| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
brother
Warnings : 3
Site Admin
Joined: 15 Aug 2005
Posts: 8920
Location: London/Cyprus
|
|
| Interesting articles Erol, i really hope they come up with something positive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MicAtCyp
Warnings : 1
Senior Villager
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 313
|
|
Frankly speaking this article irritated me.For me it is a clear effort to try and solve the problems created for Turkey at the ECHR concerning the Greek Cypriot properties-propably by allowing the return (?) of some, or perhaps only those that might appear at the ECHR.
Then I saw so many contradictory statements in there for example the guy who said building on Greek Cypriot properties cannot be stopped in any way because it moves the economy at the occupied, the Greek Cypriots cannot demand this because they are not the only administrators of Cyprus (!) as if any administrator can take peoples p[roperties by force and sell them to anyone they like.
Then we have Mrs Erk again considering the Anan plan the divine authority that would decide what would happen with the properties, and at the same time making claims at Turkish Cypriot expropriated properties and rents due by the Guardian to the Turkish Cypriot owners.
I really wonder who is going to pay rent to the Greek Cypriot owners if ever?
The Turkish Cypriot regime was never serious.Unfortunately all policy so far was to grap and keep...
Usually serving it's own self and those around the regime.As far as I know the average Turkish Cypriot gains nothing of it and expatriated Turkish Cypriots got nothing too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
| For me it is a clear effort to try and solve the problems created for Turkey at the ECHR concerning the Greek Cypriot properties-propably by allowing the return (?) of some, or perhaps only those that might appear at the ECHR. |
I agree the effort is driven by the needs / desires of T and Turkish Cypriot first and foremost. But surely if the end result is that the ECHR is 'happier' with how Greek Cypriot property is treated in the North is that not also a positive thing for Greek Cypriot compared to the situation we have now? Do you not trust the ECHR?
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
Then I saw so many contradictory statements in there for example the guy who said building on Greek Cypriot properties cannot be stopped in any way because it moves the economy at the occupied, the Greek Cypriots cannot demand this because they are not the only administrators of Cyprus (!) as if any administrator can take peoples properties by force and sell them to anyone they like. |
It's true that there are contradictory statements comming out. This is not unusal for politics here as I see it. At the end of the day what is unusal imo and really quite 'brave' is Talat talking about even considering changing the laws in NC so that they comply better with what the rest of the world considers they should be. That is a politicaly sensative area for Talat. Yes we have self serving reason to seek these changes, but compared to the Denktash era this seems to me a real change?
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
Then we have Mrs Erk again considering the Anan plan the divine authority that would decide what would happen with the properties, and at the same time making claims at Turkish Cypriot expropriated properties and rents due by the Guardian to the Turkish Cypriot owners. |
Clearly the objective is first and foremost to look at bringing the situation re Greek Cypriot property in the north more in line with what is expected by the international community (and not what is expected by Greek Cypriot) to futher the aims of Turkish Cypriot and T. Using the Annan plan as a guide is a realistic appraoch in these terms as I see it. I still think this is 'progress' even from a Greek Cypriot perspective. Certainly not all you want but movement in the right direction?
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
The Turkish Cypriot regime was never serious.Unfortunately all policy so far was to grap and keep...
Usually serving it's own self and those around the regime.As far as I know the average Turkish Cypriot gains nothing of it and expatriated Turkish Cypriots got nothing too. |
I do not know how serious these initaives are or what the chance of them leading to change are. What I do know is that id the admin in the North manages to make changes such that the ECHR accpets that a local property commission is a valid means of recourse for Greek Cypriot that have lost property it will be harder for Greek Cypriot to argue that the lack of a settlement is down to Turkish Cypriot desires ot 'grab and keep'. I also think that if this could be achieved it has to make the possibility of a settlement more likely and not less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MicAtCyp
Warnings : 1
Senior Villager
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 313
|
|
Ceratainly it would be a move forward.I say "would" because in reality I dont see the whole matter moving.
On the other hand it remains to be seen to what degree that move will satisfy the ECHR. In my opinion anything less that ALL the Greek Cypriot properties will be unsatisfactory.
By the way the decision was not taken by Talat.It was ordered by Ankara. Agains remains to be seen how it will apply if ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
| Ceratainly it would be a move forward.I say "would" because in reality I dont see the whole matter moving. |
I agree that we do not yet know how much of this is 'talk' and if any real changes will result from it. It's still early days.
