Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4453171.stm

So including the moderate basque nationalist and the exterme they have 38 of the 75 seat parliament - a majority (just)

Do people think that Basque nationalists have a right to self determination as a people? A right to seceed from Spain? A right to use violence to gain independance? Just curious really.

[magikthrill]

im not sure whats the deal with the whole situation. personally, everyone in spain wants their own separate country. if the land belongs to the Basque people then i totally believe in their right to have their own nation. i read somewhere about the Basque people being genetically very different from the other Spaniards and something about them ebing the "aborginal Europeans" whatever that means.

[brother]

Quote:

Do people think that Basque nationalists have a right to self determination as a people? A right to seceed from Spain? A right to use violence to gain independance? Just curious really.



Self determination, yes they do, right to seceed also is not a problem but to use violence as a mean to get independence is sooooo unacceptable.

[Piratis]

Do people think that Basque nationalists have a right to self determination as a people? A right to seceed from Spain? A right to use violence to gain independance? Just curious really.

Are the Basques historically concentrated in a specific area in which they are the great majority? If they own an area, they can do whatever they want with it (as long as they respect the human rights of others).

[turkcyp]

Do people think that Basque nationalists have a right to self determination as a people? A right to seceed from Spain? A right to use violence to gain independance? Just curious really.

1) right to self determination: definetly YES.
2) right to secede from Spain: No. Right of secession is not the same as right of self determination. Right of secession is granted to those who have right of self determination only under few circumstances. Otherwise, the consensus in international law is to accommodate right of self-determination under the existing borders and uphold the principle of “sanctity of national borders”. But again this right of secession is a political decision after all. Sometimes politics justifies this right to certain groups and do not justify the same rights to other groups that have very similar characteristics and circumstances. It all depends how the world views the situation at hand through the lenses of political prism.
3) right to use violence: There is no such right.

[turkcyp]

By the way Erol, I think you are wrong...

The Nationalist Basque Party, won 29 of the 75 seats not the majortiy and therefore is in need to form a coalition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4456905.stm

[erolz]

Are the Basques historically concentrated in a specific area in which they are the great majority?

There is much disagreement over this. The current basque autonomous region of spain is not the same as the area many basques consider theirs.

I have to say Piratis that this idea of yours that a peoples right to self determination is based on how concentrated or distributed they are in an area seems to me to be a product of 'convience' and not based on any logic or maorality or belief in the principals of the concept of self determination.

If they own an area, they can do whatever they want with it (as long as they respect the human rights of others).

And if they largely own the basque area and spain refuses to give them the level of self determiation they demand, are they right to use force - including terrorist acts to persue their version of self determination?

[Piratis]

I have to say Piratis that this idea of yours that a peoples right to self determination is based on how concentrated or distributed they are in an area seems to me to be a product of 'convience' and not based on any logic or maorality or belief in the principals of the concept of self determination.

If you disagree with what I say thats fine. But to say that you don't understand the logic, thats another thing because the logic is very straight forward.

"Self determination" is called like that because what you determine is about your own self. If you own something then you can do whatever you want with it. However if you have only an 18% share in this something, then this is not enough to allow you to take a decision about this something by yourself.

Therefore everybody has self determination, but not in the way you realize it. The computer i type right now is mine, and if I want I can hit it with a hummer and brake it. However i can not go into an internet cafe (even if I own a share of it) and start braking computers and justify this action under "self determination".

Therefore you can have self determination for the things you own just by yourself. Cyprus (or even north Cyprus) is not one of them.

And if they largely own the Basque area and spain refuses to give them the level of self determiation they demand, are they right to use force - including terrorist acts to persue their version of self determination?

IF Basques own a region, then they should be allowed to do what they want with that region. They also have the right to use force to gain control of what belongs to them.

[erolz]

"Self determination" is called like that because what you determine is about your own self. If you own something then you can do whatever you want with it. However if you have only an 18% share in this something, then this is not enough to allow you to take a decision about this something by yourself.

Therefore everybody has self determination, but not in the way you realize it. The computer i type right now is mine, and if I want I can hit it with a hummer and brake it. However i can not go into an internet cafe (even if I own a share of it) and start braking computers and justify this action under "self determination".

Therefore you can have self determination for the things you own just by yourself. Cyprus (or even north Cyprus) is not one of them.

Firstly the rights to self determination - as laid out in the UN charters of human rights - are rights that apply to 'peoples' NOT indivduals (a 'confusion' you use all the time in discussions - at least as I see it). Your examples about indivdual ownership are meaningless and obvious - clearly you can do as you like with that which you own and not with that which you do not as an indivdual.

Secondly the idea that the right to self determination is about rights of 'ownership' is a gross misundertanding of these rights. The rights to self determination are first and foremost about the right of a people to not be ruled aginst their will by another people. They are not about ownership at all. You could own all the land in a foregin country and still the people of that country have a right to determine their own future. You seem to see the right of self determination as one of ownership and it is not.

Thirdly even if one were to accept your interpretation of the rights of peoples to self determination to simply be a right to do what you like with what you own (which it clearly is not) - then what right did GC have to persue a purely GC objective (ENOSIS) for ALL of Cyprus and ALL of it's people - when they did not own ALL of Cyprus?

Really I can not decide if you make these 'mistakes' (as I see them) on purpose or if you really are that confused ?

To define the right of peoples to self determination to simply be a case of rights of owners to do as they wish with what they own , is to my mind a gross perversion / misunderstanding of both the spirit and letter of these rights. It is also a view that is not consistent. If TC had no right to self determination because they did not own Cyprus entirely or owned a SINGLE area of it entirely then neither do GC have a right to self determination on exactly the same basis.

IF Basques own a region, then they should be allowed to do what they want with that region. They also have the right to use force to gain control of what belongs to them.

Again you see the world in terms of ownership and nothing else. Yet you are not even consistent in this view. By your world view TC should have had a right to unfettered independance of any parts of Cyprus they owned ?

Do you also believe that if say Asian UK citizens buy all the land in an area of the UK then als gain a right to independance and to use force to gain it? This is madness as I see it.

[Piratis]

First of all by "own" I mean (as I explained several times) people that historically live in an area in which they are the great majority.

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.

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?

For most things this is impossible. 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%.
You are neither the 50% and not many things fall in just your self determination either.

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