Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

But the fact is the Americans interfered so boldly during Koffi Anans arbitration process in a way that resulted to satisfying each and every demand of Turkey against the GCs!!

I do not know that and even you do not know that. The only thing you and I know about Americans, is what we here from the newspapers, about how America wants this and America want that.

As far as I am concerned the negotiataions took place between TCs and GCs with the supervision of De Soto, (which is not American by the way) under the UN auspices.

Hmmm, I see your point. First of all lets make some distinctions. Either the EU or the UN can be manipulated if the whole task is left to individuals. So I personally do not trust either the EU or the UN unless their solution proposal is a result of a collective body and not the result of remote individuals (e.g Verhiogen No2). Since however even in this case you may not seem to trust the EU for the reasons you stated, lets leave this matter aside for the moment.

Now we are getting somewhere. Define collective body. Are you saying that there should be more than one person from UN (or whatever it is EU). I do not believe that UN ( in this case the individual you are referring to is probably De Soto) was alone decision maker. He probably had many help from other people from UN about the legal and feasibility aspects of the plan.

Long story short, I do not believe Annan Plan was the product of one individual. It has taken many years to be concluded. It started when Denktas invited Clerides to talk in Nicosia, and continued under UN supervision later on. Many people involved in it during these years from Denktas, to Clerides, to Papadopoulos, to Talat, to De Soto as probably the main characters supported by many sidekicks as a cast.

What Papadopoulos (and probably you as well) object is the fact that there was some third party acting as a referee/judge filling the empty blanks that we could not agree on. But after 40 years of talks, I sincerely believe that if it is left to only TCs and GCs this Cyprus problem will not be solved. The reason is we will come to table and provide our maximalist desires, and you will come and do the same, and none of us will badge an inch. So at the end we will not get anything done for another 40 years. (That is probably why Papadopoulos want the negotiations to be open ended as well.) SO I really belive we need a third party to come in and fill in the blanks on the issues that we can not agree on. And this filling the blank will at the end will be a compromise between yours and ours maximalist positions.

We need to find a third party to do this. But as you have suggested we can put this issue to side.

Fine! I have no problem trusting the UN to give us a solution. The UN as a collective body though, not the UN as some individuals. We saw what happened trusting 2-3 individuals of the UN (nameley De-Soto, his legal advisor Pfirter and a few others) to find us a solution. Each and everyone of them was bought out, and in the end they presented us their devine arbitration which was nothing less than a monstrosity. So lets start from the numerous resolutions of the UN that were indeed the outcome of collective bodies. Are those satisfactory to you? Shouldn’t any solution comply with them or should we throw them in the dustbin like the Anan Plan did? I will not accept any detailed plan unless it is based on guidelines already approved by the UN general assembly.Furthermore I will not accept a final detailed plan to go to a referendum unless there is enough time to verify it's compliance with the initial guidelines.Is this satisfactory to you?

See the answer one paragraph above.

I am not sure you realised what you answered here.You said that every derrogation was against the human rights of the GCs and none against the human rights of the TCs. I have no reason to disagree of course.

Thanks for correcting me. Tell ma a derogation in Annan Plan that was against human rights.

Good catch.

With all respect but did it pass through your mind that perhaps yourself might be a victim of Turkish propaganda and shortsightness ? Have a look at the thread titled "Is the South..." to see what I mean.

I am not a victim of any propaganda more than you are victim. All I said wass, do not give me the old line “Cyprus problem started in 1974 with the invasion” I guess everything was just a walk in the rose garden between 63-74 for TCs on this island.

I have said in another post. For GCs the Cyprus problem was completely solved in 4 March 1964, and reemerged again on 20 July 1974. For TCs Cyprus problem started on 21 December 1963.

And yes I am not denying the fact that there were portions of the TC society that wanted partition from the beginning and used the 1963-64 events for their aims. But you can not deny the fact that there was a portion of you society( and probably a bigger portion as a percentage wise) that wanted enosis and never liked the 1960 agreements and looked for a opportunity to start the evenst of 1963 and 64.

IF the events of 63-64 never happened we would not come to this point at all. So please start accepting responsibility as we are accepting ours.

