www.talkcyprus.org

[pg]

http://www.toplumpostasi.net/index.php/cat/9/news/10146/PageName/English

London Secretary İlker Kılıç of ruling Turkish Cypriot Political Party CTP (Republican Turkish Party) speaks exclusively to Toplum Postası...

Quote: Q. Do you believe the dismantling of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is necessary before a solution? And should T/Cs wait for reciprocation before doing this?

A. ... Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is an integral part of the status-quo in the north (Turkish military occupation) and because of its illegal status (UN Resolutions 541 and 550) has been used as a pretext to justify the status-quo in the south (G/C occupation of the State) and isolation of T/C. Unilateral dismantling of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and replacement of it by a legal entity (e.g. based on the establishment treaties of Republic of Cyprus) will put tremendous pressure on G/C occupation of the Cyprus State and also help remove legal obstacles which prevent lifting of isolations.

Will the Turkish Cypriot community take the legal road?

[cypezokyli]

i wouldnt get too excited....

such steps pre-suppose significant rationality.

[Mete]

Dismantling of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for Turkish Cypriots is admitting that Republic of Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot only republic for Greek Cypriots. Both will happen after a solution but very unlikely before a solution.

[pg]

The purpose as Kılıç outlines it, is that dismantling it would mean taking the Republic of Cyprus away from Greek Cypriot dominance...

[cypezokyli]

correct me if i am wrong but i thought that the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was declared in order for denktash to win the elections at the time (did he consult turkey ? )

did that declaration bring anything to the Turkish Cypriots ? besides the embargoes ?

[moonskin]

There is only one thing that is new or interesting in the interview with Mr. Kilic: The fact that he is the only person that I know of who is officially related to the CTP and able to make comments outside the usual boundaries drawn for us!

Of course, the ideas that Mr. Kilic pronounces are not new. As a matter of fact, he is only re-pronouncing ideas of Mustafa Akinci and his party BDH and the ideas of the group of intellectuals, who has become to known as the "78s", who has made applications to the Republic of Cyprus for reclaiming of the constitutional Turkish Cypriot rights.

Unfortunately, I have to say that this must be a "mistake". The policy that is being adapted by the CTP and its organizations in Cyprus has nothing to do with what Mr. Kilic suggests. Actually, the policy adapted by the post-90s CTP elements is such that it certainly refuses to even the discussion of such a matter. The statements of various CTP individuals in the newspapers, in the discussion programs on TV clearly contradicts with what Mr. Kilic or Mr. Akinci & BDH or the "78s" offers as an idea to be played with.

The idea of reclaiming the Turkish Cypriot rights from the Republic of Cyprus can be built into a more mature and concrete policy in a number of different ways. Unfortunately, among our people and even our intellectuals, it is very common to comment on something without even trying to understand or investigate it. Therefore, this idea is generally regarded as returning to the 1960 constitution. Which is of course not accurate. We see this phenomenon mostly with the elements who enjoy in a way or another the existence of the T R N C because of their ideology or shortsighted-materialistic interests.

However, we must admit the fundamental obstacle in front of such a policy. Well, as you can guess, it is the problem of getting Turkey to accept this. First of all, in case of a such an agreement between the two communities, there will be certain demands from the Greek Cypriots (quite understandably) which will require Turkey and especially its army to take certain measures. Moreover, our constitution gives the Turkish army the right to defend T R N C. In other words, if they do not agree with such an agreement despite the Turkish Cypriot willingness to do so, they will simply do everything to ensure that such an agreement fails and T R N C survives. And the constitution provides a very good cover for the internal justification of this!

I suspect that Mr. Kilic will get a strong warning for this interview and will be asked to shut up. It might even be the case that he will be replaced after this. We see similar dictatorial-partisan activities almost every day in Cyprus.

[Khan]

OK, so we dismantle the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, call it the Turkish Federated State or something alone those lines. What next? Then the Greek Cypriot administration will say they will not deal with us until we send all mainland Turks back, ok, then it will be a case of not dealing with us until all property is returned, and finally they will not deal with us until Turkey is sent packing home.

We will not force the Greek Cypriot hand by any means. One concessions will simply lead to another until a settlement is reached in their favour. Embargoes will not be lifted, not while they block the EU from the doing so and 30 years of independence will have been for nothing. Maybe with another Greek Cypriot president, one who reached out in the post-Annan years, I would feel different, but I have no reason to believe making concessions will benefit us in anyway under Tpap.

[moonskin]

Khan wrote: OK, so we dismantle the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, call it the Turkish Federated State or something alone those lines. What next? Then the Greek Cypriot administration will say they will not deal with us until we send all mainland Turks back, ok, then it will be a case of not dealing with us until all property is returned, and finally they will not deal with us until Turkey is sent packing home.

We will not force the Greek Cypriot hand by any means. One concessions will simply lead to another until a settlement is reached in their favour. Embargoes will not be lifted, not while they block the EU from the doing so and 30 years of independence will have been for nothing. Maybe with another Greek Cypriot president, one who reached out in the post-Annan years, I would feel different, but I have no reason to believe making concessions will benefit us in anyway under Tpap.

I have especially mentioned in my post about people making comments about things they do not grasp because they are not investigating/thinking about the things they are talking about, and only minutes later you come here and post about making concessions!

Do you know the difference between two sides making (signing) an agreement and one side making concessions?

[pg]

Khan, perhaps the question is if the T R N C is a means to and end or the goal itself. At the same time ponder over what seems most doable for the Turkish Cypriot community; to use legal means to regain democratic control of your place in Europe, or to use political means to establish the T R N C as a recognized state under your own control?

moonskin, to have at least 78 people discussing alternative developments is better than none...

[Kifeas]

Mete wrote: Dismantling of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for Turkish Cypriots is admitting that Republic of Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot only republic for Greek Cypriots. Both will happen after a solution but very unlikely before a solution.

How is it so?

How can dismantling of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" lead to admittance that "Republic of Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot only republic for Greek Cypriots," if the Republic of Cyprus constitution is still unchanged and it still recognises the inclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community in its institutions?

How can it mean or imply something that not even the Greek Cypriots claim to be the case?

.

[Kifeas]

There is another equally interesting part in Kilic’s interview (below) which roughly coincides with what I have been talking about all along.

Quote: When CTP was established in 1970 its demand was for re-establishment of the destroyed Republic on bi-communal federation not re-unification as there was no divide. After 1974 and following 1977/1979 High Level Agreements the demand changed for re-establishment of the Republic on bi-communal and bi-zonal federation as formulated in Ghali Set of Ideas. Annan Plan, although based on Ghali Set of Ideas, is different. Its solution is based on re-unification as opposed to re-establishment. Re-unification in my view is not the same as and does not lead to a unitary state. Re-unification in the case of Cyprus Problem pre-supposes existence and presence of communal and territorial division and foresees virgin birth of a new republic by unification of two constituent parts. It is partition within an internationally recognised state of single identity. This lies at the heart of G/C rejection of Annan Plan. In view of this analysis and in reply to your question I can not say that re-unification is necessarily synonymous with a peaceful and sustainable solution to Cyprus Problem; it is if the de-facto partition is recognized or accepted and it is not if the de-facto partition is not recognized or accepted.

http://www.toplumpostasi.net/index.php/cat/9/news/10146/PageName/English

He uses instead the term re-establishment of the Republic of Cyprus on the basis of a Bi-zonal and a Bi-communal federation, instead of the term “evolution of the Republic of Cyprus into a Bi-zonal and a Bi-communal federation” that I have been using; nevertheless we both mean the same thing. More importantly, we both agree that the Annan plan philosophy was not based on this idea -as the 1977 /79 high level agreements and the Ghali set of ideas were, but rather on the idea of “re-unification” via “virgin birth” and through the disguised instant acknowledgement as "legitimate" (if not legal) of the currently existing de facto situation and the disguised acknowledgment as "legitimate" (and legal) of two pre and currently existing people and territory based "State" entities that would play the role of the constituting entities /parties of the new situation, instead of the two communities playing this role on the basis of their 1960 Republic of Cyprus constitutional competencies; implying in this way the concept of a disguised confederation. We both also agree that this was one of the main reasons (not the only one) that lie in the heart of the Greek Cypriot rejection of the Annan plan.

I believe I have explained quite thoroughly why -for a good and valid number of reasons, do we Greek Cypriots (except Bananiot, Papapetrou, Rolandis, Clerides, Lukas Charalampous and a handful of more figures) oppose to such a philosophical approach, and there is no point repeating the same things all the time. Those who wanted to understand, they already do so.

[stavrizatz]

Cypez...
Quote: correct me if i am wrong but i thought that the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" was declared in order for denktash to win the elections at the time (did he consult turkey ? )

I heared that too

[Mete]

Kifeas wrote:
How can dismantling of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" lead to admittance that "Republic of Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot only republic for Greek Cypriots," if the Republic of Cyprus constitution is still unchanged and it still recognises the inclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community in its institutions?

How can it mean or imply something that not even the Greek Cypriots claim to be the case?

Dear Kifeas,

I don't like theories with no applications. I like to spend my time looking at the realities of the world, rather than studying some theory that has no application in the real world. That's why I chose to be a software engineer rather than a PhD student.

So, back to your question. Yes, Republic of Cyprus is theoretically a bicommunal republic and Greek Cypriots theoretically have no problem with Turkish Cypriot rights in the Republic of Cyprus. I agree with that.

However, the reality is very different and you know it. There hasn't been a single Turkish Cypriot elected in the Republic of Cyprus since 1963. Even today, 47 years after 1960, Turkish Cypriots cannot elect representatives for their theoretical seats in the Republic of Cyprus, even the ones living in the south. Recently, 78 Turkish Cypriots applied for their rights in the Republic of Cyprus and the last I heard was that their application was rejected and they were going to appeal the decision in a higher court.

The structure in the south has been a Helenic Republic and no matter how much I'd like to see it be a truly bicommunal republic it's supposed to be, it'll remain so in reality until I'm granted the right to vote and get elected in that republic not only theoretically but in reality as well according to the 1960 agreements. That day I promise if I'm in Cyprus, I'll buy you a beer and we'll celebrate the rebirth of the true bicommunal Republic of Cyprus.

So until that reality arrives, you can go ahead with your theoretical ramble if you wish but don't expect us to go along with your unapplied theories because most of us care about the realities.

[brother]

Mete wrote: Kifeas wrote:
How can dismantling of "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" lead to admittance that "Republic of Cyprus is a Greek Cypriot only republic for Greek Cypriots," if the Republic of Cyprus constitution is still unchanged and it still recognises the inclusion of the Turkish Cypriot community in its institutions?

How can it mean or imply something that not even the Greek Cypriots claim to be the case?

Dear Kifeas,

I don't like theories with no applications. I like to spend my time looking at the realities of the world, rather than studying some theory that has no application in the real world. That's why I chose to be a software engineer rather than a PhD student.

So, back to your question. Yes, Republic of Cyprus is theoretically a bicommunal republic and Greek Cypriots theoretically have no problem with Turkish Cypriot rights in the Republic of Cyprus. I agree with that.

However, the reality is very different and you know it. There hasn't been a single Turkish Cypriot elected in the Republic of Cyprus since 1963. Even today, 47 years after 1960, Turkish Cypriots cannot elect representatives for their theoretical seats in the Republic of Cyprus, even the ones living in the south. Recently, 78 Turkish Cypriots applied for their rights in the Republic of Cyprus and the last I heard was that their application was rejected and they were going to appeal the decision in a higher court.

The structure in the south has been a Helenic Republic and no matter how much I'd like to see it be a truly bicommunal republic it's supposed to be, it'll remain so in reality until I'm granted the right to vote and get elected in that republic not only theoretically but in reality as well according to the 1960 agreements. That day I promise if I'm in Cyprus, I'll buy you a beer and we'll celebrate the rebirth of the true bicommunal Republic of Cyprus.

So until that reality arrives, you can go ahead with your theoretical ramble if you wish but don't expect us to go along with your unapplied theories because most of us care about the realities.

Well said mete :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2: :clap2:

[repulsewarrior]

Three governments will allow for the expression we need as a part of a people, and as an individual.

The return, or more importantly, the declaration, that the island is sovereign, and all its people are equal, is what is needed. To dismantle the TR, a greek equivalent will have to exist, so that citizens will enjoy domain over the land in a fashion which will include the homogeniety of each's culture, (though it will be an internal matter).

As such, the Republic of Cyprus will be free of the extraordinary bias it has for Grecophones, if it reforms its Constitution so that its legislature is bi-cameral or that the Communal Chamber is made effective, efficient, and elected.