Cyprus-Forum.com

insan wrote:A few months ago I've suggested a reconciliation meeting for particularly the ex-members of Volkan, Eoka, TMT and EOKA-B; of course political wings of these paramilitary groups should join this organization.

What do you think? Is it just a dream or we are able to force them to come together for a sincere handshake?

Well, I think such a reconciliation meeting could possibly just about be arranged, but only after a solution ... they would never agree to meet under the current circumstances. Ofcourse, not all of them would attend, but even the fact that some of them will come will be an important development, since it will mean that their groups will be "infected" with "pro-reconciliation" ideas.

I also agree with you on the important mission that the media will be called to accomplish. There should also, somehow, be Federal laws to limit the media publicity that terrorist groups can get - but I don't know how this could be implemented.

One thing I disagree with you is about the futility of direct police work. I think that effective crime detection, data collection and so on will be very important, and we need a strong counter-terrorist federal authority, totally bicommunal in its personnel make-up, and with the authority to act rapidly anywhere in Cyprus. Political groups that develop a terrorist wing should have all their assets frozen, and banned from coming down in elections.

One problem with the 1960s, is that no one was really trying to stop TMT and EOKA B, they had the backing of political leaders and they could hide within their communities.

The Annan plan was more a confederal solution than a federal solution.

-mikkie2- wrote:The Annan plan was more a confederal solution than a federal solution.

'

Wrong..

The basic tenent of confederal solution is that the constitutent states have all the sovereignity over their borders and therefore are free to secede from the union when they wish or whne they satisfy certain criteria...

For example, until the civil war USA was considered to be a confederation in many of its constitutenst minds. But when southern states decided to leave the union the northern states did not accept it, hence civil war, and hence the winner writes the history, and hence USA became a federation...

For example Eu can be considered as a confederation right now. People are trying to make it a federation but I doubt that will ever happen....

In Annan Plan the sovereignity was solely on the central goverment and no state has the right to secede.

Take care,

I said it was MORE a confederal solution, because the laws of the constituent states are above the federal laws. In no other country in the world exists a federation that cannot exercise control over the constituent states.

Also I think the issue of residence rights (the right for GCs to become residents in the TC constituent state and vice versa) is relevant to the matter of security.

If GCs rush to the north too rapidly, then the majority of TCs won't mind but the 25% who are extremist might begin to stir trouble, especially if property issues are still being sorted out (an inevitably tense process).

On the other hand, stretching the application of residence rights to 15 years is too much, most GCs despise the Annan Plan because of this clause.

A middle road would be to freeze residence rights for the first five years after the solution (the estimated time it will take for all property claims to be resolved, and also the estimated time it will take to get used to the concept of co-existence and perhaps begin to learn "the other language". Also, the time it will take for people to make new plans and reorganise their lives if they intend to relocate somewhere else on the island. Most importantly, the time it will take for the reconciliation commission to assess the extent of the problem and begin effective reconciliation programs). And after these five years, to allow full residence rights, up to the maximum percent limit which will be put in place to protect bizonality.

-mikkie2- wrote:I said it was MORE a confederal solution, because the laws of the constituent states are above the federal laws. In no other country in the world exists a federation that cannot exercise control over the constituent states.

Again WRONG....

In a federal country the duties of states and central government very defined in the constitution. And they have separate jurisdictions. In no time central government can step in with its free will and exercise its control over states rights and duties. If central government wants to do exercise its control over states on matters that are outside its jurisdiction than it has to change the constitution of the country first...

For example, USA. Federal government have jurisdiction over foreign defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, immigration, etc. etc.

Majority of the day to day policy decisions are made at the state level. These range from citizens rights like (gay marriage, to euthoniesia) to corporate law (every firm in USA is registered at the state level), to court system, to education policy, to environmental policy, to health systems and laws.....

If the federal government wants do exerts its power to influence state policy decisions then it can only does it usually by carrot-stick approach...

For example Federal Environmental Agency sets the standards for air pollution. Those states that does not comply stop getting federal funding on many infrastructure projects, but in no time Federal government can step in and say this is law. Every state makes its own laws. Even for the federal election process. Each state decides how to choose its own senators, or congressman, it decides its own election districts etc. etc.

OK. I admit. In USA states have many rights, and there can be found other federal countries where states do not have that many rights.

But the point I was trying to make is that, in every federal state the jurisdictional lines between states and central government is defined in constitution, and in no time central government can overstep its limits without changing constitution. There is no hierarchy of the laws. The only hierarchy is that every state law and every federal law has to be compliant with the federal constitution. That is about it. But apart from that there are no hierarchy between federal laws and state laws because they usually cover separate subjects as defined in constitution..

Annan Plan was like that as well. It give central government jurisdiction over some things and kept the state’s jurisdiction on others. And whether something is federal jurisdiction or state jurisdiction they all have to comply with the constitution.

What you are trying to stay is not that Annan Plan was confederation, but “Annan Plan is a federation with extensive state rights” (but even than these rights are less rights than states’ rights in USA). The major difference between Annan Plan and USA system was the fact that there was a temporary settlement restriction on state residents in the other state.

Take care,

turkcyp wrote:The major difference between Annan Plan and USA system was the fact that there was a temporary settlement restriction on state residents in the other state.
Take care,

Actually it was a permanent restriction ... and don't forget qualified majorities in Federal Decision Making, that's also a difference from the US system ...

Actually it was a permanent restriction ... and don't forget qualified majorities in Federal Decision Making, that's also a difference from the US system ...

Exactly, which leans it more towards confederal than federal.

Another aspect is that I think (correct me if I am wrong) the US supreme court could overule state law. In the Annan plan this is severly restricted as well as being chaired by foreign judges!

-mikkie2- wrote:

Actually it was a permanent restriction ... and don't forget qualified majorities in Federal Decision Making, that's also a difference from the US system ...

Exactly, which leans it more towards confederal than federal.

No, not confederal, just strange ...

The Annan Plan is a totally unique legal system, with no parallel in the world, that is why the lawyers are having a fit over it!

However, in my opinion, these restrictions are necessary, at least temporarily, in order to cater to the needs and fears of the two communities (esp. the TC community).

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Actually it was a permanent restriction ... and don't forget qualified majorities in Federal Decision Making, that's also a difference from the US system ...

I do not remember exactly but "was not the case that teh restrictions were being abolished after 18 years"...

And furthermore qualified majority voting also exists in USA as well in different terms. It is not written in the constitution, but for example in order to break the deadlock in the senate you need 60 senators not just 50.

This is mainly due to senates internal working mechanism. But nevertheless it does exist.

But overall I agree with you. Having the qualified majority written in the constitution is a difference from the current USA system, and having it writen in constitution makes it harder to overturn it.

On the other hand, you should not forget that the states envisiogened in Annan Plan has less rights than the states in USA. So on avergae you can not claim that Annan Plan was not a federal solution. That is what I am saying.

It may give states more rights than GCS want, but defiently less rights than TCS want.

Take care