Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

The 1959 agreements were not imposed on us.

Here is a video on how foreigners imposed the 1959 agreements on Cypriots. We are the native people and the great majority of the population of this island, and they didn't even allow us some small amendments to our own constitution!! According to bananiot thats fine because we dared to fight for our freedom and our self-determination.

[DT.]

If the country has been successfuly united for a while under a BBF, then there is no reason why it cannot evolve into a democratic unitary state of one person one vote with special protective rights given to the TC's.

You are dreaming. Once we sign away our rights and lands to them, the only thing we will hear from them is that what they gained is now their right and if we didn't like it we should have signed it. They wouldn't even accept a proposal for anything else. Been there, done that.

Caveat was placed that it would be difficult to get any meaningful gaurantees in place for such a thing. IN THEORY however I believe it would work.

So after TCs fighting for 50 years to gain partition, and they insisted upon this while acting illegally and under embargoes, you see them coming and voluntarily giving up everything they gained on our loss? Whats you say is not logical.

Don't make assumptions on what the TC public would/wouldn't accept. Ask them yourself.

[Piratis]

Don't make assumptions on what the TC public would/wouldn't accept. Ask them yourself.

We did in 63. We got the answer.

As I said before words are cheap. If they would accept what you claim they will, then I would be more than glad if the solution was a transitional period, where it would be agreed and signed that after X years Cyprus would be transformed to a unitary system, one person one vote. Something tells me that those that are trying to throw us in the trap with cheap words would never sign such thing.

[Jerry]

The 1959 agreements were not imposed on us. We could have said a loud "NO" then and carried on with the glorious armed struggle. They were the natural result of an ill-thought tactical decision to pursue enosis via an armed struggle. Mistakes are always paid for and the price we had to pay in 1959 was a very small one, considering the stupidity we showed prior to the agreements. Yet, we failed (the usual story) to seize on the opportunity and work for the best, under the circumstances. On top, we thought we could deceive the whole world and bring enosis through the window. To this extend we organised paramilitary groups that were to keep a check on the Turkish Cypriots had they interfered with our struggle to achieve our objective. Again we paid dearly for our short sightedness but it looks as though some people never learn.

A tiny country like ours can only rely on serious diplomatic moves if it is going to survive and prosper in an environment that can become very nasty. This means that we should become serious and appear to be serious in our dealings with the international community and our partners. Every time we pursued the maximum, we lost friends and ended badly wounded. Yet, this simple truth cannot be comprehended by some, who still seek, even today, the ideal. Yesterday, at the memorial service of EOKA hero Afxentiou, Christofias and Anastasiades were jeered by a crowed of Greek flag bearers who were chanting "Greece, Cyprus enosis" and "down with those that support federation". I hear what DT is saying, that many people are against BBF, but these people have never told us what the alternative is and above all, how it is going to be pursued.

I also understand what Jerry is saying but partition is not the answer. In the long run it will mean the end of Cyprus. Many people now agree that if a compromise solution is not found, we will not avoid partition. They also agree that time is running out on us. Thus, before we go on and set aims that are not feasible, it must never escape us that the other option is the end of history for Cypriots.

Bananiot , I find your reference to "the glorious armed struggle" at odds with your condemnation of the protesters who jeered Christofias and Anastasiades, where are you on this? In his memoirs Grivas complained that Makrios had sold him short by accepting the conditions of the 1959 agreement. Makarios was told "sign or face partition" (the very partition, incidentally, that you oppose today).
I have always seen the Zurich agreement as a punishment for the EOKA struggle, it was unfair,undemocratic and, bearing in mind the events of the previous 5 years, unworkable. No other British colony was "liberated" on such terms. Britain got its bases, it didn't care whether it worked or not.
The lack of goodwill that was evident between the two sides in 1960 still exists today and without universal goodwill any form of joint control is doomed. It only takes a handfull of arseholes, there are a few on this site, to stir up trouble and it will all kick off again. You and I may hold out the hand of friendship towards the Turkish Cypriots but the jeering facists earlier referred to would cause trouble leading to inter-communal fighting as in the 1960s.
The biggest problem I see with partition is how, if both Turkey and its Cypriot satellite join the EU, will the ROC remain Greek since the EU will not allow permanent derogations. For this reason Turkey must be kept out of the EU. We can only hope that if Turkey's membership of the club is a condition of an acceptable agreement then others (France and Germany) will use their veto. The problem is international relationships change over the years and perhaps in say 50 years time Turkey will join and Greek Cyprus will suffer another (slow but legal) invasion.

[repulsewarrior]

...i suggest to you that the Cypriot State can become English (if it has to), and that the majority of the population can become Turkish, yet it will be possible to sustain a Greek Cypriot quality to its geography if it is divided as I explained so that the two National Assemblies cannot expect to have a territory which is divided as it is today, in two parts. Three governments are essential, if we expect to sustain the quality of our character: as inclusive, as Greeks, and/or as Turks.

[utu]

...i suggest to you that the Cypriot State can become English (if it has to), and that the majority of the population can become Turkish, yet it will be possible to sustain a Greek Cypriot quality to its geography if it is divided as I explained so that the two National Assemblies cannot expect to have a territory which is divided as it is today, in two parts. Three governments are essential, if we expect to sustain the quality of our character: as inclusive, as Greeks, and/or as Turks.

But in what form: Federal (strong central government with the other two basically local authorities) or confederal (strong Turkish and Greek administrations with a weak central government representing the island internationally only)?

[repulsewarrior]

utu,

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=15874

you can have a strong representative for Individual Rights in a central government, and united all citizens can work toward their betterment, while as persons, you can have strong National Assemblies for people's self representation, over which, a territory has a dominance culturally, by a particular majority in the services they provide, as an inclusive society in themselves, for their own sustenance, demonstrating respect for equality and recognition of the minorities amongst them as well.

[humanist]

Pantheman

very touching, easier said than done. Its easy to make those offers when you know it will never happen and shame the Orams didn't say the same to Mr Apostolides. What you going to do about these ones I wonder???

I guess we can all hope.

Lets not mix up the British (unethical) with a descent hard working every day Turkish person shall we. The British will sell their grandmother for a quick buck.