Register   Log in   Album   Home   An oasis of sensibility in the middle of a Turkish MM desert Goto page 1, 2  Next   Author Message Kifeas Warnings : 6 Ministerial Joined: 26 Aug 2005 Posts: 2733 Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus. Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:00 pm    Post subject: An oasis of sensibility in the middle of a Turkish MM desert An oasis of sensibility in the middle of a Turkish mass media desert. That's how I view this short interview of Rahmi Koç (I do not know who his is,) by Yusuf kanli. Where is our interest? Thursday, September 22, 2005 TDN editorial by Yusuf KANLI It's not always easy for Ankara journalists to get together with the top brass of Turkish industry. When the person in question is the “admiral,” then it becomes all the more difficult. However, this week we had the opportunity to meet over lunch as well as at some other social events -- including the inauguration of the Cengelhan Rahmi Koç Museum -- with none other than Rahmi Koç himself. I must say I never expected to be together with a humble, self-confident man who is straight to the point in discussions and who calculates every word he utters but who at the same time is courageous enough to challenge dogma with a pragmatic and far-reaching vision. The need to utilize our assets: One issue we discussed was the unfortunate developments over the invitation by Greek Orthodox Patriarch Bartolomeos to Pope Benedict XVI to visit Istanbul for the Nov. 30 Orthodox Feast of St. Andrew. The patriarch's personal invitation to the pope had created a strong reaction among Turkish nationalists, and the move was considered an attempt by the patriarch to promote his “ecumenical” status, which Turkey has been refusing to recognize. Eventually the row was settled by Turkey extending an official invitation to the pope to visit Turkey “sometimes next year,” a move that effectively canceled the patriarch's invitation. Technically, of course, the pope -- as head of the Vatican, a state officially recognized by Turkey -- ought to be invited by the head of state of Turkey. However, there was a religious aspect to the whole story that somehow could not be understood and which went unseen. The Patriarchate is a Turkish institution; indeed, no one can question that. But if that Turkish institution is revered by some 300 million people all around the globe as their spiritual leadership, what is the harm in that and what is the benefit in opposing such a status? Would it not be more in the interests of this country and this nation to stop considering the Patriarchate as a “potential threat” and instead realize that it is a national asset? Would it not be better to try to utilize that national asset for the benefit of this land? Unfortunately, we are quite successful in making life difficult for ourselves. The Cyprus headache: Cyprus was another major issue we discussed with Rahmi Koç. After failing five times in one month to issue a counter-declaration to a Turkish statement released on July 29 that its extension of the customs union to all new members of the EU, including the Greek Cypriot state, did not change Turkey's Cyprus policy and should not be taken as Turkish recognition for the Greek Cypriot administration, the bloc finally agreed on the issue on Wednesday (hopefully the Greek Cypriots won't spoil the broth at the last minute once again) and started deliberating a framework document that would serve as a guide for Turkish accession talks due to start on Oct. 3. Even last month's developments must have shown everyone in Ankara (and in Europe) that the Cyprus quagmire must be brought to an end somehow, and the sooner the better. Before the EU brings up Cyprus at a difficult time for Turkey, we ought to act more diligently in seeking a resolution for the island. Yes, the Greek Cypriots are intransigent. Yes, Greek Cypriot leader Tassos Papadopoulos has no interest in a compromise settlement on the island. Yes, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan will not launch a new Cyprus initiative unless he is assured of success this time. Nevertheless, we have to press hard for a Cyprus resolution because “if the EU bid of this country falters because of Cyprus, that will be unfortunate.” For that we definitely need to "discuss Cyprus more and devise a new national policy based on a consensus" over the issue that is pro-settlement. http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?enewsid=24044 Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 2:13 pm    Post subject: I agree with this (all of it). Turkey should make continued and urgent genuine efforts to seek a settlement in Cyprus. It should seek and form and make clear a national pro settlement consenus. I also agree with the view re Greek Cypriot intransigence and TP lack of interest in a desire for a settement 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. Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:23 pm    Post subject: erolz wrote: I agree with this (all of it). Turkey should make continued and urgent genuine efforts to seek a settlement in Cyprus. It should seek and form and make clear a national pro settlement consenus. I also agree with the view re Greek Cypriot intransigence and TP lack of interest in a desire for a settement It is good to notice that you agree as well that Turkey is still lacking a sound national pro-settlement policy. I hope you also agree that this tells a lot as to why the Cyprus problem is still unresolved, 31 one years after 1974, and that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots should not complain so much if certain actions and events are moving now closer to become a threat for their interests. What evidence do you have re Papadopoullos being intransigent and that he lacks interest and desire for a settlement? I mean he just rubberstamped a formal declaration together with the other 24 EU members by which they agree "to the importance of supporting the efforts of the UN SG to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, according to the relevant UN SC resolutions and the principles on which the EU is founded, towards a just and lasting settlement which will contribute to peace, stability and the harmonious relations in the region." (Paragraph 7 of the declaration.) Furthermore, only 5 months ago he re-conveyed his posisions on the A-plan to the UN SG, but Talat declared them a non-starter after receiving the relevant orders from Ankara. Only 5 days ago, Erdogan said in NY that we must find a solution by forming a confederation of two states and two people, siding himself clearly outside the UN SC resolutions and even outside the inscribed (not the actual) philosophy of the A-plan. Why is Papadopoullos the intransigent and non-pro-solution man and Talat, Erdogan and Turkey aren’t? Don't you think that there is hell a lot of unfair and empty sloganism in these aphorisms against Papadopoullos? Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2005 6:59 pm    Post subject: Kifeas wrote: What evidence do you have re Papadopoullos being intransigent and that he lacks interest and desire for a settlement? Because he is doing nothing to restart settlement talks that I can see, he has refused to even meet with Talat and has spent the last few months of diplomatic effort on the part of the Republic of Cyprus not persuing a restart to talks but persuing a totaly unrealistic objective of recognition without a settlement. I have no faith or reason to believe that once accession talks start he will change his course one iota, and accept that recogntion without a settlement is an unachievable demand that risks all if made a red line, and get down to the real business at hand - namely finding an agreed settlement, which means talking to Talat. Kifeas wrote: I mean he just rubberstamped a formal declaration together with the other 24 EU members by which they agree "to the importance of supporting the efforts of the UN SG to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, according to the relevant UN SC resolutions and the principles on which the EU is founded, towards a just and lasting settlement which will contribute to peace, stability and the harmonious relations in the region." (Paragraph 7 of the declaration.) You make it sound like he has not spent the last few months since the Turkish decleration following signing the customs protocal extension trying (and failing) to make the other 24 EU countries support his unrealistic demands that Turkey be forced to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement. This decleration was not 'rubber stmaped' by the Republic of Cyprus but was made after feirce lobbying efforts and protestations by Greek Cypriot (and some others), after bi lateral deals between France and UK, after diplomatic level efforts to agree failed, then minsiterial level efforts failed, hten diplomatic efforts finally reached an agreement, only to have them blocked by TP at last minute and finally an 'agreement' was reached. Most of this tortuous process was caused by TP efforts to secure an unrealistic objective. It is all a waste of time as far as reaching a settlement goes and actualy harmful to that process. Kifeas wrote: Furthermore, only 5 months ago he re-conveyed his posisions on the A-plan to the UN SG, but Talat declared them a non-starter after receiving the relevant orders from Ankara. He 're-conveyed' his position to the UN after first telling the world he had done so in writting, then having the UN state that he had actualy done no such thing. After actulay doing what he previously claimed to