Cyprus-Forum.com

[Acikgoz]

Interesting as the model basis of Belgium for Cyprus as a solution has demonstrable flaws. We've always known a full federal system has major risks whithin the context of the heterogeneous population.

Indeed there are idiosyncracies of the Cyprus and Belgium situation, but the principles are not that different.

The Economist: Jun 14th 2010, 11:20 by Charlemagne

"BELGIUM: historic victory for the Flemish independence movement" said a front page in the French press this morning. "Flemish separatist party wins in Belgian election", said an Anglo-Saxon broadsheet. Neither headline was completely unfair: the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) of Bart De Wever does believe that Belgium's "natural evolution" is to split into two separate halves, and the party won a stunning victory yesterday, rocketing from fringe party status (five seats in the lower house of parliament in the last elections) to 27 seats this time, making it the largest party in Belgium.

Yet those headlines were arguably a bit too hasty, and at the same time not dramatic enough. Mr De Wever, a burly, clever populist, was far too canny to use the word "separatist" at this election, instead repeatedly saying that he was not proposing a revolution or the end of the kingdom of the Belgians. What he proposes is a confederation, a rare constitutional creation consisting of two separate sovereign states that would agree to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty and share things like foreign policy or defence, under an umbrella that will be called "Belgium". One of those states would be Wallonia, in the French-speaking south of the country, and one would be his homeland of Flanders, in the Dutch-speaking north.

True, he has made no secret of his belief that this is only a step to full Flemish independence, but his genius was to position himself as the most radical of the mainstream leaders, pushing the status quo as far as it can possibly go without triggering an existential crisis. He dangled before Flemish voters the idea that, armed with a thumping mandate from them, he would have the power to demand a constitutional structure that finally reflected the Flemish view of reality: that Belgium is made up of two societies, in which a thrifty, centre-right, Dutch-speaking north should no longer have to subsidise a poorer, welfare addicted French-speaking, socialist south.

But he spared them the frightening prospect of an immediate, catastrophic end to Belgium, with all the attendant problems of sacking the king, dividing up the public debt, working out what to do with the military and what have you. (In fact, showing that—very naughtily—he does not read this blog, Mr De Wever continued peddling the old line that Europe would save Belgium, suggesting that ever deeper European union would allow Belgium simply to "evaporate" as a state).

In the south, as polls predicted, voters played into Mr De Wever's hands. They turned massively towards the Parti Socialiste (PS) of Elio Di Rupo, a bow-tie wearing dinosaur who wants to impose price controls on 200 staples like bread and milk, and who asserts that public spending, not capitalism, is what creates jobs. Mr Di Rupo is also the man who once argued that sky-high unemployment in Wallonia is not such a serious problem as all that, because once you add up childhood, old age, weekends and sleeping, work only accounts for 20% of the life of someone who reaches 80.

Does this mean that Flemish voters have converted en masse to separatism and the N-VA’s faintly menacing form of flag-waving, hymn-bellowing nationalism? Have southerners converted en masse to bone-in-the-nose socialism? Does Mr De Wever believe that the EU is about to become a federal superstate, allowing him to preside over the gentle dissolution of Belgium? No.

So what is going on? The country’s voters have realised that the status quo is broken: it took 282 days to form a permanent coalition government after the last elections, and even after that there seemed to be prime ministerial resignations and political crises every other month. Voters knew a big power struggle was due and so they elected the toughest-looking champions they knew, to defend their interests.

I suspect many of the Flemish voted for Bart De Wever while slightly holding their noses, trying to focus on his slick media image and wise-cracking manner, and to forget about his old friendships and associations with figures from the nationalist hard-right. I suspect many Walloons voted for Mr Di Rupo trying to forget that his party has run the south of the country as a dysfunctional one party state, truffled with constant mini-scandals of nepotism, fraud and public waste.

It is a bit like a company facing a really brutal labour dispute. That is the moment the board appoints a nasty thug as CEO, and the workers elect a militant headbanger as their union representative. In happier times, such extreme representatives might not be necessary. But these are not happy times.

As for Mr De Wever and his talk of Europe saving the day for Belgium, I think he knows as well as I do that Europe is not heading towards a federal superstate. But by having little European flags handed out at N-VA party rallies, and appearing in front of a blue backdrop with gold stars on it at his victory announcement, he was borrowing the EU’s multilateral aura to soften his hardline nationalist reputation. In crude terms, he was using the EU flag to signal: “I am not a fascist”.

Since Sunday’s election both Mr De Wever and Mr Di Rupo have been at pains to proffer olive branches to each other, with the N-VA pointing out that they did not win a majority of the vote in Flanders let alone Belgium, so they know they will not achieve everything in their manifesto.

Mr Di Rupo, meanwhile, said French-speakers had to hear a clear signal from the elections, that a large part of the Flemish public want big changes to the legal structures of Belgium.

There are all manner of hints flying that Mr De Wever might be happy to see Mr Di Rupo become prime minister, in deference to his status as head of the largest political “family” in the new parliament (once you add the 13 seats of the Flemish socialists to the PS’s 26).

So why do I think the headlines this morning are not dramatic enough? For one thing, the two men are defending such radically different political visions. For another, I would not put it past Mr De Wever to be counting on a Prime Minister Di Rupo to make the case for Flemish independence for him.

But something else has struck me in the last week, since I published first a piece in De Morgen and then a column in The Economist on the future of Belgium. In the past, writing about Belgium has always triggered a torrent of emails and readers’ comments saying I was exaggerating. Several times, articles prompted invitations to appear on Belgian television and radio debates. During such debates, the pattern was always the same: politicians would scold me for failing to understand, as a mere foreigner, that this latest political crisis was not as bad as all that, and would end with a good old Belgian compromise.

This time, after writing that Belgium appeared to be dying as a country, there has been lots of feedback, but it has been different. I have had emails and telephone calls from Belgian journalists and editors, and comments and messages from readers as far away as Conakry.

I have been criticised by Flemish readers for being sentimental about the end of Belgium. I have been attacked by French-speaking readers for failing to understand the strength of their case and the injustice of the Flemish case. Some messages were even supportive. For the first time, nobody has told me I am exaggerating.

[Piratis]

A federation for Cyprus that will officially divide the population along ethnic lines and officially make the north part of our island Turkish is nothing less than partition which will eventually lead to two separate countries.

What is artificial in the case of Cyprus is the geographical separation of its communities. Greek Cypriots have been the vast majority of the whole island for 1000s of years. The Muslim minority that was created during Ottoman rule was spread all over the island and there was never any "Turkish region" in Cyprus.

In 1974 the Turks put into action their partition plan they had created in the 50s, and with their invasion they have illegally and artificially created some so called "Turkish Republic" on our lands by ethnically cleansing the vast majority of the local population and replacing them with TCs from other regions and Settlers from Anatolia.

The Turks have no right whatsoever over the north part of our island. If we accept anything that would legalize the result of their invasion and we gift to them the north part of our country the result will be partition.

Those that think that some lose federation can be the first step for unity are either naive or they are intentionally lying. Such federation will officially partition Cyprus into Greek and Turkish parts, and the only way that this federation can change in the future will be with a total separation and the creation of two separate countries, and not with anything more unifying.

[Acikgoz]

As Bana not long ago stated, there are no solutions, only choices...

Remember Piri, these are our Turkish Cypriot lands too. GCs should have no rights over our lands in the south yet they control them.

Above all we want peace and prosperity in the long term. By holding onto hard beliefs and red lines, one risks forcing a potentially unworkable solution that will cause all Cypriots pain in the long run. If you can't trust a loose federation or confederation will allow us the space to learn how to live and work together and form our synergies, then consider the risks in a fully federal solution. You willingly risk much more than the arrogance of control.

[Get Real!]

Interesting as the model basis of Belgium for Cyprus as a solution has demonstrable flaws.

It’s always amusing to watch Ottoman remnants desperately trying to find a “model” with which they can refashion Cyprus!

As if we’re ever going to allow them...

[Omer Seyhan]

Interesting as the model basis of Belgium for Cyprus as a solution has demonstrable flaws. We've always known a full federal system has major risks whithin the context of the heterogeneous population.

Indeed there are idiosyncracies of the Cyprus and Belgium situation, but the principles are not that different.

