on the political equality of the two communities. He has not mustered the courage to say this clearly at the moment but his lackeys (Koulias, Angelides, Pittokopitis, the Archbishop, Papadakis from EDEK and some others) are already beating the drums for a change of line. True the government spokesman has said that the President does not subscribe to those thoughts, but this act has been played before and it is very difficult to convince people on this.
In the meantime, Papadopoulos has managed the unthinkable in his 4.5 years as President. Firstly, he has alienated the international community which we desperately need to be on our side since we are such a small fry and secondly, he has managed to convince a large chunk of Greek Cypriots (especially the youth who are given proper indoctrination in their schools by nationalist teachers) that we would be better off staying as we are.
Papadopoulos and perhaps other Greek Cypriot politicians, had a field day as long as Denktash reigned supreme in the north. He could appear as the moderate part while he could rest assure that Denktash would reject all calls for a solution that did not included the existence of two separate states. Thus, the European Community, for example, even went as far as to accept us in the EU with our problem remaining unsolved. However, they were in for a shock, for as soon as Talat took over in the north and Erdogan in Turkey, the international community realised that we did not mean what we were saying all these years. As a result, prominent European leaders openly admit now that it was a mistake to let us in. Having done us a huge favour and having been conceited by us, they are now trying to balance things by looking at ways of supporting the north. If I were to listen to our new Foreign Minister Mrs Markoulli (who, unlike her predecessor, has huge experience in the Foreign Office) the Twainisaton of the north is now completed and we should be weary of the Kosovoisation of the north, meaning the eventual partition of the island. All these in the spate of 4.5 misery years, in which Papadopoulos has managed the unthinkable, the reversal of roles.
For these and many other reasons Papadopoulos should be sent home in February. Christofias has eventually realised that Papadopoulos has been a menace for Cyprus but his responsibility for getting him elected at the most crucial time in history (2003) will haunt him for as long as he lives. |
|
| 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: |
There is no doubt in my mind that Papadopoulos will never negotiate for a solution based on bizonal, bicommunal federation that is based on the political equality of the two communities. He has not mustered the courage to say this clearly at the moment but his lackeys (Koulias, Angelides, Pittokopitis, the Archbishop, Papadakis from EDEK and some others) are already beating the drums for a change of line. True the government spokesman has said that the President does not subscribe to those thoughts, but this act has been played before and it is very difficult to convince people on this.
In the meantime, Papadopoulos has managed the unthinkable in his 4.5 years as President. Firstly, he has alienated the international community which we desperately need to be on our side since we are such a small fry and secondly, he has managed to convince a large chunk of Greek Cypriots (especially the youth who are given proper indoctrination in their schools by nationalist teachers) that we would be better off staying as we are.
Papadopoulos and perhaps other Greek Cypriot politicians, had a field day as long as Denktash reigned supreme in the north. He could appear as the moderate part while he could rest assure that Denktash would reject all calls for a solution that did not included the existence of two separate states. Thus, the European Community, for example, even went as far as to accept us in the EU with our problem remaining unsolved. However, they were in for a shock, for as soon as Talat took over in the north and Erdogan in Turkey, the international community realised that we did not mean what we were saying all these years. As a result, prominent European leaders openly admit now that it was a mistake to let us in. Having done us a huge favour and having been conceited by us, they are now trying to balance things by looking at ways of supporting the north. If I were to listen to our new Foreign Minister Mrs Markoulli (who, unlike her predecessor, has huge experience in the Foreign Office) the Twainisaton of the north is now completed and we should be weary of the Kosovoisation of the north, meaning the eventual partition of the island. All these in the spate of 4.5 misery years, in which Papadopoulos has managed the unthinkable, the reversal of roles.
For these and many other reasons Papadopoulos should be sent home in February. Christofias has eventually realised that Papadopoulos has been a menace for Cyprus but his responsibility for getting him elected at the most crucial time in history (2003) will haunt him for as long as he lives. |
Now, this is what I would call a pile of empty, unsubstantiated, twisted and scare-mongering anti-Papadopoulos ranting, from the part of a Greek Cypriot. It is difficult to know where to start from, and not to waste my time as well!
| Quote: |
| There is no doubt in my mind that Papadopoulos will never negotiate for a solution based on bizonal, bicommunal federation that is based on the political equality of the two communities. |
Certainly Papadopoulos will not accept a solution based on the Turkish /Turkish Cypriot understanding and substance of what political equality between the two communities should constitute. Papadopoulos already said what he will accept as a basis, and this is stipulated in the first paragraph of the 8th of July agreement. He said (and signed) that he is ready to accept a solution based on a bi-zonal and a bi-communal federation, with political equality of the two communities, within the framework of what the UN resolutions prescribe.
For those that may not be aware, based on a UN SG report, part of which was adopted by a UN resolution on Cyprus, (a) bi-communality is only a function of the central government, i.e. to be observed in a federal constitutional sense and form; (b) political equality means the effective participation of both communities in the decision making of the federal government and its institutions, and not the absolute or partial numerical equalization of the two, in any shape, form or fashion; and (c) bi-zonality (in contrast with bi-communality as it is explained above,) has only a territorial sense, and not a community based ownership sense!
This means that (a) the notions of “community” and “state” (zone) are two separate and different types of entities; (b) they are not meant to be used interchangeably; and (c) Their relationship is only an indirect one, in the sense that the (“natural”) majority of permanent residents in each of the two states will derive from the members of one of the two communities.
In practical terms, the later can only be feasible if the Turkish Cypriot community will remain in its majority (as permanent residents) within the boundaries of one (the northern) state, and if the territorial arrangement is designed in such a way so that it further limits the percentage of the Greek Cypriot community that used to historically inhabit those areas. In any case, the percentage of Cypriot citizens permanently residing in each of the two zones (states,) should always roughly coincide with the territorial percentage of the two zones. Any other arrangement or approach (such as the Annan plan for example) will equate with a vindication of the Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing that the illegal Turkish occupation of the north.
The 18% of Cypriots that the Turkish Cypriot community constitutes, cannot be expected to become the sole, exclusive and permanent owners of any territorial percentage of Cyprus higher than that of their population share –set aside one equating to the 30% of Cyprus, as the Annan plan implied. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
The 18% of Cypriots that the Turkish Cypriot community constitutes, cannot be expected to become the sole, exclusive and permanent owners of any territorial percentage of Cyprus higher than that of their population share –set aside one equating to the 30% of Cyprus, as the Annan plan implied.
|
In the Annan plan, 30% (I tend to remember this 28%?) was the land of the Turkish Cypriot component state but that land was to be occupied by Turkish Cypriots and those Greek Cypriots who chose to live in the Turkish Cypriot component state. And if I remember correctly, the limitation of Greek Cypriots in the north you're referring to was around 33% of the Turkish Cypriot population. This means, assuming that all of 18% Turkish Cypriots lived in the north, about 6% Greek Cypriots could be in the north. So the total number of people in the north would be 24% holding about roughly 28-30% of the land.
I know there's still 4-6% difference, so is this what makes Annan plan so evil to you in terms of land? |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8938
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| April of '69 wrote: |
| brother wrote: |
Tpap is currently in the top job in cyprus and has imo pushed us backwards not forwards, while i personally despise him for his past discretions especially for what i see as direct involvement in the cyprus problem, i can get over that if he was to approach the cyprus problem with a positive outlook and a pragmatic approach and im not expecting him to bend over backwards either but when he goes around pretending to represent all cypriots and then makes a big speech that he is the protector of the hellenic people and he is leading the fight to protect the hellenes in cyprus hardly makes me want to believe anything that comes out of his mouth and also is an insult to all non Greek Cypriot and add to that for 4 years he has refused to meet the democratically elected Turkish Cypriot president until a few weeks ago just to gain some votes leads me to the conclusion that this man has not changed one iota and if anything is now more dangerous then back in the 60's and 70's.
|
All the above may well be true and furthermore I may agree with most of it. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion of Tassos Papadopoulos, and you are perfectly free to express it. But I still maintain attacking Papadopoulos from the Turkish Cypriot corner doesn't achieve much. Especially when the attack focuses on his delivery of empty rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots.
