Cyprus-Forum.com

[Nikitas]

"I went up to St. Hilarion castle with GR and it was closed well before closing time. I could provide photographic evidence if GR allowed. They have a laid back attitude which they somehow are manage to justify....."

Not the way to attract tourism. Saint Hilarion must rank right up there along Salamis as one of the most important monuments in the north.

[insan]

Nikitas wrote:

Talat himself said that the TC land ownership in the north is less than 16 per cent of the land area. There is no more official source than Talat.

I must have missed this Nikitas. Do you have a link?

I suppose that kind of kills insan's argument then.

Funny Simon, eh? 16% of what? What abt TC land ownership in the South?

In the south you own even less.

So, u say...

[insan]

Insan wrote:

"On some points I agree with u, Nikitas. Instead of settlers, TCs who emigrated from Cyprus due to uneasiness of inter-communal strife from 40s to 70s should have been encouraged to return.

What would have changed had majority of TCs who emigrated, returned to Cyprus?

Nothing in general..."

At last a voice of sanity.

Plenty would change. Any small perceived unfairness in the eventual settlement can be overlooked among Cypriots. To put it in concrete terms, if the territory issue was more generous to the TC side, or if the cabinet seats not strictly shared, etc, such minor deviations are tolerable among Cypriots.

To put it in personal terms- if my house in the north is not returned to my family, because it is needed by a TC family I can say halali. If it is a settler family I will say harami. Overlooking this part is not understanding Cypriots. At the moment we have good relations with the TC families living in our houses in the Morphou area. An elderly lady from Polis who lives in one of the family homes has become something of an adopted aunt to my cousins. All this is possible because these people are CYPRIOTS.

It is also interesting that my grandfather's house was bulldozed by the TCs from Polis who live in the adjoining houses to prevent settlers being moved in amongst them.

Any advantage gained by a community of settlers will create a grudge and an inner conviction that next round things will be settled once and for all. There can be no genuine peace with settlers involved. It is funny that so many people in this forum are concerned about past GC atrocities but do not see how they are building a web of grudges via the settlers and these might lead to a new round. And these grudges are not borne exclusively by GCs either.

Maybe I am the only one in this forum, but my preoccupation is to create conditions which cannot lead to a repeat of 1963. It is wiser and more secure to prevent grievances than to imagine that you can contain them. At some point they will come to the surface.

Nikitas, I agree that it would create a positive impact on GC community and for the TC unity but essential of the problem, before 1974 and even until 1983, most probably still; was not the settlers occupying GC properties.

The essential of the problem is poltitical equality of 2 communities. I know it's too difficult for u to accept political equality of TC community because of the negative traces, bitter experiences of Ottoman Rule, Turco-Greco wars etc... but for us TCs, it's impossible to accept being a muslim minority in Cyprus like Turkish(muslim) minority of Greece... because of almost similar reasons that u have.. hope u can understand us...

[Nikitas]

Insan,

I understand both sides of the argument and on the basis of community status I do not think any reasonable person disputes the equality principle. From my experience I do not think there are GCs who want the TCs to be granted a status similiar to the pre 1992 status of the Turks of northern Greece. Things have changed a lot since then, but again, the situation is totally discimilar to Cyprus.

The challenge is to apply equality without resorting to any manifestation of special status at the level of the rights of individuals. ALso to apply it without leaving a large segment of the population with the feeling that they have been cheated. This is where the issues of territory, property, allocation of civil service positions (in the central government) and seats in the federal house and cabinet posts will come to play.

I detect in Turkish officials an inner conflict. At one level they want to solve this problem, at another they think that any degree of give and take automatically becomes a concession. This is what I got when on the night of the Birkenstok conference Erdogan said "we got what we wanted without giving an inch of territory or removing a single soldier". Once you have this kind of attitude then you are right back to the Ottoman empire talk.

Then there is the upping of the ante at every negotiating step. Last few days Morphou and Karpasia were said to be off the table. Which leaves very little else to be negotiated.

Levent commented on the effects of such constant hard line negotiating approaches and how they are received by the other side. If the relative size of the two sides in terms of population is irrelevant following the equality principle, what stops the TCs from going on to a fair territory deal which would also solve the majority of the property cases and which would still give them a larger proportion of territory and coastline than their population percentage?

Some people respond to the puzzle by seeing a desire to force a "take it or leave it" deal, negotiated from a position of strength, which sort of dissolves notions of equality.

[Nikitas]

In the next few days Christofias will present his territorial proposals.

His plan calls for return of territory which will allow the eventual return of 120 000 GCs to their properties.This leaves 60 000 pending property issues. Christofias is betting that most of the GC owners will opt to be compensated with money and/or TC property in the south. This will still leave most TC owners of property in the south able to hold on to their land. In effect this plan increases the overall property ownership of the TCs.

The coast line is apportioned 60-40.

When the plan is put on the table it will be interesting to see the TC side's reaction and reasons for rejecting it. It will almost certainly be rejected and as Nami has already hinted his aim is for a settlement of 29 per cent plus and no changes to the coast line.

[Simon]

Where do you get your info from Nikitas that this is what Christofias will propose? Or is it an educated estimation?

If TCs want a weak central government with high levels of autonomy for the TC state, then there is no reason why we shouldn't demand at least a 70:30 split in the coastline, and an 80:20 split in the land.

If we're looking at 60:40 for the coastline and 71:29 for the land then I'm sorry but this is unacceptable in my opinion.

[Nikitas]

Simon,

POlitis had an article last week on its web edition.

Like you I place lots of importance to the territory issue because a suitable territorial arrangement solves most of the property issues with no complications and time consuming procedure like compensation boards etc.

The coast line, due to the geography of the Karpasia peninsula will always be more in favor of the TCs with the attendant enefits of tourism and marine resources, but that cannot be helped.

What intrigues me is the response of the TCs who own land in Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos. The TC area of LImassol now abutts the new port, the biggest and most modern in Cyprus if not the whole of the middle east. Will they want to let taht valuable land go in exchange for some fields in the north?

[Simon]

Simon,

POlitis had an article last week on its web edition.

Like you I place lots of importance to the territory issue because a suitable territorial arrangement solves most of the property issues with no complications and time consuming procedure like compensation boards etc.

The coast line, due to the geography of the Karpasia peninsula will always be more in favor of the TCs with the attendant enefits of tourism and marine resources, but that cannot be helped.

What intrigues me is the response of the TCs who own land in Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos. The TC area of LImassol now abutts the new port, the biggest and most modern in Cyprus if not the whole of the middle east. Will they want to let taht valuable land go in exchange for some fields in the north?

Nikitas, if the land is apportioned 80:20, then it is likely that Karpasia will be in the GC state, as was proposed at one stage under the AP.

Talat has now apparently said that Karpasia and Morphou are non-negotiable. In which case, we should walk away from negotiations now if he is serious about this.

I agree that it does appear TCs are in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to property exchanges. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds.

[DT.]

Simon,

POlitis had an article last week on its web edition.

Like you I place lots of importance to the territory issue because a suitable territorial arrangement solves most of the property issues with no complications and time consuming procedure like compensation boards etc.

The coast line, due to the geography of the Karpasia peninsula will always be more in favor of the TCs with the attendant enefits of tourism and marine resources, but that cannot be helped.

What intrigues me is the response of the TCs who own land in Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos. The TC area of LImassol now abutts the new port, the biggest and most modern in Cyprus if not the whole of the middle east. Will they want to let taht valuable land go in exchange for some fields in the north?

Nikitas, if the land is apportioned 80:20, then it is likely that Karpasia will be in the GC state, as was proposed at one stage under the AP.

Talat has now apparently said that Karpasia and Morphou are non-negotiable. In which case, we should walk away from negotiations now if he is serious about this.

I agree that it does appear TCs are in a bit of a dilemma when it comes to property exchanges. It will be interesting to see how that unfolds.

Christofias has asked for Karpasia as a GC enclave.

[Tim Drayton]

Simon,

POlitis had an article last week on its web edition.

Like you I place lots of importance to the territory issue because a suitable territorial arrangement solves most of the property issues with no complications and time consuming procedure like compensation boards etc.

The coast line, due to the geography of the Karpasia peninsula will always be more in favor of the TCs with the attendant enefits of tourism and marine resources, but that cannot be helped.

What intrigues me is the response of the TCs who own land in Limassol, Larnaca and Paphos. The TC area of LImassol now abutts the new port, the biggest and most modern in Cyprus if not the whole of the middle east. Will they want to let taht valuable land go in exchange for some fields in the north?

If they ever get round to building the planned marina, the TC land in Limassol will increase even further in value.