Erolz
I make no claim to such a right - that is why a talk about a need for there to be acceptance of limits (both from TC and GC)
Erolz, we are talking here about people who are from the north part of the island, who have homes and roots there, and who have every right to be there. This right of them to return and live in their ancestral home and in peace is not something that should be determined by some math formula or percentage. At the same time thinking that these people who have lived for the last 30 years away from their homes, will be driven back to the north by a desire to control the TCs, to me is just paranoid.
It's a well known fact is it? Did the annan plan include such permanent limits?
The Turkish side insisted that a minimum number of GC refugees would be allowed to settle in the TC constituent state. So the number went down from 33% to 21% of the total population. And then there was the clause for the gradual return of these people, over a period of 18 years if I remember well. This made the whole idea of returning to your home in the TC constituent state even more unwelcoming, not to say that for many GCs it just killed it.
If Cyprus is to be truly reunified then both sides will eventually need to learn how to coexist in peace and cooperate. Denying any Cypriot his right to return to his now occupied town or village simply because he is Greek Cypriot is simply racist and there can be no other way to describe it.
I am perfectly willing to look at tranisition periods but not ones that will force TC in to a situation against their will. Transition periods linked to 'critera' for a progression would be acceptable to me.
The Annan plan also had its own transition periods and criteria for the implementation of a solution, but obviously these were not among the strong points of the proposal.
Well claiming your right to have your properties back whilst denying the TC communites rights seesm little different to me.
So you do believe that you have a "right" for self-determination while sitting in someone else's home. At some point btw you need to decide whether you are after "reunification" or "self determination" because the 2 just don't go together.
The provisions (nad limits) for returning to homes in the annan plan were the same for both TC and GC as I understand it.
Yes, but because of the GC and TC populations in the respective constituent states, ALL TCs would be able to return to their homes in the south whereas many GCs wouldn't be able to do the same with their homes in the north. In my opinion this was an extremely harsh and discriminating element to include in a plan that otherwise aimed in reuniting Cyprus. This is also where I blame Papadopoulos (among the many other things that I blame him): for being unable (or even uninterested) to negotiate a plan that would be more balanced and thus more acceptable to the GCs.
I have no problem with you returning to your home in a federated solution - though if there is someone living in it now then they too have some rights - how this is balanced depends on how they ended up in your property - but lets say that can be solved.
For me, being able to return to my actual home is important, but if this would create bigger problems than those it would solve then I would easily consider moving into an alternative place down the same street. In other words erolz, I too agree that these problems can be solved provided that we all remain
reasonable and provided that no one tries to discriminate against those refugees who will try to return and resettle.
Where the problem comes in is claiming to want and accept a federated solution and alos wanting full right of return for all GC AND full political representation in either state (depending on where you chose to live). All of these can not be achieved whilst at the same time protecting TC from becoming a political minorty in both of the federated states. If you have a solution to this problem - that does not require TC to simply stop caring about wanting their rights as a community - I am more than willing to hear them.
The right of people to live and exist in their own land is one thing and the way they participate or are represented at the different administration bodies of a country is another. Provided that all Cypriot citizens will have the same rights and obligations, the small size of Cyprus allows a lot of flexibility on how this can be done and some interesting ideas have already been expressed in this forum. Btw, can you please specify the "community rights" that you keep referring to? Am curious to see how and to what extend these can be affected by the presence of GCs in a TC administered area.
The benefit to GC of there only being a single offical language is a benefit of cost. It costs more for the state to provide all offical literature in two languages than one. I do not think it is beyond the realms of possiblity for GC to consider this burden in cost unacceptable and also unfair (because there are more GC paying taxes than TC yet the benefit of supporting the 'minority' Turkish language is to TC and not GC). If there were moves to restrict the offical language to simply Greek under your senario TC would have no right to oppose this - they would simply have to hope that they could persuade enough GC to support them. If you can not see this difference then I do not know what to say.
Unless translators fees have gone up as high as land prices did, the cost of having 2 official languages will be very small, especially when compared to the benefits that this will have in the employment, information and education of the people. In my opinion and unless someone is looking for reasons to oppose a solution, this issue is not something that we need to argue about.
Actually many countries have limits and conditions on foreign investment. There is nothing unusal or strange about it. Many countries have concerns about their industries and businesses being owned by foreign entities. The RoC can no longer place restrictions on such from the EU - they handed that sovreign right to the EU but they could easily consider such legislation in relation to non EU countries.
The reason why I disagree with what you say is because a) many (if not most) of the economy related decisions will be taken for us in Bruxelles and b) prosperous constituent states will benefit not only their respective citizens but also Cyprus as a whole. For any such conditions to be imposed, a good and valid reason would be necessary. MicAtCyp has posted some interesting information on this already.
If TC got siginifcantly more foreign investment from outside the EU than GC (a very likely proposition) then in your senario TC would have no right to block such a piece of legislation - yet it would clearly affect TC businesses much more than GC.
If you can be a bit more specific then perhaps I can understand better what you are trying to say.
It was just an example to try and make you able to understand my perspective. Are you really saying that you can concieve of no potential legislation ever that might affect TC differently to GC? If that is your argument then I find it unconvincing.
The whole idea behind a solution erolz is that we all get somewhere better from where we are now. If we start looking for ways to cheat one another or if we are going to be eternally suspicious and hostile then all this is a waste of time. If you still have any doubts, look at our past, try to think about where we could have all been today and look at where we are now.
I find you talking about what 'should' happen all very nice but I am more concerned about a senario when what should happen does not happen - and if we have a right to stop it happening or are to just be expected to rely on GC goodwill.
This is why in my opinion we need to have solid and detailed laws and regulations, as well as those mechanisms that will deal with such situations effectively if and when these arise. What you are suggesting is similar to: "lets not build this house because its occupants will be heavy smokers and they may burn down the place". I say: "lets built this house with the right plan and materials and then lets provide all the necessary fire safety measures: alarms, sprinklers, fire exits etc."
You mean you see them as such. To state they are excuses, as if that were a matter of fact is a little arrogant do you not think? They are not excuses form where I sit. The fact is that in a united Cyprus that you talk about (where what is right 'should' happen) there is no protection for TC should GC decide to introduce legislation that is detrimental to TC interests and affects TC diffeently to GC. If you can only see this as an excuse and not a concern of TC then again I do not know where we can go from there? If we can live togeather with such protections them maybe over time the percieved need for them by the TC community will diminish and can be removed but to state that wanting them at all is just an exuce for avoiding a solution is to me disengenous.
What is arrogant is to claim that you have a right for "self determination" while sitting on someone else's land or home. Equally arrogant is any attempt to discriminate against other human beings on the base of their race or ethnic background. As you know, I have not supported wither of these positions. What I wrote earlier was a logical query that resulted from your post. The examples you presented in this discussion so far have been rather on the weak side and this led me to think that all these are nothing but excuses. If you think that I have misunderstood you, I am more than willing to listen carefully to any other examples that you may have in mind and eventually reconsider my initial view if necessary.
Actually I was trying to discern where we had common groud and where we did not. I am not dimissing what you write. I am in fact doing exactly what you ask me to do - trying to explain to you where my concerns lay. I may not be doing it very (or you may not be understandfing it very well) but that is what I am trying to do.
Ok, I will just take your word for it.
If someone accepts and agrees a restriction (based on ethnictiy) is that discrimination? If you can find a way of addressing my concerns (other than saying actualy your concerns are just excuses) that does not require any acceptance of limits based on ethnicity then I am more than willing to listen to them.
What if those who will be affected by such a restriction refuse to accept it? Find a way to convince someone from Karpasia or Kerynia that he must never have the right of return to his place of origin and if he accepts then I will also accept that what you say about "restrictions" is not discriminating.
Is the Cyprus problem between GC and TC not a problem based on ethnicity? If it is then can we expect a solution that just says 'ignore ethnicity'? This to mee seems at best wooly and wishful thinking and at worst an 'excuse' to force TC to accept GC maximal demands.
Like I said erolz, the whole idea is to solve the problem and move on to better days. Remaining entrenched to our past and our conservatism will get us nowhere.
O.
