The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Polls

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby cypezokyli » Mon Feb 20, 2006 8:58 am

at the time of the referendum i was more leaning towards the NO. i ahd my reservations though, especially atching some NO fanatics and how, they argumented their NO. in any case i was abroad so i didnot vote.

after the referendum i lean towards YES, for two reasons:
1. i met tcs
2. i dont see the alternative that i was promised. agreed the plan was not good. if anyone can tell me a plan that will be accepted by both communities and they way to achieve it, then he would have my full support. neither the president nor the polititcal parties that voted NO, give that. i believe if one rejects sth he should have sth to propose (better and achievable). and the only proposal i saw up to now from some gc is partition with land adjustments. a proposal that i tottaly disagree but at least they have sth to propose.
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Tony-4497 » Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:25 am

if one rejects sth he should have sth to propose (better and achievable). and the only proposal i saw up to now from some gc is partition with land adjustments


in my view, and I believe that of the vast majority of GCs, even the existing hugely unfair situation is ten times better than the Annan plan

with the Annan plan we would get back a tiny bit of our own stolen land (i.e. our land % would go from 63% to %70 - big deal!) and in return we would essentially lose our sovereignty, and turn ourselves from a UN recognised and EU member state into a community that is a partner in a strange confederal state of which the functionality, decisions and direction would depend on Turkish Generals' whims!! (and on top we would have to legalise the effect of the occupation and surrender our lands to the Turks - for WHAT?)

I can understand that some people got misled, confused etc and voted Yes, but for those politicians who supported this plan, there is simply no excuse.

In any other country, if leaders had demonstrated such an outrageous error in judgment and were proven so wrong by subsequent facts on the single most important issue faced by their country they would have resigned.
Tony-4497
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:09 pm
Location: Limassol

Postby Agios Amvrosios » Tue Apr 11, 2006 4:55 am

a plan that will be accepted by both communities and they way to achieve it


To me this is the thing. In a democracy with citizens who respect democracy and view it as something sacred, law abiding citizens who vote against the way most other citizens vote will accept the democratic outcome. Cypriots are considered to be subhuman being who are not entitled to democracy like the rest of the civilised world.

Lets face the obvious fact that some Turkish Cypriots and there supporters just don't respect democracy and human rights. Democracy and human rights cannot be tampered with for example by running 2 referenda side by side divided by ethnic backgrounds. How the hell is that democratic. Democracy and common seanse would only allow for a single referendum. In any other country the mere suggestion of such an abominable monstrocity would lead to riots in the streets.
WHy even have a referendum if the whole process is an appartheid farce.

Human rights and democracy take a back seat to war crimes and we are aked to accept undemocratic proposals with undemocratic mechanisms and technical characteristics and we are expected to shut up and take this humiliation. I think it is criminal to fool around with democracy.
Agios Amvrosios
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 857
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 3:18 am

Postby GreekCypriotGurl_UK » Sat Apr 29, 2006 3:44 pm

What reunification Plan ? i didnt see one all that i saw Was something called the annan plan which said some greeks cypriots can have there homes not all on the condition they they live under the turkish occupation in the north Cyprus was that suppose to be a reunification plan ? wheres the reunifiying all greek Cypriot refugees with there homes?
GreekCypriotGurl_UK
Member
Member
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 17, 2006 1:23 am

Postby despo » Mon Jun 12, 2006 8:04 pm

Did you really see that, GreekCypriotGurl, did you really? Because if you did actually see the document that I think you're referring to, you'd know that it wasn't called the "Annan Plan," it was called the UN proposal for a Settlement to the Cyprus Problem. For a start, had that proposal been accepted it would have ended the Turkish occupation, so no Greeks would have been living under any occupation (which, incidentally, is not the term used by either the EU or the UN).

Now, ever since 1975, our Greek Cypriot side has not actually argued on a government level for the return of all refugees, but for a bizonal, bicommunal federation, which by definition means that some refugees won't return.

GreekCypriotGurl, I doubt you ever saw a copy of the UN proposal, I doubt you ever read any of it, I doubt you've studied it, considered it or honestly thought about it.

What do you propose? And how do you propose that it will happen?
despo
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:20 pm

Postby miltiades » Mon Jun 12, 2006 9:01 pm

Despo . with all due respect you are merely" splitting hair " The Annan Plan is what it has commonly come to be known and referred by all sides.
You state that had the proposals been accepted , the Turkish occupation of the North would have ended.
May I suggest you restudy the Plan and enlighten us as to exactly when and after how many years would Turkish occupation eventually come to an end , and which powers were vested with overseen the withdrawal of The Turkish troops.
I suggest that the plan would have eventually created many more problems that future generations would find it hard to exonerate the present one for accepting such a fragile solution.
As you know the plan explicitly gave Turkey the right of intervention in all parts of Cyprus , the right to control our air space as well as our seas. The Annan plan offered no guarantees that Turkey would honour the agreement and begin an orderly withdrawal of its troops , troops that the majority of Cypriots consider as an occupying force.
I have always vociferously supported the right of all Cypriots to enjoy an equal status in their country of birth , and have always , and always will do , consider all Cypriots to be my compatriots. I have no wish to see a foreign army , be it the Greek , Turkish or British , in control of my country.
User avatar
miltiades
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16332
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2006 10:01 pm

Postby despo » Tue Jun 13, 2006 1:15 pm

Yes, the Turkish occupation would have ended, Turkish troops would already have started leaving.

I am not splitting hairs. I doubt very much whether GreekCypriotGirl_UK has read, comprehended, considered or understood the Annan Plan, nor whether she has given any real deep thought to the Cyprus problem, the roots of its origins in the 1950s and 1960s, what type of constitution a reunited Cyprus might have, and, most importantly, exacly how a settlement is going to be achieved now.

Tassos Papadopoulos said that Turkey would have to extend the Customs Union to the RoC because it had signed the protocol. By this same logic, Turkey would have to have applied the UN plan because it would have signed it. Moreover, the EU offered to be the guarantor (GCs were prevented from knowing this by the Papadopoulos government, which did all it could to block Commissioner Verheugen from informing the GC people of this) of the UN plan, and implementation of the plan would have been a real EU obligation for Turkey, not the pseudo-obligations it has today. Turkey would never even have been given a date for the start of negotiations let alone started negotiations, and had the first chapter closed, as it does today. The Annan Plan would have become an integral part of Turkey's "road map" to joining the EU.

Also, the Turkish Cypriots backed it, as did the Turkish government (for which they were praised by the EU, with Papadopoulos's signature) so I don't understand why Turkey wouldn't have started to withdraw its troops since a) it had agreed to it, and b) according to the GC rejectionist argument the Annan Plan gave the Turks everything they wanted, so why wouldn't they implement it then?

The only TCs and Turks who didn't back the Annan Plan were Rauf Denktash, the Grey Wolves and Turkish nationalists. The Turkish army didn't like it very much either.

The stuff about Turkey having "the right to control our air space as well as our seas" is - with all due respect - just rubbish. It just isn't in the Annan Plan at all.

Do you remember before the referendum the GC rejectionist argument that we should reject the Annan Plan because then Turkey would be illegally occupying European Union soil and would not be allowed to join the EU until it had removed its troops from Cyprus, therefore we should reject the plan? Aside from this being an implicit acknowledgement on the part of rejectionists that acceptance of the Annan Plan would have involved withdrawal of Turkish troops (if Annan had been accepted, Turkish troops would have started to withdraw, therefore the EU would not be able to "punish" Turkey for supposedly having its troops on EU territory), this argument has totally failed. For the EU has not asked to Turkey to remove its troops from Cyprus, it has never claimed that Turkish troops in Cyprus are illegally occupying EU territory, Turkey has not been requested by the EU to remove its troops before it can join. Instead, it praised Turkey for supporting UN settlement efforts and expressed its deep disappointment in the GC rejection of the settlement.

Now, can you tell me, given this fact, exactly how do you propose that Turkish forces will withdraw, and in what time frame?

This is what the UN proposed settlement said:

ANNEX IV: ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL TO THE TREATY OF
ALLIANCE
Cyprus, Greece and Turkey
i. Bearing in mind that in accordance with the Foundation Agreement
and its Constitution, Cyprus shall be demilitarised
ii. Reaffirming their pledge to resist any attack or aggression against
the independence or the territorial integrity of Cyprus
Have agreed as follows
Article 1
The Treaty of Alliance shall apply and operate mutatis mutandis in
accordance with the new state of affairs established in the Foundation
Agreement and the Constitution of the United Cyprus Republic, taking into
account in particular the demilitarisation of Cyprus.
Article 2
There shall be no Tripartite Headquarters. The provisions of the Treaty of
Alliance shall apply mutatis mutandis to the commanders of the Greek and
Turkish contingents, who shall consult and cooperate in the performance of
their functions pursuant to the Treaty. They shall exchange liaison officers,
conduct exchange visits, and invite each other to observe military exercises.
Article 3
1. The Greek and Turkish contingents shall be permitted to be stationed
under the Treaty of Alliance in the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish
Cypriot State respectively.
2. Without prejudice to the relevant provisions in Additional Protocol I to the
Treaty of Alliance, the Greek and Turkish contingents shall, for a
transitional period, not exceed 6,000 all ranks until 1 January 2011, and
3,000 all ranks thereafter until 1 January 2018 or Turkey’s accession to
the European Union, whichever is sooner.
3. Thereafter, Cyprus, Greece and Turkey shall review troop levels every
five years with the objective of total withdrawal. This will in no way
undermine the provisions of the Treaty of Alliance and its Additional
Protocols, and the rights and responsibilities conferred thereby.
158
4. The composition, equipment, locations and activities of the Greek and
Turkish contingents shall be in accordance with the Codicil to this
Additional Protocol, and equipment levels shall be reduced appropriately
with the reductions in troop levels referred to in paragraph 2.
Article 4
Cyprus, Greece and Turkey shall review this Protocol and, in particular, the
permissible number of troops to be stationed under the Treaty of Alliance no
later than 1 June 2010. Thereafter, they shall review the question every three
years with the objective of total withdrawal.
Article 5
This Protocol shall enter into force upon signature and shall have precedence
over other provisions of the Treaty of Alliance.
despo
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 4:20 pm

Postby DT. » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:40 pm

Treaty of gaurantee applies mutatis mutandis my friend to this agreement. Thats what they used to excuse their first invasion.....do you think they'd be shy to use it twice?

Only this time they wouldn;t leave a republic of cyprus, they'd leave as a component state. We wouldn't be the republic of cyprus anymore we'd also be a component state.
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12200
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby DT. » Thu Nov 16, 2006 9:44 pm

Reasons for Greek-Cypriot rejection of the Annan Plan
The Plan did not include a settlement regarding the repatriation of Turkish settlers living on Greek Cypriot owned land in the 'Northern Cyprus', while after 19 years, the possibility of abolishing the derogation of 5% of Greeks and Turkish citizens who could settle in Cyprus, is obvious, and the danger of a permanent mass settling of Cyprus by Turkey is visible.
Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. The central government would have limited control towards future Turkish Immigration. Those settlers opting to return to Turkey would be compensated by Cyprus and Greek Cypriots. Even though Turkey systematically brought in the settlers to alter the demography of the island, it had no responsibility for their Repatriation.
The Plan simply disregarded the plain language and clear meaning of the Geneva Convention of 1949, section III, article 49, which prohibits colonization by an occupying power. Article 49 states in its last paragraph: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
The Plan did not deal in full with the demilitarisation of the illegal 'TRNC', and Greek Cypriots felt they had no reason to believe Turkish promises concerning the withdrawal of troops.
Cyprus would be excluded from the European Common Defense and Foreign Policy, while Turkish troops would remain in Cyprus even after the accession of Turkey to the EU with intervention rights (a military invasion - occasionally used euphemistically) in the Greek Cypriot component state.
Many Greek Cypriots interpreted the Right of Return policy as to be seriously flawed, meaning only 20% of Greek Cypriot refugees would be able to return over a time frame of 25 years, whereas Turkish Cypriots would have had full right of return.The plan denied to all Cypriots rights enjoyed by all other EU citizens (right of free movement and residence, the right to apply to work in any position (including national civil services, the right to vote).
Turkish Cypriots would have gained all the basic demands it made, from the first day of the implementation of the solution. To be exact, 24 hours after the holding of the referendum. In contrast, everything that the Greek Cypriots were aspiring to achieve, would have postponed without guarantees and depend upon the good will of Turkey to fulfil the obligations it undertakes. They are also subject to the precondition that all would have gone well.
The return of the Turkish occupied land will take place in the period between three and a half months and three and a half years from the moment the solution is signed with no guarantees whatsoever that this shall be implemented. The Cypriot-Greek proposal of placing these areas under the control of the UN Peace Keeping Force and not the Turkish army has been rejected.
The Plan did not address the issue of the British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs) on the island, although parts of the SBAs would be transferred to the governments of the two consituent states.
The British were granted rights to unilaterally define the continental shelf and territorial waters along two base areas and to claim potential mineral rights. Under the 1959-1960 London Zurich agreements, Britain did not have such rights (see the 2nd annex to the Additional Protocol to the 1959 Treaty of Establishment).
The plan absolved Turkey of all responsibility for its invasion of Cyprus and its murders, rapes, destruction of property and churches and looting and forcing approximately 200,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes and property. The Cyprus government filed applications to the European Commission on Human Rights on September 17, 1974 and on March 21, 1975. The Commission issued its report on the charges made in the two applications on July 10, 1976. In it the Commission found Turkey guilty of violating the following articles of the European Convention on Human Rights:
1.. Article 2 - by the killing of innocent civilians committed on a substantial scale;

2.. Article 3 - by the rape of women of all ages from 12 to 71;

3.. Article 3 - by inhuman treatment of prisoners and persons detained;

4.. Article 5 - by deprivation of liberty with regard to detainees and missing persons - a continuing violation;

5.. Article 8 - by displacement of persons creating more than 180,000 Greek Cypriot refugees,and be refusing to allow the refugees to return to their homes.

The plan failed to provide payment by Turkey:
1.. for the lives of innocent civilians killed by the Turkish army;

2.. for the victims of rape by the Turkish army;

3.. for the vast destruction of property and churches by the Turkish army; and

4.. for the substantial looting by the Turkish army.

The Plan subverted the property rights of the Greek Cypriots and other legal owners of property in the occupied area:
•by prohibiting recourse to European courts on property issues;

•by withdrawing all pending cases at the European Court of Human Rights and transferring them to local courts;

•by allowing Turkish Cypriots and illegal mainland Turk settlers/colonists to keep Greek Cypriot homes and property they were illegally given following Turkey's invasion of Cyprus and not having to reimburse the rightful owners of the property for 30 years of illegal use;

•by a highly complicated, ambiguous and uncertain regime for resolving property issues and which is based on the principle that real property owners can ultimately be forced to give up their property rights which would violate the European Convention on Human Rights and international law. The Greek Cypriot property owners would have to be reimbursed by the to be federal treasury which would be funded overwhelmingly by the Greek Cypriots.

The Plan would have the effect of protecting those British citizens who illegally bought Greek Cypriot property from settlers or persons who are not owners; in the occupied north of Cyprus. They would, in effect, not be held responsible for their illegal action.
The plan created a confederation even though it utilized the term "federation" because there was no hierarchy of laws, while central authority emanated from the so-called component states. Note that the United States abandoned its original confederal structure because it was unworkable. In 1783, a federal constitution was established containing a clear federal supremacy clause. The Supreme Court composed of equal numbers of Greek Cypriot (77% of population) and Turkish Cypriot (18% of population) judges, plus three foreign judges; thus foreign actors would cast deciding votes.
The cost of economic reunification would be borne by the Greek Cypriots. The reunification cost has been estimated close to $20b
Follwing Annan 5 plan the Greek Cypriots would not have been allowed to make up more than 6% of the population in any single village in the Turkish controlled areas in the north thus they would have been prevented from setting up their own schools for their children and would not have even been able to give birth once this quota was reached.
According to UN 260 resolution Genocide is: (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

The Ethnic groups in Cyprus are Greek 77%, Turkish 18%, other 5% of the population. (2001) The Annan plan equates the representation of the two major ethnic groups in the Senate and in the Supreme Court giving 50-50 representation.
The agreement places time restrictions in the right of free, permanent installation of Greek Cypriots back to their homes and properties in the to be Turkish Cypriot state, which constitutes a deviation from the European Union practices. Those Greek Cypriot refugees that would return to their homes in regions under Turkish Cypriot administration would have no local civil rights, because the political representatives of Turkish Cypriot state would be elected only from Turkish Cypriots.
The functional weaknesses of the Plan endanger, inter alia, the smooth activity and participation of Cyprus, with one voice, in the European Union. While the Greek Cypriots have with many sacrifices achieved Cyprus accession to the European Union, the Greek Cypriots could very easily be led to the neutralization of the accession until the adoption of all necessary federal and regional legal measures or the loss of the benefits of the accession or the facing of obstacles in Cyprus participation in the Economic and Monetary Union and other European institutions.
The Economy of Cyprus would have been separate with the plan. There will be no common Monetary policy, fiscal policy and no investments by Greek Cypriot businesses shall be allowed in the Turkish Cypriot constituent state.
User avatar
DT.
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 12200
Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
Location: Lefkosia

Postby SN » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:29 pm

Hi guys i am new member.

I have been busting my b*lls ever since i was a little kid to understand what would be the best solution for the Cyprus problem.

Anyway my guess is that Greece and Turkey must be completely neutral to Cyprus.Let the Cypriot people decide for themselves without the intervention from Greece or Turkey....it is so boring for Greeks citizens and for Turkish citizens.....

Leave Cyprus alone.NO GREECE.NO TURKEY.....END OF THE STORY...
SN
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 366
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:41 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests