Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Hello everyone,

I would like us all to discuss our, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, reasons behind (whether hidden or obvious ones) how we can cement a workable Cyprus solution to the decades old division.

I would also like to recommend that we gear this discussion, not via the usual "I am right and you are wrong" scenario, but more towards "How can we bridge any (wide) gaps, and if not, what type of two state solution is being asked by the Turkish Cypriot leader". For example, we all know that Turkey says that it "intervened" in 1974 due to a political crisis under ARTICLE IV in order to REINSTATE ORDER to the Cyprus political situation and the constitution, but had decided to stay after finding evidence of so-called acts of genocide. Of course, if this was the case, we Greek Cypriots naturally ask why is it that not a single case(s) of these events haven't been brought to the ECHR, or a local court for that matter. In other words, Turkey has not really proved its invasion in 1974. Also, Turkey says that, due to the failure in reaching a federal formula from 1975 to 1983, its establishment of an independent Turkish state in 1983, namely the "TRNC", was the only means of solving the Cyprus problem as opposed to continuing as the Turkish federated State of Cyprus. Again, if that was entirely the story, why create a "Turkish" northern state, and not a "Turkish Cypriot" one? Many question here by members of the forum I am sure.

Moving further from the historical reasoning, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Why do the Turkish Cypriots insist on seeking a UN Sponsored formula when they had declared their so-called independence in 1983 as the "TRNC"? Very confusing! That's like the Republic of Montenegro still insisting on engaging in UN Sponsored federal-unification talks with Serbia simply because not all of the countries of the world recognise them? Obviously, everyone knows that only Turkey recognises the so-called TRNC only. However, confusing politics by the Turkish Cypriots nevertheless.

2. Why does the Turkish Cypriot leadership call for the removal of the isolation of "Northern Cyprus" when they can clearly trade as "Mersin 10, Turkey", as they have been doing since 1983, or even trade via the Green-Line agreement. If Northern Cyprus was so isolated, how is it possible that HSBC and Voda phone are able to legally operate under a "Turkish" license?

3. And, if the Turkish Cypriots wish their call for recognition (in 1983) be taken seriously, why don't they declare to "BREAK-AWAY" from the Republic of Cyprus via amicable means as opposed to further confusing the entire Cyprus political question?

As we are all clearly aware, and we are not slim-minded or dim-witted here, of the political game the Turkish Cypriot leadership is trying to play with words like - isolation - recognition - humanitarian rights - and etc, why can't the Turkish Cypriots be honest with us, and the EU, and seek partition the "internationally acceptable way" (like how so many other sub-community peoples have done in Europe), instead of wasting years, if not decades, of valuable time with stealth-like, pointless politics? It's is clearly not the Greek Cypriots at fault as we surely would have been punished? Or do the Turkish Cypriots know something we don't know?

I'm not advocating partition, not in any way, but, I wouldn't rule it out either, particularly considering northern Cyprus appears to be materialising into a Turkish Province rather than an independent Turkish Cypriot State! Unfortunately, if we are aiming for a new federal formula with no bi-zonal parts in the agreement like President Papadopoulos suggests, we may once again be faced with perhaps an even worst UN Sponsored plan than the Annan Plan of 2004 - is that what we are working towards? Or will the UN finally seek a "Cyprus" plan as a "Pure" federation, like that of the 1959 Zurich agreement. Personally, I feel as if that even the UN can no longer offer a "Pure" federal agreement, as it wouldn't have promoted such a "Confederal" plan in 2004. And, where did that plan originally stem from? And, who authorised the shift from a Federal plan, to a Confederal idea - I would rather see a clear split that risk living under a cocktail style constiution full of borders, community restricted areas, derogations, limitations of settlement and so on so fourth - do you all not agree?

Keep it constructive, please!


Andros Costas

[utu]

Andros,

You are right to point out these things. What we see is that Turkey is Northern Cyprus' only lifeline to the world. It does lend credence to the view that Northern Cyprus is being treated as a province of Turkey, thus making a mockery of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence. But then again, why was a UDI made rather than a delcaration of annexation? Is it because the Turkish Cypriot feel more 'Cypriot' than 'Turkish'?

[Nikitas]

Andros

Kifeas, one of the regular posters, has puot it very clearly- if outright partition is the goal then lets us divide the island according to the population percentages of Greek and Turkish Cypriots, 82-18 and finish with it.

The problem is complicated by individual rights to property, on both sides, which cannot be overriden by any political settlement without compensation. This is what was attemped by article 154 of the TRNC constitution which nationalised all Greek Cypriot land. This kind of move just wont fly. A settlement must be felt to be fair by most citizens.

