Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

You are using the term "self termination" in order to justify the violations of our rights, but you have absolutely no right to do so.

I am using the concept of self determination to justify TC rights to self determination. I am not the one that insists that the right to self determination gives you a right to use force to achieve it - you are the one who argues that. My position is the right to self determination can justify the use of force - depending on the circumsatnces. I have previously said my view is this right did not justify GC resort to violence or TC (be it in 63 or 74). The fact that violence was used and unjustifyably imo does not make the right to self determiation disapear though.

So let me ask you something: Can you determine just by yourselves anything that you are just an 18% part? Why this very same thing should not be part of the self determination of the 82%?

How can in practice exist a TC self determination and a separate GC self determination at the same time?

I have always said that in my view when you have a situation like that in Cyprus where two seperate peoples exist in one area, then both of these groups need to accept compromise on their full and unimpeeded right to self determination in order to achieve peace and harmony in this area. What you can not do is decdide that one group has a right to self determination and the other does not and just has to do as the first group wishes - which is what GC have tried to do since Cyprus gained independance -and what you still are trying to achieve today as far as you refuse the concept of the equality of the two communites.

For most things this is impossible.

It is impossible if one (or both) sides refuse to accept the equality of each. If they can accept the equality of each than it is not impossible at all.

This is why what exists is self determination of Cypriots as a whole. TCs are the 18% of this whole and GCs are the 82%.

No the concept of a single Cypriot people (either before there was a single Cypriot nation or after) is a fiction that is used to deliver Cyprus into the control of only one of the peoples that share its land. The concept of a single Cypriot people is no different than the UK declaring in 1959 that there is no cypriot people only a single British people of which GC and TC were minority memebers of - and continuing it's rule in CYprus on this basis after giving Cypriots equal rights as indivduals to any other British person.

You are neither the 50% and not many things fall in just your self determination either.

As far as communites / peoples in Cyprus go we are 50% in that we are one of two communites / peoples in Cyprus. The GC community has no more rights in Cyprus than the TC community imo.

Minorities exist in the whole world, what I am saying is what is the standard and nothing new.

You can continue to insist that TC are no more than an ethnic minority living in a Greek Cyprus, but TC do not believe that and the rest of the world does not believe that and actually continued insistance that it is the case is just a continuation of the CYprus problem as it has existed since Cyprus gained it's independance.

[Kifeas]

I have always said that in my view when you have a situation like that in Cyprus where two seperate peoples exist in one area, then both of these groups need to accept compromise on their full and unimpeeded right to self determination in order to achieve peace and harmony in this area.

Hello Erol,

According to the constitution of the republic of Cyprus and the treaty of establishment of the republic of Cyprus, there are no two people in Cyprus but several communities, which for convenience and other technical reasons relating to the distribution of political power and the exercising of social and educational rights, are organised (grouped) into two larger communities. Therefore no two people in Cyprus. Only communities. Please read the constitution more carefully (article 2.)

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/ConstitutionW?OpenForm

No the concept of a single Cypriot people (either before there was a single Cypriot nation or after) is a fiction that is used to deliver Cyprus into the control of only one of the peoples that share its land.

On the passports of the RoCy, since the beginning of its independence, it never stated Greek or Turk on the subject of citizenship, but only Cypriot. During the Second World War about 30,000 Cypriots joined the Cypriot contingent of the British army. No separate contingents were created for Turkish or Greek Cypriots which clearly indicates that they were perceived and treated as one people. Therefore the British have always treated Cypriots as one people composed of two main communities plus a few smaller ones. Furthermore, from the beginning of the British colonisation, nearly all British references to the people of Cyprus have described them as Christian and Moslem Cypriots or Greek and Turkish speaking Cypriots. The same goes for most of the several, mainly British authored, books and encyclopaedias of those times.

I know it suits the Turkish Cypriot case, to claim that there are two peoples in Cyprus but “unfortunately” this not what is internationally accepted. Also it is not what the RoCy constitution says.
http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/ConstitutionW?OpenForm

*The concept of a single Cypriot people is no different than the UK declaring in 1959 that there is no cypriot people only a single British people of which GC and TC were minority memebers of - and continuing it's rule in CYprus on this basis after giving Cypriots equal rights as indivduals to any other British person.

That is an arbitrary hypothesis and analogy. The British in Cyprus came as colonisers or occupiers. As a matter of fact during the period of British colonisation, Cypriots were termed as being "subjects to the queen," In a similar way that British citizens are until nowadays descried, i.e. “Objects to the Queen.” With assumptions and “ifs” it is impossible to reach anywhere. One can equally say that, should the Venicians have treated the Cypriots in a better way and as a result they would have fought more fervently on their site when the Ottomans attempted to occupy Cyprus, then perhaps, the Ottomans would have never conquered Cyprus and today we would have had no Turkish Cypriot community.

