Cyprus-Forum.com

[Natty]

Hey, I've checked out Amnesty internationals report on Cyprus's human rights record and yes it does have some human rights issue's, (just like every other EU country), but when you compare them to other EU countries they actually have quite a few less, or much the same...

[Bananiot]

mrfommg, I could not agree more than your last post. What you have stated constitute a very realistic approach to our problemn.

[miltiades]

Viewpoint wrote :
"""I do not disagree with you that the Annan plan was not ideal and unacceptable for you guys. I and many others had doubts about the GC's accepting the plan. You had a referendum and refused it. That is your democratic right and I and the majority of TC's respect that. ""

A very profound statement that shows maturity and wisdom.

As far as my personal rejection to the A.P is concerned can be summarised in just a few sentences.
For a solution to have even a 50 -50 % chance of success the overwhelming majority of both G/Cs and T/Cs must with reasonable reservations , deem that the solution is not the best that we would have liked but it is the best available option. I felt the APs' foundations were insecure that in time cracks would appear which would lead to renewed inter communal strife. The Plan did not address the security issues and neither did it offer any guarantees that Turkey , and here you must accept that the majority of Cypriots view as the invader , would abide by it's commitments as set out by the Plan. International , European guarantees would have been the best option but instead we were asked to accept the nation that invaded our country as our protector. The T/Cs also have to decide whether it is Cyprus that they are part of or Turkey. My decision was made years ago. Cyprus is my nation and I would embrace any Cypriot as my brother.

[MR-from-NG]

[/quote]Viewpoint wrote

Miltiades, mate,

I'm 53 and signs of senility are slowly creeping in. You at 60 must be half way there.

Just a joke mate, this is the second time you called me Viewpoint. Not that I mind, Viewpoint is a cool dude.

[MR-from-NG]

oooops messed that one up. More signs of senility.

[Natty]

oooops messed that one up. More signs of senility.

Don't worry mrfromng, I always mess up when I try and 'quote' things...

[MR-from-NG]

You managed this one just fine Natty.

[miltiades]

A genuine error , but it goes to show that although I have disagreed with so much of VPs' views when a wise statement is posted I rush to congratulate him.
I stand corrected Mrfromng my old mate and I owe a beer !

[Kifeas]

Miltiades,

I do not disagree with you that the Annan plan was not ideal and unacceptable for you guys. I and many others had doubts about the GC's accepting the plan. You had a referendum and refused it. That is your democratic right and I and the majority of TC's respect that.

What is undeniable is that your administration were not sincere in making their feelings known about the plan. They gave the impression that the plan was workable and the end result would be a unified Cyprus and it will be a bed of roses for both communities.

What I don't understand is this. The ultimate settlement (if ever there is one) on the Island is not going to be a lot more different to the Annan plan that you have already overwhelmingly refused. We wouldn't vote yes to anything that would be a lot more different to the plan.

This leaves the question, can the Annan plan, with a bit of fine tuning be workable?

Please no lessons in human rights!!! stolen propery and all that ****

Mrfromng, I am afraid the Annan plan needs a rather more serious fine tuning than the light one you are suggesting. The most important of all is its very philosophy visa vie the definition of what a Bi-zonal and a bi-communal federation should look like. On this issue we are diametrically on opposite sides.

The TC side (and Turkey) are insisting that this should be based on the “fact” or the “reality” that there are already two existing nation /state entities in Cyprus, the GC one in the south and the TC one in the north, that should retain their existing mono-cultural and mono-ethnic structures but come together and form -as constituencies- a connecting bond in the middle (central government,) in a form of a confederation (or loose federation,) so that they can share together mainly the international representation of Cyprus, while each one of them will be free to more or less do as it wishes in its internal matters. This is the philosophy and approach of the Turkish side, and which we do not even want to hear about and there is no way we can ever accommodate it because it is no different than partition –in fact even worst than partition.

The GC side views Bi-communal and Bi-zonal federation as a mere evolution of the 1960 bi-communal unitary RoC. The bi-communal unitary RoC will evolve into a bi-communal and a bi-zonal federal RoC (the name is not important as long as the evolution concept is there.) The Bi-communal character will be retained (although on a revised concept.) The new or additional element in this case will be the introduction of two internal administrative zones (states,) instead of a single or unitary one that existed in 1960 constitution. However, the two zones -which will have their regional or internal state governments -even though the majority of residents in each one of them will originate from members of one of the two communities, will be resident based and not community or ethnically based.

Each and every Cypriot citizen –be it a Greek or a Turkish Cypriot, should be able to have the same cultural and educational freedom and rights, regardless of where s/he will choose to live, and should be able to exercise all his /her political rights in and through the place of his /her residency (except those pertaining to the bi-communal aspect or level or dimension of the central government) without discrimination and prejudice on the basis of his “ethnic” background. Both languages (Greek and Turkish) will be regarded and have the status of official ones, both on the level of the central government and on the level of both of the two states (zones.) The only difference will be on the working languages of the two zone’s governments, in which the working language of the south government will be the Greek one, and the working language of the North state will be the Turkish one. However, the permanent residents of each of the two states that do not speak the working language of the government, but speak only the other one of the official languages, should be facilitated to do their dealings with it through specially appointed officers in each ministry or government building. The two States may have their internal constitutions, but these should not be based on the ethnic identity or derive their inherent constituent power of exclusively one of the two communities (ethnically based,) but will instead derive their inherent constituent power from their permanent residents, like it is the case of all the state constitutions of the USA.

These are more or less the two opposite approaches of the two communities on the issue of what and how a BBF should be defined and implemented. The Annan plan, through various tricks, swings and turns, and due to the power politics played by Turkey and her Anglo-American friends, adopted a philosophy that is essentially no different than the above described Turkish approach of a BBF, and this is why (among other reasons) it was rightfully trashed by the GCs.

[MR-from-NG]

The TC side (and Turkey) are insisting that this should be based on the “fact” or the “reality” that there are already two existing nation /state entities in Cyprus, the GC one in the south and the TC one in the north, that should retain their existing mono-cultural and mono-ethnic structures but come together and form -as constituencies- a connecting bond in the middle (central government,) in a form of a confederation (or loose federation,) so that they can share together mainly the international representation of Cyprus, while each one of them will be free to more or less do as it wishes in its internal matters. This is the philosophy and approach of the Turkish side, and which we do not even want to hear about and there is no way we can ever accommodate it because it is no different than partition –in fact even worst than partition.

Kifeas,

Thank you for your detailed and articulate response. Though the above is the model you oppose it is the one that the Tc's look warmly to. The latter part of your post is more or less what was in place in 1960, that was tried and for obvious reasons failed miserably. You go on to say the The GC side views Bi-communal and Bi-zonal federation as a mere evolution of the 1960 bi-communal unitary RoC. The bi-communal unitary RoC will evolve into a bi-communal and a bi-zonal federal RoC. Am I right in thinking this could in time evolve into the model we are looking for to begin with? If so why not begin the process of reunification on the model that appeals to us more?

I do sincerely believe that we will never ever have a repeat of the past, the TC' have nothing to fear from the GC's and vice versa. Which ever model is finally implemented will (or at least I think) work. The important thing is for the people that will ultimately sign on the dotted line to get their finger out and get the job done.

I have one wish before I die and that is to see an end to the Cyprus problem. Time is running out for me.