Cyprus-Forum.com

[cypezokyli]

what exactly do you understand by the term bicommunality piratis ?

[Piratis]

what exactly do you understand by the term bicommunality piratis ?

The fact is that anybody can understand whatever he wants since such term is nowhere defined as what exactly it means. Probably in Cyprus we are the inventors and the only ones who use such word.

For me bicommunality means 2 communities. When you add this to the BBF, it means that each community will be the majority of each state.

Some like to overload this term such as "bicommuality means that the TCs should have 29% of the land and the human and democratic rights of GCs should be violated". All I can say to this is that people have great imagination.

[miltiades]

Despo , you should have known , that against Piratis , and his immense knowledge and understanding of the Cyprus situation you are a mere novice. You give the Annan Plan your own interpretation , you even deny it its proper name.
I do not agree with all that Piratis posts, but he does however possess a phenomenal amount of intricate knowledge of the Cyprus problem. I think your comments on the Turkish Cypriot veto being non existent , and merely a propaganda ploy by the GCs should be retracted in view of the undeniable facts that Turkey it self would be instrumental in encouraging its protectorate and subservient TCs to invoke the veto.

[bg_turk]

miliades,

If you would like to disprove Despo's statements in a credible manner, the proper thing to do in order to pursuade us in the veracity of your claims would not be to ask him to retract his statements, but to use factual evidence in support of your claims.

Have you read the Annan Plan and if so would you be good enough to quote the passages of the Annan Plan that you believe gives TCs the veto power?

Otherwise I remain with the impression that your insistance to make Despo retract his statements is not motivated by the desire to know the truth about the Annan Plan, but merely by the fact that his statements are politically inconvenient to your agenda.

[Piratis]

Have you read the Annan Plan and if so would you be good enough to quote the passages of the Annan Plan that you believe gives TCs the veto power?

Here are some examples:

For the parliament:

a. Each Chamber shall have 48 members. The Senate shall be composed of an equal number of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. The Chamber of Deputies shall be composed in proportion to persons holding internal constituent state citizenship status of each constituent state, provided that each constituent state shall be attributed no less than one quarter of seats.
b. Decisions of Parliament shall require the approval of both Chambers by simple majority, including one quarter of voting Senators from each constituent state. For specified matters, a special majority of two-fifths of sitting Senators from each constituent state shall be required.
.

(and for the ones that didn't get it, the 24TC senators can stop the parliament from taking ANY decision = veto)

For the "Presidential Council":

a. The Presidential Council shall be elected on a single list by special majority in the Senate and approved by majority in the Chamber of Deputies for a five year term. It shall comprise six voting members, and additional non-voting members should Parliament so decide. The composition of the Presidential Council shall be proportional to the number of persons holding the internal constituent state citizenship status of each constituent state, though no less than one-third of the voting members and one-third of any non-voting members of the Council must come from each constituent state.
b. The Presidential Council shall strive to reach decisions by consensus. Where it fails to reach consensus, it shall, unless otherwise specified, take decisions by simple majority of members present and voting, provided this comprises at least one member from each constituent state.

There are 1000s of pages in Annan plan.

You can say 1+1=2 or you can say 44/4+5*10-4*15+100000/50000-2341234123412341234123232324123/2341234123412341234123232324123=2

The 1+1 way would have been to write in the Annan plan "TCs have veto on everything". The other way is state parliaments, federal parliaments, presidential councils, rotating presidencies bla bla bla bla = "TCs have veto on everything".

The only "benefit" of the second is that since words are not math, some vagueness can be introduced to make things even more confusing, hoping that some people would not realize that the result is still the same, or even worst having each person realizing these words in a different way, something that could create huge problems later on.

However in the case of Annan plan the management of the "central government" falls into second place anyways, since the 2 states would be mostly independent running most of their affairs separately (=partition)

[bg_turk]

44/4+5*10-4*15+100000/50000-2341234123412341234123232324123/2341234123412341234123232324123=2

You actually bothered to make sure the equality holds :lol
It is really two!

[cypezokyli]

what exactly do you understand by the term bicommunality piratis ?

The fact is that anybody can understand whatever he wants since such term is nowhere defined as what exactly it means. Probably in Cyprus we are the inventors and the only ones who use such word.

For me bicommunality means 2 communities. When you add this to the BBF, it means that each community will be the majority of each state.

Some like to overload this term such as "bicommuality means that the TCs should have 29% of the land and the human and democratic rights of GCs should be violated". All I can say to this is that people have great imagination.

My first question, and correct me if i am wrong , bicomunality was referred in the SC resolutions before bizonality was mentioned. i.e. in SC resolution 649 , i can only read bi-communal federation , while by 750 the bi-zonality was added.

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/CD5E4 ... _1990_.pdf

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/AB382 ... _1992_.pdf

if bicommunality existed before bizonality then the definition that you give of bi-communality doesnot make any sense. because precicely it can (and it did) exist without bizonality.

it couldnt have meant that each community is a majority in each state , because the SC resolutions didnot always refer to "states" or "zones"



perhaps this helps :

Resolution 750 (1992)
Adopted by the Security Council on 10 April 1992

2. Reaffirms the position, set out in resolutions 649(1990) of 12 March 1990 and 716(1991) of 11 October 1991, that a Cyprus settlement must be based on a State of Cyprus with a single sovereignty and international personality and a single citizenship, with its independence and territorial integrity safeguarded, and comprising two politically equal communities as defined in paragraph 11 of the Secretary-General's report (S/23780) in a bi-communal and bi-zonal federation, and that such a settlement must exclude union in whole or in part with any other country or any form of partition or secession;

could it be that bicommunality , refers to political equality of the two communities ....to make a long story short , a tc veto ?

what exactly do you understand by the term political equality of the two communities piratis ? one-person-one-vote ?

let me remind you that the SC resolutions are binding

[Piratis]

cypezokyli, I could not find the definition of "political equality of communities". Apparently this is just another vague term invented for Cyprus that anybody can interpreted any way he likes. If you want me to tell you what I think it means I will.

I found however the definition of political equality:

By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions.
One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/S ... /Verba.pdf

[despo]

Piratis, again you are demonstrating just how difficult it is going to be to get a settlement on the island.

Anyway, I can't respond to all your points because, quite simply, you don't even have a basic grasp of the issues.

But...

Go read the Annan plan. It is obvious that the only part that interested you is that you would get your own land back and you didn't give a damn about the rest of Cypriots and the rest of the Annan plan parameters.

Well, it's good that you acknowledge that the Annan Plan would have returned land to GCs. One rejectionist argument against Annan, however, was that not all displaced people would have returned. Instead, a settlement should be based on the decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). But, the Loizidou decision has now been surpassed by the Xenidi-Aresti decision, by which the Turkish Cypriots will set up a Property Commission (recognised as a legal entity by the ECHR) which will have the power either to return property (I would like to see Mrs Xenidi-Aresti going back to her house in Varossi on a decision of this committee, and all on her own, since, unlike Annan which would have involved the whole population of Varossi, this particular decision applies only to her), or offer compensation, or decide on the final status of property once a settlement is reached through the UN. Papadopoulos and other rejectionist GC politicians would always bang on about how any settlement should be based on the ECHR decision, but ever since this decision was published a few months ago the term "European Court of Human Rights" has completely dropped out of their vocabulary and they don't mention it anymore. When was the last time you heard Papadopoulos mention the ECHR?

Instead, what the Papadopoulos government started going on about - until the UN and EU requested them not to distort things - is the so-called "Paris Agreement", by which technical committees are to be drawn up and Confidence Building Measures implemented. The return of Ammochostos was also mentioned as being something that could be discussed - but, just that, discussed, and only because Gul mentioned it in his ten points by which Turkey could open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriots (and presumably GCs would open our ports and airports to Turkey) but at the same time implementing stated EU policy of direct trade with the Turkish Cypriots. Now, Ammochostos seems to be being discussed as part of a trade off within the context of the EU: GCs will be able to return to Ammochostos and the port will be opened up under an EU administration, but also Tympou/Ercan airport will be opened up for the TCs under an EU administration. TCs will also be able to use Ammochostos port to trade directly with the EU (and, presuambly, other countries).

And, just to think, a decade ago Tassos Papadopoulos himself was criticising the "Ammochostopoeisi" of the Cyprus issue!

Btw, what about all this stuff in the newspapers now about TC properties appropriated by the RoC government. How are those TC refugees going to get their properties back now?

Yes, I do live abroad, I live in Athens, Greece.

Now, given that the ECHR has requested the Turkish Cypriots to set up a property commission, and the EU has not made return of the property of displaced GCs a condition for Turkey joining the EU, how are you suggesting that people from Kyrenia, for example, are going to return to their property, if not in a way described in the Annan Plan? Do you beleive that there is going to be a better property deal than that described in Annan? If yes, how is this going to be achieved? How, according to you, are all the displaced GCs from Kyrenia going to return to their houses there, given the last decision of the ECHR?

[cypezokyli]

cypezokyli, I could not find the definition of "political equality of communities". Apparently this is just another vague term invented for Cyprus that anybody can interpreted any way he likes. If you want me to tell you what I think it means I will.

I found however the definition of political equality:

By political equality we refer to the extent to which citizens have an equal voice over governmental decisions.
One of the bedrock principles in a democracy is the equal consideration of the preferences and interests of all citizens. This is expressed in such principles as one-person/one-vote, equality before the law, and equal rights of free speech.
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/inequality/S ... /Verba.pdf

i just wonder if oyu dont understand or if you do not want to understand
just change in the above definition "citizens" with "communities" and you have a new definition of democracy