Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

We could always refer them to this forum so they get a taste of why we cannot live together.

[paliometoxo]

from a few forum members? most of them dont even live in cyprus and have become more english or wherever the country they moved to.. american australian

[Paphitis]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

I know A.

Tell him that S. says 'hello'!

I've sent Anthony a link to this thread so I'm sure he'll read the greetings from S. !

Now, you know full well it was not an 'Anthony' you were referring to!

Has anyone established contact with Andreas yet?

I'm still waiting for him to sign his book that I got!

Send him regards from M when you speak to him!

[Tim Drayton]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

Do you live in Cyprus or were you born there? Do you think the two communities will ever be able to live together? What do you blame for the failure to reach a deal? What do you think the main sticking points are?

Of course Cypriots can live together. Cypriot immigrants to the UK and their descendents do so already, in their tens of thousands, in the same neighbourhoods. North London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield and Haringey have high concentrations UK Cypriots. They live, work, play, form friendships, do business and fall in love; with each other, and with other north Londoners. Why wouldn't they?

Cypriots, with differing religious backgrounds, have lived side-by-side for centuries on their island. Cyprus was never divided along ethnic lines. Many villagers were mixed Christian/Muslim. Muslim populated villagers were peppered throughout the island. It took the external interests of foreign powers, exploiting imported Greek/Turkish nationalism to drive Cypriots apart along ethnic lines.

Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974, exercising its rights as a guarantor to restore the island's territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Turkey has been intervening ever since, controlling and bank-rolling the north of the island and now making a solution by Cypriots for Cypriots impossible, with Turkey's interests having to be given undue prominence in negotiations. It's difficult to envisage how Turkey and its military will be prepared to relinquish control of the north of the island, having spilt blood to secure it.

For this reason security is the main stumbling block, with the Turkish Cypriot leadership - acting as proxy for Turkey - insisting on continued military intervention rights, ostensibly to guarantee the safety of Turkish Cypriots, but in reality as a way of ensuring Turkey's continued control over the island.

This is unlikely ever to be acceptable to Cypriots living in the free areas. Turkey's military committed many atrocities in 1974 as it ethnically cleansed the island's Christian population from the north. Such refugees and their descendants will not be convinced that Turkey's military, or any other foreign country's military for that matter, should "guarantee the safety" of a modern, EU country.

Another important stumbling block is property, and the human rights of displaced people, from north and south, wishing to return to their homes.

Turkey, through the Turkish Cypriot leadership, is insisting refugees cannot have the automatic right to return. This is to ensure that a part of the island has a majority Turkish Cypriot population. Money - and lots of it - may solve this problem, to compensate displaced people sufficiently. Nevertheless, there may be some individuals who will challenge legally any solution which rides rough-shod over their property rights. The recent ECJ ruling (the landmark Apostolides/Orams case) has established that Cypriot refugees still own their properties.

Related to the property issue is territory, and the size of the proposed northern (Turkish Cypriot) constituent state.

Turkish Cypriots make up approximately 18% of the overall Cypriot population. The part of Cyprus currently controlled by Turkey's army is around 37%. The Annan Plan - overwhelmingly rejected by Cypriots in the free areas in 2004 - allocated 29%. A territorial percentage nearer 18% would need to be negotiated if it is to be acceptable to free Cypriots.

Finally settlers. Turkey is insisting all settlers that have come to Cyprus from Anatolia since 1974 should automotically become Cypriot, and therefore EU citizens after a solution. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Cypriots in the free areas who see the importing of settlers from Turkey as a war crime in breach of the Geneva convention. Turkey is now also insisting that all Turkish citizens, like all EU citizens, should have a right to reside and buy property in Cyprus. This too is likely to be a deal breaker.

Good analysis as far as it goes. However, it makes no reference to the events between about 1955 and 1974 that drove a wedge between the two communities, nor does it refer at all to the events in 1974 that permitted Turkey to make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee and intervene.

[Oracle]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

I know A.

Tell him that S. says 'hello'!

I've sent Anthony a link to this thread so I'm sure he'll read the greetings from S. !

Now, you know full well it was not an 'Anthony' you were referring to!

Has anyone established contact with Andreas yet?

I'm still waiting for him to sign his book that I got!

Send him regards from M when you speak to him!

