Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Antifon were the 63 amendments not part of the akridas plan, have you even read the akridas plan?

63 amendments? You mean 13, right?


The constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus which resulted from the 1960 Zurich and London Agreements suffered from fundamental defects which impeded the smooth functioning of the State.

The fact that the Constitution did not emanate from the free will of the Cyprus people but was imposed upon them by virtue of the agreements was at the origin of feelings of discontent among Cypriots. Moreover many of the constitutional provisions conflicted with international law e.g. the fact that the Constitution could not be amended, rendering the Republic of Cyprus subject to the will of the guarantor powers and depriving it of the fundamental requirements of the state such as internal independence and territorial supremacy.

Other provisions promoting communal segregation prevented the smooth functioning and development of the country and created permanent sources of friction between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

The ratio of participation in the public service attaining 30 per cent for the Turkish Cypriot community (which represented 18 per cent of the population) constituted one of the causes of discontent for Greek Cypriots as it offended the international accepted principle of the right of everyone of equal access to the public service of his country.

The constitutional provision relating to separate majorities for the enactment of certain laws in the House of Representatives was another source of serious problems affecting the smooth functioning of the state which was left without any taxation legislation for several months.

Another element that created problems was the right of final veto accorded to the President and the Vice-President of the Republic against any law or decision both in the House of Representatives and the Council of Ministers.

Faced with this complex situation, the President of the Republic Archbishop Makarios III, by his letter of 30 November 1963 to the Vice President, suggested a series of measures to facilitate the smooth functioning of the State and remove certain causes of intercommunal friction.


http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html

In his proposed amendments, President Makarios attempted to abolish the dividing elements of the Constitutions that kept Greek and Turkish Cypriots apart, fostering conflict and intolerance and replace them with provisions that would promote the wellbeing of the people of Cyprus as a whole.

The thirteen points set forth by President Makarios in his letter provided, inter alia, for the abolishment of the President's and Vice President's right of veto (Point 1), and for the election of both the Greek President of the House of Representatives and its Turkish Vice-President by the House as a whole and not by separate majorities (Point 3).

They also provided for the establishment of unified municipalities and for the unification of the administration of justice (Point 6). Other points were the following, The numerical strength of the Security Forces and of the Defence Forces should be determined by a Law (Point 9), and, The proportion of Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the composition of the Public Service should be modified in proportion to the ratio of the population of Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Point 10).

The Turkish (!!!!) Government immediately rejected the proposals before the Turkish Cypriot community had commented on them.

A few weeks later, on 21st December 1963 intercommunal fighting broke out.


Makarios did not hide. Everything was out in the open.

Do you have any proof that the President was directly involved in the formation of the Akritas plan and its sinister parts?

No one needed any plan to know that the 1960 constitution was hugely unjust and despite the good will exhibited by gCypriots Turkey (by proxy) rendered unworkable its implementation, since its "vision" was TAKSIM all along. Makarios was faced with an almost impossible situation trying to bridge the positions of the nationalists from both sides. In the end he acted alone as amply described above.

Unfortunately the tCypriot nationalists were nothing more than useful pawns for Turkey's partitionist designs.

Antifon;

Whether the 13 Points were agreed or not, the extremeists were always intent on stting both sides at each others throat. President Makarios would have simply found another few more 'improvements' to reach their objective. Now dont be so naive. You are not debating with school children.

[DTA]

Antifon I meant the 1963'ammentments posting from a mobile so typos etc you will have to excuse.

[antifon]

Antifon I meant the 1963'ammentments posting from a mobile so typos etc you will have to excuse.

I thought so. No problem.



http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/02/is- ... -of-n.html
.

[antifon]

Antifon were the 63 amendments not part of the akridas plan, have you even read the akridas plan?

63 amendments? You mean 13, right?


The constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus which resulted from the 1960 Zurich and London Agreements suffered from fundamental defects which impeded the smooth functioning of the State.

The fact that the Constitution did not emanate from the free will of the Cyprus people but was imposed upon them by virtue of the agreements was at the origin of feelings of discontent among Cypriots. Moreover many of the constitutional provisions conflicted with international law e.g. the fact that the Constitution could not be amended, rendering the Republic of Cyprus subject to the will of the guarantor powers and depriving it of the fundamental requirements of the state such as internal independence and territorial supremacy.

Other provisions promoting communal segregation prevented the smooth functioning and development of the country and created permanent sources of friction between Greek and Turkish Cypriots.

The ratio of participation in the public service attaining 30 per cent for the Turkish Cypriot community (which represented 18 per cent of the population) constituted one of the causes of discontent for Greek Cypriots as it offended the international accepted principle of the right of everyone of equal access to the public service of his country.

