Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Lupusdiavoli, thank you for your views. I found this one quite interesting:

I totally agree that the enosis aspiration was legitimate. At the same time I consider legitimate the efforts of the rest interested parties to avert this option.

The reason I said the aspiration of enosis was legitimate is because it is natural for Greek Cypriots to want union with a country to which they identify in all walks of life. What may come as natural however, is not necessarily right and this is an important axiom of philosophy. It would have been right to pursue our aspiration had we taken into account other factors that were necessary to put into the equation and concluded that the target could be achieved under the conditions that prevailed then. We failed to do so (again, the usual story) and eventually made enosis an unreachable dream, having first brought Turkey into the equation as an important player. Turkey did not become a player in 1969 or indeed in 1955 when EOKA started the armed struggle. It became a player a couple of years before when Makarios stubbornly insisted and twisted the arm of Greece to internationalise the Cyprus issue by taking it to the United Nations. When Greece capitulated to this demand, after resisting for three years, the writing was on the wall.

Then I am not sure I agree with your general statement that Turkey would step in independent of our actions. We need to rely on history, perhaps, to resolve this. I also rely on your insignia (motto) which I like a lot, and I see that bar the war of independence in 1821, all other Turko-Greek wars were started by us. I really cannot see how Turkey would have made her way into Cyprus. Inonu tried hard to prevent Makarios in 1962 from attempting to change the Constitution, despite the fact that certain Turkish hawks were seating on the wings, ready to pounce on our mistakes.

On the issue of nationalism I need to clear one thing. I condemn nationalism when it impeaches on the needs, fears, security and even complexes of other groups of people. It is this sick nationalism that I condemn and cannot excuse, for it was exactly this nationalism that has led us to this predicament.

Also, I need to clear out one more thing. I would never try to win my case by manipulating situations in order to achieve my targets (ie enosis). The honourable thing to do is to listen carefully to the other side and in a friendly and fraternal way to find solutions. This requires compromises from all sides and compromises is what our culture has never let us understand. It is very brave and commendable to be able to reach solutions through compromises. Thus, compromises, given that they are in our aims, can also be tapped through the proper and scientific analysis of all factors affecting our issue, whether they are geostrategic or others.

[lupusdiavoli]

Well Turkey became legitimately or legally interested party because of the 1960 guarantor status. It was nevertheless the same strategically speaking. It was obvious that Britain would prefer to bring into the game one way or another Turkey to balance the power equilibrium. Makarios had no idea of foreign policy and he was such an easy victim to fall in the trap few years after signing himself that rigid Constitution. He also made his best to alienate TC. The upper hand belonged to GC upon the Greek army division’s secret arrival but the advantage was soon lost.

I find enosis with Greece legitimate in every way whatsoever. Tough luck though since history is disobedient to desires, even naturally legitimate, by nature.

It seems that u like philosophy. What a natural thing for a Greek. Philosophers said too many things. I prefer those who don’t believe in axioms. Every stream of philosophy has its own standards for right or wrong and it considers the evaluation of the other streams of philosophy as false. In my understanding of philosophy there is no Philosophy as a whole. I mean there is no such entity constituting one body but pieces all around. What appears to be one is simply the philosophical conflict verifying that there is no single true. Anyway I leave philosophy to the professionals.


Turkey has no legitimate interest to step in Iraq. However Turkey just recently declared in the most clear manner that it is of its interest to interfere.

You have mistakenly let me say perceive independence as a shield against foreign interference. Turkey would find a reason existing or not or it could create one by purpose. This is the nature of foreign policy among others. It is up to the creative imagination of those under concern to find a way.

A proper counter claim would be “why I do consider such development inevitable”? Well in my eyes the conflict is between two subjects, Turkey and Greece in the whole geo-strategic periphery where they meet. The balance between them is still pending. Greece is losing ground the last 100 years. By losing ground I don’t only have in mind the real ground but also in the sense of strategic gravity in the area.

