Posted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:47 am
Magikthrill,
thank you for your frank response.
I quite understand where you are coming from and what your concerns are, in fact on most issues we agree.
Basically, on the refugee issues we need as a minimum to find a way - in the revised Peace Plan we are drawing up here - to ensure that GC refugees get a chance to return in their own towns and villages, while at the same time ensuring that TCs who have been living there for so many years will not be forced to abandon the same towns and villages ...
I think a lot will hinge on the building of new homes.
Say that for every GC home in which a TC is living, a new home is built in the same village or town. And one of these two homes will go to the TC, and the other will go to the GC.
I am not sure about the issue of who would have priority control of the original property - let's leave this aside for now. But the interesting thing about the proposal, is that many GCs would actually elect to get the new home. After all, the house they abandoned in 1974 would be 40 years old by now, and in many ways it could be argued that GCs have a right to a brand new home ... since their own home has been depreciated over three decades without them using it.
But even if GCs elect to get their original home back - then the TC current occupant would most probably be jubilant: He would be getting a brand new home, after all ...
So perhaps with this kind of provision, we can create balanced motivations between current residents and original owners, by balancing essentially the motive of nostalgia with the motive of renewal, and in this way all property exchanges can be done peacefully, with everybody feeling that they have gained something ...
P.S. I won't be writing in this forum for the next few days, because I will be going to a conference where I will present my research findings. I'll tell you all I have learnt, once I return ...
thank you for your frank response.
I quite understand where you are coming from and what your concerns are, in fact on most issues we agree.
Basically, on the refugee issues we need as a minimum to find a way - in the revised Peace Plan we are drawing up here - to ensure that GC refugees get a chance to return in their own towns and villages, while at the same time ensuring that TCs who have been living there for so many years will not be forced to abandon the same towns and villages ...
I think a lot will hinge on the building of new homes.
Say that for every GC home in which a TC is living, a new home is built in the same village or town. And one of these two homes will go to the TC, and the other will go to the GC.
I am not sure about the issue of who would have priority control of the original property - let's leave this aside for now. But the interesting thing about the proposal, is that many GCs would actually elect to get the new home. After all, the house they abandoned in 1974 would be 40 years old by now, and in many ways it could be argued that GCs have a right to a brand new home ... since their own home has been depreciated over three decades without them using it.
But even if GCs elect to get their original home back - then the TC current occupant would most probably be jubilant: He would be getting a brand new home, after all ...
So perhaps with this kind of provision, we can create balanced motivations between current residents and original owners, by balancing essentially the motive of nostalgia with the motive of renewal, and in this way all property exchanges can be done peacefully, with everybody feeling that they have gained something ...
P.S. I won't be writing in this forum for the next few days, because I will be going to a conference where I will present my research findings. I'll tell you all I have learnt, once I return ...