The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


-=[My Solution Proposal]=- ' -=[Poll]=-

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Is it fair and a viable solution for you? If no, please tell us why?

YES
7
50%
NO
7
50%
 
Total votes : 14

Postby turkcyp » Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:50 am

insan wrote:
Bi-zonality is the idea of the nationalist TCs who want to secure Turkey's south coasts and supported by TC nationalists and a part of settlers who also don't wanna see just a single GC around themselves...


I disagrre with insan here,

I want bizonality as well, and I am neither nationalist nor a settler. The reason I want bizonality is as follows:

Without bizonality there can not be a sustainable federal state. I mean 1960 constitution had many components in it from federalism but it was never a federal state because instead of seperating two states with imaginary borders, the voting rights, and all other restrictions were placed on communities, not territory.

This makes the constitution fail much much easier. Plus in today human rights understanding condones any kind of restriction based on ethnicity. In other words, you simply can not say that you are Greek, you should vote in this state, and you are Turk you should vote in this state. People votes where their residencies are.

That I believe was the biggest weakest point in Annan Plan as well. Plan was suggesting a federal goverment with bizonality. But was also letting GCs obtain residency in substantial numbers in Turkish state. In the earlier versions, because these GCs that obtain residency in the north south get to vote in north even at the federal elelction level, effectively killing the 24-24 equality in the senate.

In the later versions, they have chaged this and said that GCs that move to north should vote in the south in federal level, and said that the senators which are going to be chosen by the Turkish state has to be Turkish. This is actually contradiction to human rights. First people get to vote where there are resident, secondly you can not say that all the senators from Turkish state will be Turkish. That will be discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, which is a NO, NO.

So even if the Annan plan would be accepted, that clause in the plan would be turning back from the ECHR anyway. Furthermore you can not put any kind of restrictions to the number of GCs deciding to move to north and live here. This is simply completley against EU regulation and would be returning from EU Courts.

If the last version of the plan would have been proposed before Cyprus became a EU member, than the plan itself would have been the primary law of the EU but not anymore. Right now, any agreement that will be reached by in Cyprus has to be approved by the EU and each other member state in order to be a primary law of EU.

So what must be done in the context of Cyprus to satisfy bizonality (a requirement of federalism) and equal representation in the senate, is to change the Annan Plan. For example, I say get rid of all the restrictions that limit the amount of GCs obtaining property in the north, but treat this property as a second home, not your primary residency so that the GCs has to vote on the south.(You vote where your primary residency is). There are other examples like this in EU, ex. Malta.

But just in case, that returns from the EU courts then what also Annan Plan should do is to scrap the law that says only Turks can be elected from the Turkish State and only Turks can vote in Turkish state. Instead of this just like in America, give power to states on how to decide which mechanisms they will employ to elect their representatives.

If you do that, then Turkish State may redistrict north in 24 districts, every district choosing one member to the senate, and requires %50 of the eligible voters to approve the elected person (in other words get at least %50, if nobody gets %50 then you can have another election in two weeks with the top 2 candidates so that definetly one person gets the %50). By this way equality can be preserved in the senate for a while (in the long run there is no way this equality can be preserved anyway, because you can not restrict movement between states forever)

But you can delay the destruction of equality for a while so that at least TCs would feel more comfortable with GCs, and do not complain when a Greek senator is elected from Turkish State.

There are also other electoral techniques (all used in different European countries and USA, which are completley democratic) which can be employed to preserve equality for a while.

But my post has become long as it is, andplus that completly kills the discussion subject.
turkcyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 12:40 am

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:11 pm

MicAtCyp,

ofcourse I agree with you that, while theoretically the right of return is provided, in actual fact there are too many obstacles to make it practical. That is why I used the word "theoretically".

What I would like to ask you is the following: How exactly do you propose improving the property arrangements in a future solution plan? Do you:

a) Suggest that there shouldn't be a Council of Properties at all, and people resolve the property issue either through private arrangements or through local and international courts?

or

b) Suggest amendments in the timetables and criteria of who has priority control of properties, as well as mechanisms to ensure that eviction of current tenants will indeed take place?

If you opt for b), how exactly do you propose changing the timetables and criteria, and what mechanisms do you propose to ensure compliance?

I look forward to hearing from you ...
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby -mikkie2- » Thu Dec 09, 2004 3:59 pm

Alexandre, MicAtCyp,

The property issue is closely interlinked with the settler issue. If the plan changes to allow the removal of more settlers then this will free up the properties.

The consequence for this is that more TC's would be able to be relocated under the TC state and as such more GC's would be able to return under GC control.

MicAtCyp, aren't your figures as to the numbers that would wish to return a bit on the pessimistic side? For example, Varosha is a ghost town at the moment. If it is returned, don't you think the majority of owners would want to return? Particularly since Varosha was the playground of the rich before 1974. That area is ripe for development I would say. Once development starts, there will be a flood of people wanting to go there. It happens the world over.

In short, my view is that more settlers should be repatriated and in so doing would allow a much more agreeable property settlement to arise.

What do you think? Sensible?
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Postby metecyp » Thu Dec 09, 2004 4:47 pm

MicAtCyp wrote:So the only way out of this is to let the matter the properties arranged between the people themselves via private deals.

I think this is the worst possible solution. Do you know how long will this take to finalize? And how is this going to guarantee bizonality?

We need a comprehensive solution to the problem where the bizonality is guaranteed with minimum harm to property rights and at the same time the maximum number of people know what's going to happen to them ASAP.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby brother » Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:04 pm

I believe metecyp has a good point, and there should be some clear cut definitions that people can relate to.
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Postby Alexandros Lordos » Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:38 pm

mikkie2,

yes, I agree with you. The property issue is inextricable from the settler issue.

In fact, I think one of the stickiest points for GCs (in the Annan Plan) was that in many cases even settlers would have priority control of GC properties ...

Perhaps one improvement that would satisfy GC sensitivities would be if GC original owners always have priority control of a property if contesting a settler, however many years the settler has lived in the house and however much he improved it.

In the case of TC current occupants, who are themselves refugees from 1963 or 1974, the same should not apply - they should have priority control of the property they currently live in, and not made to relocate for the second (and in some cases the third) time.
Alexandros Lordos
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:41 pm

Postby brother » Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:47 pm

I believe Alex hit the nail on the head and do not forget that settlers never paid for the properties they inhabit at the moment.
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

Postby MicAtCyp » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:06 am

Alexandre,

First of all, from every single view that I examined the matter of bizonality, I concluded that this cannot apply unless there are serious violations of basic human rights of the GCs and especially their human right on their properties.

The basic mistake is the assumption that bi-zonality should mean both that a) the TCs will be the vast majority in their constituent state, and also b) own the vast majority of the properties in that area. We discussed in this forum in the past that for both a and b to occur without the GCs eventually losing their properties, the size of the TC constituent state has to be very small because the amount of privately owned lands of the TCs was ALWAYS around 12%!

So if we are to have bi-zonality the property percentage issue has to be totally removed from the equation. Of course everybody can wonder for how long this bi-zonality can last if the TCs do not own the majority of the properties in their area. I say a)it can last for ever if the GCs accept through agreement that they will not have political rights in that area or b) It will evolve into a Unitary state within 30-40 years in which the "Federal rights" of the TCs will be substituted by "equal rights or say 50-50 rights" on the top administrative positions of the State. Both alternatives are acceptable to me, although I cannot hide my preference to the second.


In this arrangement the property committee should only deal with fascilitating people to exchange, sell or rent their properties voluntarily. The wish of the current user on what to do must have priority over the wish of the owner only in case he has enough money to buy or rent or enough property to exchange. In all other cases the owner must have his property back after a reasonable time limit and until then be compensated with a rent by the state or partially by the state and the current user.


Of course the question is what will actually happen if this applies? Will the TCs smell higher prices at the GC Constituent State and be reluctant to sell or exchange? Will the GCs speculate and wait for the prices at the TC CS to rise? Will everybody wait to see how he can benefit the most? Possibly yes As long as everyone gets his property back why should he care if that property is in the TC or the GC state when he can sell it or exchange it anytime he likes? On the oher hand though he has to handle the matter of using someone elses property !!
So it is obvious that there will be no way out other than sooner or later the majority of TC properties be exchanged with GC ones. Supposing the TC constituent state will be 25% of the area then about one third of it will still belong to GCs and perhaps be used by those who will return. If the TC CS will be near 30% (Anan Plan) then we really have a problem as the GC properties will be near 50% and nobody can guarantee the stability of bizonality in the long run. (Of course here the Anan Plan had other "wise tricks" for eliminating the human rights of the GCs and stealing their properties but thats another story)

Like I said in previous posts it is a myth that the majority of GC refugees will chose to return even under the best possible conditions as e.g in Famagusta .

The biggest problem regarding the property issue is the settlers. It is more than evident that the majority of them will in the end remain without any property at all. (Notice the Anan Plan was giving them the opportunity to buy excellent GC lands from the property committee for peanuts, because for long-long years that committee could not practically sell to anyone else other than them.... Imagine how a GC would feel learning one day that his one million worth of property went to a settler for just 50 pounds just because the stupid Anan Plan would not allow him to buy it for 100....)

We all know that most of the settlers are uneducated farmers and depend on the land for their living.What will they do without land? Can we afford building them houses to stay and feeding them on our wellfare? i don't think so.Turkey must undertake her responsibilities. Either she relocates them in Turkey or she pays per head a fixed amount every year so that we take care of those who will be staying here living on wellfare....

*******************************************************************

Metecyp,
If you have a better scenario lets hear it and lets discuss it.Then tell me how your "comprehensive settlement" scenario does not violate human rights , how it preserves bi-zonality, and how it is guaranteed to provide a stable environment.
May I remind you all that now we are in the EU and this sort of "comprehensive" shortcuts are not that easy anymore, as they can be turned down by the EU court.

*******************************************************************

Mikkie,

The family of my wife is ALL from the barbed famagusta area.I perrsonally know all her relatives who with their decendants come to about 160. Not even one told me so far he is going to re-locate in Famagusta after a solution. Of course things may change in the long run. Something like what happened in Ayia Napa. All Ayia Napa today belongs to anyone else except the original owners.....
Anyway thats a personal opinion.
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby -mikkie2- » Fri Dec 10, 2004 12:24 am

MicAtCyp

Not even one told me so far he is going to re-locate in Famagusta after a solution. Of course things may change in the long run. Something like what happened in Ayia Napa.


Ok, that is fair enough.

But, I bet you that within 12 months of Varosha being handed back it will be a boom town again. Anybody that has property there is sitting on a goldmine. Look at what happened in Beirut. It is now the booming city it once was.

These things have a habit of snowballing my friend. The power of commerce and business is great as you very well know.
-mikkie2-
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1295
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:11 am

Postby brother » Fri Dec 10, 2004 5:51 pm

Most parts of cyprus is a gold mine and when settlement happens i can imagine that all areas that have been rotting will all rapidly develope, in short there are many islands in the med none as beautiful as cyprus.(i know that is a biased opinion but i love cyprus) :D
User avatar
brother
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4711
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 5:30 pm
Location: Cyprus/U.K

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests