Cyprus-Forum.com

[sadik]

You are joking, right??! Wake up and smell the coffee boys. If you think for one second that any GC president would allow Turkey to enter the EU before ending the occupation, you are dreaming.

It does not work like that. If Turkey comes to that stage and Cyprus problem, this way or that way, will be solved. If Turkeys membership becomes desired for economical reasons at that stage, do you really believe that the GCs will be able to stop it? What I believe would happen at that time is that another solution plan will be promoted by the EU and most probably both sides will have to give in some of their demands and accept it. Remember Papadopoulos could not resist the international demand to take the plan to a referandum. This time the pressure will be much higer. Whatever gains GCs can make from Turkish membership process is during the membership negotiations.

I never said I am sure of a bloodshed. I am actually quite objective. What I said is that there is a RISK of bloodshed. I base this view on historical and current data and facts/ risk factors i.e. the ONLY time we tried this before it ended in bloodshed, the perceived unfairness inherent in any BBF providing political equality (i.e. 82%=18%), the cultural, language and religious differences, the hatred amongst a significant portion of the population in both communities and the fact that it only takes a few fanatics to start the violence, and the fact that this has NEVER worked anywhere in the world (i.e. Muslims & Christians sharing power - e.g. former Yugoslavia).

Tony, these kinds of incidents do not take place by themselves. Fanatics can influence the state of the affairs, only if they are supported by the GC and the TC leaderships. It is not difficult to catch 10 people in Cyprus, IF there is a political will. Violence in Cyprus will not start, if it's not serving to the political interests of one of the sides. In the past it served to the political intersts of the GC leadership for the purpose of Enosis and to the Taksim goal of the TC leadership. The world now, though is a different place. We (all Cypriots) don't have any other goal than being and staying in the EU. We have the same goal.

We should focus on what will be acceptable to both sides. Seperation at this stage, I believe, is not even negotiable. GCs cannot make such a radical shift in their policies at this stage.

Anyway, have you heard of the book that Denktas mentions below? Look what he was saying.

Rauf Denktas sees a settlement within the European Union, but a two-states solution
English language "Turkish Daily News" newspaper (04.07.05) reports the following:

"A settlement to the Cyprus problem could be possible within the European Union, said the former Turkish Cypriot leader.

Talking with the Turkish Daily News on the veranda of his modest "deniz evi" (sea home) abode overlooking the velvet-blue Mediterranean Sea, Denktas suggested that like the former Czechoslovakia, the two peoples of the island could separate first, become equal entities and re-unite under the roof of the European Union as two states that did not have any claim over the other.

Denktas said he always wanted to strike a just and lasting agreement to the Cyprus problem which would ensure the inalienable rights of the Turkish Cypriots, but somehow could not explain himself enough to the world, or the world did not want to understand him.

He said even in a recent book written by six former Greek ambassadors, it was stated that making the dividing line on Cyprus the international border was required for lasting peace on Cyprus because removing the international border would be extremely difficult.

"The other day, the Slovak foreign minister was here. He said: 'I was born in Czechoslovakia, knew myself as a Czechoslovakian. We were together, but why we were together, have no idea. Then, we parted of our own free will. Now, under the EU umbrella, we have reunited and have no problem.' They have sorted their border problem. They are independent, sovereign countries. Neither Czechs, nor the Slovaks can cross the border and make demands that could irritate the other. They are separate in their own states, but together in the EU. They have reunited within the EU, like all other members. That's a lasting settlement," said Denktas.

[Piratis]

If Turkeys membership becomes desired for economical reasons at that stage, do you really believe that the GCs will be able to stop it?

GCs no. The Cyprus Problem yes. Do not forget that the solution of the Cyprus Problem is required not only by GCs but by Greece as well.
Also there are some more countries that don't want Turkey for their own reasons. However they can not come and say: "We do not want Turkey because we don't want Muslims in EU" etc. The Cyprus Problem is a very valid reason why Turkey can not enter, and those countries will insist on the solution because that would serve their interests also.

Therefore not only it is a legal obligation of Turkey to end the occupation, but there are many other countries that will support Cyprus for this.

The accession of Turkey without the Cyprus problem is already hard. With the Cyprus problem the accession is made impossible.

