Cyprus-Forum.com

[umit07]

humanist

ain't dat a little selfish. Do you believe that the Cyprus Dispute is ONLY about Turkish troops leaving and settlers fucking off?

[Kikapu]

Kikapu,
I agree with you that there is a danger that TCs may be handing out rope which they may eventually hang from. It is a danger; how big a danger is a matter of debate. Also, it's been said before rightly, that Turkey of course applies pressure on TCs or the TRNC to give out more rope. So I'm not naive about the TC/TRNC-Turkey relationship. I agree with your cautions.

Having said that its is not self-evident that Turkish immigrants to the north necessarily act as one bloc and back the same party/parties. Just like migrant Cypriots around the world, there are political differences and differences between 1st, 2nd, 3rd generation migrants. Equally there are differences regarding the Cyprus problem between non-Cypriots living in Cyprus.

Just take one example : a second generation Turkish immigrant, born in Cyprus - let's say who is 18 or 20 years old today - has as great an interest and motivation for an incorporation of north Cyprus into the EU as does a Nth generation native born Turkish Cypriot. This person could well find Turkey's politics - in relation to EU, to Cyprus to other matters - against her/his better interests. For this person doesn't it make sense to support some proposal which will hasten extension of the acquis to the north and/or to campaign against Turkish nationalism ?

On the law question, the problem is that international law does not and cannot determine who and how a person is given citizenship. In other words whatever the criteria for citizenship are in the UK it is nobody else's business to alter. So I might think that citizenship of Bermuda, Belize or Panama is a pretty dodgy and easy business and I might think it a 'paper fiction', but that doesn't affect at all the way Bermuda, Belize and Panama treats its own citizens.

You wrote that

'when the time comes to a settlement, those citizenship's issued to the settlers will not be recognized.'

Maybe. Maybe not. I'd expect the question of who counts as a citizen to be part of the negotiations of any final settlement.

You also ask

then what is to stop Turkey telling the "TRNC" to make every Turkish citizen in Turkey a dual citizen with the "TRNC"

First, the easy second bit - that someone holds dual citizenship is not unusual in today's world and it rarely gives added protection to that person. But in any case dual citizenship DOES NOT give more power to one state into the affairs of the other state. Thus that you can hold dual Irish-US citizenship doesn't give either Ireland or the US some special powers into the affairs of the other. I think this is a red herring. But the first part is more important, and again I think there is a straightforward answer : If Turkey made TRNC issue 'dual citizenship' to all Turkish citizens then that is tantamount to formal incorporation within Turkey. There would be absolutely no doubt that north Cyprus was in fact an integral part of the Turkish republic. Sure, there are some people who'd like to see that but they have never held the upper hand either in Turkey nor in Cyprus. And there are compelling reasons why such a move would not happen in the foreseeable future : 1 It would destroy any Cyprus solution of ANY kind. 2. It would destroy any hope of EU membership for Turkey 3. Turks don't want it. 4. Turkish Cypriots don't want it.

I've said this on a number of other threads, but I'll say it again here : any discussion for any settlement or resolution which is based on community or minority rights (and their formal inclusion in a new constitutional settlement) is doomed to disaster and a repetition of the traumas of the last fifty years.
In contrast a settlement based upon democratic equality of all persons, whether citizen or non-citizen, at least offers some prospect of success.

CopperLine,

Of course there are no one set of rules as to how each country gives out citizenship's. The operative word here of course is "country". I know we have talked in the past whether the "TRNC" is a real country or not, but call me old fashion if you like, but if a "country" cannot hold a International Friendly Football match without the permission of the country it has claimed "Independence" from, then all indications are, that the "TRNC" is not a country. How would it be if I wrote my name and age and stuck my picture on a piece of paper, and used it as a Drivers Licence. I'm convinced that it is a real Drivers Licence, and the proof is, that I can actually drive a car. I think the Highway Patrol and the judge will have opposing opinions on my "drivers license".

It is true, that people do not vote as a block. We have tried telling this to VP many times, that just because the GC-TC ratios are 82%-18%, does not mean that votes will come down ethnic lines if we had a True Democracy with True Federation, so I'll grant you that not all new TC citizens will vote in what Turkey wants, which brings me to this question, and that is, why is Turkey pushing, coercing, blackmailing, arm twisting the "TRNC" to accept 50,000 new settlers as "TRNC" citizens. Surely, the "TRNC" can give out "citizenship's" as they see fit on a case by case basis, no matter how pointless it may be, since I do not believe these people will be considered as True TC's in any settlement talks.

I believe Turkey wants these new citizens in the "TRNC" to swing what ever desicion she wants to come from the "TRNC government". Lets play devils advocate here for a minute. Who is to say, that Turkey will not just hand over a list containing names of 50,000 ADULTS who are Turkish Nationalist loyal to Turkey, the Turkish flag and of course, Atatürk. Once these 50,000 Adults hand picked by Turkey become "TRNC citizens", then they will petition to have their husbands, wives, children, brothers, sisters, mothers , fathers, uncles and cousins and so on, to also become "TRNC citizens". Lets face it, is not as if the "TRNC" politicians cannot be bought for measly few hundred dollars to amend their "immigration" rules. Even if they refuse, in a very short time, there will be enough Turks in the "TRNC government", that they will be able to change the laws to give Turkey what she wants.

So, the question is then, what is it that Turkey wants and expects to get out of the "TRNC" by out voting all the True TC's. It may well be that Turkey does not want any resistance from the TC's when the time comes to hand the North back to the RoC in a deal making to open the doors for her EU entry, not only to avoid a veto from the RoC, but also a for her self image against those countries in Europe who oppose Turkey's bid to join the EU Club, but with all the right political moves by Turkey and her friends like the USA and UK, she stands a better chance if she dealt the Cyprus issue expeditiously as possible. Some settlers will remain on the island, but most will be sent back to Turkey with the idea, that they will be able to return if they wish to, once Turkey gets into the EU. At later stage, some may return, or they will just remain in Turkey with what ever compensation that was given to them. I cannot see any other reasons, as to why Turkey is so insistent on adding 50,000 new "TRNC citizens" to the North, if she did not want to manipulate the True TC's vote on Cyprus settlement. Turkey will get what she wants and the TC's will get what the RoC wants. In other words, the TC's will not have a say so in the final outcome of any negotiations and this is the "rope" that they have just sold to Turkey that they will find themselves swinging from at end of a very long drop, once the trap doors are opened.

TC's = RIP

[humanist]

humanist

ain't dat a little selfish. Do you believe that the Cyprus Dispute is ONLY about Turkish troops leaving and settlers fucking off?

Umit, I did not say settlers ought to fuck off. I said Turkey is fucking with peoples lives. And I tell you why this is so. Because the only solution that will take place in Cyprus is BBF, Turkey knows very well that all these people she is shipping over willl have to return yet her intransigent attitude is to bring people over and then in 5-10 years piss them off. So try and see the human side to this, these are people not little chessboard figures.

Secondly No ....... Turkish trops leaving would be the beginning.

Lastly as a nations and a people we have a long way to go. Starting by the RoC getting rid of that bloomin anthem, followed by Talat ordering the flag on the mountain. Followed by an interim agreement which by the way we have one to work urgently toward unification.

I make No Apologies for wanting the occupying forces Out of Cyprus. And I make No apologies for seeing all Cypriots as one. Am an advanced soul and do not discriminate based on race

[umit07]

Mate most of the mainlanders here are not citizens as you might think, most of them are from eastern Turkey and are working here for bread money. If you guys are so willing to have troops leave why don't you start doıng it first? How many troops from greece do you guys have, I bet the number of armed troops in the south is not a man less than the ones in the north.

[CopperLine]

I'm not sure that I've got time to respond as I'd wish to Nikitas and Kikapu since I'm in a rush but here goes ... a little bit ...


I'm sorry that Nikitas thinks what I'd argued is sophistry. It is not and it is not intended to be. If it is murky and perhaps somewhat opaque then that is a reflection of the complexity of issues of citizenship and nationality.

You wrote

'Whatever happened to the basics of international law accepted since the end of World War II and enshrined in the UN charter- namely there will be no aggrandisement of territory through war and that colonisation of occupied territory is an international crime?

Exactly; hence my argument that I do not think it plausible, let alone likely, that Kikapu's scenario of Turkey demanding dual citizenship for all Turkish citizens !

You also wrote that

The point is not whether settlers' citizenship is lawful or not. The point is that they are brought over in the first place.

Well no : I was asked by Kikapu precisely to comment on the legal standing of settlers and citizenship, and so I obliged. Sure there's a question about a settler policy but it is a bit unfair of you to decry that when I was asked something quite different.

In any case, what do we know about a 'settler policy' ? It is one thing to allow Turkish citizens into the TRNC, even to encourage them to work and live in the TRNC, it is quite something else to plant them. What do we know of a plantation policy ? Is there a 'green card lottery' like the US ? Is there a 'key workers/skills' policy like in the UK ? Is there a subsidy scheme ? Is there a tax regime ? How does this plantation policy work if there is one ?


Kikapu You give the example of issuing a driving licence as a test of the 'stateness' of a country. I'm not sure driving licences are good examples regarding recognition of a state and a distinct jurisdiction, so let's take something fundamental like marriage certificates or birth certificates. For those who say because TRNC is not recognised as a country/state then its jurisdiction including law-setting powers which includes citizenship tests are also not recognised, they are mistaken. If you got married in TRNC or had a baby born in TRNC then those certificates issued by the ostensibly unrecognised TRNC are STILL RECOGNISED by other jurisdictions and other states.

