despo wrote: 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...Piratis wrote:
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).
You are obviously a defender of the deceased Annan plan, and you are trying to decorate it with flowers so that you show us how good it was and what we have lost for rejecting it.
Well, perhaps you should go around and visit the areas (actually the scrappiest parts of the occupied north) which were meant to be returned to the G/Cs, and then speak. No, the territorial adjustments were not satisfactory at all, nor the 1/3 of property returns in the T/C (North) State, were sufficient, neither the compensation schemes provided by in the Annan plan were serious. No one has claimed that all G/Cs should get all their properties back, as the ECHR decisions otherwise call for, but certainly no G/C in his right senses should have accepted such an extensive property theft, as it was meant to be legalized through the Annan plan. Nor it is logical the TC (North) state should occupy, after territorial adjustments, 47% of the coastlines (the most expensive and valuable lands,) and the G/C state only the 44% (the remaining 9% being part of the British bases.)
despo wrote: 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.
You make two mistakes here. The first is that the property committee that the ECHR asked in the Aresti-Xenides case is asked to be formed under the authority and control of the Turkish government who is the only single defendant in the case, and not under the authority of the T/C community or the “TRNC.” It is another issue if the Turkish government -as they occupying force in the north, asked the T/Cs to form this committee on her behalf. That doesn’t mean that the court ceased from acknowledging Turkey to be the defendant entity and will now start recognizing the “TRNC” as the entity in control of the north, or as a legally valid entity. This is the Turkish propaganda theory which they mainly initiated for internal consumption, and has nothing to do with the actual court ruling. The second mistake is that you think the court gave the right to Turkey -or to any such committee, to handle the property issue in whichever way they may choose to, and thus offer compensation only or any other remedy -in their discretion, instead of providing for the actual return of properties. No, the court made it explicit that the functioning of any internal remedy that Turkey will provide, should be in line with the merits of the Loizidou case /ruling, which means that each G/Cs are the physical and legal owner of his properties in the north, which must be made available (returned) to them, besides compensation for the loss of use for the part years. Alternatively, the G/Cs still have the right to go back to the ECHR against Turkey should the later doesn’t provide for remedies according to the Loizidou findings and precedent. The Loidiou precedent did not change for one iota with the Aresti case.
despo wrote: 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?
You just make a huge mistake with the above! Nevertheless, since when someone is termed a rejectionist, if he tries to defend the minimum legal and historical rights of his people?
