Cyprus-Forum.com

[metecyp]

The importand thing is the principles

You want to talk about principles? Here's another principle: Do you accept that Enosis was wrong in principle because it completely ignored a significant portion of the Cypriot society and EOKA was a terrorist organization in principle because it used violence against the innocent? If you agree with this principle, I can believe that you changed your mind and we can talk about unity but if you keep celebrating EOKA days and giving medals to terrorists and calling them heroes, sorry, I don't trust you and I'll make sure I'm 100% protected from your mentality, call this undemocratic, call this against human rights, I call it survival. Ok?

[erolz]

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.

Well we have moved from EOKA having a RIGHT to kill and murder to gain ENOSIS to a general colonised people have a 'right' to kill in a lineration struggle.

My poisition is clear. You never have a RIGHT to use violence. The use of violence, though never a right, can sometimes be justifed. In terms of Cyprus and in my view the use of violence by EOKA (and also by TMT) was not justifed.

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

I don't know can we? If you insist that EOKA had a right to use violence then no we do not agree.

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?

No they had no RIGHT to kill. There actions may or may be justified but were never a right.

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!

I have little idea what you are saying here but I will re iterate my position. The determining factor as to if the TC community had and has rights to self determination is NOT decided simply by if we were all in one area of Cyprus or not. That may be one factor in a 'criteria approach' to deciding on the status of the TC community as a people or not - but it is not the only one and certainly not the overiding determining one. Some GC try and present a view that if the TC community were all in one area in Cyprus they would be a people (and have the rights of a people) but if the SAME TC community is spread throughout Cyprus then they are not a people (as far as human rights definitions go). This argument to me is logicaly and morally weak and seems to me simply a means to try and justify the denial of the TC communites rights as a people (by dening we are a people).

[erolz]

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.

In a unitary state then such decisions are based on a straight majority of indivduals. In a federal state such decisions should be based on acceptance of a majority of each component states population. For better or worse the reality is that Turkey is a unitary state and Cyprus was not.

All the rest are just theories of trying to excuse your incosistent views.

Saying TMT and EOKA were terrorist orgnisations, neither of which had a right to kill is inconcsistent? Personaly I find your position that EOKA was a noble and legal organisation that had a RIGHT to kill in its cause and that EOKA B and TMT were illegal, ignobel terrorist organisations with no right to kill is the inconsistent position.

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.

You have no problems with as long as YOU get to decide what the TC community (as a community) should get.

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)

What I ask for is simple and in my view not asking for more than we have a right to. As indivduals we should all be equal, regardless of our size and as communites we should be equal regardless of our size.

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.

I did not start this discussion about EOKA. I simply responded to and refuted the views that EOKA was a noble organisation, that it's aim was not ENOSIS, that it was a legal organisation and that it had a RIGHT to use violence. You may see such views as 'details' but personaly I think these distorrted beliefs about what EOKA was are a lot more than details.

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 accept we are equal as indivduals in Cyprus (regardless of size) AND we are equal as communites in Cyprus (regardless of size) then we agree on the principals.

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

Similarly if you do not accept the principals above then yes I agree talking about unifcation and especially about a 'ferderal solution' is pointless. If you do not accept the TC community as a community has the SAME RIGHTS as a community as the GC community then yes there is little point in futher discussions about unification.

[Realist]

Again, people seem to be overlooking the differences between EOKA and EOKA B. Whether this is through misinformation or a desire to push an alternative arguement, there was a clear difference between the goals of these organisations. I am also of the camp who believes EOKA B was a paid off group that used a name that meant freedom for so many to further an negative agenda.

In a way I can understand why the TC members here would feel this way towards EOKA/EOKA B, as there seems to be a continuing mistrust of any GC organisation, very rarely have i seen any positive comments towards GC institutions. The reasons are probably numourous but would undoubtably open another marathon debate where my comments will be dissected. However, if would be refreshing to once an a while see TC statements against their own organisations. It seems that while GC members here regularly question the practices of their fellow GC, TC members overlook events. Surely you don't see yourselves as innocents?

Out of true interest though i would like to ask members of the TC community to answer if they would have prefered to remain under British rule?

I think everyone agrees that however you look at it, colonialism of a place that is already inhabited is a polite word for invasion and dictatorship. So if there are TC who would have prefered British rule then exactly what was in it for them, and why should i know believe that someone who prefers to have a foreign master really craves a democratic solution to the current Cyprus problem?

Metecp, celebrations are held for the freedom of our country from British rule. However turbullent those few decades were, they were the only time in history Cyprus governed as a free republic.

Your statements about survival are also contradicting because on the one hand you call EOKA's actions 'terrorist', and then on the other you are willing to sacrifice demorcacy and human rights for survival as you put it. Exactly what kind of world would you like to live in if these two pivitol factors of what it means to be truelly alive are sacrificed?

[Realist]

Erolz again, how can people be equal regardless of proportianate representation?

Humans are equal person to person. The idea that one TC has the same power as four GC is elitist and totally unfair however you look at it. You ask for too much, and frankly i doubt you would be willing to give the same if the tables where turned.

[brother]

Realist,

i bet if the tables were turned around and we had a TMT & TMTB you would see them in the exact same light.

So what jumps out at us all is if we all stop fighting our own communities cause and started to put ourselves totally in the others shoes how would we feel, react and hopefully appreciate the others position, fears and thoughts.

[erolz]

Erolz again, how can people be equal regardless of proportianate representation?

Humans are equal person to person. The idea that one TC has the same power as four GC is elitist and totally unfair however you look at it. You ask for too much, and frankly i doubt you would be willing to give the same if the tables where turned.

There are different 'units' for democracy. The unit can be an indivdual, a community, a federal state or a nation state. Take the EU (or UN) as an example these are unions of nation states. Thus the unit for democracy in these organisation becomes the nation state and the relative sizes of the nation states does not matter - and this is entirely right imo and perfectly compatible with democracy.

In terms of Cyprus then, as indivduals we are equal. As communites we are equal. Our size does not matter as indicduals and it soes not matter as communites.

Let me ask you how you can have a federal solution without some acceptance of the equality of federal component states regardless of their size? Is that not the basic premise of a federation and what distinguishes it from a unitary state?

[erolz]

Again, people seem to be overlooking the differences between EOKA and EOKA B. Whether this is through misinformation or a desire to push an alternative arguement, there was a clear difference between the goals of these organisations.

Was EOKA's goal not enosis?
Was EOKA B's goal not enosis?

It seems to me that there were no differences in the goals of these two oganisations?

To me the overiding difference between EOKA and EOKA B is the level of support each had within the GC community. EOKA imo had the support of a majority of the GC community and EOKA B did not.

[-mikkie2-]

Let me ask you how you can have a federal solution without some acceptance of the equality of federal component states regardless of their size? Is that not the basic premise of a federation and what distinguishes it from a unitary state?

Erol,

The difference is that the TC's want to restrict freedom of movement in order to maintain an ETHNIC division in Cyprus. In my opinion, political equality of the two communities does not mean that we should compromise the human rights of individuals to live anywhere they wish in their own country. Until this basic fundamental point is accepted by TC's then we will get knowhere. That is the compromise the TC's have to make for a solution to be mutually acceptable.

[Kifeas]

I have little idea what you are saying here but I will re iterate my position. The determining factor as to if the TC community had and has rights to self determination is NOT decided simply by if we were all in one area of Cyprus or not. That may be one factor in a 'criteria approach' to deciding on the status of the TC community as a people or not - but it is not the only one and certainly not the overiding determining one. Some GC try and present a view that if the TC community were all in one area in Cyprus they would be a people (and have the rights of a people) but if the SAME TC community is spread throughout Cyprus then they are not a people (as far as human rights definitions go). This argument to me is logicaly and morally weak and seems to me simply a means to try and justify the denial of the TC communites rights as a people (by dening we are a people).

It seems to me that this story of whether the Turkish Cypriots are (or should be recognised as) a separate people or simply a community within the overall context of what constitutes the people of Cyprus will never end. The reason for me is obvious but out of courtesy to my TC compatriots in this forum, I will refrain from stating it here.

Below, I include a quotation of the first two articles of the RoC constitution. It clearly indicates that GCs and TCs are described or accepted as communities, not peoples. Further more it is obvious from the various paragraphs of article 2 that this was a kind of a technical arrangement in order to guarantee a certain degree of effective decision-making participation for the TC community. In my opinion far too much than it was necessary or fair to the, by far, largest community, but again this is another issue.

Why it is clear that it was a technical arrangement? Paragraph 3 of article 2 indicates that citizens of the republic belonging to other religious groups apart from the two main ones previously described (TC and GC communities,) could choose in which one of the two they could enlist themselves. Furthermore, any member of any religious group other than orthodox or Muslim, could individually choose contrary to the preference of his/her religious group, to enlist itself into the other community (article 3, par. 3.) Further more any new citizen of the republic irrespective of origin, religion etc., has the right to chose in which one of the two communities to belong (Article 3, par. 4.) Furthermore it was possible, after fulfilment of certain procedures and approval, for any individual to shift his/her enlistment from one into the other community.

It is obvious from the approach taken in these two articles of the constitution, (at least in spirit,) that this was a purely technical arrangement and it is not based on concrete or clearly defined lines of two pre-existing people in Cyprus. The flexibility upon which the two so-called communities were formed makes it even more profound.

Last but not least, there is nowhere any mention, neither in letter nor in spirit, that the RoC was formed upon a partnership agreement between the two (any two) equal people, neither between the two, or any two, equal communities. Contrary to what most TCs preach all the time.

I believe it is about time the Turkish Cypriots get reed of this complexes and syndromes, because the way by which they approach this issue of the so-called two different and pre-existing “people” in Cyprus is totally outdated and miles away from the contemporary European spirit of pluralism and multiculturalism. If someone explains in some detail to the average European the way that TCs approach this issue, he will definitely receive the biggest smile of sarcasm and irony. I am sorry to say it but in this forum we ended up constantly trying to prove the most self-evident things.

Code: Select all

The Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus
PART I. - GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 1
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided.
Article 2
For the purposes of this Constitution -

(1) the Greek Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Greek origin and whose mother tongue is Greek or who share the Greek cultural traditions or who are members of the Greek-Orthodox Church;

(2) the Turkish Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Turkish origin and whose mother tongue is Turkish or who share the Turkish cultural traditions or who are Moslems;

(3) citizens of the Republic who do not come within the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of this Article shall, within three months of the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, opt to belong to either the Greek or the Turkish Community as individuals, but, if they belong to a religious group, shall so opt as a religious group and upon such option they shall be deemed to be members of such Community:

Provided that any citizen of the Republic who belongs to such a religious group may choose not to abide by the option of such group and by a written and signed declaration submitted within one month of the date of such option to the appropriate officer of the Republic and to the Presidents of the Greek and the Turkish Communal Chambers opt to belong to the Community other than that to which such group shall be deemed to belong:

Provided further that if an option of such religious group is not accepted on the ground that its members are below the requisite number any member of such group may within one month of the date of the refusal of acceptance of such option opt in the aforesaid manner as an individual to which Community he would like to belong.

For the purposes of this paragraph a " religious group " means a group of persons ordinarily resident in Cyprus professing the same religion and either belonging to the same rite or being subject to the same jurisdiction thereof the number of whom, on the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution, exceeds one thousand out of which at least five hundred become on such date citizens of the Republic;

(4) a person who becomes a citizen of the Republic at any time after three months of the date of the coming into operation of this Constitution shall exercise the option provided in paragraph (3) of this Article within three months of the date of his so becoming a citizen;

(5) a Greek or a Turkish citizen of the Republic who comes within the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of this Article may cease to belong to the Community of which he is a member and belong to the other Community upon -

(a) a written and signed declaration by such citizen to the effect that he desires such change, submitted to the appropriate officer of the Republic and to the Presidents of the Greek and the Turkish Communal Chambers;

(b) the approval of the Communal Chamber of such other Community;

(6) any individual or any religious group deemed to belong to either the Greek or the Turkish Community under the provisions of paragraph (3) of this Article may cease to belong to such Community and be deemed to belong to the other Community upon -

(a) a written and signed declaration by such individual or religious group to the effect that such change is desired, submitted to the appropriate officer of the Republic and to the Presidents of the Greek and the Turkish Communal Chambers;

(b) the approval of the Communal Chamber of such other Community;

(7) (a) a married woman shall belong to the Community to which her husband belongs.

(b) a male or female child under the age of twenty-one who is not married shall belong to the Community to which his or her father belongs, or, if the father is unknown and he or she has not been adopted, to the Community to which his or her mother belongs.