The Minefield: Cyprus, Again!

nothing funny about it Stern Smile

Its clear in my posts, i do not apportion blame to one side

thats how people from outside the turkish bubble report it; eg 1 from story dating back to when the TRNC knocked back on a earlier peace plan (Greek side accepted it)

So Cyprus remains a cruelly divided economic slum. Such is the dirty legacy of "ethnic cleansing," which occurred in Cyprus long before Bosnia.

After independence in 1960, Cyprus's Greek and Turkish communities proved unable to live under a common roof. Reciprocal folly led in 1974 to Turkey's armed intervention and a brutal population exchange that displaced 160,000 Greek Cypriots and 45,000 Turkish Cypriots. Since then, an unrecognized Turkish Cypriot mini-state has been kept alive by Turkish subsidies and soldiers, while United Nations blue helmets patrol a buffer zone.

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/05/opinion/ethnic-cleansing-cypriot-style.html -
"In 1960 the Greek and Turkish communities formed a mosaic. After more than 25 years of Turkish occupation of the north of the island and the forced transfer of populations, the two communities - Turkish in the north and Greek in the south - are now strictly separated by a demarcation line."
http://mondediplo.com/maps/cyprusmdv49 - mondediplo.com/maps/cyprusmdv49

Originally posted by erkut

Originally posted by Leonidas

apply your number to Turkish cypriots, not settlers form the mainland which also include Kurds.

apply your number to Greek cypriots, not settlers which also include Georgians(Fake Pantios)

whats funny about that? This deserve nothing less than a honest and serious conversation. The logic put to me is that the Turks are a demographic force. Which is BS, the main reasons why the Turkey wants the TRNC remain phyiscally seperate is to make sure it is not assimilated into the majoirty and keep some leverage on the island.

place of birth from the TRNC (Permanent Residence) in their own census 2006
total population is                  256,644
born in the TRNC                   115,600 or 45.04%
turkey                              94,714 or 36.90%
others making up the diffrerence

TRNC Citizens
born in TRNC 111,679     63.19%
Turkey 27,333                 15.47%

http://nufussayimi.devplan.org/Census%202006.pdf - nufussayimi.devplan.org/Census%202006.pdf

of those born in TRNC 80% have both parents from cyprus. In the peace plan Nicosia was willing to accpet most of these as cypriots - If i remeber right the 11% that had both from turkey were not. You had to have one cypriot parent.

show me the stats on Greeks playing demograhic games? You wouldnt find one group coming even close to double digits. Cyprus has these splits, notice that Cyprus has and cope with multi ethnicities.....

The population of Cyprus is 793.100 of whom 80,7% are Greek Cypriots (including Armenians, Maronites and Latins), 87,600 (11,0%) are Turkish Cypriots and 66,000 (8,3%) foreigners residing in Cyprus.

http://www.cyprus.gov.cy/portal/portal.nsf/All/817E9279C04E4480C2257023002B858C?OpenDocument&a=4&z= -

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 06:14

Originally posted by Leo

oh the turks simply invaded an emtpy land, or did they simply knock on the door and politly ask the people to leave? The turkish military is not some kind of magic police force that masters the soft power of persuasion.... The settlements, forced evictions, lack of compensation, forced territorial divisions, as well as no right of return is pretty much the same foundation as the palistinian problem. Or has the palistinan issue all of a sudden lost its history and boiled down to check points and olive trees?

Turkey was within her right to intervene (if it saved the Turks from outright butchery then i applued them). However, she was not in her right to occupy or divide the island. The settlers have nothing to do with Turkish Cypriot security. it is simply migration under arms no different to isreali policy. They took more of the island than what was reflected in their population. Now they want to press that advantage irrespective of current politics. The war is over, they won, lesson learnt no need to create anothe injustice to replace another one.

