Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Thanks Serkan, my pleasure. I thought it was a good article as well but in the true Cypriot fashion we avoid the real content and concentrate on throwing mud. When will we learn

[Piratis]

Ok, so here are some comments from the highlighted section of the article.

If we are not ready to accept a component state in the north that is demographically dominated by Turkish Cypriots then we do not accept bi-zonality.

But we are ready to accept this. This is one of the compromises we already said we can make. However the Turkish Cypriots should also make a compromise of equal magnitude from the 1960 agreements. (e.g. instead of asking for more vetos to now settle for less).

Also this "zone" of TCs doesn't need to be more than 18% which is proportionately what belongs to them, and there is no reason to restrict the right of return and violate the human rights of any refugee since the TCs would be the majority in the northern state even if all refugees return.

If we do not accept structures that give the component states significant sovereign powers, and federal structures and institutions in which both communities have a significant voice, and in respect of fundamental issues gives both sides a veto, then we do not accept federalism.

This is simply not the case. Do the federal states of Russia or USA have a veto power on everything? No. Also the president is elected directly by the people or the states elect a number of electors based on their population.

Yes the states do have a certain degree of autonomy in some areas, and they might have veto powers in some issues, however the central government which is elected by the whole population in a one-man(/woman) one vote way, is above the states.

We are in favor of BBF as long as compromises from both sides are made to achieve it. Also the Federation we accepted is of course the federation as it exists in other federal countries (USA, Russia etc . - not Switzerland because thats a confederation). We didn't say that we would accept any system that would have the name "federation" and would be tailored made to fit Turkey without any respect to our human and democratic rights. As I shown already BBF is possible if both sides make some compromises without the gross violation of the human or democratic rights of anybody.

the only other alternative: partition.

Partition is illegal. Illegality becomes an option only when you have the power to force it (like it has been done in the last 30 years). However since the balance of power never stays the same I disagree that partition is the only alternative.

If Turkey continues to insist that the only way to solve the problem is via ethnic cleansing and violations of human and democratic rights, then they shouldn't be surprised if the solution will indeed be in this way but with them as the victims.

As I said in previous posts any solution should be within the framework of democracy and human rights. Within this framework both a unitary state and a BBF can be accommodated as long as both communities are willing to make compromises from the 1960 agreements.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis your whole arguments are based on the premisis that we are just like any other European country, well Im sorry to have tell you that our history has dictated that we are not. Your vision for a Cyprus which is politically governed by the distribution of population only confirms you are willing to share only if you are in charge. If we are to live together under BBF then you must agree there are 2 states one north one south. Thats 2 partners that shoud work together for the benefit of all Cypriots. If we adopt the unitary state ideal of one man one vote to elect representation at the Government level how on earth will TCs get their voice heard or have control over their own destiny. Its one of our greatest fears and it has to be addressed, its taking a leap in the dark and allowing GC leaders the total freedom to administor their brand of democracy, human rights and legalities, this clearly a way of getting your own back and forcing GC domination, TCs will never accept this type of structure. The GCs could over time erode the BBF and convert the island into a unitary Greek Cypriot state with TCs just like any other minority in the world exposed to GC rule, which is currently not very encouraging to say the least. To put it bluntly we would be at their mercy. This brings back to many old memories and TCs would rather not return to that era of their dark past. You would find very little supoort if any for this type of structure.
We have to find a governing structure whereby specific issues which would effect either community negatively could not be enforced by the majority. How do you think we could solve this problem?

[Piratis]

Piratis your whole arguments are based on the premisis that we are just like any other European country, well Im sorry to have tell you that our history has dictated that we are not.

I am sorry that you insist on selectively using in history in order to force in Cyprus something undemocratic and against human rights. We are in fact another European country. All countries had their share of problems in their history. The solution that ends those problems is democracy, human rights and equality of all citizens. Unfortunately you insist on a tailored made "solution" that will satisfy all your demands by violating even our basic human rights.

Your vision for a Cyprus which is politically governed by the distribution of population only confirms you are willing to share only if you are in charge.

