Cyprus-Forum.com

[pantelis]

Logic 101:

Conditions:
1. The Cyprus problem cannot be solved, unless Turkey joins the EU.
2. Turkey cannot join the EU, unless she accepts to provide minority rights to all her citizens.

Logical argument:
Minority rights in Turkey will never be provided, in the form they are demanded in Cyprus, therefore Turkey will never join the EU.

Conclusions:
1. The Cyprus Problem will never be solved.
2. The TCs will never become part of the EU.

In reality the rest of the problem is more critical. Realizing that they would not be able to gain recognition via the “protocol” the Greek Cypriots would renew their demand for recognition at the first chance, resorting to the veto threat. That could happen in June 2005, that is, during the time the EU would be shaping the “framework of negotiations” with Turkey. As Barroso has told the Turkish prime minister, if the talks were to begin together with the “screening,” then the Greek Cypriots would still have a chance to exercise their veto. If, by then, the embargoes on the Turkish side remained intact, then the Greek Cypriots would be able to cast aside Annan's plan altogether.

The developments in Cyprus are equally important. Mr. Talat says that if he gets elected KKTC president, he will initiate fresh talks on Annan's plan. Serdar Denktas shares that view. From the Turkish Cypriots' standpoint, that would amount to fall back further from the latest version of the plan in order to meet the Greek Cypriots' never-ending demands. Let us assume for a moment that such a “solution” would indeed be reached. Even in that case the Turkish Cypriots could not enter the EU before Turkey's EU membership is secured. This is because that would be contrary to the Guaranty Treaty. The AKP government, which is already losing ground politically, would not be able to persuade the Turkish public to accept that.

Meanwhile, the new version of the Accession Partnership Document has been postponed from April to November. The aim must be to prevent strong public opinion reaction to the document in question since it would contain the minority rights Turkey would be pressured into accepting at a time when it is grappling with the Cyprus problem.

http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/arti ... ewsid=8504

[erolz]

Logic 101:

Conditions:
1. The Cyprus problem cannot be solved, unless Turkey joins the EU.
2. Turkey cannot join the EU, unless she accepts to provide minority rights to all her citizens.

Logical argument:
Minority rights in Turkey will never be provided, in the form they are demanded in Cyprus, therefore Turkey will never join the EU.

Conclusions:
1. The Cyprus Problem will never be solved.
2. The TCs will never become part of the EU.

Your logic is based on the premise that what TC want is a form of 'minority rights'. This is not what TC want (and thus there is a flaw in your logic). They want some rights that are MORE than the rights given to a minority group whilst also accepting that they can not practicaly have the full rights of a 'people' as laid out in the various conventipons on the rights of peoples (as peoples - not individuals) in a solution that is not based on total partition.
Now personally I believe that the same 'logic' that supports the TC claim does also apply to _certain_ numerical minorites in Turkey (but not all numerical minorites in Turkey) - namely the Kurdish community in Turkey. However as far as your argument goes it does not really matter what I think - it only matters what the EU thinks. In terms of the descrepancy between Turkeys position on the Kurdish community in Turkey and the TC commiunity in Cyprus - there are some very real differences as well as similarites. The key difference is that there was no agreement between the Turkish and Kurdish communites in Turkey - at the point modern Turkey was founded - that 'enshrined' the prinicpal of a status of 'more than a political minority and less than a people'. So whilst I accept that intelectualy the reasons why TC should have a status in Cyprus of 'more than a political minority - less than a people' are the same reasons the Kurds should have the same status in Turkey - I also think that the EU could (and will) deem the two situations to be different enough that they will not say that unless Turkey grants the Kurds this status in Turkey they will not accept it for TC in Cyprus. The fact is that in Cyprus (unlike in Turkey) - this issue of the status of the TC community in Cyprus has laready been 'established' in 1960 and it is enshrined in the RoC's constituion and was the very basis for the founding of a Cypriot nation itself. It is also 'enshrined' in one for or another in every effort to broker a deal upto and including the Annan Plan variants. So basically I think your logic is flawed.

[Piratis]

Pentelis, you forgot the "double standards" factor. Of course, since we have a veto in EU this factor can potentially be eliminated and Turkey loose her EU accession.

In another threat I asked for one fair way to treat the "numerically less" in Turkey (Greeks, Kurds etc), the numerically less in Greece (Turks etc), and the numerically less in Cyprus.
In the past I have asked to see the examples of how in all other countries the numerically less and the numerically more leave peacefully without the need for human rights violations.

The excuses why double standards should exist in favor of TCs are many. The conclusion is always the same: TCs are the chosen people of God and they should get a lot more than any other "numerically less" gets.

In other cases it might slip out from them and admit that such discriminations based on race should ideally not exist, but there are the "realities". And I wonder: how people can progress if they insist so much in not only keeping, but cementing forever what they themselves realize is far from the ideal?
Shouldn't we realize the realities on one hand, but at the same time try to achieve (through transitional periods etc) the closest to the ideal we can? I believe thats what progressive people do, and is quite sad that some conservatives that oppose progress label themselves as progressive.

[erolz]

The excuses why double standards should exist in favor of TCs are many. The conclusion is always the same: TCs are the chosen people of God and they should get a lot more than any other "numerically less" gets.

The reasons why the TC community should have more rights as a communiuty than those of a minority in their own homeland are based on the ideals of the rights of self determination. These rights are not unique to TC as community. They should in a ideal world apply to all peoples / communites in their homelands - when their presense pre dates the forming of the state in question. They are the same ideals that ended British rule in Cyprus.

In other cases it might slip out from them and admit that such discriminations based on race should ideally not exist, but there are the "realities".

Sure in an ideal world discrimination based on race - both negative and positive discrimination - should not _need_ to exist. Then we have the realites. The realities in regard to the Cyprus issue is that GC defined, fought and killed for an objective founded on the principal of race and of race being Greek and not Cypriot - without regard for the TC community. You can not have an ideal world without need for racial discrimination if a large part of the world discriminates based on race. The entire history of Cyprus as a nation is based on the pursuit of ideals that related to race.

And I wonder: how people can progress if they insist so much in not only keeping, but cementing forever what they themselves realize is far from the ideal?

You see any recognising of political equality of the two communites as being a cementing of division. I see it as a route to which we can evolve into a position where race other than Cypriot does not matter - in peoples hearts and minds and in political reality.

Shouldn't we realize the realities on one hand, but at the same time try to achieve (through transitional periods etc) the closest to the ideal we can? I believe thats what progressive people do, and is quite sad that some conservatives that oppose progress label themselves as progressive.

I see nothing 'progressive' in the idea that the few should always have to submit to the many and the many should have the _right_ to impose _anything_ on the few - no matter how detrimental it is to the few - just because they are the many. I see nothing progessive in the idea that power should be centralised and remote and not decentralised and devolved and local. In a progressive world consensus would be the way forward - not the enforcing of one groups wishes on another based of some notion of the 'superiority of the many'. That is my idea of 'progressive' - though these notions of the potential 'tyranny of the many' date back 100s of years.

[Piratis]

Erolz, what I am asking from you is to tell me something without any double standards for your favor, without thinking that TCs are the special race of the world that should be treated in super special ways.

There are many communities (numerically less and more) that pre existed their state. There are many cases were these communities fought each other in the past. There are many "numerically less" in Cyprus, not just TCs.

So, no, TCs aren't that special in terms of "numerically less", and Cyprus is not that special either.

So my question remains: Can you tell me how, without referring to TCs, GCs, Cyprus etc, the relationship between the "numerically less" and the "numerically more" should be universally? Can we finally stop the double standards that have many excuses, but only one reason (force of weapons)?

[erolz]

Erolz, what I am asking from you is to tell me something without any double standards for your favor, without thinking that TCs are the special race of the world that should be treated in super special ways.

There are many communities (numerically less and more) that pre existed their state. There are many cases were these communities fought each other in the past. There are many "numerically less" in Cyprus, not just TCs.

So, no, TCs aren't that special in terms of "numerically less", and Cyprus is not that special either.

So my question remains: Can you tell me how, without referring to TCs, GCs, Cyprus etc, the relationship between the "numerically less" and the "numerically more" should be universally? Can we finally stop the double standards that have many excuses, but only one reason (force of weapons)?

Once more I will try and explain my views and why I consider them to be consistent.

My beleief is that where there are comparable situations to the one in Cyprus then the solution should also be similar to the one I propose in Cyprus. Where the 'world' has comprable situations to that in Cyprus but does not offer what they do in Cyprus I believe the 'world' should change.

It is my belief that when a nation state is founded that comprises of more than one community/people of siginifcant size (say greater than x% - where x can be 1% or 5% or 10%) then those seperate communites should try and work togeather in cooperation and always seek consensus. Where there is a history of them having failed to work togeather in co operation and failed to find consenus and of one side trying to impose on the other the most extreme of measures agaist their will then there should be structured protections to stop this. It is my belief that a numercialy larger community in such a senario has a moral duty to NOT impose its will on the smaller community. As the numericaly larger community it should make every effort to consider the wishes and needs of the numericaly smaller community - if the goal is to build a truely united country from these disparate parts. Where it has a proven track record of failing to do this then structural protection becomes necessary. I see no more logic or moral authority in insting that a numericaly larger communities wishes, in such a senario outline above, should always take precedence over the numerical smaller communites wishes, simply because it is numericaly larger - than I think where two indivduals wishes clash and oppose each other the larger of the two indivduals wishes should always take precedent over the smaller, simply because they are larger. Your position seems to be that the small should always bow to and be subservient to the will and wishes of the large - that this is 'normal' and 'right' and any argumetns against this view is to be asking for the unacceptable. There may well be many examples around the world where this is in fact the reality - but that does not mean it is right or should be the model we use. I believe the 'many' should protect the 'few', that the 'strong' should protect the 'weak', that the 'rich' should protect the 'poor'. The fact that in most cases around the world the many dominate the 'few', the strong doinate the weak and the rich exploit the ppor does not change my view one iota. I do not say that it is right for the strong to dominate the weak simply because that is what happens around the world. The more it happens around the world the more imperative it is for me to oppose this kind of philosophy.

Do I support Kurds having similar protections and political equality in Turkey than those I wish for TC in Cyprus? Yes I do. Do I support Tamils having similar in Sri Lanka? Yes I do. Do I support Kurds or Tamils or TC having similar in the UK? No I do not. Do I think my position is inconsistent? No I do not. Do I think I am asking for things for TC that I would not grant to others in similar situations? No I do not.

[Piratis]

Would you accept partition, where a percentage of GCs return to their homes (say for example the 18%) and these "numerically less" GCs in the TC country are given what you ask for the TCs in a "united" Cyprus?

[pantelis]

Erol,
Democracy should have the same meaning everywhere; In the US, in the UK, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Egypt, in Saudi, in Turkey and in Cyprus.
You cannot refer to the un-democratic 1960 British/Turkish imposed constitution and guarantees, only when it pleases you. Cyprus from being only a British colony, was “granted” pseudo-independence, to become a colony of the three “guarantors”, in such a way that two of them would always cancel each other out; in other words, Cyprus remained a British colony in disguise.
The Cypriots should not be forced to live in the 60s by imposed anachronistic constitutions, occupation armies and military bases.
Geoge Bush’s and Rice’s “democracy”, should be the same for all states, friends and foes!
The mistakes and wrongs of the past should first be acknowledged and then be prevented from re-occurring in the future. The people are not as naïve as they used to be, in this “neck of the woods”.

Talabani becoming the president of Iraq is important for Kurds even if it is just a symbolic post. It means that Kurds can no longer be defined as a "separatist force." From now on Kurds will be seen as a solid constituent of Iraq -- and that's not all.


Talabani's appointment will affect Turkey's relationship with the Kurds. The Kurds will become more self-confident. Some may say: "Oh no! Now they'll ask for more political rights." They may be proven right.

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=521

[erolz]

Would you accept partition, where a percentage of GCs return to their homes (say for example the 18%) and these "numerically less" GCs in the TC country are given what you ask for the TCs in a "united" Cyprus?

I do not want partition of Cyprus but in such a hypothetical senario that you suggest then yes I would support a GC minority community in and independent TC state having the kind of equality and protections that I want for the TC community within a untied Cyprus. If for example the TC majority in this fictional state proposed union with Turkey and rhis was opposed by the GC minority in the TC state I would support their right to block such a move.

[insan]

The Cypriots should not be forced to live in the 60s by imposed anachronistic constitutions, occupation armies and military bases.

Pantelis, it is obvious that vast majority of TCs do not want to live in a GC state as a minority because of many reasons. Different groups of TCs have different reasons. There are some common arguments between these different TC groups but also there are completely opposing arguments concerning the highly possible to be appear detrimental consequences of "majority rule".

Thus, what do you want? You want to force us to obbey "majority rule"? Or instead of forcing us to obey "majority rule" and sharing the legislative power equally; you want partition? you should decide and make it clear to us.


You compare Kurds in Turkey with TCs in Cyprus. First of all the retrospective relations of Turks and Kurds have no similarities with the retrospective relations of Turks and Greeks.

Second, Turks and Kurds struggled for an independent Turkey together.

Third, their religion is same and inter-marriage of Turks and Kurds is very common in Turkey.

I'm sure no less than half of the National Assembly of Turkey compose of Kurdish descendant MPs.

There are so many high ranked military officers in Turkish army.

The Kurdish Problem in Turkey was created by the political Kurdish groups of neighbouring countries with help and provocations of the enemies of Turkey; including Armenia, Greece and GC administration.