Cyprus-Forum.com

There are many cases like this where the children of settlers are truly integrated in the society and they have no life other than what they have in Cyprus. Now how can you "ship" these people back?

I tend to believe that the children of the settlers can be easily assimilated into the Cypriot society, if they are offered good education and if they are a minority among the rest of the Cypriot youth.
The problems begin when different segments of the population are treated differently than others. Discrimination breads separation and conflict.
If settlers are invited in the country, given free property and other privileges in exchange for votes, all at the expense of their future "housemates", are not likely to be welcomed.

Alexandros Lordos wrote: But must it absolutely be a return to their original home? Frankly, I don't understand why it cannot be another home, brand new, and built especially for them in the same town/village ...

From my personal experience, houses in the north have more of a sentimental value. The way you're viewiing the matter of the right to return is that GCs want to move to the north so that they can overpopulate TCs eliminating their majority in any part of CYprus. Is this what your opinion of the matter is cause that's the impression I've gotten (of course im probably wrong but thats what i see).

many refugees will probably not return, especially those that live aborad. the solution however must offere a right to return for everyone, otherwise it will not be fair (aside from the fact that it will be violating their human rights)

then we reach a situation where almost every TC will have to relocate because of the solution.

I really ahte to be spiteful but won't the number of ALL current TCs that will "have" to relocate still be less than the number of ALL the GCs that had to relocate in 74?

What goes around comes around. The law is on the side of the refugees. If people refuse to accept this than a sustainable peace will never be attained and that's the fact of the matter.

No, I am not in favour of GCs overpopulating the north and making TCs a minority there ... I support permanent limits to the number of GCs who can settle in the north.

Having said that, I believe that a mixing of the populations (to the extent that it is possible and to the extent that it doesn't counter the principle of bizonality) is crucial for a solution ... it is not just a sentimental issue, though that is important also, but it is also a question of gettting TCs and GCs back together, in the same towns and villages, so that they can forge together a new life and a new culture.

Furthermore, sentimental attachment is not just to one's individiual home, but also to the village or town itself ... think of the nostalgia poems that have been written by refugees. How many of them focus on "my little house in Kyrenia" and how many of them talk about "majestic Pentadaktylos" and "Beautiful Lapithos"? In my experience, people are not so attached to houses, especially 40-year old houses which they would probably have taken down and rebuilt by now anyway, as they are attached to their communities, to their neighbors, to nature and so on.

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Having said that, I believe that a mixing of the populations (to the extent that it is possible and to the extent that it doesn't counter the principle of bizonality) is crucial for a solution ...

This is the key. We want refugees to return but we want to maintain the bizonality as well, otherwise federation will be nothing more than a name. So it's a delicate balance and it can't be solved by asking the return of all refugees. Unfortunately, some forum members see everything in black and white. Same goes for settlers. We want them to go back but we shouldn't punish their children who are fully integrated into the society and who have no other life except in Cyprus. It's a balance again and it can't be solved by shipping all settlers back. We have to stop seeing everything in black and white.

Alexandros Lordos wrote:Furthermore, sentimental attachment is not just to one's individiual home, but also to the village or town itself ... think of the nostalgia poems that have been written by refugees. How many of them focus on "my little house in Kyrenia" and how many of them talk about "majestic Pentadaktylos" and "Beautiful Lapithos"? In my experience, people are not so attached to houses, especially 40-year old houses which they would probably have taken down and rebuilt by now anyway, as they are attached to their communities, to their neighbors, to nature and so on.

I understand that its not ONLY the property thats sentimental from my personal experience when visiting about 5 houses in 3 different villages, it was.

Oh and if you were under the impression that the houses were "Rebuilt" you must not have an idea to just how poor these people are. At one of my aunts' house, the settlers that lived in there had the same door and windows.

It's quite sentimental and I got a ton of pictures to show you just how sentimental it is...

I guess it all boils down to personal experiences ...

personally, I was only two years old in 1974, and I have no recollections from my family home in the occupied north. I guess someone older than me must have strong attachments to his childhoom home, as you correctly say ...

After 1974, my family moved to a flat in Nicosia, and 15 years later we moved into a brand new house. I still grieve for ... the flat in Nicosia! That's because all my childhood experiences were in that house.

So I guess you have a point. People do indeed become very sentimentally attached to their homes, especially if they had important life experiences there.

Ofcourse, looking at it form an emotional (rather than legal or practical) point of view, we would run into the same kind of problem when trying to evict TC current occupants. They too have become sentimentally attached to the homes they currently live in ...

So, where does that leave us? There is no painless way out of this problem ...

Alexandros Lordos wrote:So, where does that leave us? There is no painless way out of this problem ...

Indeed.

So if we accept that there can be no solution without pain, who should bear the brunt of that pain. Just TC? Just GC? TC community and GC community equaly (in absolute or relative to populations terms) or in straight 'democratic' formula of proportional numbers? These are not easy questions.

heres my point. i accept that we are all human beings. all equal. no one has a highet status than anyone else (or rather no one should). and i in now way look down on TCs especially since I consider them (and they are) my mother's co-citizens.

however, in a society there are laws. And right now it's the north that isbreaking laws (PLEASE let's not get back into the past where BOTH parties were at fault). I am talking about now.

We live an international society and the entrance of Cyprus to the EU confirms that. According to international law and standards northern Cyprus is being illegally occupied.

And you know what, TCs dont necessarily have to relocate. We know that many people won't return to the north, and TCs can still live in the same town (as far as GC refugees from the north are concerned).

So yes in terms of pain and emotion, maybe nobody can be blamed. But in terms of international law its Turkey whose at fault, and its the TCs that might (but not necessarily) be the ones that will have to pay the price.

This is the key. We want refugees to return but we want to maintain the bizonality as well, otherwise federation will be nothing more than a name. So it's a delicate balance and it can't be solved by asking the return of all refugees

I don't believe that the bi-zonality will save TCs from what they afraid of incase of a "democratic", pretext-ready, underground operation has been initiated by some groups of GCs and fueled by some groups of TCs. Bi-zonality is the idea of the nationalist TCs who want to secure Turkey's south coasts and supported by TC nationalists and a part of settlers who also don't wanna see just a single GC around themselves... And also supported by the ordinary TCs who have fears about the GCs because of their past experiences and human losses... So, doesn't that mean that majority of TCs don't bother about bi-zonality? Then why don't we start to think about a unitary state with no restrictions on human rights. Can't you see that the GCs haven't accepted any plan based on a bi-zonal federation model which restricts their human rights? Yes there'll be a huge cost and pain of reunification but to reduce the cost and relieve the pain is in our hands... Settlers and restriction on rights are just two of the main elements which make the cost to increase and pain to get bigger... Don't you agree with me?

metecyp wrote: all GC refugees want to return back or get compensated.
Obviously, most TC refugees do not want to go back to
the south. Nobody is going to reveal otherwise before a
solution.

Metecyp you are wrong that all GC refugess want to return.What they want is to get back the ownership of their properties.This does not necessarily mean they want to return.Like I said there are polls showing the percentage of those who want to return to be very very low. I proposed if anybody is interested to tell me and I will search my files to find the link.I think(from memory) the percentage is about 26% among the living GC refugees i.e about 13% the total i.e only 26,000 persons. And this includes all areas not only the areas under final TC administration.

I personally even predicted in the past that assuming the Famagusta area is one day returned to the legal owners, they will be looking around desparately to find people to fill it even at it's 25% capacity!!!

However nobody accepts the compensation method because this means his property has to be given to the property committe which in the end may compensate him/her with less than 10% of the real value. The option to let this happen anyway and also let the people go to the courts against the property committe or against the state is bogous as it will cause chain reactions with huge percentages of settlers and TCs getting properties almost free of change and the rest of the population (i.e the Greek Cypriot) paying the damage to the legal owner through heavy taxation, that most certainly will paralyse the state.

So the only way out of this is to let the matter the properties arranged between the people themselves via private deals. Any solution to the Cyprus problem just has to provide the framework of the course of actions regarding how these agreements will bocome reality the fastest possible.

*************************************************************

Alexandros wrote: In fact, the real percentage is 33%, which
is what will apply when Turkey joins the EU. 33% of
200,000 is 67,000 so theoretically almost all refugees
would eventually have the right of return.

Alexandre theoretical and actual are two different things.Please read the following old post of mine to realise the actual.


According to the Anan Plan some 8% of the land will be returned under GC administration.However for a refugee to return to his property, this should be free. A property is not free if: (a) if it is used for public purposes (School, street, governmental building, medical centre etc) (b) if it is used or required for military purposes (c) if it is used for 10 continuous years by a TC, and the Turkish Cypriot has his own property that he wishes to exchange (d) if the property has been subtantially improved by the TC or Settler user. (e) if it belongs to Organisations (that is to say companies, associations, institutions etc). This property will be compensated.

Based on the Anan Plan the matter of properties will be solved based on international law, the rights of the oweners (refugees) the bizonality, and the rights of current users (TCs and settlers). From there and beyond there are two groups of refugees
(a) those that will return in the TC Constituent state and (b) those who will return in the GC Constituent state.

(a) Return under TC administration
The Greekcypriots should not exceed the 1% of population of the TC Constituent state the first year of agreement, the 2% the second year, the 7% in the seventh year etc etc upto 20% in the twentieth year. (1% per year) After the twenty years (I believe finally they got reduced to 15) the return will be freer and the Greekcypriots can reach upto one third of TC population. However, because the return of refugees is connected directly with the regulation of the matter of properties, the return of these refugees is impended, because: according to the moratorium no property will be returned before the first 3-5 years. So, the first 4 years it will not be possible for the 4% of refugees (about 8000 people) to return. The Anan Plan is conflicting!
Furthermore: In order for someone to return he must get approval from the Council of Properties, which Council will accept applications for one year after the signature of the fundamental agreement and for another year after the implementation. That is to say the process of applications will be completed roughly two years after the signature of the primary Agreement. Then it will begin examining the applications… But once again, the poor refugee who will finally get approval, will NOT be eligible to return because there are another 3 conditions: a) The Council of properties must have decided for at least the 90% of the applications b) the percentages(1% per year) are met, and the applicants age gives him priority over other applicants and c) An alternative roof for the family that already lives in the house is found.

Tell me how many years are need for all these to happen, considering how many thousands applications this Council of Properties will receive, and how many thousands homes should be built before some refugees could finally return to their houses.

(b) Return under Greek-Cypriot administration

In order for a refugee to return the property must first be declared returnable by the Council of Properties. Provided however the property is used, then this property will only be returned when the present user is settled elsewhere. This process will last according to the Plan three years maximum from the signature of Agreement. That is to say in the first three years, the TCcomponent state is oblidged to accomodate the 40-45 thousands that live today in these regions. Where and how only God knows. Many of them will have the right to remain in the properties if they buy the property or get accomodated privately in the region.