The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


My vision for the Cyprus of the future!

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby metecyp » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:44 pm

magikthrill wrote:if you want an anaology with native americans and the US then use it right: The Ottomans (US) took over land of indigenous people (N. Americans) . The Ottomans settled with modern day Turkey and the remaining indigenous peoples got their land back. Likewise the US declared itself a state and N. Americans have their own reservations.

Who decides what land belongs to indigenous people? Does Western Turkey belong to Greeks for example? Or maybe eastern Anatolia belongs to Armenias and south-eastern Anatolia belongs to Kurds? This is really good analogy magikthrill!
magikthrill wrote:Piratis said compromiss must be made on both sides. You want your political rights? Then you will have to give up some of the stolen land, or the removal of troops or settlers. So far the only official proposals include the TC demands of political rights but stolen land, settlers and troops all remain.

Maybe you should go back and read what Piratis said. He says we have to compromise from our legal rights. This means we'll give back all the "stolen land", we'll ask all settlers to leave, we'll ask all Turkish soldiers to leave...and all these won't be considered part of a compromise because they were illegal. Then, on top of that, we'll compromise more from our 1960 rights...and that's when I reacted.
MicAtCyp wrote:To tell you the truth Metecyp all the GCs want to get back their properties.This does not mean they want to return.They simply want the ownership back.
The majority of GCs dont care about Federation, bizonality etc. They even do not understand these things.

Maybe GCs don't cae abot federation and bizonality but TCs do and this is the problem. No matter what anyone says, bizonality means some GCs won't be able to return back to the north. The question is are you guys ready to accept that? IF not, then don't say you (GC community) want federation or bizonality. MicAtCyp, I appreciate your honesty by the way.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby metecyp » Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:57 pm

mikkie2 wrote:Yes, 70% of the islands resources are in the north and it seems you don't want to share these resources with your fellow GC's. The resources of the island should be for the benefit of EVERYONE not just for one community.

Did I ever say that I don't want to share anything with GCs? I pointed out 70% resources to stress how natural it is that many GCs will choose to settle in the north.
mikkie2 wrote:I personally do not see a problem if 150K GC's 'migrated' north if the political set up allows the TC's to dominate politics in the north with a minority participation of GC's and likewise for TC's who 'migrate' south.

It's not just politics though...it's land, it's economy...I ask you again (third time): What's the point of calling the north TCCS if 80% of the land belongs to GCs, economy and business are solely GC owned and if there're as many GCs as TCs, if not more, living in the north?
mikkie2 wrote:To me bizonal means just that, two zones, where each community controls one zone

This is exactly what it means to me as well but again, how can TCs control the north zone when everything is controlled by GCs? This is what you keep ignoring. And I'm sure GCs that choose to live in the north will ask for political rights so TCs won't even have political control of the TCCS soon enough....and this is called bizonal bicommunal federation?
Piratis wrote:You think you can do to us what the whites did to the native americans ah? And you expect us to agree for this? Sorry, but it will not happen.

No, I don't think that. You're stuck in the past and you tend to ignore realities because they're "illegal". But these realities become more legal as the time passes (whether you agree or not, this is true). Even though establishment of the US was totally illegal and unfair to Native Americans, there's nothing we can do about it now...the US is a reality however illegal it might have been in the past.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:10 pm

No, I don't think that. You're stuck in the past and you tend to ignore realities because they're "illegal". But these realities become more legal as the time passes (whether you agree or not, this is true). Even though establishment of the US was totally illegal and unfair to Native Americans, there's nothing we can do about it now...the US is a reality however illegal it might have been in the past.


If we assume that use of force creates realities that should be accepted, then why agree to anything now? We will just wait for the right time to strike back and create new realities. In the "realities" game, 1974 was just one battle not the whole war. Maybe some in Turkey though they won, but now even them realize that we are far from finished.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:15 pm

Piratis wrote:If we assume that use of force creates realities that should be accepted, then why agree to anything now? We will just wait for the right time to strike back and create new realities. In the "realities" game, 1974 was just one battle not the whole war. Maybe some in Turkey though they won, but now even them realize that we are far from finished.

I'm not asking to accept the realities of the use of force. On the contrary, I'm asking you to work together so we can diminish the pain on the both sides that was caused by force committed by both sides. That's not good enough for you because you think we're all illegal and you're all legal and until we give up everything to be legal, you're not going to consider anything as compromises.

If you want to keep up with realities battle, go ahead. Live in uncertainty and spend millions on guns and tanks. I wish you good luck with 800.000 population against 70 million Turks.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Kifeas » Mon Apr 11, 2005 7:26 pm

Piratis wrote:Kifeas I share your vision.

However it seems to me most Turkish Cypriots don't see Cyprus as one, but they see Cyprus as two. In effect they want some kind of racist separation and partition.


Thanks Piratis for sharing the above vision. I am aware of what most TCs say they want. Although I wouldn’t rush to call most of them as racists or greedy (there are those too,) in effect, in their effort to protect previous (1960) “acquired” “privileges” and also to “protect” their distinct identity, they end up demanding things that without any doubt can be labelled as racist and greedy.

However, if we GCs manage to subscribe them into sharing a common vision for the Cyprus of the future, and simultaneously provide the necessary guarantees that their distinct identity will not only be protected but also enhanced in this new climate, and also if GCs secure that they (TCs) will maintain an effective decision making participation in the running of the country; I believe we have a good chance to reach a viable solution that can and will also be accepted both by GCs and TCs.

GCs need to convince TCs that not only we are not after their identity assimilation, but also that we view it as an asset to the multicultural nature that we want to project to the Cyprus of the future. And as an asset, it will be to our best interest (GCs) to preserve it and enhance it further. Just think about this simple issue. How much more attractive Cyprus will be to the peoples of the surrounding Muslim countries if they know that in Cyprus there is a Turkish Cypriot element to which, in one or another way, they can identify with. I am talking about tourism, investments, trade, use of services, etc, etc. Isn’t this to the benefit and interest of all Cypriots?

Therefore, GCs need to strike a balance between satisfying TC’s needs, as described above, i.e. preservation of their distinct cultural identity and effective decision making participation, with the needs of Greek Cypriots for an effective political system that will not violate self-evident and universally accepted human and political rights.

Inevitably, due to the de facto situation of the last 31 years, the most feasible way to achieve this goal is through a federal system that will reunite the country as one entity. Notice that I remained to the term Federation only and I didn’t expand it to the commonly use term of Bi-zonal, bi-communal federation. The reason is because this term receives two different interpretations. Especially the term bi-communal! When this term was agreed in the past, as the objective for the solution to the Cyprus problem, it has never been strictly defined.

GCs defined and continue to define this term, as a federation of two states (bi-zonal), which will more or less enjoy an equal political status, whereas each community, through a form of pre-calculated and consequently preserved majority (hence the term bi-communal,) will enjoy a kind of moderate autonomy. In other words it will be an essentially strong federation with most powers laying in the hands of the federal government while the two states will enjoy that status of administrative regions (provinces) to whom a relatively small amount of power will be rented by the Fed government.

TCs have come through with various interpretations of this BBF. While at the very beginning they didn’t seem to essentially differ from the GC interpretation, later on Denktash came up with various demands that gave to this term substantially different meanings. At times he supported a week federation with two states that will enjoy maximum autonomy, strict bi-communality along ethnic lines, and completely equal (50:50) power sharing, and later on with demands to be recognised first as a completely separate and sovereign entity, and later connected with the GC state only in the form of a confederation of two independed states, etc. We all remember his claims for an alternating co-presidency and global exchange of properties and compensations for the difference.

Obviously each side have their arguments in favour of their own definition of what a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation means. Many believe or tent to claim that the Anan plan 5 was a mid-way between the two opposing views. Greek Cypriots argue that this not the case, or if we assume it to be, then it is a mid-way balance between the climaxed or exaggerated demands of Denktash and the Turkish side; and the GC’s moderate and logical demands. GCs argue that the mere fact of accepting a shift from a unitary state to that of a federation was by itself a huge compromise at the first place, which GCs were forced to concede as a result of the Turkish occupation and the forceful deportation of GCs from the north.

Furthermore, Greek Cypriots argue that the whole issue should be viewed as a political arrangement that will inevitably compromise many GC human rights, in order to allow the TC community to maintain a sense of autonomy -by being the majority in their state or region, but simultaneously one that will guaranty the unity of the Central government and the generally the country, as one entity. Therefore, GCs argue, it should not be viewed as a case, like many foreigners unfortunately came up to view nowadays, of two pre-existing regions of Cyprus in which each community or “ethnicity” traditionally or historically existed or maintained a majority and the question now is how to bring them back into one state or country. In addition to the above, GCs argue, that the two communities differ substantially in terms of size and therefore any allowance of political equality on the basis of ethnicity will create many problems in terms of fair representation of the citizens of the largest community, set aside the fact that it is a highly unusual and irregular arrangement by international political standards. As a final argument, perhaps the most problematic for GC’s rights, comes from the fact that, nowadays, the TC community is composed by a substantial proportion of foreign settlers who have been treated and termed as illegal but will now have to become their (GC’s) "co-partners," should a formation of a federation based on communal (ethnic) political equality, prevails. This very last prospect makes the A-plan completely indigestible for Greek Cypriots.

Had the two communities been historically living in these two regions (north and south,) and had the size (population) of them being more closely balanced, perhaps the A-plan 5 would have made much more sense for Greek Cypriots to accept. However we all know that this is not the case.

The real challenge we are facing is to convince the TCs that it is also to their long-term interest that the Cyprus problem is solved on the basis of true logic and fairness for both sides, and respect of human rights to an as much as possible highest degree, taking into consideration that sacrifices will have to be made, but from both sides.

Did A-pan5 provide this fame-work? According to the GCs it didn’t! In this forum a million reasons were given that prove this fact.

How can they (TCs) also be convinced that it didn’t? I believe by counting or investing on their logic and also by getting them to share a common vision with us for the future of Cyprus. If we (both TCs and GCs) cannot share a common vision, and consequently they will continue to view the future sentimentally as an “us versus them” equation, we will never convince them, regardless of whether plain logic proves our arguments or not.

It is indeed a hard and tough job! I certainly do not think that we can have any chance, if we will constantly put them at the spot and brand them with racism or greediness motives.
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby brother » Mon Apr 11, 2005 8:50 pm

A very decent and well thought post, may i say kifeas.
Are you just a joe average or are you linked to the ROC goverment? Whatever it may be a well balanced person like your good self should most definately look at getting at least an advisory position in the ROC, and if we can find a TC like that aswell, well the problem of cyprus would be solved sooner than later no doubt.

Regards Brother
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Re: My vision for the Cyprus of the future!

Postby turkcyp » Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:44 pm

Kifeas wrote:My vision for the Cyprus of the future!

I would like to see a Cyprus, independed, self-sufficient, free from any interventions and interferences of any of the so-called motherlands, and with her own unique voice and role in Europe and in the surrounding area. A country which will be free and clean from any foreign military presence. A country which will be playing the role of a connecting ring between the various peoples and cultures of the surrounding area. A country which will be able to become a bridge of peace for the Middle East, Greece and Turkey.

I would like to see a Cyprus, which will prosper and pioneer to as many as possible sectors of economic and social development. A country which will be playing the role of a centre for educational, health, research, financial and tourism services for the entire Middle East and eastern Mediterranean regions.

I would like to see a Cyprus which will be offering to all her citizens and inhabitants, the highest level of protection to their individual and communal cultural identities, protection of their human rights, provision of equal opportunities for all, and the outmost respect for justice and democratic principles.

Lastly, I would like to see a Cyprus in which the protection of the environment and her multicultural heritage will be in the centre of every activity, decision and thought. A country which will not only import culture and civilisation but simultaneously and more importantly will produce and export her own.


Again so beautiful words, but also so elastic, round, words with many interpretations and implementation.

