The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Kofi Annan naked!

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby zan » Thu Dec 22, 2005 11:53 pm

Kifeas wrote:
zan wrote:The 1960 constitution that the Greeks decided to sign states that the guarantee powers can have a certain amount of military presence on the island if needed. How many that is I have no idea.


Apparently, you have no idea about one of the most important aspects of the Cyprus problem, the one that relates to the 1960 treaty of guarantee based on which Turkey claimed that it had a right to invade in Cyprus, but you have an idea (a very strong one I must say) of what percentage of land ownership your community should have had! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Kifeas

That resolution does not give numbers. It is like most of the resolutions that are open-ended and can be used to mean any thing that the persons using it want it to say. That is what I meant, not that I didn't know. Do you know what the number is? That is exactly the point I was trying to make, the UN are asking for the removal of the Turkish troops but the Turks are saying they are legally entitled to be there. They are both right and it creates a stale mate.

And yes I am more at ease with how much land we should have because we now hold 37% of the land and only reasonable negotiations can determine what will happen next. When you keep quoting the 18% of the population you keep leaving out the actual land ownership it does not make sense. The word reasonable does not come into your argument. You want what you want and that’s it. How do you expect me to react?


Piratis

Where does it say in there that the GCs should also be able to walk back into the north as if nothing has happened? It says negotiations should commence.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Kifeas » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:07 am

zan wrote:
Kifeas wrote:
zan wrote:The 1960 constitution that the Greeks decided to sign states that the guarantee powers can have a certain amount of military presence on the island if needed. How many that is I have no idea.


Apparently, you have no idea about one of the most important aspects of the Cyprus problem, the one that relates to the 1960 treaty of guarantee based on which Turkey claimed that it had a right to invade in Cyprus, but you have an idea (a very strong one I must say) of what percentage of land ownership your community should have had! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Kifeas

That resolution does not give numbers. It is like most of the resolutions that are open-ended and can be used to mean any thing that the persons using it want it to say. That is what I meant, not that I didn't know. Do you know what the number is? That is exactly the point I was trying to make, the UN are asking for the removal of the Turkish troops but the Turks are saying they are legally entitled to be there. They are both right and it creates a stale mate.

And yes I am more at ease with how much land we should have because we now hold 37% of the land and only reasonable negotiations can determine what will happen next. When you keep quoting the 18% of the population you keep leaving out the actual land ownership it does not make sense. The word reasonable does not come into your argument. You want what you want and that’s it. How do you expect me to react?


I honestly cannot follow your logic most of the time!

First of all, which resolution are you talking about in the first paragraph?
Secondly, I gave you a table in another thread, regarding land (property) ownership. If you look at this table, in 1974 the TC land ownership was approximately the same as the TC population percentage, (in fact slightly less.) Therefore, either way you take it, your share is only 18%, either as a population ration or in terms of land ownership.

Here it is again!
Image

If you look at the bottom percentage row (red,) the total TC private (individuals, companies, EVKAF) land ownership was 12.23% of the total territory of Cyprus. There is also a 26.3% of public (national) land. This land should be split according to the population percentage of each community, because it is public (forests, mountains, parks, roads, etc.) This means that your share from this public land is 26.3% x 18% = 4.74%. If we add the 12.23% of private land and the 4.74% of your share from the public land then it makes us 16.97% (17 %.) Now we also have some 2.7% of the area of Cyprus which is British bases (i.e. it is not controlled by the GCs or the TCs.) Therefore, from this 2.7% we must subtract your contribution share which is 2.7% x 18% = 0.49%.

The final result of your share based on land ownership will be 16.97% minus (-) 0.49% = 16.48%. I want to be a little bit generous and round this up to 16.5% of Cyprus territory. This is your share!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby zan » Fri Dec 23, 2005 3:50 am

quote]Makarios usurped all power in spite of the bi-communal nature of the constitution. He presented himself on the world stage as a smiling priest-statesman, the constitutional head of Cyprus, while at home he persecuted the Turks and divested them of their constitutional and human rights. The injustices done to the Turks for the following eleven years or so were myriad. Many of them either abandoned their homes and properties, or were driven out of them, and had to take refuge in the refugee camps in the Turkish enclave of Nicosia. There were some twenty-four thousand of them. Their plight and cries of anguish went unheeded. When some of them from Ormorphita, a suburb of Nicosia, wanted to take the risk of going back to their looted homes the response from the Greek side transmitted through the local Greek Press was historic, "what is taken after bloodshed is not given back." Ironically, the blood in question was that of the defenceless Turkish Cypriot residents of Ormorphita. It was to remain a ghost town for eleven years until liberated by the Turkish Peace Force in August, 1974.

Besides physical and political persecution the Turks also suffered economic persecution. For example, near Kyrenia the Greeks grabbed the commercial fruit and vegetable garden of a Turkish peasant and cut down the trees to set up a military barrack there, turning it into a parched and barren land. In contrast the Greek-owned gardens around remained green and untouched. The Turkish owner got not a penny of compensation. Again, when the new Kyrenia-Nicosia road was being built, parts of the fields through which the road passed were unceremoniously confiscated. The Turkish peasants who lost chunks of their fields and livelihoods in this way got no compensation at all, while their Greek counterparts were promptly and fully compensated. It was useless for the Turks to protest, as they could get no redress.

In his own country the Turkish Cypriot was less than a foreigner: the Turk had far fewer rights, like those of life, limb, property. It was the active national policy of the Makarios's Administration to deprive Turks of their lands by any means, fair or foul. It is an indication of the Greek sense of justice and compatriotship that some unscrupulous foreigners were even encouraged to (harass Turkish villagers living in Greek-held areas in order to buy off their lands. Any foreigner who succeeded in that would win immediate favour with the Makarios regime. The Turks, who have always been largely an agricultural Community living off the land, have traditionally owned a high proportion of land in Cyprus, and this was a sty in the eye for the Greeks claiming Cyprus to be Greek. Any Greek who wanted to sell his land or house to a Turk would incur the wrath of the Greek Authorities. Such a transaction would not be sanctioned by the Greek-run Land Registration Department, which would refuse to issue a deed of title, an odd behaviour indeed by those proclaiming to be the Government of Cyprus.

All these happened during the regime of Archbishop Makarios. Many Turks who could not stand the conditions of life sold up what little they had, at what little price they could get, and emigrated. To the Greek Administration, this was, after all, the point of the exercise.[/quote]


Kifeas
How do you put all the land mentioned here into your equation. I will hazard a guess and say you will dismiss it and say it is just propaganda.
Well let me take an example of the text above and quote to you the cold harsh truthes that the TCs of the time were given by the GCs.


Greek side transmitted through the local Greek Press was historic, "what is taken after bloodshed is not given back
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Dec 23, 2005 9:33 am

Kifeas wrote:
zan wrote:
Kifeas wrote:
zan wrote:The 1960 constitution that the Greeks decided to sign states that the guarantee powers can have a certain amount of military presence on the island if needed. How many that is I have no idea.


Apparently, you have no idea about one of the most important aspects of the Cyprus problem, the one that relates to the 1960 treaty of guarantee based on which Turkey claimed that it had a right to invade in Cyprus, but you have an idea (a very strong one I must say) of what percentage of land ownership your community should have had! :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:


Kifeas

That resolution does not give numbers. It is like most of the resolutions that are open-ended and can be used to mean any thing that the persons using it want it to say. That is what I meant, not that I didn't know. Do you know what the number is? That is exactly the point I was trying to make, the UN are asking for the removal of the Turkish troops but the Turks are saying they are legally entitled to be there. They are both right and it creates a stale mate.

And yes I am more at ease with how much land we should have because we now hold 37% of the land and only reasonable negotiations can determine what will happen next. When you keep quoting the 18% of the population you keep leaving out the actual land ownership it does not make sense. The word reasonable does not come into your argument. You want what you want and that’s it. How do you expect me to react?


I honestly cannot follow your logic most of the time!

First of all, which resolution are you talking about in the first paragraph?
Secondly, I gave you a table in another thread, regarding land (property) ownership. If you look at this table, in 1974 the TC land ownership was approximately the same as the TC population percentage, (in fact slightly less.) Therefore, either way you take it, your share is only 18%, either as a population ration or in terms of land ownership.

Here it is again!
Image

If you look at the bottom percentage row (red,) the total TC private (individuals, companies, EVKAF) land ownership was 12.23% of the total territory of Cyprus. There is also a 26.3% of public (national) land. This land should be split according to the population percentage of each community, because it is public (forests, mountains, parks, roads, etc.) This means that your share from this public land is 26.3% x 18% = 4.74%. If we add the 12.23% of private land and the 4.74% of your share from the public land then it makes us 16.97% (17 %.) Now we also have some 2.7% of the area of Cyprus which is British bases (i.e. it is not controlled by the GCs or the TCs.) Therefore, from this 2.7% we must subtract your contribution share which is 2.7% x 18% = 0.49%.

The final result of your share based on land ownership will be 16.97% minus (-) 0.49% = 16.48%. I want to be a little bit generous and round this up to 16.5% of Cyprus territory. This is your share!


Can you do the same calculations for 1960 when the "RoC" was formed and then work out all the property exchanges between TCs and GCs, were they legal? or were the forced? in fact if you work out the previous 10 years as well im sure the 16.5% you have calculated from your point of view will be a lot different.

Lets get independent experts to assess how valid your figures exactly are and how many land exchanges were actually forced or siezed when no claims were placed pre 1974.

Would you be willing to do this?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Kifeas » Fri Dec 23, 2005 10:37 am

Viewpoint wrote:
Can you do the same calculations for 1960 when the "RoC" was formed and then work out all the property exchanges between TCs and GCs, were they legal? or were the forced? in fact if you work out the previous 10 years as well im sure the 16.5% you have calculated from your point of view will be a lot different.

Lets get independent experts to assess how valid your figures exactly are and how many land exchanges were actually forced or siezed when no claims were placed pre 1974.

Would you be willing to do this?


Viewpoint, the above claim of yours is not accurate! I am saying this to you for the last time in such a polite way and manner! There were no such forceful and /or compulsory expropriations and /or sales of TC property between 1960 and 1974! This is a plain myth! Yes, I accept that as a result of the intercommunal violent and political conflicts between the two communities, the TC community paid a heavier price in terms of economic development, in proportion to what the GC community has paid (I am always talking about the period between 1964-1974, because after 1974 the situation was revered,) but this was only in terms of development prospects. There was no forceful sale of land, and this is proved by the property ratios in 1960, which do not differ substantially from those of 1974 (above table.) I am trying to locate the relevant property ownership tables of 1960, and once I find them I will post them here. Nevertheless, if I remember rightfully the TC private land ownership was slightly higher, perhaps around 13% of the total territory instead of 12.23% that it was in 1974. The state (public) land was approximately the same.

As a proof that this was not the case (i.e. forceful selling and /or expropriation and /or usurping of the properties of the TCs between 1960-1974,) you may read the documents that were exchanged and /or the issues that were being discussed during all the negotiation phases between 1974 and 1978, between the GC side and the TC side. The GC side had proposed a territorial arrangement of 20%, one that will be based on the land and /or population ratio of the two communities plus an extra proportion (allocation) for the GC refugees that would wish to return in the north, under TC administration, and this method of calculation and the back up data in relation to TC property ownership as a percentage of the total, has never been disputed and /or refuted by the TC side, nor any such claims like the ones you and Zan mentioned previously in this thread, had ever been raised then by Mr. Denktash during these negotiations, even though all other kinds and types of accusations have been directed and aired by him and towards the GC side. Denktash never disputed during any phase of the after 1974 negotiations that the property (territory) ratio of the TC community was more than what the GC side was claiming it was, either based on 1960 land registry data or 1974 data.

Read the book by Mr. Tornaritiswho was the attorney general of the RoC during those years and who was monitoring all the negotiations and preparing essentially the proposals of the GC side, or responding to the TC counter proposals and claims, what he says about those negotiations which resulted to the high level agreements of 1977 between Makarios/Kyprianou and Denktash. Nowhere Mr. Denktash claims anything similar to what you and Zan claimed previously, although as I said, he blames the GC side for many other issues.

The 36% that you currently occupy illegally constitutes a huge theft and robbery, and this is an offence (a crime) which you will pay heavily one day, because it shows your greediness and looting nature as Ottoman culturally oriented people that like to grab other people's lands and homes. Every passing day that you continue this exploitation of disproportionately more properties than your share, puts you in a more disadvantageous position from a moral perspective and your negative Karma is becoming bigger and bigger, until it will one day bring to you a huge catastrophe.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:23 am

Thank you for the Kifeas truths, does all this mean that you are willing for an independent body to assess the exact % ratio? and documentation relating to ownership and how property exchanges were inacted back in the 40s 50s 60s? A simple yes or no will suffice, if you have nothing to fea then surely this should be NEI.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Kifeas » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:45 am

Viewpoint wrote:Thank you for the Kifeas truths, does all this mean that you are willing for an independent body to assess the exact % ratio? and documentation relating to ownership and how property exchanges were inacted back in the 40s 50s 60s? A simple yes or no will suffice, if you have nothing to fea then surely this should be NEI.


