President’s handling of talks hardly inspires confidence

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:21

PRESIDENT Christofias has become a prisoner of his own blunders in his handling of the Cyprus problem. He has trapped himself in a corner and needs a miracle to get out of it.



Therefore, instead of resorting to comical pleas for his government’s allies to “trust me because I was elected by the people,” he should closely examine the course he has followed so far and try to identify his mistakes, if he is interested in identifying them.



He might not want to indentify these. His incomprehensible stance over this period might not be the result of mistakes, but a conscious choice. Perhaps his pledges to work for a settlement were not as sincere as we had thought.



When the latest peace procedure started, this column had argued that it would only yield results if it were focused on making a series of changes to the Annan plan. From the moment Christofias followed the tactic of abandoning the plan and renegotiating the entire settlement from scratch, it was obvious that he would enter

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:23

an interminable and unproductive procedure that would not lead to a deal even in 10 years.



And now he says he is disappointed because the Turks “are submitting positions that are worse than the provisions of the Annan plan”. Well, good morning Mr President! Why are you surprised? Why do you find this strange? You were the man who abandoned the plan and declared that “it belongs to history”, so why are now complaining about Mehmet Ali Talat’s stance? After all, his proposals are on the “new basis” that you demanded. Are you suggesting that you should have the right to demand whatever you want while Talat should be obliged to submit position that are worse for his side than the provisions of the Annan plan? Do you consider him a complete idiot?



You were the one who insisted that the procedure should start from scratch, while Talat had offered to discuss the changes that our side wanted made to the plan. He is now following the procedure that you dictated. By what logic are you now

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:24

hey also know that until September 2007 Christofias was involved in discussions with Talat’s party about the changes we wanted made to the Annan plan.



So when they hear Christofias now saying that the plan is obsolete, all they can conclude is that our leadership is muddled up and untrustworthy and that the president would have great difficulty emerging from the corner he has painted himself into.



By Loucas Charalambous

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

The-Wicks


Joined: 27/05/2007
Posts: 2279

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:39

Aussie - thanks for that; very informative post. Even I, as pretty much a layman, could follow this!

J

cooper


Joined: 23/10/2007
Posts: 3386

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:45

Agree with Jean Aussie thanks. Hello P & J



Cooper

The-Wicks


Joined: 27/05/2007
Posts: 2279

Message Posted:
18/01/2009 20:47

Hello Cooper!



Have missed your wit recently!



Regards



Paul & Jean

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 11:37

..and THIS article and others like it will explain why the details of the talks are best kept secret...conjecture, speculation, etc. :(

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 14:04

hi aussie

i think both sides would have been better to adjust the annan plan.

i can't see why they didn't?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 14:36

re msg 8



Because the word "Annan Plan" is "poison" to most GCs... a legacy from "Liealotopoulos and his coalition that was held together by "Commie Jim's" ( President Christofias') party ...



"Commie Jim" told his his AKEL party supporters in March / April 2004 - "our no ( advice to vote No to Annan ) means Yes" ...



I for one NEVER understood this to be anything other than a way to hold onto power rather than influencing policy.



This is why the CY Mail - which strongly supported a YES - is "on his case" .. the words come back to haunt him..

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 14:41

mmmmm

i know the gc's voted no to the annan plan.

but i thought it would have been better to look at why they said no, then make some adjustments .

i think we will know the full extent when both leaders have finnished their chats.

my guess is that it wont be that different to the annan plan, just they would like to think of it as different.

and ofcourse take all the credit!

(which could backfire if it all goes wrong)

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 14:45

It's all very well the Cyprus Mail being on his case, but when are the GC voting public going to realise that they voted against the best deal they were ever going to get? By now Guzelyurt would have been returned to them (now not going to happen) and many TR soldiers and settlers would have gone back.

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 17:21

re msg 11 --- couldnt agree more they definately are not going to do as well

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/01/2009 20:05

Dear "TRNC"Vaughan



if you look back nearly five years ago I was saying the same thing.. that the GCs probably weren't going to get a better deal...



The Ironic thing is they would have had - IF President "Liealotopoulos" had been seriously negotiating... he LET the UN fill in the blanks and then called it a travesty :(



I think they won't get so much physical territory back but they will get a "better" deal " re property.. Everybody has to "win"..

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
20/01/2009 10:31

Overall I don't think the GC's will get anything more than the Annan plan and possibly less in most important areas.





I think the problem with getting a settlement is the referendum process particularly in the ROC when all of the right wing nationalists and probably the Church will come out with a fear campaign against any reasonable proposal and convince a lot of waverers to vote no.



I think this is a case when the elected government should lead public opinion not follow and sign an agreement without a referendum. After all the ROC didn't have a referendum to join the EU and there was no referendum in 1963/ 64 when Makarios and co usurped the 1960 constitution. Also no referendum in 1974 after the Turkish intervention/ invasion on the cease fire lines etc then.



Globally there were also no referendums on the peace treaties and territorial carve outs that ended the Second World War or most wars since.



Aussie

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
20/01/2009 10:50

If they hold a referendum in RoC it could become a case of fooling some of the people all of the time - they got them to vote no last time, they could get them to vote no again if they scare them enough.

The TC's need to make it crystal clear to ALL concerned that this really is the last chance and STICK to it. If the GC's continue to think they can get a "better deal" later they see no consequence to voting no.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
20/01/2009 21:07

aussie:



".. there was no referendum in 1963/ 64 when Makarios and co usurped the 1960 constitution."



Wasn't that in response to the TC side exploiting the checks and balances the constitution had provided in their favour, thus making the constitution unworkable?

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
21/01/2009 02:18

Macha



"Wasn't that in response to the TC side exploiting the checks and balances the constitution had provided in their favour, thus making the constitution unworkable?"



Perhaps if you define exploit as expecting the provisions of the constitution and the rights it bestowed to be adhered to.



In general the GC's tried to chip away at the rights of the TC community (which enshrined certain voting rights, vetoes and employment percentages in the public service etc) because it didn't suite them.



With a bit of give and take it would have been no more unworkable than the US Congress and senate system and certainly a lot less unworkable than the UN.



It was only unworkable because the Makarios etc. didn't want a genuine partnership and only wanted the TC population to be a minority with no special rights and in the atmosphere of the time would have been reduced to second class citizens with little influence.



Aussie

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
21/01/2009 08:54

Dear Aussie,



re msg 17



It was only unworkable because the Makarios etc. didn't want a genuine partnership and only wanted the TC population to be a minority with no special rights and in the atmosphere of the time would have been reduced to second class citizens with little influence.



Whilst you MAY be correct, don't forget Denktash wanted Taksim ( separation / division ) - he was Dr Kuchuks deputy - and many initiatives simply vetoed by TCs in a manner designed to make govt unworkable, too.



re the EU:



Whilst in was true there was no referendum to join the EU / the Euro, you would not have needed one.. GCs saw joining the EU as a means to protect themselves from Turkey . You can't imagine how silly a referendum suggestion would have sounded to a GC ..!!



IRONICALLY, some GCs now would not be so keen as they see that Europe has made them change laws re immigration, caused inflation, allowed E. Europeans to "take" their jobs.. and NOT been "tough" enough on Turkey !

TRNCVaughan


Joined: 27/04/2008
Posts: 4578

Message Posted:
21/01/2009 11:57

Hi mmmmmm,



There are many new members (and old) of the EU who think that they could enjoy the benefits of membership and somehow ignore the "downside", the freedom of EU citizens crossing over the green line being one.