Cyprus-Forum.com

[pantelis]

If your options have been %75+, all of us would have voted it.

Insan,
I do not expect an explanation from you. Don't worry about it.

+50% includes your %75+ group. The plan they have asked us to vote on, was only partial within my +50% acceptance and totally out of touch with your %75+ acceptance by both sides.
End of story.

The issue now, is to figure out how to get there, or at least face in the right direction.
We need to agree on the "vehicle" and the drivers (the representatives representing all the Cypriot people – coalition or governments of convenience, do not represent the people, they simply accommodate the politicians).
I do not think we need any "back-seat drivers" in this "vehicle", unless they are silent and neutral observers.

Any objections, additions or commends, so far?

[Agios Amvrosios]

I agree with Piratis earlier post that at least a 3/4 majority is required not merely a 1/2 majority.

[Alexandros Lordos]

What I do not know how to do is defend our rights as a community in the face of arguments that 'communites' have no rights as defined in the human rights charter and than only peoples and minorites have rights. In the face of such arguments I can find no other 'reasonable' route that to try and explain that our rights as a community are a 'sub set' of the rights of people that apply to the special situation in Cyprus (one people - two communites) and as such they are no more or less rights than all the others - though they do not include the full set of unlimted rights of peoples (but more than those of a minority). How do you suggest I defend our rights as a community other than in this way against Piratis insistance that I have simply 'made up' the concept of the rights of communites and excuse to steal from GC?

Well, it might not be in the human rights charter, but there is substabtial historical precedent - Switzerland, Belgium, and probably a dozen other countries in the world. The human rights charter is a general document, it is not meant to cover every eventuality. Furthermore the human rights charter was drawn up in a particular juncture of the twentieth century, where nationalism and "the rights of peoples" were in vogue ... multiculturalism was not yet a well-defined concept. In fact, after the human rights charter was drawn up, many violations of human rights occured, in the name of "self-determination of peoples", which became an excuse for ethnic cleansing.

So I guess what I am saying is, we should not forget that the human rights charter is just a document, drawn up mostly under the influence of American idealism in the context of specific historical circumstances, and we should not be slaves to the letter of the charter. Instead, we should strive to maintain the spirit of respect for human rights, and that involves being flexible enough to judge every case on its own merits.

PS did you see my thread in general chat about trying to get a cross border meet up of Cyprus forum people togeather?

An excellent idea! I've been thinking about it also. I'll go check out the thread...

[Alexandros Lordos]

The issue now, is to figure out how to get there, or at least face in the right direction.

We need to agree on the "vehicle" and the drivers (the representatives representing all the Cypriot people – coalition or governments of convenience, do not represent the people, they simply accommodate the politicians).

I do not think we need any "back-seat drivers" in this "vehicle", unless they are silent and neutral observers.

Any objections, additions or commends, so far?

No objections, Panteli. I strongly agree that we should not have back-seat drivers, of the Hannay - Weston type. If there are going to be special representatives, then each of the permanent members of the Security Council should appoint a representative, plus the EU should appoint a representative - and there should be very strict rules about how and to what extent they may discuss things with the UN Special Representative.

Having said that, I think the Cypriot people should be more closely involved with the process ... I am not yet sure how, but if the UN gets to make surveys a part of the negotiating procedure (as happened in northern Ireland) then that will be a reliable way to ensure that the public's view is heard.

[Piratis]

When you say things like we did not have any right to anything more than a minority (in 60 or now) I assumed this was what you meant. It seems now that you accept that we have rights greater than those of a minority as RIGHTS (not as gifts or concessions from GC). If that is the case then we are nearly there.

Maybe the problem is having different ideas in our head of what each term means. So maybe we should leave terms out all together and talk about actual things instead.

OK. Do you still insist that any rights that are between communities and should rightfully be 50 -50 must be predeifned and pre limited to areas, or do you accept a concept of such equality so that if a new area comes up that is similarly threatening to the TC community as those you mention above but not 'pre defined' as an area of 'equality' between communites before a settlement we should still have a RIGHT to object and block such moves?

The areas can be defined broadly to cover all present and future needs. For example We will not say something like "Official government documents should be written in both Greek and Turkish", because this is very specific, e.g. it might not cover the internet. However if we say something like "Both Greek and Turkish should be treated equally by the state under all occasions" (and maybe just write some specific exceptions if they exist), then this is broad, and it will cover everything that has to do with language today or in the future. The same can be done with all other community rights.

If we don't do that, then what we have is blocking power on everything. The blocking power is either predefined (limited) or unlimited (on everything). What we can discuss are which those predefined areas should be. If we remove the predefined areas totally then we move to an unlimited blocking power on everything. I don't see how it is practically possible not to have anything predefined but at the same time not give blocking power on everything. For example, the EU that is not even a country, has something like this. They say that for X matters each country can have a veto, for Y matters a special majority of states/population is needed, and for Z matters only a simple majority of states/population is needed.

[brother]

It can work wıth that formula.

[pantelis]

How easy we all get side-tracked, falling into the professional politicians ploys and tactics of delay and self-exposure! Pitiful!

Some questions:

Are the elections in the north going to produce the true representatives of the TCs?

Could we trust these representatives to negotiate an acceptable and viable solution plan for all Cypriots?

Does Serdar amount to anything, besides being Rauf's son?

What is the minimum percentage a party should get, to secure a single seat?

[magikthrill]

and also,

are these the elections where Denctash is nominated for re election or will he still remain in power afterwards?

[erolz]

and also,

are these the elections where Denctash is nominated for re election or will he still remain in power afterwards?

Presuming you mean Denktash senior (or papa denk as some call him).

These are the parliamentary elections (or is that psuedo parliamentary elections?).

The presidential elections are a couple of months later

[magikthrill]

These are the parliamentary elections (or is that psuedo parliamentary elections?).

hehe,

you know my opinion on the matter. it is like my neighbour has taken over my home and while the police refuse to do anything they decide to keep it as their own. hence even though I dont recognize it as their home, i am interested in the decisions they make because maybe one day i can have it back.

(dont confuse my analogy with refugees - my neighbour is Turkey, my house is northern cyprus and the police is the international community)