The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Nothing to lose- but our chains

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Nothing to lose- but our chains

Postby Agios Amvrosios » Mon Nov 28, 2005 1:29 am

Most Kyrenia refugees do not care about compensation bonds. The Refugees of Kyrenia want their ethnic identity back. Can monetary compensation remedy the loss of ethnic identity?

The minimum remedy which is acceptable to Kyrenia Refugees is restitution to their homes and villages. If they can't return to their particular house or porperty for some reason-for example there's a freeway running through it- then they should be given a property in the very same town or village of equal value. This is the only way refugees will be allowed to keep their ethnic identity as Kyrenians.

Who will attend the graves of our relatives? My grandmother's tombstone was thrown 150 meters from where she was buried in Chartzia.

Plans such as the Annan Plan hardly recognise this dimension of the Cyprus problem, but for Kyrenia Refugees this is the Cyprus problem.
Agios Amvrosios
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:18 am

Postby BirKibrisli » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:10 am

I agree with you,Agios.

The right of return for every Cypriot to their birthplace must be the paramount human right which must never be surrendered if a lasting solution is to be found.Without this there will always be bitterness and resentment in many Cypriots' hearts.That is no way to build a united nation.
User avatar
BirKibrisli
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6162
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
Location: Australia

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Nov 28, 2005 9:36 am

Would love to oblidge guys but you should come of off your cloud you seem to be floating around on back to reality, lets say we empty all the TCs (and foreigners) out of disputed property and land, what do you intend to do with them?? if their property is available in the south and in livable condition which many of them have been demolished, what do we do with these people?? what do we do with the hosptials, schools, hotels and homes that have been built on this land do we demolish 31 years??

Imho compensation coupled with offer of similar land is the only way forward on this issue. We would be creating another wrong if we feel we can kick all these people out of their homes, and Im sure Agios will say well it happened to me why cant we do it to others?? is that what you want? do you want to build bridges or burn them down. We have to face realities and not chase the stars as we are currently doing and it is getting us absoulutely nowhere.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Alexis » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:07 pm

I think that most realistic GCs would agree that not all the land can be returned. I am not blind to the fact that many TC properties in the south have been demolished but it is clear to everyone that the biggest obstacles to a comprehensive resolution of the property issue (one that goes to thr heart of the Cyprus problem) have been orchestrated by Turkey in the following ways:

1) Obtaining too much land for TCs in 1974 leading to a net displacement of GC refugees and their property.

2) Signing off that property to non-cypriots and/or cypriots who were not refugees.

3) Not preventing the sale of this land to foreigners for profit.

What has happened is in many cases irreversible, so compensation will be the only solution, as is the case for TC land in the south that has been expropriated by the state.

What would really erk GC refugees is to be prevented from using their compensation build homes in the villages from which they came if they so wish. 'Right of Return' does not necessarily mean you return to your original land. Given the circumstances behind the property issue I think this would be grossly unfair.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Alexis » Mon Nov 28, 2005 12:09 pm

deleted - double posting
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:18 pm

Then Alexis could we take it that those GCs and TCs that could not get back their land because it had been used or developed will either accept compensation or alternatively an equivlient property in the same area. Would this mean that GCs and TCs would be happy live in or own property in the northern or southern states?
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Alexis » Mon Nov 28, 2005 3:50 pm

Yes, that is what I am saying.
Bi-zonality does not mean the two states should be kept as ethnically pure as possible, we already have that state of affairs.
I'm all for transition periods and restrictions which are aimed at
bolstering the north's economy, such as preventing large GC businesses from setting up shop for a number of years, but any transition period that prevents refugees from living in their ancestral hometowns if they so wish is simply not fair (a restriction on the amount of land any one individual may buy for a transitional period only would be ok for instance).
Look again at what Agios Amvrosios is suggesting as minimum restitution for the Kyrenia refugees. Is his suggestion really that unreasonable?