do the UN has decided that it is not interested in brokering new negotiations until the sides can come closer togeahter. So how is he seeking to achieve this? By refusing to even meet with Talat and insisting on recogntion by Turkey without a settlement? Kifeas wrote: Only 5 days ago, Erdogan said in NY that we must find a solution by forming a confederation of two states and two people, siding himself clearly outside the UN SC resolutions and even outside the inscribed (not the actual) philosophy of the A-plan. I do not know if this is what Erdogan said or not. If it is the current position of Turkey re a settlment then it is a neagtive and worrying CHANGE from their previously stated public position on a settlement. I would like Turkey to, as the article suggested, make absolutely clear their position on a settlement so that we can move towards new talks asap. Kifeas wrote: Why is Papadopoullos the intransigent and non-pro-solution man and Talat, Erdogan and Turkey aren’t? I do not know how 'intransigent' Turkey or Talat might be in any new negotiations because such negotiations simply so not ecists nor show any sign of starting any time soon, either under UN auspices or directly. What I do know without a doubt is that the current Turkish government and Turkish Cypriot leadership is more pro a settlement than any previous one and that the levelrage re Turkish EU accession could create the best possible chance of a settlement since 63. How is TP 'using' this 'best chance ever'? Imo he is using it to persue totaly unrealistic and maximal goals of recogntion without a settlement and not to get new negotiations statred asap. Kifeas wrote: Don't you think that there is hell a lot of unfair and empty sloganism in these aphorisms against Papadopoullos? No I do not. My critism is that TP is persuing recogntion by Turkey of the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT a settlement and in doing so is wasting the best chance for a solution that has ever existed. I do not think that TP wants to start negotiating a settlment at all. I think he wants to keep persuing maximal aims without a settlement and I believe that to be a 'fair assesment' of the situation and nothing at all to so with 'sloganism'. If TP's obkective was to get an agreed settlement he would Abandon the ridiculous persuit of recogntion by Turkey without a settlement. Meet with Talat. Use his 'leverage' in the EU to persue maximal pressure on Turkey to restart negotiation - not recognise without a settlment. Keep pressuring the UN to restart talks or meet their requirments for such a restart. He is not doing any of these things. It is clear that he continues to persue this idea of a 'EU solution' - which means 'the Republic of Cyprus can force maximal concessions from Turkey over Cyprus without having to give ANYTHING in return' and as such is wasting the opportunity that exits. 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. Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 12:05 am    Post subject: erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: What evidence do you have re Papadopoullos being intransigent and that he lacks interest and desire for a settlement? Because he is doing nothing to restart settlement talks that I can see, He has met with Annan in Moscow last April and re-assured his readiness for a new initiative, then he has send his envoy Tzionis to the UN in May and he re-conveyed his positions to Annan and his assistant Kieran Prendergast, Prendergast then came in Cyprus early June and re-confirmed with Papadopoullos his positions on the A-plan, Prendergast then met with Talat twice and exchanged ideas with him based on the Greek Cypriot side’s positions and then Prendergast went back to the UN and issued a report that was also presented to the UN SC. Talat went publicly and said Papadopoullos positions are a non-starter. Prendergast in his report determined that there is gab between the positions of the two sides, but that he also agrees with Papadopoullos that any new initiative should be carefully planed and that no-tight time deadlines should be applied. He didn’t consider Papadopoullos positions unacceptable or far-fetched. He simply said that the two sides should narrow their gabs. What did Talat and /or Turkey do more in this direction? erolz wrote: he has refused to even meet with Talat Talat is not adequately empowered by Turkey to negotiate and agree with Papadopoullos most of the aspects pertaining to the solution of the Cyprus problem, even those concerning the political inter-communal aspect of the solution and not just those pertaining to the international aspect. In most of the issue Talat cannot give any definite answer before consulting and /or getting the approval of Turkey. Erdogan also refuses to meet with Papadopoullos, despite the so many invitations that Papadopoullos conveyed to him during the last one year. Furthermore, any initiative and negotiating process should be done under the umbrella and auspices of the UN. Why doesn’t Talat and /or Erdogan go and tell Annan that they are ready to get engaged into a new round of talks and that Annan should get active? What more than Papadopoullos have they done? Although I also beilive that a meeting between the two, even though it will have a mere socializing nature, is a good thing to happen, Talat, apart from saying all the time that his hand is stretched towards meeting with Papadopoullos, he is continually defaming and slandering him in the north for internal consumption and fanatised the Turkish Cypriots against him by continually branding him to be an extremist, a hardliner, a non-pro-solution, one that wants to convert the Turkish Cypriots into a minority and dominate them, etc, etc. It is no wonder why the Turkish Cypriots came up to hate and mistrust Papadopoullos so much and consequently the Greek Cypriot community for keeping him in power. Would you meet with such a person even for a coffee, especially taking into consideration that he is not empowered enough to seriously discuss anything in relation to your concerns and that nearly all decisions are taken in Turkey, and not simply by one man, (i.e Erdogan,) but from a number of power centers in this country? Erdogan himself is not empowered enough to make decisions alone, set aside Talat. That is why Papadopoullos is waiting for the UN to make up for a new initiative, because by simply meeting with Talat it is essentially pointless under these circumstances. erolz wrote: and has spent the last few months of diplomatic effort on the part of the Republic of Cyprus not persuing a restart to talks but persuing a totaly unrealistic objective of recognition without a settlement. He did not spent any diplomatic effort for such a thing, simply because such a notion as you described it doesn’t exist. Papadopoullos doesn’t have any such, realistic or unrealistic, objective to gain recognition without a settlement, at least for the time being. This is purely your own unsubstantiated far fetched assumption and hypothesis, set aside that there no such indication to support it. erolz wrote: I have no faith or reason to believe that once accession talks start he will change his course one iota, and accept that recogntion without a settlement is an unachievable demand that risks all if made a red line, and get down to the real business at hand - namely finding an agreed settlement, which means talking to Talat. The only red line that Papadopoullos and the Greek Cypriot side have is not to let the solution of the Cyprus problem to take too long to materialize. All the rest are purely unsubstantiated and far-fetched assumptions, bordering science fiction. Is there a chance that Turkey will do such a think? No! Is Papadopoullos so stupid not to know and understand this? No! Then? Why all this beaching? erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: I mean he just rubberstamped a formal declaration together with the other 24 EU members by which they agree "to the importance of supporting the efforts of the UN SG to achieve a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem, according to the relevant UN SC resolutions and the principles on which the EU is founded, towards a just and lasting settlement which will contribute to peace, stability and the harmonious relations in the region." (Paragraph 7 of the declaration.) You make it sound like he has not spent the last few months since the Turkish decleration following signing the customs protocal extension trying (and failing) to make the other 24 EU countries support his unrealistic demands that Turkey be forced to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement. He did not spent the last few months trying to make the other 24 EU members to do what you say. I answered this previously (above) and I will not repeat it. Furthermore, the Turkish non-recognition declaration occurred only one and half month ago (29 of July,) and August was practically a dead moth for everybody in Europe and Cyprus for such a diplomatic activity to have taken place, as you suggested. Furthermore, Papadopoullos has been in the US for medical examinations, since the beginning of September. erolz wrote: This decleration was not 'rubber stmaped' by the Republic of Cyprus When I say it was rubberstamped, I mean it was agreed by all and signed by all the EU country representatives, including Cyprus. Are you just saying that the Republic of Cyprus did not agree to it yet, or you simply disagree with the term “rubberstamped?” If you mean the first, you are wrong, the counter declaration was negotiated and finally, already signed. I posted the full text in another threat since two days ago. The term “rubberstamped” as far as my English is concerned means “agreed” or “approved.” erolz wrote: but was made after feirce lobbying efforts and protestations by Greek Cypriot (and some others), after bi lateral deals between France and UK, after diplomatic level efforts to agree failed, then minsiterial level efforts failed, hten diplomatic efforts finally reached an agreement, only to have them blocked by TP at last minute and finally an 'agreement' was reached. This is how decisions are taken in the EU. If you have 25 countries and each one has it’s own concerns, which in some cases contradict or confront with each other, then it is the only way to do it if a consensus is to be reached. erolz wrote: Most of this tortuous process was caused by TP efforts to secure an unrealistic objective. It became a torturous process because Britain, although the vast majority of 2/3 of the member states stood on the side of the Republic of Cyprus positions, wanted to do her own thing, namely to accommodate Turkey’s positions. Britain, although she knew which issues needed to be included in the counter-declaration right from the beginning, made a first draft document that couldn’t be accepted by Cyprus and most of the other countries. She then kept bring back the same draft over and over again (6 times in total) and each time she was changing one or two words here and there, irritating most of the representatives. Once it realized that time was running out and there was a serious possibility for Cyprus not to concede to a counter-declaration, it finally did what it should have done from the beginning. Britain did what she did with the hope that Cyprus will remain alone, exposed and thus concede to what she wanted. In the end it was Britain that was exposed in the eyes of the rest of the 24 members. As for the unrealistic objective that Papadopoullos tried to secure, I do not know what you exactly mean but Papadopoullos declared yesterday that all the objectives he had set up for this meeting have been met in full. erolz wrote: It is all a waste of time as far as reaching a settlement goes and actualy harmful to that process. It was only one week, which in my view is not a hell a lot of time especially if one considers that this is the norm with reaching decisions in the EU, but more importantly it is not a hell a lot of time if we take into consideration the 31 one years that have already been wasted by seating and waiting for Turkey to formulate a pro-solution policy and move away from the Denktash /Ecevit concept that the Cyprus problem was solve in 1974, but also for the time that was wasted during the last 1 ½ year. As for this one-week and the counter-declaration been harmful for the settlement process, I do not know what exactly you mean, but I do not share this view. I already hear voices from Turkey and the Turkish Cypriot community calling for at last formulating a clear and sensible pro-solution policy and try hard to get the problem solved as soon as possible, which inevitably means to also take the Greek Cypriot concerns into a more serious consideration and stay away from megalomaniac aspirations and taboos. Does this bother you? erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: Furthermore, only 5 months ago he re-conveyed his positions on the A-plan to the UN SG, but Talat declared them a non-starter after receiving the relevant orders from Ankara. He 're-conveyed' his position to the UN after first telling the world he had done so in writting, What he meant when he said this is that he had conveyed his positions in writing, numerous times, during the various phases of the previous year’s “negotiation” processes and in-between the various A-plan versions, and that these should be known to the UN and to the Turkish /Turkish Cypriot side since then. erolz wrote: then having the UN state that he had actualy done no such thing. No! He explained what he actually meant and this is what I said above and consequently the misunderstanding was resolve. Is this our problem now or you are simply trying to find evidence to prove that Papadopoullos is paranoid and stupid? erolz wrote: After actulay doing what he previously claimed to do the UN has decided that it is not interested in brokering new negotiations until the sides can come closer togeahter. The UN (Prendergast) came in the region and met also with Talat, Erdogan and Karamanlis and again with Papadopoullos and Talat, before composing and presenting his report to Annan and the UN SC. Are you simply saying that it is purely Papadopoullos fault that the UN decided that there is no ground for a new initiative, or you also apportion blame to Turkey and Talat for this outcome? Didn’t Talat declare Papadopoullos positions to be a non-starter? Don’t Talat’s and Turkey’s approaches on his positions constitute a non-starter by itself? erolz wrote: So how is he seeking to achieve this? By refusing to even meet with Talat and insisting on recogntion by Turkey without a settlement? I already commented on these two issues above and therefore I will not repeat them here again. erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: Only 5 days ago, Erdogan said in NY that we must find a solution by forming a confederation of two states and two people, siding himself clearly outside the UN SC resolutions and even outside the inscribed (not the actual) philosophy of the A-plan. I do not know if this is what Erdogan said or not. If it is the current position of Turkey re a settlment then it is a neagtive and worrying CHANGE from their previously stated public position on a settlement. I disagree that it constitutes a change in Turkeys policy. Turkey’s policy has always been along and between this line of thought and that of partition. This has always been Denktash’s, the Kemalist deep-state’s and army’s philosophy and it did not change. It is either partition or if not possible, a (preferably) loose Confederation on the basis and assumption of two equal, pre-existing, separate equal states and two separate equal people (instead of communities,) to define it exactly as Denktash was professing it. Erdogan did not made the mistake for the first time, namely to spell it out in exactly these terms. During the previous year (2004) he made the mistake and expressed it publicly twice, one before and one after the A-plan. This year he repeated it again last April. Lastly but not least, the final and the previous to that versions of the A-plan (Vs. 4 & 5) touched this Turkish approach very closely. In the letter they were termed (branded) as a federation, in the spirit and in essence they were a confederation of two equal pre-existing states and people. It was not a loose confederation but a strong one, mainly due to the need to accede and represented as a one state in the EU. As a matter of fact this is how it (A-plan) was presented (without using the term con-federation) to the Turkish media and public by the Turkish government and the bureaucrats. erolz wrote: I would like Turkey to, as the article suggested, make absolutely clear their position on a settlement so that we can move towards new talks asap. I also hope so but it will not be an easy task at all. “You cannot teach an old dog any new tricks!” The deep state and the generals are still there and they are still in charge. Unless they first put aside the Kemalist ideals that determine the army to be the critical formulator of all such policies, under it’s privileged status to function as the protector and guarantor of national security -which also includes Cyprus into the equation, I see little chance that turkey will formulate a policy for a solution of the Cyprus problem on it’s own merits. erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: Why is Papadopoullos the intransigent and non-pro-solution man and Talat, Erdogan and Turkey aren’t? I do not know how 'intransigent' Turkey or Talat might be in any new negotiations because such negotiations simply so not ecists nor show any sign of starting any time soon, either under UN auspices or directly. If they are termed a new round of negotiations then they obviously do not exist at present and therefore we cannot determine who is the most intransigent. That goes both ways of course and therefore it counts for Papadopoullos as well. However, this is not what you have been saying. You insist to brand Papadopoullos to be the only intransigent one, even though as you say negotiations are not currently taking place. erolz wrote: What I do know without a doubt is that the current Turkish government and Turkish Cypriot leadership is more pro a settlement than any previous one and that the levelrage re Turkish EU accession could create the best possible chance of a settlement since 63. I can only agree with you on this and it is for this reason that Republic of Cyprus did not block up front this process. erolz wrote: How is TP 'using' this 'best chance ever'? Imo he is using it to persue totaly unrealistic and maximal goals of recogntion without a settlement and not to get new negotiations statred asap. I already answered this previously and there is no need to repeat it again. I do not agree with your evaluation regarding what Papadopoullos goals are and whether they are realist and maximalistic or not. As for new negotiations not getting started up asap, it doesn’t depend on Papadopoullos only. It equally depends on Talat, Turkey and Annan himself. erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: Don't you think that there is hell a lot of unfair and empty sloganism in these aphorisms against Papadopoullos? No I do not. My critism is that TP is persuing recogntion by Turkey of the Republic of Cyprus WITHOUT a settlement and in doing so is wasting the best chance for a solution that has ever existed. I already answered this previously and there is no need to repeat it again. I simply disagree with your evaluation. erolz wrote: I do not think that TP wants to start negotiating a settlment at all. I think he wants to keep persuing maximal aims without a settlement and I believe that to be a 'fair assesment' of the situation and nothing at all to so with 'sloganism'. I already answered this previously. I do not agree with your evaluation and I do consider all these accusations and aphorism to be nothing more than empty sloganism for internal consumption and without any indications or evidence. erolz wrote: If TP's obkective was to get an agreed settlement he would Abandon the ridiculous persuit of recogntion by Turkey without a settlement. I commented on this previously. I disagree with your evaluation. erolz wrote: Meet with Talat. I also commented on this previously. Talat first has to stop the slanders, branding and defaming of Papadopoullos so that the climate allows such a meeting, even though it will only be for a mere coffee drinking and socializing since Talat is not empowered to say and do much, but also that Erdogan should be ready to make an equivalent move and respond to Papadopoullos invitations. erolz wrote: Use his 'leverage' in the EU to persue maximal pressure on Turkey to restart negotiation - not recognise without a settlment. Turkey should already feel this pressure, should and if their radars are tuned up properly. erolz wrote: Keep pressuring the UN to restart talks or meet their requirments for such a restart. Which requirements? To convey his positions visa vie the plan? He already did that several times. As for pressurizing the UN, it is not a matter of pressurizing, set aside over-pressurizing alone and by himself without an equal action on behalf of Turkey and Talat. Nevertheless, he already met with Annan only last week and they discussed these issues as well as the speech he made in the General assembly in which he re-iterated his willingness to work for a viable and lasting solution and his wish for this to be achieved sooner than later because it is the Greek Cypriot community that suffers the most from the division and its continuation. erolz wrote: He is not doing any of these things. It is clear that he continues to persue this idea of a 'EU solution' - which means 'the Republic of Cyprus can force maximal concessions from Turkey over Cyprus Can you please explain to me what do you exactly mean by this so called idea of a “EU solution” that you claim Papadopoullos is continuing to peruse and how this will result to a forcing of maximal concession from Turkey and what these “maximal” concessions are in the first place? erolz wrote: without having to give ANYTHING in return' and as such is wasting the opportunity that exits. Give ANYTHING in return! Such as what? Accept /allow for turkey to make the rest (all) of the Greek Cypriots refugees into another country and give the rest of Cyprus to Turkey to occupy it? Give the rest of the Greek Cypriot properties in the south to the Turkish Cypriot developers to sell them to the foreigners? Concede to the recognition of the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus” by the international community? Pay ransom for not occupying the rest of Cyprus? Cover the expenses of the Turkish Army for continuing to occupy 35% of Cyprus and violating the human rights of 200,000 Greek Cypriots? Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2005 1:35 am    Post subject: Hi Kifeas. I am NOT saying that the lack of movement on talks is TP fault alone but it he is responsible for a large part of it. All sides need to do more. Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot and Turkey as well as EU for that matter. This whole notion that TP will not and should not meet with Talat because Talat is not empowered to make any decisons, is political and imo largely bogus and actively undermining a potential settlement. It is political in the sense that the whole Cyprus issues is rooted in the 'equality of the two communites' or lack of it. For TP to refuse to negotiate with Talat or Turkish Cypriot directly is to set up an imbalance before hand that is supposed to be the subject of negotiation. It is to say that the Greek Cypriot community (as the Republic of Cyprus) is of more importance and a higher level than the Turkish Cypriot community even before negotiations start. The people who have to broker a deal are first and foremost Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. Yes Turkey has great influence and power over Turkish Cypriot community but that does not mean Greek Cypriot community should not negotiate with Turkish Cypriot directly. It is an excuse (and an insult) to not negotiatge with them and a 'ploy' to try and get an unlevel playing field before negotiations even begin. Every UN effort and resoultion and international effort to broker a deal has avoided this 'starting discrepancy' and it is not good enough to try re introducing it now. To do so undermines the chances of a settlement. If talat in negotiations has to keep saying 'hang on I must check with my Turkish master before commenting on this' - then so what? That is not reason to refuse to negotiatie with him. It is an exuse as far as I am concerned. Any agreement needs to be between Greek Cypriot community (as a community not as Republic of Cyprus) and Turkish Cypriot community and as long as the Greek Cypriot community acts as if it is 'above' the Turkish Cypriot community as far as this goes then they undermine a potential settlement or even a potential start to one. As for it being TP's strategy to secure recogntion without any reference to a settlement just read the press reports of the EU negotiations and what has been going on. The Republic of Cyprus has clearly sought (and failed to get) in these negotiatons a statement saying thet Turkey has to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settle by a specific early date or accession will stop. If thsi decleration and the failure to secure recogntion without a settlment meant the end of this madness and a focusing on getting negotiations (with Turkish Cypriot) started then that would be one thing but what I see is this issue be raised (recogntion without settlement) at every stage of the accesion process and pushed to the edge every time and whilst this happens a positive desire not to have a settlement first and that is why I am so concerned by this startagey. That the Republic of Cyprus was lobbying for recognition without a settlement is not 'fiction' and has plenty of evidence to support it (I claim and will provide if you wish). What I think is unsupported fiction is the idea that 2/3rds of EU countries supported the Republic of Cyprus position (and what was that position if it was not that the decleration should insit on recogntion by a fixed early date with no linkage to a settlment or settlement process)? What occured to secure this statement by the EU was not 'business as usual' for the EU. Few declerations involve such intense and high level and public wranglings as this one. The fact was there was uninamity that a counter decleration should be made that Turkey must move to implementing the protocol and that there could be no ultimate accession whilst it diod not recognise the Republic of Cyprus. Why then did it take such extraordianry wrangling to get an agreement from EU members. Because the Republic of Cyprus pushed to the very edge trying to get the decleration to talk about early recogntion without a settlment and to not refer to a settlement under UN auspices at all. What other areas of disagreement were there with this decleration? Only one country other then the Republic of Cyprus supported a demand for early recogntion without a settlement (as reported in the press) and that was Greece (surpise surprise). All other members including the UK accept and agreed that _ultimate_ accession must involve recogntion of the Republic of Cyprus. None of them accepted that early recogntion should be a pre condition of starting talks (except greece) and that the whole process should be jeopdised over this unrealistic demand of the Republic of Cyprus. Just what do you think it was that Britian tried to get into the decleration and failed to do so that caused such extraordinary wrangling? In summary what was it specificaly that Britain tried to get into the decleration and failed to do so that caused all this rucuss? I can state plainly what the Republic of Cyprus tried to get into the decleration and ultimeatley failed to do so. Can you state what the UK tried to get in and failed to do so? You talk of Turkish Cypriot distrusting TP and thinking of him as a hardliner and extremist that does not want a fair solution and blame Talat's bad mouthing of TP for this. Well let me let you into a little secret. Turkish Cypriot do not trust TP and fear is a hardliner and an extremist that does not want a fair settlment because of who TP is and not anything Talat says. TP is former EOKA chief. One of the architects of the Annan plan. A man that claimed less than a year ago that no Turkish Cypriot was killed at the hands of Greek Cypriot in Cyprus from 63 onwards. His own personal history is steeped in 'hardliner' positions and actions that sought to illegaly steal the Turkish Cypriot communites consitituional rights. Maybe he has changed now and is a toaly different man, but do not blame our distrust of him on Talat. Blame it on his own actions and words past and current. Can such an old dog really learn new tricks? As for Turkey not having 'changed' again that is just not the case. Firstly this Turkish government came to power with an execptional majority. Secondly it's EU accession ambitions were central and are central to it's poltical objectives. Thirdly is has made unprecedent changes in persuing this objective on Cyprus and many other areas. You can discount all of this but the changes are real. They my not be enough for you but to say they do not exist is ignoring reality imo. Again let me reiterate that TP is not the only one not doing enough to get negotations started and agreed. Turkish Cypriot should be doing more, Talat should be doing more and Turkey should be doing more. What scares me about how I percieve things is that TP is making exactly the sort of bad calulations that got us into this mess the first time (and TP was one fo the people directly involved in all of that). I am sincerely scared that he does think he can eventualy force Turkey to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement as long as he can 'block' a settlment without being dirtectly blamed as the blocker and that this is now his 'stratgey' on the Cyprus problem. Block a settlement until Turkey gets forced to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without one. I sincerely hope I am wrong and am soon prooved to be wrong. However if I am right and this is the core of TP's strategy on the the Cyprus problem then the only thing that can stop the damage and consequences of this is for Greek Cypriots that want a solution to realise that this is what TP is doing and speak out against it. My fear is that this is TP's startegy and he has convinced many Greek Cypriot's that want a solution that either ti is a good startegy or that it is not his strategy at all. Like I say a really really hope I am wrong. Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2005 4:48 pm    Post subject: Just to add to the above post. A couple of articles from cyprus mail DISY slams government foreign policy http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=22005&cat_id=1 Quote: OPPOSITION DISY has slammed the government for its ineffectual foreign policy, which it says does nothing to facilitate efforts for a settlement on the Cyprus problem. Seems I am not the only person to question the value of all these wranglings as far as securing a settlement goes. From the sublime to the ridiculous http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=21999&cat_id=1 Quote: On the other hand, some local Greek Cypriot politicians seriously believe the formula of Turkey recognising us and in the process de-recognising the self-declared ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ is a feasible thing to demand from the EU. It would also seem I am not the only to think that the Republic of Cyprus was trying to lobby for early recognition by Turkey without a settlment and that such lobbying is unrealistic and positively undermines prospects for a settlement. Disagreements’ at National Council meeting http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=22010&cat_id=1 Quote: Earlier contested versions of the draft had linked recognition by Turkey to accession but the approved text links it to the “accession process”. Quote: The second difference, relating to EU support for UN efforts towards achieving a comprehensive settlement, was changed to include “in line with relevant UNSCRs (UN Security Council Resolutions) and the principles on which the EU is founded.” So all this intense wrnagling at the highest levels to secure these changes to the original British proposal! My fear remains that we will see a repeat of this at every single stage of the accession process, which will not secure recognition without a settlement from Turkey, but will undermine any settlement efforts and does run the risk that Turkey will simple abandon it's EU accession ambitions, which would be a massive disaster for Cyprus imo. 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. Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 2:11 am    Post subject: Erol wrote: Hi Kifeas. I am NOT saying that the lack of movement on talks is TP fault alone but it he is responsible for a large part of it. All sides need to do more. Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot and Turkey as well as EU for that matter. Erol, let’s be frank and straight before going further on this issue. Do you believe and /or accept that the A-plan was equally fair and balanced for both sides? I claim it was not! Papadopoullos does so too! The vast majority of the Greek Cypriots, including the majority of those that voted yes, do not! I claim that the a-plan was scandalously unfair for the Greek Cypriot side in almost every issue and aspect. Do you agree with the above claims or not? If not, what do you support? Erol wrote: This whole notion that TP will not and should not meet with Talat because Talat is not empowered to make any decisons, is political and imo largely bogus and actively undermining a potential settlement. It is political in the sense that the whole Cyprus issues is rooted in the 'equality of the two communites' or lack of it. For TP to refuse to negotiate with Talat or Turkish Cypriot directly is to set up an imbalance before hand that is supposed to be the subject of negotiation. It is to say that the Greek Cypriot community (as the Republic of Cyprus) is of more importance and a higher level than the Turkish Cypriot community even before negotiations start. The people who have to broker a deal are first and foremost Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. Yes Turkey has great influence and power over Turkish Cypriot community but that does not mean Greek Cypriot community should not negotiate with Turkish Cypriot directly. It is an excuse (and an insult) to not negotiatge with them and a 'ploy' to try and get an unlevel playing field before negotiations even begin. Every UN effort and resoultion and international effort to broker a deal has avoided this 'starting discrepancy' and it is not good enough to try re introducing it now. To do so undermines the chances of a settlement. If talat in negotiations has to keep saying 'hang on I must check with my Turkish master before commenting on this' - then so what? That is not reason to refuse to negotiatie with him. It is an exuse as far as I am concerned. Any agreement needs to be between Greek Cypriot community (as a community not as Republic of Cyprus) and Turkish Cypriot community and as long as the Greek Cypriot community acts as if it is 'above' the Turkish Cypriot community as far as this goes then they undermine a potential settlement or even a potential start to one. Okay! Lets accept for the sake of discussion that whatever you said above is correct and that Talat sincerely wants a solution and Papadopoullos is unreasonably refusing to meet him for his own reasons, even if they are those you mentioned above. Why Talat doesn’t go to Annan and tell him that he is ready to enter into negotiations with Papadopoullos and ask him to start a new initiative under the UN? If Papadopoullos doesn’t meet Talat for the reasons you mentioned, then it will be the perfect opportunity to expose him for working towards a solution. Don’t you think so? Why isn’t he doing it? Erol wrote: As for it being TP's strategy to secure recogntion without any reference to a settlement just read the press reports of the EU negotiations and what has been going on. I would like to see these unbiased press reports that confirm what you are referring to. Erol wrote: The Republic of Cyprus has clearly sought (and failed to get) in these negotiatons a statement saying thet Turkey has to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settle by a specific early date or accession will stop. Erol, if you read the declaration very carefully, this is exactly what Papadopoullos has gotten but in an indirect way. There is no specific date mentioned but in theory the Greek Cypriot side has the option to set up this date any time, from the first year that Turkey’s accession process until the end of it, with a solution or without a solution. Therefore you cannot say that Papadopoullos has failed to get what you say but actually the opposite. Actually the mere discussion of recognition after a solution is a completely meaningless concept by itself, because a solution anyway includes in itself the aspect recognition of the new state of affairs. It is an integral part of the solution. There is no meaning within the context of Turkey’s accession process to talk of what should come first and what should come second because it is either the one or the other. It is either recognition of the Republic of Cyprus as it is now or solution and evolution into a new state of affairs in which the Republic of Cyprus will not exist so that turkey will have to recognise it “after” a solution. I hope I wasn’t confusing anyone here as to what I want to say. Erol wrote: If thsi decleration and the failure to secure recogntion without a settlment meant the end of this madness and a focusing on getting negotiations (with Turkish Cypriot) started then that would be one thing but what I see is this issue be raised (recogntion without settlement) at every stage of the accesion process and pushed to the edge every time and whilst this happens a positive desire not to have a settlement first and that is why I am so concerned by this startagey. That the Republic of Cyprus was lobbying for recognition without a settlement is not 'fiction' and has plenty of evidence to support it (I claim and will provide if you wish). Erol, you do not need to prove me anything. Papadopoullos in essence has won the option to ask from the EU to enforce recognition before a settlement and at any time he will find it proper and suitable, provided that Turkey wants to continue its accession process. If the undertaken assumption is that Turkey wants more than anything else to join the EU, then it is seriously exposed to the “danger” of being asked to recognise the Republic of Cyprus any moment and soon. The Republic of Cyprus is soon planning to use this leverage in order to secure a solution, which of course has to be one that will be based on substantially better terms than the already very unfair, in it’s opinion, a-plan. If the Turkish Cypriot side wants a solution and also wants to help Turkey in her accession process, then what she has to do is to put her good self in the Greek Cypriot side’s shoes, take the A-plan in her hands, examine it thoroughly, identify which of it’s aspects and provisions are objectively unfair to the Greek Cypriot side (she will find plenty of them,) and prepare her self psychologically to make the necessary compromises. There is no other way. Erol wrote: What I think is unsupported fiction is the idea that 2/3rds of EU countries supported the Republic of Cyprus position (and what was that position if it was not that the decleration should insit on recogntion by a fixed early date with no linkage to a settlment or settlement process)? In the final declaration there is no linkage between recognition and a settlement or a settlement process. The two issues are not linked at all, at least as far as I interpret the declaration. As for who side fully or partly with the Greek Cypriot side and who sided against it, at this stage it is essentially meaningless as the process is history now. If you have concrete evidence of what each country supported, then I would like you to share it for purely academic and historical reasons. Erol wrote: What occured to secure this statement by the EU was not 'business as usual' for the EU. Few declerations involve such intense and high level and public wranglings as this one. The fact was there was uninamity that a counter decleration should be made that Turkey must move to implementing the protocol and that there could be no ultimate accession whilst it diod not recognise the Republic of Cyprus. Why then did it take such extraordianry wrangling to get an agreement from EU members. Because the Republic of Cyprus pushed to the very edge trying to get the decleration to talk about early recogntion without a settlment and to not refer to a settlement under UN auspices at all. There was no such unanimity Erol. If you remember, France and at least another two countries (Greece not being one of them,) were asking for immediate recognition before the 3rd of October as a reply to Turkey’s declaration. The Republic of Cyprus wanted from the very beginning that whatever mentioning to the issue of settlement should look exactly in the way it was finally adopted in the EU declaration, namely a settlement under the auspices of the UN and that it will be based on the UN SC resolutions and the principles on which the EU was founded. Erol wrote: What other areas of disagreement were there with this decleration? Only one country other then the Republic of Cyprus supported a demand for early recogntion without a settlement (as reported in the press) and that was Greece (surpise surprise). All other members including the UK accept and agreed that _ultimate_ accession must involve recogntion of the Republic of Cyprus. None of them accepted that early recogntion should be a pre condition of starting talks (except greece) and that the whole process should be jeopdised over this unrealistic demand of the Republic of Cyprus. Just what do you think it was that Britian tried to get into the decleration and failed to do so that caused such extraordinary wrangling? In summary what was it specificaly that Britain tried to get into the decleration and failed to do so that caused all this rucuss? I can state plainly what the Republic of Cyprus tried to get into the decleration and ultimeatley failed to do so. Can you state what the UK tried to get in and failed to do so? I happen to have different information from the Greek Cypriot TV reports from Brussels, but again, all these belong to history now and they are not of any value anymore. Erol wrote: As for Turkey not having 'changed' again that is just not the case. Firstly this Turkish government came to power with an execptional majority. Secondly it's EU accession ambitions were central and are central to it's poltical objectives. Thirdly is has made unprecedent changes in persuing this objective on Cyprus and many other areas. You can discount all of this but the changes are real. They my not be enough for you but to say they do not exist is ignoring reality imo. I hope you are right Erol. The real problem with Turkey is not how good or bad a government is but how much flexibility it has to formulate national and foreign policy. Unfortunately in Turkey things do not work in the same way like in any other western democracy and this is the biggest handicapsy that turkey has. Erol wrote: What scares me about how I percieve things is that TP is making exactly the sort of bad calulations that got us into this mess the first time (and TP was one fo the people directly involved in all of that). I am sincerely scared that he does think he can eventualy force Turkey to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement as long as he can 'block' a settlment without being dirtectly blamed as the blocker and that this is now his 'stratgey' on the Cyprus problem. Block a settlement until Turkey gets forced to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without one. I sincerely hope I am wrong and am soon prooved to be wrong. However if I am right and this is the core of TP's strategy on the the Cyprus problem then the only thing that can stop the damage and consequences of this is for Greek Cypriots that want a solution to realise that this is what TP is doing and speak out against it. My fear is that this is TP's startegy and he has convinced many Greek Cypriot's that want a solution that either ti is a good startegy or that it is not his strategy at all. Like I say a really really hope I am wrong. If Papadopoullos proves to be the person you say you are afraid he is, then rest sure he will not be there too long. He will simply not become re-elected in the next elections, which are only two years down the road. Who has to prove him though is no one else other than the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side. I hope you understand what I mean. Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 3:47 am    Post subject: Kifeas wrote: Erol, let’s be frank and straight before going further on this issue. Do you believe and /or accept that the A-plan was equally fair and balanced for both sides? I believe it was intended to be a fair balance between each sides needs and desires than could and would be accepted by both sides. It failed to do that. Kifeas wrote: I claim it was not! Papadopoullos does so too! The vast majority of the Greek Cypriots, including the majority of those that voted yes, do not! I claim that the a-plan was scandalously unfair for the Greek Cypriot side in almost every issue and aspect. Do you agree with the above claims or not? If not, what do you support? I do not think it was scandalously unfair to the Greek Cypriot side. However I accept that a majority of Greek Cypriot do think that it was so. I support us accepting this and getting down to the details of trying to broker an agreement that could be accepted by both sides, if that is at all possible - and looking at Alexandros' work it might just be possible. I do not support the north taking a position that the annan plan was fair and Greek Cypriot rejected it thus this prooves that Greek Cypriot are unreasonable and we should not ourselves give any quarter on the annan plan at all. The Annan plan was not acceptbale to a majority of Greek Cypriot - so let's work hard and soon to see if we can find a way of making it acceptable to a majority of them without making it unsupportable to a majority of Turkish Cypriot. Thats what I support. Kifeas wrote: Why Talat doesn’t go to Annan and tell him that he is ready to enter into negotiations with Papadopoullos and ask him to start a new initiative under the UN? If Papadopoullos doesn’t meet Talat for the reasons you mentioned, then it will be the perfect opportunity to expose him for working towards a solution. Don’t you think so? Why isn’t he doing it? As far as I understand it Talat has said exactly that he is ready to resume talks under UN auspices. It is the UN as I understand it that is sayiong that it is not ready to resume talks at this stage. Kifeas wrote: I would like to see these unbiased press reports that confirm what you are referring to. From the Greek Cypriot press http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=21999&cat_id=1 Quote: On the other hand, some local Greek Cypriot politicians seriously believe the formula of Turkey recognising us and in the process de-recognising the self-declared ‘Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus’ is a feasible thing to demand from the EU. From BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4203544.stm Quote: However, Cyprus, supported to some extent by France, is saying it is not right for Turkey to denigrate the status of a member of the club it is trying to join. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4238220.stm Quote: Britain and France have agreed on a formula to enable EU accession talks with Turkey to go ahead next month as planned, diplomats say. The deal would make Turkish recognition of Cyprus a condition for joining the EU, but it would not be required early on in the negotiations, reports say. So by 12th Sep France had agreed that there should be no early requirment on Turkey re recognition. Why then did it take weeks more high level diplomacy to secure an agreement? From (my empahsis) http://www.euractiv.com/Article?tcmuri=tcm:29-144258-16&type=News Quote: - Nicosia remains adamant that the EU should give a firm deadline to Ankara for recognising the Greek Cypriot government Quote: - Greece has reportedly tabled a compromise proposal under which Turkey should recognise Cyprus as part of its accession process Turkey must (according to Greek and Greek Cypriot positions reported) recognsise Cyprus - regarldess of a settlement. Not Turkey must work for a settlement as part of it's accession process, just it must recognise Cyprus regardless of a settlement. These are not reasonable or realistic demands, they are maximal demands that work against a settlement. Why would the Republic of Cyprus bother to agree a settlment if it thinks it will get recognition of the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement? BBC again http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4253886.stm Quote: Cyprus and two more countries are said to have rejected the latest compromise text drafted by Britain, which is currently at the helm of the EU. This is on the 16th Sept. France has agreed that recognition before the END of accession should be the requirment (one that hardly needs stating in reality). Austria is still pushing for 'prvieledge partnership' wording in document and Greec and Republic of Cyprus are still refusing to sign. Why? What changes are they trying to get if not some mention of need for recogntion BEFORE the end of accession and regardless of a settlement? From BBC again (again my emphasis) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4262438.stm Quote: The breakthrough on Monday came after Cyprus gave way on a demand for tough language requiring Turkey to make progress in recognising the Cypriot government. According to some reports, it had demanded a specific deadline. So a 'breakthrough' attributed to Cyprus 'giving way' on a requirment on Turkey to recognise Cyprus (without a settlement and before the end of the accession process). Unfortunately it does not end there. This 'breakthrough' is then blocked once again by the Republic of Cyprus. BBC again Quote: The text agreed by diplomats on Monday was pulled from the agenda of ministers meeting in Brussels at Cyprus' request. Quote: Nicosia had reportedly been lobbying for Turkey to be given a specific deadline to recognise Cyprus, but on Monday apparently withdrew this demand. However, Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos muddied the waters on Tuesday saying that the EU declaration called for a review of the question of Turkish recognition of Cyprus in 2006. All of the above links were posted on this forum btw. Yet you still maintain that the Republic of Cyprus (backed by Greece) was NOT trying to secure recogntion of the Republic of Cyprus by Turkey without a settlment and before the end of accession (should accesion ever be reached) ? Really Kifeas I am stunned that you can hold such a view, against the evidence and in contradiction to your statements below ? Kifeas wrote: Erol, if you read the declaration very carefully, this is exactly what Papadopoullos has gotten but in an indirect way. So firstly you claime this was not what TP was 'lobbying' for in the decleration and then you state he got it anyway (indirectly) ? Kifeas wrote: There is no specific date mentioned but in theory the Greek Cypriot side has the option to set up this date any time, from the first year that Turkey’s accession process until the end of it, with a solution or without a solution. Therefore you cannot say that Papadopoullos has failed to get what you say but actually the opposite. The Republic of Cyprus has had this 'power' from the moment it joined the EU. There was no real need to have it mentioned in the decleration. Everyone knows, even Turkey, that there can be no final accession if Turkey does not recognise one of the memeber states. So OK if the Republic of Cyprus _only_ wanted this re-emphasised in the decleration, that was offered from after the French / UK 'deal'. Yet still negotiations remained in deadlock. Kifeas wrote: Actually the mere discussion of recognition after a solution is a completely meaningless concept by itself, because a solution anyway includes in itself the aspect recognition of the new state of affairs. It is an integral part of the solution. There is no meaning within the context of Turkey’s accession process to talk of what should come first and what should come second because it is either the one or the other. It is either recognition of the Republic of Cyprus as it is now or solution and evolution into a new state of affairs in which the Republic of Cyprus will not exist so that turkey will have to recognise it “after” a solution. I hope I wasn’t confusing anyone here as to what I want to say. It is not meaningless. The LINKAGE of recogntion to a settlment is a VITAL part of ensuring BOTH sides work and work hard towards a settlement. What is pretty pointless, to me at least, is needing to state that Turkey can not actualy join the EU wihtout first recognising all its members. Kifeas wrote: Erol, you do not need to prove me anything. Papadopoullos in essence has won the option to ask from the EU to enforce recognition before a settlement and at any time he will find it proper and suitable, provided that Turkey wants to continue its accession process. Papadopoullos has won nothing that he did not already have. He asked for the maximal and unrealistic demand that Turkey be FORCED to recongnise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlment and early on in the process if not before and the EU did not give in to this demand, just as they did not in the previous heads of state meeting when the Republic of Cyprus lobbied for the same unrealistic and maximal demand. I have little hope that he will not keep making this maximal and unrealistic demand at every stage of the process, all the time avoiding a settlement, for why agree a settlement when you believe that eventualy you can get recognition without one? Kifeas wrote: If the undertaken assumption is that Turkey wants more than anything else to join the EU, then it is seriously exposed to the “danger” of being asked to recognise the Republic of Cyprus any moment and soon. The Republic of Cyprus is soon planning to use this leverage in order to secure a solution, which of course has to be one that will be based on substantially better terms than the already very unfair, in it’s opinion, a-plan. The Republic of Cyprus had this same leverage at the heads of states meeting last year and it used it to try and get recognition before accession could start or to a pre defined and early timetable - and not to secure a solution. It failed then. It tried again in this recent round of lobbying to do the same thing and failed again. You think NOW it will use the leverage to 'secure a solution' and not keep using it to try and secure unrealistic and maximal demands? I hope you are right - I really do, but I see no logical reason to assume it will given it's appraoch to date. Kifeas wrote: If the Turkish Cypriot side wants a solution and also wants to help Turkey in her accession process, then what she has to do is to put her good self in the Greek Cypriot side’s shoes, take the A-plan in her hands, examine it thoroughly, identify which of it’s aspects and provisions are objectively unfair to the Greek Cypriot side (she will find plenty of them,) and prepare her self psychologically to make the necessary compromises. There is no other way. But the Republic of Cyprus and Greek Cypriots should not have to prepare themselves phycologicaly to make necessary compromises? Kifeas wrote: If you have concrete evidence of what each country supported, then I would like you to share it for purely academic and historical reasons. The press reports are already there, posted and linked to on this very site. Kifeas wrote: There was no such unanimity Erol. If you remember, France and at least another two countries (Greece not being one of them,) were asking for immediate recognition before the 3rd of October as a reply to Turkey’s declaration. The Republic of Cyprus wanted from the very beginning that whatever mentioning to the issue of settlement should look exactly in the way it was finally adopted in the EU declaration, namely a settlement under the auspices of the UN and that it will be based on the UN SC resolutions and the principles on which the EU was founded. France had a need, for internal political reasons, to look like it was being 'tough' on Turkish entry. Once he had acheived this it did it's 'deal' with the UK and it's position was that recogntion need to come before final accession - a statement that hardly needs stating and represents no change in the senario and no new leverage for the Republic of Cyprus (to secure a settlment or to sercue rcogntion) that id did not already have. Austria wanted and still wants some mention of possible 'priveledge partnership' in the accession process, but has no support from other countires or from the commision. Yet after the anglo french 'deal' the 'wrangling' still continued. The Republic of Cyprus actualy wanted NO mention of need to work towards a settlment but if it was mentioned it wanted no mention of Annan plan and a mention of UN resolutions and EU norms. This was not the 'sticking point' however. The sticking point was her maximal demands for a requirement on early recogntion. Kifeas wrote: I happen to have different information from the Greek Cypriot TV reports from Brussels, but again, all these belong to history now and they are not of any value anymore. I can not help but wonder if they were of any value at ANY time, given the impression they seemed to have created in your mind! Kifeas wrote: I hope you are right Erol. The real problem with Turkey is not how good or bad a government is but how much flexibility it has to formulate national and foreign policy. Unfortunately in Turkey things do not work in the same way like in any other western democracy and this is the biggest handicapsy that turkey has. There was an intersting article on this issue in this weeks Cyprus Today. I will try and scan (and maybe OCR) it and put it up. Kifeas wrote: If Papadopoullos proves to be the person you say you are afraid he is, then rest sure he will not be there too long. He will simply not become re-elected in the next elections, which are only two years down the road. Who has to prove him though is no one else other than the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side. I hope you understand what I mean. I disagree. The Turkish and Turkish Cypriot side can not make the Greek Cypriot people see what TP is about if they do not want to see it. I agree that all sides should do more and are not and have not done enough, but the biggest danger and fear for me is not people not doing enough but people 'moving the the goal posts' and in a massive way. By aiming for recognition without a settlement, and at the expense of really working to find a settlement, I believe that TP is trying to do just this and the risk is massive - for Cyprus and much more besides. Those forces in the EU that want a reformed and progressive Turkey locked into and part of the EU, know what the right way to do this is. Get a settlment in Cyprus and get Turkey to continue it's reforms and finally join the EU. However the EU can not directly and openly place any 'requirments' on the Republic of Cyprus - it lost that ability when it agreed to let the Republic of Cyprus join without any requirment on a settlement (a postion that ironicaly was based to a large degree on the concept that the Republic of Cyprus's accession should not be 'held hostage' to a Cyprus solution!). It must pressure Cyprus indirectly to work towards a settlement. TP is risking all by using this to try and move the goal posts to a massive degree and presumably thinks that he can force Turkey to recognise the Republic of Cyprus without a settlement, as is prepared to 'hold hostage' Turkey and the EU to some extent in attempts to acheive this maximal aim. This is a DANGEROUS game with possible DISASTEROUS consequences for far more than just Cypriots. 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. Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 10:16 am    Post subject: Erolz wrote: Kifeas wrote: If Papadopoullos proves to be the person you say you are afraid he is, then rest sure he will not be there too long. He will simply not become re-elected in the next elections, which are only two years down the road. Who has to prove him though is no one else other than the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side. I hope you understand what I mean. I disagree. The Turkish and Turkish Cypriot side can not make the Greek Cypriot people see what TP is about if they do not want to see it. Erol, if you disagree with what I said above, you are either wrong or you didn’t understand what I meant. Let me try again. The Greek Cypriot community doesn’t care if Turkey recognises the Republic of Cyprus as such or not. All the rest of the world recognises the Republic of Cyprus, it is a member of the EU and therefore recognition by Turkey doesn’t add too much on the Republic of Cyprus prestige. The Greek Cypriot community cares only for a fair, sensible, workable and viable solution, in the nearest possible timeframe. If the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side come up with an obvious and profound desire to negotiate so that such a solution is offered, a solution that will adequately address the interests and concerns of the Greek Cypriot community as well, away from maximalistic claims and ambitions, but Papadopoullos refuses to grasp the opportunity, either blatantly or in a hidden way, simply because as you say he wants to secure Republic of Cyprus recognition as such and in order to forward his own maximalistic claims and ambitions, then the Greek Cypriot community will understand this immediately and will either take civil political action to correct him or will simply not re-elect him in two years. Unless you believe that the Greek Cypriot community is a bunch of idiots that do not know what is going on around them or that do not know where their interests lie, something which I do not accept. However, in order for the Greek Cypriot community to be able to understand that Papadopoullos is the person you project him to be, it is necessary for the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side to act in the way I described above, namely to show and thus prove that it is not the intransigent, over ambitious and maximalistic side. If this does not occur, then there is not way for the Greek Cypriot community to see and judge Papadopoullo's alleged equivalent intransigence and over-ambitious and maximalistic nature. So far, we only see in front of us a plan which by any objective measure looks very unfavourable for our side, and a Turkish side not seriously interested and willing to renegotiate it to any credible extent. Therefore, we only see Papadopoullos to be the person that is trying to set up the ground, environment and conditions that will compel the Turkish and Turkish Cypriot side to take a more positive approach -along the lines I described above, and not the person that you insist he is, namely a mere intransigent, hardliner and a maximalist that wants to play dangerous games. Back to top erolz Site Admin Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 4195 Location: Kyrenia / Girne Posted: Sun Sep 25, 2005 11:42 pm    Post subject: Kifeas wrote: Let me try again. The Greek Cypriot community doesn’t care if Turkey recognises the Republic of Cyprus as such or not. All the rest of the world recognises the Republic of Cyprus, it is a member of the EU and therefore recognition by Turkey doesn’t add too much on the Republic of Cyprus prestige. The Greek Cypriot community cares only for a fair, sensible, workable and viable solution, in the nearest possible timeframe. I hope you are right. However MY (our) fear is not that TP is persuing recognition woithout a settlement for some additional 'prestige' for the Republic of Cyprus but specificaly as an ALTERNATIVE to actualy agreeing a compromise solution with the Turkish Cypriot community. Kifeas wrote: If the Turkish Cypriot /Turkish side come up with an obvious and profound ..... I understand what you are saying here. The problem however is that any 'genuine effort' by Turkish Cypriot community to start and agree a new settlement with Greek Cypriot, can be 'spun' by forces in the Republic of Cyprus as anything but that imo. There is a very natural hostility and distrust of the Turkish Cypriot leadership in the Souths population and this is easily manipulable and is manipulated by certain forces imo, as happens here too. Whilst I agree that Turkish Cypriot community could and should do everything it can to show TP as being pro 'moving the goal posts of a solution in the persuit of maximal demands at the risk of a real agreed solution'. However the first reponsibility to 'expose' TP and hold him to account for persuing an agenda other than that which you claim is the will of the majority (if this is what he is doing) is on those who elected him to power and not the Turkish Cypriot community. The fact is it will always be 'easier' for a Greek Cypriot to believe that TP really is working towards a swift and fair agreed solution and not the maximal persuit of a solution through forcing Turkish recogniton of the republic of cyprus despite any evidence to the contrary and believe that any lack of progress on this is down to Turkish Cypriot communites lack of desire for a settlment and intransignece, than TP's actual desire to stop a settlement. That is why you have to be 'extra' critical in your judgements as far as I am concerned if you truely want a settlement and because if this is what TP is doing then it is not just the persuit of aims that is maximal but the result of failure in this persuit is also 'maximal' and will have the most profund and sever consequences. Kifeas in pervious post wrote: I hope you are right Erol. The real problem with Turkey is not how good or bad a government is but how much flexibility it has to formulate national and foreign policy. Unfortunately in Turkey things do not work in the same way like in any other western democracy and this is the biggest handicapsy that turkey has. Erol wrote: There was an intersting article on this issue in this weeks Cyprus Today. I will try and scan (and maybe OCR) it and put it up.