Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
I don't understand the ambassador to be implying what you said at all. To me, he seemed to be implying that certain foreign policy circles in the US believe the US should unofficially recognize the North of Cyprus in a deal that would vouchsafe Turkey's cooperation East of its borders.

In any discussion of negotiations, the terminology used is key. You say the Cypriot gov't reneged. That term is loaded. They never agreed to the Annan Plan 5 in the first place, especially since it was conjured up by outside powerful interests that didn't have the island's best interests in mind. Second, you call it an olive branch, even though Annan 5 was very different from Annan 3, in which Turkish concessions were writ largely. Much as Europeans are respecting the recent referenda on the EU constitution, the southern Cypriot side is merely asking for the same respect. 76% of the people voted against it precisely because it was an awful deal for them.

Seriously, no "deal" was reached with Annan 5 as you put it. In fact, the two sides were once again unable to negotiate a deal. The actual vote was on a plan conjured up by Annan, the US and Great Britain.

by Upstate NY on Tue Jun 14th, 2005 at 07:47:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series