Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

The hard fact remains that this is a very thorny issue. We are looking at a dynamic situation which is nothing like as cut and dried as it was five or ten years after the occupation. Some settler families are in their third generation and intermarriage with Turkish Cypriots is taking place. There is not a single country in the European Union in which people who were born in that country and whose parents were also born in that country can be deported on the grounds that their grandparents were illegal immigrants. As time goes by, the problem becomes more and more complex. You can either bury your head in the sand and engage in denial, or grasp this thorn. It is an issue that has to be addressed realistically if there is to be a comprehensive settlement.

It certainly is a thorny issue. People who for generations (the Greek Cypriots) lived in Cyprus have an equal or, some would argue, a better right to be in that part of Cyprus. Turkey deliberately and out of malice caused the problem, Turkey should sort it out but not at the expense of the GCs. It's time the EU UN and other responsible bodies made Turkey face up to the racist crime it commited in Cyprus or is the same old story - might is right.

Greek Cypriots undoubtedly have a right to live anywhere in their own country. However, it is not a zero sum game. Can Greek Cypriots who wish to do so not be permitted to return to their properties while at the same time accomodation is made for people who have lived all of their lives in Cyprus to remain there?

I think overcrowding could become an issue in that case. The Greek Cypriots should be given priority in any property dispute in the north and if it means that immigrants are displaced then so be it, Turkey should bear the cost of their relocation either on the island or the mainland. The same rules should apply to TCs returning south.

It's not going to happen though is it!

Sure. Title to property and leave to remain in the country are two different things. There is absolutely no doubt who has legal title to all property in Cyprus. I support no other settlement apart from one that respects the rule of law - that means that all trepassers have to vacate the property they occupy, unless the legal owners care to do some kind of deal with them. Settlers who are illegally occupying property need to vacate it, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be forced to leave Cyprus.
As to what is really going to happen - I don't know.

[Kifeas]

The hard fact remains that this is a very thorny issue. We are looking at a dynamic situation which is nothing like as cut and dried as it was five or ten years after the occupation. Some settler families are in their third generation and intermarriage with Turkish Cypriots is taking place. There is not a single country in the European Union in which people who were born in that country and whose parents were also born in that country can be deported on the grounds that their grandparents were illegal immigrants. As time goes by, the problem becomes more and more complex. You can either bury your head in the sand and engage in denial, or grasp this thorn. It is an issue that has to be addressed realistically if there is to be a comprehensive settlement.

It certainly is a thorny issue. People who for generations (the Greek Cypriots) lived in Cyprus have an equal or, some would argue, a better right to be in that part of Cyprus. Turkey deliberately and out of malice caused the problem, Turkey should sort it out but not at the expense of the GCs. It's time the EU UN and other responsible bodies made Turkey face up to the racist crime it commited in Cyprus or is the same old story - might is right.

Greek Cypriots undoubtedly have a right to live anywhere in their own country. However, it is not a zero sum game. Can Greek Cypriots who wish to do so not be permitted to return to their properties while at the same time accomodation is made for people who have lived all of their lives in Cyprus to remain there?

I think overcrowding could become an issue in that case. The Greek Cypriots should be given priority in any property dispute in the north and if it means that immigrants are displaced then so be it, Turkey should bear the cost of their relocation either on the island or the mainland. The same rules should apply to TCs returning south.

It's not going to happen though is it!

Sure. Title to property and leave to remain in the country are two different things. There is absolutely no doubt who has legal title to all property in Cyprus. I support no other settlement apart from one that respects the rule of law - that means that all trepassers have to vacate the property they occupy, unless the legal owners care to do some kind of deal with them. Settlers who are illegally occupying property need to vacate it, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be forced to leave Cyprus.
As to what is really going to happen - I don't know.

Tim, as it is well known, Turkey has a secret policy of usurpation of northern Cyprus from its legitimate inhabitants, through colonization with its own people from Turkey. This is in fact the policy they previously successfully followed in Alexandreta of Syria (Hatay,) which they managed to Turkify through gradual colonization. On the basis of the "principle" you have utilized above and had Turkey allowed or transferred in the early years of the illegal Turkish occupation, half a million people instead of only 40-50 thousands, would you still say that we should also accepted their staying behind after a solution? If so, isn't it like we vindicate and reward Turkey's plans and policies to demographically usurp other people's lands and countries?

And one last thing, where would the right of the indigenous inhabitants to the maintenance of their cultural identity and political independence go, if they accept that the overwhelming majority of the population in their country will be originating from a foreign country, with a different cultural orientation? Furthermore, where does the international law stand in such a case, which prohibits the colonization of an occupied country by the people of the occupying force (3rd Geneva Convention?) Would you have followed the same logic in your argumentation, if instead of a few tens of thousands of mainland Turks, we were talking about a few hundreds of thousands; and if not, why? Wouldn't the principle you are introducing in order to argue in favor of their stay still be the same?

[Viewpoint]

The hard fact remains that this is a very thorny issue. We are looking at a dynamic situation which is nothing like as cut and dried as it was five or ten years after the occupation. Some settler families are in their third generation and intermarriage with Turkish Cypriots is taking place. There is not a single country in the European Union in which people who were born in that country and whose parents were also born in that country can be deported on the grounds that their grandparents were illegal immigrants. As time goes by, the problem becomes more and more complex. You can either bury your head in the sand and engage in denial, or grasp this thorn. It is an issue that has to be addressed realistically if there is to be a comprehensive settlement.

It certainly is a thorny issue. People who for generations (the Greek Cypriots) lived in Cyprus have an equal or, some would argue, a better right to be in that part of Cyprus. Turkey deliberately and out of malice caused the problem, Turkey should sort it out but not at the expense of the GCs. It's time the EU UN and other responsible bodies made Turkey face up to the racist crime it commited in Cyprus or is the same old story - might is right.

Greek Cypriots undoubtedly have a right to live anywhere in their own country. However, it is not a zero sum game. Can Greek Cypriots who wish to do so not be permitted to return to their properties while at the same time accomodation is made for people who have lived all of their lives in Cyprus to remain there?

I think overcrowding could become an issue in that case. The Greek Cypriots should be given priority in any property dispute in the north and if it means that immigrants are displaced then so be it, Turkey should bear the cost of their relocation either on the island or the mainland. The same rules should apply to TCs returning south.

It's not going to happen though is it!

Sure. Title to property and leave to remain in the country are two different things. There is absolutely no doubt who has legal title to all property in Cyprus. I support no other settlement apart from one that respects the rule of law - that means that all trepassers have to vacate the property they occupy, unless the legal owners care to do some kind of deal with them. Settlers who are illegally occupying property need to vacate it, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be forced to leave Cyprus.
As to what is really going to happen - I don't know.

Tim, as it is well known, Turkey has a secret policy of usurpation of northern Cyprus from its legitimate inhabitants, through colonization with its own people from Turkey. This is in fact the policy they previously successfully followed in Alexandreta of Syria (Hatay,) which they managed to Turkify through gradual colonization. On the basis of the "principle" you have utilized above and had Turkey allowed or transferred in the early years of the illegal Turkish occupation, half a million people instead of only 40-50 thousands, would you still say that we should also accepted their staying behind after a solution? If so, isn't it like we vindicate and reward Turkey's plans and policies to demographically usurp other people's lands and countries?

And one last thing, where would the right of the indigenous inhabitants to the maintenance of their cultural identity and political independence go, if they accept that the overwhelming majority of the population in their country will be originating from a foreign country, with a different cultural orientation? Furthermore, where does the international law stand in such a case, which prohibits the colonization of an occupied country by the people of the occupying force (3rd Geneva Convention?) Would you have followed the same logic in your argumentation, if instead of a few tens of thousands of mainland Turks, we were talking about a few hundreds of thousands; and if not, why? Wouldn't the principle you are introducing in order to argue in favor of their stay still be the same?

You will have to abide by EU laws and principles just as you do with your own "settlers", you canoot switch these principles on and off as you wish.

[Nikitas]

Soyer's statement:

"Moreover, to what extent is it correct to still attempt to exclude on the basis of origin those people who have lived in Cyprus for years and whose grandparents settled on the island after 1974?"

The grounds are simple and crystal clear: since the end of WWII, with the drafting of the UN Charter which is primary international law, the colonisation of ANY country is a CRIME.

The so called humanitarian consideration of what are we going to do with peolpe born in Cyprus etc, referring to settlers, is a problem created by Turkey and cannot possibly be laid on the shoulders of Cypriots.

My approach to the settler question is drastic, some might even say ruthless- they can go to any place they want, except Cyprus. Those married to Cypriots can stay. The rest leave to make room for Cypriots.

The issue of settlement cannot possibly be compared to illegal immigration by individuals. The poor people who arrive in Europe illegally do not do so as a result of a deliberate national policy to occupy any EU country, which is the situation of the Turkish settlers in Cyprus.

Comparing the situation with the USA is interesting. Would these settlers take an oath of allegiance translated word for word from the American original? GO ahead and ask them and Soyer if HE would take such an oath, forsaking allegiance to any other country.

Allowing the settlers to remain in any politically significant numbers will lay the foundations of a future conflict much worse than any we have had in the past. For the simple reason that both sides now know what real war is like, as opposed to small arms guerrilla war, and will be prepared for an all out fight to prevail. Only fools would pretend not to see this plain fact.

All the BI stuff, bizonality and bicommunlaity etc, is acceptable if the we are talking about communities. If settlers remain then we do not have communities but nationalities, and the BI nature of the settlement is lost and irrelevant. We will have INTERNATIONAL elements in the island as between two nations. There is a vast difference between a bicommunal and an international settlement.

[Viewpoint]

Will south Cyprus expell their settlers? Russians Pontiacs, Sri Lankens etc etc.

[Kifeas]

VP, we do not have settlers in the free part of Cyprus! We only have seasonal workers, and controlled permanent residents, mostly from EU countries! Nevertheless, all non Cypriot population in the free areas does not exceed the 10% of the Greek Cypriot inhabitants! The illegal settlers in the occupied areas are more than 100% of the indigenous TC population!

It is a principle of international law (3rd Geneva Convention) that an occupier of a foreign country is not allowed to ethnically cleanse the indigenous inhabitants and import its own people in the areas under occupation. Turkey is in violation of international law. These poor people from Turkey that were illegally allowed to settle in Cyprus are victims of the Turkish irredentism which wants and aims to the demographic usurpation of Cyprus from its legitimate historical inhabitants. Turkey should adequately and generously compensate these people (her own citizens whom it allowed to illegally settle in Cyprus,) in order for them to be repatriated! Lawless Turkey must be made to realize that "might is not right," and getting the "boot" from her EU accession is the best punishment under the circumstances!

[iceman]

Will south Cyprus expell their settlers? Russians Pontiacs, Sri Lankens etc etc.

VP
Unlike the procedure in the north,those people DO NOT HAVE VOTING RIGHTS in ROC....
They will never be given the chance to decide on the future of any Cypriot.!!!
Stop defending this crime commited in north Cyprus.

[Viewpoint]

VP, we do not have settlers in the free part of Cyprus! We only have seasonal workers, and controlled permanent residents, mostly from EU countries! Nevertheless, all non Cypriot population in the free areas does not exceed the 10% of the Greek Cypriot inhabitants! The illegal settlers in the occupied areas are more than 100% of the indigenous TC population!

It is a principle of international law (3rd Geneva Convention) that an occupier of a foreign country is not allowed to ethnically cleanse the indigenous inhabitants and import its own people in the areas under occupation. Turkey is in violation of international law. These poor people from Turkey that were illegally allowed to settle in Cyprus are victims of the Turkish irredentism which wants and aims to the demographic usurpation of Cyprus from its legitimate historical inhabitants. Turkey should adequately and generously compensate these people (her own citizens whom it allowed to illegally settle in Cyprus,) in order for them to be repatriated! Lawless Turkey must be made to realize that "might is not right," and getting the "boot" from her EU accession is the best punishment under the circumstances!

Will you apply the same priciples that you put forward for the Turkish settlers to the 10% that arrived in the south after 1974? If you reply yes then we have no problem.

[Tim Drayton]

The hard fact remains that this is a very thorny issue. We are looking at a dynamic situation which is nothing like as cut and dried as it was five or ten years after the occupation. Some settler families are in their third generation and intermarriage with Turkish Cypriots is taking place. There is not a single country in the European Union in which people who were born in that country and whose parents were also born in that country can be deported on the grounds that their grandparents were illegal immigrants. As time goes by, the problem becomes more and more complex. You can either bury your head in the sand and engage in denial, or grasp this thorn. It is an issue that has to be addressed realistically if there is to be a comprehensive settlement.

It certainly is a thorny issue. People who for generations (the Greek Cypriots) lived in Cyprus have an equal or, some would argue, a better right to be in that part of Cyprus. Turkey deliberately and out of malice caused the problem, Turkey should sort it out but not at the expense of the GCs. It's time the EU UN and other responsible bodies made Turkey face up to the racist crime it commited in Cyprus or is the same old story - might is right.

Greek Cypriots undoubtedly have a right to live anywhere in their own country. However, it is not a zero sum game. Can Greek Cypriots who wish to do so not be permitted to return to their properties while at the same time accomodation is made for people who have lived all of their lives in Cyprus to remain there?

I think overcrowding could become an issue in that case. The Greek Cypriots should be given priority in any property dispute in the north and if it means that immigrants are displaced then so be it, Turkey should bear the cost of their relocation either on the island or the mainland. The same rules should apply to TCs returning south.

It's not going to happen though is it!

Sure. Title to property and leave to remain in the country are two different things. There is absolutely no doubt who has legal title to all property in Cyprus. I support no other settlement apart from one that respects the rule of law - that means that all trepassers have to vacate the property they occupy, unless the legal owners care to do some kind of deal with them. Settlers who are illegally occupying property need to vacate it, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be forced to leave Cyprus.
As to what is really going to happen - I don't know.

Tim, as it is well known, Turkey has a secret policy of usurpation of northern Cyprus from its legitimate inhabitants, through colonization with its own people from Turkey. This is in fact the policy they previously successfully followed in Alexandreta of Syria (Hatay,) which they managed to Turkify through gradual colonization. On the basis of the "principle" you have utilized above and had Turkey allowed or transferred in the early years of the illegal Turkish occupation, half a million people instead of only 40-50 thousands, would you still say that we should also accepted their staying behind after a solution? If so, isn't it like we vindicate and reward Turkey's plans and policies to demographically usurp other people's lands and countries?

And one last thing, where would the right of the indigenous inhabitants to the maintenance of their cultural identity and political independence go, if they accept that the overwhelming majority of the population in their country will be originating from a foreign country, with a different cultural orientation? Furthermore, where does the international law stand in such a case, which prohibits the colonization of an occupied country by the people of the occupying force (3rd Geneva Convention?) Would you have followed the same logic in your argumentation, if instead of a few tens of thousands of mainland Turks, we were talking about a few hundreds of thousands; and if not, why? Wouldn't the principle you are introducing in order to argue in favor of their stay still be the same?

I understand your points. If a settlement had been achieved earlier, then this issue would not have taken on these dimensions. I am not trying to argue for any particular solution; I am just saying that this issue is growing ever more complex with the passage of time. It has to be approached with a certain amount of realism. I don't believe that a European Union member state can address this problem without taking the humanitarian issue into account. The kind of arguments that Soyer is using would strike a chord with a great many Europeans. A figure of fifty thousand is being touted as an acceptable compromise. Five or ten years down the road, even this proposal may be unfeasible.

[Viewpoint]

The hard fact remains that this is a very thorny issue. We are looking at a dynamic situation which is nothing like as cut and dried as it was five or ten years after the occupation. Some settler families are in their third generation and intermarriage with Turkish Cypriots is taking place. There is not a single country in the European Union in which people who were born in that country and whose parents were also born in that country can be deported on the grounds that their grandparents were illegal immigrants. As time goes by, the problem becomes more and more complex. You can either bury your head in the sand and engage in denial, or grasp this thorn. It is an issue that has to be addressed realistically if there is to be a comprehensive settlement.

It certainly is a thorny issue. People who for generations (the Greek Cypriots) lived in Cyprus have an equal or, some would argue, a better right to be in that part of Cyprus. Turkey deliberately and out of malice caused the problem, Turkey should sort it out but not at the expense of the GCs. It's time the EU UN and other responsible bodies made Turkey face up to the racist crime it commited in Cyprus or is the same old story - might is right.

Greek Cypriots undoubtedly have a right to live anywhere in their own country. However, it is not a zero sum game. Can Greek Cypriots who wish to do so not be permitted to return to their properties while at the same time accomodation is made for people who have lived all of their lives in Cyprus to remain there?

I think overcrowding could become an issue in that case. The Greek Cypriots should be given priority in any property dispute in the north and if it means that immigrants are displaced then so be it, Turkey should bear the cost of their relocation either on the island or the mainland. The same rules should apply to TCs returning south.

It's not going to happen though is it!

Sure. Title to property and leave to remain in the country are two different things. There is absolutely no doubt who has legal title to all property in Cyprus. I support no other settlement apart from one that respects the rule of law - that means that all trepassers have to vacate the property they occupy, unless the legal owners care to do some kind of deal with them. Settlers who are illegally occupying property need to vacate it, but this does not necessarily mean that they should be forced to leave Cyprus.
As to what is really going to happen - I don't know.

Tim, as it is well known, Turkey has a secret policy of usurpation of northern Cyprus from its legitimate inhabitants, through colonization with its own people from Turkey. This is in fact the policy they previously successfully followed in Alexandreta of Syria (Hatay,) which they managed to Turkify through gradual colonization. On the basis of the "principle" you have utilized above and had Turkey allowed or transferred in the early years of the illegal Turkish occupation, half a million people instead of only 40-50 thousands, would you still say that we should also accepted their staying behind after a solution? If so, isn't it like we vindicate and reward Turkey's plans and policies to demographically usurp other people's lands and countries?

And one last thing, where would the right of the indigenous inhabitants to the maintenance of their cultural identity and political independence go, if they accept that the overwhelming majority of the population in their country will be originating from a foreign country, with a different cultural orientation? Furthermore, where does the international law stand in such a case, which prohibits the colonization of an occupied country by the people of the occupying force (3rd Geneva Convention?) Would you have followed the same logic in your argumentation, if instead of a few tens of thousands of mainland Turks, we were talking about a few hundreds of thousands; and if not, why? Wouldn't the principle you are introducing in order to argue in favor of their stay still be the same?

I understand your points. If a settlement had been achieved earlier, then this issue would not have taken on these dimensions. I am not trying to argue for any particular solution; I am just saying that this issue is growing ever more complex with the passage of time. It has to be approached with a certain amount of realism. I don't believe that a European Union member state can address this problem without taking the humanitarian issue into account. The kind of arguments that Soyer is using would strike a chord with a great many Europeans. A figure of fifty thousand is being touted as an acceptable compromise. Five or ten years down the road, even this proposal may be unfeasible.

Thank god someone has their head screwed on well done Tim.