Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz3]

Boomer for me the names are irrelevant.

The point is, if having two federal component states is the means for providing degrees of political autonomy in parts of Cyprus and equality at a federal level to the communites, then the problem is how to constuct means of insuring a federal system achieves this goal.

One approach would be that TC belong to one federal element (whatever its name) and GC to the other simply because they are either TC or GC, but my understanding is that this is not in accordance with EU prinicples.

The next option then is to say people in this area are members of one federal element and those in the other area the other, manipulating those areas to ensure a starting point at least of numerical dominance in each area / federal unit to each community. The problem with this is that to maintain such a system would require limits on which areas people could become resident it, or if it did not have such restirictions, then both federal elements could become numericaly dominated by the larger GC community, negating the whole point of a federal structure as a means to ensuring degrees of autonomy and political equality between the communites.

The Annan plan 'solution' to this was to adopt the second approach (federal state citizenship linked to geographical residency) and place temporary restrictions (upto 19 years) on right to residency beyond certain limits that increase over time upto the 19 years (or Turkish entry to the EU whichever sooner). Not ideal from either communites perspective but representing a compromise from both.

Not ideal from a TC perspective in that there is no guarantee after the temporary 19year period that both federal elements would not become numerical dominated by GC and thus in the process the TC community would loose the degrees of political autonomy and equality that the federal structure orignaly gave to them as a community. Not ideal from a GC perspective in that it placed limits for the first 19years on absolute and full exercise of individual rights to reside anywhere in CYprus.

[erolz3]

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

Whilst I can understand your perspective that the orignal 60's agreements were not fair or balanced, the fact remains that they were at the time they were created and agreed to, legal in every technical sense of the word.

[Jerry]

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

Whilst I can understand your perspective that the orignal 60's agreements were not fair or balanced, the fact remains that they were at the time they were created and agreed to, legal in every technical sense of the word.

I'd be very interested to hear what a panel of international jurists (if such a thing exists) would have to say about that. They were unique, no other British colony were treated as unfairly as the majority of Cypriots were. I have always seen the agreements as a punishment for one community and a "thank you" for the other from the retreating colonial power.

[Kifeas]

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.

You are correct in this observation, that is why there should be a reduction of the “TC” state’s territory (and coastline zone,) so as for more GCs to return within “GC” state boundaries, and at the same time make it practically impossible (socially and economically unviable) for more GCs to move into the “TC state and become the majority. As the EU principles and laws stand, it seems to be the only way to guarantee in the long run a TC majority within the “TC” state, since you cannot arbitrarily restrict (under EU rules) the right of an individual to settle anywhere in his country, or to restrict his political rights, solely on the basis of his ethnic affiliation.

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

What the Annan plan tried to do was basically outside the then existing EU laws and principles (Acqui Communautaire,) but because it was meant to be adopted before Cyprus’s EU accession, it was going to become part of the Acqui itself, as primary law. Now, the situation is different, and any solution to be accepted by the EU should comply with the fact that Cyprus has already become a member of the EU and therefore the solution should comply with the existing Acqui and within the terms of the already signed treaty of accession.

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.

The RoC constitution provides for the separate exercising of political rights on the basis of ethnicity, however, not on a territorial basis. It did not restrict the civil rights of the country’s citizens in particular territories, based on their ethnicity. In that sense, it did not directly violate any existing EU principle, with the exception perhaps of the fact that a disproportional number of TCs should have civil service and police jobs (70:30 and 60:40,) in the expense of the equal opportunity rights of the GCs. Furthermore, any derogations the RoC constitution had with the EU Aqcui, because they already pre-existed Cyprus’s EU accession, they automatically became primary EU law and thus part of the EU Aqcui themselves.

[Kifeas]

Boomer for me the names are irrelevant.

The point is, if having two federal component states is the means for providing degrees of political autonomy in parts of Cyprus and equality at a federal level to the communites, then the problem is how to constuct means of insuring a federal system achieves this goal.

One approach would be that TC belong to one federal element (whatever its name) and GC to the other simply because they are either TC or GC, but my understanding is that this is not in accordance with EU prinicples.

The next option then is to say people in this area are members of one federal element and those in the other area the other, manipulating those areas to ensure a starting point at least of numerical dominance in each area / federal unit to each community. The problem with this is that to maintain such a system would require limits on which areas people could become resident it, or if it did not have such restirictions, then both federal elements could become numericaly dominated by the larger GC community, negating the whole point of a federal structure as a means to ensuring degrees of autonomy and political equality between the communites.

The Annan plan 'solution' to this was to adopt the second approach (federal state citizenship linked to geographical residency) and place temporary restrictions (upto 19 years) on right to residency beyond certain limits that increase over time upto the 19 years (or Turkish entry to the EU whichever sooner). Not ideal from either communites perspective but representing a compromise from both.

Not ideal from a TC perspective in that there is no guarantee after the temporary 19year period that both federal elements would not become numerical dominated by GC and thus in the process the TC community would loose the degrees of political autonomy and equality that the federal structure orignaly gave to them as a community. Not ideal from a GC perspective in that it placed limits for the first 19years on absolute and full exercise of individual rights to reside anywhere in CYprus.

Erol, I sense you have a misconception here with the A-plan. In the federal (central) government's Senate, the two sides would have been represented on a community (ethnic) basis, regardless of their state residency, and not as residents of each of the two states. In that sense, the political equality of the TC community in the federal government was not going to be eroded as a result of any composition the two federative states may have ended up with in the long run. This particular type of approach or arrangement continues to be acceptable by the GC side in the current negotiations between Christofias and Talat..

[Nikitas]

Our past history of intercommunal conflict and the example of Belgium in the EU, have led some to believe that an ethnically defined federation could be worked out.

The problem is that in our case we have two players which are missing in Belgium, the motherlands who are next door and ready to interfere, and a former colonial power (UK) that has sat on our necks and will not leave.

The actual creation of an ethnically defined federation seems to be in line with EU principles given that Belgium is regarded as in line with these principles.

What is a sticky problem is the administration so that this ethnic make up is maintained in perpetuity. That is where things get problematic and where the Annan plan had provisions that required long term deviations from EU rules.

Overall I do no think that either community would have a problem even with those aniEU provisions if the territorial settlement had been fairer, was implemented simultaneously for both sides and there were no provisions for the Turkish army remaining either as a physical presence or as guarantor.

Turkey will have to redefine what it regards as a satisfactory solution for Cyprus and exclude from that definition any military presence or guarantees. It would seem that getting a TC adminsitered region with its own armed police and political equality would be a major achievement.

[Nikitas]

Jerry said:

"I have always seen the agreements as a punishment for one community and a "thank you" for the other from the retreating colonial power."

Our punishment is not over yet. IT will go on for a long time to come. The British do not foget. A testimony to their narrowly conceived national interest is their spying on almost all their EU partners a few years back, imagine what they do to people who managed to beat them.

The only ones that escaped that fate are the Americans, and only because they are richer and stronger than the UK.

[erolz3]

I'd be very interested to hear what a panel of international jurists (if such a thing exists) would have to say about that.

A panel of international jurists today, judging it as a new agreement under todays standards , or a panel of jurist then judging it from a contemporary perspective ?

They were unique, no other British colony were treated as unfairly as the majority of Cypriots were. I have always seen the agreements as a punishment for one community and a "thank you" for the other from the retreating colonial power.

Again I can understand why you hold such a view. From a TC communites perspective they were necessary checks and balances that respected that as far as GC considered themselves Greek and part of the Greek people , then TC could validly consider themselves part of some other people than the Greek people and thus had to some degree or other a seperate right to self determination as a people, not the same as GC considering themselves part of the Greek people.

Essentialy they were agreements that reflected a world powers view that if GC were gonna to delcare they were part of the Greek people, then some recognition would have to be given that TC were not part of this people and had therefore a seperate right as a people to some degree and that was an unholy mess for the world power that they sought to avoid. So they sought to make us all accept we were part of the same unitary Cypriot people and in order to do that they had to give TC some guarantees as a community in this 'unitary' solution.

I do not think this was done in a spirit of spite or malice or punishment but in a genuine attempt to find a solution that met their own self interests and maintained some sembalance of balancing conflicting rights and desires of Cypriots that wanted very different things in and for Cyprus.

[erolz3]

Erol, I sense you have a misconception here with the A-plan. In the federal (central) government's Senate, the two sides would have been represented on a community (ethnic) basis, regardless of their state residency, and not as residents of each of the two states. In that sense, the political equality of the TC community in the federal government was not going to be eroded as a result of any composition the two federative states may have ended up with in the long run. This particular type of approach or arrangement continues to be acceptable by the GC side in the current negotiations between Christofias and Talat..

Yes you are right here I got it wrong (I have not checked but I know you know more about this aspect of the A Plan than me and am happy to accpet what you say). Erosion of component state citizenship would have eroded tc communities local autonomy but not their central federal equality as a community under the Annan Plan.

[Oracle]

Well done Kifeas for taking the time to make us reflect on our conduct.

Knowing nothing about politics; it is your reference to accepting a solution for the sake of our children which compels me to draw your attention to my concern.

The examples we set them should take account of respecting present day values of individuals' rights and personal moral and ethical conduct. However, advocating rewarding a foreign invader and wrongdoer with "percentages" of their inheritance, would send mix-messages.

As custodians of Cyprus' future; how do we justify what we deem disposable to offer these criminals? Cyprus is not ours to spend or sell or trade. It is a whole indivisible Island/Country belonging to all those who respect the recognised, democratically chosen (equally by all the citizens), representative government.

This fear of success which plagues our collective psyche and has made us accept less than we were rightfully due, rears its ugly head again.

But as you remind us, we have a duty to our future generations.

Therefore, we are not asking for ourselves, but demanding what is due to them. I respect our children enough that I know they don't deserve compromised rights, even though we were brainwashed in the past, repetitiously believing, as lowly Cypriots, we should just accept what we are offered and say efharisto.

Let's stop contemplating supporting anyone who abrogates on our Human Rights.