Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

i dont believe that their is going to be any plan that will allow the kyrenia refuggees to return to their homes. thats the whole meaning of bi - zonal that we accepted.
it is sad. but we accepted it.

With the current balance of power I don't believe that the return of all refugees is possible either.
However I disagree that we accepted anything beyond the 1960 agreements. The 1960 agreements was the last thing we accepted, and after that in 2004 we were asked if we accept the Annan plan and we said no to it.

"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". This is the basis of negotiations, and this is why officially the Annan plan would be "null and void" if it was rejected by either side.

[Bananiot]

So, if the balance of power tilts further in favour of Turkey and ... America, we could easily lose the other half of Cyprus. Is this what you are saying Piratis?

[Piratis]

Turkey and US/UK have many common interests but the US/UK interests would not be served if Cyprus was fully occupied by Turkey. Remember what happened when Turks didn't allow the americans to invade Iraq from north?

However if we assume that the power shifts so much in favor of Turkey that not even the interests of UK/USA would matter, then yes, Turkey could invade and occupy the rest of Cyprus and maybe some others areas also (some islands in the Aegean, north Iraq etc).
All they would need for that would be an excuse.
Actually signing something like the Annan plan would create a situation in Cyprus where Turkey could easily create the excuse that she would need if she decided to invade Cyprus again.

[Alexandros Lordos]

i dont believe that their is going to be any plan that will allow the kyrenia refuggees to return to their homes. thats the whole meaning of bi - zonal that we accepted.
it is sad. but we accepted it.

With the current balance of power I don't believe that the return of all refugees is possible either.
However I disagree that we accepted anything beyond the 1960 agreements. The 1960 agreements was the last thing we accepted, and after that in 2004 we were asked if we accept the Annan plan and we said no to it.

"Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed". This is the basis of negotiations, and this is why officially the Annan plan would be "null and void" if it was rejected by either side.

I would also add that not even the 1977-1979 agreements imply that "not all refugees will return home. " The TC interpretation of bizonality has always been that GCs will stay in the south and TCs in the north, but for the GCs bizonality has always meant nothing more than separate administrative jurisdiction, while freedom of residence would apply like in every other country of the world.

What's wrong with allowing Kyrenia refugees to return? Do the TCs have a problem with having a strong GC "minority" within their constituent state? Or is it the property issue? If it is just a problem of property, we can solve that, build new houses on state land etc.

My fear however is that the problem is deeper than that. For many TCs bizonality means a pure Turkish state in the north, with cultural uniformity, and with no other language than Turkish being widely spoken - after the model of Turkey, which has achieved the unachievable over the previous decades by suppressing a multitude of cultures and imposing "Turkish-ness" within its borders.

With such an interpretation of bizonality, there can be no solution of the Cyprus Problem. Nor can Turkey enter the EU with such an understanding of "cultural cohesion" as it has so far displayed. Modern European nations are open, they welcome diversity, they accept multi-culturalism and multi-lingualism. The job of the state is not to protect any one particular culture and exclude all others, but to protect the human and cultural rights of all individuals.

If the TCs want some specific safeguards against the specific fear that they may one day become a political minority within the TCCS, I can understand and sympathise. If however what is being asked for is that GCs can never be anything more than a ridiculously small minority within the TCCS, small enough to be virtually invisible - such a settlement framework does not interest me. You can not build a 21st Century State with the building blocks of 19th/20th Century ethnic nationalism.

[metecyp]

If the TCs want some specific safeguards against the specific fear that they may one day become a political minority within the TCCS, I can understand and sympathise.

This is exactly what we want..Why would TCs want a pure Turkish state anyway? Just think about it...What would we have more in a pure Turkish state that we wouldn't have in a Northern state that has a sizeable GC minority?

We have fears stemming from the past and the present. We were denied our basic human rights between 1963-74. We were second-class citizens in a GC majority. We weren't given the same playground to flourish as a community. We had to get permission to build hotels in Kyrenia for God's sake.

We can't let this happen again in a unitary Cyprus. That's why we ask for a bizonal Cyprus where we'll have our own zone that we're the majority and we control the majority of the political and economic life. It's very logical. There's nothing sneaky or greedy about it.

Pure Turkish state? We have that right now...If that was our ultimate goal, we wouldn't want a solution.

[Piratis]

What would we have more in a pure Turkish state that we wouldn't have in a Northern state that has a sizeable GC minority?

Obviously you mean "numerical minority". So I guess for you either this minority exists or not it would be irrelevant and you would run "your" state in the exact same way. Interesting.

Pure Turkish state? We have that right now

what you have right now is a pseudo state. If you did have a real state then you wouldn't be discussing about unification.

[Main_Source]

This is exactly what we want..Why would TCs want a pure Turkish state anyway? Just think about it...What would we have more in a pure Turkish state that we wouldn't have in a Northern state that has a sizeable GC minority?

We have fears stemming from the past and the present. We were denied our basic human rights between 1963-74. We were second-class citizens in a GC majority. We weren't given the same playground to flourish as a community. We had to get permission to build hotels in Kyrenia for God's sake.

We can't let this happen again in a unitary Cyprus. That's why we ask for a bizonal Cyprus where we'll have our own zone that we're the majority and we control the majority of the political and economic life. It's very logical. There's nothing sneaky or greedy about it.

Pure Turkish state? We have that right now...If that was our ultimate goal, we wouldn't want a solution.

What your asking for is totally racist and is deny the human rights of GC. You keep on using this decade of 63-74 as an excuse for everything. Remember it was the TC who wanted segregation way back in the 50's...so are you saying should always suspect TC for another push for separation after a unification?

Cyprus is almost a totally different place than it was a few decades ago...and the factors that caused problems back then are not around anymore.

Your suppressing the rights of GC for problems that was caused by BOTH communities a few decades ago. Why should we suffer because we are the indigenous majority population in our home?

[Alexandros Lordos]

This is exactly what we want..Why would TCs want a pure Turkish state anyway? Just think about it...What would we have more in a pure Turkish state that we wouldn't have in a Northern state that has a sizeable GC minority?

We have fears stemming from the past and the present. We were denied our basic human rights between 1963-74. We were second-class citizens in a GC majority. We weren't given the same playground to flourish as a community. We had to get permission to build hotels in Kyrenia for God's sake.

We can't let this happen again in a unitary Cyprus. That's why we ask for a bizonal Cyprus where we'll have our own zone that we're the majority and we control the majority of the political and economic life. It's very logical. There's nothing sneaky or greedy about it.

Pure Turkish state? We have that right now...If that was our ultimate goal, we wouldn't want a solution.

What your asking for is totally racist and is deny the human rights of GC. You keep on using this decade of 63-74 as an excuse for everything. Remember it was the TC who wanted segregation way back in the 50's...so are you saying should always suspect TC for another push for separation after a unification?

Cyprus is almost a totally different place than it was a few decades ago...and the factors that caused problems back then are not around anymore.

Your suppressing the rights of GC for problems that was caused by BOTH communities a few decades ago. Why should we suffer because we are the indigenous majority population in our home?

Main_Source, I fail to see how the human rights of GCs would be suppressed in a TCCS which is open enough to accept GCs in reasonably large numbers.

If for instance there is a limit that "only 1/3rd of the TCCS citizens can be GC" this will amount to 80,000 GCs with full political rights in the TCCS. Add to that, the number of people who will be able to live there anyway, while retaining GCCS internal citizenship - there will not be a single GC who will end up saying "hey, I want to live in this or that place, but I am not allowed to".

What Metecyp says he will accept sounds reasonable to me. What I find objectionable are the particular provisions of the Annan Plan, where in practice no GCs would have been allowed to return, or live in the north, in the foreseeable future. This of course was the handiwork of Rauf Denktash, who had managed to "spit into the soup" of the negotiations, tilting the final product towards the ethnic segregation model he had always supported.

Having said that, a system like that of Belgium, or Finland, or Switzerland, where in different regions different ethnic groups are the majority, is OK with me as a vision for Cyprus. In this sense I can accept a "bizonal bicommunal federation".

[Sid]

Actually, for me this question was the matter of terminology. I never said and never meant that refugees and their descendants do not have the right for the land that was stolen from them during the invasion and the occupation! They have every right.

And another thing: I read that only children of male refugees get the refugee’s status and children of female refugees do not. What do you think about it? Why is it like this?

[metecyp]

What Metecyp says he will accept sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks Alex..I think you're one of the few who truly tries to understand the TC point of view.