Cyprus-Forum.com

[Maximus]

Hi Maximus, I have to admit that I liked your posting above, but would like to express one small, significant factor, that we are not really looking for a Turkish Society - trust me on that! In essence, the Turkish Cypriot side has always said that, as the unitary "Cyprus" republic state failed to work from 1960-63 for reasons that I will not get into surrounding security and certain safeguards sensitive to the TCs, we are seeking a NEW Cyprus based on a "Federal" structure. I know the Greek Cypriots strongly believe in what you have said above - mostly due to the fact that they are the current majority people - but I am certain you would be shouting the same as we are if you were the minority Partner peoples. Therefore, unless a New Federal "Cyprus" is formed based on two Constituent states which Safeguard their security concerns and are not overridden by the Greek Cypriot majority should you suddenly adopt a very pro-nationalist government, partition is looking pretty much the flavour. If we take the "Israel" state of today as an example, what should the country look like and where will it be in terms of a UN agreement? I am suspecting that it will eventually be a TWO State formula and that Israel will have to give up some of its existing territory to the Palestinians - which is what you may have to do with the TRNC if you continue to reject a BBF, otherwise we'll be discussing the same end in 2020 and beyond! What do you thing?

But Mrh

It did not work since 1960 because outsiders said that the TC's can have disproportional rights vs the rest of the population and they believed them. It continues not to work because the Turkish Cypriots continue to demand these ridiculous rights or taksim or recognition instead.

To add to this problem, they now have a lot of property in their possession that does not belong to them and they will not give it back. Why? because it reduces "their territory" to practically nothing, which is no more and no less than their fair share. Just like their say in a democratic republic, which they will not accept because it reduces it to practically nothing, which again is no more but no less than their fair share.

If they were Cypriot, they would join the political sphere of the RoC and participate in the democratic process like all other Cypriots. Not demand a separate one along with a separate bit of land too.

[MrH]

by Maximus » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:26 pm

MrH wrote:Hi Maximus, I have to admit that I liked your posting above, but would like to express one small, significant factor, that we are not really looking for a Turkish Society - trust me on that! In essence, the Turkish Cypriot side has always said that, as the unitary "Cyprus" republic state failed to work from 1960-63 for reasons that I will not get into surrounding security and certain safeguards sensitive to the TCs, we are seeking a NEW Cyprus based on a "Federal" structure. I know the Greek Cypriots strongly believe in what you have said above - mostly due to the fact that they are the current majority people - but I am certain you would be shouting the same as we are if you were the minority Partner peoples. Therefore, unless a New Federal "Cyprus" is formed based on two Constituent states which Safeguard their security concerns and are not overridden by the Greek Cypriot majority should you suddenly adopt a very pro-nationalist government, partition is looking pretty much the flavour. If we take the "Israel" state of today as an example, what should the country look like and where will it be in terms of a UN agreement? I am suspecting that it will eventually be a TWO State formula and that Israel will have to give up some of its existing territory to the Palestinians - which is what you may have to do with the TRNC if you continue to reject a BBF, otherwise we'll be discussing the same end in 2020 and beyond! What do you thing?



But Mrh

It did not work since 1960 because outsiders said that the TC's can have disproportional rights vs the rest of the population and they believed them. It continues not to work because the Turkish Cypriots continue to demand these ridiculous rights or taksim or recognition instead.

To add to this problem, they now have a lot of property in their possession that does not belong to them and they will not give it back. Why? because it reduces "their territory" to practically nothing, which is no more and no less than their fair share. Just like their say in a democratic republic, which they will not accept because it reduces it to practically nothing, which again is no more but no less than their fair share.

If they were Cypriot, they would join the political sphere of the RoC and participate in the democratic process like all other Cypriots. Not demand a separate one along with a separate bit of land too.

An interesting observation Maximus, but one obviously disputed by the Turkish Cypriots. One could argue many factors concerning what you have said above, from the TC's rights stemming from their rights from 1571, being forced into enclaves by the majority Greek Cypriot ultra-nationalists and many, many other scenarios placed on the table from the bloody events between 1955-1963. As the Turkish Cypriots were not able to flourish between those years, and also under British rule, they feel that the years between 1983-present day are the ones that count! A hard one to swallow for the Greek Cypriots, but it was the GCs that allowed it to happen. As for today, as I imagine you will understand, the political, economic, reliance of Turkey, EU relation between Turkey and the EU, Greek Cypriot's military arming from 1983 and many other factors, a return to perhaps a rational way of thinking in terms of being a "Cypriot" society has been diminished. Not to mention the now lack of "pure" Turkish Cypriots, and those mixed with Turks from Turkey, and now many other nationals settled in the TRNC as "TRNC" citizens.

[Maximus]

by Maximus » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:26 pm

MrH wrote:Hi Maximus, I have to admit that I liked your posting above, but would like to express one small, significant factor, that we are not really looking for a Turkish Society - trust me on that! In essence, the Turkish Cypriot side has always said that, as the unitary "Cyprus" republic state failed to work from 1960-63 for reasons that I will not get into surrounding security and certain safeguards sensitive to the TCs, we are seeking a NEW Cyprus based on a "Federal" structure. I know the Greek Cypriots strongly believe in what you have said above - mostly due to the fact that they are the current majority people - but I am certain you would be shouting the same as we are if you were the minority Partner peoples. Therefore, unless a New Federal "Cyprus" is formed based on two Constituent states which Safeguard their security concerns and are not overridden by the Greek Cypriot majority should you suddenly adopt a very pro-nationalist government, partition is looking pretty much the flavour. If we take the "Israel" state of today as an example, what should the country look like and where will it be in terms of a UN agreement? I am suspecting that it will eventually be a TWO State formula and that Israel will have to give up some of its existing territory to the Palestinians - which is what you may have to do with the TRNC if you continue to reject a BBF, otherwise we'll be discussing the same end in 2020 and beyond! What do you thing?



But Mrh

It did not work since 1960 because outsiders said that the TC's can have disproportional rights vs the rest of the population and they believed them. It continues not to work because the Turkish Cypriots continue to demand these ridiculous rights or taksim or recognition instead.

To add to this problem, they now have a lot of property in their possession that does not belong to them and they will not give it back. Why? because it reduces "their territory" to practically nothing, which is no more and no less than their fair share. Just like their say in a democratic republic, which they will not accept because it reduces it to practically nothing, which again is no more but no less than their fair share.

If they were Cypriot, they would join the political sphere of the RoC and participate in the democratic process like all other Cypriots. Not demand a separate one along with a separate bit of land too.

An interesting observation Maximus, but one obviously disputed by the Turkish Cypriots. One could argue many factors concerning what you have said above, from the TC's rights stemming from their rights from 1571, being forced into enclaves by the majority Greek Cypriot ultra-nationalists and many, many other scenarios placed on the table from the bloody events between 1955-1963. As the Turkish Cypriots were not able to flourish between those years, and also under British rule, they feel that the years between 1983-present day are the ones that count! A hard one to swallow for the Greek Cypriots, but it was the GCs that allowed it to happen. As for today, as I imagine you will understand, the political, economic, reliance of Turkey, EU relation between Turkey and the EU, Greek Cypriot's military arming from 1983 and many other factors, a return to perhaps a rational way of thinking in terms of being a "Cypriot" society has been diminished. Not to mention the now lack of "pure" Turkish Cypriots, and those mixed with Turks from Turkey, and now many other nationals settled in the TRNC as "TRNC" citizens.

OK and it is obvious that the TC's will dispute this but your response does not address those points which I raised above.

it just adds credence that they are not Cypriot and they should go to Turkey.

[boulio]

THanks for your response erolz couple of point:

1)Like your guarantees section of a solution but dont think it flies with tc community
2)didnt understand the porperties part of your analysis if you can further explain
3)were do stand on the settlers issue?

THanks

[erolz66]

It did not work since 1960 because outsiders said that the TC's can have disproportional rights vs the rest of the population and they believed them.

When GC act as if they are Cypriots who happened to be of Greek descent there is no need for separate rights for TC. However when GC act as if they are Greeks who happened to live in Cyprus, then TC should have separate rights as people who are not Greek and for whom Cyprus is their homeland. It really is that simple. It is just a fact that if 'outsiders' had not supported the rights of TC in 1960 in this regard, then Cyprus would not exist today as a nation and a state.

[repulsewarrior]

...allow me to suggest that it is reform that the Republic needs, not replacement. for the existence of National identities, so that as Persons, Individuals sustain them, a separate level of government is required. there are Universal Principals, they are the foundation on which Humanity can divide itself as States, and as Freedom goes, as Individuals we are responsible toward its defense. nothing will replace the value of a Cyprus, to Cypriots.

...i ask, why not Cypriot Constituencies, since the bold compromise is a Federation, as well as Constituent states,(Bicommunal). why not Jurisdictional Territories, where which the electors are closer to their tax dollars, in terms of self representation, nothing wrong with that within a Republic of Individuals (Bizonal). why not fulfilling the same need for other Constituencies, other than the overwhelming majority, since it is the issue, as Cypriots our ethnosphere. (within a Republic) what is wrong with a Greek Constituency? and why not Constituencies for Armenians, Maronites, Latins, (and British)?

..."Peace" means to me normal, Cypriots facilitating social-exchange, as a crossroad, and as a place of beauty itself. "Peace" means to me people who respect the gift we have to be loving, and in that sense share, because as Liberty goes, in defending each other, we grow. "Peace" means to me, i am not judged, because i am Greek, or, i am Turkish. "Peace" means to me i can be Greek, and that nothing stops me from being Turkish if this becomes my desire. "Peace" means to me, one flag flies higher, the Cypriot Flag, even better i think for those that fly below. (as a Greek, and as a Citizen of the World, (i choose), i grow.)

[erolz66]

2)didnt understand the porperties part of your analysis if you can further explain

OK. Everyone who wants monetary compensation as their preferred form of redress should get it. Everyone who wants exchange (an alternative property) as their preferred form of redress and where said alternative property can be provided without requiring a current user to vacate should get it. Everyone who wants return as their preferred form of redress and where return does not require a current user to vacate should get it. That's the easy part.

For cases where a persons preferred form of redress will impact a current user then this is where a tribunal will assess each case individually using the principal of 'minimising new pain' as the guiding factor. So I will give a couple of example at each end of the spectrum of such cases.

Case one. Pre 74 owner wants return. Current user wants to remain. In this case the land pre 74 was bare land, it had no property built on it and was not a home for the pre 74 owner. Post 74 the current user built a house on the plot and has lived there since as their primary home. In a case like this the tribunal would rule that the pre 74 owner must take either monetary compensation or an alternative property, even though their preferred option is return. If the current user has signed over property (to TRNC) they had in the south pre 74 as the means of becoming the current user post 74 then they will become the legal owner of land / home they currently live in and their pre 74 property will be available for the tribunal to use to settle other cases. If the current user bought the land post 74 then they will become the legal owner but a % of its value, that represents the difference in value from what they bought (land with disputed title) and what they now have (land with clear title) will be owed. This could be paid 'up front' or deferred until such time the property is sold. The tribunal would make this decision in this case because obliging the pre 74 owner to take an form of redress other than return so the current user can remain and become legal owner represents the 'least new pain' for parties concerned. The 'pain' of the pre 74 being obliged to take monetary compensation or an alternative property rather than return is judged to be less that the 'pain' of requiring the current user, for who the property has been and remains their primary residence and home, to leave said home.

Case two. Pre 74 owner wants return. Current user wants to remain. In this case the land pre 74 contained a house that was the pre 74 owners home. The post 74 current user bought the property as a 'holiday home' and visits a couple of time a year and rents it out as a holiday home. In this case the tribunal would oblige the current user to take monetary compensation or an alternative exchange property, so that the pre 74 owner could get their preferred option of return. It would make this decision based on the assessment that obliging the current user to take compensation or alternative property represents less 'pain' than requiring the pre 74 owner to do in this case.

3)were do stand on the settlers issue?

On the settlers issue some will stay and become legal citizens of the post settlement Cyprus state others will be the same as any other non EU foreign national and if they can stay or not and work or not will be down to the same general laws governing any such third party non EU national.

[Lordo]

rw the roc needs as much reform as the ss run germany, the real question is where do you start from. the place is riddled with nepotism and greek nationalism. if you think you can reform such an institution you are mistaken. the place needs a good clean up where all those who belong to the establishment is not just removed but brought to task.

as to a unified roc, surely you must understand it is an impossibility. if it was possible it woul dhave been discussed at some point. why wish for something that cannot happen, you are just setting yourself up for an impossibility.

As to the property issue i am afraid it is already solved. let those who wish to return to return. if there is a resident tc in the house let the echr rules apply which we have to do. first of all, there will not be that many people who wish to return and secondly the problem is in the mind of those fanatics on here and all the other forums they seem to be flooding. they seem to think that everybody wishes to return when every year that goes by they get reduced through death. in another 10 years there will be nobody entitled to return according to echr rules. and then of course you boys will turn against the echr too. what asshole charluiswines reside on this earth.

[Maximus]

When GC act as if they are Cypriots who happened to be of Greek descent there is no need for separate rights for TC. However when GC act as if they are Greeks who happened to live in Cyprus, then TC should have separate rights as people who are not Greek and for whom Cyprus is their homeland. It really is that simple. It is just a fact that if 'outsiders' had not supported the rights of TC in 1960 in this regard, then Cyprus would not exist today as a nation and a state.

Its like saying,

When the Greek act as if they are Byzantines who happen to be of Greek descent there is no need for separate rights for the Ottomans. However when the Byzantines act as if they are Greeks, then the Turks should have separate rights as people who are not Greek and for whom Anatolia should become their homeland. It really is that simple.

Its just a fact that outsiders took Constantinople on 16th century, then Turkey would not exist today as a nation state.

[erolz66]

Are you saying that the illegal and unrecognized "Turkish republic" is the keeper of Cypriotism while the GC's are not because they are of Greek descent?

I am saying that when GC acted not as Cypriots but as Greeks in the 50 and 60's, seeking to replace British colonial rule with that of Greek colonial rule, they in the same process defined TC as some other people to themselves and thus the TC had and have in such a circumstance a separate and equal right to self determination. This is why 'outsiders' agreed to the rights granted to the TC community in 1960. With ENOSIS you CHOSE to act not as Cypriots but as Greeks. Not only that you sought to IMPSOE this future on TC against their will, who were not Greek and sought to deny them the most basic of human rights, from which all others derive , namely the right to self determination. When TC resisted such imposition you used illegal violence and force against them to try and force such submission.

I know your belief is that Cyprus belongs to GC and only they should have any effective say over its future, even when their desire is to declare Cyprus does not exist as a nation or a people and is a part of Greece and its people part of the Greek people, but the simple fact is TC exist in Cyprus. Cyprus is for them their own homeland. They have a right to self determination the same as GC do. It can be exercised as part of a unitary Cypriot people or it can be exercised as two separate peoples. YOU were the ones who sought to exercise you rights as part of the Greek people and not a Cypriot one.