Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

I also suspect we have differences about possible ways we get to there from where we are now, with me being willing to accept a necessity of 'intermediate' stages and you being more 'straight there or nothing'.

I think you’ll find that any “intermediate stages” would tend to stick longer than desired and we may find ourselves stuck there for good and once again in strife.

It is not that I desire such intermediate stages it is just that there is no practical way I can see in the near future of being able to get enough consensus to be able to move straight there. I accept that intermediate stages pose dangers and risks of their own but if the only choice in the near future is in practice 'status quo' or 'risky intermediate stages' I could and would countenance the later over the former. As I see it, the devil I know (status quo) is guaranteed to never get me to the end goal described where as the devil I do not know (risky intermediate stages) at least has a chance of doing so eventually.

[Sotos]

It is more than clear that this BBF, with the content it has acquired the last years, is not a unification that would unify land and people but a disguised partition... a "marriage of convenience" (for TCs) where everything is kept separate under a thin surface of pretend unity. And since no amount of debate between us can change this all I can do is to reject any such "solution" since the prospect of an acceptably good and functional BBF is already dead.

I do 'feel' what you are saying about what is 'known' about a 'possible' solution. However for me, that the things you outline above as being the know parameters of the solution as our 'leaderships' are currently negotiating are not my own personal parameters for a solution. I personally still have an appetite for (adult) discussion about these 'personal' solutions and in 'spaces' that are specifically not just ones of only 'like minded people'.

But since most of the parameters of a possible "solution" are already known what would be the point of that? Even if me and you agreed, even if all in the forum agreed, even if the forum had a 1000 active GC and TC members and all agreed, it would still have no effect on the real world. Not to mention that we will most probably not agree because we had such discussions in the past and there are certain points where we get stuck.

Re the above and "under a thin surface of pretend unity" I can see arguments that would say even this is better than the definite partition we currently have and creates a chance of such a state being pert of a progression to a 'real' unity.

How would that happen in practical terms? There are only two ways that such thing could be possible and none of them applies to our case. The only 2 things that could make a community give up powers and privileges are (a) if they had something much bigger to gain, e.g. if Cyprus was not part of EU and then in order to join, EU had placed a precondition that we need to have a system which didn't discriminate citizens based on their ethnicity. That MAYBE would entice the TCs to give up privileges and powers. But we are already part of EU so that will not be the case and I can't see anything else that would serve as a "carrot". The other way would be a "stick", in other words the TCs being pressured into giving up up privileges and powers. But that will not happen either because there is a partnership between TCs and Turkey, where the TCs serve the interests of Turkey in Cyprus and return Turkey protects the privileges and powers of TCs. So that is not going to happen either.

[Sotos]

I also suspect we have differences about possible ways we get to there from where we are now, with me being willing to accept a necessity of 'intermediate' stages and you being more 'straight there or nothing'.

I think you’ll find that any “intermediate stages” would tend to stick longer than desired and we may find ourselves stuck there for good and once again in strife.

It is not that I desire such intermediate stages it is just that there is no practical way I can see in the near future of being able to get enough consensus to be able to move straight there. I accept that intermediate stages pose dangers and risks of their own but if the only choice in the near future is in practice 'status quo' or 'risky intermediate stages' I could and would countenance the later over the former. As I see it, the devil I know (status quo) is guaranteed to never get me to the end goal described where as the devil I do not know (risky intermediate stages) at least has a chance of doing so eventually.

Given the circumstances (as described above) the chances of that happening are next to zero. And say we try that and it doesn't work, as it almost certainly will be the case. Then what? Can we say "OK, that didn't work, lets return to the status quo we had before". Obviously it will be too late for that. We will be stuck in some officially divided, dysfunctional, protectorate of Turkey. That is a nightmare scenario for us, and it is the most likely outcome if we make the mistake and accept such a "solution".

[erolz66]

what would be the point of that?

For me the point is that I am just not finished exploring (developing, reviewing, challenging) what my own personal views and opinions are. My own personal views on what a solution could or should look like have changed considerably over the last say 15 years. They are now in my own head clearer, more consistent and more refined than they were 15 years ago. I think they can continue to become more so, in the same sense that I am not 'finished' trying to 'understand the world'. I did not reach a certain age and decide 'I understand how the world works now' and from that point onward stop making any further effort.
I also do not agree that individuals 'changing themselves' has no impact in the real world. In fact my 'world view' is that actually all real world change starts first with individuals changing themselves and has to start that way. I accept that you and me agreeing here will not have any direct or immediate impact.I do think in a world were more people seek to try and do such kind of things, the chances of such 'individual acts' making a difference is vastly greater than in a world were less people do so.

Re the above and "under a thin surface of pretend unity" I can see arguments that would say even this is better than the definite partition we currently have and creates a chance of such a state being pert of a progression to a 'real' unity.

How would that happen in practical terms?

If there are only two possible options of status quo and a thick surface of in your face division, or 'a thin surface of pretend unity', I still prefer the later than the former.

Nor to I believe in the notion that individuals or groups of them always and can only act in their own narrow self interest. I think they can and do at times act against their own (narrow) self interest , at times for the worst of reasons and at times for the much better reasons. To me the notion is the same 'fallacy' that renders so much of classical 'economic theory' (as far as I understand it at all) seriously wanting when applied to the real world.

Having said that all that I will try and answer your question from my own perspective. I can see a possibility that over time increasing 'intermarriage' across GC / TC lines, and also outside that as well, could lead to a 'TC' community agreeing to give up its historic ethnic based 'privileges'. Simply by a process of it becoming harder and harder, through intermarriage, to even define and classify who is a 'TC' or a 'GC', in peoples own heads or in any sort of practical 'administrative' way.

Even without 'intermarriage' I can see way where it (TC community giving up privileges) might happen from a starting point of BBF, and saying that people and groups only act in their own narrow self interest. Lets say under a BBF there is a 'leftist' TC, who sees a pattern that every time 'leftist' GC politicians gain power their aspirations are thwarted by the 'privileges' of 'rightist' TC ethnic based politicians (or visa versa on all levels). I can see how such under a BBF could lead to such a person deciding that it is in their own narrow self interest to support the reforming of historic ethnic based 'privileges'. I am not saying by the way that such scenarios are necessarily likely or probable but for me they just have to be anything more than impossible, for BBF to be worth a try vs the 'definiteness' of the status quo.

[Sotos]

If there are only two possible options of status quo and a thick surface of in your face division, or 'a thin surface of pretend unity', I still prefer the later than the former.

I can understand how this can be preferable to you. For your side such a solution would be good from day one. Would you accept something which would be bad for you today, with a high chance of becoming even worst, only because maybe it could turn out better decades later?

For me democracy is very valuable. I can't give it up hoping that maybe one day, hopefully before I die, there will be democracy again. Also a properly functioning state is very important. And my biggest nightmare would be to live in a state which is the puppet of Turkey... a country with abysmal human rights record, no respect to freedom of speech and which is turning more Islamic every day. Probably you got used to being in that position and you don't realize how bad it is but I want Cyprus to move in the exact opposite direction from the one that Turkey is heading. If that means only half of Cyprus can move in that direction and the other half to be left to Turkey then so be it. We should save whatever can be saved.

[repulsewarrior]

'not those who are not of Cyprus'; you must mean "Greeks", and "Turks".

...in any case, the debate is flawed; it has led to repeated failure because in essence we are not "Greek" or "Turkish", they are the same, and not mutually exclusive, representing the adversary, to who are Cypriots. As Cypriots, those who are Cypriot, if they are to take back the Agenda, they must be willing to defend each other, and they must recognise how valuable it is, this identity, Cypriots, that there are interlopers who seek to divide them and usurp it.

I recall Koray Basdogrultmaci and Cinel Senem Husseyin, their struggle, to make it "legal" to fly this Flag in the occupied part of Cyprus, the Flag of Cyprus. I remember the thousands of these Flags sent to the Buffer Zone, by children, in Nicosia during the Occupy Movement. More Cypriots must take the time to make the same effort, for Cyprus as a place where Cypriots live. It is obvious, and it sends a simple message, it's not hard for anyone to do, it exposes those among Cypriots who see in this Flag a threat, to "Greekness" and "Turkishness", and it is unfortunate that someone Cypriot might die for this Flag by "them", it happens in Cyprus, so it is that there must be change.

...i remind the readers, intentions count; America is a BBF, Canada is a BBF, (i have read mRpeepee (read: MrH) describe Britain to be a BBF; it is in a way correct though), a BBF is not anathema to "being" Cypriot.

One Cyprus, like one Turkey, or one Britain, it's not so hard to understand: within a State based on Universal Principals, as Individuals, Freedom; Liberty, as Persons based on this trust and respect for each other accordingly. The Problem is not isolated to Cyprus, but in the Cyprus Problem the world has Hope.

[erolz66]

I can understand how this can be preferable to you. For your side such a solution would be good from day one. Would you accept something which would be bad for you today, with a high chance of becoming even worst, only because maybe it could turn out better decades later?

I personally would be willing to countenance solutions that large numbers of those from the community I am a part of would consider 'worse for them' from day one. I would for example countenance a settlement that had no stipulated bi zonality and no political equality for my community if there was a stipulated 'Cyprus must be ruled by Cypriots' clause for example.

However I do find this idea that a BBF as currently 'know' would be from day one 'automatically' and generically good for TCs compared to their situation under the status quo, somewhat 'partisan' imo. The known BBF, implemented tomorrow, may well have severe and real consequences for many TC imo. The north is an extremely atypical place. In many ways because of how things happened we do have a kind of 'dependency culture' in the north. A BBF tomorrow will be a shock for many TC. Not just those who currently work in government and public services. I suspect for example many businesses in the north will struggle in a more competitive environment that would exist under a BBF.

Over all I think this idea that the known BBF will undoubtedly and clearly from day one be 'better' for all TC and 'worse' for all GC is too simplistic. With any change there will be winners and losers. I accept that the know BBF may be over all more favourable to one community than the other but its seems to me it really is not as simple as it appears you think it is from your posts as I understand them.

For me democracy is very valuable. I can't give it up hoping that maybe one day, hopefully before I die, there will be democracy again. Also a properly functioning state is very important. And my biggest nightmare would be to live in a state which is the puppet of Turkey... a country with abysmal human rights record, no respect to freedom of speech and which is turning more Islamic every day. Probably you got used to being in that position and you don't realize how bad it is but I want Cyprus to move in the exact opposite direction from the one that Turkey is heading. If that means only half of Cyprus can move in that direction and the other half to be left to Turkey then so be it. We should save whatever can be saved.

I do want to try and understand your concerns and I certainly do not seek to dismiss them. I am struggling with the idea that from day one of BBF 'democracy' will cease to exist in the RoC. Nor do I see democracy as a binary state that exists when there is strict 'one person one vote' and does not when there is any mechanism that might mediate 'one person one vote'. There are and can be 'degrees' of democracy, with system consider 'more democratic' and 'less democratic'. I also believe there systems out there that can and are validly consider 'democratic' that do not operate solely on the basis of 'one person one vote' without any 'exceptions'. I can accept and understand that for you a BBF would from day one represent a less ideal level / degree / kind of democracy but as I say am struggling to accept it would mean the 'death of democracy' in Cyprus.

Now Erdogan does 'scare the shit' out of me. However I do see his personal rule as 'transitory' if for no other reason than he is (i hope) mortal. The Greek dictatorship of the 70's also scared the shit out of many people and TC particularly but it was transitory. I hope that Turkey will in time find a better future for itself and its people than the path it is currently on but I do accept that it may not and that is a concern I also feel. However to me it seems clear that the best 'defence' for Cyprus and Cypriots against a belligerent and autocratic Turkey is actually unity and that continued division only increases the ability of Turkey to meddle in and undermine Cyprus' independence.

I would also like to better understand your concerns about a BBF in this regard. DO you think for example that under a BBF were say all the TC political representation are just 'puppets' of Erdogan (something I think would not actually be the case in reality), they could for example enact new laws restricting say the freedom of the press in Cyprus, against the will of GC politicians ? My understanding is that such would not be possible under the known BBF ? If you could give me some hypothetical examples of you concerns it would help me to understand them I think.

[Sotos]

I personally would be willing to countenance solutions that large numbers of those from the community I am a part of would consider 'worse for them' from day one. I would for example countenance a settlement that had no stipulated bi zonality and no political equality for my community if there was a stipulated 'Cyprus must be ruled by Cypriots' clause for example.

However I do find this idea that a BBF as currently 'know' would be from day one 'automatically' and generically good for TCs compared to their situation under the status quo, somewhat 'partisan' imo. The known BBF, implemented tomorrow, may well have severe and real consequences for many TC imo. The north is an extremely atypical place. In many ways because of how things happened we do have a kind of 'dependency culture' in the north. A BBF tomorrow will be a shock for many TC. Not just those who currently work in government and public services. I suspect for example many businesses in the north will struggle in a more competitive environment that would exist under a BBF.

Over all I think this idea that the known BBF will undoubtedly and clearly from day one be 'better' for all TC and 'worse' for all GC is too simplistic. With any change there will be winners and losers. I accept that the know BBF may be over all more favourable to one community than the other but its seems to me it really is not as simple as it appears you think it is from your posts as I understand them.

When I say that such a solution would be better for you side, I don't mean better for every single TC, I am talking about the majority. Similarly I believe that the majority of GCs will lose out, even thought there are GCs who can personally gain even from a bad solution (for example people who have a lot of property in Varosha). About the other things you said (public sector, competition etc) those were similar things for us when we joined the EU but for most people those are small concerns for something they know will be better for them overall. I don't think it can be questioned that a solution would significantly improve the standards of living of TCs.

I do want to try and understand your concerns and I certainly do not seek to dismiss them. I am struggling with the idea that from day one of BBF 'democracy' will cease to exist in the RoC. Nor do I see democracy as a binary state that exists when there is strict 'one person one vote' and does not when there is any mechanism that might mediate 'one person one vote'. There are and can be 'degrees' of democracy, with system consider 'more democratic' and 'less democratic'. I also believe there systems out there that can and are validly consider 'democratic' that do not operate solely on the basis of 'one person one vote' without any 'exceptions'. I can accept and understand that for you a BBF would from day one represent a less ideal level / degree / kind of democracy but as I say am struggling to accept it would mean the 'death of democracy' in Cyprus.

Now Erdogan does 'scare the shit' out of me. However I do see his personal rule as 'transitory' if for no other reason than he is (i hope) mortal. The Greek dictatorship of the 70's also scared the shit out of many people and TC particularly but it was transitory. I hope that Turkey will in time find a better future for itself and its people than the path it is currently on but I do accept that it may not and that is a concern I also feel. However to me it seems clear that the best 'defence' for Cyprus and Cypriots against a belligerent and autocratic Turkey is actually unity and that continued division only increases the ability of Turkey to meddle in and undermine Cyprus' independence.

I would also like to better understand your concerns about a BBF in this regard. DO you think for example that under a BBF were say all the TC political representation are just 'puppets' of Erdogan (something I think would not actually be the case in reality), they could for example enact new laws restricting say the freedom of the press in Cyprus, against the will of GC politicians ? My understanding is that such would not be possible under the known BBF ? If you could give me some hypothetical examples of you concerns it would help me to understand them I think.

Yes, just about anything can be labeled a "democracy" but I care about the content not just about the label. Some so called "democracies" are worst than monarchies, such as Turkey (and not only. I have relatives who live in Russia and I feel sorry for them). So for me a "democracy" of that kind is not sufficient at all even if it can be technically labeled as such.

Turkey was never democratic nor any other Muslim middle eastern country ever was. Before Erdogan Turkey was essentially ruled by the deep state and the army generals. Erdogan was the one who stripped them from their excessive powers, not in favor of democracy but in favor of his own authoritarian regime. This is not something temporary in the case of Turkey. We have all seen what happened with the Arab Spring where countries ended up being even worst off in the end.

I don't know if the word "puppets of Erdogan" is precise because TC leadership is not unwillingly obeying Erdogan's orders. A more precise description is that there is a partnership between Turkey and TCs for common benefit, and the TCs are minor partners in this partnership. Without Turkey the TCs would be at best a minority like all the rest in Cyprus. All the privileges and powers the TCs gained in 1959 and everything they will gain in addition to that with a potential "solution" will be owned by 100% to Turkey and its army. And in order to maintain such unfair gains the TC leadership knows that the backing of Turkey will need to be continuous. Turkey obviously doesn't do all this for TCs for free. Turkey in return expects the 100% loyalty of TCs and for TCs to act in a way that serves the interests of Turkey. And TCs do exactly that and they will continue doing exactly that and they will serve the interests of Turkey even when it comes at the expense of the interests of Cyprus or the interests of their own community, because they know that on the overall they gain from the partnership with Turkey.

How is this going to be done in a BBF? With the vetoes. Turkey would ask from the TCs: "we want Cyprus's policy on this issue to be X". If we say "we don't like X", TCs will say "if you do not accept X then we will block Y and Z". So not only a group of people will get a disproportionately large amount of power in order to serve their own interests but that same group of people will also use those same powers to serve the interests of a foreign country on which they are dependents.

[erolz66]

Similarly I believe that the majority of GCs will lose out,

You mean specifically in terms of GDP per head of GC population will fall after a BBF ? That on average GC will be less 'wealthy' after a BBF than before ?

I don't think it can be questioned that a solution would significantly improve the standards of living of TCs.

Same question as above really. You mean in terms of 'material wealth' ?

To be honest I do not know what the impact would be of the known BBF on the respective 'standard of living' of each community. I do know I am less certain than you appear to be. It does appear to me that you have an idea that all or most TC know and believe undoubtedly that a BBF will make them 'better off' and thus any that TC that opposes such can only therefore be doing so because they want even more 'gain'. I really do not think things are any where near as black and white and definite as you appear to believe. I know that such a 'chain of logic' was flawed in your belief about why I voted no to the Annan plan for example. For me the idea that a TC who has say been running a small electronics shop since 1974, selling TV and radios and the like might well sincerely believe that after a BBF he simply will not be able to compete with shops and chains of shops that have already in place 'official dealerships' with Panasonic or whoever, that he has never been able to establish directly before. For all I know he may be right.

I don't know if the word "puppets of Erdogan" is precise because TC leadership is not unwillingly obeying Erdogan's orders.

Again I struggle with this notion that TC (political leaders and population generally) predominantly always place Turkey's interests ahead of Cypriot interest. I believe I struggle with it not because I am a TC but because there is, for me at least, so much evidence that the reality is far far more complex than this. Even with the 'necessity' that partition has created for TC to have little other choice but align themselves with Turkey there are and have been many tensions between the TC community and Turkey. There have been TC demonstrators on the streets carrying banners saying 'Ayshe go home' to give one example.

In any case for me if your really believe that TC will always put the interests of Turkey ahead of those of Cyprus then I think you should fear and oppose reunification even under the terms of TC as 'just' an ethnic minority in a fully 'democratic' RoC. Maybe you do ? I will expand a bit on this.

I have now for several months been thinking in my head of writing an article titled 'TC do not need political equality'. The basis of the 'argument' would be looking at the presidential election results within the RoC from 1988. The margin between the winner and 2nd place in these elections (first or second round victories) has ranged from 12.71% to 0.6%. A TC community voting as a 'block' would have effectively chosen which presidential candidate gained power in every election since 88. Such 'king maker' power is real and significant and too my mind similarly significant as to 'extra' power the TC community would wield under BBF. You only have to look at Winston Peters in New Zealand to get an idea of this, since they introduced proportional representation in the 90's. His party typically poll at around less than 8% of total vote. Yet he has been Deputy Prime minister twice (and is current deputy prime minister today as well as Minister of Foreign Affairs) under both national (conservative) and labour parties as well as holding other government roles and has wielded real political power and influence over decades, whilst commanding around the 8% vote share or so.

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed, I am glad you said it erolz, in a population evenly split on issues, minorities hold a lot of power.

...witness ELAM and their success in the Legislature with the passage of a Bill that derailed the President's efforts at negotiating with Akinci.

...what are "Greeks", what are "Turks", fail the rest of us because they are not interested in Universal values, they are only interested in "themselves". Cyprus' leadership fails Cypriots every time they do not make the effort to expose this fact. It is why i so strongly support my belief that Akinci holds all the cards he needs to start a revolution in Cyprus and in Turkey. He can for Turcophones define the difference between ''being'' Turkish, and the ''Turkishness'' of "Turks", he can stand beside the Flag of Cyprus, as a Cypriot, defending this notion that in elections he won for this notion, he is a Cypriot, and no "Turk". Either as a challenge to Anastasiades, or as a partner standing beside him, not for a "new" Cyprus, but a Cyprus that is better, it is his choice.

If there was the possibility of Cypriot Constituencies to exist, in Cyprus, under a Federal Government, in effect it is the relevance of the Communal Chamber which is upgraded. If the seats in the Legislature are filled, with this intention, it may be possible to reform the Constitution, and beyond the thirteen points, new thinking, so that something suited to the needs of Cypriots as Cypriots may evolve, in their representation as such, ((whether they choose to identify themselves as a majority or minority, living in one constituency or another), (whether demographics change as the sense of what is a Cypriot evolves (in a highly mobile world), having an equal vote at this level of Government as well)).

Can the Turkish Cypriots take back their seats?

...i don't expect the negotiations to go further as they are, though they may continue; it has become an industry in and of itself, yet things don't last forever. Partition is not in the cards, war is more likely. And in Cyprus too.