Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

My entire thesis is based on the bi-zonal (Constituent state) equality and not on the communal (ethnic) equality. I think this was made very clear from the very beginning (political equality of the two Constituent states.) I just do not understand how you didn’t take note of this from the beginning. I personally would have never agreed on a political equality based on ethnic community lines (i.e. one based on ethnicity) .

The we will not be able to live in the same country. Very simple. This is why we have moved into partition talk. Simply second best for both of us. (Our first bests are not the same do not get me wrong. They both involve living together but under different constitutional rights.

Now if the 25% of GCs seems too much and you are afraid it will bastardise your Constituent state’s ethnic purity, we can decrease this percentage but simultaneously we have to decrease the territory percentage accordingly (i.e. below 25%.) If you want 0% of GCs participating in your constituent states senator’s elections, then 0% of GCs will settle within TCCS but subsequently territory goes down to 18%.

How many times I have said it. I am not interested in purity of the state. For I care you can be more than TCs in northern state. What I care about communal equality, which you already said are not willing to give. That is why even 1960 agreements were acceptable for me. If I was interested in pure TC state, I would not accept 1960 agreements would I.

The other option you have said where no GC settles in TC state and territory goes down to 18% is acceptable for me. As long as we can guarantee that the GCs that settle in TC state after the solution, in the 18% would participate certain federal elections in GC state.

I simply do not discuss political equality purely based on ethnic lines. Only based on Constituent state residency, like in the rest of the world, and in the USA, since you lived there.
Call me a chauvinist if you like but simply I do not accept Atatürk’s motto that "one Turk equals the whole world," or 18% of TCs equal 82% of GCs.

Again with the one liners that you have picked up from the trash bins of history to supposedly make your argument better, but it has no relationship to the subject at hand. You are really reducing the quality level of debate with these kind of word plays. Yes I have lived in USA and I could have easily emigrated there as well. But I choose not to because all my family was in Cyprus. If I was living in USA I would not ask for communal equality as well. In fact I know that it is a very strange and may be incomprehensible desire for you guys. But the recent history of Cyprus between GCs and TCs actually forces me to ask for this.

There simply a big time trust issue between us guys. I can safely say this to you. If we could have managed to make RoC live as a joint government for 40 years and after 40 years GCs come up with exact same 13 points to change in the constitution, there would not be that big of rejection on those points from TCs and they might evern be accepted by TCs. Because we could have probably built that trust in each other, so I would not be needing all those constitutional guarantees.

In the same manner, I am also willing to accept clauses in any agreement that we reach that forces us to reconsider the communal equality clauses in the constitution in lets say every 15 years. And may be in 15 or 30 years TCs would trust GCs again so they will not be needing those guarantees in the constitution. But before trust is built between us we will not accept a solution without communal equality.

My formula gives you an almost communal equality, you just fail to realise it because you continue to see everything with TC vs GC (ethnic) glasses and anything not 100% pure looks bad to you. You (most TCs) have been conditioned (spoiled) to look at things through this monomaniac narrowly defined spectrum.

We are not talking now about 1960 agreements. It is an entirely different issue. We are not any more in the 1960’s but in year 2005 and members of the E.U. We either see the world with modern eyes or call the quits. We do not go back to this, unless we go directly to the 1960 constitution in the fashion which I described yesterday.

May be. But we had our reasons in history to do so. And as I have said it takes time too trust somebody and before that trust is established I would only do politics in the mindset of “hope the best but expect the worst”. That is why we need equality. It is not that we are more natioanslistic than you guys, or it is not that we loveour ethnicty more than you guys. It is just that we are scared that you guys are too natioanlistic so the only way to defend oursleves is to do this. You may not believe these things that I have said, but trust me that is waht the majority of TCs think. ( I can safely talk for the majority of TCs on this matter, )

And quite honestly being in EU does not provide me the necessary guarantees and trust in you as well. We have seen what happened at the close by neighbor of EU, in Bosnia. EU did not the shit. And at some outposts of EU, in Cyprus, European Powers would come to our help if something again happens. I do not believe so.

Annan Plan gave you pure communal equality along ethnic lines. Senate was formed on the basis of ethnicity. That is why it was rejected by GCs.

Annan Plan did not give us pure ethnic equality. It still needed only 1/4 (and 2/5) of TCs to decide on issues not the majority of issues. I understand why it was rejected by GCs, and I respect their point if view, but unfortunately it does not do any good to me.

To make it more simple.

Instead of what you are asking, which is:

18 = 82

Left side of the equation is the TC community and right side is the GC community

I propose

(18+6) = (82-6)

left side of equation is the TCCS and right side of the equation is the GCCS

What I am asking is 1 community = 1 community. In my eyes it does not matter that one community is 1/4 of the size of the other community. It is OK in EU to have RoC = Germany but it is not OK, in Cyprus to have TC community = GC community.

And please spare me the whole argument of one is inter-country the other one is intra-country. It is the concepts of equality we are talking about.

[Agios Amvrosios]

Viewpoint said:

Kyrenia would definately remain in TC country.

Who Decided this? Why Kyrenia? This is unacceptable.

I'll See you in Court

[Alexandros Lordos]

To make it more simple.

Instead of what you are asking, which is:

18 = 82

Left side of the equation is the TC community and right side is the GC community

I propose

(18+6) = (82-6)

left side of equation is the TCCS and right side of the equation is the GCCS

What I am asking is 1 community = 1 community. In my eyes it does not matter that one community is 1/4 of the size of the other community. It is OK in EU to have RoC = Germany but it is not OK, in Cyprus to have TC community = GC community.

And please spare me the whole argument of one is inter-country the other one is intra-country. It is the concepts of equality we are talking about.

Turkcyp,

I do not think Kifeas is being extreme in his views regarding this matter. Let's face it, electing the senate according to ethnic origin is highly irregular, it is disrespectful to those Cypriots who are neither GC nor TC, and it will lead to deadlocks because of "ethnic solidarity" dynamics. As the whole issue currently stands in the Annan Plan, it is unacceptable to me just as much as it is unacceptable to Kifeas.

Europe, after all, is not about: People of French ethnic orgin = People of German ethnic origin, it is about: The State of France = The State of Germany. So the example you chose favors Kifeas' argument more than it favors yours.

One compromise I would be willing to accept is if voting is done according to internal constituent state citizenship, but with enhanced qualified majority requirements (instead of 25 and 40%, let's say 35 and 50%), and also with permanent limits to the number of GC residents in the north.

Another compromise I would be willing to accept is cross voting for the Senate, to moderate the "ethnic solidarity" dynamic and provide political motives for co-operation. This would still be a highly irregular arrangement, but at least it would not lead to deadlocks and breakdown.

[MicAtCyp]

p.s. The difference between you and me is that even if I know that people like you are majority in Cyprus I still think partition is second best not the first best. On the other hand, you said that if you believe that people like me are majority among TCs you would say that partition is your first best. This actually shows our desire to compromise and our stomach to accept the differences among each other. I have no problem with living with people who does not think like I am but apparently you do. Sad very sad...

There does not need one to be One Cypriot nationality to be able to live together when we start tolerating our differences, and start putting everybody in one bug melting pot. If I wanted to be melted in something else in a big pot, then I would have emigrated to USA, where everything is a melting pot.

I am not saying that melting pot is a bad thing. I am saying that we are not ready for it right now. In time all TCs and GCs if the can live together while respecting differences and by not being forced into that big pot, will eventually melt into one bif Cypriot nationality anyway. It just takes time.

Turkcyp sometimes I like your views sometimes I don't. The above is an example of the first type. For me however partition is not the second best option, actually is the second worst. I explained the reasons in other posts plus the fact that politically it is an impossibility The side that first proposes partition is doomed to loose everything.

Anyway I would like to learn your "pragmatic" or lets say substantial reasons why for you re-unification is better compared to partition. How will re-unification benefit us all better?

The same question goes to all other forum members as well. Except VP of course

[Alexandros Lordos]

Anyway I would like to learn your "pragmatic" or lets say substantial reasons why for you re-unification is better compared to partition. How will re-unification benefit us all better?

The same question goes to all other forum members as well.

MicAtCyp,

personally, I like to compare the dilemma between unification and partition, to the dilemma between getting married (or remaining married) and staying a bachelor (or divorcing).

