Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

[quote="Nikitas"]It is not just Pap, all the others in the past, even Vassiliou who was the most flexible of the GC presidents did not put the territorial issue to the fore. Which is strange, because the better the territorial arrangement gets, the more GC refugees will get their land back, the less compensation to be paid etc. The GC side has been almost silent on this issue.[/quote]

Ever since the properties commission was recognised....

[observer]

I don’t know of any country, region, state, territory etc. where the size was decided by comparing its population density with any other country, region ... etc. If it were the case, a lot of Texans would have to move to accommodate people living in New York, or French move out in favour of the Dutch. Regions’ borders are a leftover from their history coupled with being economically viable.

According to the UN (UN document S12723, Annex I) the area occupied by the TRNC contains:
17.3% of Cyprus’ water resources.
28.66% of Cyprus’ agricultural productivity.
2% of Cyprus’ minerals.
2.17% of Cyprus’ forests.

These figures come from the early 80s so there will have been some changes in land use, but not huge ones. Taken overall, the accident of history seems to have left Cyprus with two regions whose economic viability is not too far away from their populations, especially if the A Plan’s border readjustments were taken into account. In fact the GCs would seem to have got slightly more than their ‘fair share’ if the border changes were taken into account.

[EPSILON]

I've been reading the forum for a while, and although there is a huge amount of bickering and debate amongst and between GCs and TCs (and others) I'm still not clear what the GC strategy is to solve the 'Cyprus problem'.

As a generalisation, the TCs seem reasonably happy with their current situation. Increasing globalization, and advances in technology such as the internet (this forum a good example), mean their exclusion from the international community is less of an issue than it may have been between 1974 and the end of the last century. So it seems the onus is not on them to deliver a solution.

My question then is what is the GC plan for reunification? The population demography is changing quickly with so many people from other countries moving to Cyprus. As the decades pass, will this dilute GC nationalism, and result in there being insufficient popular support to follow a risky path to reunification? I understand the Annan proposal was not acceptable, but that is now history, and what is the way forward for GCs in particular to bring what so many clearly want - a peaceful, democratic, reunified island?

DEMOCRATIC??????WE GCS can sign today,bring us the agrement for a democratic state and we sign immdly-all of us

[observer]

EPSILON

I think the question was not "what do you want" - There are enough GC slogans telling us what you want - but "what is your stategy for getting what you want".

If slogans and hot air were the remedy you would have everything you wanted by now, and more.

[Talisker]

Talisker,

A belated welcome to Cyprus Forum. I've enjoyed reading your level-headed and articulate posts. Good job with not getting swept up in others' emoticon exchanges on this thread.

Thanks for the welcome and kind words Mills. Am hoping to pose a few questions on the forum and learn something from the responses.

[Talisker]

I don’t know of any country, region, state, territory etc. where the size was decided by comparing its population density with any other country, region ... etc. If it were the case, a lot of Texans would have to move to accommodate people living in New York, or French move out in favour of the Dutch. Regions’ borders are a leftover from their history coupled with being economically viable.

According to the UN (UN document S12723, Annex I) the area occupied by the TRNC contains:
17.3% of Cyprus’ water resources.
28.66% of Cyprus’ agricultural productivity.
2% of Cyprus’ minerals.
2.17% of Cyprus’ forests.

These figures come from the early 80s so there will have been some changes in land use, but not huge ones. Taken overall, the accident of history seems to have left Cyprus with two regions whose economic viability is not too far away from their populations, especially if the A Plan’s border readjustments were taken into account. In fact the GCs would seem to have got slightly more than their ‘fair share’ if the border changes were taken into account.

I take your point, but the fact is that the land (obviously) is disputed. If there is to be a bizonal solution then how would you calculate the sizes of the two zones?

[Nikitas]

Talisker, the land is not DISPUTED, the land is forcibly taken from its owners.

This is not a case of apportionment of uninhabited territory, which is how Observer approaches the matter. The lands in the north, as in the rest of Cyprus, have title deeds belonging to specicfic individuals and legal bodies.

The idea of a share out is nonsense. All the plans proposed in the past and rejected by the GC side failed to take this matter into account and the same will happen to future plans. If you live in Cyprus then you know that land is valuable, it is probably the only capital goods a family owns, as opposed to other countries where there may be things like stocks, shares, trust deeds etc. So the land issue is at the core of the problem.

One other thing that Observer fails to take into account in his "analysis" above is the tourist infrastructure taken over in 1974 and the length of coastline to be shared in the future. Both are valuable in a country where a sizeable part of the GNP comes from tourism.

So let us leave the nonsense aside for a minute. The more Greek Cypriots are given their land back the less will be left to compensate. The more the territorial split approaches the population ratios the more just a solution will look and feel to those that are left without the return of their land in the north.

The idea here is to arrive a settlement that will last, not one that will sow the seeds of the next conflict. 18 per cent of the territory and half the coastline of the island is a viable piece of territory for the TC community. In that territory there are two ports, one of them the only deep water port of the island, two airports and a part of the capital city.

Such an arrangment would allow more than half of the GC refugees to go back to their property directly. The remainder can choose whether to reside in the north under the TC administration or to seek voluntary exchange of properties. Forced exclusion will not give a lasting settlement.

[Talisker]

Talisker, the land is not DISPUTED, the land is forcibly taken from its owners.

This is not a case of apportionment of uninhabited territory, which is how Observer approaches the matter. The lands in the north, as in the rest of Cyprus, have title deeds belonging to specicfic individuals and legal bodies.

The idea of a share out is nonsense. All the plans proposed in the past and rejected by the GC side failed to take this matter into account and the same will happen to future plans. If you live in Cyprus then you know that land is valuable, it is probably the only capital goods a family owns, as opposed to other countries where there may be things like stocks, shares, trust deeds etc. So the land issue is at the core of the problem.

One other thing that Observer fails to take into account in his "analysis" above is the tourist infrastructure taken over in 1974 and the length of coastline to be shared in the future. Both are valuable in a country where a sizeable part of the GNP comes from tourism.

So let us leave the nonsense aside for a minute. The more Greek Cypriots are given their land back the less will be left to compensate. The more the territorial split approaches the population ratios the more just a solution will look and feel to those that are left without the return of their land in the north.

The idea here is to arrive a settlement that will last, not one that will sow the seeds of the next conflict. 18 per cent of the territory and half the coastline of the island is a viable piece of territory for the TC community. In that territory there are two ports, one of them the only deep water port of the island, two airports and a part of the capital city.

Such an arrangment would allow more than half of the GC refugees to go back to their property directly. The remainder can choose whether to reside in the north under the TC administration or to seek voluntary exchange of properties. Forced exclusion will not give a lasting settlement.

Thanks again Nikitas, you always state the position very clearly. You mentioned the BBF in an earlier post, and I was trying to explore the bizonal part of that, and what it would entail. I'd always assumed the 18% figure you quoted, with which I am familiar, represents the TC proportion of the overall Cypriot population in 1974, and therefore could be justified as a figure to be used in apportioning 'their' zone. Am I correct in that assumption?

Quite rightly you mentioned that land ownership in 1974 is also an essential part of the equation. What were the relevant proportions of land owned by GC:TC:others in 1974, and is this considered more than, or as important as, the population-derived proportions for a bizonal agreement?

Too many questions? Just trying to get some answers........

[Nikitas]

Mr Talat said that the TC ownership of land in the north is in the region of 16 per cent of the area. The rest is not all owned by GCs or GC corporations, a large part is public land and religious foundation land (both GC and TC).

Kifeas had posted the UN figures a while back. I do not recall them now but theye were not far off the population percentages.

Dimitris Christofias, a strong contender for the presidency was interviews on RIKSAT tonight and I listened to his approach to this matter. He said that it is possible with the right territorial settlement to allow all remaining GC rfugees to return to their lands in the north and still have a TC majority there. This is is the approach that will offer lasting peace. Naturally not all GCs who own land will want to return, some will and they will live under TC administration.

ALso let us not kid ourselves here that people will rush to hamlets in the middle of nowhere just because in 1974 they owned land there. This goes for both sides. The major towns, the coast and the resorts, where business is located, are the major draw. The territorial settlement, no matter the percentages will always favor the TC side because of the coastline of the Karpasia region. The peninsula has as much coast as the rest of the island.

The assumption is that religious bodies will retain their lands no matter where it is.

[Talisker]

Mr Talat said that the TC ownership of land in the north is in the region of 16 per cent of the area. The rest is not all owned by GCs or GC corporations, a large part is public land and religious foundation land (both GC and TC).

Kifeas had posted the UN figures a while back. I do not recall them now but theye were not far off the population percentages.

Dimitris Christofias, a strong contender for the presidency was interviews on RIKSAT tonight and I listened to his approach to this matter. He said that it is possible with the right territorial settlement to allow all remaining GC rfugees to return to their lands in the north and still have a TC majority there. This is is the approach that will offer lasting peace. Naturally not all GCs who own land will want to return, some will and they will live under TC administration.

ALso let us not kid ourselves here that people will rush to hamlets in the middle of nowhere just because in 1974 they owned land there. This goes for both sides. The major towns, the coast and the resorts, where business is located, are the major draw. The territorial settlement, no matter the percentages will always favor the TC side because of the coastline of the Karpasia region. The peninsula has as much coast as the rest of the island.

The assumption is that religious bodies will retain their lands no matter where it is.

Thanks for info again. Coming back to the question in the thread title, if there is relative stalemate in the land issue, can the GCs use changes in the overall landscape (oil?) to their advantage, and the point about the international court surely needs addressing - or is that a dead duck?