Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

I also think that there is a very real and very deep sense of 'weariness' in the TC ommunities 'phsyce' and at some (emotional) level there is a feeling of let's just settle this any way we can. Clearly this emotional level is not dominant in the TC leadership of people at a rational level where we want a solutiuon but not at any price, but emotionaly I think it is there and may reflect this difference in your results?

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. I think what I should focus on during the analysis is not so much the absolute figures, but rather the relative figures - i.e. which proposal has the most "point lead". For instance, the right-to-rent proposal that I mentioned above only has a 13-point lead, whereas the Annan Plan property provisions have a 30-point lead and the right-to-a-new home proposal has a 40-point lead. This way I will be able to cancel out the "let's get it over with" effect and see which proposals are truly the most acceptable for the Turkish Cypriots.

In some ways emotionaly I think the TC want a solution where as emotionaly the GC want justice (as they see it).

That's a very perceptive way of putting it. I would add that the GCs also want re-unification (in the full sense of everyone being able to live wherever he wants and experiencing the whole country as "one"), and so they will inevitably be grumpy with any type of BBF - inspired provisions.

[Kifeas]

What do you think?

To tell you the truth, I'm surprised as well. Nobody in the north even talked about the fact that most of the land/property in the north belongs to GCs before the Annan plan. It's only recently that I started seeing people mentioning on the TV that GCs are still the legal owners of the land/property in the north and this is a problem and we have to solve it politically. The climate in the north is that most of the land in the north will be compensated with the TC land in the south and the problem will go away politically. So I'm surprised to hear that some TCs accept that GCs are legal owners and they further accept to pay for the use of these properties.

Metecyp,
How do TCs have this perception that "most of the land in the north will be compensated with the TC land in the south and the problem will go away politically?" Even after territorial adjustments as per A-plan and the return of the 1/3 of GC property in the remaining area, the gap is still substantially odd. Could it be that this perception is based on misinformation regarding the actual pre-1974 property ownership rations?

If what you said above, that "Nobody in the north even talked about the fact that most of the land/property in the north belongs to GCs before the Annan plan," is a fact, then that rings many bells regarding the level and accuracy of information that the TCs were subjected for so many years. Otherwise, I cannot explain such an approach.

[erolz]

Metecyp,
How do TCs have this perception that "most of the land in the north will be compensated with the TC land in the south and the problem will go away politically?" Even after territorial adjustments as per A-plan and the return of the 1/3 of GC property in the remaining area, the gap is still substantially odd. Could it be that this perception is based on misinformation regarding the actual pre-1974 property ownership rations?

I think this perception is based more on the reality that most TC that lost land in the south and recieved 'compensatory' land in the north did not get 3 times as much land (or value of land) as they lost. Thus at their personal level it ieasy to percieve that the land they curently have will be compensated by that which they lost, and genrallly are less concenred about 'state land' or land they do not currently use.

If what you said above, that "Nobody in the north even talked about the fact that most of the land/property in the north belongs to GCs before the Annan plan," is a fact, then that rings many bells regarding the level and accuracy of information that the TCs were subjected for so many years. Otherwise, I cannot explain such an approach.

As above really my perceptions is that most TC do not do an 'analytical' study of all land lost and gained after 74. They look at what land they have now as indivduals. They look at what land they lost in the south as indivduals and they see and equivalence and a possiblity based on compensation of one for the other. My perception is that TC see total land gained and lost and compromises on that in terms of how it realtes to bizonality principaly and not so much how it relates to personal ownership.

[magikthrill]

As above really my perceptions is that most TC do not do an 'analytical' study of all land lost and gained after 74. They look at what land they have now as indivduals. They look at what land they lost in the south as indivduals and they see and equivalence and a possiblity based on compensation of one for the other. My perception is that TC see total land gained and lost and compromises on that in terms of how it realtes to bizonality principaly and not so much how it relates to personal ownership.

again this boils down to TC misinformation regarding supposed agreements on bizonality. Many TCs on this forum who discuss bizonality were under the impression that strict bizonality was agreed between Makarios and Denctash years ago but this is ABSOLUTELY not true. My guess is for so many people to have the same opinion is that they are being fed alot of horse shit up in isolation land.

[Viewpoint]

Alexandros Lordos thanks for sharing your survey with us makes very interesting reading, I think you should also allow for the fact that many TCs have switched off from a solution and do not believe anything happen that will bring about unification, therefore many did not put much thought into the consequences of their answers or take your questions seriously when responding to your questions.

[Alexandros Lordos]

I think you should also allow for the fact that many TCs have switched off from a solution and do not believe anything happen that will bring about unification, therefore many did not put much thought into the consequences of their answers or take your questions seriously when responding to your questions.

I don't think this is it, Viewpoint. The people who did the polling told me that everyone was taking the survey very seriously, giving much thought to each question.

