Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

The GC side YFred has not proposed any territorial percentages. The strategy is to let the percentage to the last phase of the give and take. The idea is that the more the TCs insist on confederation the more land the GC side will demand and vice versa.

It is a rotten strategy. The GCs are making the mistake, again, of dealing from a position of dialectic, they cannot fathom that the other side is acting along strictly geopolitical lines.

[Piratis]

Kifeas, although I do not exactly agree with your historical analysis I understand that in this thread you want to put emphasis in the present and future rather than the past, so I will also do that.

In my opinion the balance between GCs and TCs was not created 3 days ago, but it existed for decades. They keep de-facto the 36% of land, and we keep de-jure the 100% of it. This is not something that was created 3 days ago.

If anything with our accession in EU we shifted this balance in our favor. The dynamic they gained from accepting the Annan plan appeared to shift this balance in their favor, but most gains from their acceptance of the plan were mostly theoretical and most of them have now fizzled away. Our EU accesion remains however, and as time passes we will be able to use our EU accession more and more effectively.

Until 3 days ago the impression that the TCs had was that every next year would be better for them (and worst for us) and that we would either have to accept their demands for a loose Confederation or they would soon became a "Kosovo", a "Taiwan" or even officially recognized. They were dreaming that the balance was turning their way, but this was not a reality. The recent ruling woke them up from this dream.

But this balance between GCs and TCs will not help to solve the Cyprus Problem, because it is Turkey and not the TCs who determine the Turkish position on the Cyprus Problem. Turkey couldn't care less if the situation for TCs in the occupied areas keeps getting worst instead of improving. And the balance between Cyprus and Turkey still favors Turkey, and therefore the Turks would not agree to an acceptable solution.

While you don't explicitly say it, I believe that you too take Turkey into account, since the solution you propose in the end still favors the TCs. A solution coming out of "absolute balance", would mean that nobody would gain anything or lose anything when compared to the 1960 agreements.

Therefore our aim and the only way to gain a fair solution is to establish a balance not with TCs, but with Turkey. Unfortunately achieving such thing is not entirely up to us, and will depend mostly on global and regional developments. But we can definitely do what we can in this direction, and most importantly we shouldn't do anything stupid, like give up our 100% de-jure ownership of the island by signing some bad-agreement like the Annan plan.

[askimwos]

Kifeas, do you know what percentage Christofias has offered in the talks?

Percentage of what?

Percentage of land, what else?

Anything below 25%, together with a reduction of the coastline zone (as it appeared in the A-plan map,) so as to have a better balance of resources for each of the two states -based on their expected population; and also to allow the majority of GC refugees to return under GC State's administration, so as not to threaten the the TC community's majority under its own the (TC) State's administration. Don't you think is only fair?

Kifeas, I am not asking an opinion on what should be offered, I am asking if you know what he actually offered to Talat as a percenteage and if any other conditions like the coast line etc, do you have any idea?

YFred, as Nikitas says land has never been a priority of the GC negotiators. When negotiating they have always seen the % of land as something that would be included in the give/take part of the negotiations, i.e. was not seen as a red line. However, there have always been certain criteria and demands that were always tabled:

a) Famagusta, Morfou and part or all of Karpasia to be returned under GC administration. It is estimated that around 100,000 out of the 180,000 GC refugees used to leave in those areas. This would leave 80,000 refugees under TC administration should they decide to return

b) If the return of Karpasia was not possible, then this area to be declared federal ground and to be administrated autonomously or directly by the federal state.

c) the return of those 3 areas would amount for the return of around 6% of out of the 36% tof the land that is now occuppied. Another 3-4% should be negotiated with preference to those areas where significant concentrations of GCs used to live i.e. some mesaoria villages

d) all these have always been subject to the the whole solution packages i.e. less land could be accepted for say the removal of guarantees by Turkey, Greece and UK, etc


Christofias main negotiation proposal on property issues so far has been the "right of the property owner to decide on what he/she wants to do with his/her property" i.e. whether to sell it, to exchange it, to get compensated or to lease it to the current occupant. Talat proposed the same thing that was included in the Annan plan "a property comittee to have the final say" which was not accepted on the grounds of legal issues and human rights.
Christofias has always been claiming that if we get around 100,000 GC under GC administration, that would leave around 80,000 under TC administration should they decide to return. It is believed that less than half of these will decide to return so that amounds to 40,000 GC under TC administration. 40,000 GCs will comprise around 20% of the population in the TC statelet (around 200,000) which satifies the demand by the TCs for a strong majority of TCs in the TC statelet.

Hope this gives you an idea of how the GC side views the issue of land.

[erolz3]

Good post Kifeas and thanks for making it.

Pretty much agree with it except perhaps the conclusions re the degree to which each comminty has accepted or not 'thier part of the equation'.

But over all a good post.

Nuff respect !

[Jerry]

Yes a good post indeed Kifeas but as Piratis says a solution will have to be approved by Turkey. Turkey's aim has always been dragging things out as long as possible and making changes on the ground that will frustrate any attempt to a fair solution. Turkey only cares about one thing - keeping a base on the island.

[Nikitas]

The territory aspect is not identical to the land ownership question, though the TC side would like to merge both.

The TC desire is for a northern federal state in which land is owned either by TCs or non Cypriot foreigners but not by GCs. This goal is becoming less and less viable as the ECJ and ECHR cases pile up.

The GC side is seeking to absolve itself from the political repercussions by shifting the matter to the realm of individual righs and choices.

However, the overriding issue here is not who owns the land but who administers it. Or to put it another way, the right of ownership and the question of residence and domicile are not necessarily interlinked. For instance, it is possible for everyone to retain his ownership of land as it was prior to 1974, yet still have a federal bizonal and bicommunal settlement. This is an accord with EU principles but not to the liking of Talat and co who would prefere an ethnically cleansed north, hence the desire for deviations from the EU aquis.

The other point that all seem to overlook is the small size of Cpyrus and the natural tendency of people to congregate to the centers of economic activity, in our case these would be Nicosia, Limassol and Famagusta. In short the northern statelet would face a population drain from day one. Presumably the citizens would retain their political rights only in their ethnic state and not their residence state inorder to maintain the construct of bizonality etc.

Despite the above, the territorial settlement is paramount to prevent any future conflict. AN unfair settlement will maintain the sentiment of discontent in the GC community. Anything close to a 70 30 settlement also rekindles the old 70 30 division of the 1960 constitution and is a powerful negative symbol for the GC community. 25-75 is barely tolerable. Ideally the territory should be closer to population ratios and somewhere around 5 to 1 and with the proviso that the British bases revert to the GC side in the future. This last proviso softens the blow for TCs, d defines the satus of the British bases and prevents future conflict over their apportionment. It also limits the power of the British to foment trouble in the future.

[Nikitas]

This Turkish desire for a base will have to be balanced by a Greek base.

The puzzle is why the TC armed police, exclusively in control of 1/5 of the island is not regarded as base enough. The estimate is that the TC police would number a minimum of 3000 men, armed with fairly good weaponry. How would that be any less of a strategic asset than 650 troops?

Let's not kid ourselves here. The mainland contingets are a means to diminish the independence of Cyprus, and Turkey would rather have a Greek contingent double the size of its own than any enhanced role for the TCs.

[erolz3]

Nikitas it is my understanding that a solution based on federal component state citizenship being linked to ethnicity is not in accordance with EU principals.

That is you can not say you are a member of the TC component state because you are ethnicaly TC and the greek cypriot one because you are ethnicaly GC and be in accord with EU principals.

Hence the attempts to link component state citizenship to geographical place of residence and then offer some (temporary) controls on the enthnic makeup of these geographical areas. Which is what the Annan Plan tried to do.

The fact that the orginal RoC consitution itself is not in accordance with EU principles yet the RoC was admitted to the EU without tackling this contradtion is something that confuses me to this day.

[boomerang]

why classify the states into turkish and greek...why not north and south, or even better call them names like in other countries...this will broaden the term Cypriot from cyprus...

[Jerry]

The fact that the orginal RoC consitution itself is not in accordance with EU principles yet the RoC was admitted to the EU without tackling this contradtion is something that confuses me to this day.

Which, in my opinion, simply reinforces the view that the ROC constitution was never democratic or "legal" in the first place.