Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

actually the budget comes from

ROC FUNDS-3.5 MILLION

RENTS-1.5 MILLION

INCOME FROM PROPERTY USE-2.2 MILLION

SO THEY RENT OUT THE PROPERTIES,i would think to refugges.

[metecyp]

SO THEY RENT OUT THE PROPERTIES,i would think to refugges.

Yes, they do rent some of the ex-TC properties to GC refugees but there are many TC properties that are empty, left to collapse or they were destroyed by the GC administration for roads and such.

Actually, I heard of a TC village (cant remember the name now) whose inhabitants left the village due to security concerns in 1960s. The village and its surrounding area turned into a forest and the village is almost inaccesible and there's not one house standing in the village.

So, of course, the RoC would need a budget to fix these.

[MicAtCyp]

Hi Insan and Mikkie,

Well after all that time and talking together I agree that there is a feeling something we are members of the same family who just play backgammon, simply one holds black and the other holds white.If someone asks me what do you think of Insan or Erol, or Mikkie, or Piratis or Bananiot, or Mehmet, or Alexandros etc the first thought that will come to my mind is not his positions about the political issues,not if he is a GC or TC, but rather what kind of person he is. Even in real families most members have different opinions and many times fight or support each other.
What binds them together is a magic feeling of warmth. That's what we have here! And thats nice, and human.
Would you beleive that sometimes I get confused whether a person is a GC or a TC? This usually happens with Erol.
Hey Erol, don't accuse us of gossiping here, we just make a small family talk...
No hard feelings to anyone. Have fun.

Did you ever thought what your feelings would be if one member of this family dies suddenly? Knock on wood of course!

[insan]

Hi Insan and Mikkie,

Well after all that time and talking together I agree that there is a feeling something we are members of the same family who just play backgammon, simply one holds black and the other holds white.If someone asks me what do you think of Insan or Erol, or Mikkie, or Piratis or Bananiot, or Mehmet, or Alexandros etc the first thought that will come to my mind is not his positions about the political issues,not if he is a GC or TC, but rather what kind of person he is. Even in real families most members have different opinions and many times fight or support each other.
What binds them together is a magic feeling of warmth. That's what we have here! And thats nice, and human.
Would you beleive that sometimes I get confused whether a person is a GC or a TC? This usually happens with Erol.
Hey Erol, don't accuse us of gossiping here, we just make a small family talk...
No hard feelings to anyone. Have fun.

Did you ever thought what your feelings would be if one member of this family dies suddenly? Knock on wood of course!

That's it re brother! knock! knock! knock! I love your anger and I love you. I love everyone who are able to sincerely shake the hands of their loved ones; even they have experienced bad moments for a while because of any reason. We are a family just like all other families. There will be times we will feel happy, angry, hurt, offended, funny, agressive, sorry, sad, disingenuous, agreed, disagreed etc etc. But in the end we should be able to give in at least some of our mistakes in order to keep our family together for a better future...





Depeche Mode - Strangelove Lyrics
There'll be times
When my crimes
Will seem almost unforgivable
I give in to sin
Because you have to make this life liveable
But when you think I've had enough
From your sea of love
I'll take more than another riverfull
And I'll make it all worthwhile
I'll make your heart smile

Strangelove
Strange highs and strange lows
Strangelove
That's how my love goes
Strangelove
Will you give it to me
Will you take the pain
I will give it to you
Again and again
And will you return it

There'll be day's
When I'll stray
I may appear to be
Constantly out of reach
I give in to sin
Becouse I like to practise what I preach
I'm not trying to say
I'll have it all my way
I'm almays willing to learn
When you've got something to teach
And I'll make it all worthwhile
I'll make your heart smile

Pain will you return it
I'll say it again - pain
Pain will you return it
I won't say it again

I give in
Again and again
I give in
Will you give it to me
I give in
I'll say it again
I give in

[-mikkie2-]

Turkcyp,

I am very well aware of what the RoC constitution says and on its provisions. You have completely misunderstood what I was trying to put across.

The status of TC's living in the free areas is in limbo. They are obviously not represented by the 'trnc' as they live in the free areas and they are not represented in the RoC because our constitution discriminates between GC and TC.

Legaly I do not see a problem if the TC's living in the free areas wish to have the right to vote for the presidential elections or any other election. It does not require a change in the constitution! As long as the TC community does not take up their rights under that constitution then the vice-president post and the seats in the house will remain vacant. However, the TC's in the free areas can simply state that they wish to be part of the GC community (just liuke the Maronites and Latins) and thus they can vote in the same way as everyone else. It simply boils down to giving the choice to the individual TC.

[Othellos]

Erolz

In those terms no I do npot think it is constructive. However I do think it is valid for these people to claim that they do not want to be refugees again and that they have paid fairly for their current properties (through exchange of their rights to their propoerties in the south) and thus consider them 'fairly' their properties. This is nto a simple issue it is a complex one and in fact any simplistic black and white view is probably no helpful or constructive from either side.

Fair (and thus valid) property transactions can only take place when the legal owner is also involved. What you write above is neither fair, nor legal let alone reasonable. Furthermore, this "refugees again" concept may apply to the TCs who moved from the free areas in 1974, but does it also apply to the 100,000 + Anatolian settlers who occupy GC properties? And how "constructive" is it to strip Cypriot natives from their ancestral homes and allocate these to foreigners who were imported here after Turkey's invasion and ethnic cleansing in the occupied north?

The Arkitas plan never went very far? It's objectives were to remove the priveldges that the TC community had as rights under the agreed consistuion. By 1963 this objective was achieved. Until 1974 it was achieved without the 'cost' of Turkish intervention. After 74 it was still achieved but at the (very high) cost of Turkish intervention. The objective still remains today one of the 'core' areas of difference in any settlement.

No, the Akritas plant didn't go very far. If anything and imo it came effectively into an end when the Turkish side rejected Makarios' proposal for Constitutional amendments and therefore the GC objective for revising the Constitution failed. You insist however to conveniently blame the Akritas plan for the breakout of the fighting in 1963, or for certain Turkish actions that affected the TCs but the GCs had little control over, like for example the TC withdrawal from the RoC upon Ankara’s instructions and the concentration of about half of the TC population in enclaves.

You might not think so but I disagree. Some GC claim to want a federal solution - but then explain that their idea of a federal solution is one where TC have a limited 'geogrpahical area' but no level of political equality at the federal level. This to me is not a federal solution at all.

Once again erolz, you are neglecting the practical / functional side of the issue. To me, citizens in a federation should have the right to settle anywhere they wish in their country without restrictions that are based on racial background. This is the case in the US, in Switzerland and in Belgium (to name a few examples). Simply put, the "federation" label alone may not be enough for a solution that re-unifies.

You yourself (from memory) have argued that it is a fundamental aspect of democracy that the 'majority rule' - despite the clear discrepancies to this interpretation outsoide of Cyprus (i the EU and USA and other 'federal' insitutuions).

What I said is that "majority rule exists in every democracy and this is not necessarily a bad thing". I do not see any "clear discrepancies" in the EU or the US from this so please clarify what you mean with some examples. In Cyprus and because the TCs are a numerical minority, you insist to reject any idea of "majority rule" because in your opinion this will lead to the oppression of the TCs by the GCs. While I can see where your concerns stem from, the thing is that there are many multi-ethnic democracies around the world where their citizens co-exist peacefully and no one is complaining about being oppressed by the other. In a country where everyone's rights are respected and well protected, why would one bother to dominate over another?

It therefore seems to me that we all need to clear up our minds with respect to what we really want in Cyprus. Do we want a solution that will practically unify the island and are we ready to make this work? Or do we prefer permanent division and a 2 state solution? And if yes, are we all ready to make the sacrifices that are needed for that as well?

How then am I to regard such insistance that the only way to havea deomcracy in Cyprus is for the GC community to have effective control of all federal insitutions - other than a continued desire (that matches the objectives of the Akritas plan - but not the meathods) of some GC to reduce the TC community to a political minority in Cyprus, regardless of the 1960 consitution and regardless of any rights of the TC people to any degree of self representation?

Again (and in all honesty) I cannot understand how one side can dominate over another when the individual human rights of all Cypriots are being respected in full? Can you please clarify?

This is easy to say - and if you make the defintion of democracy to be 'that the GC numerical majority must rule at all federal levels' - then by saying you want democracy you are saying you want the TC community to be a political minority.

"If"? It is very easy to jump to conclusions erolz, but I do not think that this is a fair thing to do when I have already clarified how all Cypriots should live in a safe and democratic country where all will have equal rights and responsibilities. You have every right to disagree with what I say but please, present arguments and not "if" statements.