A Greek Cypriot - in fact, this particular Greek Cypriot - could very well tell you that, quite arguably, Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years than had been done in all the previous years since at least 1977, which I suppose makes his rhetoric about protecting the interests of Greek Cypriots twice as irritating. Myself, I am treating the coming elections as an experiment in just how much of this twaddle the Greek Cypriots can withstand before they actually wake up to the fact they're being taken for fools.
I would be much more interested in hearing from you your opinions of the choices made in the last three years by Mehmet Ali Talat, for example. Has he done, and is he doing, all he could be doing in the light of the circumstances to keep the door to re-unification open? Or is he finding that the line Papadopoulos is choosing to follow is making it easy for him to allow the door to slam shut? Are his choices the best possible under the circumstances for the Turkish Cypriots themselves - quite besides the Greek Cypriots, or reunification?
What if we all didn't have a Papadopoulos to blame? I find myself agreeing with Mete:
| Mete wrote: |
I'm actually excited about Christofias being elected and then I'll sit back with my pop-corn and watch the drama episode untold. It'll be a tragey/comedy to watch the so called "leftists" on both sides blame each other since there won't be a Denktash or Papadopoulos to blame anymore.
|
All the best to everyone. |
Lets talk about Talat. 
I am a turkish cypriot and as much as i dream that we rule ourselves that is just a complete lie in the most part, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is supported by Turkey (financially) and any leader we may have has to 'go with the flow' as Turkey directs from the background.
Now here is the part that most Greek Cypriot like Tpap have never grasped, while Denktash was in power the game was easy, like Tpap a seasoned nationalist that seeks partition in all its glory, but he is gone now and we have Talat, he is a moderate and pragmatic leader but as we know Turkey is pulling his strings to their tune, the only way Talat can deliver is IF the Greek Cypriot leader extends his hand with honesty and together force Turkey to accept their (cypriot) position and due to the EU, US etc. there is pretty much nothing Turkey could do but loosen her grip till she finally lets go.
You see the way forward has and always will be with the two cypriot leaders but when one of the leaders will not engage then the manipulation from outside influence is easy.
In short Talat is unproven as he has not had a counterpart that is interested in testing the true resolve of both sides for a true resolution of the cyprus problem as we know it and that can only happen if tpap vacates the top job and IF we get a moderate and pragmatic Greek Cypriot leader, then we will have HOPE FOR THE FUTURE. |
|
| Back to top |
|
April of '69
Villager
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 17
|
|
| SP wrote: |
Hello April 69, I hope that I'm not the first to welcome you to this forum.
|
Indeed you are not the first, this is a very friendly forum and I am happy to have been received so warmly. Thanks for the welcome.
| SP wrote: |
I believe that you have succinctly implied that Mehmet Ali Talat is not in a position to make decisions about Cyprob, and indeed thanks to the actions of Mr Papadopoulos his life has been made considerably easier.
|
I am much less interested in what I believe about Mehmet Ali Talat than in what brother believes about him, which is why I asked the question.
I acknowledge that, as a Greek Cypriot who doesn't live in the north of Cyprus and doesn't have direct contact with and experience of the political realities there, I perhaps don't have full understanding of the forces at play, including the extent to which the Turkish Cypriot political leadership's decisions are constrained by the Turkish factor. So I am interested in Turkish Cypriot forum members' view of the Turkish Cypriot political leadership and Mehmet Ali Talat in particular.
From your answer and brother's is seems that you both believe that he doesn't wield much decision-making power and is very much under the influence of Turkey.
You are certainly aware that this was the chief argument used by Tassos Papadopoulos himself, and by many in his school of political thinking, to justify his avoiding to meet or deal with Talat until July 8th 2006, and instead seeking to deal with Turkey directly via the EU induction process etc.
I believe that if we are to be able to bring about any change, we must first assess, then acknowledge, any power that we do have. Let's take brother's suggestion:
| brother wrote: |
the only way Talat can deliver is IF the Greek Cypriot leader extends his hand with honesty and together force Turkey to accept their (cypriot) position and due to the EU, US etc. there is pretty much nothing Turkey could do but loosen her grip till she finally lets go.
|
To which of course I say yea and amen, but it certainly can't be done if Talat wields no power. It will also be impossible if a favourable political and social climate does not exist.
As an example, suppose that the above does happen and Talat does get his chance with a Greek Cypriot leader and they do co-operate in the way brother suggests. How easy or difficult will it be for his political opponents, or the Army, or whoever, to denounce Talat as a "traitor who is selling out the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to the Greek Cypriots", for example, and thereby oust him and replace him with someone else - and therefore, access power themselves? In other words, won't co-operation with the Greek Cypriots be political poison - a weapon in the hands of the opponents of whichever political leader proposes it?
Please note again, I am not passing my own point of view by implication, I am interested in the views of Turkish Cypriot forum members on politics in the north of Cyprus in my search for hope for our country...
Best regards to all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1244
Location: Nicosia
|
|
| The Turkish Cypriots managed to oust Denktash who was a holy cow at the time (much like Makarios) and this is enough indication for me that they have passed this exam. Had we showered the Turkish Cypriots with good intend these last four years, Turkey could not but take heed of their voice, just like it happened in 2003, when people power turned the world round. Instead, once again we managed to send all kinds of wrong signals to which the Turkish Cypriots have reacted, as in the past, by burrowing deeper into the warm embrace of mother Turkey. |
|
| Back to top |
|
April of '69
Villager
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 17
|
|
Greetings Kifeas,
| Kifeas wrote: |
April 69, notwithstanding the fact that I agree with you regarding the anti-Papadopoulos futile and bitchy ranting of many Turkish Cypriots (and some Greek Cypriots) in here; where do you base your assessment that “Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years than had been done in all the previous years since at least 1977?” Is it because he rejected the Annan plan, or what? Can you please elaborate, so that perhaps you may also convince me of this assessment? |
It makes me sad to note that, of four people who have responded to my posts as a newcomer to this forum, you are the first not to extend a welcome to me. I sincerely hope this is a mere oversight and not an expression of your reaction to my arrival in the forum.
Further to my response to brother from which you quote above, what I said was:
| April of '69 wrote: |
I could very well tell you that, quite arguably, Tassos Papadopoulos has done more damage to the interests of the Greek Cypriots in the last 4 years...
|
I could say that about Tassos Papadopoulos and I do believe it is quite arguable but I did not take the discussion there. Instead of going along the Tassos-bashing line, I thought it would be more useful to ask brother his opinion of Mehmet Ali Talat, which is much more interesting to me than hearing him argue about what Papadopoulos has or hasn't done from the Turkish Cypriot corner. And brother was gracious enough to indulge me, and put forward his opinion of the Turkish Cypriot political leadership and also suggest possibilities for a way out of the impasse.
In the same way, I beg your forgiveness and indulgence, but I am much more interested in your views of what brother suggested - that the way forward is for Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot political leadership to promote a joint Cypriot point of view and thereby reduce and eventually eliminate outside influences:
| brother wrote: |
the only way Talat can deliver is IF the Greek Cypriot leader extends his hand with honesty and together force Turkey to accept their (cypriot) position and due to the EU, US etc. there is pretty much nothing Turkey could do but loosen her grip till she finally lets go.
You see the way forward has and always will be with the two cypriot leaders...
|
Do you agree that this is the way forward? Is there an alternative in your opinion? And could Tassos Papadopoulos pull it off? Your views on this would be very interesting indeed to me.
Allow me to throw my own hat into the ring by saying that, though I believe Tassos Papadopoulos has made a disproportionately large number of disastrous choices in the last four years, I also believe that he is in a very good position to turn the whole Cyprus issue on its head if he gets re-elected, and surprise the hell out of us all. I am not so sure he will... but I am sure he can if he somehow sets his mind to it - and he is, quite arguably, in a better position to secure support for his actions than either of the other two serious candidates.
Remember, Makarios also quite arguably made some even more disastrous choices in the period 1960-1963, and his later career consisted largely of more or less unsuccessful damage limitation which eventually collapsed of its own weight in 1974 with the well-known disastrous consequences. But it was also him, and in my opinion, history proves that it could only have been him, who eventually made the historical compromise of 1976-77. I believe that if he had lived a few years more he could have helped arrive at a solution and he carried the political weight to push it through. Unfortunately he died and left behind a political leadership that clung to the rhetoric, but lacked the political weight to complete the change.