This is turning into another work of fiction!

[Malapapa]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

Do you live in Cyprus or were you born there? Do you think the two communities will ever be able to live together? What do you blame for the failure to reach a deal? What do you think the main sticking points are?

Of course Cypriots can live together. Cypriot immigrants to the UK and their descendents do so already, in their tens of thousands, in the same neighbourhoods. North London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield and Haringey have high concentrations UK Cypriots. They live, work, play, form friendships, do business and fall in love; with each other, and with other north Londoners. Why wouldn't they?

Cypriots, with differing religious backgrounds, have lived side-by-side for centuries on their island. Cyprus was never divided along ethnic lines. Many villagers were mixed Christian/Muslim. Muslim populated villagers were peppered throughout the island. It took the external interests of foreign powers, exploiting imported Greek/Turkish nationalism to drive Cypriots apart along ethnic lines.

Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974, exercising its rights as a guarantor to restore the island's territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Turkey has been intervening ever since, controlling and bank-rolling the north of the island and now making a solution by Cypriots for Cypriots impossible, with Turkey's interests having to be given undue prominence in negotiations. It's difficult to envisage how Turkey and its military will be prepared to relinquish control of the north of the island, having spilt blood to secure it.

For this reason security is the main stumbling block, with the Turkish Cypriot leadership - acting as proxy for Turkey - insisting on continued military intervention rights, ostensibly to guarantee the safety of Turkish Cypriots, but in reality as a way of ensuring Turkey's continued control over the island.

This is unlikely ever to be acceptable to Cypriots living in the free areas. Turkey's military committed many atrocities in 1974 as it ethnically cleansed the island's Christian population from the north. Such refugees and their descendants will not be convinced that Turkey's military, or any other foreign country's military for that matter, should "guarantee the safety" of a modern, EU country.

Another important stumbling block is property, and the human rights of displaced people, from north and south, wishing to return to their homes.

Turkey, through the Turkish Cypriot leadership, is insisting refugees cannot have the automatic right to return. This is to ensure that a part of the island has a majority Turkish Cypriot population. Money - and lots of it - may solve this problem, to compensate displaced people sufficiently. Nevertheless, there may be some individuals who will challenge legally any solution which rides rough-shod over their property rights. The recent ECJ ruling (the landmark Apostolides/Orams case) has established that Cypriot refugees still own their properties.

Related to the property issue is territory, and the size of the proposed northern (Turkish Cypriot) constituent state.

Turkish Cypriots make up approximately 18% of the overall Cypriot population. The part of Cyprus currently controlled by Turkey's army is around 37%. The Annan Plan - overwhelmingly rejected by Cypriots in the free areas in 2004 - allocated 29%. A territorial percentage nearer 18% would need to be negotiated if it is to be acceptable to free Cypriots.

Finally settlers. Turkey is insisting all settlers that have come to Cyprus from Anatolia since 1974 should automotically become Cypriot, and therefore EU citizens after a solution. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Cypriots in the free areas who see the importing of settlers from Turkey as a war crime in breach of the Geneva convention. Turkey is now also insisting that all Turkish citizens, like all EU citizens, should have a right to reside and buy property in Cyprus. This too is likely to be a deal breaker.

Good analysis as far as it goes. However, it makes no reference to the events between about 1955 and 1974 that drove a wedge between the two communities, nor does it refer at all to the events in 1974 that permitted Turkey to make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee and intervene.

Anthony would probably argue he wasn't giving a history lesson, merely addressing the questions raised by the BBC, ie.
Can Cypriots live together?
What is to blame for the failure to reach a deal?
What are the main sticking points are?

[BirKibrisli]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

Do you live in Cyprus or were you born there? Do you think the two communities will ever be able to live together? What do you blame for the failure to reach a deal? What do you think the main sticking points are?

Of course Cypriots can live together. Cypriot immigrants to the UK and their descendents do so already, in their tens of thousands, in the same neighbourhoods. North London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield and Haringey have high concentrations UK Cypriots. They live, work, play, form friendships, do business and fall in love; with each other, and with other north Londoners. Why wouldn't they?

Cypriots, with differing religious backgrounds, have lived side-by-side for centuries on their island. Cyprus was never divided along ethnic lines. Many villagers were mixed Christian/Muslim. Muslim populated villagers were peppered throughout the island. It took the external interests of foreign powers, exploiting imported Greek/Turkish nationalism to drive Cypriots apart along ethnic lines.

Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974, exercising its rights as a guarantor to restore the island's territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Turkey has been intervening ever since, controlling and bank-rolling the north of the island and now making a solution by Cypriots for Cypriots impossible, with Turkey's interests having to be given undue prominence in negotiations. It's difficult to envisage how Turkey and its military will be prepared to relinquish control of the north of the island, having spilt blood to secure it.

For this reason security is the main stumbling block, with the Turkish Cypriot leadership - acting as proxy for Turkey - insisting on continued military intervention rights, ostensibly to guarantee the safety of Turkish Cypriots, but in reality as a way of ensuring Turkey's continued control over the island.

This is unlikely ever to be acceptable to Cypriots living in the free areas. Turkey's military committed many atrocities in 1974 as it ethnically cleansed the island's Christian population from the north. Such refugees and their descendants will not be convinced that Turkey's military, or any other foreign country's military for that matter, should "guarantee the safety" of a modern, EU country.

Another important stumbling block is property, and the human rights of displaced people, from north and south, wishing to return to their homes.

Turkey, through the Turkish Cypriot leadership, is insisting refugees cannot have the automatic right to return. This is to ensure that a part of the island has a majority Turkish Cypriot population. Money - and lots of it - may solve this problem, to compensate displaced people sufficiently. Nevertheless, there may be some individuals who will challenge legally any solution which rides rough-shod over their property rights. The recent ECJ ruling (the landmark Apostolides/Orams case) has established that Cypriot refugees still own their properties.

Related to the property issue is territory, and the size of the proposed northern (Turkish Cypriot) constituent state.

Turkish Cypriots make up approximately 18% of the overall Cypriot population. The part of Cyprus currently controlled by Turkey's army is around 37%. The Annan Plan - overwhelmingly rejected by Cypriots in the free areas in 2004 - allocated 29%. A territorial percentage nearer 18% would need to be negotiated if it is to be acceptable to free Cypriots.

Finally settlers. Turkey is insisting all settlers that have come to Cyprus from Anatolia since 1974 should automotically become Cypriot, and therefore EU citizens after a solution. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Cypriots in the free areas who see the importing of settlers from Turkey as a war crime in breach of the Geneva convention. Turkey is now also insisting that all Turkish citizens, like all EU citizens, should have a right to reside and buy property in Cyprus. This too is likely to be a deal breaker.

Good analysis as far as it goes. However, it makes no reference to the events between about 1955 and 1974 that drove a wedge between the two communities, nor does it refer at all to the events in 1974 that permitted Turkey to make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee and intervene.

Anthony would probably argue he wasn't giving a history lesson, merely addressing the questions raised by the BBC, ie.
Can Cypriots live together?
What is to blame for the failure to reach a deal?
What are the main sticking points are?

If you insist on this selective presenation of the historical events which led to the present impass the Turkish Cypriots will never trust you...Let alone respect you and understand your point of view....Hence they will not want to live with you...End of story...

[halil]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

Do you live in Cyprus or were you born there? Do you think the two communities will ever be able to live together? What do you blame for the failure to reach a deal? What do you think the main sticking points are?

Of course Cypriots can live together. Cypriot immigrants to the UK and their descendents do so already, in their tens of thousands, in the same neighbourhoods. North London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield and Haringey have high concentrations UK Cypriots. They live, work, play, form friendships, do business and fall in love; with each other, and with other north Londoners. Why wouldn't they?

Cypriots, with differing religious backgrounds, have lived side-by-side for centuries on their island. Cyprus was never divided along ethnic lines. Many villagers were mixed Christian/Muslim. Muslim populated villagers were peppered throughout the island. It took the external interests of foreign powers, exploiting imported Greek/Turkish nationalism to drive Cypriots apart along ethnic lines.

Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974, exercising its rights as a guarantor to restore the island's territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Turkey has been intervening ever since, controlling and bank-rolling the north of the island and now making a solution by Cypriots for Cypriots impossible, with Turkey's interests having to be given undue prominence in negotiations. It's difficult to envisage how Turkey and its military will be prepared to relinquish control of the north of the island, having spilt blood to secure it.

For this reason security is the main stumbling block, with the Turkish Cypriot leadership - acting as proxy for Turkey - insisting on continued military intervention rights, ostensibly to guarantee the safety of Turkish Cypriots, but in reality as a way of ensuring Turkey's continued control over the island.

This is unlikely ever to be acceptable to Cypriots living in the free areas. Turkey's military committed many atrocities in 1974 as it ethnically cleansed the island's Christian population from the north. Such refugees and their descendants will not be convinced that Turkey's military, or any other foreign country's military for that matter, should "guarantee the safety" of a modern, EU country.

Another important stumbling block is property, and the human rights of displaced people, from north and south, wishing to return to their homes.

Turkey, through the Turkish Cypriot leadership, is insisting refugees cannot have the automatic right to return. This is to ensure that a part of the island has a majority Turkish Cypriot population. Money - and lots of it - may solve this problem, to compensate displaced people sufficiently. Nevertheless, there may be some individuals who will challenge legally any solution which rides rough-shod over their property rights. The recent ECJ ruling (the landmark Apostolides/Orams case) has established that Cypriot refugees still own their properties.

Related to the property issue is territory, and the size of the proposed northern (Turkish Cypriot) constituent state.

Turkish Cypriots make up approximately 18% of the overall Cypriot population. The part of Cyprus currently controlled by Turkey's army is around 37%. The Annan Plan - overwhelmingly rejected by Cypriots in the free areas in 2004 - allocated 29%. A territorial percentage nearer 18% would need to be negotiated if it is to be acceptable to free Cypriots.

Finally settlers. Turkey is insisting all settlers that have come to Cyprus from Anatolia since 1974 should automotically become Cypriot, and therefore EU citizens after a solution. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Cypriots in the free areas who see the importing of settlers from Turkey as a war crime in breach of the Geneva convention. Turkey is now also insisting that all Turkish citizens, like all EU citizens, should have a right to reside and buy property in Cyprus. This too is likely to be a deal breaker.

Good analysis as far as it goes. However, it makes no reference to the events between about 1955 and 1974 that drove a wedge between the two communities, nor does it refer at all to the events in 1974 that permitted Turkey to make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee and intervene.

Anthony would probably argue he wasn't giving a history lesson, merely addressing the questions raised by the BBC, ie.
Can Cypriots live together?
What is to blame for the failure to reach a deal?
What are the main sticking points are?

If you insist on this selective presenation of the historical events which led to the present impass the Turkish Cypriots will never trust you...Let alone respect you and understand your point of view....Hence they will not want to live with you...End of story...

Cyprus, the ‘reluctant republic’, gained independence from Britain in 1960, following a bitter campaign by the Greek Cypriot community for énosis, and Turkish Cypriot claims for partition,[taksim]. A carefully-crafted constitution, aiming to balance the interests of the larger Greek
Cypriot community against provisions for the safeguard for the Turkish Cypriots, was guaranteed by Britain, Greece and Turkey. Although an elaborate attempt was made to try to ensure that the system was free of ethnic bias (the composition of the two appellate courts included neutral—foreign—justices with casting votes), insufficient attention was paid to deadlock resolution machinery.In December 1963 Greek Cypriot EOKA veterans attacked Turkish Cypriots in Nicosia, and violence soon spread throughout the island. At the end of the fighting, the Turkish Cypriots found themselves de facto excluded from government, and huddled together in small enclaves for mutual protection.United Nations troops were sent to the island in 1964 to keep the two sides apart. Talks between the two communities began in 1968,but these failed to reach any conclusions by 1974. In July of that year a Greek junta-inspired coup against Makarios brought events to a dramatic head. Turkey sent troops to the island, citing its 1960 treaty obligations. When peace talk broke down, with the Turkish Cypriot community besieged in many places, the Turkish army swept across the Central Plain, and gained control of the northern third of the island. Greek Cypriots fled south and Turkish Cypriots fled north, as each community feared reprisals.

[growuptcs]

A family member from London has just emailed me the message he's sent to the BBC. He has given me permission to reproduce it here (as I did help with the drafting) Well done A.

Do you live in Cyprus or were you born there? Do you think the two communities will ever be able to live together? What do you blame for the failure to reach a deal? What do you think the main sticking points are?

Of course Cypriots can live together. Cypriot immigrants to the UK and their descendents do so already, in their tens of thousands, in the same neighbourhoods. North London boroughs such as Barnet, Enfield and Haringey have high concentrations UK Cypriots. They live, work, play, form friendships, do business and fall in love; with each other, and with other north Londoners. Why wouldn't they?

Cypriots, with differing religious backgrounds, have lived side-by-side for centuries on their island. Cyprus was never divided along ethnic lines. Many villagers were mixed Christian/Muslim. Muslim populated villagers were peppered throughout the island. It took the external interests of foreign powers, exploiting imported Greek/Turkish nationalism to drive Cypriots apart along ethnic lines.

Turkey intervened in Cyprus in 1974, exercising its rights as a guarantor to restore the island's territorial integrity. Unfortunately, Turkey has been intervening ever since, controlling and bank-rolling the north of the island and now making a solution by Cypriots for Cypriots impossible, with Turkey's interests having to be given undue prominence in negotiations. It's difficult to envisage how Turkey and its military will be prepared to relinquish control of the north of the island, having spilt blood to secure it.

For this reason security is the main stumbling block, with the Turkish Cypriot leadership - acting as proxy for Turkey - insisting on continued military intervention rights, ostensibly to guarantee the safety of Turkish Cypriots, but in reality as a way of ensuring Turkey's continued control over the island.

This is unlikely ever to be acceptable to Cypriots living in the free areas. Turkey's military committed many atrocities in 1974 as it ethnically cleansed the island's Christian population from the north. Such refugees and their descendants will not be convinced that Turkey's military, or any other foreign country's military for that matter, should "guarantee the safety" of a modern, EU country.

Another important stumbling block is property, and the human rights of displaced people, from north and south, wishing to return to their homes.

Turkey, through the Turkish Cypriot leadership, is insisting refugees cannot have the automatic right to return. This is to ensure that a part of the island has a majority Turkish Cypriot population. Money - and lots of it - may solve this problem, to compensate displaced people sufficiently. Nevertheless, there may be some individuals who will challenge legally any solution which rides rough-shod over their property rights. The recent ECJ ruling (the landmark Apostolides/Orams case) has established that Cypriot refugees still own their properties.

Related to the property issue is territory, and the size of the proposed northern (Turkish Cypriot) constituent state.

Turkish Cypriots make up approximately 18% of the overall Cypriot population. The part of Cyprus currently controlled by Turkey's army is around 37%. The Annan Plan - overwhelmingly rejected by Cypriots in the free areas in 2004 - allocated 29%. A territorial percentage nearer 18% would need to be negotiated if it is to be acceptable to free Cypriots.

Finally settlers. Turkey is insisting all settlers that have come to Cyprus from Anatolia since 1974 should automotically become Cypriot, and therefore EU citizens after a solution. This is unlikely to be acceptable to Cypriots in the free areas who see the importing of settlers from Turkey as a war crime in breach of the Geneva convention. Turkey is now also insisting that all Turkish citizens, like all EU citizens, should have a right to reside and buy property in Cyprus. This too is likely to be a deal breaker.

Good analysis as far as it goes. However, it makes no reference to the events between about 1955 and 1974 that drove a wedge between the two communities, nor does it refer at all to the events in 1974 that permitted Turkey to make recourse to the Treaty of Guarantee and intervene.

Anthony would probably argue he wasn't giving a history lesson, merely addressing the questions raised by the BBC, ie.
Can Cypriots live together?
What is to blame for the failure to reach a deal?
What are the main sticking points are?

If you insist on this selective presenation of the historical events which led to the present impass the Turkish Cypriots will never trust you...Let alone respect you and understand your point of view....Hence they will not want to live with you...End of story...

All you do is contest a GC's point of view of historical facts in Cyprus, while you deny their residence on their ancestral land. Hence, how can you just think about a Turkish Cypriots feelings when negotiating a deal to reunify Cyprus? Your a fascist that has to get dealt with Halil. You can't hide yourself, no matter how much make-up you put on.

[bill cobbett]

See that the BbC is still open for comments on this .....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8599472.stm

Be nice if one of us got their comment published. Hope your're all all using your CF nicks on it by the way.

Perhaps we can think up a virtual CF prize for any members who gets published.