Does this mean that the majority of the Turkish Cypriot community is not in favour of a solution anymore? At least in my understanding and from the info available in the south, Mr. Eroglu was presented as the leader least likely to support a solution. Is this the reason why he was elected? Or was it that Mr. Talat's government failed to provide good governance in the north over the past years?
Again, something that comes out from newspapers in the south is that Mr. Eroglu's winning regions (I know that Mr. Eroglu won most of the regions. By winning regions I mean the ones where the difference between the two main competitors was vast) are where mainland Turks are living. Is this really true or wishful thinking from the Greek Cypriot’s side? Is it really true that the results were driven by mainland Turks living in the north or by the Turkish Cypriot community?
Most importantly, is the Turkish Cypriot community still seeking some peaceful agreement and the re-unification of the island or not? I hope so.
To me, the most valuable information is coming from dialogues and discussion. Unfortunately the friction I have with Turkish Cypriots is quite limited so the conclusions I can draw only stem from the media and articles I read in newspapers (mostly from the south). If possible can someone shed some light on this issue? I will be grateful
5 Response to Election's Result in the north
hey hello, sorry for being a greek cypriot commenting, but it seems to me that talat totally neglected internal (or so called internal, whatever you want to call them) affairs, and that turned against him, he didn't even heed the signs after he lost the last elections- the ones that made eroglu prime minister.
an interesting topic for discussion would be whether this affects the talks, i'm still inclined to believe that turkey wants us to have a solution by the end of the year, and in that eroglu cannot be an obstacle. it's testing time for the greek cypriot rhetorical device that 'the key for the solution lies with ankara'. what do you think?
after all, the greek cypriot leadership knew that the elections were approaching, yet they didn't intensify the talks, preferring the rhetoric of 'turkish rigidity' (adiallaxia). here's where that's taken us!!
@shiekkeris
Thank you for your comment to my post. I was however hoping to steer the discussion towards the Turkish Cypriot members of this community, to clarify a few questions I have regarding the recent election. My intention was not to embark on a political analysis of the talks, but merely an attempt to get an understanding of the rationale of the Turkish Cypriot community in its recent decision.
If the above are issues you are interested in, please feel free to analyse them in another post, and I will be happy to contribute my own opinions in what is another interesting topic of discussion.
olgun wrote:
Apr 22nd 2010 7:02 GMT
During the referandum in 2004 EU promised to remove blockade to the Turkish Cypriots in the event of a yes vote in the North. It turned out to be a big lie. That is one reason why Talat has lost as the representative of lyers. Furthermore, please accept that mainland Turks are no fools either. They know that EU will not accept Turkey into EU because France and Germany are afraid of losing influence in the Union. So, using EU as a carrot in the Cyprus game does not work anymore. Hypocracy has been observed in the remotest villages of Anatolia.
Christo I found this comment as a respond to one of the articles in the economist on the election of Erogly. Found it quite interesting in the discussion you initiated, even though it would be more helpful to hear from TC...
Thanks for your comments iris.
I read the articles and the comments on them as well. for anybody interested on what The Economist had to say, here are the links to the two articles on Cyprus on their last issue:
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15954444
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15954242
Post a Comment