This point goes to the heart of a custom in international law, which I mentioned last time, which is that even if State A loathes the legal system and the domestic customs, including those of what constitutes citizenship, of State B, State A does not interfere or refuse to recognise those internal or municipal laws of State B. In short, it is custom for State B and State B alone to determine the criteria of B citizenship. We might not like it, but we have to lump it. This applies, for example, in the relationship between, say, the UK and Saudi Arabia : Saudi definitions of citizenship and municipal legal personality are not just offensive to UK law but they are in fundamental breach of basic human rights which now govern UK law. But the UK still recognises SA citizenship rules.

Of course you'll probably object that unlike the TRNC, the state of Saudi Arabia is at least recognised by the UK. So let's go back to the marriage/birth certificates example. TRNC not recognised as a state but marriage and both certificates issued in/by TRNC are still recognised as bona fide authoritative documents.

Anyway .... got to go ... will try to add more later ......

[humanist]

Umit, why does it have to be us and them, how about we ........ secondly Turkey is the invading country.

[Nikitas]

Copperline wrote:

"In any case, what do we know about a 'settler policy' ?"

We know the very public statements made by Turkish PM Erdogan to the effect that Turkey has plenty of people to put on the island. How much more clearly do you want it stated than that.

Until Turkey has a an open policy like the USA and other nations like the Freedom of Information Acts we cannot know the details of Turkish policy. We can surmise the main parts from the public statements of its leaders and the situation on the ground. Both point to an active colonisation policy and that is a crime.

[umit07]

Humanist

Firstly I don't think GC's are even one man short when it comes to millitary man power one the island. If Turkey is the occupying force, then you guys are occupying our government because of this GC's think they can dictate what is "right" what is "wrong", does this make the presence of the Greek armed forces OK? Sorry mate, but I honestly think we are far away from thinking in the "we" sense, let's just learn to tolerate with each other first. Look at nearly every thread in the forum people just try to pick stuff out of what you write and later twist and turn it into different forms and throw it back at your face. I can understand you seeing the Turkish army as invaders, all I'd like you to understand is that the RoC that you guys are so proud of is not what is was meant to be. When it comes to Turkey, I can assure you that the present gov. in Turkey want to get Cyprus out of there hands, I personally don't think Erdogan ( Turkish PM ) gives a shit about us, but even Erdogan can't get it over a done with, without public support. For a guy like him only the packaging is important he needs to be able to show the public that what he did was good. But still under these circumstances "nothing" is happening, this is why I believe if this dispute is not over in the next few years it never will be.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
Don't get me wrong : I'm not saying that there isn't or hasn't been a policy to settle or plant people in Cyprus. I am simply asking what is the policy and what is the evidence of there being a policy. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you said Erdogan said "to the effect that Turkey has plenty of people to put on the island". I acknowledge that as the kind of things politicians say in rabble rousing speeches, but that in itself is not evidence of there being a policy. And it tells us nothing of what kind of policy it might be.

There has been a policy in the UK for the NHS to use recruitment agencies in South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago, for example, to recruit health workers especially nurses to the UK. No politician and no minister has ever said 'We want to fill the NHS with South African and Trinidadian nurses', but that is exactly what the policy was. (Not now - current favourites are Spain and the Phillipines). What politicians say and what policies are implemented are rarely the same.

[zan]

Nikitas
Don't get me wrong : I'm not saying that there isn't or hasn't been a policy to settle or plant people in Cyprus. I am simply asking what is the policy and what is the evidence of there being a policy. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you said Erdogan said "to the effect that Turkey has plenty of people to put on the island". I acknowledge that as the kind of things politicians say in rabble rousing speeches, but that in itself is not evidence of there being a policy. And it tells us nothing of what kind of policy it might be.

There has been a policy in the UK for the NHS to use recruitment agencies in South Africa and Trinidad and Tobago, for example, to recruit health workers especially nurses to the UK. No politician and no minister has ever said 'We want to fill the NHS with South African and Trinidadian nurses', but that is exactly what the policy was. (Not now - current favourites are Spain and the Phillipines). What politicians say and what policies are implemented are rarely the same.

Is that like the UK saying "We will stop immigration" but still hundreds of thousands get in Social engineering is against the law.

France, being racists' offered the equivalent of £1500 to every french person to have another baby. Germany pulled down the Berlin wall all because of economics..........Now the "RoC" wants to get rid of people just because they are Turkish and will soon need to replace them for the same reasons as the rest...Pensions. What is the policy of he "RoC"????