Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

The Cyprus Weekly 15 October 2004

Tassos takes message to Finland and Estonia

President Papadopoulos stressed during visits to Finland and Estonia this week that Cyprus does not object to Turkey’s accession to the European Union and does not wish to prove an obstacle to this process provided Ankara accepts European values and principles and desists from military interventions in other countries.

A Turkey complying fully with the acquis communautaire and respecting all the principles and values of the EU, such as human rights and resistance from military intervention would be beneficial for the Greek Cypriots, the Turkish Cypriots, the Turks and the EU itself, he added.

In Helsinki, Papadopoulos held talks with President Tarja Halonen and Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen. He later went to Tallin (via Moscow) where he discussed Cyprus, bilateral relations and EU issues with Estonia’s President Arnold Routel.

His hosts expressed support for Cyprus’ sovereignty, and the hope that despite the disappointing referendum result last April, a way would be found for the reunification of the island, now that Turkey was aspiring to join the EU.

President Halonen said a Cyprus settlement would benefit the region and Europe in general. The current situation with Cyprus as a full member and Turkey aspiring to join the Union was a "historically good phase".

Prime Minister Vanhanen said Finland had hoped for a positive result in the April referendum. But he believed the island’s reunification could become a reality in the future. At present Helsinki did not have a specific policy on this matter "but we hope, just as the whole of the EU does, to see the island united". Finland was ready to help.

President Papadoploulos told newsmen that Turkey’s European aspirations could provide a very propitious opportunity for the start of a fresh effort through dialogue to solve the Cyprus problem.

In Tallin, Papadopoulos said his government was "very keen to see a revival of talks" for a settlement, adding "we would like Turkey to respond to the concerns of the Greek Cypriots regarding its attitude towards Cyprus".

The Estonian President said: "We support Cyprus," but would not go into details, saying the various issues were being discussed at the EU.

Speaking at a dinner in Helsinki, Papadopoulos said while Cyprus was in principle positively disposed towards Turkey’s EU membership, the occupation of Cyprus and its concomitant phenomena could not be relegated to the status of a non-issue in the relations between Turkey and the European Union.

"Furthermore a European Union candidate country aspiring for a date for accession negotiations cannot, in good faith, refuse to extend to a Member State treatment equal to that accorded to the rest

of the European Partners,'' he added.

"Approaches which disregard the legal and political obligations of Turkey vis-a-vis the Republic of Cyprus as a Member State of the European Union, disinsentivize any future effort for a solution that will bring about the political and economic re-unification of Cyprus".

In her speech Halonen said that with the beginning of Turkey's accession negotiations, the EU would promote Turkey's progress and that would have a "positive impact on efforts for a Cyprus settlement.''

As regards the results of a referendum last April, on a UN proposed solution plan for a Cyprus settlement, the Finnish President said that ''despite our disappointment in spring, Finland is convinced that the Cyprus government is engaged in reuniting'' the island.

Halonen expressed hope that the line dividing Cyprus will be history, as was the case in other parts of Europe.

Papadopoulos reiterated his commitment to a solution of a bicommunal bizonal federation that would "safeguard functional and viable state structures, the genuine re-unification of the country, the health of its economy and the interests of the people of Cyprus as a whole".

He added that ''in rejecting the Annan Plan, by a 76% majority, the Greek Cypriots did not reject the solution of the Cyprus problem, nor did they reject the re-unification of their country. They rejected that particular plan, judging that it did not provide for real reunification of their county, nor the withdrawal of the Turkish occupation army, nor a functional and viable solution".

"I firmly believe that the referenda of April last on the Annan Plan are not the end of the way,'' Papadopoulos stressed, adding that ''the end of the way will only be a just, functional and viable solution to the Cyprus problem, based on an amended and agreed upon version of Annan V that will address the legitimate concerns of Greek Cypriots without, necessarily, depriving Turkish Cypriots of rights and privileges accorded to them.''

As regards the enhancing of the economic development of the Turkish Cypriots, Papadopoulos said ''we fervently support'' it, but noted that it should be pursued in the context of the fundamental aim of reuniting Cyprus in accordance with the Conclusions of the European

Union's General Affairs Council of 26 April 2004.

"All efforts in this direction should neither subvert international legality nor encourage separatist tendencies, which would entrench the island's division".

Thanks

He thanked the Government of Finland for the understanding it exhibited vis-a-vis the position of the Government of Cyprus in recent discussions in the COREPER of the European Union of two proposals, for the economic assistance to the Turkish Cypriot community and for trade and commerce.

''We ask the international community to appreciate that the so-called 'economic isolation' of the Turkish

Cypriots, is, to a great extent, self-imposed and a result of separatist and secessionist policies engaged pursuant to the political aim of the Turkish Cypriot leadership to be elevated to the status of a separate legal entity or statehood. An eventuality which the Government of Cyprus will never accept.''

[Piratis]

From Enosis, GCs accepted the RC (compromise) and so did TCs (compromise).

If we go back to the compromises done in 1960 you will see again that while GCs gave up some of their rights (compromise) the TCs have actually got more rights and not less. Even if we compare enosis VS taksim, Turkish Cypriots made no compromise. Why? Because the self determination right belonged to Cypriots as a whole and not separately to each community.

You can see this here:

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm
The Declaration states that "the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the United Nations Charter, and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation, and that steps should be taken to transfer, unconditionally, all powers to the Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories so that they might enjoy complete freedom and independence".
Also in 1960, the Assembly approved resolution 1541 (XV), defining free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government.

If you go to this " Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories" list you will see Cyprus (one Cyprus), and if you reed those resolutions you will see that the decision of what this "territory" should do (independence, association, or integration) is something that should be decided by all people of this territory with democratic means (e.g. referendum).

Anyways, we agreed what we agreed in 1960 so the rest is history and do not count for what we are discussing now.

What would be ideal for GCs is to have one person one vote rule, all refugees return back, all troops out, all settlers out. What would be ideal of TCs is to have their ethnically pure independent state. But both sides know that these demands are not feasible, so they compromise and reach something in the middle.

As I told you before it doesn't matter what you or I feel is ideal. If I tell you that for me the ideal is that all Turkish Cypriots leave from Cyprus, and then I accept that they can stay, would you count that as a compromise?

When you make compromises you make them on your legal rights, not on your demands. Otherwise compromises mean nothing since demands can be infinite. (Since 1% of infinity is still infinity, even if you accept to drop 99% of your infinite demands, you are still not making any compromises). What Turkey did is simply to increase her demands so later will drop some of them and seem (in the eyes of the ones who wanted to see it) that Turkey made compromises. They did not.

Tell me one compromise that you believe TCs can make to match the big compromise GCs made by accepting bicommunal bizonal federation?

As I already said TCs don't even need to make compromises (give up something that they can legally have), just stop having outrageous demands would be enough.
But if you are asking about real compromises the TCs can make, one of them is to accept that Turkey (and other foreigners) will not have troops in Cyprus and no right to intervene unilaterally (only through UN-EU). This is one real compromise. There are more compromises that the TCs could make without sucrificing any of their human rights, but I feel is a waste of time to talk about TC compromises now - just stop your outrageous demands, thats enough for us.

[MicAtCyp]

So what would be a true compromise by TCs according to you? Giving up our rights in the RC would be a compromise?

If you look at it from the present situation (of illegal Invasion and occupation) view, no "compromise" coming from the TCs is exchangable with equal "compromise" from the GCs, because the GCs are not interested to lose what is left to them.That's why no solution will ever come this way.The Anan Plan was mostly based on this anyway.....

If you look at it from the view of the TC rights of the 60s inside the RoC, then a compromise that can be considered "equal on a give and take basis" is that the RoC is transformed to a Bizonal Unitary State, everyone regains his properties, all settlers leave, the GCs give up some of their right to return(no giving up on rights of property ownership though), and the TCs give up their demand for a separate State. That's not much for either side to digest.

[metecyp]

If you look at it from the present situation (of illegal Invasion and occupation) view, no "compromise" coming from the TCs is exchangable with equal "compromise" from the GCs, because the GCs are not interested to lose what is left to them.That's why no solution will ever come this way.The Anan Plan was mostly based on this anyway.....

So you're suggesting that we forget what happenned since 1974, go back to what was agreed in 1960 and start compromising from there. Do you really believe that this is feasible? How can you ignore 30 years of history? I don't like what happenned in the north in these 30 years either but I don't believe that ignoring what happenned is ever going to get us anywhere.

If you look at it from the view of the TC rights of the 60s inside the RoC, then a compromise that can be considered "equal on a give and take basis" is that the RoC is transformed to a Bizonal Unitary State, everyone regains his properties, all settlers leave, the GCs give up some of their right to return(no giving up on rights of property ownership though), and the TCs give up their demand for a separate State. That's not much for either side to digest.

Why not bizonal FEDERAL state? Isn't that what we agreed in 1977-79? And how is bizonality going to work if no GC is ever going to give up on some property ownership rights? For your information, TCs do not demand for a seperate state anymore and I do feel that that's a compromise whether you agree or not.