Below is a number of relevant definitions of the meaning of the world “People.”
1. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
2. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
3. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
4. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=people

From all the above definitions, only the second one covers the case of the Turkish Cypriot community and in this only partially. I.e. Greek and Turkish Cypriots differ only in religion and language. The element of culture is disputable. I.e. Greek and Turkish Cypriots share more everyday cultural elements than they share with mainland Turks and Greeks respectively. The last element, which reads as “inherited condition of life,” is identical. They both lived in the same geographical area for 400 years and under the same rulers and shared the same living conditions for most of their history. If you are not aware, there were a number of jointed Greek and Turkish Cypriot revolutions against the Ottomans, mainly due to heavy taxes and oppressive living conditions.
All the other definitions (1, 3 & 4,) support the Greek Cypriot point of view, which rightfully alleges that there are only communities among a single Cypriot people. Turkish Cypriots have never been recognised by any international agreement or international body as a separate people. Not even in the Annan plan, which refers to them as a Community.

*As far as communites / peoples in Cyprus go we are 50% in that we are one of two communites / peoples in Cyprus. The GC community has no more rights in Cyprus than the TC community imo.

The definition of a community is not the same as the definition of a people. Why all of suddenly you choose to refer the two concepts as having a more or less an equal or a parallel meaning?

Furthermore, the constitution of Cyprus doesn’t make such an allegation that the two communities are equal or not, nor does it make any reference to a so-called partnership of two equal people or communities for the establishment of a Cypriot republic. The only proportional reference that it makes is that of the participation in the parliament house and in which case is not 50:50 but 70:30. A community (as TCs are refered to in the RoCy constitution,) is a smaller group within a larger people or a nation that shares common cultural interests, life style, etc, and in most cases the term doesn’t imply the granting of separate political rights, except a one-man-one-vote.

The definition of a community.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=community

This is for the sake of truthfulness and accuracy in relation to these issues.

[Piratis]

TCs are the 18%.
18% < 82%
TCs are a minority in Cyprus.

Tell me one more ethnic group in any country in the whole world that is numerically less and doesn't historically have a specific region of its own, that is not a minority.

By your definition there shouldn't be any minorities anywhere. But there are, and you are one of them.

Go into Google and type: define: ethnic minority

The first result is about US. The other two more general ones are:

a group that has different national or cultural traditions from the majority of the population

In sociology and in voting theory, a minority is a sub-group that forms less than half of the population, and — as a rule — is outnumbered by at least one other sub-group. (That is, it does not form either a majority or a plurality.) This can be used to categorize people of a different language, nationality, religion, culture, lifestyle or any characteristic, provided these people are accepted as part of the referent group.

In our case the group is Cypriots and the sub groups are TCs, GCs etc.

If you do not accept that TCs are a minority it means you do not accept that there is just one Cyprus. Since there is one Cyprus, and since GCs are the majority in Cyprus, this by definition means that TCs are a minority.

This is crystal clear. Trying to argue against this is like arguing that 1+1 = 44


Recently I tried to avoid using the term "minority" because it bothers you. However, you took that as a stepping stone to the next level, and to the next and to the next etc. "We are not a minority -> we have self determination rights -> Some violations against GCs are needed -> We have the right for autonomy -> We deserve a federal state -> We deserve 50% power .... "

[erolz]

Hello Erol,

According to the constitution of the republic of Cyprus and the treaty of establishment of the republic of Cyprus, there are no two people in Cyprus but several communities, which for convenience and other technical reasons relating to the distribution of political power and the exercising of social and educational rights, are organised (grouped) into two larger communities. Therefore no two people in Cyprus. Only communities. Please read the constitution more carefully (article 2.)

http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/ConstitutionW?OpenForm

As I read the original consitution the Cyprus nation is comprised of two seperate and distinct communites (GC and TC) and a small number of minorites. My view is that this acceptance at the core of the agreements that founded the Cypriot nation is an acceptance that the TC community is 'more than a minority and less than a people'.

I know it suits the Turkish Cypriot case, to claim that there are two peoples in Cyprus but “unfortunately” this not what is internationally accepted. Also it is not what the RoCy constitution says.
http://www.mfa.gov.cy/mfa/mfa.nsf/ConstitutionW?OpenForm

As it suits the GC community to claim that there is a single Cypriot people, when if fact what there was an is is two communites / groups - where the larger has sought to persue and impose its own desires on the other.

What they (international community) accepted then and now - as far as I am concerned - is that the status of TC community in Cyprus is 'more than a minority and less than a people' - a view I agree with.

The definition of a community is not the same as the definition of a people. Why all of suddenly you choose to refer the two concepts as having a more or less an equal or a parallel meaning?

My view has always been that the status of the TC community in Cyprus (and the GC community as well) is 'more than a minority and less than a people' as far as their rights go. The probelm with comes when GC come along and argue that 'communites' have no human rights (only peoples and indivduals do). In the face of such arguemtns I have no choice but to return to the 'source' of the TC communites rights in Cyprus - which is the right of peoples (or communites or gorups) to not be ruled by 'others'. It is the right to self determination that was and is the source of the TC communites claim to not be a political minority in their own homeland and as far as the international community accepted our right to be more than just a political minority in out own homeland they accepted and accept this. If there was no basis of a right for the TC community to be more than poliitcal minority in their own homeland then there would have been no issue in Cyprus and Cyprus would today no exist as an independant nation at all - merely as a region of Greece.

Furthermore, the constitution of Cyprus doesn’t make such an allegation that the two communities are equal or not, nor does it make any reference to a so-called partnership of two equal people or communities for the establishment of a Cypriot republic. The only proportional reference that it makes is that of the participation in the parliament house and in which case is not 50:50 but 70:30. A community (as TCs are refered to in the RoCy constitution,) is a smaller group within a larger people or a nation that shares common cultural interests, life style, etc, and in most cases the term doesn’t imply the granting of separate political rights, except a one-man-one-vote.

The idea of political equality of the two communites , wheter explicitly stated in the consitituion or not, clearly runs through the entire 1960 consistution, from the veto rights of the vice president through to the indpendance of the head of the supreme court and in many other provisions as well. It also runs through the only other international proposal put ot the Cyprus people (Annan plan). Why is this? To me the reason why is because there is wide spread acceptance (except perhaps amongst GC who what a Greek Cyprus, run by GC for GC) that the true status of the two communites is that or 'more than a minority and less than that of a people'. This based on acceptance, in my view, that both have a _degree_ of the right to self determination and that this right can not be absolute if the two communites are to live togeahter in a unifed nation. When GC take a strict legalistic approach and state that 'communites' have no rights under international charters etc then I as a TC have little option but to move from a status of 'more than a minority and less than a people' to a status of 'people' - beacuse this does have such recognition and is the basis for the former claim.

This issue has been discussed many many times in the past and I am too tierd to dig up these many previous discusions. The more GC deny we have any RIGHTS as a community the more we have to move from the compromise position of 'more than a minority and less than a people' to the uncopromised position of 'a people'. What other option do we have except to allow the denail of out rights as a community?

The definition of a community.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=community

Dicitionary definitions of community or peoples do not matter. What matters in the face of GC attempts to apply a strictly leaglistic appraoch to a solution is the legal definitions of the terms. As I understand it there is no legal defintion of community (and the rights pertainting to such) only peoples.

This is for the sake of truthfulness and accuracy in relation to these issues.

Truth is almost always relative and not absoulute. You consider it a truth that there was (prior to 1960 and after) only a single cypriot people. My truth is very different from this - namely that the idea of a single cypriot people is a fiction that does not reflect the realites in Cyprus past and present. A fiction that GC maintain because it a means to deliver effective control of all of Cyprus and all it's people into the hands of GC alone without let or hinderance - and that if it did not then GC would have no interest in maintaining this fiction.

PS after we meet the other week I realised I walked away without even offering to pay for my beers. I would just like to appologise for doing this and say that the next one (if there is a next one) is most definately 'on me' and thanks for the beers.

[Kifeas]

PS after we meet the other week I realised I walked away without even offering to pay for my beers. I would just like to appologise for doing this and say that the next one (if there is a next one) is most definately 'on me' and thanks for the beers.

Erol, I am the one that invited you:)
However, I agree for the next time.

As for the above postings and as you may have noticed, I didn't make any further allegations regarding community rights or self-determination rights (separate or joined,) etc, except to only give my opinion on the definitions of terms and concepts that were mentioned previously.

As for your conclusion that the TC community is 'more than a minority and less than a people', I will agree with the first part, which says that it is more than a minority (in a political sense,) only because of the size which is a bit higher than what a minority (in a political sense) will normally or usually consist of. My view of what constitutes a people or even a “less than a people” concept is very well known. To me a people in a country or a nation (state) are all its citizens, irrespective of whatever variations of religion, origin, language, etc. We live in the age of globalisation and multiculturalism and such approaches like those of TCs, in order to justify separate political rights, should not have been utilised like a bible or a Koran. Nowadays there is almost no nation that is not composed of various sub-groups with different social and religious characteristics. However as a GC, I am willing and I accept to seek ways to accommodate this issue but not in the fashion and extent to which TCs want from GCs to agree. I.e. that of absolute political equality on the basis of “ethnicity” or on the basis of two separate “people.” Perhaps political equality on the basis of constituent states with some ways of guaranteed communal majority will make more sense.

[cannedmoose]

PS after we meet the other week I realised I walked away without even offering to pay for my beers. I would just like to appologise for doing this and say that the next one (if there is a next one) is most definately 'on me' and thanks for the beers.

I know it's none of my business guys, but good on you both Erolz and Kifeas. It's just a shame that the politicians can't be so engaging and just sit down for a beer and a chat. You're a model to us all...

[erolz]

Erol, I am the one that invited you:)
However, I agree for the next time.

Done.

As for your conclusion that the TC community is 'more than a minority and less than a people', I will agree with the first part, which says that it is more than a minority (in a political sense,) only because of the size which is a bit higher than what a minority (in a political sense) will normally or usually consist of.

For me it is not just our 'numbers' that make us more than a political minority, though that is certainly one factor. To me it is alos relevant how long we have been in Cyprus and considered it our (shared) homeland, how distinct we are from the other communites that live there, how much those other communites have sought to impose thier will on us aginst ours and other factors besides. For me the moral / intelectual basis for claims to be 'more than a (political) minority' derive from the same source as the rights of peoples to self determination.

My view of what constitutes a people or even a “less than a people” concept is very well known. To me a people in a country or a nation (state) are all its citizens, irrespective of whatever variations of religion, origin, language, etc.

My view, from what I have read of expert opinion and historical precedce, is that essentially there are two meathods for determining if a group is a 'people' or not. The first is that which you state - that anyone in a given nation state is said to make up a single people. I personally do not think this is the correct basis to use in Cyprus because basically the two groups pre date the nation state. The other approach is the criteria approach. This to me seems the much more suitable appraoch when the groups of people pre date the nation state. As I say 'we' have had this discussion many times in the past and with respect I refer back to one of these to save my fingers and keyboard and sanity (as far as that is possible).

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.p ... teria#3363

This 'criteria' approach is not something I have simply dreamed up, it is something expressed by 'experts' and with some precedence in actuallity as well. This does not mean that TC qualify under the criteria approach - though my view is they do. It just means that there is more than one way of defining a people - it is not just a function of all the people in a given nation state.

We live in the age of globalisation and multiculturalism and such approaches like those of TCs, in order to justify separate political rights, should not have been utilised like a bible or a Koran. Nowadays there is almost no nation that is not composed of various sub-groups with different social and religious characteristics. However as a GC, I am willing and I accept to seek ways to accommodate this issue but not in the fashion and extent to which TCs want from GCs to agree. I.e. that of absolute political equality on the basis of “ethnicity” or on the basis of two separate “people.” Perhaps political equality on the basis of constituent states with some ways of guaranteed communal majority will make more sense.

We may live in an age of multiculturalism but we live in a country definied and riven with monoculturalism and violent mono culturalism at that throughout it's history as a nation state - from it's founding to today.

I would personaly accept the later proposal. Like I say I am not trying to be absolutist - however it is hard to not be so in the face of absolutism (like we absoloutley do not have any right to anything (politicaly) other than what a minority has and anything we recieve is a 'gift' and not based on human rights). I do not insist that the TC are a people AND must have full and unfettered and unrestricted rights as a people - regardless of the cost to anyone else. I believe we are a 'people' as far as the spirit of the rights to self determiantion go but that also we must accpet compromise on the exercise of our full rights as a 'people' when we in fact share a homeland with another 'people'.

What ultimately matters to me is can the GC community force decsions on the TC community against its will when those decsisons affect the TC community differently (adversly) to the GC community in Cyprus, or not. Any system that means the larger GC community can not force decisions on the TC community aginst their will and that affect the TC community differenlty to the GC community is acceptable to me - any that does not is not. This essentialy is my only 'red line'. Bi zonal federation, rights of settlers or displaced TC from 74 to remain in their properties or in Cyprus, rights of pre 74 owners to force current owners from their properties or not - these and everything else are all secondary issues for me and not red lines.

[Red Brigade10]

It would not be wise the compare the Basque situation with Cyprus.It is unreal to compare different situations.Basques have been living in that area since ancient times ,they dont just came few hundreds years ago.They have a unique language and it is beleived today that they are the most ancient European People.They should definately have their own country ,since their culture and language has nothing to do with anything Latin.Free Eskaudi.