On the other hand there is the perceived physical danger each side justifiably feels from the other. So living together as we did before the mid 50s is not a realistic immediate goal. So it looks like federation with all the complications of property settlements etc. The property issue seems to be more important at the moment for the Greek Cypriot side. At the moment, because as confidence builds up it is conceivable that Turkish Cypriots too will want to return to their land in the south. I dont have any magic formulae, but it is getting a little embarassing to have two communities with such a high percentage of university graduates and not be able to come forth with solution proposals and instead we wait for foreigners to propose and then we reject, which has been the story so far.

[free_cyprus]

Hello everyone,

I would like us all to discuss our, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, reasons behind (whether hidden or obvious ones) how we can cement a workable Cyprus solution to the decades old division.

I would also like to recommend that we gear this discussion, not via the usual "I am right and you are wrong" scenario, but more towards "How can we bridge any (wide) gaps, and if not, what type of two state solution is being asked by the Turkish Cypriot leader". For example, we all know that Turkey says that it "intervened" in 1974 due to a political crisis under ARTICLE IV in order to REINSTATE ORDER to the Cyprus political situation and the constitution, but had decided to stay after finding evidence of so-called acts of genocide. Of course, if this was the case, we Greek Cypriots naturally ask why is it that not a single case(s) of these events haven't been brought to the ECHR, or a local court for that matter. In other words, Turkey has not really proved its invasion in 1974. Also, Turkey says that, due to the failure in reaching a federal formula from 1975 to 1983, its establishment of an independent Turkish state in 1983, namely the "TRNC", was the only means of solving the Cyprus problem as opposed to continuing as the Turkish federated State of Cyprus. Again, if that was entirely the story, why create a "Turkish" northern state, and not a "Turkish Cypriot" one? Many question here by members of the forum I am sure.

Moving further from the historical reasoning, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Why do the Turkish Cypriots insist on seeking a UN Sponsored formula when they had declared their so-called independence in 1983 as the "TRNC"? Very confusing! That's like the Republic of Montenegro still insisting on engaging in UN Sponsored federal-unification talks with Serbia simply because not all of the countries of the world recognise them? Obviously, everyone knows that only Turkey recognises the so-called TRNC only. However, confusing politics by the Turkish Cypriots nevertheless.

2. Why does the Turkish Cypriot leadership call for the removal of the isolation of "Northern Cyprus" when they can clearly trade as "Mersin 10, Turkey", as they have been doing since 1983, or even trade via the Green-Line agreement. If Northern Cyprus was so isolated, how is it possible that HSBC and Voda phone are able to legally operate under a "Turkish" license?

3. And, if the Turkish Cypriots wish their call for recognition (in 1983) be taken seriously, why don't they declare to "BREAK-AWAY" from the Republic of Cyprus via amicable means as opposed to further confusing the entire Cyprus political question?

As we are all clearly aware, and we are not slim-minded or dim-witted here, of the political game the Turkish Cypriot leadership is trying to play with words like - isolation - recognition - humanitarian rights - and etc, why can't the Turkish Cypriots be honest with us, and the EU, and seek partition the "internationally acceptable way" (like how so many other sub-community peoples have done in Europe), instead of wasting years, if not decades, of valuable time with stealth-like, pointless politics? It's is clearly not the Greek Cypriots at fault as we surely would have been punished? Or do the Turkish Cypriots know something we don't know?

I'm not advocating partition, not in any way, but, I wouldn't rule it out either, particularly considering northern Cyprus appears to be materialising into a Turkish Province rather than an independent Turkish Cypriot State! Unfortunately, if we are aiming for a new federal formula with no bi-zonal parts in the agreement like President Papadopoulos suggests, we may once again be faced with perhaps an even worst UN Sponsored plan than the Annan Plan of 2004 - is that what we are working towards? Or will the UN finally seek a "Cyprus" plan as a "Pure" federation, like that of the 1959 Zurich agreement. Personally, I feel as if that even the UN can no longer offer a "Pure" federal agreement, as it wouldn't have promoted such a "Confederal" plan in 2004. And, where did that plan originally stem from? And, who authorised the shift from a Federal plan, to a Confederal idea - I would rather see a clear split that risk living under a cocktail style constiution full of borders, community restricted areas, derogations, limitations of settlement and so on so fourth - do you all not agree?

Keep it constructive, please!

soo as you mention your greek and turkish cypriotness im out of the picture mate your a joke and so does anyone else who thinks they are greeks and turks lol

thats why there will never be a solution to the cyprus problem becouse there is no fecking cypriots in cyprus everyone is greek and turkish

Andros Costas

[Kifeas]

I'm not advocating partition, not in any way, but, I wouldn't rule it out either, particularly considering northern Cyprus appears to be materialising into a Turkish Province rather than an independent Turkish Cypriot State! Unfortunately, if we are aiming for a new federal formula with no bi-zonal parts in the agreement like President Papadopoulos suggests, we may once again be faced with perhaps an even worst UN Sponsored plan than the Annan Plan of 2004 - is that what we are working towards? Or will the UN finally seek a "Cyprus" plan as a "Pure" federation, like that of the 1959 Zurich agreement. Personally, I feel as if that even the UN can no longer offer a "Pure" federal agreement, as it wouldn't have promoted such a "Confederal" plan in 2004. And, where did that plan originally stem from? And, who authorised the shift from a Federal plan, to a Confederal idea - I would rather see a clear split that risk living under a cocktail style constiution full of borders, community restricted areas, derogations, limitations of settlement and so on so fourth - do you all not agree?

Keep it constructive, please!


Andros Costas

Andro Costa, I have a few clarifying questions!

1. Where did you get this idea that Papadopoulos is “aiming for a new federal formula, with no bi-zonal parts in the agreement,” and what does this mean in the first place?

2. Where did you get the idea that the “1959 Zurich agreement” was a "pure federation?”

[free_cyprus]

Hello everyone,

I would like us all to discuss our, Greek and Turkish Cypriots, reasons behind (whether hidden or obvious ones) how we can cement a workable Cyprus solution to the decades old division.

I would also like to recommend that we gear this discussion, not via the usual "I am right and you are wrong" scenario, but more towards "How can we bridge any (wide) gaps, and if not, what type of two state solution is being asked by the Turkish Cypriot leader". For example, we all know that Turkey says that it "intervened" in 1974 due to a political crisis under ARTICLE IV in order to REINSTATE ORDER to the Cyprus political situation and the constitution, but had decided to stay after finding evidence of so-called acts of genocide. Of course, if this was the case, we Greek Cypriots naturally ask why is it that not a single case(s) of these events haven't been brought to the ECHR, or a local court for that matter. In other words, Turkey has not really proved its invasion in 1974. Also, Turkey says that, due to the failure in reaching a federal formula from 1975 to 1983, its establishment of an independent Turkish state in 1983, namely the "TRNC", was the only means of solving the Cyprus problem as opposed to continuing as the Turkish federated State of Cyprus. Again, if that was entirely the story, why create a "Turkish" northern state, and not a "Turkish Cypriot" one? Many question here by members of the forum I am sure.

Moving further from the historical reasoning, I would like to ask the following questions:

1. Why do the Turkish Cypriots insist on seeking a UN Sponsored formula when they had declared their so-called independence in 1983 as the "TRNC"? Very confusing! That's like the Republic of Montenegro still insisting on engaging in UN Sponsored federal-unification talks with Serbia simply because not all of the countries of the world recognise them? Obviously, everyone knows that only Turkey recognises the so-called TRNC only. However, confusing politics by the Turkish Cypriots nevertheless.

2. Why does the Turkish Cypriot leadership call for the removal of the isolation of "Northern Cyprus" when they can clearly trade as "Mersin 10, Turkey", as they have been doing since 1983, or even trade via the Green-Line agreement. If Northern Cyprus was so isolated, how is it possible that HSBC and Voda phone are able to legally operate under a "Turkish" license?

3. And, if the Turkish Cypriots wish their call for recognition (in 1983) be taken seriously, why don't they declare to "BREAK-AWAY" from the Republic of Cyprus via amicable means as opposed to further confusing the entire Cyprus political question?

As we are all clearly aware, and we are not slim-minded or dim-witted here, of the political game the Turkish Cypriot leadership is trying to play with words like - isolation - recognition - humanitarian rights - and etc, why can't the Turkish Cypriots be honest with us, and the EU, and seek partition the "internationally acceptable way" (like how so many other sub-community peoples have done in Europe), instead of wasting years, if not decades, of valuable time with stealth-like, pointless politics? It's is clearly not the Greek Cypriots at fault as we surely would have been punished? Or do the Turkish Cypriots know something we don't know?

I'm not advocating partition, not in any way, but, I wouldn't rule it out either, particularly considering northern Cyprus appears to be materialising into a Turkish Province rather than an independent Turkish Cypriot State! Unfortunately, if we are aiming for a new federal formula with no bi-zonal parts in the agreement like President Papadopoulos suggests, we may once again be faced with perhaps an even worst UN Sponsored plan than the Annan Plan of 2004 - is that what we are working towards? Or will the UN finally seek a "Cyprus" plan as a "Pure" federation, like that of the 1959 Zurich agreement. Personally, I feel as if that even the UN can no longer offer a "Pure" federal agreement, as it wouldn't have promoted such a "Confederal" plan in 2004. And, where did that plan originally stem from? And, who authorised the shift from a Federal plan, to a Confederal idea - I would rather see a clear split that risk living under a cocktail style constiution full of borders, community restricted areas, derogations, limitations of settlement and so on so fourth - do you all not agree?

