Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

2004, May 1 The Republic of Cyprus enters the European Union, with the Turkish north declining to join.

actually you have joined the EU insan,just that all the benfits are suspended in the north.A turkish cypriot (legally identified by the ROC) can enjoy all the rights of a EU citizen.You speak as if your a seperate country,the sooner you realize your not the better.ask raufs grandson he has his passport.

[erolz]

actually you have joined the EU insan,just that all the benfits are suspended in the north.A turkish cypriot (legally identified by the ROC) can enjoy all the rights of a EU citizen.You speak as if your a seperate country,the sooner you realize your not the better.ask raufs grandson he has his passport.

A TC citizen can enjoy the 'benefits' of an EU solution by 'accepting' that a GC only run government of the RoC is the legitimate government of all of Cyprus. Which I think is why so relatively few have done so. They do not get all the rights of an EU citizen because before a solution if they choose to live in the South they are not able to vote in the same way as a GC (or am I mistaken?).

[brother]

LOL......what a load of rubbish, how can you say that we are all E.U citizens thanks to the ROC when the ROC does not even give the TC living in the south their god given right to vote, the right to a voice.
If we are E.U citizens is the ROC then not breaking a handful of laws when it refuses to let its TC population living in the south their voting rights etc.

[Saint Jimmy]

Erolz and brother, are you guys sure about this? I mean, the RoC not allowing TCs their voting rights etc...? I believe (perhaps mistakenly, but I'm pretty sure) that any TCs that decide to live in the South are entitled to their voting and other rights, granted by the 1960 constitution, and these are not restricted in any way by the RoC government... Perhaps someone more knowledgeable (maybe Alexandros?) could clarify this point for us...?

[-mikkie2-]

The status of the TC's in the south is that they do not vote in presidential elections because they are part of the TC community. The RoC constitution discriminates between TC and GC - GC vote for the president, TC vote for vice-president. Vice president post is deemed vacant because TC community does not participate in the RoC.

I believe that the electoral process of the RoC will be changed to allow the TC's living in the south to be able to vote in presidential elections. This effectively will mean that the discrimination of communities regarding voting will end.

Insan, regarding the economic aspects of EU membership, all new entrants have had to go through the pain of aligning their economies with the EU. This is a painful process. Cyprus has MUCH to gain from this and I believe that in the long term we will become more prosperous. I see the economic landscape of Cyprus changing drastically. The reason being that the Middle East is geographically closer to the EU. I would expect for example, hi tech companies to spring up in Cyprus. Israel has many such companies that want ready access to the EU and Cyprus being so close with a highly educated work force is an ideal springboard. A hi tech business park is already being planned for Cyprus along the lines to the ones in the South of France. The banking industry will boom, particularly when Cyprus joins the euro, and for precicely the same reasons. We will gradually see the reliance of the Cyprus economy on tourism diminish, although it will still play a significant role in the economy.

The economic pain that Cyprus is going through will only be short term in my view.

[Saint Jimmy]

The status of the TC's in the south is that they do not vote in presidential elections because they are part of the TC community. The RoC constitution discriminates between TC and GC - GC vote for the president, TC vote for vice-president. Vice president post is deemed vacant because TC community does not participate in the RoC.

Yes, you are right about the provisions of the constitution, mikkie.
My question is, were a TC to run for vice-president, provided he/she lives in the South and is properly registered with the RoC, would he/she not be allowed to run and be elected by TCs living there (meaning, the South)? I don't see how the RoC can deny any TC the right to elect and be elected...

What do you mean 'change the election procedures'? Allowing TCs to vote for President, period? That's not what our constitution says, and we can't change it without TC consent, can we? If TCs choose not to participate in the government, that's one thing, but if they decide to do so, we can't deny that to anyone eligible, right?

[-mikkie2-]

I think you are correct, but to be honest with you, the EU demands that all citizens are treated equally. There are currently around 2000 TC's living in the free areas. It would seem rather silly for them to vote for a VP! But there is nothing stopping the RoC from passing a law that allows the TCs to vote for president (by assuming that everyone living in the RoC is deemed to be GC). It does not mean changing the constitution however.

[Othellos]

Insan.

…… But that's not the point I wanted to stress in the phrase "Hellen(e)'s Ruling Elite. The point in this phrase is, the dominant organizations and persons who have an important role in decision making mechanisms of Hellenes living all around the world.

Okay, now I understand what you mean.

My impression is, TCs are not aware of that there are two factions in AKEL. TCs consider AKEL as an hypocrite. Even I don't think that TCs have any idea why AKEL prefered to support Papadopulos instead of Klerides or other candidates.

Akel never liked Clerides. Their "official" reason for this is that Clerides and his party (DISI) gave political asylum to many EOKA B members. Another reason (imo) was that Clerides and DISI were in power for 10 years already and AKEL had to do something to win these elections so that they could return to power. Papadopoulos (who always had the ambition to become President) was their best option because his party (DIKO) is 17% strong. I do not know how seriously AKEL considered the impact of Tassos Papadopoulos in the Cyprus problem before supportin him.

You too, confirm that Cyprus politically integrated with Greece and all other EU members as well. So what indicated to you that I stuck to the past?

The world is becoming a smaller place every day and no one can afford to disregard this fact - that would be an expensive mistake. Who could predict 55 years ago that France, Germany, Italy and Britain would all be members of the same alliance? Who could have imagined 20 years ago that the all mighty USSR would not exist today and that Eastern Europe countries that were under Soviet occupation would be joining the EU and NATO? The world is moving on. Even Turkey has applied for EU membership (=political and economic integration with 25 other countries includng Greece and Cyprus), although I am not sure that they understand what they have applied for.

Can you predict upon what would happen in next 10 or 15 years?

I cannot predict the future re, sorry. If I could, I would be a billionaire

If the Christian Democrat coalition becomes more powerful in EU(Highly probable), this means Turkey will never be let to join EU. This will cause intense tension between Turkey and EU. Do you think Hellene's ruling elite will let this opportunity to go? They will definitely use it to provoke EU under control of Christian Democrats in order to get what they dream about Cyprus. Even, curently the impression I'm getting is that the Hellene's ruling elite policy of delaying tactics is based upon the expectation of a strong Christian Democrat opposition against Turkey.

I do agree with you that Turkey will have an incredibly difficult time to secure EU membership. This may not be very good for us here because Turkey will try to save the Cyprus card till the last minute. In other words, no membership then no solution.

I do not think that the HRE (=Hellenic ruling elite, to use your term for a change) has any tactic at the moment. Following the referendum there is no clear policy with mid and long-term goals like there was a few years back when Cyprus was applying for EU membership.

……. In my opinion, the reasons of GC groups who object the political equality of two communities related with some retrospective issues and conservatism.

Conservatism is probably one such reason. Do not forget thought that the TCs can be just as conservative when it comes to issues like the return of the GC refugees in their homes, or living among GCs etc.

Perhaps but under the circumstances of cold war era things were not that easy I assume; at least in compare with the circumstances of post cold war era...

You are correct in saying that the actions of any leader must be judged within the context of the time he was in power. I agree that the 1960's weren't easy, but I still believe that the Cypriot leaders didn't do the best job at that time.

Do you have any idea what's the percentage of those group of GCs who have different point of view on "political equality" issue?

No, I don't. Maybe Alexandros could ask this question the next time he carries out a poll.

There are self-interest groups in every country. The self-interest groups have interest clashes in every country. The question here is that; in Cyprus, do interest clashes among various interest groups would result in as the likes in other countries happen. One of the most tricky issue concerning the future of the united Cyprus. It depends upon the impartiality of the security forces, secret services and judiciary of Untied RoC more than the maturity of majority of Cypriots, imo.

This makes sense. A mature society should be capable of electing mature leaders, building capable security forces and maintaining an independent judiciary system. In the 1960s we were not mature. Do you think that in year 2005 we Cypriots are mature enouhgh to do the above?

