Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Piratis your not really addressing the problem with practical solutions

What do you mean "practical" Viewpoint? Here we are talking about GCs making major compromises from their legal rights and for TCs not only you do not accept to make equivalent compromises but you would not even accept any inconvenience?

If what you expect is a way to legalize your illegalities then keep dreaming and stop waisting our time. If you want an agreed solution then start thinking about compromises and sacrifices, in the same way that we do.

[cypezokyli]

my question is , was the level of bizonality in the first 3 APs not satisfactory for the tc community or was that just a demand from denktash ?
i mean , if some more refuggees have the right to return it would increase the support (and the arguments for supporting) any plan.

The issue for them at the time was that with increasing GC population in the northern component state, over time, GCs would be able to gain seats in the senate reserved for the north, hence the balance of power at the federal level would change.

I believe this becomes an issue because the TC side assumes that bizonality and bicomunality are the same thing. We are trying to achieve bicommunality through a very strict bizonality, by restrincting the settlement of GCs in the north. I believe it would be easier to achieve a solution by keeping these two things seperate, i.e. bicommunality will be seperate and will not depend on the population distribution in particular federated states.

To me,this means that in the federal elections we will vote for our communities representatives no matter where we live. However in our states, we will vote together as the residents of the same state for the same parties in the same elections.

so in short , if bicomunality is guaranteed , then you would accept a looser form of bizonality (which ofcource would carry certain transition periods).

[sadik]

Kifeas, I believe your points below are valid, reasonable and fair. I'm truely convinced that one of the most important obstacles in the way of a solution in Cyprus, is our sides insistance on having two completely seperated states, seperated ethnically and institutionally, as the basis of a solution. I want to live in a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society, where people will be able to interact with each other and choose to live together. And if, somewhere along the line, in 15,20 or 50 year later, TCs decide that they are comfortable in a unified Cypus, and they start not to care about having a majority in the north and move to the south, so be it. It's a decision that our children can make. We don't have the right to take this choice away from them. We just need to guarantee for them that they will not be forced to do certain things against their will.

If we are sincere about a solution, we, as the TC community, need to accept a solution along these lines, at least in principle. I say in priniple, because a lot will depend on the details, such as the land ratios, the transition period, power sharing at the federal level, etc...

If I need to summarize the TC view on this, a BBF should be established in such a way that TCs will have the majority of both the population and the property in one of the federated states.

This is also our own understanding,

However,

1. We need to agree by how much majority this will be sufficient, and then how this is implemented in practice. I believe this is quite feasible with the right adjustment of territory size and resources and with the introduction of settlement time frames, which will eventually constitute T/C majority in the North a de facto natural situation. Once this is sufficiently established, we believe that nature and individual socio-economic behaviour alone should be the only self regulator.

2. You need to explain what you mean by having autonomy in the TC internal affairs.

3. We definitely do not accept the logic of the Annan plan in which bi-zonality was regarded as another means to institutionalise, secure and promote duality on ethnic basis.

4. Bi-communality (i.e. representation of the people on an ethnic basis) will already be served on a different level and through the Senate of the Federal government.

5. We do not accept the idea that the States as entities are equated with the communities, i.e. each State to represent one community in a territorial and political ownership sense. The two states should be regarded as one set of entities, and the two communities as another separate set of entities.

6. The states should represent their permanent residents, and not the communities on an ethnic basis.

7. The G/Cs who will be permanent residents of the North State should enjoy full political and cultural rights within that state, and should be able to feel that the State represents them in the same way that it represents the T/Cs.

8. The T/Cs should exercise control of the North State only by virtue of having a majority of population presence as permanent residents of the state, and not because the T/C community is the owner of the state in a territorial and political sense.

9. The Turkish language should be the official working language of the North State’s governmental institutions, but both the Turkish and the Greek languages should enjoy the status of official languages in a virtual sense, and this should be stipulated in the constitution of the State. The same must be the case for the South State. G/Cs that do not master the Turkish language properly should not be excluded from playing a role in the political affairs of the state, but only in taking public service posts in the government mechanism. More like the EU institutions and bodies are functioning, in which all languages are official, but only English, German and French are the working languages.

In another forum I expressed some similar ideas about this issue, which I copy /paste below, and which move along the above lines.

We do not accept the philosophy of the Annan plan 5, in which, bi-communality and bi-zonality were integrated in such a way so that they can be used interchangeably, instead of being two separate and complementary levels of government. This meant in practice that the T/C community was exclusively and strictly identified with the North Constituent state and the G/C community with the South Constituent state, in an institutionalised manner and form, as if they were the exclusive historical and natural homelands of each one of the two communities respectively.

In other words, the T/C community was equated with the North (T/C) state, and the North (T/C) state was equated with the T/C community, and vice versa.

We believe that the two sets of notions, i.e. the states and the communities, should remain separated. Bi-communality in the federal legislature (i.e. political representation and rights on the basis of exclusive community or “ethnic” basis) should be observed as a component of the senate of the central state. Both of the two constituent states should be identified and express their permanent residents alone, irrespective of community origin. Bi-zonality in the federal legislature (i.e. political representation and rights on the basis of constituent state permanent residency) should be observed in the parliament (lower house,) and as separate component of the senate.

We do not accept a constitution of the North (T/C) constituent state that will express and speak alone and exclusively on behalf of the T/C community, as such, but one that will express and speak on behalf of the permanent Cypriot residents of the state, like it was the case in the Annan plan.

PREAMBLE
We, the Turkish Cypriot people,
bearing in mind that the territorial integrity, security and constitutional order of the Turkish Cypriot State is guaranteed under the Treaty of Guarantee,
sovereignly proclaim this Constitution by approval at referendum of 20 April 2004 as the Constitution of the Turkish Cypriot State.

PART I
General Principles
The Form and Characteristics of the Turkish Cypriot State
Article 1
The Turkish Cypriot State, as one of the two Constituent States of the United Cyprus Republic, which is based on the political equality, bi-zonality and equal status of the two Constituent States, representing the distinct identity of Turkish Cypriots and their equal political status in a bizonal partnership. It is a secular state based on the principles of human rights, democracy, representative republican government, social justice and the supremacy of law.

The T/C community should indirectly control the North (T/C) state only by virtue of existence of a majority of permanent Turkish Cypriot residents in its territory, and not because it is the owner of the state as a community in an exclusive historical sense. The Turkish language can be the official and the working language of the government of the state, but not the only official language of the state. The Greek language should also enjoy the status of official language of this state. Respectively, all the same must hold for the South (G/C) state.

We do not accept a constitution of the North (T/C) state that will expressively adhere to the principles of Ataturk, and which will also require an oath in the name of Ataturk for any person holding a political post in the internal government and legislature of the state. If there are any principles of Ataturk that are useful to be included and in the constitution (such as secularism for example,) those should be stipulated expressively for what they are, without codifying them as the principles of Ataturk as such! Ataturk, as his name implies, is the father of the Turks. The North (T/C) constituent state is not the homeland of the Turks (i.e. Turkey,) but a constituent state of the united republic of Cyprus which is a member of the EU. Ataturk is the personification of Turkish nationalism. What we need in a re-united Cyprus is to institutionalise Cypriot patriotism, and not to institutionalise Greek and Turkish nationalism respectively. The T/Cs are free to worship and commemorate Ataturk in their private or community based encounters and also through non-governmental and /or community based private organisations, and they are free to have as many posters and statues in their houses and other non governmental establishments, but his name must be separated from the constitution of the state.

[sadik]

Kifeas, back to my original question though. Do you believe there is a contradiction between bizonality and all the refugees rights to return?

[sadik]

..deleted...

[reportfromcyprus]

Nothing, except for an opportunity to pay lipservice.

Time for a new word - bi-zonality is a tired old horse that just wants to be put out to graze.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, back to my original question though. Do you believe there is a contradiction between bizonality and all the refugees rights to return?

No, I do not believe there is a contradiction, if we take into consideration that it is the mere right of choice to return that is demanded, without that implying that they will also have to be “forced” or “obliged” to return, plus:

1. The right of all refugees to return is also viewed through the fact that not all refugees want or will want or choose to return. This is an undeniable fact, because of the elapsing of all these years during which many have passed away, and many (almost all) have settled their lives in a permanent way elsewhere in the south and /or abroad.

2. That almost 50% of the G/C refugees would have theoretically returned within the boundaries of the South (G/C) State.

3. That the right to participate in the North (T/C) State's political life will require permanent residency and not mere ownership of a house or an apartment in which someone will vacation for a few weeks or a couble of months in a year.

4. The territorial arrangements will be re-visited so that the territorial natural resources are more evenly distributed among the population of the country and the targeted population of the two states, so that there is no need or incentive for more G/Cs to want to settle in the North State.

With this I bring to your attention that even though the T/C state would cover 29% of the territory -something which alone theoretically justifies up to 35% of it's permanent residents to be of G/C origin, the coast line of this state was more than 47% of the total Cypriot coastline, and this in country in which the coastline plays a very crucial role for the overall economic development.

[Viewpoint]

Piratis your not really addressing the problem with practical solutions

What do you mean "practical" Viewpoint? Here we are talking about GCs making major compromises from their legal rights and for TCs not only you do not accept to make equivalent compromises but you would not even accept any inconvenience?

If what you expect is a way to legalize your illegalities then keep dreaming and stop waisting our time. If you want an agreed solution then start thinking about compromises and sacrifices, in the same way that we do.

Practicle in the sense that not all refugees will go home, practicle in the sense that power will be shared not forced, practicle in the sense that one community cannot force its will on the other, practicle in the sense that the army will leave, practicle in the sense that some settlers will have to leave....etc
For me representation and security issues are far more important than where people live although in theory we should have 2 seperate states in which TCS and GCS people can choose to live. Each state representatives should be elected along ethnic and residency lines. I agree with Kifeas that the law making level this should be more representative of the 2 states residents but where we need to ensure fair play or that one community is attempting to dominate the other is at the approving stage where certain criteria have to be met in order to establish new, change or amend laws.

[Piratis]

Practicle in the sense that not all refugees will go home, practicle in the sense that power will be shared not forced, practicle in the sense that one community cannot force its will on the other, practicle in the sense that the army will leave, practicle in the sense that some settlers will have to leave....etc

Not all refugees might go home, but all refugees should have the right to go home which is their human right and nobody can deny it to them. Also it is not "some settlers will have to leave" but "some settlers will have to stay".

However what I don't understand is how this "practical issues" have anything to do with the % of land that each state should have.

Do you believe there is a contradiction between bitonality and all the refugees rights to return?

And why do you believe that this is the case sadik? Unless you believe that the states should be ethnically pure (which is something I see you do not support) then why is it impossible that all refugees can have the right to return while maintaining bizonality? It is all about the percentage of land that the TC state should have. If this % is a fair one based on population percentage then there is no conflict at all between bizonality and the return of even the 100% of refugees. (if we assume that this theoretical extreme is possible)

[Viewpoint]

Practicle in the sense that not all refugees will go home, practicle in the sense that power will be shared not forced, practicle in the sense that one community cannot force its will on the other, practicle in the sense that the army will leave, practicle in the sense that some settlers will have to leave....etc

Not all refugees might go home, but all refugees should have the right to go home which is their human right and nobody can deny it to them. Also it is not "some settlers will have to leave" but "some settlers will have to stay".

However what I don't understand is how this "practical issues" have anything to do with the % of land that each state should have.

Now you are playing with words, the right to go home is there but you are kidding yourself and your people when you state that everyone can physically go home, you give the impression that it can be achieved which clearly it cannot. The right to decide whether to "go home" will be restricted by the current state of the property, as this will surely determine whether it is possible or not. A refugee promised the right to go home may be in shick when he finds out that a school has been built on his property, so does telling this person you have the right to go home fair? We should not provide false hope, the years have passed and are passing nothing stays the same. Every refugee shoudl be given the right to his property no questioning that but surely many will not really have the option to go home but accept an alternative solution.

Piratis lets get it straight division and a BBF solution are totally different. So the 18% issue becomes relevent is a division scenario but in a BBF solution where GCs will be allowed to return to the north 29% will to a great extent be warranted in being allocated to the north. The issue of borders, land distribution and restrctions will become insignificant once both sides prove they can live, work and prosper together.

Being praticle is showing a desire to solve problems with causing even more complications which inevatably cloggs up solving anything.