Yes, it is the precise principle on which the Annan Plan Presidential Council was based: Not numerical equality (4 GCs and 2 TCs), but effective participation (at least 1 TC member of the council must agree with each decision). Similarly in the legislature, not numerical equality (since the House of Deputies will be proportional), but effective participation (since at least a quarter of TC senators must agree with each decision).
This was the Clerides philosophy on political equality, and it was imported wholesale into the Annan Plan.
Thanks for the elaboration.
I am afraid Tassos is not too happy about these provisions however, he sees the matter differently from Clerides. For Tassos, the TCs should be content (political equality - wise) with the standard safeguards which a Federation provides, i.e. to control one of the two constituent states, and have numerical equality in some Federal organs (Senate, Supreme Court) while accepting majority rule in other organs (House of Deputies, Presidential Council). The Clerides idea of "positive participation" is repugnant to Tassos - and I predict this is going to be a very hard point in negotiations.
Hmmm... It seems to me he tries to nullify the political equality of TC community in presidential council and he claims that majority rule in presidential council will resolve the deadlocks. I don't think TCs will ever accept this. What do you think?
For me personally, "positive participation" plus "cross voting" is the best solution to this matter.
You know I support your proposal about this issue.
Going back to our previous posts, I will avoid inflaming the situation further. My first post was retaliatory, to your own original post concerning "the GC solution thesis", and I don't think it will be constructive to take the issue any further. It somewhat angered me that you identified the GC "No" to the Annan Plan with an "extreme and unrealistic solution thesis", and this is what tempted me to retaliate, but let's put all these sentiments aside for now.
Ok. Appologies for the over generalization.
It is true that there is an "extreme thesis" floating in the air somewhere, but it has taken a severe beating since the Annan Plan. Nowadays, most people tend to recognise the complexities involved, and understand for instance that some sort of property exchange will have to take place, or that some settlers might have to stay.
You know this "some" is not sufficient for TCs not to concern about their future. Vast majority of TCs would like to exchange/buy the GC properties they occupy. Besides, the TCs who currently inhabiting in Morphou and some other places accepted relocation. TCs accepted to give back 1/3 of the properties of TCCS to GC refugees. Let's assume there are 170- 175 thousands TCs and settlers occupying GC property in North. I guess that 4/5 of TCs had been inhabiting in South, pre-74. I guess their number was 80 - 85 thousands. The current number of TC refugees should be around 120-125 thousands at the moment. Presumably some 110-115 thousands of TC(including the ones who will choose relocation in TCCS) would choose to exchange/buy the properties they have occupied/invested for 30 years. I guess the rest(60-65 thousands) who occupy GC properties are settlers(including their Cyprus born children and who are married to a TC).
Questions:
1- If 110-115 thousands of TCs insist on exchanging/buying the GC properties they currently occupy, would the GC owners of those properties consent to compromise?
2- Settlers and the GC properties they have occupied/invested untill now?
You are wondering why it was that the GC leadership did not make demands on the issue of security. Don't forget that the two most unacceptable elements of the security aspect, i.e. permanent presence of Turkish troops and right of Turkey to intervene in the GC state as well, were only introduced in Annan 5, in the last 2 days of a five-year negotiation process, by Annan himself, after the request of Turkey. If it wasn't for these two last-minute changes, the GCs could just about have swallowed the security aspect.
Perhaps Clerides edit out the security provisions of original Annan Plan when he checked it before the Annan Plan formally presented to the concerned parties. I don't think any solution which does not provide guarantorship of Turkey would be acceptable for majority of TCs and Turkey. How Greece have interests in Cyprus and feel responsible herself for Hellenism of Cyprus; so does Turkey.
On property and residence, I believe that GCs will be willing to tolerate some necessary curtailments of their property rights, so long as they are not arbitrary and so long as some form of "right of return" will be retained by each refugee. I think TCs will also be willing to tolerate provisions that are slightly more generous to original owners than the Annan Plan was.
In my opinion, as long as return of refugees does not cause involuntary relocation of TCs and does not risk the "political equality" of TC community; return of all refugees should be tolerated by TCs. I know a while ago you put forth a good suggestion about this issue.
The settlers issue, however, will be very difficult to solve in a mutually acceptable way. Very difficult indeed. How can all the settlers be relocated out of GC land? And yet, the moment one settler remains in a GC property, the solution becomes intolerably insulting to the GCs ...
I agree with you. Why don't you survey just the settlers to get some clues how it could be solved? I think such a survey would be very useful for resolving the settlers problem.
Regards
