Stalemate in Cyprus

[Brian Ellis]

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=3990360&pageNumber=0

The illegal elections in the equally illegal North Cyprus state have resulted in a draw, with 25 seats each to the pro- and anti-reunification parties. Under these conditions, it would seem unlikely that the Kofi Annan plan for reunification of the island before the EU accession in May will be accepted.

For those who are not aware of the situation, as briefly as possible:
In 1974, Turkey, backed by Kissinger and Callaghan, did a military invasion and, since that time, annexed about 1/3 of the island, with refugees of the two major ethnicities splitting it. Result: N. Cyprus (Turkish) was separated from the Republic (Greek) by a UN-controlled Green Line buffer zone. N. Cyprus is recognised by no country except Turkey. Many Turks from Anatolia have settled there (many of them naturalised by the illegal regime over the past year to distort the voting in yesterday's election). The N. Cyprus leader, Rauf Denktash, is vociferously opposed to reunification (talks and plans galore have been going on since even before the invasion, actually since 1968, but Denktash has always been absolutely intransigent for a separate state).

As long as Cyprus remains divided, Turkey hasn't got a snowball's in hell chance of being invited to join the EU.

Prospects of peace on this island: bleak

[The PIT]

Re: Stalemate in Cyprus

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
[url]As long as Cyprus remains divided, Turkey hasn't got a snowball's in hell chance of being invited to join the EU.

I wouldn't bet on it.

[Brian Ellis]

It's already written into their formal requirements before negotiations can even start. It would be impossible for Turkey to be officially at war against a member-state (the Republic of Cyprus) and enter into a Union. Also, none of the other Med States are exactly in love with Turkey, so Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Malta and possibly some others would also be opposed. The only country that tends to back Turkey is Germany and that is because of the number of Turkish Gästarbeiten essential to its economy. The UK blows hot and cold over the country.

[KvHagedorn]

Guests leave eventually.. let's call them invaders like they are.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by KvHagedorn
Guests leave eventually.. let's call them invaders like they are.

A wee bittie strong, considering that they are welcomed. Can you imagine Jörg, Hans or Hermann emptying their own dustbins or repairing their own roads?

Where the Turks are not welcome is on this island. If there were a nationwide referendum to kick them out, there would be a 7:1 majority and the 1 would be the Turkish settlers.

[drslump]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
It's already written into their formal requirements before negotiations can even start. It would be impossible for Turkey to be officially at war against a member-state (the Republic of Cyprus) and enter into a Union. Also, none of the other Med States are exactly in love with Turkey, so Greece, Italy, France, Spain and Malta and possibly some others would also be opposed.

true, Spain (the goverment) is not happy about turkey and other easter countries joining the EU. Our economy growing is heavily based on the help we receive from Germany and France. Once those countries join, we will not receive but will have to give. And even if the potential market will be huge we don't have anything to export, so Spain is gonna suffer for it.
Apart from that, Turkey should go away from Cyprus, like UK should from Gibraltar or Spain from the nothern cities of morocco : Ceuta and Melilla

[efty]

The Turkish Cypriots have no say in the situation,elections or no elections. I think we gave the elections too much attention as if they could possibly change Ankara's stance on the issue. Ertogan himself cannot define policy in his own country even with the support of the people and you expect 70k turkish cypriots to prevail over the will of Turkey's regime?

Turkey will not be admited in the EU for many reasons one of which is the Cyprus problem.

Regarding the Anan Plan, personally I am against it simply because it violates my Human rights and generally it is against my best interests. It maybe best for Cyprus as a whole however I doubt any Greek Cypriot would vote for it if explained properly by the so truthfull politicians. It is ironic that we (greek cypriots) will have to pay and pay and pay to make the Anan plan a success and the culprit will come clean with only the .5 mil Titana Loizidou won. Talk about justice....

[Brian Ellis]

Efty

Obviously, neither you nor I can give this forum the full details of an extremely complex set of situations, about which whole books galore have been written.

I have often said that no solution to the Cyprus "problem" will ever be reached as long as Clerides or Denktash are in charge. The former is now amusing himself on his new boat but the latter is here to stay for some time yet.

I'm not at all sure that Erdogan is blocking the issue. IMHO, it is the Denktash, pure and simple, with the backing of the Turkish military. I recently motored from Morfou to Nicosia and was staggered at the number of Turkish military camps I passed, one or more in each village. I think that a strong pro-reunification leader could persuade Erdogan (there are enough carrots), but the Turkish military is a horse of a very different colour.

My feeling is that the Annan plan is premature: the first step is to make the whole island a demilitarised zone with no foreign army, on either side, indigenous army reduced to minimal numbers and restrictions on the types of arms (no heavy or sophisticated weaponry), so that each army would be sufficient for any normal defensive purpose but too weak to attack. Only then could a plan be considered.

As for the Loizidou affair, this was a backed test case to create a precedent. The floodgates will open as hundreds will now press their own cases. I know two persons who have already instructed their lawyers to go ahead, and that's just in my small circle of acquaintances. (for those who don't know it, this lady is a refugee who sued Turkey for deprivation of rights over her property in N. Cyprus. She won a judgement with damages a number of years ago, but Turkey has only just paid a first instalment, after much wrangling in the European courts.).

I wouldn't like to say whether one side or the other would be economically better off in the long term, were there reunification. There are too many swings and roundabouts. My guess is that, in the short to medium term, both sides would lose, but would draw dividends from their investments within a decade or so.

That wouldn't worry me so much as to how much it will cost the country from May onwards, as they start to look at the 100,000-odd European Directives and other regulations and start to comply with them. The country won't know what hit it. But that's another story.

[Dr Mordrid]

Not that it matters much. By the time the constitutional negotiations are finished the EU may fragment into factions over the one-man-one-vote issue.

Hasn't anyone there in Europe figured out yet that a bicameral legislature is the most practical setup? Set up properly; with one house having one-man-one-vote and the other equal representation for states (large or small), neither can then run roughshod over the other.

That's how the US Constitutional Convention handled the issue of states with widely varying population and it sure as hell has worked.

Dr. Mordrid

[UtwigMU]

Dr Mordrid: WRT to EU, yes, it's been proposed, problem is in Nice a different system was agreed on, which favoured medium countries.

The new proposal goes:
60% of population (Parliament) and 50% of states (upper house).

The problem with comparison of EU and USA is that EU is based on different national states with different culture and language and history, while USA was made of colonies with same language, very similar culture (The north and south rift occured latter) and almost no history.

Another problem is different population and economical weight of countries and finding balance between favouring big countries, pleasing middle countries and not neglecting small countries.

For instance in USA California, even though it has biggest population, has almost zero say on foreign politics in USA states are comparable to German regions. Another thing is time: It took 50 years to come from WW2 to current situation and federalization of EU will be slow.

I think it will lead to concentric Europe of different paces: For inance Euro zone or EU common defence initiative or Schengen Zone, which encompasses countries that are even not in EU.

Some suggested Switzerland is best case of succesful federation of different cultures (4 languages).

Anyway, we Europeans beg you to reelect Dubya as he is a catalyst of European unification. Bush = good for strong Europe, so vote for him.

WRT to Cyprus - wouldn't the Turkish part gain a lot if they went on and reunited and gotten themselves into EU.

I mean - a carte blanche to join EU which would result in financial aid, trade benefits, ... has been given to them, even if they themselves as a state are long way from qualifying.


Turkey: I think they will eventually join EU or at least be given special provisions in the long term (a few decades at least.)

[Wombat]

Originally posted by UtwigMU
The problem with comparison of EU and USA is that EU is based on different national states with different culture and language and history, while USA was made of colonies with same language, very similar culture (The north and south rift occured latter) and almost no history.
...
For instance in USA California, even though it has biggest population, has almost zero say on foreign politics in USA states are comparable to German regions.

Most of your post is way off base re America.

First of all, the colonies are very different culturally. One only needs to look at the difference between Mass. and Rhode Island to see that very different principles were involved. Hell, even little New Jersey, where I grew up, nearly split into two states a few times. And the North/South rift was very much always there, they just had nothing to fight over yet.

Also, California has a HUGE say in foreign policy. CA is one of the largest economies in the world, all by itself, and it gets attention because of that. People are only making a big noise over the steel tariff because it had a chance of being repealed. There's plenty of stuff that has no chance in hell of budging, and CA benefits from a lot of that.

[Dr Mordrid]

Brian Ellis said;

very similar culture (The north and south rift occured latter) and almost no history.

Boy...you really don't know your American history, do you?

1. There was 300 years of history before the US became a nation and the cultures couldn't have been more varied. We had a nice mix of English, German and French culture, among others, right from the start thank you very much.

2. Slavery in the Americas stated very soon after Columbus following this timeline;

http://www.brycchancarey.com/slavery/chrono2.htm

3. The north/south rift over slavery had therefore been a major contention and continued to be so during the Revolutionary War period and in the writing of the Constitution.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

To get back to the original issue:

Denktash is suggesting that if there is truly a stalemate, he mightr hold new (illegal) elections again in a couple of months.

Switzerland is, indeed, probably the most democratic country in the world with a confederal system, and it has more ethnic groups than the four national languages suggest, even within single cantons. It states very clearly in the Annan plan for Cyprus that it is loosely modelled on the Helvetic system, whose constitution (forever being modified) protects ethnic minorities and their rights.