Leo, nothing would please me more than a unification of the island, but this thread just one piece of clear evidence that neither the Turks nor the Greeks are actually interested in that more than they are interested in getting their own back. Proving that one side was right, and the other wrong. Throwing around over-emotional claims like 'Cyprus is like Palestine' won't get you anywhere. Posting maps and saying 'the Turks took too much land' for their population won't get you anywhere.

Both Turks and Greeks (and Arabs, and Latins) have been living in and migrating to cyprus for the last millenium at least. Cyprus isn't anything like Palestine, Cyprus is like everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire - once a multicultural highly intermixed place, now a highly segregated ethnic battle ground. The conflicts in Cyprus and Yugoslavia are just an extension of what started in the early 19th century. Each ethnic group just wants to grab its patch of turf and kick all the others off.
Neither the Greeks nor the Turks have a single patch of moral ground to stand on. They both need to realise this fact and come to the conclusion that balkanisation was a bad idea after all.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 14:29

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

You haven't explained why the settlements are different, either are just as illegal as the other, the intention is the same. I make particular comparisons, there are differences in the whole affair but i am being quite specific about the main points of similarity. settlements/forced division

There are two things going on, Turkish Cypriot interests and Turkeys interests. I do not belive its one and the same thing, even if they are combined or confused. its is very hard to really gauge what Turkish Cypriots want when mainlanders are voting in TRNC affairs and the militray has so much influence (and many have simply left the TRNC) The hardliners got how many votes? and how many voters are mainlanders? hmm.

You really think the Turkish militray are being completely selfless in this? I know they have a high prestige in turkey but I am much more cynical to take that image at face value. they have their own interest for the split.

Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural? Greeks had issue with

an indefinite Turkish army presence,
not enough settlers getting the boot (they did make concessions see my earlier post)
the actual peace plan was to complicated, opaque and made Cyprus fragile. (This a country they had rebuilt from nothing and this put it at risk)
many of these sticking points were late changes to the plan thanks to the mainland Turkish political pressure, hence why i blame them for the No vote and the failure of the plan.

Not the Turks themselves, or an arrangement of sorts for unity.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

Cyprus is like everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire - once a multicultural highly intermixed place, now a highly segregated ethnic battle ground. The conflicts in Cyprus and Yugoslavia are just an extension of what started in the early 19th century. Each ethnic group just wants to grab its patch of turf and kick all the others off.
Neither the Greeks nor the Turks have a single patch of moral ground to stand on. They both need to realise this fact and come to the conclusion that balkanisation was a bad idea after all.

Initally i agreed with this but not really when i thought about.

Cyprus was not like Crete. The communities were actaully closer on that island than in other Greek/turk populated area. There is something Cypriot about both sides, the split is exaggerated by Turkey vs Greek politics and is imported into the Island by twits from both our sides

You want to make a comparison 'other than Palestine' then look at other parts of the British empire like South Asia. The British overlords like using the minorities for the security forces, giving them a bit better deal over the rest - gaining their loyalty but also splitting the community up a little bit more which makes it easier to rule. Then leaving the place without a robust governance system or cohesive society and to see it fall apart into petty nationalism - oh then getting big militray base out it all. Your simply missing a big component of recent Cypriot history and making generalist assumptions based on what happened in the Balkans

-------------

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 14:36

OmarHashim

Leo, nothing would please me more than a unification of the island, but this thread just one piece of clear evidence that neither the Turks nor the Greeks are actually interested in that more than they are interested in getting their own back. Proving that one side was right, and the other wrong. Throwing around over-emotional claims like 'Cyprus is like Palestine' won't get you anywhere. Posting maps and saying 'the Turks took too much land' for their population won't get you anywhere.

