sadik wrote:
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.
Sadik, I feel you didn’t understand what I tried to say. I said that we (GCs) already agreed -and this should be seen as a huge compromise, that Cyprus will evolve from a unitary bi-communal state into a Federal bi-communal and bi-zonal one. When I say it will evolve from a Unitary bi-communal state into a Federal bi-communal, it already presupposes that the pre-existing bi-communal nature of the state remains as it is under the concept of the unitary (1960) RoC, which will evolve into becoming the federal (central) government of the country. The only additional aspect that is to be introduced is the concept of bi-zonality, which did not exist in the 1960 RoC. In other words, I did not specifically mention the issue power sharing in the federal government because it is already assumed by definition, and that is why it was omitted in my previous description. Now, the issue of bi-zonality (bi-zonal federation) is what essentially differentiates the new structure from the previous one (1960.) It is here where our conceptual differences mostly occur. We viewed the agreed in principle bi-zonal aspect as an administrating evolution of the Unitary RoC -in which there where 6 districts directly subordinate to the central RoC government, into two bigger federal zones which will have their own sub-governments which will enjoy an increased amount of autonomous power than the districts used to have (hence the term regional autonomy which I referred to above,) both of which will be equal to each other, but both will be subordinate to the central federal government in which they will also participate in their capacity as federal states, besides the already remaining bi-communal aspect of the central federal government.
In other words, we view the new structure as an evolution of the already existing bi-communal unitary RoC. You may ask then, what is the point of introducing the bi-zonal aspect. We accepted the bi-zonal aspect only because it was the demand of the TC side (not just after but even before 1974 -it was a multi-zonal then,) which wanted to have a sense of regional autonomy in the areas in which the TCs were the most populous. The TCs did not like the idea of GC policemen patrolling and policing their people, GC civil servants dealing with their everyday administrating affairs, GC judges trying TCs, etc, etc. However, when we accepted such an arrangement in 1975, we did not accept it on the basis that each one of the two areas (zones) will become -in a sense- of the exclusive ownership of each one of the two communities. We accepted it on the basis of a technical arrangement which on the one hand will allow all the GCs who traditionally originate from within the northern zone to be able to return back to their places and properties (most of them) and on the other hand it will be adjusted on the ground in such a way as to allow the TCs to remain the majority in this zone, so that they can effectively have the control of the regional sub-government. This is why we also accepted that the territory of the northern zone would be a substantially bigger ratio than the population of the TCs would have justified.
This is what we more or less accepted and /or assumed and /or understood, back then in 1975 when we (the GC side) made the compromise for a BBF. What is it then our conceptual difference with what the TC side wants the BBF to be like and which was also manifested in the A-plan?
The TC side begins with the so-called “virgin-birth” approach /demand. What this means conceptually but also in practice? The new state of affairs is not an evolution of any pre-existing structure or entity. The two states (federal zones,) are assumed to be the successors of the already existing (de facto) structures. The two communities are elevated into two separate people, and each one of them is (at least in theory,) assumed to be the exclusive or traditional owner of each one of the two areas respectively. Hence the introduction of the internal citizenship status to immediately replace the “TRNC” citizenship status, and which was not meant to be given immediately to the GCs that would have been allowed to move into it, unless they first pass through the resident’s status and only after approval -but which (internal citizenship status) would have been given immediately to the settlers. The “TRNC” conceptually evolves into a constituent state of the ne -by virgin birth- structure, and the RoC devolves itself into the other constituent state, both of which come together and constitute the Federal (central) government –to which they are assumed to be the co-partners and co-founders. The three governments are all constitutionally equal to each other and they function in parallel, i.e. no hierarchy between the central government and the two constituent states. The GCs originating from the northern part’s towns and villages that will be allowed to gradually move into it, will be assumed and /or treated as newcomers (immigrants in a sense,) and not as already pre-existing and fully fletched inhabitants and consequently immediate citizens of the TC constituent state. They will have to first go through the long and gradual process of residency status and only after application and approval will eventually be regarded as (internal) citizens. The constitution of the TC state is drafted in such a way (as in a-plan,) that essentially denotes this very assumption, namely that the northern –to be- TC state -and its entire area, are of the exclusive ownership of the TC community, as if it has always been its (and only) traditional homeland. Among other droll provisions, it would have required any GC that would have wished to participate in the internal political affairs of the state, to take an oath on Atatürk’s principles.
Of course, Denktash had an even more “radical” conceptual understanding of the BBF. His understanding (and demand) was that the two sides should have first been recognized as two separate and sovereign entities, and then proceed into any kind of agreement between them.
Why the GC side does not accept the TC concept of “virgin-birth” approach, which was also manifested (but not stipulated verbally) in the A-plan? We do not accept this approach because among other reasons it is unacceptable from a historical perspective, as it indirectly -but in essence and to the eternity, writes off all the historical existential rights of the GCs from the north 29% of their country, and this will become particularly evident in case the federal government collapses (or is made to collapse.)
Of course it goes without saying that the TC side interprets our refusal to accommodate their approach as an indication of our “intentions” to claim control over the entire of Cyprus and to dominate and eventually subject the TC community into the role of a mere minority.
