Cyprus-Forum.com

[umit07]

Hi I am a newbie to this forum. I would like to point out to me what I think are the main obstacles of the entire problem from a Turkish Cypriot point of view.

1) The problem of nationality

I consider myself to be a TURKISH CYPRIOT , nothing more or nothing less and I don't think it is a subject which we should cause a fuss about . I see that a national identity as just being a "CYPRIOT" does not exist ( if their was such a national identity between the two major communities in Cyprus we would never be in the situation we are in now). To me the "CYPRIOT" identity is used as a political angle in the Cyprus problem by the Greek Cypriot side.

( on my father's pre 1974 ROC passport in the Nationality field it says "Turkish Cypriot" )

2) The view of the ROC that the problem in Cyprus is the "Occupation of the north of the island by the Turkish Army" and lancing this as if it was the CORE argument of the problem.

3) The Turkish Cypriots want a Federal solution in which they have there own state ( like in America) and a joint higher Federal Government. But as far as I can see it the Greek Cypriot administration is just trying to as Tpap says "osmosis" in which the ROC will just assimilate the Turkish Cypriot community into it.

As I can see it the Greek Cypriot side does not want to give up the ROC that only really lived for 3 years and set up a new state.


In the end as a Turkish Cypriot what we want are the following:

1) To be "Turkish Cypriot's " nothing more or less
2) A federal Soln with 2 states and a joint Federal upper gov.
3) The guarantorship of Turkey.

Besides these 3 things anything is open to argument.

What are your views?

Looking foward to your reading your views.

[phoenix]

I consider myself to be a TURKISH CYPRIOT , nothing more or nothing less and I don't think it is a subject which we should cause a fuss about . I see that a national identity as just being a "CYPRIOT" does not exist ( if their was such a national identity between the two major communities in Cyprus we would never be in the situation we are in now). To me the "CYPRIOT" identity is used as a political angle in the Cyprus problem by the Greek Cypriot side. ( on my father's pre 1974 ROC passport in the Nationality field it says "Turkish Cypriot" )

2) The view of the ROC that the problem in Cyprus is the "Occupation of the north of the island by the Turkish Army" and lancing this as if it was the CORE argument of the problem.

3) The Turkish Cypriots want a Federal solution in which they have there own state ( like in America) and a joint higher Federal Government. But as far as I can see it the Greek Cypriot administration is just trying to as Tpap says "osmosis" in which the ROC will just assimilate the Turkish Cypriot community into it.

As I can see it the Greek Cypriot side does not want to give up the ROC that only really lived for 3 years and set up a new state.


In the end as a Turkish Cypriot what we want are the following:

1) To be "Turkish Cypriot's " nothing more or less
2) A federal Soln with 2 states and a joint Federal upper gov.
3) The guarantorship of Turkey.

.

Thank you for posting your Christmas wish list early . . .

But you start off as contemptuous of the Cypriot identity, inadequately express why through Turkish actions the RoC was hampered and are dismissive of the cause, the Turkish army, to our continual problem.

You have only your desires on offer to be satisfied.

Well IMHO you sound like another Turk in disguise, you are here to take my island away for Turkey and unless you allow the RoC to govern the country as it rightfully should, then you are a traitor.

[CopperLine]

Phoenix,
It seems to me that umit07 made a perfectly reasonable posting - s/he is just saying what s/he thinks is a 'must', prerequisites for TCs. S/he didn't say that s/he wanted to take away GC rights etc. As it happens I think that continued Turkish army presence is a serious problem, maybe even the core problem today, but umit07 doesn't and then spells out the three prequisites. S/he was not being contemptuous of Cypriot identity, s/he was pointing out - with evidence - that the father's original RoC ID card had the nationality description not as Cypriot but as 'Turkish Cypriot.'

You and I might not agree with what umit07 says, but s/he is expressing a political reality - thousands of TCs wish for those prerequisites. We can either deal with that political reality and negotiate sincerely or we can ignore those realities and pretend that those realities are something trivial, ill-founded or baseless. If we do the latter then there will be no progress and no settlement.

It is not tremendously or impossibly difficult to put oneself in the other's shoes and ask 'given my position, my insecurities, my fears, my wishes, what would I demand ? given these things, what would I ask of the other and what am I prepared to do myself ?'

[phoenix]

Phoenix,
It seems to me that umit07 made a perfectly reasonable posting - s/he is just saying what s/he thinks is a 'must', prerequisites for TCs. S/he didn't say that s/he wanted to take away GC rights etc. As it happens I think that continued Turkish army presence is a serious problem, maybe even the core problem today, but umit07 doesn't and then spells out the three prequisites. S/he was not being contemptuous of Cypriot identity, s/he was pointing out - with evidence - that the father's original RoC ID card had the nationality description not as Cypriot but as 'Turkish Cypriot.'

You and I might not agree with what umit07 says, but s/he is expressing a political reality - thousands of TCs wish for those prerequisites. We can either deal with that political reality and negotiate sincerely or we can ignore those realities and pretend that those realities are something trivial, ill-founded or baseless. If we do the latter then there will be no progress and no settlement.

It is not tremendously or impossibly difficult to put oneself in the other's shoes and ask 'given my position, my insecurities, my fears, my wishes, what would I demand ? given these things, what would I ask of the other and what am I prepared to do myself ?'

My point exactly Copperline.

The basis for discussion was placed not only on one side's desires, but begun by denying what is Internationally recognised as the situation in Cyprus.

. . . . That there is an illegally occupying Turkish Army which is the central problem to a peace solution.

. . . . That Turkey's desire for this occupation was the reason for the limited time-spun of the rights of the RoC.

. . . . umit07's argument was dismissive of the term Cypriot, and went as far as to accuse the GCs of playing political games.

So I corrected for the OTHER side.

Instead of criticising me for my response, why don't you disagree / agree / improve / alter / modify what I said as I did with umit07 . . . .
THAT WAY WE DO ACTUALLY SEE THE OTHER SIDE . . . not just BY complaining . . .

[CopperLine]

Phoenix,
Come on ! This is what you replied to a new poster :

Thank you for posting your Christmas wish list early . . .

But you start off as contemptuous of the Cypriot identity, inadequately express why through Turkish actions the RoC was hampered and are dismissive of the cause, the Turkish army, to our continual problem.

You have only your desires on offer to be satisfied.

Well IMHO you sound like another Turk in disguise, you are here to take my island away for Turkey and unless you allow the RoC to govern the country as it rightfully should, then you are a traitor.

'Another Turk in disguise' ? 'you are here to take my island away' ? 'You are a traitor' ? And you call this putting oneself in the other's shoes ? You're not serious, are you ?

[pantheman]

Phoenix,
It seems to me that umit07 made a perfectly reasonable posting - s/he is just saying what s/he thinks is a 'must', prerequisites for TCs. S/he didn't say that s/he wanted to take away GC rights etc. As it happens I think that continued Turkish army presence is a serious problem, maybe even the core problem today, but umit07 doesn't and then spells out the three prequisites. S/he was not being contemptuous of Cypriot identity, s/he was pointing out - with evidence - that the father's original RoC ID card had the nationality description not as Cypriot but as 'Turkish Cypriot.'

You and I might not agree with what umit07 says, but s/he is expressing a political reality - thousands of TCs wish for those prerequisites. We can either deal with that political reality and negotiate sincerely or we can ignore those realities and pretend that those realities are something trivial, ill-founded or baseless. If we do the latter then there will be no progress and no settlement.

It is not tremendously or impossibly difficult to put oneself in the other's shoes and ask 'given my position, my insecurities, my fears, my wishes, what would I demand ? given these things, what would I ask of the other and what am I prepared to do myself ?'

My point exactly Copperline.

The basis for discussion was placed not only on one side's desires, but begun by denying what is Internationally recognised as the situation in Cyprus.

. . . . That there is an illegally occupying Turkish Army which is the central problem to a peace solution.

. . . . That Turkey's desire for this occupation was the reason for the limited time-spun of the rights of the RoC.

. . . . umit07's argument was dismissive of the term Cypriot, and went as far as to accuse the GCs of playing political games.

So I corrected for the OTHER side.

Instead of criticising me for my response, why don't you disagree / agree / improve / alter / modify what I said as I did with umit07 . . . .
THAT WAY WE DO ACTUALLY SEE THE OTHER SIDE . . . not just BY complaining . . .