[-mikkie2-]

Why not bizonal FEDERAL state? Isn't that what we agreed in 1977-79? And how is bizonality going to work if no GC is ever going to give up on some property ownership rights? For your information, TCs do not demand for a seperate state anymore and I do feel that that's a compromise whether you agree or not.

Why should a GC relinquish their basic human right to their property? For that matter why should a TC?

You talk about the TC's making a compromise? The TC's have been demanding a seperate state which they created through means of force. The bizonality you talk about, is more than just that. It is seperation of the two communities. Placing restrictions on where people should or can live and in addition, restricting their voting rights, depending on where they live is wrong.

Turkey is busy trying to gain recoginition of the north as a seperate state and at the same time trying to undermine the RoC. Perhaps publicly the TC's say they don't want recognition, but behind the scenes the opposite is happening.

[insan]

Perhaps publicly the TC's say they don't want recognition, but behind the scenes the opposite is happening.

TCs? Which TCs? %65 that voted yes to the A Plan or %35 who voted no to the A Plan? Frankly speaking to you; except the well known statusquoers who openly ask for a seperate state and exert too much effort to make TRNC recognized; majority of %65 who voted yes to A Plan, support any plan which will bring them of their contemporary human rights as TC community not as individuals. Either an equal partner of a federation, confederation or a even in a seperate state; they need to secure themselves against the existing and probable to appear dangers...

[-mikkie2-]

Insan,

The TC's are a big enough community to be able to survive uniquely in a unified Cyprus without the stupid guarantees which contrary to what you may think, results in giving disproportionate power to a COMMUNITY, irrespective of whether they are a majority, or a minority and as a consequence having the effect of limiting the individuals basic fundamental human rights.

The only way to get away from the partisan approach, ie you TC's we GC's, is to GUARANTEE individual rights in Cyprus. That can only be done with a true democracy.

Cyprus is now an EU member. The events of the past cannot and will not happen again. This gives us a basis from which to build a more stable and prosperous future. And that is the key. If we are all treated equally then it does not matter that you are a TC or I a GC.

The crux of the political problem is the fear that you have of us and the fear that we have of you, or more specifically Turkey.

The A plan overwhelmingly safeguarded the interests of Turkey at the expense of the GC's. That is why the TC's voted for it, and it goes without saying that Turkey went some way to gain that result in order to enhance their position, but unfortunately at your expense.

So where do we go from here?

Are the TC's or Turkey prepared to relinquish some of their outrageous demands in order to allow the GC's to say a big YES to a future plan?

I find it surprising Insan that as one that espouses unity, you use the result of the referendum as a way of placing the blame on GC's. If you cannot understand why we said no then I don't really think you appreciate or understand the reasons why we said it.

[insan]

-mikkie2-


The Turkish thesis concerning the solution to Cyprus problem was based on Turkish side's internal balance of the powers. It has changed a bit with Erdogan's and Talat's governments. Different ideological and interest groups within the Turkish side have different view points and interests fro Cyprus. All of these different political and interest groups have been struggling for what they believe is right. In the end, the ones who shape the final conclusion have to satisfy the concerns of all political and interest groups because of balance of the powers. Otherwise it will cause an internal strife within different political and interest groups of TC community and mainland Turks. This is same for entire world...

The TC's are a big enough community to be able to survive uniquely in a unified Cyprus without the stupid guarantees which contrary to what you may think, results in giving disproportionate power to a COMMUNITY, irrespective of whether they are a majority, or a minority and as a consequence having the effect of limiting the individuals basic fundamental human rights.

That's what you and some others; perhaps majority of GCs think and believe... but majority of TCs don't believe this whether you agree or not... Majority of TC community have fears and concerns about their future in Cyprus without those guarantees. As I said it before, those guarantees are needed at least until the majority of two communities have got along well with each other.

The only way to get away from the partisan approach, ie you TC's we GC's, is to GUARANTEE individual rights in Cyprus. That can only be done with a true democracy.

Obviously this means to TCs "Come join us and live in Cyprus like how Turks in Greece lives..." and you expect TCs to agree with that... Would you accept it if Turkey have offered the same thing to GC community? Even to Greece! Join to Turkey as Greeks and GCs with guaranteed individual rights. The essential of the issue is same here...

Cyprus is now an EU member. The events of the past cannot and will not happen again. This gives us a basis from which to build a more stable and prosperous future. And that is the key. If we are all treated equally then it does not matter that you are a TC or I a GC.

You talk like a fortune teller. How do you know? I'm sure the extremists and self interest groups of both sides and even from outside are ready with their sneaky plans to mess up everything. The EU has nothing to do with it. Who can stop bombings, assassinations, retaliations, vendetta and all other crisis which will arise from the different groups interest clashes? What if you lose one of your loved one in that conflict? what if tens or hundreds of GCs and TCs lose their loved ones in that conflict? The mass media and those well known war mongers, surely will pump the hate and vendetta in order to provoke innocent people to fight with each other...

The crux of the political problem is the fear that you have of us and the fear that we have of you, or more specifically Turkey.

correct.

The A plan overwhelmingly safeguarded the interests of Turkey at the expense of the GC's. That is why the TC's voted for it, and it goes without saying that Turkey went some way to gain that result in order to enhance their position, but unfortunately at your expense.

What has she gained with A Plan. Just maintaining a certain amount of troops in Cyprus until she decide to withdraw them all? What has gained Turkey from 1960 till now, by being a guarantor of Cyprus? Instead of gaining anything she lost many things. She spents about 250 million dollars to TCs, per year. 30x250 = 7.5 billion dollars. She could have paid 1/7 of her external debts with this money. Has she got some satelite systems in North to monitor east mediterannean and middle east. Has she ever used the North as a base to invade any of the mediterannean or middle eastern countries? What has she gained? She lost!

I find it surprising Insan that as one that espouses unity, you use the result of the referendum as a way of placing the blame on GC's. If you cannot understand why we said no then I don't really think you appreciate or understand the reasons why we said it.

When did I blame GCs for the result of referandum. The result of referandum in South is the result of balance of the powers of GC community and Greece. Even the super powers couldn't succeed to change the majority of GCs minds, what can I do? I can understand why you said no and have already put forward them in cyprusforum, cyprustalks and here soooo many times. I haven't changed my mind about it, I still think the same things...


Cheers


Ps: Even our lives depends on the balance of the powers. when you are a little kid your life depends on you parents on the first stage, then your government... then you grow up and become an labourer or business man... now your life depends on your boss or balance of the powers of economies monsters... The war of strongs and weaks. Democrasy show is a consolotion for weaks to make them believe in governments... that's all!

[MicAtCyp]

So you're suggesting that we forget what happenned since 1974, go back to what was agreed in 1960 and start compromising from there. Do you really believe that this is feasible? How can you ignore 30 years of history? I don't like what happenned in the north in these 30 years either but I don't believe that ignoring what happenned is ever going to get us anywhere.

Aknowledging the results of 1974 invasion and occupation is never going to be accepted by the GCs. Are you suggesting to accept a part of it? Then what is the compromise of the TCs in this respect?

Why not bizonal FEDERAL state? Isn't that what we agreed in 1977-79?

1.Because what was possible in 1977, today is not!
2.Because it is too expensive to run.
3.Because accepting it as a principle, the best we can end up is a lose association between 2 separate states.
4.Because by accepting the Bizonal Unitary state as a principle then negotiation that will lead to even 100% autonomy of the TCs in the areas where they live, will not bother the GCs.

And how is bizonality going to work if no GC is ever going to give up on some property ownership rights?

And who told you that bizonality has anything to do with the owneship of peoples properties? The only meaning of bizonality accepted by GCs is administrative. Nobody is going to donate his properties to the TCs or the settlers, just because by bizonality they think they can have it.
The fact that many GCs will not return to their ancestral homes for your side to have a region where they are majority is a huge compromise by itself, don't expect donation of properties on top of it!

And really what I am seeing here is compromises one after the other all coming from the GCs.Is this ever going to end, or should we all close our files and forget about any possibility for a solution.

[MicAtCyp]

What has she gained? She lost! (7.5 billion)

that’s right! It happens everywhere. A whole country loses billions so that a few crooks can earn millions.
Look at the invasion of USA in Iraq! How much it costed? Who is going to gain in the end? Only some individuals! Will their gain equalise the cost? NEVER. The gain is always a fraction of the cost !!!
But it will all go into some pockets

Even our lives depends on the balance of the powers. when you are a little kid your life depends on you parents on the first stage, then your government... then you grow up and become an labourer or business man... now your life depends on your boss or balance of the powers of economies monsters... The war of strongs and weaks. Democrasy show is a consolotion for weaks to make them believe in governments... that's all!

I’ve seen this somewhere but cant remember where. If you have a link it will be an excellent piece for everyone to read.
if I remember well, the analysis was about the ruling elites, wasn’t it?