 |
| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
In other words, for the last 31 years the Turkish Cypriots (and Turkey) were merely taking revenge for the previous 10 years. |
No they were not merely taking revenge. Their demands changed after 74 because the situation had changed after 74. I regret that they did not try and use the events of 74 to offer the same deal that had been brokered before the events of 74 and accepted by Turkish Cypriot community then and rejected by Makarios, for who knows if after 74 the Greek Cypriot community would have accepted it or not.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Nevertheless, at least during the previous 10 years -actually 6 years (69-74,) the two sides had nearly reached an agreed solution (both Klerides and Denktash admitted this,) which proves that the Greek Cypriots did not want “too much,” as you retained. |
Nearlt being the operative word. In reality the Turkish Cypriot side had stated this 'deal' was acceptable to them but it was Makarios who refused to sign it because it contained a reference to the forbiding of ENOSIS, which was ALREADY in the Republic of Cyprus consitituion. So yes a deal was close and it was the Greek Cypriot side that rejected this deal not the Turkish Cypriot side.
| Kifeas wrote: |
There is no balance of power that is shifting on the side of the Greek Cypriots, this time. The balance of power is simply shifting away from the Turkish side and moves closer to a more neutral position. |
Playing with words. This is like a seesaw. Things can not shift 'away from Turkish Cypriot position' in this regard without shifting closer to the Greek Cypriot position. Agruing where the mid point is is irrelevant to this point. The point being that there has been a shift in balance of power to Greek Cypriot side with Turkey's desires to enter EU and Republic of Cyprus as an EU member. Is this shift to be used to make a deal more likely or used to make Greek Cypriot demand more than they have before this shift. I personaly think the evidddence of which is the current approach of the Republic of Cyprus is clear and compelling.
| Kifeas wrote: |
The Greek Cypriot side is not asking for “too much” as you wrongfully assume. |
Asking for recognition of the Republic of Cyprus WIOTHOUT a settlement is so clearly 'asking for too much' imo I am bemused that intellignet people can apprently support a thesis that this demand is 'reasonable' and not a maximal demand that undermines every effort to date to agree a solution.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Turkey will still have the choice to formally recognise the Republic of Cyprus, or the new Republic of Cyprus, after a settlement. How? By simply making it’s best effort to help the two sides reach a settlement in the next one or two years, something which it “failed” to do during the previous 31 years. |
Which is why recongition and a solution should be linked. Linkage maintains pressure on BOTH sides to agree a solution. Recognition without a settlment is just saying that Republic of Cyprus should not have to make any consiessions at all and that Turkey should just capitualte totaly. Such a position works against the prospects of reunification and are just pipe dreams.
| Kifeas wrote: |
What the Republic of Cyprus is trying to secure is not a formal recognition before the 3rd of October, as this has already been decided, nor immediately after the beginning of Turkeys accession process, nor within at least the first one year. The Republic of Cyprus is trying to secure an obligation by Turkey to formally recognise the Republic of Cyprus within the early stages of it’s accession process, which gives Turkey enough time to decide whether it sincerely wants an agreed solution, which means a win-win one and not a win-loose one like the A-plan wants. |
The clear demand from Greek Cypriot and Greece is that recogntion should not be tied to efforts to find a solution
| Quote: |
| Sources said the Greek ambassador reiterated his proposal that Cyprus’ recognition is tied to Turkey’s accession negotiations and not accession itself, as the UK proposes. He also repeated that recognition should not be tied to efforts for a settlement, issues he had raised at the last meeting but were not taken on board. |
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=21882&cat_id=1
The desire and objective is clear. It is not to find a settelment or create and environment where a (fair) settlement is most achievable. The objective is to try and secure a recognition WITHOUT a settlement or a requirment to find a settlement. If the Republic of Cyprus was sincere in wanting to find a (fair) settlement then it would accept that the two issue are and should be linked. No recognition without a settlment and no settlment without recognition. To me the position and desires of the Republic of Cyprus government are clear and obvious (and simply unachievable as well).
| Kifeas wrote: |
Should Turkey proves incapable to make up it’s mind during the following one or two years, then it will either have to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a solution in order for it’s EU accession to continue, or it will have to accept that it’s accession process will come to a complete stalemate, until a solution to the Cyprus problem is found. |
There is no conveivable way that Turkey can recognise the Republic of Cyprus before a settlement. What the Republic of Cyprus is trying to do is force Turkey into giving in to maximalist demands by holding it's accession hostage (TP famed 'eupropean solution). Ironic really given that the EU rational for allowing accesion of the Republic of Cyprus without a solution was based on the idea that the people of the Republic of Cyprus should not be 'held hostage' in their accession talks and process.
This is once again a most dangerous startegy of pushing things to the brink (and histroicaly over the edge) in the persuit of maximal demands. The ramifications of this 'going over the edge' are huge and will affect far more than just Cypriots. If the Republic of Cyprus sucseeds in blocking Turkish accession until the demands it makes of Turkey that Turkey CAN NOT accept are met, it will not just be a case of Turkey 'shrugging her shoulders' and waiting until it can accept these maximalist demands. Firstly the Erdogan government would very likely fall in the wake of such a end to the accession process - a government that is the most progressive and compromising on the Cyprus issue of any previous Turkish government. If they fall or not Turkey will inevitably react to such a failure of the accession process by becomming virulently 'anti EU' - politicaly internaly there will be no other choice for Turkey. Such a turning away of Turkey from Europe will have massive and unforesable consequences and the small window of opportunity of a settlement in Cyprus that exists today will slam shut with no prospect of it opening again any time soon if ever.
Just as Makarios pushed Cyprus to edge and over the edge in the period 63-74 in the persuit of his maximalist desires for Cyprus - with the consequence of the huge pain and suffering of the Cypriot people, so too is TP playing the same game. In the persuit of a demand that simply can not be accepted by Turkey (namely that Turkey must recognise the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT an agreed settlement) TP is risking the much greater distaster and clamity of Turkey turning it's back on Europe and all the vast consequences that means for Cypriots and Europeans, Turks and the whole world.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Obviously Turkey doesn’t want to face such a condition and instead it prefers to continue its accession process without any hassle and without having to worry about the solution of the Cyprus problem, like it did not worry for the last 31 years. |
There is simply no way Turkey can recognise the Republic of Cyprus before a settlment. What Turkey can accept is for the things to be linked. A settlement , recognition and accession. This is clearly the 'best' way to look for a solution to the problem, unless of course your aim in not an agreed fair solution but the persuit of maiximalist demands.
| Kifeas wrote: |
It is for this reason that that country in the EU which plays the role of the guardian Turkey’s interests, is abusing her role as the current EU presidency by intriguingly trying to associate Turkey’s obligation to recognise the Republic of Cyprus with her eventual, if it ever happens only god knows, final and formal accession into the EU. This of course, as everybody knows, will happen the soonest in 15 years and the latest, perhaps never. |
Accusing the British of 'abusing' her position is easy to do and requires no 'proof' just belief. Just because accesion is due to take 15+ years that does not mean that obstacles to final accession will only be achieved in 15 years. If the EU were to make it clear that recognition and a settlement are inextricably linked, then we could tomorrow start on the process of trying to find a solution, instead of what we have today, which is the persuit of a demand that can never be accepted by Turkey and the efforts of those within the EU and by Turkey to stop this.
| Kifeas wrote: |
This of course is very bad news for the Greek Cypriot side and those Turkish Cypriots who believe and hope for a re-unifying solution in Cyprus. |
How easily you make the accepting of the Republic of Cyprus maximal and unrealistic and dangerous (to a solution to cypriots and to the world) demands something that Turkish Cypriot who want unification must support. Well the fact is I want reunification and I think persuing the demand of recognition of the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT any linkage to an agreed settlment in Cyprus is aginst the interests of those who want a fair settlment to be reach and a huge risk to Cypriots, EU and the world.
| Kifeas wrote: |
It is a red line for the Greek Cypriot side because we have very bitter experiences with Turkey and they way things move internally in this country. |
It is now a red line for Greek Cypriot community that Tiurkey recognise the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT a settlment? If so then we are doomed. Can you not understand how maiximal and unrealistic such a 'red line' demand is? How making it is to destroy all previous efforts at a solution and make any chance of a future ones miniscule?
| Kifeas wrote: |
If Turkey gets such a blank check, it will use it and even abuse it. Turkey will turn the solution of the Cyprus problem into a hostage of its accession process. |
What blank cheque? What are you talking about? Am I saying that Turkey should be allowed to acceed to EU without recognising a post solution Cyprus? No I am not. It should be made abundandly clear to Turkey that the ONLY way for it to acheive it accession ambitions is to agree a settlement in Cyprus. Just as it should be made abundantly clear to the Republic of Cyprus that the ONLY she can achieve her recogntion ambitions is to agree a settlement. Such a way forward give no blank cheques to anybody but actualy maintains the most pressure on ALL parties to agree a solution
| Kifeas wrote: |
The Greek Cypriot side on the other hand, wants to turn Turkey’s accession process into a hostage of the solution to the Cyprus problem. This is the battle that is more or less currently taking place between the UK and the Republic of Cyprus. |
No. If this was the case then linkage of accession and a settlment / recognition would be the prefered route. By demanding recogntion WITHOUT a settlement the Greek Cypriot side is holding Turkey (and the EU) hostage to it's unrealistic and maximal demands that are 'outside' the need to agree a settlment. Now that is a demand for a blanck sheque if ever I saw one! |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
Erol,
The whole point of forcing the issue of recognition is so as to force Turkey to negotiate. Us asking for a federal solution as commonly understood is not a maximalist demand as you put it. What is maximalist is for Turkey to demand a two state solution under the guise of federation. We will not accept a solution that divides the country. Equally, Turkey will not accept a unitary state. So what is the compromise? It is a federation. So the compromising still needs to be done by Turkey. If she won't compromise then she has to be forced to and the only way it can be done is by affecting her politically. The Annan plan can be used as a starting point but if you cannot accept or appreciate that we cannot compromise any more then the status quo will prevail and most likely Turkey will not progress at all with her accession negotiations.
In any case, if the report in Politis newspaper that I posted above has any truth in it then it is quite obvious that Turkey will not accept anything other than partition. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
Erol,
The whole point of forcing the issue of recognition is so as to force Turkey to negotiate. |
And by making it clear that their can be no accession without a settlment you achieve this. This is not what the Republic of Cyprus is currently 'lobbying for' however. What it is currently lobbying for is recognition of the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT and linkage to a settlement. For me the objective here is clearly not to force Turkey to negoitate (for linkage is the clearest and best way to do that). For me the clear objective here is obtain a maximal concession from Turkey without the Republic of Cyprus having to give any concession on a future settlement or even having to try and find a settlement.
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
Us asking for a federal solution as commonly understood is not a maximalist demand as you put it. |
Am I speaking in riddles here? Asking for a federal solution is not a maximal demand and I have never said it was. The Republic of Cyprus is not asking for a federal solution. It is putting every apparent effort behind trying to get Turkey to formaly recognise the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT ANY linkafge to a settlement. That is a maximal objective, an unrealistic objective and it UNDERMINES and distracts and avoids efforts to find an agreed settlement.
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
What is maximalist is for Turkey to demand a two state solution under the guise of federation. We will not accept a solution that divides the country. Equally, Turkey will not accept a unitary state. So what is the compromise? It is a federation. |
No one is disputing the above. Is the Republic of Cyprus using all it's available means to push Turkey to accept a federal solution or is it using every effort to force Turkey to recognise the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT any agreed settlement first or as part of recognition. To me it is clearly doing the later and that is what is so 'distressing' to me and my hopes for an agreed settlment.
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
So the compromising still needs to be done by Turkey. If she won't compromise then she has to be forced to and the only way it can be done is by affecting her politically. The Annan plan can be used as a starting point but if you cannot accept or appreciate that we cannot compromise any more then the status quo will prevail and most likely Turkey will not progress at all with her accession negotiations. |
All this would come out IF any new negotiations had started. ATM there are NO new negotiations. All there is is the Republic of Cyprus putting all it's effort into trying to achieve the maximal goal of forcing formal recogntion of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey WITHOUT a settlement or any requirment on her to find one. How does this help us get round a hegotiating table so the issues of federal, disguised confederal etc etc etc can be thrashed out?
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
In any case, if the report in Politis newspaper that I posted above has any truth in it then it is quite obvious that Turkey will not accept anything other than partition. |
Tjhat is a very big 'if' imo. In any case your assement is incorrect because Turkey supported and agreed to the Annan plan. You can cvlaim this was 'disguised partition' and maybe with _some_ veracity but you can not decribe it as simply a 'partition' plan. |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
Ok Erol, not a partition plan but a plan that gives effective control of the island to the Turks regarding strategic issues such as foreign policy whilst we the Greek Cypriots would be bankrolling the north and donating our properties to you. Sounds like the return to Ottoman times to me. Get one thing straight Erol, we will never accept a solution that turns Cyprus into a protectorate or into a country that says 'yes' to everything that Turkey says.
Regarding recognition, it is quite frankly a means to force Turkey to accept certain realities and that is that she has to negotiate with Cyprus. Ollie Rhen has stated that it is not Turkey negotiating with the EU but rather it is Turkey negotiating with each and every member state of the EU. The accession talks will grind to a halt very quickly after October 3rd. You just wait and see.
So for you to say that Cyprus is simply forcing the recognition issue purely so that the Republic of Cyprus wont have to worry about coming to a settlement are wrong. What will change if Turkey does so? She will still have her troops maintaining the division. Cyprus badly needs a solution and it is only by forcing Turkey to point where she has to make a choice about what is more important - the greater goal of EU membership or to stand proud over her exploits in Cyprus. Just as in the same way Cyprus can't have it all, so it is with Turkey. Its about time she realised this and acted accordingly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
|
"Politis" today refers to Erdogan's version of what Papadopoulos and Erdogan discussed in New York. Erdogan told Papadopoulos that Turkey insists on the Annan Plan for the creation of two component states that will be put under the umbrella of Federation. This makes sense to me and if one ponders over what KYPE reported the other day one can see clearly that the government of Papadopoulos is only interested in clouding the issues and throwing mud into the eyes of the Greek Cypriot people.
The issue of the counter declaration continues into this week too. Papadopoulos, consistent in himself, is trying hard at the successive KOREPER meetings to promote his aim. That is, for the Cyprus problem to remain unsolved. There is no other way to explain the insistence for Turkey to recognise the Republic of Cyprus. Actually it verges on the point of being childish. If Turkey could do that then there would have been no problem. Turkey will never recognise the Republic of Cyprus and as if we do not know this plain truth, we expect our stakeholders (sic) in the EU to force recognition down the throat of Turkey.
We also know that the EU supports an agreed solution between the two communities. This is also supported by the UN and even Greece. Thus, no one is prepared to help us out and the promise of Papadopoulos for a European solution remains a midsummer night's dream. I believe Papadopoulos and his associates have been trying hard to achieve a solution that would see the Turkish Cypriot's return to the Republic of Cyprus. Personally I would welcome such a solution if we could agree with the Turkish Cypriot community. However, its plain obvious that this is a non starter (for various historical and other reasons) and Papadopoulos should have known this. Failing to achieve plan A he will soon turn to Plan B, that is the second best solution, partition of Cyprus. Will he succeed? I am afraid that as things stand now, many Greek Cypriot's have a change of heart and prefer things to stay as they are now. Papadopoulos and his cronies are responsible for this but AKEL shoulders the responsibility by taking a party that commanded less than 15% and elevating it to government.
I deliberately used the word "cronies" to describe the associates of Papadopoulos because they dare to utter sentences which Papadopoulos dares not, except when he makes a slip of the tongue in unprepared speeches (usually boring to death). His cronies state explicitly at every opportunity that "we will never again negotiate on the basis of the Annan Plan ...". |
|
| 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.
|
|
Okay Erol ! Each of us has his own ideas and understandings. It is obvious that none of us can convince the other on this issue. What I would like to ask you in the case of future debates, is to avoid this unfair practice of fragmenting even the smallest of my paragraphs into isolated sentences and make them look as if they are hanging in the air, so that it will allow you to easily and freely twist them around and reply to them in whichever way is most convinient to you and depending what you want to say at a time, which in most cases is unrelated to what I was talking about in thefist place and within the very same paragraph or in the rest of my posting.
For example, you isolated the following one single sentence from an entire posting consisting of 4 paragraphs, with each paragraph depending on the previous one -set aside each sentence depending on the previous one, in order to imply that I was trying to say something which not only I did not but in fact refering to something quite different, as this was more than obvious after reading the same and the previous paragraph out of which you extracted the sentence.
| Kifeas wrote: |
| It is a red line for the Greek Cypriot side because we have very bitter experiences with Turkey and the way things move internally in this country. |
The red line I was referring to, is related to the possibility of having to wait another 15 or more years to have a solution in Cyprus, or until Turkey ever accedes the EU. This is what should be the conclusion if one reads the entire and the preceding paragraphs of the posting out of which the sentence was extracted, and not with the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus before a solution.
I never said that recognition before a solution is a must and thus a red line. This notion has already been addressed by me in the last paragraph of a previous posting, where I said that “Greek Cypriots do not give a damn shit for the recognition it self and as such.”
http://www.talkcyprus.org/post-8847.html#8847
The red line for the Greek Cypriots is not to allow Turkey and Britain to tight the solution of the Cyprus problem with the final accession of Turkey in the EU, something which will turn out to be the case should Turkey is left unhindered to carry out it’s entire accession procedure without any other obligation or commitment towards the Republic of Cyprus during this process, but only at the very end, which might never occur as well. If Turkey doesn’t have any other motive to work for an earlier solution, then Turkey will make full use of the time, like it did during the previous 31 years. This is the red line for the Greek Cypriots. To have to wait for another 15 to 20 years or whenever Turkey will have the appetite and the incentive to get the problem solved. In the meantime, Turkish Cypriots you will have plenty of time to develop and /or sell even the last Greek Cypriot property or plot in the north, more settlers will come over or get born in Cyprus, even less Greek Cypriot refugees will have the desire to return since more than 45 years would have elapsed, etc, etc. I can understand the desires of the Turkish Cypriot leadership towards this direction, but the Greek Cypriot side’s duty is not to allow this to happen.
Back to my initial protest. After you isolated my sentence and made it hanging in the air, you have chosen to present it in such a way as if I was implying that the red line was I was referring to, was stricktly realted to the issue of having recognition before a solution and as an absolute condition. Turkey will still have a choice if it doesn't want to recognise the Republic of Cyprus before a solution, to work with all its strength and motivation to get a solution before. This is what you have said.
| Erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| It is a red line for the Greek Cypriot side because we have very bitter experiences with Turkey and the way things move internally in this country. |
It is now a red line for Greek Cypriot community that Tiurkey recognise the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT a settlment? If so then we are doomed. Can you not understand how maiximal and unrealistic such a 'red line' demand is? How making it is to destroy all previous efforts at a solution and make any chance of a future ones miniscule? |
This is just one example Erol. I have come across similar cases many times before and I would like to ask you to refrain from this, at least with my postings, as this is an unfair practice and creates a lot of frustration. I prefer if you quote entire paragraphs, identify what in your opinion is the central message or the moral of what is being said in the whole of the posting or in the whole of the paragraph, and then reply to it accordingly. No fragmentation and sentence isolation, please! |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
Just to quote a Turkish press source
| Quote: |
| NEW YORK - Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, ''during my meeting with Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos, I told him that they should accept two states in northern and southern Cyprus and one confederative structure within the scope of Annan Plan, otherwise, agreement is impossible.'' |
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=70893
So Bananiot, who is throwing mud and who is not? Erdogan is clearly talking about a confederation of two states, not a federation. And all this under the cloudy murky waters of the Annan plan.
The Turkish mask is finally slipping! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
Regarding recognition, it is quite frankly a means to force Turkey to accept certain realities and that is that she has to negotiate with Cyprus. Ollie Rhen has stated that it is not Turkey negotiating with the EU but rather it is Turkey negotiating with each and every member state of the EU. The accession talks will grind to a halt very quickly after October 3rd. You just wait and see.
So for you to say that Cyprus is simply forcing the recognition issue purely so that the Republic of Cyprus wont have to worry about coming to a settlement are wrong. What will change if Turkey does so? She will still have her troops maintaining the division. Cyprus badly needs a solution and it is only by forcing Turkey to point where she has to make a choice about what is more important - the greater goal of EU membership or to stand proud over her exploits in Cyprus. Just as in the same way Cyprus can't have it all, so it is with Turkey. Its about time she realised this and acted accordingly. |
What will change if Turkey recognises the Republic of Cyprus without a solution? In my opinion everything will change. The whole moral and legal basis of Turkey's acts in Cyprus is based, as far as Turkey is concerned, on the fact that since 64 the all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus is an unconsitituional and illegitmate government as far it representing all of Cyrus. For Turkey to 'give up' this position it has held consistently for 40 years now and simply say 'actualy we were wrong the all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus is the legitimate government of Cyprus' is to ask Turkey to totaly capitulate on the Cyprus issue. This is not imo a reasonable or realistic demand but a maximal and unrealistic demand. I just do not believe that if the Greek Cypriot could get this impossible concession from Turkey without giving anything in terms of a settlment in Cyprus itslef, it would then suddenly turn round and say 'ok now we wil negotiate with the Turkish Cypriot communtiy in Cyprus and seek a fair and balanced solution'. In my view clearly what it would do would be to use this recognition to then try and get Turkey out of Cyprus alltogeather WITHOUT a solution, on the basis that Turkey herslf has now admitted to be occupying a state she herself recognises as legitimate.
To me it is clear that if the Republic of Cyprus was truely seeking a fair and just settlement and wanted to use the pressure on Turkey to secure this it would not demand prior recogntion of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey WITHOUT any linkage to a settlement. It would link the two issues, along with EU accession. It could also clearly state that 'soon' is an imperative for it as far as finding a settlement and that if Turkey is 'reticent' re brokering a solution it will _then_ block the accession process until she makes some moves in this direction. This is just not what is happening as far as I can see. What is happening is the Republic of Cyprus is demanding prior recognition with NO LINKAGE to a settlement. This to me is unrealistic and maximalist and a dangerous waste of the opportunity that now exits to exert pressure on all sides to get a settlement, as I have tried to explain before. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Okay Erol ! Each of us has his own ideas and understandings. It is obvious that none of us can convince the other on this issue. |
I can not convince you that for the Republic of Cyprus to demand reocogntion from Turkey without any linkage to a settlement in Cyprus is a maximalist and dangerous route that does not serve the interests of finding a fair agrred solution in Cyprus? So be it but as far as I am concerned if I can not convince of this, then we have no hope for a settlement any time soon :(
| Kifeas wrote: |
What I would like to ask you in the case of future debates, is to avoid this unfair practice of fragmenting even the smallest of my paragraphs into isolated sentences and make them look as if they are hanging in the air, so that it will allow you to easily and freely twist them around and reply to them in whichever way is most convinient to you and depending what you want to say at a time, which in most cases is unrelated to what I was talking about in thefist place and within the very same paragraph or in the rest of my posting.
For example, you isolated the following one single sentence from an entire posting consisting of 4 paragraphs, with each paragraph depending on the previous one -set aside each sentence depending on the previous one, in order to imply that I was trying to say something which not only I did not but in fact refering to something quite different, as this was more than obvious after reading the same and the previous paragraph out of which you extracted the sentence.
| Kifeas wrote: |
| It is a red line for the Greek Cypriot side because we have very bitter experiences with Turkey and the way things move internally in this country. |
The red line I was referring to, is related to the possibility of having to wait another 15 or more years to have a solution in Cyprus, or until Turkey ever accedes the EU. This is what should be the conclusion if one reads the entire and the preceding paragraphs of the posting out of which the sentence was extracted, and not with the recognition of the Republic of Cyprus before a solution.
I never said that recognition before a solution is a must and thus a red line. This notion has already been addressed by me in the last paragraph of a previous posting, where I said that “Greek Cypriots do not give a damn shit for the recognition it self and as such.”
http://www.talkcyprus.org/post-8847.html#8847
|
You accuse me of "unfair practice" and "twisting" my quotes with the intent of misrtepresenting and manipulating what you are saying. I absolutely and utterly refute this accusation. My 'style' of reply is imo designed to make the thread of my argument as clear and consise as possible. I personaly find it very frustrating when a poster quotes large chunks of text containg many points and issues and then replies to only one of these points burried somewhere in the text, or even none of them. If my style can lead unitentionaly to 'misrepresntation' then you or anyone else is free to point that out and the full context and history of the thread are easily available to all viewers of the forum. I personally find your 'attack' on my posting style distracting to the very important issue being discussed here and itself a gross misrepresentation of my motives and intentions ( a slur aginst me).
As to this specific exmaple of my 'perfidious' behaviour towards the quoting of your posts you say "I never said that recognition before a solution is a must and thus a red line." Yet I have never said you said that. I asked the QUESTION, is this what you are saying. The whole thread has been about if Turkey should be forced to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a solution, so when you defend this position and then talk of 'red lines' but are not specific about what the red line is, I wonder if the red line is 'Turkey must recognise the Republic of Cyprus without any linkage to a solution' or not and I asked the QUESTION, is this what you mean. You could just have answered it and made clear what you mean and this thread would not have become cluttered and distracted by these accusations of my 'manipulation' and my defense against such accusation. You chose a different route however.
| Kifeas wrote: |
The red line for the Greek Cypriots is not to allow Turkey and Britain to tight the solution of the Cyprus problem with the final accession of Turkey in the EU, something which will turn out to be the case should Turkey is left unhindered to carry out it’s entire accession procedure without any other obligation or commitment towards the Republic of Cyprus during this process, but only at the very end, which might never occur as well. If Turkey doesn’t have any other motive to work for an earlier solution, then Turkey will make full use of the time, like it did during the previous 31 years. This is the red line for the Greek Cypriots. To have to wait for another 15 to 20 years or whenever Turkey will have the appetite and the incentive to get the problem solved. In the meantime, Turkish Cypriots you will have plenty of time to develop and /or sell even the last Greek Cypriot property or plot in the north, more settlers will come over or get born in Cyprus, even less Greek Cypriot refugees will have the desire to return since more than 45 years would have elapsed, etc, etc. I can understand the desires of the Turkish Cypriot leadership towards this direction, but the Greek Cypriot side’s duty is not to allow this to happen. |
Fine it is clearer what your meant re 'red lines' now. However your argument to me does not hold water. If the Republic of Cyprus objective was to get an agreed settlement QUICKLY then it should persue linkage between recongition, accession and rapid real moves towards a settlement. If it were to do this and Turkey backslid and delayed on the settlment aspect it could still block the accession process at any time on this basis (and I would support such a block). The need to avoid delays in finding a settlement does not require Turkey to first recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement, to ensure it does not delay finding a settlement, which is what I think you are arguing above. This is just an 'excuse' as far as I am concerned to try and justify the Republic of Cyprus's persuit of a unrealistic maximal goal. If the Republic of Cyprus wants to use the pressure on Turkey to find a settlement then LINKAGE is the best and most realistic option. If their fears are delays from Turkey, with linkage they still have exactly the same power to block accession because of these delays, regardless of the recogntion issue. However the Republic of Cyprus is clearly persuing a very different strategy atm. A maximalist and unrealistic one that does nothing to increase the chance of a solution (or a qucik solution) and actualy risks destroying any real chance of a solution at all and much 'bigger dangers' as well.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Back to my initial protest. After you isolated my sentence and made it hanging in the air, you have chosen to present it in such a way as if I was implying that the red line was I was referring to, was stricktly realted to the issue of having recognition before a solution and as an absolute condition. |
Once againd Kifeas I asked a QUESTION as to what the 'red line' was refering to in your quote. It was not clear to me what it referred to but given that the whole thread was about the issue of recognition without a settlement it seemed that you were saying this was the red line. I was not sure and asked you if this is what you were saying.
| Kifeas wrote: |
This is just one example Erol. I have come across similar cases many times before and I would like to ask you to refrain from this, at least with my postings, as this is an unfair practice and creates a lot of frustration. I prefer if you quote entire paragraphs, identify what in your opinion is the central message or the moral of what is being said in the whole of the posting or in the whole of the paragraph, and then reply to it accordingly. No fragmentation and sentence isolation, please! |
If it will avoid future (unfair) accusations and future distractions from the issues being discussed I will try my best to quote whole large sections of your posts, even if I wish to ask a question or seek clarification of only one part of it as far as your posts go. Now I will return to the topic and the important stuff.
If the Republic of Cyprus wishes to use the pressure on Turkey to get a fair agreed solution as quickly as possible it would insist on 'linkage' between acession,recognition and a swift settlement. It would seek this from it's EU partners and get it. It should then announce it's plans for a swift resumption fo the settlment process and make it clear that if Turkey drags it's feet on a settlement it will block accession until it stops dragging it's feet. This would be the best and most realsitic way to best use the pressure on Turkey to get a fair settlement as soon as possible.
This is NOT what the Republic of Cyprus is currently doing. What it is currently doing is insiting that Turkey be made (by the EU) to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without any linkage to a settlement at all. Instead of getting support from it's EU partners, as it surely would for linkage and swift moves to a settlment, it has divded and deadlocked the EU with it's maximalist and unrealistic demands. It has 'delayed' any start to a settlement process being started by insiting that before all else Turkey must recognise the Republic of Cyprus regardless of any settlement process. It is pushing the whole Turkish accesion process with the EU to a dangerous and unesessary 'cliff edge' risking consequences far greater than just those affecting a settlment in Cyprus. After all this you are apparently arguing that it's strategy is based on the desire to find a fair and just settlment as quickly as possible? I remain bemused and depressed at what such a psoition indicates for the chances of a real fair solution to the Cyprus problem  |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
| Quote: |
| What will change if Turkey recognises the Republic of Cyprus without a solution? In my opinion everything will change. |
Erol, the point is, if Turkey doesn't want to recognise the Republic of Cyprus then she will have to be forced to negotiate a solution sooner rather than later. That is why the Republic of Cyprus is pushing for recognition. In other words, the Republic of Cyprus is saying to Turkey, 'you sit down and talk with us to come to a mutually agreeable solution otherwise we will not let you progress with your EU aspirations'.
In any case, see the reports now appearing in the Turkish pres about what Erdogan said to Papadopoulos. He wants a two state solution. And my arguments, and presumably the argument of the Republic of Cyprus simply show that without any pressure to solve the problem Turkey will simply delay the solution until such time as she gets EU entry. By that time there will be nothing left to solve. If the Turkish Cypriots want a united country then they had better be worried in the same way as the Greek Cypriots are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
| Erol, the point is, if Turkey doesn't want to recognise the Republic of Cyprus then she will have to be forced to negotiate a solution sooner rather than later. That is why the Republic of Cyprus is pushing for recognition. In other words, the Republic of Cyprus is saying to Turkey, 'you sit down and talk with us to come to a mutually agreeable solution otherwise we will not let you progress with your EU aspirations'. |
If this were the Republic of Cyprus's objective they would push the Eu to create linkage between recognition, settlment and accesion and push for a timetable for the settlement issue and could even draw a 'red line' time wise saying that if no progress is made towards a settlement by this date then the Republic of Cyprus will block the accession process. This would be the best and realisticaly achievable way to progress (if the objectiveof the Republic of Cyprus is really as you stated) and it would have allowed the EU to agree a position (imo). This is not however what the Republic of Cyprus is doing and from where I am sitting the reasons why it is persuing prior recognition without a settlement of any linkage to a settlement are to me fairly plain, as are the many dangerous conceqiuences of the persuit of such unrealistic goals, for both Cyprus and for the EU, Turkey and world in general. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
This would be the best and realisticaly achievable way to progress (if the objectiveof the Republic of Cyprus is really as you stated) and it would have allowed the EU to agree a position (imo).
|
I agree with you. The objective is not simply to force Turkey for negotiations as mikkie2 suggested but force Turkey and Turkish Cypriots accept maximalist Greek Cypriot demands (that is return to a unitary Republic of Cyprus as if nothing happenned, return of all Turkish soldiers, return of all Greek Cypriot refugees) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| -mikkie2- wrote: |
| Erol, the point is, if Turkey doesn't want to recognise the Republic of Cyprus then she will have to be forced to negotiate a solution sooner rather than later. That is why the Republic of Cyprus is pushing for recognition. In other words, the Republic of Cyprus is saying to Turkey, 'you sit down and talk with us to come to a mutually agreeable solution otherwise we will not let you progress with your EU aspirations'. |
If this were the Republic of Cyprus's objective they would push the Eu to create linkage between recognition, settlment and accesion and push for a timetable for the settlement issue and could even draw a 'red line' time wise saying that if no progress is made towards a settlement by this date then the Republic of Cyprus will block the accession process. This would be the best and realisticaly achievable way to progress (if the objectiveof the Republic of Cyprus is really as you stated) and it would have allowed the EU to agree a position (imo). This is not however what the Republic of Cyprus is doing and from where I am sitting the reasons why it is persuing prior recognition without a settlement of any linkage to a settlement are to me fairly plain, as are the many dangerous conceqiuences of the persuit of such unrealistic goals, for both Cyprus and for the EU, Turkey and world in general. |
I agree with erolz on this one totally, the Greek Cypriots will lose this opportunity and end up in a worse position than they currently are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bananiot
Warnings : 1
Deputy
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 1214
Location: Nicosia
|
|
| Let me repeat what I said many times. Papadopoulos has no stomach for a BBF. He never did. He has written countless articles against BBF. He is renowned for maximalist asks. He has been trying to get the Turkish Cypriot's to return to the Republic of Cyprus where political equality will be guaranteed for the individuals but not for the Community, of course. If he cannot achieve this he will push for things to stay as they are, that is partition. Papadopoulos has a problem. Nobody will buy what he is selling. Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community will accept nothing less than equality of the communities which can happen in a BBF. EU and the UN happen to side with Turkey on this and there is nothing we can do to change things as papdopoulos has been discredited in the eyes of the international community. It is a joke to accuse Erdogan that he stands against a solution when we rejected the chance for a solution. We can never convince those that matter. Papadopoulos can only gain sympathy if he declares solemnly that he is ready for talks to find a solution based on the Annan Plan. He does not do this preferring to be on the receiving end. Whenever he dares talk about negotiation he attaches a host of preconditions that make starting negotiations very difficult. Annan will have nothing of his rhetorics. Unless he is stupid he must realise where his policies are leading Cyprus. Thus (because he is not stupid) one can presume safely that he is on purpose leading us to partition, his favoured second best solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
-mikkie2-
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 603
|
|
Bananiot,
You repeat your protestations about Papadopoulos and his non solution tactics. However, we are hearing Edogan talking about a two state solution under a confederation. The Turkish press have been mentioning this, even Sener Levent has written an article in Politis today.
Where are your protestations regarding this? Or is a result of the Papadopoulos policy? Or has the Turkish mask finally slipped? Why are the Turkish Cypriot's not protesting about Erdogans statements? Do they want a federal solution or two states? Why don't we hear Talat protest to the Turks about this? Isn't this a case of Turkey gets what Turkey wants and screw the rest? Don't you think that the underlying problem here is Turkey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3205 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home