Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

mangali idea

(No offense intended)

I think it must be "megalo idea", aka Great Ideal. Greek irredentism.

actually youre both wrong. its Megali Idea. But close insan. And you think language is going to be a barrier!

I understand what you are saying turkcyp, but i believe that the thinking displayed above is only a small minority like andrik, and the vast majority of gc are like you and i who want unification and peace.

we all want unification and peace but alas we all have different views of unification. if im not mistaken correctly i believe your view is quite different from what the majority of TCs view unification to be, non?

[Kifeas]

You did not have a right to armed struggle. There is no human rights document anywhere that says that colonised people have a RIGHT to kill their colonisers. Armed struggle of oppresed people may or may not be justifed but it is NOT a RIGHT.
You only have and had a right to unite Cyprus with Greece if you accept that TC have no right to determine their own future at all in their own homeland. You seem to think the only issue for TC re ENOSIS is if they will be oppressed or not. You claim rights of self determination for the solely GC community (because your desires are solely GC) and insist they include a RIGHT to kill colonialist, their wives and children and anyone else that stands in the way of the 'freedom fighters', yet deny TC ANY right to self determination. TC are simply to do what they are told by GC - and as long as they are not oppressed they should be happy. Are TC not entitled to the same rights as others? Are we not entitled to not want to be ruled by people other than oursleves in our own homeland? Do we have the right to kill colonial oppressors? Did we have a right to kill to gain our indpendance (or union with Turkey) as you insist GC had?

Erolz,

In your above posting you raise in my opinion, at least 3 separate issues. I will disagree with the first and partly agree with other two.

You did not have a right to armed struggle.There is no human rights document anywhere that says that colonised people have a RIGHT to kill their colonisers.Armed struggle of oppresed people may or may not be justifed but it is NOT a RIGHT.

You claim that colonised people have no right to engage in an armed struggle. You make a parallelism between this right (or “non-right”) with what we term today, (21st century,) as fundamental human rights. These are not the only rights that people have. The desire of a nation or group of people to free itself from the domination or exploitation of a colonial power and consequently self-master its faith, is a prime and self-evident natural right. Oppression of colonised people can take various forms. It is not only in a physical sense but can also be moral, mental, or it can take the form of exploitation of their natural resources, imposition of taxes, etc. For example, according to the logic of your approach, the people of mainland Greece should have never carried out an armed revolution against the Ottomans, because they didn’t have any such a right. Consequently, neither the Scottish people should have revolted against the English occupiers of their lands, nor the English people against the French occupiers of England. None of them had a right to use force or violence to liberate themselves, according to your theory. I believe this is an absolutely "non-conventional" approach.

By the way, who decides under a colonial or fascist or military or occupational rule, what is legal and what is illegal? Who determines the laws? How are these laws being legitimised, except by the power of the ruler (the stonger.)

..yet deny TC ANY right to self determination. TC are simply to do what they are told by GC - and as long as they are not oppressed they should be happy. Are TC not entitled to the same rights as others? Are we not entitled to not want to be ruled by people other than oursleves in our own homeland?

You raise the issue of the self-determination right of the TC community. This is really a hard issue and needs to be approached from several angles as it has more than one dimension. The right of self-determination of TCs should be respected in an equal degree with that of GCs should they have been historically living as the majority of one particular area of Cyprus. In the case of Cyprus, they were mixed up in the entire area of the island, they were a minority and they were the remnant of a fairly recent in the long history of Cyprus, colonial ruler. Any well indented analyst or historian will never, in my opinion, equate the two self-determination rights.
Just follow this example and tell me how you react to it. Greece as we know it today, has never existed in the past. More or less this can be applied to almost all countries of the world, including Turkey, U.K. etc. Greece is nowadays the outcome of various revolutions (armed struggles) of Greeks (or Greek speaking people) primarily against the Ottomans, which resulted in the formation of what we today see or define as the Greek State. Ottomans were the occupiers or the colonisers; Greek people were the occupied or the colonised. Exactly the same applies to the case of Cyprus during the years of the Ottoman or later the British occupation or colonisation. During the ottoman occupation of the area that we now acknowledge as being Greece, existed (were developed as a direct consequence of the ottoman occupation,) several Turkish or Muslim communities. This is exactly the same as in the case of Cyprus. The appearance of the Turkish community came as a result of the Ottoman occupation. These communities like in the case of Cyprus, were minorities compare to the rest of the indigenous Greek (or Greek speaking) population. This situation existed in Peloponnesian peninsula, Attica, Crete, Thrace, Macedonia, etc. Here is the tricky question for you. Should or shouldn’t the Greek majority people of Greece make a revolution (armed struggle) in order to liberate themselves from the Ottomans? Should or shouldn’t the majority Greek people seek independence and /or self-determination? According to your thesis, they shouldn’t, because the remnants of the Ottoman (i.e. the Muslim or Turkish minority communities all around Greece) had also an equivalent right for self-determination, which in this case would have meant to continue to remain under the Ottoman rule. Consequently, If everyone accepts your thesis, today there shouldn’t be an independed Greek state and the whole area of the Balkans, as well as Turkey and Cyprus, should have been left under the Ottomans. In all these countries, existed and continue to exist up to this day, Muslim or Turkish, as some of them self identify themselves, communities. If all these minority communities are assumed to have had an equal right of self-determination as that of the pre-existing indigenous people, then none of these countries should have existed today.

I know here you will argue that the case of Cyprus is not the same. Well, it depends from which dimension one views the issue. Turks argue that Cyprus has never been part of Greece. Of course in the same way it has never been part of Turkey, either. If we assume that the Ottomans were the ancestors of the modern Turks we can equally assume that the Byzantines were the ancestors of modern Greeks. Cyprus was both under the Byzantine Empire (600 years) and under the Ottoman Empire (300 years.) This is not the issue however. Greece, as we know it today (an independed republic,) has never existed in the past. There was no such country in which all mainland Greek territories and all the Aegean island, Ionic islands and Crete were members of one united unitary state. All these areas were historically populated by majority Greek speaking people, which at times were under completely different rulers, at times they were formed as autonomous kingdoms or City States, etc, etc. The common denominator for all these areas has been the fact they were majority populated by Greeks (or Greek speaking people) and have also, at different times in history, contributed their share of what nowadays composes the classic Greek civilisation concept. Exactly the same analogy can be made for Cyprus.

The Greek Cypriot majority people didn’t perceive their Enosis struggle as one that will annex Cyprus into a new ruler. They didn’t see Greece as just another colonising power, but rather themselves as an extension of all the rest of Greek people that lived in all other parts of what formed Greece, which also have made similar revolutions during the previous 130 years, in order for all them to constitute together modern Greece. If we assume that Greek Cypriots didn’t have any such right to engage into an anti-colonial struggle for their unification with the modern Greek state, then neither the rest of the areas and islands that today composed Greece, had such a right. Therefore Greece shouldn’t exist today, because it is the product of illegal revolutions of majority Greek-speaking people and it should have, until this day, been part of the Ottoman Empire or the Venisians, as it was the case of the Ionian and some of the Aegean islands until the beginning of 20th century. The only difference is that Cyprus was sold by one colonial power (Ottomans) to another colonial power (British.) If you go further, you will discover that most countries have similar analogies in their formation. The concept of modern sovereign and independed states or nations is a very recent phenomenon and it was not the case during the medieval times, were we only had imperialist kingdoms and empires. The same can be said for Great Britain for example.

Therefore, depending on the angle from which you see things, both Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot arguments or claims make sense. For Turkish Cypriots is was annexation by Greece, for Greek Cypriots it was a natural right of a majority that populated the island for 3,500 years to join together as one country with the rest of it’s kin. That’s history however. At those days things were seen from that angle. Nowadays, Greek Cypriots do not share this aspiration any more, but instead they view Cyprus as an independed and separate entity, instead of just another Greek island, as they not unjustifiably perceived it to be during those days.

..and insist they include a RIGHT to kill colonialist, their wives and children and anyone else that stands in the way of the 'freedom fighters',

This is something on which I will partly agree with you. That of attacking civilians in ones effort to liberate its country from a colonial power. Unfortunately this thing happened during the EOKA struggle, but it should not be assumed that it was part of the official policy or aims of this struggle. Primarily the EOKA fighting teams were engaged in bomb or ambush attacks on British military targets. In any armed struggle one has to accept that it is inevitable to have what we call today as “collateral damage,” which might include unfortunate civilians. That doesn’t mean that I deny the fact that certain isolated individuals or teams, functioning outside the strict control of EOKA leadership, have not committed attacks on innocent British, Greek or Turkish civilians. Certainly these actions are rightfully termed as terrorist and immoral attacks. However, they should not be utilised as an excuse to brand the entire EOKA struggle as an illegal or a terrorist movement. Provided that you do not continue to claim that any liberation or anti-colonial struggle is illegal.

[erolz]

Erolz,

You claim that colonised people have no right to engage in an armed struggle. You make a parallelism between this right (or “non-right”) with what we term today, (21st century,) as fundamental human rights. These are not the only rights that people have. The desire of a nation or group of people to free itself from the domination or exploitation of a colonial power and consequently self-master its faith, is a prime and self-evident natural right.

Peoples have a right to self determination, morally and in the letter of the UN (and other) charters on human rights. Indeed the right of a people to self determination is described (from memory) as the fundamental right from which all others stem - including individual rights. However NOWHERE does this right to self determination bestow a RIGHT to kill to achieve it. This is what Piratis claimed and I refute totaly. You can claim that an armed liberation struggled was justifed - based on the oppression faced and the failure of all attempts to find a peacful resolution and as the only last resort - but you can not claim a RIGHT to kill in the name of liberation, because no such RIGHT exists. In the case of Cyprus it is hard to accept that the resort was the only way Cyprus could achieve the end of British rule, or that all peacful means to this end were exhausted or even that the day to day lives of Cypriots was intollerable under a hrash British repression. So you can claim the use of violence was necessary and justifed but not that it was a right. Any dispassionate analysis of the situation in 1955 in Cyprus would in my view come to the conclusion that resorting to violence was neither the only resort left to GC or Justifed - but that is an opinion. That GC / EOKA or anyone else does not have a RIGHT to kill in the name of liberation or anything else is not disputable to my mind (in a civilsed world).

Oppression of colonised people can take various forms. It is not only in a physical sense but can also be moral, mental, or it can take the form of exploitation of their natural resources, imposition of taxes, etc. For example, according to the logic of your approach, the people of mainland Greece should have never carried out an armed revolution against the Ottomans, because they didn’t have any such a right.

Like I say above I (and the world in general) does not say situation X gives you a right to kill to end it. It never has and I hope it never does. However the resort to violence of a people / community can be justifed. The basis for justification is related to things like

1) Have all other means of ending the oppresion been exhausted?
2) Are the oppressed living in intollerable oppression - summary executions, seizing of property, physical abuse etc etc or as essentialy secure people without full political rights or say in their homeland.

Each situation is assesed on its own merits as far as weather violence was justifed to end oppression or not - but NO ONE has a RIGHT to use violence.

I believe this is an absolutely "non-conventional" approach.

No actually it is the 'conventional' appraoch. What is totaly non conventional and outside of all international norms and laws is the idea that you have a RIGHT to use violence to gain indpendance.

You raise the issue of the self-determination right of the TC community. This is really a hard issue and needs to be approached from several angles as it has more than one dimension.

It certainly is and it is a the root of many conflicts around the world today and in the past.

The right of self-determination of TCs should be respected in an equal degree with that of GCs should they have been historically living as the majority of one particular area of Cyprus.

I have seen this argument made by GC before in the past and personaly I find it as weak and unconvincing now as when I first held it. Do you really believe that a people in one single geographical area of Cyprus have a right to self determination but that same people spread unevenly throughout Cyprus do not? Do you really think that is the determinaing factor behind the intent of the rights of a people to self determination?

In the case of Cyprus, they were mixed up in the entire area of the island, they were a minority and they were the remnant of a fairly recent in the long history of Cyprus, colonial ruler.

When you have two peoples sharing an island then the execrcise of the right to self determination is certainly harder and more complexe the more the two peoples are intermixed geographicaly - that is certainly true. But to say just because of this 'difficulty' in fact TC had no such rights at all is just convient sophistry that has nothing to do with human rights or the ideas they embody. To say you would have had rights if you were in one area but do not have them because you were not is to me just a means of denying the TC commuities fundamental human rights. By your argument GC also had no right to self determination - because they were spread out accross Cyprus and not in one area. When applied to the GC community in Cyprus the absurdness of the right to self determination existing only if you exist in one area exclusively beomes apparent (to me at least).

Any well indented analyst or historian will never, in my opinion, equate the two self-determination rights.

?

I am not really sure what you are saying here? That if a people exist in a single geographical area they have a right to self determination but if they are intermixed with other peoples they do not?

Just follow this example and tell me how you react to it. Greece as we know it today, has never existed in the past. More or less this can be applied to almost all countries of the world, including Turkey, U.K. etc. Greece is nowadays the outcome of various revolutions (armed struggles) of Greeks (or Greek speaking people) primarily against the Ottomans, which resulted in the formation of what we today see or define as the Greek State. Ottomans were the occupiers or the colonisers; Greek people were the occupied or the colonised. Exactly the same applies to the case of Cyprus during the years of the Ottoman or later the British occupation or colonisation.

No exactly the same does no apply to Cyprus because in Greece there was essentialy only one people / community and in Cyprus there were two. Anyway.

During the ottoman occupation of the area that we now acknowledge as being Greece, existed (were developed as a direct consequence of the ottoman occupation,) several Turkish or Muslim communities. This is exactly the same as in the case of Cyprus. The appearance of the Turkish community came as a result of the Ottoman occupation. These communities like in the case of Cyprus, were minorities compare to the rest of the indigenous Greek (or Greek speaking) population. This situation existed in Peloponnesian peninsula, Attica, Crete, Thrace, Macedonia, etc. Here is the tricky question for you. Should or shouldn’t the Greek majority people of Greece make a revolution (armed struggle) in order to liberate themselves from the Ottomans? Should or shouldn’t the majority Greek people seek independence and /or self-determination? According to your thesis, they shouldn’t, because the remnants of the Ottoman (i.e. the Muslim or Turkish minority communities all around Greece) had also an equivalent right for self-determination, which in this case would have meant to continue to remain under the Ottoman rule. Consequently, If everyone accepts your thesis, today there shouldn’t be an independed Greek state and the whole area of the Balkans, as well as Turkey and Cyprus, should have been left under the Ottomans. In all these countries, existed and continue to exist up to this day, Muslim or Turkish, as some of them self identify themselves, communities. If all these minority communities are assumed to have had an equal right of self-determination as that of the pre-existing indigenous people, then none of these countries should have existed today.

Look you misunderstand me. This discussion has been had many times but I'll try once again.

Peoples have a right to self determination (that does not grant a right to use violence)
The problem comes in defining a 'people'. There is no clear cut definition in the various charters on human rights as to what consittues a people or not. Generally it is accepted that there are two baisis for determining if group is a people or not. Appraoch one is the nation state appraoch that simply says that all members of a given nation state are the same single people. This approach is appropriate when the existance of the Nation State pre dates the different communites existance in that state and enter into an existing nation state (of their own will). In a senario where a new nation state is being formed which contains different peoples / communites whose presense in the area pre dates the nation state then a different appraoch is used - namely the criteria appraoch to defining if a group represents a people or not. Using the criteria approach there are then several factors that apply. Historically at different points and in different cases both approaches have been used by the international community. John Reddaway gives a good description of all of this in his book Burdend with Cyprus in the intro to chapter 7 - Self-determination: the Gordian knot an excerpt of which I quote below.

The concept of self-determination is deceptively simple. It began life as a political principle in President Wilson's Fourteen Points of January 1918, was developed by international jurists into a legal principle and was then enshrined as a right in the U.N. Charter. It appeals to common sense, as well as to natural justice, However, it lacks precision both in its substance and in its method. When it has to be applied to actual cases - in particular those where more than one people inhabit a single territory - inherent questions and difficulties arise. How large must a people be to qualify both in absolute terms and in relation to other peoples inhabiting the same land? What evidence must they show of a will for independence and a capacity to govern themselves? And of the viability of the state they propose to establish? To what extent do they need to own or occupy the land they claim for their national state? (it was not until after armed conflict had resulted from the U.N. decision to partition Palestine and had destroyed the previous division of territory between Jews and Arabs .that the former could base their claim on the occupation of identifiable and sufficient territory for a viable state). How far are these considerations of viability relevant if the aim is not to establish an independent state but simply to unite with another, already existing state? How far does the exercise of this right depend on obtaining the consent of other parties affected by it or on the approval of the international community as a whole? How- far is it necessary and justifiable to limit its exercise by one people in order to accommodate the corresponding -right of another people living in the same country? (The Swiss Federation provides an example of voluntary and self-imposed limitations in order to accommodate the rights and wishes of its constituent peoples):
Cyprus was a classic case to illustrate problems of this kind. There was no doubt about the capacity of the Cypriots, Greek and Turk, to. rule themselves. The will was there on the Greek side - and on the Turkish side also, provided that self-rule did not mean subjugation to Greece. The Island as a whole was certainly large enough for a viable state; whether, if it were fragmented into two, both the resulting states would be viable, was more debatable, but not inherently impossible. As for population, it certainly had a combined population sufficient for an independent state. So too were the 430,000 Greek Cypriots. Whether the 100,000 Turks would suffice for a viable state was doubtful; much would depend on the size and location of the territory they received. They could however argue that there were other recognised states with similarly small populations. (The population of Iceland was not much larger)

This is something on which I will partly agree with you. That of attacking civilians in ones effort to liberate its country from a colonial power.

The use of force to free oneselves from oppression can be justifed but it is never a right. Justifying the killing of innocent civilans is always hard to justify - be it carpet bombing of population centers, the use of nuclear weapons on Japanese Cities or the shooting in the back of British Troops wives by GC. We can argue about the justification of the use of violence in the Cyprus senario or any other but we can not argue about the right to use such violence because no such right exists.

Unfortunately this thing happened during the EOKA struggle, but it should not be assumed that it was part of the official policy or aims of this struggle.

Why should it not be assumed? You think that Grivas was above killing civillians or ordering others to do so? There is nothing in this mans history that would indicate such a reticence to not involve non combatants and he was the leader of EOKA.

Primarily the EOKA fighting teams were engaged in bomb or ambush attacks on British military targets. In any armed struggle one has to accept that it is inevitable to have what we call today as “collateral damage,” which might include unfortunate civilians.

Shooting a woman in the back in Ledra street is not 'collateral damage'. It is a pre-meditated act.

That doesn’t mean that I deny the fact that certain isolated individuals or teams, functioning outside the strict control of EOKA leadership, have not committed attacks on innocent British, Greek or Turkish civilians.

So you think all the EOKA attacks against non combatants in Cyprus were the actions of 'rouge' elements of EOKA that were out of control and acting without sanction from the EOKA leadership? I find this unbelievable myslef if for no other reason that Grivas would have soon 'brought to order' (executed) anyone who defied his orders and command.

Certainly these actions are rightfully termed as terrorist and immoral attacks. However, they should not be utilised as an excuse to brand the entire EOKA struggle as an illegal or a terrorist movement. Provided that you do not continue to claim that any liberation or anti-colonial struggle is illegal.

Look EOKA was a terrorist organisation in that it sought to use violence and terror to achieve its political aims. That is the definition of a terrorist organisation. It was also clearly illegal, under British law, Greek law or just about any other law you want to apply it too.
Almost every and any liberation struggle involves the use of illegal acts. These illegal acts are never a right but can be deemed 'justifed'. The liberation movement in India used illegal withholding of taxes and other illegal acts of passive resistance. To me and the rest of the world these illegal acts were totaly and unquestionably justifed acts despite their illegailty. Resorting to violence must require a much higher standard of 'justification' than passive resistance. So in the Cyprus senario do I think resorting to violence by GC was justifed in terms of a liberation struggle against British (and anyone else that stood in the way of GC desires). No I do not. Do I think passive resistance and illegal acts like withholding taxes, general strikes etc would have been justifed then yes I do - even if the aim was ENOSIS. What really gets me most 'rilled' is the idea that resorting to violence by GC in the 50's was not only justifed and necessary but a RIGHT of the GC people. It was not a RIGHT.

This has turned into a mamoth post. I would like to close with my personal views on some of these issues.

Where different groups of significant size share a geographical homeland and pre date a unitary state then each community / group / people should recognise and accept the others rights to self determination AND the reality that they must accept limits on their own total and free exercise of their own rights in order to live in peace and harmony. If one group tries to deny the rights of the other in their entirety you have a recipe for disater - which is seen all around the world and in Cyprus today. Anyway thats enough from me now.

[erolz]

1) Is Crete, Rhodes or any other Greek island under "Greek colonization"?

If the people of Crete decide that they are cretians and express a desire for indepndance from Greece, then yes you could consider Crete a colony of Greece. If they consider themselves Greek then no.

2)Turkey applied to the European Union. If when that time comes a referendum is held in Turkey and 82% votes "yes" for joining the European union, and 18% says "no" claiming that they are Asians and they do not wish to be part of the EU, what do you think Turkey should do? Join or not?

For right or wrong Turkey was not a state founded on the basis of a single nation shared by equal communites and thus in a referendum on anything in modern Turkey the majority will should be implemented. Cyprus was a state founded on the basis of equality of two seperate communites. GC tried to argue that it should not be created this way and should be created as a single unitary state and they lost this argument - yet have continued to struggle for such regardless of the cost of Cypriots, Greek and Turkish alike.

What I said is that we should all be equal Cypriot citizens.

What you ask is that we be equal as indivduals but as peoples/ communites the GC community should have effective control and rights to dominate the TC community (as a community). If there was no 'histroy' between the communites then perhaps this approach could be considered by TC. However there is history. There is a history of GC persuing purely GC interests for the whole of Cyprus and all it's peoples and totaly ignoring the TC community and it's wishes and desires. With such a history the need for 'protections' for one community aginst the other is more important not less. I want Cyprus to ultimately evole such that TC and GC cease to matter. However you can not achieve that by saying it is so, when GC persue only the interests of GC in the name of all Cypriots. First you have to convince us by your actions and behaviours towards us as a community that you will no longer try and persue GC interests alone, ignoring the TC community and its rights as a community, but in fact will persue Cypriot agendas (and not GC agendas).

I hope now I am clear and what I say will not be intentionally misinterpreted (You are smart people, so I know you do it intentionally)

And you think I and others never feel intentionaly misreprentated by yourself? Yur belief in what you 'know' scares me at times!

No, enosis is based on the idea that the great majority of Cypriots wanted it.

You mean GC wanted it and TC did not. You call that a majority of Cypriots but it does nothing to hide the reality. GC persued solely GC agenda in Cyprus and ignored the wishes of the people they shared Cyprus with. This you call the will of the 'Cypriot people' - yet ENOSIS in the 50-60's clearly shows how false this idea was of a single Cypriot people (either before a CYpriot nation existed and sadly also after it). If there were a single Cypriot people then support for ENOSIS would have existed in both TC and GC communites. That it only existed in GC community and not at all in TC community only highlights that there was (and is) no single Cypriot people. What there was (and is) in Cyprus is two seperate communites / peoples living on one island, where the larger sought to impose it's will on the smaller, by force as well as all other means.

You are the same people that call the invasion a "peace operation".

But not the same people that called brutal thugs, murderes and terrorists 'heros'?

[-mikkie2-]

Erol,

The trouble with the EOKA struggle is that it served many interests, from nationalists, to freedom fighters, to enosists, to people seeking independence from Britain and also outright criminals. It was a means to an end for many marginal groups gathered under one label. In my view it is difficult to disect the actions of EOKA, other than from the initial stages which were more clearly defined and fairly easy to work out.

On the TC side you had the TMT which unleashed the same kind of murderous destruction as EOKA so I do think that you have to base your argument in that context as well. And aren't the TMT fighters honoured as martyrs in the north? Isn't that a similar thing to EOKA as well?

[erolz]

Erol,

The trouble with the EOKA struggle is that it served many interests, from nationalists, to freedom fighters, to enosists, to people seeking independence from Britain and also outright criminals. It was a means to an end for many marginal groups gathered under one label. In my view it is difficult to disect the actions of EOKA, other than from the initial stages which were more clearly defined and fairly easy to work out.

There is some validity in what you say but at the end of the day there is no doubt in my mind that EOKA was a terrorist organisation whose aim was ENOSIS and whose methods were violent from the very top downwards. There are some GC that accept the reality of what EOKA was and what it's aims were and there are those that seek to deny the reality of what EOKA was, what it's meathods were, if these methods were sanctioned by the leadership of EOKA, if these methods were justifed or even a RIGHT of the EOKA members. For me there can be no doubt that EOKA was a terrorist organisation, no doubt that it's aim as an organisation was ENOSIS, no doubt that the leaders of this organisation were brutal men willing to use violence aginst combatants and non combatants alike. It is alos my personal view that the resort to violence by GC was not justifed on the basis that other means had not been exhausted and that the day to day lives of Cypriots was not made intollerable by British rule.

On the TC side you had the TMT which unleashed the same kind of murderous destruction as EOKA so I do think that you have to base your argument in that context as well.

I have no problem with describing TMT as a terrorist organisation, on the same basis that it used violence to achieve political aims. I think there were many similarites between TMT and EOKA but there are alos differences. If TMT did have a clear proactive objective (other than as defense against GC violence on TC) like EOKA did, then it never expressed it as clearly and directly as EOKA expressed it's aim. Maybe it's aim was as much for Taksim as EOKA's was for ENOSIS but if so this was never expressed as clearly in TMT's case. Also it seems to me a relative difference that EOKA came first and TMT second. None of these differences mean it was not a terrorist organisation. However they can be relevant - to my mind at least - in the assment as to if TMT's resort to violence was justified or not - at least before 63. If TMT resort to violences had occured after 63 only (which is not the case) then I think it would have a stronger claim of being 'justifed'. As it is my view is that TMT's resort to violence (before 63) was not justified.

And aren't the TMT fighters honoured as martyrs in the north? Isn't that a similar thing to EOKA as well?

Here I think there are very real and material differences. Firstly if there is a TRNC national 'honour TMT' day then I have yet to learn of it's existance and when it is. Secondly I just do not see TC claiming TMT was an organisation with a nobel cause (the freedom of the TC people) that was not only justifed in it's acts but that also had a RIGHT to commit them and that any attorcities it may have been involved in were either colateral damage or the result of 'unsanctioned' activites of 'rouge' elements. Maybe these exist and I am blind to them but I do not recall a TC defense of TMT that compares with that of EOKA by GC.
The TC communities relationship with TMT's history is a complex one, just as GC communites and EOKA's. In many ways we just do not talk about it very much, which may be better than glorifying it, but not massively so imo. Personaly I would welcome much more real sole searching by TC on TMT's history and role in Cyprus and the legacy that it leaves today. In this sense TC are littel different in their relcutance than GC re EOKA. However as I say above if the choice is between saying little or nothing about it or glorifying it, defending it, rewriting history in its favour, excusing it's acts and the like then I chose the former. At least the former makes the possibilty of addressing it honestly and dispasionately in the future easier and does not antagonise the other community like the later does.

So on the whole I think there are more similarites between EOKA and TMT than differences. Both were terrorist organisations in my book. Both comitted acts that should be condemed by all and not excused or written off as 'unsanctioned' exceptions. Neither was justifed in it's resorting to violence at the time they were formed in my mind. However on the comparision between the GC 'realtionship' with EOKA's history and the TC 'realtionship' with TMT's history I see more differences than similarites. I do not think the TRNC state celebrates and glorifes the actions of TMT in anywhere near the same way the RoC state does EOKA. Nor do I think TC as indivduals have the same emotinal investment in needing to believe it as a 'noble' organisation as GC do EOKA and thus do not defend it, justify it, excuse it in the same way.

Where I would admit more similarites than differences is not the TC relationship with TMT's history, but out relationship with the events and actions of Turkey in 74. Here we do as a state celebrate and glorify these actions as deliverance and liberation and do have a much more intense personal emotional investment in our perception of what occured and why. Personaly I would like to see the TRNC progressively reduce is celebration and glorification of the events of 74. Personaly I see no need for such state sponsored activites and see them as unesesarily antagonistic to the GC community in Cyprus. Futher to me such displays as a sign of a lack of confidence in a national identity. The events of 74 happened - there is no need to publicaly celebrate them and the TC community is no so weak that it needs such 'myth making' to keep it united and in solidarity.

Sorry it's turned into another 'long one'. I guess absense has made me somewhat verbose. No doubt a few more days or so and I will return to a mainly brief responses

[metecyp]

I do not think the TRNC state celebrates and glorifes the actions of TMT in anywhere near the same way the RoC state does EOKA.

And let's not forget that the RoC state claims to represent TCs while having no problem with celebrating something (EOKA) that caused nothing but misery to TCs (and GCs alike)...and we're asked to trust and go back to the RoC...I ask this to my GC friends: How do you feel if TCs insisted that we keep "celebrating" 20th of July as peace-operation in a united Cyprus?

[Kifeas]

**Peoples have a right to self determination, morally and in the letter of the UN (and other) charters on human rights. Indeed the right of a people to self determination is described (from memory) as the fundamental right from which all others stem - including individual rights. However NOWHERE does this right to self determination bestow a RIGHT to kill to achieve it. Peoples have a right to self determination, morally and in the letter of the UN (and other) charters on human rights. Indeed the right of a people to self determination is described (from memory) as the fundamental right from which all others stem - including individual rights. However NOWHERE does this right to self determination bestow a RIGHT to kill to achieve it. This is what Piratis claimed and I refute totaly. You can claim that an armed liberation struggled was justifed - based on the oppression faced and the failure of all attempts to find a peacful resolution and as the only last resort - but you can not claim a RIGHT to kill in the name of liberation, because no such RIGHT exists.

Erolz,

To put the record straight. I am at least as much a peace loving person as you appear to be and I am also at least as much respectful to any human life and to all the rest of human rights, as I am sure you are.

On the issue. You therefore agree that the engagement into an armed struggle is one of the few or many options that people (nations) have in order to make their self-determination right to be respected, provided that other more peaceful means are exhausted. Am I right? If yes, I also agree with you. Since we both agree that resorting to an armed struggle can be a justified option, isn’t it an inevitable consequence that killings will occur? If for example a team of freedom fighters attacks a military post in order to destroy it and the soldiers inside fight back in order to defend it, inevitably killings (casualties) will be a consequence. If the armed struggle can be justified then we have to accept that also killings (not murders) can be justified.

Do those that engage themselves into an armed liberation struggle have a right to kill in order to achieve their goal, as per the above example? Well, as much and as long as the colonial power (ruler) has a “right” to use its military presence and power in order to control the country and it’s people, the freedom fighters have an equal “right” to sabotage it and inevitably also commit killings (casualties,) like in the example.

Can we agree at least on this issue so that we do not waste our times any more for it?

**Any dispassionate analysis of the situation in 1955 in Cyprus would in my view come to the conclusion that resorting to violence was neither the only resort left to GC or Justifed - but that is an opinion.

I also agree with this opinion. However my argument is a general one. Not specific to the EOKA struggle or the situation of Cyprus in the 1950s.

**What is totaly non conventional and outside of all international norms and laws is the idea that you have a RIGHT to use violence to gain indpendance.

If we accept that today, year 2005, there are no colonial or occupying forces or dictatorships all along the globe, then yes I agree. I feel though that this is not yet a reality. Certainly it wasn’t in the 1950s where many European countries maintained colonies all around the world. I give another example. From 1967 until 1974 Greece fell in the hands of a military junta, which was secretly supported by CIA. More or less like the case of Chilli with Pinochet. A lot of Greek pro-democracy people organised themselves into anti fascist groups and engaged into sabotage actions and inevitably into killings. Didn’t the pro-democracy fighters have such a right to kill the fascists in order to restore democracy?

**I have seen this argument made by GC before in the past and personaly I find it as weak and unconvincing now as when I first held it. Do you really believe that a people in one single geographical area of Cyprus have a right to self determination but that same people spread unevenly throughout Cyprus do not? Do you really think that is the determinaing factor behind the intent of the rights of a people to self determination?

I will give an example to make it more clear as to what I mean.
We are in a small village that has only one school with only one classroom and only 30 students and only one teacher. This was in fact the case in many villages of mountain Cyprus until a few years ago.

It is part of the curriculum that each year this school, with one single classroom and a single teacher, must take a daylong recreational trip to the countryside. The education ministry, due to the small size of the school, provides (funds) only one bus. 24 of the students wish to visit the seaside but the remaining 6 students wish to visit the archaeological museum of the big city, which is located to an opposite direction of the seaside. Both groups insist to their right to choose their destination preference. It is impossible however to split the bus into two as well as to split the teacher who must accompany them during the trip. What do they do? Should they choose to take the trip to the seaside since the majority wishes to do so? Should they choose the museum, irrespective of the fact than only 6 out of the 30 have it as a preference? Should they instead decide not to take the trip at all, because they cannot all agree to the destination?
Simple logic dictates that since only one bus is available, only one teacher is available and therefore only one trip can be taken, that they choose the seaside, because that is what the majority wants. If some of the remaining 6 students hate the seaside so much, then they could possibly choose to stay at home during that day.

However, should the school had 2 classes of let’s say 40 in the big one and 20 in the smaller and therefore two teachers and two buses were made available and let’s assume that 10 from the big one plus 15 from the small one wished to visit the museum and the remaining 35 wished to visit the sea side; then it could be possible to combine the two classes and take two trips, one with 35 to the seaside and one with 25 to the museum. Irrespective to the fact that the instructions of the ministry would require (for a good reason) that the entire school (both classes) should make a trip together to only one destination. The two teachers themselves could agree with the students to make the above arrangement and satisfy every ones preference.

The parallelism I made with two geographical areas in which, each community has been historically a majority, instead on one single geographical area in which a majority and a minority live in a mixture, is exactly the same with the two examples I gave of a school with one class versus the example of two classes. The case of Cyprus was more or less like the first example of one class, one bus and one teacher. Unfortunatelly!

[Bananiot]

It is reported in today's newspapers that Papadopoulos recently had meetings with EOKA hardliners in order to bring them over to his wagon. He met with Stavros Stavrou, alias Siros, leading member of EOKA B' and Photis Papaphotis, an EOKA hardliner who was an area leader and, like Papadopoulos, chose the tragic targets that would be executed by EOKA thugs. These people collaborated closely with Papadopoulos during their "no" campaign and Papadopoulos is very concerned at the moment about alienating his partner-in-government, Christofias.

On the ongoing discussion, I think, the end result of the struggle is also a means in itself to evaluate the struggle. As many people predicted, back in 1955, the struggle failed miserably and of course the end result was not the reason why the struggle had started in the first place. However, even the London-Zurich agreements could have worked out quite well, had the GC side mainly, not tried to use the agreement as a stepping stone to achieve the ultimate aim, that of enosis. The nationalist elements in the TC community also worked along similar lines, to strangle the young republic and deprive it of any chance to grow and take roots.

Well, they succeeded quite nicely and this leaves all of us wonder about our responsibilities. Haven't the nationalists done enough damage already? Why do we still give them authority and a voice. I envy the TC's. Next Sunday they will get rid of their dinosaur.

[Piratis]

I envy the TC's.

Thats why you want to make us all second category citizens in an undemocratic puppet state of Turkey? Sorry, but we don't share your dream.

Erolz, when you said that Turkey should not be stopped by a minority of Turks that feel that do not belong to Europe (and there are many) and should join anyways if the majority supports this, you answered the question about the enosis cause. All the rest are just theories of trying to excuse your incosistent views.

With such a history the need for 'protections' for one community aginst the other is more important not less.

What you ask for has nothing to do with protections. Protections mean a mechanism that will secure that you will get no less than what you should, and I have no problem with this. However what you really ask for is double and trible of what you should have. (and as a result we get half or 1/3rd of what we should have)

-------------------------------------------------------------

Here there are two kinds of issues:

1) Details

2) Principles

For me we are just waisting our time when we discuss about EOKA. You want to name them terrorists? name them. You want us to stop celebrating EOKA when a solution is found? No problem.
Such kind of things for me are details, and I am very flexible to agree to what makes you feel better.

The importand thing is the principles. The first principle is: Do we accept that we are all equal Cypriot citizens of ONE country. (ONE has nothing to do with the confederal "solutions" Annan type and with anything that the state should descriminate against its own citizens based on their race)

If you do not accept this principle then discussing about unification totaly redicoulous.