Both Turks and Greeks (and Arabs, and Latins) have been living in and migrating to cyprus for the last millenium at least. Cyprus isn't anything like Palestine, Cyprus is like everywhere else in the Ottoman Empire - once a multicultural highly intermixed place, now a highly segregated ethnic battle ground. The conflicts in Cyprus and Yugoslavia are just an extension of what started in the early 19th century. Each ethnic group just wants to grab its patch of turf and kick all the others off.
Neither the Greeks nor the Turks have a single patch of moral ground to stand on. They both need to realise this fact and come to the conclusion that balkanisation was a bad idea after all.

Pretty much summed up the situation, deep down neither the Greek or Turkish side actually wants unification, its already been tried and failed.

-------------
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 15:17

Leonadis
The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

The situation is totally different.

The Turkish intervention in 1974 didn't happen out of the blue, if certain Greek factions didn't start a policy of trying to expell the Turks from the island and tie the island to Greece there would have been no 1974 in the first place. Unfortunately this is all forgotten, the Turks were initially the victims and when the Turkish army came they made Greeks victims aswell.

If the Turkish army decided that Cyprus would be the eternal utopian home of all Turks, invaded for no reason, declared the whole island Turkish soil and rounded the Greeks up into one corner and declared the land was rightfully theres and given by God then we would have parrelels.

The Turkish army was a guaranteur, as nobody in the international community decided to raise a finger for 15 years and when Enosis almost became a reality they had a right to act. Now you can argue about whether they took too much land, about splitting the island, their treatment of the Greeks and so on but saying its like Palestine-Israel is far from the truth.

Leonadis
There are two things going on, Turkish Cypriot interests and Turkeys interests. I do not belive its one and the same thing, even if they are combined or confused. its is very hard to really gauge what Turkish Cypriots want when mainlanders are voting in TRNC affairs and the militray has so much influence (and many have simply left the TRNC) The hardliners got how many votes? and how many voters are mainlanders?

Turkish Cypriots have their own elections, people from mainland Turkey don't vote in their elections, they have their own parties.

There is no need for conspiracies, the Turkish Cypriot side voted for a more liberal leader last time round, he didn't get any results, people are fed up and bought in a more nationalist party. These things go round in circles, when the Turkish side has a liberal leader the Greeks have a hardliner, when the Greeks have a liberal leader the Turks have a hardliner.

Your other assumption/opinion that i take to task, is that the Greeks are not intersted in peace or living with their neighbors. I can tell you without a doubt that is wrong. 10% of Cyprus is turkish all the 'other but greek' Cypriots live there, while the TRNC is how multicultural? Greeks had issue with

80% of Greek Cypriots rejected re-unification.

an indefinite Turkish army presence,
not enough settlers getting the boot (they did make concessions see my earlier post)
the actual peace plan was to complicated, opaque and made Cyprus fragile. (This a country they had rebuilt from nothing and this put it at risk)
many of these sticking points were late changes to the plan thanks to the mainland Turkish political pressure, hence why i blame them for the No vote and the failure of the plan.

Actually the peace plan had as many sticking points for the Turks as it did for the Greeks, the argument that it was biased in the Turks favour is nonsense. The Greeks at the time had a hardliner in charge, the Turks had a liberal, thats the simple explanation of why one side voted yes and the other no. Papadopolous was telling the Greek side to vote no and so was the church, the Turkish leadership was encouraging the yes vote.

-------------
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Posted By: erkut
Date Posted: 24-Apr-2009 at 23:14

Originally posted by Leonidas

show me the stats on Greeks playing demograhic games? You wouldnt find one group coming even close to double digits. Cyprus has these splits, notice that Cyprus has and cope with multi ethnicities.....

Well i couldnt find the exact numbers but after collaps of USSR many Pontic Greeks migrated to Cyprus. İ used to sell Russian books in Nicosia, i talked with many Pantios settlers.

-------------

Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 04:47

Originally posted by Leo

The parallels I am talking about stands on its own feet. Settlements for both situations are done to permanently change the demographics, the comparisons is hardly emotional - just obvious. The act of the settlements is emotional, it is for the Arabs and for the Greeks. Forced demographic changes by migration under arms is something that belongs in a past era. It doesnt help the situation but creates more problems down the track.

