Cyprus-Forum.com

[bigOz]

Kikapu wrote:

Let me say it again, that "political equality" does not mean that both the main communities have equal political power and what you posted below proves my point, because the resolution gives equal political power to each of the two states and not to each of the two communities,

Be Kikapu you never cease to amaze and amuse me! You are a typical bad barrister material who twists and turns facts to make his own point look more legibie!

Be gavvole! By even simple rational thinking, even the most stupid person would not fail to see that political equality/power for each state means exactly the same thing as political equality/power for each community! If the TC and the GC community will be in majority in each of the states then what is the fluckink difference?

If you are referring to the numerical representation in the central Governmental branches/admin, we all know that it will not be on equal representation, so what's the big deal? TCs want to run, administer and police their own state - and call it what you like - they would be very happy to just do that! As long as they never feel threatened by any GC extremists and /or EOKA-B supporters still lurking around in great numbers!

[Kikapu]

So in short what you are saying is that TCs are doomed and should capitulate to GC demands becasue the EU also wants the same and will support the GCs in their quest to reduce us TCs to minority status in a GC state whether its in the north or the south.

Only if you insist on keeping most of the GCs land in the north. As we have discussed this many times before, that if the north is reduced by 50% of what it is today and most of the TCs live in the new north state and most of the GC refugees return to their land that would become part of the new south state, then I do not share your concerns what so ever. Everyone wants peace, but only if it's Fair & Just where most will not feel as if they have lost part of their country. Having a True Federation with True Democracy and Human Rights with 2 Federal states under a strong central Federal government is what would be a Fair & Just settlement where the TCs will have their "own" state to administer it as they wish, within the rules of the Federal government, of course. Same principles too will apply to the GCs in their "own" state also.

[Kikapu]

Kikapu wrote:

Let me say it again, that "political equality" does not mean that both the main communities have equal political power and what you posted below proves my point, because the resolution gives equal political power to each of the two states and not to each of the two communities,

Be Kikapu you never cease to amaze and amuse me! You are a typical bad barrister material who twists and turns facts to make his own point look more legibie!

Be gavvole! By even simple rational thinking, even the most stupid person would not fail to see that political equality/power for each state means exactly the same thing as political equality/power for each community! If the TC and the GC community will be in majority in each of the states then what is the fluckink difference?

If you are referring to the numerical representation in the central Governmental branches/admin, we all know that it will not be on equal representation, so what's the big deal? TCs want to run, administer and police their own state - and call it what you like - they would be very happy to just do that! As long as they never feel threatened by any GC extremists and /or EOKA-B supporters still lurking around in great numbers!

Actually, it doesn't mean what you wrote above, BigOz, because if the 2 communities had equal power, then it would mean there would be only TCs in the Upper House and the Lower House representing the north state in the congress/parliament, which would mean that no other Cypriot ethnic groups living in the north state would be able to run for those seats. It would be off limits for them. However, if the political equality is given to the states as being equal power to each other, then all the seats in the Upper and Lower House will be available to all the Cypriots living in the north (same in the south). Now, if you can't tell the difference between the two, then you too are interpreting what the UN resolution states to mean what you what it to mean, which stops a Fair & Just solution from taking place.!

[BirKibrisli]

A question for the war and hate mongers on CF:

Which statement is more idiotic,

A...Cyprus problem was solved in 1974?
or
B...Cyprus problem can only be solved through war???

See if you "brains" can work out the link between the two statements...

[bigOz]

Kikapu wrote:

Let me say it again, that "political equality" does not mean that both the main communities have equal political power and what you posted below proves my point, because the resolution gives equal political power to each of the two states and not to each of the two communities,

Be Kikapu you never cease to amaze and amuse me! You are a typical bad barrister material who twists and turns facts to make his own point look more legibie!

Be gavvole! By even simple rational thinking, even the most stupid person would not fail to see that political equality/power for each state means exactly the same thing as political equality/power for each community! If the TC and the GC community will be in majority in each of the states then what is the fluckink difference?

If you are referring to the numerical representation in the central Governmental branches/admin, we all know that it will not be on equal representation, so what's the big deal? TCs want to run, administer and police their own state - and call it what you like - they would be very happy to just do that! As long as they never feel threatened by any GC extremists and /or EOKA-B supporters still lurking around in great numbers!

Actually, it doesn't mean what you wrote above, BigOz, because if the 2 communities had equal power, then it would mean there would be only TCs in the Upper House and the Lower House representing the north state in the congress/parliament, which would mean that no other Cypriot ethnic groups living in the north state would be able to run for those seats. It would be off limits for them. However, if the political equality is given to the states as being equal power to each other, then all the seats in the Upper and Lower House will be available to all the Cypriots living in the north (same in the south). Now, if you can't tell the difference between the two, then you too are interpreting what the UN resolution states to mean what you what it to mean, which stops a Fair & Just solution from taking place.!

You are still refusing to understanmd what I wrote! qoute:

If you are referring to the numerical representation in the central Governmental branches/admin, we all know that it will not be on equal representation, so what's the big deal?

So if you are judging political power by the number of representatives in the house from each ethnic community - THEN by your own reasoning; no other ethnic minority member will have any cvhance of putting their point forward or ever taking a seat anywhere. If they can then the number of seats by TCs and GCs in the house is of no relevance and hence it cannot be equated as more or less power for either!

[insan]

Kikapu... as usual, you are getting if not all; most of the things wrong... First let's start with "political equality" of the 2 communities of Cyprus that you said you've never heard it's meant for 2 communities... if we agree upon what exactly the UN resolutions suggest with "political equality", we can than continue discussing all other views of you that in my opinion you've got them all wrong...

Insan, re read again what I've said. Let me say it again, that "political equality" does not mean that both the main communities have equal political power and what you posted below proves my point, because the resolution gives equal political power to each of the two states and not to each of the two communities, despite requiring each state to have a majority of one of the communities as well as administering that state by one community, but it does NOT state that the one community can ONLY be TCs or GCs within that one community. One can make a presumption very easily that anyone living in any of the two states are part of that state's community, therefore they all as a community administer that state.. All that is required is, that one community is a majority than the other. It does not even give details of the ethnicity of the communities. The whole resolution is unclear and leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it all means, hence the reason why there has not been a settlement.

" I have not read anywhere where it says that "political equality" means that both or all communities all have equal political power, which you seem to suggest that they do."

The political equality of the two communities in and the bi-communal nature of the federation need to be acknowledgedWhile political equality does not mean equal numerical participation in all federal government branches and administration, it should be reflected inter alia in various ways: in the requirement that the federal constitution of the State of Cyprus be approved or amended with the concurrence of both communities; in the effective participation of both communities in all organs and decisions of the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community; and in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federated States.” “The bi-zonality of the federation should be clearly brought out by the fact that each federated State will be administered by one community which will be firmly guaranteed a clear majority of the population and of the land ownership in its area.” (S/21183, AnnexI) [/b]

Why did the UNSC endorse "political equality" of 2 communities in it's resolutions if it was against democratic principles and basic human rights?

I'm not so sure any such "political equality" endorsed by the UNSC as described in your above post violates any ones Democratic and Human Rights, because it had not stated what the territorial adjustments are of the north and south states and what the differences are in numbers between the majority and the minority of those living in those state. As I gave the details in my BBF plan ( http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=21685 ), that if the TCs were to return 50% of the land in the north now back to the GCs to become part of the south state, and if most of the TCs went to live in the remaining land of the north state and most of the GC refugees went to live on their own land that would become part of the south state, I don't see any one's Democratic and Human Rights being violated and still have "political equality" for everyone, since both the TCs and GCs would maintain the majority in their respective states, even though the UNSC resolution does not specify by ethnicity as to who belongs in the north and who belong in the south. If that wasn't bad enough, the resolution also states that there would be two communities and not a majority and a minority, and yet that's exactly what it asks from each state, to have a majority and a minority within the state. As I've stated, the above resolution is wide open for all kinds of interpretations . The only principles that are not so vague, are the EU principles, which is what Turkey and the TCs do not want. I don't know how they can get around this problem, considering the fact, that Turkey too wants to be part of the EU as well as the north.

In any case, you can almost say that the above resolutions are obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became part of the EU which now the EU principles too will play a part in any settlement, and the way the TCs and Turkey have been interpreting the above resolution do in fact violate ones Democratic and Human Rights as did the AP. No wonder Turkey was very eager to have the AP pass before the RoC became a EU member.

Now, Insan, be a good chap and address all my other points from my last post to you...........please.!

You still don't acknowledge the political equality of 2 communities, Kikapu and look for a rat hole to run away by irrationally concluding that since 2004 the above resolutions became obsolete...

Now Kikapu, be a good chap and acknowledge the political equality of 2 communities...

[Kikapu]

Insan & BigOz,

"political equality" is given to the states as being equal political power and not to the communities themselves as being equal political power to each other. Of course each community is going to take part in all organs of the government with different numerical representations from each community, hence the fact why it was not a equal political power from each community. The only time there was going to be equal political power in the Federation government as the case is in Federation governments in the west, is the equal representations from each state in the Upper House. That's why the resolution does not state that the "political equality" means that each community having equal political power. The resolution in fact does a lot of "double-talk" on what "political equality" means for the communities, which leaves it open to be interpreted in what ever way one wants to interpret it, but it makes it very clear when it comes to each state and "political equality", which states that are in fact equal. Show me anywhere where it states that the communities are also have political equal power. Listen, Turkey and the TCs know very well that "political equality" does not mean equal political power to each community, hence the reason why the "veto power" was inserted into the Annan Plan and as to why it is a demand still today, is because the two communities are not given equal political power under "political equality" for the communities. It gave equal political power to the states. If it was to the communities, there would be no need for the "veto power" demand by Turkey and the TCs.

4.3 . Bi-zonality and political equality revisited

"In 1992, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali introduced a new “Set of Ideas” for a draft settlement, further expanding the previous concepts and proposing a secular, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic composed of two politically equal states"

As for the resolution itself, it has become almost obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became full member of the EU, because unlike the UNSC's resolution which leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it means exactly, the EU principles are clear cut as to what they mean, therefore, if I were you, I would pay more attention to what the EU principles stand for and not the unclear and ambiguous UNSC resolution, since it was made before the RoC was a EU member..

[insan]

Insan & BigOz,

"political equality" is given to the states as being equal political power and not to the communities themselves as being equal political power to each other. Of course each community is going to take part in all organs of the government with different numerical representations from each community, hence the fact why it was not a equal political power from each community. The only time there was going to be equal political power in the Federation government as the case is in Federation governments in the west, is the equal representations from each state in the Upper House. That's why the resolution does not state that the "political equality" means that each community having equal political power. The resolution in fact does a lot of "double-talk" on what "political equality" means for the communities, which leaves it open to be interpreted in what ever way one wants to interpret it, but it makes it very clear when it comes to each state and "political equality", which states that are in fact equal. Show me anywhere where it states that the communities are also have political equal power. Listen, Turkey and the TCs know very well that "political equality" does not mean equal political power to each community, hence the reason why the "veto power" was inserted into the Annan Plan and as to why it is a demand still today, is because the two communities are not given equal political power under "political equality" for the communities. It gave equal political power to the states. If it was to the communities, there would be no need for the "veto power" demand by Turkey and the TCs.

As for the resolution itself, it has become almost obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became full member of the EU, because unlike the UNSC's resolution which leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it means exactly, the EU principles are clear cut as to what they mean, therefore, if I were you, I would pay more attention to what the EU principles stand for and not the unclear and ambiguous UNSC resolution, since it was made before the RoC was a EU member..

"... the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community..."


The above quoted part in the official definition of political equality is sufficient to clearly interprete it as the political equality of 2 communities... Otherwise, can you explain to me how would we ensure the federal government would not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community if there wouldn't be political equality of 2 communities?

[insan]

Insan & BigOz,

"political equality" is given to the states as being equal political power and not to the communities themselves as being equal political power to each other. Of course each community is going to take part in all organs of the government with different numerical representations from each community, hence the fact why it was not a equal political power from each community. The only time there was going to be equal political power in the Federation government as the case is in Federation governments in the west, is the equal representations from each state in the Upper House. That's why the resolution does not state that the "political equality" means that each community having equal political power. The resolution in fact does a lot of "double-talk" on what "political equality" means for the communities, which leaves it open to be interpreted in what ever way one wants to interpret it, but it makes it very clear when it comes to each state and "political equality", which states that are in fact equal. Show me anywhere where it states that the communities are also have political equal power. Listen, Turkey and the TCs know very well that "political equality" does not mean equal political power to each community, hence the reason why the "veto power" was inserted into the Annan Plan and as to why it is a demand still today, is because the two communities are not given equal political power under "political equality" for the communities. It gave equal political power to the states. If it was to the communities, there would be no need for the "veto power" demand by Turkey and the TCs.

4.3 . Bi-zonality and political equality revisited

"In 1992, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali introduced a new “Set of Ideas” for a draft settlement, further expanding the previous concepts and proposing a secular, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic composed of two politically equal states"

As for the resolution itself, it has become almost obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became full member of the EU, because unlike the UNSC's resolution which leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it means exactly, the EU principles are clear cut as to what they mean, therefore, if I were you, I would pay more attention to what the EU principles stand for and not the unclear and ambiguous UNSC resolution, since it was made before the RoC was a EU member..

The political equality of 2 federal states arise from political equality of 2 communities...

[Kikapu]

Insan & BigOz,

"political equality" is given to the states as being equal political power and not to the communities themselves as being equal political power to each other. Of course each community is going to take part in all organs of the government with different numerical representations from each community, hence the fact why it was not a equal political power from each community. The only time there was going to be equal political power in the Federation government as the case is in Federation governments in the west, is the equal representations from each state in the Upper House. That's why the resolution does not state that the "political equality" means that each community having equal political power. The resolution in fact does a lot of "double-talk" on what "political equality" means for the communities, which leaves it open to be interpreted in what ever way one wants to interpret it, but it makes it very clear when it comes to each state and "political equality", which states that are in fact equal. Show me anywhere where it states that the communities are also have political equal power. Listen, Turkey and the TCs know very well that "political equality" does not mean equal political power to each community, hence the reason why the "veto power" was inserted into the Annan Plan and as to why it is a demand still today, is because the two communities are not given equal political power under "political equality" for the communities. It gave equal political power to the states. If it was to the communities, there would be no need for the "veto power" demand by Turkey and the TCs.

As for the resolution itself, it has become almost obsolete since 2004 when the RoC became full member of the EU, because unlike the UNSC's resolution which leaves a lot of room for different interpretations as to what it means exactly, the EU principles are clear cut as to what they mean, therefore, if I were you, I would pay more attention to what the EU principles stand for and not the unclear and ambiguous UNSC resolution, since it was made before the RoC was a EU member..

"... the federal Government in safeguards to ensure that the federal Government will not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community..."


The above quoted part in the official definition of political equality is sufficient to clearly interprete it as the political equality of 2 communities... Otherwise, can you explain to me how would we ensure the federal government would not be empowered to adopt any measures against the interests of one community if there wouldn't be political equality of 2 communities?

I have already stated that that resolution has a lot of "double talk" as well as being very ambiguous. If what you say above is true, then why the need for a "veto power" by either side. Surely if "political equality" meant to mean equal political power to be held by both communities and not by each states, then why the need for a "veto power" by the communities themselves.??