Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

there was just the notion of democracy

There is still one notion of democracy.

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

If something different is forced in Cyprus, this doesn't mean the universal principles of democracy that are applied in all democratic countries around the world have changed.

[Pyrpolizer]

Most TCs don't even know Eoka b was formed in 1972!

[zan]

Independence was one thing but ENOSIS was another given the climate and the history of the island. IT does not take a genius to see where that would and did eventually lead to. Trying to absolve part of EOKA of that mistake is ridiculous and scandalous.

Zan, in order to analyse historical events you have to see things in the context of the time. I am not and have never been pro enosis, however, at the time independence was not in the cards for anybody in Cyprus. At the time people wanted to get rid of the British colonialist and get the obvious right of self determination as every people that every country that has been under the British or any other colonial nation at the time. Selfdetermination at the time propably meant Enosis with Greece as the majority of the population of the island were GCs.
In no other country selfdetermination was defined according to the ethnic background of the countries that have been under colonial rule. Take for example India where there are tens of different tribes and ethnic groups.
However, Grivas has another agenda as well and this was to exterminate and nullify the communist element on the island. That is why he did not allow communists to take part in EOKA and that is why he had ordered the killings of more GC communists than British.
After the signing of independence in 1960 the Tc minority was upgraded to community status and had political equality with the 1960 constitution. Therefore, the EOKA B' had very little appeal among the GC population and was viewed as a terrorist organisation.

Let’s not beat about the bush here. The island had been under Turkish rule for 500 hundred years. Do you think that the Turks viewed this island as theirs. Of course they did. We move on. The British annexed the island and ruled it for a short time. The Greeks saw a chance for independence and the annexation of the island all in one foul swoop. They saw a weakened Turkey, am archenemy, and thought it a perfect time for this to happen. They tried to go over the heads of the indigenous TCs. Was that a wise choice at the time. They obviously anticipated resistance from the TCs with maybe some assistance from Turkey and drew up the Akritas plan. What I am trying to say is that it was a measured plan to once and for all take the island away from the Turks with the obvious obstacle and future problem of the TCs taken care of. Had they tried to just get independence and just independence then all the above would not have been necessary. So I ask once again was it wise to go for ENOSIS given the facts of history.

Zan please try to analyse history in the context of the time. I gave you the example of India. At the time (pre1960) the TCs were viewed as a minority in a unified indigenous population. Self determination meant one person one vote, there was no notion of political equality as is meant today, there was just the notion of democracy, simple 1 person = 1 vote.

I won't comment on things that go 500 years back and the ottoman years because you are using the same arguments used by Piratis who goes even further back in history. You yourself dismissed arguments of this kind before so at least don't make yourself look like a fool. You cannot pick an argument when its suits you and dismiss a similar argument when it does not.

I am not claiming the island. All I was trying to do was to make the point that ENOSIS was not a wise choice given the circumstances whether it was by EOKA A or B.

[Piratis]

To try and take out the problems and conflicts of hundreds of years and try to desensitise the problem with a majority vote is just as irresponsible as it was to want ENOSIS then Piratis.

See my previous post about democracy. The problem is exactly that democracy, as described above, was not allowed for Cypriots.

If the Ottomans had passed a law that allowed the Turks to kill any GC they wanted would that be justifiable within the parameters you have set.

Thats more or less what the Ottomans did, and they didn't need any law for it either. The difference is that I am talking about the UN and international laws as well as universal principles as they exist in all other democratic countries, while you talk about an oppressive empire passing even more oppressive laws against its slaves. Two very different things.

The empire makes laws to serve itself. Did they make the international laws and the universal principles of democracy and human rights to serve the Greek Cypriots and harm the Turkish Cypriots?
If you were the victim then you would also demand international laws and human rights to be applied. But because you are the aggressors, those principles do not suit you and you want to force your own things for your benefit and to our loss.

[Pyrpolizer]

Let’s not beat about the bush here. The island had been under Turkish rule for 500 hundred years. Do you think that the Turks viewed this island as theirs. Of course they did. We move on. The British annexed the island and ruled it for a short time. The Greeks saw a chance for independence and the annexation of the island all in one foul swoop. They saw a weakened Turkey, am archenemy, and thought it a perfect time for this to happen. They tried to go over the heads of the indigenous TCs. Was that a wise choice at the time. They obviously anticipated resistance from the TCs with maybe some assistance from Turkey and drew up the Akritas plan. What I am trying to say is that it was a measured plan to once and for all take the island away from the Turks with the obvious obstacle and future problem of the TCs taken care of. Had they tried to just get independence and just independence then all the above would not have been necessary. So I ask once again was it wise to go for ENOSIS given the facts of history.

Not under Turkish rule. Under Ottoman rule. Like so many other countries in the region.
Not for 500 years. For 300 years.Much less than many other countries.

Zan do you know how the islands in the Aegean were split between Greece and Turkey?
Wasn’t it according to what majority they had? Even Alexandretta was grabbed by Turkey on the same grounds.
The Enosis aspiration was nothing but a natural expectation.

[askimwos]

there was just the notion of democracy

There is still one notion of democracy.

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

If something different is forced in Cyprus, this doesn't mean the universal principles of democracy that are applied in all democratic countries around the world have changed.

Piratis I know where you are going with this post and I do not agree.
A federation is a democracy too. Can you say that federal states like Belgium, USA, Switzerland are not democracies?