I also feel though, that despite the fact that this problem can only be fully
resolved through a comprehensive settlement, the TC administration could be very proactive in making sure this problem does not get worse.
It is one thing for refugees to know that their land has been expropriated for things like hospitals and roads but it is another when their land is given away to foreigners for use as a second home.
The issue of settlers is also something that needs to be tackled, although I personally am in favour of the vast majority of established settlers remaining, I think that they can be accommodated for in a comprehensive settlement.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Nov 28, 2005 4:46 pm

Alexis wrote:Yes, that is what I am saying.
Bi-zonality does not mean the two states should be kept as ethnically pure as possible, we already have that state of affairs.
I'm all for transition periods and restrictions which are aimed at
bolstering the north's economy, such as preventing large GC businesses from setting up shop for a number of years, but any transition period that prevents refugees from living in their ancestral hometowns if they so wish is simply not fair (a restriction on the amount of land any one individual may buy for a transitional period only would be ok for instance).
Look again at what Agios Amvrosios is suggesting as minimum restitution for the Kyrenia refugees. Is his suggestion really that unreasonable?

I also feel though, that despite the fact that this problem can only be fully
resolved through a comprehensive settlement, the TC administration could be very proactive in making sure this problem does not get worse.
It is one thing for refugees to know that their land has been expropriated for things like hospitals and roads but it is another when their land is given away to foreigners for use as a second home.
The issue of settlers is also something that needs to be tackled, although I personally am in favour of the vast majority of established settlers remaining, I think that they can be accommodated for in a comprehensive settlement.


I and i believe many TCs dont have a problem with GCs returning to their ancestral homes if it is physically possible. But while addressing one problem I dont think we should be creating an even larger one. The real problem for TCs is representation they do not want to be a political minority in the north state, therefore any GCs that reside in the north would imo only be allowed to vote in the south for their own leaders otherwise free movement and settlement should be allowed. I feel that many Gcs will not want to live in the north as they have not matured enough to accept that they will be living under our laws and paying taxes etc to TC run north state. What do you thin kon that issue? The settlers I think can be handled quite easily those that have rights to stay eg have lived here more than 5 years can apply for citizenship to assessed on cirteria like any other EU nations, their housing can also be addressed by compensation or exchange for similar land. Wont all this exchnage of land cause a problem for the north state?? if GC return enmasse then the majority of land in the north will be owned by GCs, dont you see any dangers regarding this issue??
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby Alexis » Mon Nov 28, 2005 5:40 pm

I have said it many times before. Within a two-state federation some kind of two-tier political system will be required. At one level sure all GCs/TCs will vote for their leaders (perhaps a house of represenatatives split along population sizes and a senate split 50-50 - I honestly don't know what the best solution would be), at the local level though (for me this is the level that deals with local issues and to which local residents pay taxes to), there should be no discrimination between residents, everyone living there should be able to vote for local representatives. So there would be three forms of taxation, local taxation which pays for streets etc...state taxation which pays for community related things (e.g. schools) to which you pay taxes to the state representing your community, and a federal tax which goes to the central federal government for nationwide projects (foreign relations etc...).
The end objective for me is a system that works along the lines of most federations, one in which there is political as well as physical freedom of movement (and before you ask, yes this is how it works in places like Switzerland).
As for the land issue, remember that there is a lot of state-owned land in Cyprus, also TCs would still own their land in the south.
Alexis
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
Location: UK

Postby Viewpoint » Mon Nov 28, 2005 11:17 pm

Although you have tried to maintain a balance 50-50 at one level at local level if the GCs out number the TCs in their own state then they could elect GC mayors etc how will TCs get a look in?wont this leave the door wide open to discrimination by GC officials who dont even speak Turkish at local level in a TC state?? wouldnt it be better if TCs ran things in the north as we would not stand any chance of being elected in the south either.
It appears that which ever way we approach this if we reunite we are doomed to become a minority in our own country which will be run by GCs. Maybe partition is the safest bet for TCs.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Next

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests