Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

Hey Kifeas,

Then let's start discussing the partition then.

Is your community and Turkey willing to withdraw to the 18% of the territory?
I do not think so! Therefore for what reason we will discuss partition?
Frankly speaking the Anan plan 5 was a partition from the back door, but with 29% of the territory and 48% of the coastline. If your answer to my first question above is yes, then I believe the majority of GCs will most probably accept it.

I have said in so many occasions in this forum that I am willing to turn back to 1960 constitutional arrangement without any bizonallity, mainly because it involves communal equality.

I also said in my previous posting that me and the majority of GCs would rather prefer the return to the 1960 constitution, without bi-zonality and without the settlers, than the Anal 5 formula. Is the majority of Turkish Cypriots and Turkey willing to agree to return to the 1960 agreements? I do not think so! Therefore for what reason we will discuss such a solution?

Now you are saying to me that even communal equality is chauvinistic and should not exist. So please do not come here and claim that GCs would like to turn back to 1960 agreements.

I said I prefer it much, much more than Anan plan 5, although YES it is a chauvinistic approach. BUT I could live with it. Your community however doesn’t accept such a solution, what so ever. I am sure about this! Therefore for what we should discuss it?

So how are we going to solve the problem then. The only alternative approach is to have a legal partition. We give up land all the way to what is rightfully ours, and separate the communities for ever.

I answered this above. Your community (and Turkey) will never accept to withdraw to the 18% of the territory. If they are willing then I am also willing.

But if you think for one second that any solution that kills communal equality will be accepted by TCs, then seriously you are dreaming. .

We will also never accept the Anal plan 5 formula or anything near it!

(and Annan Plan was diluting it so much but we still said OK to it for the explained reasons) let’s seriously not waste each other time and start discussing which parts of TRNC you want back to have a legal partition.

I live the choice of this 18% of the territory to you. Just make sure the border between the two countries is not going to be too long so that we do not spent too much money in building this 6-meter wall along them. Also the coastline should not be more than 20% (I give you 2% more.) Other than that, you choose which area you want. But your community and Turkey will not accept this solution.

We have seen what happens to any Turks that live as a minority under a Greek state without effective community equality. And trust me we do not want that.

My formula of guaranteed Bi-zonality doesn’t convert the TC community into a minority. If you disagree, then you should explain to me how. Read my formula again, please!

Yes ethnic equality is a MUST for TCs. Any solution which does not involve it would not be acceptable, living us with one option, legal partition. (at least I hope only one option, and that you are not seriously thinking about armed conflict resolution again)

No we do not intent to make a military attack, just a 6-meter wall like the Israelis, to keep all the Turkish nationals for infiltrating through. Of course all TC that wish to remain within the RoCy territory, they can do so but without separate political rights. And depending on the percentage of TCs that will choose to stay in the RoCy territory, the percentage of the Turkish partition state will be decreased accordingly. For example if 20% of TCs prefer the RoCy then the Turkish partition state will be reduced from 18% down to 14.4% and also the coast line accordingly.

And I am not going to justify my needs, to you and try to convince you that they are democratic or not. If I want to live in country based on ethnic lines, that is what I want, because I have reasons for asking it. The reasons you do not think important bufor me they are very important.

Ok!

All uou have to decide if you want to give it or not. If not then partition is the only non bloody alternative.

Answered already!

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

Kifeas talking with you is like talking with Piratis, going on and on the same issue without an inch of advance,

Your Insistence to want to make us accept a federation with Turkey through her settlers and also give to them half of the political equality that you ask for the Turkish “Cypriot” community is not any different either. (I put the “Cypriot” in quotations because it is no longer a TCypriot community.)

I have already said that I would accept legal partition, based on what we have deserved land wise from 1960 constitution. My calculation for this is around 22% of the island but if you insist on %18 then so be it. I am ready to accept that as well.

TCs and other TC institutions like EVKAF had 12.3% of the total private land of Cyprus. If you subtract the state, public and forest land and make the recalculation again based only on the total private land which was about 70% this percentage becomes 17.57% (12.3 divide by 70)

On the other hand neither me nor you can talk on behalf of each others communities. I would accept the above partition but I do not know what the TC society would tell. You may be ready to turn back to 1960 agreements (which I actually really doubt, seeing you think it is chauvinistic) but your GC society may not.

If I have only these two choices, (1960 unitary state or Anal-plan 5,) I certainly would prefer the first one. I am 100% sure that the overwhelming majority if GCs would also accept it. Papadopoullos even said it publicly. He said it was a mistake that we didn’t try to give the 1960 agreements a better chance

So you claiming here that majority of GCs would like to turn back to 1960 agreements is no better than me claiming majority of TCs would accept the above partition.

