![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisLink to the Annan Plan.
--
I was planning a rather different post, describing my thoughts about Papadopoulos' speech and my annoyance at him... but I think I'm more annoyed at some of the reactions to his speech than the speech itself.
Just after his speech, that singer Alexia came out to say how proud she is that their president is so "leventis". And the day after, Papathemelis was openly drooling in a panel over Papadopoulos' supreme manliness. I kid you not.
My reaction at that is that I'd more appreciate leaders that have less "leventia" and more "tharros". Less machismo and more courage please.
Kanelli was also at the same panel btw, likewise appreciating Papadopoulos' manliness, though thankfully she atleast didn't use the word.
I hate that woman btw. She's possibly the most aggressive debater there exists in the Greek parliament but her arguments are always rotten to the core with the usual conspiracism and hypocricy and anti-West hysteria always characterizing the KKE -- except, ofcourse, that in her case it's also liberally sprinkled with the insults and chauvinism that characterizes her style.
And I've never yet seen her pitted against someone who'd be willing to face her head-on in a debate, rip her arguments to shreds, reveal the hollowness of them thoroughly, as I find myself all too easily able to do. But the people she's pitted against are incapable to do so through either deficiency in ideology or lack of will. Last time it was Tzohatzopoulos from Pasok who had to face both Papathemeli and Kaneli -- sheesh. Tzohatzopoulos. He's the man who for me *defines* hollowness in a politician. Knock his head, there's nothing inside. Not because of lack of mind, just because of lack of ability to express any ideology whatsoever. He'll mumble something weakly generic and unconvincing in support of his party, and that's it.
I want to see Kanelli pitted against Andrianopoulos. Or Nikos Dimou perhaps. Or Androulaki perhaps. But then again the first two have the ideas and mind required but are way too soft-spoken and would just end up getting outshouted. Not sure about Androulaki. He'd probably lack the will to reveal the hypocricy of all she espouses.
Anyway, that was a rather long sidenote, wasn't it?
As for the speech himself - it also annoyed me. But not because of the 'No' answer he gave --- I'd vote "Yes" myself but it would be a hesitant "Yes" and I quite readily understand all problems and all negative elements in the Annan plan, that might make anyone think otherwise. And though I don't think that any better chance will ever appear for Cyprus, I may be wrong -- I certainly hope I'm wrong. I think that "No" is a big mistake therefore... but I find it a *reasonable* big mistake. Not something I could be angry with an individual for selecting it.
No, the reason that it annoyed me is that Papadopoulos' objections to the plans weren't the objections of a man who wants reunification at all -- and I know now he's lying whenever he claims that.
For example: He complains about the economic burden of the new country falling mainly on the Greek-Cypriot shoulders. But the Greek Cypriots represent about 80 percent of the population and 90% of the economic power of the island. So what did he expect? What kind of mad taxation scheme would he see implemented that could ever cause the economical burden to be shared equally between two communities so vastly differing in wealth?
Another matter -- he complains that the Turkish Cypriot community will be recognized as a legitimate constituent state of the united republic. WHAT??? A federal Cyprus was in the plans for reunification since atleast 1977, perhaps even earlier back. *Everyone* -- on the Greek Cypriot side atleast -- was aggreeing on that. Now Papadopoulos (even if he's not admitting it openly) is going back to in essense wanting a unitary state, where the Turkish Cypriots will have no recognized community or powers of self-administration at all.
These are the arguments of a person that doesn't want to coexist with Turkish Cypriots at all, ever again -- except perhaps as a conquered people.
Once again, there are many reasonable arguments to make against the Annan plan. It can indeed be considered unfair and problematic -- and who knows, it may be that Stefanos Manos is right and division (with the Greek Cypriot side taking all territorial and property concession and granting recognition to the Turkish cypriot side in return) would be the only remaning option. There are many arguments a person could reasonably use to vote "NO".
Just not the ones that Papadopoulos offered -- not if he still claims to want reunification for the island.
