Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Now of course you have the Turkish tanks behind you, and you can claim whatever you want, you can illegaly keep the land that does not belong to you etc.
However the balance of power changes. We are on this island for 3500 years and we are not going to gift any part of it to you. If you want to live with us, as equal citizens of this country with full respect to human rights and democracy, you are more than welcome to. You own 18% share (not 50%). It is up to you if you wish to be the 18% partners on this island, or sell your share and try your luck somewhere else. Whats for sure is that our share in the indivisible Cyprus is not for sale.

Piratis,
I personally understand and agree with your approach on the entire issue of democracy and equality of citizens. This would have been an “ideal” solution for the GCs, although it is the norm and is consequently taken for granted in all modern civilised nations across the globe.

However, it is an approach that should it prevails among GCs, as the only form of solution that we can accept, I am afraid it will lead us, to say the least, nowhere. Under the present circumstances and taking into consideration the past 50 or even 100 years of the Cyprus issue, such approach is not only idealistic but it appears, or it will appear, to the other side and to the international community, as a totally uncompromising position.

In my opinion, under the past/present circumstances, it is more or less an equally uncompromising position to that of the TC side, which demands nothing less than absolute political equality along ethnic (community) lines.

We (GCs) have to understand that, to the same extend that the official (unfortunately) position of the TC side for ethnic (communal) political equality, which equally unfortunately found its way into the A-plan5, is totally unacceptable for us; an approach by GCs which calls for a complete unitary state in which every Cypriot citizen will have the same political rights and leverage (i.e. one-man-one-vote,) is equally totally unacceptable to the other side.

Our side (the official GC position) doesn’t aspire this approach, contrary to what the majority of TCs tent to believe. Nor does it view the TC community as a minority within a unitary state framework. Unfortunately, due to Denktash’s many years of continues preaching and due to the natural and understandable disappointment that the ordinary TCs felt after the referendums, these ideas and fears that what GCs want from a solution is to convert the TCs into a minority within a “GC” state have come up again and dominate their daily agenda.

Instead of them and their leadership to allow themselves to reconsider their official approach; upon taking into consideration the fact that, although absolute bi-communal political equality sounds an ideal solution, the other community is considerably much bigger and thus it is, naturally, a totally indigestible solution for them to accept; they passed on the counter offensive and consume their thoughts in blaming, unjustifiably, the GC side for rejecting the A-plan simply because it aspires to convert them into a minority within a “GC” state.

I personally wouldn’t have a problem considering such a solution; although I have other (ideological) objections to any form of separation on the basis of race (“ethnicity”) should the two communities were more close numerically, i.e. 55:45 or even 60:40, like it is the case of Belgium, or should there were more than 2 or 3 communities to share political “equality” like it is the case of Switzerland.

However, the case of Cyprus doesn’t match the above two cases. There is no way to apply absolute political equality between only two communities when one is 82% and the other 18%, without it not having a devastating effect to the individual (practical, natural and notional) rights of the members of the largest community. Especially in Cyprus in which case the smallest community has ended up being composed, to a very large extent, by people who “emigrated” from another country only recently, compared to the historical presence of the rest of Cypriots. In theory and consequently in practice, this small group of people (settlers) will be given such an enormous political leverage that, should it chooses to concentrate it in it’s own hands as a group, can effectively control (directly or indirectly) the entire federal government and consequently the political, and not only, future of Cyprus.
On the other hand, any approach similar to the one professed by some small GC political parties, and furthermore any approach similar to the one suggested or deriving from some people’s postings in this forum, which call for ether a unitary state without separate political rights of it’s citizens based on ethnicity but only based on absolute equality of it’s citizens on the individual level, or even a federal state without some control on the settlement rations from one state into the other, are rightfully perceived by the TC community as an attempt or a formula to renter them into a minority, a scenario which becomes equally unacceptable to them.

All genuine pro-solution and pro-unification Cypriots should understand that on this particular issue, there should be a mid-way out. There is no other alternative in my opinion. There should be a formula that deviates from the two extreme positions. In my opinion, the official GC position is not on this extreme end, as presented and described above. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the official TC position.

[erolz]

Unfortunately for you, when a solution will be reached it will be based on the Democratic principles.

It is a democratic principal in federal states (as well as in federal unions of states like the EU) that on some issues there is one state one vote regardless of the size of the state or compnent state.

The only hope I have for a solution in the near future is through the TC themselves.

Of course you hope that TC themselves will help you legitimise your theft of TC communites rights in 63. You may hope it but if I were you I would not hold your breath.

I am still waiting their reaction, when they found out what Tallat really represents and what happened to all of his unification talks.

As I await yours when you discover what TP really represents.

People are not stupid to realise that claiming reunification acts and at the same time, putting obstacles to the peace process is somewhat controversial.

So TP days are numbered then? That's a relief.

[Piratis]

Many honest people have been tricked into following the rejectionists

Here we go again. Yes Bananiot, we are tricked So how about another small minority to take decisions for the "stupid" majority and screw us up again? Far right (DISY) has destroyed Cyprus in the past by not respecting democracy. Here they do it again.

But don't worry my friends. These traitors will never be allowed to harm Cyprus again. With Papadopoulos we are finally on the right track and Turkey has finally started to feel the consequences of her illegal occupation. (and they have seen nothing yet)

Bananiot can I get to read any of this information in English over the net??? it would be intersting to hear more liberal views rather than the brain washed dribble we get on here.

Bananiot, I am sure you are very proud when the people that illegally occupy our homes are so pleased with your treasonous propaganda. Do you receive congratulation emails from Turkey and UK as well?

No you do not offer every right that a GC has. A GC has a right for their community in Cyprus to have an effective say in what happens in their own homeland. You wish to steal this right from the TC community.

How do we wish to steal it? Our homeland is the whole Cyprus, right?
So each person has the same amount of saying. I have the same amount of saying as you do. However what you want is to steal the largest part of my saying so that your saying will count 4.5 times more than mine.
Such thing is undemocratic and will never be accepted.

[Bananiot]

"Politis" is on line but in Greek, I am afraid. I forgot to mention Cyprus Mail, the most objective newspaper in my opinion. The Sunday Mail makes good reading and is on line. Also the historian Makarios Droushiotis has a small english language section in his site at:

http://www.makarios.ws/cgibin/hweb?-V=e ... EGORY=0000

[Piratis]

Kifeas,
Personally I will vote "no" to any plan that makes me a second category citizen in my oun country.
Such kind of "solution" is not a solution. It just a continuation of the problem.

[erolz]

Piratis,
I personally understand and agree with your approach on the entire issue of democracy and equality of citizens. This would have been an “ideal” solution for the GCs, although it is the norm and is consequently taken for granted in all modern civilised nations across the globe.

It is the norm in a federal state for the states to have some degree of equality - regardless of their size relative to each other. This is normal in all modern civilised nations accross the globe. You can claim that defining a federal component state on ehtnic lines is not the norm, but to claim that a federal component state having equality as a component state is not 'normal' or 'democratic' is to ignore reality in favour of propganda as far as I can see.

In my opinion, under the past/present circumstances, it is more or less an equally uncompromising position to that of the TC side, which demands nothing less than absolute political equality along ethnic (community) lines.

I do not make such demands as an indivdual and I do not believe the TC community makes such demands either. We did not have absolute political equality in the 1960 agreements and we accepted them. We did not have it either in the Annan plan and we accepted that as well. I do not insist that the TC component state is ethnicaly pure - just that there is protection from it becomming dominated by GC. I do not insist that we have absolute equality on all issues - only on those where the decsions affect the TC community differently to the GC community.

Our side (the official GC position) doesn’t aspire this approach, contrary to what the majority of TCs tent to believe. Nor does it view the TC community as a minority within a unitary state framework. Unfortunately, due to Denktash’s many years of continues preaching and due to the natural and understandable disappointment that the ordinary TCs felt after the referendums, these ideas and fears that what GCs want from a solution is to convert the TCs into a minority within a “GC” state have come up again and dominate their daily agenda.

The reason why we fear that the real GC objective is to make TC a political minority in Cyprus (and thus legitimise the theft of our rights in 63) is that so many GC tell us this openly and directly here on these forums. Even yourslef, who says you can accept a status of the TC community of more than a political minority on the Island, do so with the caveat that you do not think such a solution is fair just or right. Well I fear that in such a case if you agree a solution based on a status of TC community as more than a poltical minority, you may soon after (having gained a balance of power) claim that such a solution is actualy unfair, unjsut and was imposed on GC despite their agreement and seek to unilateraly remove this status from the TC community. I fear this because this is what you did in 1963.

All genuine pro-solution and pro-unification Cypriots should understand that on this particular issue, there should be a mid-way out. There is no other alternative in my opinion. There should be a formula that deviates from the two extreme positions. In my opinion, the official GC position is not on this extreme end, as presented and described above. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the official TC position.

I could accept such a forumal and indeed is what I have always agrued for here. I remain however concerned that GC may accept such a formual not as an end but as a means to a different end - as a 'secure bastion' from which they can continue to persue an onjective of forcing the TC community to accpet being a political minority in a GC controlled state. So I can agree such a forumla as you state above (some degree of equality of communites and some degree of unitary decision making) but I also need to believe that there is a mechanism that can and will stop any 'reneging' of this approach down the line.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,
Personally I will vote "no" to any plan that makes me a second category citizen in my oun country.
Such kind of "solution" is not a solution. It just a continuation of the problem.

Piratis,
First of all you have to specify which kind of “solution” you consider to be a no solution. I spoke about what I consider to be the two extreme potions, one from each side, and mid-way road between the two positions. Which one(s) you consider to be making you a second category citizen and consequently you will vote down?

And since you spoke about second category citizens, I have to remind you that currently in the free areas we do indeed have two categories of citizens. We have an almost 1/3 of the GCs, (refugees) who have left all their properties in the north and for 31 years are deprived of all their rights and chances to invest in them, exploit them and enjoy their income, who continue to live in donated houses in refugee settlements and struggle for the days salary (merokamato,) and we also have the remaining 2/3's of GCs who haven’t lost any of their properties and consequently enjoy all the rights to keep investing in them, build their hotels and other business, build and sell houses to foreigners, and thus getting richer every passing day, while at the same time the second class, the 1/3 or so, remain stagnant.

You have to know that the 1974 Coup was not committed only by members of the 1/3 of the GC community that used to live in the occupied areas, nor the Turkish invasion was exclusively directed against to interests of this portion of GCs, but in-fact against the interests of the entire GC community, not to say against the interests of entire Cypriot population (including TCs.)

Now, if as you say, we should seat and wait for as long as it takes, in order to find the ideal solution that will not make us “second” class citizens, then indeed this will take us many years, if it ever happens. If you propose this, then fine, I am with you. But you have to be ready as well as all the remaining non-refugee GCs to bear the coast on an equal level with the GCs refugees, which bear it almost alone for 31 years.

Are you ready, as well as all the rest of non-refuges, to share all your properties in the south (at least 1/3 of them) with those that lost all their properties in the north, and when this ideal solution comes up one day in the future, all of us (the entire GC community) to be shareholders of all the GC properties in the north?

If you are, then say it publicly, and if everybody agrees with you, then I am with you in this long journey that you prefer to take.

That doesn’t mean that because of these reasons that I mentioned above, I am willing or any of the other GC refugees to accept any solution that will be given to us. The results of the referendum proved exactly this thing.

[salonica]

Viewpoint thanks for the welcoming.

But I see you as partners. If a solution is found, both communities will need to work together in order to make this country a better place to live. But I guess you want to hold the authorities on a national level, since gaining power in specific regions of the country is what you can easily achieve, right?
The problem I have with this is that I am not willing to sacrifice any of my political rights in favor of you or any other person. The GC are willing to make economic sacrifices in order to achieve a higher standard of living for the TC but hardly will you find any (ok there is the velvet revolution guy, but..) that is willing to accept a pull back in his political rights.


Erolz wrote:

<If the modern Turkish state had been founded on the principal of equality of two communites (Turkish and Kurdish) and this had been agreed by both communites and then the Turkish community sough to steal those rights from the Kurdish community unilateraly and illegaly then yes I would support a similar senario.>

What is this? You are telling me that it’s ok to mistreat people, according to your definition, if no agreement was made before??? It is just the fact that in every country in the world, there are minorities and it is irrational to demand veto power or similar for those. Yet, I am telling you that the time Turkey will allow for such a policy towards, the GC will accept the same.


Now about:

<Then any federal state where there is equality of component states regardless of the population size of the component states (the definition of a federal solution) is also undemocratic. As is the EU undemocratic and the UN undemocratic>


You are talking about unions of different states, do you realize that? But I know that this is the preferred scenario for some of you. You don’t care about unification but partition which can be named whatever you want to call it. Your main and only concern is how to legitimate the pseudostate.

[Kifeas]

It is the norm in a federal state for the states to have some degree of equality - regardless of their size relative to each other. This is normal in all modern civilised nations accross the globe. You can claim that defining a federal component state on ehtnic lines is not the norm, but to claim that a federal component state having equality as a component state is not 'normal' or 'democratic' is to ignore reality in favour of propganda as far as I can see.

Erol, I was not referring year to federal systems per se. My point was a general one for the case of unitary states. You have to understand that Anan plan was not a case of federal states having a degree of equality, as you wrongly believe so, but instead it was a case of an almost absolute political equality on the basis of race (ethnicity,) irrespective of state residency. Please read more carefully the provisions of Anan-plan 5 pertaining to the formulation of the senate and the federal government.

I do not make such demands as an indivdual and I do not believe the TC community makes such demands either. We did not have absolute political equality in the 1960 agreements and we accepted them. We did not have it either in the Annan plan and we accepted that as well. I do not insist that the TC component state is ethnicaly pure - just that there is protection from it becomming dominated by GC. I do not insist that we have absolute equality on all issues - only on those where the decsions affect the TC community differently to the GC community.

I know you do not make such demands because we two have discussed it previously. You make a mistake if you believe that the official position of the TC community is similar to yours. The official position of the TC community and Turkey is that of political equality on the basis of ethnicity and irrespective of state residency. Anan plan 5 (not 1,2, & 3) is based on this very same idea that the official TC side pursuits.

Even yourslef, who says you can accept a status of the TC community of more than a political minority on the Island, do so with the caveat that you do not think such a solution is fair just or right. Well I fear that in such a case if you agree a solution based on a status of TC community as more than a poltical minority, you may soon after (having gained a balance of power) claim that such a solution is actualy unfair, unjsut and was imposed on GC despite their agreement and seek to unilateraly remove this status from the TC community. I fear this because this is what you did in 1963.

It is one thing what I find not fair and just, having in mind what is the norm in the rest of the E.U. for example, and another thing what I am ready to accept as a compromise. The one doesn’t nullify the other.

I will not answer the last part of your paragraph because I find it to be way to far into the sphere of imagination. To attempt an answer it is like trying to prove that I am not an elephant. You must understand that there are one million of reasons, excuses, victimising clichés and scenarios to refer to, if one doesn’t want to compromise.

I could accept such a forumal and indeed is what I have always agrued for here. I remain however concerned that GC may accept such a formual not as an end but as a means to a different end - as a 'secure bastion' from which they can continue to persue an onjective of forcing the TC community to accpet being a political minority in a GC controlled state. So I can agree such a forumla as you state above (some degree of equality of communites and some degree of unitary decision making) but I also need to believe that there is a mechanism that can and will stop any 'reneging' of this approach down the line.

Erol, you (TCs) should make your side's concerns as specific as possible and with practical examples and seek ways with the GC side to address them in mutually acceptable and affordable basis. If you keep referring to them in a theoretical (abstract) and imaginative way, then they can be rightfully perceived as a victimizing approach in order to justify uncompromising positions.

What is the other side suppose to do, if you constantly perceive them as devious and cunning? Of course it has a duty to make you gain its trust and that’s why I disagree with many GC postings in this forum. However, it requires that you also have to be willing to trust and not constantly victimize the other side for the past, especially if the TC side is not completely innocent, either.

[erolz]

But I see you as partners. If a solution is found, both communities will need to work together in order to make this country a better place to live. But I guess you want to hold the authorities on a national level, since gaining power in specific regions of the country is what you can easily achieve, right?

You see us as partners as long as if and when there is a disagreement about what should happen between the partners, one partner can enforce his will on the other aginst their will. That to me is not partnership.

The problem I have with this is that I am not willing to sacrifice any of my political rights in favor of you or any other person.

As an indivdual GC will have exactly the same rights as a TC indivdual. As a community the GC community will have exactly the same rights as the TC community. There is no sacrafice of your political rights required, just a will to accept that as communites we have equal rights and say ove what happens to the Island - something you are apparently not willing to accept.

What is this? You are telling me that it’s ok to mistreat people,

No I am not telling you this - these are words you have chosen to put into my mouth despite the fact that I did not utter them. The issue is should the Kurds in Turkey have the same political rights as a community as the TC community wants in Cyprus.

according to your definition, if no agreement was made before??? It is just the fact that in every country in the world, there are minorities and it is irrational to demand veto power or similar for those.

If you can show another country that was founded as an independent state on the basis of equailty of two communites then I wil accept that their situation is the same as ours. The fact is, despite your protestations, the TC community in Cyprus is not the same as say the Indian community in the UK. The indian community in the UK chose to go and live in a state (the UK) that already existed as a state. The TC community did not 'immigrate' into an existing (greek) Cypriot state and then start demanding political equality. They existed in Cyprus before the founding of a Cypriot state and that Cypriot state was based on a recognition of the equality of the two communites and AGREED by both the communites at that time. If you can not see this difference then I can help you no futher.

Yet, I am telling you that the time Turkey will allow for such a policy towards, the GC will accept the same.

I do not find this credible. You imply that if Turkey were to grant a degree of political equality to the Kurdish community in Turkey you (GC) would do the same to TC community in Cyprus. I just do not believe this. I think it is a 'excuse' to deny us our rights not a reason. That's just my personal opinion.

You are talking about unions of different states, do you realize that? But I know that this is the preferred scenario for some of you. You don’t care about unification but partition which can be named whatever you want to call it. Your main and only concern is how to legitimate the pseudostate.

You should read what I have written. I gave exmples of both federal states - where the component states have equailty regardless of their size - AND of uinons of nation states. I gave both examples because it was YOU that claimed that this was an issue of mathematics and mathemetics does not change in unions of nation states and in unions of components sates in a federal nation state. You want to present a view that any time a group has political represnetation disporportionate to it's indivduals numbers it represents an 'anormal' and 'undemocratic' sysytem - and this is a view that can not be supported with logicla arguments. Such systems of political representation disporportionate to indivduals numbers are neither anormal or undemocratic - be they sysytems within a (federal) nation state of between unions of nation states.