I am 100% sure that the majority of GCs would rather return to the 1960 agreements, without bizonality, without settlers and with full property restitution (unless individuals wish to make different agreements between them.) I am also 100% sure that the majority if Turkish Cypriots and also Turkey do not want to even discuss partition on the basis of 18%.

Apart from this, I guess the only other issue you have asked for is me to explain how your proposal will reduce TCs as a minority in Cyprus. If TCs do not have equal say in federal level and also do not have veto power on matters that are vital to them, then this is forcing them into minority at federal level.

You didn’t read my proposal well. Please read it again.
They will practically have an equal say, in a different way.
The Turkish Cypriots will have the majority (75%) of the TCCS and also separate majorities to pass legislation in the senate. Therefore any law to be passed it requires the voting of at least 13 of the 24 senators. Even if the other 6 senators are going to be GCs (a very extreme scenario,) they still need another 7 TC senators to make up the total of 13 needed to influence the will of the Turkish Cypriot community.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=1574&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=20 (in the middle)

It is basically no deferent than the 1960 legislation composition and method of passing legislation. There you had 30% of the MP and separate majority was required. Here you will have 50% of the MPs (24 out of the 48.) The difference is that the GCs (25% of the population) that will move within the TCCS will also participate in the election of the MPs from the TCCS and perhaps they will be able to elect some of these 24 senators. The maximum they can possibly elect is 6 out of the 24. Still the TC will be 18 out of the 48 which makes it 38% of the senators from 30% that was in the 1960 constitution. To pass any bill it will require at least 13 TCCS MPs out of the 24. Greek Cypriots will be maximum 6, therefore they need another 7 from the remaining 18 of the TCCS. How more clear can I make it

In 1960 agreements we all have those rights, now you are proposing to eliminate those rights. As I have said, I can not speak for the rest of TCs but me individually would be more than willing to go back to 1960 agreements than what you are proposing.

Which rights am I eliminating?
So far I spoke only about the federal senate.
I didn't say anything about the presidency and the cabin of ministers.

So in short your proposal may not reduce us as a minority in state level but it will certainly will make us as a minority at the federal level.

How??? Just read what I said above.
Political equality doesn't mean numerical equality, after all!

(and honestly even state level majority is debatable from legal point of view because settlement restrictions based on ethnicity is against human rights. And do not get me wrong also it is against human rights having ethnicity based restrictions on voting too like Annan Plan. Hence my idea of achieving ethnic equality by having voting not based on ethnicity but on residency so that we can have ethnic equality and restrictions without violating human rights.)

I do not understand! Do you agree with me, my assumptions and my proposal on political equality on the basis of Constituent states instead of ethnic (community) level, or what???

Take care

Take care too

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Bananiot]

Kifeas wrote:

"Yes, primarily due to the existence of settlers, but also because it is an anachronistic illogical idea of the past, incompatible with any European princible. Because I want to live in a country which will be founded on modern priciples, and to to be proud to be her Citizen."

The matter of the settlers first. The sooner we solve our problem the fewer will stay. If we take another 10 or 20 years to solve it, then we will be dealing with a majority of settlers.

Now, the Anan plan. It is important to get things wright and stop misinforming, otherwise its easy to fall victim of the same misinformation. The European Union endorsed the A plan and not for one second did it consider it to be an anachronism. In fact, the EU made it absolutely clear that it is very compatible with the European Principles!

Now, I do not understand how I am trying to "play the clever" as Kifeas claims. He asks for evidence and loses his tongue when he gets the evidence (Papadopoulos past as Defkalion) and now he has the audacity to call others "clever". Let me give him another bit of news that may surprise him. In 1964 Papadopoulos sent a threatening letter to the USA, telling them that if the Turkish fleet enters the waters of Cyprus, we have 18 hours to clean up the island of its turkish cypriot inhabitants. This is precisely the language he used and do not tell me Kifeas that if you were a TC you would trust this man!

* The original letter, signed by Papadopoulos, appears in the new book by Niazi Kizilurek, which by the way, will be presented in Istambul tomorrow. Anyone interested?

[-mikkie2-]

Now, the Anan plan. It is important to get things wright and stop misinforming, otherwise its easy to fall victim of the same misinformation. The European Union endorsed the A plan and not for one second did it consider it to be an anachronism. In fact, the EU made it absolutely clear that it is very compatible with the European Principles!

Bananiot,

I think you will find that you are being mis-informed. Where in the EU has the plan been approved? Did it get approved by the Commission? Did it get approved by the European parliament? What EU body formally agreed that his plan was accepted by the EU and adhered to the Acquis? Each and every member state would have had to ratify the plan as being compatible with the Acquis as it would be incorporated in it - if it was incorporated in it it would have set a precedent which most EU states would find totally unacceptable. We would have laid ourselves open to loosing our EU membership before it even began. Just because Verheugen said that it complies wit hthe Acquis does not mean that the plan would be approved by the member states.

I bet if we said yes to the plan we would be sitting here discussing why we don't have EU membership!

[Kifeas]

-The matter of the settlers first. The sooner we solve our problem the fewer will stay. If we take another 10 or 20 years to solve it, then we will be dealing with a majority of settlers.

Settlers are already a majority. In anal plan 5, they would have almost been a majority (45% of the TC community.) In 10 years they would have definatelly become a majority, because they give birth 4-5 children per family. You mean that because they will increase in the future even more, we should accept to make a 50 / 25+25 federation with them now? Thanks, but No! I do not buy, nor do I sell!

-Now, the Anan plan. It is important to get things wright and stop misinforming, otherwise its easy to fall victim of the same misinformation. The European Union endorsed the A plan and not for one second did it consider it to be an anachronism. In fact, the EU made it absolutely clear that it is very compatible with the European Principles!

You just proved to me how ignorant you are about international politics. The E.U. endorsed the Anal plan 5 you said? Which E.U.? The commission? Verhaugen? Tonic Blear? What about the E.U. parliament? The E.U. council? Don’t you understand that most of those people haven’t even read the plan? My friend, the E.U. commission and Verhaugen reacted in the way they reacted because they didn’t want to inherit the Cyprus problem and have to deal with it, themselves, later. Therefore, their wish was for the problem to be solved in any way possible (in other words to “wrapp it up,” or like the "spray–wipe-finish" commercial slogan for famozo, ) so that they will not have to bargain and argue with Turkey, later on, on the issue of Cyprus. They didn’t want to be obliged to make concessions to Turkey towards it’s E.U. path, in exchange of her being more cooperative in the Cyprus. They wanted to retain any possible benefits or any possible Turkish concessions for their own (their countries,) sake and interests, in exchange of giving Turkey an accession date. Like for example Germany to sell Leopard Tanks, France to sell airbuses, etc, etc. Cyprus would have been an additional nuisance to them. Do you understand now why they got so upset with us? Because we spoiled their game! They didn’t care how the Cyprus problem would have been solved, as long as it would have been done before Cyprus joined the E.U. In this way they could adapt the E.U. aquie more easily, claiming that this was the situation in which Cyprus has been found before it joined the E.U. The Americans on the other hand, they wanted to clear the path in front of Turkey's accession road, in the best possible way. Cyprus becoming a member before a solution would have been a potential threat for Turkey's accession date, according to the Americans. Who do you think they could have pressed for most concessions under these circumstances. Of course the weakest ring of the chain, which, according to them, was RoCy.

-He asks for evidence and loses his tongue when he gets the evidence (Papadopoullos past as Defkalion) and now he has the audacity to call others "clever".

Your so called “evidence” is absolutely insufficient. How do you prove that Papadopoullos was called “Defkalion”? How do you prove that Defkalion was ordering the murders of leftists in the 1950’s? How do you prove that the person writing the articles was Defkalion? How do you prove that the person writing the articles was also ordering the murders? “The table has four legs. The donkey has also four legs. Therefore, every donkey is a table!” This is what your “considerable” “evidence” is suggesting to me.

-Let me give him another bit of news that may surprise him. In 1964 Papadopoulos sent a threatening letter to the USA, telling them that if the Turkish fleet enters the waters of Cyprus, we have 18 hours to clean up the island of its turkish cypriot inhabitants. This is precisely the language he used and do not tell me Kifeas that if you were a TC you would trust this man!

For the sake of the discussion, I will accept that Papadopoullos indeed wrote such a letter.
Why did he write it? Was it perhaps a tactic move in order to prevent the upcoming Turkish invasion? Does it mean that this was his real intention or wish? Had Turkey invaded Cyprus, would this be the real action of Papadopoullos or anyone acting upon his orders? What can be expected by a country that faces an immanent threat of been invaded by a much stronger country to do, in order to prevent such a danger? Is it illogical to use any counterbalancing threads or bluffs to discourage the stronger country from doing what they were planning to do? Couldn’t it just be another bluff to spare the attack of Turkey?
Sometimes you seem to me like someone who has just discovered the “Tashinopitta” (tachini pie.) Your clueless-ness about international politics is very profound.

If you really wish to contribute anything to this country, you should, instead of defaming Papadopoullos all the time with unsubstantiated rumours, try to convince the TCs that he is not the person they perceive him to be (because he is not,) and that they should try to accept him as the elected leader of the GC community. I do not understand what purpose you are serving in this forum. Do you want a solution or not? Do you want to convince the GCs to overthrow Papadopoullos and put Clerides or Papapetrou in his place? Do you want to persuade the TCs that they should not accept any agreement with Papadopoullos because he is a hardliner and a Turks hater? Explain us?

Further more, I should add here that from all the most unbiased persons that have known Papadopoullos on a personal level, despite all his undeniable shortcomings, the impression they gained is that he is, intellectually, one of the few Cypriot politicians we ever had.

By the way, check this link below and tell us how compatible it is with what you constantly claim about Papadopoullos.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=18762&cat_id=1

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

I admit now your proposal seems more fair where you have made explicit that separate majorities of TC senators would be required pass a bill. This is not any different than 1960 agreement. And I do not know if you are aware but this worse for you than Annan Plan. In Annan Plan in no time separate majority of TCs were required.

Let me clarify once more what I am talking about, because I still get the feeling that it was not sufficiently understood.

We have 2 Constituent States.

One, the GCCS, will number about 620,000 people, out of which perhaps 99.5% will be GCs and 0.5% will be TCs. All of them will be treated as equal citizens of this CS (one-man-one-vote.)

The other, the TCCS, will number about 200,000 people, out of which 75% will be TC and settlers (150,000) and 25% will be GCs (50,000). Similarly to the above, all of them will be treated as equal citizens of this CS (one-man-one-vote.)

The total population of Cypriot citizens will be approximately 820,000. The TCCS will have a population of 200,000 (including the GCs,) will form the 24.4% of the total Cyprus population and will control the 25% of the territory of Cyprus (excluding the British bases.)

Note here that the percentage of GCs holding TCCS internal citizenship (i.e. GCs hailing from the GCCS) will never exit the 25% of the total TCCS population. (permanent derogation on internal TCCS citizenship.)

The Federal legislating body will have only one house, the Fed Senate, (instead of two as it was in the A-Plan.) This single house will be composed of 24 senators from the GC state and 24 senators from the TC state.

The 24 senators of each one of the CSs, will be elected from all the internal citizenship holders of each constituent state.

In other words, the 200,000 citizens of the TCCS (including this 25% of GCs) will elect the 24 senators of this state, in a unified voting list and in a one-man-one-vote system. The same applies to the way the senators of the GCCS will be elected.

In the Federal Senate, each bill or law will require a separate majority of Senators from each CS, in order to get passed. In other words, at least 13 senators from each CS out of the 24 will be needed.

In the highly unlike (impossible) scenario that all the GCs of internal TCCS citizenship (25% of population) will form a separate party within the TCCS, the maximum number of Fed parliament senators that they can possibly elect, will not exit the number of six (6) out of the 24 total. Therefore they cannot from a separate majority by themselves because they will still require an additional 7 from the remaining TCCS senators.

The reason this proposal will be more favourable by Greek Cypriots is because this formula counterbalances their concerns arising from the fact that a) Being the substantially largest community they are conceding a substantially high proportion of political power (50% of the Fed Senate) to the substantially smaller community, and b) The smallest community that will enjoy this concession will be composed by a substantially high number (45%) of foreign (former Turkish) nationals.

By placing a 25% of GCs within this equation, the Greek Cypriots will feel that the TC community will always be taking into consideration the needs of the Greek Cypriot community and will refrain from abusing the excessive, compared to it’s actual size, political power at the expense of the largest community.

On the other hand, this formula should make the Turkish Cypriot community equally more comfortable because the Greek Cypriot community will have a counter incentive to potentially abuse them (TCs) due to the fact that this will immediately also affect equally the GC population that will be residing within the TCCS. It is a system that will make each one of the two communities in need of sticking together and support the smooth running of the Fed State. Why the A-plan5 formula was not satisfactory to GCs? Because it required only the Greek Cypriot community (being the largest one) to be in a constant need of the other community, making it a tempting possibility for the TC community to abuse this dominating position. In other words the largest community was much more vulnerable to blackmailing than the smallest community. Besides, who can guarantee to the GCs that the settlers will not be more loyal to their Turkish motherland identity, that to their Cypriot one.

Before I continue further, I would like to see if what I say here makes sense to you or whether you have any counter objections to it.