Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Sovereignty debate in Cyprus, Zaman 19/07/2008.

"An important result of the recent Talat-Christofias meetings in Cyprus has been the agreement between both sides over the principle of "single sovereignty, single citizenship" and the determination to see the coming solution constructed on the basis of this principle.

The agreement on this principle is, for the Turkish side, a new policy. Up until now, the basic outlines of Turkey and northern Cyprus' plan for a permanent solution could be summarized as such: two sovereignties, two peoples, two democracies and a shared overarching state based on two separate states. In fact, it was essentially on this stance toward a solution that the Annan plan talks were based. Despite its own deficiencies, the Annan plan received a "yes" from the Turkish Cypriot side and a rejection from the Greek Cypriot side. But the foundation upon which the leaders of the two sides of this island are basing their talks these days appears to be far, far away from this former outline for a solution."

19 July 2008, Saturday, FİKRET BİLA, MİLLİYET
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay ... &bolum=130

[Kifeas]

Sovereignty debate in Cyprus, Zaman 19/07/2008.

"An important result of the recent Talat-Christofias meetings in Cyprus has been the agreement between both sides over the principle of "single sovereignty, single citizenship" and the determination to see the coming solution constructed on the basis of this principle.

The agreement on this principle is, for the Turkish side, a new policy. Up until now, the basic outlines of Turkey and northern Cyprus' plan for a permanent solution could be summarized as such: two sovereignties, two peoples, two democracies and a shared overarching state based on two separate states. In fact, it was essentially on this stance toward a solution that the Annan plan talks were based. Despite its own deficiencies, the Annan plan received a "yes" from the Turkish Cypriot side and a rejection from the Greek Cypriot side. But the foundation upon which the leaders of the two sides of this island are basing their talks these days appears to be far, far away from this former outline for a solution."

19 July 2008, Saturday, FİKRET BİLA, MİLLİYET
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detay ... &bolum=130

With the above short article, Mr. Fikret Bila essentially admits at least two very critical facts (absurdities,) in relation to the Cyprus issue and the Turkish policies.

The first is the fact that -with Mr. Bila’s own admittance- the rejected by the Greek Cypriots Annan plan -even though bearding the name and the stamp of the then UN SG, stayed far outside and in fact went against the very UN resolutions on Cyprus, which (UN resolutions) are the number one constituent element of what one would regard as the UN framework on Cyprus. In other words, the GC claim that the Annan plan was rejected because it had fallen short and outside the UN resolutions (i.e. the UN framework) and international legality, is perfectly vindicated, further legitimising in this way its rejection by the GCs. The second fact that comes straight out of Mr. Bila’s above “revelation” is that the Turkish leadership has been diachronically “lying,” or at least misinforming its people and the international community, by claiming that it supported and continues to support “a solution on the basis of the UN resolutions and within the UN framework.” I remind you that only recently, Mr. Babacian -Turkish FM, has repeated the exact above claim.

I would like to remind his Turkish readers that based on the UN resolutions, and within the “UN framework” -which were the platform on which all negotiations on Cyprus have been conducted so far and continue to do so, the two negotiating sides or partners are only the two COMMUNITIES of Cyprus, as they emerged and were defined by the 1960 agreements; and NOT any two separate “peoples” or any two “already existing” states, or any other sort of two “national” or “nation-state” entities in Cyprus! Mr. Talat and Mr. Christofias are now negotiating (or trying to negotiate) under the UN auspices, as the leaders of the Turkish and the Greek Cypriot COMMUNITIES, and NOT as the “presidents” of the so-called “TRNC” in the north and the “GC administration” in the south, neither as the presidents of the (to be created in the future and as a result of the solution agreement) TC and GC federative or constituent states.

It would have been absurd to claim that the GC side has all of suddenly recognised the so-called “TRNC,” and now negotiates with it in order to establish a confederation between the two “nation-states” in Cyprus; or to claim that the two (Talat and Christofias) are negotiating on the basis of representing two federal entity states that have yet to be agreed and become established, but will only be the outcome or one of the by-products of what the two are currently negotiating upon.

I further would like to remind -or better bring to the attention of his Turkish readers- that UN SC resolution 1251 (1999,) which was based on previous resolutions but was also reaffirmed in all other subsequent resolutions to this day on Cyprus, states the following on paragraph 11.

The UN SC “Reaffirms its position that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession;”

In view of the above, the Turkish side must accept that it either lies to all the rest of the world when it claims that it supports a solution on the basis of the UN resolutions and within the UN framework; or that it diachronically lies and /or misinforms its own people, when it claims that its aim is for a solution based on “two sovereignties, two peoples, two democracies and a shared overarching state based on two separate states,” as Mr. Bila described it in his above article. It is either the one or the other, for the two cannot possibly be true and valid at the same time!

[Nikitas]

So is this article indicative of a fundamental change in Turkish policy? What is the corroboration from official statements?

[Kifeas]

So is this article indicative of a fundamental change in Turkish policy? What is the corroboration from official statements?

Fundamental change on what? It only reveals the hypocrisy, the insincerity and the dishonesty of the Turkish policies on Cyprus, and the fact that Turkey chooses to lie to both its own people and to the international community, at the same time! The truth remains that the Turkish side’s policy and aim is for a solution that is essentially tantamount to partition, in one way or another; regardless of how they try to appear to the international community and manipulate the whole world through distorted or untruthful claims and rhetoric! The reason they choose to appear in such a way, is because they are clever enough to understand the illegitimacy of their real aims in Cyprus, from an international law perspective and towards the international community, and consequently they choose to hide behind misleading and fake declarations and rhetoric!

[roseandchan]

it would be nice to see cyprus as one country again. i still can't see it ,as how will you get political equality ?when the gc's out number the tc's. the tc's will still be a political minority. can anyone tell me how this can be worked out.

[Kifeas]

it would be nice to see cyprus as one country again. i still can't see it ,as how will you get political equality ?when the gc's out number the tc's. the tc's will still be a political minority. can anyone tell me how this can be worked out.

There are ways to address this issue, and the UN has given some hinds and definitions as to how political equality means and how it may be practiced, without entirely violating democratic principles and the fact that the one community is substantially larger than the other. For example, in a parliament house which in theory, or in fact in practice may be composed by say an 80:20 ratio between GCs and TCs, decisions may be obtained by simple majority (a democratic princible,) but at the same time a certain percentage of the TC members, say 30% of this 20% TC component of the house, should also be included in this simple majority formation of the entire house, in order for the result to qualify as valid for the decision in consideration.

In this way, if a decision or law to be enacted will be selectively and deliberately against TC community interests, it won’t obtain this certain minimum TC approval in the house, in order to pass. A similar approach may be followed in the government cabinet, i.e. in the executive branch of the state.

[Oracle]

This is why I think it is outdated to design a solution on pre-existing, known, problem causing factors.

The occupation is by Turkey over Cyprus. The issue is simply that.

The reversal of the occupation should be the only thing to be considered.

Anything else (perks etc) to negotiate for a differential "community" can be part of the developing maturity of a self-determined Democracy and could be met at local level pending the prime solution.

IMHO I consider debates of partition by whatever proportions, as detrimental to achieving the rightful solution, which is full and permanent withdrawal of Turkish troops and settlers, an end to blackmail of the EU by Turkey and future non-participation in any shape or form by Turkey.

[Paphitis]

it would be nice to see cyprus as one country again. i still can't see it ,as how will you get political equality ?when the gc's out number the tc's. the tc's will still be a political minority. can anyone tell me how this can be worked out.

There are ways to address this issue, and the UN has given some hinds and definitions as to how political equality means and how it may be practiced, without entirely violating democratic principles and the fact that the one community is substantially larger than the other. For example, in a parliament house which in theory, or in fact in practice may be composed by say an 80:20 ratio between GCs and TCs, decisions may be obtained by simple majority (a democratic princible,) but at the same time a certain percentage of the TC members, say 30% of this 20% TC component of the house, should also be included in this simple majority formation of the entire house, in order for the result to qualify as valid for the decision in consideration.

In this way, if a decision or law to be enacted will be selectively and deliberately against TC community interests, it won’t obtain this certain minimum TC approval in the house, in order to pass. A similar approach may be followed in the government cabinet, i.e. in the executive branch of the state.

This seems to be the fairest model so far as it would not violate basic democratic principles.

However, we have all heard that the Turkish side has agreed to single Sovereignty and single Citizenship, but from what I can gather, the rhetoric seems to still revolve around this single sovereignty being a loose Federation or Confederacy founded by 2 separate states. Could this be the precursor to legalised partition? Lets say if 1 state wants to secceed, will they have any legitimacy?

The UN resolution states the following:

The UN SC “Reaffirms its position that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as described in the relevant Security Council resolutions, in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession;”

How will the above UN framework be enforced should the Federation or Confederacy dissolve?

[Paphitis]

And what about the Treaty of Guarantee? Many GCs that I know will not accept any peace deal that includes such a treaty, and rightly so.

How will this touchy subject be dealt with?

Should the Federation Dissolve, will the Turkish Component State's area be in proportion to it's population (about 18%)? Another very important issue as I can not see how the UN framework will be enforced.

And then there is the issue of the Turkish settlers, bought in by Turkey to alter the demographics of the island in contravention to the Geneva Convention on Occupied Lands, and hence constitutes a War Crime.

[bill cobbett]

Treaty of Guarantee ? Been there, done it, got burnt.

Guaranteed to screw CY again at any time of Turkey's choosing...