The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Kikapu's "BBF" Power Sharing Plan.!

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Kikapu » Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:54 pm

Naggie wrote:Kikapu – hello.

I live in the South. I empathise with Viewpoint's viewpoint.

His concern: maintaining TC control of the 5 seats.

You state the the two states must allow for freedom of movement between all ethnicities, under EU law. You state that dropping the TC land to, say 18%, will ensure a homogenous ethnic state and a guarantee of 5 seats.

This two statements are oxymoronic, as you're only looking at how the states will initially look immediately after an agreement. If GCs subsequently move into the TC state (as they are perfectly entitled to and more than economically capable of) they will gain an increase in political power, negating the TC protection of the 5 seats as the state will no longer be homogenous. So the plan does not offer the long-term protection along ethnic divisions that Viewpoint seeks.

Any statements 'regarding this is not likely to happen' are irrelevant – we are looking for political guarantees not sociological predictions.

If we are to play prediction games, one could in fact argue that, with TCs potentially moving south and the disparity of wealth allowing GCs to cheaply purchase TC property, many could easily afford second homes encouraging an osmosis of the poplulation, as TCs use this money to buy elsewhere. This is pure speculation – the colder argument is found above.


Naggie,

Thanks for taking interest in this topic as a new member. I have been away for few days, therefore sorry for the delayed response from me.

The arguments you have raised have been discussed in detail from day one of this thread, and had you read the whole thread, you would have come across them already, I'm sure. This plan is very close (but not quite) to how the political system works in the US, but of course, their whole system is based on political ideology and not based on ethnicity as the case will be in Cyprus for the time being, which would be a very hard system to institute for the long term in any one country, as the case had been proven sadly in Cyprus before, which it did not work and the problems presently faced in Belgium today, although not bloody as ours have been. Therefore, for the long term, it will be impossible to have a system where 20% TCs and 80% GCs can function as "equal partners" undemocratically in 50-50 power sharing and not have problems. The way to get around this problem until the country can eventually adopt a system based on political ideology parties Vs ethnicity political parties, is to have a Federated system, such as the one I've described above, since it can function for both systems, political ideology and along ethnic lines. However, in order for this to happen, certain compromises have to be made from both sides to go from Unitary state to a Federal state. The question is, are Cypriots prepared to do it for the sake of having a Democratic Cyprus in line with the principles of the west and the EU.

What VP is saying is, he wants the 20% TCs to basically be allocated the upper house's 5 seats undemocratically to become one of the 50% partners with the GCs no matter what. Now, you talk about being oxymoronic, this is what this will be, an oxymoronic, for the TCs to have 50% power in the upper house undemocratically against the 80% GCs population in a democratic 27 EU nations, and if you think this is OK, then I don't think you have any grasp for True Democracy either, along with all the NeoPartitonist that we have here on the forum. To get around this undemocratic problem in what the TCs want, is to have a Federated state where the 5 seats actually belong to the state in order to make them politically equal to each other, north and south and not to any one ethnic group, because if we were to give those 5 seats to ethnic groups and not to the states, then you are asking for the repeats of 1963 all over again, because the whole system will be corrupted and totally undemocratic where many Cypriots from all walks of life will be disenfranchised from exercising their democratic rights to vote if they happen to live in the "wrong" state where those 5 seats belong to an ethnic group that is different from their own, which would effect many, starting with the Cypriots from communities such the TCs, GCs, Armenians, Latin, Maronites and any other individual from any other country who has become a Cypriot, including the Turks.

I don't know where you have gotten the idea, that the north (or the south for that matter) has to be "homogeneous state", since they had never been before other than the present times that has been only from the result of occupation and ethnic cleansing of the GCs from the north and removal of the TCs from the south to the north to create this artificial "homogenous" division of the islands population, so that after all that, that each state then can have the 5 seats of the upper house in the hands of that "homogeneous" ethnic group. If that were to be the case, then we wouldn't even have to discuss a settlement, because it would mean that the north will belong to the TCs and the south belonging to the GCs and then they can form their own separate independent states without the other. Clearly that is not the case and will not be the case even after the settlement talks are finished, one way or the other. If this is your understanding that the north and south of Cyprus will become “homogonous states”, than I can see where you have gotten yourself all mixed up and are in the same line of faulty thinking as VP and all the NeoPartitionist. The idea is not about each state being homogenous, but rather each TC and GC communities having the majority living in "their" respective states which they will then be able to control the political outcome in their respective states, all awhile not infringing on anyone’s democratic or constitutional rights. Call it a "heterogeneous state" if you like, but not a "homogenous state", because that can never be under the EU principles.

True Democracy cannot give political guarantees, as you suggest, as to what should be given to the TCs. How can that happen in the EU.? It cannot not. The TCs as numerical minorities in Cyprus with at best being 20%, they would need to maintain their majority numbers in the north in order to maintain their political seats and voice in the Federal and State governments. The TCs will not be able to do this, if they hold onto most of GCs land in the north, because of the potential return of the 180,000+ GC refugees seeking to return back to their properties under the freedom of movement. In order to limit the number of GCs moving into the "TC state", is to return their land back, so that it will become part of the "GC state". The more GC land the TCs will want to hold onto, as VP wants, the more chance the TCs will have of losing their political power in the north. This is the compromise that the TCs will need to make if they want to be 50% power in the Federal government through the upper house democratically, by being the overwhelming majority in the north.

If for example the north state’s territory were to be 18-20%, almost 150,000 GCs refugees land will become part of the "GC state" in the south leaving around potential 30,000 GCs land in the north, which as VP stated many times, that the GCs will not move to the north and live under TC controlled state government. This by default, will give the TCs complete control of the lower, upper house seats as well as the seats in the north state's government, even if the 30,000 GC refugees did move to the north. I had made various offers in "Kikapu's 5 year plan" as to how the TCs through derogations from the EU can increase and maintain their majority numbers in the north, as well as formulating a system on how to elect the upper house seats to give them the advantage over any other ethnic groups living in the north, all democratically. To achieve this in certainty, the TCs can reduce the land size in the north even further in order to remove more of GCs land out of the "TC state" to become part of the "GC state" OR, have the north state in more than ONE continues piece, say in 2,3,or 4 pieces where it contains very little GC land if those 5 seats are so important.

The bottom line is, the smaller the north state is free from GC refugees land, more the chance of creating your idea of "homogenous state" for the TCs, hence allowing them to dominate the political power in the north democratically. If the 180,000 GCs refugees do not have any land in the north's "TC state", why would they would want to move to the north to live with the TCs if they are not wanted. You may call this just merely a "sociological predictions" that is no guarantee at all for the TCs to maintain the upper seats 5 seats, but unless you can show that the GCs will have a reasons to uproot themselves from their homes in the south to move to the north just to take over the north's political power away from the TCs just by moving to the north or just by owning a second home in the north is very much misguided and nothing but fear mongering. However, if the north state were to remain at 29% or more, I can see the GCs making an effort in moving to the north eventually and become the majority since they will have almost 130,000+ refugees land from day one in the north state giving them amble reasons to move to the north, since that's where their land will be. With that many GCs in the north state, it will be very easy for more to follow since they will be able to feel secure in numbers as well as having political positions in the north. This is what the TCs will create for themselves if they insist on keeping most of the GCs land in the north. Since 2004 when Cyprus become a EU member as well as recent ECJ rulings on the Orams case, you cannot keep the GCs off their property. Best solution is to reduce the north’s land size and "force" the GC refugees to become part of the south state.

By asking for undemocratic political guarantees by just allocating those 5 upper house seats to any ethnic communities where it will cause corruption and disenfranchising many Cypriots from exercising their democratic and constitutional rights, you are asking the return of the 1963 all over again. No group must have eternal rights to keep any political office or seats in perpetuity. This is not Democracy if all Cypriots are not allowed to exercise their rights in voting and running for those offices and seats. Unless these basics rights are given to the citizens of Cyprus under the Federal and state constitutions, any undemocratic settlements are doomed to fail.

Of course, VP and all the Fascist NeoPartitionists are not interested in any Democratic solution for Cyprus. By allocating 5 upper seats into the hands of the TCs and the GCs as a means of having 50% power in the Federal government, it will be very easy to create constitutional crises by each ethnic group simply taking their members out of the government for any reason at all to create such crises, if these seats were to belong to ethnic groups and not to the state, as the case is in the USA. If you want to avoid constitutional crisis as the case was in 1963, you will never want to give so much power into the hands of any ethnic group, specially to those whose main aim is to divide Cyprus and form a partition, therefore, in my view, judging from past experience, Cyprus needs to follow True Democratic principles as the rest of the other EU members if it wants to avoid such crises.

Let me also add, that I have also stated in this thread, that if we are going to ask for derogations from the EU to help the TCs maintain power in the upper house through undemocratic means such as allocating those 5 seats to them rather then being voted on, is to put a limit on how many non TC citizens can move into the "TC state", other than the original 30,000 GC refugees whose land will remain in the north based on the north being at 18-20%. Basically what that would mean is, if most of the TCs were to move into the north state (20%), their numbers will be around 130,000-150,000, which would include the 50,000 settlers given Cypriot citizenships. With the potential of more TCs coming from abroad in the first 5 years to settle in the north under my 5 year plan “stocking up” phase, the TCs numbers can go up to 180,000+ versus the original 30,000 GC refugees rights to live in the north with all their democratic and constitutional rights protected. You can then have a system set up after the 1st 5 years where the number of GCs can only increase in the north at the same numbers as the increases occurring in the TCs numbers. This way, the TCs will always remain the majority in the north and I doubt very much we will ever violate anyone’s Human Rights of any non TCs citizens not being allowed to move to the north if they wanted to in practice. At worse case scenario, they will be put on a waiting list to move to the north if in fact the quotas for that particular year has been reached. This “Human Rights” violation on Cypriot citizens will ONLY be in theoretically and not in actuality, because I do not expect “3,600” GCs moving to the north annually.

For example, if the population of 180,000 TCs were to grow by 2% annually in the north state, that would mean an additional 3,600 more TCs in the north. This would mean an additional 3,600 non TC Cypriot citizens can settle into the north also from the south or from abroad. Just by using simple calculations or even compounded calculations, the TCs will always maintain their original majority numbers of 150,000+ in the north as the case was from day one, and most likely, they will be more than that if the non TCs citizens do not move to the north at maximum quotas for each year. The ratio difference between the TCs and all other Cypriots living in the north will narrow eventually however, if and when “new Cypriot” citizens move to the north at the same numbers increase by the TCs at 3,600. The TCs will set the pace at all times. If agreed by all parties, and the GCs agree to have their population ONLY grow at 2% also in the north state, then the TCs number will grow at much faster pace than the GCs ever will. It all depends how much the GCs will get their own land back from the north to be so accommodating to the TCs. They will for sure not agree to such measures if most of their land is kept to become part of the north state, in which case, they will use all means to increase their numbers in the north eventually. Now, if the majority of the TCs who chooses to move to the south or abroad eventually to seek better paying jobs as Nikitas predicts or move to their own land pre 1974, then their numbers in the north will be reduced drastically over time and the 30,000+ GC refugees may in time outpace the TCs with natural increases through births. This is something the TCs will have to think as to what is more important to them, better paying jobs in the south or who is sitting in the upper house’s 5 seats. My guess is, people will move where they can better their lives if they can and not be too bothered about who is occupying those 5 seats, because every citizen will still have their democratic, Human Rights and individual rights protected by the Federal constitution as well as the state constitution. It will not matter who is occupying those seats, because in True Democracy, those political seats are not guaranteed to any ethnic groups, but only the democratic process can be guaranteed to allow everyone the right to vote and run for office.

In any case, we are getting ahead of ourselves in regarding the ethnic lines, because within 20 years or so, we will be all voting under a political ideology and not along ethnic divisions, which will further show, that it will not make any difference who will occupy those seats, a GC or a TC, because what would matter the most, is what will be their political ideology is and not their ethnicity, as the case is in the USA. I had asked VP several times in the past to tell us his biggest concerns as to how the TC would be effected negatively if any of the upper house's 5 seats were to be won by a non TC citizen in the north state, VP could only come up with the Federal government stopping the Gambling and Whorehouses or stopping trade with Turkeys. All of the above concerns VP gave us tells me that the 5 seats are not worth as much as VP makes them out to be, because 99% of all the laws that will effect the individual states and it's citizens, are laws passed within those states and not by the Federal government. Any laws passed by the Federal government will effect all citizens, regardless where they may live and not adversely effect one ethnic group over another.

So unless you can show me how the TCs would be effected negatively if by chance any of the north’s upper house seats may fall into the hands of non TC citizens, your desire to accept undemocratic means can only be seen as just a wish that can be misused to cause constitutional crises than actually harm done to the TCs. As a TC, I do not wish to see any harm to anyone, specially to the TCs, but at the same time, I do not trust the Fascist NeoPartitonist any further than I can throw them with their continues efforts to divide the island in the future, which will cause more hardship, bloodshed and pain all around, including to the TC community. As I’ve told VP many time, that once he accepts True Democracy, Human Rights, International Laws and the EU principles, the rest of his concerns are just details that can be ironed out when Fair And Just solution is desired. So far, I have yet to see such desires coming from our in house Fascist NeoPartitionist.!

Let me ask you few questions, Naggie.

1. Are you a TC, GC or what.?
2. If you are a GC, would you move to “flood” the north state with GCs after a settlement if you did not have any land there just to gain political advantage over the TC by out numbering them deliberately so to cause VP such concerns.?
3. If the answer is a YES, then what do you intend on doing with that political advantage by taking away one or more of the 5 seats in the upper house in the north state.?
4. What laws would you intend on changing that will effect the TCs more adversely than the GCs, if you could, bearing in mind, that the Federal Constitution will protect all citizens equally.
5. Would you risk on causing constitutional crises by attempting to pass illegal and racist laws to undermine legal protections of all citizens under the Federal Constitution as a EU member.?
6. Do you support undemocratic settlement for Cyprus?
7. Did you then or do you now still support the Annan Plan of 2004?
8. If the answer is a YES, what part of the Annan Plan you did not like.?
9. If the answer is a NO, then how can you support VP’s views for an undemocratic settlement for Cyprus.?
10. Do you believe the EU can protect all Cypriots security, Political and Human Rights, or should we insist on having guarantors from other countries such as Turkey, Greece and Britain considering on how they all behaved in the past which was a net loss for Cyprus and all Cypriots by not fulfilling their 1960 obligations as agreed on.?
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13541
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Naggie » Sun Sep 20, 2009 7:42 pm

Hello again!
Just to be clear (without the need to point out 'you didn't read it properly' et al)... I didn't say I agreed with anyone's viewpoint - merely that I empathise with the fact that Viewpoint sees that your solution doesn't provide for what he wanted, which is a guarantee of a 50-50 power division based on an ethnic division. I didn't state that I agreed with this view. The context of this discussion was that both 'sides' would have to vote for a yes solution, and Viewpoint was expressing the fact that your solution didn't provide for his concern. You did previously try to explain how it did, wrongly. However, in your passage above, you have expressed a different position - one that I presume Viewpoint would not vote for, and hence in this context, a failed solution proposal.

Regardless of this misunderstanding, partly because I love a good quiz and partly in the hope of continuing our egotistic discourse, here are my answers dear friend. I have so far used no lifelines...

1. I am neither. Nationality does not define who I am. For an elaboration of this, please see any undergraduate course on post-colonialism, with particular reference to the term 'hybridity.' For the purposes of fulfilling your intentions however, I am GC.
2. I don't see why not. I like the north state's beaches and, if it would provide me with a political advantage and I was so motivated, then I most certainly would.
3. That's far too numerous to answer for a quiz. Any number of things. Perhaps I will use a lifeline.
4. Did I not remember you stating that the laws made in the state houses were far more important on a day to day basis than what the Federal Constitution could offer. Anyway, erm, no printing of red flags for all citizens across the Federal State. That keeps things equal I think.
5. Personally, no. But given the mistrust expressed in this mere forum, I believe that some Cypriots may believe the dreaded 'other side' will. And then they may vote 'no.' Which is, incidentally, quite a major point.
6. 'Democracy' is never truly 'democracy' as you see it. However, for the sake of such a rhetorical question and given my enjoyment of being a sophist, would you like me to say yes?
7. As a pure theorist, I did not support the Annan Plan for all its major flaws, particularly the genocide restriction. In practice, I can understand the thinking behind some of it. But in pure and simple terms, no.
8. N/A
9. I don't support VP views. Please see opening paragraph. For our general readers, this line of questioning (and without being rude, quite a lot of your reductive logic) is often called at college Critical Thinking courses (don't study them... they are watered down Philosophy A levels!), a non-sequitor and straw man argument - namely the setting up of false choices.
10. These choices all involve an outside body to offer protection. Interesting. On a theoretical level, the EU offers protection. I believe Turkey argue they did fulfil their obligations. You also missed the biggest criminal, the US of the hit list there. Most impressively, you excuse the behaviour of Cypriots as squeaky clean. Still, if Cypriots understood the situation without clear, reductionist, subjective national labels, we would have solved the problems a long time ago and we would have been deprived of all this fun.

Can I also issue an addendum apologising for my blatant use of sarcasm throughout. It is merely because I don't have the intellect to express my views clearly.
Naggie
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:11 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Sep 21, 2009 12:27 am

Naggie out of interest could you state what my views are as you understand them and why you dont agree with them?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Naggie » Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:18 am

Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?
Naggie
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 2:11 pm

Postby Tim Drayton » Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:55 am

Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


You are surely then legitimising the ethnic separation that was accomplished in 1974. Do not forget that there is a small community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots still living in Limassol and a small community of Greek-speaking Cypriots still living in Karpasia.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8226
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:10 am

Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


Naggie good points and on the whole I agree with you, Cypriots on both sides of the divide have not matured enough to "arrive" at non ethnic based division, we have to go through a number of stages to build trust and understanding towards an ultimate goal. How soon we arrive at this goal is really down to the people and how committed they are at building a united Cyprus. There is absolutely no trust in Cyprus due to our joint history and its takes courage, vision, desire and ability which Cypriots lack to take the first step that in my opinion if things were structured correctly would develop like an avalanche, its that structure that we are incapable of agreeing. Thats why after the AP I became very disheartened and really believe that neither side really want a solution lots of rhetoric but no actual action and that the best solution the one we all deserve is the current status quo as it is the direct result of our own actions.

The guaranteed 50-50 power sharing is a direct result of mistrust even with todays apparently more "developed" Cypriots we can clearly see signs that the majority will use their advanatge to the detrement of the TCs, I have to protect my voice and my effective say in a united Cyprus where GCs can never try to bulldoze over us like they did in the past. In time if trust is built and everyone cna see the benefits of a united Cyprus without and underhand tactics then the balance can be relaxed and certain key/sensative issues can be subject to TC approval.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby zan » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:37 am

Tim Drayton wrote:
Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


You are surely then legitimising the ethnic separation that was accomplished in 1974. Do not forget that there is a small community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots still living in Limassol and a small community of Greek-speaking Cypriots still living in Karpasia.


You mean 1964 don't you Tim??
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Tim Drayton » Mon Sep 21, 2009 10:57 am

zan wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


You are surely then legitimising the ethnic separation that was accomplished in 1974. Do not forget that there is a small community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots still living in Limassol and a small community of Greek-speaking Cypriots still living in Karpasia.


You mean 1964 don't you Tim??


Not exactly, because although the process of ethnic disengagement began at that time, it was not until 1974 that Turkish-speaking Cypriots were concentrated in the north and Greek-speaking Cypriots in the south.
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8226
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

Postby zan » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:19 am

Tim Drayton wrote:
zan wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


You are surely then legitimising the ethnic separation that was accomplished in 1974. Do not forget that there is a small community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots still living in Limassol and a small community of Greek-speaking Cypriots still living in Karpasia.


You mean 1964 don't you Tim??


Not exactly, because although the process of ethnic disengagement began at that time, it was not until 1974 that Turkish-speaking Cypriots were concentrated in the north and Greek-speaking Cypriots in the south.



I don't see the difference Tim...Just a more tidy setup for people to be able to SEE the separation....That is why I have a problem with RWs manifesto from the start. A mixed separation to make it look like we are united with the cantons he recommends.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Tim Drayton » Mon Sep 21, 2009 11:32 am

zan wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
zan wrote:
Tim Drayton wrote:
Naggie wrote:Hello Viewpoint - as I understand your viewpoint, you require a 50-50 split of power (based on 5 seats each) to be divided along ethnic grounds (ie 5 to TC, 5 to GC). Am I wrong here? Kikapu's proposal doesn't allow for this.

In terms of why I don't agree with them - as mentioned in my previous post, I don't believe in national labels and understand ethnicity to be a construct. Cypriot people, like all people, are hybrid and unique and I don't believe they should be categorised politically into separate groups. However, because of years of self-justifying rhetoric from both sides, this division-simulacra has cemented itself into Cypriot minds and too many people think of themselves and the division along the lines of ethnicity. Go to any Cypriot school to see how subjective and nationalist their accounts of history are - or simply just look through this forum to see how we refer to GC and TC. Why not just Cypriots living in the north and Cypriots living in the south?


You are surely then legitimising the ethnic separation that was accomplished in 1974. Do not forget that there is a small community of Turkish-speaking Cypriots still living in Limassol and a small community of Greek-speaking Cypriots still living in Karpasia.


You mean 1964 don't you Tim??


Not exactly, because although the process of ethnic disengagement began at that time, it was not until 1974 that Turkish-speaking Cypriots were concentrated in the north and Greek-speaking Cypriots in the south.



I don't see the difference Tim...Just a more tidy setup for people to be able to SEE the separation....That is why I have a problem with RWs manifesto from the start. A mixed separation to make it look like we are united with the cantons he recommends.


I am just splitting hairs about the precise implication of the terms "Cypriots living in the north/south", that is all. The distribution until 1974 was not on a north/south basis but inside/outside enclaves which were scattered across the island. In a recent book that is probably not to your taste, Arif Hasan Tahsin proposes using the terms "Turkish-speaking Cypriot" and "Greek-speaking Cypriot", rather than "Greek/Turkish Cypriot".
User avatar
Tim Drayton
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 8226
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 1:32 am
Location: Limassol/Lemesos

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests