www.talkcyprus.org

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: Why can't Turkey do the same in the occupied areas so as to make the solution scenario easier.

When 20% of the land under your control is 'restricted' in its usage and 20% of your populations asset value in property is 'locked' pending a dispute you can sacrifice the needs of this 20% to political objectives. When the figures are 80% you simply do not have the same options.

stavrizatz wrote: Yes it was, did it require Turkey to pay compensation to Titina Loizidou for illegal occupation of her property for the last how many years while Mrs Loizidou still has the right to her property?

Actually it ruled that Turkey had denied her rights of to access and usage of the property.

[depurple]

Hi RG!
Keep up the good work with the your replies:
I target Clerides and Denktash because I know they where only in it for the money, Glory and for the LOVE of Greece and Turkey!
Theses 2 where part of the COLD WAR crap that divided this poor island! They had NO thoughts or respect for the people of Cyprus: I would also target Makarios, Grivas and Samson BUT lets not speak ill of the dead!AND Thanks God they are dead and gone!
I would LOVE to audit Denktash and Ckerides banks accounts and lets really see how much money they have pocketed!
cheers and catch you in Kyrenia, London or Melbourne one-day for a spot of Tea or cold Aussie beer!

[pg]

RudeGal wrote: Fact is, many Turkish Cypriots were refugees through Greek Cypriot actions and as homeless people, made do with what was available (look up the Law of Necessity post war situations for more examples on this).

How about looking up the 4th Geneva Convention on collective punishment:

Quote: Article 33. No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
Pillage is prohibited.
Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.

Breaking that is a war crime.

[repulsewarrior]

As a Cypriot, whether you are a grecophone or turcophone, it is a matter of Grace, this Right of Return. Recognising its importance as a principal requires that we unite and to act in a manner where Mankind can recognise in itself the courage to show no compromise in its ideals, against the exclusivity of aggressors and their affects on a civilian population.

In this context, our solution should not be anything but an act of Humility, as we wish to be identified as a People, and/or persons who have as their first priority the betterment of the Human Condition.

Note that individuals were not removed from their homes, whole communities were removed from their Patrimony. Redress will require the revival of at least some of those organisms, in a manner in which they can sustain themselves.

[stavrizatz]

erolz wrote: When 20% of the land under your control is 'restricted' in its usage and 20% of your populations asset value in property is 'locked' pending a dispute you can sacrifice the needs of this 20% to political objectives. When the figures are 80% you simply do not have the same options.

And, because the figures are different it justifies the carrent property policy of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

Let me get this right. I don't want to say that Republic of Cyprus is perfectly fair with Turkish Cypriots and I find it reasonable for Turkish Cypriots to have some complaints but when the Republic of Cyprus shows some good will with some issues you would say "it is a sacrifice for political objectives"!

Are the confidence building measures that as NGOs we propose to our government also sacrifices for political objective?

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: erolz wrote: When 20% of the land under your control is 'restricted' in its usage and 20% of your populations asset value in property is 'locked' pending a dispute you can sacrifice the needs of this 20% to political objectives. When the figures are 80% you simply do not have the same options.

And, because the figures are different it justifies the carrent property policy of Turkey and Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus

It does not justify it but it does explain why Turkey / Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus could not even if wanted to, take the same approach to disputed property post 74 than the Republic of Cyprus did - because the numbers were not the same and they to a large extent define what was possible in a practical sense.

stavrizatz wrote: Let me get this right. I don't want to say that Republic of Cyprus is perfectly fair with Turkish Cypriots and I find it reasonable for Turkish Cypriots to have some complaints but when the Republic of Cyprus shows some good will with some issues you would say "it is a sacrifice for political objectives"!

THe Republic of Cyprus's political objective is to stop any change in ownership of land in the north and south EVEN IF the indivdual parties agree. This is why it is illegal for Greek Cypriot with property in the north to sell it even under Republic of Cyprus authority and why they are seeking to block the proposed exchange solution between a Greek Cypriot and the norths property commission. This is a political line that places more burden on the Greek Cypriot refugees but is necessary to maintain the 'hellenic' ownership of land in the north and such a placing of a political objective before individuals needs can only be done when those individuals are 20% of your population. If they were 80% of the Greek Cypriot population such things would not be possible to do politically.

It is to me a simple reality that actually Greek Cypriot refugees needs and interests as individuals have been and are being sacrificed to Republic of Cyprus political objectives. I think they suffered terribly from the events of 74 but I also think it is true that the Republic of Cyprus has used them more than it has supported them and help them as individuals and generally placed the 'national cause' (whatever that is) before their needs and interests as individuals.

[stavrizatz]

erolz wrote: It does not justify it but it does explain why Turkey / Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus could not even if wanted to, take the same approach to disputed property post 74 than the Republic of Cyprus did - because the numbers were not the same and they to a large extent define what was possible in a practical sense.
I totally disagree with you, it is not because of necessity that Turkey / Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are having such policy, it is because they are trying to enforce partition. Very easily it could have a different property policy but the choose not to, and that is why they brought the settlers so as to further develop Greek Cypriot properties and use the property issue for its political objectives.

erolz wrote: THe Republic of Cyprus's political objective is to stop any change in ownership of land in the north and south EVEN IF the indivdual parties agree. This is why it is illegal for Greek Cypriot with property in the north to sell it even under Republic of Cyprus authority and why they are seeking to block the proposed exchange solution between a Greek Cypriot and the norths property commission.
The political objective is to unite Cyprus and prevent Turkey's expansionist policy. The reason why they stop any change of ownership before a solution is because those Greek Cypriots who lost hope might sell their properties because they don't have other options. Therefore the victims will be those Greek Cypriots who genuinly want to return and don't want to give up their fight to justice.


erolz wrote: This is a political line that places more burden on the Greek Cypriot refugees but is necessary to maintain the 'hellenic' ownership of land in the north and such a placing of a political objective before individuals needs can only be done when those individuals are 20% of your population.
The political objective has as object the greater will of the community and the extreme majority of refugees do not support the exchange of properties for the reason that they loose their options as orginal owners of the properties. Basically refugees will loose their right to return if the only option is exchange of property and/or compensation. Those who will benefit will be only those who will take short term prespective as priority and they will chose the quick profit over the long term benefit of the community.

It is not necessary to maitain the hellenic ownership, it is necessary for those who wish to return to their ancestral lands to do so.

erolz wrote: It is to me a simple reality that actually Greek Cypriot refugees needs and interests as individuals have been and are being sacrificed to Republic of Cyprus political objectives. I think they suffered terribly from the events of 74 but I also think it is true that the Republic of Cyprus has used them more than it has supported them and help them as individuals and generally placed the 'national cause' (whatever that is) before their needs and interests as individuals.
And why do you thing the political objective of Republic of Cyprus is different of that of the people? And in your point of view the needs and interests of individuals are the material needs of a minority that can take with it the human rights of the majority.

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: I totally disagree with you, it is not because of necessity that Turkey / Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus are having such policy, it is because they are trying to enforce partition. Very easily it could have a different property policy but the choose not to, and that is why they brought the settlers so as to further develop Greek Cypriot properties and use the property issue for its political objectives.

Of course there was and is a political aspect to how Turkish Cypriot/ Turkey have treated property post 74 , as there is to the policy of bringing in mainland Turks. I do not deny this and never had. However to say this is the ONLY reason they have behaved as they have is nonsense in the same way as it would be nonsense to deny the political aspect.
What policy could the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have taken to property post 74 (ie after division) that would not have fatly undermined its viability as an entity given the number involved. Certainly not the same approach the Republic of Cyprus took with very different numbers, which was after all your orignal question.

stavrizatz wrote: The political objective is to unite Cyprus and prevent Turkey's expansionist policy. The reason why they stop any change of ownership before a solution is because those Greek Cypriots who lost hope might sell their properties because they don't have other options. Therefore the victims will be those Greek Cypriots who genuinly want to return and don't want to give up their fight to justice.

Like I said, those Greek Cypriot who do not want to return to their properties in the north but do want to realise some of the locked in value, those that place their needs above the politics, are stopped from doing so to protect the political interest of avoiding changes in ownership % pre 74. You can do this when such affects potentially only 20% of your population. Try doing it when it potentially affects 80% and you will have a new government with a new policy.
The idea that the north becoming more legally owned by non Greek Cypriot than pre 74 levles does not in itself undermine reunification. In many ways it makes a solution via a BBF route easier not harder. It also makes it easier for those that want to return to the north under a BBF based solution easier , because for every % of the north that is willingly sold by a Greek Cypriot when a solution is effected then concerns relating to bizonality being destroyed by mass return of Greek Cypriot refugees is reduced accordingly.
The Republic of Cyprus could easily let those Greek Cypriot refugees that do not want to return but do want to realise value from their pre 74 property in the north do so without undermining the prospects for reunification. It has steadfastly refused to do so but the ECHR is about to take that choice away from it.

stavrizatz wrote: The political objective has as object the greater will of the community and the extreme majority of refugees do not support the exchange of properties for the reason that they loose their options as orginal owners of the properties.

How can you or I know how many refugees want to return more than they want a solution with compensation other than return, when no such analysis of this has been done and you do not even recognise the use of such an analaysis ? I would like to see a survey done as to how many refugees are prepared to continue stalemate in the hope of eventual return vs a solution with reasonable alternate compensation, monetary or equivalent now. I suspect the numbers wanting a solution now even at the expense of there loss of right to return possibly at some unspecified date in the future is a lot higher than you perceive. Then make the total numbers of refugees 80% of Greek Cypriot population rather than 20% and you might start to understand why there is a difference in the policy you can pursue when the numbers are so different.

stavrizatz wrote: Basically refugees will loose their right to return if the only option is exchange of property and/or compensation. Those who will benefit will be only those who will take short term prespective as priority and they will chose the quick profit over the long term benefit of the community.

I hardly call 33 years 'short term'. For those refugees that want to hang on for return then fine they should do so. However to insist that no one can do otherwise regardless of their personal situation and needs is to me exactly indicative of an administration prepared to sacrifice the needs of individual citizens for political objectives. Allowing a given Greek Cypriot to sell his property in the north should they want or take exchange should they want to does not spell the end of hope for those that do not. In any case the ECHR is already on the verge of bypassing the Republic of Cyprus in this regard.

stavrizatz wrote:
It is not necessary to maitain the hellenic ownership, it is necessary for those who wish to return to their ancestral lands to do so.

It is not necessary for those that do NOT want to return to the north to be sacrificed. In fact any such who do not want to return, should they be allowed to realise value from that lost property makes it easier for those who do want to return to do so. What is undermined is under which communities federal control that return happens under. If the objective is return under Greek Cypriot control (unitary or federal) then it is necessary to sacrifice those who do not want return to those that do. If the object is just return then allowing those that WANT to sell or exchange their land in the north helps return.

erolz wrote: And why do you thing the political objective of Republic of Cyprus is different of that of the people? And in your point of view the needs and interests of individuals are the material needs of a minority that can take with it the human rights of the majority.

I did not say that. I said that the needs of the refugees is and has been sacrificed by the Republic of Cyprus to its political objectives (which generally are supported by the majority of Greek Cypriot who are NOT refugees) and that is only possible BECAUSE the refugees are a minority of the Greek Cypriot population. If they were 80% I have no doubt that assigning them deeds of state land, or even Turkish Cypriot land and allowing them to sell under Republic of Cyprus law their land in the north or some other form of relief would have happened by now. The Republic of Cyprus and the general population that are not refugees that support it need the 'wound' to stay open and need these people to continue to suffer , those that do not want to along with those that do.

[stavrizatz]

erolz wrote: What policy could the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus have taken to property post 74 (ie after division) that would not have fatly undermined its viability as an entity given the number involved. Certainly not the same approach the Republic of Cyprus took with very different numbers, which was after all your orignal question.
First I believe we will agree that it was the obligation of Turkey in 1974 as a guarantor power to intervene after the Greek coup against the democradically elected government of Makarios.

Now if the intervention was a peace operation, Turkey would take control over Cyprus, protect those in danger and attempt to restore Republic of Cyprus after the situation calmed down. In that case Turkey would allow settlement of Turkish Cypriots in refugee houses temporarily until both sides were ready to restore the Republic of Cyprus. Turkey wouldn't bring Turkish settlers (after all is a war crime to do so) and it wouldn't allow the development on Greek Cypriot land with exception the development for the greater benefits of the community eg roads, hospitals, schools etc.

On the other hand if the intervention was not a peace operation but an invasion of a foreign territory with aim the fulfillment of its strategic goals then Turkey would attempt to make a clear division, ethnically cleanse the out group and act as a ruler and not as a mediator.

If Turkey came to Cyprus with good intentions, it could very easily give temporary shelter to the 50000 Turkish Cypriot refugees, just like the Republic of Cyprus did to the 200000 Greek Cypriot refugees. So Erolz it is not a matter of being possible, it is a matter of intentions. If you come to Cyprus as a ruler of course you wouldn't give a damn about those who suffered as a result of your actions.



erolz wrote: Like I said, those Greek Cypriot who do not want to return to their properties in the north but do want to realise some of the locked in value, those that place their needs above the politics, are stopped from doing so to protect the political interest of avoiding changes in ownership % pre 74. You can do this when such affects potentially only 20% of your population. Try doing it when it potentially affects 80% and you will have a new government with a new policy.
You are not talking with documents, you talking with guts feeling. My guts feeling is that probably less than 10% of Greek Cypriot refugees would accept compensation and even if refugees were 80% overall the figure wouldn't be greater than 10%. Ok now I can understand why such a research might be a little bit useful. I say a little bit because I cannot see any intentions from Turkey to move from Cyprus.

erolz wrote: The idea that the north becoming more legally owned by non Greek Cypriot than pre 74 levles does not in itself undermine reunification. In many ways it makes a solution via a BBF route easier not harder. it does not undermine reunification if it is the willing choice of the refugees. Perhaps it makes BBF if Turkey is setting the commission with intention the BBF and not partition. Just to clarify something, does the commission compensate Greek Cypriots for the usage of the past 33years + allowing Greek Cypriots to reclaim their properties, or it is just for compensation?

[quote/"erolz"] How can you or I know how many refugees want to return more than they want a solution with compensation other than return, when no such analysis of this has been done and you do not even recognise the use of such an analaysis ? I would like to see a survey done as to how many refugees are prepared to continue stalemate in the hope of eventual return vs a solution with reasonable alternate compensation, monetary or equivalent now. [/quote] I am not saying is not good to know the figures of how many refugees would actually be willing to return but such survey will only when we now the type of peace agreements that will be discussed. If we are talking about a unified Cyprus a la 1960 agreements then I think most Greek Cypriots will be willing to return. If we will be talking about a true federal solution then less would return and if we are talking about a racist federal solution aka BBF then even less will return.

erolz wrote: I hardly call 33 years 'short term'.

For me one life term let’s say 80years is a short term perspective in comparison to infinity. I think it is our obligation as the new generation of Cyprus to stop thinking in terms of us and them but how we would create a true multicultural country that promotes human rights and equality for all. The right of return is not about the short term material benefits of individuals. It is the right of a Paphian to live in Paphos and a Kyrinian to live in Kyrenia.

erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: It is not necessary to maitain the hellenic ownership, it is necessary for those who wish to return to their ancestral lands to do so.

It is not necessary for those that do NOT want to return to the north to be sacrificed. In fact any such who do not want to return, should they be allowed to realise value from that lost property makes it easier for those who do want to return to do so.

Of course not, those who don’t want to return they should have the ability to realize value. But what I understand is that those those who do not want to return will get compensation, and those who do want to return will get nothing because simply they won’t be allowed to return, therefore they are left with only the one option. In other words they are encouraged to seek compensation and forget about their land. Actually I have a brilliant idea, I will go and get a quote from the person who settled in my property and then go to commission and ask for that amount, then go back to my property and buy it of the person who settled in after 74 ;)Will I be able to do that?

erolz wrote: I did not say that. I said that the needs of the refugees is and has been sacrificed by the Republic of Cyprus to its political objectives (which generally are supported by the majority of Greek Cypriot who are NOT refugees) and that is only possible BECAUSE the refugees are a minority of the Greek Cypriot population.

That is not true. Non refugees don’t really care about cyprob, and the majority refugees (as far as I am concerned are with the government on that).