Everybody put a signature under these beautiful wishes, but it is how we interpret those good wishes and how we implement those good wishes that causes us to diverge.

At least with you unlike many in this forum, I believe that you are sincere when you write these beautiful wishes and for that I applaud you.

Take care dear friend,
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby Piratis » Tue Apr 12, 2005 12:26 am

Kifeas, I agree with what you said, but I find it a bit utopian.

What most TCs want is not just protection of their identity and participation in the decision making. They want to rule themselves, separate from us because they believe in Cyprus 2 peoples exist that can not be mixed.

As you said everything would have been easy if each community owned a specific part of land. But since no community owns a specific part of land, we either have to learn to be just equal Cypriots of one Cyprus, or we will continue to kill each other for the next 500 years. I believe the second is much more possible.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:45 am

turkcyp wrote:Again so beautiful words, but also so elastic, round, words with many interpretations and implementation.

I agree with turkcyp...everybody agrees with what Kifeas said but the question is how do we get there?
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby -mikkie2- » Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:50 am

metecyp wrote:
mikkie2 wrote:Yes, 70% of the islands resources are in the north and it seems you don't want to share these resources with your fellow GC's. The resources of the island should be for the benefit of EVERYONE not just for one community.

Did I ever say that I don't want to share anything with GCs? I pointed out 70% resources to stress how natural it is that many GCs will choose to settle in the north.


But your very words imply that you don't want GC's to settle north, or at least only few of them and in so doing you do not wish the GC's to benefit from the untapped resources of the north. Remember, you will be a population of 200000 with 70% of the resources of Cyprus. Assuming that the Roc as it stands has a GDP of £10billion, the potential GDP of the north is in excess of £20billion! The maths is simplistic but it does demonstrate the scale of the potential of the north and it shows you how wealthy you will become at the expense of the GC's in the longer term.

metecyp wrote:
mikkie2 wrote:I personally do not see a problem if 150K GC's 'migrated' north if the political set up allows the TC's to dominate politics in the north with a minority participation of GC's and likewise for TC's who 'migrate' south.

It's not just politics though...it's land, it's economy...I ask you again (third time): What's the point of calling the north TCCS if 80% of the land belongs to GCs, economy and business are solely GC owned and if there're as many GCs as TCs, if not more, living in the north?


But there is also lots of state land that could be given to TC's in order for that not to be the case. Also, it is quite obvious that many refugees may choose not to return north and prefer to exchange for equivalent land in the south. What you are saying is that he land grab that was done should be accepted by the GC's and in addition we should accept continued limitations on where we choose to live on the island.

Also, if you want to control economic policy to such an extent that it largely excludes GC's living in the north and by continued population controls then we don't have a 'United Cyprus Republic'. Even in a federal state you don't delegate economic policy to such an extent. This is a recipe for economic disaster. Economic policy and how it is exercised is essential to the unity of any state, even a federal one. If we are to have a bi-communal state then the TC's will have their fair say in how the economy is run so I don't really see your problem.

metecyp wrote:
mikkie2 wrote:To me bizonal means just that, two zones, where each community controls one zone

This is exactly what it means to me as well but again, how can TCs control the north zone when everything is controlled by GCs? This is what you keep ignoring. And I'm sure GCs that choose to live in the north will ask for political rights so TCs won't even have political control of the TCCS soon enough....and this is called bizonal bicommunal federation?


But we are talking about the realms of an agreement here and that any future changes to an agreement would need the consent of both communities. I aslo said in other threads that political rights to GC's can be given to them in the north but on a wheighted basis so that the TC community has the balance of power in the north, no matter how many GC's choose to settle there. This still maintains political equality of the two communities, which has been the main point of contention for the TC's.

It is quite clear to me that what you are asking for will lead us to two seperate states. You can't have two completely autonomous regions which restrict freedom of movement, right to property and right to settlement, and at the same time have an effective economy, an effective federal government and effective foreign policies. It will start as a confederation which will eventually lead to two states. If that is what you really wish then just say so and negotiate on that basis. But then you should be prepared to give back much more land than the 7-8% that the Annan plan currently gives!
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest