Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Erol,

I find your insistence in calling Turkish Cypriots a People no less disturbing than Piratis' insistence in calling Turkish Cypriots a minority.

I understand you are doing this defensively, but I am not sure if that is a good enough reason. In fact, I think this is exactly the kind of logic that got us where we are now: "Greek Cypriots are making extreme demands, so let's make some extreme demands of our own".

If you wish to counter extreme demands, you should do it by being the voice of moderation. Then everyone will listen to you and respect you.

Now, if you were indeed a separate people, I would personally insist that you get your own state - because you would indeed have the right to self-determination. However, my "truth" that you - and us - are just separate communities, is not just an artificial construct, it is the historical reality. We grew together over generations in the same towns and villages, we have many of the same customs and the same manners, we have suffered together through the vicissitudes of history - and yet, our language, religion, and part of our historical experience is different. And that is what defines us as communities within a people.

Which brings us to the critical question: What rights do communities have? Essentially, they have the right to preserve their identity and their self-awareness as a community. That was the whole point of agreeing to a Federation, that under the same roof we could each have a place where our culture and identity would remain strong and intact.

Now, if you try to go one step further, and say that you do not just have the right to preserve your identity, but you also have the right to self-determination, then a Federal Solution is no longer appropriate: It would constrain your freedom, and you would be seeking ways to escape from it until you achieve full independence. You would be asking for more and more powers to be given to the constituent states, so that you have "self-determination", and then the State will only be a Federation in name, a meaningless and bothersome binding together of two people who should have been free from each other in the first place.

So, what I ask of you is not to be converted to the "one people hypothesis", but rather to make up your mind which side you are on and to then be consistent: Do you believe we are one people in two communities who deserve to co-exist in the framework of a bizonal-bicommunal Federation, or do you instead believe that we are two different people who deserve to live in two separate states, as good friends and neighbors but otherwise independent of each other?

Whatever position you choose we will still be friends, and in that spirit of friendship I bid you goodnight.

[erolz]

ok so if both GCs and TCs are a community, then by allowing TCs self-determination this is not only conflicting with the human right of the right to return but also with GCs community self-determination.

The whole point of a category of 'community' (ie less than the rights of a people but more than the rights of a minority) is so that in a situation like Cyprus where two peoples share a single Island there is a framework that can lead to equality of communites without contradicting the rights of the other community. If the rights of each as a people are full unfettered and absolute rights as a people then the conflict is almost total. If the rights are agreed to be restricted (by defining limits on the rights of peoples that are still more than the rights of minorites and still rights and not just gifts) then the conflict is minimised. So as people we have an absolute right (as do you) to not have any decison we (or you) agree as a commuity to be blocked by anyone else. As a community we do not have this absolute right - and these are human rights and no less or more important than any other human rights. In this framework both communites have the SAME rights and restrictions as each other. The problem comes when someone comes along and says 'the rights of communites does not exist as a 'real' right'. When they do this there is little option but to retirn to the source of the concept of rights of a community - namely the rights of peoples but without any concept of 'limits' - and thus to the senario of almost total conflict of rights between GC and TC.

That the rights of a indivduals are now being compromised because of the historic refusal of GC to accept this principal of the 'equal rights of communites' (as rights) and the ultimate use of force by Turkey as a response to this refusal only makes the situation more complicated and difficult to solve in practicle real world terms. It does not change the underlying arguments about what the rights of the communites should be and if they should be considered rights or merely 'agreements'.

I accept that what GC and TC as groups in Cyprus should have is rights as communites (ie more rights than a minority and less than a people). However this 'third' category of groups of people is fundamentaly derived from our rights as a people + the need to accept limits when two peoples share a common land. When someone comes along and says these rights as a community are not 'real' then I have little choice but to return to the source of these rights ( the rights of peoples). What Piratis wants is the full unrestricted rights of the GC community as a people (to not have any decsion blocked by people outside of this community) and the full rights of indivduals for GC. Then he will give us some very limited predeifned 'gifts' that are not rights at all and could be taken away again at any point in the future. Not good enough.

[metecyp]

Which brings us to the critical question: What rights do communities have? Essentially, they have the right to preserve their identity and their self-awareness as a community. That was the whole point of agreeing to a Federation, that under the same roof we could each have a place where our culture and identity would remain strong and intact.

Well, I think Erol is not saying anything different here. What I gathered from Erol's comments is this: If GCs have the right to preserve their identity and self-awareness as a community, then so do TCs (nothing more nothing less). Similarly, if GCs have seperate self-determination, then so do TCs (again nothing more nothing less). And having the right for self-determination does not mean that federation cannot work. GCs will give up from some of their absolute self-determination rights, TCs will give up from some of their absolute self-determination rights and meet in the middle, that is federation.

So in essence, Erol is saying that whatever GCs have as a community, TCs have it as well as a community. At least this is what I gathered from his comments and isn't this a good ground to start federation?

[erolz]

However, my "truth" that you - and us - are just separate communities, is not just an artificial construct, it is the historical reality. We grew together over generations in the same towns and villages, we have many of the same customs and the same manners, we have suffered together through the vicissitudes of history - and yet, our language, religion, and part of our historical experience is different. And that is what defines us as communities within a people.

Yes I totally accept this.

I am definately of the view that we are one people and two communites.

What I do not know how to do is defend our rights as a community in the face of arguments that 'communites' have no rights as defined in the human rights charter and than only peoples and minorites have rights. In the face of such arguments I can find no other 'reasonable' route that to try and explain that our rights as a community are a 'sub set' of the rights of people that apply to the special situation in Cyprus (one people - two communites) and as such they are no more or less rights than all the others - though they do not include the full set of unlimted rights of peoples (but more than those of a minority). How do you suggest I defend our rights as a community other than in this way against Piratis insistance that I have simply 'made up' the concept of the rights of communites and excuse to steal from GC?

Whatever position you choose we will still be friends, and in that spirit of friendship I bid you goodnight.

My poistion is clear and consistent - if not explained very well. I am also honoured to have you consider me a friend. Have a good night.

PS did you see my thread in general chat about trying to get a cross border meet up of Cyprus forum people togeather?

[uzan]

Well, I think Erol is not saying anything different here. What I gathered from Erol's comments is this: If GCs have the right to preserve their identity and self-awareness as a community, then so do TCs (nothing more nothing less). Similarly, if GCs have seperate self-determination, then so do TCs (again nothing more nothing less). And having the right for self-determination does not mean that federation cannot work. GCs will give up from some of their absolute self-determination rights, TCs will give up from some of their absolute self-determination rights and meet in the middle, that is federation.

that is good





So in essence, Erol is saying that whatever GCs have as a community, TCs have it as well as a community. At least this is what I gathered from his comments and isn't this a good ground to start federation?[/quote]

that me say something you fell inlove but she or he does not love you and say HAYIR, OXI what do you do? Separete in good terms and try to live together.

[Piratis]

Well, I think Erol is not saying anything different here.

I think what he is saying is very different.

If GCs have the right to preserve their identity and self-awareness as a community, then so do TCs (nothing more nothing less).

Most definitely, I don't think anybody argued for the opposite. So yes, no less, no more.

Similarly, if GCs have separate self-determination, then so do TCs (again nothing more nothing less).

GCs don't have separate self determination. Cypriots belong to different communities, but there is only one Cypriot people, with a single self determination. So again, no less no more.

So neither community has self determination rights by itself to "trade in". You simply can not give up or reduce something you (and we) never had in the first place.

You start from the wrong point: "We are independent so lets trade in some of our Independence to form a federation". However this is not the case. (this would be the case if one day EU becomes a federation) The way that the communities are separated today is illegal and not their right.

So, what I ask of you is not to be converted to the "one people hypothesis", but rather to make up your mind which side you are on and to then be consistent: Do you believe we are one people in two communities who deserve to co-exist in the framework of a bizonal-bicommunal Federation, or do you instead believe that we are two different people who deserve to live in two separate states, as good friends and neighbors but otherwise independent of each other?

Alex, is is clear what they want. Since they failed to legalize the occupation directly, now they want a disguised partition which is the ideal combination for them since it gives them all the benefits of "unity", and most of the benefits of independence at the same time. You truly didn't realize this already?

[erolz]

It is clear that while TCs in 1960 gained a lot more than their minority deserved (veto power on everything, 30% position in government, 40% in police etc etc),

Well ignoring the fact that we did not have veto powers on everything under the 60 consitituion the fact is that we got more rights granted under the 60 consitution than a minority becuase we ARE more than a minority in Cyprus and the world accepted this. Your view is that we got more than a minority because the world hated and ganaged up on GC to force you to give us what we were not entitled too (and this view is the source and start of the Cyprus problem).

today they are for once more using the tanks that stand behind them to gain even more on our loss.

Once more? when was the first time that today is once more ?

They want to give NOTHING up from the 1960 agreements, and they expect us to give up our human rights to satisfy them.

No we want you to accept what the 60 consitituion is based on as a concept - that we have more RIGHTS than a minority (but not full rights as a people). That you would not accept this in 60 is what created the Cyprus problem. That you still refuse to accept this today is what continues the problem.

This is how they see it:

Compromise for GCs = Giving up real legal rights that were supposed to have today but they don't due to the illegal occupation.

Compromise for TCs = Giving up some of their demands and NOTHING from what trully and legally is their right.

And this is the Cyprus problem from TC point of view. A refusal to accept we have a RIGHT to a staus of more than a minority in 1960 is what led ultimately to tanks in Cyprus and your very real losses as GC (to life, to property and to your full unlimited rights as indivduals). This refusal to accept we have a RIGHT to a status of more than a minority today is what keeps Cyprus divided and keeps the tanks here and maintains your loss of human rights as indivduals.

Maybe some other GCs want to maintain a friendly climate, but all of us know that the only reason that we are supposed to make such kind of compromises today is the current balance of power and not that TCs have the right to demand things like federation, political equality of communities, 30% of land etc. How many GCs disagree with this statement?

Piratis what happened BEFORE the tanks and before GC lost their rights and properties in Cyprus? What happened was, as the balance of power allowed, was an attempt to remove from TC those RIGHTS they had been granted as a community and that the GC AGREED to (more than minority less than people). This attempt was supported by the very idea you are still insiting on today that we as TC have no such rights - that such rights do not exists. Now you expect me to make a deal with you based on this same unacceptable premise (that we have no more RIGHTS than a minority) and expect me to consider tha a compromise and be unconcerned that any 'gifts' you offer today as a means of getting a settlement can be removed tomorrow (because they were only ever gifts that we never had any right to in the first place). Not good enough.

[erolz]

If GCs have the right to preserve their identity and self-awareness as a community, then so do TCs (nothing more nothing less).

Most definitely, I don't think anybody argued for the opposite. So yes, no less, no more.

Piratis do you accept that we have RIGHTS as one of the two communites in Cyprus and these rights are equal to those of the GC community despite the difference in sizes? If you do then we have been arguing at 'cross purposes' and this whole discussion has been a mistake and unessary. If however you insist that any parity you accept between the two communites is not a RIGHT but merely a 'gift' form GC to TC then we are back at 1960 and have got nowhere.

GCs don't have separate self determination. Cypriots belong to different communities, but there is only one Cypriot people, with a single self determination. So again, no less no more.

Do you understand the concept of 'effective' control over Cyprus and that if you refuse to accept any staus of 'communites' and associated RIGHTS of communites and equlaity od communites, saying there is only one people in Cyprus and that only peoples have rights (and communites don't they only have gifts given by one to the other) you are _effectively_ saying only GC have a right to self determination in Cyprus (though needing a slightly higher than normal 50%+1 majority to detemine the will of the GC commuity to balance the TC minority)? Can you understand this?

Alex, is is clear what they want. Since they failed to legalize the occupation directly, now they want a disguised partition which is the ideal combination for them since it gives them all the benefits of "unity", and most of the benefits of independence at the same time. You truly didn't realize this already?

What I want is for you to accept that we have RIGHTS as a community, that these rights are the same for both communites despite the difference in size. If you can accept this then we can end this debate once and for all and move on.

Continue to insist that we have no RIGHTS as a community (nad never did have any) becuase communites do not have rights (only peoples do) and I will have to continue to inist that we DO have these RIGHTS (and they are derived from the right to self determination - though reduced and restricted from thes full rights as a people because actualy we are one people 2 communites)

[Piratis]

Well ignoring the fact that we did not have veto powers on everything under the 60 consitituion

You did have a blocking power on everything.

Your view is that we got more than a minority because the world hated and ganaged up on GC to force you to give us what we were not entitled too (and this view is the source and start of the Cyprus problem).

The whole world??? Dude, British and Turks are not the whole world. Have you looked at a map recently?

Once more? when was the first time that today is once more ?

in 1959.

No we want you to accept what the 60 consitituion is based on as a concept - that we have more RIGHTS than a minority (but not full rights as a people). That you would not accept this in 60 is what created the Cyprus problem. That you still refuse to accept this today is what continues the problem.

It is obvious what the 1960 constitution created by the colonialists is based on. You think you told as something new?
The Cyprus problem was created when they gave to a minority what they did not deserve. Come on Erolz, tell us that TCs deserved the 30% of governmental positions and 40% of the police!!
The Cyprus problem started when the government was unable to hire such a big number of TC governmental employees and the TCs retaliated by blocking the budgets making it impossible for the country to run properly.

[insan]

Dialogue with Piratis

insan: The citizens of Cyprus forms the "people" of Cyprus.

Piratis: I agree.

insan: The "people" of Cyprus comprise of two major communities, namely GCs, TCs and some minorities; namely Maronites, Armenians and Latins.

Piratis: I disagree. TCs are a minority community just like Armenians, Maronites and Latins. Some privilages the GCs are willing to give them are just the compromises and gifts the GCs obliged to give them.

insan: TC community and GC community should be the "politically equal" constituent partners of United RoC.

Piratis: I disagree. "Political equality" is unfair. The "majority rule".

insan: In order to protect the TC quality of TCCS, besides various concerns and interests of TC community; permenant restrictions are required on right to settlement. Up to %33 of the TC population of TCCS can be comprise of GCs, full political rights granted.

Piratis: I disagree. This is the violation of basic human rights. No permenant restrictions are acceptable on any of the basic human rights.