www.talkcyprus.org

[April of '69]

Greetings all,

I find the folllowing extract from a reply by Kifeas to bananiot in the Tassos Papadopoulos thread to be topical, especially given the recent public debate in Greek Cypriot political circles about the nature of Bizonal Bicommunal Federation.

I feel that the concept of Bizonal Bicommunal Federation has become, for us Cypriots, like the God of one thousand names - each name a property of God - of Hindu tradition. Many claim it exists, but none has demonstrably truthfully claimed to have seen it and of course it has a thousand different names - a thousand different properties...

Now to me, the notion of Bizonal Bicommunal Federation as appled to Cyprus implies the following concepts:

- A federated state with one international identity, one citizenship, one central Federal government
- Each citizen has to be a member of either of two communities - not both, and mandatorily of one
- Two states comprising the federation, each governed by members of one community exclusively
- Two geographical regions, each governed by one of the two states comprising the Federation

Which poses the following questions:

- What is to be the extent of the powers of the Federal Government, how is it to be elected, and how is it to execute its powers while expressing the political will of both communities at Federal level and also while avoiding the possibility of deadlock?
- What is to be the extent of the powers of the two comprising State governments?
- What will be the rights of the members of the other community - the one not governing - in the geographical areas controlled by each of the two states and how are they to be guaranteed?
- Local government (municipalities etc)- how is it to be related to state and federal government?

More specifically to Cyprus:

- How are we to make the transition from the current situation - one internationally recognised bicommunal state, most of the bicommunal provisions of which haven't functioned since 1963, and one unrecognised, purely Turkish Cypriot state - to the new state of affairs, provided the new state of affairs is agreed upon of course?
- What about the human rights of members of both communities - especially property and access to their cultural heritage - which neither have been able to exercise in different areas of Cyprus since 1963 or 1974 respectively - how are those to be treated and how are they to be guaranteed?

Plus of course any number of other points. This is a big issue, but since all the major players in the Cyprus issue claim that this is the form of solution they are going for, I think we would do well to find out what each of us means by it.

Best regards to all.

Kifeas wrote:

based on a UN SG report, part of which was adopted by a UN resolution on Cyprus, (a) bi-communality is only a function of the central government, i.e. to be observed in a federal constitutional sense and form; (b) political equality means the effective participation of both communities in the decision making of the federal government and its institutions, and not the absolute or partial numerical equalization of the two, in any shape, form or fashion; and (c) bi-zonality (in contrast with bi-communality as it is explained above,) has only a territorial sense, and not a community based ownership sense!

This means that (a) the notions of “community” and “state” (zone) are two separate and different types of entities; (b) they are not meant to be used interchangeably; and (c) Their relationship is only an indirect one, in the sense that the (“natural”) majority of permanent residents in each of the two states will derive from the members of one of the two communities.

In practical terms, the later can only be feasible if the Turkish Cypriot community will remain in its majority (as permanent residents) within the boundaries of one (the northern) state, and if the territorial arrangement is designed in such a way so that it further limits the percentage of the Greek Cypriot community that used to historically inhabit those areas. In any case, the percentage of Cypriot citizens permanently residing in each of the two zones (states,) should always roughly coincide with the territorial percentage of the two zones. Any other arrangement or approach (such as the Annan plan for example) will equate with a vindication of the Greek Cypriot ethnic cleansing that the illegal Turkish occupation of the north.

The 18% of Cypriots that the Turkish Cypriot community constitutes, cannot be expected to become the sole, exclusive and permanent owners of any territorial percentage of Cyprus higher than that of their population share –set aside one equating to the 30% of Cyprus, as the Annan plan implied.

[cypezokyli]

bicommunality means that both groups will have veto power.

bizonality means that each group will de facto the majority in one constituent states.

imo these are the main principles. the problems arise from things like the ones that are mentioned in your post as the two communities have obviously diemetrically opposed targets.

[Kifeas]

April of '69 wrote:
Now to me, the notion of Bizonal Bicommunal Federation as appled to Cyprus implies the following concepts:
Is this your opinion, or is this your conclusion based on certain fact finding evidence, and if yes, on what evidence? Any references?

