Cyprus-Forum.com

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Piratis]

The "self determination" right the way that our TC friends are presenting it can not exist in a country where people from all races are mixed, and they do not own a specific part of land.

Can you give me even ONE example where a "minority", "numerically less community" (call it whatever you want) that didn't own any specific part of the country, was given a part of the country where the majority of that part was not of their own group?

If you examine all the cases where "self determination" is associated with a part of land, you will see that that part of land is owned by the people that use their self determination right. Examples include the colonies (one of which was Cyprus), that gained the control of their own land from the colonialists. Another example is when countries like USSR broke up. The new countries that where formed (e.g. Belarus, Latvia etc) where formed because the majorities of those regions where historically Belorussian, Latvian etc.
In the future something similar can happen with lets say Kurds in Turkey, or Scottish in the UK. They own a specific part of land, and therefore they can potentially claim that land as part of their self determination right.

However TCs do not own any specific part of land. This is something that exists in many other countries. E.g. Russians is the Baltic countries are up to 40%, Blacks in the USA are about 12%, white people in South africa etc. Today actually it is very rare that you can find an ethnically pure country.

Those "numerically less" groups have equal rights, and on top of that can have special minority rights to protect them from the majority. But in no case was such group given a part of land that did not belong to them, by making refugees many of the original inhabitants and by removing the political rights of others based on racial discrimination.

This is why the clash exists dear Erolz, because you decided that you have a right to control a specific part of Cyprus, where in fact you have no such right.

------------------------------------

If we agree that you do not have this right then we can move on to our compromises (federation) that we are willing to make to accommodate this demand of yours in order to find a solution. However, as a return you should also be willing to make compromises, that will make our compromise less damaging for us.

To be more specific, we can accept that you will have a part of Cyprus under your control as long as you are ready to welcome a large minority (about 35% of your population) of GCs back to their ancestor lands with full rights, you agree that political equality between the 18% and 82% can not be done and accept that you will have a blocking power only on a number of predefined critical matters, and you accept to have a strong federation, and not the kind of loose association proposed in the A plan.

If you are ready to make compromises as well, then we can move ahead. Otherwise, we are on a deadlock, there is nothing much more we can discuss, and the only thing we can do is pursue a return to legality and forget about "federations" and such.
(and the return to legality is actually at least as beneficial for you as it is for us)

[insan]

Participation of immigrants and foreign residents in political life in the Council of Europe member states

- voting rights (the right to vote and the right to stand for election) are, on the one hand, an essential component of the integration of foreign population groups and, on the other, a sign of progress towards democracy and the recognition of the legitimacy of those groups;

- naturalisation is the possibility given to foreign residents to become nationals of the country of residence if they do not meet the general conditions (ius sanguinis and ius soli) provided for in the nationality code of the country concerned. Access to the nationality of the country concerned also secures the right to exercise the political rights deriving from nationality. The problem is dual citizenship.

11. It is, however, necessary to distinguish between immigrants' political rights and their political participation. In most cases, the former are a condition for the latter but in some cases immigrants do not feel the need for full political rights because they have the support of organisations or pressure groups who can influence the political process on their behalf.

12. Another key factor with regard to immigrants' political participation is the degree of internal organisation of their community, their experience, determination and ability to take action. There are clear differences between the various groups of foreigners in a host country, even where the same arrangements have been made to facilitate their participation.

http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/Worki ... OC8916.HTM


magikthrill, please elaborate more what you are trying to point out in your above post.

[magikthrill]

Hey Magik,

Can you elaborate on this more please. Because I have made suggestions somewhat similar to this to Alex and refused. Although my suggestion was the citizenship of each constituent state, adn proably you are talking about something else.

But nevertheless I would like to learn more about the content and scope of your suggestion.

Take care,

turkcyp,

i am referring to one cypriot citizenship. two citizenships mean two countries so im guessing you're on the road to partition , whereas I don't feel that way.

what i meant though was that you can only aquire citizenship through proof of heritage (ie 1/8 or 1/4 of your blood is of CYpriot decent- regardless Turkish Cypriot or Greek CYpriot).

and before anybody goes to critisize this idea check out every EU country. the only country that allows you to become a citizen by being born there or through marriage is the Netherlands. and just last year the Swiss reject a referendum that would allow 3rd generation people born in switzerland to obtain citiizenship.

d'accord (ok) ?

[insan]

i am referring to one cypriot citizenship. two citizenships mean two countries so im guessing you're on the road to partition , whereas I don't feel that way.

Annan Plan does not envisage two citizenship of United Cyprus. At the federal level there's only one citizenship but at the constituent state level there are two type of citizenship. Internal(citizens of constituent states) and federal(citizens of Cyprus) citizens of United Cyprus.

[magikthrill]

residency of a state (which occurs in the US and Im assuming in other federal countries as well) is different from a state citizenship (or internal citizenship as you call it). only one form of citizenship exists in one country.

im not sure if were talking about the same thing with different terminology (state residency = internal citizenship ?) or you are saying that these are two different things

[erolz]

Can you give me even ONE example where a "minority", "numerically less community" (call it whatever you want) that didn't own any specific part of the country, was given a part of the country where the majority of that part was not of their own group?

India - except his was done through negotiation. If GC had been willing to accept such a soultion then the TRNC would be based on an area or areas that were previously TC majority. It is the fact that you denied this option and our rights and sought to gain ALL of Cyprus for your control that led to Turkey taking what you refused to give.

Those "numerically less" groups have equal rights, and on top of that can have special minority rights to protect them from the majority. But in no case was such group given a part of land that did not belong to them, by making refugees many of the original inhabitants and by removing the political rights of others based on racial discrimination.

India

This is why the clash exists dear Erolz, because you decided that you have a right to control a specific part of Cyprus, where in fact you have no such right.

I have not decide that at all. We have a right to self determination as a people and the fact that we were not all concentrated in one part of Cyprus does not remove that right - as you seem to think it does. It just makes it harder to exercise the right thats all

If we agree that you do not have this right then we can move on to our compromises (federation) that we are willing to make to accommodate this demand of yours in order to find a solution. However, as a return you should also be willing to make compromises, that will make our compromise less damaging for us.

I am sure you would be happy if we would agree with you that we have no right to self determination as a people.

To be more specific, we can accept that you will have a part of Cyprus under your control as long as you are ready to welcome a large minority (about 35% of your population) of GCs back to their ancestor lands with full rights, you agree that political equality between the 18% and 82% can not be done and accept that you will have a blocking power only on a number of predefined critical matters, and you accept to have a strong federation, and not the kind of loose association proposed in the A plan.

Sure as long as we create a senario where anything agreed today can be 'democraticaly' overturned by a GC majority tomorrow - regardless of the TC peoples wishes you are happy.

If you are ready to make compromises as well, then we can move ahead. Otherwise, we are on a deadlock, there is nothing much more we can discuss, and the only thing we can do is pursue a return to legality and forget about "federations" and such.
(and the return to legality is actually at least as beneficial for you as it is for us)

We can only move ahead if we reject any right to self determiantion as a people - that is what you are telling me. Well then deadlock it is for we ARE a people and we have rights as such - regardless of your attempts to deny this. Telling me we have no rights as a people is no different from me telling you you have no rights as an indivdual (and this from the 'champion' of human rights!)

[insan]

I'm talking about state citizenship of GCs/TCs and their full political rights, magikthrill.

My argument is that, TCCS citizenship(state citizenship = internal citizenship) can be granted up to %33 of the TC population of TCCS, to the permenant GC residents of TCCS.

Let's say the TC population of TCCS is 200.000. This means about 60.000 GCs can reside in TCCS state and be granted the internal citizenship status of TCCS with full political rights.

But in such a case the number of TC and GC senators in Senate should be preserved on 50/50 basis.

Let's suppose that 700.000 GCs live in GCCS and 60.000 live in TCCS as internal citizens of two constituent states with full political rights; 21 GC senators will be elected from GCCS by its internal GC citizens besides 3 GC senators will be elected from TCCS by its internal GC citizens. Thus, 17+7=24 GC senators will be elected by internal citizens of GCCS and TCCS. TCs too, will elect their TC senators likewise the GCs will...

Ain't it full political rights for GCs you are asking for? Here it is! What's your opinions about it?

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...