Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

I am afraid we might be on the brink of more inter-communal violence.

Alex, I'm surprised that you wrote this sentence, I wouldn't have forseen it coming from you. Why do you think this could be the case? I'd be interested to hear.

Up till now, legal proceedings have been raised against states - against Turkey by Greek Cypriots, and against the RoC by Turkish Cypriots. Such action was very helpful in providing states with the motivation to work on solving the problem.

However, now we have legal proceedings against individuals. Suddenly, my problem is with the individual TC who lives in my house, rather than with Turkey as an occupying power. Or inversely for the TCs, suddenly my problem is an individual GC who is trying to kick me out of the house I live in, not the RoC for depriving me of my rights.

Thus we open the way for personal hatred between GC and TC citizens, and destroy the amicable climate that has prevailed since the partial lifting of restrictions to movement.

From this point of personal hatred to actual violence, the gap is perilously small ...

[Agios Amvrosios]

Trouble for them is, what do they do once the first case has been thrown out?

How could it be thrown out the legal is clear with no bona fide defence- its execution is all that is a bit of head ache because of the international dimension.

On what grounds could a claim by a refugee possibly be thrown out?

Seriously? There are no grounds and it is the only option given to Greek Cypriot refugees from Kyrenia besides hiring "Sandline International".

The Property issue is purely a legal issue for the individual human rights of each refugee and no government can take that away.

What are you offering Greek Cypriot refugees from Kyrenia by way of negotiation? The institutionalization of their ethnic cleansing with no prospect of living in democracy in their own home.

The minimum Kyrenia Refugees will accept is the return of all refugees to their properties with full democratic rights just like all other citizens of Europe.

If you want to horse trade on human rights and democracy then you are halfed baked and you need a further 31 years as pariahs before you can join Europe.


Human Rights are not negotiable.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I am afraid we might be on the brink of more inter-communal violence.

And you think with a solution like the Annan plan there won't be? You know and I know what we would like to change in the Annan plan to make it fairer. But under the current circumstances can you see that happening? Can you see the Turks seeing sense and allowing the property situation to be solved more amicably? At the moment I just don't see it.

Mikkie,

I won't disagree with you, violence after the acceptance of the Annan Plan might have been a possibility, but what is happening now is very dangerous indeed and creates, on a personal level, more motives for partition than for re-unification.

From my polls, I know that the issue on which TCs are most willing to compromise in case of a solution is property rights. Or at least was ... I fear that the current events might harden the stance of TCs on this issue, complicating things further.

It would be better if our government sat down with Talat and made a deal on the issues which currently concern both sides most - specifically, direct trade for the TCs, and freezing of property development for the GCs.

To go back to my earlier analogy, marriages tend to begin with interim agreements (usually called "engagement" ). Such a deal as described above would engage the two communities in a process of mutual respect for each other's rights, creating an appropriate climate for negotiations.

The way we are going now, by the time we get to the negotiating table there won't be any desire left, on either side, for real co-existence (since we will despise each other). We will just ... walk away from the marriage altar, however well it may have been decorated.

[Anglo]

EU/UK/US/UN public policy openly supports a solution based on the A-Plan. No court will go against this therefore the GC strategy is flawed in the long run.

It all keeps coming back to the A-Plan or nothing.

[Kifeas]

EU/UK/US/UN public policy openly supports a solution based on the A-Plan. No court will go against this therefore the GC strategy is flawed in the long run.

It all keeps coming back to the A-Plan or nothing.

You said the right words my friend. They support a solution based on the A-Plan, not the A-plan as is (was.) The A-plan as it is (was) is rendered by itself as null and void. A new solution might be based on the A-plan, but no one of those you mentioned supports a solution on the A-plan as is (was.) That means that certain changes will have to take place in order for it to be acceptable by the GCs, the property issue being one of them.

Furthermore, international and European (E.U.) legislation and justice are a separate and independed factor from international politics.

[Anglo]

I agree that the legislature and the judiciary are independent but this is above all a political situation which supercedes the legal situation

[Kifeas]

I agree that the legislature and the judiciary are independent but this is above all a political situation which supercedes the legal situation

That is a mistake.
Both for the E.U. aqui and the ECHR, the individual’s human rights always precede any political issue or a political arrangement.

[Anglo]

But even the Loizidou case judgement was superceded by the political realities as the reinstatement of the property was delayed pending a political settlement

[Kifeas]

But even the Loizidou case judgement was superceded by the political realities as the reinstatement of the property was delayed pending a political settlement

Absolutely not,

The reinstatement of her property was delayed not because a political arrangement was pending. This had nothing to do with A-plan or negotiations for a political settlement. Turkey unilaterally delayed the execution of the ECHR (perhaps for the reason you mentioned) and as you know turkey was punished with even further increase of the fine. The year of 2005 that was finally accepted by the Council of Europe as a compromise made to Turkey in order to allow her to take the necessary measures in order to conclude the execution of the order. Vacate the property, etc. It had nothing to do with the prospect of a political settlement.

[cannedmoose]

However, now we have legal proceedings against individuals. Suddenly, my problem is with the individual TC who lives in my house, rather than with Turkey as an occupying power. Or inversely for the TCs, suddenly my problem is an individual GC who is trying to kick me out of the house I live in, not the RoC for depriving me of my rights.Thus we open the way for personal hatred between GC and TC citizens, and destroy the amicable climate that has prevailed since the partial lifting of restrictions to movement.From this point of personal hatred to actual violence, the gap is perilously small ...

True re, I hadn't really thought about it in these terms. I guess we get so hung up on the wider politics that it's easy to forget that this boils down to disputes between people, not just states.

On reflection, I can see that you have a case on this. If bitter disputes between owners and occupiers do take place, it doesn't take much for some hothead to plant an improvised bomb designed to intimidate. As so often with these things, someone ends up getting hurt and the cycle of retaliatory violence begins. With the permeability of the Green Line as it stands, it would be relatively easy to bring these sorts of things across in either direction.

If such attacks were carried out, it could augur the end of the 'open' frontier policy that's been in place for 2 years could it not?

Have to admit, you've worried me now... no offence re!