Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

YUSUF KANLI
Common denominator in Cyprus

Thursday, September 11, 2008


YUSUF KANLI
The success of any Cyprus negotiated settlement effort will largely depend on the ability of the negotiators of the two sides to find a common denominator, which an army of international mediators and previous negotiators have all failed to agree on. The common denominator, however, has always been there and if ever there is to be a resolution to the Cyprus problem it has to be the cornerstone of that resolution.

Why do we have the Cyprus problem today? The answer to this question may help everyone to see what might be the common denominator, or the key to a resolution of the Cyprus problem. However, the totally different answers the two sides give to this question – made worse because both sides believe in the accuracy of their answers – underline indeed how serious an intractable Gordian's knot the Cyprus problem has become. An honest and correct answer to this problem, however, will help anyone wishing for a lasting and just deal or to contribute to a resolution of the Cyprus problem.

According to Greek Cypriots, the tragedies and sufferings the Turkish Cypriot people were subjected to from 1963 to 1974 were nothing but some “domestic security problems” of the Republic of Cyprus but the Cyprus problem started with the 1974 “attack” and the consequent “occupation” of one-third of the territory of the island by Turkey.



Better governance needed

According to Turkish Cypriots, however, the Cyprus problem started with the Greek Cypriot Dec. 21, 1963 “bloody Christmas” attacks on the Turkish Cypriot population under the so-called Akritas plan – according to which all Turkish Cypriots would be slaughtered on the island within 24 hours – and 1974 is just a by-product of the Cyprus problem, not a cause for it.

The 1963 attacks and the consequent massive Turkish Cypriot suffering until the 1974 Turkish intervention were as well a by-product of the Cyprus problem because a rational evaluation will show that the Cyprus problem is one of sharing power between the two peoples of the island that dates back to the immediate aftermath of the 1960 founding of the Republic of Cyprus and the allergy on the Greek Cypriot side to the “privileged status” the republic's founding agreements – which indeed produced an effective federation on the island – provided to the Turkish Cypriot people. That is, when he traveled to Ankara for the first-ever trip to the Turkish capital by a Cypriot president in 1962 Archbishop Makarios was indeed negotiating a resolution to the Cyprus problem. At the time he was trying to get Turkish consent for a 13-point amendment he wanted to make in the Cyprus constitution for “better governance” – a demand considered by Ankara and Turkish Cypriots as an effort to liquidate partnership rights of Turkish Cypriots in the sovereignty and administration of the island.



1960 system

The 1960 republic was a product of a common denominator, which was “partnership of the two peoples in the sovereignty of Cyprus.” A new settlement will become possible only if a new and reasonable common denominator can be concocted by the two leaders. For that new settlement to be a lasting one, that new common denominator must be consolidated with some clauses in the new founding agreement that neither of the two sides would seek alterations in the founding agreement and any attempt to that end would give legitimacy to the other side to secede from the partnership governance and go its own way.

Indeed, the 2004 referendum on a U.N. peace plan had demonstrated that Greek Cypriots did not want to share power with Turkish Cypriots but all they wanted is a settlement that would give Turkish Cypriots some privileges as one of the minorities of the island. Remarks of current Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias and his team still indicate that there was no significant change in that obsession.

Today, the leaders of the two sides on Cyprus will start comprehensive talks for a resolution of the Cyprus problem while in both sides of the Cyprus divide public opinion polls indicate majority support for the partition of the island into two separate states within the European Union.

The common denominator that may open the way to settlement – as was in 1960 – is full political equality of the two peoples of the island, and of course their two states, in the sovereignty and political administration of Cyprus. The day this is acknowledged, a settlement is half done … The rest will be detail …

[miltiades]

I bet his motherland is the same as yours Zan !!

[zan]

I bet his motherland is the same as yours Zan !!

All that matters is that it is not the "RoC".........

[miltiades]

NO INVERTED COMMAS HERE MATE !!
""The Republic of Cyprus, the internationally recognized state, claims sovereignty over the entire island of Cyprus and its surrounding waters, with appendix O of the Treaty of Establishment of the Republic providing for 3% of its territory to be used by the United Kingdom as sovereign military bases. The island is de facto partitioned into four main parts:[3]

* the area under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus, in the south of the island;
* the Turkish-occupied area in the north,[4] calling itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (recognized only by Turkey);
* the United Nations-controlled Green Line, separating the two; and
* two British Sovereign Base Areas (Akrotiri and Dhekelia).[5] ""

[Nikitas]

"and of course their two states" , so what is different between this and partition?

If only we called this BBF thingy with its real name so people know what they are letting themselves in for things would be much easier. Instead we confuse everyone with "reunification" and "single sovereignty".

[utu]

Finding "a common denominator" from the tangle inherited from 1960 is going to be difficult, if not impossible. It seems like the only thing that really should be done is to tear it all up, and start from scratch. Regardless of reasons and finger-pointing, the partnership republic of 1960 failed as both sides accused each other of making it unworkable.
A new republic with a new constitution IMHO needs to be formed. Re-establishing a system that failed is a recipe for it to fail again.

[BirKibrisli]

I am a bit puzzled by this "political equality" business....
What does it exactly mean in practice?????

I mean,the 1960 agreements had the President as a GC and the Vice President a TC...Was that political equality??? I know the VP (Vice President not Viewpoint!)had the veto power but you couldn't call that political equality...Could you???

I think the common denominator should be the willingness to objectively study the past,accept the responsibility for their own past actions,stop blaming everything on the other side,and see how we were cheated out of our own country....Then we might all finally realise it is not too late to have another go at truly uniting our homeland under one country,one nation...

All they are doing still is playing their age-old, silly, political point- scoring games,looking at everywhere else but themselves to find a solution...

[Nikitas]

Bir, you are not the only one who is confused.

Neither side is taking the time to explain what terms like "bizonal", "federation" means and how equality and democracy fit in with such a system.

Last week RIKSAT had a collection of journalists complaining that these terms have not been subjected to public debate and analysis!!!! If journalists have this approach then we are not on the right track. They are the guys who ought to be travelling to other federal countries giving us live coverage of Switzerland, Belgium, the US and other federations. Show the nitty gritty of every day life.

Instead, journalists, who are in daily contact with politicians, say they do not know the meaning of the terminology the politicians invented and use constantly.

[BirKibrisli]

I had trouble with the "virgin birth" concept too,Nikitas. Till dear Kifeas helped me out...Maybe he can explain how political equality works in practice in a BBF???

[Nikitas]

Bir,

If us two, and many others on this forum, who are concerned about the solution and are actively analysing it, have problems understanding terminology, then we have to be alarmed about what the average non political person understands and expects from a solution.

Repeating a phrase like BBF often enough is not going to make it understood. At some point in the process I fear people will ask "how does this affect ME" and that is when the problems start because that is when the details will become public.