The Economist: Jun 14th 2010, 11:20 by Charlemagne

"BELGIUM: historic victory for the Flemish independence movement" said a front page in the French press this morning. "Flemish separatist party wins in Belgian election", said an Anglo-Saxon broadsheet. Neither headline was completely unfair: the New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) of Bart De Wever does believe that Belgium's "natural evolution" is to split into two separate halves, and the party won a stunning victory yesterday, rocketing from fringe party status (five seats in the lower house of parliament in the last elections) to 27 seats this time, making it the largest party in Belgium.

Yet those headlines were arguably a bit too hasty, and at the same time not dramatic enough. Mr De Wever, a burly, clever populist, was far too canny to use the word "separatist" at this election, instead repeatedly saying that he was not proposing a revolution or the end of the kingdom of the Belgians. What he proposes is a confederation, a rare constitutional creation consisting of two separate sovereign states that would agree to pool certain aspects of their sovereignty and share things like foreign policy or defence, under an umbrella that will be called "Belgium". One of those states would be Wallonia, in the French-speaking south of the country, and one would be his homeland of Flanders, in the Dutch-speaking north.

True, he has made no secret of his belief that this is only a step to full Flemish independence, but his genius was to position himself as the most radical of the mainstream leaders, pushing the status quo as far as it can possibly go without triggering an existential crisis. He dangled before Flemish voters the idea that, armed with a thumping mandate from them, he would have the power to demand a constitutional structure that finally reflected the Flemish view of reality: that Belgium is made up of two societies, in which a thrifty, centre-right, Dutch-speaking north should no longer have to subsidise a poorer, welfare addicted French-speaking, socialist south.

But he spared them the frightening prospect of an immediate, catastrophic end to Belgium, with all the attendant problems of sacking the king, dividing up the public debt, working out what to do with the military and what have you. (In fact, showing that—very naughtily—he does not read this blog, Mr De Wever continued peddling the old line that Europe would save Belgium, suggesting that ever deeper European union would allow Belgium simply to "evaporate" as a state).

In the south, as polls predicted, voters played into Mr De Wever's hands. They turned massively towards the Parti Socialiste (PS) of Elio Di Rupo, a bow-tie wearing dinosaur who wants to impose price controls on 200 staples like bread and milk, and who asserts that public spending, not capitalism, is what creates jobs. Mr Di Rupo is also the man who once argued that sky-high unemployment in Wallonia is not such a serious problem as all that, because once you add up childhood, old age, weekends and sleeping, work only accounts for 20% of the life of someone who reaches 80.

Does this mean that Flemish voters have converted en masse to separatism and the N-VA’s faintly menacing form of flag-waving, hymn-bellowing nationalism? Have southerners converted en masse to bone-in-the-nose socialism? Does Mr De Wever believe that the EU is about to become a federal superstate, allowing him to preside over the gentle dissolution of Belgium? No.

So what is going on? The country’s voters have realised that the status quo is broken: it took 282 days to form a permanent coalition government after the last elections, and even after that there seemed to be prime ministerial resignations and political crises every other month. Voters knew a big power struggle was due and so they elected the toughest-looking champions they knew, to defend their interests.

I suspect many of the Flemish voted for Bart De Wever while slightly holding their noses, trying to focus on his slick media image and wise-cracking manner, and to forget about his old friendships and associations with figures from the nationalist hard-right. I suspect many Walloons voted for Mr Di Rupo trying to forget that his party has run the south of the country as a dysfunctional one party state, truffled with constant mini-scandals of nepotism, fraud and public waste.

It is a bit like a company facing a really brutal labour dispute. That is the moment the board appoints a nasty thug as CEO, and the workers elect a militant headbanger as their union representative. In happier times, such extreme representatives might not be necessary. But these are not happy times.

As for Mr De Wever and his talk of Europe saving the day for Belgium, I think he knows as well as I do that Europe is not heading towards a federal superstate. But by having little European flags handed out at N-VA party rallies, and appearing in front of a blue backdrop with gold stars on it at his victory announcement, he was borrowing the EU’s multilateral aura to soften his hardline nationalist reputation. In crude terms, he was using the EU flag to signal: “I am not a fascist”.

Since Sunday’s election both Mr De Wever and Mr Di Rupo have been at pains to proffer olive branches to each other, with the N-VA pointing out that they did not win a majority of the vote in Flanders let alone Belgium, so they know they will not achieve everything in their manifesto.

Mr Di Rupo, meanwhile, said French-speakers had to hear a clear signal from the elections, that a large part of the Flemish public want big changes to the legal structures of Belgium.

There are all manner of hints flying that Mr De Wever might be happy to see Mr Di Rupo become prime minister, in deference to his status as head of the largest political “family” in the new parliament (once you add the 13 seats of the Flemish socialists to the PS’s 26).

So why do I think the headlines this morning are not dramatic enough? For one thing, the two men are defending such radically different political visions. For another, I would not put it past Mr De Wever to be counting on a Prime Minister Di Rupo to make the case for Flemish independence for him.

But something else has struck me in the last week, since I published first a piece in De Morgen and then a column in The Economist on the future of Belgium. In the past, writing about Belgium has always triggered a torrent of emails and readers’ comments saying I was exaggerating. Several times, articles prompted invitations to appear on Belgian television and radio debates. During such debates, the pattern was always the same: politicians would scold me for failing to understand, as a mere foreigner, that this latest political crisis was not as bad as all that, and would end with a good old Belgian compromise.

This time, after writing that Belgium appeared to be dying as a country, there has been lots of feedback, but it has been different. I have had emails and telephone calls from Belgian journalists and editors, and comments and messages from readers as far away as Conakry.

I have been criticised by Flemish readers for being sentimental about the end of Belgium. I have been attacked by French-speaking readers for failing to understand the strength of their case and the injustice of the Flemish case. Some messages were even supportive. For the first time, nobody has told me I am exaggerating.

Interesting article Acizgoz. I enjoyed reading it. I think Flemings though are not so much interested in independence as the victory of the Flemish Alliance may suggest but more upset about "subsidizing" a poor French speaking south, where corruption, back economic policy and statism a la franca is dominant. Some would say its a clash between Germanic work ethic and Gallic sloppiness but then again, 100 years ago it was Wallonia whose rich coal supplies fed Flanders and maintained Belgium...

As far as your reference to Cyprus is concerned. It is important to mention that any models for Cyprus have to be carefully analysed - since Cyprus is as unique as Belgium is both historically and culturally.

Belgium has many differences to Cyprus. French-speaking Belgians (Walloons is not really a correct term as not all French-speaking Belgians are Walloon) have always lived in their respective area. The Flemish have always lived north and west. The two were sandwiched together by Britain and France in the early 19th century to counter the threat of "Groot Nederland" (Greater Netherlands), which was at the time a major rival to both countries.

In fact, Flanders used to be a part of the Netherlands and there are Flemish areas still in the Netherlands - Zweus Vlaanderen south of Zeeland. Religion also played a key factor here, since Flemings who are predominantly Catholic were unhappy to be part of a Protestant led Dutch Kingdom and Dutch protestants were not keen on sharing power with more Catholics (there are already enough Catholics in the south of the Netherlands they would have argued).

Wallonia similarly was a part of northern France like any other, that found itself on the opposite side of the border. Similarities can be found if you look at the Turkish minority in Thrace in Alexandropolos and Svilengrad, or if you look at the Azeri speaking minority in Iran, or the Hungarians of Romania, or the Croats of Bosna Krajina.....

However, I think all this is very different to Cyprus where Greek and Turkish Cypriots have coexisted alone together for 500 + years in mixed towns and villages throughout Cyprus. They never lived in separate areas like in Belgium and were never a part of either Greece or Turkey.

Even now that we have separation of territory, Cypriots still talk about moving back to their ancestral villages (both Greek and Turkish Cypriots do this), while interaction / friendships between the two communities has vastly increased since the check points were open. Culturally Cypriots are one, and even in their dialects they share hundreds of everyday words. Their cuisine too is one (with the exception maybe of Afelia, although Turkish speaking Cypriots eat it I'm sure).

Politically, there is also a consensus in Cyprus that the negotiations for unity and peace make perfect sense since we are such a small island with a history and destiny of sharing it.