The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Official thread for the development of a revised Peace Plan

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby magikthrill » Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:47 am

turkcyp wrote:Having a huge GC population in north does not bother me at all. As I have expressed earlier i do not care even if there is no limitation on how many GCs settle in north.

And also I do not care if they vote in the northern state as well in the state elections. For that I care, they can even run for the governor (or premier, president whatever you want to call it) of the northern state as well.

But there has to be found a legal way of stopping these GCs in participating federal level elections in the central government and participating state wide elections relating the federal decisions. Otherwise equality of communities will be just on the word not on the substance.

And so far, neither Annan Plan nor what Alex is proposing gives that solution. Both of the solutions involve restrictions on political participation on the basis of ethnicity which most probably would be deemed against human rights of GCs by the ECHR. So in order to avoid this there has to be found a legal restrictions on residency (or state citizenship if you will) not on the ethnicity.

That is why my proposal was treating GCs settling in northern state as not a resident for political purposes. And the way I propose doing this was that, any GC that settles into northern state would have dual residency both TC state and GC state, GC state residency being the primary residency (even though she/he stays in north exclusively. From the legal perspective you actually do not even have to own a property to be resident, so these GCs would be primary resident of southern state in name only for political voting purposes, just like how they vote in USA federal elections in the name of absentee or overseas voting) and secondary residency in northern state.

And furthermore the internal constitutions of each state would be forced by the federal constitution to give all the voting rights secondary residences holders, with the exception of the two rights above cases.

IMO this is the only legal way of restricting political participation to preserve equality. Otherwise any measure based on ethnicity will turn from ECHR.

Take care,


Tukcyp,

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Do you mean that the GCs who live in northern Cyprus should not be allowed to vote for federal decisions as residents of the north?

If this is what you mean then the only way that his can be bypassed is through a non-permanent agreement, because otherwise this is discriminating against ethnicity. I do understand your viewpoint though (if this is what you mean)
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby michalis5354 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:39 am

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Well, if we could pull it off it would be great, resolving the bases issue AND getting a solution.

However, I am sure the british and the americans will do everything in their power to stop us, and they might even be willing to wreck the negotiations for a solution instead of tolerating a dimunition of the status of the bases.

I think the absolute minimum that we should strive for, is to ensure that the solution in no way adds further legitimacy to the bases, i.e. reinforcing their presence here with a popular mandate. To achieve this, we need to ensure that the issue of the bases is meticulously ignored and left out of the solution package. That way, we will still be able to challenge their status later from the stronger position of a re-united Cyprus, arguing that their presence is irrelevant to the new state of affairs.


My personal opinion is that everything should be re- negotiated again ncluding the statues of the bases there is nothing wrong with this! The bases have been formed under the 1960 aggreements and under different circumstances. If these agreements will be ammended or changed at the end then also the statues of the bases should also be an issue. The bases now do not serve the role they used to , and these are more of a cost than benefit to the UK!

Obvioulsy the British would not like such an issue to be raised but it is not up to them !The statues of the bases have been completely ignored at last negotiations! Wrongly in my opinion.

If this issue is not discussed at negotaiations then it will NEVER Be discussed in the future! And the statues of the bases will be permanently incorporated with our permission of course!
User avatar
michalis5354
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:48 am

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:49 am

Michali,

I agree with you that we have every right to raise the issue of the bases in the negotiations. I am just worried that the british and the americans will then play a very dirty game on us, wrecking the solution through interventions towards the UN and Turkey, preferring "no solution" to losing their bases here.

If of course the status that is agreed is sufficiently satisfactory to the british (e.g. a long term lease of the base areas, in return for monetary compensation to assist with the costs of the solution), then maybe something could be done.

There is of course, another dimension to the issue of the bases: Turkey will never feel totally secure to remove all its troops from Cyprus, while Britain remains here: For Turkey, Britain is a potential future threat. So I guess a satisfactory resolution of the Security aspect, will require some sort of renegotiation of the bases' status.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby erolz » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:06 pm

What is the actualy problem with the British bases?

So the British have sovreign bases in Cyprus. So what? What material 'suffering' do they cause any Cypriot? Have we run out of room that we need the land back? Is the 'cause' of getting rid of them really worth the cost to Cyprus? I ask these questions becaue I genuinely do not understand why the bases here are seen as such a problem and so unacceptable to some.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby insan » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:11 pm

For Turkey, Britain is a potential future threat.



