Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

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 Turkey joins the EU ignoring a minority of people that do not consider themselves Europeans and don't want to join the EU would that mean that turkey's entrance to the EU is wrong?
Therefore to your first question the answer is no. Enosis as an idea was not wrong. This is how democracy works. You don't always get what you want!

To your second question the answer is that those that used violence against the Innocent are terrorists. This includes some members of EOKA and many others. (members of TMT, Turkish army etc)
However the ones that fought against the colonialists are our soldiers that fought for our freedom. Otherwise we should call all soldiers that fought in all wars as terrorists.

It seems for you terrorists are only the weak ones, while the others that use tanks, airplanes and missiles to spread terror are not.

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.

This is a contradiction. Both can not exist at the same time.
Say we have a referendum whether to accept something or reject it.
Say in this referendum 100.000 people vote to reject it, and the rest vote to accept it. If all people are equal, then this something is accepted. If communities are equal, then if those 100.000 are TCs then this something is rejected, while if it is GCs it is accepted. This clearly shows the a vote from a TC worths more than a vote from a GC (4.5 times more) and there is no equality between people.

So what you are asking for is inequality between people based on race.

[erolz]

EOKA = liberation from Britain

This is just revisionist history. EOKA's clearly stated aim was ENOSIS and nothing but ENOSIS. That you can continue to try and deny this scares me. The idea that ENOSIS was just a means to and end (the end being ridding Cyprus of the British) is just more revisionist history. The fact was it was entirely the other way round, ridding Cyprus was a mean to the end of achieveing ENOSIS.

EOKA B = Extreme Enosis movement using the same name to inspire a trust for a different cause. Backed by th US like the Greek Junta. The majority of GC did not want ENOSIS that is why there was no support as you stated.

I did not state that EOKA B had no support amongst the GC community. This is just more revisionist history. It had much support, just not as much as EOKA had.

To add, the EU is not a country, Cyprus is. There is no country that functions in the way you propose not even Switzerland. The reason for this is that it doesn't work, people don't generally like living under a system that's unjust.

There are many federal countries where equality of federal states exists regardless of the size of the federal states populations. Where Cyprus is different is not in the concept of a smaller federal state having equal representation as a large one (that is common to ALL federations within nations and extra national federations) but in the idea of the federal state having an ethnic component.

I can see a lot of TC have fears about what would happen if the island we're reunited, but i don't think you can address these by proposing a biased solution.

Well you think the two communities having equality as communites is 'biased'. I think that not having some equality of communites is 'biased'. So where do we go from here?

As I've said in the past once the EU becomes a single state then i would totally back proportianate representation, even if this means Cyprus gets just one MEP because that is the fair thing to do. Afterall, if you back equal weight disregarding proportional then all countries with minorities including Turkey (in the instance of Kurds), have unjust regimes as minorities across the world have a proportionate vote.

Your position is then that the _principal_ of democracy operates differently within a state than it does within unions of (nation) states?

Again, I ask would you honestly say that you would have been willing to give the GC the same equality regardless of population difference if it was the otherway round?

Yes. Can you honestly say that you would argue that the GC community should be nothing more than a political minority in Cyprus if things were the other way round? That if a numerical majority of TC wanted union with Turkey that the GC community (and you personaly) would just accept this a the majority will of the 'Cypriots'?

[erolz]

Erolz, that’s fine with me too!
Do you also accept that this small percentage of GCs withholding the internal citizenship of the TCCS should and will have equal political rights with the rest of the TC population of the TCCS?

All Cypriot citizens as _indivduals_ should have equal rights at all levels. This has never been in dispute. The issue is should the communites (as communites / component states) also have equality or should the larger GC community be able to dominate the smaller TC one simply because it is larger.

[-mikkie2-]

I did not state that EOKA B had no support amongst the GC community. This is just more revisionist history. It had much support, just not as much as EOKA had.

Sorry Erol, you are very wrong on this one. EOKA B did not have much support by the general population at all. Most people were afraid to speak out against the junta and EOKA B fanatics. The consequences were far too terrifying for people to contemplate.

I don't really know how you come to the conclusion that it had much support.

[-mikkie2-]

There are many federal countries where equality of federal states exists regardless of the size of the federal states populations. Where Cyprus is different is not in the concept of a smaller federal state having equal representation as a large one (that is common to ALL federations within nations and extra national federations) but in the idea of the federal state having an ethnic component.

And there lies the problem! All systems in the past that tried to add an 'ethnic' component to politics have ended in disaster - Germany and fascism, South Africa and apartheid.

I am very sorry erol, but I do feel that the ideals of the TC's smack of a bit of both of the above. Do you see why so many GC's are so against what you think? There is a perfectly good way of mitigating these things by having a system of weighted voting as I described in a previous post.

[erolz]

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.

This is a contradiction. Both can not exist at the same time.
Say we have a referendum whether to accept something or reject it.
Say in this referendum 100.000 people vote to reject it, and the rest vote to accept it. If all people are equal, then this something is accepted. If communities are equal, then if those 100.000 are TCs then this something is rejected, while if it is GCs it is accepted. This clearly shows the a vote from a TC worths more than a vote from a GC (4.5 times more) and there is no equality between people.

There is equalilty between people within their component state, then there is equailty of component states within the federated state. This is how federation works.

So what you are asking for is inequality between people based on race.

No what I am asking for / suggesting is federation based on ethnicity.

You can argue that federation is by nature unfair and inequitable unless all federal components are the same size - but you would be in a minority of opinion in this view. What you can not do is hold this belief whilst still saying you accept federation as the basis for a solution.

[erolz]

I don't really know how you come to the conclusion that it had much support.

How could it opertate, execute a coup and then fight a civil war without any support of the GC community? We could argue about how much support it had for ever. The fact is it had less support than EOKA had and more support than none.

[turkcyp]

And there lies the problem! All systems in the past that tried to add an 'ethnic' component to politics have ended in disaster - Germany and fascism, South Africa and apartheid.

And yet you still claim that majority of GCs would turn to 1960 agreements where there was a HUGE ethnical component to it, but no federal component to it. Is that so? Or am I missing something now?

Don't you agree that 1960 agreements were basically a like federation of communities but not state. We did not have two states but two communities who preety much had right to act like a state without really owning a piece of specific land. Each community had their own court systems. They had their own parliemants, in the name of communal chamber. They had their own municiplaities. (at least they were supposed to have). They even had their own citizenship in the sense that each community could decide if they want to accept the other poeople as member.

So on principle everything was like a federation of communities without any territorial region.

And with this HUGE ethnic component are you still saying that majority of GCs would like to turn to 1960 agreements. As I have said so many times before, me personally I am more than willing to turn back to those agreements as seperation of communities is not an issue for me.

But it seems to me that when majority of GCs talk about turning back to RoC constituional order they talk about the order whihch is created after 1963. That, we will not accept. Either 1960, or a new state affairs which both sides agree on, or partition.

Take care,

[Kifeas]

*I did not state that EOKA B had no support amongst the GC community. This is just more revisionist history. It had much support, just not as much as EOKA had.

No Erolz, you are revising history:) EOKA B had a very marginal support (less than 10%) In fact as a result of the Makarios presidential guard (some 1,000 top trained force) EOKA B has until beginning of 1974 been completely defeated and most of its men have been arrested. The coup against Makarios was not carried out by EOKA B, but instead by the National Guard (GC army) which unfortunately came under the control and command ship of some (about 30) mid and high ranking mainland Greek officers who were seconded from mainland Greek Armed forces and who in their turn received order from the military Junta of Athens, which was brought in power and funded by the CIA. These Greek officers ordered the National Guard forces to attack with Tanks the presidential palace and other posts as well as the central prison wards in order to free the EOKA B men. It was only after the military coupists first successful strikes that the EOKA B men came out and joined the Greek coupists. Of course there was a civil war going on around all Cyprus between supporters of Makarios and the Coupists, until the Turkish invasion begun 5 days after. Until the 20th of July, absolutely no one single Turkish Cypriot was touched.

*All Cypriot citizens as _indivduals_ should have equal rights at all levels. This has never been in dispute. The issue is should the communites (as communites / component states) also have equality or should the larger GC community be able to dominate the smaller TC one simply because it is larger.

I do not understand what you mean. The two Communities is one set of entities, the Constituent states is a different set of entities. The TC constituent state will not be equal to the TC community.

The TCCS will be equal with the majority of the TC community (perhaps 99%) plus the percentage of the GCs that will be allowed to obtain the TCCS internal citizenship.

On the other hand the GCCS will be equal with the GC community minus those that will move into the TCCS, plus perhaps the remaining amount of the TC community that will choose to move into the GCCS and obtain its internal citizenship.

With this arrangement, the TC community will always be the majority of the TC constituent state and will have the control, but the two terms are not equal. (i.e. TC community = TCCS)

Do I make sense?

[insan]

EOKA = liberation from Britain

EOKA=ENOSIS
Leader of EOKA: Monarcho fascist Grivas.

EOKA B = Extreme Enosis movement using the same name to inspire a trust for a different cause. Backed by th US like the Greek Junta. The majority of GC did not want ENOSIS that is why there was no support as you stated.

EOKA-B= ENOSIS
Leader of EOKA-B= Monarcho fascist Grivas

GC left and Makariosites did not support EOKA-B because:

- The fascist Junta was in Power in Greece. It was impossible for GC left to support Greek Junta and its extensions in Cyprus.

- Makarios feared of a Turkish military intervention.


I can't understand why you are trying to hide the truth about EOKA, EOKA-B and their aims.

It is a known fact that moderate right wing GCs used to adore the priests. When Makarios changed his stance in 1968 Makariosites also changed their stance.

That's why after 1968 only the extreme GC right wing supported the Enosis cause. Nevertheless although there were leftists in National Guard, most of the young members of Ntional guard adored Grivas and Enosis cause. 30.000 men in National Guard were under command of Enosist Greek officers.

Makarios and his supporters struggled to end the hegemony of Greek officers but failed because it was impossible while Junta was in power in Greece.


Enosis fighters can be your heroes but they can never be the heroes of TC community.