Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

This makes interesting read regarding the treatment the Cyprus problem gets in the super impartial sate of roc which is a member of the elite club of the freedom loving EU super state with relevant checks in place to make sure that free thought is propagated to the masses via the free media and not controlled like Stalin used to.

May god preserve this wonderful ship and all the nationalists who sail in her (in other words all the sailors)

Real numbers and real truths about bi-zonality
By Loucas Charalambous

THE ‘ANTI-FEDERATION’ chat shows broadcast at lunch-time by Antenna are very entertaining. Apart from the amusement provided by the variety of lawyers invited to the studio by station owner Loukis Papaphilippou, the shows also illustrate the low calibre of the rejectionists.

This was evident in last Tuesday’s show, when a young lawyer, recently recruited by Papaphilippou, stole the show with his stupidity and cluelessness. Waving some papers in his hand, the self-important youth said: “Because some people are afraid to tell the truth to the people about bi-zonality, I will speak with documentation.

“I did my research and I have figures. In 1974, in Kondemenos, there were 830 Greeks; in Ayios Amvrosios there were 1,543 and in Kato Dikomo 1,900. Today, how many of these Greeks would return to their houses?”

As nobody answered the young lawyer’s courageous question, I will try to answer it here. If we take the average life expectancy as a guide, of the total 4,273 refugees mentioned by the lawyer, of whom the majority was over the age of 40 in 1974, most would have died. By a rough estimate, 1,900 would have passed away and a return to their village from where they are now is the least of their concerns.

From the rest, some 60 per cent (1,400) were between one to 21 years old. They are now between 35 to 55, have their own families, have set up homes in Nicosia, Larnaca, Limassol and Paphos and have jobs there.

I do not think they would want to leave their homes and friends to return to their villages under a Turkish Cypriot administration. And what would they do there? Would they become farmers and cultivate the fields? These are people who have probably never held a farm tool in their hands before.

The same applies for those who were between 20 and 30 years old in 1974. Today, they are between 55 and 65, have made a new life and are unlikely to pack their things and return en masse to their villages in the north.

This leaves us with the 30-40 age group of 1974. Today, they are in the 65 to 75 age group. Under the Annan plan they would have the right to return to their homes without any restrictions placed on them. Again, I do not think there would be too many of them prepared abandon their extended families in Limassol in order to go and live in Ayios Amvrosios.

Under the circumstances, it is almost certain that the number of people who would want to return to their villages would have been smaller than the number envisaged by the Annan plan. Consequently, it might be a good idea to drop this myth about the “return of all the refugees to their homes”. In 1977, the idea of “return” made sense, but today, 35 years later, it sounds like a joke.

As regards Kondemenos, the question posed by the young lawyer – “how many of these Greeks would return to their homes?” – is not difficult to answer: “At present nobody.” But if the young lawyer and his boss Papaphilippou had voted in favour of a settlement in 2004, all the former residents of Kondemenos (including the dead) would have been able to return to their village, if they wanted to, on October 24, 2007.

If the clueless lawyer had read the Annan plan, he would have seen that Kondemenos would have been returned to the Greek Cypriot side and would not have posed his idiotic question so pompously. Perhaps from now on, Papaphilippou should ask his lawyers and presenters to do some studying before putting them on air to fight the good fight, so they will not make fools of themselves.
Copyright © Cyprus Mail 2009

[insan]

Yeah, it is unlikely the return of all refugees but restituiton of most of the properties r very likely. Because they r their ancestral homes and lands besides might have a great economic and strategic value for big capital owner GCs... Maybe, the new generation of descendants of GC refugees don't care much abt ancestral lands and houses but they would like the restitution of those properties and lands for economic reasons as a second home, rent, sell or exchange. If they r politically motivated, they wouldn't wish to exchange, sell or even rent their properties and lands to TC refugees, non refugee TCs or big capital owner TCs.

In such a case most of the TC refugees and a part of non-refugee TCs(I'm putting aside the settlers) who were granted or sold land/houses belongs to GCs or so-called state land; will be in a very difficult situation.

That's why I always emphasized the significancy of establishment of a bi-communal properties board that would deal with properties issue to get the demands of refugees/current owners and solve it on case by case basis.

Otherwise it could also be solved with a global exchange of properties agreement but overwhelming majority of GCs neither individually nor politically wish a global exchange of properties. So, how can it be solved and when?

[YFred]

Yeah, it is unlikely the return of all refugees but restituiton of most of the properties r very likely. Because they r their ancestral homes and lands besides might have a great economic and strategic value for big capital owner GCs... Maybe, the new generation of descendants of GC refugees don't care much abt ancestral lands and houses but they would like the restitution of those properties and lands for economic reasons as a second home, rent, sell or exchange. If they r politically motivated, they wouldn't wish to exchange, sell or even rent their properties and lands to TC refugees or big capital owner TCs.

In such a case most of the TC refugees and a part of non-refugee TCs(I'm putting aside the settlers) who were granted or sold land/houses belongs to GCs or so-called state land; will be in a very difficult situation.

That's why I always emphasized the significancy of establishment of a bi-communal properties board that would deal with properties issue to get the demands of refugees/current owners and solve it on case by case basis.

Otherwise it could also be solved with a global exchange of properties agreement but overwhelming majority of GCs neither individually nor politically wish a global exchange of properties. So, how can it be solved and when?

It is an impossible question to answer. First, the facts have to be gathered, to see who wishes to do what, and then you can come up with a formula that will satisfy most. The trouble is we are not allowed to get to that position, the GC mentality is solve before we can negotiate, which in itself cannot be done. Do they do this knowingly or is it a reflex reaction, I would go for knowingly because they oppose settlement.

The Annan plan had a good process which would have worked. The only thing that was wrong with the plan (Regarding Property) was that compensation was calculated at the 74 prices, which is exactly what the roc is offering the TCs for their land in the south. They than have the audacity to object to the plan on the grounds that the GCs were being offered the same formula which they intend to implement against the TC's lands.

The phrase "have your cake and eat it" comes to mind.

[bill cobbett]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

[YFred]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

Billy boy, you live in cloud nine. The GC diaspora hate the TCs more than the locals. When it comes to holiday homes, I suspect not many will wish that either, on account of local conditions. The ones that will return, I suspect will be the retired who will reside there all year round and do not depend on TRNC for income. You see it is not such a big problem after all for both sides. TCs will not feel threatened and many more will go for the compensation.

[bill cobbett]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

Billy boy, you live in cloud nine. The GC diaspora hate the TCs more than the locals. When it comes to holiday homes, I suspect not many will wish that either, on account of local conditions. The ones that will return, I suspect will be the retired who will reside there all year round and do not depend on TRNC for income. You see it is not such a big problem after all for both sides. TCs will not feel threatened and many more will go for the compensation.

What a loada unsubstantial, meaningless, unhelpful and unnecessary CODswallop! .... (if it weren't a Sunday would call it, plain and simple, Pollocks!)

[YFred]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

Billy boy, you live in cloud nine. The GC diaspora hate the TCs more than the locals. When it comes to holiday homes, I suspect not many will wish that either, on account of local conditions. The ones that will return, I suspect will be the retired who will reside there all year round and do not depend on TRNC for income. You see it is not such a big problem after all for both sides. TCs will not feel threatened and many more will go for the compensation.

What a loada unsubstantial, meaningless, unhelpful and unnecessary CODswallop! .... (if it weren't a Sunday would call it, plain and simple, Pollocks!)

Oh banaiyamu, o billos e bellanen.

[bill cobbett]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

Billy boy, you live in cloud nine. The GC diaspora hate the TCs more than the locals. When it comes to holiday homes, I suspect not many will wish that either, on account of local conditions. The ones that will return, I suspect will be the retired who will reside there all year round and do not depend on TRNC for income. You see it is not such a big problem after all for both sides. TCs will not feel threatened and many more will go for the compensation.

What a loada unsubstantial, meaningless, unhelpful and unnecessary CODswallop! .... (if it weren't a Sunday would call it, plain and simple, Pollocks!)

Oh banaiyamu, o billos e bellanen.

You're in for a damned good battering followed by deep frying when I see you in Luri ... Lucig ... err ... your plaice.

[YFred]

In some respects Insan is right. The ties between all CYs and ancestral lands is, as all will acknowledge, tremendously strong. Many, many will wish to respect this very personal CY duty to maintain the links with the old villages and as Insan says an ancestral house would make an ideal weekend/holiday/retirement place.

How many would return? Personal choice. To some extent depends on a few brave souls making the first move and sure others will follow. The village associations remain strong and word soon would get around that so and so has returned and others would be encouraged to join them.

Who would be the first? Suggest those of us in the Diaspora, who by and large have experience of living comfortably with other cultures, who don't carry the baggage of others and who would wish to maintain links in the old villages if only as second homes.

Billy boy, you live in cloud nine. The GC diaspora hate the TCs more than the locals. When it comes to holiday homes, I suspect not many will wish that either, on account of local conditions. The ones that will return, I suspect will be the retired who will reside there all year round and do not depend on TRNC for income. You see it is not such a big problem after all for both sides. TCs will not feel threatened and many more will go for the compensation.

What a loada unsubstantial, meaningless, unhelpful and unnecessary CODswallop! .... (if it weren't a Sunday would call it, plain and simple, Pollocks!)

Oh banaiyamu, o billos e bellanen.

You're in for a damned good battering followed by deep frying when I see you in Luri ... Lucig ... err ... your plaice.

I don't like plaice, I prefer renga boiled beans and salad old chap. It always makes me feel better and lighter afterwards. Please no mathces afterwards! and I don't mean the footy kind.

[Nikitas]

Charalambous, the article author, like many people looks at the issue from a very narrow monocommunal point of view.

There is the other side, how many TCs would like to return to their land in the south. Arguably many TCs would want to retake possession of land in a modern, well run nation which provides a good level of essential services than stay in the north surrounded by Anatolians. Look at another thread for the Times article on the attitudes of TCs towards settlers.

Presenting the issue through exclusive reference to the more chauvinist angle of some GCs does not help to think this thing through. A fairer way to analyse it would be to ask how many GCs would want to return to their lands in the north if the south was essentially run by mainland Greeks with a mainland Greek civil service and most plum jobs going to mainlanders, or those in cahoots with them. Now that would put the matter in a whole different light.

But regardless of such hypotheticals. The first part of the land issue is the territorial settlement. A decent territorial settlement removes most of these problems. But a decent territorial settlement cannot be established when the other side refuses to return any territory other than the dead zone. Eroglu's outbursts about Morphou, Famagusta, Karpasia are not helping.