If Turkey wants to join the EU it needs to accept a fair solution to the Cyprus problem. This way Greece and Cyprus will not only oppose its accession but they will become the countries that will support the Turkish accession the most. Only then Turkey will have a chance.

[cypezokyli]

if the cyprus problem is whats left for turkey...the pressure will not just lie on turkey. it will also be put on us.

[Piratis]

The pressure is always on us. I hope now they understood that placing pressure only on one side and giving to the other side the 90% of their demands is not working.

[Kifeas]

Sadik, do you believe that the case of Czechoslovakia as the Slovak minister described it in your above quotation -and which more or less Denktash had /has in mind, deserves any merit for the case of Cyprus?

More specifically, can we say that the case of Czech and Slovakia been together under the roof of Czechoslovakia, then decided to split and then come back together once more under the roof of the EU, has any similarity whatsoever with the case of Cyprus, as Denktash might have wanted it to become?

[sadik]

Sadik, do you believe that the case of Czechoslovakia as the Slovak minister described it in your above quotation -and which more or less Denktash had /has in mind, deserves any merit for the case of Cyprus?

More specifically, can we say that the case of Czech and Slovakia been together under the roof of Czechoslovakia, then decided to split and then come back together once more under the roof of the EU, has any similarity whatsoever with the case of Cyprus, as Denktash might have wanted it to become?

Kifeas, this is not my view. I personally don't like it and prefer a federal solution.

There are some similarities, like Czechs did not want to pay for relatively poorer Slovaks economic development. They preferred that EU pay for it. Wasn't this one of the reasons for rejection of the A. plan.

There are some things that are not similar, such as the fact that we don't have agreed upon borders. We have a huge property problem, unlike them, which in any kind of a solution, will require a huge effort.

But apparently the idea of complete seperation is starting to look attractive to some GCs and Greeks as well, if a significant land concession is made.

[Kifeas]

Sadik, do you believe that the case of Czechoslovakia as the Slovak minister described it in your above quotation -and which more or less Denktash had /has in mind, deserves any merit for the case of Cyprus?

More specifically, can we say that the case of Czech and Slovakia been together under the roof of Czechoslovakia, then decided to split and then come back together once more under the roof of the EU, has any similarity whatsoever with the case of Cyprus, as Denktash might have wanted it to become?

Kifeas, this is not my view. I personally don't like it and prefer a federal solution.

Okay! Actually I know you do not subscribe to such a theory or approach. My question was whether you see any similarities between the two cases.

There are some similarities, like Czechs did not want to pay for relatively poorer Slovaks economic development. They preferred that EU pay for it. Wasn't this one of the reasons for rejection of the A. plan.

No, I do not agree that this was one of the reasons -at least the basic ones, that the A-plan was rejected by the GCs. It might have been used by some circles as one of the pre-texts, among others, but it was not an essential criterion as such. Perhaps yes, in relation to the issue of GC property compensations, but not in relation to the burden of running the fed government or the economic and infrastructural development of the north area. If the TCs maintain such an impression, then it is a misconception. If other far more important reasons did not exist, then the issue of the economic burden on the GCs in relation to the north state’s development wouldn’t have seen the light.

There are some things that are not similar, such as the fact that we don't have agreed upon borders. We have a huge property problem, unlike them, which in any kind of a solution, will require a huge effort.

Sadik, the issues that make the two cases far from being similar, are much deeper than those you mentioned above.
The Czechs and the Slovaks, besides not having boarder disputes and huge property problems like we have, they also have a fair acceptance between them that the area that is called Slovakia and the area that is called Czechia are indeed the traditional homelands of the Slovaks and the Czechs, respectively. In our case and at least as far as the GCs are concerned, we do not accept that the northern part of Cyprus on which the “TRNC” is now in place or the northern part on which the TC constituent state was /is meant to be establish, was /is the traditional homeland of the TCs only. We GCs view the entire territory of Cyprus to be our traditional homeland to an equal degree, either be it the south part or the north part of it. We only accept that for internal governing purposes, the northern part will be regarded as one federal zone, likewise the southern part, in which the TCs will be enjoying some degree of majority presence, enough to guaranty them a relative degree of internal regional autonomy. This has always been the GC understanding since 1975, when we accepted and agreed that Cyprus will evolve from a unitary bi-communal state into a Federal bi-communal and bi-zonal one. I know that this is not the approach that the TC community likes to take on the issue, but that is also why the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. We have a huge -in my view- conceptual /philosophical difference.