Yes we do need to rely on history to solve this. A useful example would be the pro modern period of Europe up to the WW II which –the latter- decisively put an end to the strategic pendency in Europe. Ironically the result was not in the favour of those powers dominating for years the conflict pendulum ie. GB, France, Germany. France and Germany became allies not because of the civilized way but because they simply have nothing to gain from each other. The trophy went to USA. But on a local level as the one between Turkey and Greece thing are otherwise.

You are absolutely right locating that for years Greece had the initiative. It is up to me now to tie this with my previous arguments. Let me try.

Why did Greece for a period at least had the initiative? Being coherent with the above I have to find something pending in strategic terms.

Well, the early Greek state had to face the paradox of having most of the fellow Greeks outside its boundaries! This is a huge motive and obviously it consisted a pending account. Hence the notorious “Great Idea”. At the same time it is helpful to employ theoretical arguments –to motivate people- and legitimate the cause since Greece tried to encompass its historical places. A strategist would simply say, the young Greek state wanted to expand and survive. Saturation came with 1922 defeat. Moreover a reverse occurred. That is the Greek state’s limits –double by then- had now within most of the Greeks. With one special exception, Cyprus, was the last and far ground with great numbers of Greeks outside Greece.

However the roles somehow are reversed today. Saturation for Greece and the opposite for Turkey. It is a young state in a sense, newborn after 1922 and with vital forces to the highest degree. See the numbers population, army strength, economy and industry. Problems exist but its vital forces are the motivation powers for expansion. By expansion I mean not the actual possess of ground, but the strategic gravity. You don’ t have to possess something to make your will respectful. It is the advantage of the strong side.

It is true that Ismet Inonu tried hard to prevent Makarios… The hard true is that until then and some years later the balance, speaking in terms of army strength and quality, was in the favour of Greece. The Greek politicians did not take any advantage of it. Turley was unable to interfere then. Poor on air, the same regarding navy. How to enforce your will on the ground if you are unable to do it. It is not a secret that the landing crafts for such an attempt simply did not exist.

So Inonu’s attitude was the right given the circumstances.

I understand your feelings against nationalism.


My argument is that even in the absence of nationalism the predicament would be around.

Let me turn to philosophy now. It was your Socrates axiom that in order to decide the partial you should define the catholic. So, the issue goes like this. Nationalism is the agent of the conflict and the rest. So by deleting nationalism you get rid of its sad results. Well history shows the opposite. People can find many reasons to kill each other.
My best argument? How do u explain civil wars?

I like this “I would never try to win my case by manipulating situations in order to achieve my targets (ie enosis).”

I like it because it sounds coming from an honest man. You express your ethical standards by this. I do respect it. I wouldn’t follow it.

What am I trying to say is that foreign affairs and politics are not grounded on personal ethics. You already know it but suddenly you are giving a deep personal view on the issue. That means subjectivism. No, it is the counsel for errors. You are entering a conflict self-limited whereas the other obeys no laws.

Think if by miracle you could achieve enosis and avoid the present situation. Hard option and u could answer to me that there is no manipulation there. But it is, since you are the only one having the option in this hypothesis!

If you like history you should know and you do know by default, that it is a virtue to manipulate things in your favour.

It is the honorable thing to listen carefully to the other side and in a friendly and fraternal way to find solutions. Man to man and in a dialectic manner yes it is.

It is a different story when the subjects are states and their interests. There is no honor there.
Your culture has never let you understand the need for compromise? I should say the way some like to interpretate it. It is not brave to reach solutions through compromises. It is simply the reality when you are on the weak side. What is brave is to admit this as a fact instead of high hopes.

At the end you have to apply those factors affecting our issue and in my view the appropriate are those of geo-strategy. To emphasize this I add the following; on a personal level we could become friends. On the level of geo-strategy being on opposite camps I would have to exterminate you. I know it is a sad story. No honor at all, no bravery, no ethics, simply strategic interest on the back of a small island but which it is an essential element of larger equation.

To end this otherwise, I should say that I receive a sort of pendulum in your thinking. An understanding of history alongside with the relevant knowledge and at the same time a personal subjective tone. These should be clear from each other scientifically speaking.

[BirKibrisli]

I have voted for a single state,because anything else would take 100 more years to agree on...

