Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Alvaro De Sotto and Kofi Anan did, YFred! What is the name written on the plan? Doesn't it say ANAN plan?

That's what Kifeas told you few posts back.!

If you remember, during the last couple of months before the referendum too place that anything that the 2 sides could not agree on, the above two characters had a free hand to write in what ever they wanted on behalf of the GC's and the TC's. By this time, PapaD could not care what was in the AP, because he would go against it, and he did, so it is possible it was put in towards the end. As a matter of fact, Turkey asked recently that the same should be done again this time also, on issues that the 2 sides can't agree on, to let the UN fill in the gabs. Fat chance that will be allowed to happen again as far as the GC's are concerned. As Kifeas said, it was designed to favour the TC's by 4:1 ratio, since that's what the difference was between the GC's and the TC's. The whole AP was a sham, so don't get all worked up about just this 1974 prices issues. There were far worse issues than this one.!

I cannot believe for one moment that the issue of which year to take for property prices was not agreed by the two sides and hence was decided by the UN.
TC side did not insist on the 74 prices, so GC side should have been able to perhaps add the market value to it.

But you hit the nail on the head, when you said Papadobullos could not careless about the negotiations, and there in lies the age old problem, negotiation without good faith, by the same man as the one in 1959.

Is Christofias any different? Is he negotiating in good faith or does he not careless about these negotiations and is going to delay matters as much as possible, that he will be able to use the EU to his advantage and gain some points?

You need to try harder to read and understand what others write and not what you want to hear, YFred. I did not say that PapaD was not interested in negotiating in good faith. I said, about the time when the UN (Kofi) was starting to write parts of the AP on the behalf of the TC's and GC's, shortly before the referendum, was the time he could not careless what was in the AP, because the whole plan was totally lopsided by then, therefore PapaD did the right thing to say OXI, OXI, OXI to the AP.

Did you do your "homework" and read what I asked you to read yet, Perry Anderson's "The Division of Cyprus".?

No I have not unfortunatley. But I am nore interested in who suggested what and Who opposed what. That would be worth reading. Is there such a document? When I find the first then I will read both.

[Kikapu]

Alvaro De Sotto and Kofi Anan did, YFred! What is the name written on the plan? Doesn't it say ANAN plan?

That's what Kifeas told you few posts back.!

If you remember, during the last couple of months before the referendum too place that anything that the 2 sides could not agree on, the above two characters had a free hand to write in what ever they wanted on behalf of the GC's and the TC's. By this time, PapaD could not care what was in the AP, because he would go against it, and he did, so it is possible it was put in towards the end. As a matter of fact, Turkey asked recently that the same should be done again this time also, on issues that the 2 sides can't agree on, to let the UN fill in the gabs. Fat chance that will be allowed to happen again as far as the GC's are concerned. As Kifeas said, it was designed to favour the TC's by 4:1 ratio, since that's what the difference was between the GC's and the TC's. The whole AP was a sham, so don't get all worked up about just this 1974 prices issues. There were far worse issues than this one.!

I cannot believe for one moment that the issue of which year to take for property prices was not agreed by the two sides and hence was decided by the UN.
TC side did not insist on the 74 prices, so GC side should have been able to perhaps add the market value to it.

But you hit the nail on the head, when you said Papadobullos could not careless about the negotiations, and there in lies the age old problem, negotiation without good faith, by the same man as the one in 1959.

Is Christofias any different? Is he negotiating in good faith or does he not careless about these negotiations and is going to delay matters as much as possible, that he will be able to use the EU to his advantage and gain some points?

You need to try harder to read and understand what others write and not what you want to hear, YFred. I did not say that PapaD was not interested in negotiating in good faith. I said, about the time when the UN (Kofi) was starting to write parts of the AP on the behalf of the TC's and GC's, shortly before the referendum, was the time he could not careless what was in the AP, because the whole plan was totally lopsided by then, therefore PapaD did the right thing to say OXI, OXI, OXI to the AP.

Did you do your "homework" and read what I asked you to read yet, Perry Anderson's "The Division of Cyprus".?

No I have not unfortunatley. But I am nore interested in who suggested what and Who opposed what. That would be worth reading. Is there such a document? When I find the first then I will read both.

Chicken.!

What the hell does one has to do with the other. The AP is Dead & Buried, so move on will you. Kifeas gave you a good explanation as to who was responsible. The question you need to ask yourself is, who stood to gain more from such a plan. Any ideas, or shall I tell you.?

The GC's had 4 times more property than the TC's, so, it would have been much cheaper to pay off the GC's at 1974 prices than today's (2004) market price with the money the "trnc" did not have. Also, there was some kind of a provision in the AP as I remember, that if the TC spend certain amount of money on the GC property they were occupying, perhaps money spent had to be more than the value of the property in 1974, then the TC can stay in the house and could not be returned back to it's legal GC owner, therefore, a lot of TC's spent money making a lot of improvements or add on another floor to the building, just so to keep the house at dirt cheap price. looking back, money wasted really.!

Has the light come on in your head yet, or shall I continue.?

