Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tony-4497]

Tony, I don't agree with your second option, but I strongly agree with this :

".... it will start of a liberation struggle through legal means, end all negotiations, end Turkey's EU process, close the green line.

Only then will we have re-established the problem as one of illegal occupation and land THEFT instead of a mere intercommunal difference on "re-unification"...... "

This is the only way to get them to listen.

Why do they care now, they have free passage, tourists (that we ourselves take over!), free medicals, jobs, pensions, why do they need to solve anything???? If we were to stop all that, they would have a need to negotiate, no???

Elementary my dear Watson.

I agree, but also think that is crucial for us to communicate to the world that a substantial element of the problem is pure, old fashioned THEFT.

I bet that the average foreigner who deals with the Cyprus issue is not aware that land owned by TCs is only 12%.

If we insist on "living together" and TCs insist on "living side-by-side", in the absence of any other considerations, (even) an objective third party may think that TCs have grounds to demand this - hence "lifting their isolation" or promoting a "side-by-side" arrangement (with just the return of Famagusta) is morally acceptable. This puts us in a difficult position, especially after the 2004 referendum.

If on the other hand WE offered to the TCs a solution which, while safeguarding the single international personality and other fundamentals (e.g. security, guarantees etc), facilitated a near-pure TC area on say 12% of land and 12% of coast then it would put things in perspective and would help all parties move towards a feasible solution.

Personally I would not mind such a solution - it is effectively TCs exchanging their properties with similar ones, so they can live in a TC society. Any other solution would mean that a large part of Cyprus, will be turkified in return for rediculously low compensation (which WE will pay for anyway).

[cymart]

The Turkish side is playing hardball now so that when the final trade-off takes place they will come down to the amount they would have been allowed to keep if the Annan Plan was agreed and which they have already accepted,don't forget!Along with the recent EDAD decision they now have even more international support and will not agree to give back any more than that....looking at it from a detached viewpoint,especially after so many years,the G.C's will get back two key towns and quite a lot of villages which will technically allow quite a large number of G.C's to return home if they wish to,or even sell their property if they choose not to.But I quite agree that the compensation is the core issue to an overall agreement as nobody can even suggest the G.C's to pay compensation to their own people for what they have lost in the north....this is where international donations will pay a vital role in either making or breaking a deal.Whether we like it or not,at the end of the day,for most people it is about money and as Hermes Solomon wrote quite rightly in last Sundays Cyprus Mail,(Living on the dark side of the moon)since 1974 Greek Cypriots have been living in a two-tier society where many of those who came from the south have become very wealthy since the loss of the north,while the G.C's who originated from there lost everything and have mostly ben treated very shabbily by the authorities on this side!He even suggested that there should have been a tax on all real-estate sales here which would have been used as a fund for the people from the north to give them some sense of dignity and equality,but of course.......
Unless the property question is financially resolved in a way which is at least tolerable to people who will not return to the north,then I cannot see any agreement being accepted.All the rest is not a major concern to most people,except of course the security aspects.

[Tony-4497]

If the starting point is that (a) territory will be split as per Annan AND (b) GCs will lose their property in the north, then there will not be a solution to the Cyprus problem - it's a no brainer.

This is because there is absolutely no incentive for GCs to accept such a solution - even if the current status quo was maintained or even if the occupied area became a Taiwan, it would still be better than a solution similar to the above.

The only other (imaginary way) could have been the payment to owners of market values for the properties that would be lost by non-GCs. This can NEVER happen. 30%-12%=18% of the land of Cyprus and 55% coast less say 12% = 43% of coast.

Do you actually understand what it means for anyone to pay at market values for 43% of the coast of Cyprus. I have been looking for a house on the sea in Limassol for years. For a small house on a normal plot (say 1,000 sqm) prices asked are around Euro 6 MILLION (at least - some go up to 10m e.g. Halcyon development).

If you sold the entire country of Turkey, you would probably not gather enough money to purchase 43% of the coast of Cyprus.

Anyone talking property should think twice before talking donations

[cymart]

Ever since 1974,everyone has known that a settlement will mean that the Turkish Cypriots will keep around 28% percent of the island and this the figure which all negotiations have been based on-with the return of Varosha and Morphou,plus about 60 other villages,around half of the 1974 refugees would have the option of returning to the area which will be controlled by the G.C's or selling their property on the open market if they prefer....also understand how many of these people have died since 1974 and their descendants have already built their lives on this side and would not want to go anywhere else?The other mis-conception is that the present status-quo will just continue-well it will not and it never has remained the same in reality anyway:the only other option is partition with no return of territory,the Turkish Army stays and the number of Turks in the north soon reaches a million,increasing tension and resentment and instability with the T.C's coming over to this side and claiming back what they had here before 1974......I know which option I'd prefer:compromise and an effort to look forward to a better future,rather than keep dragging up the past......after 35 years it is obvious that looking backwards gets us nowhere!

[Bananiot]

If you sold the entire country of Turkey, you would probably not gather enough money to purchase 43% of the coast of Cyprus.

Cymart, your pragmatic stand is confronted by sheer stupidity, as demonstrated above. However, such is the nature of forums, to attract all sorts, but I think the biggest folly is to think that the situation on the ground will remain like this forever.

[cymart]

The situation on the ground has been deteriorating almost daily for the G'C's ever since the 16th of August 1974 ceasefire(not that it is really any better for most T.C's either....)yet it seems that people either cannot-or perhaps do not want to-understand the reality?

[Get Real!]

The situation on the ground has been deteriorating almost daily for the G'C's ever since the 16th of August 1974 ceasefire(not that it is really any better for most T.C's either....)yet it seems that people either cannot-or perhaps do not want to-understand the reality?

What is that reality Cymart?

I used to think my father was a giant… invincible even… but sometime during the chaos, the noise, and the fires I saw fear in his eyes… I saw him cry… I knew then the world was coming to an end!

[Nikitas]

Cymart said: "the Turkish Cypriots will keep around 28% percent of the island "

The devil being in the details, the question arises whether it is 28 per cent of the island or of the Republic? The two meanings are not identical. "of the island" takes into account the British bases, "of the Republic" excludes the bases. The exact meaning naturally affects the proportion left to the GCs. Our insistence on not clarifying the above will be paid for very dearly.

As for the percentage, the 28 per cent. If anyone thinks that one of the two "partner" communities takes so much more land than its population proportion warrants, will not create and foster resentment, they are dreaming.

The idea is to have a settlement which is a compromise, not a bargain for one side at the expense of the other. There is not enough property left behind by the TCs to compensate GCs on an acre for acre basis. In effect the GCs will have to find money to compensate those that lose property in the north through taxation, another source of resentment.

Realism in regards to this question, in my view, is to have a settlement which is fair, rather than one which turns one side into a victor and the other into a loser.

No matter what political system we choose the TCs will in very few years most likely secede and claim international recognition. Having taken the goal of TAKSIM this far they will not abandon it through a BBF deal no matter how favorable and how much "equality" it contains.

Because of this strong probability the territorial demarcation must be defensible and follow natural geographic features. We must also insist that the British bases burden GC territory, and when they leave that territory reverts to the GCs. We ignore this at our peril. We make a future war inevitable.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

I am still waiting for a response to the following:

"So far from Bananiot's reposting of Charalambous' articles I infer that all those asking for the return of Morphou should be kicked down the stairs, the ones asking for Famagusta are idiots, conceding 50 000 settlers and the rotating presidency is no big deal, that we should shut our mouths because Turkey is a super power in the G20 and enjoying a period of economic growth.

So why bother negotiate at all then Bananiot? Why not officialise the status quo with a partition agreement? After all, Turkey regards the results of the 1974 invasion as a solution. And as you seem to be saying, we should not contradict this "super power", I forgot, you regard partition as "undesirable". But next to what you seem to be implying as a solution, partition looks decidedly the better alternative.

So one more time, Bananiot, paint a picture, a detailed one, of what a good settlement looks like to you. I really want to know because this BBF thing is confusing me. And many others too I think.

[Bananiot]

More food for thought from LC.

MUCH was made out of President Christofias’ throwaway comment at the overseas Cypriots’ conference about posterity. He had said that when the minutes of his meetings with Mehmet Ali Talat were made public at some point in the future, history would vindicate him “if Cyprus still exists then”.

Presumably, the controversial phrase, which was a figure of speech, referred to the possibility that at some time in the future Cyprus would not exist in its current form - that is Greek Cypriots controlling two thirds of the territory as the officially recognised state and member of the UN and the EU with the Turkish Cypriots holding one third of the territory and having a state that is not recognised by anyone except Turkey.

Surely, geographically, Cyprus will still exist. There may not be any Greek Cypriots living on it, but the island will still be here, maybe as a province of Turkey, in the worst case. Consequently, history would pass a verdict on everyone. But I think Christofias is making a big mistake in being certain that history would vindicate him.

Christofias has committed three political crimes for which neither history nor God would forgive him. I went through them recently but it does not hurt to repeat them. He ensured the election of Tassos Papadopoulos; he killed off the prospect of a settlement in 2004, and he avoided reaching a deal in the 18 months that he was negotiating with Mehmet Ali Talat. A fourth political crime is already visible – in 2011 Turkey’s Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan may be voted out of office, in which case, we can forget the deal.

Is there still any hope? There is still a tiny crack, but for it to open Christofias needs to have the guts to make two public admissions and two daring initiatives.

First admission: it was a mistake to vote ‘no’ in 2004. Second admission: it is impossible to get a better deal with the current procedure.

First daring initiative: to ask publicly for the co-operation of DISY leader Nicos Anastassiades so that we can salvage what we still can. Second daring initiative: to call for the re-submission of the Annan plan, with changes to the time-frames that are no longer valid, and for its implementation to be guaranteed by the UN Security Council. Only the Greek Cypriots would have to vote on it as the Turkish Cypriot side has already approved it.

If the Turkish Cypriots are asked to vote on it again, there is no way the majority would vote ‘yes’. But if there are no changes, there would be no need for another referendum in the north. Turkey would not be able to oppose such a move which would also have the full backing of the EU and the UN.

Some other brave decisions would also have to be taken if there is to be any hope of the Greek Cypriots approving the plan. For instance, all financial assistance and other benefits given to people with refugee status must be terminated so that the state no longer subsidises the opposition to a settlement.

I know that all this seems utopian and that we could still vote ‘no’ in another referendum. But true leaders have an obligation to put the long-term national interest above everything else. It is the right of the people to decide in favour of permanent partition. Cyprus, in one or another form, would carry on existing.

History will pass its verdict, but there is no way Christofias would be vindicated if he does not undertake the above-mentioned daring initiatives. There is still a glimmer of hope for Cyprus and Christofias, but does he have the guts to seize the last opportunity?