The Demographic changes being made are coming from neighbouring peoples who have always been living and ruling that region.
The demographic changes are identical to the changes that split modern turkey and modern greece into two countries - you can't tell me that they aren't countries created by "Forced demographic changes by migration under arms". The Greek population of modern Turkey being forced to migrate to modern Greece, and the Turkish population of modern Greece forced to migrate to modern Turkey.
One country being broken into two.

If you want another parrallel close to Cyprus then you could find it in Kashmir. The Indian government encourage hindu migration into the valley in order to change the demographics for their interests. Or Sikkim, which only acceeded to India after huge migrations into Sikkim from India changed the demographics enough to change the popular vote.

You can start comparing to Israel when a completely foriegn group take Cyprus and disposses the natives of all their land. A land divided between two native groups is not comparable to a land taken from the natives entirely.

Originally posted by Leo

You really think the Turkish militray are being completely selfless in this?

No.

I never said that. I said both sides are more interested in prooving that they were right than in unification.
Your not doing anything to convince me that I'm wrong in that opinion.

You want to make a comparison 'other than Palestine' then look at other parts of the British empire like South Asia. The British overlords like using the minorities for the security forces, giving them a bit better deal over the rest - gaining their loyalty but also splitting the community up a little bit more which makes it easier to rule. Then leaving the place without a robust governance system or cohesive society and to see it fall apart into petty nationalism - oh then getting big militray base out it all. Your simply missing a big component of recent Cypriot history and making generalist assumptions based on what happened in the Balkans

That's a pretty good point actually. I hadn't realised that.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 08:53

Originally posted by Bulldog

The situation is totally different.

The Turkish intervention in 1974 didn't happen out of the blue, if certain Greek factions didn't start a policy of trying to expell the Turks from the island and tie the island to Greece there would have been no 1974 in the first place. Unfortunately this is all forgotten, the Turks were initially the victims and when the Turkish army came they made Greeks victims aswell.

I know the history, but that is decades old. The reason fro the Turkish army presence is long gone, cant keep going back to a different era in Greek politics to explain current Turkish policy that hasn't changed since then.

Originally posted by Bulldog

If the Turkish army decided that Cyprus would be the eternal utopian home of all Turks, invaded for no reason, declared the whole island Turkish soil and rounded the Greeks up into one corner and declared the land was rightfully theres and given by God then we would have parrelels.

there are other differences; the Palestinians never got that international recognition and are in effect defacto state, while that is only the case for the Turkish Cypriots. But the settlements is what i am talking about. That is the parallel. Nothing more or less

Originally posted by Bulldog

The Turkish army was a guaranteur, as nobody in the international community decided to raise a finger for 15 years and when Enosis almost became a reality they had a right to act. Now you can argue about whether they took too much land, about splitting the island, their treatment of the Greeks and so on but saying its like Palestine-Israel is far from the truth.

please read my post more carefully, i am talking about specific policy of ethnic division and settlements under force. Remember the Israelis would also argue they are defending themselves from arab aggression and certainty of being wiped out if they had lost.

actaully they do, go back to my earlier post with the link to TRNC's own documents. That is the case and the hardliners didn't win the majority they won the most, so its only a swiing in a compromised process (from a purely Cypriot point of view).

I cant see how the negotiations can be genuine when unelected officials from the militray have their own interest that need to be expressed. Cut out what the army wants and you may have a couple of 'red lines' off the table and a much more workable outcome. It was(is) not a civilian to civilian trade off.

Originally posted by Bulldog

Actually the peace plan had as many sticking points for the Turks as it did for the Greeks, the argument that it was biased in the Turks favour is nonsense. The Greeks at the time had a hardliner in charge, the Turks had a liberal, thats the simple explanation of why one side voted yes and the other no. Papadopolous was telling the Greek side to vote no and so was the church, the Turkish leadership was encouraging the yes vote.

for sure no one gets what they want 100%, but it was a plan that gave the North side the most comfort.

