Erolz wrote:You sincerely beleive that TC have a hidden agenda to achieve permanent and recognised partition and that any statements or agreements or moves that seem to contradict this objective are based on insincerity and deception.
Ok Erol,
Let me get to into the hard-core of the issue.
I claim that the TC-Turkish establishment doesn’t favour at all the reinstatement of GC properties (even this 1/3 as per A-Plan) and even more importantly it doesn’t favour the return of GC refuges within the TCCS. You obviously disagree with my allegation.
Then please elaborate on the following.
The GC side accepted a territory, substantially larger than the TC community’s population ratio, to remain under its effective administration, with the profound assumption that a large number (equivalent as a ration to the excessive territory ratio) of GCs would be “allowed” to return back to their ancestral villages and properties and with all their human and political rights to be respected. This TCCS territory ratio (29.4%,) which is 1.6 times more than the TC population percentage, ideally should allow as much return of GCs as to be up to 37% of the total population of the TCCS, assuming that the TC population is the 18% of the total. (In fact it is less than 18% but with the addition of remaining settlers it will be slightly more than 18%.)
Annan plan 1 & 2, provided for GCs to become up to 28% of the total population, up until the end of the transitional period (20 years.) The TC/Turkish side protested and this was reduced down to 21% in Annan plan 3. Still this was not satisfactory for the TC/Turkish side and in Annan plan 4 & 5 this percentage was dropped further down to 18%. Further more in A-plan 5, this 18% was made permanent (for ever) and with a provision to become a primary law of the E.U. aqui. (Modify the already signed treaty of accession and pass it again through all the 24 E.U. parliaments for re-approval.)
All these downfalls, from 37% which should have been the legitimate ratio for GCs, down to 18%, were done by the U.N. team, unilaterally, and without the consent of the GC side. As a “compensation” to the GC side, the TC side accepted, instead of a subsequent reduction of the territory ration, the allowance of up to 33% of secondary residence status (not a citizens status but that of tourists, communal tax payers, consumers of services, net contributors,) to people other than of Turkish /TC ethnicity. In this 33% ratio of total TCCS population naturally includes all the foreigners that currently reside or will reside in the future in the north. Already these foreigners near up to 5% of the TC –to be – population and very soon they will climb up to 10%. Therefore, this 33% that was supposed to be given as a “compensation” (not an authentic one,) to the GC side, is /will be eroded by the foreigners.
Going back to the 18% of GCs that were agreed by the TC side to be accepted as internal citizens of the TCCS. In a A-plans 1,2, & 3, they had full political rights like the other (TC) citizens. In A-plans 4 & 5, their political rights were carved down to the state level only and not to the federal level as citizens of the TCCS.
The most astonishing however was yet to be discovered. For this GCs had to wait until 2 weeks before the referendums when the Constitution of the TCCS became publicly available by the U.N. Although the TC side accepted only this little 18%, compared to the excessive territory they gained and although this 18% political rights were reduced only to the level of the state; the TC constitution provided that, in order for any one to be elected into any post from the community level to the parliament of the state, he/she must have proof of knowledge of Turkish, as being the only official one of the state. In other words, although the GCCS had secured a provision in it’s constitution to make Turkish a secondary official when it becomes necessary -despite the fact that not many TC were expected to move south into the GCCS and although the TC community enjoys the right of having it’s language as one of the official ones of the Fed state –despite the fact that it is also only 18% of the total; the TC side found it reasonable to deprive the future GC citizens of it’s state from their native language. That would have meant that education for them would be in Turkish, unless it would be provided by the GCCS through private schools within the TCCS, plus any possible election to any political post or employment to any civil administration position would be hampered by the fact that very few GC speak adequate Turkish.
Furthermore, anyone elected in the parliament of the TCCS would be required as the TC constitution dictates, to take an oath to safeguard and promote the principles of Atatürk. Even if this person originates from the GC community and although it is so well known to the TCs that for GCs Atatürk is a symbol of Turkish nationalism.
All the above phenomena create a least favourable climate for any GC to wish to resettle into the north. All the fears that the TC community has been expressing for so many years not to become a minority in their own country and all the consequent disadvantages that this would have to their cultural identity and their political integrity, have found their way in the TCCS constitution but this time against the GCs that would want to return back to their ancestral lands (their homelands.)
Why?
The answer is simple. The TC /Turkish side do not favour the return of any GC back into the north. They want to discourage and prohibit directly or indirectly the desire of GCs to move within the TCCS. They claim they accept it, but at the same time they invented a thousand ways to prohibit it. There are many more hidden issues in the TCCS constitution that prove my above conclusions. Furthermore, the massive trading of GC properties, which in the case of Kyrenia and Famagusta has already rented this 1/3 provision of property reinstatement to the original GC owners grossly inapplicable almost as much as 90% of the cases are concerned, is an additional evidence of this hidden policy of keeping the north (TCCS) clean of any GC presence.
Why they do not favour the return of any GC into the TCCS?
Because they want the door (option) of future partition to remain wide open. As long as the URC serves their purpose and Turkeys purpose, they will stick to it. Once their purpose is not served any more, they will push for the creation of artificial stalemates until they force the GC side to say “the hell with it,” and then they will run away with 29%-30% and 48% of the coastline of Cyprus, before a single penny for property compensations is paid and before any serious number GC manages to return into the north. The scenario of the so-called virgin birth was invented for this specific reason. The term Constituent states in A-plan 4&5, instead of the initial one in A-plan 1 & 2, which spoke for Component states was invented for this reason. All these “innocent” changes were made out of TC/Turkish insistence. Why? Because once the Federal government will eventually collapse, the two remaining states will immediately be recognised as two separate sovereign entities.
Have they made wishes known from the beginning, i.e. that they do not prefer a single GC to get mixed into their state affairs by moving back into the north, then the International community and the GC side would have immediately spoken for a further reduction of the territory, as low as 18% of the total area of Cyprus. This however yields a very little area and would have definately been unsatisfactory. Therefore they had to agree the return of some GCs but prohibit it in different ways.
P.S.: when I make reference to the TC/Turkish side, I certainly to do include the majority of ordinary TCs who perhaps have no clue of what is going on and what is at stake.
The reference to 29.4% of territory as the real percentage of the TCCS, instead of 28.7% comes about if one subtracts the territory (3%) of British bases, which is not part of the GCCS.
)
