Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

You're just being paranoid here, as usual. Unless the 90% majority will want to do something crazy, like Enosis, 10% will never try to block the majority decision. You just don't want any safeguards for TC representation. This is the bottom line.

The bottom line is that you want the power to block whatever you feel like. Why do you need this power if you will never use it? If you need it only for "something crazy like Enosis", then I agree that this effective veto can be applied on specific issues, like enosis for example. The fact that you want this power on everything simply shows that you are going to use it on whatever you feel like and not just to block something crazy.

[erolz]

I wouldn't say that Turkey has to disappear from the map in order to get the problem solved, but I think it is true that Turkey has to change, become more European, and less obsessed with pseudo-security concerns.

I think you all need to look at a map again. Cyprus is only 40 miles off the south coast of Turkey. ANY country would have concerns about the status of an Island so close to its own borders. When you consider the possibility of this Island comming under the sole control (direct or indirect) of a state with which you have a long history of conflict with, with some of the conflicts still in dispute today, then these concerns can only be higher. Then add in the secondary concern of Turkey - that of the well fare of their TC kinsmen and consider the history there. Without Turkey's presence there is little doubt (in my mind) that the suffering of the TC people in Cyprus would have been even greater that the considerable suffering they experienced. Talk of 'UN' protection or 'EU' protection is of little reassurance in this regard. We had the UN in Cyprus from 63-74 and they were not able to protect the rights or the lives of TC. As for the EU the chance of the EU taking the kind of military actions that Turkey took to protect TC is just not realistic in my mind.

So like it or not, unless Cyprus is towed away from it's present geographical location then Turkey will always have an interest in it's status and valid security concerns.

I would also add that Turkey is changing. It is becomming more 'european'. The question is do GC want to encourage this development or undermine it?

Finally it seems we (and Turkey) are being told that we should forget our security concerns, because the EU is stable and would protect thsoe concerns. If this is so clearly the case why should GC have any concerns with a Turkey in the EU having some guarantor rights in Cyprus? Surely the same protections that the EU would provide that would make such guarantee rights unessesary would also mean that if such rights existed they would be of no concern in an environment of EU stability and protection?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Erol, Insan,

we are in a win-lose situation here. The more secure you make TCs (and Turkey) by allowing a continued Turkish presence in Cyprus, the less secure you make GCs. And, ofcourse, the opposite also applies ...

We can sit here and argue in favour of our respective positions from here unto eternity, but what can we actually do to break this deadlock?

[erolz]

The bottom line is that you want the power to block whatever you feel like. Why do you need this power if you will never use it? If you need it only for "something crazy like Enosis", then I agree that this effective veto can be applied on specific issues, like enosis for example. The fact that you want this power on everything simply shows that you are going to use it on whatever you feel like and not just to block something crazy.

I have repeatedly suggested a 'principal' for when the TC community should be able to block decisions in Cyprus (and when not). I will remind you of it.

For those issues where the effect of the decision would have markedly different effects and meaning for the two communites then some form of consent from both should be required. For those decisions that affect the two communites in the same way then seperate consent from the two communites should not be required.

Is this really so unreasonable?

The idea that you can simply 'pre define' a list of issue will not work. You can not know what issues may become a cause of contension between the two communites in the future. Thus you need some form of 'prinicpal' that can be applied to new instances in the future. I have given one.

And although I have made this same suggestion many times in the past, and used examples, I will do so again beacuse inenvitable if will be asked to do so.

Imagine in a united Cyprus a law is proposed to limit foreign investment from non EU countries. Also imagine that 90 % of investment in TC businesses comes from Turkey and 90% in GC businesses comes from the EU. In such a case the proposed legislation to limit foreign investment would have a major difference on the TC community to what it would have on the GC community. Thus using my 'prinicpal' above the TC community should have a right to block such legislation

Imagine in a untied Cyprus a law is proposed to change the age of consent (the age at which you can legal engage in sexula relations). Such a law would not affect the two communites differently and thus should not need seperate consent from each community.

So Piratis you continue to insist that we want the power to 'block eveything' despite the fact that I have discussed the same position as above many times now in these discussions. Do you claim then that I want the power to block everything? If not then please stop using such generic terms and qualify them with 'some TC, or many TC or current TC administration etc' for you KNOW this is not what I have proposed (or for that matter many other TC here).

[erolz]

We can sit here and argue in favour of our respective positions from here unto eternity, but what can we actually do to break this deadlock?

I accept the idea of the removal of all Turkish troops from Cyprus, after an agreed settlement. I do not think however it is reasonable or realisitic to insit Turkey commits to never interfere in Cyprus again under any circumstances. Some for of 'guarantee' status of Turkey will have to be 'hammered out'. It can be different from the existing treaty of guarantee. It can try and efine as explicilty as possible under what conditions Turkey would have a right to intervention and under what conditions it would not. It could define what proceedures Turkey would have to meet before resorting to military action.

I just do not think it is reasonable to expect Turkey to say now and agree to never intervene in Cyprus ever again, under any circumstances.

[metecyp]

We can sit here and argue in favour of our respective positions from here unto eternity, but what can we actually do to break this deadlock?

If the RoC exists and if GCs really believe in the RoC as it was agreed in 1960 (and they seem claim that) then why don't we simply use the security treaties (650 Turkish soldiers and intervention) from these agreements?

I feel like many GCs use pick-and-choose tactic (like Denktash does) in regard to 1960 agreements. They claim that 1960 agreements are valid and the RoC exists but at the same time, they still have difficulty accepting fundamental aspects such as veto power of the vice president, 80-30 rule, 650 Turkish soldiers and so on. Something either exists or not.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Piratis, Erol,

I picked the following out of the Annan Plan. It is the cases in which special voting majority (ie 40% of TC senators) is required ...

A special majority comprising at least two fifths of sitting senators from each constituent state, in addition to a simple majority of deputies present and voting, shall be required for:

.a. Ratification of international agreements on matters which fall within the legislative competence of the constituent states;
.b. Ratification of treaties and adoption of laws and regulations concerning the airspace, continental shelf and territorial waters of the United Cyprus Republic, including the exclusive economic zone and the contiguous zone;
.c. Adoption of laws and regulations concerning citizenship, immigration, water resources and taxation;
.d. Approval of the federal budget;
.e. Election of the Presidential Council; and
.f. Other matters which specifically require special majority approval pursuant to other provisions of this Constitution.

Though I am all for the principle that TCs should have the right to block decisions that affect them detrimentally, isn't the above list a bit too long? (I might be wrong here, just thinking out loud)

[Alexandros Lordos]

Erol,

I like your ideas concerning turkish guarantees ...

Maybe a new treaty could be signed (without Britain this time ) whereby the right of intervention is clearly defined and clearly limited, in the way that you propose ...

[Piratis]

For those issues where the effect of the decision would have markedly different effects and meaning for the two communites then some form of consent from both should be required. For those decisions that affect the two communites in the same way then seperate consent from the two communites should not be required.

And who will decide what kind of decision each issue is?

Lets say that TCs want to block something. Isn't it obvious that they will claim that this something is an issue that they should be able to block?

So we are on square one.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Yes, I agree with Piratis that, although in principle Erol's suggestion is good, it is not practically feasible to separate the issues like that ...