Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

You did not answer my question on why you insist that in the solution 2 which we have two separate countries, you do not like a partition on the basis of land ownership percentages at 1960, instead of insisting partion to be based on population percentages.

I was just trying to be fair as I do always!

Here is a post from MicAtCyp with some figures:

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-3139.html#3139

And here are some more numbers:
http://agrino.org/humrights/proposals/77prpsal.html

Is it at least conceivable that you intransigence on this matter relies on teh fact that TCs owned much more economically viable land compared to their population percentage then GCs at 1960.

Are you serious? On average Turkish Cypriots have been poorer than Greek Cypriots and what they owned was less both in quantity and in quality.

I guess you are saying this because you thought: "Why is the evil person proposing 18%? Probably it means that we owned more than that".

But no. The truth is actually the exact opposite, and the only reason I said 18% is because I believe this is what is the most fair!

You have said that after we establish two countries you said we both will be a aprt of EU.

No, I didn't say this. I said that you can apply if you want.

more to loose in economic and social terms if they become member of EU then let's say if they stay outside.

I believe that in the long run the economic terms would be better within EU. Not because EU will make our economy better, but because staying out of it would make our economy much worst. (about the social terms you might be right, we will see)

But for us security is the number one issue, and this issue for a small country like us will be always there with or without the Cyprus problem.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

If you want to have less than 18% no problem!

According to data that cannot be disputed, prepared both under British rule and since Independence, the percentages of land ownership in Cyprus are as follows:

Greeks Turks Others State Land
60.9% 12.3% 0.5% 26.3%
"State Land" includes: communal properties (such as grazing areas), roads rivers, lakes, forests and other state owned lands.

The percentages of privately owned land are as follows:

Greeks Turks Others
82.7% 16.7% 0.6%

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

Tanks behind the theifs, thats all you are. No more comments.

(and by "you" I am referring to all those that use the power of Turkey to enforce something so obviously unfair)

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

Yes, its stupid of you. Go sell your crap to idiots that will buy them.

And when you grow up let me know.

At least I am not a fully grown thief like you.

TCs + Efkaf land + 30% of the state land

Where did you find the 30% state land?? Thats 18% of state land.

(by the way, you asked for my references and I gave you some. You gave nothing)

[Alasya]

My statistics are based on the Cyprus Government statistics of 1960, published by George Karaouzis, in the book, the details of which I have privided in earlier posts. I don`t know where Piratis got his statistics from, he should include the names of his sources, it makes it easier for the rest of us. Karaouzis` book, which is really good book, I bought a copy last year, can also be found in the British library, if you happen to be in London or in the Universite Laval, Irma Le Vasseur library in Quebec City where I live.

Somebody said

"I believe this is a personal choice. If someone feels like a Turk, let them be a Turk. If someone feels like a Cypriot, let them be a Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot or whatever. These are not important for a solution. What's important is that we accept and respect each other no matter how we choose to define ourselves as turkcyp said".

I think this is part of the problem. If you have a reunited Cyprus, an indivisible state, a Cypriot citizenship, sacred symbols of that state and a single international character but meanwhile everybody calls themselves Greek or Turkish, this state will fall apart.

If the Cypriot state makes no effort to nurture a Cypriotness, even if its an artificial Cypriotness, then that state is doomed to failure. The symbols of that state, its constitution, parliament, institutions, laws will mean nothing to nobody, as long as we have our "motherlands" and call ourselves Greek and Turkish.

The state like the law must command respect, obedience and loyalty from its citizens. There can be question of "I am a citizen of the United Cyprus Republic but I am Greek and my capital city is Athens, Zyto Ellada!". What kind of confidence is that going to build in a new Cyprus? Will this indivisible state be indivisible for much longer?

One of the reasons the 1960- republic collapsed, was because nobody called themselves a Cypriot, (or had the gutts to) nor did the Cyprus govt make any effort to encourage them to feel this way. Education was divided on ethnic grounds, education was bias and influenced heavily by Greek and Turkish nationalism, children were forced the sing the national anthems of the "motherlands", paramilitary groups both Greek and Turkish were never asked to decommission their weapons, its not surprising that state was unworkable.

Respect for one another is important yes, but if you do not feel part of the same country, and the govt allows parties that threaten the unity of the state, and nationalist paramilitary groups to exist, then the United Cyprus Republic will fail too. If we are not prepared to call ourselves Cypriots once Cyprus is reunited, then why not just make everybody happy and have double-enosis. why reunify at all?

I`m afraid I am going to say something too honest and a bit controversial. One of the reasons Turkey has managed to preserve its territorial integrity after its long war with the Kurds is because the Turkish state encourages everybody (sometimes with non-democratic means and with force if necessary) to respect the unity of the state and to accept that they are all Turkish and not Kurdish, Laz, Yoruk, Suriyani (Maronite) etc. The Turkish state commands respect and loyalty from all its citizens. Everybody can recite "turk gencligini" from a young age in Turkey. How many Cypriots can sing their national anthem? -None, because we do not have one! (But we can sing the Greek and Turkish one I`m sure!)

I know this is a tad nationalistic and anachronistic, but if there was a mild form of Pan-Cyprian nationalism to counter Greek and Turkish nationalism, and it helped to reunite us on a social level, then surely it would be a good thing.

[erolz]

The state like the law must command respect, obedience and loyalty from its citizens.

For me respect is something that has to be earnt - it can not be commanded. I also do not believe any state (or person) has a right to obedience. I grant my obedience (or not) based on my criteria and not any right that someone has to it. Again loyalty is to be earnt and not expected as a given in my view.

and the govt allows parties that threaten the unity of the state,

as soon as the 'state' starts to restrict the freedom of political parties you move into very dangerous waters as far as I am concerned.

why reunify at all?

for me the dessire for reunification is based on a principal and an ideal that unity is better than division.

I`m afraid I am going to say something too honest and a bit controversial.

Well I respect your honesty but I do not share your views (though I would defend your right to hold and express them as I could)

One of the reasons Turkey has managed to preserve its territorial integrity after its long war with the Kurds is because the Turkish state encourages everybody (sometimes with non-democratic means and with force if necessary) to respect the unity of the state and to accept that they are all Turkish and not Kurdish, Laz, Yoruk, Suriyani (Maronite) etc.

Personaly I believe that the Kurds deserve no less than the TC community in Cyprus deserves (a status and rights of more than a minority and less tyhan the full unfettered rights of a people). For me there is no doubt that the Kurds are a 'people' (as the TC are) as far as the spirit of humans rights charters that relate to people. The only reason they should not have (imo) the full and unfettered rights of a people is that they live in a country that they share with another people (the Turks). For me this is one of the contradictions of the Turkish position on Cyprus (and the Kurds).

The Turkish state commands respect and loyalty from all its citizens.

I am sorry but I disagree. You do not command respect or loyalty from me by supressing people.

I know this is a tad nationalistic and anachronistic, but if there was a mild form of Pan-Cyprian nationalism to counter Greek and Turkish nationalism, and it helped to reunite us on a social level, then surely it would be a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with pride in your country. The problems start when the desire to proud of your country clouds your ability to be critical and you end up believeing your country can do no wrong and is inherently better than any other. The are things that I am massively proud about London (the place of my birth). There is no where in the world (that I know of) that manages to cram so many people of so many different races, ethnecities, languages cultures religions and beleifs into an area with so well as London. I really do feel proud of it's ability to do this. However that does not mean that I will not critise it (London, its administration, or the wider state it is a part of) or be willing to be 'disobedient' if I believe there is cause to do so.

For me a crucial indicator of how healthy a country (or indeed an individual or any other entity) is, is how well it is able to allow critisim, dissent and non conformist views. For me there is no justification in a state using force (internaly) to maintain 'stability' and 'unity'. If that is the only way that it can achieve these things then it should 'fail' as far as I am concerned.

It also seems to me that your arguments could easily be used to justify the actions of the GC administrations in the period 63-74. You could argue that it was necessary to the RoC to force changes in the consitiution. That TC resistance to this was an act of disrepectful disloyal disobeidence on their part and that the states' use of force was justifed and necessary reaction to this.