Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

I think a lot of GCs do not like this concept of virgin birth in the Annan Plan. Questions. Please be as specific as you can be in your answers. And all the answers, regardless of how long they are will be read.

1) Why don’t you like it?
2) Specifically which aspect/articles/points of Annan Plan related to this you do not like?
3) What should be and how should the Annan Plan change to satisfy your needs on this issue?

Thanks in advance

[magikthrill]

Hey turkcyp,

I am not sure what the AP points on the issue of virgin birth are concerned but from my understanding GCs do not like the concept of virgin birth because it is like considering their government for the past 30 years null and void.

IMO TCs dont like the idea of a continuing state because they feel like the RoC betrayed them and they wouldnt like to continue living under this government name, right? If that is the issue then I'm sorry to say but there is large ignorance involved. As I have posted in a previous thread regarding the flag (which is basically the exact same issue) the way the the RoC was formed was an excellent way to get the two communities working together.

However, EOKAs and enosists came in the way and tried to destroy things. So basically, certain GCs did not like the idea of an RoC as much as most TCs dont like the idea of continuing under an RoC. The only thing is you guys label these GCs as terrorists (and those that harmed TCs are). So why do like to think like the terrorists? They are the ones that betrayed you, not the RoC.

[MicAtCyp]

In my opinion the issue of Virgin birth equates the illegality with legality. It excludes the continuation of the RoC with everything this means i.e obligations and rights both domestically and internationally.And finally if the solution is bad (like the Anan Plan), or just gets a marginal pass, has a lot of chances to collapse. And then we (the GCs) will be looking around like fools for a new state.
Whatever is included in the Anan Plan regarding this issue is unacceptable.
I guess Turkcyp you have to search the realitive articles linked directly or indirectly to this issue. One has to read the whole plan once more to locate them, and I cannot do it because every time I re-read it I get more pissed off with it.

[turkcyp]

Idea of “virgin birth” is important to many TCs. The reason is as follows:

TCs believed that RoC had collapsed in 1963, and the constitutional regime established under the name of RoC does not represent them since 1963. So they are afraid that if the new state collapses one day then, they will be forced to be just mounted to the existing RoC constitutional order and loose all their righst from 1960.

Whether you like it or not the current situation in RoC eliminated all the rights of TCs from 1960. You can claim that this is just a temporary situation and is the results of occupation and if the occupation ends then we can put the 1960 constitution into full effect. But for TCs this promise is not good enough because in the periods between 1963-1974 there was no occupation but we were still lacking all of our rights.

So I guess it is a trust issue for them. This is the main reason why Denktas kept on insisting that as a part of agreement, the RoC would momentarily recognize TRNC so that when both of the RoC and TRNC is gone and the new state is formed, in the event it collapses we turn back to existing situation.

And I totally understand the GCs fear of this and refusal of this because they belive that if they do something like that and put TRNC on the same legal footing with RoC, then TCs would not work for solution full heartedly and will try to collapse the new state as soon as they can so they can turn back to legal TRNC. So I totally understand their fear.

So in order to accommodate both parties UN come up with this “virgin birth” idea so that in the event of collapse of solution then TCs would not be forced to turn back to current RoC order, and at the same time RoC would never accept the legality of TRNC.

If TCs somehow miraculously believe that in the event of accidental collapse of new state we will be returning the 1960 order not the post 1963 order of RoC then they would not make this such an issue.

Therefore, my question is this.

Would be acceptable to GCs to explicitly state in the agreement that in the event of collapse of new state affairs, we do not turn back to current RoC constitutional order but turn back to order as exactly created in 1960. So that TCs can feel secure enough to turn back to RoC. I mean if we believe that our rights from 1960 constitution will exist in the event of collapse then this will not be such an issue in TC side I think.

Thanks for your honest responses in advance,

[magikthrill]

turkcyp,

i dont think that would be a problem but if an agreement contains the phrase "in the even of a collapse" i dont think this lead to a very succesful solution. of course youre thinking more realistically but still...

[turkcyp]

turkcyp,

i dont think that would be a problem but if an agreement contains the phrase "in the even of a collapse" i dont think this lead to a very succesful solution. of course youre thinking more realistically but still...

Of course it will not be written as "in the event of a collapse" that sounds very pessimistic which generally is not my style.... I am still researching how this can be done legally.

But it seems that that is the main fear of both communities,

"if the new state fails what will we turn to. GCs do not want to make TRNC legal if new state fails, and TCs do not want to be a part of the current RoC order if the new state fails"

It seemed to me that 'Virgin birth' idea was acceptable to TCs but not GCs, but saying the new state will be a continuation of current RoC will not be acceptable to any TCs as well. And there lies our dilemma.

So any opinion on how this issue can be solved?

[brother]

still its only a word there and put there to cover the fears of the most pessemistic of people, so lets just make it happen and if that includes putting in loads of 'just in case' so be it.

[Piratis]

If the plan is a good one then the "virgin birth" issue is not going to be a big one. I don't think many GCs would reject a plan just because of this.

The big issues are:
1) Human rights
2) Democracy
3) Functionality
4) Independence
5) Security

[Piratis]

Of course it will not be written as "in the event of a collapse" that sounds very pessimistic which generally is not my style.... I am still researching how this can be done legally.

Even if there is the slightest indication that the solution can collapse legally leading to partition, then it will be rejected unless the TC state is very close to 18% of land.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Would be acceptable to GCs to explicitly state in the agreement that in the event of collapse of new state affairs, we do not turn back to current RoC constitutional order but turn back to order as exactly created in 1960. So that TCs can feel secure enough to turn back to RoC. I mean if we believe that our rights from 1960 constitution will exist in the event of collapse then this will not be such an issue in TC side I think.

Turkcyp,

I am sure what you are suggesting would not be a problem ...

As to the relevant clauses in the Annan Plan which "create the virgin birth", we are mostly talking about the preamble to the Comprehensive Settlement. I highlight the parts of the preamble that are problematic from a Greek Cypriot point of view:

i. Affirming that Cyprus is our common home and recalling that we were co-founders of the Republic established in 1960
ii. Resolved that the tragic events of the past shall never be repeated and renouncing forever the threat or the use of force, or any domination by or of either side
iii. Acknowledging each other’s distinct identity and integrity and that our relationship is not one of majority and minority but of political equality where neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other
iv. Deciding to renew our partnership on that basis and determined that this new bi-zonal partnership shall ensure a common future in friendship, peace, security and prosperity in an independent and united Cyprus
v. Underlining our commitment to international law and the principles and purposes of the United Nations
vi. Committed to respecting democratic principles, individual human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as each other’s cultural, religious, political, social and linguistic identity
vii. Determined to maintain special ties of friendship with, and to respect the balance between, Greece and Turkey, within a peaceful environment in the Eastern Mediterranean
viii. Looking forward to joining the European Union, and to the day when Turkey does likewise

The first problem is that we merely "recall" that we were the co-founders of the 1960 republic.

The second problem is that the new state of affairs is called a "partnership", which alludes to a confederation rather than a federation. In fact, I think the word "Federation" does not appear even once in the Annan Plan, and similarly the federated states are called "constituent states" again alluding to a confederation.

So, in conclusion, the Greek Cypriot problem with the Annan approach is that, instead of having the Republic of Cyprus evolving into a Federation, we have two (sovereign?) communities agreeing to create a confederation. On such a basis, secession and partition are just too easy.