Quote: - Each citizen has to be a member of either of two communities - not both, and mandatorily of one

Yeah! A very modern, very pluralistic, very European and very multicultural approach indeed! Don't you love it? :lol:

Quote: - Two states comprising the federation, each governed by members of one community exclusively
Really? The Turkish Cypriots will love you for this! And I suppose you also assume that the members of the other community residing in the other state will only be tax paying second class state residents-citizens, with no political rights in the place of their permanent residence! Isn't this what you mean? And the 18% of Cypriots to be the exclusive rulers of 30% of Cyprus, assuming the Annan territorial maps and "adjustments!"

PS: Somebody asked me why I make reference to 30%, instead of 28.9% that the A-plan stipulated. Well, 4% of Cyprus would have been part of the British bases. If you subtract this from 100% and recalculate the 28.9%, it becomes 30.1%!

Quote: Which poses the following questions:

............................................................
- What will be the rights of the members of the other community - the one not governing - in the geographical areas controlled by each of the two states and how are they to be guaranteed?

......................................................

But you just answered this yourself, right above! No political rights at all, within the state of their residency; and no cultural rights as well, as far as I am concerned!

According to the majority Turkish Cypriot view of a BBF, you would have definitely made the perfect Greek Cypriot leader to replace Papadopoulos! :lol:

Quote: More specifically to Cyprus:

..........................................
- What about the human rights of members of both communities - especially property and access to their cultural heritage - which neither have been able to exercise in different areas of Cyprus since 1963 or 1974 respectively - how are those to be treated and how are they to be guaranteed?

Without effective political rights, and under a mini-kemalist state, do not expect much in terms of human and more importantly cultural rights! Just about as many as the Kurdish citizens of Turkey have!

[April of '69]

Greetings,

cypezokyli wrote:

the two communities have obviously diemetrically opposed targets



If we take that to be true, then there is no hope.

However I don't believe that to be true. I believe that a level-headed examination of what the two communities really want - if one can generalise in that way - will show that there is much more agreement than first meets the eye and I base that on my personal contact with many Cypriots of both communities on both sides of the Green Line since the checkpoints opened in 2003.

cypezokyli wrote:

bizonality means that each group will de facto the majority in one constituent states.



In my opinion, it might well be so, but the important thing is that each community will govern at constituent state level in the area assigned to its constituent state, not necessarily that it will form the majority of residents - because I suppose the political rights at constituent state level would arise from membership of the community, not from area of residence. This can go some way towards assuaging the fears of both communities that they could be politically overwhelmed by members of the other community resident in their constituent state. Since where one votes is decided by which community one belongs to, and not where one lives, the political balance cannot be upset by changes of residence. Think European Union. No matter how many Germans or British move to Cyprus, there won't be a German or British takeover of politics. That is not to say that appropriate controls can't be put in place of course.

cypezokyli wrote:

bicommunality means that both groups will have veto power.



Remember that the veto only applies to stopping things from getting done. There should also be a mechanism whereby a consensus is reached on what to actually do.

If I recall correctly, the Annan plan suggested an executive council of six, four Greek Cypriots, two Turkish Cypriots, which would require approval from at least one Turkish Cypriot for the important matters on which council consensus would be required.

Again if I recall correctly, these six council members would be elected on a single list, which list would need to achieve separate majorities in both communities in both the Upper and Lower houses.

Therefore the political forces proposing a list of six names would have to select a list which would win a majority from both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot members of both Houses. It would, therefore, have to be a list of six moderate, conciliatory politicians, proposed jointly by political forces comprising both communities.

That's if I am recalling it correctly of course, I don't remember it all by heart and stand to be corrected of course.

Do people think that would be a workable scheme? Can anyone think of better ideas?

Best regards to all.

[Kifeas]

cypezokyli wrote: bicommunality means that both groups will have veto power..

Where do you base this absolute statement? Is it written as a definition in some dictionary or constitutional law science book that you know? Is this the only way in which bicommunality can or may be observed?

Quote: bizonality means that each group will de facto the majority in one constituent states.

Majority by what percentage? And how is this going to be achieved? On the basis of the Procrustean bed approach that Kofi Annan suggested in his "solution" plan? And if after an X number of years, hypothetically 1/3 of the Turkish Cypriot community will find themselves residing outside the boundaries of "their" state, for whatever reasons, will we start kicking Greek Cypriots out of the state so that the "agreed balance" is retained?