Furthermore it seems to me that what you are trying to say here is that a crime justifies another crime. No it does not!

No I am not saying that. All I am saying is that, there is not one crime but two. So if we are cleaning the crimes we should clean two of them. How does this sound? Fairly accurate huh! So let’s get the Turkish troops out of the island, end the occupation and solve the refuge problem, with an acceptable way (if it takes all the refuges to turn back so be it. This means that you will have to compensate us for all our damages for the last 40 years, and we will compensate you all the damages fro the last 30 years) and you start giving our righst back from 1960 constitution.

How does this sound? And once you give all our rights back from 1960 constitution, and we give all your properties back, then we can start negotiating again if you want about how to change the 1960 constitution. I guess this sounds like a fair deal to you. But remember we have pretty good rights in 1960 constitution (much much better than Annan Plan) so it will be a very hard bargain for you guys.

So you want to know why depriving the GCs of their properties is a violation of their human rights?
1)Because expropriation is only allowed by the state only in case the property will be used for public purposes (e.g to build a school, road, public building etc) the use of which will be enjoyed by all citizens. No state can take your property and give it to someone else!

I guess all the TC properties that RoC expropriated in the last 30 years. (and they are much more than you can imagine) were used for the benefit of the TC society as well and just compensation was paid for those properties. So if I go to RoC govermetn right now and ask for the money that she owes me because they had torn my house down I guess she has to pay me all the money with accumulated interest huh?

2)Because massive expropriation of GC properties equals to massive expression of descrimination based on race, i.e massive expression of racism.

The same argument as before. When you kick us out of the government in 1963 I guess that was a discrimination based on race as well. I mean you have discriminated our rights to elect and be elected. (and please before you say that TCs choose not to participate, make some research and find out how many TCs tried to break ranks from the “taksim” and try to continue their governmental duties but simply rejected by the GCs back then. After all UN security council said that GCs were the representative of the whole island so why would our participation in the government was necessary fro you guys.

3)Because as long as the compensation will no be in cash, you have every right to refuse.

Are you saying that if the compensation is in cash you will accept it. Because it can easily be solved. Every TC were willing to go to a bank and get a 30 year mortgage on his property and turn back and pay the cash to GC, if cash is what you need. But you know what this means. We will get these properties by paying them (without an exchange fro our properties in south) so we will still be entitled what we have left behind.

4)Because the State does not have the money to pay for such a huge extend of expropriation, and because it cannot even guarantee it's bonds, their purchasing strength at maturity, and their annual interest.

Who said anything about the state. Read response to point 3 above. If that is what you need as a change in Annan Plan, we are more than ready to give that change to you.

5)Because by donating the properties or selling them to the TCs and settlers at a small fraction of their real value, the State discriminates against it's own citizens, and commits acts of racism.

Again, who said anything about the state. We can find a fair market value for the properties very easily. It is forced selling, I am not dismissing that. But this is what every government does when they expropriate any property. They force the individual out, and give them the found fair market value for the property. So it is not discrimination, and it will be done by individuals not by the state.

6)Because the State will have to apply taxation to cover the costs of expropriation, which under the current conditions will be paid 90% by those who will lose their properties and by just 10% by those who will get them.

Again and again, I have stated a solution for you that does not involve state.

In other words my friend. Just simply forget the matter of depriving anyones right to his property. It cannot stand legal not for a second.

All the state can do is just encourage the people to exchange or sell their properties on their own free will. Whether that will end up to a clear bizonal situation that can guarantee a stable Federal system nobody can tell. What is for sure is that it is a myth that after a solution the GCs will run to settle in the Northern part, or the TCs to the Southern part, even under the best of conditions. And the next myth is that the current laws of RoC and the EU give the right to any owner to throw a person using a propertty out in the streets, before exhausting all possibilities for a friendly settlement and before exhausting all other legal possibilities. And because we all know the legal procedures can take years, I leave it upto you to guess what most people will do.

I can show you legal precedent for you, where there is a property in question which is used by an individual for a long years, and which is not legally acquired and have been taken to court. And court rule that the current owner gets to keep the property granted he pays the fair market value for the house plus interest. So in essence it is a forced sale.