Alexandros, I wonder how you came to a conclusion that Britain is a potential future threat for Turkey. Do you think Britain is potentially more dangerous than Greece, GCs together with some wery well known continental EU countries? If you could explain me how Britain would become a threat for Turkey in the future, I'll be happy. The countries that have hostile attitudes against to Turkey are very well known.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby michalis5354 » Sat Feb 19, 2005 3:25 pm

Erol , I agree with you at this!. The reason I refered to this issue is that both GCs and TCs should have a voice on what is happening on the island! If there are NET Benefits of keeping them then I have no objection.

I did not say to get rid of them . Earlier I gave two alternative options that might be used!
User avatar
michalis5354
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:48 am

Postby magikthrill » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:27 pm

insan wrote:
For Turkey, Britain is a potential future threat.



Alexandros, I wonder how you came to a conclusion that Britain is a potential future threat for Turkey. Do you think Britain is potentially more dangerous than Greece, GCs together with some wery well known continental EU countries? If you could explain me how Britain would become a threat for Turkey in the future, I'll be happy. The countries that have hostile attitudes against to Turkey are very well known.


lol yes insan, greece is so much more powerful than the UK and Turkey, they are the ones who should be afraid of Greece!

oh and last time i checked it was Turkey that was violating Greece's airspace (apparently the turkish military still cant over the fact that they got d*ked over in the aegean) and its Greece that is suporting Turkeys bid for EU membership.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:47 pm

insan wrote:
For Turkey, Britain is a potential future threat.



Alexandros, I wonder how you came to a conclusion that Britain is a potential future threat for Turkey.


Actually, this is from reliable "inside information" I have been given.

Basically, Turkey likes to take a very long term view in its foreign policy. Turkey knows that Greece or Cyprus can never be a serious threat, because they are just not powerful enough.

Britain, however, is a militarily powerful nation. And who can tell, who will be an enemy of Turkey in 30 or 50 years time? Having Britain just 50 miles to the south of the Turkish Coast, is therefore a potential threat.

So, from the information I have been given, one of the reasons that Turkey so much resists the prospect of total demilitarization of Cyprus, is because the British bases would still remain - and therefore the balance of power in the region would be tilted in favor of Britain.

So you see, the presence of the British bases here is actually one of the impediments to reaching a solution: If Britain was willing to leave, then Turkey would in its turn be more willing to take a step back.

Which brings us back to the infamous Treaty of Guarantee. When Hannay was appointed Special Representative, the first thing he did was to collude with Turkey and agree that anything else concerning Cyprus might be negotiated, but that the Treaty of Guarantee would remain intact. Britain would remain in Cyprus indefinitely to exert control over the Eastern Mediterranean, while Turkey would also remain to ensure that Britain would never use her regional power against Turkish interests.

One of the particiapants at the Wilton Park conference (a non-Cypriot) put it very poignantly: What Cyprus would have with the Annan Plan would not be "a virgin birth" (Hannay's favorite expression), but rather "a multiple rape".

For those of you who don't mind having Cyprus used in all these ways "so long as it is done in a peaceful way", just consider: If a regional war involving Britain were to erupt in the future (or even, God forbid, a world war), Cyprus would be one of the primary military targets.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby insan » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:57 pm

lol yes insan, greece is so much more powerful than the UK and Turkey, they are the ones who should be afraid of Greece!

oh and last time i checked it was Turkey that was violating Greece's airspace (apparently the turkish military still cant over the fact that they got d*ked over in the aegean) and its Greece that is suporting Turkeys bid for EU membership.



We all know who sincerely support Turkey's EU bid and who have been obliged to give support her EU bid under the pressure of EU's big boys and US. :D
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby magikthrill » Sat Feb 19, 2005 4:59 pm

Alexandros Lordos wrote:For those of you who don't mind having Cyprus used in all these ways "so long as it is done in a peaceful way", just consider: If a regional war involving Britain were to erupt in the future (or even, God forbid, a world war), Cyprus would be one of the primary military targets.


whats new here? apparently, that has been Cyprus's purpose in this world since the beginning of history.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests