Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

There is no going back to 1960s agreement as even the British supported making it more democratic.

Now, Cyprus follows EU rules. And Turkey is NOT in the EU nor can it tell an EU member state to give it 20% of its territory - no matter how much ionn thinks they deserve it.

[ioann]

Even if we somehow manage the ultimate victory and liberate Cyprus then the TCs would be demanding a return to the 1960 agreements which legally is their right.

Therefore instead of holding back for the highly unlikely ultimate victory I say that a two state 80-20% would be a nearly as good solution because in that case all Turks will be concentrated in that 20% and we will not have to deal with them. Let me tell you that Turkey would hate this arrangement because Turkey wants to take control of the whole Cyprus and such an agreement would finish off any claims they can have to the rest of Cyprus and to our EEZ.

Although you are right that the TC's would demand the 1960 arrangement if the liberation of the north comes to pass, I disagree that this is legally their right. Not now its not. Reverting back to that arrangement wouldn't amount to a liberation of the north anyway. It would amount to a Turkish victory and the whole of Cyprus would become what it would have been under the Annan plan, just without two constituent states. It would amount to the state of affairs in the 1960's and early seventies where conflict is highly probable.

I used to think like this too, that a two state solution would finish off any claims they have for the rest of Cyprus. What you are essentially banking on though is that Turkey will be a good neighbor and respect the RoC's sovereign rights, not interfere and that the TC's will stay in their "country". Given their track record in the region, I wouldn't bank on either or find solace that that would be the end of the problem or that you wouldn't have to deal with them. it would just be the beginning of the next chapter of their belligerence with a stronger political and legal standing than what they have today.

Why? because Turkey wants to take control over the whole island and the EEZ, just as you say.

They have "their" cake, they want to eat yours too now. It wouldn't be any different tomorrow with or without an "agreement".

I don't like the 1960 agreements either but the BBF they plan to serve us is far worst. We would be celebrating if we could get a unitary state and return to the 1960 agreements. But those agreements were problematic also. Hoping that we will fully correct not only the result of the invasion but also what happened before that is a pipe dream. It is like hoping to win the lotto jackpot twice.

And I agree with you that Turkey will always be Turkey. They will never be a friendly nice neighbor. What we should do is be as strong as we can. A BBF weakens us. It downgrades us to a community status and we will not have control of the central goverment. The marionettes of Turkey would get veto power in all our decisions.

But a two state 20-80% would make us stronger than we are today. The TCs will have their own separate territory and own separate EEZ in the north and we will have ours in the south. Turkey will no longer be able to hide behind the TCs because our country will have nothing to do with TCs anymore and TCs will have no claims on our territory or EEZ. It is a win for us, a win for the TCs and a big loss for Turkey. This is why Turkey will not allow the TCs to do such thing and they need a very strong leadership if this is ever going to have any chance of happening.

There is no doubt, that some would see a reversion back to the 1960's agreement as something to celebrate. I see it as something to be concerned about. Under these agreements, the GC community would be downgraded to just a community status also and lose their sovereign rights to Cyprus. The risk of conflict increases in any of these two situations. So essentially you are being pedantic between a BBF with elements of the 1960's agreements included or reverting back to the 1960's agreement's in full. Both are worse deals than the status quo. The perceived gain of territory is undermined by real loses in sovereignty, freedoms, human rights and social progress. Furthermore, the GC community will be paying for this for as long as they can tolerate it by giving the TC's 30% of the central governments budget.

So what you are essentially asking under either arrangement is for the GC's to give up their sovereign rights to Cyprus, be downgraded to community status, lose some freedoms and human rights and hand over about 10-20% net of the governments budget to the TC's. They wont contribute more than they will take. No thanks! The status quo is better either of these two or a straight 80:20 split. The GG's gain nothing with any of these solutions.

In a 80-20% split we would be gaining 17% of territory without being downgraded to a community status or any of the other negatives of BBF.

[Lordo]

you people are in for a shock. seat belts on and sphincter tight, you hear. 20% dont make me laugh.

[Maximus]

Even if we somehow manage the ultimate victory and liberate Cyprus then the TCs would be demanding a return to the 1960 agreements which legally is their right.

Therefore instead of holding back for the highly unlikely ultimate victory I say that a two state 80-20% would be a nearly as good solution because in that case all Turks will be concentrated in that 20% and we will not have to deal with them. Let me tell you that Turkey would hate this arrangement because Turkey wants to take control of the whole Cyprus and such an agreement would finish off any claims they can have to the rest of Cyprus and to our EEZ.

Although you are right that the TC's would demand the 1960 arrangement if the liberation of the north comes to pass, I disagree that this is legally their right. Not now its not. Reverting back to that arrangement wouldn't amount to a liberation of the north anyway. It would amount to a Turkish victory and the whole of Cyprus would become what it would have been under the Annan plan, just without two constituent states. It would amount to the state of affairs in the 1960's and early seventies where conflict is highly probable.

I used to think like this too, that a two state solution would finish off any claims they have for the rest of Cyprus. What you are essentially banking on though is that Turkey will be a good neighbor and respect the RoC's sovereign rights, not interfere and that the TC's will stay in their "country". Given their track record in the region, I wouldn't bank on either or find solace that that would be the end of the problem or that you wouldn't have to deal with them. it would just be the beginning of the next chapter of their belligerence with a stronger political and legal standing than what they have today.

Why? because Turkey wants to take control over the whole island and the EEZ, just as you say.

They have "their" cake, they want to eat yours too now. It wouldn't be any different tomorrow with or without an "agreement".

I don't like the 1960 agreements either but the BBF they plan to serve us is far worst. We would be celebrating if we could get a unitary state and return to the 1960 agreements. But those agreements were problematic also. Hoping that we will fully correct not only the result of the invasion but also what happened before that is a pipe dream. It is like hoping to win the lotto jackpot twice.

And I agree with you that Turkey will always be Turkey. They will never be a friendly nice neighbor. What we should do is be as strong as we can. A BBF weakens us. It downgrades us to a community status and we will not have control of the central goverment. The marionettes of Turkey would get veto power in all our decisions.

But a two state 20-80% would make us stronger than we are today. The TCs will have their own separate territory and own separate EEZ in the north and we will have ours in the south. Turkey will no longer be able to hide behind the TCs because our country will have nothing to do with TCs anymore and TCs will have no claims on our territory or EEZ. It is a win for us, a win for the TCs and a big loss for Turkey. This is why Turkey will not allow the TCs to do such thing and they need a very strong leadership if this is ever going to have any chance of happening.

There is no doubt, that some would see a reversion back to the 1960's agreement as something to celebrate. I see it as something to be concerned about. Under these agreements, the GC community would be downgraded to just a community status also and lose their sovereign rights to Cyprus. The risk of conflict increases in any of these two situations. So essentially you are being pedantic between a BBF with elements of the 1960's agreements included or reverting back to the 1960's agreement's in full. Both are worse deals than the status quo. The perceived gain of territory is undermined by real loses in sovereignty, freedoms, human rights and social progress. Furthermore, the GC community will be paying for this for as long as they can tolerate it by giving the TC's 30% of the central governments budget.

So what you are essentially asking under either arrangement is for the GC's to give up their sovereign rights to Cyprus, be downgraded to community status, lose some freedoms and human rights and hand over about 10-20% net of the governments budget to the TC's. They wont contribute more than they will take. No thanks! The status quo is better either of these two or a straight 80:20 split. The GG's gain nothing with any of these solutions.

In a 80-20% split we would be gaining 17% of territory without being downgraded to a community status or any of the other negatives of BBF.

OK, I agree, this would be a gain. But on the other hand, the GC's will have additional competition and as you are already aware Turkey will always be Turkey. So you have some respite and gain a tangible. Maybe not for long.

Then, they will push for the gas to go through to Turkey because you have found a solution > So they gain a tool to blackmail you with whenever they have a political point to make alongside their legitimate puppet state.

[repulsewarrior]

...how is Canada so successful? Do Canadians vote by the colour of there skin, or the language which is their mother-tongue?

And yet Canada is strong, and there exists many Nations in Canada which have, as Persons, their self-representation too.

...all Canadians identify with the Universal Principals all people can defend together, as Canadian Principals. Minority, Constituency, or Native, there is no difference to them as Individuals.

Something to think about when it comes to intention. Power as in "Greek" power, only invites its equals as opposites. Although Greeks can share the pride of "Greekness" as a diaspora, and even though the overwhelming population is Greek in Cyprus, Cyprus is not "Greek", nor, if you ask me, should it be. Cyprus is not Greece. Cyprus is not Turkey, either. Cyprus is Cyprus. Cypriots are Cypriots.

They are better stewards, they have paid for this Freedom in blood, they are our shame, if we forget they lived as Cypriots, those murdered, and made to disappear, and if we choose to ignore this truth.

[ioann]

OK, I agree, this would be a gain. But on the other hand, the GC's will have additional competition and as you are already aware Turkey will always be Turkey. So you have some respite and gain a tangible. Maybe not for long.

Then, they will push for the gas to go through to Turkey because you have found a solution > So they gain a tool to blackmail you with whenever they have a political point to make alongside their legitimate puppet state.

With a 20:80 arrangement they will have no basis to demand anything for the gas in our EEZ (they will have their own separate EEZ in the north). Now they claim rights because TCs are considered part of RoC so Turkey claims to protect TC's "share". With a BBF arrangement all the EEZ will be common so again the TCs will have a say and they will probably block any other alternative and insist that it should go through Turkey.

[ioann]

you people are in for a shock. seat belts on and sphincter tight, you hear. 20% dont make me laugh.

There will be no shock because any agreement will have to pass from a referendum and nothing "shocking" will.

How is your side going to respond if after the negotiations fail our side proposes a 18:82 split? You can have all the Turkish guarantees and as much of the Turkish army as you want. You can keep all your settlers there as well. No power sharing issues either since there will be no power sharing. The property issue will also be automatically resolved.

If you reject such offer your greed will be exposed and you will not be able to complain about embargoes or anything else ever again.

[repulsewarrior]

...and what is the gaz? What is its benefit, and for how long? I would not want a weak and backward regime in the north making Agreements which in affect they cannot defend.

It is as Cypriots that Cypriots, its dwellers, gain.

...and if Cyprus is divided, "Turkish", and the rest (call it "Greek"), why does 20% seem fair, something like 4%, or at most 7%, seems more likely.

[Lordo]

...and what is the gaz? What is its benefit, and for how long? I would not want a weak and backward regime in the north making Agreements which in affect they cannot defend.

It is as Cypriots that Cypriots, its dwellers, gain.

...and if Cyprus is divided, "Turkish", and the rest (call it "Greek"), why does 20% seem fair, something like 4%, or at most 7%, seems more likely.

have you all gone mad. you have your deeds and tcs have theirs. there will be a fair exchange. what more can you ask for.

[famagusta1]

Your calculations assume territory is only the land, it is not, the sea is as important in the case of island nations like Cyprus.

A two state solution MULTIPLIES the territory and resources of the south via exclusive ownership of the southern EEZ.

You also left out the option of double union. A nightmare for the Turks and a potential major leverage factor for the GC community if push comes to shove.

You also did not calculate the effects of any of the outcomes on the TC community. Most choices erase the TCs as a community and they know this. Which explains their addiction to BBF, their only chance, and a slim one at that, of retaining their identity. Any other outcome and they will vanish in a sea of settlers.

Unfortunately this (the bolded parts above) was, and is still, the plan for many of the more morally corrupt Greeks/Greek Cypriots. However, this kind of human are few and far between at this time, we would like to hope.

I am sure no one on this forum would want to support any option that would knowingly result in the eventual removal of a culture, because in doing so would be supporting something that doesn't stray too far from the EU definition of a genocide:-


"..genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
...
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;"


Maybe the TC's would not be rounded up in their villages to be murdered this time but if the end result is enosis with Greece by the political removal of an ethnic group then that would fit the definition of "destruction" in the above definition.

I am sure no one here would openly support something as evil as a form of genocide on an entire ethnic group, regardless of who they are. Because of this any decision must be heavily considered. As aforementioned I am sure that the rightful owners will prevail, I can see Turkey from my house, I couldn't see Greece with a Telescope. Cyprus is just one Island too many and a little too far away for the international community to take a Greek claim seriously, in reality.