Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Preliminary results from the survey are beginning to come in ...

From a partial sample, these are the results that struck my attention:

D2. One alternative Security System is as follows: The Treaty of Guarantee will be maintained, but with various amendments. On the issue of troops, the Greek and Turkish contingents will depart within a few years, after which time Cyprus will be totally demilitarised. As for intervention rights, Greece will have the right to intervene in order to protect the security of the Greek Cypriot constituent state only, while Turkey will have the right to intervene in order to protect the security of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state only. If Cyprus comes under attack from any other country, it will not have the means for its own protection, but the guarantor powers – Greece, Turkey and Britain – will each be expected to come immediately to Cyprus’ defence.

This is just as unacceptable to GCs as the Annan Plan security provisions!

D3. Another alternative for security is the development of a Cypriot-European security system, as follows: Greek and Turkish troops will be replaced by a European Security force, under a European commander, and this force will also include Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot soldiers, who will together receive military training in other European countries. This new security force, comprised of units for land, sea and air defence, will be responsible to deal with all internal and external threats. Until Turkey joins the European Union, however, a safety valve for the direct protection of the Turkish Cypriots by Turkey will also be in place, if the above described system of European Security fails to protect them from some particular threat.

Both GCs and TCs are willing to accept this proposal, in fact TCs see it as better than the Annan Plan security provisions (Perhaps because this alternative doesn't include Greek troops and intervention rights?)

E2. One alternative approach on the issue of property rights is as follows: More territory will be returned to Greek Cypriot administration, making the Turkish Cypriot state 18% - 20% of Cyprus, and in these returned territories all properties will be given back to their original owners, but in return no Greek Cypriot will be able to reclaim property in the Turkish Cypriot state – all such property will be compensated.

TCs would accept this, but GCs are strongly opposed.

E4. Another alternative on the issue of property rights is as follows: Original owners will be able to reclaim and use all their property, except that in which refugees live or that on which there has been major investment – and for such properties they will be compensated. In case an original owner is not entitled to receive his actual home, then as compensation he will be entitled to a new home built for him in the same town or village. The building of these new residences will be financed by international donors.

Both GCs and TCs would accept this proposal!

E5. A final alternative on the issue of property rights is as follows: All refugees will be entitled to reclaim and use their original residence, and all those who currently live in these residences will be entitled to a new house built for them in the same town or village. The building of these new residences will be financed by international donors.

For GCs this is of course the most popular, but strangely enough even TCs see it as very positive (perhaps because they would end up with a brand new house? )

G2. One alternative on the issue of immigrants (Settlers) from Turkey, is to allow the same list of 45,000 persons as per the UN Plan, but ensure that these are the only ones who will remain. Anyone above that number will be required to return to Turkey within 2 years of the settlement, and will be offered monetary compensation of USD 20,000 per family – paid for by Turkey and International Donors - to help finance their relocation.

This is still not good enough for GCs - it is at about 60% unacceptability, compared with the Annan Plan's Settler provisions which are at 80% unacceptability.

G4. Another alternative on the issue of immigrants (Settlers) from Turkey is to acknowledge citizenship to those married to Turkish Cypriots, those born in Cyprus and those who arrived here before the age of 18, while also granting a permanent residence permit to their parents, who would remain citizens and voters of Turkey with the right to live and work in Cyprus. Everyone else will be required to return to Turkey within 2 years of the settlement, and will be compensated USD 20,000 per family, paid for by Turkey and International Donors, to help finance their relocation.

Both GCs and TCs can accept this!


I'll have the final results in a few days, at which time I will give you a more complete picture.

[cannedmoose]

D2. One alternative Security System is as follows: The Treaty of Guarantee will be maintained, but with various amendments. On the issue of troops, the Greek and Turkish contingents will depart within a few years, after which time Cyprus will be totally demilitarised. As for intervention rights, Greece will have the right to intervene in order to protect the security of the Greek Cypriot constituent state only, while Turkey will have the right to intervene in order to protect the security of the Turkish Cypriot constituent state only. If Cyprus comes under attack from any other country, it will not have the means for its own protection, but the guarantor powers – Greece, Turkey and Britain – will each be expected to come immediately to Cyprus’ defence.

This is just as unacceptable to GCs as the Annan Plan security provisions!

Most likely because they consider it as leaving an open door to Turkey, particularly given that 'protecting the security of the TCCS' is open to interpretation. As a result, GCs probably view this as worse than the AP provisions for a limited number, since any Turkish intervention would be with an unlimited number of troops, without any clear guidelines for when they should be withdrawn. There are so many holes in this system, given its basis in the Treaty of Guarantee which is, in itself, anachronistic and anti-sovereign.

D3. Another alternative for security is the development of a Cypriot-European security system, as follows: Greek and Turkish troops will be replaced by a European Security force, under a European commander, and this force will also include Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot soldiers, who will together receive military training in other European countries. This new security force, comprised of units for land, sea and air defence, will be responsible to deal with all internal and external threats. Until Turkey joins the European Union, however, a safety valve for the direct protection of the Turkish Cypriots by Turkey will also be in place, if the above described system of European Security fails to protect them from some particular threat.

Both GCs and TCs are willing to accept this proposal, in fact TCs see it as better than the Annan Plan security provisions (Perhaps because this alternative doesn't include Greek troops and intervention rights?)

I'd agree with your reading of this Alex. Although I'm unsure as to the viability of such a force and also the long-term situation of having a foreign commander of Cypriot forces... would this not generate a level of tension, particularly if the Commander was seen as representing his home nation's interest rather than those of Cypriots. I'd be particularly interested to see the level of acceptance of this by GCs, for the reason stated above and also for the continuance of the Turkish guarantee until such time as Turkey becomes an EU member. I'd be quite surprised if a large majority of GCs backed this system for that reason.

E2. One alternative approach on the issue of property rights is as follows: More territory will be returned to Greek Cypriot administration, making the Turkish Cypriot state 18% - 20% of Cyprus, and in these returned territories all properties will be given back to their original owners, but in return no Greek Cypriot will be able to reclaim property in the Turkish Cypriot state – all such property will be compensated.

TCs would accept this, but GCs are strongly opposed.

I have to express my disappointment that GCs are strongly opposed to this, as I think (if you do the impossible and divorce morality and emotion from the argument) this would end up being the most viable solution to the property dilemma. Yes, it would effectively reinforce an ethnic apartheid initially, but it would prevent the endless rankling over property and compensation issues that most other proposed scenarios will augur.

E4. Another alternative on the issue of property rights is as follows: Original owners will be able to reclaim and use all their property, except that in which refugees live or that on which there has been major investment – and for such properties they will be compensated. In case an original owner is not entitled to receive his actual home, then as compensation he will be entitled to a new home built for him in the same town or village. The building of these new residences will be financed by international donors.

Both GCs and TCs would accept this proposal!

E5. A final alternative on the issue of property rights is as follows: All refugees will be entitled to reclaim and use their original residence, and all those who currently live in these residences will be entitled to a new house built for them in the same town or village. The building of these new residences will be financed by international donors.

These solutions may be acceptable to both sides, but the cost of compensation would be prohibitive. Firstly there would be the cost of financial compensation, secondly the cost of building new properties and thirdly the massive cost of developing the infrastructure in towns and villages to cope with these new properties. As we saw before with the pretty small donations offered by other countries, I can't foresee these huge costs being covered by international donors, the only source of funding could come from the IMF in the form of a very long-term loan in which the interest could be covered by foreign donors, but the costs would need to be paid back by Cypriots themselves. I might be looking at this too pessimistically...

I'll have the final results in a few days, at which time I will give you a more complete picture.

Looking forward to it...

[Kifeas]

Alexandros,

I have some concerns regarding your questioner.
The first is in relation to who is answering questions regarding issues concerning affected individual rights, such as property re-instatement, residency terms within TCCS, etc. Shouldn’t these questions be directed only to those that are directly affected by the way these issues would be resolved? Is there any system of filtering the responses based on the area of origin of each respondent? Are the results separated for those who are non-refuges, those who are refugees and their origin is from places that will be potentially returned to the GCCS after territorial adjustments and those whose origin (house and /or property) are situated in areas that will most likely remain under the TCCS?

As you understand, these are issues that affect a certain group individual’s human rights, irrespective of the overall solution. Therefore, it would not be fair and appropriate to extract conclusions on these issues, if in the same sample you include individuals that have absolutely no personal interest, like for example someone originally from Pafos expressing an opinion that will be treated with equal validity, with the opinion of someone whose property and house are in Kyrenia.

The second question is in relation the section E., “Property rights.”
I noticed that alternative E5, which apparently seemed as you say to attract most preference by respondents, is not consistent with the other four alternatives (i.e. E1, E2, E3, & E4.) While all the previous 4 alternatives address the issue of property (presumably land,) the fifth alternative (E5) deals only with the issue of residence (house.) Obviously the two issues (overall property /land and residence /house) are not the same and cannot be address in a similar way. I believe you need to split the issue of property into two different sections, one for the property (land) issue and another for the residence (house) issue.

What is missing from the property issue alternatives is a part relating to the compensation method, valuation and length of payment for properties that will not be re-instated. This is also another very critical issue that should be attached to the alternative proposals.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Hey Cannedmoose!

how are things going with you?

These solutions may be acceptable to both sides, but the cost of compensation would be prohibitive. Firstly there would be the cost of financial compensation, secondly the cost of building new properties and thirdly the massive cost of developing the infrastructure in towns and villages to cope with these new properties. As we saw before with the pretty small donations offered by other countries, I can't foresee these huge costs being covered by international donors, the only source of funding could come from the IMF in the form of a very long-term loan in which the interest could be covered by foreign donors, but the costs would need to be paid back by Cypriots themselves. I might be looking at this too pessimistically...

The financial side wouldn't be that much different from the Annan Plan. Those who receive new homes will get them in the place of compensation, they wont be getting cash for their houses as well.

Also don't forget that much of these costs will be covered by the sale of exchanged properties (mostly TC properties in the south, which the owners will want to exchange for their current residences in the north), and furthermore, they will be financed by the payment for the original value of property by those who did sufficient investment to be entitled to keep it.

The help of foreign subsidies will only be required to cover whatever deficit remains, after all the above transactions have already taken place.

[Alexandros Lordos]

The first question is in relation to who is answering questions regarding issues concerning affected individual rights, such as property re-instatement, residency terms within TCCS, etc. Shouldn’t these questions be directed only to those that are directly affected by the way these issues would be resolved? Is there any system of filtering the responses based on the area of origin of each respondent? Are the results separated for those who are non-refuges, those who are refugees and their origin is from places that will be potentially returned to the GCCS after territorial adjustments and those whose origin (house and /or property) are situated in areas that will most likely remain under the TCCS?

As you understand, these are issues that affect a certain group individual’s human rights, irrespective of the overall solution. Therefore, it would not be fair and appropriate to extract conclusions on these issues, if in the same sample you include individuals that have absolutely no personal interest, like for example someone originally from Pafos expressing an opinion that will be treated with equal validity, with the opinion of someone whose property and house are in Kyrenia.

This is good advice. I'll take it into account when conducting the analysis.

The second question is in relation the section E., “Property rights.”
I noticed that alternative E5, which apparently seemed as you say to attract most preference by respondents, is not consistent with the other four alternatives (i.e. E1, E2, E3, & E4.) While all the previous 4 alternatives address the issue of property (presumably land,) the fifth alternative (E5) deals only with the issue of residence (house.) Obviously the two issues (overall property /land and residence /house) are not the same and cannot be address in a similar way. I believe you need to split the issue of property into two different sections, one for the property (land) issue and another for the residence (house) issue.

It is true that question E5 is qualitatively different - in that question, I just wanted to check the acceptability of the principle "all refugees to their homes". I think in the end a hybrid of E4 (which is more comprehensive) and E5 (which is more attractive), could provide a statifactory resolution to the property issue.

What is missing from the property issue alternatives is a part relating to the compensation method, valuation and length of payment for properties that will not be re-instated. This is also another very critical issue that should be attached to the alternative proposals.

Yes, in this study I have not included anything concerning compensation and how it will be paid, though it is a very important issue. Generally, I have not asked anything about economic, fiscal or monetary issues, leaving the whole chapter to be examined at a future survey, after some reliable expert proposals have first been put on the negotiating table.

[cannedmoose]

Hey Cannedmoose!

how are things going with you?

The financial side wouldn't be that much different from the Annan Plan. Those who receive new homes will get them in the place of compensation, they wont be getting cash for their houses as well.

Also don't forget that much of these costs will be covered by the sale of exchanged properties (mostly TC properties in the south, which the owners will want to exchange for their current residences in the north), and furthermore, they will be financed by the payment for the original value of property by those who did sufficient investment to be entitled to keep it.

The help of foreign subsidies will only be required to cover whatever deficit remains, after all the above transactions have already taken place.

Hi Alexandre, things go very well thank you, struggling through my thesis chapter on Cypriot political parties ... hope you are getting some sleep despite the new baby

Thanks for your answer, I forgot about the sale of exchanged properties so that would certainly help to ameliorate the cost of such a solution. I'd still be doubtful about the extent to which one can count on the support of the international community... there will probably be some funds allocated from the EU pot as well as individual donor countries, but in almost all cases of international donation, the promise fails to be delivered - even in the case of the Asian tsunami funds, it was the donations of citizens, not governments that came through quickest and in full... some government offers never actually transpired into actual cash or support on the ground.

Anyway, time to get on with some writing, have a good day re...

[magikthrill]

I have to express my disappointment that GCs are strongly opposed to this, as I think (if you do the impossible and divorce morality and emotion from the argument) this would end up being the most viable solution to the property dilemma. Yes, it would effectively reinforce an ethnic apartheid initially, but it would prevent the endless rankling over property and compensation issues that most other proposed scenarios will augur.

mais qu'est-ce que tu dis moose?

thats like saying I am disapointed the TRNC is not recognized by the RoC because that would end up being the most viable solution the cyprus problem.

[cannedmoose]

Au contraire monsieur Thrill... I'm not saying recognise the TRNC as that would imply recognising the 37% of Cyprus that it controls as TRNC territory. What I was saying is that a future scenario where a TCCS is 18 or even 20% of the island is a better result for GCs than the Annan Plan envisaged. Yes, 20% of the island would essentially be 'given' to the TCs, but not within a TRNC sovereign framework, within a 'two-states, one country' framework. Ultimately, I don't think anyone foresees a unitary state as any kind of solution, I just don't think it would work after 40 years of self-government by both communities.

Ultimately, I think an element of your statement is true, although the GCs won't have to recognise the TRNC per se, they will have to recognise the TCCS as an equal partner territory on the island.

[magikthrill]

Ultimately, I think an element of your statement is true, although the GCs won't have to recognise the TRNC per se, they will have to recognise the TCCS as an equal partner territory on the island.

i think we both know that partition would be a much more fair solution than an equal TCCS.

anyway i think we're messing up Alexandros' thread. oops

[cannedmoose]

Sorry Alex, really looking forward to your final results... I think your contribution has been brilliant, truly first class. I'm also working on your database with my own analyses, I've found some results that I'm planning to incorporate into my thesis, so you'll be getting a mention in that too!