Keep it constructive, please!

soo as you mention your greek and turkish cypriotness im out of the picture mate your a joke and so does anyone else who thinks they are greeks and turks lol

thats why there will never be a solution to the cyprus problem becouse there is no fecking cypriots in cyprus everyone is greek and turkish

Andros Costas

soon as you mention your greek and turkish cypriotness im out of the picture mate your a joke and so does anyone else who thinks they are greeks and turks lol

thats why there will never be a solution to the cyprus problem becouse there is no fecking cypriots in cyprus everyone is greek and turkish

[Andros]

Hi Kifeas,

Thank you for your interest to my posting. Sorry if I have confussed you in some way, please let me clarify.

My mentioning of Papadopoulos' "Pure unification" is only a collection of answers I have obtained from some of his news reports, where, and I believe he is right in saying so, a Cyprus solution must not be in the form of a two-component or so dual, confusing, non-workable, federation. Therefore, I strongly believe that a Cyprus solution should either be in the form of a "pure" federal formula consisting of no bi-zonal structure or limitations, or out right partition.

I apologise for my ill reference to the 1959 Zurich agreement, where we all know had many pitfalls for both communities, but then again, which constitution of any country hasn't been altered - The European Union treaty for one.

I hope this answers your question.

Here's one to you - Do you believe that we wil finally reach a workable federal formula, or are you afraid, like myself, that we may be again forced into another referendum on a similar plan to the Annan Plan?Perhaps even in a political ploy to force the international acceptance of the so-called TRNC. Personally, I would like it all to be solved within our grasp, and not by foriegn mediators with half the knowledge of the true Cyprus issue.

[CopperLine]

Andros

I like the way you introduced this topic. I probably don't agree with some of you historical arguments but, nevertheless, there's much in there to be thought about.

Picking up on an important point that Nikitas raised, a key question to my mind is whether people think that the personal/private property question has to be sorted out i.e, that a formula and mechanism for recovery and/or compensation of former private private prior to a broader political settlement of federal, two state or whatever solution. I agree with the implication (as I read it) of Nikitas' observation that the private property resolution is the central sticking point in any settlement.

So, supposing there was effective de jure partition and the foundation of two states would that necessarily and automatically close off the restitution or compensation for private property loss ? Similarly if there was a federal settlement would that necessarily hasten that restitution and compensation process ? I'm sure the gut feeling of many is that the former proposal is less likely and the latter more likely to lead to private property settlement.

Whatever the gut feeling, I wonder whether the likelihood falls in those ways ?

If, for example, the RoC said 'OK, if the ECHR says the Property Commission is the way to go, then we [the RoC] are going to put all our energy and efforts into making sure that the PC dealing with private property cases is made to speed up and enforce its dealing with these cases.' TRNC has said (has been obliged to concede) that the PC is the way to go, but complains of lack of resources, lack of cooperation etc (which may be true, or may not be true) but if supported by RoC and EU might - and I agree is a big might - be able to resolve a large proportion of the private property cases quite independent of whether there is a public political settlement, federalist or partitionist or other.

Just some speculations to ponder ...

[Andros]

Hi CopperLine,

Good Question......

You Said:

So, supposing there was effective de jure partition and the foundation of two states would that necessarily and automatically close off the restitution or compensation for private property loss ?

Well, firstly, sorry for seeming fairly resolute regarding my view of the historical aspects of Cyprus issue, but I am sure that we can all agree that a solution can not be in any form like the latest Annan Plan 5. I tend to write very fast at work and sometimes skip a few of the obvious facts.

My only suggestion of such a resolution based on Partition is completely in line with the feeling that Turkey desperately wants unification talks anxiously based on the former Annan 5 plan. This, in my view, should not be an option. We should do our utmost to prevent any development of such a plan even remotely similar to the Annan idea, otherwise we may just one day suddenly wake up to a recognised so-called TRNC as it STANDS (And I am sure that’s NOT what we all want).

With regards to your question of property, and I am no politician, I would expect an agreement based on partition would include unquestionably take into account all of the property owned by both communities prior to 1974. Where, perhaps Greek Cypriot owned properties that would fall under a proposed Turkish Cypriot state would be given compensation based on the price of property today. Unless, of course, you can think of another way of dealing with it - realistically! Of course, we would all like to see Cyprus go back to pre-1974, but Turkey's growing influence in northern Cyprus, Middle Eastern politics and the obscure state of affairs surrounding its EU membership bid makes me believe that it would be far less damaging for us to broker an overall settlement today rather than taking our chances in the future.

Am I being too naive?

[utu]

The solution to the problem may have to be having to go back to square one. The 1960 Constitution and the Zurich agreement that made it possible were flawed. Coupling this is the strategic position that the island of Cyprus is in. Ouside influences and impositions caused this problem, and they have to be removed if the status quo is to change.