The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby maimou » Thu Jul 14, 2005 3:00 am

I have updated the Hellenix elements. "Government jobs" is now included under item 18.
As usual, I encourage anyone who feels the elements are imbalanced, or will lead to long term problems, to comment.


----------------------------------


Essential truths & terms for a peaceful Republic of Cyprus
Version 3 by Hellenix - cyprus@hellenix.com

1. Introduction
1.1. The Annan plan was flawed and rightly rejected by the majority of Cypriots in its current form.
1.2. It is better to wait for a good plan that unites all Cypriots as a single people than to accept a poor plan that will forever entrench the division between ethnic Greeks and Turks.
1.3. The following truths and terms should be incorporated into any plan that attempts to solve the Cyprus problem.

2. History
2.1. The 1974 coup d’etat by the Greek Generals to take control of Cyprus was wrong.
2.2. Turkey had a moral duty to send a temporary military force to protect the ethnic Turk minority.
2.3. Any physical threat to ethnic Turks in Cyprus has ended.
2.4. Turkey now has a duty to withdraw its military without compromising the safety of the ethnic Turks in Cyprus.

3. National identity
3.1. Ethnic Greeks will not identify themselves as “Greek Cypriots”.
3.2. Ethnic Turks will not identify themselves as “Turkish Cypriots”.
3.3. All citizens of Cyprus will identify themselves as “Cypriots”.

4. Language
4.1. English will be the national language of Cyprus.
4.2. The legislature, executive and judiciary will conduct all affairs in English.
4.3. Cypriot citizens are free to speak Greek or Turkish rather than English, but the state will have no such choice.
4.4. The state will not support or promote the speaking of Greek or Turkish.
4.5. Public schools will only teach in English format or languages other than Greek and Turkish.
4.6. Public schools will not teach Greek or Turkish language skills.
4.7. Forcing ethnic Greek students to learn Turkish is more likely to create resentment than create understanding.
4.8. Forcing ethnic Turkish students to learn Greek is more likely to create resentment than create understanding.
4.9. Greek and Turkish language skills may be taught privately.
4.10. Greece and Turkey are free to provide language texts, teachers and materials to be used in private education.

5. Flag & Anthem
5.1. The new flag will exclude any Christian or Muslim symbols – no cross or crescent moon.
5.2. The Greek blue or Turkish red will be excluded from the flag or other national symbols.
5.3. The new anthem will only be expressed in English – never in Greek or Turkish.
5.4. Expressing the anthem in Greek or Turkish will be a crime – whether vocally or in written form.

6. Religion
6.1. Cypriot government will be secular.
6.2. Religious words, themes and symbols will not be promoted in the constitution, legislation or any public document.
6.3. The government of Cyprus will not contribute any funds to any religion.
6.4. Private citizens will have freedom of religion.
6.5. Structures of religious significance may only be built, demolished or significantly modified with the approval of both houses of parliament.

7. One state parliament
7.1. Cyprus must not be divided into two states for this entrenches division.
7.2. The existing political structures in the north and south of the Green Line will be abolished.
7.3. A single state government will control the whole of Cyprus.
7.4. Local councils will administer the affairs of towns and the area surrounding those towns.

8. Bicameral Parliament
8.1. Democracy demands that all citizens have an equal vote.
8.2. The lower house will only be composed of members voted democratically.
8.3. Demands for minimum members of a specific ethnicity in the lower house are undemocratic and must be refused.
8.4. The democratic composition of the lower house will not be compromised.
8.5. To ensure the protection of the ethnic Turk minority, at least half of the members of the upper house (Senate) will be ethnic Turks.
8.6. Without Senate approval, any legislation passed by the democratic lower house will be blocked.
8.7. If after a senate election less than half of the senators would be ethnic Turks, the best finishing ethnic Turks, who failed to win their seats, will be selected for the Senate in order to maintain the half ethnic Turk Senate.
8.8. Foreign observers will supervise all state elections unless the Senate decides that foreign observance is unnecessary.
8.9. The foreign observers will not be ethnic Greeks or Turks.


9. Democratic Upper House
9.1. The requirement that at least half the Senators be ethnic Turks can only be abolished by a referendum of ethnic Turks.
9.2. Every parliamentary election will incorporate this referendum – saving the state the cost of running a separate referendum.

10. Judiciary
10.1. The Supreme Court will be the highest court in Cyprus.
10.2. It will be composed of six judges.
10.3. A minimum of three ethnic Turks must be appointed to the bench.
10.4. The other three may be of any ethnicity.
10.5. The lower house, with the approval of the Senate, will appoint judges.
10.6. Judges must have a legal background.
10.7. Judges will not be chosen from the ranks of politicians or political activists.
10.8. Where the Supreme Court is deadlocked in a matter, which demands a decision, the appropriate international court or acceptable neutral arbitrator will be asked to make the decision, which the Supreme court will accept as law.
10.9. The requirement that at least three ethnic Turks be appointed to the bench can only be abolished by a referendum of ethnic Turks
10.10. Every parliamentary election will incorporate this referendum – saving the state the cost of running a separate referendum.

11. Property rights
11.1. Legal owners of property, who were dispossessed by the 1974 division, will be entitled to legal rights.
11.2. Those who have taken possession of property, they do not legally own, will be entitled to legal rights.
11.3. An independent committee will consider the manner in which the possessor has cared for the property and whether they have respected the rights of the legal owner.
11.4. Where the possessor has maintained the property to a reasonable standard, they will be granted a government-protected lease.
11.5. A government-protected lease is a concept of “rent control” as used in cities such as New York. This will set the rental at a rate below market price and ensures that citizens are not financially disadvantaged while the economies of the north and south are merged. As the economic disparities diminish, the government-protected rate will approach the market rate.
11.6. The length of the lease will equal the length of time the possessor has been in possession since 1974.
11.7. Where the possessor has improved the property from its original standard, the possessor is entitled to compensation for their expenditure.
11.8. If the possessor demands compensation, the legal owner must pay. The owner will be entitled to sell the property in order to pay the compensation.
11.9. If compensation is demanded the possessor will have no right to demand a government-protected lease and may be evicted by the legal owner.
11.10. The possessor will have the option to refuse compensation and accept a government-protected lease.
11.11. Where the possessor has not maintained the property and has allowed it to fall into disrepair, the possessor will be evicted and possession will be handed back to the legal owner.
11.12. At the end of a government-protected lease the legal owner may then choose to evict the tenant and take possession or re-lease the property to the tenant at the market rate.
11.13. Legal owners will not be compensated for the loss of rent caused by the division.

12. International purchasers
12.1. The purchase of properties in occupied Cyprus by international purchasers after 1974 will not be recognised.
12.2. These purchasers defied UN resolutions and consequently forfeited any rights to automatic compensation.
12.3. These purchases by selfish, economically motivated, foreigners made it more difficult to find a peaceful resolution and as such have hurt the people of Cyprus.
12.4. The Supreme Court of Cyprus may decide to compensate these purchasers by pursuing the beneficiaries of such sales, but the Republic of Cyprus will not pay financial compensation to these purchasers.

13. Settlers & migration
13.1. The rights of Turkish settlers since 1974 must be protected.
13.2. Existing settlers will not be forced to leave Cyprus and will given the opportunity to register for Cypriot citizenship.
13.3. New settlers will not be allowed into Cyprus – however native Cypriots of any ethnicity will always have a right of return.
13.4. Cyprus will honour its obligations to the EU and allow freedom of movement to EU citizens.
13.5. Migration from non-EU countries will be regulated in the same manner as is exercised by other EU countries.

14. Freedom of movement
14.1. All Cypriots have the right to live in any part of the island.
14.2. All Cypriots will have freedom of movement across the Green Line.
14.3. No regulations will be allowed to affect the natural development and balancing of population demographics.

15. International Trade
15.1. Both Cyprus and Greece are members of the EU. This membership will strengthen an already close trading relationship.
15.2. Cyprus will mirror the terms of its EU trade relationship with Greece and, where possible, offer Turkey the identical terms of trade.

16. Foreign Military
16.1. Any elements of Greek military will be withdrawn immediately and completely from the southern side of the Green Line.
16.2. Turkey will pass domestic legislation stating that its military forces will not cross the Green Line.
16.3. Turkey will pass domestic legislation stating that it will not increase its military presence in Cyprus – both in terms of personal and hardware.
16.4. Turkey will pass domestic legislation stating that it will withdraw its military when demanded by a referendum of the ethnic Turks in Cyprus.
16.5. Every parliamentary election in Cyprus will incorporate this referendum – saving the state the cost of running a separate referendum.
16.6. At no time will Cyprus or the UN accept the current occupation by Turkish military in Cyprus as legal within international law.

17. Cypriot Demilitarisation
17.1. Other than the Turkish military north of the Green Line and existing foreign military bases, Cyprus will be demilitarised.
17.2. Only executive agencies such as the police and citizens with appropriate licensing such as sporting shooters will be allowed to own and handle firearms.
17.3. Greece will pass legislation declaring its intention to defend all citizens of Cyprus including the ethnic Turks.
17.4. Turkey will pass legislation declaring its intention to defend all citizens of Cyprus including the ethnic Greeks.
17.5. Any military action to defend Cyprus will be conducted jointly by Greece and Turkey under the leadership of the UN.
17.6. UN observers will be deployed to ensure the Turkish military does not breach the Green Line and that they do not breach any human rights on the north side of the Green Line.
17.7. The UN must pledge to Cyprus and the EU, that any military breach by Turkey will be punished with immediate economic sanctions against Turkey. If the Turkish military takes advantage of the demilitarisation on the south side of the Green Line to violate human rights, a military response will be ordered.

18. Government jobs
18.1. Where possible, government jobs will be issued on a merits basis. Exceptions to this term include jobs in the Senate, Judiciary and certain committees that require an artificial increase in ethnic Turks.
18.2. Merits will be judged according to objective standards. High school, tertiary, work experience, health and other objective methods of testing will be used to grade applications.
18.3. With the assistance of international human resource experts, a points system will be established in order to objectively grade applicants fairly and determine who is the most suitable applicant for each job.
18.4. To prevent corruption of the hiring process, checks and balances will be established to ensure that every successful applicant was in fact the most highly graded applicant for the job. These checks and balances will include mechanisms such as Freedom of Information rules to ensure maximum transparency. If challenged, the government employer will have to justify their reasons for hiring the successful candidate.
maimou
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:08 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby erolz » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:05 am

maimou wrote:
Essential truths & terms for a peaceful Republic of Cyprus
Version 3 by Hellenix - cyprus@hellenix.com


truths? Is it not a bit 'egotistical' to claim to have 'truths' ?


maimou wrote:
2. History
2.1. The 1974 coup d’etat by the Greek Generals to take control of Cyprus was wrong.


Hmmm - history begins in 74. That sounds familure.

Was the persuit of enosis prior to 1960, without any regard for TC concerns and wishes, not wrong?

Was the continued persuit of it by GC after they signed treaties saying they rejected it not wrong?

Was the way the GC majority beahved towartds the TC minority in the period 63-74 not wrong?

maimou wrote:
2.2. Turkey had a moral duty to send a temporary military force to protect the ethnic Turk minority.


No country acts on 'moral duty' alone. Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to restore the consitutional order established in 1960. They could have exercised this right at any time from 63 onwards, in legal terms.

maimou wrote:
2.3. Any physical threat to ethnic Turks in Cyprus has ended.


Ethnic Turks in Cyprus? Not Cypriots then? Physical threats to TC ended in 74 because of the protection of the Turkish army. Who can say that the kind of violence that occured prior to this against both TC and GC by both TC and GC would not happen again if the thing that stopped it (Turkish action in 74) is removed?

maimou wrote:
2.4. Turkey now has a duty to withdraw its military without compromising the safety of the ethnic Turks in Cyprus.