[zan]

To try and take out the problems and conflicts of hundreds of years and try to desensitise the problem with a majority vote is just as irresponsible as it was to want ENOSIS then Piratis.

See my previous post about democracy. The problem is exactly that democracy, as described above, was not allowed for Cypriots.

If the Ottomans had passed a law that allowed the Turks to kill any GC they wanted would that be justifiable within the parameters you have set.

Thats more or less what the Ottomans did, and they didn't need any law for it either. The difference is that I am talking about the UN and international laws as well as universal principles as they exist in all other democratic countries, while you talk about an oppressive empire passing even more oppressive laws against its slaves. Two very different things.

The empire makes laws to serve itself. Did they make the international laws and the universal principles of democracy and human rights to serve the Greek Cypriots and harm the Turkish Cypriots?
If you were the victim then you would also demand international laws and human rights to be applied. But because you are the aggressors, those principles do not suit you and you want to force your own things for your benefit and to our loss.

And once independence was gained the aggressors were the GCs, where was the democracy in that. You claim democracy when it suits you and blame your aggression on a small group of people like it means something. Whether it was 500 or 300 years is not the point I was making and again when it suits you understand. The fact that ENOSIS has brought us to the position we are in today still does not ring alarm bells in your head to say that it was the wrong thing at the wrong time. You claim democracy but when your democratically elected leader was asked to denounce the violence that EOKA was committing he said he would not. What was he waiting for.....A vote on it. When the democratically elected TC part of the government of Cyprus used its democratically signed Veto Makarios was recorded as saying, "I made them pay it anyway", in the case of taxes. Is that the democracy you are referring to. Yes......Democracy the Greek way. We invented it so we can bend the rules accordingly. How pathetic.

[askimwos]

Zan, from the whole discussion in this forum it is now obvious that the majority of the GC members have accepted that there have been mistakes in the past from our side and indeed very serious ones. I believe that the GC community has matured after the experience of the past 60 years and I am sure that you will not find more than 3% supporting enosis. The preseident of the RoC parliament himself in a speech in the parliament a couple of years ago asked expressed a big apology to the TCs and accepted what blame the GC community is responsible for for the events of 1963-74.

What is obvious here is that this has not happened in the TC community and no official apology has ever been expressed by the TC leaders towards the GC community which suffered equally from the likes of TMT and the Turkish invation and occupation. I am amazed by you zan because you are turning into a new vp yourself and you don't try any more for reconciliation but rather use your energy to score points by resenting some times to shallow arguments. I don't recall you doing this in the past.

[Viewpoint]

To try and take out the problems and conflicts of hundreds of years and try to desensitise the problem with a majority vote is just as irresponsible as it was to want ENOSIS then Piratis.

See my previous post about democracy. The problem is exactly that democracy, as described above, was not allowed for Cypriots.

If the Ottomans had passed a law that allowed the Turks to kill any GC they wanted would that be justifiable within the parameters you have set.

Thats more or less what the Ottomans did, and they didn't need any law for it either. The difference is that I am talking about the UN and international laws as well as universal principles as they exist in all other democratic countries, while you talk about an oppressive empire passing even more oppressive laws against its slaves. Two very different things.

The empire makes laws to serve itself. Did they make the international laws and the universal principles of democracy and human rights to serve the Greek Cypriots and harm the Turkish Cypriots?
If you were the victim then you would also demand international laws and human rights to be applied. But because you are the aggressors, those principles do not suit you and you want to force your own things for your benefit and to our loss.

And once independence was gained the aggressors were the GCs, where was the democracy in that. You claim democracy when it suits you and blame your aggression on a small group of people like it means something. Whether it was 500 or 300 years is not the point I was making and again when it suits you understand. The fact that ENOSIS has brought us to the position we are in today still does not ring alarm bells in your head to say that it was the wrong thing at the wrong time. You claim democracy but when your democratically elected leader was asked to denounce the violence that EOKA was committing he said he would not. What was he waiting for.....A vote on it. When the democratically elected TC part of the government of Cyprus used its democratically signed Veto Makarios was recorded as saying, "I made them pay it anyway", in the case of taxes. Is that the democracy you are referring to. Yes......Democracy the Greek way. We invented it so we can bend the rules accordingly. How pathetic.

Brilliant post zan..hit the nail right on the head

[Viewpoint]

Zan, from the whole discussion in this forum it is now obvious that the majority of the GC members have accepted that there have been mistakes in the past from our side and indeed very serious ones. I believe that the GC community has matured after the experience of the past 60 years and I am sure that you will not find more than 3% supporting enosis. The preseident of the RoC parliament himself in a speech in the parliament a couple of years ago asked expressed a big apology to the TCs and accepted what blame the GC community is responsible for for the events of 1963-74.

What is obvious here is that this has not happened in the TC community and no official apology has ever been expressed by the TC leaders towards the GC community which suffered equally from the likes of TMT and the Turkish invation and occupation. I am amazed by you zan because you are turning into a new vp yourself and you don't try any more for reconciliation but rather use your energy to score points by resenting some times to shallow arguments. I don't recall you doing this in the past.

As soon as some valid TC points hit the raw nerve you retort to the same rehtoric of trying to trigger off a guilt trip, where was your understanding and reconciliation for 1963 onwards?? to little to late askim.