Cyprus-Forum.com

[mehmet]

Piratis, like it or not you are right that most Turkish Cypriot think being a minority equals no rights.

Yes, and as I said this is a wrong belief that is created mainly from people like Dentash, that have as an aim the permanent partition of Cyprus.

No. That is what your teachers and others have made you believe, that only because of Denktas we equate being a minority with no rights. We know why we think otherwise, instead of patronising us it would be better if you understood that. If you think we use thw past as an excuse that is up to you. That is the same as me saying that you use the the events of 1974 as an excuse for why Turkey shouldn't have guarantor rights. It's a crap arguement and I wont bother to make it.

[Piratis]

That is the same as me saying that you use the the events of 1974 as an excuse for why Turkey shouldn't have guarantor rights.

No, I am using no events. Giving rights to any foreign country to intervene is wrong and it was wrong since 1960. Does the UK that you live give rights to foreign countries to intervene?

[mehmet]

Look, you know as well as anyone that the reason why Turkey (and Greece and UK) were guarantors was because without it your community would have sacrificed the independence that is now so important 44 years later to make Cyprus a province of Hellenism.

[Piratis]

My community is the 78%. Even if we wanted to make Cyprus a province of China this should have been respected.

You can not create a state calling it independent and then give to foreigners the right to intervene. What kind of independence is this?

[mehmet]

It's the kind of independence that was necessary to prevent Cyprus becoming part of another country, but stupid people from both communities were not content to share power but preferred either to have it all for themselves (RoC) or some of it for themselves but without many of the original inhabitants living there(TRNC).

That's the kind of independence that was necessary for Cyprus in 1960. It is only because 1960 constitution was agreed at the time that 44 years later you can make a case for the independence of Cyprus, it wouldn't be an issue for you otherwise.

[Piratis]

It was necessary for the interests of some foreigners, not for us.

If they wanted the intervention rights "to prevent Cyprus becoming part of another country", how comes one of the "guarantors" currently occupies part of the country it was supposed to protect?

History proves that those "guarantors" not only they didn't protect the independence of Republic of Cyprus but they actively worked in the opposite direction.

Therefore I insist, it was wrong then, it is wrong today. Cyprus should be independent.

[mehmet]

It was necessary for the interests of Turkish Cypriots not to be part of Greece, but for most of the machinery of the Greek Cypriot establishment it was necessary for Cyprus to be a province.

One of the guarantors occupies part of the country because one of the others, in collaboration with their supporters in Cyprus seek to undermine the independence of Cyprus.

Now that Greece's intentions to interfere with Cyprus are no longer an issue Turkey should continue to seek a way out of Cyprus but it can't negotiate with a silent partner. Next time there are negotiations perhaps Papdopoulos should take his mouth with him, or better still send someone else in his place who is intends to participate in negotiations rather than sabotage them.

When this happens we will have a united and independent Cyprus instead of a divided one.

[Piratis]

Turkey should continue to seek a way out of Cyprus

That was the biggest joke of the week. Turkey is doing everything possible to continue its occupation and its control over Cyprus. We were negotiating for 30 years with 5 different negotiators!!!

Negotiations didn't work. Our job now is to try to make the occupation as costly for Turkey as possible. Only when the cost of occupation is too high they will be forced to leave.

[MicAtCyp]

Long live re brother MicAtCyp!

Thats because I learned many things from you kardesim.

Time to time you refer from a "real federation"... What is the basic principles of this "real federation" in compare with the one proposed by Annan Plan?

To make it short a REAL federation is the one in which the laws and the power of the Central state is ABOVE those of the constituent states, and in which the Central state has the means to apply its superior law. For example in the USA when the Federal Police gets in, the State Police moves to the side. And they fear the hell when the Feds ( or the FBI) show around. A STRONG real Federation is the one in which the Central State has direct responsibility on MOST (most -- > make it strong) aspects of running the Country whereas the Constituent States have responsibility on much less. In such STRONG REAL Federation the Constituent states are something like an upgraded type of big Municipalities. A weak real Federation is the opposite.

The Αnan Plan was not a REAL Federation because the Central State would only deal with some specific issues of running the Country and it had NO RIGHT AND NO MEANS to enforce its own limited law upon any of the constituent states. The Anan Plan stated clearly more than 10 times that there is no hierachy (or supremacy) of any of the laws of any of the 3 states (2 constituent + one central) upon the others. Even on matters of EU concern for which the Central State of the Anan Plan was responsible to enforce, it had no means to do so, in case any of the constituent states would refuse.In summary the system was not a REAL Federation. It was a Confederation**. More over the central State was weak. So we would have a WEAK CONFEDERATION.

Can you please elaborate it in frame of human rights, communal rights of two communities; representation and sharing the state power, security of two communities, structure of constituent states, economic structure of the state, seperate majority votes, etc

It is very difficult for me to explain in detail how the system of the Anan Plan would affect all these because there are so many other provisions in the plan other than the its basic Non Federative structure. To make it short again what the plan implies is a massive violation of basic human rights on properties, on settlement and work, and on excercise of political rights (voting and be elected).The most serious of course are the first 2. Communal rights: It upgrades the communal rights to separate state rights (not to federal rights). This means rights on everything not rights that would distinguish and safeguard the TCs to community.The economy would also be separate and competitive between the 2 Const. States (2 Central Banks) would never unify, the living Standard of the TCs would never equalise, and basically the people would never join together. It would always be You and Them.Never Us.

When I say real Federation I imagine that of the USA. The Swiss and the Belgian models are hybrids, and beleive me if those countries where not crossroads in the center of Europe they would disintegrate a long time ago.As you know those countries can survive even just from the fact that all European highways and transports of goods pass through them.They are central KNOTS! Belgium in particular was about to collapse countless of times in the past, what saved it the last minute was the EU...Cyprus however is not a crossroad in Europe....

The most indicative of the 3 totally separate states of the Anan Plan is the matter of the flag and the National anthem.The Anan Plan said the central state would have its own flag and its own national Anthem.However the other 2 Constituent states would have their own flags and their own National anthems! Anastasiades of Desy proposed that the GC CS would have the Greek flag and the Greek National Anthem. I am absolutely certain the TC CS would have the Turkish ones.Now considering that the Central State would just employ a fixed number of employees (3,500 GCs and 1,500 TCs=5000) compared to 40,000+ of the GC state alone, ask yourself where the hell would you ever see and respect the flag and the national anthem of United Cyprus? Although I understand that even in the US the states have their own flags, I would say that in Cyprus we need something more than that to force us unite. So not only we should have a REAL and a STRONG federation but also NO OTHER FLAG and NO OTHER ANTHEM than that of the Central State.So my sugestion is that the Contituent states SHOULD NOT have their own separate symbols....

PS
** Some scholars say it was not even a confederation, because the few confederations ever in history were formed to have a joined military force against external enemies.So they claim in this respect the 2 constituent states were military protectorates of Greece and Turkey. The British Bases as upgraded by Mr Anan to have ALSO sea shell rights (!!!!) would be protectorates of the Anglo Americans.

Does Piratis, or anyone else, really believes that we can designate the minority label to the TC's and incorporate them, with full democratic and human rights into the RoC?

I think I stated many times that the best solution is a Unitary State and that is is quite possible for the TCs to have full democratic (Political rights) and human rights into a new United Cyprus. What is impossible to have is less than full rights in such a system inside the EU... Whether that can currently apply I admit NOT. But I cannot quarantee it will never be. It depends how our EU road and the road of Turkey in the EU will evolve and whether in the meantime we would agree on something else or not

What's the difference of Annan Plan:
It calls for one of the constituent units to be almost entirely GC and the other to be almost equally mixed of TCs and GCs. However, GCs also demand for an unlimited right of return to the TC areas of the federation.
So how will we be able to keep stable the balance of the powers in TC constituent state and consequently in the federal state as a whole? Any opinions?

Via a Unitary State! But the people (GCs and TCS) are so naive that can’t understand that to have a Bizonal REAL Federation we must also have discounts on human rights....

[MicAtCyp]

And what is confederation? Many countries use this system and they consider it to be very democratic and Fully functioning model.

Name me just one of the many countries that has confederation.