No dount Turkeys view is that it had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to restore the consitutional order of 1960. That such a resotoration was not and is not possible and thus a new agreement must be made. Once that it done it will withdraw from Cyprus.

maimou wrote:
3. National identity
3.1. Ethnic Greeks will not identify themselves as “Greek Cypriots”.
3.2. Ethnic Turks will not identify themselves as “Turkish Cypriots”.
3.3. All citizens of Cyprus will identify themselves as “Cypriots”.


It will be illegal to identify yourself as a TC or GC? What will the punishment be for people who refuse to obey this. Will you lock them up? Do people not have a right to identify themselves any way they wish?

I understand the ideals behaind this section and actualy support them but I do not believe you can create such an environment (a cyprus where everyone thionks of themselves as simply cypriot and not TC or GC by legislation or dictat. You can only do it by willing consent.

maimou wrote:
5.4. Expressing the anthem in Greek or Turkish will be a crime – whether vocally or in written form.


See above really.

maimou wrote:8.1. Democracy demands that all citizens have an equal vote.


Democracy does not demand this. GC demand this. In fact there is not a single democratic system in the world that I know off where this 'total equality' of one persons vote to anothers is true. It is not true of democracy in the UK or the US or within the EU either.

maimou wrote:8.3. Demands for minimum members of a specific ethnicity in the lower house are undemocratic and must be refused.

8.5. To ensure the protection of the ethnic Turk minority, at least half of the members of the upper house (Senate) will be ethnic Turks.


Undemocratic in the lower house but not in the upper house? Sounds inconsistent to me?

Once again - I am not an ehtnic Turk living in Cyprus. I am a TC. There is a difference (to me at least). Are you an ethnic Greek living in Cyprus or a GC?

maimou wrote:11. Property rights
11.1. Legal owners of property, who were dispossessed by the 1974 division, will be entitled to legal rights.


What about the TC that lost property prior to 74? Will they hav any rights at all?

maimou wrote:12. International purchasers
12.1. The purchase of properties in occupied Cyprus by international purchasers after 1974 will not be recognised.


Even the sale of land owned by TC or foreigners prior to 74? Are you proposing one set of rules for Cypriots and another for foreigners (including EU citizens). If so I think you may find such discriminatiuon is illegal under EU laws?

maimou wrote:12.2. These purchasers defied UN resolutions and consequently forfeited any rights to automatic compensation.


Which UN resolution do you think foregin purchasers of property in the north have defied?

maimou wrote:12.3. These purchases by selfish, economically motivated, foreigners made it more difficult to find a peaceful resolution and as such have hurt the people of Cyprus.


The vast majority of foreign purchasers in the north prior to the annan plan decided to live and buy property in the north because they had some connection and knowledge of Cyprus prior to moving there. Some chose to live in the north specificaly to support and show solidarity with TC and what they suffered in Cyprus prior to 74. Their motives were not 'selfish and economicaly motivated' (and whose motives are not economicaly motivated anyway? yours? mine?). These people (and the closer to 74 they came the more so) did not 'hurt' (turkish) Cypriots - they helped and supported us and continue to do so.

Please do not get me wrong. I think there is much merit in many of your suggestions and the overall 'spirit' is very positive imo. However there remain (for me at least) many elements that reflect a solely GC perspective on some issues and some areas that are and incosistent and some that border on a totalitarian state.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Agios Amvrosios » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:13 am

Was the persuit of enosis prior to 1960, without any regard for TC concerns and wishes, not wrong?
If over 80% of the population of Cyprus wanted enosis then this was totally legitimate. Turkish obstruction of majority wishes was wrong.

Was the continued persuit of it by GC after they signed treaties saying they rejected it not wrong?


More than 80% of the total population of Cyprus were against this treaty which was signed under duress.

Was the way the GC majority beahved towartds the TC minority in the period 63-74 not wrong?


Keep up your exagerations and melodramatics. Most of the 5 or 6 drop kicks who copped it deserved it. Instead of cooperating with the majority the Turkish Cypriot leadership forcibly drove your minority into a cursed self imposed isolation to facilitate Taksim. Learn some team work skills if you want any progress.
[/quote]
Agios Amvrosios
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:18 am

Postby erolz » Thu Jul 14, 2005 7:44 am

Agios Amvrosios wrote:If over 80% of the population of Cyprus wanted enosis then this was totally legitimate. Turkish obstruction of majority wishes was wrong.


Who says there was 80% support? What happened to those GC who spoke out against Enosis as a goal? They were killed by the pro enosist is what happend.
So the Turkish Cypriots had (and have) no right to any say at all in the running of their affairs but simply have to bow to the will of a GC numerical majority.

Agios Amvrosios wrote:More than 80% of the total population of Cyprus were against this treaty which was signed under duress.


Where does this figure of 80% non support for the 1960 agreements come from? Out of thin air I would guess. Are you not aware of what the authors of the Arkritas plan had to say about this (people who unlike yourself where around at the time and senior leaders of the GC community) Let me remind you.

It is significant argument that the solution achieved has not been ratified by the people, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to ratify it by a plebiscite, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have done if called upon.


So the strategy of (this part of) the Akritas continues today - namely portraying the 1960 agreements as 'signed under duress' and not having the consent of the people. As the Akritas planners knew - the GC community would have without doubt consented to the 1960 agreements if they had been asked at the time, and that would have been a major problem for the secret plans of much of the GC leadership - namely to renege on their signatures having secured a 'stagin posts' for their true (barely) hidden desire.

Agios Amvrosios wrote:
Was the way the GC majority beahved towartds the TC minority in the period 63-74 not wrong?


Keep up your exagerations and melodramatics.


Exaggeration and melodramatics ??? What exactly is exagerated or melodramtic in my question? *

Agios Amvrosios wrote:Most of the 5 or 6 drop kicks who copped it deserved it.