[bill cobbett]

"class actions (as first suggested by GR! a few days ago)." Actually suggested by me a couple of years ago.

er...sincerest apoooooloooooogies from me mate/matess.

[YFred]

Alvaro De Sotto and Kofi Anan did, YFred! What is the name written on the plan? Doesn't it say ANAN plan?

That's what Kifeas told you few posts back.!

If you remember, during the last couple of months before the referendum too place that anything that the 2 sides could not agree on, the above two characters had a free hand to write in what ever they wanted on behalf of the GC's and the TC's. By this time, PapaD could not care what was in the AP, because he would go against it, and he did, so it is possible it was put in towards the end. As a matter of fact, Turkey asked recently that the same should be done again this time also, on issues that the 2 sides can't agree on, to let the UN fill in the gabs. Fat chance that will be allowed to happen again as far as the GC's are concerned. As Kifeas said, it was designed to favour the TC's by 4:1 ratio, since that's what the difference was between the GC's and the TC's. The whole AP was a sham, so don't get all worked up about just this 1974 prices issues. There were far worse issues than this one.!

I cannot believe for one moment that the issue of which year to take for property prices was not agreed by the two sides and hence was decided by the UN.
TC side did not insist on the 74 prices, so GC side should have been able to perhaps add the market value to it.

But you hit the nail on the head, when you said Papadobullos could not careless about the negotiations, and there in lies the age old problem, negotiation without good faith, by the same man as the one in 1959.

Is Christofias any different? Is he negotiating in good faith or does he not careless about these negotiations and is going to delay matters as much as possible, that he will be able to use the EU to his advantage and gain some points?

You need to try harder to read and understand what others write and not what you want to hear, YFred. I did not say that PapaD was not interested in negotiating in good faith. I said, about the time when the UN (Kofi) was starting to write parts of the AP on the behalf of the TC's and GC's, shortly before the referendum, was the time he could not careless what was in the AP, because the whole plan was totally lopsided by then, therefore PapaD did the right thing to say OXI, OXI, OXI to the AP.

Did you do your "homework" and read what I asked you to read yet, Perry Anderson's "The Division of Cyprus".?

No I have not unfortunatley. But I am nore interested in who suggested what and Who opposed what. That would be worth reading. Is there such a document? When I find the first then I will read both.

Chicken.!

What the hell does one has to do with the other. The AP is Dead & Buried, so move on will you. Kifeas gave you a good explanation as to who was responsible. The question you need to ask yourself is, who stood to gain more from such a plan. Any ideas, or shall I tell you.?

The GC's had 4 times more property than the TC's, so, it would have been much cheaper to pay off the GC's at 1974 prices than today's (2004) market price with the money the "trnc" did not have. Also, there was some kind of a provision in the AP as I remember, that if the TC spend certain amount of money on the GC property they were occupying, perhaps money spent had to be more than the value of the property in 1974, then the TC can stay in the house and could not be returned back to it's legal GC owner, therefore, a lot of TC's spent money making a lot of improvements or add on another floor to the building, just so to keep the house at dirt cheap price. looking back, money wasted really.!

Has the light come on in your head yet, or shall I continue.?

You are totally missing the point. The important fact is that this clause was one of the main reasons for GC rejecting the plan and no one seems to know who suggested it. It seems to me from all my friends TC and GC who voted no all gave this reason for not approving the plan. At the time my GC friends said it was TCs and the TC friends said it was GCs. Months were spent on analysing the plan on the media and nobody thought of asking. To this day nobody can confirm which side.
Do you not see the importance of actually knowing who suggested it?
How about why it was not discussed?
Was it simply because it was not important as to who suggested it?
The significance of this clause will only be apparent only when you find out who suggested it.

Go back a few years, some burglars, breaking into a building lead to the downfall of a president.
Who in their right mind, would say that the two were connected.

[halil]

They need magic wands and supernatural powers
06.02.2009

Özcan Özcanhan

Magic wand
Turkish Cypriot Leader Mehmet Ali Talat and Greek Cypriot leader Demetris Christofias have started hard bargaining on the property issue. They have left discussion of criteria out, but, exchanged papers, views and ideas. It will be recalled that after Kofi Annan visited Cyprus, he made a brief statement at Larnaca Airport before his departure. He predicted that governance, power sharing, legislation and territory would be resolved much more easily than the property issue. Events seem to have proved him right. Both Talat and Christofias are aware that property is the ‘thorny issue’ with tremendous complications. Because, immovable properties abandoned in the North in 1974 and 1975, by Greek Cypriots, following the population exchange under UN supervision, and properties left in the South by Turkish Cypriots, have been utilised. In some cases, they have been allocated to displaced persons who in return sold them to estate agents and land developers. Authorities in the south took possession and built air ports, car parks, social dwellings etc. without the consent of their lawful owners and without paying due compensation. They appointed ‘an Administrator’, again, without consulting the legitimate owners and said that rent collected from Turkish Cypriot properties would be deposited in a special account, to be paid to the owners, some time in the future. The Administrator stopped short of issuing title deeds. But some opportunists and speculators, with false papers, sold Turkish Cypriot lands and houses at exorbitant values. An estate mafia took control of most Turkish Cypriot properties. Government officials turned a blind eye and collected their share of the dirty deals.

Complex property issues

Whereas in the North of the island, the authorities not only distributed Greek Cypriot properties to displaced Turkish Cypriots, but issued title deeds in their names, thus allowing them to ‘sell, rent, develop or mortgage’ them. Properties changed hands several times, were developed and resold to retired Britons, Israelis, Russians, Germans and others, including some investors who built five star hotels and business centres. Looking for a peaceful life during their remaining days, some elderly foreigners themselves built luxurious villas; others built homes and offices and settled in the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus for good. However, they suffered the shock of their lives when some were taken to courts in the south and some to the European Court of Human Rights. (The Orams family is a glaring example). Equally, southern Turkish Cypriots were shocked when they visited their ancestral properties to find out that they no longer existed and that new buildings stood there. The land was divided up and turned into building sites and roads. Having drawn a general picture of the complex property problem, I would like to put a couple of questions to the two leaders;
a. Are you fully aware of the difficult task in your hands?
b. Will you dare to pick up the chestnut from the fiercely burning fire?
c. Will you, bearing in mind the lapse of time and changes through the years, approach the problem realistically?
d. Will you try exchange, compensation, in some cases return and amicable deals as suggested by Talat?
e. Will Christofias accept these options and stop insisting on the return of all Greek Cypriot properties?

Willingness for permanent solution

The point is whether the leaders are prepared to act on behalf of the lawful owners and settle the property issue wholesale permanently, so that the Cyprus question can also be solved. Will they be able to convince and persuade owners to be content with exchange and compensation through the governing bodies on both sides? Because, without the solution of the property issue, the Cyprus problem cannot and will not be solved. I know what is at stake for you as politicians and leaders. But, if you love your country and people and if you are committed and determined to resolve the long standing Cyprus problem peacefully, you will have to take bold steps. You are not men with super natural powers, nor in possession of magic wands in your hands. But, with understanding, faith and readiness to ‘give-and-take’ you can do it.
All you need is the courage, power and energy to resolve the property issue out of court – humanely - disregarding violent criticisms. Compensation which may run into billions of euro is no insurmountable problem. Funds may be provided either by the European Union, the IMF, the World Bank, the US and international financiers, once the two leaders act resolutely.

[Tony-4497]

The real problem here is that there is simply no way that GC property owners will receive fair, market value for their properties, even in the case where they do decide to accept either compensation or exchange instead of restitution.

This is because TCs are demanding majority of property ownership in a TC component state which is more than double the % of land they owned. I read in a paper today that the cost of paying market value in compensation to GCs would exceed Euro 30bn (after taking into account exchange with TC properties), whereas no more than 0.5bn could be expected to be provided by donors.

Annan & Co, instead of telling Turkey and TCs that they simply cannot have a state with more than 15-18% of Cyprus if they want the majority of property within it, decided it was easier to rip off the GCs by setting compensation at a level much lower than market value - and to add insult to injury also decided that this compensation would be paid NOT by Turkey that actually stole the land, NOT by the future TC component state that would receive it, but by the federal state, which would be funded almost exclusively by GCs.

[YFred]

The real problem here is that there is simply no way that GC property owners will receive fair, market value for their properties, even in the case where they do decide to accept either compensation or exchange instead of restitution.

This is because TCs are demanding majority of property ownership in a TC component state which is more than double the % of land they owned. I read in a paper today that the cost of paying market value in compensation to GCs would exceed Euro 30bn (after taking into account exchange with TC properties), whereas no more than 0.5bn could be expected to be provided by donors.

Annan & Co, instead of telling Turkey and TCs that they simply cannot have a state with more than 15-18% of Cyprus if they want the majority of property within it, decided it was easier to rip off the GCs by setting compensation at a level much lower than market value - and to add insult to injury also decided that this compensation would be paid NOT by Turkey that actually stole the land, NOT by the future TC component state that would receive it, but by the federal state, which would be funded almost exclusively by GCs.

Do you know for certain that it was the UN that insisted on using the 1974 prices on the plan?

[Nikitas]

"and to add insult to injury also decided that this compensation would be paid NOT by Turkey that actually stole the land, NOT by the future TC component state that would receive it, but by the federal state, which would be funded almost exclusively by GCs."

So we are talking about theft. You can call it fancynames, but in the end it comes down to stealing. In fact it is double stealing when there is money to be paid on top of the land loss.

[Nikitas]

The property problem is proving that we have to be honest with ourselves. We are either talking partition, in which case the property issue is irrelevant. Or we are talking BBF, in which case the property issue is a minor issue which is more or less solved by the EU legal order, the European Charter of Human Rights and decisions of the ECHR.

Trying to dress partition with a BBF cloak will NOT work. This is the choice facing the TC community and Turkey.

[Get Real!]

Refugees can NEVER be compensated for their family homes; the place they and their parents grew up and lived in, sometimes spanning many generations!

All it would take is for ONE refugee to refuse any form of “compensation” and take it to court regardless of who signed what…


Thank God for the…

http://www.un.org/events/humanrights/udhr60/index.shtml