Quote: imo these are the main principles.
Who made and who decided these such principles?

[Kifeas]

April of '69 wrote:

If we take that to be true, then there is no hope.

However I don't believe that to be true. I believe that a level-headed examination of what the two communities really want - if one can generalise in that way - will show that there is much more agreement than first meets the eye and I base that on my personal contact with many Cypriots of both communities on both sides of the Green Line since the checkpoints opened in 2003.


It is as simple as that!

The 82% majority will accept the 18% minority as its equitable partner in the running of the central (federal) government, in a power sharing arrangement under the notion of political equality! For this to be balanced out, the 18% minority that coincidentally will also live in a separate state substantially larger than its share, should also have to accept that it will have to share “its” state to a certain significant extent with the other community; likewise the other (larger) community will do in their favor for the central government! This is the only way to balance the two out; otherwise the majority will always be in the mercy of the minority!

PS: For those of you that have an "inherent allergy" on the hearing of the notions of "minority" and "majority," I only mean it a numerical [!] sense!

[erolz]

Hi April of 69 and welcome to the forum.

April of '69 wrote:
because I suppose the political rights at constituent state level would arise from membership of the community, not from area of residence.

Kifeas has pointed out the basic problem of such an approach. Namely that is it right for someone resident in a given constituient state to not have political representation within that consituient state ?

Personally I think that the above solution is probably more desirable that restrictions on number of given ethnic group thatn can reside in the 'other' consituient state, especially if it is mitigated to some degree by full local level participation and respresentation.

However another problem with this appraoch as well as the representation issue highlighted by Kifeas, is the idea of purely mono ethnic consitituent states (in terms of represntatation). I think it is desirable in many ways for each component state to be composed of a minority of people from the 'other' ethnic group but with a mechanism that ensures Turkish Cypriot do not become a minority in both.

So trying to cut this gordian knot.

Membership of component state is based on residency. However if and when this threatens the numerical dominace of the component state (say upto 33% of citizens from the 'other' community) THEN restictions on this internal cirtizenship (not residency) are applied and any excess members of the other community to this threashold maintina their state level citizenship according to ethnic criteria and not location of residency. They should also be guaranteed full rights of representation at the local level.

This is a messy solution but one that seeks to find a middle line. Its benfits as I see them are that component state represenation is base firstly on location of residency. Limits to this are ONLY applied if it truely threatens the bicommunal nature of a feaderal solution - whihc may happen, and if restrictions are placed they are no placed on residency but on residnecy + representation within the component state you reside in (ie as a Greek Cypriot even if the northern component state is made up of 33% of Greek Cypriot you could STILL live in the northern component state, but would have to accept you political representation at this level would remain with the southern one).

[cypezokyli]

Quote: Quote: cypezokyli wrote:
bicommunality means that both groups will have veto power..


Where do you base this absolute statement? Is it written as a definition in some dictionary or constitutional law science book that you know? Is this the only way in which bicommunality can or may be observed?

i base it in no constitutional law science book or a dictionary in that respect.
i base it on what i observe.
Quote:

Quote: bizonality means that each group will de facto the majority in one constituent states.


Majority by what percentage? And how is this going to be achieved? On the basis of the Procrustean bed approach that Kofi Annan suggested in his "solution" plan? And if after an X number of years, hypothetically 1/3 of the Turkish Cypriot community will find themselves residing outside the boundaries of "their" state, for whatever reasons, will we start kicking Greek Cypriots out of the state so that the "agreed balance" is retained?

let me put it that way. april of 69 asked a question and this was the simplest answer, according to my understanding, that i could give. i didnot imply how this could be achieved and i didnot make any reference to the AP whatsoever.
i also did not say that i disagree with a number of said you just posted... relax



Quote: Quote: imo these are the main principles.

Who made and who decided these such principles?

as i have told you above, this is what i observe.
it is obvious that what I observe will not be written in any SC resolution.
i expressed my opinion, not what the UN thinks, or we would like it to think.

if you think that a solution will interpret the two above differently, then let us hope you prove right and I wrong

[Kifeas]

cypezokyli wrote: Quote: Quote: cypezokyli wrote:
bicommunality means that both groups will have veto power..


Where do you base this absolute statement? Is it written as a definition in some dictionary or constitutional law science book that you know? Is this the only way in which bicommunality can or may be observed?

i base it in no constitutional law science book or a dictionary in that respect.
i base it on what i observe.
Quote:

Quote: bizonality means that each group will de facto the majority in one constituent states.


Majority by what percentage? And how is this going to be achieved? On the basis of the Procrustean bed approach that Kofi Annan suggested in his "solution" plan? And if after an X number of years, hypothetically 1/3 of the Turkish Cypriot community will find themselves residing outside the boundaries of "their" state, for whatever reasons, will we start kicking Greek Cypriots out of the state so that the "agreed balance" is retained?

let me put it that way. april of 69 asked a question and this was the simplest answer, according to my understanding, that i could give. i didnot imply how this could be achieved and i didnot make any reference to the AP whatsoever.
i also did not say that i disagree with a number of said you just posted... relax



Quote: Quote: imo these are the main principles.

Who made and who decided these such principles?

as i have told you above, this is what i observe.
it is obvious that what I observe will not be written in any SC resolution.
i expressed my opinion, not what the UN thinks, or we would like it to think.

if you think that a solution will interpret the two above differently, then let us hope you prove right and I wrong
Pezo, perhaps law is, but politics is not a “black or white” thing –that is why after all they are called politics; more so when trying to discuss and solve the political aspects of the Cyprus issue.

I find the ways you sometimes put your views down sounding more like “black or white” clichés; that is why my somewhat “dialectical sarcasm!”

I also take a “black or white” approach on Cyprus, but only when the legal aspects are involved! In politics, there are very few principles, and mostly interests; that is why, “thanks god,” the Cyprus issue is not only a political one!

Discussing the terms of bi-communality in a future solution, and whatever lies outside the legal framework, it immediately enters the sphere of politics; therefore it cannot be absolute, i.e. “either this or that!” There are thousands of colors in-between, to pick from!

[100%cypriot]

kifeas wrote: In politics, there are very few principles, and mostly interests


Correct My Friend that is why we will struggle to find a JUST solution !

[Mete]

Kifeas wrote:
In politics, there are very few principles, and mostly interests; that is why, “thanks god,” the Cyprus issue is not only a political one!

Ahhh...when will our fellow Cypriots learn? You occasionally confuse your wishes with actual realities but I didn't know that you were that deluded.

You know we have a perfect saying for this among Turkish Cypriots, especially among the older generation: "If my aunt had testicles then she would be my uncle" :-) So, yes, Kifeas, Cyprus is not a political problem.

[erolz]

Mete wrote: So, yes, Kifeas, Cyprus is not a political problem.

To be fair Mete he said it was not ONLY a political problem.

[Mete]

erolz wrote:
To be fair Mete he said it was not ONLY a political problem.

You're right. My apologies to Kifeas, then. After a long day in front of the computer, I can barely read.

[repulsewarrior]

Bi-Zonal does not mean two parts.

Bi-Communal does not mean two mutually exclusive governments.

Three governments, or one, will make us Bi-Communal

Two National Assemblies will direct the aims of the majority of its citizenrywithin their territory, but no one is without a vote, and service may be given in one language first, but it will be offered to others reciprocally. as well as respectfully, in the spirit of this Federation, in at least the other two Official Languages.

If their fielty is to the Republic of Cyprus as a State, which is Sovereign and the defender of equal and individual rights then it is entirely possible to accomodate the Right of Return for both Turkish and Greek Cypriots, from those days fifty years ago as well as thirty years ago, as well as the Settlers, by having the Two 'parts' pocked by enclaves, the settlements of their counterpart and its National Assembly:
That would be Bi-Zonal.

[Mete]

repulsewarrior wrote:
Bi-Zonal does not mean two parts.

I don't know what planet you live in but in this world, Bi-zonal, by its very definition, means two zones, in other words, two parts. We can argue about what those two parts represent (federal states, independent states, community zones, farms, etc.) but we cannot argue that bizonal means two zones. Let's not try to reinvent the words here.
repulsewarrior wrote:
Bi-Communal does not mean two mutually exclusive governments.

This I agree. But note that bi-communal means that a government form where the participation of both communities is guaranteed. Republic of Cyprus on paper is bicommunal but in reality it hasn't been so since 1963.