Best regards to everyone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
April of '69
Villager
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 17
|
|
Greetings once more Kifeas,
I find the following extract from one of your posts quite interesting, and also topical, given the recent - and continuing - debate in the Greek Cypriot community about Bizonal Bicommunal Federation.
I am taking the liberty of starting a new thread on this topic and am very interested in your views and also those of other forum members.
My best regards to all.
| Kifeas wrote: |
based on a UN SG report, part of which was adopted by a UN resolution on Cyprus, (a) bi-communality is only a function of the central government, i.e. to be observed in a federal constitutional sense and form; (b) political equality means the effective participation of both communities in the decision making of the federal government and its institutions, and not the absolute or partial numerical equalization of the two, in any shape, form or fashion; and (c) bi-zonality (in contrast with bi-communality as it is explained above,) has only a territorial sense, and not a community based ownership sense!
This means that (a) the notions of “community” and “state” (zone) are two separate and different types of entities; (b) they are not meant to be used interchangeably; and (c) Their relationship is only an indirect one, in the sense that the (“natural”) majority of permanent residents in each of the two states will derive from the members of one of the two communities.
In practical terms, the later can only be feasible if the Turkish Cypriot community will remain in its majority (as permanent residents) within the boundaries of one (the northern) state, and if the territorial arrangement is designed in such a way so that it further limits the percentage of the Greek Cypriot community that used to historically inhabit those areas. In any case, the percentage of Cypriot citizens permanently residing in each of the two zones (states,) should always roughly coincide with the territorial percentage of the two zones. Any other arrangement or approach (such as the Annan plan for example) will equate with a vindication of the Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing that the illegal Turkish occupation of the north.
The 18% of Cypriots that the Turkish Cypriot community constitutes, cannot be expected to become the sole, exclusive and permanent owners of any territorial percentage of Cyprus higher than that of their population share –set aside one equating to the 30% of Cyprus, as the Annan plan implied. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
April of '69
Villager
Joined: 09 Aug 2007
Posts: 17
|
|
Greetings once more Kifeas,
I find the following extract from your response to bananiot in this thread quite interesting, and also topical, given the recent - and continuing - debate in the Greek Cypriot community about Bizonal Bicommunal Federation.
I am taking the liberty of starting a new thread on this topic and am very interested in your views and also those of other forum members.
My best regards to all.
| Kifeas wrote: |
based on a UN SG report, part of which was adopted by a UN resolution on Cyprus, (a) bi-communality is only a function of the central government, i.e. to be observed in a federal constitutional sense and form; (b) political equality means the effective participation of both communities in the decision making of the federal government and its institutions, and not the absolute or partial numerical equalization of the two, in any shape, form or fashion; and (c) bi-zonality (in contrast with bi-communality as it is explained above,) has only a territorial sense, and not a community based ownership sense!
This means that (a) the notions of “community” and “state” (zone) are two separate and different types of entities; (b) they are not meant to be used interchangeably; and (c) Their relationship is only an indirect one, in the sense that the (“natural”) majority of permanent residents in each of the two states will derive from the members of one of the two communities.
In practical terms, the later can only be feasible if the Turkish Cypriot community will remain in its majority (as permanent residents) within the boundaries of one (the northern) state, and if the territorial arrangement is designed in such a way so that it further limits the percentage of the Greek Cypriot community that used to historically inhabit those areas. In any case, the percentage of Cypriot citizens permanently residing in each of the two zones (states,) should always roughly coincide with the territorial percentage of the two zones. Any other arrangement or approach (such as the Annan plan for example) will equate with a vindication of the Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing that the illegal Turkish occupation of the north.
The 18% of Cypriots that the Turkish Cypriot community constitutes, cannot be expected to become the sole, exclusive and permanent owners of any territorial percentage of Cyprus higher than that of their population share –set aside one equating to the 30% of Cyprus, as the Annan plan implied. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
repulsewarrior
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Jan 2006
Posts: 2152
Location: a cypriot in canada
|
|
| Indeed, and thank-you Mr B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
605118 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home