Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Hi viewpoint,

I have read many of your posts and respect your point of view. In this case though, having followed the argument through, how can you possibly persuade GCs that through permanent property and voting derrogations that a TC constituent state is any different to say any other EU country?
In which case, would Cyprus really be unified?
The point is not to allow sudden unlimited property purchasing rights and voting rights, but employ a transition period to build up trust between the two communities before these are fully implemented. The details of this transition could be discussed but the end result must surely be a union of states with freedom of movement and residence for all. Voting for any sort of senate could still be done along ethnic lines 50-50 but even this could probably be reformed a much longer period of time (e.g. 40-50 years) as the two communities become reconciled provided everyone agrees.

That's what I've taken into consideration too VP, but permanent restrictions should not be implemented. We can have temporary derrogations (like 10 years), but we cannot just expect Greek Cypriots to accept the permanent restrictions. We should compromise. Can you imagine that a Greek Cypriot will be able to settle and work in Estonia, but will not be able to do the same in his/her country. That's something illogical. As I said, if we have a kind of coexistence with Greek Cypriots, which we can have in that 10 years through special programmes, then we won't mind if there are Greeks around us.

Completely agree here Garbitsch, it's about building up trust. Also remember that the process will work the other way as well. The GCs will have to get used to TCs again as well as the some of the mainland settlers many of whom are likely to stay in Cyprus.

Thank you Alexis for at least respecting my point of view, many on this forum have a problem even doing that.

I am not against Gc getting back what they owned before 1974 where it is physically possible, this in itself will make up a large percentage but I feel we have to establish limits, maximums like in Malta... would you allow Germans to purchase 100% of the south? we have protect the mosiac of our culture and the people that go towards making Cyprus, Cyprus.

When you say truly unified this encompasses many things and the fear that TCs will dissapear in amongst the GC numerically larger community should not be just pushed to one side, it should be addressed to ensure that we feel we are a part of a united Cyprus and that we will not be dominated byGCs.

[Alexis]

Sure, limits are justifiable for a limited time, but within any given country there has to be a point where the citizens are treated equally irrespective of their ethnic background.
Of course the RoC would never sell 100% of the south to the Germans, but there is probably no rule saying that this couldn't happen (at least not for non government owned land), but it almost certainly never will simply because Cypriots will on the whole want to live in Cyprus and Germans in Germany. Look again at Switzerland, any citizen can move anywhere in the country and adopt the residence and voting rights of that Canton. Their house of representatives is based on proportional representation with some notable differences (e.g. each Canton must have at least 1 representative). Yet despite the freedom of residence and movement French speaking people still dominate the Geneva area whilst German speakers dominate the North, East and Centre. The French speakers number around 20% (compared to German speakers who are around 2/3 of the population) yet Switzerland has reached a point where the French-speaking minority does not feel threatened by the numerical superiority of the German speakers. Transition is certainly required in Cyprus but the final destination should be something similar to the Swiss model where all cultures and ethnic groups are respected.

[Viewpoint]

Sure, limits are justifiable for a limited time, but within any given country there has to be a point where the citizens are treated equally irrespective of their ethnic background.
Of course the RoC would never sell 100% of the south to the Germans, but there is probably no rule saying that this couldn't happen (at least not for non government owned land), but it almost certainly never will simply because Cypriots will on the whole want to live in Cyprus and Germans in Germany. Look again at Switzerland, any citizen can move anywhere in the country and adopt the residence and voting rights of that Canton. Their house of representatives is based on proportional representation with some notable differences (e.g. each Canton must have at least 1 representative). Yet despite the freedom of residence and movement French speaking people still dominate the Geneva area whilst German speakers dominate the North, East and Centre. The French speakers number around 20% (compared to German speakers who are around 2/3 of the population) yet Switzerland has reached a point where the French-speaking minority does not feel threatened by the numerical superiority of the German speakers. Transition is certainly required in Cyprus but the final destination should be something similar to the Swiss model where all cultures and ethnic groups are respected.

Alexis lets just put it down to a lack of trust.

What do you suggest we do if these issues were exploited by GCs? the ending of limits would mean no porint of return and therefore no protection against GC domination.

[Alexis]

Yes, it is down to trust, hence the need for a transition period.
So what? Both communities need to build up trust with each other.
As for exploitation, the whole point about trust is that yes, at this point you (as in TC) as a community clearly don't trust the GC community and vice versa, but the objective is that we get to a point where we all trust one another. At that point you won't be thinking will the GC dominate us because we will both have a built in respect for each other which will mean that the fact we number more than you means very little.
To me personally we could split voting along ethnic lines almost indefinitely, but a permanent derrogation on where I as a person can purchase property within the confines of my own country is anathema.
What you fear is an orchestrated plan by the GC community to buy out North Cyprus, I don't believe this will ever happen, and even if the maximum number of refugees return to their homes and more after any transition period, you as Turkish Cypriots will still be there (if you so choose) along with a large number of settlers, the senate will be split along ethnic lines 50-50 to guarantee the constitution. This will guarantee the Turkishness of the TC canton irrespective of large numbers of GCs.

[garbitsch]

Alexis, I couldn't agree with you more.

[Viewpoint]

Yes, it is down to trust, hence the need for a transition period.
So what? Both communities need to build up trust with each other.
As for exploitation, the whole point about trust is that yes, at this point you (as in TC) as a community clearly don't trust the GC community and vice versa, but the objective is that we get to a point where we all trust one another. At that point you won't be thinking will the GC dominate us because we will both have a built in respect for each other which will mean that the fact we number more than you means very little.
To me personally we could split voting along ethnic lines almost indefinitely, but a permanent derrogation on where I as a person can purchase property within the confines of my own country is anathema.
What you fear is an orchestrated plan by the GC community to buy out North Cyprus, I don't believe this will ever happen, and even if the maximum number of refugees return to their homes and more after any transition period, you as Turkish Cypriots will still be there (if you so choose) along with a large number of settlers, the senate will be split along ethnic lines 50-50 to guarantee the constitution. This will guarantee the Turkishness of the TC canton irrespective of large numbers of GCs.

You didnt really address the question and just put it down to trust building, what if you did see the exploitation of areas where we are asked to trust GCs with no point of return? eg voting rights/senate representation and property purchases.
Do we allow for it to go terribly wrong or put mechanisms in place that will ensure that issues are not just left to chance and trust.
How do we stop it once we experience that our trust is being exploited and that things are not going as planned??

[Alexis]

You didnt really address the question and just put it down to trust building, what if you did see the exploitation of areas where we are asked to trust GCs with no point of return? eg voting rights/senate representation and property purchases.
Do we allow for it to go terribly wrong or put mechanisms in place that will ensure that issues are not just left to chance and trust.
How do we stop it once we experience that our trust is being exploited and that things are not going as planned??

I don't understand exactly what you mean?
If you mean, where are the safeguards that stop GCs dominating in a swiss style federation, I would ask what do you mean by domination?
The only way I can see GCs trying to dominate TCs is by actively all (well enough of them anyway) moving to the TC state to get voting rights and purchase property thus swamping the TCs. Again, I don't think this will happen because it just doesn't, people just don't up and move overnight unless forced to or it's in their interests to do so, i.e. jobs. It might happen in the case of Famagusta for instance. But even if this did happen giving overall control of the canton's representatives to GCs the safeguards that would exist are the senate which will ensure the Turkishness of the TC state (language, police/security, schooling etc...). Again, here I will stress that a compromise away from the Swiss model would be acceptable to me personally where except at the very local level (e.g. council elections), the election of the senate and even the house of representatives could be split along ethnic lines for a long time, thus ensuring GCs cannot stifle the TC state through out-voting their fellow TCs on matters that affect them. But I am getting into details which can be addressed later.
When it comes to property purchasing, I really don't see how you can feel dominated just by having GCs around. I hate to sound just like every other GC but the fact remains that unless the demographic nature of the country is changed (which you have said is not something you want to see) GCs will outnumber TCs, and so TCs in a unified Cyprus will be dominated numerically by GCs. That would be the reality of living together on this island, otherwise it's not living together and it's certainly not sharing the island. Creating zones with permanent restrictions on residence apply is nothing short of apartheid.
The objective is though, that eventually we will live in a society where both cultures are embraced and differences appreciated rather than just tolerated (e.g. Switzerland).

Believe me, I know your concerns regarding security and in particular preventing a re-run of the events of the 1960s, but in this day and age surely a security arrangement can be reached which will mean that we can live together?

[boulio]

Alexis can see fitting the swiss model into the cyprus or perhaps the belgian model?I know erdogan wanted the serbia-montengro model which really isent a federal on but a confederacy.

[Viewpoint]

Alexis

The only way I can see GCs trying to dominate TCs is by actively all (well enough of them anyway) moving to the TC state to get voting rights and purchase property thus swamping the TCs. Again, I don't think this will happen because it just doesn't, people just don't up and move overnight unless forced to or it's in their interests to do so, i.e. jobs

What would you do for safe guards? if there is no possiblity then whats the problem with having safety valves in place?? they would not be used but reassure Tcs theat they will nto be swamped and all the complications that would bring with it..

When it comes to property purchasing, I really don't see how you can feel dominated just by having GCs around. I hate to sound just like every other GC but the fact remains that unless the demographic nature of the country is changed (which you have said is not something you want to see) GCs will outnumber TCs, and so TCs in a unified Cyprus will be dominated numerically by GCs. That would be the reality of living together on this island, otherwise it's not living together and it's certainly not sharing the island. Creating zones with permanent restrictions on residence apply is nothing short of apartheid.

I think you can have free movement and settlement in either state but the shall we call them invisable limits would protect and not encourage GC to attempt control of the TCCS. We need deterrants so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

[Alexis]

The one big problem with having a permanent restriction in place is just that, it's a permanent restriction. You call it a safeguard, from my viewpoint it is a form of division keeping me from where I feel I should be allowed to be. From my viewpoint as long as I don't abuse my right to be there (i.e. reside in the TCCS) then I should be allowed to be there. I don't feel that my simply living somewhere is grounds for someone else to feel threatened just because of my ethnic background.
I also think that most GCs would be flexible when it comes to a restricted set of voting rights within the TCCS until such a time as the TCCS is both economically and socially ready for a system along the lines of the Swiss model. Whilst I'm sure you would like to probe me on what exact political voting framework could be found to safeguard the TCCS I will request that I pass on this as I am no constitutional expert. However, that said, I am certain a political framework can be found that both safeguards the TCCS from GC political dominance but at the same time affords at least some voting rights (perhaps only at a very local level) to GCs living there.

Remember what exactly the mistakes of the past were:

1) TCs felt dominated by GCs and in particular felt very vulnerable due to their numerical inferiority on the island and the prospect of Enosis.

2) GCs felt frustrated by TCs secessionist stance and were continually wary of that secession taking effect with all its consequences.

Both communities mistrust of the other's true agenda fuelled the crisis to breaking point on more than one occasion.
Whilst TCs must not feel threatened by GCs and should not be swamped by them economically, at the same time GCs must not feel like the TCCS is a separate state in which they are not afforded the same rights. For some GCs (e.g. my father) the Annan Plan was enough simply because it made it clear that despite the restrictions along ethnic lines, the TCCS was under no circumstances to be considered a separate sovereign state. Had I voted perhaps even I would probably have been swayed enough by this one thing (+ my dad ) to vote yes. For the majority though, it seems that more is required.

I think you can have free movement and settlement in either state but the shall we call them invisable limits would protect and not encourage GC to attempt control of the TCCS. We need deterrants so that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

Invisible limits are ok as long as they remain so. The problem being that as soon as one GC is refused residence based on their ethnic background this will serve as a divisive force, something we don't want in a unified country.