Cyprus-Forum.com

by **metecyp** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:09 pm

Piratis wrote:What we had in the 60s was not good enough, maybe thats one of the big reasons why it didn't work.

I agree with you. It was supposed to create a balance between the minority and the majority so the majority could not ignore the minority. Apparantly all the safeguards were not good enough to ensure TC participation. That's why we're excluded from the RoC since 1963. So, yes, it wasn't good enough and next time, we want to make sure that you cannot throw us out of the government once again. So we need more safeguards that will make it impposible for you to ignore us.

The TCs were given 30% governmental jobs, which the government was not able to fulfill and in retaliation the TCs blocked the budget. This had a result the proposal for the 13 points and it went from there.

Oh ok. So 13 points were due to TCs getting 30% of governmental points. GCs had no desire for the total control of the island, Makarios didn't want Enosis, GC community didn't go back on their signature for the RoC...it was just because TCs were given 30% of the governmental jobs!?!

by **turkcyp** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 7:23 pm

deleted by the author...

by **metecyp** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:23 pm

The 1960 agreement did not fail because it was not workable. It had failed because the sides had no intention of making it work.

This is so true and I'm ready to accept my community's share of the blame for the failure of the RoC but I don't see the same response from people like Piratis. They go out of their way to make excuses for everything.

But i agree with you on one thing. we are in 2005 not in 1963. IMO If the same system is offered to us right now it would work.

I assume you mean "The same system with added bizonality", correct? I also think that TCs would not object to having the exact rights (even less governmental jobs) as the RoC with the added bizonality arrangements.

I think the bigger problem is property, not representation.

by **boulio** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:46 pm

I assume you mean "The same system with added bizonality", correct? I also think that TCs would not object to having the exact rights (even less governmental jobs) as the RoC with the added bizonality arrangements.

I think the bigger problem is property, not representation.

no problem then added bi-zonality corresponding with percantage of jobs like i think turkcyp said 20%,so the t/c constitute state in a bi-zonal model will also be 20%.correct?

by **Bananiot** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:52 pm

Bizonality is an important parameter of the solution of the Cyprob. We GC's are not winning any sympathy when we shed tears regarding our European rights which are suppressed by the bizonality factor that guarantees majority for TC's in their zone. I hate to say this, but the truth is that no GC of the nationalist type, ever thought about the minimum rights of TC's when we were winning the war we declared against the TC community from 1963 to 1974.

Bizonality is not ideal. I do not like it either. It is a direct result of our stupidity but you might like to remember that we are ruled by the same people who made sure we can only look as far as bizonality right now as part of the solution.

The other day I was watching a very touching ceremony in a Ukranian city near the Polish border. This city changed hands several times during the turbulant history of the two neighbouring countries. Right now it is firmly in Ukraine. The leaders of the two countries embraced, and each one asked for forgiveness from the other. The city will remain, however, Ukranian and the Poles have finally accepted the fate of the city, just like the Germans accepted that a number of their cities will forever be Polish.

Similarly, Kyrenia will remain for ever, hopefully part of the TC constituent State, at best. There is no other way, short of total victory in a new war. To think that we can get everything back through a court struggle is shear fallacy and of course those that fill the brains of poor simpledons that this is exactly what we will do, are merely doing so in order to hide their real aim which is partition, the next best solution to a unitary Cyprus, according to our President.

by **boulio** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:31 pm

im not sure that the majority of g/c think they will every get kyrenia back or karpasia penisula however they would like to be able to go live there and have all the rights that there neighbor has either it be a t/c or a european dont you agree?

by **Piratis** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 11:08 pm

It was supposed to create a balance between the minority and the majority so the majority could not ignore the minority. Apparantly all the safeguards were not good enough to ensure TC participation.

Metecyp, lets say that the 1960 agreements gave to TCs all the power and they gave none to GCs. Do you think this would have solved the problem and we wouldn't have conflicts? Or would it be the opposite? Have it ever passed your mind that the balance in the 1960 agreements with all those 30% and 40% and vetos etc, was actually in favor of TCs and this is one of the reasons we had conflicts?
So I agree that the balance of 1960 agreements was (i believe intentionally by the British) wrong. Take a look at all the other democratic countries in the world that are multicultural/multilingual, and there you will see the kind of balance that actually works.

. GCs had no desire for the total control of the island, Makarios didn't want Enosis, GC community didn't go back on their signature for the RoC...it was just because TCs were given 30% of the governmental jobs!?!

I said that this was one of the problems, not the only one. GCs also have made mistakes that led to the conflict. The main mistake was that they didn't believe in independence and they were trying for something else instead.
However most of us understood that this was a mistake, and now we are committed to the Independence of Cyprus. Is it so hard for you to understand your part of mistakes that let to the 60s conflicts? Why do you still insist on the same mistakes such as your demand for partition, and percentages way beyond your population percentage?

The 1960 agreement did not fail because it was not workable. It had failed because the sides had no intention of making it work.

I agree. If both sides wanted independent Cyprus to work out, they would have found solutions to the problems and they wouldn't come to conflict.

But i agree with you on one thing. we are in 2005 not in 1963. IMO If the same system is offered to us right now it would work.

Again I agree. But it is mostly up to the TCs to make this step now. We had more power to make it work in the 60's and we didn't try hard enough because we had maximalistic goals. Now TCs have the power (i hope) to make it work, but they still have their maximalistic goals. It seems to me that a win-win solution is possible, but we will never achieve it and the circle of blood will continue. I hope I am wrong.

Personally I think that if from the 1960 agreements we take away those 30%-40% things, and the blocking power is limited slightly, and in return the TCs get some sort of internal autonomy in some region(s), separate municipalities in the cities, and maybe some separate ministries (e.g. education) that would be a fair "tweaking" of the 1960 agreements that could make them work good today.