Monday, May 27, 2024
    HomeNewsBreaking NewsWho's bothering with the return? Turkey or us?

    Who’s bothering with the return? Turkey or us?

    On the day of Erdogan’s announcements and his call to the owners of the Famagusta enclave to claim their property, another effort has been launched on the part of the government, parties and a portion of lawyers to ensure that no refugees return.

    First, Anastasiades expressed his assurance that there is no P/C to be complicit in Turkey’s national planning.

    To follow the National Council, which noted that “the possibility of recourse to the IPC poses risks in relation to Turkey’s objectives, while pointing out that the criticality of the moments requires unity.

    And then “F” took over, hosting two lawyers to explain why the refugee should remain a refugee forever.

    [penci_ads id=”penci_ads_1″]

    George Aresti claimed that accepting the Turkish proposal “will expose the basis of Resolutions 550 and 789, which ask Turkey to hand over the walled city to the UN to settle the permanent residents” and will push the Famagusta “into the arms of the IPC, not to return the property to them, but to extract it from them”, as only in exceptional cases does the committee proceed to return the property.

    Especially with regard to the case of Famagusta, he noted, it is Turkey’s declared policy that most of the properties belong to the EFKAF, and therefore the P/C who will resort to the IPC may not even receive compensation”, while adding to Turkey’s quip the argument that the Famagusta are ready to return under Turkish administration.

    Giorgos Kolokasidis described the committee as “a time trap intended to neutralise property rights”, with the whole process lasting for years, and indicated that, although at the end of this process one can appeal to the ECHR, it is by no means certain that it will be exempted from disastrous decisions.

    He questioned whether such an outcome was sought by the refugee and called on Varosiotis to wait for “a solution where, at the very least, the possibility of disposing of his property will be in market values”.

    [penci_ads id=”penci_ads_1″]

    Why don’t all these people report and what are the risks if Varosiotis doesn’t go to committee? For the city, but especially him, whose return they are worried about? Can the government, parties and these lawyers guarantee Varosiotis that, if he does not claim his property today, he will be able to do so at a later stage under better conditions? How is there any chance that Turkey will be forced in the future to return this region under THE administration or at least under the auspices of the UN? Or can one convincingly claim that even if we come to a solution, that by then the area will not have already been affected, so that it is possible – if the refugee so wishes – to return to his property? What justification will Turkey not allow the return of the property, since the issue it usually invokes – the user – does not exist? Even if he makes the argument that the property belongs to the EKKAF, in addition to the fact that this matter has been tried and judged, Famagusta will have the opportunity to appeal to the ECHR and claim his property there.

    If he does not go to the committee that the ECHR itself makes a condition for bringing any case to it, how will he claim his property? And who ultimately becomes complicit in Turkey’s plans? The political potential of the country that even today raises all sorts of dilemmas in order to allow Turkey to implement its plans undisturbed or the Varosiotis who will claim a return to his city and prevent its colonization by new users? Who is a beacon of hope and who is trying to swallow whatever perspective is left?

    [penci_ads id=”penci_ads_1″]

    This is not the first time that political forces have acted as cultivators of fear. Which, in addition to vision, seems to have run out of logic. The impression they give every day is that their goal is neither the solution nor the return, but the self-right for a path they have followed over time. Along with maintaining their credibility. But the route they have taken has already been decided.

    So is their credibility. There is no clearer proof of where the country is today. Nor more confirmation than their current stance.

    - Advertisement -
    - Advertisment -

    Most Popular