Cyprus-Forum.com

[Agios Amvrosios]

Dear Erolz,

"Collective rights" and "equality between communities" are no where near equivalent or even similar to the individual human rights of GC's affrimed in decisions of the ECHR and UN resolutions.

"collective rights" and " equality between communities" are concepts plucked out of thin air by Denktash.

If they are in fact legal/constitutional rights, with respect, I would ask you to provide an example of a modern democratic(preferably an EU) country where these fanciful concepts are enshrined in a constitution.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

You talk about your rights as being something special and our rights something that should be compromised.

That is how your arguments come accross to most GC's.

What I suggested was that each constituent state should provide representation for their respective 'minority' so that all residents of the particular state can have a say in the area they live.

You take this statement as being a compromise on your rights. You could limit the GC's in your state to 33% of seats even though their numbers could be higher than this and have something similar in the GC state as well. To me that is acceptable because at least there is representation of GC's in the TC constituent state and avoids making people feel lke aliens in their own country. Does that not sound reasonble? Doesn't that sound like a compromise for both? You talk about compromse but what you really mean that the GC's should compromise.

You obvioulsy want to limit the numbers of GC's that will live amogst the TC's. That is what you really want, so why don't you just admit it and come clean? Why all the contorted arguments? If you want an ethnically pure state, admit that it is at the expense of the GC's (refugees in paricular) and be done with it. Admit that it will be founded on the taking away of peoples land and property.

In my view there is absolutely no point in having a 'United Cyprus Republic' because it would be anything but under the Annan plan. You want the full benefits of economic unification but without the consequent free movement of labour and people that a successfull economy would demand. If you don't want to give people proper representation then that in itself is a disincentive for people to move and in all probablity lead to a failure of any unification plan based on such criteria.

[erolz]

Erol,

You talk about your rights as being something special and our rights something that should be compromised.

No no no. I am not saying that. I have never said that. I have said repeatedly and consitently that theri is no priority of your rights over ours or visa versa. They are both equally valid and equaly important. That is exactly what I have said.

It was you who said that 'rights' of peoples' are not 'real' like the (GC) rights of indivduals are real - not me. It is piratis who insists we have no rights as a people.

That is how your arguments come accross to most GC's.

Well if you are going to interpret what I say so incorrectly then there is no hope.

What I suggested was that each constituent state should provide representation for their respective 'minority' so that all residents of the particular state can have a say in the area they live.

I have no problem with this concept. However you still have not explained how GC can have total and absolute freedom of their rights (to live anywhere in Cyprus and have represntation in either state) AND at the same time the TC component state can be protected from GC numerical domination.

You take this statement as being a compromise on your rights. You could limit the GC's in your state to 33% of seats even though their numbers could be higher than this and have something similar in the GC state as well. To me that is acceptable because at least there is representation of GC's in the TC constituent state and avoids making people feel lke aliens in their own country. Does that not sound reasonble? Doesn't that sound like a compromise for both? You talk about compromse but what you really mean that the GC's should compromise.

It does sound like a compromise - but it is not compatible with an insistance that GC should not have to compromise their rights at all in any way - which is where this discussion started.

You obvioulsy want to limit the numbers of GC's that will live amogst the TC's. That is what you really want, so why don't you just admit it and come clean?

I see little point in defining a TC component state and GC component state if TC become a numerical minority in both. That is just a unitary state by stealth. That is my concern. I have no problem living with and amongst anyone in any number (I was born and bread in London where we do exactly that)

Why all the contorted arguments?

There is nothing contorted in my 'argument'. My 'argument' is simple. You have rights. We have rights. These rights can and do clash. If we are to live togeather in peace both sides must accept some compromise on their absolute rights. What is contorted about that?

If you want an ethnically pure state, admit that it is at the expense of the GC's (refugees in paricular) and be done with it. Admit that it will be founded on the taking away of peoples land and property.

I want TC to not be under the effective political control of GC. That's all. I could just as easily claim that what you really want is all of Cyprus and all Cypriots (TC and GC) to be under the effective control of the GC community. Why do you not admit that and be done with. Admit that your solution is founded on a principal of denying the TC people their rights?

You want the full benefits of economic unification

Actualy what I want is for Cyprus to be free of all this BS and for us to live togeather in peace and harmony and in mutual respect. For me the economic aspect are the lowest driver for my desire to find a solution to the Cyprus problem. I personaly care littel for money beyond what is necessary for my pretty modest living. If I cared about money I would not be living in Cyprus. I traded much 'income potential' for greater freedom to do what I want with my life and am happy to have done so.

but without the consequent free movement of labour and people that a successfull economy would demand.

?
Who said there can be no free movement of labour or people? We already have free movement of labour and people. I can go to the south as I like and work in the south should I chose to (which I do not) and you can do the same in the North. I might add we have this ability now because of TC acts (re opening the border up).