--
I was planning a rather different post, describing my thoughts about Papadopoulos' speech and my annoyance at him... but I think I'm more annoyed at some of the reactions to his speech than the speech itself.
Just after his speech, that singer Alexia came out to say how proud she is that their president is so "leventis". And the day after, Papathemelis was openly drooling in a panel over Papadopoulos' supreme manliness. I kid you not.
My reaction at that is that I'd more appreciate leaders that have less "leventia" and more "tharros". Less machismo and more courage please.
Kanelli was also at the same panel btw, likewise appreciating Papadopoulos' manliness, though thankfully she atleast didn't use the word.
I hate that woman btw. She's possibly the most aggressive debater there exists in the Greek parliament but her arguments are always rotten to the core with the usual conspiracism and hypocricy and anti-West hysteria always characterizing the KKE -- except, ofcourse, that in her case it's also liberally sprinkled with the insults and chauvinism that characterizes her style.
And I've never yet seen her pitted against someone who'd be willing to face her head-on in a debate, rip her arguments to shreds, reveal the hollowness of them thoroughly, as I find myself all too easily able to do. But the people she's pitted against are incapable to do so through either deficiency in ideology or lack of will. Last time it was Tzohatzopoulos from Pasok who had to face both Papathemeli and Kaneli -- sheesh. Tzohatzopoulos. He's the man who for me *defines* hollowness in a politician. Knock his head, there's nothing inside. Not because of lack of mind, just because of lack of ability to express any ideology whatsoever. He'll mumble something weakly generic and unconvincing in support of his party, and that's it.
I want to see Kanelli pitted against Andrianopoulos. Or Nikos Dimou perhaps. Or Androulaki perhaps. But then again the first two have the ideas and mind required but are way too soft-spoken and would just end up getting outshouted. Not sure about Androulaki. He'd probably lack the will to reveal the hypocricy of all she espouses.
Anyway, that was a rather long sidenote, wasn't it?
As for the speech himself - it also annoyed me. But not because of the 'No' answer he gave --- I'd vote "Yes" myself but it would be a hesitant "Yes" and I quite readily understand all problems and all negative elements in the Annan plan, that might make anyone think otherwise. And though I don't think that any better chance will ever appear for Cyprus, I may be wrong -- I certainly hope I'm wrong. I think that "No" is a big mistake therefore... but I find it a *reasonable* big mistake. Not something I could be angry with an individual for selecting it.
No, the reason that it annoyed me is that Papadopoulos' objections to the plans weren't the objections of a man who wants reunification at all -- and I know now he's lying whenever he claims that.
For example: He complains about the economic burden of the new country falling mainly on the Greek-Cypriot shoulders. But the Greek Cypriots represent about 80 percent of the population and 90% of the economic power of the island. So what did he expect? What kind of mad taxation scheme would he see implemented that could ever cause the economical burden to be shared equally between two communities so vastly differing in wealth?
Another matter -- he complains that the Turkish Cypriot community will be recognized as a legitimate constituent state of the united republic. WHAT??? A federal Cyprus was in the plans for reunification since atleast 1977, perhaps even earlier back. *Everyone* -- on the Greek Cypriot side atleast -- was aggreeing on that. Now Papadopoulos (even if he's not admitting it openly) is going back to in essense wanting a unitary state, where the Turkish Cypriots will have no recognized community or powers of self-administration at all.
These are the arguments of a person that doesn't want to coexist with Turkish Cypriots at all, ever again -- except perhaps as a conquered people.
Once again, there are many reasonable arguments to make against the Annan plan. It can indeed be considered unfair and problematic -- and who knows, it may be that Stefanos Manos is right and division (with the Greek Cypriot side taking all territorial and property concession and granting recognition to the Turkish cypriot side in return) would be the only remaning option. There are many arguments a person could reasonably use to vote "NO".
Just not the ones that Papadopoulos offered -- not if he still claims to want reunification for the island.