Dont keep perpetuating the myth that this was negotiated by both communities, this was done with Ankara leading the negotiations, the Turkish military and then the TRNC in tow. Dentkash refused to go

Remember this; Dentkash is no liberal, and he campaigned agianst it as the TRNC leader at the same time as Papadopoulos. The vote was lost because the greek electorate was not comfortable with it, even if the Turkish one were. Both community 'presidents' opposed it.

Talat was only the 'PM' at the time.

The media on both sides i remember quite clearly had a different take on the outcome before the vote. i remember the the Turkish politicians involved being quite smug with their negotiating skills and the Cypriot politicians being quite pissed off with how the negotiations were being conducted. so it wasn't like what your making out. The format was getting them to agree on as much as possible in a limited time frame, with others then filling in the blanks. The US and UK were very active in the pressure stakes, they are not neutral in this, and then the late changes that gave the Turkish military its 'red lines' - and their support. The Turkish strategy was to involve as many requests as possible so when they took enough off the table they didn't have to yeild on the critical issues, the feeling on the Cypriot side was of being ambushed and then cornered. Hence why my initial comments on those smart arses. they felt like they 'won', but this was Pyrrhic - they were simply too effective on getting what they wanted and it could not be voted by both sides. Back to square one. This isnt going to change unless Ankara's interests stop taking precedence over the Turkish Cypriot in the negotiations. Their wish lists should not be the deal breakers they are.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 09:45

Originally posted by Bulldog

80% of Greek Cypriots rejected re-unification.

in that form. It is very disingenuous to use that vote as a sign of their wishes.

They want a more united Cyprus, the Turkish position is to keep the status-quo as much as possible ie the split/military presence. How ironic that the side that wants to keep as much division on the island as possible in the final 'plan' is saying the other guys who didnt like that particular peace plan (because it splits the nation up to much) are agianst re-unification!

Serously think about this a little deeper. Greek objections are not about living with Turks, just having foreign powers on their island , unequal voting along with not enough integration of the two parts. pff hardly hardline stuff, its not anti turk and its not because they oppose unity. The only people that benfit from the split is foreigners; the British and ankara - not the cypriots from either side.

-------------

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 10:04

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

clutching at straws here, being a neighboring people means nothing in legitimacy. Greeks cant just settle in Albania because we feel like it or because it down the road or because Greeks already live there. Jews have always lived in the region as well and can argue, at least for the ME sourced immigrants, the same logic. The forced migrations of Greeks and Turks was a absolute nightmare that should never have happened. either way they were agreed outcomes to a war - as an outcome of agreement and settlement of two sides. What is happening in Cyprus is not an agreed outcome. The peace process is far from over, so the settlements during that time frame is not the same thing. Its is also done by Turkey not the TRNC and involves the Turkish militray which is foreign not local.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

If you want another parrallel close to Cyprus then you could find it in Kashmir. The Indian government encourage hindu migration into the valley in order to change the demographics for their interests. Or Sikkim, which only acceeded to India after huge migrations into Sikkim from India changed the demographics enough to change the popular vote.

Sikkim should never have been a part of India, its is not indian while Kashmir should be independent.

Originally posted by Omar al Hashim

You can start comparing to Israel when a completely foriegn group take Cyprus and disposses the natives of all their land. A land divided between two native groups is not comparable to a land taken from the natives entirely.

The Jews are not completely foreign to the holy land. They were a small, very small minority and regionally they always exists as a distinct group. So its a story of a minority winning through war more land (than it can initially populate) - then uses settlements to populate the land before a peace can ever be negotiated. You cannot negotiate final line in the sand or real peace when purposefully building settlements and using migration to change the map. Not in Cyprus or in the holy land.

-------------

Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 17:29

Leonadis
I know the history, but that is decades old. The reason fro the Turkish army presence is long gone, cant keep going back to a different era in Greek politics to explain current Turkish policy that hasn't changed since then.

I don't think the Greeks are going to charge in armed to the teeth fighting the Turks if the Turkish army was to leave either. However, realistic or not they also have a point, when they didn't have a presence on the island their were many troubles, now they are there, there have been no ethnic conflicts. They are obviously using the situation to their advantage by keeping a large presence on the island, however, the average Turkish Cypriot does not 100% trust the Greek Cypriot forces so they would rather their own forces then put trust in another who have a problematic recent history.

I think the most realistic proposal would be a reduced and equal sized Greek and Turkish force.

Leonadis
for sure no one gets what they want 100%, but it was a plan that gave the North side the most comfort.

That's from the Greek point of view, flip the coin and the Turkish hardliners were saying that the plan was a plot to undermine the Turks and was in favour of the Greeks. However, Talat who was more liberal was in power and together with the media convinced people to say yes.

Leonadis
in that form. It is very disingenuous to use that vote as a sign of their wishes.

They want a more united Cyprus, the Turkish position is to keep the status-quo as much as possible ie the split/military presence. How ironic that the side that wants to keep as much division on the island as possible in the final 'plan' is saying the other guys who didnt like that particular peace plan (because it splits the nation up to much) are agianst re-unification!

It all depends on what window your looking out from, the Turks accepted a reduced millitary force, hardliners were disgusted with the plan. We can't just blame the Turks for this they did accept the proposals, both sides are as much to blame for the sitation as the other.

Leonadis
clutching at straws here, being a neighboring people means nothing in legitimacy. Greeks cant just settle in Albania because we feel like it or because it down the road or because Greeks already live there. Jews have always lived in the region as well and can argue, at least for the ME sourced immigrants, the same logic. The forced migrations of Greeks and Turks was a absolute nightmare that should never have happened. either way they were agreed outcomes to a war - as an outcome of agreement and settlement of two sides. What is happening in Cyprus is not an agreed outcome. The peace process is far from over, so the settlements during that time frame is not the same thing. Its is also done by Turkey not the TRNC and involves the Turkish militray which is foreign not local.

If the Greeks in Albania started getting rounded up and forced out the country, the Greek millitary may react and protect them if they had a guaranteurship.

The Turkish millitary is not foreign, its the Turkish Cypriots local forces, every Turkish Cypriot does millitary service.

-------------
�What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.�
Albert Pine

Posted By: Al Jassas
Date Posted: 25-Apr-2009 at 18:02

Hello Leo

Your comparison with Israel would work if those who won more territory were the couple of thousand original jews who never left Palestine.

Jews came from every corner of the world and claimed Palestine as their own because god gave it to them and by force depopulated the area before Arabs intervened in 47. Turks lived on the island for centuries or even mellinia (since most of them are actually converts).

As for the peace plan, in my opinion it gave the greeks more than the Turks. The only two significant cities of the Turkish side would return to the greek side. the ethnic composition of the turkish side will be shifted to the greek side (almost 200k greeks will be allowed to return, almost the same number as the turks) and many settlers will return to Turkey and will have their lands confiscated and given back to the greeks. On the other hand few Turks will be allowed to return to their old homes in the south.

Now if this was biased against the greeks I really don't know how a biased plan in their favor will look like.

AL-Jassas

Posted By: Leonidas
Date Posted: 26-Apr-2009 at 07:54

Originally posted by Bulldog

the army part is the real bone of contention. Believe it or not i don't think the Cypriot Turks are all that enthusiastic about the Turkish army either, they just cant say anything about it. Re the quote from the House of commons report below (my bolding)

If we are talking about their (TRNC) own forces, th n fine. that's not off the table , if its the Turkish army from the mainland that's the problem. As i said earlier a UN type force that already exists there for many decades can give comfort to both sides. The insistence on keeping the militray (as many settlers as possible) on the island should not be the deal breaker it is. Its a Turkish wish not a critical point for the TRNC.

I think the most realistic proposal would be a reduced and equal sized Greek and Turkish force.

de-militarise the whole island would be much simpler and better for the islanders. I think a Japanese style (restrictions) national defense force can be allowed in a phased way but that should be between a re-united Cyprus and its neighbors at a later date. This is for Turkey sensitivities more than anything. Separate this issue to the bi-zonal issues. there are simply two main levels to this, not one.

key word 'Turkish hardliner', they may not be Cypriot in thinking. Cypriots doesn't have to equal Greek. Cypriots believe it or not, the greek ones aren't so thrilled about being one with (a political/economic basket case) Greece (if the feel safe enough on their own). They can do a better job themselves (and have) i cant see why Turkish Cypriots would want to import all of Ankara's baggage as well. As long as both side can feel safe they don't need their big brothers to come in and run their show.

...these TRNC whiners are the ones that the most to lose from the change of the status quo; the settlers, the Denkashs of the island, the militray that sponsors them - all who are all quite happy to protect their little pond. they are winners in the status quo. the vote towards some sort of unity by the rest shows that they just want change, it is of no benefit to remain in a 'solution' imposed by policy from ankara. Its not as simple as Greek vs Turk. Its really is about outside (and some inside) intersts vs change in the final plan.

i can because the red line imposed by the militray is unnessary, its a foriegn imposed wish. You have to seperate what ankara wants and what can be done on the island.

The old hands from this website can go into a room and come up with a solution in no time and if the two communities (not greece or Turkey or any settlers) had some real time alone they would come up with a plan. For sure, no doubt about that. the bits that are put into the plan (which isn't bad in many parts) for the Turkish militray (not the TRNC) are the ones that we cant agree on. Annan version 3 had no troops the final version 5 had troops at the insistence of Turkey not the TRNC.

for your interest this British government report is bloody long, but makes for good reading

44. President Papadopoulos referred to the 650 troops as a "bridgehead".[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11305.htm#note79 - 79 ] One of our witnesses described what we suspect was a representative view of Greek Cypriots that "this was legitimising the presence of the invading forces."[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11305.htm#note80 - 80 ] The Lordos study shows that even moderate Greek Cypriots feel strongly that it would be inappropriate for Turkey to maintain armed forces in Cyprus and to have the right to intervene militarily even following a settlement. According to Lordos, more than three quarters of Greek Cypriots believe it is essential that Turkey should be obliged to reduce its forces to 650 within a much shorter timescale, and about three fifths demand that the troops should leave altogether and want to see an end to the right of unilateral intervention claimed by Turkey under the Treaty of Guarantee.[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11305.htm#note81 - 81 ] A shortening of the timetable for a reduction in troop levels is actually the alteration to the terms of the Annan Plan most strongly sought by Greek Cypriots.[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11305.htm#note82 - 82 ]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11305.htm -

As we noted above,[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11308.htm#note257 - 257 ] a majority of Greek Cypriots regard the early departure of Turkish forces from Cyprus as essential. The proposal in Annan 5 for a gradual reduction in those forces to no more than 650 by 2019 was unacceptable to them, mainly because of the slow pace of withdrawal envisaged. No doubt for reasons of national pride as well as for the reasons outlined above, Turkey has been hostile to any suggestion that it withdraw completely. However, if Turkey is serious about joining the EU, she will have to be more reasonable on this point. Turkish Cypriots are, we believe, ambivalent about the Turkish army. Although for understandable reasons they are reluctant to place their views on the record, we heard from several Turkish Cypriot sources when we visited the island that the presence of Turkish troops is not seen as an unalloyed blessing.[ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11308.htm#note258 - 258 ] We believe that many Turkish Cypriots would prefer to see an end to Turkey's military presence, if appropriate security guarantees could be provided. link

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/11308.htm#a31 -