www.talkcyprus.org

[boomerang]

Quote: Turkish Cypriot columnist alleges that the number of the Turkish settlers in the occupied part of Cyprus reached 600 thousands

Under the title “Tomorrow will be too late!” Turgut Afsaroglu writes the following in his daily column in Turkish Cypriot AFRIKA newspaper (01.09.05):

“There are three serious problems we must rapidly solve: 1. The issue of the population, 2. The issue of the properties, 3. The issue of the money.

The issue of the population is very important because it is a matter of our political will. In the past we have been the minority of the Greek Cypriots. Now we have become minority in the north. Be careful, do not say ‘Turk goes, Turk comes’, like Denktas says. Because it is obvious that you can consider yourself as much Turk as you like, but Ankara thinks you are ‘Turkic’, that is, not as full Turks.Sener (Levent) has explained this very well in an article he wrote recently. In fact, if the situation was not like this, it (Ankara) would not withhold the administration of northern Cyrus from the Turkish Cypriots. All the appointments to the key positions would not have been made by Ankara. All the big tenders will not be opened in Ankara. And population would not be continuously carried to Cyprus.

Is there anybody who knows the number of our population now? Is it 180 thousands as the Supreme Election Board has announced? Or is it 220 thousands as in the numbers of the State Planning Organization? Or is it 500-600 thousands as it is seen with the naked eye?

The allegation is the following: When Talat was Prime Minister, why did he give to the UN a list of 41 thousand persons instead of giving a list of 45 thousands? Do you know this? Because: 1) in this 41 thousand persons list only the names of the heads of the family were written, 2) in this 41 thousand persons list the population which was brought after 1974 under the name agricultural – labour force was not included, 3) the 30 thousand illegal workers who have been legalized afterwards with the recent amendment of the law, could not be included in the list because they were not fulfilling the conditions of the Annan Plan, 4) the children who have been born here and the wives/husbands of the Cypriots were outside the list.

In this case, poor Talat could not fill the 45 thousand persons list and found himself in a difficult situation. It was good that Papadopoulos did not accept the Annan Plan and this list was not announced. Otherwise, the disgrace would come into the surface. Does Christofyas say in vain that ‘we could accept not only 45 thousands, but 50 thousands as well, provided that this is all”. However, this is not all. The families and the children are not in the account.

One pensioner bureaucrat who worked for years in the Population Department made the following calculation, when talking to somebody: Those who came with the first wave after 1974 were 30-35 thousand families. Add to these the 41 thousand families that Talat gave to the UN. What is the result? Is it 71-76 thousand families? Add to these the 30 thousand illegal workers who have been registered with the recent amendment of the law. Is it minimum 100 thousand families? Multiply the number you found by at least 5 or 6. What is the result you found? Is it 500-600 thousands?

Very well, what is the Turkish Cypriot population against this population from Turkey? Is it 80 thousands, 100 thousands or 150 thousands? Let it be as much as it wants. Are we not the minority? Our job is very difficult! We must definitely be concerned with the issue seriously. Otherwise, tomorrow will be too late.”

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/All/24C44F759326B7E6C225706F00371C17?OpenDocument



Is this true?...If true then the Republic of Cyprus should be negotiating with the settlers and the Turkish Cypriot should be demanding the Annan plan to be implemented in the North, because they have become a minority...All this with the compliments of Turkey.

Does anyone have any figures?

[erolz]

boomerang wrote:
Is this true?...If true then the Republic of Cyprus should be negotiating with the settlers and the Turkish Cypriot should be demanding the Annan plan to be implemented in the North, because they have become a minority...All this with the compliments of Turkey.

Does anyone have any figures?

No this is not true. It is a ridiculous claim imo and should not be taken seriously. I am not sure of the 'motivation' behind such ridiculous claims. though?

[Bananiot]

Sener Levent is doing his utmost to shed any of his remaining credibility ...

[brother]

Bananiot wrote: Sener Levent is doing his utmost to shed any of his remaining credibility ...


His statements are complete fiction and even though at times i agree with him this time i think he has lost the plot.

[erolz]

I would point out that this article was written by Turgut Afsaroglu and not Sener Levent as far as I understand it.

[MicAtCyp]

Right Erol but he quotes what Sener said in another article

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


Bananiot wrote: Sener Levent is doing his utmost to shed any of his remaining credibility ...

Then tell me which of the following extracts is not absolutely true
Tell me whether it is true or not that the list of 41K names that Talat gave as per Anan plan included ONLY the names of grownups and not their children and that he tried to cheat even on that, before we even got started.

Furthermore may I remind you that at the referendum there were officially anounced 140K Turkish Cypriots(?) voters compared with around 400K Greek Cypriots!!!. Do your simple elementary school maths and you will discover how many the Turkish Cypriots+settlers are.

The allegation is the following: When Talat was Prime Minister, why did he give to the UN a list of 41 thousand persons instead of giving a list of 45 thousands? Do you know this? Because: 1) in this 41 thousand persons list only the names of the heads of the family were written, 2) in this 41 thousand persons list the population which was brought after 1974 under the name agricultural - labour force was not included, 3) the 30 thousand illegal workers who have been legalized afterwards with the recent amendment of the law, could not be included in the list because they were not fulfilling the conditions of the Annan Plan, 4) the children who have been born here and the wives/husbands of the Cypriots were outside the list. [/quote]
Those who came with the first wave after 1974 were 30-35 thousand families. Add to these the 41 thousand families that Talat gave to the UN. What is the result? Is it 71-76 thousand families?

[erolz]

MicAtCyp wrote:
Then tell me which of the following extracts is not absolutely true
Tell me whether it is true or not that the list of 41K names that Talat gave as per Anan plan included ONLY the names of grownups and not their children and that he tried to cheat even on that, before we even got started.

Firstly I do not know what was on the list given or even if a list was given and if it was who it was gicen by (Denktash was still president of the Republic of Northern Cyprus at the time of the Annan Plan, not Talat I believe).
In fact I can not even find out what was the agreed basis for the list inder the annan plan. All I can find in the Annan plan itself is the following

Quote: Hand over by 10 April 2004 to the Secretary-General the list numbering
no more than 45,000 persons as specified in the proposed Federal Law
on Citizenship of the United Cyprus Republic (failing which the
Citizenship Board shall, after entry into force of the Foundation
Agreement, prepare the list in accordance with that law).

Yet can find no other reference in the plan to the 'Federal Law on Citizenship' or the 'Citizens Board' ???

So I really can not answer your question.

MicAtCyp wrote:
Furthermore may I remind you that at the referendum there were officially anounced 140K Turkish Cypriots(?) voters compared with around 400K Greek Cypriots!!![/color]. Do your simple elementary school maths and you will discover how many the Turkish Cypriots+settlers are.

I am sorry but I do not understand what you think my elemetary school maths should be telling me here about the number of settlers ? Could you be more explicit?

Can I ask you how many Turkish Cypriot you think there are in the north today and how many settlers (along with how you define these categories)?

If the settlers outnumber the Turkish Cypriot or where anywhere near to outnumbering them 5+ to one as this ridiculous article seems to suggest why are their not more settler MPs in the 50 MP parilament that we have here in the north?

[cannedmoose]

MicAtCyp wrote: Furthermore may I remind you that at the referendum there were officially anounced 140K Turkish Cypriots(?) voters compared with around 400K Greek Cypriots!!!. Do your simple elementary school maths and you will discover how many the Turkish Cypriots+settlers are.

I don't get the point here...

In the 2003 Republic of Cyprus Presidential elections, there were 476,345 registered voters out of a population of approximately 650,000, i.e. 73.3% of the population.

If you approximate that the 140,000 registered 'Turkish Cypriot voters' constitute a similar % of the population in the north, then you're looking at a total population of 191,000, excluding a sizeable number of transitory workers etc. who might boost the total population to around quarter of a million at a liberal estimate.

However, I fail to see how such an exercise in mathematics helps to identify the number of settlers, unless you follow the argument that there are only 88,000 Turkish Cypriots left on the island, in which case 103,000 would be settlers. I certainly fail to see how this shed any light on the claim of 600k settlers, which seems to be a number plucked from the air and bearing no relation to reality.

[MicAtCyp]

OK a quick reply here since we dont seem to communicate.
Erol, onlyy the first line of my post was addressed to you.The rest was addressed to Bananiot.
To find the complete wording of the Federal law you have to look at the attachments not to the 180 pages of the Anan Plan
To Cannedmoose:
The results of the referendum were anounced as follows:
Eligible voters aaaa
Voted bbbb
Valid votes cccc
Yes votes ddddd
No votes eeee

Eligible voters for the OAs 140K. Population unknown.
Eligible voters Government Control areas 400K. Population known to be 700K. (obviously the balance are the underaged person plus foreigners)

Is this now clear? Can we use maths to tell approx how much the populations at the OAs is?
After you do that you may continue as follows:
Isn't it a fact that at least 1/3(+) Original Turkish Cypriots (out of 120K that they were in 1974)abandoned Cyprus?
Deduct that number and you can easily calculate how many the settlers are.

[erolz]

MicAtCyp wrote: Isn't it a fact that at least 1/3(+) Original Turkish Cypriots (out of 120K that they were in 1974)abandoned Cyprus?

Is this a fact if so what is the source of this fact?

MicAtCyp wrote:
Deduct that number and you can easily calculate how many the settlers are.

No population growth from births? No Turkish Cypriots return to Cyprus who left either before 74 (like my father returned) or who never lived in Cyprus before (like myself) ? No population growth from non Turkish immigrants that have taken up citizenship?

You can calculate a figure using your forumla 120,000 - (120,000/3) = number of Turkish Cypriot today in North but I do not think this would produce an acurate figure at all.

[MicAtCyp]

Erol of course you can add the population growth and add those who returned but to get exact figures you must get them officially. So far the only figures are from Turkish Cypriots who look around their relatives geting down by at least 1/3 compared to what they were in 1974 and a few years later.
So the source you are looking at is that, and yet it is a fact.Do your own research.

Let us get some things straight here:
The title of the article was chosen by the PIO and not by Sener Levent.Everybody here concentrated on the title which is obviously misleading and perhaps attached on purpose by PIO. In fact even Levent puts a question mark to the relevant line, meaning that he really wonders.

Yet everybody missed other more important points, and some even rushed to label the article ridiculous, without even taking notice.

I asked before and I highlighted with blue colour to tell me which of those extracts is not absolutely true.I got no sensible reply so far. And i don't expect to get any....

Cannedmoose wrote: In the 2003 Republic of Cyprus Presidential elections, there were 476,345 registered voters out of a population of approximately 650,000, i.e. 73.3% of the population.
First of all the 2001 census gave a population of 694K. I don’t know where you found that figure of 650K for 2003.
The Turkish Cypriot+settlers (and not plainly Turkish Cypriot) voters were 142K.

wrote: If you approximate that the 140,000 registered ‘Turkish Cypriot voters’ constitute a similar % of the population in the north, then you’re looking at a total population of 191,000, excluding a sizeable number of transitory workers etc. who might boost the total population to around quarter of a million at a liberal estimate

No you cannot do that because the settlers are a sizeable portion of the voters and each of them has an average of 5-6 children as the "so ridiculous article" of Levent says, compared to the 2 point something in the Government controlled areas.

[erolz]

MicAtCyp wrote: Erol of course you can add the population growth and add those who returned but to get exact figures you must get them officially. So far the only figures are from Turkish Cypriots who look around their relatives geting down by at least 1/3 compared to what they were in 1974 and a few years later.
So the source you are looking at is that, and yet it is a fact.Do your own research.

Well in the case on my immeditate family more have returned to Cyprus since 74 than have left. My cousins (my aunts son) who left Cyprus after 74 retunred about 2 years ago. He left as 1 Turkish Cypriot, he returned with an american wife and 5 sons. How many returning Turkish Cypriot is that? 6? Or 7?

MicAtCyp wrote:
Let us get some things straight here:
The title of the article was chosen by the PIO and not by Sener Levent.Everybody here concentrated on the title which is obviously misleading and perhaps attached on purpose by PIO. In fact even Levent puts a question mark to the relevant line, meaning that he really wonders.

Again as far as I can see it is not Sener Levant wondering but Turgut Afsaroglu. That aside he does suggest the numer may be 500,600 thousand settlers in the North. This even as a question, is to me a ridicuolus suggestion. The 'calculation' used to get to this 500-600 thousabd (even as a 'speculative' figure) is so flawed and thats assuming the base amounts are right. Firtsly the 35,000 familes are in addition to the 41,000 alledged to be on the 'list'. A list the author himself points out was never 'announced' (so how can anyone know what was on the list?. Who knows then if the 41,000 is in addition to the 35,000. Then they add in 30,000 workers and then mulitply it by the extremly suspect 5-6 'people' per 'family'. The whols basis is so unrigourous and seems to me to be designed to come up with as high an sensasationalist number as possible. Do building site workers (part of the 30,000) come to work with 5-6 dependents in tow?

MicAtCyp wrote:
Yet everybody missed other more important points, and some even rushed to label the article ridiculous, without even taking notice.

I asked before and I highlighted with blue colour to tell me which of those extracts is not absolutely true.I got no sensible reply so far. And i don't expect to get any....

Firstly I do not even know what the basis of the list was supposed to be under the annan agreements (for all I know the list called for 'heads of families' or 'adults' - I just do not know). So without that information it is impossible to make jufgements as to if the list was 'cynicaly manipulated' bt those that created it or not.
More importantly the list as far as I understand it was not and has not been made public. So who can say anything about it, let alone if the allegations of 'cynical manipulation' are 'absolutely true' or not?

MicAtCyp wrote:
No you cannot do that because the settlers are a sizeable portion of the voters and each of them has an average of 5-6 children as the "so ridiculous article" of Levent says, compared to the 2 point something in the Government controlled areas.

Where does this number of 'each settler' (not each settler couple?) has 5-6 children? Is there any more hard eveidnece that this is the case than any other of the many many assumptions made about population numbers? The relevant comparsion in any regard is not the average number of children per settler or settler couple to the south but to the same average for Turkish Cypriots / Turkish Cypriots couples. Also if you are going to extrapolate populations by using such average growth rates from births of two groups you also have to consider average death rates between the two groups as well. It is quite possible that settlers have a lower average age of death than Turkish Cypriot, so even if they have a higher birth rate that does not mean they 'create more population' over time.

If the point of the article is we should have some real verifayable surveys and numbers available in in the public domain - then I absoultely agree. However this is clearly not the point of this article as far as I am concerned.

[-mikkie2-]

It is plainly obvious that the Turkish Cypriot leadership and Turkey are using the uncertainty over the number of settlers as a political tool. Every single thing the Turkish Cypriot's and Turkey have in their hand is there for one purpose and one purpose only and that is to exchange the 'uncertainties' for material gain, be it political, financial, whatever. This of course at the obvious expense of the Greek Cypriot's.

The only way to find the true picture is to conduct a census carried out by a unbiased organisation which will reveal the truth. That of course will not happen. So, we can sit here and debate till the cows come home. It matters not a single bit what we say or think.

[erolz]

-mikkie2- wrote: The only way to find the true picture is to conduct a census carried out by a unbiased organisation which will reveal the truth. That of course will not happen. So, we can sit here and debate till the cows come home. It matters not a single bit what we say or think.

I totaly agree that a comprehensive and independent survey is needed. I am not so convinced as you are that this will never happen. I think it is possible that it will happen next year and hope that is the case.

[-mikkie2-]

Quote: I totaly agree that a comprehensive and independent survey is needed. I am not so convinced as you are that this will never happen. I think it is possible that it will happen next year and hope that is the case.

And what makes you think that is going to happen? Are there any reports of this happening?