Forget any (if any) wrong doings before 1960. We do not accept anything before that year when Cyprus became independed. If your community was wronged by the British colonial rulers (perhaps also the GC side was wronged too) you have to bring such claims against the British and seek compensation (monetary) from the British only. If the British colonial government expropriated TC land (EFKAF or what ever else,) without adequately compensating the owner(s) and then the British sold this land in the open market, in which a GC bought the land on a market value, it doesn't mean that you have the right to claim this land back from the GC community now. Why you didn't raise (your community's leadership and /or the Turkish government) the issue back then when it was happening, and seek justice from the British courts, or at least raise the issue, politically, back in 1959-1960 when the Cyprus independence agreements were negotiated and signed between the Britain, Turkey, Greece and the two communities? Why you did not utter one single word then, or made any one such claim then, and instead you come now and raise such issues from before the 1960 period, when we were all under the British colonial rule? No viewpoint, we as GC community do not accept any responsibility for any possible wrong doings that the British may have effected against EVKAF! Forget it! The reason you didn't speak then, when it was appropriate and morally justifiable, is because you did not have a real and valid case!

Other than that, I have no problem with any independed committee to evaluate the property ownership ratios, although this is already done by the UN and the ECHR, which are both independed bodies an /or organizations, and which both already accept the RoC land registry records to be the only accurate basis on which this ownership is determined.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby zan » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:52 am

The Turks, who have always been largely an agricultural Community living off the land, have traditionally owned a high proportion of land in Cyprus, and this was a sty in the eye for the Greeks claiming Cyprus to be Greek. Any Greek who wanted to sell his land or house to a Turk would incur the wrath of the Greek Authorities. Such a transaction would not be sanctioned by the Greek-run Land Registration Department, which would refuse to issue a deed of title, an odd behaviour indeed by those proclaiming to be the Government of Cyprus.

All these happened during the regime of Archbishop Makarios. Many Turks who could not stand the conditions of life sold up what little they had, at what little price they could get, and emigrated. To the Greek Administration, this was, after all, the point of the exercise.



Why do you keep ignoring facts? I believe all this was after 1960 perhaps ignoring them will make them go away.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Fri Dec 23, 2005 11:57 am

Ah Kifeas I sense problems in the Kifeas truths camp, then an independent body will support your case whats the problem? Whether these lands were taken illegally will be decided by and independent body unless we come to some arrangement between us before like in 1960, what do you fear? the truth of exactly how much land TCs owned or were encouraged to leave behind when Makarios's velvet ethnic cleansing was taking place. Lets call back those TCs that moved to UK Australia Canada USA and ask them exactly why they moved abroad and how they lost their land? are you still not willing to have an independent body investigate these claims? have you got something to hide?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25214
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Kifeas » Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:10 pm

zan wrote:
The Turks, who have always been largely an agricultural Community living off the land, have traditionally owned a high proportion of land in Cyprus, and this was a sty in the eye for the Greeks claiming Cyprus to be Greek. Any Greek who wanted to sell his land or house to a Turk would incur the wrath of the Greek Authorities. Such a transaction would not be sanctioned by the Greek-run Land Registration Department, which would refuse to issue a deed of title, an odd behaviour indeed by those proclaiming to be the Government of Cyprus.

All these happened during the regime of Archbishop Makarios. Many Turks who could not stand the conditions of life sold up what little they had, at what little price they could get, and emigrated. To the Greek Administration, this was, after all, the point of the exercise.


Why do you keep ignoring facts? I believe all this was after 1960 perhaps ignoring them will make them go away.


Dayi, I do not have time to be going circles with you all the time! I am willing to accept the 1960 records if you like, although I know they do not differ substantially. Perhaps if we take the 1960 records as a basis, it will only give you 0.5% -1.0% more ownership on the total, in comparison to the above 1974 percentage of 16.5%!

For the sake of argument, I will not dispute the fact that such cases like those you described above did not occur. What I dispute is that they happened on any such a large scale that it would -by itself- have altered the land ownership ratio or balance in just 10 years of time (1964-1974.) I know it did not!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests