So my thoughts on the joint declaration as posted in post one of this thread
1. The status quo is unacceptable and its prolongation will have negative consequences for the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The leaders affirmed that a settlement would have a positive impact on the entire region, while first and foremost benefiting Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots, respecting democratic principles, human rights and fundamental freedoms as well as each other’s distinct identity and integrity and ensuring their common future in a united Cyprus within the European Union.
The sentiment is ok in this but it is just not credible to me to imagine that our "leaders" affirmation has any sincerity to it, especially taking "leader" in its broadest sense. There are many on both sides who have personal vested interest in the Cyprus dispute being prolonged indefinitely and who really believe that a settlement would make them worse off rather than better off. To me these vested interests need to be recognised up front and tackled head on. The above statement simply pretends against all available evidence that this problem of deep vested interests just does not exists and that all our "leaders" sincerely agree that a swift settlement would bring benefits to all Cypriots despite it being patently obvious that they all do not agree this at all.
2. The leaders expressed their determination to resume structured negotiations in a results-oriented manner. All unresolved core issues will be on the table and will be discussed interdependently. The leaders will aim to reach a settlement as soon as possible and hold separate simultaneous referenda thereafter."
Yeah fine but we have had 50 years of this with no result to date.
"3. The settlement will be based on a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation with political equality as set out in the relevant Security Council Resolutions and the High Level Agreements. The united Cyprus, as a member of the United Nations and of the European Union, shall have a single, international legal personality and a single sovereignty which is defined as the sovereignty which is enjoyed by all members States of the United Nations, under the UN Charter and which emanates equally from Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. There will be a single united Cyprus citizenship, regulated by federal law. All citizens of the United Cyprus shall also be citizens of either the Greek-Cypriot constituent state or the Turkish-Cypriot constituent state. This status shall be internal and shall complement and not substitute in any way the united Cyprus citizenship."
I just do not see a majority of GC ever accepting this starting point and certainly not if those on this forum are in any way representative. It enshrines political equality of GC and TC communities as the very starting basis for any settlement. Lets face it many GC do not agree that there should be any political equality of the communities and that they apparently sincerely the GC are the "native" Cypriots and the TC are just foreign invaders and colonials. Not only does it enshrine such political equality as the starting point for any settlement it makes clear that the single international personality of a future united Cyprus emanates equally from both communities. So neither alone can validly represent the external single personality of the united Cyprus. These statements are actually a more rigid and defined version of political equality of the communities than those in the 1960's agreements, as far as I can see and are just the starting point of an actual settlement. Maybe my view has been skewed by the extremist GC on this forum but I find it hard to believe that GC can and will sincerely agree to a settlement based on such a starting foundation. I think 'at best' some may see it as something to agree to on the basis that they can unilaterally amend it down the line and we know how that turned out last time.
The powers of the federal government and like matters that are clearly incidental to its specified powers, will be assigned by the constitution. The Federal constitution will also provide for the residual powers to be exercised by the constituent states. The constituent states will exercise fully and irrevocably all their powers free from encroachment by the federal government. The federal laws will not encroach upon constituent state laws within the constituent states’ area of competences and the constituent states’ laws will not encroach upon the federal laws within the federal government’s competences. Any dispute in respect thereof will be adjudicated finally by the Federal Supreme Court. Neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other."
The 60's agreements had a constitutional court to adjudicate disputes, complete with an independent head of this body and Makarios and the GC leadership simply chose to ignore its rulings and its legal authority when the rulings did not suit them. So stating that there will be a Federal Supreme Court to adjudicate disputes is all well and fine but along with the detail of who sits on this body and how they are appointed it will be necessary to also lay out what exactly happens if those this court is supposed to have legal authority to rule over simply ignore their rulings and authority, otherwise to me the whole thing is meaningless. Also again this section enshrines the political independence and equality of the two communities with the phrase 'neither side may claim authority or jurisdiction over the other'. What this says in effect is that a purely GC run government or authority, like the RoC has been since 1965, can have no jurisdiction or authority over the TC community.
"4. The united Cyprus federation shall result from the settlement following the settlement’s approval by separate simultaneous referenda. The federal constitution shall prescribe that the united Cyprus federation shall be composed of two constituent states of equal status. The bi-zonal, bi-communal nature of the federation and the principles upon which the EU is founded will be safeguarded and respected throughout the island. The Federal constitution shall be the supreme law of the land and will be binding on all the federation’s authorities and on the constituent states. Union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession or any other unilateral change to the state of affairs will be prohibited."
Again I find it hard to see how many GC can ever accept that a bi-communal federal structure can be compatible with "democracy" given how entrenched and deep rooted the perversion of the meaning and intent of "democracy", where any thing that is not "one person one vote" is by this perverse definition undemocratic, is amongst many GC. Anyone who understands that the objective of democracy is not simply 'one person one vote' but rather that is just one means, but far from the only one, to seek to achieve the objective of democracy will have no problem reconciling it with bi-communal federation. I just am not convinced that a majority of GC can intellectually or emotionally let go of the idea that by definition if its not one person one vote then it is not democratic, but again maybe my perception has been skewed by those on this forum.
5. The negotiations are based on the principle that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.
Fine.
"6. The appointed representatives are fully empowered to discuss any issue at any time and should enjoy parallel access to all stakeholders and interested parties in the process, as needed. The leaders of the two communities will meet as often as needed. They retain the ultimate decision-making power. Only an agreement freely reached by the leaders may be put to separate simultaneous referenda. Any kind of arbitration is excluded."
This is all fine if an agreement can be freely reached but the track record in this regard is not good.
"7. The sides will seek to create a positive atmosphere to ensure the talks succeed. They commit to avoid blame games or other negative public comments on the negotiations. They also commit to efforts to implement confidence building measures that will provide dynamic impetus to the prospect for a united Cyprus."
Again fine words and sentiments but does anyone really believe that our leaders can avoid blame games and negative comments, even internal within each community, let alone between them ? Saying these things is one thing but what sanctions are there or could there be if either or both sides fail to live up to these commitments as they surely will if history to date is any guide?
