The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Views of Pro-Reunification TC Parties on Political Equality

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Views of Pro-Reunification TC Parties on Political Equality

Postby insan » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:03 am

http://www.turkishtime.org/26/50_1_en.asp

Could you explain this objective tangibly?

A resolution around the Annan Plan by certain arrangements that will underpin our political equality more. Of course, this resolution brings some pains. Certain arrangements which would take away these pains are necessary. Namely, issues such as people changing places, property arrangements, property regime or compensations.

What would you give up during the negotiation process?

It’s not possible to say such a thing, depends on what we’ll get. If what you are going to get has enough value to counterbalance that then you’ll give what’s in your hand but now it’s not right to say, "I’d give this but not that". But one can think, "I may give something if I take something in return". To give an example, if I guarantee my political equality, I may be more tolerant about the number of Greeks to move to the North. However, if this situation leads to arrangements that may upset my political equality, then I cannot display such tolerance. Similar examples may be enumerated, but everything will be decided at the table by weighing up the position of the other side as well.



http://www.medea.be/?doc=1590

Host [Rifat] Hisarciklioglu arranged for Ankara newspaper representatives to meet with Talat at a dinner. The interest was extraordinary. For two hours, Talat aired his views on a solution to the Cyprus issue and answered questions posed by the journalists.

He emphasized that he does not support a solution at any cost and is opposed to some convictions. He said: "On the Cyprus issue, I have things I regard as indispensable and some red lines as well."

Talat said that they will never give up political equality, equal share of sovereignty, Turkey's guarantorship and also their stance on two politically equal entities.





Saying that all these realities display that we are moving towards critical days, Talat emphasized that the Turkish Cypriot side not only fulfills its responsibilities but at the same time they expressly stated their vision of solution and their attitude for ending the Cyprus problem.




http://www.trncpio.org/ingilizce/DOSYAL ... 202004.htm

Underlining that the world is not founded on injustice and it is required to fulfill the responsibilities in order to have a world where there is justice, Prime Minister Talat stated that the Turkish Cypriots desire political equality, political integrations and ending of isolations. Moreover, he said that the Turkish Cypriots do not long to possess the rights of the Greek Cypriots, therefore, the world should give these rights to the Turkish Cypriots.



http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/199 ... .tcpr.html

Replying to another question, the CTP leader pointed out that there are certain issues on which the CTP agrees with the other parties. He explained that the four parties believe that the solution to the Cyprus problem should be bicommunal and bizonal, based on political equality, and protective of the rights cited in the 1960 agreements. He underlined the fact that the CTP can approve of full membership talks with the EU only if there is a representation reflecting political equality.


http://www.hri.org/news/cyprus/tcpr/199 ... .tcpr.html

Akinci described as very "unfair" the accession process the EU started with the Greek Cypriots. He claimed that the representation of the "TRNC" at the EU process must come after a solution and with equal status, adding that the dialogue the EU will set up with Turkish Cypriot parties and unions must not be portrayed as part of the accession talks with the Greek Cypriot side. The TKP leader stated that none of the Turkish Cypriot parties will support a solution that does not protect the Turkish Cypriots' security, equality, and equal rights in sovereignty, or Turkey's guarantees. That was one of the results that emerged from the meeting, he said.



http://cyprus.typepad.com/changing_trai ... inci_.html


AKINCI - I believe Turkey will enter the EU. First of all, let me say this will be a long process. It won't happen tomorrow. Perhaps it will take a further 10 or even 15 years. But let's assume there is such a danger [of Turkey not entering the EU]. It is out of the question for Cypriot Turks to vanish from the island. If we cannot have a settlement on Cyprus, then the Cypriot Turks will have vanished from the island. I believe the settlement being achieved is one that is opening up a new era that will safeguard the communal rights of the Cypriot Turks, their political equality, cultural rights, their very existence and identity. In this new era, there won't be any threat of vanishing from the island. Without a settlement, the threat of vanishing from Cyprus, I believe, is far greater.



http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/CQSit ... upiedareas

It supports the establishment of a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation with political equality and sovereignty according to the Swiss model (solution of a loose federation with quite a number of restrictions), with Turkey's effective guarantees and what is described as a reasonable and fair territorial arrangement with exchanges and compensations. The party's view is that «Land is not everything, but peace is».

However, it does not accept the federal solution «as an extension of the state in the south into the north». It advocates that the Federal Cyprus Republic must be a new state, with a new constitution. In case this federal solution is not achieved the only alternative solution is the strengthening and recognition of the «TRNC».

The party is disposed, within the framework of a solution, to accept the withdrawal of the settlers who have not created families in the occupied area. Those who settled many years ago and are part of the active population will remain, though the influx of settlers should not be continued. - TKP - H Angolemli




If I'm a partitionist because of my views and arguments about political equality, then all pro-reunification TC parties are partitionist as well. Thus if all TCs are partitionist why do we talk about reunification? There's no need to dellude each other. All concerned parties should clearly put forward what they want. Why should we waste more time? What's the miracle waiting for us, in the end?
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Re: Views of Pro-Reunification TC Parties on Political Equal

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:56 am

insan wrote:If I'm a partitionist because of my views and arguments about political equality, then all pro-reunification TC parties are partitionist as well. Thus if all TCs are partitionist why do we talk about reunification? There's no need to dellude each other. All concerned parties should clearly put forward what they want. Why should we waste more time? What's the miracle waiting for us, in the end?


There is nothing partitionist in your concerns about political equality. We become partitionist when we disregard the key concerns of the other side, and we become "integrationist" when we make the other's concern our own.

GCs as a whole do not oppose political equality per se. What they are against is the dysfunctionality that may arise in a system which requires consensus at every step. If Alexandros makes "political equality for TCs" a concern of his own, and if Insan makes "safeguarding against dysfunctionality" a concern of his own, and if everyone else does the same thing, then a solution will come straight away. We have not had a solution for thirty years because neither of us has been listening ...
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby magikthrill » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:13 am

you are right alexandre. so far the only members that take those that i have noticed are you and brother. alas if i had to choose to live in the same neighbourhood as one of you id have to go with brother :D
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sun Apr 03, 2005 1:19 am

magikthrill wrote:alas if i had to choose to live in the same neighbourhood as one of you id have to go with brother :D


Well, I am a very boring neighbor to have anyway. I am practically stuck in front of my computer all day! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby Piratis » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:11 am

"Political equality" is part of a complete solution package. There are many ways to interpred what "political equality" means, and according to Insan, what TCs had in 1960 agreements was political equality.

Since all GCs are more that willing to return to the 1960 agreements, it means that non rejects that kind of political equality.

Insan told us that "political equality" was their right according to the 1960 agreements. So was our right to settle with full political rights at any part of Cyprus.

Insan doesn't want to give up any of his rights, but he wants to take away many of our rights, and to have many additional rights for TCs that they didn't have before.

TCs can take their political equality whenever they decide. All they have to do is end the occupation and return to the RoC.

However if they want to change the 1960 agreements, taking away some of our rights, then they should be prepared to give up some of their rights too (e.g. political equality).
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:23 am

Piratis wrote:
Since all GCs are more that willing to return to the 1960 agreements, it means that non rejects that kind of political equality.


I am still away from home so sorry for the sporadic postings but had to reply to this.

How can you possibly say all GC are more than willing to return to 1960 agreements? I mean they were not acceptable to GC in 1960 to 74 for a start. Secondly has this 'offer' ever been made by a GC politician? It's easy to say 'all GC would accept X' when you know X has never been offered or is likely to be offered. So not trying to be overly aggressive but obviosuly something makes you think this (all GC more than willing to return to 1960 agreements) - I am just wondering what it is that makes you think this.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

What is political equality?

Postby pantelis » Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:08 am

"Political Equality"
Why don't we call it simply "Equality".
Is there equality among the GCs in Cyprus, right now?
Is there equality among the TCs in Cyprus, right now?
Is it not true that what matters is who you know, or related to, or which political party you are affiliated with, rather that what your qualifications and abilities are, when it comes to being hired in the public sector?
Is it not this the greater fear of the politicians and their associates? Losing the power to serve thyself by serving your “trusted” supporters, who in return would serve you back, directly or indirectly, is something they dread.
I have been living in the US for more than 25 years now. Maybe things in Cyprus have changed, since I left. If they have, please correct me.
Are things different in north than in the south?
Is favoritism going to continue and get worse, if Cyprus finally unites, or is it going to be officially “abolished”?
pantelis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 2:41 am
Location: USA

Postby Piratis » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:03 pm

I mean they were not acceptable to GC in 1960 to 74 for a start.


No actually this is not the case.

In 1960 we signed an agreement. However it was seen by GCs as a stepping stone to enosis, and for TCs as a stepping stone to partition. Nobody believed that "this is what you have, and better make it work the best it can". Today things are different, for us at least, since we don't desire enosis anymore. If TCs don't desire partition anymore either, then the way political equality existed in 1960 agreements would work. However if the TCs want partition (like many members here), then obviously they will be unwilling to cooperate, the will show no goodwill in order to make everything collapse.

Another point to keep in mind is that what sparked the problems in 1963 was not political equality per se. It was the unfair 40% governmental positions that the TCs were supposed to have. The government was unable/unwilling to fill up the 40% of governmental positions and the TCs retaliated with blocking the budgets and everything went on from there. If GCs did not think about enosis, and TCs didn't think about partition at that time, a solution could easily be found.


Secondly has this 'offer' ever been made by a GC politician?

Yes it has. Is the main policy of a small party. The bigger parties do not have this as their official policy because it is considered something that can not be achieved since Turkey and the TC leadership don't even want to talk about it.
However, the whole leadership and people (95%), would be more than glad to return to 1960 agreements. I know this is a fact because I live here, I hear what people say. Also I hear politicians all the time in discussions, while you hear only the final policies. So take this as a fact.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby insan » Sun Apr 03, 2005 2:38 pm

In 1960 we signed an agreement. However it was seen by GCs as a stepping stone to enosis, and for TCs as a stepping stone to partition. Nobody believed that "this is what you have, and better make it work the best it can". Today things are different, for us at least, since we don't desire enosis anymore. If TCs don't desire partition anymore either, then the way political equality existed in 1960 agreements would work. However if the TCs want partition (like many members here), then obviously they will be unwilling to cooperate, the will show no goodwill in order to make everything collapse.


TCs didn't see 1960s agreements as a jump board to partition because they were happy with it.

Another point to keep in mind is that what sparked the problems in 1963 was not political equality per se. It was the unfair 40% governmental positions that the TCs were supposed to have. The government was unable/unwilling to fill up the 40% of governmental positions and the TCs retaliated with blocking the budgets and everything went on from there. If GCs did not think about enosis, and TCs didn't think about partition at that time, a solution could easily be found.


If you examine the 13 points of Makarios, you'll notice that the main aim of Makarios was not to fix the unfair provisions related with percentages allocated to each community. His aim was to degrade TC community to a minority status. He publicly stressed it many times and noted by Galo Plaza's 1965 report. You should also well examine the Grivas factor and his cult clan in Cyprus. Even the 1960s agreements had been the world's fairest agreements; Grivas and his clan would do anything possible to annex Cyprus to Greece.


Yes it has. Is the main policy of a small party. The bigger parties do not have this as their official policy because it is considered something that can not be achieved since Turkey and the TC leadership don't even want to talk about it.



TC leadership did everything possible to keep the unitary state up. Until 1967 Makarios insisted on not to negotiate anything with TC leadership if TC leadership didn't accept the minority status. The extraordinary developments of year 1967 forced him to accept to negotiate with TC leadership without any pre-conditions. From 1967 until 1974 TC leadership did its best to ammend 60s agreements for a more democratic constitution. However while Makarios kept insisting on "majority rule"; Greek Junta and Junta sponsored underground organizations continiued to undermine the RoC and achieve Enosis. In 1967-74 period TMT neither committed any crimes against GCs nor TC left. The best proof of this is the formation of communist party CTP, in 1970 and return of thousands of TC refugees to their homes.



However, the whole leadership and people (95%), would be more than glad to return to 1960 agreements. I know this is a fact because I live here, I hear what people say. Also I hear politicians all the time in discussions, while you hear only the final policies. So take this as a fact.



The basic parameters of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federetion; include almost all provisions of 1960s agreements. After 30 years of negotiations based on bi-communal, bi-zonal federation; I think demanding to go back to the original 60s agreements would be big joke for whole world. Nevertheless, going back to original 60s agreements does not solve the problem because as far as I understood; GC leadership is trying to nullify treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance. Besides, still in sist on majority rule on "critical" matters. How about if those "critical matters" are also critical for TC community?
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Piratis » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:45 pm

TCs didn't see 1960s agreements as a jump board to partition because they were happy with it.


Of course they were, they were given what no other minority was ever given before in world history. However this was apparently not enough for them.

If you examine the 13 points of Makarios, you'll notice that the main aim of Makarios was not to fix the unfair provisions related with percentages allocated to each community.


Yes, because you used the power you had in order to make the whole system collapse so you could achieve your partition. And on the other hand the GCs were thinking about enosis and they were uncompromising too. Don't pretend to be angles. Almost nobody really believed in the independent Cyprus idea at that time.



The basic parameters of a bi-communal, bi-zonal federetion; include almost all provisions of 1960s agreements.


1960 agreements were not a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. Therefore you can not ask to take the bi-zonal, bi-communal federation that you want, without giving up anything in return.

Besides, still in sist on majority rule on "critical" matters. How about if those "critical matters" are also critical for TC community?


"Political equality" can be acceptable in a unitary state were people live mixed. However in the case of federation, it is obvious that TCs will use the 50% power to give disproportionately large benefits for their own state.

In conclusion, the 1960 agreements are acceptable by GCs. And if the TCs agree we could discuss about some changes that would make them more functional and fair for both sides. Otherwise they can remain as they are.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests