Cyprus-Forum.com

[maimou]

Thanks for contributing again Erzol.

1.1. The Annan plan was flawed and rightly rejected by the majority of Cypriots in its current form.

I do not see the need to mention the annan plan at all really. To say the annan plan was flawed (to the degree it was unworkable) is I am afraid a GC perspective. It is not shared by most of the rest of the world I would suggest or by TC. You could claim it was flawed because it did not achieve the consent of both communites, but you are instead saying it was rejected because it was flawed. I understand that GC consider it so and I understand and respect most of the valid reasons why so many GC consider it so. However this is not the same thing as saying it was flawed - full stop (imo). To describe it as just flawed and that the GC were right to reject it to just seems to embed a GC perspective into the document, which is not what I think you are trying to achieve here? Like I say it seems to me the least contentious way of dealing with section 1.1 is simply to leave it out all togeather.

You're right. I have not tried to embed a GC perspective. Quite frankly, it is my personal perspective. I suppose I keep dumping on the Annan plan because it offends my personal notions of how a society should be structured. Being an ethnic Greek, I don't think I can claim to be 100% impartial - but then, I am yet to discover a TC who is also 100% impartial. You and I will have to do the best we can.

I remember the first time I read the Annan proposal here in Brisbane, and quite frankly, despite how much I want a peaceful resolution, I truly hoped the South would not accept it.

Funnily enough, it was not my Greek ethnicity which was most offended by the proposal, it was my Australian side.

1.2. It is better to wait for a good plan that unites all Cypriots as a single people than to accept a poor plan that will forever entrench the division between ethnic Greeks and Turks.

Again I have to say I do not agree with this thesis. To me almost any plan could work with the right will and comitment on both sides (including the annan plan and original 60s agreements) and no plan no matter how good will sucseed without the right will and comittment on both sides. Continuation of the existing staus quo is working against unifaction imo and this has been greatly accelerated following the failed annan plan. For me it would be better to have a bad plan (with hopefully the right will and comitment on both sides) than wait for a 'perfect' or 'near perfect' plan (which in reality probably does not exists anyway).

Cyprus can ill afford to implement a plan which will generate long term resentment within the majority which could realistically lead to violence once again. This is one thing I have learned by studying Cypriot history. Better off with the current status quo.

I may be wrong, but isn't asking someone to believe in a plan which makes them a second class citizen putting the cart before the horse? Show them a plan in which they will not be a second class citizen, or that any imbalance is temporary, and they will be more likely to believe in it.

1.3. The following truths and terms should be incorporated into any plan that attempts to solve the Cyprus problem.

Like I say the use of 'truths' unsettles me a little. I think this passage would read better if you just said the 'following terms' or 'following articles' if you prefer.

If this is unsettling most reasonably minded Cypriots, I will change it.

Cyprus has a long history with many significant dates. History did not start in 1974, but how far back should we go?

For me a sensible starting point, if we are to talk about a sovreign unified Cyprus is 1960 - as this is the start of Cyprus' history as a sovreign united nation. I have also seen (good imo) arguments that post WW2 is a sensible starting point as this marked the end of the old colonial era on a world wide scale and the emgance of sovriegn nations from colonilism.

This certainly deserves some thought.

It seems clear to me that those who keep looking backwards are looking to find justification for division rather than looking for grounds upon which to unite.

I do not think it is so simple. We have to look forward but we also have to do so in the context and knowledge and agreement of the past and why things went so badly wrong from 60 onwards, if we are to avoid making the mistakes of the past.

History is a tool. Used correctly it will educate. Used incorrectly, as many Cypriots done, and it cripples attempts to find a compromise for the future.

by the way who is / are the 'hellenix elements'?

'Hellenix' is simply the name of a website I have registered and have done very little with. 'Elements' refers to the individual items I have listed. There is no smokey room with short, fat, hairy guys making questionable decisions.

Unfortunately, when you argue that Turkey had a legal right to intervene, the very same logic then makes their continued occupation illegal by international law.

Turkeys continued presense is illegal under international law, as far as international law exists (and in reality international law has a very tenous existance vs say national laws). The extent to which international law exists is that bodies like the UN can issue resolutions but it can not enforce them (unlike national laws that have a means and process to enforce laws). The biggest violator of international law - in terms of ignoring UN resolutions - is I believe the USA (followed by Israel). Any country can and many do ignore UN resolutions if they believe they are against their interests. That is what sovreignty means. If international law actualy existed in the way national law did then there would be a competent judge(s) with jurisdiction and authority to decide the case for or against Turkey and it's continued presense, and if Turkey is found guilty then there would be effective means of removing her by force if necessary. None of these things exits. So we are left with a situation where 'cases' can be made for legailty or illegailty but no body with the authority to 'judge' or to enforce judgments.

This is one of the problems with international law - it is usually so easy for most countries to ignore (unless you invade an oil field named Kuwait - Gulf war 1990).

You may be interested to know that in Brisbane Australia, most Cypriots I know call themselves Cypriot. They do not call themselves Greek Cypriot unless you specifically ask them as to their ethnicity. They rarely call themselves Greek. There is hope for Cyprus.

Are there many TC living in Brisbane? I am not so sure this is a sing of hope as much as a reflection of them seeing little need to define GC and TC as they see Cyprus as essentialy a Greek island and by calling them self Cypriot they simply mean assume that everyone else knows Cypriots are Greek? maybe I am just too cynical?

Erzol! Yea of little faith! Actually, many local Greeks get really annoyed with the ethnic Greek Cypriots for distinuishing themselves as a people different to the rest of the Greeks. You would be welcome to visit the 'Cypriot Club'.

I don't understand your concern about the removal of the Turkish army. Read section 16. Until the ethnic Turks feel safe, the Turkish army would stay under the Hellenix plan.

My concern is not with the withdrawal of Turkish army - your provisions on that are more than I would require to be hones and certainly far in excess of what would be acceptable to the majority of GC. My problem is with the idea that TC are no longer at risk. To say that TC are no longer at risk (especially as a 'truth)- reads to me as as saying their is no longer any need for Turklish presense because TC are no longer at risk. If it read that because of the current Turkish presense in Cyprus TC are not at risk, I would be miuch happier because this makes it iexplicit that their lack of 'at riskness' today is related / connected to Turkish military presense and that the loss of it may also lead to a loss of their 'not at risk' status. I hope that makes sense?

It does make sense. That is why I think all fair minded GC's should agree to tolerate their presence north of the Green Line until the TC's ask them to leave. I truly believe that Turkey would not dare to use its military against a demilitarized south. I hope section 17.7 is enough to satisfy the GC's. I would also remind the GC's that while the Turkish soldiers are not tourists, they do inject money into the local economy.

You are right, I think there is little hope that the GC's will see my perspective on this point. As a TC, and better able to understand the mentality of the Turkish military than I am, do you think I have judged them correctly? ie that they would not attack a demilitarized sothern Cyprus.

The government would ask the majority of citizens who would understand such a law to chastise those who break that law. Unity is in everyone's best interest and I believe that most Cypriots will obey it - even if it's only obeyed for their own best interest.

Again if most Cypriots support unity and the idea of not calling ourselves GC or TC but just Cypriot then a law is unessary and if they do not such a law is unworkable imo. I would support efforts to make it socialy unacceptable to express ones Greekness or Turkishness before their Cypriotness, but not legislation I am afraid.

Fair criticism. I have suggested it as a law to stress its importance. You may be right that it should be a guideline rather than legislation. I look forward to the opinions of others.

Absolutely. The anthem should unite and not divide. Expressing it in Greek or Turkish divides.

I understand your motives but again question the meathods used. It is one thing to say the state will always express the anthem in english only, but a law that prohibts it being said or written in another language to me is extreme and draconian.

I always thought I would be a benevolent dictator. I'm obviously mistaken.

Nothing is perfect. Most democratic systems are made up of seats in which the number of voters vary. This means that in a practical sense voters in different seats tend to have unequal voting power.

It is not just this discrepnacy alone though this is certainly one discrepancy. There are many others to the 'demands of democracy'. The EU is considered a democratic insitution, yet at all levels it gives disproprtionate representation to smaller members, to balance their fears of domination by larger members. This is actually a definative feature of any 'federal' system (that it gives some degree of political represntation disproprtionate to numerical numbers). Now I understan that a union of countries is different than a union of federated states within a country, but as far as the demands of democracy - surely these are the same accross all democratic systems?

You answered the question. IMO, the standard of democracy within Cyprus must reach a higher level than that found in a trading union. Members of the EU are still patriots of the states in which they live, before they are patriots to the EU.

This said, in the UK, US, Australia, EU etc it is accepted that there is a limit at which the difference in numbers of voters in a seat is acceptable. Can you show me a federal or state parliament seat in any of these countries in which one ethnic group is deliberately given over 5 times the effective voting power of the other ethnic group in the neighbouring seat - and is still regarded by the world as a democracy?

Here we get to the nub of the particular situation in Cyprus and the 'problem'. All federal systems involve disproprtionate representation to some degree or other. However most if not all (national - not international federal systems) do not define 'membership' of a given federal component based on ethnicity but on some other criteria - residency, or language etc. However in Cyprus the only reason for considering a federal solution (either interim or permanent) is because of the historical ethnic divisions. So we have the difficult choice of accepting an ethinc component to federal states in Cyprus (it does not have to be total ethinc purity, but does require some form of protection of ethnic dominance by a given group in its given component unit) or abandon the idea of a federate Cypriot solution all togeather.

If again you are talking about 'prinicples' of democracy (ie things that apply to all democratic systems , intra national (within a nation) and international (between nations) then I would point out that the current RoC has equal represntation in the EU at some levels with countries over 60 times its size. Even within the EU parliament a GC MEP reprsents a much smaller number of people than a UK or French or German MEP - in other words within the EU parliament a GC persons european vote is worth around 7 times that of a Birtish persons.

Isn't this one of the most contentious problems of the EU? Don't France and Germany always moan about this very problem?

I accept that to begin with, TC's should have representation no justified by their population. Is effective control of the Senate not enough?

I'm sure you can understand why the ethnic Greeks do not want to be second class citizens in their own country.

As I am equally sure you can understand why TC also do not want to be second class citizens in theri own country either.
Dose the average British or French or German person consider themselves second class citizens within the EU? I do not think they do, despite having much less political represntation than smaller countries relative to their population sizes.

They do not consider themselves second class citizens, but they're getting pretty tired of being treated like it. As mentioned, this is one of the biggest issues troubling the larger EU member states today.

You're right. Unfortunately compromise creates inconsistency. I decided that it is better to have one house of parliament operating democratically than neither - as is demanded by the Annan plan.

So here we have the heart of my problem. To you any system that does not attribute political representation directly equal to numerical numbers is undemoractic and a mtter of compromise. This to me is not what I consider the meaning of democracy. To me democracy is all about people having an effective say in the poltical decision that affect thier lives. To me that does not require absolute numercial represntation and in fact at times positively requires the opposite. For me the problem with the definition of democracy as meaning solely one person one vote (and never one group, community, component state, or nation state one vote) is that this is not what democray means , in theory or practice (imo). Such a definition is however however a useful 'tool' for GC that actualy wish to have effectively run by GC alone. It's a much better 'line' to say we want 'democracy' than to say 'we want the right for GC alone to decide the futre of all of Cyprus'.

Again I ask, isn't the effective control of the Senate, allowing the TC's the right to block legislation enough to protect their political interests?

Operating the lower house democratically from the beginning will make it easier to upgrade the senate to a democratic model at a later date - but only when the ethnic Turks are ready. See item 9. It is up to the ethnic Greeks to prove to the ethnic Turks that they can be trusted. In the meantime, the ethnic Turks are politically protected by the Senate.

I agree with all of the above excpet that idea that lower house is democratic and the upper not. To me they are both democratic but represent differnt forms of democracy. The lower house represents one form and the upper anthoer. Once we all feel and believe we are Cypriot and only Cypriot then the need for these 'different forms' disapears but not before.

Now, now. You know it's not nice to argue with a Greek as to the meaning of democracy. We did invent it you know?

I will respectfully disagree with you on this point.

Section 12.1 does not actually prevent foreigners from 'selling' their land after 1974. It aims to prevent foreign purchases.

My point / questions was should the sale of a proerty by a UK citizen that bought land in say Kyrenia in 1970 and then sold to another non Cypriot in 1990 be considered invalid and not recognised? If so why? And who would the proerty revert back to? The original UK owners that sold in in 1990 (and got good real money for it)? The Cypriot that they bought it from in 1970 (who also got real good money for the sale)? The state? Who? The same senario would be applicable to a TC that owned land in the north prior to 74 and sold it to an foreginer after 74. Should this sale not be recognised either? If so why?

Foreigners should not be purchasing land in an occupied territory. Full stop. Too many problems.
e.g. Who is in charge of the land registry? Can there be a legal land registry when the UN has declared that the "TRNC" must not be recognized? UN must be respected.

I disagree. The growth in foreign purchases in the north was economically motivated. If Annan was accepted and Cyprus was united the value of the land would greatly increase.

Nothing to do with solidarity. Arguing solidarity when the value of land was potentially about to sky rocket is just too much of a coincidence for me. I have real faith in the average people of Cyprus, I have little faith in politicians and no faith in foreign investors.

For me their is a real difference between the majority of foreign purchasers of property in the north before the annan plan and those after. I believe that even today more foreign owners and residence in the north came before the annan plan, though this may not stay this way for much longer. You are lumping all foreign buyers of property in the north into this one category of 'greedy selfish economic expliters' yet many (if not most) of the foreigner owners here bough their land / homes long before the prospect of a solution re the annan plan and quick monetary profits.

There are many factors that determine the choice of foreginers in buying property abroad. Certainly economic considerations are one of these but to make out they are the only motives - even today post annan plan is to pervert the truth. For exanmple one reason why some people look to buy and live in the north rather than the south, is simply that the north is less developed and commercialised than the south (not by choice of TC I might add) and that the very reason they are looking to imigrate is to get away from over devloped and commercialised environments. I even know of people (foreigners) in the north that are already looking futher afield than North Cyprus as it too becomes more developed and commercialised. It is simply not correct or fair to categorise all foreign owners of property in the north as motivated purely by selfish greed imo - which is what you are doing.

In this case, their greed is not economic, it is social greed. Perhaps they bought land, not because it was cheap, but because they like the lifestyle north of the Green Line.

In either case, by choosing to purchase land in an occupied territory for their own social benefit, they must realise that they have taken a personal and financial risk for which the people of Cyprus should not be forced to compensate.

[erolz]

right thtas why while the rest of Europe was going through enlightment the ottoman empire not only made its inhabitants stand still in time but draged them 400 years into the past.

Are you really going to deny that by comparative standards of the time the ottomans practice one of the most 'enlightened' forms of conquest, i9f not the most enlightened form?

The ottomans dragged Cyrpus in 1500 is when they conquered Cyprus into the 1100? Do you really believe this? If so this pathalogical hatred of ottomans is more deeply roted in your phsyce that I ever suspected until now.

Oh and by the way the 'enlightenment' would not have happened if it had not been for ottomans and arabs who preserved (and in some cases built on and extended) the knowledge of the ancient civilisations (greek, roman and other) that had been entirely lost to europe in the dark ages.

[magikthrill]

Are you really going to deny that by comparative standards of the time the ottomans practice one of the most 'enlightened' forms of conquest, i9f not the most enlightened form?

Do you not understand that what Im saying is I dont care how enlightened they were compared to others they were still conqueros and still performed barbaric acts?

Let me tell you a little story.

My grandma was telling me how when the junta came to Greece in the 60s they brought water and electricity into their village so she thinks, being unedcuated and a bit ignorant, that the junta was a good think to Greece.

You remind me of my grandma in that sense.

The ottomans dragged Cyrpus in 1500 is when they conquered Cyprus into the 1100? Do you really believe this? If so this pathalogical hatred of ottomans is more deeply roted in your phsyce that I ever suspected until now.

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that it makes no difference. They were sitll conquereors whether they raped 10 women or 1,000,000 women.

I understand the difference between slavery (which is what they had us to believe the Turks had us in school) and occupation. Both are wrong.

Oh and by the way the 'enlightenment' would not have happened if it had not been for ottomans and arabs who preserved (and in some cases built on and extended) the knowledge of the ancient civilisations (greek, roman and other) that had been entirely lost to europe in the dark ages.

yes they preserved the ancient marbles very nicely by giving them to the brits. how enlightened that was.

if the ottomans were indeed so enlightened then how come the greeks did not go through an enlightment period during the ottoman occupation?

[erolz]

Do you not understand that what Im saying is I dont care how enlightened they were compared to others they were still conqueros and still performed barbaric acts?

No I did not understaned that originaly. I thought that you were claiming that Ottoman rule brought no benefits to GC and that ottoman rule in Cyprus was no different to previous rulers of cyprus or compared to say spaish conquest of south america. The chances are that if it were the spanish who conquered Cyprus in 1571 and not the ottomans that there were be very few GC alive today living in Cyprus.

I undesratnd your perspective that all 'occupiers' are bad (though apparently not the Greek occupiers of Cyprus who only took empty lands and were welcomed with open arms by those living in Cyprus when Greeks arrived) but it is also true that there are degrees of badness.

Let me tell you a little story.

My grandma was telling me how when the junta came to Greece in the 60s they brought water and electricity into their village so she thinks, being unedcuated and a bit ignorant, that the junta was a good think to Greece.

Perhaps you should show her a little more respect? Have you ever lived your life without mains water or electricity? If you had then you may be more able to appriciate her perspective?

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that it makes no difference. They were sitll conquereors whether they raped 10 women or 1,000,000 women.

Yes they were conquerors - nobody is denying that. The point is that in comparative terms of the times they were less barbaric and savage that other conquerors of the period and this should be accepted because it is true. It does not mean they were not barabric or savage (by todays standards) just that they were less so that their contemporaries.

It is easy to say that it makes no difference to you whether they killed (or raped) 10 people or 1,000,000 - but the reality is if you lived in such times being ruled by people that 'only killed' 10 and not 1,000,000 you would see the difference.

I understand the difference between slavery (which is what they had us to believe the Turks had us in school) and occupation. Both are wrong.

Is wrongness a binary state then. There are not degrees of 'badness'?

yes they preserved the ancient marbles very nicely by giving them to the brits. how enlightened that was.

The Brits took what they wanted in those days, not just from Greece but from around the world.

[erolz]

Do you not understand that what Im saying is I dont care how enlightened they were compared to others they were still conqueros and still performed barbaric acts?

No I did not understaned that originaly. I thought that you were claiming that Ottoman rule brought no benefits to GC and that ottoman rule in Cyprus was no different to previous rulers of cyprus or compared to say spaish conquest of south america. The chances are that if it were the spanish who conquered Cyprus in 1571 and not the ottomans that there were be very few GC alive today living in Cyprus.

I undesratnd your perspective that all 'occupiers' are bad (though apparently not the Greek occupiers of Cyprus who only took empty lands and were welcomed with open arms by those living in Cyprus when Greeks arrived) but it is also true that there are degrees of badness.

Let me tell you a little story.

My grandma was telling me how when the junta came to Greece in the 60s they brought water and electricity into their village so she thinks, being unedcuated and a bit ignorant, that the junta was a good think to Greece.

Perhaps you should show her a little more respect? Have you ever lived your life without mains water or electricity? If you had then you may be more able to appriciate her perspective?

I understand what you are saying but what I am saying is that it makes no difference. They were sitll conquereors whether they raped 10 women or 1,000,000 women.

Yes they were conquerors - nobody is denying that. The point is that in comparative terms of the times they were less barbaric and savage that other conquerors of the period and this should be accepted because it is true. It does not mean they were not barabric or savage (by todays standards) just that they were less so that their contemporaries.

It is easy to say that it makes no difference to you whether they killed (or raped) 10 people or 1,000,000 - but the reality is if you lived in such times being ruled by people that 'only killed' 10 and not 1,000,000 you would see the difference.

I understand the difference between slavery (which is what they had us to believe the Turks had us in school) and occupation. Both are wrong.

Is wrongness a binary state then. There are not degrees of 'badness'?

yes they preserved the ancient marbles very nicely by giving them to the brits. how enlightened that was.

The Brits took what they wanted in those days, not just from Greece but from around the world.