Issue of “virgin birth”
 | |  |
 Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:34 am |
 |
|
| Saint Jimmy |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 31 Dec 2004 |
| Posts: 1067 |
| Location: Leeds, U.K. |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
I don't mind the 'virgin birth' approach. I share the view that the present RoC is not the real RoC anyway (whoever's fault that is, it makes no difference), so whether it's continued or shot in the head makes little difference to me.
However, seeing as how this 'virgin birth' approach is an attempt to walk through a minefield, I think one should also take into account the 'realities' of the whole thing.
The RoC (real or not) enjoys international recognition, and the TRNC does not (remember that the TRNC was formed against the will of the RoC, so it is at least unfair to demand of the RoC to accept it as a legal entity). In effect, the 'virgin birth' process asks of GCs to give up this recognition status (by dissolving the RoC - once again, real or not), while the TRNC not only is not asked to sacrifice anything of the kind, but, what's more, is effectively upgraded to recognized status. It is more of a moral, rather than a legal, predicament that needs to be addressed and balanced.
Therefore, in my view, GCs should be treated in that very manner: like they are giving something up; so, they should be compensated in another area (as the 'virgin birth' approach is a necessary evil).
Maybe one way out of it is to insert the 'virgin birth' clause in the proposed solution, but at the same time maintain symbols of the RoC, like the flag, the name (as in 'Federal Republic of Cyprus' - which, by the way, incorporates both elements of a 'new beginning' by means of the word federal, and continuation by means of the rest of the name), etc.
These are my thoughts on the matter. I hope they didn't come out wrong. |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:39 am |
|
|
| magikthrill |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 08 Sep 2004 |
| Posts: 2245 |
| Location: Athens, Greece |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
here is another way to look at it.
both sides have demands right? it is going to be difficult for one side to deman more things than the other and accept a solution that will satisfy everyone. therefore, if the virgin birth is not a deman of the TCs they can have higher chances of getting demands that are more meaningful.
this is my but my humble opinion though  |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 12:46 am |
|
|
| boulio |
| instructor |
|
| |
| Joined: 23 Dec 2004 |
| Posts: 758 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
looking at it from a legal point of vie and not a political point of view,how about:
the citizens of cyprus have put the past aside and come together to form the federal republic of cyprus.  |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 06, 2005 2:48 pm |
|
|
| MicAtCyp |
| lecturer |
|
| |
| Joined: 24 Apr 2004 |
| Posts: 1579 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This issue is valid if the solution is bad or gets a marginal pass, if there are no guarantees for its implementation, and if plus,plus plus...
So it should be thought last.
Like I said in case it collapses the ones who will lose will be the GCs, the will lose the one and only thing they had, i.e a legal State. It happened in Yugoslavia when the international community refused to recognise the Serbs.
So, the solution must be a continuation of RoC, otherwise it is a motive for the TCs to collapse it and for Turkey not to implement it. After all to whose hands is it whether it will be implemented or not?? |
|
|
|
|
| | |
| Posted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 3:39 am |
|
|
| Agios Amvrosios |
| instructor |
|
| |
| Joined: 14 Feb 2005 |
| Posts: 857 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is obvious that most GCs will always be too suspicious of a solution which indefinately concretes division along ethnic lines.
The majority of GCs would not object to a transitional period of division towards true reunification to a functional state with some affirmative action protections and safeguards for TC's.
TC agreement to this model may be a pipe dream but if TC genuinely want a solution they need to take it onboard. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