I think he would have been obliged to respect such an agreement if he was asked such a specific assurance regarding the demographics and properties belongs to GCs.

So why do you think that he didn't respect the 3rd Vienna agreement? My view is that he didn't feel he had to do so. Remember that at that time the Cyprus problem had been resolved permanently for Turkey.

…. Noone could stop him implementing what he considers right to do.

Exactly!

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios-denktash%20talks,%2077.htm

This link does not say anything about the 3rd Vienna agreement.

Have you any recommendations to soothe the pain in my shoulder, re Othellos.

Oi re, I do not know much about shoulder pain……Perhaps you can ask Mrs Insan (if there is one) to give you a nice massage. Alternatively you can hire a secretary to help you with all your posting in the forum

O.

[Othellos]

In summary I personaly think the label of theif is more accurately and fairly leveled at the TC state and using such label about indivduals is not helpful or construtive to finding a solution.

When one insists on retaining something that does not belong to him in the first place then this is definitely equivalent to theft. But leaving the word "theft" aside, do you think that withholding other peoples property and refusing to return it no matter what is helpful or constructive in finding a solution?

I do not see these comments as being a matter of 'style' I am afraid.

Style of expression is a personal choice and of course one is free to react / respond in any way he or she feels appropriate.

Can a reasonable person accept that no partion of the island would have been achievable, whatever the 'plan' had it not been also for the actions of GC community (and Greece to a degree) towards the TC at various points in time?

Not necessarily (although certain GC actions did help). After all, we know that a Turkish partition plan started being implemented before 1960. We also know that even after 1960 Taksim remained the long term goal of the Turkish side.

The Akritas plan was not a plan to anihilate the TC. It was a plan to remove the rights and priveledges that the TC comminty had gained in the 1960 consitituion and to reduce them to a political minority in Cyprus.

We have already discussed how many GCs felt about the 1960 agreements. We have also discussed the responsibilities of GC and TC leaders with respect to the overall climate in Cyprus at that time, as well as the level of mistrust between the two communities. And we have also talked about a Turkish plan that the TC leadership followed and that corresponded to the Akitas plan, that (unlike the Turkish plan) never went very far.

In that sense the plans objectives have not changed - as far as GC still insist today that TC can not and should not be any more than a politcal minority in Cyprus. What has changed is the means. Today those that hope to achieve this hope that the EU will focre this to happen or RoC can force it to happen by being in the EU and threatening the blocking of Turkeys entry.

I wouldn't say that there is a current GC objective is to reduce the TCs to a political minority (although the term "political minority" remains subject to several different nterpretations). After all the GC leadership has accepted long time ago that the solution in Cyprus will be a bi zonal, bi communal federation. Besides, the Annan plan was hardly doing that (reducing the TCs into ……).

You may argue of course that this is also the reason why the Annan plan was never accepted by most GCs. I would say that our leadership's failure to negotiate something better as well as the insistence of the Turkish side on a number of demands that were not really necessary for them, led to the frustration and eventual rejection of the plan by the GCs (at least this is how I understood the events). Regarding GC objective, I would say that in the mind of the ordinary people this remains the same: to workable solution that will provide for a peaceful and safe future in a democratic country where all Cypriots will have equal rights and responsibilities. But this will also have to be a win / win solution and not a solution that one side will feel as the "loser". I believe that Alexandros' study has been most revealing in this respect. I cannot speak about what Papadopoulos has in mind.

As for Turkey's membership, my guess is that Cyprus will not really have to do anything to block it. Simply put ans as things are now, I cannot see a country like Turkey being ever able to take those necessary steps to become a full EU member. But even if this happens, there will still be the prejudice of the Europeans that will need to be overcome. Again, I just cannot see how the French (for example) will ever be convinced to vote "Oui" in a referendum where Turkey's membership is in question.

The fact is the objectives of the Akritas plan were not as 'bad' as the means. The means were specificaly secret, to use violence and the creation of communal violence and portray it as something other than it really was to the rest of the world and to not disclose the 'real' objectives until prior stages had been achieved.

Already discussed above.

The discussion was about the 'reponsibility' of groups and the relative responsibility of groups of different sizes and how consistent that is with views on the rights of groups of different sizes. I am afarid I still get a feeling much of the time that equlity of reposnibilty of groups (for bad things) is something that GC find easy to conceive, yet have much trouble accepting the equality of the rights of groups of different sizes.

The relative responsibility of groups is something that you tried to introduce in this discussion, but I still do not think that it is a powerful argument. In any event, if you insist that the size of the populations (that translates to power) are of critical significance in the initiation of a conflict, then in the case of Cyprus one will need to consider the role of Greece (that in 1955 was reluctant to go against its western allies for the sake o the GCs), and the role of Turkey (that was strongly encouraged by Britain to get involved in Cyprus). Only then you will determine the real power that each side held in Cyprus when the conflict fist started.

I accept that it may have been and was used an 'excuse' for certain actions - but the fact is the desire (of GC to reduce the TC community to a political minority) was very real (and still exists today), whether used an an excuse or not. In fact in the absense of this reality its use as an excuse would have been severly diminished.

The way it appears to me is that this excuse is still being used to justify the ongoing occupation in north Cyprus.

Or a tacticaly / strategicaly calaulated thing to do if the objective was actualy to preciptate intercommunal violence? I am not saying it was calculate rather than clumsy - just pointing out that this is another posible interpretation.

I have already explained how violence in Cyprus was not imo in favour of the GCs, who in any case are not exclusively (or more) responsible for it.

It's just at times it feels like all that 'matters' or causes pain and suffering to people is loosing their property.

I understand how human life is irreplaceable and thus invaluable. As for land, bricks and tiles, there ae times when they can mean be a lot more than just "buildings" or "property", even if they can be priced.

….. To say there should only be indivduals rights is not sufficent - which is why the charters on human rights have rights of peoples and rights of indivduals. Neither has any automatic priority over the other.

Since neither has automatic priority over the other, it only makes sense to assume that people rights cannot violate individual rights under any circumstances. Or am I missing something again here?

Actualy that is not always so. In many democracies it is possible for the largest single minority to win the elction, as I understand it?

I am not sure what you mean. Was the election of George Bush over Al Gore such an example? Bush had the majority in electoral votes.

Having said the above I accpet their are valid fears about both functionality and abuse of a federal system and these must also be addressed. 30+ years and counting and we are still looking (or have we / are we actually looking at all?)

Maybe we are all looking at the wrong place.

(PS I almost always edit my posts after posting but that is only to correct my many mistakes / typos and to make my original meaning clearer - never to change my original meaning in light of subsequent posts)

Why does everyone in here feel they need to explain why they edit their posts?

O.

[turkcyp]

I think you are correct, but to be honest with you, the EU demands that all citizens are treated equally. There are currently around 2000 TC's living in the free areas. It would seem rather silly for them to vote for a VP! But there is nothing stopping the RoC from passing a law that allows the TCs to vote for president (by assuming that everyone living in the RoC is deemed to be GC). It does not mean changing the constitution however.

How many TC constitute a TC community so we can start practicing our rights as stipulated in 1960 constitution? Is for example 10k enough? How about 50K? May be 100k? What is the cut off point that our intellectually superior GC compatiots are offering to us?

Plus any law that are passed in the country (this includes electoral law) as well must be in line with constitution and must not contradict constitution? And constitution can only be changed with TCs consent?

I remember in this forum so many times it is mentioned that constituion of Cyprus has not changed because we have never agreed on it? Is this true? Are you still managed by teh same 1960 constitution? If this is the case how can you even contemplate on a change in electoral law to allow TCs to vote as GCs.

I do not want that kind of law change. Because that is taking my right away from choosing VP, and all the other rights we have accoring to 1960 constitution?

I guess the question GCs should keep on asking themselves is this. Do we really want TCs exercise their righst as granted to them by the 1960 constituion?

Take care,