Cyprus-Forum.com

[cannedmoose]

I agree that 51% is not enough. Usually for such huge changes all countries require what they call "special majority" which usually is around 70-75%.

However I disagree that reaching such numbers (or even 65%) for both communities is possible with the current balance of power.

For once I'm in semi-agreement with Piratis

A bare majority might be enough in legal terms but it is certainly not a firm foundation for the future stability of the state and for real reconciliation to take place. In my opinion 75% would be ideal, although at least a two-thirds majority (67%) would be the minimum acceptable figure. Anything below that would illustrate that there exists a potential cleavage in the societies, leaving open the doorway for hotheads and disruptive elements to capitalise on anti-agreement sentiment.

I also don't think that reaching this level of support is possible right now. Unless all GC parties reach a consensus on supporting an agreement, with AKEL particularly getting their butts off the fence and actually making a stance, I don't see how 67% is possible. I think it's certainly possible in the north. Alex's recent survey demonstrated the remaining strength of pro-agreement sentiment. But in the south, I think that the majority are relatively ambivalent about the continuation of the status quo. From my personal dealings with people, I see a desire for reconciliation, but not reconciliation on any terms. Unless the Annan Plan is subjected to a re-write (which I don't believe the international community, nor the TC's have a stomach for), then this level of support will not be forthcoming.

I hate to be so downbeat, especially since each time I visit Cyprus it pains me to see two people so alike in so many ways at odds with each other. Ultimately, as I've stated on here before, the only solution is a people-led one, politicians can impose a written text, but only the people can augur a true solution to the Cyprus problem. It's for Cypriots as a whole to embrace one another, forgive past crimes, recognise their own faults and realise that they have more to gain working together in peace than abusing each other across the dead zone.

[boulio]

i believe you need at least 2/3 of g/c and t/c for a solid solution.

[Piratis]

I think it's certainly possible in the north. Alex's recent survey demonstrated the remaining strength of pro-agreement sentiment. But in the south, I think that the majority are relatively ambivalent about the continuation of the status quo.

Thats a bunch of crap. If the plan was 90% of how we wanted it, and not 90% of how Turkey wanted it, then we would approve it and they would reject it. They were "pro agreement" for an agreement that satisfied them, the same way that we would be "pro agreement" if the agreement satisfied us. So it all depends on what the agreement will be about.

Here is another agreement: Return to legality and respect to the sovereignty of RoC + removal of the british bases (they failed as a guarantor power, since they didn't protect RoC as they were supposed to) Who is pro agreement now?

[Saint Jimmy]

Here is another agreement: Return to legality and respect to the sovereignty of RoC + removal of the british bases (they failed as a guarantor power, since they didn't protect RoC as they were supposed to) Who is pro agreement now?

Dude, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass or anything, but I really can't understand why you keep bringing up the issue of settling the Cyprus problem by returning to the 1960 agreements. Such a settlement is not likely, because it's not even on the table... I just don't see the point of having such discussions.

Do you?

[Piratis]

The point here is that cannedmoose told us that TCs are supposedly "pro-agreement" and we are not. I was simply pointing out that there is no such thing as "pro agreement", but plans that can either be accepted or rejected. Nobody would reject all plans, and nobody would accept all plans.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Piratis has a point here, there is no sense in talking about a pro-agreement and an anti-agreement sentiment. It all depends on the particular plan.

(Though having said that, it is true that TCs at the moment are more eager for a "solution at all costs" so that they can get into the EU - and this rush could cause them to accept a Plan that doesn't really safeguard their dreams, like the Annan Plan for instance, which would have made the north a bankrupt protectorate of Turkey instead of the modern, prosperous and democratic state that they had hoped for.)

In my mind, the parameters of a Plan that would get two thirds majority from both sides are clear. I won't get into details here. The real problem, is reaching this draft Plan through a process of negotiation. This is where the "unfavourable balance of power" argument put forward by Piratis, and partly also by cannedmoose, comes into play. The international community is still thinking along the lines of "minimal changes to Annan 5", something which would never get a Yes from GCs, and Turkey and the TCs are "comfortably numb" with the praise, attention and "moral support" they are getting.

For me the only hope lies in Civil Society: As Insan says, the people should go ahead and produce their own Peace Plan, get it approved through mock referenda, and then enforce it on their leaders as the new basis for negotiations.

One idea I have also been toying with, along with Insan, an idea which would certainly grab the attention of the world's media, and therefore inevitably of our leaders, would be a "Civil Society Constitutional Assembly", where GCs and TCs from various civil society groups would come together to draft the new plan. This could be done as thoroughly and meticulously as we like, with very specific procedural rules, even with elections for the members of the assembly.

So... what do you all think?

[magikthrill]

although from being on this forum I've managed to get a better understanding of both sides, another thing I realized is how HARD it will be to find a solution.

Alexandre,

you claim TCs are willing to give up more but what is this more? allowing less ILLEGAL settlers to remain on the island? the only reason why the TCs are ready to give up more is cause all proposed solutions thus far are in their favor!

ON A SIDENOTE:
Watching the GC news just now I'd like to say I'm very surprised at their coverage. I just saw a "reportage" on a woman who came to the north from Turkey 12 years ago (ie would most likley have been removed even with annans leniency on settlers) and whose son is currently in hospital in the south. the way they portrayed the woman's situation i think was quite fair, since they actually asked her how she felt about the cyprubs problem and replied: i want there to be a solution but i dont want to go back to Turkey.

what i dont like is the way they refer to the south as the "Free territories" as if the north is some kind of fascist regime. don't get me wrong im the last person to support any actino of the KKTC. but i guess these terminologies come from the years and would be difficult to change now.


and a last thing, one of the TC women that I saw on the news was BANGING!

[pantelis]

OK guys,
Even though I am the only one who voted for the formula, I see that some of you expressed the sentiment that "the ideal solution plan" should carry a higher than a 50% acceptance vote, by both sides. You are not saying anything different that what I voted for, with the formula in question. The plus (+) sign, after 50%, means simply that; anything acceptable by higher than half of the people.
The last referendum resulted with only a 26% acceptance by the GC voters. All I am saying, is that we need a proposed plan that would be acceptable by more than 50% of the people of each community. The task of developing a plan that would carry a 66%, or even a 75% acceptance, I don’t think it is practical, given our past history. I don’t see us being able to settle with such "animal" here in this "progressive" forum, and I think it is 100 times more difficult to develop and promote such animal through the heads of 2/3 or 3/4 of the people of both communities.

The “key” to an acceptable solution plan, by the majorities of the two communities, are not what Rice, or Frost, or Kofi, or, Russia and China think or say or do. The key is to give the people a plan that would be better than what status quo provides, right now or in the future.

Papadopoulos rightfully requested talks directly with Erdogan. Erdogan suggested to Papadopoulos to have talks with Talat. Does Talat represent the opinion of 50%+ of the TCs? Papadopoulos was elected by 50+% of the GCs, therefore he can democratically represent his people. As a comparison, GW Bush was elected by only 26% of the American people and Erdogan by 35% of the Turkish people.

If Erdogan is prepared to stay out of the Cyprus settlement and let Talat or any other TC that holds the support of 50+% of the TC people, I call this good news.

In step two of the solution process, we need to identify which groups of people can come together, from each community, which could stand behind and support the same plan. These groups of people could be delegates directly specifically elected by the people for this particular exercise, or they could be elected representatives of the two parliaments. Once this election procedure is established, we could proceed to step 3.

In step 3 the plan should be divided into sections and articles, each with a number of options, where each representative could select one or more options from article, that is acceptable to him and consequently to his supporters. This way, all articles that can collect a 50+% approval could identified.

Step 4, should be the development of new options for the articles that did not carry enough support by one or both communities.

Do you get the idea?

The solution plan should not be left in the hand of an independent arbitrator, nor in the hands of the current government. It should be a process that is closer to the people, since the common citizens will be the ones that will make the final decision. The people should be given regular updates of what is settled and what is still open, throughout the process. Nothing should be discussed or agreed in secrecy, in order to give everyone the time to digest the plan slowly - slowly, without having to decide on the entire thing in a few weeks or a few days. It is safer not make the “extra step” when in the dark, than when under the sun.
Lordos’s study is a very good tool for getting a good sense of direction for what sort of a plan the people are looking for.

What do you think?

[erolz]

I understand where you are comming from Pantelis (and the idea is very similar to Alexandros' earlier one). I think the idea has some merits but I am going to focus on where I see problems.

The fact is that we elect leaders to represent us. If they do not represent us properly we should vote them out. I am wondering what 'legitimacy' shuch a process that you outline above would have. The danger is that your 'groups that could come togeather' is nothing more than an unelected 'elite' group and that 'their' plan will have even less legitamacy than any plan devised or agreed by our political representatives.

Why not just vote in Alexandros and Insan as our representatives directly and then let them start a 'plan creation' process that is inclusive and 'relates' back to the people in the way you suggest above. This then would have the legitimacy of democratic elected representatives of each community (and not self appointed ones). Is the answer to this that niether of them could get elected on such a platform and if so we have to ask ourselves why surely?

[pantelis]

Erol,
You said:

I am wondering what 'legitimacy' shuch a process that you outline above would have. The danger is that your 'groups that could come togeather' is nothing more than an unelected 'elite' group and that 'their' plan will have even less legitamacy than any plan devised or agreed by our political representatives.

This process is not catered to the "hardliners" (like me, you or Piratis, or Denktash or Papadopoulos or any representative of foreign interests and countries), who think their way is the only way. I want a more “grass- roots”, a more democratic process. At the end of the day, you and I will get the chance to vote "yes" or "no" to a plan that is put forward by 50+% of the peoples' representatives. If our vote is NO, but we fall with a 50-% groups, we should be prepared to accept the voice of the majority of our community. If we should respect democracy with "equality", as you have said many times, we should be able to agree to this process.