Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Alexandros Lordos]

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 do not know why GCs accepted this proposal.

Because this proposal has a huge tendency to shift the population statistics in Cyprus. Any settler, (and actually even the ones which currently are not considered as settler right now) will be very busy making baby’s in the next one year.

This proposal actually will allow way much more than 45k settlers to stay in Cyprus, as even the current illegal workers in TRNC would qualify under this approach as opposed to Annan Plan’s fixed 45k proposal.

But hey, what do I know.

Yes, but they wouldn't be Cypriot citizens - and therefore they wouldn't vote. Maybe that is why this proposal was accepted.

To be honest with you though, I am not too happy myself with the alternatives that we offered. This issue needs further thinking ...

[erolz]

One final thing, your survey does go against to the myth that the GC's as a whole don't believe they have alot to blame for the situation in Cyprus. I hope our TC friends take note of this.

That's not quite what the survey asked / showed (the word 'alot' seems to have slipped in?) - but that aside as a TC I most certainly have and do take note of this. I am looking forward to the full report being published.

[Alexandros Lordos]

From what you say, it seems that the property provisions of any final plan are VITAL to whether the GC;s would accept the plan or not. It also shows the continued disapproval of how the settler issue is handled. This also still seems to be a vital ingredient for acceptability from our side.

Now that you mention this, I realise that I did not give the percentages of "unacceptability by GCs" for various particular aspects of the Annan Plan. Here it goes:

a. Settlers - Unacceptable to 80% of GCs
b. Security - Unacceptable to 60% of GCs
c. Property - Unacceptable to 60% of GCs
d. Implementation Guarantees - Unacceptable to 60% of GCs
e. Residence/Voting Rights - Unacceptable to 50% of GCs
f. Power sharing in Federal Government - Unacceptable to 40% of GCs
g. Legal Status of new state of affairs - Unacceptable to 40% of GCs

It is interesting that the Settlers issue tops the list with a wide margin ...

I would hypothesise that for GCs, the Settlers issue is a "multi-problem", with ramifications both for security ("all these settlers will mean more crime, it will be unsafe to live in the north"), property rights ("the settlers will be staying in our own houses and farming our own land"), power sharing ("we will end up having a bizonal-bicommunal federation with the settlers"), and sovereignty ("through the settlers Turkey will control the politics of the TCCS and influence the politics of the Federal Government").

It seems to me more and more that, in order to achieve a settlement, the TCs will have to make a historic compromise on the issue of settlers, in return for the GCs historic compromise of "bizonality". It would seem that the proposal that "all settlers should leave", is NOT unacceptable to TCs, so long as they are all re-housed, by Turkey, at their original place of residence. This of course will also require Turkey to live up to her own responsibilities vis-a-vis the Cyprus Problem ...

[cannedmoose]

And we only have to look at the Israeli situation in Gaza to see how massive a step that would be...

[erolz]

It would seem that the proposal that "all settlers should leave", is NOT unacceptable to TCs, so long as they are all re-housed, by Turkey, at their original place of residence. This of course will also require Turkey to live up to her own responsibilities vis-a-vis the Cyprus Problem ...

What defintion of 'settler' are you using here?

I personaly would be very unlikely to vote for such a settlement. I think this would be a betrayal of these people by the TRNC and am not sure I could be an active party to this kind of thing. Having said that I fear you may be right that a majority of TC would not share this view with me and would be willing to 'sacrafice' (as I see it) these people. Just my personal view.

[Saint Jimmy]

What do you mean, erol? What moral obligation does the TRNC have with regard to settlers? Were these people brought by the TRNC?

[cannedmoose]

What do you mean, erol? What moral obligation does the TRNC have with regard to settlers? Were these people brought by the TRNC?

Did Rauf Raif not verbally encourage them with talk of jobs and land? I'm sure Alexandros' definition of settlers refers to the recent wave, rather than those established in the immediate aftermath of 1974. I personally don't see how anyone could countenance the expulsion of people who have been in situ for more than 30 years, even though their presence may not be attractive for GC stomachs. I also can't see the EU welcoming such a step, it would be against their individual human rights (and that's not saying that the rights of GCs aren't being violated by their presence on GC-owned land before someone pipes up).

[erolz]

What do you mean, erol? What moral obligation does the TRNC have with regard to settlers? Were these people brought by the TRNC?

I believe they came to Cyprus at the invitation and encouragment of the TRNC authorites and as such I believe the TRNC has a moral duty towards them. Forcing them to leave Cyprus against their will as a 'trade' for concessions / agreements with GC/RoC is not something I think I could actively support and to me would represent a betrayal of them by the TRNC.

[Saint Jimmy]

Understood. Thanks.