Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

That is not a strong argument Erol.

It is not a strong argument that settlers are not poltical powerful in Cyprus today becasue there are not any significant nbumbers of settlers represented in parilament or government today?

If you say do.

Erol, I hate splitting hairs on this issue any more!

[erolz]

Kifeas

The problem with your analogy was that that you seemed to be saying that TC wanted politcal equality AND wanted half of all the state revenues (component and federal) raised - ie equality in decsion making in the company and equality in profits from it in your analogy terms. This is not what we are asking for.

An 20% partner in a firm demanding 1/2 the profits of that comapny in not reasonable. A 20% partner in a company wanting an equal say in how the company is run is reasonable especially if the company was set up with this equalirty od decision making in its article of association (consitituion).

That is what I was saying.

In democratic terms, as we have discussed over and over again, the idea of poltical represntation disproportionate to numerical numbers,in order to provide protection against dominance of smaller groups by larger, is a common concept accepted in many many insitituions and countires (in all federal countries to some degree). If we accept a federal solution in cyprus this means we accept some degree of this equality - that is self evident is it not?

[Alexandros Lordos]

I couldnt really understand how did you come to the above paramters with this poll. All of this is classic GC parameters.

Are they really classic GC positions? I thought the GCs wanted all properties to return to original owners, all settlers to leave, no intervention rights by Turkey, simple majority rule.

The way these options were selected was by finding which questions amassed majority support both by Greek Cypriots and by Turkish Cypriots. Since the TCs were on the whole more easy-going in their responses, and the GCs more demanding, it stands to reason that the final positions will reflect something closer to the GC concerns. But let's look into the details of it:

1)full Property restitution except for land used by refugees and invested properties + right to new home.

What would change from the Annan Plan is that the 1/3rd restriction will go, and that refugees will be entitled to a new home in the same town or village. For the average TC it will be exactly like the Annan Plan, because if he has equivalent property in the south he will be entitled to exchange it and if he has made a major investment (e.g. built a house) he will be entitled to keep it by paying the original value of the land. The only thing that will change is that there won't be massive quantities of land that will be sold for peanuts by the property board, simply because they were taken away from their owners due to the 1/3rd rule. For GCs this deal is much better than the Annan Plan because they are guaranteed a house and therefore a right of return, and also it is far more likely that they will be getting back their agricultural land, since there won't be the risk that after dividing it by three it will be too small to be returned.

2) explicit legal continuity of the RoC but with the acknowledgement that the RoC is a bicommunal republic and also that the TCs formed a temporary administration out of necessity.

Ok, for this one you asked a question. I sincerely doubt about this question. Did the subjects get it right? Did they get it like given that RoC is continuing after the agreement,...TC formed a temporary constitution?

The proposal was very clear here: It is affirmed that the RoC is a bicommunal republic, that after 1964 the GCs formed a temporary caretaker government out of the necessity to maintain its continuity while the TCs formed a temporary administration out of the necessity to manage their everyday affairs on an interim basis, and now the RoC is returning under normal bicommunal control and evolving into a BBF.

This proposal satisfies both sides in that it gives the legal continuity of the RoC which the GCs want, and the retrograde recognition of the 1964-2005 TC administration which the TCs want. On a practical level, it has the major benefit that it gives both communities a common language to describe what has happened between 1964 - 2005, as opposed to the "virgin birth" approach which simply transfers the disagreements to some unknown point in the future.

In terms of the poll, this proposal was much more acceptable to the GCs than the Annan Plan, and had about the same acceptability as the Annan Plan amongst the TCs.

The right to become a person to be citizen of other constitution ...
I see that 38,5 TC said "totally agree". It seems unlikely but maybe ...
To be honest I am sure that there would be more "totally disagree" for this question. aroud %30. Because as you said TC are more flexible in property issues but not much federal rights or...

I am not sure I understand you. Please clarify.

Another issue is that TC would say yes to some of individual changes you listed for the sake of solution but having it as a whole package is a completely another thing.

What you are saying here is important, for both sides. I found from the poll that those GCs who found the Annan Plan mostly acceptable but strongly disapproved of one aspect tended to vote "Yes", whereas those who generally found the plan tolerable but unattractive, had a greater tendency to vote "No" even though they did not have particularly strong feelings against any particular provision.

I think we should not forget that it is the GCs that are hard to convince to vote "Yes", essentially because they are not as happy as the TCs with the overall framework of a BBF. To me it stands to reason that, since we let the TCs get the overall framework they wanted - and not the GC wish for a bicommunal unitary state - it is only fair to now allow the GCs a strong say in the actual details of how this BBF will be.

From the poll it seems that the "Yes" margin is very comfortable on the TC side - most of the proposals I suggested got at least a 25 point lead in favour of "Yes" - whereas the GCs, even with the compromises mentioned above, only barely manage a 10 or 15 point lead in favour of "Yes". To get a double "Yes" in other words, we really do need to focus on what the GCs would like to see different - since the TCs are happy to be getting a BBF with political equality and an international voice, and don't worry so much about the details.

[Alexandros Lordos]

For some reason I got the impression that you are a bit reluctant to exert criticism towards some aspects of American politics regarding the Cyprus problem. However it might just be coincidental or a pure misconception, therefore you may just ignore it.

I don't consider myself to be either pro-american or anti-american. Generally though, I would agree with brother and say that 75% of the blame for what is happening in Cyprus rests with Cypriots, and the other 25% is shared by all the rest - essentially the Americans, the British, the Greeks and the Turks.

If we in Cyprus had behaved like true statesmen, we would have solved our inter-communal problems long ago and no foreigner would have found ground to use our own disputes against us.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Hi Alexandro,

Congratulations on this survey to you and to your TC partner (is it Faiz?).

Yep, it's Faiz, and a few other GCs and TCs as well.

Regarding the settlers issue, I also think that the only acceptable and humane solution of the problem would be giving residency permits to those who will not be gaining citizenship. They will not be granted voting rights maybe with the exception of municipal elections. If a good number of them receive residency permits compared to the number that will become citizens, a delicate balance can be achieved that will both address GC concerns of political power balance and be acceptable by TCs.

Settlers would be inclined to accept this because, like the TCs, they are fed up with the uncertainty, they want to know weather they will go or stay. TCs would overwhelmingly accept such a solution. Extra labor will be needed in a unified Cyprus, even after the inclusion of the TCs to the work force, for many years after unification, considering the construction boom and other economic activity the unification will bring.

Your estimate is correct. This proposal, in my poll, had something like a 40 point lead in favor of "Yes" amongst the TCs. Amongst the GCs, it had a 5 point lead, which is actually noteworthy given how GCs feel about settlers. I think if the property situation vis-a-vis the settlers is also clarified, GC support for this approach will be even higher.

But I would like to clarify that the number of the settlers in Cyprus that has legal status in the north (by norths standards) is not as much as most people think. It's around 40 thousand.

I know it is much less than what GCs think, since in all my polls so far the percent of settlers does not exceed 25% of the sample. A census, perhaps organised by the EU, would do wonders in dispelling myths of the type "there is a settler majority in the north".

Overall, the settler problem is not an obstacle in the way of a settlement, because there are many options and some of them are acceptable by both sides. I think at the next round of negotiations, Cyprus problem will easily be reduced to a property problem. We will need a lot more creativity on this one.

Hmm ... I would say the problem can be reduced to security, settlers and property, but I don't think you can reduce it any further. Each of these issues needs a lot of creativity if we are going to achieve a GC "Yes" without losing the "Yes" of the TCs.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alexandros,

Outstanding job,excellent work and congratulations to you and your collegues for carring out such extensive research.Very suprising intital results of your survey i might add espescially the answers on certain issues by the t/c community.the sample of t/c you questionded seem very willing to comprimise on issues such as security and power sharing that i never thought they would.and the folloeing by both communites was very welcoming:

. Various other improvements to strengthen the social and political cohesion of the newly re-united state were also seen in a positive light by both communities – for instance, arrangements to encourage the development of bicommunal schools, bicommunal business ventures and bicommunal political parties, a unified teaching of the recent history of Cyprus in all the schools of the island, the direct administration of archeologically and environmentally sensitive areas by the Federal Government, provisions for the closer co-ordination of the two constituent states on matters related to trade, industry and tourism, and others.

Yes, I was also pleasantly surprised by the flexibility which the TCs showed in this survey. The feedback I am getting from interviewers is that TCs were very enthusiastic to hear about the various possible alternatives for a solution, it was for most of them the first time they were presented with something different to the "official position", and they liked it. They asked lots of questions and examined every option in detail before responding.

Many GCs, on the other hand, completed the questionnaire "kicking and screaming", complaining that "we already said "No" to the Annan Plan, why are you bringing up all these issues again". There was very much a feeling amongst the GCs that "whatever solution we get will not really be what we want (i.e. a unitary state), it will just be a bitter compromise", and this negativity is reflected in the results.

My overall conclusion is that, even with an extensively amended plan to take into account the concerns of the GCs, the TC "Yes" vote would not change very much from the 65% of last April, whereas the GC "Yes" vote would range between 55% - 60% at best.

[cannedmoose]

Hi Alex, good to read the results of your latest survey as you're going along, as always interesting stuff.

I've just got a question on how you define who is and is not a 'settler' in your analysis. As you know, you sent me the original data set from your last surveys and I've been looking at the TC data in conjunction with data from the last TC Presidential Election.

Thus, in regards to the TC dataset, would you classify someone as a settler simply if they responded 2,3,4 or 5 to variable D4 "How long has your family been resident in Cyprus?", or is there another field(s) that you cross-tabulate this with to get a broader picture?

I'm just asking because according to my analysis of the TC dataset using just this variable, the percentage of respondents saying 2,3,4 or 5 is almost 28%.

If you can let me know the methodology you used on this, it would be useful.

Many thanks, look forward to seeing the results in full when you publish them, it's been a fascinating and ground-breaking study all round.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Having said that, it seems that there is acceptance of the idea that compensation should be given for properties where refugees live or properties that have been highly invested, so long as the original owner is given a new home in the same town or village.

I am totally against this notion of "you will get compensation" -"you will be given a new home". Who is going to pay this compensation, who is going to give him a new home? These are similar provisions as per Anan plan and the GCs were not that "foolish" to swallow them. Compensation MUST be paid directly by the one who is getting the property. A new house has to be paid totally out of the pocket of the one who will get the compensation. The only job and obligation of the State is to provide that individual the right and fascilities to buy and build by himself.

Actually, I believe that the idea of having a Property Board which will act as an intermediary in regards to property issues is one of the sound aspects of the Annan Plan - so long as you don't just give property to the board gratuitously and for free, as you would through the 1/3rd clause.

In the above property proposal that you quoted, no current occupant will be "getting something for nothing", since the only ways to keep a property will be by handing over another property (in the other constituent state) of equivalent value, or paying in cash for the original value of the land on which one has built a home. Also, no one will be getting "a new house for nothing", since the cost of the house will be deducted from the compensation this person is entitled to receive for his own original home.

Who will pay for this compensation/construction costs? The Property Board. Where will the Property Board find the money? From current occupants of property, who will either pay in cash or in land to keep them properties they are using. What if the land sold by the property board goes for too low a price, causing a shortage of funds for compensation/construction? At that point, I propose International Donors, or Greece and Turkey, should come in as guarantors of the property board - as opposed to the United Cyprus Republic guaranteeing the Property Board.

Have I made myself clear? The important thing is that such massive-scale transactions cannot be made without the help of an intermediary such as the Property Board. You can't just rely on individuals to compensate each other etc, it will be chaos. Also, it is better if new residences are constructed by the Property Board rather than by the individual beneficiary, because the state will be able to agree on low-cost construction contracts with various construction companies. If you leave it to the individuals, not only will the construction costs skyrocket, but so will inflation.

I tend however to beleive your finding that 70% would want to either return or use it as as a holiday home is accurate enough. However out of that 70% how many are those who would just use it as holiday home? In my opinion the vast majority.

In the survey, out of this 70% about half said they would use it as a permanent residence and the other half said they would use it as a holiday home. But I agree with you that the responses are emotional. Though it is quite likely that those whose home will be returned under GC administration shall actually go and live there, the rest will most probably stay put and use their property as a holiday home - or perhaps rent it if they really need the cash. I dont see them selling it though, I think those properties will be seen as a "sacred inheritance" of sorts.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Thus, in regards to the TC dataset, would you classify someone as a settler simply if they responded 2,3,4 or 5 to variable D4 "How long has your family been resident in Cyprus?", or is there another field(s) that you cross-tabulate this with to get a broader picture?

No, I classified someone as settler depending on what they answered to the question "where were your parents born?" If the answer was "in Turkey" I assumed that they are settlers (maybe not totally accurately, but more or less so)

The problem with using the other question as a basis, is that many of those who came to Cyprus in the late 70s were actually TCs returning from emigration.

[Alexandros Lordos]

Alex quick question i was reading a few days ago in the politis news that the powers that be(UN,US,GB)concerning the settler issue were divising a plan that would allow the original list of 45,000 settlers to stay and grant a type of resident(work) permit to another 30,000 with no right to vote,have you heard anything similar.

Hmm ... I am afraid I might carry some of the blame for that. Much of what was in that Politis article was based on my previous survey, which various diplomats have been reading over the last few months, and one of the findings of the survey was that TCs would strongly oppose a reduction in the list of 45,000.

What was wrong with that finding, was that the question didn't clarify what these settlers would be getting in return for leaving Cyprus, and therefore it was natural that the response would be very negative. That's the problem with having "unpackaged questions" and that is why in this survey I offered "compehensive packages" rather than "isolated suggestions".

Not to worry though, all that stuff you read in Politis are just the idle first thoughts of some diplomats, probably the Americans. Much will change once we get onto the negotiating table.