Cyprus-Forum.com

[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..

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

Is that your interpretation, Insan, because I don't see it written anywhere stating that.!

[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?

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.??

It's the only power that provides political equality to both communities on some vital matters such as foreign affairs, defense and citizenship...

[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, [b]further expanding the previous concepts and proposing a secular, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic composed of two politically equal states"[/b]

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...

Is that your interpretation, Insan, because I don't see it written anywhere stating that.!

Because Kikapu, the part you quoted was just for further expanding the previous concepts of 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.??

It's the only power that provides political equality to both communities on some vital matters such as foreign affairs, defense and citizenship...

Well, the fact that the resolution did not state that a "veto power" be given to each community in order to implement the "political equality" to each community in order for it to create equal power between the communities, (according to your interpretation) only goes to show that the resolution did not mean that "political equality" meant equal political power given to each community but only given to each state. It is also the case in Federated states in the western countries where equal political power is given to each state where "veto power" is not required, because they all have equal political power. That's the reason why Turkey and the TCs come up with the "veto power" idea again for the Annan Plan, as the case was in the 1960 constitution, is because the communities did not have equal power, but the states did in the BBF. It is that simple, Insan.!

[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...

This simple question got lost amongst the giant posts by Insan,Big Oz,and Kikapu...It is worth repeating...I hope it makes some people think!!! I find myself in an unusually optimistic frame of mind...

[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, [b]further expanding the previous concepts and proposing a secular, bi-zonal, bi-communal federal republic composed of two politically equal states"[/b]

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...

Is that your interpretation, Insan, because I don't see it written anywhere stating that.!

Because Kikapu, the part you quoted was just for further expanding the previous concepts of political equality of 2 communities...

Well, the earlier version of the definition of "political equality" was the quote below which is not too different than the later version and nothing about equal political power given to the communities. Please show me where it says otherwise.

4.2 . Bi-zonality and political equality

"in the equality and identical powers and functions of the two federated States".

[wyoming cowboy]

A British German or Zulu could buy and have equal rights but a Gc in his own island would not be able to work in the Tc state or even start a business, let alone be able to voice his/her opinion against the Tc state.

Equal with ...??

(You've obviously not been keeping up to date with all the complaints by foreign purchasers about the way they are discriminated against and treated in the 'TRNC')

I think you will find no group or individual is totally free to demonstrate or voice their opinion against the 'TRNC' (if that's what you meant by 'Tc state')

Or is 'Tc State' what you assume the now 'TRNC' will be called after any settlement is reached? Perhaps you know something?

I meant if there ever will be any settlement what the Tc's would want is to keep the Gc's in an aparteid situation if they choose to live in a Tc Federated state, The Annan plan was plastered with the Tc demands of aparteid, one of the main reasons the Gc voted NO

[repulsewarrior]

...i can see only one federated state, and two (or three) politically equal nations: this is bicommunal.

...similarly bizonal does not mean tearing the island in two: please read my manifesto.

[Nikitas]

Why is everyone so alarmed on the prospect of partition under the guise of Bizonality and Bicommunality?

Whichever way this thing goes, either via formal settlement or status quo, the outcome will be partition but probably never actually called such.

Since that is the inevitable outcome the point is to manage it so it presents the least possible chance of trouble in the future. Simple, easily policed and confusion-proof demarcation lines between the two regions are vitally important. The convoluted lines of the Annan plan are nonsense. An equitable division of territory and the coast line is a prerequisite.

Each region must be contiguous so that no part of it is cut off from the rest by other territory.

The British bases are the next flash point. They must be dealt with now, not left for later.

The above is vital because within five years from the settelement the TCs community will break away and demand independence. Having won formal acceptance of two elements of statehood: defined territory and national identity, the third, international recognition will be easily forthcoming. THe split will come as soon as the TCs are assured of their continued participation in the EU as a separate entity.

We are collectively fooling ourselved if we think that the TCs will participate in this BBF entity for ever with no problems. So let us be realistic about this and plan to minimise the chances of a repeat of 1974 but this time in the south.

[bigOz]

But does Kikapu has visual problems?
Why the hell he uses such big letters for each quote? Could it be the need for attention seeking?

Please stop poking me in the eye!