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
On the other hand it remains to be seen to what degree that move will satisfy the ECHR. In my opinion anything less that ALL the Greek Cypriot properties will be unsatisfactory. |
I have not looked at this in detail, but as I understand it the ECHR decided to rule because there is no effective local remedy. They pointed out various reasons why they consider the local property comission to not be an effective local remedy but the main one was that it had no ability to restore land to ANY Greek Cypriot. I am not so sure it would require such a property board to restore land to ALL Greek Cypriot for it to be considered an effective local remedy? Maybe it would but I do not think so.
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
By the way the decision was not taken by Talat.It was ordered by Ankara. Agains remains to be seen how it will apply if ever. |
Do you 'suspect' this or 'know' it? Do you have any hard eveidence that this came from 'orders' from Turkey or just conclude that based on the benefits it might confer on Turkey? |
|
| Back to top |
|
MicAtCyp
Warnings : 1
Senior Villager
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 313
|
|
| wrote: |
Do you 'suspect' this or 'know' it? Do you have any hard
eveidence that this came from 'orders' from Turkey or just
conclude that based on the benefits it might confer on Turkey? |
I beleive it is very easy to distinguish which decisions in the occupied are taken by Ankara and which by the local regime.If you have a close look at the article you will conclude that this decision was not taken by the regime. So if it was not, then by whom was it taken?
It's a similar case like the ordering for the opening of the gates... |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
If you have a close look at the article you will conclude that this decision was not taken by the regime. So if it was not, then by whom was it taken?
|
Can you tell us exactly what sentence or part of the decision makes you conclude that the decision was not taken by the regime? We can speculate but it won't get us anywhere...If we're going to discuss and learn, we have to support what we say, don't you agree? |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 630
Location: NYC
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
Clearly the objective is first and foremost to look at bringing the situation re Greek Cypriot property in the north more in line with what is expected by the international community (and not what is expected by Greek Cypriot) to futher the aims of Turkish Cypriot and T. Using the Annan plan as a guide is a realistic appraoch in these terms as I see it. I still think this is 'progress' even from a Greek Cypriot perspective. Certainly not all you want but movement in the right direction?
|
Theoretically you can justify this notion with your argument. However realistically what it is is Turkish Cypriots spitting in the face of Greek Cypriots. If they are incapable of understanding that Greek Cypriots voted no largely because of the property issue then this wouldn't be an issue.
The Annan Plan was put forth by leaders seeking to serve their own interests, not to satisfy the demands of all Cypriots. THat is something the Turkish Cypriot community needs to understand if there is every to be a solution. However I doubt this will ever happen and hence my negativity when it comes to finding a solution to the CYprus problema. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
Theoretically you can justify this notion with your argument. However realistically what it is is Turkish Cypriots spitting in the face of Greek Cypriots. If they are incapable of understanding that Greek Cypriots voted no largely because of the property issue then this wouldn't be an issue.
|
If you look from the other direction, the Annan plan ignored the title deeds given by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the north since 1974. It took 1960 as the reference in terms of title deeds (if I'm not mistaken) and it tried to work out a formula to convert the illegality of today (which is a result of many actions of both parties) to the legality of 1960 (as far as title deeds concerned). So the plan can be considered a spit in the face of Turkish Cypriots because it effectively says "Whatever was done since 1974 in null and void". As you can imagine, this created lots of uncertainity in the Turkish Cypriot community but they still considered the entire plan to be positive because Turkish Cypriots realized that they cannot ask for a solution and continuation of illegality at the same time. So Turkish Cypriots accepted the realities of today and acted accordingly. On the other hand, Greek Cypriots still have difficulty accepting the basic notion of bizonality and how it might affect their dream of return of all refugees.
| Quote: |
The Annan Plan was put forth by leaders seeking to serve their own interests, not to satisfy the demands of all Cypriots. THat is something the Turkish Cypriot community needs to understand if there is every to be a solution
|
And who are these leaders and how did they benefit from imposing something so "unfair" to Greek Cypriots? If Greek Cypriots don't like the Annan plan, why don't they try to draft a plan on their own that will be acceptable to both sides? Why do Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots alike) always look for others to solve their own problems? Could it be because Greek Cypriots don't want to compromise, hence T-Pap doesn't even bother to meet with Talat and expect a magical European solution that will enable all refugees to return? |
|
| Back to top |
|
magikthrill
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 630
Location: NYC
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
If you look from the other direction, the Annan plan ignored the title deeds given by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the north since 1974. It took 1960 as the reference in terms of title deeds (if I'm not mistaken) and it tried to work out a formula to convert the illegality of today (which is a result of many actions of both parties) to the legality of 1960 (as far as title deeds concerned). So the plan can be considered a spit in the face of Turkish Cypriots because it effectively says "Whatever was done since 1974 in null and void". As you can imagine, this created lots of uncertainity in the Turkish Cypriot community but they still considered the entire plan to be positive because Turkish Cypriots realized that they cannot ask for a solution and continuation of illegality at the same time. So Turkish Cypriots accepted the realities of today and acted accordingly. On the other hand, Greek Cypriots still have difficulty accepting the basic notion of bizonality and how it might affect their dream of return of all refugees.
|
Alright and I was wondering how on earth these people managed to overcome the fact that their neighbours were being ripped off but I guess if they are told the story you just told me I can see how their minds can drift off places.
If your doubling the amount of my property then go ahead and spit in my face too!
Also, I enjoy the way you eloquently used the legality issue from the Turkish Cypriot perspective only by disregarding it from a Greek Cypriot perspective. It was a "virgin birth" so both communities were affected the saem way by that.
| Quote: |
And who are these leaders and how did they benefit from imposing something so "unfair" to Greek Cypriots? If Greek Cypriots don't like the Annan plan, why don't they try to draft a plan on their own that will be acceptable to both sides? Why do Greek Cypriots (and Turkish Cypriots alike) always look for others to solve their own problems? Could it be because Greek Cypriots don't want to compromise, hence T-Pap doesn't even bother to meet with Talat and expect a magical European solution that will enable all refugees to return? |
I am doing a comparison between Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot and T leaders vs. the people of Cyprus. If the Turkish Cypriots knew why Greek Cypriots did not accept the Annan Plan instead of trying to excuse every little detail by disregarding certain details - yes the exact same way you did in your first paragraph - then maybe a solution would be easier to approach. |
|
| Back to top |
|
MicAtCyp
Warnings : 1
Senior Villager
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 313
|
|
| Mete wrote: |
Can you tell us exactly what sentence or part of the decision
makes you conclude that the decision was not taken by the
regime? |
Ok tell me which regime will ever have to change one of the most basic laws of it's constitution like law No 159 that would risk it's very existence unless it has been ordered to do so from the ones who control it i.e Ankara.
Heres what the article says in this respect:
Discussion was focusing on ammendement of law No 159 of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" constitution...
Tell me which regime will have to take any decision which does not really have any consequences on itself unless been ordered by the one controlling it and paying the consequences i.e by Ankara. Again this is what the article says:
Referring to the case in which the ECHR ordered compensation for the loss of use to Titina Loizidou....
Finally you tell me what you understand from this extract from the article and for whom it is more dangerous to deal with more cases like the one of Titina Loizidou, who will pay the compensations, and whose road in the Eu will constantly stamble unless it does something.
Extract: Doing nothing and giving way to new cases like Loizidou is more dangerous than any other case
| wrote: |
We can speculate but it won't get us anywhere...If
we're going to discuss and learn, we have to support what we
say, don't you agree? |
I expect the people I discuss with to have some elementary political insight and not expect everything readily told/served in a plate and confirmed.Some things are never told, and you will never hear who ordered the opening of the gates nor who ordered this change of constitutional law-if that will ever change that is.
| wrote: |
If you look from the other direction, the Annan plan ignored
the title deeds given by Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in the north since 1974. It took
1960 as the reference in terms of title deeds
Then you say: "Whatever was done since
1974 in null and void".
|
I beleive your above statements are contradictory.Anyway the Anan Plan considers the titles deeds of 1974 as the only valid ones.
| wrote: |
On the other hand, Greek Cypriots still have
difficulty accepting the basic notion of bizonality and how it
might affect their dream of return of all refugees. |
I beleive it is the Turkish Cypriots who don't cannot understand that bizonality has nothing to do with the peoples properties.Greek Cypriots can continue owning their properties at the Turkish Cypriot component state without that meaning they would return. On the other hand nobody can deprive anyone the right to return.
The Turkish Cypriots must see the realities that not even 16% of Greek Cypriots (according to many polls) want to return, but practically very few are willing to "donate" their own properties.
Heres a very nice reply by Alexandros Lordos given at CF. I am sure Alex will not mind me copy -pasting it here (in case he does I will edit my post anyway)
| Alexandros Lordos at CF wrote: |
I would also add that not even the 1977-1979 agreements imply that "not all refugees will return home. " The Turkish Cypriot interpretation of bizonality has always been that Greek Cypriots will stay in the south and Turkish Cypriots in the north, but for the Greek Cypriots bizonality has always meant nothing more than separate administrative jurisdiction, while freedom of residence would apply like in every other country of the world.
What's wrong with allowing Kyrenia refugees to return? Do the Turkish Cypriots have a problem with having a strong Greek Cypriot "minority" within their constituent state? Or is it the property issue? If it is just a problem of property, we can solve that, build new houses on state land etc.
My fear however is that the problem is deeper than that. For many Turkish Cypriots bizonality means a pure Turkish state in the north, with cultural uniformity, and with no other language than Turkish being widely spoken - after the model of Turkey, which has achieved the unachievable over the previous decades by suppressing a multitude of cultures and imposing "Turkish-ness" within its borders.
With such an interpretation of bizonality, there can be no solution of the Cyprus Problem. Nor can Turkey enter the EU with such an understanding of "cultural cohesion" as it has so far displayed. Modern European nations are open, they welcome diversity, they accept multi-culturalism and multi-lingualism. The job of the state is not to protect any one particular culture and exclude all others, but to protect the human and cultural rights of all individuals.
If the Turkish Cypriots want some specific safeguards against the specific fear that they may one day become a political minority within the Turkish Cypriot component state, I can understand and sympathise. If however what is being asked for is that Greek Cypriots can never be anything more than a ridiculously small minority within the Turkish Cypriot component state, small enough to be virtually invisible - such a settlement framework does not interest me. You can not build a 21st Century State with the building blocks of 19th/20th Century ethnic nationalism.
|
******************************
PS. Are you Metecyp or are you a different person? Please reply by PM if you don't want to do so publicly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Viewpoint
Warnings : 2
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 14 Aug 2005
Posts: 971
Location: Lefkosa/Nicosia
|
|
Alexandros Lordos at CF wrote:
| Quote: |
If however what is being asked for is that Greek Cypriots can never be anything more than a ridiculously small minority within the Turkish Cypriot component state, small enough to be virtually invisible - such a settlement framework does not interest me. You can not build a 21st Century State with the building blocks of 19th/20th Century ethnic nationalism.
|
How do we address the balance? the fear of Turkish Cypriots is that in time Greek Cypriot will become the dominant majority in the Turkish Cypriot component state, this is the main reason behind the limitation required on the number of Greek Cypriots having voting rights and political clout in the North. I have no problems with the number of Greek Cypriots settling in the north and freedom of movement but the political weight of Greek Cypriot voters should be limited to the relevant constituent state. This would ensure that those elected in the North would be genuinely representing Turkish Cypriot interests. How do we address this fear/concern? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
Alright and I was wondering how on earth these people managed to overcome the fact that their neighbours were being ripped off but I guess if they are told the story you just told me I can see how their minds can drift off places.
|
I'm not sure what story you're referring to and what places our minds are drifting...
| Quote: |
Also, I enjoy the way you eloquently used the legality issue from the Turkish Cypriot perspective only by disregarding it from a Greek Cypriot perspective. It was a "virgin birth" so both communities were affected the saem way by that.
|
To be honest, I have no idea what you're talking about.
| Quote: |
I am doing a comparison between Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot and T leaders vs. the people of Cyprus. If the Turkish Cypriots knew why Greek Cypriots did not accept the Annan Plan instead of trying to excuse every little detail by disregarding certain details - yes the exact same way you did in your first paragraph - then maybe a solution would be easier to approach.
|
Again, I'm not clear what you're trying to say here...What comparison you're talking about? What are Turkish Cypriots not seeing? Maybe I had too much vodka last night or you're being very messy in your descriptions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| MicAtCyp wrote: |
PS. Are you Metecyp or are you a different person? Please reply by PM if you don't want to do so publicly.
|
Yes, I'm Metecyp...Are you happy to see me?  Anyway, I'll get to your post later.[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