The same is so with human rights. If you chose to define human rights as only those of indivduals, and ignore or dismiss the both the rights of TC community as a people and the reality that these rights can and do clash, then in effect you define 'human rights in Cyprus' as meainning effective control by the GC community of all aspects of Cyprus at the federal level.

So are you proposing that the human rights of the individuals be ignored? Isn’t it you who in a previous post stated that when it comes to group Vs individual rights "neither has automatic power over the other"? How far can any country or any society go, when the human rights of its individual citizens are not being respected?

Yes you are missing reality. The reality is that the rights of the GC community to self determination in regard to ENOSIS in 1960 were in effect a direct violation of the TC peoples rights to self determination. On groups rights clashed with anothers.

Reality you said? You seem to forget that the struggle for Enosis came to an unsuccessful end 45 years ago whereas the struggle of taksim (which also violated GC rights) went on and materialized in full.

There are also examples in solutions today where the rights of indivduals or communites clash. These rights can and do and have clashed. To say that they 'should not clash' is an expression of idealisim not reality.

Reality again! I think that this is a very "convenient" position that has little to do with what is fair. But leaving that aside, how realistic is it in your opinion to violate systematically the human rights of citizens in a multi-ethnic society? Doesn't all this lead to disaster, especially when these violations are the result of systematic racial discriminations like the ones you support in this forum? Not to mention that as long as you cannot provide an example about such a solution, what you propose appears even less realistic.

My point is not that one should take priority over the other. My point is that many GC present the issue as one simply of a violation fo their human rights and refuse to recognise or accept the violations in the past or future violations with regard to TC (usualy by denying our status as a 'people' and thus our rights as such).

You already said that one should not take priority over another although this is definitely not the case in what you propose.

Where rights do clash there needs to be compromise and limits on rights that are agreed and acceptable to both parties. You can not get this if one side insists that only their rights are being infringed upon or that only their rights should have priotity.

All I am saying is that any agreement where the rights of individuals are not adequately accounted for and not respected, then this is doomed to fail. Unfortunately in Cyprus the Turkish side has shown very little interest in how the rights of individuals will be affected after a solution.

What I mean is that in the UK it is possible for a party to win an election and govern the country with as little as 40% of the votes of the elctorate. This means that the largest minority wins not the majority. I think this is possible in the UK though I have not done any real research. If and when I find the time to do so I will.

In that case there may not be an absolute majority but it is still a majority.

O.

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp,

I am very well aware of what the RoC constitution says and on its provisions. You have completely misunderstood what I was trying to put across.

The status of TC's living in the free areas is in limbo. They are obviously not represented by the 'trnc' as they live in the free areas and they are not represented in the RoC because our constitution discriminates between GC and TC.

Legaly I do not see a problem if the TC's living in the free areas wish to have the right to vote for the presidential elections or any other election. It does not require a change in the constitution! As long as the TC community does not take up their rights under that constitution then the vice-president post and the seats in the house will remain vacant. However, the TC's in the free areas can simply state that they wish to be part of the GC community (just liuke the Maronites and Latins) and thus they can vote in the same way as everyone else. It simply boils down to giving the choice to the individual TC.

Ok lets say the TC community living in free areas has said that OK I am going to choose my TC MPs and vice president, as in 1960 constitution. Would the RoC goverment right now give them that right?

I mean it is their constitutional rights as you know.

Now if you are going to tell me but how can 2000 TCs living in south can choose vice president?
Then I will ask what is the cutoff point?
10K, 20K, 50k, 100k.
I mean RoC should guide us on how to elect our own MPs and vice president under the constitution of RoC right now. Don't you think so?

Plus I thought RoC were not letting TCs vote because they were using unlegally obtained GC properties. Then why not let the TCs that are using their own property in the north vote. Is there a problem with that? I mean there were decent amount TC population in the north before 1974, and those people never obtained any GC property and simply kept on living in their pre 1974 properties. Why not let them vote?

In fact if RoC is saying that these TCs are my citizens, and furthermore if she is saying that they are living under occupation, then she should try to do everything in her power to relieve their pain. Don't you think so?

Anyway this last two paragrahs, I know has become a litle far fetched. Let's start with giving our rights to TCs living in the south first, and then we can think about the TCs that are living in north on their own pre 1974 land later on.

I just want to understand the extent of RoC sincerety about letting TCs particiapte in RoC life with their 1960 constitutional rights.

[Othellos]

Turkcyp,

Sorry if I sound aggresive, but there is nothing personal. It is just my style to use sharp words. It makes the point go acroos easier, and in return I accept it may sound rude sometimes. For that I am sorry

No problem and no need to apologize.

Oh please. We did not make any conscious effort to move out of anywhere. You started everything on December 21, 1963, and give a card blanche to the extreme elements in the TC society to further their partitionist policies.

But "everything" did not start in 21/12/63 but much earlier. Are you claiming that the 1963 events caught the TC side by total surprise?

Juts know this a very majority of the TC society did not want partition until December of 1963. You started squeezing us, so there was nobody to turn to. Then after the events of 64-64 even the moderate elements of the TC society start thinking “May be these taksim people are right. May be we can not live with GCs. May be they are right that all GCs want to do is kill us”

It is my opinion too that the vast majority of the Cypriots never wanted partition, which after all was a Turkish idea. The GCs were definitely against it and this is why they never proposed or pursued it

So believing that GCs has moderated their extreme elements, and can control their extreme nationalist people, I for one (can not talk for the whole society, but I believe I am a good representative of TC society. I may be wrong who knows?) would be happy to turn back to 1960 constitutional order. (but definitely not the order you have created after 1964)

What is it exactly that you would like to change or repair before returning back to the 1960 Constitution, turkcyp?

O.

[Saint Jimmy]

Othellos, I hope you don't mind my intrusion in your discussion. My aim is not to contradict you or to discredit what you're saying, but to ask and learn. After all, I agree with most of what you have written. However:

for example the TC withdrawal from the RoC upon Ankara’s instructions and the concentration of about half of the TC population in enclaves.

TCs claim that they did not withdraw from the Republic by choice, but that they were (perhaps not directly, but effectively) forced out. How can you be sure that they were, in fact, following Ankara's orders? My question is not whether they did or not, but how you can be sure of what you're saying.

In Cyprus and because the TCs are a numerical minority, you insist to reject any idea of "majority rule" because in your opinion this will lead to the oppression of the TCs by the GCs.[...] In a country where everyone's rights are respected and well protected, why would one bother to dominate over another?

Two points on which I would like you to comment here.
One, what do you think we would be after, if we were the numerical minority?
Two, why did all hell break loose when we found out that Turkey, under Annan 5, had rights to intervention in both constituent states? My argument is that the reason we reacted to the provisions concerning Turkey's guarantees is not because we fear that Turkey will necessarily intervene, or that such intervention is eminent, but because of the uncertainty these provisions cause: it's not that Turkey will intervene; it's just that it can. So, in the same rationale, only in reverse, TCs may not be afraid that their rights won't be 'respected and well protected', but that they will be helpless in case they are not. Perhaps they don't expect to be dominated, but refuse to be threatened to be dominated. Therefore, it's not enough to just dismiss a suggestion as being racial/discriminatory, because that suggestion addresses a real, existing concern (which we cannot deem invalid because we have a corresponding demand of our own - their mistrust to us is analogous to our mistrust to Turkey); denial of the suggestion should be accompanied by an alternative. It's not enough to say 'trust me'. I guess what I'm saying is that the problem of mistrust is real and needs to be addressed: for us, it would be abolishing all of Turkey's guarantees. What would it be for TCs?

[anlarm]

In response to Piratis: Saying that Cyprus has been a "Green island" for 3500 years is to me, being rather nationalistic and having a one-sided narrow view of history. The ancient Greeks had built a couple of cities in Cyprus (mostly for business reasons and by exiled Greeks). The island was never wholly occupied by the ancient Greeks. Moreover, if we are going to look at things from a "racist" view, so many different races got mixed in Cyprus. It was during the Byzantine period that the "people of Cyprus" became Orthodox Christians and were "ordered" to speak the Greek language.
It does not affect me a bit if you consider yourselves as Greek. However, please be careful when you are talking about ethnic cleansing unless you have no proper knowledge of the events of 1958 and 1963-74! Wasn't Eoka and Makarios applying ethnic cleansing toward Turkish Cypriots?
I am not saying this in defense of the intervention of Turkey in 74. Just trying to clarify certain concepts.