Pheonix honey,

don't waste your time with copperline, he is a Turk or TC and is so biased. I have had this argument with him/her before and this person pretends to be neutral but real leans to the turkish side.

Want proof, just read copperlines posts, all verywell written, obviously very knowledgable in law or international affairs but just read the undertones (or between the lines) because the posts are always biased towards and infavour of the turkish side.

good luck

[phoenix]

Phoenix,
Come on ! This is what you replied to a new poster :

Thank you for posting your Christmas wish list early . . .

But you start off as contemptuous of the Cypriot identity, inadequately express why through Turkish actions the RoC was hampered and are dismissive of the cause, the Turkish army, to our continual problem.

You have only your desires on offer to be satisfied.

Well IMHO you sound like another Turk in disguise, you are here to take my island away for Turkey and unless you allow the RoC to govern the country as it rightfully should, then you are a traitor.

'Another Turk in disguise' ? 'you are here to take my island away' ? 'You are a traitor' ? And you call this putting oneself in the other's shoes ? You're not serious, are you ?

Copperline . . . you are doing it again!

Kindly desist from this phoenix persecution and discuss the points I RAISED and stop telling me I was not within my rights to reply to the points I was not happy with and posted above.

Unless you discuss my points Copperline, I cannot see where we go from here . . .

[MR-from-NG]

Unless you discuss my points Copperline, I cannot see where we go from here . . .

South and North comes to mind

[phoenix]

Phoenix,
It seems to me that umit07 made a perfectly reasonable posting - s/he is just saying what s/he thinks is a 'must', prerequisites for TCs. S/he didn't say that s/he wanted to take away GC rights etc. As it happens I think that continued Turkish army presence is a serious problem, maybe even the core problem today, but umit07 doesn't and then spells out the three prequisites. S/he was not being contemptuous of Cypriot identity, s/he was pointing out - with evidence - that the father's original RoC ID card had the nationality description not as Cypriot but as 'Turkish Cypriot.'

You and I might not agree with what umit07 says, but s/he is expressing a political reality - thousands of TCs wish for those prerequisites. We can either deal with that political reality and negotiate sincerely or we can ignore those realities and pretend that those realities are something trivial, ill-founded or baseless. If we do the latter then there will be no progress and no settlement.

It is not tremendously or impossibly difficult to put oneself in the other's shoes and ask 'given my position, my insecurities, my fears, my wishes, what would I demand ? given these things, what would I ask of the other and what am I prepared to do myself ?'

My point exactly Copperline.

The basis for discussion was placed not only on one side's desires, but begun by denying what is Internationally recognised as the situation in Cyprus.

. . . . That there is an illegally occupying Turkish Army which is the central problem to a peace solution.

. . . . That Turkey's desire for this occupation was the reason for the limited time-spun of the rights of the RoC.

. . . . umit07's argument was dismissive of the term Cypriot, and went as far as to accuse the GCs of playing political games.

So I corrected for the OTHER side.

Instead of criticising me for my response, why don't you disagree / agree / improve / alter / modify what I said as I did with umit07 . . . .
THAT WAY WE DO ACTUALLY SEE THE OTHER SIDE . . . not just BY complaining . . .

Pheonix honey,

don't waste your time with copperline, he is a Turk or TC and is so biased. I have had this argument with him/her before and this person pretends to be neutral but real leans to the turkish side.

Want proof, just read copperlines posts, all verywell written, obviously very knowledgable in law or international affairs but just read the undertones (or between the lines) because the posts are always biased towards and infavour of the turkish side.

good luck

Thanks pantheman . . . I have only just seen your advice because I was posting to him again on the same issue

You make sense, I see it now for what it is. Thanks again

[CopperLine]

Phoenix,
You've a perfect right to post whatever you want; your right to do so is not at issue.

My point was simple, Pantheman's paranoia nothwithstanding, that a new person to the forum made a reasonable first topic post and you replied with various accusations. That didn't seem to me to be conducive to a fruitful discussion and I said that maybe we might get further if we looked at things from the other side. You disagree with my assessment and suggestion it seems, and instead you fall back into the deep and well-travelled rut of accusations. OK, that's your right and enjoy it. We'll see whether the same old wheel will make its' same old revolution on this thread or whether a new and more hopeful turn is taken.