Cyprus-Forum.com

[michalis5354]

My personal prediction is that If Turkey responds positively and constructively then he will follow !

As I said this is my predictions and I dont want to appear too optimistic but remember he is being watched not only at home but also abroad!

[metecyp]

I guess for me what is needed in such a senario is not the 'forcing' of acceptance, but first a changing of these different expectations.

That's true, if we can change expectations on both sides, we can reach to an agreed solution rather than forced. But the question is this: Do you prefer a forced solution in your lifetime or an agreed solution in 50 years?

I'd rather have a forced solution in my lifetime. I think most of the issues will solve themselves once we live together. Right now, the two communities seem to have different interests because they live seperately (and hence different expectations). Once we start living together under the same roof, experience the same problems, we'll have same interests and expectations. So, a veto power of TC community might be something forced on GCs today, but in 20-30 years, it won't even matter.

Most of the discussion we have here about TC representation do not even matter anyway. For example, how many laws are passed each year in the RoC that TCs might veto, do you think? Most of these laws are for daily matters and TCs wouldn't think any differently than GCs. I don't mean that there shouldn't be no safeguards for TCs. I just think that it shouldn't be a big deal to GCs to accept safeguards for TCs because in the long run, it's not going to matter.

[erolz]

That's true, if we can change expectations on both sides, we can reach to an agreed solution rather than forced. But the question is this: Do you prefer a forced solution in your lifetime or an agreed solution in 50 years?

If a forced solution means more innocent blood is to be spilt (or even a reasonable chance of such happening) then I will take the 50 year wait.

I'd rather have a forced solution in my lifetime. I think most of the issues will solve themselves once we live together.

I understand and respect your position. Maybe under such a forced solution we will this time 'come togeather' and not end up killing each other (again). I certainly hope so. However the 'stakes' are of the highest imaginable (innocent Cypriot lives) and thus it's a courageous gamble. If the majority of TC are willing to accpet such a gamble for their part then I will accept that. For me personaly after careful deliberation the risk was too high with regard to the Annan plan and thus I voted no.

[Othellos]

For example, how many laws are passed each year in the RoC that TCs might veto, do you think? Most of these laws are for daily matters and TCs wouldn't think any differently than GCs.

This does make sense - even back in the early 1960's (and contrary to what most GC's believe) the TC Vice President excercised his veto right only one time, and that was on a matter that was not really important.

I don't mean that there shouldn't be no safeguards for TCs. I just think that it shouldn't be a big deal to GCs to accept safeguards for TCs because in the long run, it's not going to matter.

In that case then it shouldn't be a big deal to TC's to insist on certain safeguards such as permanent (and racist) limitations to the max number of GC's who can return and live in Kerynia, for example, because in the long run it's not going to matter.

O.

[brother]

I am going out on a limb by saying neither tassos or denktas want unification they both want partition to serve their masters will i.e greece and turkey.
I know many of you will jump on me saying greece does not have any influence over the greek cypriot administration in cyprus but that is wishful thinking, as you see on a day to day bases that they coordinate their efforts jointly and not separately.

And the turkish cypriot administration just follows turkeys lead.

The only hope we have is with our own cypriots and that means electing politicians that truely want unity, equality amongst loads of other things for all cypriots as at the moment we have 0+0=0 so how do we think we can find any solution.

[Bananiot]

I think the above is not fair for Greece. Simitis and Papandreou and to a certain degree Karamanlis, have given clear signs they are all for an agreed solution. They were instrumental in the pursuing of a solution through the SG's plan and have do not appear to have a hidden agenda. I can say that much for the turkish government too, but here we have the deep state waiting in the wings. Its a tricky situation for Erdogan, no doubt. He reminds me of a juggler. He needs to get a clear date on December 17, if not the deep state will surface. He will probably lose the next elections and the greco-turkish relations will go to a long deep freeze. The Cyprus issue will no longer take centre stage and the realities of today will be consolidated. I can even see the borders closing if Papadopoulos uses his veto. We will move to a very dangerous and unstable period that may take years to be resolved, if ever.

[Piratis]

Most of the discussion we have here about TC representation do not even matter anyway. For example, how many laws are passed each year in the RoC that TCs might veto, do you think? Most of these laws are for daily matters and TCs wouldn't think any differently than GCs. I don't mean that there shouldn't be no safeguards for TCs. I just think that it shouldn't be a big deal to GCs to accept safeguards for TCs because in the long run, it's not going to matter.

Personally I disagree with this. This would work if both sides truly wanted a unified Cyprus to work out. Unfortunately it seems to me that the majority of Turkish Cypriots can accept a united Cyprus as a compromise, but they would prefer to have a totally separate state instead. So it is very possible that Turkish Cypriots will start demanding outrageous things (we are used to such demands already). If we give in to such demands, we will loose (even more). If we don't give in, they will start to retaliate by blocking and vetoing things and everything would brake down. The result this time would be officially having two separate states, like it happened when Chehoslovakia or Yugoslavia broke down. (even if such thing was supposedly prohibited by the constitution of those countries).

I really see no point of going through some costly "re-unification" process which in the end not only will not result in re-unification but it will result in the official partition.

We should remain firm, and insist on those things that will make the solution functional, viable and fair, even if that means that no solution will be found for several more years.

[turkcyp]

Dear Piratis,

Unfortunately it seems to me that the majority of Turkish Cypriots can accept a united Cyprus as a compromise, but they would prefer to have a totally separate state instead. .

We can say the same thing for you guys.

" Unfortunately it seems to me that the majority of Greek Cypriots can accept a united federal Cyprus as a compromise, but they would prefer to have a totally unitary state with communal relationship based on majority dominating minority instead."

So it is very possible that Turkish Cypriots will start demanding outrageous things (we are used to such demands already). If we give in to such demands, we will loose (even more). If we don't give in, they will start to retaliate by blocking and vetoing things and everything would brake down.

Again the same is true for you guys,

If we do not have some sort of veto power, how do we know that you are not going to change the Cyprus into some state where you will dominate us the next day. How do we know that you are not going to come up with proposals to change federal republic into unitary one, and if we refuse start vetoing things for us.

The result this time would be officially having two separate states, like it happened when Chehoslovakia or Yugoslavia broke down. (even if such thing was supposedly prohibited by the constitution of those countries).

I really see no point of going through some costly "re-unification" process which in the end not only will not result in re-unification but it will result in the official partition.

It does not need to end up in partition. We just simply have to learn the idea of compromise and stop asking for changes that the other side is completly against of. And start asking things that will benefit both sides at the same time.

We should remain firm, and insist on those things that will make the solution functional, viable and fair, even if that means that no solution will be found for several more years.

Functionality has never been the issue in Cyprus. When your constitutional change proposals were rejected in 1963, we could have simply turned back to negotiation table, among us and try to find ways of improving your proposals so that they will be acceptable to us.

Let's be honest with each other. The main issue in Cyprus has always been what you correctly identified later on in your sentence. The issue is "What is fair?" and this is very subjective to whoever you ask.

For example, for GCs, it was not fair that TCs were granted the right to have seperate municipalities in Cyprus in 1960, but for us it was quite natural and fair.

What we (both GCs and TCs) did wrong in 1963 was that instead of trying to find a solution between us which is fair to both of us, we simply have chosen our own way, GCs started applying 'Acritas Plan', and TCs started hoping for 'Taksim'.

If we both learn from our past mistakes (and I want to believe that we as human beings are capable of learning from our past mistakes) then the same things should not happen again.

Have a good day,

p.s. Relating to functionality:
Now you can say that how come 1960 agreement was functional. You simply started exercising veto on the budget to get the seperate municipalities established. And I can say, that does not make things unfunctional.

I believe it was 1997, when US congress failed to pass the budget because Republican dominated congress was so vehemently against Bill Clinton, and did not ratify budget. Now do you consider US constitution unfuctional too. No. What Americans did that we did not do in 1963 is that they have sat down and found a compromise.

[Piratis]

" Unfortunately it seems to me that the majority of Greek Cypriots can accept a united federal Cyprus as a compromise, but they would prefer to have a totally unitary state with communal relationship based on majority dominating minority instead."

the part about accepting federation as a compromise is true. What is not true is the domination part. For some reason when I say that TCs shouldn't have a veto power on everything, you come up and you claim that I said that TCs shouldn't have a veto on anything, that I want GCs to dominate TCs and stuff like that. This is simply not true.

If we do not have some sort of veto power, how do we know that you are not going to change the Cyprus into some state where you will dominate us the next day. How do we know that you are not going to come up with proposals to change federal republic into unitary one, and if we refuse start vetoing things for us.

Again I repeat: What I object is a veto power on everything, I do not object for TCs to have veto on critical matters such as changes in the constitution.

You totally missed my point though.
The point is that if this new thing that we will build doesn't work and it brakes down, do you think it will brake down into a unitary state? Obviously not. It will brake down into two separate states. Now who is going to be less willing to make this new thing work? The one who partition is his nightmare, or the one who partition is his dream?

[turkcyp]

Dear Piratis,

Ok. I can agree with not having veto power on everything. This was never the case though in 1960. There was veto power only on certain issues.

But now that you have made your point clear (everything vs. somethings) I can live with that. I have never asked veto power on everything anyway.

Turning back to breaking down the state issue. It doesn't make sense to claim that for a TC a partition is better than "united federal Cyprus". I am not saying that it can not be more appealing, I am saying that it does not have to be.

If TCs are happy in federal state and their standards of living are imporving, without any curtailment of their rights, then why would a TC would want to leave such an agreement, and decide to pursue partition and leave in a non recognized state, with a bigger and more powerful and FURIOUSlY ENEMY neighbour, in a small island like Cyprus, with the possibility of international isolations.

You are saying that TCs dream is partition. If the above scenario is my dream, then I should be a masachist. The mere fact is that no person (TC or GC) would support any solution (unitary, federal or partition) if they do not gain from it individually. If TCs are gaining more in a united Cyprus more than they will be gaining in partitioned island no TC would support that partition, and not necesatily will work to break the state.

You are simply living in 1960s like many of the Turks who believes that partition is the only way. ( I believe partition is one of the ways for me to improve but not the only way).

You and all these people who still thinks that 1960s political environment will prevail again, I believe is simply mistaken. (May be I am wrong, and you guys are right, but at least I am willing to take that chance).

As I said earlier, what we did not do in 1963 is to try to find a compromise, because we are so nationalisticly motivated for 'Enosis' and 'Taksim'. I belive we have learned from our mistakes, and we will not do the same mistakes again. I believe we have curtaield our nationalistic feelings inthe last 30 years. And will try to compromise on issues, to make the new system work, without ever needing to use any veto power, or if something is vetoed, then still try to find a compromise after that.

Have a good day,