Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

That resolution was for territories who were under colonial rule. Of course we had rights

Just saying tthe same thing over and over again does not make it right. See above.

[erolz]

During the British rule the British had the chance to end the discrimination between "Christians" and Turks that the Ottomans imposed in Cyprus.

Under British rule there was no discrimination between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. In fact the British made many many attempts to provide self rule to Cypriots, which would undoubteldy have lead to indpendance without the need for a resort to violence and TC and GC working togeather to rule themselves. However the GC leadership blocked ALL such attempts because they did not want indpendance or for TC and GC to work togeather to rule themselves. They wanted union with Greece and for Greeks to rule Cypriots. It was this that made a resort to violence against the British and then the TC community necessary.

However when Greek Cypriots revolted against the British, the British used the Turkish Cypriots as policemen against our fighters and turned Turkish Cypriots against us. Of course all you needed was the initial spark and promises that you will be given half of Cyprus, from then on you did the rest by yourselves.

Your ability to confuse cause with effect is astounding Piratis. The reason why the GC leadership resorted to violence against the British was because they (mistakenly) thought they could achieve enosis this way. It was clear that indpendance could be achieved without a resort to violence but enosis could not. Of course the British then turned to the TC community to replace GC policemen that were themsleves aiding and abbetting those that had launched a violent campaign against the British. Of course the TC were willing to help stop this violent campaign, without any need for promises of anything. They were willing because you were using violence against the british so you could give out (shared) homeland to Greece without any reagrd for pan cypriotism or our communal wishes. The idea that we only helped the British against your attempts to impose enosis on us against our wishes is because we were 'promised' half the island is just the most patently absurd nonsense.

Union with Greece has been our right, and it was a crime that it was denied to us.

THIS is what divided the Cypriot communites and keeps them divided today. The only way for you to achieve this aim was by denying the TC community THEIR rights as a community (and in the process ignore all responsibilites on states and would be states laid out UN charters to maintain regional peace and stablilty). If Union with Greece was the RIGHT of GREEK Cypriots, then resiting it is the RIGHT of Turkish Cypriots.

Union with Greece would involve no human or other violation against TCs.

This is patent nonsense but even if it was true it is meaningless anyway. If British rule had involved no human or other violation against Cypriots it would still be wrong and valid for Cypriots to oppose it. You may think that TC as a community have no valid rights to say who will rule their own homeland, what their nationality will be in their own homeland or even if they will be allowed to call themselves turkish cypriots but strangely enough I beg to differ with this assertion.

I suppose for you it was fine when Cyprus was under Ottoman rule against the will of the Cypriots, but when Cypriots wanted to be part of Greece that was not OK?

Meaningless (to the discussion at hand) waffle.

According to the UN resolution about decolonization "integration into an independent State" was one of the three legitimate options for a territory being decolonized, if this is what the people of the territory democratically choose.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

The key word there is 'people'. For in the actual UN document as opposed to you version it this right applies to 'peoples'. If the reason why GC wanted union with greece is because they are and always were a part of the greek people, which is clearly the intelectual underpinning of enosis, then TC are clearly not a part of this people. That for convience for your cause sake you try and claim first that there IS such a single cypriot people, just so you can then 'democraticaly' end the existance of said Cypriot people as a seperate people and subsume them into Greek people does not change this truth and is the fundamental contradiction of enosis. In the name of a single cypriot people you assert that there is no cypriot people just Greek people who live in Cyprus who are greek and christian and a few others who are greek and muslim.

However we have made the compromise that Cyprus will not be united with Greece (even if it was in fact our right).

No you did NOT make such a compromise, and if you had the chances are we would not be in this mess today.

What you did was refuse all attempts and offers by the British to introduce self rule in Cyprus with GC and TC working togeather to rule themselves, because enosis required that you block such, for if Cypriots actually did start to work togeather to rule themselves they might start to like that more than enosis.

THen you launched a violent campaign in order to force the British to conceed to enosis, whihc in fact only forced the British to start recruiting TC to combant this resort to violence.

Then you agreed in writting to forgoe enosis, but really with no intent to do so but merely to gain a 'secure bastion' from whihc you could continue your pursuit of enosis.

Then you made specific secret plans as to how you could steal the TC communites legal and constituional rights using deception, illegality and where necessary violence against the TC community in order to be able to achieve enosis.

Then some of you lanched a coup with facist elements from Greece to try and achieve enosis.

Finally today you (generally) realise tha actually enosis was not after all such a great idea.

That is not 'compromising' in my book !

And if that is what bothers you then this one point could be one where you could have a veto power. So if we take that point out of the question, would you now accept democracy for Cyprus as it exists in all other democratic countries?

You just do not get it do you Piratis. The problem today is not enosis , but your instance that the GC community had (and has) a RIGHT to enosis and to impose such on the TC community against their will and with no regard for their communal wishes. It is the PRINCIPAL that is the problem. You believe that GC persuing purely GC desires (not pan Cypriot ones but purely GC ones) as a community that shares Cyprus has the RIGHT to impose these desires on the TC community regardless of their desires and regardless of how differently those changes affect TC relative to GC. That is the problem. As long as you argue that GC had and will always have this right then we are going to disagree. Until you can accept that as communites that share this island as our homeland and as far as decisions affect us differently as communites we have as MUCH right to a say in these decisions as you do as a community , we will be at loggerheads. I just do not accept and will not accept that TC as a community should have and can have no effective voice about the most fundamental decisions re the future of their shared homeland in the face of GC desires. That is true even if you call this denial of my communites rights to have any effective say in the future of its own shared homeland against the will of the GC community democracy or anything else.

(thats a rhetoric question of course, since I know already very well what partitionists want, and that is nothing less than keeping the north part of our country for themselves and Turkifying it)

That is indeed your usual rehtoric Piratis. Unless someone conceeds to your worldview then they are and must be a 'partitionist'. If I truly were a partitionist I would not be here wasting my time in futile discussion with you.

Your message is loud and clear Piratis. Cyprus belongs to Greek Cypriots. Greek Cypriots must have the effective power to determine it's future alone where necessary to fulfill Greek Cypriots desires. If Turkish Cpriots want to continue to stay in their own homeland they can only do so if they conceed to Cyprus being Greek and Greek Cypriots, alone where necessary, being the ones that will decide their communal future, whatever that future might mean for the TC community. Not acceptable to me in the 50's and not acceptable to me now. Sorry.

[Piratis]

Lets take some facts, because you are just rambling here.

1) Athens and most of Greece came under the Ottomans at around 1458, 100 + years before Ottomans captured Cyprus.

2) During those years of Ottoman rule in most parts of Greece Turkish minorities were formed, which in many areas were far more than the 18% of TCs in Cyprus.

According to your "logic" no Greek territory, and no Greek island had the right to liberate itself from foreign occupation and become part of the Greek state because a Turkish minority existed there. Unless you will tell me that every little village and every island that was liberated should have become not part of the Greek state but a mini "independent" state in partnership with Turks where the Turks would be able to easily control.

I understand why the Turks of the mainland Greece and of the other Greek islands would fight against the liberation of the Greeks, and for the same reason they fought against our liberation.

Your time of determining what will happen in Cyprus in an undemocratic and forceful way ended with the end of the Ottoman rule. From then on you had your individual and minority rights, but not the right to decide the fate of this island. If the majority of Cypriots wanted union with Greece that was their right and nothing less than that.

However the British who ruled us, gave you the power to fight against us. If the British had not encouraged you (in order to serve their own interests), then definitely your 18% minority would not dare to oppose the perfectly legitimate demand of the great majority of the Cypriot people.

The fact is that you turned against us to fight against our legitimate rights as if it was still the Ottoman rule and you could impose your will on us. However as I said I understand why you did this, and I hope that one day you will also understand why after centuries of foreign oppression we finally wanted liberation (and not some minimal "autonomy" like the Palestinians have today)

My message is loud and clear: Cyprus belongs to Cypriots, and Cypriots in a democratic way as it exists in all other countries in the world (=majority rule/individual rights/minority rights) have the right to take any decision for their own island, and no foreigner has the right to impose anything against our will via brute force.

The fact that this is not acceptable for you just reminds us that part of Cyprus is still under foreign occupation and the invader is trying to force his own terms on us using his military might.

We are seeking a peaceful solution and for this reason we are very compromising with our rights. I have accepted that TCs can have proportional representation in all government departments (I doubt many other countries give this to a minority), I have proposed that 1 every 5 presidents will be TC (no other country gives this to a minority) and I have accepted that we can explicitly exclude enosis. And after all these compromises you insist that what I want is for a purely GC run state where TCs have no say!!

Unless someone conceeds to your worldview then they are and must be a 'partitionist'. If I truly were a partitionist

I would not be here wasting my time in futile discussion with you.

Erolz, you are saying that TCs and GCs should be able to achieve their separate "communal desires". This can only be achieved with partition, so stop hiding behind your finger as if we don't know what you want.

In countries what is pursuit are the desires of the whole country as determined in a democratic way (50%+). Beyond that the various minorities, as part of their individual and minority rights, can pursuit all the desires they have, as long as those desires do not go against the rights of other citizens and the desires of the country as a whole.

If you disagree with this, then show me one example of a country where different ethnic groups can pursuit their own separate and contradictory aims. This simply exists nowhere, and the only way it can be achieved is via partition.

If you owned a specific separate part of Cyprus, like Kurds own part of Turkey, then I would have no problem to tell you "take your part and do whatever you desire". However this is not the case. Either you like it or not you are a small minority within Cyprus and no separate part is exclusively yours.

So stop acting as if we are still in the Ottoman era where you could impose inequalities between "Christians" and "Muslims" and impose your will against the wishes of the majority of the population. Today it is the 21st century and you need to accept democracy as it really exists, and not as you want it to be to suit your desires (on the loss of our rights).

[Piratis]

Here is an image showing world colonization over time:


If we go by your logic, because the colonialists spread their populations around the territories they occupied (almost the whole world) then no territory should have the right of self determination because a minority of the former rulers still existed there which, always according to you, should have a separate right for self determination!

Maybe in Brazil they shouldn't have democracy as it exists everywhere, but instead a "partnership" with the Portuguese? Maybe the united states didn't have the right to unite with the other states because a minority of collonialists existed there and opposed this union?

Just look at the map. The whole world today should be co-owned with the former colonialists based on your "logic"!!

But no, thats not the way it goes. The minorities that were formed in a territory due to its former rulers are free to stay there as equal citizens, but they do not have the right to continue controling the country and go against the democratic wishes of the majority of the population. Cyprus is no exception to that, and trying to rationalize your demand that in Cyprus we should have some kind of different "democracy" that will suit your demands is redicoulous.

[zan]

And which colonisation group did you come from. Did you leave out Greece on purpose.......The same applies to you except in a different era

[Piratis]

And which colonisation group did you come from. Did you leave out Greece on purpose.......The same applies to you except in a different era

We have discussed this several times, but in this case this is not even the issue. Cypriots, regardless of their ethnic background (TCs included) should have the right in democratic ways to take decisions for their island without any foreign intervention.

Did they split the South American countries between "Incas and Spanish/Portuguese" did they split the African countries between English/French/Dutch and Blacks (actually they did this in South Africa, but fortunately apartheid is over there as well). So based on what should the population of Cyprus be split in that way and give separate rights to the former rulers?

All Cypriots should be equal and in Cyprus we should have a democracy like all the rest. Cyprus is not the only multi-ethnic country, it is not the only country who has an ethnic group formed due to colonialism, and it is not the only country which the ethnic groups had a conflict with each other. In fact there are tons of other countries like Cyprus.

So don't try to manufacture some kind of "democracy" that will fit your desires and violate our rights using your distorted version of the past as an excuse. I will repeat yet again the definition of democracy, so maybe it will stick in your heads at some point:

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.

I didn't see anything about "communal desires" that can overwrite majority rule and human rights. Did you?

[zan]

And which colonisation group did you come from. Did you leave out Greece on purpose.......The same applies to you except in a different era

We have discussed this several times, but in this case this is not even the issue. Cypriots, regardless of their ethnic background (TCs included) should have the right in democratic ways to take decisions for their island without any foreign intervention.

Did they split the South American countries between "Incas and Spanish/Portuguese" did they split the African countries between English/French/Dutch and Blacks (actually they did this in South Africa, but fortunately apartheid is over there as well). So based on what should the population of Cyprus be split in that way and give separate rights to the former rulers?

All Cypriots should be equal and in Cyprus we should have a democracy like all the rest. Cyprus is not the only multi-ethnic country, it is not the only country who has an ethnic group formed due to colonialism, and it is not the only country which the ethnic groups had a conflict with each other. In fact there are tons of other countries like Cyprus.

So don't try to manufacture some kind of "democracy" that will fit your desires and violate our rights using your distorted version of the past as an excuse. I will repeat yet again the definition of democracy, so maybe it will stick in your heads at some point:

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.

I didn't see anything about "communal desires" that can overwrite majority rule and human rights. Did you?

as erolz has explained to you in words much better than I ever can but still you do not get it...You are not trying to get a rule for Cypriots but for Greeks and that is not going to happen. Great minds from all over the world say that Cyprus is unique in this respect but you still maintain that the Greek way is right. It is not and will not be.

Every one else including the Annan Plan has allowed for this uniqueness but yo refuse to...I wonder why.

[denizaksulu]

Here is an image showing world colonization over time:


If we go by your logic, because the colonialists spread their populations around the territories they occupied (almost the whole world) then no territory should have the right of self determination because a minority of the former rulers still existed there which, always according to you, should have a separate right for self determination!

Maybe in Brazil they shouldn't have democracy as it exists everywhere, but instead a "partnership" with the Portuguese? Maybe the united states didn't have the right to unite with the other states because a minority of collonialists existed there and opposed this union?

Just look at the map. The whole world today should be co-owned with the former colonialists based on your "logic"!!

But no, thats not the way it goes. The minorities that were formed in a territory due to its former rulers are free to stay there as equal citizens, but they do not have the right to continue controling the country and go against the democratic wishes of the majority of the population. Cyprus is no exception to that, and trying to rationalize your demand that in Cyprus we should have some kind of different "democracy" that will suit your demands is redicoulous.

Good map Piratis. I always wished someone would come up with an animated map like that. Thanks for publishing it.
Regards
DA

[Piratis]

as erolz has explained to you in words much better than I ever can but still you do not get it...You are not trying to get a rule for Cypriots but for Greeks

So when the USA was formed with the initial states and then the other states didn't fight to be independent but to be part of USA, thats was not OK?

I have already shown to you the UN resolution that clearly states that "integration into an independent state" is a legitimate option for a territory being decolonized.

So there is no doubt that it was our right. However today we accepted as a compromise not to pursuit that right. On the other hand you continue to pursuit partition, something which has never been your rights as it is a criminal act that involves mass ethnic cleansing.

Great minds from all over the world say that Cyprus is unique in this respect but you still maintain that the Greek way is right. It is not and will not be.

Every one else including the Annan Plan has allowed for this uniqueness but yo refuse to...I wonder why.

And what exactly is so unique? That Cyprus is multi-ethnic or that the different ethnic groups had a conflict with each other?

What is almost unique in Cyprus is that a foreign country (which is a USA ally with one of the top 10 armies in the world) has invaded a small independent sovereign nation and the UN is trying to find a solution to this problem by peaceful means. If we had the power to defend our country against the foreign invader with military means that would of course be perfectly legitimate.

[oranos64]

Piratis THAT WAS FANTASTIC AND WELL SAID AND DOCUMENTED

I SALUTE YOU SIR