Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

And before anyone comes in and quotes majorities and democracy, one aspect of a mature democracy is respect for minority opinions. If the majority think that homosexuals, for example, should be killed (and only a few years ago that might have got a majority) it doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

What is democracy is not something vague. While there might be some different ways to implement democracy, there are some basic principles that have to be met in order for a country to qualify as a democracy (although some countries call themselves "democracies" even though they are not).

Majority rule is only one of the ingredients of democracy. One of the other, as you said is minority rights.

Majority Rule and Minority Rights
All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

Now tell me which of your individual or human rights would be violated by Cyprus uniting with Greece if thats what the great majority of people wanted? Unlike partition which involves ethnic cleansing and mass human rights violations and therefore could not happen legally even if the majority would support it, union with Greece did not involve any such violations. (so your comparison with executing gays is totally irrelevant)

Therefore you should understand where those minority rights end. If some minority has the right to block anything and everything, then simply the most important ingredient of Democracy, majority rule, goes out of the window and democracy with it.

Since we are talking about, and I hinted about it in a previous paragraph, don't you think that even if majorities from both sides vote for some sort of partition (e.g. Annan plan), that since this would be against the rights of a minority, that that minority would have the right to dispute the decision taken by majority and overrule it?

[observer]

Piratis

Observer, if Cyprus was made by 82% Turks would you say the same?

Had the situation been reversed, given the history of Turkey and Greece, I would not have recommended forcing 1 in 5 of the population into a union which I knew would lead to violence. This is what Makarios did.

The Turks do not even allow an independent Kurdistan, even though that region has a Kurdish majority for more than a 1000 years.

True. Neither do the Iraqis or the Iranians. I’m sure that there is a Kurdish forum somewhere where you can discuss this.

The fact is that back then no island in the Mediterranean was independent. Union with Greece at that time meant liberation.

But only for Greek-speaking Cypriots. From (then) recent experience, the outlook for Turkish-speaking Cypriots was pretty bad – as subsequence events proved.

According to UN resolution 1541 about decolonization, territories that were decolonized should have "integration into an independent State" as one of the legitimate options to democratically choose from.

True, and decolonisation took many forms. Singapore split off from Malaysia. The Malaysian majority could have ‘democratically’ insisted that they didn’t and brought about a violent reaction. In the case of East Timor, ‘legitimately’ and geographically part of Indonesia, the UN even sent in soldiers to separate the two parts of the Island

It is very similar to a country joining the EU today. Do you think that if Turkey is accepted in EU (the Cristian club), and the great majority of Turks support their EU accession, that the hard core Islamists of Turkey would be justified to fight against this legitimate choice, and then come and say "If you didn't demand EU accession there would be no conflict, so it your fault"?

I think the situation is actually the other way around. Those who want to join the EU do not propose killing or driving out of the country those who are against joining. Makarios did want to expel TCs. Extremist GCs wanted to kill them.

I can perfectly understand why TCs did not want union with Greece. If I was a TC I wouldn't want it either. But it is one thing to express your disagreement and a whole different thing to try to present that legitimate demand of Greek Cypriots as a crime that warrants their ethnic cleansing and their human rights violations.

I don’t think that anyone has presented "the legitimate demands of the GCs for enosis" as a crime – only the criminal acts that some GCs committed.

I agree with you that the demand for enosis was probably a mistake, since it gave the chance to the British to use the Turkish community of the island and apply easier their divide and rule practices.

Nice to find something that we can agree on.

On the other hand, do you really think that Britain and Turkey that have strategic interests on the island would not find some other excuse to secure their interests? For example if we fought for independence right from the beginning, and then at some point Britain and Turkey proposed to Turkish Cypriots partition with them having more than one third of the island. Do you think TCs would reject that? I really don't think so.
Also do not forget that the division between TCs and GCs was not created by the enosis cause, but it was there since the time of the Ottomans, where citizens were divided into higher class Muslims and lower class Christians.

Every country’s decolonisation struggle presents a different history. I think it unlikely that in the face of a united Cypriot front, Britain would have made any proposal to Turkey (or Greece). Britain might well have negotiated some sort of agreement with the Cypriot leadership for rights she thought useful.

So I can accept some of your arguments about Enosis, but today the truth is that enosis, and a small selective part of our history in general, are simply used as excuses by those that want to use their power to exploit and gain on the loss of others.