I think the fairest and quickest option is for Turkey to stop her occupation of Cyprus,and for the GCs to stop their occupation of the Cyprus government...We could return to the 1960 constitution in an orderly manner withing a reasonable time frame,and work with goodwill and the benefit of hindesight to make that constitution more democratic and workable over time as we build trust and empathy...

What do i think the chances are? Almost nil...We as human beings are not that developed to give up short term gains for long term peace and prosperity...But I reserve my right to dream...that one day sanity and justice will win over madness and injustice...that one day unthinking nationalism and blind chauvinism will give way to tolerance and respect for differences...that primitive fears and greed will give way to trust and generocity of spirit...If I stop dreaming I might as well be dead...

[zan]

I have voted for a single state,because anything else would take 100 more years to agree on...

I think the fairest and quickest option is for Turkey to stop her occupation of Cyprus,and for the GCs to stop their occupation of the Cyprus government...We could return to the 1960 constitution in an orderly manner withing a reasonable time frame,and work with goodwill and the benefit of hindesight to make that constitution more democratic and workable over time as we build trust and empathy...

What do i think the chances are? Almost nil...We as human beings are not that developed to give up short term gains for long term peace and prosperity...But I reserve my right to dream...that one day sanity and justice will win over madness and injustice...that one day unthinking nationalism and blind chauvinism will give way to tolerance and respect for differences...that primitive fears and greed will give way to trust and generocity of spirit...If I stop dreaming I might as well be dead...

No problems with the end result you are advocating Bir but whilst you are dreaming do you mind if the rest of us get on with the realities of every day life. You are right in all the human trates you have pointed out but you just sound like a grumpy old man that is just looking for someone to blame.

[free_cyprus]

turkish speaking and greek speaking people of cyprus are to bleme to we must take some of the resposibility for becoming agents of turkey and greece.................... not only that we signed away any rights as cypriots when they agreed to the zurich agreement in 1959........................cyprus was devided then not in 1974 but many people in here think it was the greek junta that gave turkey the excuse its rubbish they all worked together to ahcieve the end result and they done it..................... four members of nato turkey, greece, britain , and america...........all to their own advantage

[zan]

turkish speaking and greek speaking people of cyprus are to bleme to we must take some of the resposibility for becoming agents of turkey and greece.................... not only that we signed away any rights as cypriots when they agreed to the zurich agreement in 1959........................cyprus was devided then not in 1974 but many people in here think it was the greek junta that gave turkey the excuse its rubbish they all worked together to ahcieve the end result and they done it..................... four members of nato turkey, greece, britain , and america...........all to their own advantage

Free_Cyprus
This is the one thing that I think we have all agreed on and you keep going on about it over and over again. I am not having a go at you and have resisted the urge to comment but you are like a dog that keeps nipping at our heels.

[free_cyprus]

soo if we all agree on whats happened why is cyprus in the state its in right now then zen....................i tlel you why cos the people in power are all ex eoka and tmt mebers working for turkey and greece.................secondly the people they employ in running out little island are all with the same idiology.................thirdy they practice devide and rule................................ so what chance have we got to have a free cyprus i ask you..............................without barking or biting your heels

[Kifeas]

Hi again Babaniot,

I totally agree that the enosis aspiration was legitimate. At the same time I consider legitimate the efforts of the rest interested parties to avert this option. The issue regarding the responsibilities is vast and complex. Unless someone really cares as you said at some point “to observe and analyse scientifically” in every other case falls within the usual circle of arguments. Nevertheless I could add except the local errors the ongoing weakness of the Greece to support such “fights”. Even Crete which I mentioned before reached the “dream” on its own and because of that Venizelos figure.

I see your argument as a whole but I have to counterclaim that even without the armed struggle and the following events Turkey would find one or another the way to step on the island.

I think our main difference for the moment is the way we perceive geo-strategy. In my eyes the motivating cause remains always the same and the rest are historic details. Nationalism, armed struggle or else since you have geo-strategic reasons to do something, provided that you are coherent, you will find the manner to attempt your target.

Speaking of coherence I can’t say that is one of the GC virtues. Except, to play the words, of the “populist fashion that gains sympathy”. I refer to the same with regards to the referendum of April 2004.

People u know always find reasons to believe that they have “all justice on their side”.
I agree that the starting point for any scientific analysis is to get rid of all those elements affecting solid judgment, nationalism, ethics and the same.

I enjoy your following comments. You have in mind I believe Macarios. Well he could not see far anyway. Another study case for failure and someone wishes to follow his bright example once again. All own against the world.

You do have half of Cyprus not because of luck but because the rest half of the island serves quite well the geo-strategic desires of Turkey. In terms of a possible war the island could only resist for some days. I am not cynical just realist having in mind the numbers and the situation on the ground.

It is not an alternative of enosis I had in mind. I simply wanted to show that the structure of thought follows quite the same path. The equation structurally speaking is the same. Even you cannot avoid speaking for the need to dream. The loading is still around. It is hard to avoid.

But there are dreams and dreams. For example that dream of the original enosis had believers ready to sacrifice their lives for. How many believers the “new version” of dream can lead to death?

The momentum was there and is lost. A plan –specially the third version- much satisfying Turkey on a geo-strategic version and unifying some sort the island under the EU umbrella.

Most of the GC cannot accept defeat. They breath this misinterpreted theory of humans rights as if this is enough to give them back what they lost on the battlefield. They tend to ignore the agreements signed back on 77-78. Their brilliant leader Macarios was the one who really set up the ground for what followed.

The “conventional wisdom now may change dramatically in the bleep of an eye”? You need a shock for this. Another defeat may be. The last century taught nothing most of the GC. The critical momentum was there. The hard reality will emerge when Turkey will fully realize that there is no hope of entering EU. Alongside with Kosovo developments which much affect as an example of the same Cyprus and Greece will have to deal with a more aggressive –for her own reasons- Turkey.

I am sure those voting against the Anan plan will find this satisfactory in the sense that will legitimate their attitude. What they are missing now and tomorrow is that the half of the island is “occupied”. But who cares, they built their carriers on this

Lupusdiavoli, we perfectly understand your Turkophilic sentiments, but unfortunately for you we neither sympathize with you, nor appreciate or agree with your arguments.

You know quite a number of facts and details, however, your problem is that you try to make us believe you know much more than you actually know, and even worst, you try to analyze what you know (or what you want us to believe you know) in a clearly dissembled way.

You in fact begin your approach on the basis of your concluded desire to see Turkey’s way into the EU to become straighten and smoothen, and on this basis you attempt to recruit sophistic and even “demoralizing” arguments to justify why we should essentially surrender our cause and capitulate, so that we cease to be an obstacle in Turkey’s (and your) wishes to see her in the EU.

Nice try lupusdiavoli, but thanks …we won’t buy!

[free_cyprus]

zan sorry for the spelling i type fast and hense spelling mistakes

[lupusdiavoli]

Kifeas,

I don' t actually remember begining my approach as you said.

How dissembled is the following?

I have no desire at all to see Turkey becoming a EU member. Hypocricy on the other hand is the attitude of EU officials who supposively like to see that in the future, the same goes for your side in the sense that the majority doesn' t really accept Turkey being "European" but for obvious reasons of tactics such policy was employed . One based on the high hope to see Turkey civilised through the process. I found it mos amusing to be honest.

I have no desire to make you believe that I know much. My self-image has no need for that. Call it selfconfidence.

You do have a problem on the issue of morals. You do perceive politics are connected with ethics. It is your problem to solve it. The rest of the world -meaning the serius states- sovled it long ago.

The jock is that you are not really the obstacle of EU given the last developements. There are other problems related to the problems EU itself and its lost -for the time being- focus on what kind of Union shall become, if ever... For the moment is just a version of economic entity with no force, no teeth, following US and crying from time to time for harmonisation and the rest. Harmonisation exists but on a financial level in favour of the great economic company-structures. This is the real motivating value and not your human rights.

Μην αγοράσεις κανένα προιόν σκέψης μου. Γνωρίζω πράγματι τόσο λίγα. Μόνο που τα ολίγα τούτα είναι πλείονα των δικών σου.

Nice try. Don' t u think? Give me pls the credit. Or keep wondering for those u cannot locate.