Your numbers are one to two orders of magnitude out of order. What of the hundreds who copped it and did not deserve it? Even those that you claim 'desrverd it' had rights to trial and due process - yet none was given - just a bullet. Still none of that is relevant is it. After all TC lives are worth next to nothing.

Agios Amvrosios wrote: Instead of cooperating with the majority


Cooperating with the majority? You mean accepting that the TC community would live as third class citizens in their own country under the colonisation of Greece? Thats your idea od 'cooperating' is it?
Should the GC community not have cooperated with the majority of the world that supported the annan plan by your logic? Or do they have a right to defend their 'self determination' and not be told by other how they should live?

Agios Amvrosios wrote:Learn some team work skills if you want any progress.


Team work skills? What a joke. There was no 'team' and no 'team work'. There was a case of accept what we want regardless of the consequences for you and your community or we will kill and murder you. That's your idea of team work is it?

* just compare this post where you accuse me of 'melodramtics and exageration' with your own post here

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?p=44034#44034
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby maimou » Thu Jul 14, 2005 9:15 am

Excellent response erolz! Just the sort of feedback I was looking for.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
Essential truths & terms for a peaceful Republic of Cyprus
Version 3 by Hellenix - cyprus@hellenix.com

truths? Is it not a bit 'egotistical' to claim to have 'truths' ?



I do not claim to have a better understanding of history than anyone else in this forum. Actually, it's quite the opposite. I have been very careful to consider the history from both Greek & Turkish perspectives in order to create a starting point for discussion. I feel that discussions are more likely to be positive if we start from a point at which we all agree.

I certainly did not mean to seem egotistical. I thought I was being practical. Perhaps I should change the title? If other readers also feel that the title can be misinterpreted, I will certainly change it.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
2. History
2.1. The 1974 coup d’etat by the Greek Generals to take control of Cyprus was wrong.


Hmmm - history begins in 74. That sounds familure.

Was the persuit of enosis prior to 1960, without any regard for TC concerns and wishes, not wrong?


Was the continued persuit of it by GC after they signed treaties saying they rejected it not wrong?

Was the way the GC majority beahved towartds the TC minority in the period 63-74 not wrong?


Cyprus has a long history with many significant dates. History did not start in 1974, but how far back should we go? It seems clear to me that those who keep looking backwards are looking to find justification for division rather than looking for grounds upon which to unite.

I have decided that wrongs were committed by both ethnic Greeks and ethnic Turks throughout the modern history of Cyprus. There is no innocent party, so I will not raise either party above the other.

Since the Hellenix elements seek to unite the island, I think the starting point should be the date at which it was divided - 1974.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
2.2. Turkey had a moral duty to send a temporary military force to protect the ethnic Turk minority.


No country acts on 'moral duty' alone. Turkey had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to restore the consitutional order established in 1960. They could have exercised this right at any time from 63 onwards, in legal terms.


You're right, no country acts on a moral duty. Typically such military action is politically or economically motivated. Turkey's action was politically motivated. There are no saints on either side of the Green Line. Let's not pretend than human instincts are that different.

Unfortunately, when you argue that Turkey had a legal right to intervene, the very same logic then makes their continued occupation illegal by international law. You cannot have your cake and eat it to.

By using the words 'moral duty', I deliberately aimed to avoid accusing Turkey of being in breach of international law. I strongly suggest to anyone arguing the Turkish perspective not to place too much emphasis on their legal right to invade Cyprus, because they then have no legal right to remain.

Let's agree on the 'moral duty' and move forward to agreement.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
2.3. Any physical threat to ethnic Turks in Cyprus has ended.


Ethnic Turks in Cyprus? Not Cypriots then? Physical threats to TC ended in 74 because of the protection of the Turkish army. Who can say that the kind of violence that occured prior to this against both TC and GC by both TC and GC would not happen again if the thing that stopped it (Turkish action in 74) is removed?


Unfortunately in this kind of discussion, it is necessary specify how the plan applies to ethnic Turks as opposed to ethnic Greeks. I look forward to the day where both ethnicities simply identify themselves 'Cypriot'.

You may be interested to know that in Brisbane Australia, most Cypriots I know call themselves Cypriot. They do not call themselves Greek Cypriot unless you specifically ask them as to their ethnicity. They rarely call themselves Greek. There is hope for Cyprus.

I don't understand your concern about the removal of the Turkish army. Read section 16. Until the ethnic Turks feel safe, the Turkish army would stay under the Hellenix plan.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
2.4. Turkey now has a duty to withdraw its military without compromising the safety of the ethnic Turks in Cyprus.


No dount Turkeys view is that it had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to restore the consitutional order of 1960. That such a resotoration was not and is not possible and thus a new agreement must be made. Once that it done it will withdraw from Cyprus.


We agree.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
3. National identity
3.1. Ethnic Greeks will not identify themselves as “Greek Cypriots”.
3.2. Ethnic Turks will not identify themselves as “Turkish Cypriots”.
3.3. All citizens of Cyprus will identify themselves as “Cypriots”.


It will be illegal to identify yourself as a TC or GC? What will the punishment be for people who refuse to obey this. Will you lock them up? Do people not have a right to identify themselves any way they wish?

I understand the ideals behaind this section and actualy support them but I do not believe you can create such an environment (a cyprus where everyone thionks of themselves as simply cypriot and not TC or GC by legislation or dictat. You can only do it by willing consent.



This idea was inspired by the German laws which make it illegal to deny the holocaust of the Jews in WWII. I would not call modern Germany totalitarian.

Naturally it is impossible to force Cypriots to think in a certain way, but most reasonable Cypriots will understand the reason for the law and that it is for the common good.

The government would ask the majority of citizens who would understand such a law to chastise those who break that law. Unity is in everyone's best interest and I believe that most Cypriots will obey it - even if it's only obeyed for their own best interest.

Prison will not be necessary. A monetary fine will make even the most stubborn person stop and think.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
5.4. Expressing the anthem in Greek or Turkish will be a crime – whether vocally or in written form.


See above really.



Absolutely. The anthem should unite and not divide. Expressing it in Greek or Turkish divides.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:8.1. Democracy demands that all citizens have an equal vote.


Democracy does not demand this. GC demand this. In fact there is not a single democratic system in the world that I know off where this 'total equality' of one persons vote to anothers is true. It is not true of democracy in the UK or the US or within the EU either.



Nothing is perfect. Most democratic systems are made up of seats in which the number of voters vary. This means that in a practical sense voters in different seats tend to have unequal voting power.

This said, in the UK, US, Australia, EU etc it is accepted that there is a limit at which the difference in numbers of voters in a seat is acceptable. Can you show me a federal or state parliament seat in any of these countries in which one ethnic group is deliberately given over 5 times the effective voting power of the other ethnic group in the neighbouring seat - and is still regarded by the world as a democracy?

I'm sure you can understand why the ethnic Greeks do not want to be second class citizens in their own country.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:8.3. Demands for minimum members of a specific ethnicity in the lower house are undemocratic and must be refused.

8.5. To ensure the protection of the ethnic Turk minority, at least half of the members of the upper house (Senate) will be ethnic Turks.


Undemocratic in the lower house but not in the upper house? Sounds inconsistent to me?

Once again - I am not an ehtnic Turk living in Cyprus. I am a TC. There is a difference (to me at least). Are you an ethnic Greek living in Cyprus or a GC?



You're right. Unfortunately compromise creates inconsistency. I decided that it is better to have one house of parliament operating democratically than neither - as is demanded by the Annan plan.

Operating the lower house democratically from the beginning will make it easier to upgrade the senate to a democratic model at a later date - but only when the ethnic Turks are ready. See item 9. It is up to the ethnic Greeks to prove to the ethnic Turks that they can be trusted. In the meantime, the ethnic Turks are politically protected by the Senate.

I am an ethnic Greek living in Australia. I have no links to Cyprus other than an interest in finding a solution.

I respect your decision to call yourself TC rather than ethnic Turk. I have deliberately chosen to avoid the term TC because I did not want to compromise the human rights of the settlers from Turkey.

I hope you repect this decision and realise by the same token, I have not refered to the ethnic Greeks in Cyprus as GC's.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:11. Property rights
11.1. Legal owners of property, who were dispossessed by the 1974 division, will be entitled to legal rights.


What about the TC that lost property prior to 74? Will they hav any rights at all?



This is a valid point. I would like the opinion of others who read this thread. The Hellenix elements may have to be modified on this point.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:12. International purchasers
12.1. The purchase of properties in occupied Cyprus by international purchasers after 1974 will not be recognised.


Even the sale of land owned by TC or foreigners prior to 74? Are you proposing one set of rules for Cypriots and another for foreigners (including EU citizens). If so I think you may find such discriminatiuon is illegal under EU laws?



I think there are enormous legal problems when property is traded in an occupied territory. The reality is that property is being to sold to international purchasers by people who are not the legal owners.

Section 12.1 does not actually prevent foreigners from 'selling' their land after 1974. It aims to prevent foreign purchases.

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:12.2. These purchasers defied UN resolutions and consequently forfeited any rights to automatic compensation.


Which UN resolution do you think foregin purchasers of property in the north have defied?



Have a look at resolutions 541 and 550. Wouldn't the foreign purchase of property constitute recognition of an illegal state and it's so-called property laws? Don't you think this is deliberate definance of the UN?

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:12.3. These purchases by selfish, economically motivated, foreigners made it more difficult to find a peaceful resolution and as such have hurt the people of Cyprus.


The vast majority of foreign purchasers in the north prior to the annan plan decided to live and buy property in the north because they had some connection and knowledge of Cyprus prior to moving there. Some chose to live in the north specificaly to support and show solidarity with TC and what they suffered in Cyprus prior to 74. Their motives were not 'selfish and economicaly motivated' (and whose motives are not economicaly motivated anyway? yours? mine?). These people (and the closer to 74 they came the more so) did not 'hurt' (turkish) Cypriots - they helped and supported us and continue to do so.


I disagree. The growth in foreign purchases in the north was economically motivated. If Annan was accepted and Cyprus was united the value of the land would greatly increase.

Nothing to do with solidarity. Arguing solidarity when the value of land was potentially about to sky rocket is just too much of a coincidence for me. I have real faith in the average people of Cyprus, I have little faith in politicians and no faith in foreign investors.
maimou
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 10:08 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby erolz » Thu Jul 14, 2005 12:34 pm

maimou wrote:
I certainly did not mean to seem egotistical. I thought I was being practical. Perhaps I should change the title? If other readers also feel that the title can be misinterpreted, I will certainly change it.


Actually I have a few problems with section 1 :) here is a bit more detail for you.

1.1. The Annan plan was flawed and rightly rejected by the majority of Cypriots in its current form.


I do not see the need to mention the annan plan at all really. To say the annan plan was flawed (to the degree it was unworkable) is I am afraid a GC perspective. It is not shared by most of the rest of the world I would suggest or by TC. You could claim it was flawed because it did not achieve the consent of both communites, but you are instead saying it was rejected because it was flawed. I understand that GC consider it so and I understand and respect most of the valid reasons why so many GC consider it so. However this is not the same thing as saying it was flawed - full stop (imo). To describe it as just flawed and that the GC were right to reject it to just seems to embed a GC perspective into the document, which is not what I think you are trying to achieve here? Like I say it seems to me the least contentious way of dealing with section 1.1 is simply to leave it out all togeather.

1.2. It is better to wait for a good plan that unites all Cypriots as a single people than to accept a poor plan that will forever entrench the division between ethnic Greeks and Turks.


Again I have to say I do not agree with this thesis. To me almost any plan could work with the right will and comitment on both sides (including the annan plan and original 60s agreements) and no plan no matter how good will sucseed without the right will and comittment on both sides. Continuation of the existing staus quo is working against unifaction imo and this has been greatly accelerated following the failed annan plan. For me it would be better to have a bad plan (with hopefully the right will and comitment on both sides) than wait for a 'perfect' or 'near perfect' plan (which in reality probably does not exists anyway).

1.3. The following truths and terms should be incorporated into any plan that attempts to solve the Cyprus problem.


Like I say the use of 'truths' unsettles me a little. I think this passage would read better if you just said the 'following terms' or 'following articles' if you prefer.


maimou wrote:
Cyprus has a long history with many significant dates. History did not start in 1974, but how far back should we go?


For me a sensible starting point, if we are to talk about a sovreign unified Cyprus is 1960 - as this is the start of Cyprus' history as a sovreign united nation. I have also seen (good imo) arguments that post WW2 is a sensible starting point as this marked the end of the old colonial era on a world wide scale and the emgance of sovriegn nations from colonilism.

maimou wrote:
It seems clear to me that those who keep looking backwards are looking to find justification for division rather than looking for grounds upon which to unite.


I do not think it is so simple. We have to look forward but we also have to do so in the context and knowledge and agreement of the past and why things went so badly wrong from 60 onwards, if we are to avoid making the mistakes of the past.

maimou wrote:
Since the Hellenix elements seek to unite the island, I think the starting point should be the date at which it was divided - 1974.


A british diplomat once said "the problem in Cyprus is that the GC can not remember anything before 1974 and the TC can not forget" and this is still very true today. By choosing 74 as a 'starting point' you (unwittingly presumably) have again embeded a GC perspective in the document. The fact is that in the propaganda war that has raged around the Cyprus problems the idea that the 'cyprus problem' started in 74 is one of the chief GC propaganda 'weapons' - and a very effective one from my personal experience. Most of my UK friends (highly educated and generally intelligent) are amazed to discover that there were UN troops in Cyprus 10 years before the events of 74.

by the way who is / are the 'hellenix elements'?

maimou wrote:
Unfortunately, when you argue that Turkey had a legal right to intervene, the very same logic then makes their continued occupation illegal by international law.


Turkeys continued presense is illegal under international law, as far as international law exists (and in reality international law has a very tenous existance vs say national laws). The extent to which international law exists is that bodies like the UN can issue resolutions but it can not enforce them (unlike national laws that have a means and process to enforce laws). The biggest violator of international law - in terms of ignoring UN resolutions - is I believe the USA (followed by Israel). Any country can and many do ignore UN resolutions if they believe they are against their interests. That is what sovreignty means. If international law actualy existed in the way national law did then there would be a competent judge(s) with jurisdiction and authority to decide the case for or against Turkey and it's continued presense, and if Turkey is found guilty then there would be effective means of removing her by force if necessary. None of these things exits. So we are left with a situation where 'cases' can be made for legailty or illegailty but no body with the authority to 'judge' or to enforce judgments.

maimou wrote:
You cannot have your cake and eat it to.


sorry this is a bit off topic but I really dislike this expression. What is the point of having a cake you can not eat? A better version (imo) would be you can not eat your cake and still expect to have it after having eaten it. Not as 'consise' but makes a lot more sense to me. Anyway that is not really germaine to anything - just a personal bug bear of mine.

maimou wrote:
By using the words 'moral duty', I deliberately aimed to avoid accusing Turkey of being in breach of international law. I strongly suggest to anyone arguing the Turkish perspective not to place too much emphasis on their legal right to invade Cyprus, because they then have no legal right to remain.


I do not really think that you can argue against the fact that as far as Turkey has ignored UN resolutions it is in breach of international law. However UN resolutions are not infact international law per se - that exists only in treaties between nations. As far as the treaty of gaurantee goes clearly Turkey had a right of (unilateral) intervention to restore the consituion of 1960. Weather that means (under the same agreement) that if it was impossible or impractical to resotre this consitution they then had a right to remain until a new workable agreement was in place is debatable - at least as far as I see it. So in summary my view is they had a right to intervene. Whether they have a legal right to have remained is debatable (and dependent, for me at least) on the degree to which the assertion that 'it was not possible to restore the 1960 constituion in 1974' is true and accurate and the degree to which Turkey has actively sought to find a new agreement in the period 74 to date. Certainly the 'Ecevit' period that claimed that the Cyprus problem was solved in 74 does not put Turkey in a good position in this later regard imo.

maimou wrote:
Let's agree on the 'moral duty' and move forward to agreement.


Actualy I would have little problem with a statement that Turkey needs to end it's presense in Cyprus in order to comply with existing UN resolutions - as long as the saftey of TC community is protected.


maimou wrote:
Unfortunately in this kind of discussion, it is necessary specify how the plan applies to ethnic Turks as opposed to ethnic Greeks. I look forward to the day where both ethnicities simply identify themselves 'Cypriot'.


I have no problem with the desciptions GC and TC. I do have a problem with being called an ethinc Turk living in Cyprus. I have no connections with Turkey. I am not a Turk. I am a Cypriot. Cypriots comprise of two major ethinc based groups and has done so for longer than the USA has been discovered by Europeans (though possibly the vikings found it before Turks came to Cyprus but the point is a very long time).

maimou wrote:You may be interested to know that in Brisbane Australia, most Cypriots I know call themselves Cypriot. They do not call themselves Greek Cypriot unless you specifically ask them as to their ethnicity. They rarely call themselves Greek. There is hope for Cyprus.


Are there many TC living in Brisbane? I am not so sure this is a sing of hope as much as a reflection of them seeing little need to define GC and TC as they see Cyprus as essentialy a Greek island and by calling them self Cypriot they simply mean assume that everyone else knows Cypriots are Greek? maybe I am just too cynical?

maimou wrote:I don't understand your concern about the removal of the Turkish army. Read section 16. Until the ethnic Turks feel safe, the Turkish army would stay under the Hellenix plan.


My concern is not with the withdrawal of Turkish army - your provisions on that are more than I would require to be hones and certainly far in excess of what would be acceptable to the majority of GC. My problem is with the idea that TC are no longer at risk. To say that TC are no longer at risk (especially as a 'truth)- reads to me as as saying their is no longer any need for Turklish presense because TC are no longer at risk. If it read that because of the current Turkish presense in Cyprus TC are not at risk, I would be miuch happier because this makes it iexplicit that their lack of 'at riskness' today is related / connected to Turkish military presense and that the loss of it may also lead to a loss of their 'not at risk' status. I hope that makes sense?

erolz wrote:
maimou wrote:
2.4. Turkey now has a duty to withdraw its military without compromising the safety of the ethnic Turks in Cyprus.


No dount Turkeys view is that it had a legal right to intervene in Cyprus to restore the consitutional order of 1960. That such a resotoration was not and is not possible and thus a new agreement must be made. Once that it done it will withdraw from Cyprus.


We agree.

maimou wrote:
This idea was inspired by the German laws which make it illegal to deny the holocaust of the Jews in WWII. I would not call modern Germany totalitarian.


Well I also have problems with this law - though I am not sure it exits in germany - it certainly does in france. I am a big admirer of Noam Chomsky. Noam Chomsky is an american and jewish and liberal, yet he went an testifed in defence of a man being prosecuted in france under a law making illegal to deny the holocust , who had done so in a book. Now Noam Chomsky totaly disagreed with the book and it's thesis. However he was willing to defend the authors right to express his views, however obnoxious. This is pretty much my feeling on issue like this. To ban the expression of a persons views is a dangerous road to go down imo, be it in France, Germany or Cyprus.

maimou wrote:
Naturally it is impossible to force Cypriots to think in a certain way, but most reasonable Cypriots will understand the reason for the law and that it is for the common good.


If most Cypriots are reasonable enough to understand such a law then it becomes uncessary and if they are not if becomes unworkable.

maimou wrote:
The government would ask the majority of citizens who would understand such a law to chastise those who break that law. Unity is in everyone's best interest and I believe that most Cypriots will obey it - even if it's only obeyed for their own best interest.


Again if most Cypriots support unity and the idea of not calling ourselves GC or TC but just Cypriot then a law is unessary and if they do not such a law is unworkable imo. I would support efforts to make it socialy unacceptable to express ones Greekness or Turkishness before their Cypriotness, but not legislation I am afraid.

maimou wrote:
A monetary fine will make even the most stubborn person stop and think.


Certainly it would make them stop and think - but what will it make them think? That actualy they are wrong in considering themselves Greeks living in Cyprus and not Cypriots with Greek ancestry, or will it make them think that they are being persecuted and denied their human rights?

maimou wrote:
Absolutely. The anthem should unite and not divide. Expressing it in Greek or Turkish divides.


I understand your motives but again question the meathods used. It is one thing to say the state will always express the anthem in english only, but a law that prohibts it being said or written in another language to me is extreme and draconian.

maimou wrote:Nothing is perfect. Most democratic systems are made up of seats in which the number of voters vary. This means that in a practical sense voters in different seats tend to have unequal voting power.


It is not just this discrepnacy alone though this is certainly one discrepancy. There are many others to the 'demands of democracy'. The EU is considered a democratic insitution, yet at all levels it gives disproprtionate representation to smaller members, to balance their fears of domination by larger members. This is actually a definative feature of any 'federal' system (that it gives some degree of political represntation disproprtionate to numerical numbers). Now I understan that a union of countries is different than a union of federated states within a country, but as far as the demands of democracy - surely these are the same accross all democratic systems?

maimou wrote:This said, in the UK, US, Australia, EU etc it is accepted that there is a limit at which the difference in numbers of voters in a seat is acceptable. Can you show me a federal or state parliament seat in any of these countries in which one ethnic group is deliberately given over 5 times the effective voting power of the other ethnic group in the neighbouring seat - and is still regarded by the world as a democracy?


Here we get to the nub of the particular situation in Cyprus and the 'problem'. All federal systems involve disproprtionate representation to some degree or other. However most if not all (national - not international federal systems) do not define 'membership' of a given federal component based on ethnicity but on some other criteria - residency, or language etc. However in Cyprus the only reason for considering a federal solution (either interim or permanent) is because of the historical ethnic divisions. So we have the difficult choice of accepting an ethinc component to federal states in Cyprus (it does not have to be total ethinc purity, but does require some form of protection of ethnic dominance by a given group in its given component unit) or abandon the idea of a federate Cypriot solution all togeather.

If again you are talking about 'prinicples' of democracy (ie things that apply to all democratic systems , intra national (within a nation) and international (between nations) then I would point out that the current RoC has equal represntation in the EU at some levels with countries over 60 times its size. Even within the EU parliament a GC MEP reprsents a much smaller number of people than a UK or French or German MEP - in other words within the EU parliament a GC persons european vote is worth around 7 times that of a Birtish persons.

maimou wrote:I'm sure you can understand why the ethnic Greeks do not want to be second class citizens in their own country.


As I am equally sure you can understand why TC also do not want to be second class citizens in theri own country either.
Dose the average British or French or German person consider themselves second class citizens within the EU? I do not think they do, despite having much less political represntation than smaller countries relative to their population sizes.

maimou wrote:You're right. Unfortunately compromise creates inconsistency. I decided that it is better to have one house of parliament operating democratically than neither - as is demanded by the Annan plan.


So here we have the heart of my problem. To you any system that does not attribute political representation directly equal to numerical numbers is undemoractic and a mtter of compromise. This to me is not what I consider the meaning of democracy. To me democracy is all about people having an effective say in the poltical decision that affect thier lives. To me that does not require absolute numercial represntation and in fact at times positively requires the opposite. For me the problem with the definition of democracy as meaning solely one person one vote (and never one group, community, component state, or nation state one vote) is that this is not what democray means , in theory or practice (imo). Such a definition is however however a useful 'tool' for GC that actualy wish to have effectively run by GC alone. It's a much better 'line' to say we want 'democracy' than to say 'we want the right for GC alone to decide the futre of all of Cyprus'.

maimou wrote:Operating the lower house democratically from the beginning will make it easier to upgrade the senate to a democratic model at a later date - but only when the ethnic Turks are ready. See item 9. It is up to the ethnic Greeks to prove to the ethnic Turks that they can be trusted. In the meantime, the ethnic Turks are politically protected by the Senate.