Most of me thinks that enosis is no longer on the GC agenda. But, and forgive me for this, a very small part of me wonders why the majority of GC politicians only stopped publicly calling for it after the coup and the subsequent Turkish military action made it impossible. As to using it for excuses, memories are long and it’s possible to find references in this forum to massacres that took place centuries ago.

If those were not excuses the examples of the USA and the many other multi-ethnic countries could very easily be followed today as well. Those countries didn't achieve what they have today automatically, they also had to pass from a lot of problems and conflicts. The problem is that in Cyprus there is no will by the Turkish side to achieve that, history is just used as an excuse.

I think that the popular vote for the Annan Plan showed that you may be a little to severe in saying that there is no will by the Turkish side.

[observer]

Piratis

Now tell me which of your individual or human rights would be violated by Cyprus uniting with Greece if thats what the great majority of people wanted? Unlike partition which involves ethnic cleansing and mass human rights violations and therefore could not happen legally even if the majority would support it, union with Greece did not involve any such violations.

Once history has passed a moment by it’s impossible to prove what the alternative would have been. But, in 1960 TCs felt that there was a very real threat that their most basic human right - the right to life – would be threatened in the case of a union with Greece, It had happened historically, and the events of late 63/64 indicate that the threat was very real.

Therefore you should understand where those minority rights end. If some minority has the right to block anything and everything, then simply the most important ingredient of Democracy, majority rule, goes out of the window and democracy with it.

Agreed. But see my opening paragraph above.

Since we are talking about, and I hinted about it in a previous paragraph, don't you think that even if majorities from both sides vote for some sort of partition (e.g. Annan plan), that since this would be against the rights of a minority, that that minority would have the right to dispute the decision taken by majority and overrule it?

It is difficult to think of a situation where one person’s human rights do not affect another person’s human rights negatively. The minority have the right to attempt to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

[Piratis]

Had the situation been reversed, given the history of Turkey and Greece, I would not have recommended forcing 1 in 5 of the population into a union which I knew would lead to violence. This is what Makarios did.

I don't know what you would personally recommend, but the Turkish leadership is certain that it wouldn't agree with you.

But only for Greek-speaking Cypriots. From (then) recent experience, the outlook for Turkish-speaking Cypriots was pretty bad – as subsequence events proved.

First of all both sides were responsible for the subsequent events. Secondly, the conflict between GCs and TCs started when TCs sided with the colonialists, opposed GCs and then demanded partition. If this didn't happen then the subsequent events wouldn't either.

True, and decolonisation took many forms. Singapore split off from Malaysia. The Malaysian majority could have ‘democratically’ insisted that they didn’t and brought about a violent reaction. In the case of East Timor, ‘legitimately’ and geographically part of Indonesia, the UN even sent in soldiers to separate the two parts of the Island

I don't know many details about Singapore and East Timor. One thing I know about Singapore is that it has one of the highest population densities in the world, way higher than Malaysia. If TCs wanted to concentrate in lets say 2% of the island I am sure we, like the Malaysians, would agree.
And the people of East Timor are more like the case of Kurdistan I believe. I don't think they took that area by ethnically cleansing others, right?

I think the situation is actually the other way around. Those who want to join the EU do not propose killing or driving out of the country those who are against joining. Makarios did want to expel TCs. Extremist GCs wanted to kill them.

I am not sure where you base the argument that Makarios wanted to expel TCs. I am guessing probably from some quote of a speech of Makarios that supposedly was made in some village and now this quote is reproduced in every Turkish school book and propaganda material?

So going back to the EU example, if TCs had accepted the democratic wish of the majority, there would be no conflict to begin with. The conflict started exactly because the TCs not only did not approve enosis (which was their right) but they sided with the colonialists and demanded the partition of Cyprus (which was not their right)

I don’t think that anyone has presented "the legitimate demands of the GCs for enosis" as a crime – only the criminal acts that some GCs committed.

If you look at this forum you will see many TCs that equate Enosis with a crime. If they just said that crimes were only the criminal acts that some GCs committed I would have agreed with them. In fact I condemned repeatedly all crimes commited by GCs against innocent people, including the crimes committed against innocents in the name of enosis.

Every country’s decolonisation struggle presents a different history. I think it unlikely that in the face of a united Cypriot front, Britain would have made any proposal to Turkey (or Greece). Britain might well have negotiated some sort of agreement with the Cypriot leadership for rights she thought useful.

Well, we are just speculating here, but my personal opinion is that the British would have found a way to apply their divide and rule practices anyways since they would be able to get much less out of a united Cypriot people.