There is nothing in the law that says property has to be returned back to previous owner. Not even human rights says that. As long as you are paid a just compensation for it. Forced sale of a property does not violate human rights if it is done under certain conditions.

In view of the above, if both sides want to proceed to a bizonal Federation, they must both realise that they cannot do this by violating any human rights, and in this respect they should undertake the risk that such a solution might not be stable. By instability I don't mean it will create an arms conflict I mean it may end up to be two GC Fed states.

In my opinion the most stable solution is a Unitary State in which the TCs will have the same Political rights as those they would have in a Federal system. In this system we will certainly start from bizonality, but slowly slowly that will fade. In the end (maybe after 100 years) the TCs will still be majority in the north but the region in which they will be majority will be about equal to their percentage population. (You are a maths guy-think about this evolvement, in my opinion it is the most likely to occur)

About this!!!

How about as I have suggested before. Turn back to situation in 1963 anf you give our constitutional rights. And then we start negotiating bizonality after that. We can give up some of our rights from 1960 constitution to get a bizonality.

Because what you are essentially suggesting is unitary state with bizonality. Acceptable for me. Actually even bizonality is not a requirement for me. I could definitely live among GCs. I think majority of them are great people. I can not talk for others though.

So lets turn back to 1963 and those TCs that want to live next to other TCs may end up accumulating over time next to other TCs.

But for some reason, I have a feeling that you do not want to turn back to 1963 and give our rights back. You want to turn back to current day RoC, where TCs have lost ,amy of their rights from 1960 constitution.

Anyway, this post has gone so long. No need to extend it any longer. I sincerely thank you for bearing with me for 6 pages.

Have a great day,

[MicAtCyp]

The UN as a collective body though, not the UN as some individuals.....snip

I will not accept any detailed plan unless it is based on guidelines already approved by the UN general assembly.....snip

We need to find a third party to do this.

I am glad we agree that we need a third party. I have described what the nature of that third party should be to be acceptable to us, I don't think there is anything more to say.

I am not a victim of any propaganda more than you are victim.

According to your opinion of course.
The fact however remains that it is you who accused the GC members of the forum that they are victims of such propaganda, without even having a clue that most GC and TC active members of this forum are among the top 3% of the population that are influenced by such propaganda to the lowest degree possible.

Every
TC were willing to go to a bank and get a 30 year
mortgage on his property and turn back and pay the cash
to GC, if cash is what you need. But you know what this
means. We will get these properties by paying them
(without an exchange fro our properties in south) so we
will still be entitled what we have left behind.

I leave it upto the rest of the forum members to judge the relevance of your reply, and whether that is [b] the altimate striking reason that just need be repeated 4 times to prove that there is no violation of the human right of GC refugees on their properties as concluded by the provisions of the Anan Plan

Furthermore if you read my suggestions regarding solving this issue, your procedure is not excluded, however NOBODY can force it as the rule, and NOBODY can deprive any GC the right to proceed the same way, concerning TC property that he currently holds.As long as the two individuals concerned (the one holding the property and the other owning it) agree I cannot see any reason why should anyone stop them.

Whether your procedure is a feasible thing to do-let aside your insinuation that it should be forced as a rule- is another issue. I would advice any GC or TC who would be interested to proceed that way, before doing so, to calculate the interest he will have to pay to the Bank. Because you know the minimum price for a house in the free areas including the land on which it is built is 120,000 Cyprus pounds, the minimum value of a building plot 550 sq.m is 40,000, the minimum value of a donum is 7,000 Cyprus Pounds, and the minimum debit interest is 5%!!

How about as I have suggested before. Turn back to
situation in 1963 anf you give our constitutional
rights. And then we start negotiating bizonality after
that. We can give up some of our rights from 1960
constitution to get a bizonality.

I already answered to you three times in this forum! Why do you repeat the same question to me? I said definetely yes! Why don't you ask your leaders to propose it? For 30 years every GC president we ever had was proposing the same thing to Denktash.His answer was always "don't even think about it"

[MicAtCyp]

what you are saying here sounds very interesting. Could
you flesh it out into a complete proposal?

Alexandre if I do that I am sure many people will spot a lot of weaknesses to my complete proposal. Not because the basis or the idea is wrong but because one individual cannot think of everything. It should rather be a matter of discussion beteween the leaders with the assistance of experts.
But anyway I can extend my idea a bit if you like.

What the TCs want is actually 4 things:
1.They want to live concentrated in one area.
2.They want that area to be administared by their own people.That is to have their own policemen, their own mayors, etc.
3.They want to be able to have their share on the decision making process, and a way to block fundamental unjustices from occuring on them by a more powerful majority .
4.And they want to have an effective way of promoting their interests on an equal footing.

No1 is a fact already.The procedure of encouraging the people to exchange/sell/rent their properties will ensure that a certain geographical area at the Northern part will always be inhabited majoritarianly by TCs. How much that geographical area will be in the end? I think about 18%.
No 2 can be achieved by agreement. It would be paranoic to be administered otherwise anyway!
No3 .I think the Parliamentary system of 1960 is fine, and any law must be approved by the majority of both GCs and TCs separately.
No4 can be ensured if the top Government administrative positions are shared on a 50-50% basis and on rotation, whereas the Ministers can be on a 30-70 basis and on rotation. An exception can be the Ministry of Education which although (I insist it must be one unit) it will have two built in bodies one for the Education of the GCs and one for the Education of the TCs.

In my opinion nothing of the above is against what the GCs want, and I am sure if that is brought to a referendum it will get a very high percentage. Moreover it will let things evolve naturally at a speed that people can handle. It will let people feel free, mingle together, whereas at the same time the TC community will retain its character, be concentrated at one area, and feel a respectable part of the country.Notice that the Anan Plan was such a forciful plan that even the TCs complained that it would uproot them for a third time, without leaving them any choice to perhaps make private deals with the owners of the properties.

I am not sure though if the TCs will accept it, given the constant propaganda drilling their ears that the GCs want to dominate them....

[metecyp]

I am not sure though if the TCs will accept it, given the constant propaganda drilling their ears that the GCs want to dominate them....

First, I have no problem with what you suggested. I think you did a good job of identifying TC needs and your solutions don't seem bad either.

Secondly, I don't know how you conclude that GCs dominating TCs is nothing but propaganda. As some forum members remind us constantly, TCs are 18% of the island and they probably do not have more than 10% of economic power in Cyprus. In a solution, if TCs are not protected, 90% GC economic power will be enough to dominate the whole island. Maybe GCs do not directly want to dominate TCs but with no protection, this domination will happen anyway given the current 82-18 ratio.

[insan]

I am not sure though if the TCs will accept it, given the constant propaganda drilling their ears that the GCs want to dominate them....

I agree with you metecyp. Furthermore, when one looks retrospectively to analyse when and why GC ruling elite backed by Hellenic Ruling elite exerted huge effort and played every trick in order to be the sole ruler of Cyprus; can easily see that the same reasons/excuses/beliefs(Being majority of Cyprus, considering at least a part of TCs as trojan horses of Turkey, antagonism against Turkey etc) still remain as reasons/excuses/beliefs for the same political stance: Majority Rule.


The basis of MicAtCyp's proposal provides a degree of political equality for TCs but still I'm not sure if it ensures the protection of all interests of two communities fairly. I have an impression that GC ruling elite strongly believe that the foreign afffairs and economy of united of Cyprus should be directed and controled by themselves.

No3 .I think the Parliamentary system of 1960 is fine, and any law must be approved by the majority of both GCs and TCs separately.

As it is written in the 1960's constitution or agreed in 1971?


One more thing I must add that I'm against disproportional participation on executive body. The participation on executive body should be based upon population ratio of two communities.

[Saint Jimmy]

In a solution, if TCs are not protected, 90% GC economic power will be enough to dominate the whole island. Maybe GCs do not directly want to dominate TCs but with no protection, this domination will happen anyway given the current 82-18 ratio.

Hmmm... Have we overlooked this possibility in our discussions? I think this is a valid argument... Food for (a lot of) thought...?

As it is written in the 1960's constitution or agreed in 1971?

Ummm... hate to be the village idiot but... was there a revised Parliamentary system? How was it amended? (Do you mean agreed between Clerides and Denktash in their talks - what Clerides refers to as 'the closest we've ever been to a settlement prior to 1974'?)

[insan]

Ummm... hate to be the village idiot but... was there a revised Parliamentary system? How was it amended? (Do you mean agreed between Clerides and Denktash in their talks - what Clerides refers to as 'the closest we've ever been to a settlement prior to 1974'?

"Clerides comments on the intercommunal talks

In the year 1972, despite the internal situation amongst the Greek Cypriot community, I reached agreement with Mr. Denktash on all constitutional issues; except on the issue regarding the central local government authority.

On that issue the Turkish side abandoned its demand for the grouping of Turkish villages together in order to form areas of Turkish local government. It accepted that the House of Representatives would legislate, by simple majority, the laws relating to local government and that the two Communal Chambers would issue regulations, within the Laws enacted by the House, to be applied by the respective Greek and Turkish local government authorities. The Communal Chambers would also act as co-ordinators of the respective local government authorities. Administrative supervision would be exercised by a government civil servant. Further, agreement had already been reached on the power and functions of local government authorities. . .

Looking back at that formula I cannot but state that a cardinal error was committed by Makarios . . . , [who] considered [the formula] to be a form of concealed federation. . . . In local government autonomy, the element of two separate and geographical cohesive areas did not exist. The Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots would have remained in their villages and towns and would have enjoyed local government autonomy under their respective communities. Furthermore the scope of local government agreed to was much more limited than that of the powers and functions of a federal province, canton or state. Makarios in rejecting the September 1972 formula on local government failed to evaluate correctly the internal situation in Cyprus, i.e. the growing danger of a coup by the Greek military forces in Cyprus acting on orders from the Greek Junta, the reaction of Turkey to such a development, and the warning given by the United States. C

The internal situation amongst the Greek Cypriot community was such, the risk of a military coup by the Greek forces in Cyprus so great, and the danger of a Turkish invasion so real, that the formula of September 1972 on local government should have been accepted. Had it been accepted, an agreement would have been reached on the solution of the Cyprus problem, which would have left Cyprus with a much improved constitution. Turkey would have been thus deprived of any reason, and of any excuse to invade Cyprus. The Greek junta would have been prevented by the U.S. Government from attempting a military coup, and Cyprus would have been spared the Turkish invasion and its destructive effects."



http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/clerides ... pt%204.htm

[-mikkie2-]

Insan,

The intercommunal talks did go a very long way to a solution. However, I do think that the sincerity of the Turkish side would have to be questioned, given the readiness of Turkey to militarily intervene in Cyprus. Perhaps Denktas knew that it would not matter what he agreed to if he had prior knowledge of what Turkey would do, given an excuse.

This is all hypothetical of course, but one does wonder considering how vehemently opposed Denktas is to unification.

[insan]

Insan,

The intercommunal talks did go a very long way to a solution. However, I do think that the sincerity of the Turkish side would have to be questioned, given the readiness of Turkey to militarily intervene in Cyprus. Perhaps Denktas knew that it would not matter what he agreed to if he had prior knowledge of what Turkey would do, given an excuse.

Ok, mikkie. Let's question. Why an excuse and not the reason while it was a well known fact that extreme right wing of GCs backed by Greek Junta still had been maintaining their Enosist actions both openly via media and secretly by underground organizations, during the 1967-74 period? I've examined the then major newspapers of TCs and Turkey and couldn find just a single article, reported event which indicated that Turkey togteher with Denktash were not sincere about their solution proposal. To the contrary, it was far right media of GCs, Greek Junta and Enosist underground organizations that barking about Enosis and provoking both GC left, TCs and Turkey. There was nothing hidden either in Denktash's aim or the others. Denktash's and Turkey's aim was to secure a degree of political equality with a limited local autonomy for TCs. Makarios aim was to create a GC state where TCs would have been protected as a minority and GC far right together with Greek Junta were planing Enosis, solely Enosis. Stances of all parties was very obvious, imo.

This is all hypothetical of course, but one does wonder considering how vehemently opposed Denktas is to unification.

Denktash always has opposed to the approaches and proposals which don't secure the political equality and security of TCs. TCs are agreed with Denktash at these points. TC's revolt against Denktash has arised from his ineffectiveness in this 35 years lasted fruitless negotiation process. Furthermore his distorted mentality about TCs and settlers... Injusticenesses and partisanship mainly he has led TCs in past 30 years... I hate Denktash like corrupt right wingers but this does not mean that there's nothing I agree with him regarding the political rights and security of TCs.

[insan]

More about the events of 1967-74 can be found @

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/disloyal ... rkides.htm


The Disloyal Opposition and the Fall of the Republic

The role of the Greek Cypriot opposition in the attempts to murder Archbishop Makarios and overthrow his government is not widely appreciated. Most histories treat this militant group as wayward patriots, holdovers from the glory days of EOKA and the struggle for self-determination. Here, the Greek Cypriot scholar Kyriacos Markides, for many years a professor at the University of Maine in the United States, delves much deeper into the ideology and sociology of the militants organized by Grivas and others. It is a fascinating and brilliantly woven story, excerpted from his 1977 classic, The Rise and Fall of the Cyprus Republic.

By 1969, a year after Evdokas was defeated at the polls, there appeared several terrorist organizations claiming leadership of the enosist struggle. They included the following: (a) the National Front; (b) the Organization Akritas; (c) the Enosist Youth Phinix; (d) the Nationalist Youth of Paphos; and (e) the Organization of National Salvation.[8] The most lethal of these guerrilla organizations were the National Front and Akritas. The mood of these groups was expressed in the following quotation from one of their proclamations:

We can no longer close our eyes and allow our nation to be led treacherously by antienosists toward illegitimate solutions. With every means, everywhere and always, we shall struggle against them. Against the traitors, the leftists, and their sympathizers. And we shall hit the government itself. Whoever doesn't conform will be publicly executed. It is the only solution for getting rid of the Communists and their treacherous role in undermining the national ideals. The past of our nation dictates the undertaking of a struggle for its future. . . . Only then will there be a national renaissance in Cyprus.[9]

These were not idle threats. Between 1969 and 1971, the year Grivas secretly returned to the island, these organizations were credited with many bombings and several murders, including the attempts against Makarios's life in 1970.= [10] Grivas returned to Cyprus in the midst of increasing opposition to Makarios by the various terrorist groups. He organized a new underground organization, EOKA B, to fight once again for Enosis.

A more militant political organization appeared that claimed to be above politics - the ESEA, Eniaios Syndesmos Enotikou Agonos (Unified Committee of the Enosist Struggle). It was the political front of EOKA B. Three new enosist newspapers - the Ethniki, Messivrini, and Patris - were established. It was common knowledge that these newspapers, as well as EOKA B and ESEA, were financed by the Greek government and by some of its wealthy supporters. Captured documents found in the hands of EOKA B offered ample evidence to prove this allegation.

ESEA, through these newspapers, openly and with impunity, encouraged terrorist violence as a means of promoting the cause of Enosis. For example, three months before the coup the newspaper Ethniki in a major article entitled "Long Live EOKA B" wrote:

[EOKA) . . . was established in order to offer protection to the constantly harassed enosists and to prevent a new national betrayal against Greek Cyprus. Today's EOKA is the continuation and extension of the EOKA of 1955-1959. It is a continuation of the struggle for Enosis which was left half-finished by the national traitors. [11]

In another article the opposition virtually urged the National Guard to take over the government:

We must stop allowing the traitors to continue their nationally corrosive policies. The Greek officers and our National Guard have a sacred mission. The Communists and the priests must not be allowed to destroy it. Greece should no longer tolerate any more humiliations from the traitors in Nicosia. There is no chance that they will come to their senses. Measures must be taken without delay so that they may become politically harmless. . . . We responsibly state that the theocratic establishment will eventually collapse. . . . The enosists can neither be defeated, nor dismantled. For they embody the conscience and the will of the nation ! [12]