Cyprus-Forum.com

[humanist]

VP sorry to disappoint you mate, however the majorty of Greek speaking Cypriots will not accept partition. Why do you think they have voted NO to the AP. They saw it as the partition you are proposing.

I personally will not agree to a partition, my country is not up for sale to Turkey or anyone else who think they have some might. And just as well you're not a GC, otherwise my homeland would be given away, to a country that does not give a shit about TC's or GC's, because if Turkey did a solution and a viable one at that would have been found.

[Eric dayi]

VP sorry to disappoint you mate, however the majorty of Greek speaking Cypriots will not accept partition. Why do you think they have voted NO to the AP. They saw it as the partition you are proposing.

I personally will not agree to a partition, my country is not up for sale to Turkey or anyone else who think they have some might. And just as well you're not a GC, otherwise my homeland would be given away, to a country that does not give a shit about TC's or GC's, because if Turkey did a solution and a viable one at that would have been found.

The GCs voted "OXI" to the AP because it did not give them an overnight ENOSIS or a full guarantee that it would be a possibility in the future either.

[Get Real!]

VP sorry to disappoint you mate, however the majorty of Greek speaking Cypriots will not accept partition. Why do you think they have voted NO to the AP. They saw it as the partition you are proposing.

I personally will not agree to a partition, my country is not up for sale to Turkey or anyone else who think they have some might. And just as well you're not a GC, otherwise my homeland would be given away, to a country that does not give a shit about TC's or GC's, because if Turkey did a solution and a viable one at that would have been found.

The GCs voted "OXI" to the AP because it did not give them an overnight ENOSIS or a full guarantee that it would be a possibility in the future either.

Did you get hit on the head by any chance during the war in 1974?

[humanist]

Nikitas

Can anyone clarify what will happen with those Turkish Cypriots who do not want partition? In the event of partition do they lose their property in the south? Do they lose their right to reside there? Will they be able to claim nationality of the south?

In other words can the majority vote in a referendum re partition bind individuals on the issues of nationality, property, residence etc?

Before people rush to say things are obvious consider the case of a Turkish Cypriot, born of Turkish Cypriot parent in lets say UK after 1974. What nationality will this person get after the hypotheticl partition? Can anyone force him to accept a nationality he does not want? Under the European Convention of Human Rights is the division of Cypriots imposed by the 1960 Consitution along ethnic and religious critieria be legal today? Today it is illegal to print peoples' religion on their ID card, as it is considered private data and not subject to disclosure.

Partition sounds like a neat clear cut solution but those that propose it have not thought it through. There are political, legal and military considerations that stand in the way. It is no accident that Turkey does not demand partition, Bulent Ecevit ruled it out years ago. Perhaps the partitionists here should read what he had said in 1974.

As always a very well thought out post with of course some valid and very crucial questions when considering the Cypro.

Personally I don't think the issues have been thought out by either side really.

In response to some of them I believe that the UN and international community need to also consider this issue as well as the TC community pushing for partition. Personally I belive that any TC wanting to live in the south whose ancestry is from the south would have the right to be considered a Cypriot and I state Cypriot because there is only one Cyprus, the partitionsists need to come up with a name for their 18% land mass they call a country. As far as am concerned I will never emotionally accept anything that is separate from Cyprus. A child of a TC born in London, well they are simply British and will have no rights within the RoC other than those afforded to any other EU resident.

Under a partition I would imagine that the 1960's constitution will be thrown out the window and a new independant nation and constitution will emerge, then it will be up to those TC's to choose whether they want to be Cypriots or something else.

As far as those with property ownership in the south they will have to decide for good about what they wish and surender their property and rights to their Cypriot citizenship.

I think this very brief discussion, indicates that the TC's will stand to losemore again. But I appreciate this is their choice and we are all responsible for our choices and decisions in life. I guess in terms of defence, that will be determned by the EU future decisions on that issue. And as always perhaps Turkey will continue its support to the Turks living in their country whatever that looks like.

[humanist]

Eric I have nothing to say to you. I have seen your previous posts

[Kifeas]

VP, the following article in todays Cyprus Mail also echoes the sentiments above where questions are being asked on the efforts made by the RoC to find a solution ............

So what exactly would make a good solution for our leaders?
By Nick Pittas

THERE is a widely held view in the Greek Cypriot community that no solution to the Cyprus problem is preferable to a bad solution.

To those who hold this view, the Annan plan in all its five iterations was bad, all the various UN sponsored plans that were tabled between 1978 and 1999 were bad, the tentative agreement reached between interlocutors Glafcos Clerides and Rauf Denktash in 1973 and rejected by Makarios was bad, the 1964 Acheson plan was bad, the Zurich and London Agreements that established the Republic in their time were considered bad (but not so bad now with the benefit of hindsight according to President Papadopoulos who advised Makarios not to sign at the London conference in 1959). All the various proposals made by the British colonial government in the 1940s and 1950s to address the self-determination claims of Greek Cypriots and the fears of the minority Turkish Cypriots were bad, and on and on.
What we are never told by the rejectionists is what would make a settlement plan good, or at least acceptable to the Greek Cypriot community.

We know that in principle we are prepared to accept a solution for a federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal Cyprus, based on the political equality of the two main communities, provided the solution is ‘workable’ and capable of being ‘long lasting’. What exactly would satisfy those conditions we are never told. All we know is that every UN initiative since 1977 did not reach the mark.
The strategy it seems, is to create a Dunkirk spirit within the Greek Cypriot community, whereby our current President is all that stands between us and those unnamed but nefarious forces within the international community that day and night are working to undermine the Republic and to serve it up to satisfy the voracious appetite of their friends in Turkey.

The wonder is that the people of Cyprus can still be sold this jejune bill of goods after all these years.
The candidates for the presidency should have their feet put to the fire and be required to tell the voters exactly what sort of a federal, bi-communal and bi-zonal plan they envision could realistically form the basis for a comprehensive settlement. This does not mean they have to produce a draft constitution and map, or the other terms of a settlement to address the various aspects of the problem. What the people have a right to insist on is for each candidate to come forward with their vision in concrete terms of what would satisfy the requirement for a ‘workable’ and ‘lasting’ solution that could be accepted by both sides.
The time for vague generalities has long passed. The public can only make an informed and constructive choice among the candidates if they know what each one submits as the principles and the essential conditions that would render a plan acceptable to the two main Cypriot communities. If they want to talk about a ‘European settlement’, they will have to tell us what that means, as the EU is a cultural and political mosaic with many different forms of government resulting from political compromises and historic rapprochements. Let us not forget that at the time the Annan plan was considered quite European by the EU.

For a candidate to say only what he rejects – arbitration, tight time frames, every existing plan tabled to date – is simply not good enough. Sure, the next round of talks has to be carefully prepared, but the best prepared talks will not go anywhere if there is not the willingness to advance reasonable positions and engage in some give and take.

Eventually, we will have to sit down at the table and stop talking about process and negotiate the terms of settlement based on the principles already agreed to.
Our leader did not negotiate effectively at Burgenstock, and having accepted arbitration by the UN Secretary-general he got the plan that we rejected massively in 2004.
The world, however, does not stand still and we cannot develop a forward looking policy if we fixate on the past and all the plans we have rejected.

I suspect the international community and the EU is prepared to give us another chance to put Humpty Dumpty together again in 2008 and 2009. If there is another effort that fails, the party or parties that the international community decides is responsible will have to wear it. If that party is us, as it was in 2004, it will mean almost certainly the legitimisation of the so-called TRNC, and effectively put an end to any efforts by the international community to sponsor a settlement. The world, to the extent that it thinks about Cyprus at all, will be happy to allow Turkey to police the area, and accept the so-called TRNC as the de facto administration in northern Cyprus.

With one exception, over 60 years we have rejected every plan and initiative put forward to solve the Cyprus problem on terms acceptable to both sides. Even the exception, which established the independence of Cyprus, was widely attacked at the time as ‘unworkable’ and a ‘sell-out’ of Greek Cypriot ideals. We undermined the bi-communal nature of the Cyprus Republic between 1963 and 1974, and by our fanaticism and civil divisions we opened the doors to the Turkish invasion of 1974.
During this sad period of history every plan that was undermined or rejected by our side resulted in changed circumstances to the detriment of Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot community. Each rejected plan is succeeded by another that is worse.

One of these days, we have to wake up and realise that we are largely the authors of our own woes and misfortunes. Until and unless we face our problems honestly, and with a willingness to negotiate an honorable compromise with our Turkish Cypriot brothers and sisters, we will continue our dreary march to a permanent partition.

Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2007

What a huge pile of Rubbish!

[Pyrpolizer]

It's funny how from time to time VP digs up the frustrations of a worn out and weak natured GC begging for some change to the Cyprus problem stagnation and posts them here to see if like minded weaklings have grown in number!

Isnt partition just another solution, you obviously dont agree with it but at this rate and the chasm which exsists we will end up there anyway at which stage you will get no land back. Are you willing to take that risk when you can see the reality that we are already divided and that recognition is just a state of mind nothing else. If I were a GC I would try and get as much land back as possible in exchange for recognition and tell the TCs to go it alone.

So, how much land have you returned so far to enable you ask for partition? It is you who have to do it you know....

[Pyrpolizer]

In short for the Turkish side to EVER have any chance for partition

a)They must declare publicly and in the UN this is what they want.
b)Start returning land.
c)when they reach something close to 18% start pushing the big powers to go ahead
d)Even if the big powers manage to push things so hard that partition would be the oly option left for the GCs, then Turkish side will have to still pay billions upon billions in compensations because the northern part was always more expensive/worthy than the southern part.
e)there would still be endless negotiations as to the future/the rights/the limitations of the 2 states.

And finally

f)Soon enough the northerners will start asking for cooperation and reunification as they would never be able to stand the competition of the southern part.

Pou isoun poupote diladi. (where have you been so far?Nowhere i.e.)


BIIG-HUUUUUGE mistake for the TCs to go along a policy of agreed/official partition.

[humanist]

I predict that very soon Turkey will make a very pivotal decision for her future…

[Viewpoint]

Nikitas

Can anyone clarify what will happen with those Turkish Cypriots who do not want partition?

They will have to accept what the majority of their community wants but will be faced with choices.

In the event of partition do they lose their property in the south?

If they have exchange it for land in the north yes they lose it, otherwise the GCs will have to decide what they will do with these application after partition has been formalized and they cooperate with the TRNC on land issues as the TRNC will be a big shareholder in land south and vice versa.

Do they lose their right to reside there?

That would be up to the "RoC" not us.

Will they be able to claim nationality of the south?

Again up to the south not us.

In other words can the majority vote in a referendum re partition bind individuals on the issues of nationality, property, residence etc?

You are trying to complicate matters for the sake of supporting your viewpoint against partition. Think of it pretty much as we have today 2 states the TRNC and " RoC" but both recognized if the "RoC" do not want to give those privileges then she has the right to act with the EU norms.

Before people rush to say things are obvious consider the case of a Turkish Cypriot, born of Turkish Cypriot parent in lets say UK after 1974. What nationality will this person get after the hypotheticl partition? Can anyone force him to accept a nationality he does not want? Under the European Convention of Human Rights is the division of Cypriots imposed by the 1960 Consitution along ethnic and religious critieria be legal today? Today it is illegal to print peoples' religion on their ID card, as it is considered private data and not subject to disclosure

These issues are very basic and down to the individuals deciding which state they wish to accept according to the revised laws of that state in line with EU norms The example you give of a UK born child of Cypriot parents would be a British Citizen first so he would not have any problems settling in the "RoC" and would not need to become a GC citizen.

Partition sounds like a neat clear cut solution but those that propose it have not thought it through. There are political, legal and military considerations that stand in the way. It is no accident that Turkey does not demand partition, Bulent Ecevit ruled it out years ago. Perhaps the partitionists here should read what he had said in 1974.

Partition is already here unless you have not been alive for the last 33 years you cannot miss it, recognition is whats missing and to obtain this imho the Tcs would be willing to reduce the size of the north but the obstacle yet again are the GCs and their goal to take control of the whole island and dominate, partition does not fit in with their ultimate goal.