Most of me thinks that enosis is no longer on the GC agenda. But, and forgive me for this, a very small part of me wonders why the majority of GC politicians only stopped publicly calling for it after the coup and the subsequent Turkish military action made it impossible. As to using it for excuses, memories are long and it’s possible to find references in this forum to massacres that took place centuries ago.

I believe the majority of them stopped talking about it after the Junta took over in Athens. Apart from some extremists nobody wanted a union with Greece under the Junta.

About the century old massacres, if with that you refer to me, I simply mention them to remind some people the rest of our history since for them history starts in 63 and ends in 74, as if nothing happened before or after that. I never used any part of history as an excuse for any crimes or illegalities.

I think that the popular vote for the Annan Plan showed that you may be a little to severe in saying that there is no will by the Turkish side.

The Annan plan was a partition plan. I don't know about the TC people, and if they would vote yes in a unification plan as well, however the Annan plan is a proof that the Turkish leadership would accept nothing short of partition for Cyprus.

Once history has passed a moment by it’s impossible to prove what the alternative would have been. But, in 1960 TCs felt that there was a very real threat that their most basic human right - the right to life – would be threatened in the case of a union with Greece, It had happened historically, and the events of late 63/64 indicate that the threat was very real.

As I explained you earlier the events of 63/64 were a continuation of the conflict that started in the 50s. If TCs had not turned against GCs at that time then there wouldn't be a conflict to begin with.
But in any case I already said that I understand that TCs didn't want union with Greece. Actually I am not even judging them very negatively for siding with the colonialists to fight against enosis. What is definitely inexcusable is their partition aim and execution which is something that involves mass human rights violations.

It is difficult to think of a situation where one person’s human rights do not affect another person’s human rights negatively.

I don't understand what you mean. How for example my human right of freedom of movement within the borders of my country affects negatively the human rights of anybody else?

In the rare occasion that some rights do conflict, then obviously the more basic fundamental rights take precedence.

The minority have the right to attempt to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

I think what you say now totally contradicts what you said previously. Surely the above is the case when no human rights violations are involved. But in the case of Annan plan, the human rights of many people would be violated. So I don't think that any majority could force those people, even if they were a small minority, to accept the human rights violations against them.

[zan]

Zan, once again you show not only your ignorance but your middle age barbarian mentality. Colonization was against International law and the UN passed several resolutions demanding the end of it. I will once again point you to this address, go and read it: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

There you will see that the British not only had to decolonize Cyprus, but also that there are 3 legitimate options for decolonization, one of which is "integration into an independent State". The people of the territory had the right to choose the way they would be decolonized via democratic procedures.

Instead of that the British and the Turks forced on some semi independence without even asking us what we wanted, or at least letting us to choose our constitution in a democratic way.

Maybe for you Greece is a hostile nation, for us is not. Using your login, the whole of Greece and all former areas of the Ottoman empire where Turkish minorities were formed should have never gained their self determination because the Turks saw them as hostile.

The Turks kept Cyprus for over 300 years against the will of Cypriots by butchering 10s of thousands to enforce their rule. That was fine with you. But when the great majority of people wanted to exercise their right and liberate themselves from colonization in one of the perfectly legitimate options available, it was "unjust" according to you. Ridiculous!

As I said you can say that you didn't want Enosis. But only that. You can not say that enosis was either illegal or unjust, simply because as a matter of fact it was perfectly legal and the most just thing that would happen to Cyprus after several centuries of foreign domination.

But you are not Cypriot. You are Greek.

[Nikephoros]

Oh, so you encourage people to read journalists to learn history....

Real smart guy. No wonder where NeoCypriot member askimwos gets his false knowledge from. The NeoCypriot press.

[askimwos]

Oh, so you encourage people to read journalists to learn history....

Real smart guy. No wonder where NeoCypriot member askimwos gets his false knowledge from. The NeoCypriot press.

kalws ta arxidia mou ta dyo

[pappy_sydney]

Code: Select all

zan said
   "But you are not Cypriot. You are Greek."


very intelligent zan, did you know non Turk Cypriots are Greek too....

[observer]

Piratis

Observer = Had the situation been reversed, given the history of Turkey and Greece, I would not have recommended forcing 1 in 5 of the population into a union which I knew would lead to violence. This is what Makarios did.

Piratis = I don't know what you would personally recommend, but the Turkish leadership is certain that it wouldn't agree with you.

This is really just a hypothetical question. There has never been any significant number of TCs wanting union with Turkey, nor has the Turkish leadership seemed to want to have made North Cyprus a province of Turkey – not even over the last 30+ years when it would have been relatively easy to do this. There may have been a few individuals who want it, there probably still are, but it’s never been a subject of serious debate

Piratis = The fact is that back then no island in the Mediterranean was independent. Union with Greece at that time meant liberation.

Observer = But only for Greek-speaking Cypriots. From (then) recent experience, the outlook for Turkish-speaking Cypriots was pretty bad – as subsequence events proved.

Piratis = First of all both sides were responsible for the subsequent events. Secondly, the conflict between GCs and TCs started when TCs sided with the colonialists, opposed GCs and then demanded partition. If this didn't happen then the subsequent events wouldn't either.

You seem to accept that union with Greece would not have meant liberation for TCs. I agree with your view regarding shared subsequent responsibilities. But who were the TCs to side with in opposing enosis? I suppose everyone had his own preferences, but I don’t think, at the time, partition was either a great desire or a realistic option. Although some maps were produced by just about everyone showing how partition might take place, the intermingled population profile made it a non-starter. I think that most TCs were happy with what ultimately resulted, an independent Cyprus with lots of safeguards and some autonomy at local levels.

A myth has grown up about a TC revolt in 63/64. The TC leadership may have made life difficult for the government, but the initiator for the events of 63/64 and the subsequent, almost inevitable separation, were the GC leadership who carried on pursuing enosis.

I don't know many details about Singapore and East Timor. One thing I know about Singapore is that it has one of the highest population densities in the world, way higher than Malaysia. If TCs wanted to concentrate in lets say 2% of the island I am sure we, like the Malaysians, would agree. And the people of East Timor are more like the case of Kurdistan I believe. I don't think they took that area by ethnically cleansing others, right?

Singapore also has one of the highest GDPs/head in Asia due to its position as a trading hub and financial centre. East Timor was a Portuguese Colony; Indonesia was a Dutch colony. Ethnically the Indonesian people are very mixed and lines could have been drawn anywhere. Indonesia took over the former Portuguese colony as it was part of “their” island group, in the same way as India, in the 1960s, took over the Portuguse colony of Goa as it was part of their sub-continent.

My point was that every decolonisation had different elements, and the UN statement on territorial integrity was only a general statement. Every individual case needed to be treated on its own merits.

I am not sure where you base the argument that Makarios wanted to expel TCs. I am guessing probably from some quote of a speech of Makarios that supposedly was made in some village and now this quote is reproduced in every Turkish school book and propaganda material?

So going back to the EU example, if TCs had accepted the democratic wish of the majority, there would be no conflict to begin with. The conflict started exactly because the TCs not only did not approve enosis (which was their right) but they sided with the colonialists and demanded the partition of Cyprus (which was not their right)

In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia, Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated." He either said it or he didn’t.

In an interview with journalist Richard Gilbert in 1964 (note – after the post-indepence intercommunal troubles had started, the interview went.

Gilbert: Do you think the Greek people of Cyprus still wish Enosis
Makarios: Certainly, yes. This was always the desire of the people of Cyprus.
Gilbert: If Enosis does come how do you feel, sir, about not being a member of the Commonwealth?
Makarios: I support the Commonwealth as an institution and as long as Cyprus is not united with Greece, we will continue to be a member of the Commonwealth family. The choice, however, between Enosis and Commonwealth is not a difficult one. I shall feel very happy when Cyprus is united with Greece which is our Motherland.

The italics are mine, but you will note that even after he was President, Makarios never seemed to regard the people of Cyprus, all of whom he was meant to be representing, as anything other than Greek.

If you look at this forum you will see many TCs that equate Enosis with a crime. If they just said that crimes were only the criminal acts that some GCs committed I would have agreed with them. In fact I condemned repeatedly all crimes commited by GCs against innocent people, including the crimes committed against innocents in the name of enosis

Happy to see eye-to-eye with you.

I believe the majority of them stopped talking about it (Enosis) after the Junta took over in Athens. Apart from some extremists nobody wanted a union with Greece under the Junta.

I’m happy to agree with you here. Whether the ‘GC in the taverna’ stopped wanting wanting enosis because he didn’t want to join a Junta, or because it became impossible after the Turkish military action doesn’t matter. 99% of me believes that it is a cause that has had its day and is now dead. 1% of me is not sure, so you may understand why I feel the need for safeguards.

About the century old massacres, if with that you refer to me, I simply mention them to remind some people the rest of our history since for them history starts in 63 and ends in 74, as if nothing happened before or after that. I never used any part of history as an excuse for any crimes or illegalities.

I’m happy to accept your motives for going back into the past.

As I explained you earlier the events of 63/64 were a continuation of the conflict that started in the 50s. If TCs had not turned against GCs at that time then there wouldn't be a conflict to begin with.

I think that I will have to disagree with you on who turned against who. If I understand you correctly, you see the events of 63/64 as a TC revolt for partition or taksim; I see those events as a GC action to impose enosis. The 64 interview of Makarios quoted above seems to support my view.

What is definitely inexcusable is their (TCs) partition aim and execution which is something that involves mass human rights violations.

As I have repeatedly said, I don’t think that there was any desire for partition save on the part of a few extremists (whose views were generally dismissed).

It is difficult to think of a situation where one person’s human rights do not affect another person’s human rights negatively.
I don't understand what you mean. How for example my human right of freedom of movement within the borders of my country affects negatively the human rights of anybody else?

Perhaps I phrased this wrongly. I should have said that where there was disagreement, one persons human rights are usually gained at the expense of another’s rights.
Assuming that your documention is in order, you are fre to travel to any public part of Cyprus.

Piratis = Since we are talking about, and I hinted about it in a previous paragraph, don't you think that even if majorities from both sides vote for some sort of partition (e.g. Annan plan), that since this would be against the rights of a minority, that that minority would have the right to dispute the decision taken by majority and overrule it?

Observer = The minority have the right to attempt to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

Piratis = I think what you say now totally contradicts what you said previously. Surely the above is the case when no human rights violations are involved. But in the case of Annan plan, the human rights of many people would be violated. So I don't think that any majority could force those people, even if they were a small minority, to accept the human rights violations against them

I think that you can see that I was answering a specific question. I still think that the minority have the right to attempt to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

In the case of the Annan plan (or any other plan regarding Cyprus), as with so much in politics, there is unlikely to be a ‘best’ choice. In such a complicated situation, with such a complex history, the choice is more likely to be the best of a collection of not very good choices. The TC electorate, and much of the rest of the interested world thought that the Annan Plan was that; the GC electorate didn’t. We must accept that, but I think, in return, you must accept that you are unlikely to ever get your ‘best’ solution, nor will anyone else trouble themselves to help you get it, as the last three years have shown.

[Piratis]

This is really just a hypothetical question. There has never been any significant number of TCs wanting union with Turkey, nor has the Turkish leadership seemed to want to have made North Cyprus a province of Turkey – not even over the last 30+ years when it would have been relatively easy to do this. There may have been a few individuals who want it, there probably still are, but it’s never been a subject of serious debate

The hypothetical question was if Turkish Cypriots were the great majority if Cyprus would not be part of Turkey. I think the answer is simple in this case: If you have the right for something and you have the power to get it, then there is no way you will not. The reason Cyprus was not united with Greece although it was a legitimate demand, was because GCs didn't have the power to get their rights.

About the last 30+ years the occupied part of Cyprus is basically ruled by Turkey.

You seem to accept that union with Greece would not have meant liberation for TCs.

They would be equal citizens, like GCs. Beyond that you should not forget that Turkish Cypriots are the result of the Ottoman rule of Cyprus. If we go by that way of thinking then no former Ottoman territory should have been liberated because the Turkish minorities formed in those territories would not like it.

But who were the TCs to side with in opposing enosis? I suppose everyone had his own preferences, but I don’t think, at the time, partition was either a great desire or a realistic option. Although some maps were produced by just about everyone showing how partition might take place, the intermingled population profile made it a non-starter. I think that most TCs were happy with what ultimately resulted, an independent Cyprus with lots of safeguards and some autonomy at local levels.

From what I have seen partition was not just something discussed by a few people at coffee shops. Maps showing a partitioned island were presented by Kucuk as early as in the 50s, and the possibility of partition was discussed between Britain and Turkey before the 1960 agreements (some time ago I posted a link to a BBC documentary about this)

A myth has grown up about a TC revolt in 63/64. The TC leadership may have made life difficult for the government, but the initiator for the events of 63/64 and the subsequent, almost inevitable separation, were the GC leadership who carried on pursuing enosis.

Everything that happened in 63 was due to a chain of events that started much earlier. The 1960 agreements were unfair for GCs. For example they gave 30% government positions to TCs and a lot of veto powers. Then the government didn't actually hire 30% of TCs in government positions, and the TCs retaliated by voting down the yearly budget, without which the state could not function. Then Makarios proposed those 13 points, and if you see them one by one they are nothing terrible and have nothing to do with enosis, but it would remove some of the super privilages given to TCs. TCs reacted to that by abandoning the positions in the government.

So I would say that since it was denied to GCs their legitimate demand for enosis, then at least they should have allowed Cypriots to design a constitution by themselves that would create a truly independent country, like all the rest. They didn't even allow that.

In Cyprus we had a problem for 100s of years. A decent compromise in 1960 could have ended this problem by creating a truly independent state, but this didn't happen and problem continued to exist.

Singapore also has one of the highest GDPs/head in Asia due to its position as a trading hub and financial centre.

Yes, good for them. But they achieved this with their hard work and not by taking what does not belong to them.

My point was that every decolonisation had different elements, and the UN statement on territorial integrity was only a general statement. Every individual case needed to be treated on its own merits.

Cyprus is a single territory and that how it was treated back then as well.

In a speech on Sept. 4, 1962 at Panayia, Makarios said, "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race that has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA can never be considered terminated." He either said it or he didn’t.

The above quote is a result of Turkish propaganda.

In an interview with journalist Richard Gilbert in 1964 (note – after the post-indepence intercommunal troubles had started, the interview went.

Gilbert: Do you think the Greek people of Cyprus still wish Enosis
Makarios: Certainly, yes. This was always the desire of the people of Cyprus.
Gilbert: If Enosis does come how do you feel, sir, about not being a member of the Commonwealth?
Makarios: I support the Commonwealth as an institution and as long as Cyprus is not united with Greece, we will continue to be a member of the Commonwealth family. The choice, however, between Enosis and Commonwealth is not a difficult one. I shall feel very happy when Cyprus is united with Greece which is our Motherland.

The italics are mine, but you will note that even after he was President, Makarios never seemed to regard the people of Cyprus, all of whom he was meant to be representing, as anything other than Greek.

Observer, when he said "the desire of the people of Cyprus", he obviously meant the desire of the great majority. This is nothing strange. If you see many articles you will see things written like "Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan plan", "people of Montenegro voted for their independence" etc. It is very common to refer to the people of an area in that way even though it would be more correct to say "the majority...".

I’m happy to agree with you here. Whether the ‘GC in the taverna’ stopped wanting wanting enosis because he didn’t want to join a Junta, or because it became impossible after the Turkish military action doesn’t matter. 99% of me believes that it is a cause that has had its day and is now dead. 1% of me is not sure, so you may understand why I feel the need for safeguards.

What I can say is that 1% of you is wrong. The great majority of GCs feel that their interests are best served as an independent state rather than a distant district of another state. Personally I wouldn't mind at all any safeguards that would eliminate that 1% in your mind. But of course such safeguards can not come on the expense of human rights and democracy.

Perhaps I phrased this wrongly. I should have said that where there was disagreement, one persons human rights are usually gained at the expense of another’s rights.

Again I do not agree. Everybody can have his human rights without violating the rights of others.

Assuming that your documention is in order, you are fre to travel to any public part of Cyprus.

This human right is "Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state." If somebody with a gun is illegally blocking a road and demanding from me somehting in order to allow me to cross, then it is obvious that my right of movement is violated. But this was just an example. There are many human rights that are violated by the occupation.

I think that you can see that I was answering a specific question. I still think that the minority have the right to attempt to persuade the majority that they are wrong.

Yes, but can't you see that you are employing double standards in this case? In an earlier post you correctly said that in democracies, majority rule has some limits. One of those limits is that the majority can not decide to violate the human rights of a minority. So how can a majority vote for something that would be in violation of the human rights of others, e.g. Annan plan?

In the case of the Annan plan (or any other plan regarding Cyprus), as with so much in politics, there is unlikely to be a ‘best’ choice. In such a complicated situation, with such a complex history, the choice is more likely to be the best of a collection of not very good choices. The TC electorate, and much of the rest of the interested world thought that the Annan Plan was that; the GC electorate didn’t. We must accept that, but I think, in return, you must accept that you are unlikely to ever get your ‘best’ solution, nor will anyone else trouble themselves to help you get it, as the last three years have shown.

The Annan plan was the result of the current balance of power. It had nothing to do with best choices or anything else. Obviously a similar balance of power will produce a similar result, and nobody is denying this. This is why I, and I believe the majority of GCs, believe that there will be no solution in the near future.