The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Who votes for UNIFIED Cyprus

Benefits and problems from the EU membership.

Who votes for UNIFIED Cyprus

Postby humanist » Sun Nov 12, 2006 12:23 am

All Cypriots have access to good health & education
All Cypriots live together in Harmony & Peace
All Turkish Troops out of Cyprus
The British hand over the Bases to the Republic of Cyprus
All Refugees return to their homes, properties and villages unless they don't want to
Turkish Speaking Cypriots receive financial assistance from Cyprus government to repair damaged homes in the deserted villages in the south
All Cypriots compansated for land used for public works such as airports, schools, hospitals, roads
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby cypezokyli » Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:06 pm

one of the reasons the AP failed was the fact that it had too many "constructive unclearnesses".
by not touching the hot potatoes of the cyppro, you are not offering much :wink:
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby humanist » Sun Nov 12, 2006 11:28 pm

I'm not a politician ...... I m a social worker ....... what would I know .... social justice is my forte'... But I would have thought that if All Cypriots agreed on these primary issues then the rest can be worked out by Papadopoulos and Talat. Surely they can do that.

Think about it if both sides want to live in a military free country - All foreign Troops out - Turkish Troops move out UN moves in for a period.
All Cypriot Refugees return to their properties - if all agree with the principle start working on a three year plan to achieve that.
All Cypriots compensated for land used for public works easy - just do it
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby cypezokyli » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:12 am

if only it were that simple...

yet you are right.
social justice will be of prime importance especially after a solution
cypezokyli
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2563
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:11 pm
Location: deutschland

Postby Piratis » Mon Nov 13, 2006 12:41 am

humanist, I am afraid you are missing the whole problem of the Cyprus problem. The problem is that the Turks think that they "won the war" and that now we should capitulate and allow them to gain on our loss. We refuse to do this, but at the same time we do not have the power to liberate our country from the occupation.

What you say is all nice, but these kind of problems are not solved in such ways because people are greedy and stupid. Sorry if I sound pessimistic, but this fight is a knock out one. When one of the two will be knocked out for good, then the Cyprus problem will be considered solved (since there will be nobody to complain).

People could have accepted the universal principles of human rights and democracy and have something great in Cyprus for all Cypriots. Unfortunately thats not going to happen. In this game either we will all lose, or one only will win. The scenario were all Cypriots win is easy to imagine, but when you take into account the power politics and all that crap, such scenario becomes impossible.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby humanist » Mon Nov 13, 2006 2:21 am

Piratis .... thank you for your contrinution.. I am trying to understand it .... However I see a great deal of pessimism on this Forum and perhaps if the people change thir views, ideas, beliefs and practice then may be only then will Turkey, US & UK will act accordingly.

I seriously DO NOT believe that our fellow Cypriots of Turkish Speaking Background currently living in the North believe what you are suggesting. I truly believe that they want to see a United Cyprus.

Unfortunately their leaders who stand to benefit most by the separation of the Island are driven by Turkey.

That is undeniable that Turkey is driving this for it's own gains, under the pretence of assisting the plight of Cypriots of Turkish speaking background. However our Cypriot brothers and sisters in the North probably want peace as much as we do.

Yes we have lost people in the war and property and identity and lifestyle both sides have but unless we put some stuff behind and let other stuff be gone especially hate, mistrust, blame etc we will not progress.

I don't know what the North is like I have not been but have been told by friends that it feels like Cyprus stood in time 32 years back. Now those people are suffering immensely economically socially and internationally. Do you not think that they would like to "catch up" if I may use those words. At the same time they have a choice to stay there or move south but have we as Cypriots taken the right steps to encourage that, to welcome them to the south to embrace them and accept them. Have we introduced Turkish in our schools, have we taught the positive aspects that Cypriots of Turkish speaking background may have contriibuted to Cyprus's culture. I think not.

We have national days and we have more blue and white flags than we have Cypriot flags.

I am sorry but I do not think we have done enough
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Postby billcarmicheal » Tue Nov 14, 2006 1:44 am

Piratis says
"People could have accepted the principals of human rights and democracy and have somethng great in Cyprus for all Cypriots "
Isn't that what you had from 1960 and then GC's decided to deprive the TC's of their human rights and democracy
billcarmicheal
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:41 pm
Location: scotland

Postby Piratis » Tue Nov 14, 2006 2:12 am

Isn't that what you had from 1960 and then GC's decided to deprive the TC's of their human rights and democracy

No. What we had in 1960 was forced on us by the colonialists (we were never given the option to democratically choose what we want) and had several undemocratic and racist parameters in it. For example according to that constitution 30% of the governmental jobs should be given to the 18% of the TC minority.

These undemocratic unfair parameters is what GCs proposed to change.

Nobody ever deprived TCs from their human or democratic rights, so please learn a thing or two before making such assumptions. TCs always had those 1960 rights (even the unfair ones) and this continues until today.

It is very interesting on how some people are ready to convict GCs because of the past, but when it comes to the Turks neither their past, nor their present matters, even if both their past and their present is 100 times worst than even the worst things the worst Turkish propaganda can say against us.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Viewpoint » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:38 am

Piratis wrote:
Isn't that what you had from 1960 and then GC's decided to deprive the TC's of their human rights and democracy

No. What we had in 1960 was forced on us by the colonialists (we were never given the option to democratically choose what we want) and had several undemocratic and racist parameters in it. For example according to that constitution 30% of the governmental jobs should be given to the 18% of the TC minority.

These undemocratic unfair parameters is what GCs proposed to change.

Nobody ever deprived TCs from their human or democratic rights, so please learn a thing or two before making such assumptions. TCs always had those 1960 rights (even the unfair ones) and this continues until today.

It is very interesting on how some people are ready to convict GCs because of the past, but when it comes to the Turks neither their past, nor their present matters, even if both their past and their present is 100 times worst than even the worst things the worst Turkish propaganda can say against us.


You need to go read the Akritas plan to determine what rights the GCs wanted to take away from the TCs and believe me it was not just govermental jobs.
User avatar
Viewpoint
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 25211
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:48 pm
Location: Nicosia/Lefkosa

Postby zan » Tue Nov 14, 2006 9:42 am

Majority rule means war.
Constitution of Cyprus requires good will/London conference discusses reforms.
By Christian Heinze.
First published in „Deutsche Zeitung“ Nr. 15, January 18th/19th, 1964







(DZ) Under the chairmanship of the British Foreign Minister Butler, the Cyprus conference ist taking place in London since Wednesday with representatives of the Greek and Turkish communities of Cyprus and with the foreign ministers of Greece an Turkey. In this connection we are publishing the following article by Dr. jur. Christian Heinze, who, in 1962/63, has acted as assistant to the president of the Constitutional Court of Cyprus, the Heidelberg jurist, Ernst Forsthoff.

When Cyprus became independent from Great Britain, the cooporation between the Greek and the Turkish communities on the island was to be secured by the constitution of August 16th, 1960, and by a system of guarantees under international law. Cyprus, which was exposed for 5.000 years and to an extraordinary degree to the impact of all important cultures from the West and from the East, is presently becoming a testing ground for the capability of constitutional and international law to provide peace, cooporation, freedom, and justice.


Greek Arguments.

The Greek Cypriots, who contribute four fifth to the population, compete with the Turkish Cypriots for their respective rights on the island. The Greek Cypriots claim sovereignty by referring to their majority in number and to the age-old influence of Greek culture in Cyprus; the Turkish Cypriots point to the fact that Cyprus has been part of the Turkish empire between 1573 and 1914.

These claims are, of course, without legal significance for the present constitutional situation. Instead, the validity of the constitution of 1960 derives from its having been accepted by representatives of the Cypriots, and from the constitutional power of Great Britain as the mother-commonwealth to which the island had belonged as a crown-colony and which has conceded statehood to Cyprus under the terms of this constitution. Its legitimacy is supported by Greece and Turkey guaranteeing the constitution under international law. Some Greek Cypriot circles contend that the constitution is not valid because it has not been voted upon by the people and because it did not transfer sovereignty to the Greek majority, and also because the constitution was so badly drafted that is was „unworkable“ and that, in addition, it gave unjust preference to the Turkish Cypriots. The validity of the constitution, however, does not depend on a formal vote by the people. There ist no doubt that Archbishop Makarios as the representative of the Greek Cypriots and Dr. Kücük as the representative of the Turkish community were empowered to sign the constitution. Their authorization derived from general elections that had taken place in December, 1959.


Legal guarantees.

The claim made by the Greek Cypriots for being entitled by their democratic majority to rule the island misinterprets the meaning of the constitution and of democracy and trivialises the existing contrasts between Greek and Turkish Cypriots. The importance of these contrasts derives from the bloodshed that had taken place around Christmas 1963. It was exactly the objective of the constitution to pacify these contrasts and to provide freedom and justice for all Cypriots, and not rule of one community over the other. Pure majority government basically requires fundamental homogeneity of the body poilitic to be governed. But the specific feature of the political structure of Cyprus consists in the fact that the homogeneity in question does not exist here. The contrast between the communities can therefore not be overcome otherwise than by legal guarantees. The critisism of the constitution, although such criticism is widely supported in Cyprus, is certainly unwarranteed in its exaggeration. Thanks to the involvement of excellent Greek and Turkish constituional lawyers and considering other countries’ constitutional examples, the Cyprus constitution of 1960 is a fairly and clearly formulated law and not at all unworkably complicated. The rumor about the impossibility of its’ implementation is legally untenable and even less convincing because the originators of this rumor never left any doubt about the fact that they had no intention at all of implementing the constitution. The first president of the constitutional court, the Heidelberg professor for public law, Ernst Forsthoff, has always denied the allegation that an implementation of the constitution was impossible, and he has always stressed that it is a matter of good will to make it work.

The allegation of unworkability is mainly directed against two legal requirements contained in the Constitution. According to its article 78.2, certain laws (for example tax laws) can only be passed with a majority vote of all Greek and a majority vote of all Turkish representatives in parliament. If both communities desire a balanced legislation, this procedure obliges them to find a compromise. If they do not succeed in this, it must be considered to be the failure of the representatives and not of the constitution. According to article 173, a „seperate municipal administration“ must be established for both communities in five cities of the island. Some hold it impossible to divide physically cities that have developped in a natural process. Others say that only devided cities meet the requirements of the constitution. Such intransigence reveals either a lack of legal resourcefulness or a lack of cooperation and willingness to compromise, because the wording of the constitution is not compelling in the sense of requiring a territorial division of all administrative responsibilities into two completely seperated municipalities within the five cities. The conditions of the constitution would be sufficiently met by a double-tracked procedure for passing municipal statutes, similar to that prescribed for tax laws, or by a twofold organisation and a separation of certain administrative responsibilities on a personal basis. There is also no doubt that the establishment of some fully unified branches of the administration of the cities would be consistant with the constitutions.

Important reasons can surely be brought forth rendering questionable the justice and suitability of some legal requirements of the Cypriot constitution. But the main objection raised against the requirement of separate majorities for certain laws is definitely not justified. It is hard to conceive how the Turkish Cypriots can be legally protected against being outvoted without veto-rights against the passing of laws. Remaining doubts concerning the merits of some constitutional norms, for example concerning the allocation to the Turkish Cypriots of a higher share in public posts than would correspond to their population percentage, cannot be deemed to diminish the obligations stipulated in the constitution, because both communities have agreed to them. Therefore, no legal arguments can be recognized that could justify the disrespect for the constitution which has become the declared policy of the Greek part of the Cypriot government. This policy became evident when, in April 1963, the constitutional court of the Republic of Cyprus, chaired by professor Forsthoff, upheld several applications raised by the Turkish Cypriots against steps that had been taken in order to establish centralized and therefore unconstitutional municipal administrations. To consider the constitution as being unworkable because the required cooperation was not achieved would seem equivalent to claiming that criminal law was not valid because it was being violated anyway.

But how can the future of Cyprus be coped with? The constitution could of course be changed with the consent of all concerned. The share of the Turkish Cypriots in public posts could be reduced to an extent corresponding to their population share. Also, veto rights of the two communities could be made subject to restrictive preconditions. A change of the constitution could also be considered insofar as it concerns the municipal administration which is a main subject matter of contest between the Greek an the Turkish Cypriots. The constitution containing no more than a programme for the forming of separate municipalities. In this way the legislators of the constitution have not solved but have only delayed the solution of a delicate task and burdened it upon parliament. Parliament, however, was unable to reach agreement. If the constitution is to be improved in this point it would seem reasonable to establish by definite articles of the constitution itself the separate municipal administrations in question. It would also appear reasonable to incorporate into the constitution provisions that help to prevent a repetition of the violence of Christmas 1963. A safe basis for a peaceful future can however hardly be established by removing fundamental Turkish rights. For how could mistrust between Greek and Turkish Cypriots be expected to disappear if history taught that it was possible to compel a change of the constitution by declaring it unworkable and, referring to this alleged unworkability, by disregarding it, thus allowing the development of a civil war over the resulting dispute ?


Penal regulations are necessary.

The London negotiations about the future of Cyprus could consider removing the most obvious reasons for the conflict without touching the basic structure of the constitution. This would appear possible if the two communities could agree in London on tax legislation, on legislation concerning the municipal administration and on the distribution of public posts. Such an agreement would justify hope for improvement. But it should also be taken into consideration that a constitution must be protected against anti-constitutional activities by penal legislation. This applies especially to the constitution of Cyprus which is exposed to such activities to an extraordinary high degree. Such legislation is lacking and should therefore be introduced in Cyprus.

The Cypriots should also examine which of their members of parliament and government and of their administration may have to be blamed for having failed in making common self-government work in the past, be it because of a lack of good will or of the ability for cooperation and constructive engagement. It should, for example, not be overlooked that former active members of partisan organizations may be destined rather to destroy a government and administration than to produce the capability of establishing such a sensitive state structure as is required for Cyprus.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Next

Return to Cyprus and the European Union

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests