Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

Canada like the USA is a BBF because the distinction between people as Persons, is separate to their identity as Individuals. Both are successful as countries not despite their diversity, but because of their diversity. My point is that although politically there are differences in their make-up, being a person of one distinct identity, or another, in these countries, does not exclude an identity as an individual, on the contrary, Freedom, as in Individual Rights, Human Rights, Universal Principals, is defended by all of them, with the same intention. Liberty, what they have in choosing a distinct identity is also secured, in that as Citizens, this respect for diversity is recognised, and as such, as a Constituency (as Persons) demonstrated, by providing for the minorities that live among them, their special needs while fulfilling the Agenda of the majority population.

It seems in Cyprus that there is no voice for Cypriots as Cypriots, because they are "Turkish", or not "Turkish" (read: "Greek").

[Nikitas]

The Cyprus proposed BBF with its insistence on the retention of bizonality and bicommunality cannot be a true federation, as for example the USA, Switzerland, Germany and others. The BB in BBF introduces racial criteria that diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU.

Turkey is the one insisting on bizonality and bicommunality. Turkey is in a bind over its Cyprus policy. It rejects most possible solutions, especially those that would give either one or both island communities full independence, which is why Turkey does not want full partition.

Partition by implication means relinquishing all claims to the "other" part of the island. Turks are not willing to do that because the GC part then would be free to enter into any international agreement with any nation regarding anything, including defence. Turkey is not willing to risk another major player suddenly having a military presence forty miles from its southern shore. The only true legalisation of partition is the signature of the RoC on a document ceding territory, nothing else. All the recognition in the world cannot erase the claims of RoC to the occupied territories.

On the other hand there is an undeniable body of international law that accumulated since 1974 that makes the occupation clearly illegal at the UN, EU, European Council level as well as in the practice of major nations like Russia, USA and China, who refuse to legalise the trunc. Turning this situation around is beyond Turkey's diplomatic power.

There is a way out for Turkey and that is to settle for a deal that guarantees that no hostile entity will establish itself in Cyprus, and no more. But it takes brains and thinking free of the obsessions of the past to get there.

Taking the whole island by military means is one that will not fly post EU membership. As is any other kind of heavy handed application of military power, ie a blockade because it presents a challenge to states far stronger than turkey, try telling the Russians and the French their ships cannot dock in Cyprus. So Turkey has to think of some way to maintain its interference in Cyprus, and BBF and idiotic ploys like the water pipe are what their diplomatic corps comes up with. Even then the game is not in their favor and they have to resort to the "special case" ploy to justify all the deviations from international norms and the EU legal regime in any proposed solution.

However much they might like to think they solved the problem in 1974, the reality is that they acquired a problem in 1974 and they do not know how to get out of it without losing face.

[cypriotnado]

Nikitas, Some queries re your points : China occupied Tibet in 1950 and Russia only last year occupied the Crimea.They are hardly role models . This type of occupation is not unique to Cyprus. In all these cases the occupying powers have made arguments to justify actions rightly or wrongly to territorial claims.

You say Turkey is fearful of a new power 40 Km from its shore. Who would that be? The UK is already on the island. The US has bases in Turkey, Russia is its neighour, just miles across the Black sea. I cannot see the EU or Nato being happy should the ROC offer a base to China, assuming they should want one. Cyprus has to much trade to risk with the Arab world to give Israel a base.That leaves France or North Korea?

I cannot see who you are referring to?

If Turkey had taken the whole island back in 74, I am convinced they would not have been able to hold onto it for this long and in all likelihood no exchange of population would have taken place. They took a third in order to achieve the present desired outcome.

I doubt the Turkish govt given its recent actions cares that much abt losing face. I wish it did! Turkey will never get into the EU and it knows it.

I read today that both Edek and Diko are infighting as a result of spilts between those who favour a BBF and the rejectionists who want to maintain the staus quo. Whats the answer? Wait a few hundred years and then one day invade. Its fantasy!

TC are not going to accept going back to pre 74 and living in enclaves. That also was a form of racial segrgation. And GC will not accept the status quo. Our only hope is some kind of solution based on the principals of BBF. These have been agreed and blessed by the international community. How would it now look if the rejectionists win at this stage and say no we will only accept a return to pre 74.

[erolz66]

The Cyprus proposed BBF with its insistence on the retention of bizonality and bicommunality cannot be a true federation, as for example the USA, Switzerland, Germany and others. The BB in BBF introduces racial criteria that diverge from the standards of civilised nations and the EU.

Belgium has political representation assigned to 'language communities'. These are in effect a 'racial criteria' and a similar model could be used in Cyprus to 'protect' bi-communality. Protection of bi-zonality will only be temporary as it was in the Annan Plan. Why do you distort things so much Nikitas ?

Turkey is the one insisting on bizonality and bicommunality. Turkey is in a bind over its Cyprus policy. It rejects most possible solutions, especially those that would give either one or both island communities full independence, which is why Turkey does not want full partition.

So YOU claim but there is no evidence that Turkey would not support a solution based on agreed partition. To date no RoC leadership has ever suggested such a basis for a settlement. What is more the truth is Turkey's position in Cyprus is only tenable as long as TC support it. If TC were to stand up with a clear voice and say we do not want Turkey's 'aid' , military or economically their position here would simply not be tenable. Give us a better option and Turkey can not stand in the way. Give us the same old BS and its unlikely to change.

Partition by implication means relinquishing all claims to the "other" part of the island.

BS. That is not what the Anna plan said or envisioned and it will not be what any new settlement says or envisages either

Turks are not willing to do that because the GC part then would be free to enter into any international agreement with any nation regarding anything, including defence. Turkey is not willing to risk another major player suddenly having a military presence forty miles from its southern shore.

So you keep saying but I say BS until someone in your leadership has the balls to stand up and say lets negotiate on the basis of agreed partition.

Turning this situation around is beyond Turkey's diplomatic power.

Enforced partition in Cyprus was beyond Turkeys power, until you made it possible by your own actions. If you continue to refuse settlement deals, refuse to negotiate agreed partition, eventually you will bring recognition within the power of the TRNC and Turkey. It may takes decades or even a century or more but you can only refuse every attempt at an agreed settlement for so long before the rest of the world decides they have no choice but to recognise the TRNC despite how it was created.

But it takes brains and thinking free of the obsessions of the past to get there.

The kind of brains and thinking free of obsession you show here by stating Turkey rejects 'most possible solutions' when in fact it supported the only solution to be put to the Cypriot people to date which you rejected, or that makes claims that the Annan plan or the plan currently being negotiated that we do not yet know the details of is the same as GC relinquishing all claims to the other part of the island and other such nonsense ?

Taking the whole island by military means is one that will not fly post EU membership. As is any other kind of heavy handed application of military power, ie a blockade because it presents a challenge to states far stronger than turkey, try telling the Russians and the French their ships cannot dock in Cyprus. So Turkey has to think of some way to maintain its interference in Cyprus, and BBF and idiotic ploys like the water pipe are what their diplomatic corps comes up with. Even then the game is not in their favor and they have to resort to the "special case" ploy to justify all the deviations from international norms and the EU legal regime in any proposed solution.

YOU claim that any such solutions were deviations from international norms and EU legality. The problem is the EU said exactly the opposite, as did the international community - as far as the Annan plan went. Still YOU must be the correct one I guess.

[Lordo]

ditto erol till the last bit where you said nikitas must be the correct one. that i do not agree with. in fact most of the time he is talking bullshit so why should this time be different. what they really want is to reduce the tcs to a minority and then drive them out by economic strangulation like magarios planned all along. never in a million years boys. now think of another plan cause it aint going to work.

[Nikitas]

Erol,

The EU politicians can say what they like re the Annan plan. The fact is it introduced several grades of discrimination between citizens and it could be challenged in the Eu court, and that is what legal experts said and the media reported back then. No legal framework is secure till tested in courts. The same goes for the one being worked out now especially if it cedes Cypriot property to non Cypriots.

You isolated Belgium from all the federations in the world, and out of that setup you isolated the language rules to contradict the satement that civilised federations do not apply racial standards nor ethnic qualifications for residence. Even Quebec with its history of agitation has no limitations on non French Canadians residing there.

It was not I but Ecevit who carefully analysed in a BBC interview the reasons Turkey cannot accept a "Greek" entity in Cyprus and went on to explain that this also excluded double union because that would make Greece a Middle Eastern power. Turkey has had a long standing strategic misconception about its southern soft underbelly, with many published opinions by Turkish general staff members.

Turkey not wanting a foreign military presence on Cyprus is a fact, Deriding that by references to Russia already being a neighbor etc is nonsense. Turkey has common land and sea borders with Greece and it still objects to Greece being militarily present in Cyprus. The same criteria hold true for Russia. A permanent Russian fleet presence in Cyprus bypasses the strategic advantage of closing the Dardanelles. Turkey raised a stink over the joint RoC-French military exercises a few years ago, and the reason is obvious, they do not want another major player in the area.

The new gas reserves in the east Med make a military presence attractive for several nations, among them France and Italy who have direct interests in the area- ENI is an Italian energy company and Total French and both are involved in gas operations. The Russians maintain a huge anchorage off Kythira in Greece just beyond the 6 mile limit. An anchorage in Cyprus would be a better alternative.

Where was there a mention of going back to pre 1974 conditions etc. What I said is very simply that Turkey has adopted a dead end policy in Cyprus. It is defined by what Turkey does not want, while we never heard what it really wants. A look at the interview Erdo gave at Birkenstok after the failure of the Annan negotiations is indicative. He gloated that the talks led to a referendum without Turkey ceding an inch of territory or removing a single soldier. After that the GC "No" was a foregone conclusion.

I will add that Turkey either does not understand, or maybe it pretends not to understand, the other side and their concerns and obsessions.

