Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, what you have suggested seems acceptable but not because of what you are trying to elliminate and what you are trying to protect. You say the percentage of extreme nationalists is 10 or 15 percent in GC community. Presumably the percentage of extreme nationalist is same in TC community. You must not confuse nationalists with ultra-nationalists. It is a fact that most of the Cypriots who vote for right wing parties are nationalists in different degrees.

No Insan, unfortunatelly I will not agree to this.

The political maturity of the right wing parties in the south, in combination to their other socio-economic interests, which require them to maintain a strict pro-Cypriot political orientation, make them a far less dangerous factor for the interests of the TC community than the corresponding elements of within the TC community. You cannot equate the political maturity of DESY party with that of Eroglou etc.

The political maturity of the TC right wing parties in combination with the vulnerability of the substantial amount of settlers within the TC community and the potential manipulation that these factors can receive from certain circles in Turkey, make their potential role a very frightening scenario for the GC community.

Such a situation doesn’t exist within the GC community, either you accept it, believe it, or not. The GC community is in a desperate need to secure a counterbalancing factor in order to eliminate this risk. Without it, I find it almost impossible to ever agree on a solution.

As for your suggestion, it is very similar to what was envisaged by Annan Plan.

Similar with Annan plan 1-3, yes! Anan plan 5, no!

However Annan Plan also envisaged a presidential council as a "checks and balanaces" mechanism in order to elliminate the probable to be appear unbalanced political formations.

Such as?

[turkcyp]

TurkCyp,

Well, If you are aware, in A-plan 5, on many issues, laws could be passed with at least 2/5 (40%) approval from each communities senators. Yet you accepted it and voted YES.

Yes I am aware of it and yes I voted “Yes”. May be you guys do not say from now on that TCs donot like to compromise. MAy be we do not like to compromise as much as you would like us to compromise.

Furthermore, in my proposal the split (i.e. separate majorities) will not be between communities but between constituent sates. Unlike A-plan which provide for 2/5 (40%) of minimum approval from each community, in my proposal the minimum for approval of a law will be a 50%+1 from each constituent sate. Therefore at the end of the day it all boils down to the same percentage.

I am aware of it that it boils down to the same percentage. And like you it is how we get to the end point that we differ. And in fact you are wrong in Annan Plan it requires only 25% on most issue and only on serious issues it requires 40%. And as I have said that it was a compromise on TC side to accept that less than 50% because we had 50% in 1960 constitution.

You do not like my way of getting to an end and explained your sensitivities about settlers. Now let me explain why I do not like your way.

But exactly like you it comes down to how we get to that 40% which is important. I do not like the fact that GCs get to vote senators from TCCS state. Why? Because as we all know that the 25% restriction on settlement limit in GCs in TCCS state is on shaky ground legally. So as Annan Plan’s proposal of 1.3 was on the shaky ground as well. This is why I keep on referring to it as temporary.

We all know that you can not put restrictions on settlement on the basis of ethnicity in the same country. That portion of any agreement (your proposal or Annan Plan) will almost surely will be turned back from ECHR. All those TCs that keep on dreaming that there will be limitation of GC settlement in TC state is only dreaming. Under no federal constitution that kind of clauses in the constitution will be accepted by ECHR. So in 10 years time when this clause of the constitution will be turned down by ECHR on the application of some over zealous GC, then all the TCs will be left handed in term of even 40%.

That is why in almost all of my proposals in this forum, I have always got rid of the restrictions on settlement of GCs in TCCS state, but start restricting the political participation rights in terms of residency. I have proposed every Cyprus citizen (TCs and GCs) have two kind of residencies. One primary the other one secondary residency. The primary residency would have been the residency you hold when the solution is achieved and secondary residency would be the residency that you choose to live if you settle on the other state. With that kind of proposal there would be no need to restrict GCs settling in TCCS state. In fact for me they can even be majority in TCCS state for that I care. They however start using some of their federal voting participation (senate and presidential) on their primary residency and use their secondary residency for voting in the state elections and federal congressional elections.

That is the only way, it is feasible to guarantee some sort of TC equality on federal level without being turned down by ECHR. Your way (or Annan’s way) violates the ECHR. So it will mostly be abolished some time down the road. Then what we do. What can we do when let’s say 200k GCs decided to settle in TCCS state. How do we guarantee any TC participation in the decision making then. We can not.

That is why I am against your method.

The approval will not be carried out with a 60% of the constituent states senators against it but only 50%-1.
My approach is for a direct bi-zonal and indirect bi-communal federation. Your approach is rather the opposite, i.e. direct bi-communal and indirect bi-zonal.

No disagreement here. As I have said I care of bi-communality much more than bi-zonality. And you the opposite.

The question is would we be arguing exactly the opposite positions if GCs were 20% of Cyprus and TCs were 80%?

[Kifeas]

TurkCyp,

It is not a matter of residency or freedom of movement or settlement. It is a matter of internal CS citizenship that determines who votes and who not.

ECHRs has nothing to do with this type of political arrangements, unless voting rights of a citizen are completely disenfranchised by a country, contrary to its constitution. The ECHR looks at the violation of human rights and whether the constitution of a country is enforced properly.

Perhaps what you mean is the Court of European Communities (ECC,) which is an E.U. court.

Anyway your proposal that political rights are distributed on the basis of ethnicity bears a much greater risk (almost certain) of been turned down the ECC, than the restriction or quota on internal CS citizenship or transfer of internal citizenship from one state to the other.

The question is would we be arguing exactly the opposite positions if GCs were 20% of Cyprus and TCs were 80%?

As far as I am concerned and as far as the particular issue is concerned, yes I would have had the same position as I have now.

[turkcyp]

TurkCyp,

Look, you choose to look at the glass as half empty. I would choose to look at it as half full.

It is not that I think the glass is half empty. I actually think that glass is half full. It was even unconceivable even 5 years ago that we would be in this position in Cyprus right now. Look we are talking to each other in civility, we are passing the other side everyday. The human contact is increasing every day. Yes it is true that every time I cross to the south I feel like I have been treated as a dog, but again it takes time. (may be situation is the same for GCs I do not know)

I would have taken into consideration the following factors.

1. Is what I said in my two previous postings.
2. The build up of GCs in the north (TCCS) will be a gradual one and not a one shot. Therefore by the time they will become 25% of the total population perhaps this issue loose it’s importance anyway.
3. This 25% of GCs with TCCS internal citizenship, will not be a solid body with one (presumably GCs nationalistic) ideology which will aim at forming a purely GC ethnic political party and elect all 6 senators that their 25% population will possibly allow them, but instead they will associate and integrate into preexisting TC political parties, according to their individual ideological background and individual interests.
4. The elections of TCCS senators will not be separate between TCs and GCs but instead will be mixed (one list) and under partisan (ideological) platforms. Therefore it might be possible than maybe only 2 or 3 GCs will be elected through these parties, instead of 6 that I gave in my extreme scenario.
5. The GCs that will move into the TCCS will also have personal interests in relation to the place of their residence, i.e. their town or area in the north. Therefore these people and any GC senators elected will primarily look to serve the interests of their area rather and the people who will vote them.

All good wishes Kifeas. All good wishes. I have told you before my mentality is this I hope for the best but I get ready for the worst. You tend to underestimate the nationalistic tendendencies in this country. Even you complain about the settlers, and I complain about the EOKA people. So the train can be derailed anytime in the future by the nationalistic people. Then we do what. We are back to square one, again discussing what kind of more compromises TCs should give.

Having taken all these facts into consideration, if I was a TC I wouldn’t have a problem accepting such a proposal. Unless I was one of the nationalist TCs and therefore I would be reluctant to accept the fact that GCs will participate in the elections of the federal senators of my state because, being a TC nationalist I would have much less chances to receive any GC votes and therefore me or my nationalist party (i.e. Eroglu for example) will have a smaller leverage in the political affairs of the TC community.

Well you are not a TC Kifeas so you would not understand. Let me tell you this much. We trust GCs as much as they trust Turkey and settlers.

However, this is exactly what GCs want to achieve by this proposal. To diminish the influence and leverage of nationalistic (Eroglous and Ertoglouoglous) parties in the TCCS affairs and also in the Federal government. Not to abduct the TCCS and the TC community from within, as you might be afraid we want. Unless you are also a member of a nationalist party, in which case I can sympathise with your concerns but I will not accept the GC community to become tight to such a senario of having the federal government under the blackmailing of Eroglous, Ertoglouoglous, gray wolves, etc.

Notice how sincere I am?

I totally understand your position Kifeas, and never doubted your sincerity. But you have to understand our fears as well. In a day where RoC government is honoring all EOKA members, celebrating EOKA day, etc. etc. you expect us to trust GCs as well. (And I do not want to get into the whole discussion again why we do not like EOKA members, and we think they are terrorists.. It is my opinion. Remember what they say one man’s freedom fighter is the other’s terrorist)

So the same sentiments exist in both sides. So where do we go form here? Tell me I am being very sincere as well.

[turkcyp]

Very simple answer metecyp,

1. The what you call ex-EOKA fascists, Enosists, etc., are only a small minority, mabe 10% say 15% and therefore such proposal will not gain approval even by a majority of GCCS senators.
2. The TCCS will still have to approve it by separate majority, i.e 13 out of 24 TCCS senators. Even if we take the extreme senarion that 6 out of the 24 TCCS seantots are of GC origine and even if we again take the extreme senario that all these 6 GC senators choose to agree with such a proposal, STILL you will need an additional 7 senators from the TCCS to agree with the 6 and form the 13 needed majority from the TCCS.

We are talking about separate majorities here.

Are you happy or you need more reasons? I have more if you want.

I can exactly say the same things for the Erogluists or Ertugrulists as well. We are simply going in circles.

No Insan, unfortunatelly I will not agree to this.

The political maturity of the right wing parties in the south, in combination to their other socio-economic interests, which require them to maintain a strict pro-Cypriot political orientation, make them a far less dangerous factor for the interests of the TC community than the corresponding elements of within the TC community. You cannot equate the political maturity of DESY party with that of Eroglou etc.

The political maturity of the TC right wing parties in combination with the vulnerability of the substantial amount of settlers within the TC community and the potential manipulation that these factors can receive from certain circles in Turkey, make their potential role a very frightening scenario for the GC community.

Such a situation doesn’t exist within the GC community, either you accept it, believe it, or not. The GC community is in a desperate need to secure a counterbalancing factor in order to eliminate this risk. Without it, I find it almost impossible to ever agree on a solution.

That is what it looks like from your side of Cyprus Kifeas. What we see is actually muchmore nationalistic elements among GCs. I guess it depends which site of the bench you sit on.

When I see, I can see that TCs are getting rid of Denktas finally, but at the same time I can see that GCs electing somebody like T.Pap. Trust me whatever you feel against Erogluist we feel worst for T.Pap.ists.

This guy in my opinion carry the blood of so many TCs in his hands.

[Kifeas]

This guy in my opinion carry the blood of so many TCs in his hands.

Turkcyp,

Sorry to say this but you are talking nonsense now!
At least ask Insan as he knows a bit more on the history of Cyprus than you definately do.

I absolutely do not accept that Papadopoullos is more “intransigent,” more “nationalistic” more “hard liner” more “insincere” than I find my self to be.

Therefore, if so far you find me to be intransigent, nationalistic, hardliner and insincere, then you are also right to claim the same about Papadopoullos.

If not, then your opinion about Papadopoullos is definately totally distorted. Of course why it shouldn’t be distorted since we have people like Bananidot who spread rubbish all the time. (Excuse me bananidot!)

[insan]

No Insan, unfortunatelly I will not agree to this.

The political maturity of the right wing parties in the south, in combination to their other socio-economic interests, which require them to maintain a strict pro-Cypriot political orientation, make them a far less dangerous factor for the interests of the TC community than the corresponding elements of within the TC community. You cannot equate the political maturity of DESY party with that of Eroglou etc.

It has never seen or heard Eroglu throwing ashtrays to his party members or agressively shout at his opponents. Anastasiades is one of the most agressive and sneaky right wing politician that a considerable number of GCs appreciate. It is a verified fact that most of the right wingers are Hellenocentric and sensitive about interests of Hellenism. Anastasiades and DESI is the equivelant of Serdar Denktash and DP.

EOKA-B wing of DESI that split from DESI awhile ago is even more agressive and extreme nationalist than any TC party exist in North.

Eroglu and his party can be equated with Tassos and DIKO.

The political maturity of the TC right wing parties in combination with the vulnerability of the substantial amount of settlers within the TC community and the potential manipulation that these factors can receive from certain circles in Turkey, make their potential role a very frightening scenario for the GC community.

TCs feel just the same about the GC right wing parties.

Such a situation doesn’t exist within the GC community, either you accept it, believe it, or not. The GC community is in a desperate need to secure a counterbalancing factor in order to eliminate this risk. Without it, I find it almost impossible to ever agree on a solution.

As I stated before, such a situation doesn’t exist within the TC community, either you accept it, believe it, or not. The TC community is in a desperate need to secure a counterbalancing factor in order to eliminate this risk. Without it, I find it almost impossible to ever agree on a solution.

insan wrote:
As for your suggestion, it is very similar to what was envisaged by Annan Plan.

Similar with Annan plan 1-3, yes! Anan plan 5, no!

insan wrote:
However Annan Plan also envisaged a presidential council as a "checks and balanaces" mechanism in order to elliminate the probable to be appear unbalanced political formations.


Such as?

Please read the relevant provisions of Annan Plan.

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp,

Sorry to say this but you are talking nonsense now!
At least ask Insan as he knows a bit more on the history of Cyprus than you definately do.

I absolutely do not accept that Papadopoullos is more “intransigent,” more “nationalistic” more “hard liner” more “insincere” than I find my self to be.

Therefore, if so far you find me to be intransigent, nationalistic, hardliner and insincere, then you are also right to claim the same about Papadopoullos.

If not, then your opinion about Papadopoullos is definately totally distorted. Of course why it shouldn’t be distorted since we have people like Bananidot who spread rubbish all the time. (Excuse me bananidot!)

No. I am simply talking about the general consensus in TC society. Ask Insan if you want what the consensus is about T.Pap among TC society, if you consider his opinion above mine.

YOu have no idea how much I know about Cyprus history, so you can not make accusations like that. AS for calling me nationalistic. Trust me, if you think I am nationalistic then you do not want a unification with TCs. I do not consdeir myself leftist, or nationalistic. I consider myslef anarchist.

About you being as intrasigent. Political views wise and parameters of the solution wise you may be, but I assume that you do not have history like T.Pap. among TCs. I can live with you if you were chosen to be the president of Cyprus .

Ideas and beliefs I can tolerate, but murder I can not. He is one step below Grivas and Sampson for me, and for most TCs.

p.s. This is my opinion, of course, you may beg to differ and yo have every right to be.

[Kifeas]

Insan, please give me a break!!!

Anastasiades and all his party top members and leadership as well as all other political parties (including DEKO) have daily contacts with political parties from the north and also participate in all bi-communal parliamentarian meetings at ledra palace.


Eroglus party and him personally have never ever appeared on any bi-communal meeting and they have absolutely no relationship with any GC political party or political personality. They refuse to even salute or even look at a GC, set aside to have a any meetings and talk about anything, even if it is about the weather.

Can you name to me anyone single GC political party that has even a fraction of similarity to the behavior and attitude of Eroglou and his party towards the other community.

No one!!

[Kifeas]

YOu have no idea how much I know about Cyprus history, so you can not make accusations like that. AS for calling me nationalistic. Trust me, if you think I am nationalistic then you do not want a unification with TCs. I do not consdeir myself leftist, or nationalistic. I consider myslef anarchist.

Nationalistic???

Where did I ever call you a nationalistic in an affirmative way?
Turkcyp, please!!

Ideas and beliefs I can tolerate, but murder I can not. He is one step below Grivas and Sampson for me, and for most TCs.

You keep bringing up this issue. What evidence do you have for such allegations? Papadopoullos has never been personally involved to any criminal or likewise acts against any TC. To the contrary to the best of his power and authority during those days (1963-1967,) he tried to eliminate or at least minimise acts against TC civilians. If you have any such information to the contrary, I would like to know it. Apart from the bullshits of Bananidot.