Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

No VP, you make a mistake here! Constitutionally this is not the case in Switzerland, as you want to have it in Cyprus! A German speaking Swiss may go and permanently live in a canton in which the French speaking Swiss are the majority, yet he will not be treated differently that the existing French speaking permanent residents! He can have his political rights in that new place /canton and through that place /canton, without restrictions other than that he has to be a permanent resident! Same holds true in Belgium! Furthermore, there is a substantial difference between the cases of Belgium or Switzerland and Cyprus! The various cantons or states in these two country, had a historical almost exclusive or by great majority existence of people belonging to those certain ethnic groups (French speaking, German speaking, etc.) In our case, you (TCs) have never had a historical presence by exclusivity or by large majority in any part of Cyprus, to claim that it is your part of the country alone! The fact that you now live exclusively in the north and the GCs in the south, is not the result of a natural or historical concurrence, but the result of an illegal invasion, occupation and an illegal ethnic cleansing of the GCs from a part of their country in which they even used to be the majority! The ethnic separation that we observe today in Cyprus, is an artificial one, due to an illegal invasion by a foreign country; therefore you have no legitimate, historical or other wise natural right to claim that part of Cyprus to be of your ethnic (community) ownership, alone! This, unlike the case of Belgium or Switzerland, where the various separate “ethnic” territories have either a natural or a historical basis!

Again you make the mistake of jumping in with both feet, we cannot be the Swiss or the Belgians we have our own unique history but we can see how they compromised to bring about a situation that works where they all live together as one country in peace and harmony.

How far do the German Swiss go back and have exclusivity in the given canton? how did they get there? was it "legal" and according to whom? You tie yourself up in fixed moulds where it either fits or it doesn't. We can look at global examples but inevitably we will have to adapt a specific model to our own specific needs otherwise the solution will forced and unworkable.

[humanist]

coperline

Kifeas is spot on here. It is misleading to speak of 'legal majorities' (or legal minorities for that matter). That there may be numerical majorities of one communtiy or another does not translate into the notion of 'legal majority' (whatever thay may mean). The only way that the term 'legal majority' seems to make sense is to ascribe greater rights or greater legal priviliges to the community that is in a numerical majority. But to do so would violate the basic republican and democratic principle of equality amongst ciitizens.

If the issue is presented as 'does onesupport citizens' rights or communal rights' then I'd go for citizens' rights every time. Indeed I'd oppose any notion of collective rights having a higher or more detrmining status than individual and citizen rights. The latter is by no means perfect and there are lots of problems generated by individual rights but theyr are a fraction of the disasters and horrors that have been generated over the last couple of centuries by notions of collective and differentiated rights.

Thanks for the above, I have fogoten that aspect of the debate.

[Pyrpolizer]

Apply your methodology to the EU structure and see how it will work, why does the little "RoC" have veto rights? why dont you now declare that you do not want them and you will go along with everything the majority wants, they can take all the decisions without consulting you.

I don't think the "veto" rights she has (not everywhere and not always) give her much of an equality. First of all RoC cannot excercise them unless it's a matter of life or death for her.
And even in such case the big guys can fire back and strangle her.
On the other hand the big guys can excircise as many vetoes as they like and little Cyprus can do nothing.

If we take this analogy on the BBF model, then the bigger state can do nothing to the smaller state, if the latter started excercising it's Vetoes against the interests of the bigger state all the time.

If however the structure was not BBF but simple Federal then the Central state could regulate things and punish the smaller state for being such an asshole.

[paliometoxo]

so.. end of 2008 turkey has to let cyprus planes go in turkish air space if they are to be Eu members.. so thats why talaty is saying maybe there will be permenant isolation and crap and is all of a sudden in a hurry for a solution they want eu membership...

[-mikkie2-]

As an aside, there is a distinct possiblity that Belgium will be split in two.

[Nikitas]

Piratis and Kifeas,

I have been following your posts with great interest in this thread. One observation- the Turkish Cypriots put forth a simple notion which makes their case seem valid on this point, namely that in the 60s while Cyprus was essentially under Greek Cypriot control they suffered persecution. Because of that persecution they now want a system which will guarantee ther safety and will not allow similar events to reoccur.

Your (Piratis and Kifeas) proposals based on the legalities of the issue do not cover this anxiety of the Turkish Cypriot side. Surely the legal approach will recognise Greek Cypriots' rights in every venue, but it still leaves us with the challenge of how to satisfy Turkish Cypriot security concerns. I will not discuss how these concerns came about, or how or why they are maintained today. It is a fact that they still PERCEIVE a threat and that is enough to justify a wish for safety.

Ruling out partition, presence of Turkish troops, a veto ridden federal structure, how then do we provide safety for one community and fairness for the other? This is the major challenge in the Cyprus issue and one that baffles me (and others from what I read).

One factor that complicates the situation, from my end anyway, is the willingness of most Turkish Cypriots to be separated from and forsake their ancestral homes in the south, so Paphians apparently feel happy to settle in Karpasia, a situation which is unacceptable for most Greek Cypriots, me included. We cannot imagine a settlement that would permanently deny us access to any part of the island, especially our ancestral home. This is the knot that needs untying, and this aspect of the problem seems to be missed in most posts, hence the confusion.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis and Kifeas,

I have been following your posts with great interest in this thread. One observation- the Turkish Cypriots put forth a simple notion which makes their case seem valid on this point, namely that in the 60s while Cyprus was essentially under Greek Cypriot control they suffered persecution. Because of that persecution they now want a system which will guarantee ther safety and will not allow similar events to reoccur.

Your (Piratis and Kifeas) proposals based on the legalities of the issue do not cover this anxiety of the Turkish Cypriot side. Surely the legal approach will recognise Greek Cypriots' rights in every venue, but it still leaves us with the challenge of how to satisfy Turkish Cypriot security concerns. I will not discuss how these concerns came about, or how or why they are maintained today. It is a fact that they still PERCEIVE a threat and that is enough to justify a wish for safety.

Ruling out partition, presence of Turkish troops, a veto ridden federal structure, how then do we provide safety for one community and fairness for the other? This is the major challenge in the Cyprus issue and one that baffles me (and others from what I read).

One factor that complicates the situation, from my end anyway, is the willingness of most Turkish Cypriots to be separated from and forsake their ancestral homes in the south, so Paphians apparently feel happy to settle in Karpasia, a situation which is unacceptable for most Greek Cypriots, me included. We cannot imagine a settlement that would permanently deny us access to any part of the island, especially our ancestral home. This is the knot that needs untying, and this aspect of the problem seems to be missed in most posts, hence the confusion.

Finally someone with common sense and a bit of understanding towards TCs and their concerns, thank you Nikitas.

[Get Real!]

It is a fact that they still PERCEIVE a threat and that is enough to justify a wish for safety.

It's nothing but excuses by the TC community so that they may continue engaging in illegalities. Don't fall pray to their trickery because the ONLY people that constantly face a serious threat on a daily basis is the GC community from Turkey... make no mistake about that.

[Viewpoint]

It is a fact that they still PERCEIVE a threat and that is enough to justify a wish for safety.

It's nothing but excuses by the TC community so that they may continue engaging in illegalities. Don't fall pray to their trickery because the ONLY people that constantly face a serious threat on a daily basis is the GC community from Turkey... make no mistake about that.

Thats why you have 20.000 soldiers and 100.000 armed reservists.

[Pyrpolizer]

Nikitas,

The real fear of the average TC has nothing to do with the 60s. They do fear us for other reasons.

Here's a hint: Imagine we were the 18% and we were the ones who managed to grap through an invasion 37% of the best part of Cyprus. Would we even bother talking for a solution? Would we have lower standard of living. Would we depend on our mammy to feed us? Would we even be isolated? Would we abandon the place and be replaced by settlers?

Here's a second hint: The best of the TCs don't fear us.