One of these is that the GCs will not willingly ditch the RoC. Statehood for GCs is what they perceive as their only means of survival against double union, or unilateral take over. You cannot tout the security concerns of the minority community but refuse to understand the concerns of the majority.

Personally I have no preference between BBF and outright partition. I see pluses and minuses in both. I have asked how they differ, here and in Greek and Cypriot fora, and received no answer. For some the difference maybe obvious or self explanatory ,for me it is not. I really want to know. So far the only solid guideline i have is that BBF means TCs are masters in the northa and partners in the south, while outright partition means permanent, but partial, loss for both communities since they would renounce claims to the "other" state and go their separate ways.

I cannot say that I am well enough informed to make a choice, and the information I get from the media and the politicians has never been a full open disclosure. So I keep asking.

PS for Lord, how is outright partition an economic strangulation of the TCs? When have I ever denied the TCs security concerns or proposed a return to the enclaves? Check my past posts.

[Nikitas]

A semi hypothetical case to test this new BBF plan being proposed now.

Property will be settled by application of the twin principles of the rights of the original owner balanced against the rights of the present occupier. Conflicts to be resolved by return to possession, exchange, compensation.

So Hasan who came from Adana is in a house in Cyprus. The process grants him the right to retain the house by paying compensation, since he has no property in the south to offer in eschange in any case,. The compensation is settled by the rgional government in the north.

Nikitas who was prevented from returning to his house in Famagusta owns no property in the north or south. The settlement supposedly bypasses him. Does it?

What would the EU court say to a claim by Nikitas that he is entitled to at least as much as Hasan, a non citizen, by paying an equal amount inorder to get a similar house to the one Hasan got, anywhere on the island? The supporting principle being no other than that of equal treatment and non discrimination for non property owners? Would all non owners of property have the same rights as those granted to imported non citizens who have no greater claim to property other than illegal occupation? Citizens at leas have the legality of their citizenship on which to base their claim to property and equal opportunity to obtain some on the same terms as imported non citizen occupiers.

The illegality of the occupation in this case is established by a long series of UN resolutions and the very charter of the UN that forbids colonisation of occupied territories.

The remedy is open to all Cypriots regardless of ethnic origin. I want to see how this BBF thing is going to stand up to these challenges from concerned citizens of all communities.

[Oceanside50]

Erolz

YOU claim that any such solutions were deviations from international norms and EU legality. The problem is the EU said exactly the opposite, as did the international community - as far as the Annan plan went. Still YOU must be the correct one I guess.

When did the EU say exactly the opposite? Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal? Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her? When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

[Lordo]

A semi hypothetical case to test this new BBF plan being proposed now.

Property will be settled by application of the twin principles of the rights of the original owner balanced against the rights of the present occupier. Conflicts to be resolved by return to possession, exchange, compensation.

So Hasan who came from Adana is in a house in Cyprus. The process grants him the right to retain the house by paying compensation, since he has no property in the south to offer in eschange in any case,. The compensation is settled by the rgional government in the north.

Nikitas who was prevented from returning to his house in Famagusta owns no property in the north or south. The settlement supposedly bypasses him. Does it?

What would the EU court say to a claim by Nikitas that he is entitled to at least as much as Hasan, a non citizen, by paying an equal amount inorder to get a similar house to the one Hasan got, anywhere on the island? The supporting principle being no other than that of equal treatment and non discrimination for non property owners? Would all non owners of property have the same rights as those granted to imported non citizens who have no greater claim to property other than illegal occupation? Citizens at leas have the legality of their citizenship on which to base their claim to property and equal opportunity to obtain some on the same terms as imported non citizen occupiers.

The illegality of the occupation in this case is established by a long series of UN resolutions and the very charter of the UN that forbids colonisation of occupied territories.

The remedy is open to all Cypriots regardless of ethnic origin. I want to see how this BBF thing is going to stand up to these challenges from concerned citizens of all communities.

why dont you stop writing all this drivel and wait a while. the criteria will be announce. they have already anounced that there will be categories. if hassan from adana is at the same category level as a gc and i exclude you because you are only half gc half greak. you have the right to complain. in the meant time take 5 and wait baby. it shall all be revealed in good time.

recent poll at the university of cyprus put those who


like the way the talks are going 49%
those against bbf 13%

halelluja. alahuekber.

[Lordo]

Erolz

YOU claim that any such solutions were deviations from international norms and EU legality. The problem is the EU said exactly the opposite, as did the international community - as far as the Annan plan went. Still YOU must be the correct one I guess.

When did the EU say exactly the opposite? Was it when it endorsed a plan that segregates and legalizes racial profiling and discrimination...?... Does the EU endorse apartheid or mechanisms that create apartheid being made legal? Was it when the EU's own courts declared that land taken through ethnic cleansing was illegal in the Louizidou case and that her property still belongs to her? When did the EU or the international community say and endorse the Annan Plan?

the agreement will not be via the courts, it will be a political decision. it will override the courts. politics always do.