European Salon de News, Discussion et Klatsch – 8 December | 90 comments (90 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: cyprus vs Turkey kindergarten (none / 0)

I frankly don't understand any of it. UN, EU. It's clear that Turkey and Cyprus have to come to a compromise. Pressing for either the EU or UN means that either side conceives of better results from each organization. The Greeks, again, are emphasizing international law and the EU's own acquis communitaire. However, in the Annan Plan of 2003-2004, the Greek side also had agreed to certain "derogations" (as a means of concession) which violated the acquis. The UN, obviously, is not so concerned with the terms of the acquis.

If any resolution is to come of the Cyprus problem, the EU itself will have to agree that in some circumstances, the acquis communitaire can be ignored. The problem, however, might be: can Turkey apply that line of thinking (ignoring certain provisions of the aquis) to its own candidacy? The EU will have already approved of it once, why not twice?

by Upstate NY on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 12:52:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: cyprus vs Turkey kindergarten (none / 0)

If any resolution is to come of the Cyprus problem, the EU itself will have to agree that in some circumstances, the acquis communitaire can be ignored.

Can you elaborate?

Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. -- Euripides

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 02:02:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: cyprus vs Turkey kindergarten (none / 0)

The Annan Plan of 2002-2003, to which Cyprus' Papadopoulos agreed, prevented a certain number of Greek Cypriots from returning to their homes, reclaiming property, and also established a quota on the number of Greek Cypriots who could live, work or buy land in the north. In other words, someone from Greece or Estonia could move and live in the north, but southern Greek Cypriots, even those who owned property in the north for generations, could be prevented. This is the plan that Papadopoulos agreed to.

The Turks were to redeploy their military back to Turkey under this plan, concede territory to the Southern federation (including abandoned towns such as Varosha), and repatriate some Turkish settlers.

The one Papadopouls and the Greek Cypriots rejected in 2004 contained the same provisions as 2002-2003 except it allowed the Turkish military to stay on the island until Turkish accession to the EU, and even then allowed a Turkish military presence afterward. The gov't of Cyprus would pay restitution to all those who lost homes in the north. Turkey and Greece would remain as guarantor countries. There were other provisions that were even more jaw-dropping, as Claire Palley explains in her book, "An International Relations Debacle."

by Upstate NY on Fri Dec 8th, 2006 at 02:11:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

European Salon de News, Discussion et Klatsch – 8 December | 90 comments (90 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

The importance of being England

The cost of doing business

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

No Peace In Sight

Mandatory Solar

Recent Diaries

We Are All From Mars Now

The seven deadly sins of the DUP

The cost of doing business

The importance of being England

US War Powers, Regime Change and Third Option

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 2

US War Powers, Regime Change -- Part 1

City Agriculture - January 19, 2023

War In Ukraine A Failed Process by NATO

No Peace In Sight

Another Execution

The Protocol and the Founding Principles of the EU

Judeo-Fascism Arises - Kahane

Baerbock Solidair with UA in Kharkiv

Mary Robinson and Fallacy of War and Peace

British Anglicanism, Disinformation and Harry

The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea...

Israel Campaign of Illegal Acts w Impunity

Mandatory Solar

No Peace on West's Mind or Vocabulary

Occasional Series