Insan wrote:I stated a billion times which ratified agreements were they but let me tell it one more time.
*1975 3rd Vienna agreement, 1977 summit Agreements and 1979 High Level Agreements.
*According to these agreements all TCs assume that they had the right to exchange the properties they occupy in North with the ones they owned in South. And TC leadership assumed that it had the right to exchange TC state land in South with same amount of GC state land in North.
Well, I read again all the agreements that you mention above. Although I fully understand the needs and difficulties of the TCs who moved from south to north, which apparently were only a small fraction of the corresponding needs of GCs that were forced to live from north, Unfortunately there is absolutely nothing in them (agreements) that could possibly have given the right to anyone to assume that it was legal or natural to gain ownership to any GC property or to invest in it or even worst to sell it to any third party. If you disagree, just make a quotation of the relevant text and the way you interpret it. To the contrary, on The 10-Point Agreement of 19 May 1979, point 3 mentions that: . “There should be respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms of all citizens of the Republic.” This by itself is sufficient to make, a valid this time, assumption that any GC property’s ownership should not be affected or altered.
Insan wrote:*Therefor both TCs and TC leadership invested the occupied GC properties and GC land in North.
Well, legally speaking, their assumptions were unsubstantiated and therefore it was a gross mistake to unilaterally undertake their “ownership” and massively invest in them or sell them further down.
By voting "yes" to Annan Plan they accepted to give back %9 of the occupied land and 1/3 of occupied GC properties and lands which would be in administrative boundaries of TC administered zone, per Annan Plan.
This “Anan plan 5” arrangements were very unsatisfactory, to say the least, to the GCs, both in terms of total land ownership reinstatement, but more importantly in relation to the methods, means and time spans of consequent compensation payments. Further more it was very profound that the necessary funds for these compensations were never going to be available, except if GCs were going to assume compensating themselves. It is a huge subject by itself. I personally analysed it based on relevant data provided and my conclusion was very disappointing.
Insan wrote:*The long and short of it; while TCs have acted according to the mutually ratified agreements, invested the GC properties which they occupy as if they were belonged to them and assumed that they wouldn't be forced to return South;
Answered above!
Insan wrote:*GC leadership has always promised and stimulate GC refugees that they would all return to their properties in North. I think this is the main reason why majority of GC refugees didn't invest the TC properties they have been occupying for 30 years in South.
Greek Cypriot refugees were never given by the RoCy; the right of ownership to any TC properties in the south and therefore no one had any such motivation to invest in a property that couldn’t legally belong to him. Furthermore, just think of this simple fact. The total area of GC properties that was left in the north was 3.7 times more than the total area of TC properties left in the south. Therefore was going to be satisfied with such an arrangement? How many would have been able to gain equivalent land and how many would have been left with an “open mouth”? In terms of value (not area,) the gab between TC and GC properties was estimated to be about 8 times more unfavourable. Again think of this simple fact. Most of GC properties were spread along the nearly 50% of the total coastline that came under Turkish occupation. Where is the most expensive land? Seaside of course! Just follow this example here. The value of my land in Lapithos (on the shore,) was estimated in 1974 at around Cy£7,000 per donum and was considered among the most expensive in Cyprus. In Pafos in 1974, you could buy 10 donums of similar land with Cy£7,000, and about 20 donums in other locations.
Insan wrote:*So how will we solve the properties issue in this situation? There are at least 120.000 TC refugees and some 40.000 non-refugee TCs(young generation who was given state land in North) who believe that they have the right to exchange the properties they occupy with the ones they left in South according to the ratified agreements. And TC leadership believe that it has the right to exchange the State land it occupies in the North with the one it owns in South.
I am sorry to say it but your figures are totally outrageous. In 1974-75 only about 50,000 TCs moved from south to north. Where did you get the 120,000? The total TC Cypriot population currently in the north (refugees and non) doesn’t exceed 100,000. Some even estimate them down to 85-90 thousand. I beg you pardon but please do not make me laugh. Do you include the mainland settlers in these numbers? As for the right to exchange, well should the agreements were more explicit, perhaps yes! However, neither the amount (territory) nor the value was anywhere near, to make any safe allocation and proper matching of how much of property could be utilised and later exchanged. The end result was a gross, criminal I should say, abuse of the abundance of GC land that fell in the hands of the regime. The funniest of all is that a great deal TC refuges were left with empty hands, despite the enormously much more land that was available.
I think some people in the north should, one day, pass in front of an execution squat.
As for the state land, it is a different issue. Based on your (TC) population ration, you could perhaps use up to 4.9% of the total state land available, which was about 26.5% of the total Cyprus territory, out of which 8% is located in the occupied areas.
Insan wrote:*Please answer me now. Do those 140.000 TCs have the right not to abandon the properties they have occupied/invested in last 30 years? Doesn't that mean substuntial amount of TC properties/state land should be exchanged?
Again you intentionally use a totally wrong figure. In principle, although again this was done unilaterally and without any such agreement, I can accept exchange up to the amount /value that was left back in the south. It is a humanitarian issue and I am willing to a logical extend to accommodate it. Insan, your problem is not the TC refuges. You know what is your real problem. There was a massive abuse of Greek Cypriot properties in the north. Settlers, foreigners, Denktash buddies, Army officers, crooks, etc, etc.
I will answer the rest of your essay when you come up with the correct figures.
Insan wrote:So if 120.000 TC refugees won't return to South this means 120.000 GC refugees won't have the right to return North. Or if 120.000 GC refugees wish to return TCCS; 120.000 TC refugees should abandon the properties they occupy and return to South.
From 1963 to 1974 85.000 TC refugees left all their properties in South. Recently the total number of TC refugees should be around 130.000. Let say 30.000 live abroad. there should be 100.000 refugees living in North.
Total number of GC refugees is 240.000. It is estimated that some 100.000 would gradually return to the %9 of the land which will be retuned to GC administration. Return of 100.000 refugees to %9 of the land would cause 60-70 thousands of TCs to gradually become refugees.
There are still 140.000 GC refugees. Half of these GC refugees would gradually return to TCCS by taking back 1/3 of their properties/state land share in TCCS. This means some 20-30 thousands of TCs would become refugees.
In the end, around 90-100 thousands TCs would become refugees. And if the remaining 70.000 thousands GC refugees also insist on to return to their properties or demand restitution of their properties instead of exchanging their properties with the ones they occupy in South; almost all TCs will become refugees.
I don't expect even there are just 5-6 thousands of GC refugees who plans to exchange the properties they occupy in South with the ones they own in the North.
