Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

insan,

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say with the Vienna agreement. I mean, if you are to accept international laws then you are to accept that northern cyprus is what it is , a pseudo-state.

unless of course you said nothing of that.

I agree that both Turkish Federated State of Cyprus and TRNC are so-called, self-proclaimed states which haven't been recognized by any states other than Turkey. But if the administration of North has proclaimed itself for instance "temporary Turkish administration of RoC" and acted in accordance with 3rd Vienna Agreement; most probably it would have been recognized as a legal entity and no embargos would have been imposed on it. Turkis side did very big mistakes and exploitations afterwards the events of 74.


As I said if administration of North has proclaimed itself something like "Temporary Turkish Administration of RoC" then acted in accordance with 3rd Vienna Agreement; thousands of GCs would have stayed in North. And if they have agreed on the territorial issues in the following 2-3 years, the land that didn't belong to TCs would have been returned back to GC administration. In the meantime another agreement for withdrawal of foreign troops could be signed and in 5 or 10 years time the foreign troops could be withdrawn by stages.

Unfortunately, retaliations followed by retaliations and nothing has happened as it should have been. More than 30 years wasted with mistakes, wrong mentalities,stupid retaliations and more sufferings. No social rebellion have been observed against all these wrong doings, neither inter communal nor bi-communal until recent years when thousands of TCs revolt against the status quoers of North. Status quoers of South still hold their seats and same impassive, bunkrupt mentality. They still look for outside help to force Turkish side in order to achieve their long awaited goal: A Turkish minority in a GC state, immediate withdrawal of all Turkish troops, return of all refugees and repatriation of all settlers.

[magikthrill]

Well stated. Je d'accord.

[Saint Jimmy]

No social rebellion have been observed against all these wrong doings, neither inter communal nor bi-communal until recent years when thousands of TCs revolt against the status quoers of North.

?!?!?!?!?

Ummm... I would call all the demonstrations by GCs on the Green Line 'rebellions'. In recent years, they have faded in passion and loudness, but until the late 90s they were pretty strong... And they weren't inspired by hatred or nationalism; they asked for turkish troops to get the hell out, period! People have actually died, skulls have been cracked open (though not always by turkish cypriot policemen - our own police actually hit us to stop things from getting out of hand) in these demonstrations!

Also, they were unilateral... Have TCs been demonstrating any time before these recent demonstrations that you mention? Because a cynic could easily assert that these recent ones had a different, or even parallel, agenda: reunification, and EU... I am sorry to imply it, and please correct me if I am wrong about TCs not demonstrating prior to the EU 'carrot'. I am aware of the possibility that TCs might indeed have been demonstrating, but we never found out about it, because, well, some may not have wanted us (or the rest of the world) to know. I am not sure about that. But I am sure about whether or not we demonstrated.

[insan]

Jimmy have GCs ever demonstrated against the unrealistic policies of GC ruling elite? Or they too belived that "a Turkish minority in a GC state, immediate withdrawal of all Turkish troops, return of all refugees and repatriation of all settlers." stance of GC ruling elite was justifiable? They shouldn't forget to demonstrate against the unrealistic stance of their side while they were demonstrating against the Turkish side. Are you agree? Is it what we need? A bi-communal force to push both sides ruling elites either to act realistic or quit playing the hypocrites.


It is true that GCs too have demonstrated against...? But I haven't seen just one placard or heard just one slogan demanding bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Neither I've heard them shouting withdrawal of Greek troops besides Turkish troops. Were those demonstrators aware of that only a part of GC refugees would be alloved to return in accordance with Vienna agreement? Ot they believed what their leading and ruling elites have promised them?


The one sided, agressive and unrealistic demonstrations of some groups of GCs have scared TCs rather than make them believe that they would be able to form a secure, just, viable, bi-zonal and bi-communal federation.

[Saint Jimmy]

Jimmy have GCs ever demonstrated against the unrealistic policies of GC ruling elite?

OK, there's a point I'd like to make here: I can accept tagging T-Pap's policy as being unrealistic. But for the ten years that Clerides was in power, he was not unrealistic. If the timing was better, somehow, magically, and the decision for the accession of Cyprus to the EU had been taken a couple of years before it actually was (that is, if the TC stance towards reunification had changed earlier, as a result), we would now be living in the United Republic of Cyprus. I'm just trying to say that the frustration that you guys are feeling right now, was all ours before.

Were those demonstrators aware of that only a part of GC refugees would be alloved to return in accordance or Vienna agreement? Ot they believed what their leading and ruling elites have promised them?

This part is true. GCs never really understood what reunification would take. We have always been hearing vaguely about 'painful compromise', but we didn't understand what it meant. Until we saw the A plan. That was a shock, and it probably had a lot to do with the end result. And it's true that, for the most part, that is the work of our ruling elite, but it's not as clear-cut as that. Some gave the hollow promises because they meant them, and still mean them, and some gave them to keep the people on their side (yes, to get the votes) until they solve the problem, because they knew that what they promised is impossible.

[insan]

Clerides's Written Statement

President Clerides was compelled to respond on Feb. 2. In a written statement outlining his adherence to relevant U.N. resolutions, he said, "The object of the negotiations," is to reach a settlement "based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities . . . on a bicommunal and bizonal federation."

A settlement, he said, "must exclude union . . . with any other country or any form of partition or secession . . . confederation is excluded and cannot be accepted. . . . I wish to make it absolutely clear that as far as we are concerned the question of sovereignty is not a negotiable issue."

As for Denktash's remarks that Cyprus must "accept the realities of the situation," the President responded: "The Greek Cypriot side would never recognize the reality of the Turkish aggression and occupation of the territory of the Republic, the ethnic cleansing . . . by Turkish forces of the Greek Cypriots living in the north, which resulted in one-third of the population being refugees in their own country, the importation of illegal settlers . . . who have been installed in Greek properties, and the change of the demographic character . . . contrary to the Security Council and General Assembly resolutions."

He concluded, "The Greek side is ready to negotiate a settlement within the parameters established by Security Council resolutions."

Upon his return from Geneva on Feb. 9, Clerides reiterated, "We are working on a solution which will be based on a bizonal federation, will safeguard human rights, secure the acquis communautaire [of the EU] and that the issue of sovereignty will not be negotiable."

http://kypros.org/Embassy/Newsletter/2000/feb2000.html


What's the impression you got from Klerides's written statement, Jimmy?


The "sovereignity" issue which Denktash insisted on was nothing more than a local autonomy which provided the "political equality" to two communities under a federal state. But Clerides declared it as not negotiable. "Political equality" is the core point of the problem and if it is treated as nonnegotiable, there's no need for further negotiations on other aspects of the problem. Although I'm not trying to justify Denktash's stance concerning Cyprus problem, in 90s, I find him incapable to tell the whole world what does this "sovereignity" mean. He is really an incapable, traditional right winger. Actually, in my opinion all of the Cypriot leaders and politicians are incapable to solve the Cyprus problem, not only Denktash.

Oddly enough, the same Klerides supported the "yes" vote for Annan 5. So I'm asking you Jimmy: Can you analyze the stance of Klerides to me?


One more question to you: :What's your opinion about "political equality" of two communities? Were the federal states that proposed by Annan 5 two seperate states or two federal states with same limited sovereignity under monitor and supervision of central authority; besides constitution of Cyprus?

[Saint Jimmy]

The "sovereignity" issue which Denktash insisted on was nothing more than a local autonomy which provided the "political equality" to two communities under a federal state. But Clerides declared it as not negotiable. "Political equality" is the core point of the problem and if it is treated as nonnegotiable, there's no need for further negotiations on other aspects of the problem.

In my understanding, 'sovereignty' and 'political equality' are not one and the same. The latter can exist without the former, and vice-versa. In the context of a federation, 'sovereignty' refers to the federal government holding more power over constituent states, so that the constituents cannot hinder or impede the function of the federal government - in simple words, 'sovereignty' is the extent to which the federal government represents the Republic as opposed to the extent to which constituent governments represent separate states. 'Political equality' refers to allowing separate entities to have an equal say in political matters that concern the entire Republic, and their own say in matters that concern themselves. It's like... foreign policy is not a matter for consituent states, it encompasses sovereignty; and electing TC senators is not a federal issue, it encompasses political equality. I believe that the A plan satisfactorily provided for both.

Oddly enough, the same Klerides supported the "yes" vote for Annan 5. So I'm asking you Jimmy: Can you analyze the stance of Klerides to me?

Well, the only analysis I can make is what I've already told you. This man knew he couldn't give people what he promised them, and he knew he couldn't get to give them anything, unless he promised them those things (or else he wouldn't get elected). So, he could either speak the truth and never get in office, or keep up his non-feasible patriotic rhetoric and get things done his way (yes, I acknowledge that as deceiptful - it was, but still, it was the only way, and it still is). He chose the latter, and his plan worked nearly perfectly, except the timing didn't help him. If he had a few more months, he would've done it.
Perhaps I should add that, especially during his second term, Clerides didn't care about, nor did he trouble himself with, domestic governance. He did not want to become president to better what was left of the RoC; he wanted to solve the problem, and that was pretty much it. That's probably why he scored so high in polls about foreign policy and so low in domestic governance.
How do you explain your 'oddly enough' bit? Why do you think he supported the plan?

One more question to you: :What's your opinion about "political equality" of two communities? Were the federal states that proposed by Annan 5 two seperate states or two federal states with same limited sovereignity under monitor and supervision of central authority; besides constitution of Cyprus?

Yes, I think the plan created an acceptable (not perfect - it can never be perfect on paper) federation. My only real concern was the proposed economic structure. There were other concerns, as well, but in my view the rest were legal blurs and unrealistic 'what-ifs'. Do you not feel it provided for adequate political equality?

[insan]

How do you explain your 'oddly enough' bit? Why do you think he supported the plan?

Annan plan envisaged the use of the rights of two communities "sovereignly," which is legally less than the concept of sovereignty. According to Klerides sovereignity was not negotiable but despite of his stance he supported the Annan 5 which contained a kind of sovereignity for two communities. Denktash insisted on sovereignty as part and parcel of their territory, perhaps that "sovereignty" was what Klerides objected. I have no idea about the details maybe you have and you can enlighten me...

Do you not feel it provided for adequate political equality?

For TCs yes but for GCs who would return to live in TC administred component state, Annan Plan envisaged severe requirements for them to get their full political rights in TC component state. Or am I mistaken?

[brother]

Please read my post:

A DEFINITIVE ANALYSIS OF PURCHASING REAL ESTATE IN NORTH CYPRUS