Piratis wrote:Kifeas I share your vision.
However it seems to me most Turkish Cypriots don't see Cyprus as one, but they see Cyprus as two. In effect they want some kind of racist separation and partition.
Thanks Piratis for sharing the above vision. I am aware of what most TCs say they want. Although I wouldn’t rush to call most of them as racists or greedy (there are those too,) in effect, in their effort to protect previous (1960) “acquired” “privileges” and also to “protect” their distinct identity, they end up demanding things that without any doubt can be labelled as racist and greedy.
However, if we GCs manage to subscribe them into sharing a common vision for the Cyprus of the future, and simultaneously provide the necessary guarantees that their distinct identity will not only be protected but also enhanced in this new climate, and also if GCs secure that they (TCs) will maintain an effective decision making participation in the running of the country; I believe we have a good chance to reach a viable solution that can and will also be accepted both by GCs and TCs.
GCs need to convince TCs that not only we are not after their identity assimilation, but also that we view it as an asset to the multicultural nature that we want to project to the Cyprus of the future. And as an asset, it will be to our best interest (GCs) to preserve it and enhance it further. Just think about this simple issue. How much more attractive Cyprus will be to the peoples of the surrounding Muslim countries if they know that in Cyprus there is a Turkish Cypriot element to which, in one or another way, they can identify with. I am talking about tourism, investments, trade, use of services, etc, etc. Isn’t this to the benefit and interest of all Cypriots?
Therefore, GCs need to strike a balance between satisfying TC’s needs, as described above, i.e. preservation of their distinct cultural identity and effective decision making participation, with the needs of Greek Cypriots for an effective political system that will not violate self-evident and universally accepted human and political rights.
Inevitably, due to the de facto situation of the last 31 years, the most feasible way to achieve this goal is through a federal system that will reunite the country as one entity. Notice that I remained to the term Federation only and I didn’t expand it to the commonly use term of Bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. The reason is because this term receives two different interpretations. Especially the term bi-communal! When this term was agreed in the past, as the objective for the solution to the Cyprus problem, it has never been strictly defined.
GCs defined and continue to define this term, as a federation of two states (bi-zonal), which will more or less enjoy an equal political status, whereas each community, through a form of pre-calculated and consequently preserved majority (hence the term bi-communal,) will enjoy a kind of moderate autonomy. In other words it will be an essentially strong federation with most powers laying in the hands of the federal government while the two states will enjoy that status of administrative regions (provinces) to whom a relatively small amount of power will be rented by the Fed government.
TCs have come through with various interpretations of this BBF. While at the very beginning they didn’t seem to essentially differ from the GC interpretation, later on Denktash came up with various demands that gave to this term substantially different meanings. At times he supported a week federation with two states that will enjoy maximum autonomy, strict bi-communality along ethnic lines, and completely equal (50:50) power sharing, and later on with demands to be recognised first as a completely separate and sovereign entity, and later connected with the GC state only in the form of a confederation of two independed states, etc. We all remember his claims for an alternating co-presidency and global exchange of properties and compensations for the difference.
Obviously each side have their arguments in favour of their own definition of what a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation means. Many believe or tent to claim that the Anan plan 5 was a mid-way between the two opposing views. Greek Cypriots argue that this not the case, or if we assume it to be, then it is a mid-way balance between the climaxed or exaggerated demands of Denktash and the Turkish side; and the GC’s moderate and logical demands. GCs argue that the mere fact of accepting a shift from a unitary state to that of a federation was by itself a huge compromise at the first place, which GCs were forced to concede as a result of the Turkish occupation and the forceful deportation of GCs from the north.
Furthermore, Greek Cypriots argue that the whole issue should be viewed as a political arrangement that will inevitably compromise many GC human rights, in order to allow the TC community to maintain a sense of autonomy -by being the majority in their state or region, but simultaneously one that will guaranty the unity of the Central government and the generally the country, as one entity. Therefore, GCs argue, it should not be viewed as a case, like many foreigners unfortunately came up to view nowadays, of two pre-existing regions of Cyprus in which each community or “ethnicity” traditionally or historically existed or maintained a majority and the question now is how to bring them back into one state or country. In addition to the above, GCs argue, that the two communities differ substantially in terms of size and therefore any allowance of political equality on the basis of ethnicity will create many problems in terms of fair representation of the citizens of the largest community, set aside the fact that it is a highly unusual and irregular arrangement by international political standards. As a final argument, perhaps the most problematic for GC’s rights, comes from the fact that, nowadays, the TC community is composed by a substantial proportion of foreign settlers who have been treated and termed as illegal but will now have to become their (GC’s) "co-partners," should a formation of a federation based on communal (ethnic) political equality, prevails. This very last prospect makes the A-plan completely indigestible for Greek Cypriots.
Had the two communities been historically living in these two regions (north and south,) and had the size (population) of them being more closely balanced, perhaps the A-plan 5 would have made much more sense for Greek Cypriots to accept. However we all know that this is not the case.
The real challenge we are facing is to convince the TCs that it is also to their long-term interest that the Cyprus problem is solved on the basis of true logic and fairness for both sides, and respect of human rights to an as much as possible highest degree, taking into consideration that sacrifices will have to be made, but from both sides.
Did A-pan5 provide this fame-work? According to the GCs it didn’t! In this forum a million reasons were given that prove this fact.
How can they (TCs) also be convinced that it didn’t? I believe by counting or investing on their logic and also by getting them to share a common vision with us for the future of Cyprus. If we (both TCs and GCs) cannot share a common vision, and consequently they will continue to view the future sentimentally as an “us versus them” equation, we will never convince them, regardless of whether plain logic proves our arguments or not.
It is indeed a hard and tough job! I certainly do not think that we can have any chance, if we will constantly put them at the spot and brand them with racism or greediness motives.
