Cyprus-Forum.com

[boulio]

Maximus it's plain and simple tc want turkish guarantees then the will be like everything else either passing a budget or approving a treaty or a federal investment by a other country DOUBLE MAJORITIES

[erolz66]

Do you understand why gc have fears of unilateral intervention?you seem to ignore the gc fears and concerns about third party actions.Thats demonax point a just settlement for everyone.not just the tc.that's why I also said about double majorities for intervention and guarantees.

I absolutely understand why GC have such fears. I think solutions can be found that address both such fears but I do not think they are along the lines of 'there will be gc police a tc police and a federal police'. Such suggestions seem to fundamentally misunderstand the TC fears I talk about and do not address them at all. These are thorny issues and full of contradictions (the idea of sovereign integrity and external guarantees for the implementation and non subversion of agreements is inherently a contradiction at one level). Which is why they can only be dealt with with honesty and realism and thus why revisionist beliefs about things as black and white as the 1960 treaty of guarantee concern me.

[Maximus]

Maximus it's plain and simple tc want turkish guarantees then the will be like everything else either passing a budget or approving a treaty or a federal investment by a other country DOUBLE MAJORITIES

Turkish guarantees? please don't make me laugh.

[erolz66]

Its absurd that the Tc's need the Gc's to sign a document that will allow Turkey to 'intervene' to maintain an unjust law and order in their favor in Cyprus. Its completely bonkers and destroys their credibility.

What I need maximus is to know that if we sign an agreement you will not after having signed it claim it was and is in effect unfair and unfairly imposed on you and you can and will unilaterally amend it to your desires and if necessary use violence against us to do so.

If you of all people can not understand why I need this, given that even today you claim that (any parts you choose) of previous agreements you signed with us were and are unfair, were unfairly imposed on you and thus you had every right to unilaterally amend them and use (planned and organised) violence where deemed necessary against us in order to unilaterally amend them, then we do indeed have an on-going unresolved problem. At this stage I am open to any suggestion as to how you can provide the assurances we need, unilateral right of Turkish intervention does not have to be the only possibility. However it does require you to understand what my concerns are and why I have them and honestly given what I have seen from you on this forum to date I am not at all sure that is something you personaly are capable of.

[B25]

Its absurd that the Tc's need the Gc's to sign a document that will allow Turkey to 'intervene' to maintain an unjust law and order in their favor in Cyprus. Its completely bonkers and destroys their credibility.

What I need maximus is to know that if we sign an agreement you will not after having signed it claim it was and is in effect unfair and unfairly imposed on you and you can and will unilaterally amend it to your desires and if necessary use violence against us to do so.

Would they be the same agreements like the customs union you signed, the football agreement you signed, the Armenian agreements you signed and the tore them all up to suit you???

And you have the audacity to complain about the GCs agreements. At least the ones you signed, you didn't have a gun to your head like the GCs did in 1960.

Hypocrisy at its best.

[erolz66]

Would they be the same agreements like the customs union you signed,

I signed a customs union ? I think you are confusing me / tc community with Turkey. In any case this is the usual tactic used, when there is something you do not want to address , just accuse us or others as worse as a means to ignore the issue you do not want to address. Tiresome and actually pretty pathetic really but not unexpected.

[Oceanside50]

then the ROC would have to rebuild your moms house...whats the big deal?

Ho thats real clever, you are financially bankrupt but lets humour you and say the "RoC" built her a new home, shes 80 and doesnt want to move back shes has all her friends and family in the North now. You have to be realistic, you are 10 arent you?

All of Cyprus has suffered from the past and the present situation, I've always said that, Vp, and numerous times I've stood up for the Tc but you can't base a Republic on more human right violations. Property rights are equal to the freedoms of religion and freedo of speech. You can't forbid an ethnic groups freedom of speech just like you can't forbid an ethnic groups right of property. The pseudo states administration wants to usurp all of these rights away from the GC, get it through your thick cypriot head, man!!

Look the majority of TCs support the return of property rights but your ideology that everyone should go back is ridiculous, the majority of people will get the right to their old properties whereby they get rent or the current occupiers are given a time frame to vacate, but some will have to accept compensation and some alternative available land options. You really need to understand that we are not trying to usurp anything, division occured and everyone is trying to make the best of things, its not only GC properties that should concern you we have lost land in the south, the ironic things is that you claim to be more advanced than us yet we cannot get our rights back without residing in the south for 6 months but you have access to a property commission to get compensation or restitution. Now before you get all hot and bothered I do not support the return of property rights for TCs in the south as I feel many TCs will double dip which I am 101% against. My head maybe Cypriot (Turkish) but it aint thick, dont listen to what your people drum into you the majority of people living in GC property were told to move out in 6 months believe me they would, you have to understand this, now how long will it take you to build my mothers house so that we can sell it, no one from my mothers side who come from the south want to go back, 40 years of peaceful living in the north is enough time to make them forget the south, plus they have nothing to go back to, homes demolished fertile land unused.

The IPC is there for so called compensation but not restitution. Property rights encompass full rights to ones property. You sound like an Annan plan supporter, which had many derogations including no freedom of movement and no freedom of appeal, which would mean any and all rights of the Gc could be violated. If most refugees could have the right of return and living in the northern part of Cyprus, why bother with a BBF if a unitary state would be more efficient. As for a guarantee of rights to all citizens of Cyprus, which would include your mothers rights of her property in the south, that should be the norm. It would be great if I could sit here and tout the RoC as a beacon of rights to its citizens, which includes speedy due process, blind and not whimsical justice. A culture where the rule of law supercedes any ethnic division but unfortunately the RoC hasn't reached that stage yet. And if there was a solution tomorrow, how long would it take before the court system began to break down, due to its inefficiency?(just like it did in 1963w/ the RoC ignoring the Supreme Courts decision against Makarios' 13 points)...I agree with you on many points Vp, but the RoC is turning up lame. Many on here ignore that fact.

[erolz66]

Property rights encompass full rights to ones property.

Here we get to the thorny issue of 'just settlement'. Whilst I can understand a perspective that says 'just' re property just means everything goes back to the pre 74 owners I do not think this necessarily is a 'just' settlement. Let me give a personal example. In 1964 my Aunt's husband was taken from his place of work (Barclays bank) in broad daylight and in public by an illegal GC militia (set up and run out of the interior ministry of the RoC) and he was murdered and his body dumped in a well in Ayia Napa (his body was finally recovered and returned some 30+ years later by the CMP). I do have to say he was not an extremist, not a member of tmt, just an ordinary Cypriot doing his best to support his family. In 1974 my Aunt was given a property that was GC prior to 1974 as 'compensation' for the loss of her husband. The history of this property is know, in that whilst it was GC owned prior to 74 it was never a GC home. From the time it was built until 74 it was never the GC owners home and was used exclusively as an income generating rental property from when it was first built to 1974. My Aunt has lived in this house from 74 to the present day. For her it is a 'home' with all the emotional attachment that implies. It is where she raised her three children, without a husband. What is more it represent not just 'home' for her but in a very real and palpable way it represents 'security' and the absence of 'living in fear' that marked the 10 years of her life prior to 74 from the point her husband 'disappeared'. So I have to ask is it 'just' that she, now in her 70s should be forced from this home so that it can be returned to the pre 74 GC owners ? Even if there were some mechanism for compensation for her if she were to be forced to leave this property, which is far from clear anyway given that it was not given to her in exchange for property lost but in exchange for a husband and father lost, is not the most 'just' thing in a scenario like this that the GC owners receive monetary compensation for the lost property that was only ever an income source for them pre 74 and never a home so that she can be allowed to live ut the remainder of her life there for who it really is a home ?

My belief is a 'just settlement' would require a humanistic and compassionate case by case approach to issues such as these that is not compatible with a simple 'everything must return to pre 74 owners' approach. Can you understand why I think this ?

[boulio]

Do you understand why gc have fears of unilateral intervention?you seem to ignore the gc fears and concerns about third party actions.Thats demonax point a just settlement for everyone.not just the tc.that's why I also said about double majorities for intervention and guarantees.

I absolutely understand why GC have such fears. I think solutions can be found that address both such fears but I do not think they are along the lines of 'there will be gc police a tc police and a federal police'. Such suggestions seem to fundamentally misunderstand the TC fears I talk about and do not address them at all. These are thorny issues and full of contradictions (the idea of sovereign integrity and external guarantees for the implementation and non subversion of agreements is inherently a contradiction at one level). Which is why they can only be dealt with with honesty and realism and thus why revisionist beliefs about things as black and white as the 1960 treaty of guarantee concern me.

Will the federal ROC not be demilitarized ?will they not be in the EU?im not saying to get rid of the guarantees but for them to be activated you need a double majority.Police forces can handle skirmishes ie talat in pafos.for the last decade 100's thousand have passed the green line whatever has occurred was delt just fine with by the law enforcement on both sides.

Which solutions would you recommend for security guarantees for the ROC in a future solution?

[boulio]

Property rights encompass full rights to ones property.

Here we get to the thorny issue of 'just settlement'. Whilst I can understand a perspective that says 'just' re property just means everything goes back to the pre 74 owners I do not think this necessarily is a 'just' settlement. Let me give a personal example. In 1964 my Aunt's husband was taken from his place of work (Barclays bank) in broad daylight and in public by an illegal GC militia (set up and run out of the interior ministry of the RoC) and he was murdered and his body dumped in a well in Ayia Napa (his body was finally recovered and returned some 30+ years later by the CMP). I do have to say he was not an extremist, not a member of tmt, just an ordinary Cypriot doing his best to support his family. In 1974 my Aunt was given a property that was GC prior to 1974 as 'compensation' for the loss of her husband. The history of this property is know, in that whilst it was GC owned prior to 74 it was never a GC home. From the time it was built until 74 it was never the GC owners home and was used exclusively as an income generating rental property from when it was first built to 1974. My Aunt has lived in this house from 74 to the present day. For her it is a 'home' with all the emotional attachment that implies. It is where she raised her three children, without a husband. What is more it represent not just 'home' for her but in a very real and palpable way it represents 'security' and the absence of 'living in fear' that marked the 10 years of her life prior to 74 from the point her husband 'disappeared'. So I have to ask is it 'just' that she, now in her 70s should be forced from this home so that it can be returned to the pre 74 GC owners ? Even if there were some mechanism for compensation for her if she were to be forced to leave this property, which is far from clear anyway given that it was not given to her in exchange for property lost but in exchange for a husband and father lost, is not the most 'just' thing in a scenario like this that the GC owners receive monetary compensation for the lost property that was only ever an income source for them pre 74 and never a home so that she can be allowed to live ut the remainder of her life there for who it really is a home ?

My belief is a 'just settlement' would require a humanistic and compassionate case by case approach to issues such as these that is not compatible with a simple 'everything must return to pre 74 owners' approach. Can you understand why I think this ?

I'm sorry for your loss.But if it's a rental property your aunt can pay rent to the gc owner.If the gc owner wishes to keep it,if not he can sell it or exchange it.The point is the owner should have the option to do what he wishes with the property.What has become of your aunt properties?if she dosent want them she will sell them to help either buy or rent the property she lives in.