Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

I am not sure where you are going with this ... which names do you think he should have included on the list, if not the names you mentioned above?

I am surprised of your question Alex! According to the Anan Plan the TCs should appoint 1500 Fed Employees and the GCs 3500 Fed employees to form the total number of 5000 Fed employees . According to your opinion, should we the GCs also appoint exclussively high ranking government employess, like for example the directors and sub directors of our existing Ministries? If yes, then tell me who the telephone operators of the Fed state (out of those 5000) would be -Trantafillides perhaps?

For me it was a clear effort, of taking advantage of something that goes without saying, thus actually there was no need to even mention. That the proposed personnel should be of all ranks. The TC side took advantage of this very simple missing point, to try and fill all the high ranking positions of the Fed State, with their own people. I am really wondering how many thousand surprises we will see after a solution when we have to deal with people whose only effort is to grab whatever they can. That's why as I told you in another thread this idea of trying to negotiate on things of the Anan Plan that will not affect the TCs WILL NOT work. The mentality of grabbing is still there!

Again I am surprised you cant see that!

[Alexandros Lordos]

I am not sure where you are going with this ... which names do you think he should have included on the list, if not the names you mentioned above?

I am surprised of your question Alex! According to the Anan Plan the TCs should appoint 1500 Fed Employees and the GCs 3500 Fed employees to form the total number of 5000 Fed employees . According to your opinion, should we the GCs also appoint exclussively high ranking government employess, like for example the directors and sub directors of our existing Ministries? If yes, then tell me who the telephone operators of the Fed state (out of those 5000) would be -Trantafillides perhaps?

For me it was a clear effort, of taking advantage of something that goes without saying, thus actually there was no need to even mention. That the proposed personnel should be of all ranks.

Ah, I see what you are saying now - if what you are saying is true, then we have a classic case of Cypriot-brand nepotism/corruption here. But, how many "high ranking officials" does the "TRNC" have? 1500 sounds like a very large number, they would have to go down to quite average ranks in order to fill this list. Also, how do you know they didn't just choose those relatively few who can already speak English (and who also happen to be relatively high ranking)? Third question, how many Federal employees are going to be "cleaning ladies and telephone operators", and how many are going to be officials dealing with delicate issues of finance or foreign policy? The great majority, I suspect, will be of the second category - but even the telephone operators will need to speak English ...

On the whole, I would like to see more detailed evidence that there was something inappropriate in the selection of the TC officials, before I make up my mind. Has somebody actually studied this list, and compared Federal Position to current "TRNC" position for each prospective employee (do we GCs even know current "TRNC" positions of various individuals?), to reach this conclusion that corruption was involved, which conclusion also happened to be a ... very convenient argument for the (somewhat overheated, as we both know) campaign of the "No Camp"?

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[metecyp]

Even Armenians do not claim that he had masacred them but you do. I bet your grade in history have been A+.

I agree with turkcyp here. After MicAtCyp suggested that Ataturk was involved in the "Armenian genocide", I did a mini-research on the web. Ataturk was indeed a supporter of Young Turks at first but he later disagreed with them when they chose to align themselves with Germans. Only very few hardcore Armenian genocide sites actually claim that he was involved in killings, not in the actual "genocide" but afterwards "to clean up the remaining few Armenians" as they put it.

My personal belief is that he was not involved in any killings, including Pontian Greeks. It's possible that some of his soldiers killed some innocent civilians but I don't think he ever gave an order to ethnically clean Pontians or Armenians. He wouldn't sign a population exchange with Greece if he simply wanted to kill Greeks in Turkey.

Do you that famous Greek flag story? When the Greeks took Izmir (Symra), the Greek officer walked in his office stepping on a Turkish flag as a humiliation to Turks. When Ataturk took back Izmir, people put the Greek flag on the floor, expecting him to do the same as his Greek counterpart but Ataturk refused to step on the Greek flag. He said that a flag is the pride of a nation and it cannot be stepped over like that. Now you expect this guy to order a genocide?

Now watch MicAtCyp call me brain-washed...

[Kifeas]

Turkcyp wrote:

Even Armenians do not claim that he had masacred them but you do. I bet your grade in history have been A+.

I agree with turkcyp here. After MicAtCyp suggested that Ataturk was involved in the "Armenian genocide", I did a mini-research on the web. Ataturk was indeed a supporter of Young Turks at first but he later disagreed with them when they chose to align themselves with Germans. Only very few hardcore Armenian genocide sites actually claim that he was involved in killings, not in the actual "genocide" but afterwards "to clean up the remaining few Armenians" as they put it.

My personal belief is that he was not involved in any killings, including Pontian Greeks. It's possible that some of his soldiers killed some innocent civilians but I don't think he ever gave an order to ethnically clean Pontians or Armenians. He wouldn't sign a population exchange with Greece if he simply wanted to kill Greeks in Turkey.

Do you that famous Greek flag story? When the Greeks took Izmir (Symra), the Greek officer walked in his office stepping on a Turkish flag as a humiliation to Turks. When Ataturk took back Izmir, people put the Greek flag on the floor, expecting him to do the same as his Greek counterpart but Ataturk refused to step on the Greek flag. He said that a flag is the pride of a nation and it cannot be stepped over like that. Now you expect this guy to order a genocide?

Greek Cypriots concerns are not so much about Atatürk as person or as a political figurehead. They have to do more with the Kemalist ideology that claims to have been founded upon his principles. To Greek Cypriots, this ideology, as it is expressed by Kemalists in Turkey, appears as a totalitarian one and very nationalistic. It promotes the complete surrender of the individual to the interests of the state, under any cost. It seems to be far away from the E.U. concept, which places the interests and rights of the individual above all. It is the ideology that makes Turkey appear in the eyes of Europe as an intolerant state both to its own people and minorities within the country and also towards its neighbours.

Do you think it is fair for Greek Cypriots to be required to take such an oath, if they seek to exercise political rights within the TCCS?

[metecyp]

It has to do more with the Kemalist ideology that claims to have been founded upon his principles. To Greek Cypriots this ideology, as it is expressed by Kemalists in Turkey, appears as a totalitarian one and very nationalistic. It promotes the complete surrender of the individual to the interests of the state, under any cost.

I understand your concerns. The same Kemalist ideology in Turkey worries me too. I think people who call themselves "Kemalist" are not necessarily exercising what Ataturk intended when he laid down his principles. I consider their ideology as a misinterpretation of Ataturk's ideals. Nevertheless, the presence of such misinterpreations does not make Ataturk and his ideology more evil or less valid.

TCs support what Ataturk truly represents, i.e. modernity, secularism, etc. Grey wolves also claim that they support and preserve Ataturk's ideals but very few TCs support grey wolves. So when a TC takes an oath to Ataturk's ideals he doesn't mean to support grey wolves. With his oath, a TC simply supports universally accepted principles that Ataturk applied to Turkey and these principles can bring nothing but good to Cyprus.

Do you think it is fair for Greek Cypriots to be required to take such an oath, if they seek to exercise political rights within the TCCS?

I understand why a GC would not feel comfortable taking such an oath and I'm sure if GCs are to exercise rights within the TCCS, they wouldn't be asked to take such an oath. I believe TCs are sensitive enough to understand that. It doesn't make sense anyway. It's like asking someone who has no idea about nonviolence to take an oath to Gandhi's principles (poor example but you get the idea)

At the same time, a GC should not consider a TC taking an oath to Ataturk as a facist grey wolf but understand the reasoning behind it. I just don't want people to automatically jump on things that look nationalistic but rather exercise some empathy.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Kifeas]

Anyway I already have said that his name is not important, but some of its values are. For example he was a big advocate of secularism, republican form of government, and halkcilik (I do not like to use popularism because in English it fall short of capturing what halkcilik means). I think these are even today are the conrnerstone of any civilized country. On the other hand some of its policies like etatism are completely outdated and are not even used in Turkey today. Another one of his values, nationalism, I do not like at all, and in that respect GCs are more Kemalist then TCs are because they are far more nationalistic than TCs are. Patriotism I can tolerate but nationalism I can not.

p.s. I actually agree with the fact that there is no need to take an oath on his name. Actually I found this taking an oath thing really stupid anyway, why is there a need to take an oath anyway.

Thanks Turkcyp and also Metecyp.

So then, if there is (and indeed there is,) such controversy, why not only those principles that make sense and apply today, were not spelled out specifically in the constitution? In fact some of them were also spelled out separately.

It doesn't make GCs uneasy only the fact that they have to take an oath, but also the fact that this ideology (Kemalist) attaches the Turkish Cypriot CS more tightly to Turkey than to the GCCC and Greek Cypriots.

[-mikkie2-]

But, how many "high ranking officials" does the "TRNC" have? 1500 sounds like a very large number, they would have to go down to quite average ranks in order to fill this list.

Alexandre, I think what MicAtCyp is getting at is that in the 'trnc' the beurocracy is bloated - what percentage of the population of the north has government related jobs? I bet it is pretty high. I also bet that many have been given very cushy positions with high rankings in order to keep them sweet to the cause! Remember the large numbers of government jobs handed out just before the elections last year? I perhaps think that these people would be getting equivalent jobs in the federal government. That scares me!

My view is that these positions should be filled according to competence and they should be jobs that should be interviewed for and given on MERIT, not by just transferring people over. If we are to start with a clean sheet then perhaps we should also be starting with a clean sheet for the jobs as well.

[Alexandros Lordos]

My view is that these positions should be filled according to competence and they should be jobs that should be interviewed for and given on MERIT, not by just transferring people over. If we are to start with a clean sheet then perhaps we should also be starting with a clean sheet for the jobs as well.

OK, Great, then that should also apply for us as well, no?

We also "just gave a list". Did we conduct interviews etc.?