Cyprus-Forum.com

[KELEBEK]

In the event of a political settlement how many Pontians should be allowed to stay? This is a question that nobody from the T/C govt has asked yet. But in my view equally important to the question of how many Turkish settlers should stay. This issue needs to be addressed I feel.

[brother]

Not sure on this one, so i am undecided.

[mehmet]

We're not looking for new enemies are we? Let them stay, let those from Turkey stay and let the rest of us show world famous Cypriot hospitality and kindness, one of the things we have in common.

[brother]

Now that is what i call a true human being, well done mehmet i back you all the way, nice one.

[magikthrill]

Yes

And while you're at bring in some Russians, Kurds, Bulgarians and - what the hell - more Turkish settlers!

That will cause a fair solution. Of course every ethnic minority should be entitlted to self determination so they all get a right to veto.

[magikthrill]

Yes

And while you're at bring in some Russians, Kurds, Bulgarians and - what the hell - more Turkish settlers!

That will cause a fair solution. Of course every ethnic minority should be entitlted to self determination so they all get a right to veto.

[mehmet]

You wait till you realise what being in the EU means. Do you think you can restrict people?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Kelebek,

I am sorry to have to say this, but I have to say I find your approach on this issue somewhat tiring ...

You are trying to equate the issue of settlers from Turkey with the (non-) issue of ... pontians from Greece!

This would be like me saying that in the 1960s it was the TCs who attempted to dominate the RoC, and it was the TCs who forced the GCs into enclaves.

In other words, it is a meaningless non-truth designed to deflect criticism away from the side that is responsible ...

Just like the Greek side is to be criticised fpr a number of things, for instance, much of what happened in the 1960s, so is the Turkish side to be criticised for a number of things, for instance, the issue of settlers.

So I suggest we stop blurring the distinctions, and start apportioning responsibility to each side as it is its due. Greek Cypriots have done many things wrong, but altering the demographic balance of Cyprus by bringing in settlers was not one of them. Period.

[erolz]

Kelebek,

I am sorry to have to say this, but I have to say I find your approach on this issue somewhat tiring ...

You are trying to equate the issue of settlers from Turkey with the (non-) issue of ... pontians from Greece!

This would be like me saying that in the 1960s it was the TCs who attempted to dominate the RoC, and it was the TCs who forced the GCs into enclaves.

In other words, it is a meaningless non-truth designed to deflect criticism away from the side that is responsible ...

Just like the Greek side is to be criticised fpr a number of things, for instance, much of what happened in the 1960s, so is the Turkish side to be criticised for a number of things, for instance, the issue of settlers.

So I suggest we stop blurring the distinctions, and start apportioning responsibility to each side as it is its due. Greek Cypriots have done many things wrong, but altering the demographic balance of Cyprus by bringing in settlers was not one of them. Period.

Once again you present much balanced and sensible views in my opinion Alexandros.

On thing I would say about the bringing in of settlers to the North is that it was not solely done for political reasons to change demographics. I agree that undoubtedly that was a major objective in doing so and that the way that it was done was something that can be farily critisied. There was however another reason - a purely practicle one of the North of Cyprus needing more people simply to operate functionaly. I accept this cpould have been done without giving former GC propoerties to the settlers (and I wished this had not been done). It could also have been done without the need to give these people citizenship - but personaly I do not believe in the concept of non citizen workers that help a society but are not deemed to be allowed to be a full part of that society.

So please do not get me wrong. The critisim of the bringing in of settlers are on the whole valid in my view. I also accept that the issue of settlers in the north is very different from that of pontians in the south. I do not think they should have been given properties without paying for them. The only point I am making is that there was also a very real practicle need to bring more people to North Cyprus after 74 and this need also played it's part in the decsion to bring settlers to Cyprus and the 'acceptance' of these settlers by TC. It was not only about political objectives and changing demographics to achieve political objectives.

[insan]

What I'm wondering about this settlers issue is that when did GC side first bring this issue on the table or put the issue in their agenda? Insofar as I know there wasn't any argument regarding settlers until late 80s. Does anyone know if there was ... ?

And if there wasn't any arguments until late 80s; why there was not? Because GC side wasn't aware of it or they were aware but prefered the silence in order to bring one more trouble in front of Turkey, when needed?