I agree with all of the above excpet that idea that lower house is democratic and the upper not. To me they are both democratic but represent differnt forms of democracy. The lower house represents one form and the upper anthoer. Once we all feel and believe we are Cypriot and only Cypriot then the need for these 'different forms' disapears but not before.

maimou wrote:I respect your decision to call yourself TC rather than ethnic Turk.


but would fine me if I continued to do so after a settlement? ;)

maimou wrote: I have deliberately chosen to avoid the term TC because I did not want to compromise the human rights of the settlers from Turkey.


I have the utmost respect for the reason you give for this choice of words. However I do not think we need to call TC and Turkish mainland immigrants into cyprus the same thing in order to protect thier rights.

maimou wrote:I hope you repect this decision and realise by the same token, I have not refered to the ethnic Greeks in Cyprus as GC's.


Like I say I uderstand your reasoning and respect the 'equal' nature of the use of these terms but do not really agree with the necessity for them. We can all be different and still be equal. We do not have to pretend we are the same when we are not to secure 'equality' imo.

maimou wrote:I think there are enormous legal problems when property is traded in an occupied territory.


Undoubtedly.

maimou wrote:Section 12.1 does not actually prevent foreigners from 'selling' their land after 1974. It aims to prevent foreign purchases.


My point / questions was should the sale of a proerty by a UK citizen that bought land in say Kyrenia in 1970 and then sold to another non Cypriot in 1990 be considered invalid and not recognised? If so why? And who would the proerty revert back to? The original UK owners that sold in in 1990 (and got good real money for it)? The Cypriot that they bought it from in 1970 (who also got real good money for the sale)? The state? Who? The same senario would be applicable to a TC that owned land in the north prior to 74 and sold it to an foreginer after 74. Should this sale not be recognised either? If so why?

maimou wrote:Have a look at resolutions 541 and 550.


The only bit that could be regarded as 'defiance' of these resolutions by foreigner purchasers of property in the morth is the section

"Calls upon all parties to do everything in their power to alleviate human suffering, to ensure the respect to fundamental human rights for every person and to refrain from all action likely to aggravate the situation; "

Even then it is pretty implicit (imo at least) that 'all parties' refers to nations or the two communites in cyprus and not indivduals.

maimou wrote:I disagree. The growth in foreign purchases in the north was economically motivated. If Annan was accepted and Cyprus was united the value of the land would greatly increase.

Nothing to do with solidarity. Arguing solidarity when the value of land was potentially about to sky rocket is just too much of a coincidence for me. I have real faith in the average people of Cyprus, I have little faith in politicians and no faith in foreign investors.


For me their is a real difference between the majority of foreign purchasers of property in the north before the annan plan and those after. I believe that even today more foreign owners and residence in the north came before the annan plan, though this may not stay this way for much longer. You are lumping all foreign buyers of property in the north into this one category of 'greedy selfish economic expliters' yet many (if not most) of the foreigner owners here bough their land / homes long before the prospect of a solution re the annan plan and quick monetary profits.

There are many factors that determine the choice of foreginers in buying property abroad. Certainly economic considerations are one of these but to make out they are the only motives - even today post annan plan is to pervert the truth. For exanmple one reason why some people look to buy and live in the north rather than the south, is simply that the north is less developed and commercialised than the south (not by choice of TC I might add) and that the very reason they are looking to imigrate is to get away from over devloped and commercialised environments. I even know of people (foreigners) in the north that are already looking futher afield than North Cyprus as it too becomes more developed and commercialised. It is simply not correct or fair to categorise all foreign owners of property in the north as motivated purely by selfish greed imo - which is what you are doing.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby magikthrill » Thu Jul 14, 2005 1:33 pm

erolz wrote:
Hmmm - history begins in 74. That sounds familure.

Was the persuit of enosis prior to 1960, without any regard for TC concerns and wishes, not wrong?


hmmm - history begins in the 63. That sounds familure.


Was the way the GC majority beahved towartds the TC minority in the period 63-74 not wrong?


Was the way the Ottoman conquerors beahved towartds the GC aboriginal inhabitans of the island from 1571 for 300+ years not wrong??
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby erolz » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:14 pm

magikthrill wrote:
hmmm - history begins in the 63. That sounds familure.


Well I also accept the reasoning for taking the end of WWII as a sensible 'start point'. Anyway I said 1960, not 63.

magikthrill wrote:
Was the way the Ottoman conquerors beahved towartds the GC aboriginal inhabitans of the island from 1571 for 300+ years not wrong??


By todays standards it was wrong. By contemporary standards it was a positively enlightend appraoch to conquered terrortries.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby detailer » Thu Jul 14, 2005 4:25 pm

sorry this is a bit off topic but I really dislike this expression. What is the point of having a cake you can not eat? A better version (imo) would be you can not eat your cake and still expect to have it after having eaten it. Not as 'consise' but makes a lot more sense to me. Anyway that is not really germaine to anything - just a personal bug bear of mine.


You can not have the dog full and the bread whole. :wink:
User avatar
detailer
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 454
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: Hellenix peace plan elements - v3

Postby magikthrill » Thu Jul 14, 2005 5:21 pm

erolz wrote:
By todays standards it was wrong. By contemporary standards it was a positively enlightend appraoch to conquered terrortries.


right thtas why while the rest of Europe was going through enlightment the ottoman empire not only made its inhabitants stand still in time but draged them 400 years into the past.
magikthrill
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2245
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 10:09 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests