Cyprus-Forum.com

[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...

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.

You need a lot of growing up to do,if you think I am a fascist...I suggest you start with crawling, before you walk and talk...

[YFred]

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.

You need a lot of growing up to do,if you think I am a fascist...I suggest you start with crawling, before you walk and talk...

He has just worked out how to lick his bum, that's not get over ambitious on his capabilities.

[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...

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.

You need a lot of growing up to do,if you think I am a fascist...I suggest you start with crawling, before you walk and talk...

He has just worked out how to lick his bum, that's not get over ambitious on his capabilities.

Are you sure he can tell his own bum from someone else's???

[YFred]

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.

You need a lot of growing up to do,if you think I am a fascist...I suggest you start with crawling, before you walk and talk...

He has just worked out how to lick his bum, that's not get over ambitious on his capabilities.

Are you sure he can tell his own bum from someone else's???

Sorry, I can't vouche for him unfortunately, he has had some cockups in the past, although in who's arse only he can tell us.