If you don't want to give people proper representation then that in itself is a disincentive for people to move and in all probablity lead to a failure of any unification plan based on such criteria.

It is not that I do not want to give people proper representation. I want TC to not be under the political control of GC - that is all. Show me how we can achieve that without placing any restrcions on GC absolute rights or TC absolute rights rights and I will be more than happy. The fact is that we can not have all these things and thats where the problems come in.

[-mikkie2-]

Erol says,

I have no problem with this concept. However you still have not explained how GC can have total and absolute freedom of their rights (to live anywhere in Cyprus and have represntation in either state) AND at the same time the TC component state can be protected from GC numerical domination.

I say again, you basically want an ethnically seperated state. You do not want GC's to live amongst you, only as a manageable minority.

You equate numerical domination with being turned into a political minority. What you are now suggesting is that you are more afraid of being outnumbered by GC's than you are by political equality. What I have suggested gives political equality to a degree where every Cypriot has political representation at all levels no matter where in Cyprus they choose to settle without affecting the political balance between the two communities. So, I give you a possible formula to maintain political equality without restricting where any Cypriot may choose to live and now you turn the argument into one of numerical domination!

It is absolutely clear that to get what you want, the rights of tens of thousands of refugees need to be compromised in order to pander to your whims.

You say:

I have said repeatedly and consitently that theri is no priority of your rights over ours or visa versa. They are both equally valid and equaly important. That is exactly what I have said.

and after the suggestion I make you say,

It does sound like a compromise - but it is not compatible with an insistance that GC should not have to compromise their rights at all in any way - which is where this discussion started.

So you are now saying that the TC's are compromising their rights and the GC's are not? I say it again, you want to compromise the rights of GC's in order to get what you want, in order to legalise your ill gotten gains, backed up by your friendly neighbourhood Turkish soldier that will defend those ill gotten gains. Where is YOUR compomise? That you will carry on humilating us even after a solution?

You then say:

I see little point in defining a TC component state and GC component state if TC become a numerical minority in both. That is just a unitary state by stealth.

Well, the Annan plan as it is is a partition plan by stealth! Come on Erol. Please don't insult my intelligence here.

There is nothing contorted in my 'argument'. My 'argument' is simple. You have rights. We have rights. These rights can and do clash. If we are to live togeather in peace both sides must accept some compromise on their absolute rights. What is contorted about that?

Because you seem to think that we should have to compriomise much more than what you are willing to.

I want TC to not be under the effective political control of GC. That's all.

My reasonable suggestion to you does not give effective political control to GC's. It redestributes political control so that all Cypriots have effective representation at all levels no matter where a Cypriot may choose to live and still maintain political control by the respective communities of their respective state.

Actualy what I want is for Cyprus to be free of all this BS

From where I am standing there is quite a lot coming from you!

Who said there can be no free movement of labour or people? We already have free movement of labour and people. I can go to the south as I like and work in the south should I chose to

Of course you can, but a GC can't freely move to the north and get a job and work like you can in the south. What was that about BS?

Show me how we can achieve that without placing any restrcions on GC absolute rights or TC absolute rights rights and I will be more than happy.

I gave you a possible formula which you have simply poo pooed. I guess if you can't use a bit of latteral thought then you won't see the possiblities.

[erolz]

I say again, you basically want an ethnically seperated state. You do not want GC's to live amongst you, only as a manageable minority.

You can keep saying this is what I want - regardless of what I actualy say indefinately but I wonder what value there is in doing this?

You equate numerical domination with being turned into a political minority. What you are now suggesting is that you are more afraid of being outnumbered by GC's than you are by political equality. What I have suggested gives political equality to a degree where every Cypriot has political representation at all levels no matter where in Cyprus they choose to settle without affecting the political balance between the two communities. So, I give you a possible formula to maintain political equality without restricting where any Cypriot may choose to live and now you turn the argument into one of numerical domination!

What you have suggested though is not compatible with your insistance that GC should have their total unrestricted rights. If the TC component state becomes numericaly 80% GC and 20% TC yet GC in thsi state are restricted to 30% political representation then this is 'undemocratic' and 'against GC human rights' - which you seem to insist no viable solutioon can be. It is this contradiction that I am trying to understand. Your solution in fact accepts the very point I am trying to make (and you seem to refuse to agree with) that it is simply not possible for GC to have total and absolute exercise of their human rights and for TC to simultaneously have likewise.

It is absolutely clear that to get what you want, the rights of tens of thousands of refugees need to be compromised in order to pander to your whims.

And here we return to the nub of the problem. GC have human rights and TC have whims. If that is how you percieve things then a fair balance that is acceptable to you is unlikely to be achieveable.

So you are now saying that the TC's are compromising their rights and the GC's are not?

See above. I am sayig that your proposed solution earlier is not compatible with a view that any settlement that restricts total and absdolute rights of GC is not viable. There is a fundamantal contradiction here and I am trying to get to the root of this contradiction. One the one hand you continue to isnsit that a settlement can not restrict GC rights and then you gon on to propose a solution that restricts GC rights. This is where my 'problem' with your proposal lies.

I say it again, you want to compromise the rights of GC's in order to get what you want, in order to legalise your ill gotten gains, backed up by your friendly neighbourhood Turkish soldier that will defend those ill gotten gains.

And again I say that continued insistance that what I want is not what I say I want does not really get us anywhere - unless you want a round of 'you say you want x but really you want y' and I respond likewise?

Where is YOUR compomise? That you will carry on humilating us even after a solution?

Because you seem to think that we should have to compriomise much more than what you are willing to.

And agin here we get to the nub. You percieve me asking for GC to compromise (their absolute) rights more than TC because really you do not believe that the TC people have rights at all - you think they are just 'whims' and thus inevitably you see your side compromising more. You have rights and we have whims and you want a balance that reflects this. I say you have rights and we have rights and I want a balance that reflects this.

I want TC to not be under the effective political control of GC. That's all.

My reasonable suggestion to you does not give effective political control to GC's. It redestributes political control so that all Cypriots have effective representation at all levels no matter where a Cypriot may choose to live and still maintain political control by the respective communities of their respective state.

I have no problem with your soultion. My problem is with it's inconsistency with what you say eleswhere - thats my problem. If you can make me believe that a solution protects TC from total effective political control of GC then I can (personaly) accept no bizonality at all. However if you offer a solution based on agreed limits to GC rights (and TC rights) whilst still insisting there can be no restriction on GC rights at all then I get confused and 'suspicious'.

Of course you can, but a GC can't freely move to the north and get a job and work like you can in the south. What was that about BS?

Can you not? Who says you can not? As far as I know there is nothing stopping me employing you and you crossing the border each day and working for me here?

I gave you a possible formula which you have simply poo pooed. I guess if you can't use a bit of latteral thought then you won't see the possiblities.

See above. I am not poo pooing it. I am asking (repeatedly) how your solution is compatible with the argument that there can be no settlement that requires GC to restrict their human rights - when your soultion itself restricts those rights?

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

What I have suggested is a compromise which would allow GC or TC to return to their homes and still have some political representation in the component state they wish to live in.

What does the Annan plan give people that wish to live in the opposite state? Nothing! No political representation at all.

The obvious fact that the Annan plan as it is actually discourages GC's from moving north and TC's going south in neither here nor there to you. You may argue that this is not the case but in my view it is because of the restrictive property settlement terms and the zero political rights that would be given to people that did return.

You are quite happy to have this anomaly in the plan because it suits you, yet when an alternative, which could in fact be a good compromise, you then go and rubbish it because it means you have to yield a tiny bit.

It is this contradiction that I am trying to understand. Your solution in fact accepts the very point I am trying to make (and you seem to refuse to agree with) that it is simply not possible for GC to have total and absolute exercise of their human rights and for TC to simultaneously have likewise.

My point Erol is that it means you have to give up a little as well. You obviously don't seem to want to.

The Annan plan as it is will effectively produce two ethnic regions with people from the respective communities being discouraged from living in the opposite region because of zero political rights.

[metecyp]

I have no problem with this concept. However you still have not explained how GC can have total and absolute freedom of their rights (to live anywhere in Cyprus and have represntation in either state) AND at the same time the TC component state can be protected from GC numerical domination.

Mikkie, you should really read and understand what Erol is trying to say. Instead you keep repeating yourself about what you think Erol is saying. Please just answer the question Erol raised in the quote above. This is the heart of the problem. Please explain us how we can be sure that TCs have effective control of their constituent state while GCs can exercise their full rights.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[insan]

mikkie,

Do you agree with the followings?

1- Restriction upon residence rights in order to protect the bi-zonality, communal identity and political structure of each constituent states.

2- The number of GC residents (permenant)of TC constituent state must not exceed the %33 of the TC population of TCCS and vice-versa.

3- All permenant GC residents of TCCS should be granted full political rights.

4- The number of TC and GC senators in Senate must permenantly be preserved on 50/50 basis in order to maintain the "political equality" of two communities. The total number of GC senators from GCCS and TCCS must not be more than the total number number of TC senators of Senate. For instance if 15 GC senators have been elected from GCCS; only 5 GC senators can be elected from TCCS and vice versa.


Another question to all of the mebers of the forum:

Suppose in 20 years time the number of foreign residents of each constituent state has reached, for instance %30 of the number of the citizens of each constituent state... They too demanded full political rights and were granted... How would the political power be shared in Senate and House? How would it affect the political structure of constituent states and the federal governement of Cyprus?

[magikthrill]

insan,

this problem of yours can easily be solved if the citizenship status for the RoC is aqruied the way it is in almost every other EU country: through heritage... not through residence!