Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Magikthrill,

thank you for your frank response.

I quite understand where you are coming from and what your concerns are, in fact on most issues we agree.

Basically, on the refugee issues we need as a minimum to find a way - in the revised Peace Plan we are drawing up here - to ensure that GC refugees get a chance to return in their own towns and villages, while at the same time ensuring that TCs who have been living there for so many years will not be forced to abandon the same towns and villages ...

I think a lot will hinge on the building of new homes.

Say that for every GC home in which a TC is living, a new home is built in the same village or town. And one of these two homes will go to the TC, and the other will go to the GC.

I am not sure about the issue of who would have priority control of the original property - let's leave this aside for now. But the interesting thing about the proposal, is that many GCs would actually elect to get the new home. After all, the house they abandoned in 1974 would be 40 years old by now, and in many ways it could be argued that GCs have a right to a brand new home ... since their own home has been depreciated over three decades without them using it.

But even if GCs elect to get their original home back - then the TC current occupant would most probably be jubilant: He would be getting a brand new home, after all ...

So perhaps with this kind of provision, we can create balanced motivations between current residents and original owners, by balancing essentially the motive of nostalgia with the motive of renewal, and in this way all property exchanges can be done peacefully, with everybody feeling that they have gained something ...


P.S. I won't be writing in this forum for the next few days, because I will be going to a conference where I will present my research findings. I'll tell you all I have learnt, once I return ...

[Piratis]

could you flesh this out into a concrete critique of the Annan Plan on the issue of "federalization" and a specific suggestion for alternative arrangements?

I already suggested alternative arrangements. The principles I believe are clear. If there is an agreement on those principles then we can discuss the details, otherwise I don't see the reason to do so.

For me the Annan plan can not be repaired. If what the offered was a soup, then I could say "if you add a bit of salt it could be eatable", but when what they offer us is shit, then no "adjustments" will make it ok.

[magikthrill]

What you are suggesting when you say all settlers should go after 30 years on the island that would summount to a form of soft ethnic cleansing.

I don't think having someone be removed from stolen property to their original homes is a form of ethnical cleansing.

[turkcyp]

What do you mean by saying “right of return of all refugees should exist”?

Do you mean unconditional and thus having the first priority? Do you mean they can return and start living in north or just own the houses but not leave there permanently?

Or do you mean something like Annan Plan. In theory in Annan Plan right of return of all refugees existed, but this right of return of all refugees are dependent on conditions. So it is not absolute but it is conditional. Can you elaborate more on that?

Absolute unconditional right of return of all refugees will never going to be acceptable to TC society. The reason being this will kill the bizonality. If at the end of the day TCs are not getting bizonality we rather turn back to 1960 constitution, and get more constitutional rights than Annan Plan. In Annan Plan (compared to 1960 constitution) TCs agreed to have less constitutional rights in return of diluted bizonality. Now if we dilute this bizonality more, I rather turn back the constitutional order of 1960.

Take care,

[magikthrill]

turkcyp,

Yes I am talking about unconditional right of return. The only way a solution can ever be achieved from what I undertand, since the main reason why GCs voted against Annan was because of this "conditionality" of the refugee return (not even close to right of return)

The right of return will not necessarily kill off bizonality. Many GCs will choose not to return to their original homes. Also, Turkey can offer perhaps compensation greater than what the property is worth to lure away GCs planning on returning.

[turkcyp]

...Many GCs will choose not to return to their original homes. ....

I do not know about you but me I do not like leaving my future in the hands of others.

What if all the GCs decide to return. Then what? Giving right of return means, even if they are dead by age, their kids can return. Giving right of return means, there will never be a majority of TCs in this northern state. So in TCs book, when we talk about GC leadership keep on giving GC society conflicting messages, we mean that.

Absolute right of retun, kills bizonality ( or let's say has a very high chance of killing bizonality). So talking about accepting bizonality and at the same time asking absolute right of return, is just not feasible. As I said, I rather turn back to 1960 constitution then accept a plan like that.

But if you choose to belive that such a plan will ever be acceptable to TCs, then you are dreaming. And if you say that any other plan would not be acceptable to GCs, then we come to what I have been telling all along.

Our red lines are simply not providing us a solution in the near future. That is why I am pessimistic, because I keep on seeing the demands of GCs that will never be acceptable to TCs. May be from you side it seems the same too!!! So we have a lot of reason to be pessimistic about.

If you are so insisting about "Absoute right of return" tthen I can tell you this. Why doesn't RoC do not let the GCs and TCs sell their land, to the other party. I am quite sure if RoC would let the GCs sel their land to TCs then a lot of TCs would go and find out who the owner of his house was before 1974, and make him an offer. And if the GC does not want to return, and if the offer was fair, then he would accepts the ofer. By this way we may know, how much of the GC soceity really want to turn back?


I had made this above proposal before, but found no support for that. If as you claim most GCs do not want to return, then why RoC is not letting them sell their properties to whomever they wish. Not just TCs but whomever they wish.

I smell a lot fish here......

But without this, GC will not say "Yes" to a plan that has even remote possibility of kicking them out of their current properties one more time and make them refuges one more time.

Take care anyway,

[Alexandros Lordos]

Giving right of return means, even if they are dead by age, their kids can return. Giving right of return means, there will never be a majority of TCs in this northern state.

Turkcyp,

I am not sure how you (and TCs in general) have come to the conclusion that if all refugees return there will be no bizonality and no TC majority in the north. Maybe this is what Rauf et al have been trying to put into your heads all these years to make you believe that a solution is just not possible (the intersecting red lines that you talked about).

The question is one of simple mathematics: In any solution, some land would be returned to the GC state, and therefore some refugees would have a right of return without affecting bizonality at all. OK so far? Under the Annan Plan, which provided for the return of Morfou, half of Famagusta and various villages, about 90,000 refugees would return under GC administration. This leaves about 70,000 refugees, whose home towns and villages would still remain under TC administration. Now, what is the population of the TC state? If you include the 45,000 settlers who would remain according to Annan 5, then it is about 200,000.

So, even if all GC refugees returned, they would only make up 70,000 out of 270,000 of the total population of the TC state ... which is something like 30%. And this is if all of them choose to return. So where do you see the danger in allowing them the right of return? Unless ofcourse you are afraid of GCs, even as a minority ...

Now, the issue of who has priority control of properties is totally different from the issue of residence rights. Personally, I tend to agree with you that current occupants should not be forced to move out against their will. (except the settlers, that is: If they are to remain in Cyprus, then they should seek alternative accomodation). If you ask me, I would go one step further and say (though my GC friends will probably become indignant when I say this), TCs should not be forced to surrender their own properties in the south in order to keep their current residence. They should, if they wish, have the option to buy their current residence in cash, or exchange it for their property in the south. In this manner, TCs who do not have property to exchange will also have a way to keep their current residence. And furthermore, TCs who would like to have a second home in the south, so that perhaps they can use it during the week to work and return to the north for the weekends, would also be satisfied (and about 40% of TCs would like to have the opportunity to work in the south, according to my survey.)

How does this sound as a TC-centred improvement? Does it satisfy you?

Now, having said that, let's return to the other side of the coin: How can we show respect for the GC right of return without evicting current TC occupants? The best way to do it would be with the "right to a new home" provision which I have described in a post above, and also in my report. Each GC that will not be entitled to his original home, because a TC current occupant does not wish to leave, should be entitled to a brand new home, built especially for him, in the same town or village. There is justice in this, in that after 30 years of depreciation GCs should be entitled to a new home anyway. So it is sort of a consolation prize, you do not get your original home, so you miss out on the nostalgia-satisfaction factor, but at least you get a brand new home, which is probably worth a lot more as a property.

With all these provisions that I propose, many GCs and TCs will end up having two homes, one in the south and one in the north. They might use one as a working-home or a holiday-home, and the other as a permanent residence. And in this way, GCs and TCs will intermingle in everyday life, while at the same time bizonality will be maintained on a political level, with nor more than, say, 30% of each constituent state being composed of people of the other ethnicity.

I shouldn't have written this post, because I am supposed to be taking a few days off to prepare for the conference ... but I couldn't resist the temptation! Anyway, take care my friend, we'll talk again in a few days.

[Othellos]

Alexandre,
The idea of building new homes for GC refugees who after a solution would return to live in the now occupied part of the island, or for TCs who would have to be relocated, sounds certainly reasonable and fair in prncipal, at least to me. But my question is who will finance all these? We are probably talking about 9 (if not 10) digit figures here.

Regards

O.

[insan]

I am not sure how you (and TCs in general) have come to the conclusion that if all refugees return there will be no bizonality and no TC majority in the north. Maybe this is what Rauf et al have been trying to put into your heads all these years to make you believe that a solution is just not possible (the intersecting red lines that you talked about).

Alexandros,

Forgive me for interfering into your dialogue with turkcyp but weren't they %65 of North who consciously or unconsciously voted yes to the plan thus approved return of about 70.000 GC refugees? Doesn't it seem to you that Rauf failed with his propaganda?

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alexandre,
The idea of building new homes for GC refugees who after a solution would return to live in the now occupied part of the island, or for TCs who would have to be relocated, sounds certainly reasonable and fair in prncipal, at least to me. But my question is who will finance all these? We are probably talking about 9 (if not 10) digit figures here.

Regards

O.

Well, let's not forget that they would have been getting the value of the home anyway in monetary compensation, so in this sense nothing changes ...

But to answer your question precisely, the Property Board will be responsible for building these houses. And the Property Board will have various sources of income, namely, cash paid by current occupants in order to "buy" the property they live in, and funds raised through selling the various properties that will come under the control of the property board (e.g. exchanged properties).

Each constituent state should be obliged to purchase a proportion of these properties each year, in order to keep the Property Board financed and ensure that the market will not be glutted with properties for sale.

If the TC state does not have the money to pay for its annual contribution to the Property Board (not really a contribution, more like a purchase), then it could be agreed that for the ten first years after the solution Turkey should help finance the budget of the TC state - and this would be a part of Turkey's agreed responsibilities.

Basically, this is how I see the economics of a solution working out.