The "Way of the Bachelor" is comparatively easy, fewer causes to quarrel or lose one's peace, fewer responsibilities, fewer expenses.

On the other hand "the Way of Marriage" is challenging, it weighs one down with responsibility, it often gives cause for one to lose his calm, it is expensive.

Therefore it is tempting for one to say "Marriage is a mess, I prefer to remain a Bachelor" (or become a bachelor once more through divorce).

Why marry then? Because it is a more creative course of action, because through marriage we become more mature and ehnance our personality.

Re-unification will strain and challenge us, but I believe it is worth the trouble. We will overcome our narrow-minded mentalities, learn the value of dialogue and co-operation, enjoy each other's cultural wealth.

Division is easy, we can achieve it without learning anything at all about ourselves or about life ...

[metecyp]

personally, I like to compare the dilemma between unification and partition, to the dilemma between getting married (or remaining married) and staying a bachelor (or divorcing).

This is a perfect analogy!

Re-unification will strain and challenge us, but I believe it is worth the trouble. We will overcome our narrow-minded mentalities, learn the value of dialogue and co-operation, enjoy each other's cultural wealth.

Exactly! Why don't we have politicians like you? Why?

[Kifeas]

I do not think Kifeas is being extreme in his views regarding this matter. Let's face it, electing the senate according to ethnic origin is highly irregular, it is disrespectful to those Cypriots who are neither GC nor TC, and it will lead to deadlocks because of "ethnic solidarity" dynamics. As the whole issue currently stands in the Annan Plan, it is unacceptable to me just as much as it is unacceptable to Kifeas.

Thanks for seconding my arguments Alexandros. Furthermore, in view of the new E.U. constitution, which strictly prohibits any discrimination on the basis of ethnic origin, such provision could easily become nullified upon a ruling of the European Communities court, irrespective of the possible acceptance of other derogations.

Europe, after all, is not about: People of French ethnic orgin = People of German ethnic origin, it is about: The State of France = The State of Germany. So the example you chose favors Kifeas' argument more than it favors yours.

I would add here that the E.U. is not a country (State) itself, but instead, a type of confederation to which a country applies and joins, but can also withdraw from it. Furthermore, a citizen from one country member, a French for example, may freely move and reside in Germany and consecutively, upon fulfilment of certain criteria, transfer his political rights into his new resident country. In no case, once Germany accommodated him as her citizen, may tell him to go and vote for France since he is of French ethnicity.

One compromise I would be willing to accept is if voting is done according to internal constituent state citizenship, but with enhanced qualified majority requirements (instead of 25 and 40%, let's say 35 and 50%), and also with permanent limits to the number of GC residents in the north.

I am not sure if I understand exactly what you mean here, can you elaborate a bit on this?
Do you mean by what percentage of Senator votes from each CS, a decision or a bill may get passed?

Another compromise I would be willing to accept is cross voting for the Senate, to moderate the "ethnic solidarity" dynamic and provide political motives for co-operation. This would still be a highly irregular arrangement, but at least it would not lead to deadlocks and breakdown.

Yes, I agree on that, I feel though that it's practicality (implementation) might be a bit difficult.

[Alexandros Lordos]

One compromise I would be willing to accept is if voting is done according to internal constituent state citizenship, but with enhanced qualified majority requirements (instead of 25 and 40%, let's say 35 and 50%), and also with permanent limits to the number of GC residents in the north.

I am not sure if I understand exactly what you mean here, can you elaborate a bit on this?
Do you mean by what percentage of Senator votes from each CS, a decision or a bill may get passed?

Yes, what I mean is that, since the TCs are concerned about decisions being made without their approval, and since they fear that 2 or 3 GC senators from the TC state would tip the "balance of political power" against them, then we can raise the threshold for decision making higher, so that more TCCS senators are required to agree with each decision. In this way, the effect of having two or three GC TCCS senators will be mitigated.

Besides, I don't believe any GC TCCS Senators would be elected, at least in the medium term, what will most likely happen is that the GCs living in the north will offer their support to one or another TC party, depending on how well their rights are being protected. So in this sense I believe the whole concern which led to the amendment in favor of ethnic voting is one that is born out of anxiety rather than realism.

[turkcyp]

Dear Alexandros,

I do not think Kifeas is being extreme in his views regarding this matter. Let's face it, electing the senate according to ethnic origin is highly irregular, it is disrespectful to those Cypriots who are neither GC nor TC, and it will lead to deadlocks because of "ethnic solidarity" dynamics. As the whole issue currently stands in the Annan Plan, it is unacceptable to me just as much as it is unacceptable to Kifeas.

If we are going to choose two level parliament systems (senate and house) then at least one has to be chosen guaranteeing equality between GCs and TCs. If there is one level like 1960 then it has to guarantee equality at that level. Let me explain myself right again, I am not so much after equality in terms of numbers. What I am after is any decision that is decided should be approved by the majorities of TCs at any point. That is the kind of equality I am after. Like 1960 there was no number equality. It was 30% but 70% but, every decision needed majority of each communities approval.

SO if you want you can make senate not 24-24 but make 36-12 or anything. But in any case majority of TCs in the senate should be required to vote for it to be a law. That is my understanding of equality.

Plus you say that it is not fair to other ethnicities. Like Maronites, and may be Brits. I think in any agreement there has to be a mechanism like 1960 where all those other ethnicties may choose to be considered either as GC or TC in terms of voting. So there will not be an unfair advantage. Also like 1960 agreements there has to be a way of deciding who is a TC and who is a GC. (This was a major lacking point in Annan Plan I think)

Europe, after all, is not about: People of French ethnic orgin = People of German ethnic origin, it is about: The State of France = The State of Germany. So the example you chose favors Kifeas' argument more than it favors yours.

When the current states that makes up EU were founded they were all set up on the principle of nation state, and none of them had a structure like 1960 Cyprus. Therefore it was not an issue to specify. That is why when a Brit becomes a citizen of France he can vote in all elections in France without any ethnic separation. And sovereignty that decides who can be a citizen of France is only vested in France not in EU. EU can not tell France, hey look this Brit has been living in France for 20 years right not you have to make him a citizen. Citizenship laws of France is outside the jurisdiction of EU.

However in Cyprus, that is not let to states. A TC state can not decide about the status of GC resident once it settles in TC state. That is decided by the federal constitution. IF you let TC state decide define who can be resident in TC state then I say AMEN there is no need for that kind of separation. I hardly doubt you are ready for that. Even in 1960 agreements there were ways of defining how people can switch between GC and TC communities. A GC can become a TC and a TC can become a GC for all legal purposes. But the communities back then had the right of rejection. They could have reject a GC who had wanted to become a TC for legal purposes. In Annan Plan there is no such rejection mechanism. AS I have said above, are you ready to give that kind privilege to states. IF not there is no way, the above equality can be guaranteed.

That is why while I was trying to improve Annan Plan I tried to bas everything in three type of citizenship. Which can be changed from one state to another. But as Annan Plan stand right now, the only way to solve that problem is to bas things on ethnicity. (again the mechanism that decides who was GC and who was TC was also lacking in Annan Plan anyway)

One compromise I would be willing to accept is if voting is done according to internal constituent state citizenship, but with enhanced qualified majority requirements (instead of 25 and 40%, let's say 35 and 50%), and also with permanent limits to the number of GC residents in the north.

You are trying to achieve the same thing with a more complicated way Alex. The idea is to create the above explained equality at, at least on level of federal law making mechanism. In Turkish they say “Do not try to show your left ear with your right hand from the back of your head, it is much easier to show it with your left hand”. If you accept the above equality idea, there are much simpler ways of obtain then qualified majorities.

The whole notion gets down to this simple premise:
“Are GCs ready to accept that any law to be made at federal level should obtain majority of TCs (not majority of state residents but TCs). (again it does not need to be 24-24. It can be 36-12, 40-10, whatever. If they accept this we don not even need two tier parliamentary system anyway)

Another compromise I would be willing to accept is cross voting for the Senate, to moderate the "ethnic solidarity" dynamic and provide political motives for co-operation. This would still be a highly irregular arrangement, but at least it would not lead to deadlocks and breakdown.

Cross voting for senate can be accepted as I have said before if there is set a mechanism that guarantees that people who are selected as TC senators gets the approval of majority of TCs. But this at the end has nothing to do with the above mentioned equality and does not solve our problem at that level.

The system you guys are suggesting always will have some possibility that a law will be made in the federal level without the majority approval of TCs. And there will not be a deadlock if the proposed law is for the benefit of the majorities of TCs and GCs. Why do you have a reason that majority of TC senators would block a law that benefit smajority of TCs. There may be possibility of deadlock only when there is a law that benefit majority of one community but not the majority of the other community. And why would there be a law like that anyway. That kind of laws should not exist to begin with.

What everything come down to trust. I know that if we can settle on one system and make it run for some time, we will start trusting each other. And we start trusting each other then there will be no need for above regulations. That is why I am more than willing to set periodic federal constitution reviews, to get rid of those regulation in the future.

Take care,

[Alexandros Lordos]

One compromise I would be willing to accept is if voting is done according to internal constituent state citizenship, but with enhanced qualified majority requirements (instead of 25 and 40%, let's say 35 and 50%), and also with permanent limits to the number of GC residents in the north.

You are trying to achieve the same thing with a more complicated way Alex. The idea is to create the above explained equality at, at least on level of federal law making mechanism. In Turkish they say “Do not try to show your left ear with your right hand from the back of your head, it is much easier to show it with your left hand”. If you accept the above equality idea, there are much simpler ways of obtain then qualified majorities.

The whole notion gets down to this simple premise:
“Are GCs ready to accept that any law to be made at federal level should obtain majority of TCs (not majority of state residents but TCs). (again it does not need to be 24-24. It can be 36-12, 40-10, whatever. If they accept this we don not even need two tier parliamentary system anyway)

Turkcyp,

first of all please accept my apologies for responding only to a segment of your post, for the time being. I will try and get back to you on the rest later.

You are saying that I am choosing "a complicated way when something simpler could do the job". There is however a reason that makes me deeply anxious about ethnic based voting for the senate, and forces me to seek "complicated solutions": It is about obeying established and solid principles of governance. Let me explain in detail.

In all Federations, the legislature is separated in a bicameral way. The one house is meant to represent all individuals equally, while the other house is meant to represent all constituent states equally. As a resident and voter of a particular constituent state, I have a voice on the Federal level as an individual equal to all other individuals of a Federation, through the proportional house, and I also have a voice as a member of my constituent state which is equal to all other constituent states, on the Senate level. Such is my political identity as a citizen ...

Now, by unhinging voting rights for the Senate from constituent state citizenship, what do we achieve: Essentially, we undermine the whole concept of a Federal Solution, and start importing (out of context) elements of a bicommunal unitary state. Most critically, we undermine the prestige of the constituent states, which lose their role of providing internal citizenship status, since internal citizenship is in practice redefined accroding to ethnic origin. Thus, by trying to have the best of both worlds - the best of a bicommunal unitary state and the best of a Federal Solution - we end up having neither, but instead end up with a politically unstable system which disenfranchises its citizens and makes them feel that they do not truly belong in their constituent state. And yet, the constitution of the TCCS, in the preamble, states that "the state is indivisible from the people living within its border". Do you see now how ethnic voting for the senate, is a case where the bizonality of the solution is being sacrificed for the sake of "extra bicommunality"?

Think about this: In a Federal System, the Senators are supposed to represent, on a Federal Level, their constituent state. Right? Thus, when they are considering a new law they should be thinking "how will this impact on the legal and adminisrative system of my constituent state, how will this impact on the economy and society of my constituent state". If however in the Cypriot Federation we diverge from this rule of governance, then who and what will the senators represent? It is not the communities that will comprise legal, administrative and social systems, it is the constituent states. What sense does it make for the GCCS senators to represent GCs living in the north? Are these GCs a part of their internal society? No. They are a part of the TCCS in every way that matters in politics (religion and culture do not matter in politics, they are personal and a-political issues).

These are the reasons I am willing to consider what you call "complicated solutions" in order to re-ground the Federal Senate in its appropriate foundations. If we require separate majorities from each constituent state in order to pass a legislation, so as to overcome the fact that two or three GC Senators of the TCCS might possibly betray the interests of their constituent state and support the constituent state of their ethnic kin instead, then so be it - let's require separate majorities. But let's not abandon the fundamental principles of Federal Governance, because there will be a price to pay for our indiscretion.