RichardB wrote:insan wrote:RichardB wrote:The real intention of the President of Cyprus? was to remove obstacles that prevented Greek and Turkish Cypriots from "cooperating in the spirit of understanding and friendship. As stated in the quoted thread
The role of Grivas and Grivasites behind the scenes? I would not know Insan . I try as much as posssible to use Credible and neutral sources to back up my posts. Their role would i imagine to be a matter of much conjecture depending from what side you wish to see the sun set .
If you would like my opinion then i would say that I imagine it would be pretty much the same as the former TMT on the TC side still wishing for taksim or Enosis .
The Tc did not have a counter argument for taxation and budget , they were not allowed one by Turkey as you highlighted in the thread Kuchuk had agrreed to condsider the proposals but as I highlighted The Turkish Govt rejected the entire list
I notice you also highlighted the sentence 'The proposed amendments would have eliminated most of the special rights of Turkish Cypriots' Please tell me why the TCs should have been given 'special rights ' in a country in which they were a minority . For goodness sake they were 18%of the population and had been given 40% of places in the civil service - What about GC rights?
The amendments incuded the unification of municipialities into proportional representation - what is unfair about that. Most if not all of the proposed amendments were to give equal rights pro rata to the two groups.
1. His rela intention was not what u said. His real intention was establishing a Greek-GC ruled RoC! ... and it was unacceptable to TCs and Turkey!
"teh special rights" is the interpretation of the author... u may agree with him but I don't agree that they were special rights. 2 Those right which based poltical equality of 2 communities as 2 large ethnic components of the RoC cannot be considered as special rights.
As for disproportional distribuition of government posts, it was most probably determined by taking into account 3 that in the begining of British rule the population of TC community constituted 1/3 of Cyprus' population.Even though later in 1968-71 period TC side accepted 80/20 ratio in distribution of government posts, one political group of GCs still insisting on GC rule(minority rights for TCs) and other GC political group in cooperation with a Greek political group was insisting on Enosis.
4 These r all prove the real intentions of all concerned political groups of Cyprus problem.
1. please give evidence of this
2. It is a special right when the miority 20% population are given 30% of seats in government and 40% of civil service posts
3. according to the North Cyprus Tourist sit the population at the time of the British takeover was approx 1/5 the same as today
http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history ... index.html
4. Without any credible evidence all you have posted is hearsay
1-
The claim made by the Greek Cypriots for being entitled by their democratic majority to rule the island misinterprets the meaning of the constitution and of democracy and trivialises the existing contrasts between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The importance of these contrasts derives from the bloodshed that had taken place around Christmas 1963. It was exactly the objective of the constitution to pacify these contrasts and to provide freedom and justice for all Cypriots, and not rule of one community over the other. Pure majority government basically requires fundamental homogeneity of the body poilitic to be governed. But the specific feature of the political structure of Cyprus consists in the fact that the homogeneity in question does not exist here. The contrast between the communities can therefore not be overcome otherwise than by legal guarantees. The critisism of the constitution, although such criticism is widely supported in Cyprus, is certainly unwarranteed in its exaggeration. Thanks to the involvement of excellent Greek and Turkish constituional lawyers and considering other countries’ constitutional examples, the Cyprus constitution of 1960 is a fairly and clearly formulated law and not at all unworkably complicated. The rumor about the impossibility of its’ implementation is legally untenable and even less convincing because the originators of this rumor never left any doubt about the fact that they had no intention at all of implementing the constitution. The first president of the constitutional court, the Heidelberg professor for public law, Ernst Forsthoff, has always denied the allegation that an implementation of the constitution was impossible, and he has always stressed that it is a matter of good will to make it work.
The allegation of unworkability is mainly directed against two legal requirements contained in the Constitution. According to its article 78.2, certain laws (for example tax laws) can only be passed with a majority vote of all Greek and a majority vote of all Turkish representatives in parliament. If both communities desire a balanced legislation, this procedure obliges them to find a compromise. If they do not succeed in this, it must be considered to be the failure of the representatives and not of the constitution. According to article 173, a „seperate municipal administration“ must be established for both communities in five cities of the island. Some hold it impossible to divide physically cities that have developped in a natural process. Others say that only devided cities meet the requirements of the constitution. Such intransigence reveals either a lack of legal resourcefulness or a lack of cooperation and willingness to compromise, because the wording of the constitution is not compelling in the sense of requiring a territorial division of all administrative responsibilities into two completely seperated municipalities within the five cities. The conditions of the constitution would be sufficiently met by a double-tracked procedure for passing municipal statutes, similar to that prescribed for tax laws, or by a twofold organisation and a separation of certain administrative responsibilities on a personal basis. There is also no doubt that the establishment of some fully unified branches of the administration of the cities would be consistant with the constitutions
Majority rule means war.
Constitution of Cyprus requires good will/London conference discusses reforms.
By Christian Heinze.
First published in „Deutsche Zeitung“ Nr. 15, January 18th/19th, 1964
http://www.pro-re-publica.de/Cyprus1964.html
2-The constitution required that the two groups be represented in the civil service at a ratio of 70 to 30 percent. In addition, the republic was to have an army of 2,000 members, 60 percent Greek Cypriot and 40 percent Turkish Cypriot. After an initial period, a 2,000-member security force consisting of police and gendarmerie was to be 70 percent Greek Cypriot and 30 percent Turkish Cypriot.
Where did u get ur incorrect info? From which propaganda spreader u get ur info?
3- In the souce u given it cites that "perhaps" 30.000 Ottoman Turks settled down Cyprus in 1570s while at that time the GC population was 150.000.
Here's a serious source:
TC population
1881 45,458
GC Population
1881 140.742
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cyprus/cy_appen.html
This data is based on 1882 census, 3 years after the British Rule. There r some other sources cite that right in the begining of British Rule 10.000 TCs left Cyprus to Turkey. So, an estimate that in the begining of the British rule TCs constituted 1/3 of Cyprus population is not wrong.
4. "Without any credible evidence all you have posted is hearsay." u said... I completely agree with u.