Viewpoint what I propose is the way it works in all unitary and federal countries. I ask for no special rights. We did agree that what we will have is Federation, right?

If we are to live together under BBF then you must agree there are 2 states one north one south. Thats 2 partners that shoud work together for the benefit of all Cypriots.

Yes. Did I say the opposite?

If we adopt the unitary state ideal of one man one vote to elect representation at the Government level how on earth will TCs get their voice heard or have control over their own destiny. Its one of our greatest fears and it has to be addressed, its taking a leap in the dark and allowing GC leaders the total freedom to administor their brand of democracy, human rights and legalities, this clearly a way of getting your own back and forcing GC domination, TCs will never accept this type of structure.

Viewpoint I am afraid that while you talk about BBF what you have in mind is partition. If we are going to have one country then the destiny of all Cypriots is a common one and TCs do not have a separate destiny. This common destiny will be decided with democratic procedures like it is the case in all other federal countries (USA, Russia etc). If what you want is not federation but something else just say so.

The GCs could over time erode the BBF and convert the island into a unitary Greek Cypriot state with TCs just like any other minority in the world exposed to GC rule, which is currently not very encouraging to say the least. To put it bluntly we would be at their mercy. This brings back to many old memories and TCs would rather not return to that era of their dark past. You would find very little supoort if any for this type of structure.

You are again, second time in the same post, using selectively the past as an excuse to force something in Cyprus that is not democratic, does not respect human rights, and it is not a federation.

We also have bad experiences from you in our history. 300 years of oppression and 30 years of occupation are more than enough to cause to us feelings of insecurity.
Still, we do not use this as an excuse to demand your human rights violations and your ethnic cleansing in order for us to feel more safe.

You have to understand that what we agreed for is BBF in one united country and forget about the illegal racist partition.

You can have your own separate state, where you can run several internal affairs by yourself and you will have your proportionate share of power in running the country as a whole. just like it is the case with Oregon, or California or Texas etc in the USA Federation.

We have to find a governing structure whereby specific issues which would effect either community negatively could not be enforced by the majority. How do you think we could solve this problem?

1) The TCs will handle many of their internal affairs by themselves (e.g. education) and in these there will be no involvement of GCs at all.

2) For the country as a whole we can agree on specific important matters that TCs will maintain a veto power so those specific issues which would effect either community negatively would be managed.

There are many ways to achieve a good solution within the framework of democracy and human rights. All is needed is goodwill and acceptance of these universal principles, instead of excuses as to why human rights and democracy can not be applied in Cyprus.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis why do I always sense extreme anger in your posts? you do yourself no favors by conveying your primarily correct arguements in the arrogant fashion that you display in your answers.

We are in principle saying the same things but your mindset is so constrained that you do not heed what I am saying, yet you continue to give me the answers I am looking for in your last few sentences after a lot of unnecessary and negative rehtoric,

1) The TCs will handle many of their internal affairs by themselves (e.g. education) and in these there will be no involvement of GCs at all.

2) For the country as a whole we can agree on specific important matters that TCs will maintain a veto power so those specific issues which would effect either community negatively would be managed.

There are many ways to achieve a good solution within the framework of democracy and human rights. All is needed is goodwill and acceptance of these universal principles, instead of excuses as to why human rights and democracy can not be applied in Cyprus.

Isnt this what Ive been saying all along? we TCs constantly chant that we are ready to talk but we have no one to talk to!!! in order to resolve our differences as you yourself state goodwill from both sides is paramount to sucessfull negotiations.No one is denying that everyones human rights and democracy should be respected, what we are arguing how do we get to level 10 and what stages do we go through to get there.

The Annan plan was just that a road map to reach a certain destination which the GCs felt would not take them to where they wanted to go so they rejected. Now we have to address why the GCs rejected this road map and do we need a new one or can we make amendments to allow GCs to accept that it will take us to where we all want to go and for this we need negotiations. This has been my arguement all along I hope we now agree that the 2 communities must talk to each other, otherwise we are all on a fast road to nowhere.

[Piratis]

We are in principle saying the same things but your mindset is so constrained that you do not heed what I am saying, yet you continue to give me the answers I am looking for in your last few sentences after a lot of unnecessary and negative rehtoric,

Viewpoint, my replies were in points were we were not saying the same thing. If you do accept what I say I am glad.

Isnt this what Ive been saying all along? we TCs constantly chant that we are ready to talk but we have no one to talk to!!!

So far officially the Turkish and TC leadership has not accepted that the solution should not be the one which will violate the democratic and human rights of people. They say that we have to face the "realities" and accept human rights violations against us. You also said this many times. If you changed your mind is of course a positive development and I congratulate you. However for any negotiations to have any result your leadership has to also be convinced that demanding "solutions" that would violate the human and democratic rights of people is not going to lead anywhere.

No one is denying that everyones human rights and democracy should be respected, what we are arguing how do we get to level 10 and what stages do we go through to get there.

Actually that would be a positive development. As I always said we first have to agree on where we want to get (the 10) and then to agree on the how will get there. If you agree with me on the where we want to get, the next step is to convince your leadership as well. Then fruitful negotiations can follow for the details of the solution within the framework of democracy and human rights, following the lead of other successful democracies (other EU countries) and successful federations like USA.

The Annan plan was just that a road map to reach a certain destination which the GCs felt would not take them to where they wanted to go so they rejected. Now we have to address why the GCs rejected this road map and do we need a new one or can we make amendments to allow GCs to accept that it will take us to where we all want to go and for this we need negotiations. This has been my arguement all along I hope we now agree that the 2 communities must talk to each other, otherwise we are all on a fast road to nowhere.

The reason that the Annan plan was rejected is exactly because it was not based on the framework of human rights and democracy. The reason it was not based on this framework was the insistence of the Turkish leadership against the above mentioned principles. Do you have any signs that there was a change in the Turkish policy? If in fact there is, then I would 100% agree with you.
If however we will sit to negotiate and we will again be treated with disrespect to our human and democratic rights then such negotiations will be no different than the ones we were having over the last 30 years.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis do you feel that the Annan plan was specifically designed to disrespect your human and democratic rights? Your champions of human rights and democracy the EU & UN who you always quote at us with their resoluiotns and norms were involved in the creation of this plan surely you dont believe they would do such a thing?? The basis of the plan is also acceptable to your leaders, and has been confirmed on many occassions unless they have changed their minds which would not suprise me. The content with regards to security and property are I believe the major areas of concern for GCs, dont rubbish the whole plan as I am pretty certain we will return to it one day as a point of reference with the necessary changes to address GC TC concerns we could arrive at a solution that both communites could commit to.

Our leaders have extrended their hand in friendship and have voiced they are ready to go back to the negotiating table the fact that they say we have to take into consideration the realities before us is not a negative thing, the reality that we are divided and the adoption of BBF is just one example of taking into consideration the realities on the ground, there are many more that will have to be taken into consideration we cant ignore them.

I have decided to disregard your bloody minded comments about our community as you see red when we argue the past or our concerns, you obviously respond better to questions which allow you express your ideas about the steps needed to move towards level 10. When you do that then I can express if I agree or disagree, this I believe is a better method of discussion otherwise we would be going around in circles accusing each other just like typical Cypriots.

Level 1. How do you see us solving the settlers problem? do you think they should all be sent back to Turkey, should they be compensated? or should we allow them to stay if the have been living in Cyprus for eg 10 years or more? what do we do with the children that have been born here? Should we allow them to stay with workers permitts like you do in the south as we need the workforce. Human right and democracy should also be applied when evaluating this issue, dont you agree?

[Piratis]

Piratis do you feel that the Annan plan was specifically designed to disrespect your human and democratic rights?

It was designed to close the Cyprus problem and remove the obstacle from Turkey's EU accession process. The problem existed for 30 years, yet the "solution" was rushed on us just days before Cyprus EU accession. Our human and democratic rights violations was obviously not one of the problems this plan tried to solve.

Your champions of human rights and democracy the EU & UN who you always quote at us with their resoluiotns and norms were involved in the creation of this plan surely you dont believe they would do such a thing??

The EU had very little to do with the creation of this plan. About the UN there is a difference between a resolution and this plan. A resolution is a UN declaration passed from the Security council.

The role of UN is this plan was to mediate the negotiations between the two parties. The Annan plan was a proposal, designed mainly by the Americans, that would be null and void if rejected, and not a security council resolution. Under no circumstance we were obligated to accept the result of the mediation, in the same way you were obligated to respect the UN resolutions.

Why this mediation had this result?
1) Because we were negotiating under a threat. The Turkish position was that either we accept most of their demands or their illegal occupation would continue. If I came and put a gun on your head and then "negotiate" then you can easily understand what the result of this "negotiations" will be.

2) Because the mediators were following the USA directions and had as their aim to rush the plan before Cyprus EU accession.

The basis of the plan is also acceptable to your leaders, and has been confirmed on many occassions unless they have changed their minds which would not suprise me.

Our leaders, the ones that get our votes at least, said that the Annan plan is not a basis for solution since many things in this plan need to change in order to become acceptable.

The content with regards to security and property are I believe the major areas of concern for GCs, dont rubbish the whole plan as I am pretty certain we will return to it one day as a point of reference with the necessary changes to address GC TC concerns we could arrive at a solution that both communites could commit to.

Security, property, human rights, democracy and functionality were the areas that this plan was seriously lacking. Quite a lot of things.

Our leaders have extrended their hand in friendship and have voiced they are ready to go back to the negotiating table the fact that they say we have to take into consideration the realities before us is not a negative thing, the reality that we are divided and the adoption of BBF is just one example of taking into consideration the realities on the ground, there are many more that will have to be taken into consideration we cant ignore them.

Extending their hand would mean giving at least part of what is illegally occupied back (e.g. Famagusta). What did the TC leadership do that would reduce the human rights violations of Greek Cypriots?

The only solution related "reality" is that your leadership refuses to discuss anything that would allow the return of all refugees and the respect of the human and democratic rights of all Cypriots.

I have decided to disregard your bloody minded comments about our community as you see red when we argue the past or our concerns

No. The problem is when you are trying to use the past and your concerns to limit in some way human and democratic rights. We also have a lot to say about the past and a lot of concerns, yet we do not demand the sacrifice of your human rights. You should do the same, and then be sure that if goodwill exists your and our concerns can be accommodated.

Level 1. How do you see us solving the settlers problem? do you think they should all be sent back to Turkey, should they be compensated? or should we allow them to stay if the have been living in Cyprus for eg 10 years or more? what do we do with the children that have been born here? Should we allow them to stay with workers permitts like you do in the south as we need the workforce. Human right and democracy should also be applied when evaluating this issue, dont you agree?

So have we agreed on what our aim, level 10 should be? If you agreed with me that level 10 is the first and above all the respect of the human and democratic rights of all Cypriots in one united country without any kind of racist discrimination, in a BBF structure that is based on the leading examples of the other EU countries (and the example of USA for the Federation part), then we can start discussion on how we can get there.

Based on the above assumption (that we agreed that that is the level 10) I will answer your question.

Settlers should be divided among those that came to Cyprus from Turkey, those that are married in Cyprus with a TC and those that were born in Cyprus and are old enough to live in Cyprus wihtout their parents.

The first group should leave from Cyprus and if they want to return they should apply for visa and be treated like all other foreigners.
The second group can stay.
The third group should be given the option to stay or leave, and Turkey should bare the cost for both.
The ones that they decide to stay should buy (with the help of Turkey) their own property at current prises (in the same way that an English would buy property in Cyprus). The ones that choose to leave should be given a generous compensation by Turkey and an additional compensation by Cyprus.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis

It was designed to close the Cyprus problem and remove the obstacle from Turkey's EU accession process. The problem existed for 30 years, yet the "solution" was rushed on us just days before Cyprus EU accession. Our human and democratic rights violations was obviously not one of the problems this plan tried to solve.

You can try and dress it anyway you wish the procedure and time limits were agreed by both sides in New York if your leader objected he should not have signed along the dotted line to start negotitions on the basis that Annan would fill in the blanks. The rules were in place you agreed them but the end result was not what you wanted you complain about all and sundry except your own lack of real intention and goodwill to negotiate a solution. To counter your feabile arguement there is an alternative version that your leader negotiatied the worst plan possible (put in no real effort) to ensure that he could extract a NO form his people, thats what you call premeditation. The rush was due your entry into EU, as once in were in the EU you would have no real desire to find a solution via UN and use the EU leverage to extract more than you had gotten via the UN brokered plan. This is much clearer today as we see no UN negotiations and EU leverage used to extract what GCs demand from Turkey.

The EU had very little to do with the creation of this plan. About the UN there is a difference between a resolution and this plan. A resolution is a UN declaration passed from the Security council.

The role of UN is this plan was to mediate the negotiations between the two parties. The Annan plan was a proposal, designed mainly by the Americans, that would be null and void if rejected, and not a security council resolution. Under no circumstance we were obligated to accept the result of the mediation, in the same way you were obligated to respect the UN resolutions.

Why this mediation had this result?
1) Because we were negotiating under a threat. The Turkish position was that either we accept most of their demands or their illegal occupation would continue. If I came and put a gun on your head and then "negotiate" then you can easily understand what the result of this "negotiations" will be.

2) Because the mediators were following the USA directions and had as their aim to rush the plan before Cyprus EU accession.

Thank for clarifying the differnce between the UN brokered plan and UN resolutions, my comment was purely related to the fact that when it suits you the UN are right and when it doesnt they are the instrument of the US, I think this has more to do with if they decide in your favor or not.

Did you have any connection with the Annan plan and negotiations? I did and the format for many of the issues were submitted to the UN by the GC delegations, diliberated by both sides in the presence not only of UN mediators but also EU specialists. So what you claim is total rubbish.

NO ONE was holding a gun to anyones head and the GC delegations got a lot of their concerns included in the plan, so dont give me feaible excuses to relieve and suppport your dismissing the Annan plan. Its a decision GCs made and you have to accept all that comes with it, good and bad.
The rejection of the plan was a culmination of many factors and the fact that the majority of GCs were lead by the minority has many had no idea of what it really contained, they were minipulated by those that felt that entering the EU was more important than the Annan plan, if we say yes we will not get another to chance to extract more demands, lets enter the EU and extract more from the other side mentality prevailed.

Security, property, human rights, democracy and functionality were the areas that this plan was seriously lacking. Quite a lot of things.

They were all there in the plan but because they did not meet GCs demands 100% they were rejected.

Extending their hand would mean giving at least part of what is illegally occupied back (e.g. Famagusta). What did the TC leadership do that would reduce the human rights violations of Greek Cypriots?

The only solution related "reality" is that your leadership refuses to discuss anything that would allow the return of all refugees and the respect of the human and democratic rights of all Cypriots.

Doesnt extending a hand mean exactly that lets try to work out a road map to sort out our issues. Your demands will not drop out of the sky you have to sit down and talk about them otherwise you will be a supporter of the current status quo.

No. The problem is when you are trying to use the past and your concerns to limit in some way human and democratic rights. We also have a lot to say about the past and a lot of concerns, yet we do not demand the sacrifice of your human rights. You should do the same, and then be sure that if goodwill exists your and our concerns can be accommodated.

So we should not put forward our concerns based on our past experiences and just take a jump into the GC abiss of human rights and democracy. Surely our past experiecies and concerns should provide us a basis on which we can formulate the future to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

So have we agreed on what our aim, level 10 should be? If you agreed with me that level 10 is the first and above all the respect of the human and democratic rights of all Cypriots in one united country without any kind of racist discrimination, in a BBF structure that is based on the leading examples of the other EU countries (and the example of USA for the Federation part), then we can start discussion on how we can get there.

I agree in general with the above statement but why do we have to restrict ourselves to other BBF models, lets take them as examples but surely if there are areas where we need to modify then we should adopt a flexible approach to ensure we create the most functional and viable structure for our united country.

Settlers should be divided among those that came to Cyprus from Turkey, those that are married in Cyprus with a TC and those that were born in Cyprus and are old enough to live in Cyprus wihtout their parents.

The first group should leave from Cyprus and if they want to return they should apply for visa and be treated like all other foreigners.
The second group can stay.
The third group should be given the option to stay or leave, and Turkey should bare the cost for both.
The ones that they decide to stay should buy (with the help of Turkey) their own property at current prises (in the same way that an English would buy property in Cyprus). The ones that choose to leave should be given a generous compensation by Turkey and an additional compensation by Cyprus.

Let me just clarify what you are saying;

Group 1
Those that came from Turkey to Cyprus
This group should all leave and apply for a visa to return.

Group 2
Those that married in Cyprus with a TC
This Group can stay

Group 3
Those that were born in Cyprus and are 18 and above.
This group are given an option to stay or leave

Those settlers that choose to stay should vacate be provided with alternative homes paid for by Turkey
Those that choose to leave should get generous compensation paid for by Turkey and Cyprus.

Am i right in the above?

I have a question,

1. So a settler who has been here for 30 years has to leave? he is classed in group 1.

Dont you feel that this is impinging on his human rights? or has he no rights becasue he is form Anatolia and therefore a parasite??

My suggestion would be to apply EU laws where, as far as I can recall, if you reside in a country for more than 5 years you can apply to become a citizen of that country. Surely if we are to apply the principles of human rights and EU democracy which you value so strongly should be administered to all then surely we should do the same to these people.

I agree with the property issue, that these people should be relocated but at the cost of ourselves and Turkey but would also include international donations, to which I would hope Greece and the UK would contribute generously.

[Piratis]

You can try and dress it anyway you wish the procedure and time limits were agreed by both sides in New York if your leader objected he should not have signed along the dotted line to start negotiations on the basis that Annan would fill in the blanks. The rules were in place you agreed them but the end result was not what you wanted you complain about all and sundry except your own lack of real intention and goodwill to negotiate a solution.

Yes, some mistakenly expected that Annan would base his proposal on the principles and resolutions of his own organization. I knew from the beginning that this was not the case since it was obvious to me than any non security council decision of the UN involving American interests was directly controlled by the Americans.

So what if we rejected a proposal that we had 100% right to reject and which is now null and void? On the other hand Turkey showes complete disrespect to her obligations in respecting international low and the UN resolutions. If Turkey would follow the UN resolutions in the first place then no Annan plan would be needed.

For once more Turkey does the crimes and we are blamed for making the mistake of accepting Annan to fill in the blanks

To counter your feabile arguement there is an alternative version that your leader negotiatied the worst plan possible (put in no real effort) to ensure that he could extract a NO form his people, thats what you call premeditation.

Once more: If you share our aim that the solution should be one with no human rights violations and with democracy, then why should any of our leaders negotiate to get these things? Our leaders tried to get these things for 30 years, and then you blame us because you refused them?

The rush was due your entry into EU, as once in were in the EU you would have no real desire to find a solution via UN and use the EU leverage to extract more than you had gotten via the UN brokered plan. This is much clearer today as we see no UN negotiations and EU leverage used to extract what GCs demand from Turkey.

The negotiations were done for 30 years with Turkey telling us "either you accept what we want or the illegal occupation continues". Yes, now we can say to Turkey "either you end your illegal occupation or we will use our 100% legal right to block you from EU". Any problem with that?

Unlike Turkey we are not doing anything illegal to force violations of human rights. We are doing something legal to try to force Turkey to accept human rights and democracy.
This is done by EU itself when it clearly tells to Turkey that in order to enter she needs to greatly improve her human rights record.

Thank for clarifying the differnce between the UN brokered plan and UN resolutions, my comment was purely related to the fact that when it suits you the UN are right and when it doesnt they are the instrument of the US, I think this has more to do with if they decide in your favor or not.

As you know the Americans and the British tried to pass the Annan plan from the UN security council but this was rejected. Just this proves my point of whom within the UN was preparing the Annan plan, and we don't even need to see the fact that the Annan plan was one that met the desires of Turkey (a good US allie) at 90% and it didn't even respect our basic human rights.

NO ONE was holding a gun to anyones head and the GC delegations got a lot of their concerns included in the plan, so dont give me feaible excuses to relieve and suppport your dismissing the Annan plan. Its a decision GCs made and you have to accept all that comes with it, good and bad.

The occupation and the fact the illegality would be forced on us if we didn't accept a plan is not "gun on our head" kind of policy? Maybe when the Americans said that "a thousand brings will fall on your head if you do not accept the Annan plan" was also OK?

The rejection of the plan was a culmination of many factors and the fact that the majority of GCs were lead by the minority has many had no idea of what it really contained, they were minipulated by those that felt that entering the EU was more important than the Annan plan, if we say yes we will not get another to chance to extract more demands, lets enter the EU and extract more from the other side mentality prevailed.

Papadopoulos was elected president easily for exactly this reason. Greek Cypriots would obviously not accept a plan that would violate their human and democratic rights. This is why the Annan plan was rejected, and this is why any plan will be rejected that will violate the human and democratic rights of people.

This is why I said many times that any new plan should be negotiated in the framework of democracy and human rights. If your intention is another plan that would violate our human and democratic rights then it is not worth wasting our time negotiating.

They were all there in the plan but because they did not meet GCs demands 100% they were rejected.

Yes, they met GCs legal demands 10% and Turkish illegal demands by 90%. They were obviously rejected.

Doesnt extending a hand mean exactly that lets try to work out a road map to sort out our issues.

No, extending hand would mean the acceptance that human and democratic rights of people are not things to be negotiated. How is it "extending a hand" when you are telling us to negotiate of how much of our human and democratic rights you will allow us to have?

So we should not put forward our concerns based on our past experiences and just take a jump into the GC abiss of human rights and democracy.

Human rights and democracy and not "GC abiss" but universally accepted principles that you also have to finally accept some time.

Surely our past experiecies and concerns should provide us a basis on which we can formulate the future to ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.

How about not repeating mistakes such as giving to foreigners intervention rights, giving to an 18% minority more than any other minority in the world has etc? What you say sounds nice, until one realizes that the "corrections" that you want are only the ones that suit you.

This is why instead of each side insisting on a tailored made solution by selectively using the past as an excuse, we should accept a system like any of the other EU democracies. (and US for the federation part)

1. So a settler who has been here for 30 years has to leave? he is classed in group 1.

Dont you feel that this is impinging on his human rights? or has he no rights becasue he is form Anatolia and therefore a parasite??

My suggestion would be to apply EU laws where, as far as I can recall, if you reside in a country for more than 5 years you can apply to become a citizen of that country. Surely if we are to apply the principles of human rights and EU democracy which you value so strongly should be administered to all then surely we should do the same to these people.

The EU laws talk about immigrants, not settlers that were brought by a state in violation of the Geneva convention. Of course it is sad that those people would have to pass from this due to the Turkish disrespect of any kind of international laws and agreements. This is why Turkey should improve in these things and stop violating the rights of her own citizens.

As far as Cyprus goes, what I proposed was not our obligation but an honest effort to help those people. But Turkey should also help and take the responsibility for the rest of the settlers.

I agree with the property issue, that these people should be relocated but at the cost of ourselves and Turkey but would also include international donations, to which I would hope Greece and the UK would contribute generously.

Greece and UK yes, as well as the others involved in the creation of the problem, like USA. Of course we can not demand international help from other countries that had nothing to do with the creation of the problem. If they want to help a bit it will be welcomed of course.