EU wording difference in relation to Cyprus problem solution

[Kifeas]

Wording differences between Turkey’s negotiating framework and EU counter declaration.

Did anyone else notice the following difference between the EU counter declaration and Turkey’s negotiating framework, in relation to the solution of the Cyprus problem?

Paragraph 7 of the EU counter declaration reads as follows:

[erolz]

[Kifeas]

[erolz]

I thought you were asking for peoples views on these differences, so I gave them.

If i were given the choice of wordings between one that talks of Turkey's contined support or one that made no mention of such I would choose the former. If I were given the choice of a refeence to a settlment in line with UNSCR or one in line with UN framework I would choose the former.

This issue of the wording in the counter decleration in regards to the UN framework, Annan Plan or UNSCR and other variants was on of the issues wrangled over by the Republic of Cyprus. You only have to look at the differences between the proposed versions of this document and the one the Republic of Cyprus finally accepted to know that this wording was an issue for the Republic of Cyprus - at least as far as the counter decleration document went, if not for the more important (imo) framework document. One has to wonder why it was such an issue for the Republic of Cyprus in one docuement but not the other?

I do not know if these different wordings will make one iota of difference or not. Quite possibly they will not. However the question, as I understood it was about the differences, not if they will make any difference. I do not knwo if they will make any difference or not. However if they do make any difference then the wording in the framework document is clearly imo better (from Turkish Cypriot perspective) that that in the counter decleration document. That is what I am saying.

As to why the SG did not try and get the SC to 'adopt' his report, he did not do so because there was no need to do so. The terms of the Anna plan, how it was to be negotiated, by whom, for how long and what happend if there was no agreement within these time frames was all AGREED by all parties before the process started. It did not stipulate that the SG final report needed to be adpoted by the SC. That was simply not part of the agreed process. To now make out, after the fact that the Annan plan and vote were not to Greek Cypriot liking and they see a need to villify the document and process and people involved in this (that they had previously agreed too), that this was not done because the SG was 'scared' of the result is to live in a fictional world. There was never any requirment for the SG to do this. You may as well ask why he did not have it ratifed by the GA or Hague or by members of this forum and imply that he did not because he was scared of the result of such. The fact is he did not because there was never any requirment to do so.

[Kifeas]

Looking back again to the wording of the two paragraphs, in essence they mean or imply the same thing.

The term “within the UN framework” essentially implies what the counter-declaration says, which reads as “the efforts of the UN Secretary General to bring about a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem in line with relevant UNSCRs.” None of the two makes specific reference to the A-plan as such, but both of them can be interpreted as having the UN SC resolutions in their core. The entirely new concept is that of finding of a solution “in line with the principles of the EU.”

[Kifeas]

Erol, I would like to see how different people read into these wordings. It doesn't mean that I do not have my own opinion. I just want to hear other opinions and exchange ideas in a dialectical manner.

[erolz]

[erolz]

[Kifeas]