Piratis wrote:TCs ''dream'' was never to partition Cyprus...it was THE ONLY OPTION LEFT under the circumstances!!!
So the only option of TCs was to start a fight against GCs and commit crimes against us?
According to the resolution 1541 for decolonization:
free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htmWhat we pursued was one the three legitimate options. If you didn't like the option we choose then you had the right to support any of the other two legitimate options, and then Cypriots could decide in a democratic way which of the legitimate options they would go for.
Instead of that
you choose to fight against us for a criminal cause. YOU started the fight against us, not us. What we pursued was perfectly
legitimate. What you pursued, was the partition of our country, which involved ethnic cleansing and is something criminal and definitely not legitimate.
So you started the inter-communal conflict because you didn't like the perfectly legitimate choice of the great majority of the Cypriot people.
The TC minority in Cyprus was armed and used by Britain and Turkey in order to prevent Cyprus gaining full liberation, because Turkey and Britain wanted and continue to want a piece of Cyprus.
Had the TCs accepted the legitimate and democratic choices of the great majority of Cypriots, no conflict would have ever happened. They started the conflict, and then they complain about it, as if we were supposed to just sit there and accept that others should continue to rule us and take decisions for us, instead of allowing Cypriots to make their own choices via democratic means.
“We fought against the colonialists” for describing EOKA is an incorrect statement with the intent of perverting the facts and history of Cyprus. The correct description is:
"You terrorized whoever was in your way (that included the British, Turkish and your own people) to achieve the annexation of the Island to Greece which you knew meant the enslavement of the TCs". An even more more grossly erroneous statement is that EOKA fought for "liberation". EOKA fougt for one thing and one thing only: to hand over Cyprus to Greece, not liberation leading to independence; so be carefull when you use the word "liberation". TCs had the right of self-determination in the case which you were granted one. Obviously this was not a feasible solution given the circumstances of Cyprus hence the three guarantors and the leaders of the two communities signed into the establishment of the RoC (and again as representatives of two communities; not as one with the title of Cypriot Nation Leader and the other as the Cypriot Minority Leader). Both community leaders were recognized and treated as equivalent signatories in the Agreements (and all corresponding legal document) by the parties concerned, law and the rest of the world.
As far as the minority issue is concerned... TCs are not a minority they are ONe of the TWO communities of Cyprus which you make up nothing more than the other ONe. TCs are not a minority; they never have been and they never will be. For:
(1) This is recognized by the U.N. I will not put references to this obvious legal and practical reality since the space here is limited. By typing “u.n. + two communities” in any common search engine you will find millions (at google a little over two million headings for example) of topics that come up with U.N. documents, reports, resolutions, press releases, statements, comminuqiues, lectures, notes and etc. mentioning, stating and recognizing the existence of two communities of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus. Additionally, the U.N. has been for years calling a settlement with a bi-communal (meaning two communities) and bi-zonal (meaning two zones) structure in Cyprus where both have equal political status.
(2) TCs were given reserved/separate seats and rights in the administration and civil service and a vice-president post which holds the authority to veto the president as it sees fit. Their judicial, municipal, educational and communal structuring was completely separate and autonomous from the GC community. This is not the status of a minority in any legal or logical term.
(3) Armenians, Maronites and Latins are described as minorities under the RoC Constitution (where Appendix E specifically defines them as such and sets out the provisions for which their rights are to be safeguarded). Turkish Cypriots are neither mentioned nor handled within this context.
(4) BUT ABOVE ALL OF THESE: the RoC has come about with the signatories of the two communities, represented by Makarios and Kutchuk, who have both attended, signed the establishing legal documents as the leaders of the TWO Communities. Both Kutchuk and Makarios pressed seal under the titles as Leaders of their respective Communities next to Britian, Turkey and Greece foreign ministers; and not as one under the title of the Greek Cypriot Nation Leader and the other as its Turkish Cypriot Minority Leader. Independence to RoC was not granted as a unilateral act on the part of United Kingdom, but as a consequence of a number of Treaties between conjoint signatures from the two communities (represented with equal status in attendance, confirmation and law-binding).
Turkish Cypriots are one of the parties that signed into the establishing legal agreements of the RoC, just as their GC counterpart. The agreements are not between the Greek
nation and its Turkish
minority but between the
Turkish and the Greek communities. This is a fact of the law and practice, hence not subject to your interpretation or perversion. Cyprus is not Hellenic; perhaps the Greek Cypriot community is. The other community is not. Cyprus is Cypriot with two communities of Greek and Turkish. Now sit back, relax and take all the time you need to let this sink in.