Cyprus-Forum.com

[sadik]

The official policy of both sides in the Cyprus problem is that the solution will be based on a bizonal bicommunal federation. Official policy of all the major political parties are also along these lines. Plus we have the 1977 and 1979 high level agreements between Makarios and Denktas, that a solution will be based on a BBF. So BBF is the basis of the last 30 years of negotiations. In this question I want to focus on the bizonality aspect.

I personally support a BBF and view it as the only viable solution model for Cyprus. I believe introduction of bizonality is a vital rearrangement of the way that the Cypriot people is organized. It will give both GCs and TCs autonomy in their internal affairs. It will create a more stable structure and reduce the potential ethnic problems between the major ethnic groups in Cyprus.

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.

I want to know what bizonality means to the GCs? Plus, what about the apparent contradition between the official policy of a BBF and the official policy of all refugees returning? How is that possible? I heard this questing being asked to Christofias, the AKEL secretary general, by Kyrenia Refugees Association but I never saw an answer for this in the press.

[cypezokyli]

the problem with bizonality and our politicians is the following. the politicians accepted it , but still promised to the refugees that they would all return. thats why they were all shocked when AP came.

for me , i do accept the term bizonality as you defined it.

on the other hand , i believe that the AP could be changed in a way that more refuggees would have the right to return without (even theoretically) ever outnumbering the tcs in the north. in practise i dont think that the gcs would even manage to be restricted by the provisions as set by the AP.

Now, i have a question for tcs. If i am not mistaken when the two leaderships were asked to give the changes they wanted to see in AP3 , tpap gave changes for what he called the "functionality" of the plan , while the tcs leadership asked for a more strengthened bizonality.

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.

[Piratis]

BBF means a Federation (like the USA, not confederation like Switzerland, or association of separate countries like Annan plan) that instead of 52 states it has 2 states (bizonal) and each state has a majority of each of the Cyprus communities (bicommunal).

Most (probably all) federations were created when initially separated countries or regions united into a federation. At no point in world history was a region ethnically cleansed from its majority to create a separate state for a minority that didn't own and was never the majority in any specific region.

For this reason BBF was a huge compromise from the Greek Cypriot side. Unfortunately Turkish Cypriots didn't make a compromise of an equal weight and instead they kept demanding more and more, this is why the Cyprus problem still exists.

TCs should realize that they should also sacrifice important things that are their rights with the 1960 agreements. Unfortunately most of them expect that they should only receive and gain on the loss of GCs without giving up anything themselves.

Plus, what about the apparent contradition between the official policy of a BBF and the official policy of all refugees returning?

There is no contradiction. When we accepted BBF we never said that the state were the 18% of TCs will be the majority should be 29% or 37%!!!! Thats an outrageous demand from your side.
If you had accepted a proportional percentage of land (18%) then even if all refugees returned, TCs would still be the great majority in the northern state.
This is one example of what I mean when I say that the TC side instead of making equivalent compromises from what are their rights according to the 1960 agreements in order to match the compromise of GCs for BBF, they instead continue to make more and more demands expecting that they should gain on the loss of GCs because they "won the war".
With this attitude no kind of solution can be found in a peaceful way.

[Kifeas]

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.

[Viewpoint]

So what you are saying is that Tcs that now live in 37% of the island should all uproute leaving 32 years behind them yet again and move into 18% of the island to create a BBF solution. Then all we have to do is wait for the 18% to be swamped by the 82% in the EU. Great logic, can see where you are going with that one Piratis....well done.

[sadik]

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.

[Piratis]

So what you are saying is that Tcs that now live in 37% of the island should all uproute leaving 32 years behind them yet again and move into 18% of the island to create a BBF solution.

The 37% of the island that TCs live in does not belong exclusively to them. Actually only a small percentage of that 37% belongs to them, the rest belongs to Greek Cypriots that were ethnically cleansed from the land they inhabited for over 3000 years.

Does it mean that because you used force to illegally keep us away from our own homes for 32 years that our homes and our land now belong to you??

So yes, solution means to stop the illegalities, accept that human rights should be respected, and if you want BBF instead of 1960 agreements (the only legal thing that exists today) then you should also make equivalent compromises.

Then all we have to do is wait for the 18% to be swamped by the 82% in the EU.

How is this related now? If it is 29% it can not be "swamped" but if it is 18% it can?
Turkish Cypriots are 18% of the population. Since TCs do not own a separate region of Cyprus, based on what are we going to split RoC into 2 states? The population % is the only fair way to do it, although you apparently prefer to use as a basis the land that you illegally grabbed and occupy. This will never happen.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas

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.

Could you kindly clairfy as to how you will secure TCs are always the majority in the north?

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.

Would this in effect mean that the north could in time be run entirely by GCs?

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.

So in practice the one entity (being the GCs) could dominate both states?

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.

Please clarify what will happen when they are no longer the majority of residence in the north?

[Viewpoint]

So what you are saying is that Tcs that now live in 37% of the island should all uproute leaving 32 years behind them yet again and move into 18% of the island to create a BBF solution.

The 37% of the island that TCs live in does not belong exclusively to them. Actually only a small percentage of that 37% belongs to them, the rest belongs to Greek Cypriots that were ethnically cleansed from the land they inhabited for over 3000 years.

Does it mean that because you used force to illegally keep us away from our own homes for 32 years that our homes and our land now belong to you??

So yes, solution means to stop the illegalities, accept that human rights should be respected, and if you want BBF instead of 1960 agreements (the only legal thing that exists today) then you should also make equivalent compromises.

Then all we have to do is wait for the 18% to be swamped by the 82% in the EU.

How is this related now? If it is 29% it can not be "swamped" but if it is 18% it can?
Turkish Cypriots are 18% of the population. Since TCs do not own a separate region of Cyprus, based on what are we going to split RoC into 2 states? The population % is the only fair way to do it, although you apparently prefer to use as a basis the land that you illegally grabbed and occupy. This will never happen.

Piratis your not really addressing the problem with practical solutions you are just repeating the same old rhetoric as usual which gets us absoulutely nowhere. So in effect you are saying TCs should all move into an area of 18% in a BBF solution? If you were saying agreed division then I would go someway to agreeing with you but what we are discussing is a BBF where GCs will be allowed to return to live in the north state, yet you still feel we should be placed in 18% of the island. You know quite well that many TCs would not move to 18% of the island and therefore have live in the GC state which would then reduce the TC state even further. This is not a practicle solution and the 29% foreseen in the Annan plan is more acceptable as it would entail the minimum upheval to allow as many GCs to return as possible.

[Kifeas]

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.

Well, if the T/C leadership is ready to accept the above logic, then we have almost solved half of the problem. However, I doubt it very much that they are ready for something like this.

Furthermore, only in the Senate (upper house) of the Federal government we can agree that people will vote on ethnic community basis. The lower house should represent the two States and all their people (permanent residents,) as it is in all other federations. The lower house should have a law enactment and government formulating role and the Senate will have an overlooking, regulating and final approval role.