[sadik]

We only accept that for internal governing purposes, the northern part will be regarded as one federal zone, likewise the southern part, in which the TCs will be enjoying some degree of majority presence, enough to guaranty them a relative degree of internal regional autonomy. This has always been the GC understanding since 1975, when we accepted and agreed that Cyprus will evolve from a unitary bi-communal state into a Federal bi-communal and bi-zonal one. I know that this is not the approach that the TC community likes to take on the issue, but that is also why the Cyprus problem remains unresolved. We have a huge -in my view- conceptual /philosophical difference.

Kifeas, the TC community supports the BBF. However you are also saying regional autonomy. Regional autonomy and BBF are not the same thing. Regional autonomy does not involve any power sharing at the Federal level. Official positions don't seem to be very far from each other, but if the sides don't really want what's their official policy, that's another thing.

How would you feel about a geographical federation in which:
* Borders will be adjusted and property issue resolved in a definitive manner.
* Northern and southern states will have equal power in the federal government.
* Citizenship of the states will be based solely on residency
* There will be no permanent restrictions on residency and maybe none at all.
* Initially, TC population will be concentrated in the northern state. I don't think that TCs eventually becoming a minority in their state is likely.

[Tony-4497]

Sadik

Regarding the impact of religion, culture, language, background, historical events:

You keep saying that these do not matter, without providing any evidence or support. Repetition of an argument does not suddenly make it reasonable.

The facts and examples I provided show that all these things DO matter. The human race throughout all known history shows that people form groups on the basis of the above criteria and fight with each other.. it's human nature!

And regarding the lack of action by fanatics today, the reason for this is that we are living as to 2 completely separate states (one of them illegal) and there is no power sharing of any form. Problems are likely to start when there is something to be "split" between the 2 parties (as in the 1960's).

If Turkeys membership becomes desired for economical reasons at that stage, do you really believe that the GCs will be able to stop it?

The answer to this is a resounding YES. The threats that GCs were subjected to prior to the referendum could not have been any greater. And yet they stood up against the whole world (including Greece!). In the above case, a No will much easier.. not stopping this would be suicide for Cyprus, as it would mean that the status quo would continue forever. Give me one good reason why Cyprus would not say No before a solution has been found which GC consider acceptable?

Regional autonomy and BBF are not the same thing. Regional autonomy does not involve any power sharing at the Federal level.

Yet another example of the huge gap between the two communities with respect to what "federation" means.. which also explains the results of those polls you cited.. GC could never accept the BBF with political equality as understood by TC.

This is a key risk factor that may cause bloodshed i.e. the 2 parties reading a deliberately "constructively" vague, fuzzy solution plan (e.g. Annan - continuity of the RoC, sovereignty of component state v that of federal state etc etc) and interpreting it in their own way, and when trying to implement (in 2 completely different ways) the fights start... just one example..

[bg_turk]

Kifeas, the TC community supports the BBF. However you are also saying regional autonomy. Regional autonomy and BBF are not the same thing. Regional autonomy does not involve any power sharing at the Federal level. Official positions don't seem to be very far from each other, but if the sides don't really want what's their official policy, that's another thing.

How would you feel about a geographical federation in which:
* Borders will be adjusted and property issue resolved in a definitive manner.
* Northern and southern states will have equal power in the federal government.
* Citizenship of the states will be based solely on residency
* There will be no permanent restrictions on residency and maybe none at all.
* Initially, TC population will be concentrated in the northern state. I don't think that TCs eventually becoming a minority in their state is likely.

Why do you want federation?
The property issue and the unjustice against GCs may be addressed without the need for the dissolution of the TRNC, which may be called Republic of Northern Cyprus eventually.

Multiethnic federations are a dangerous thinig, especially when you mix power sharing with ethnicity. My vision for the future of Cyprus is that of two democratic states which respect the rights of their minorities. This would avoid the dangers of multiethnic conflicts like those in Yugoslavia, and at the same time would address the humanitaria rights of those GCs that wish to return to their homeland as long as they respect the laws of the state in which they live.

The TRNC in its current form cannot and should not be recognized, but a future more democratic, more independent version of it could become an recognized unitary state, with greek citizens having some special rights in it.