 |
| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| There is just not enough state land (at least not in locations appropriate for residential building), and in the end, even without the settlers, the state will be forced to expropriate private land as well, in order to relocate just the Cypriots. |
Do you have some sources to back up how much state land there is that is appropriate for residential building? It seems to me that there is plenty of land available for residential development but maybe I am wrong. Cyprus, either side is not exactly densely populated atm compared to EU norms as far as I can guess.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| Secondly, if settlers remain there will inevitably be social friction and probably also violence, between the Greek Cypriots and the Settlers. Such is human nature ... |
I do not like this assumption or the conclusion to be honest. For me if we are truely to build a united Cyprus it must be built on principals of tollerance for others and intollerance of violence. To me arguing that we must remove / reduce settlers because we are invetibaly intollerant and liable to resort to violence is sending all the wrong signals and is not a basis for a 'new cyprus' in my mind.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
For the first 18 years, extremely strict residence rules would apply. |
And after 18 years there would be no restrictions at all? Is that right?
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
By the end of that period, most refugees will be dead and the desire for return will be extinguished with them. |
It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that first generation settlers have managed to maintain a very strong desire to have a right to return (though it remains unclear to me how many want the right vs how many want to exercise that right) and pass it onto subsequent generations. It seems a little over dramatic to me to suggest that another 18 years ontop of the 30_ years that has already passed will 'extinguish desires' for refugees and their off spring to have a right of return.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
In the Annan Plan, it was also not possible for a Greek Cypriot to buy any property whatsoever in the Turkish Cypriot component state - not even a flat from a Turkish Cypriot property developer - for the first 15 years after the settlement. |
Is that right? After 15 years there would be no restrictions at all on Greek Cypriot buying property in northern component state?
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
There were no provisions for the cultural rights of Greek Cypriots in the Turkish Cypriot component state, except in the Karpasia region. Greek Cypriots living elsewhere in the Turkish Cypriot component state, would be obliged to live "as Turkish Cypriots", going to the same schools as Turkish Cypriots etc. It was also not clear if the Greek Cypriots would have the right to use their churches for worship, in areas of the Turkish Cypriot component state beyond Karpasia. |
Where the provision for 'cultural rights' of Greek Cypriot living in the northern component state not the same as those for Turkish Cypriot living in the southern component state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexandros Lordos
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 324
Location: Cyprus/Greece
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| There is just not enough state land (at least not in locations appropriate for residential building), and in the end, even without the settlers, the state will be forced to expropriate private land as well, in order to relocate just the Cypriots. |
Do you have some sources to back up how much state land there is that is appropriate for residential building? It seems to me that there is plenty of land available for residential development but maybe I am wrong. Cyprus, either side is not exactly densely populated atm compared to EU norms as far as I can guess. |
No sources. I am guessing. State land in Cyprus tends mostly to be forests and mountains. Most of the usable land is in private hands.
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| Secondly, if settlers remain there will inevitably be social friction and probably also violence, between the Greek Cypriots and the Settlers. Such is human nature ... |
I do not like this assumption or the conclusion to be honest. For me if we are truely to build a united Cyprus it must be built on principals of tollerance for others and intollerance of violence. To me arguing that we must remove / reduce settlers because we are invetibaly intollerant and liable to resort to violence is sending all the wrong signals and is not a basis for a 'new cyprus' in my mind. |
My friend, I have every respect for your high ideals, but sometimes "the best is the enemy of the better". What you envision is out of reach in my opinion, not because we are hate-filled racists but because we are human and have our weaknesses. Also, there is a "heavy history" that has to be overcome. Binding Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots together will be an absolute challenge in itself. Adding the settlers into the picture will render the challenge impossible to manage.
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
For the first 18 years, extremely strict residence rules would apply. |
And after 18 years there would be no restrictions at all? Is that right? |
Is this a "socratic" question? Or are you genuinely asking? 
I assume you know that in the Annan Plan, after 18 years have elapsed, a general safeguard clause would apply whereby Greek Cypriots could not be more than 33% of the Turkish Cypriot component state population. Ofcourse, the Annan Plan constitution leaves it up to the constituent state to define the particular details of the law that will have to be passed, so it is very likely that in the end we would end up with a "maximum 33% in each town or village (as opposed to the constituent state as a whole)" - which again is unbearably constricting, because it doesn't allow for the natural development of Greek Cypriot communities.
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
By the end of that period, most refugees will be dead and the desire for return will be extinguished with them. |
It seems to me (and I may be wrong) that first generation settlers have managed to maintain a very strong desire to have a right to return (though it remains unclear to me how many want the right vs how many want to exercise that right) and pass it onto subsequent generations. It seems a little over dramatic to me to suggest that another 18 years ontop of the 30_ years that has already passed will 'extinguish desires' for refugees and their off spring to have a right of return. |
Settlers? We are not talking about settlers here, we are talking about Greek Cypriot refugees. I am confused ...
As for Greek Cypriot refugees: Already, the desire for right of return is hampered by the facts that: a) Most people have by now settled down at their new place of residence, b) Return would be under Turkish Cypriot administration. If you add to these two hindrances, a time-span of fifty years since the time of eviction, then yes, this is enough to extinguish all desire for return. "The plan" was, indeed, to extinguish any such desire for return. I have been told this personally by various Turkish Cypriot politicians.
Anyway, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that having to wait 18 years before being allowed to relocate is "good enough", and that "Greek Cypriots shouldn't be complaining?"
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
In the Annan Plan, it was also not possible for a Greek Cypriot to buy any property whatsoever in the Turkish Cypriot component state - not even a flat from a Turkish Cypriot property developer - for the first 15 years after the settlement. |
Is that right? After 15 years there would be no restrictions at all on Greek Cypriot buying property in northern component state? |
After 15 years, there would be no restrictions whatsoever in the exercise of free market economics.
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
There were no provisions for the cultural rights of Greek Cypriots in the Turkish Cypriot component state, except in the Karpasia region. Greek Cypriots living elsewhere in the Turkish Cypriot component state, would be obliged to live "as Turkish Cypriots", going to the same schools as Turkish Cypriots etc. It was also not clear if the Greek Cypriots would have the right to use their churches for worship, in areas of the Turkish Cypriot component state beyond Karpasia. |
Where the provision for 'cultural rights' of Greek Cypriot living in the northern component state not the same as those for Turkish Cypriot living in the southern component state? |
Ofcourse, but Turkish Cypriots don't care as much about their right to live in the Greek Cypriot component state, as Greek Cypriots care about their right to live in the Turkish Cypriot component state.
Besides, an inadequate provision is not made any better simply because it is reciprocal.
Correction: Actually it is not the same for Turkish Cypriots living in the south. These issues are dealt with in the constituent state constitutions, not in the federal constitution, and so each constituent state deals with the issue in its own way. The Turkish Cypriot component state constitution says explicitly that "The maronites, the armenians, and those Greek Cypriots that live in the Karpas area, will have cultural autonomy to administer their own educational and religious affairs" The insinuation about Greek Cypriots living elsewhere in the Turkish Cypriot component state is obvious.
I am not sure how the Greek Cypriot component state constitution deals with the cultural rights of Turkish Cypriots, maronites, armenians etc. I know for sure that there is no equivalent insinuation. Anyway, I'll check it out and let you know ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| No sources. I am guessing. State land in Cyprus tends mostly to be forests and mountains. Most of the usable land is in private hands. |
OK. Presumably all the military bases on both sides is 'state land'?
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
Binding Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots together will be an absolute challenge in itself. Adding the settlers into the picture will render the challenge impossible to manage. |
I understand your position and logic - I just do not share it personaly. For me the 'mentality' we need to allow us to 'bind Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot' togeather is the same as we need to live peacably with the settler. To me we can either do both or neither, but accept that your view may be right.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
Is this a "socratic" question? Or are you genuinely asking? |
Actually a genuine question. My knowledge of the detail of the annan plan is woeful. About the only thing I know about it is that most of the things others konw about it are often not correct ;)
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
I assume you know that in the Annan Plan, after 18 years have elapsed, a general safeguard clause would apply whereby Greek Cypriots could not be more than 33% of the Turkish Cypriot component state population. Ofcourse, the Annan Plan constitution leaves it up to the constituent state to define the particular details of the law that will have to be passed, so it is very likely that in the end we would end up with a "maximum 33% in each town or village (as opposed to the constituent state as a whole)" - which again is unbearably constricting, because it doesn't allow for the natural development of Greek Cypriot communities. |
I probably was aware of the 33% overall restrcition at the time I voted but as I say the annan plan in detail is not something I have any great knowledge of or desire to proactively seek out in all honesty. I find you a much better route to info about it's details ;)
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
Settlers? We are not talking about settlers here, we are talking about Greek Cypriot refugees. I am confused ... |
My bad re saying settlers when I meant refugess. Not a conscious mistake but possibly a fruedian slip I guess?
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
"The plan" was, indeed, to extinguish any such desire for return. I have been told this personally by various Turkish Cypriot politicians. |
If this was the 'plan' then I think these people were showing more wishful thinking than hard thinking imho. Yes the desire would be less after 50 years than 30, but not extinguished all togeather imo.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
Anyway, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Are you suggesting that having to wait 18 years before being allowed to relocate is "good enough", and that "Greek Cypriots shouldn't be complaining?" |
I guess what I was syaing was that I found your charterisation of the A plan as 'undermining Greek Cypriot right of return totaly' (and that may be where I have a problem - more in my interpretation of what you were saying than what you were actualy saying) as 'over dramatic. For starters a certain number would be able to return 'immeditately' and under southern component state control with the changes in borders from now to the CS borders. Secondly there were staged restrictions on return of others over the 18 years, but these were not 'no ones returns for 18 years'.
I am not saying that you should not be complaining. I am saying we should all make every effort to complain about what was actually proposed and not 'over egg the pudding'. If I have been unfair in feeling that you had 'over egged the pudding' then I appologise.
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
Besides, an inadequate provision is not made any better simply because it is reciprocal. |
No but an inadequate recirocal arangement is better than an inadequated non recipricol one. Also in some ways you can argue that under the A plan the Greek Cypriot community hade more rights than Turkish Cypriot in this reagrd in that there were provisions for cultural rights of Greek Cypriot in some northern component state areas (karpas) and none such for Turkish Cypriot in any areas in the southern component state. Again I asked this because I wanted to be sure what the a plan said in this regard.
I do take your point that this is an issue of different import to the two communites and that this difference matters. As I do when Greek Cypriot take about 'equality' of Turkish Cypriot being allowed full and total right of return along with Greek Cypriot - when in fact this 'equality' is not equal at all when considering how many Turkish Cypriot might want to return vs Greek Cypriot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexandros Lordos
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 324
Location: Cyprus/Greece
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| No sources. I am guessing. State land in Cyprus tends mostly to be forests and mountains. Most of the usable land is in private hands. |
OK. Presumably all the military bases on both sides is 'state land'? |
I like your thinking! 
| erolz wrote: |
[I guess what I was syaing was that I found your charterisation of the A plan as 'undermining Greek Cypriot right of return totaly' (and that may be where I have a problem - more in my interpretation of what you were saying than what you were actualy saying) as 'over dramatic. For starters a certain number would be able to return 'immeditately' and under southern component state control with the changes in borders from now to the CS borders. Secondly there were staged restrictions on return of others over the 18 years, but these were not 'no ones returns for 18 years'.
I am not saying that you should not be complaining. I am saying we should all make every effort to complain about what was actually proposed and not 'over egg the pudding'. If I have been unfair in feeling that you had 'over egged the pudding' then I appologise.
|
Hey, you know what? You are quite right, I have become over-dramatic! 
I don't know when exactly I have gone off the road, but it seems I have ...
As for the Annan Plan, in all honesty I do believe that on various aspects of the Cyprus Problem it has indeed been a major contribution. Most notably, I was impressed with the way the issues of power sharing and property restitution were handled (MicAtCyp will hang me from the mast for saying this!) - not that in these issues there were not critical errors also, hampering both functionality and the right of return: On the whole, the philosophy for dealing with these issues was correct, even though the implementation was faulty.
To go into greater detail: On the matter of power sharing, I liked the consensual decision making mechanisms that were being proposed, which, while not requiring unanimity, did require positive participation by both communities. On the other hand, the fact that the electoral system would lead politicians to rally around their own ethnic group, was a critical error that would have led to deadlocks in decision making. The problem is easy to fix with cross voting.
On the matter of property restitution, every effort was made to maximise the number of refugees who could return under Greek Cypriot administration. The map that was devised might have been ugly, but it was ingenious. On the matter of property in the other constituent state, the philosophy was that "the current occupant has rights, but so does the original owner". And furthermore, "We want Turkish Cypriots to be able to stay in the north, but we also want Greek Cypriots to be able to keep some property in the north as well" The philosophy here is correct, even though the particular detailed provisions of the 5th Annan Plan failed to live up to this philosophy.
The big gap in the Annan Plan is the security issue, which quite simply was not negotiated at all, not analyzed, not improved from what we had in 1960. Whereas on the issues of power sharing and property restitution only some adjustments are needed to get to a workable solution, on the issue of security we need to start from scratch.
As for the settlers issue, I am not sure what to say: This is an ugly and difficult problem that can not be easily solved. The Annan Plan approach was to get most of them to stay, but without actually seeming so, and in fact to get them to stay on Greek Cypriot land, again without actually seeming so. The Annan Plan approach here was one of deceit, in the face of Turkey's unwillingness to take responsibility for the problem - at the very least financial responsibility. On this issue therefore, much negotiating work will be required before we can reach a mutually acceptable solution. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5357
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
As interesting as this debate is chaps, can we stick to the settlers issue if possible? I know it impacts on a lot of other areas, but this thread is designed to deal with the settlers issue alone and it would be easier to start another thread regarding right of return than deal with it here. Nonetheless, excellent discussion, I'm enjoying your thoughts greatly.
Just on the land issue, I know that in Cyprus there is such a thing as compulsory purchase of land, just as their is in the UK. Therefore, if the government decided that land was required to rehouse settlers or displaced persons, it would have the right to buy the land from private owners at the market rate. Although, as Erol said, Cyprus is hardly a crowded island, it's certainly less crowded than the UK or the Netherlands. The only issue would be use of its limited water resources, but that would be easily solved if the government simply reopened the desalination plant that I believe was mothballed soon after it opened. Suffice it to say that there are workarounds anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
its really easy in my opinion, but it is wether people will accept it, due to the emotion etc... involved. I beleive these steps would work for cyprus, and be accepted by both communities.
1) Settlers married to Turkish Cypriots, and their children, would automatically become Cypriot citizens.
2) THe other Settlers, would be given the coice of returning to Turkey, with financial incentives, paid by Turkey, or they would get work permits for a period of say, 2-5years, and they can apply through the correct channels for cypriot citizenship.
3) All settlers/Turkish Cypriots/Greek Cypriots occupying houses previously owned/lived in by people before 74, would have to be evicted, and the old owners, or next of kin(children) given back ownership. If the old owners do not want their house, the 'occupiers' of that house can stay. THe people who have been evicted would be given govt housing(unless they go back to their houses which they lived in pre 74)
4) All people moving back to their old houses could apply for some kind of financial assistance(paid by EU/Turkey/Cyprus, whoever) to help them raise their house to the minimum levels of habitation(EU standards/Cypriot standards, whatever)
However, this idea i think, would not nessecarily work in a federal/bizonal solution. What do you guys think? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexandros Lordos
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 324
Location: Cyprus/Greece
|
|
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Therefore, if the government decided that land was required to rehouse settlers or displaced persons, it would have the right to buy the land from private owners at the market rate. |
Forcibly expropriating private land - in most cases Greek Cypriot land - in order to build new homes for the settlers, will be totally unacceptable to the Greek Cypriot public. Even if they get paid at market rates. |
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8920
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| Quote: |
| Forcibly expropriating private land - in most cases Greek Cypriot land - in order to build new homes for the settlers, will be totally unacceptable to the Greek Cypriot public. Even if they get paid at market rates |
I think many Turkish Cypriot would not like this either imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
detailer
Senior Villager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 473
Location: UK
|
|
| Ok, I fired the discussion. I can read and learn now! |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5357
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| Forcibly expropriating private land - in most cases Greek Cypriot land - in order to build new homes for the settlers, will be totally unacceptable to the Greek Cypriot public. Even if they get paid at market rates. |