My explanation for the surprising finding discussed above, is as follows:

a. The Turkish Cypriots are most willing to compromise on property related issues. I already know that from the previous survey. This is why the No campaign failed in the north last year, because it was focusing on the property / territory issue ("we are giving up part of our homeland") whereas most TCs felt it was fair to compromise on this issue.

b. I don't think TCs were under the impression that "these homes (i.e. the Greek Cypriot homes) belong to us now". TCs do have a sense of what it means to own a property, and just because Denktash had been telling them "this property is yours now" doesn't mean that all of them believed it. Many GCs who have visited their homes in the last two years were received by the current TC occupants in a spirit of "this is your home, we have been keeping it for you".

c. TCs are aware that GCs are very absolute on the issue of property rights, and they are thinking "well, if this is the price to achieve a solution that will take us out of isolation and grant us political equality, then so be it"

d. Let's not forget that the particular option on property rights - i.e. original owners to retain the title of their property, current occupants to stay in it by paying rent - was the least popular of all the suggested alternatives for amendments to the Annan Plan. It only had a 13-point lead, compared to a 30-point lead for the Annan Plan as a whole and 20 to 40 point lead for all other amendments that were suggested in the survey. So it's not like the responses didn't make any sense at all.

[Alexandros Lordos]

So, what do you think people? Do you see the compromises outlined in the survey findings to be a viable path to a settlement? I.e. would you accept European Security, full Property restitution except for land used by refugees and invested properties + right to a new home, settlers to stay only based on specific critria such as whether they were born in Cyprus or alternatively all settlers to leave, cross-voting for the federal senate, explicit legal continuity of the RoC but with the acknowledgement that the RoC is a bicommunal republic and also that the TCs formed a temporary administration out of necessity, implementation guarantees through the EU?

[Viewpoint]

Alexandros while I find what you are saying very interesting in pin pointing the differences between our communites I feel that TCs on the whole are more flexible over the issues of settlers , guarantees and property in that order. Did your survey allow for questions to be directed and TCs refugees, or people that have exchanged land and built businesses, or homes, these are very important factors, as those included in your survey may not have any real connection with GC property then they are more likely to be flexible than someone who has built up a business over 30 years, to hand over the rights of the land to a GC and pay rent. I will always argue that compensation is the only logical way to solve the property issue, if the land has been utilized or the current resident of the property wishes to stay put then a realistic compensation deal via off setting of land left in southern Cyprus should be administered. The distruption and mental trauma this would cuase would be immense.

Does anyone have any idea of how many GCs would opt for compensation if the value (realistic) of their property was to be paid? Maybe this question could be included in your next survey, might be very revealing.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alexandros while I find what you are saying very interesting in pin pointing the differences between our communites I feel that TCs on the whole are more flexible over the issues of settlers , guarantees and property in that order. Did your survey allow for questions to be directed and TCs refugees, or people that have exchanged land and built businesses, or homes, these are very important factors, as those included in your survey may not have any real connection with GC property then they are more likely to be flexible than someone who has built up a business over 30 years, to hand over the rights of the land to a GC and pay rent. I will always argue that compensation is the only logical way to solve the property issue, if the land has been utilized or the current resident of the property wishes to stay put then a realistic compensation deal via off setting of land left in southern Cyprus should be administered. The distruption and mental trauma this would cuase would be immense.

Does anyone have any idea of how many GCs would opt for compensation if the value (realistic) of their property was to be paid? Maybe this question could be included in your next survey, might be very revealing.

Viewpoint, thank you for your thoughts.

It is interesting that you say that TCs are flexible on the issue of settlers. Do you think the majority of TCs would accept it if all settlers (except of course mixed marriages) were to leave, so long as they are re-housed by Turkey at their place of origin (i.e. not thrown in the street)? From my survey I believe it could just about work for the TCs, but what is your impression?

As for checking separately for those TCs who are users of GC property, yes, I tested that yesterday and the results are about the same as the overall population for this particular question (i.e staying in a property by paying rent). Don't worry though, it won't happen because it is very unpopular with GCs - they want to use their property now and not in 20 years time

As for whether the GCs will accept compensation, I checked this in the question where I offered an 80% - 20% territorial arrangement in return for compensation only in the TC constituent state. The result was very negative on the GC side, I think "Reject" was ahead by a 20-point lead. So, no, I don't see a compensation-based scheme working for the GCs.

Having said that, it seems that there is acceptance of the idea that compensation should be given for properties where refugees live or properties that have been highly invested, so long as the original owner is given a new home in the same town or village. For GCs, it seems, the most important property-related issue is the right of return per se, not the right to ownership.

In fact, I asked refugees what they would do with their properties if they got them back, about 70% said that they intend to use them personally (as primary residence or holiday home) rather than rent or sell them. TCs, in contrast, didn't know how to answer this question, probably because they never seriously believed that they would be getting their original property in case of a solution. 50% answered "I don't know", while from those that did know the majority leaned in favour of renting or selling it.

Let's keep talking, your questions are helping me to better understand the survey's findings.

[Viewpoint]

Alexandros with regards to settlers we have to be humane and not just get rid of these people, its not that easy those that have built a life here for more than 10 years, have a home and children and have integrated into a TC way of life should be allowed to stay. Offering incentives and options to settlers may help eleviate their concerns and encourage more to return back to Turkey. Please dont forget those migrant workers which are now due to Talats government gradually being brought under more controls are not part of our population, their numbers are now on the decline, because thay have to pay taxes and national insurance so the attractive wages (in relation to Turkey) are gradually diminishing. But on the hand due to our gradual economic recovery these workers are also necessary, so although I agree they should be brought under some control they should not be stopped altogether, but be treated as you treat you indians philipino workers.