Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

And that presumably includes any settlers that came from places other than Turkey. Surely to allow them to settle in the North was no less illegal than Turkish mainland settlers? No less a distortion of the islands demographics?

erolz,

Those settlers other than Turks are just 1-2 thousands and none of them granted the TRNC citizenship. They all paid the price of the properties which they occupy; though the properties they bought mostly belong to GCs... That's another anlawful issue... Their position is different than the mainland settlers. I don't know what the exact number of foreign settlers other than Turkish settlers but all of them should be investigated according to the laws, demographics of Cyprus and most of them should be repatriated.

To a degree; a small number of settlers could be tolerated although bringing settlers is an illegal action according to international laws... Who would talk about settlers if their numbers were 10-15.000 totally? It is obvious that majority of the Turkish settlers intentionally and illegally have been brought by some Turkish governments in order to change the demographics of North and keep themselves in power. They forced TCs to leave agricaltural jobs to settlers and become partisan public servants. Every election time those greedy self-seekers threatened public servants with dismissal... Those self-seekers made vast majority of TCs and settlers their vote machine. Inhumanely exploited them as their slaves.

Which law had given Denktash or Eroglu the right to grant GC properties to turkish settlers freely. They got those properties free of charge and sold them anyone they wished by the permission of the pseudo-states greedy self-seekers. Is it lawful? Is it fair? Is it something tolerable?


And you ask us what's the economic situation of those settlers who were bribed with GC properties, in order to keep Denktash regime up? I'd like you to write an open letter to Denktash and ask him, why didn't UBP or DP give chance to them being elected as a part of their MPs for the so-called parliament? Then I'd like you to sue him because of the abusation of the settlers by him...


Show yourself erolz... the voices of the justice is heard... it's coming...

[erolz]

Those settlers other than Turks are just 1-2 thousands and none of them granted the TRNC citizenship.

I would 'guestimate' the figure is nearer 6,000+ and some have sought and been granted TRNC citizenship, thoug admitedly this is a small minority of the total non turkish mainland settlers.

Their position is different than the mainland settlers. I don't know what the exact number of foreign settlers other than Turkish settlers but all of them should be investigated according to the laws, demographics of Cyprus and most of them should be repatriated.

I believe in consitency. If you say that all settlers should be treated the same regardless of where they came from then I have no problem with that.

Who would talk about settlers if their numbers were 10-15.000 totally?

Well call me a cynic if you like but there are some (and some here), who would imo argue that as a compromise some could stay and some should be sent home, even if there number was 10-15000

It is obvious that majority of the Turkish settlers intentionally and illegally have been brought by some Turkis governments in order to change the demographics of North and keep themselves in power.

It is obvious to me that whatever the legallity of it, the TRNC attempted to build a viable state in the North. It is obvious to me that in order to do so it needed more people, to work the land and do many other necessary jobs in order to make the state viable. I am not saying that what they did was right but I do not see as you do that the only reason that Turkish mainland settler were encouraged and allowed to come and live and work in the TRNC was to keep anyone in power. People were needed? Where else would they come from if not Turkey?

Which law had given Denktash or Eroglu the right to grant GC properties to turkish settlers freely. They got those properties free of charge and sold them anyone they wished by the permission of the pseudo-states greedy self-seekers. Is it lawful? Is it fair? Is it something tolerable?

Again this is not a justification, but the reality is when a country needs immigrants it often gives them incentives to come. The UK offers incentives to various immigrants in various professions for example including subsidsed accomodation and even 'free' accomodation. As I understand it as far as the TRNC was concerned (and again I do not say this was right) the state (TRNC) took control of all formely GC owned land - as well as all liabilites for it. As such the state no doubt considered that it had the right to then use that land as it saw fit including using it to encourage immigration that was vital to the TRNC's survival. Former GC owned land was also given to TC as well as to settlers. Some in exchange to their rights over land lost in the south ans some for other reasons. My Aunt was 'given' a property for example, not in exchange for land lost in the south but as a result of what she suffered prior to 74.

[Piratis]

the state (TRNC) took control of all formely GC owned land

There is no such thing as "formerly GC owned land". The land still belongs to its legal owners no matter what a pseudo state decides. The "TRNC" not only doesn't have the right to take decisions, but its very extistance is illegal.

[MicAtCyp]

[quote="Piratis"] This depends on which 18% will be under the TC state./quote]

You are right on that Piratis as you know in that 29% of the Anan Plan potentially only 100K GC could return which means that 29% was not the most productive or densily populated part of the land. My point though was not how to make up the percentage of the TC FedState so that not many GC would reside in it.

What I was trying to point out is that there are so many unpredictable factors that in any case there is a great risk we finally end up with 2 GC FedStates. I could mention for example that we do not really know how the TC will react after a solution. There is a great possibility a great number of them will move fast to the places where most opportunities for work now exist, e. g Paphos. Do you know that the richest plowmen prior to 1974 were not the GC Morfites but the TC plowmen of Paphos? I am absolutely certain all those Paphian TCs will sooner or later go back to Paphos. . . . We don't know how many settlers will finally stay. Some say that as soon as they get an EU passport they will all emmigrate to Germany. We don't also know how the GC refugees will react. Maybe very few would like to return. Maybe in the long run too many and also non refugees.We don't know how GC non refugess will react especially if after a solution there is a boom of opportunities in the TC Fed State.
We don't know where the TC emmigrants who will repatriate will act regarding their place of residence. (and beleive me there are too many TCs as well as GCs eagerly waiting for a solution to return). What will happen if eventually the TCs become a minority in their region? Will Federation remain a stable system or will we have new troubles again? Thats why I said a Fed system is possible in the begining but not certain it will be stable in the long run.

All I hope is that if in fact the Federal system tends to become unstable that we the Cypriots are not bound by foreign guarantees and be able to discuss the matter in a civilised manner towards fixing the situation. Or perhaps follow the safe way of agreeing on a Unitary bizonal state right from the beggining. Which is not very different from the Fed model. The only difference is that the Fed model relies on the voting percentage of its inhabitants to remain stable, whereas the bizonal Unitary state simply relies on governing power granted directly by the state to the TCs for the areas the majority of them lives. And in this respect its safe to always remain stable.

[MicAtCyp]

M Birand interviewed almost all of the leaders and politicians who were and are in key positions and asked whatever he wished... So why don't GC or Greek journalists do the same thing?Did they invite them and they rejected?

Insan brother, although the GC media is at a very good level regarding democratic rights, the journalists themselves are very weak. They almost beg a Politician to be interviewed.And as always the Politician sets the rules.And the rules are "You ask a small question I answer with a long long answer.In this respect the Politician passes his own messages than the messages the journalist tries to pass. A few years ago I watched 2 journalists of RIK interviewing Ecevit. They were asking so silly questions, most of them were soft and hardly touched the core issues.And eventually Ecevit looked like a good old man....More often than not the Politicians refuse to be interviewed by tough journalists.Others want to know the questions beforehand...

M.A Birant is a successful journalist because somehow he has connections in Turkey and nobody refuses to give him an interview. Do you think he would be equally successful if he had no connections?

From what I realised so far is the only way to out-juice the politicians is to put them on a round table and let them discuss a subject under the coordination of a journalist. Obviously this cannot be done with Ertogan,Gul etc, but it can be done with GC and TC Politicians. I don't know why this was never done, it seems that everybody is hiding something or does not want to say it openly.

I wonder what will they do to weaken and sicken Turkey to give up.

It is obvious that the plan of Papadopoulos is to squeeze Turkey after she gets her EU ticket. There is no chance in a million Papadopoulos would veto Turkey getting her EU ticket in December.

If you have exact numbers of refugees from each village/city, then we could actually do some calculations to see how exact (or not) my estimations are.

I wonder why didn't Papadopulos ask this question when he was negotiating... Or why we aren't the negotiators and they are...

We are not the negotiators because we are not crooks re adelfe. About your question for the exact number of refugees in each village they did have the numbers with them when examining/negotiating the Anan Plan. One example is that Kyrenia town only had 12K inhabitants, i.e much much less than the smallest Nicosia suburb today...
They knew exactly how many refugees would potentialy return under GC administration and how many under TC administration. The problem with the Anan Plan is that it had so many other provisions for the pre-conditions to return that in reality the number could vary from zero to the potentially maximum. One example was that for a settler to give back the house he now uses not only he should get a new house but he should also be settled regarding his job. And I ask: if a settler is a plowman using agricultural land that he has to return, how could he ever be settled regarding his job when he has to give back the land that he is using?

[MicAtCyp]

Whatever their number the reality is that the 'settlers' (turkish mainland settlers) are econimicaly and politcaly weak in North Cyprus. What % of the wealth off the North do you think they own vs that owned by TC. How many MPs in the North are turkish mainland settlers vs TC?

I know there are not many settler MPs (in fact the only one I know is Nuri Cevigel) but I don't know about the wealth. Please give us your figures and your sources if possible.

So settlers in the north that have come from UK or Germany or USA are entirely the responsibility of Turkey?

Of course its the entire responsibility of Turkey. Who is controlling the occupied areas, France? The question is what these responsibilities would mean in the end. In cases of European Turks it may mean nothing. They most propably are rich, don't use any stolen properties etc. And as European citizens are allowed to stay anyway.

Surely you are not suggesting that human rights can be complex and anything other than black and white?

Nope! Humar rights are crystal clear. And like I said the settlers do have human rights which nobody can take away.What these are and whether those rights would allow an X number to stay I already said I don't know. The one who does settlement (Turkey) is guilty and has responsibilities but the settler as a human being is not guilty for his settlement. However he is guilty of using properties that don't belong to him.

And that presumably includes any settlers that came from places other than Turkey. Surely to allow them to settle in the North was no less illegal than Turkish mainland settlers? No less a distortion of the islands demographics?

Who said so? A settler is a settler no matter where he comes from. I heard you have a lot of settlers from Pakistan lately. . . .

It is obvious to me that whatever the legallity of it, the TRNC attempted to build a viable state in the North. It is obvious to me that in order to do so it needed more people, to work the land and do many other necessary jobs in order to make the state viable. I am not saying that what they did was right but I do not see as you do that the only reason that Turkish mainland settler were encouraged and allowed to come and live and work in the TRNC was to keep anyone in power. People were needed? Where else would they come from if not Turkey?

Erol if what was needed was people to work, you could import cheap labour from Sri - Lanka, Philippines, India etc. You could even import cheap labour from Turkey on a 2 - 3 year contract basis. That is what we do in the free areas. After their contract expires they go home. The difference between that and what you did, is that Turkey and your mafia leadership brought them there, gave them political rights, gave them citizenship and voting rights (!!!) and also donated them stolen GC properties. Can you now see the difference?

And I will tell you another thing. Do you know that not even one mainland Greek can get a citizenship in the free areas of Cyprus or even stay for longer period other than any other foreigner? Do you know that the mainland Greeks complain that we treat them like foreigners? Why do you think we do that to the people who are our only physical protectors? Do you think it would be very difficult for us to allow half a million mainland or diaspora Greeks to come here? But we were not that stupid and moreover they would not cast their votes for a specific "GreekCypriot Denktash". We were not stupid because we knew that by doing so we would have to abandon Cyprus ourselves! Ok I don't mean to say that the TCs are stupid, all I want to say is that they got exploited by the Denktash and Eroglu clique, and please stop trying to find excuses for those criminals of your community, especially regarding the crime concerning the settlers.

The UK offers incentives to various immigrants in various professions for example including subsidsed accomodation and even 'free' accomodation.

The UK population is about 60M right? Did the UK import 120M immigrants? ? ?

The RoC free areas population is about 700K. Did we import 1400K cheap labourers from Sri - Lanka? ? ? No!! We imported 50K on a contract basis, but unfortunately we have another 50K illegal and even that small number causes huge problems already.

[erolz]

I know there are not many settler MPs (in fact the only one I know is Nuri Cevigel) but I don't know about the wealth. Please give us your figures and your sources if possible.

I have no figures or sources for the realtive wealth of TC vs Turkish mainland settlers. All I have is the evidence of my own eyes and common sense and logic. Do you doubt that the Turkish mainland settlers in the north at ecconimcaly weaker than native TC (as they are politcaly weaker)?

In cases of European Turks it may mean nothing. They most propably are rich, don't use any stolen properties etc. And as European citizens are allowed to stay anyway.

The idea that Turkish mainland settlers all live in former GC owned properties and that all others settlers or native TC do not is simply not correct. Some native TC live in former GC properties, some in new properties that have been built on land formerly owned by GC - the same is true for non Turkish mainland settlers. Some Turkish mainland settlers live on land and in properties that were never owned by GC ever. There is no simple division between former GC properites and land and who lives where in the north.
Can you honestly say that no 'stolen' land is used in the South btw? That no land that used to be owned by TC prior to 63 is being used by GC or the GC state? That all such land and properties remain 'untouched' and in the same state they were prior to 63?

Surely you are not suggesting that human rights can be complex and anything other than black and white?

Nope! Humar rights are crystal clear.

The rights may be clear (though often one right conflicts with another) but who those rights apply to is by your own words anything but clear or black and white. How you define who is a citizen and who an immigrant is not clear as you yourself point out. Whether TC as a group are a 'people' or not in terms of human rights is not clear either judging from the totaly opposed views here on the issue.

Erol if what was needed was people to work, you could import cheap labour from Sri - Lanka, Philippines, India etc. You could even import cheap labour from Turkey on a 2 - 3 year contract basis. That is what we do in the free areas. After their contract expires they go home.

Well you could argue that such 'importation' of workers is based on exploitation of them. You can come here and work, and pay taxes but you can have no rights to citizenship or representation no matter what you contrinute to the RoC or for how long.

The difference between that and what you did, is that Turkey and your mafia leadership brought them there, gave them political rights, gave them citizenship and voting rights (!!!) and also donated them stolen GC properties. Can you now see the difference?

All countries have a means for the granting of 'citizenship' to non natives (except perhaps the RoC - according to your statements). I accept that you consider that the authority of those that have granted this citizenship is illegal and thus did not have the right to grant such citizenship. I am not arguing that point. I also accept that there were other issues than just pure practicalites and necessity that led to the importation of Turkish mainland settlers. What I do not accept is that the ONLY reason such settlement was encouraged and effected was to benefit Turkey or a ruling eleite in the north.

And I will tell you another thing. Do you know that not even one mainland Greek can get a citizenship in the free areas of Cyprus or even stay for longer period other than any other foreigner?

Are you seriously telling me that there is not a sinlge RoC citizen that was not born in Cyprus. That there has been no granting of citizenship to anyone not already a native of Cyprus? That there are no 'russian greeks' with citizenship in the RoC for just one example?

The UK population is about 60M right? Did the UK import 120M immigrants? ? ?

The RoC free areas population is about 700K. Did we import 1400K cheap labourers from Sri - Lanka? ? ? No!! We imported 50K on a contract basis, but unfortunately we have another 50K illegal and even that small number causes huge problems already.

I agree that the numbers are not comparable but the concept of a state importing and encouraging non natives to come and live and work and become citizens in order to fill a need of the state is a common one.

I do not know where you get your figures from. Do you really believe that native TC make up 1/3 of the norths population and 2/3 are settlers? How did you count settlers to come that ratio, given that you have already admited that you are not sure who should be classed as a settler or not? Do you really think such 'exagerated' figures are helpful to anything?

[Piratis]

Erolz, you keep calling the land that you stole from us as "formerly owned by GCs".

So if you are kicked out of your house, then you believe that you don't have the ownership anymore, right?

Ok, just remember you said this.

[erolz]

Erolz, you keep calling the land that you stole from us as "formerly owned by GCs".

So if you are kicked out of your house, then you believe that you don't have the ownership anymore, right?

I refer to land formerly owned by GC to distiguish it from land that was not formely owned by GC. My use of the terms implies nothing about rights (or wrongs) with reagrd to the land, its just a means of distinguishing one type of land from another. If it will make you less upset than lets agree a different way of distinguishing these two sorts of land. We can call one blue land and one red land if you prefer - though no doubt you would then just accuse me of implying politcal afflications to the use of such diferentiating terms. Sheesh!

Ok, just remember you said this.

You will remember that I said what YOU said I said and not what what I actualy said - yep that would seem to be about right and consistent with the image I have of you!

[Piratis]

I refer to land formerly owned by GC to distiguish it from land that was not formely owned by GC. My use of the terms implies nothing about rights (or wrongs) with reagrd to the land, its just a means of distinguishing one type of land from another. If it will make you less upset than lets agree a different way of distinguishing these two sorts of land. We can call one blue land and one red land if you prefer - though no doubt you would then just accuse me of implying politcal afflications to the use of such diferentiating terms. Sheesh!

How about calling it with its name: illegaly occupied land, or simply stolen GC land?

You will remember that I said what YOU said I said and not what what I actualy said - yep that would seem to be about right and consistent with the image I have of you!

Ok, so what do you say? If you agree that there is no excuse for illegally occupying our properties then I take what I said back. But from what I see in here, you do everything possible to excuse the illegal occupation of our land, which means my conclusion about what you mean is very correct.