Sometimes acceptability has to be pushed aside for necessity. No-one ever likes having their land compulsory-purchased, but it's the right of government's to do so. I personally wouldn't favour creating 'settler ghettos' anyway, not on the refugee housing model. It's better that the settler community be spread across the country rather than concentrated in enclaves (for want of a better word). It would be far more likely to help them develop as Cypriots, rather than being forever regarded as settlers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
detailer
Senior Villager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 473
Location: UK
|
|
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Alexandros Lordos wrote: |
| Forcibly expropriating private land - in most cases Greek Cypriot land - in order to build new homes for the settlers, will be totally unacceptable to the Greek Cypriot public. Even if they get paid at market rates. |
Sometimes acceptability has to be pushed aside for necessity. No-one ever likes having their land compulsory-purchased, but it's the right of government's to do so. I personally wouldn't favour creating 'settler ghettos' anyway, not on the refugee housing model. It's better that the settler community be spread across the country rather than concentrated in enclaves (for want of a better word). It would be far more likely to help them develop as Cypriots, rather than being forever regarded as settlers. |
There is lots and lots of land in between trodos and kyerinia mountains which are not forest, not mountain. They are not feasible for agriculture or tourism either
Now lets make a very simple calculation. Lets say one settler family (4 persons) needs 1 donum(negative exageration)=~ 0.001 sq km. Then in total settlers need 0.001 * 10000= 10 sq km.
The area of Cyprus is 9.250 km sq.
Let's say only 1000 sq km(a very negative! exageration) is currently suitable for new buildings. So the needed area for settlers is %1 of the available land for new buildings altough very pessimistic assumptions are made here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Alexandros Lordos
Site Admin
Joined: 19 Aug 2005
Posts: 324
Location: Cyprus/Greece
|
|
| detailer wrote: |
Now lets make a very simple calculation. Lets say one settler family (4 persons) needs 1 donum(negative exageration)=~ 0.001 sq km. Then in total settlers need 0.001 * 10000= 10 sq km.
|
Does a settler family only need a house? If that was the case, the problem would be easier to solve, but most settlers (if I am wrong please correct me), have been brought to Cyprus as farmers and given an allocation of agricultural land per family. If this is how they currently make their living, it will not be enough to just give them a house.
If settlers are to stay in the way that you and moose are proposing, there has to be a thorough plan that will clarify how these people are to be re-integrated into the work force. Will they, for instance, stay on as agricultural workers (not freehold owners), farming Greek Cypriot properties for a wage? Will they be transferred to the construction industry, or to the tourism sector?
Whatever will be done with them must be clarified in advance, because nothing would threaten the stability of the new state of affairs more, than thousands of unemployed settlers below the poverty line. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5357
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
I hardly foresee thousands of unemployed people in a post-reunification scenario. If the solution involves the creation of three state structures (Federal and 2 Constituent States), many of the public sector and civil service workers can be absorbed into these new bodies. As for construction, do you not envisage a post-solution construction boom? Can you imagine the number of new properties that will need to be built to reaccommodate any people who need to be moved, and also do you not foresee a hotel boom in the north, which is arguably the most scenic, has the best beaches and is therefore more tourist-friendly than the south?
Releasing the potential of northern Cyprus' development can only be a boon for jobs, I don't find a situation where thousands of people are unemployed at all realistic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
Alex, i read your survey results on the web(the one that was published in the newspapers), and one thing cropped up when i was reading it.
When your survey comparing Turkish Cypriots and settlers talkied about certain issues, i couldnt help notice the settlers were quite split on a number of issues. Is this an age difference, the fact that some have lived with Turkish Cypriots longer than the origional immigrants(their parents) or have the 'children' of settlers become more 'radicalised' in their thought?
it would be interesting to find out.
From your survey, it seems the Settlers are quite reluctant to find the same kind of soltuion that the Turkish Cypriots want!
Thanks in advance |
|
| Back to top |
|
detailer
Senior Villager
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 473
Location: UK
|
|
These problems can be all solved if intended. Greek Cypriot even now needs cheap workforce .
I think the problem here is the existence of settlers in Cyprus, not any associted problems with them. i can understand it but it should be put directly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3400 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home