The constitutional provision relating to separate majorities for the enactment of certain laws in the House of Representatives was another source of serious problems affecting the smooth functioning of the state which was left without any taxation legislation for several months.

Another element that created problems was the right of final veto accorded to the President and the Vice-President of the Republic against any law or decision both in the House of Representatives and the Council of Ministers.

Faced with this complex situation, the President of the Republic Archbishop Makarios III, by his letter of 30 November 1963 to the Vice President, suggested a series of measures to facilitate the smooth functioning of the State and remove certain causes of intercommunal friction.


http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html

In his proposed amendments, President Makarios attempted to abolish the dividing elements of the Constitutions that kept Greek and Turkish Cypriots apart, fostering conflict and intolerance and replace them with provisions that would promote the wellbeing of the people of Cyprus as a whole.

The thirteen points set forth by President Makarios in his letter provided, inter alia, for the abolishment of the President's and Vice President's right of veto (Point 1), and for the election of both the Greek President of the House of Representatives and its Turkish Vice-President by the House as a whole and not by separate majorities (Point 3).

They also provided for the establishment of unified municipalities and for the unification of the administration of justice (Point 6). Other points were the following, The numerical strength of the Security Forces and of the Defence Forces should be determined by a Law (Point 9), and, The proportion of Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the composition of the Public Service should be modified in proportion to the ratio of the population of Greek and Turkish Cypriots (Point 10).

The Turkish (!!!!) Government immediately rejected the proposals before the Turkish Cypriot community had commented on them.

A few weeks later, on 21st December 1963 intercommunal fighting broke out.


Makarios did not hide. Everything was out in the open.

Do you have any proof that the President was directly involved in the formation of the Akritas plan and its sinister parts?

No one needed any plan to know that the 1960 constitution was hugely unjust and despite the good will exhibited by gCypriots Turkey (by proxy) rendered unworkable its implementation, since its "vision" was TAKSIM all along. Makarios was faced with an almost impossible situation trying to bridge the positions of the nationalists from both sides. In the end he acted alone as amply described above.

Unfortunately the tCypriot nationalists were nothing more than useful pawns for Turkey's partitionist designs.

Antifon;

Whether the 13 Points were agreed or not, the extremeists were always intent on stting both sides at each others throat. President Makarios would have simply found another few more 'improvements' to reach their objective. Now dont be so naive. You are not debating with school children.

We know for a fact that the 13 points were not agreed. How could they be? They were NEVER discussed.

I am certainly not debating with children. I am debating however passive victims of deplorable propaganda (that only Turkish speakers have the "luxury" to be subjected to; the English parts have for the most part been refuted), that of the TSK and Ergenekon/Ergenekon like clandestine organizations, which do not report to a democratically elected authority, as recently revealed by Wikileaks! http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/01/wik ... osses.html

tCypriots believe wholeheartedly that Makarios was full with ill-intent against them? How much real proof do we really have? Care to share? Could it be that he was simply trying to keep "his" extremists at bay while keeping the country together, whose vast majority population simply could not understand why a few dozen thousand votes could block the entire country by refusal to even approve state budgets??

Ask yourself this: how was Makarios predicament in the early 60s different than Erdogan's in 2011?

Makarios did not control the militants who were dead set to achieve enosis. Makarios had to manage this somehow, whether we like it or not (the ill-thought enosis struggle had just been fought and "won" just a few years back).

Erdogan does not control his army (the photo on my blog is most telling, though with the previous chief http://antifon.blogspot.com ) who subscribe to Kemalism (what the hell does this mean??) and would do anything (see Sledgehammer/Ergenekon) to achieve their goals, most lucrative of which is staying in power, and a close second keeping Cyprus at all costs!!

I wonder sometimes who was/is hated more by huge sections of his own population (in both cases the nationalist right!): Makarios in 1960 or Erdogan today? It's a tough one!

Let's hope Erdogan handles his Scylla and Charybdis passage better!


http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/01/hon ... urkey.html


.

[denizaksulu]

You answered your own question. The extremists from both sides were dedicated to the ruination of Cyprus as an independent entity. I never for once thought that Pres. Makarios did this by himself, but it came through his hand.

Too much interference/influence from outsiders.

[antifon]

You answered your own question. The extremists from both sides were dedicated to the ruination of Cyprus as an independent entity. I never for once thought that Pres. Makarios did this by himself, but it came through his hand.

Too much interference/influence from outsiders.

I agree. We did not stand a chance the way the chessboard was set. There was absolute certainty we, Cypriots, would have been checkmated only a few moves down the line, regardless of choice of own moves!


.

[Viewpoint]

Thank you antifon for taking the time to put together such an elaborate response but with all due respect you are not saying anything different form those that wish to force us into minority status with no real effective say in our own future.

Perhaps not. Your future is a guaranteed EU future as Cypriot citizens. You will not be in a position to stop the majority of RoC's decisions [simple arithmetic] but you will be able to block those decisions that aim to undermine your community's well being.

So you are saying the EU will protect us and we will be able to say no when and where necessary? Exactly how do you propose to do that when the EU cannot protect anyone, they are a useless body of pen pushers who need to have 10 meetings before deciding to buy a pen let alone rush to step in in times of crisis, they have let us down time and time again we do not trust them at all.

We do not want and will not surrender our rights unless we are 100% sure that what you are offering is far better than what we have today. Do you realize that TCs will accept a thousand times worse situation than we have in the TRNC than capitulate to GC dominance and no weight in any future union.

The number 1.000 sounds good and I am sure makes you feel good writing it. The weight of tCypriot voice in any future decision will be commensurate to your arithmetic representation, last properly registered circa 18%. Negotiating in good faith is a good place to start in order to feel more comfortable about gCypriot intentions. Insisting on having the right to block just about everything is ludicrous [unless you get Turkey to give that same right to her Kurds; then we might agree. Of course Kurds have more serious problems than you do and they can only voice them in Turkish]. Speaking about the Kurds, how about the RoC gives you the identical rights Turkey gives them in the RoT? They suffered. You suffered. How about it?

I think you miss the point, the number 1000 expresses our determination and mistrust of GCs real intentions, the Kurds are not my problem Cyprus is and people that try to mix the two issues are not really helping the situation.

The BBF is a compromise between enosis and taksim, and your leaders still say they support such a solution, they are committed in front of the international community.

Why are you trying to compromise ENOSIS and TAKSIM. Enosis is long forgotten. It should not enter either the equation or your thinking. As such, neither taksim should play a role.

Yes, the gCypriot leadership is committed in front of the international community for a BBF; however, not any BBF solution. A BBF proposal that carries forward silly 1960 provisions or introduces new unacceptable ones, such as limitation of human rights, will be rejected.

By the way, bizonal does not necessarily mean two areas. It could mean a number of tCypriot and gCypriot areas whose additions make up the two zones.

I am suggesting Viewpoint that a BBF solution is far too complicated for us to agree on. Failing to do that all we have left is an RoC that represents the entire island. I take it for granted, perhaps wrongly, that RoC will not choose to cancel itself. This leads me to believe that the 1000 times worse scenario you spoke above maybe in the making unless tCypriots take some bold initiatives, either on the BBF front or the 1960/1963 front, to prevent nightmare scenarios from materializing. Then again, perhaps you feel Turkey is so strong that she will always be there for you, certainly a possibility. Recent behavior by Erdogan is not encouraging.

You cannot dismiss enosis so easily, it was the reason for taksim to be born and pursued so once the arrow had left the bow you cannot stop and say here was no bow, BBF is the compromise between the 2 extremes.

The TCs will not move unless they are 100% certain that whats on offer is much better than what they have today, you may ridicule and belittle the TRNC all you wish it means nothing as it is our home and where we feel safe and out of GCs arm reach

BBF with political equality is not as complicated as you wish to make it, all it needs for both sides to be committed to compromising in order to bridge the chasms that clearly exist.

When you refer to a brick blocking our political vision, can the same analogy be used in the GC case, they feel that they have the god given right due to exploit their numbers to force us to live amongst them in a unitary state where we will feel and probably be treated as second class citizens, how will you guarantee that we will not be discriminated against or face the same problems of the past? you cannot but in the same breath us to take a leap of faith into the arms of people like Piratis and Kikapu, this would like committing suicide which we would never do.

Exaggerated fears due to lack of self-confidence. An agreed 1963 solution [have you even read the proposals?] for example would solidify you as a community of Cyprus and furthermore you would be awarded EU representation. The Cypriot parliament and the EU parliament are excellent platforms for tCypriots to confidently voice their views and make their presence felt in both houses.

As far as arithmetic goes, no matter how you stretch the number 18, you can't make it equal to 82. Try imagining if you were a member of the majority. How would your own views sound? And before you ask me the same question, my answer is, that had I been a member of the minority community I would consider that the 1963 ideas is worth being debated as it might lead to vastly improved circumstances for my community. I would be confident in my negotiations. Are you?

Incidentally, no matter what the solution (BBF or 1963) we will end up living together very soon. Sheer arithmetic. Only anti-human rights provisions can guarantee the opposite and any solution which will include such provisions will be rejected. So best getting used to living and prospering amongst gCypriots. Who knows, you may find that we aren't a bad bunch after all. There will always be people with strong views or even racist views, but I guarantee that the vast majority are peace loving and simply wish to get their lives back.

The fact that the majority of GCs do as you do dismiss our concerns as exaggerated is very annoying as it feels like you are just dismissing what we think important to achieve your own means, so would you kindly refrain from do this.

Again you go on to say that we would be welcomed in the "RoC" and EU parliament, have you discussed this with other GCs, they hate the thought of TCs representing them or the "RoC" anywhere in the world.

The problem is not living with GCs the problem is being forced to live under a GC administration, why cant we have the choice to to reside where ever we wish be it the TC or GC administered states?

Can you clarify exactly what your leader proposals were so that we may discuss them and if they were so "logical" why has the Un been pushing for them? You say GCs are committed to a BBF then why discuss going back to the 1960 agreements?

Read Christofias' proposals here: http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/sil ... ority.html

As for our veto rights in the past, your religious leader refused to follow a supreme court order saying that were were right, how do you expect us to just trust that you will not misuse your majority power if left to do as you wish? this knife cuts both ways that why the veto was included in the 1960 agreements and is there to allow each community to say stop we do not agree with what you are trying to do.

Let's discuss the extend of the veto rights if you prefer a 1960 based solution.

Saying this if a balance is struck in the lower and upper house where votes from both states are require to pass new laws then that will be resolved.

Yes, it might.

We have the TRNC with all its faults, it is still more desired than what you are offering today which is the "RoC" in the south we can move there tomorrow but due to reason I have made quite clear we will not live in a GC state.

Yes, I understand that. But who knows. If Erdogan will prosecute you some of you might decide to take a leap of faith and seek asylum in the RoC. I hope that by the time those who disagree with you, in that the 1000 times worse is already their reality, take the leap of faith there are enough tCypriots [original] left in the 'north' to justify Turkey's presence. In this scenario we are closer to B25's view.

I doubt that very much.

As for Piratis, you may not know it living in Greece but he is representative of the majority of GCs, I have met many and although very polite and would refrain from saying it to your face as they do not like talking about the Cyprus issue they share his views and therefore make up the majority.

I live both in Athens and Nicosia. I know Cyprus and gCypriots way better than I may have alluded. I agree in that most will not say what I share with you here or on my blog: http://antifon.blogspot.com

You really need to get to know them the GCs a lot better.

You slightly contradict yourself by saying the GCs will never go back to the 1960 agreement but if TCs demonstrated and begged them they would, only then would they take to the streets,why not the other way around?

No contradiction I assure you. I have made a distinction between 1960 and 1963. gCypriots will never accept 1960. They will accept a 1963 based constitution. Read 1963 ideas here: http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html

The 1963 changes are a big stigma for us as they are seen as taking away TC rights and handing the island to Greece. So how do you propose to overcome this major problem?

Why dont the GCs state the following; "We wish in good faith to engage in a discussion to see how we can improve 1960 so as to make it more balanced and more workable, without compromising our existence as a large community of Cyprus. We wish to work with all Cypriots to undo the damage and the injustice inflicted upon all of us throughout the years to the maximum extend possible. We wish to open a new chapter in Cyprus' history." Then I guarantee we will take to the streets to support your call.

The answer is simple and partly answered in my previous post. They stand to lose if they escape the current discussions. However, they will do so once it is clear that a BBF solution cannot be agreed upon. The more separatist ideas Eroglu promotes and tries to introduce into the BBF solution the more likely that Christofias, in synch with the 5 permanent members of the UNSC, will do just that! I personally think that time is getting very close.

I agree that the talks will come to an abrupt end but I cannot see the GC leaders taking any sort of initiative and requesting the 1960 constitution together with the dreaded amendments be regurgitated.

[antifon]

So you are saying the EU will protect us and we will be able to say no when and where necessary? Exactly how do you propose to do that when the EU cannot protect anyone, they are a useless body of pen pushers who need to have 10 meetings before deciding to buy a pen let alone rush to step in in times of crisis, they have let us down time and time again we do not trust them at all.

Referring to the EU as a useless body is both wrong and highly offensive. I understand it constitutes a healthy part of neo-Ottoman self-aggrandizement but it has no bearing to reality. You do not seem to trust many people as a community. You know, if you are on the highway and more than one cars is headed in the opposite direction you should start questioning whether you yourself are on the correct side of the highway. The "feel sorry" for us story simply does not wash anymore. Get out of your propaganda prison. It is much nicer, healthier outside.

I think you miss the point, the number 1000 expresses our determination and mistrust of GCs real intentions, the Kurds are not my problem Cyprus is and people that try to mix the two issues are not really helping the situation.

On the issue of mistrust, see my answer above & grow up in Allah's name. Or even Buddha's. The boogeyman is long gone. You need to update your children storytelling narratives. On the issue of the Kurds, a more honest answer from you would have been to at least express your sympathy to their cause. After all they a 20 million strong ethnic community, or circa 25% of population, who do not even have the right to speak their language. In any case, I make a very convincing, as well as entertaining, comparative politics case on my blog. Explore it. http://antifon.blogspot.com You will especially enjoy this little story: http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/wil ... er-be.html

You cannot dismiss enosis so easily, it was the reason for taksim to be born and pursued so once the arrow had left the bow you cannot stop and say here was no bow, BBF is the compromise between the 2 extremes.

The TCs will not move unless they are 100% certain that whats on offer is much better than what they have today, you may ridicule and belittle the TRNC all you wish it means nothing as it is our home and where we feel safe and out of GCs arm reach

BBF with political equality is not as complicated as you wish to make it, all it needs for both sides to be committed to compromising in order to bridge the chasms that clearly exist.

I can dismiss Enosis extremely easily for the simple reason that it does not constitute at all part of gCypriot thinking. It once was popular. And, spending the majority of my time in Greece I can safely say that it is the thing furthest away from Greek thinking, not even registering on any politician's or group's radar. As a result it is not a matter of the solution being half-way, or mid-way, or 3/4 of the way between taksim and enosis. It does not make sense to think in these terms. The solution needs to address the needs of the Cypriot people. Period.
My friend, the safety that the "TRNC" provides is dangerous. It already chased away tens of thousands of tCypriots. And trust me, you will never feel 100% sure that the new solution will be better; but it will be with 100% degree certainty better that today for the entire tCypriot community and Cyprus as a whole. You have no choice but to trust gCypriots. Turkey may not give you an alternative.

The fact that the majority of GCs do as you do dismiss our concerns as exaggerated is very annoying as it feels like you are just dismissing what we think important to achieve your own means, so would you kindly refrain from do this.

Again you go on to say that we would be welcomed in the "RoC" and EU parliament, have you discussed this with other GCs, they hate the thought of TCs representing them or the "RoC" anywhere in the world.

The problem is not living with GCs the problem is being forced to live under a GC administration, why cant we have the choice to to reside where ever we wish be it the TC or GC administered states?

Why do you place RoC in quotes? You do not recognize it? I am happy to see that despite your low opinion of the EU you recognize its existence. I think that we agree that Cypriots should be able to reside where ever they choose. The boogeyman again. Exaggerated concerns must be overcome one way or the other or paralysis ensues. In time you will feel confident. I have waited 40 years. How much longer do you need? If for your fears to be eased I have to forget Lapithos and Keryneia, or forfeit my right to ownership, or give you the right to block the normal functioning of the state, then I am sorry. I do not have that luxury. This does not mean that I will force you to live under me or control you. It simply means that life must go on. In time you will learn to trust. I am sure however that a good number of tCypriots have overcome their fears, especially those currently living abroad who will choose to return, and they will help instill the confidence required into the rest of tCypriots. Yes we can, Viewpoint!

You really need to get to know them, the GCs, a lot better.

I like you Viewpoint.

The 1963 changes are a big stigma for us as they are seen as taking away TC rights and handing the island to Greece. So how do you propose to overcome this major problem?

Boogeyman! Read the god-damn document. Negotiate it. Give something, ask for something in return. Or forget 1963 and negotiate a BBF. No matter what you do, think ENOSIS, not TAKSIM! Union of Cypriots, not separation! Enhancing integration, not division. OK? You will make all our lives much easier. My personal preference is a solution based on a negotiated 1963 http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html . Why a BBF when in 20 years time we will all be living intermixed all over Cyprus as it used to be. A unitary state, always in my opinion, will be easier to run and less expensive! I am a fairly nice guy, am I not? Get used to me. I am returning to Lapithos the day after the solution is signed! I will even boost your confidence by playing you a game of chess, a game I love but I suck at!!

I agree that the talks will come to an abrupt end but I cannot see the GC leaders taking any sort of initiative and requesting the 1960 constitution together with the dreaded amendments be regurgitated.

How will you receive my answer since you already think that I do not know gCypriots well enough. Anyhow, assuming I know their thinking well, then gCypriots will jump at the opportunity to negotiate 1963. They will be ecstatic. As I have amply explained though already, they cannot risk initiating it. tCypriots must somehow get the message across in an official manner, that as BBF is disucssed under the aegis of the UN they wish to hold talks with our Dimitris face-to-face to also investigate other possibilities.

We want to move on Viewpoint and you are making it difficult for all of us! The EU which you frown upon (I think you do not mean it) offers a huge platform for Cypriot excellence and distinction in so many fields. I am confident that you are, tCypriots, the most secular and European Muslim community anywhere in Europe!

Together we can truly dominate our region. Adding one plus one, or 0,4+1,6, choose your preference Cypriots, will not add up to two, it will add up to 4 or 10! Let's make it happen. Let's remember, let's forgive, let's commemorate, but above all let's chart a new course for Cyprus! For Cypriots!

A leap of faith is required, before too late. gCypriots will not disappoint you this time. They are ready since long ago. You "owe" them, and above all yourselves, that much! Let's make it a Cypriot "revolution" with no t's or g's attached.

Ps. I see trilingual Cypriots, in Turkish, Greek and English, with no employment worries over the next three decades at least!

[antifon]

Thank you antifon for taking the time to put together such an elaborate response but with all due respect you are not saying anything different form those that wish to force us into minority status with no real effective say in our own future.

Perhaps not. Your future is a guaranteed EU future as Cypriot citizens. You will not be in a position to stop the majority of RoC's decisions [simple arithmetic] but you will be able to block those decisions that aim to undermine your community's well being.

So you are saying the EU will protect us and we will be able to say no when and where necessary? Exactly how do you propose to do that when the EU cannot protect anyone, they are a useless body of pen pushers who need to have 10 meetings before deciding to buy a pen let alone rush to step in in times of crisis, they have let us down time and time again we do not trust them at all.

We do not want and will not surrender our rights unless we are 100% sure that what you are offering is far better than what we have today. Do you realize that TCs will accept a thousand times worse situation than we have in the TRNC than capitulate to GC dominance and no weight in any future union.

The number 1.000 sounds good and I am sure makes you feel good writing it. The weight of tCypriot voice in any future decision will be commensurate to your arithmetic representation, last properly registered circa 18%. Negotiating in good faith is a good place to start in order to feel more comfortable about gCypriot intentions. Insisting on having the right to block just about everything is ludicrous [unless you get Turkey to give that same right to her Kurds; then we might agree. Of course Kurds have more serious problems than you do and they can only voice them in Turkish]. Speaking about the Kurds, how about the RoC gives you the identical rights Turkey gives them in the RoT? They suffered. You suffered. How about it?

I think you miss the point, the number 1000 expresses our determination and mistrust of GCs real intentions, the Kurds are not my problem Cyprus is and people that try to mix the two issues are not really helping the situation.

The BBF is a compromise between enosis and taksim, and your leaders still say they support such a solution, they are committed in front of the international community.

Why are you trying to compromise ENOSIS and TAKSIM. Enosis is long forgotten. It should not enter either the equation or your thinking. As such, neither taksim should play a role.

Yes, the gCypriot leadership is committed in front of the international community for a BBF; however, not any BBF solution. A BBF proposal that carries forward silly 1960 provisions or introduces new unacceptable ones, such as limitation of human rights, will be rejected.

By the way, bizonal does not necessarily mean two areas. It could mean a number of tCypriot and gCypriot areas whose additions make up the two zones.

I am suggesting Viewpoint that a BBF solution is far too complicated for us to agree on. Failing to do that all we have left is an RoC that represents the entire island. I take it for granted, perhaps wrongly, that RoC will not choose to cancel itself. This leads me to believe that the 1000 times worse scenario you spoke above maybe in the making unless tCypriots take some bold initiatives, either on the BBF front or the 1960/1963 front, to prevent nightmare scenarios from materializing. Then again, perhaps you feel Turkey is so strong that she will always be there for you, certainly a possibility. Recent behavior by Erdogan is not encouraging.

You cannot dismiss enosis so easily, it was the reason for taksim to be born and pursued so once the arrow had left the bow you cannot stop and say here was no bow, BBF is the compromise between the 2 extremes.

The TCs will not move unless they are 100% certain that whats on offer is much better than what they have today, you may ridicule and belittle the TRNC all you wish it means nothing as it is our home and where we feel safe and out of GCs arm reach

BBF with political equality is not as complicated as you wish to make it, all it needs for both sides to be committed to compromising in order to bridge the chasms that clearly exist.

When you refer to a brick blocking our political vision, can the same analogy be used in the GC case, they feel that they have the god given right due to exploit their numbers to force us to live amongst them in a unitary state where we will feel and probably be treated as second class citizens, how will you guarantee that we will not be discriminated against or face the same problems of the past? you cannot but in the same breath us to take a leap of faith into the arms of people like Piratis and Kikapu, this would like committing suicide which we would never do.

Exaggerated fears due to lack of self-confidence. An agreed 1963 solution [have you even read the proposals?] for example would solidify you as a community of Cyprus and furthermore you would be awarded EU representation. The Cypriot parliament and the EU parliament are excellent platforms for tCypriots to confidently voice their views and make their presence felt in both houses.

As far as arithmetic goes, no matter how you stretch the number 18, you can't make it equal to 82. Try imagining if you were a member of the majority. How would your own views sound? And before you ask me the same question, my answer is, that had I been a member of the minority community I would consider that the 1963 ideas is worth being debated as it might lead to vastly improved circumstances for my community. I would be confident in my negotiations. Are you?

Incidentally, no matter what the solution (BBF or 1963) we will end up living together very soon. Sheer arithmetic. Only anti-human rights provisions can guarantee the opposite and any solution which will include such provisions will be rejected. So best getting used to living and prospering amongst gCypriots. Who knows, you may find that we aren't a bad bunch after all. There will always be people with strong views or even racist views, but I guarantee that the vast majority are peace loving and simply wish to get their lives back.

The fact that the majority of GCs do as you do dismiss our concerns as exaggerated is very annoying as it feels like you are just dismissing what we think important to achieve your own means, so would you kindly refrain from do this.

Again you go on to say that we would be welcomed in the "RoC" and EU parliament, have you discussed this with other GCs, they hate the thought of TCs representing them or the "RoC" anywhere in the world.

The problem is not living with GCs the problem is being forced to live under a GC administration, why cant we have the choice to to reside where ever we wish be it the TC or GC administered states?

Can you clarify exactly what your leader proposals were so that we may discuss them and if they were so "logical" why has the Un been pushing for them? You say GCs are committed to a BBF then why discuss going back to the 1960 agreements?

Read Christofias' proposals here: http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/sil ... ority.html

As for our veto rights in the past, your religious leader refused to follow a supreme court order saying that were were right, how do you expect us to just trust that you will not misuse your majority power if left to do as you wish? this knife cuts both ways that why the veto was included in the 1960 agreements and is there to allow each community to say stop we do not agree with what you are trying to do.

Let's discuss the extend of the veto rights if you prefer a 1960 based solution.

Saying this if a balance is struck in the lower and upper house where votes from both states are require to pass new laws then that will be resolved.

Yes, it might.

We have the TRNC with all its faults, it is still more desired than what you are offering today which is the "RoC" in the south we can move there tomorrow but due to reason I have made quite clear we will not live in a GC state.

Yes, I understand that. But who knows. If Erdogan will prosecute you some of you might decide to take a leap of faith and seek asylum in the RoC. I hope that by the time those who disagree with you, in that the 1000 times worse is already their reality, take the leap of faith there are enough tCypriots [original] left in the 'north' to justify Turkey's presence. In this scenario we are closer to B25's view.

I doubt that very much.

As for Piratis, you may not know it living in Greece but he is representative of the majority of GCs, I have met many and although very polite and would refrain from saying it to your face as they do not like talking about the Cyprus issue they share his views and therefore make up the majority.

I live both in Athens and Nicosia. I know Cyprus and gCypriots way better than I may have alluded. I agree in that most will not say what I share with you here or on my blog: http://antifon.blogspot.com

You really need to get to know them the GCs a lot better.

You slightly contradict yourself by saying the GCs will never go back to the 1960 agreement but if TCs demonstrated and begged them they would, only then would they take to the streets,why not the other way around?

No contradiction I assure you. I have made a distinction between 1960 and 1963. gCypriots will never accept 1960. They will accept a 1963 based constitution. Read 1963 ideas here: http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html

The 1963 changes are a big stigma for us as they are seen as taking away TC rights and handing the island to Greece. So how do you propose to overcome this major problem?

Why dont the GCs state the following; "We wish in good faith to engage in a discussion to see how we can improve 1960 so as to make it more balanced and more workable, without compromising our existence as a large community of Cyprus. We wish to work with all Cypriots to undo the damage and the injustice inflicted upon all of us throughout the years to the maximum extend possible. We wish to open a new chapter in Cyprus' history." Then I guarantee we will take to the streets to support your call.

The answer is simple and partly answered in my previous post. They stand to lose if they escape the current discussions. However, they will do so once it is clear that a BBF solution cannot be agreed upon. The more separatist ideas Eroglu promotes and tries to introduce into the BBF solution the more likely that Christofias, in synch with the 5 permanent members of the UNSC, will do just that! I personally think that time is getting very close.

I agree that the talks will come to an abrupt end but I cannot see the GC leaders taking any sort of initiative and requesting the 1960 constitution together with the dreaded amendments be regurgitated.

See a more updated response which I uploaded on my blog. Thank you for engaging by the way.

http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/02/you ... ur_08.html



.

[All4114All]

Is it too late for Turkish Cypriots to negotiate the 1963 ideas provided that:

a. Turkey will come under extreme pressures to remove herself from Cyprus
b. Turkey will face growing TC opposition as their fear of extinction grows
c. Greek Cypriots will never agree a federation on a 1960 "equality" logic

Read Makarios' ideas in 1963, together with his reasoning. In my view, the document constitutues a visionary statement, perhaps even to form the basis for the solution to Turkey's 87 year old internal conflict between its majority ethnic Turk and minority ethnic Kurd communities.

SUGGESTED MEASURES FOR FACILITATING THE SMOOTH FUNCTIONING OF THE STATE AND FOR THE REMOVAL OF CERTAIN CAUSES OF INTER- COMMUNAL FRICTION (1963)
http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html

My opinion:
http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/01/tri ... hobia.html


http://antifon.blogspot.com
.
Thank you.

Anti going back to 1960 is something ,but we have to negotiate the 13teen points with tCs and my believe is that those point cause all the mess .

As a matter of fact no, 1960 itself was the pandora's box (η αιτία), with 1963 being simply the excuse (η αφορμή). Makarios' 1963 proposed ideas ( http://antifon.blogspot.com/2010/12/pre ... osals.html ) were an attempt to surpass unworkability issues and promote unity as opposed taksim.

In other words, how one views the November 30th 1963 ideas depends what the vision is. If it is TAKSIM, i.e. separation, then it is bad because the entire 13 points try to promote unification, the exact opposite of what the tCypriot leadership/Turkey were aiming for at the time & still do.

Of course, point#1 alone of the 13 [a tragic choice of number for the superstitios; he could have easily added a 14th that fathers of all newborns be automatically eligible for season tickets to their favorite team], is enough to scare the vast majority of tCypriots away. I would be apprehensive too if I were a tCypriot. There should be various specific issues where tCypriots should have veto powers, hopefully to come out on the negotiation table. But a veto across the board was preposterous, and would be even more so today with Cyprus a member of the EU.

The document was never discussed. It was not a take-it-or-leave it proposition. Unfortunately, just as is the case today, it was even worse then, we were speaking not with tCypriots but indirectly to Turkey by proxy and its fascist establishments.

See relevant Wikileaks revelation ( http://antifon.blogspot.com/2011/01/wik ... osses.html ) which, if we are to believe Wikileaks, proves that today we speak to Eroglu who in turn speaks to Erdogan who in turn indirectly answers to the generals! Some democracy for you!

http://antifon.blogspot.com

.

I am curious to understand why people emphasize the 1960 constitution was unworkable? This is the view of many G/C and yourself to justify Makarios actions of amending the 1960 constitution with a 13 point amendment. The brick in front of your view is that you claim the unworkable constitution because the G/C claim was the democratic of their population which outnumbered T/C was not acceptable, basically saying that why should we oblige with this constitution which allows another community to share this island when we are the majority. This is a misinterpretation of the constitution. This anger was expressed by the 1963 Christmas violence. Which was the main focus of the constitution to avoid such circumstances that both communities should enjoy in freedom and not allow one community to rule the other? The 1960 constitution involved both Greek and Turkish constitutional lawyers and using other constitutions around the world as an example to formulate a new law and not at all unworkable. The rumours that have never been buried and continue today as to your comment is that the people who started the rumour that the 1960 constitution was unworkable never ever wanted or had the intention to implement the constitution.

If the T/C and G/C veto power or voting could not come to a conclusion as was the case of the first ripples in calling the constitution unworkable then it must be a failure in the representatives and not the constitution.

The main objective was requirement of separate majority of certain laws to be raised cannot be justified of the constitution to be unworkable. It is hard to justify how the T/C can be legally protected against being outvoted without veto-rights against the passing of laws. There is no legal weight that can be justifying the disrespect for the constitution.

The constitution can be changed with the consent of all concerned. A safe basis for the peaceful future cannot be established removing the fundamental rights of the T/C. So changing the constitution by declaring it unworkable by disregarding it this allows the development of a civil war over the resulting dispute.

1. Was the constitution unworkable or was it the representatives that were unworkable?
2. The constitution gave rights to T/C and the majority found this unacceptable hence laying blame to the constitution unworkable.
3. There is no legal support for the change of the constitution declaring it unworkable.

My conclusion is that the constitution was workable it was the representatives that were unworkable. The constitution should include all concern if any amendments were to be change and not a one man mission; it clearly indicates that Makarios never wanted to implement the constitution and there were other plans set in motion the constitution was an excuse.