BirKibrisli wrote:I can see where you are coming from,dear Kikapu,but life is not a chess game...In a chess game (and I've never learned chess,so correct me if I am wrong) there is always a winner and a loser...Perhaps you can draw as well,I don't know,but that means the game is never finished....
In life,especially life of a nation or a community,things are never black and white...To get along in life you must develop the ability to see and deal with all the shades life throws at you...
Actually, Bir, the game of chess is not Black & White as the game is being played. It is very much like life and any business or settlement negotiations which includes all shades of grey. The only time that is Black & White with the game of chess, apart from the board and the pieces (in general), is that very last move of the piece that determines the outcome of the game to be a win, loss, voluntary agreed draw or an involuntary draw in the form of "stalemate", where there can be no legal moves possible. I sometimes think this is where the Cyprus problems lie, in this form of "stalemate".!
BirKibrisli wrote:It is one thing to talk about what you want from the TCs in a united Cyprus,it is another thing to join those who see everything in black and white terms... And critices the TCs for seeing things in black and white as well...do you get my meaning? I am making myself clear?The GCs here with the notable exception of Bananiot and miltiades,see everything in black and white...They were right in demanding ENOSIS with Greece,the TCs were wrong to oppose it...The EOKA fighters were heros,the TCs who thought otherwise were wrong...Makarios was right to want to change the constitution,the TCs who opposed it were wrong...There was nothing wrong with the treatment of the TCs during 63-74 period,the TCs who say otherwise are liers and exaggerators....etc etc...You get my gist...
I can't argue with much of what you have stated above and naturally each community have their own ways of looking at the past and what their desires were. But they are stating the truth as they saw/see it however, because if the TCs did not do this or the other, than there would be no problems in Cyprus according to the GCs. Same for the TCs, had the GCs did not do that and do this, then there would be no partition today. But the core problem for both sides all started with the creation of the 1960 Constitution that left the door open for either side to bring about Enosis or Taksim, just because True Democracy was not established, because the majority were not given their proportionate power and felt cheated and became resentful, and the TCs were given more than deserving which made them to become smug and arrogant, which in the end, such equal power given to each community, in the form of "Veto Power", was to become the death nail into any functioning country, specially each side wanting Enosis and Taksim.
Is it possible, had True Democracy was established in Cyprus with the 1960 Constitution that the GCs would not have seen a threat from the TCs and Turkey in their quest for Taksim, that they would have never seek Enosis with Greece.? I ask this, because at later stage when the GCs felt like they were in power solely between 1963-1974, they no longer were interested in Enosis. But since True Democracy was not established in 1960, it became a race between the communities as to who was going to achieve Enosis and Taksim first. In the end, Taksim is believed to have crossed the line first but has not been officially accepted as being the final result, but one thing for sure, the GCs have stopped looking for Enosis in the 1960's.
BirKibrisli wrote:When you just keep criticising the TCs and fail to say anything at all about the senarios I painted above,you stop being an objective observer who sees both sides of the equation,and become one who sees things from one side only...I used to do this myself,for the same reasons you suggested elsewhere,and it took me some time to realise what I was doing...I was essentially siding with the GC nationalists and putting the boot into my own people...I was not being part of the solution,I was being part of the problem...I am sorry but that is how I consider your position now...
There is a difference between making constructive criticism of my own peoples wrong doings and not agreeing with the GCs positions. Just because I do not criticise the GCs position on which ever topic it may be on, which I use to do a lot by the way when I first came to the CF, which didn't make the wrong doings of the TCs side to mean any less , it does not mean I agree with them on their position all the time. If you can show me where I give support in all their positions then you will have the right to state that I agree with them on everything. I agree on issues that revolves around Universally accepted principles such as Democracy, Human Rights, International Laws and now the EU Principles. To go against these principles will go totally against my own principles and values as someone who has lived in the western Democratic society for the last 44 years.
When ever Bananiot criticizes his own people, you will never see me criticize Bananiot or Miltiades in doing so. If I were to do that, you can say that I'm supporting all the GCs positions. It is a waste of time to go back and forth arguing about what the other side is doing wrong, when in fact my own side is not much better. It is far better to criticize your own side to get the message across that we will not tolerate our own peoples wrong doings, or else we become just collaborators and guilty by associations. I'm sorry, but I do not want any part of my sides own wrong doings to be accepted as being warranted and to be accepted, therefore, I will continue to criticize when need be. It is the least of any citizen of any country and community should do, and that is to hold their county and community accountable to their actions. Only in non democratic countries one cannot do this, or else they will end up in jail, or worse, be killed.
BirKibrisli wrote:No,I think you are putting the cart before the horse...You are saying we can have PEACE first and then empathy and understanding etc....I insist it sould be the other way around...I go back to my couple analogy...This couple had a short marriage full off physical and emotional abuse from both sides...They have been apart now for a long time...Nothing has been done to deal with their age old problems,and heal the trauma...Now you are saying these people can come back together without counselling and other expert assistance,without showing any remorse or regret, and hope to have a new start and make it a success...Impossible dream...
Your wife and husband analogy doesn't rally work, Bir, I'm sorry to say, because these are two people who initially wanted to be together, they had a life together, they had equal partnership since they each represented 50% to the marriage as two people. So, once they broke up and then wanted to resume their relationship once again, in order for them to go and seek counselling is in fact they would have already agreed to give it another chance before they have even gave empathy and understanding to the other person. That is to come after the counselling is done, by talking about their problems from the past and to make them better. Well, that's what the settlements talks are all about, it is that “counselling” you are talking about. It is to make a new understanding how they will continue with their lives in the future. This is what the settlement talks are all about. The couples wanting to make changes from the past mistakes, is what these settlement talks are all about, is to find an alternative to the past mistakes. So your Husband and Wife analogy is working, but not in the way you thought. It is once these settlements talks have been accepted by both sides that the healing of the past begins and empathy and understanding sinks in and becomes the norm. This is why I say, you are putting the cart before the horse. If it was the other way around, all the Cypriots would be in the streets together in demanding their leaders to accept a settlement already, just because the people themselves have forgiven each other to their past mistakes. That's not the way things are.!
BirKibrisli wrote:I have no problems with True Federation,if it could be achievable...In fact my position has not changed..I am for a Unitary state with full democracy and human rights,without the slightest regard to our ethnic origins...That would be the ideal solution for me..But it is not going to happen...Neither is your True Federation...It is too big a step now for the TCs...Viewpoint keeps telling you every day,and you know as well as I do that is the majority thinking...so what is the point in insisting on it...I can understand the GCs insisting on it,as they believe that is a political tactic in the age of full "democracy",and they hope and believe too perhaps,that enough international pressures will be put on Turkey to accept it,BUT IT WONT HAPPEN... So why are you,Kikapu,insisting on it??? Can't you see that by doing that now you are making sure no solution is found now and possibly never...???
I accept True Federation based on True Democracy, Human Rights, International Laws and EU Principles, because in the end is what is going to keep Cyprus intact as well as save the TCs from extinction. It is also, because it will be impossible to make the GCs accept anything less and go back to the 1960 type of a settlement after enjoying full democracy for the last 30+ years and now being part of the EU. You cannot put the Democracy genie back in the bottle. It is time that the TCs matured to accept the above principles if they have no desires to continue with the dream of Taksim. If they still have those Taksim dreams, then they will insist on having more of the same with the Annan plan where Turkey will control the north as well as the south through a Confederation type of a system. If you thought that a True Federation is not attainable, forget about a Confederation in the way what Turkey wants as you have seen in their recent demands. Now, Bir, you tell me, does what Annan Plan and Turkey demands sounds to you like it is peace for Cyprus and not partition.? Well, to me it is all partition and segregation, is the reason why I support True Federation which is what was agreed to, a BBF, which the "F" stands for Federation and not Confederation, which would be BBC instead.
You need to be careful linking VP and the majority TCs as being one, and if they are, then the status quo will continue. Lets look at what VP himself represents. He is a loyalist to Turkey and the settlers. He does not see himself as a Cypriot. He is a Fascist. He is a Racist. He is a NeoPartionist. He has no problems keeping and selling GC land. He supports Confederation as in the form of the Annan Plan. If the average TC feels the same way in the north, then there can be no peace, because they will not accept True Democracy which will kill their dreams of a permanent partition or keep the north of Cyprus as a pure TC land in the form of a Confederation. If the majority GCs will accept the above for a settlement, then the TCs can have what they want, but as the AP proved, they said OXI by 76%, and in my view, for someone who believes in democratic values, the GCs were correct in saying OXI to the AP, because if they had not, today we would not have had peace, but further turmoil of a system far worse than the 1960 constitution. I don't even think the RoC would have been a EU member, since the RoC would have ceased to exist as soon as the AP was accepted, which would have suited the TCs and Turkey, so that True Democracy, Human Rights, International Laws and EU Principles would not have applied to Cyprus, and Turkey would have had full control of the island and went ahead with her EU chapter talks. It would have been the case of “Mission Accomplished”.!
I'm sorry to say this, but those who supported the AP knowing full well it was not a peace plan but rather it was a partition plan, were doing disservice to all Cypriots. I'm sure many thought it was a peace plan because who knew what was in the 9,000+ pages. Most did not know, and despite that, all those who voted from both sides, voted against the AP by 55.5% vs. 44.5%. Today that percentage will be much higher, so what is the point in asking for anything but a True Federation, because it is the only plan that will secure the integrity of Cyprus for all Cypriots and kill any partition dreams of Taksim. Do you now see why I support True Federation for Cyprus, because I have lived in one for 25 years, the USA, and even the similar system of government in Switzerland, as a Confederation country, is much better than what AP was by light years .!
BirKibrisli wrote:We all do not know it,Kikapu...Ask Oracle,Epsilon,GR,Paphidis,Piratis,boomerang,B 25, polio...need I go on???
Why dont you tell us what you think we know,and see if we all agree...Sweping this under the carpet will not work...Lets see how many of us know exactly what happened and how many are still in denial...
I'll ask them to tell me that TCs did not suffer and that the TCs did not die. Anyone who says they have not are talking rubbish because you, me , Denis, Halil, YFred and many more have all witnessed it. I believe what they are saying, the GCs also suffered in the hands of the TCs and the Turkey, which is also true, is it not.??
BirKibrisli wrote:The 1960 syetem did not fail because there were not enough democracy or human rights...It failed becuase nobody gave a damn about these noble notions,and both sides had their own hidden ,or not so hidden,agendas..That is why it failed...without addressing this,openly and honestly and objectively,we cannot move on...
It failed because it allowed the parties to walk away from the government so to create a constitutional crises. This is what happens when government seats are allocated based on ethnic lines and then you give each side a "Veto Power" to bring the government to it's knees. Therefore, the weakness of the constitution was utilized by each side to seek their own destiny in the form of Enosis and Taksim, because the Constitution was not going to protect them, so they would seek the protection of Greece and Turkey by the communities. Little did they know, that all they were doing was helping Greece and Turkey to partition the island for themselves and leave the Cypriots in the cold. We can see what is happened to the TCs in the north, who have been swamped by the settlers. As soon as the TCs lose their government seats in the north in the coming years, where will they be, because they have already lost their voting power to the settlers. All their leaders were concerned about was to deliver the north to Turkey and the south to Greece. The GCs changed course in the 1960's in wanting Enosis, but the TCs are still trying to deliver the north to Turkey.
BirKibrisli wrote:Again,I understand why the GCs would have that suspicion or assumption about the TC motives...It suits them as it gives them the ammunition to press on with the democracy and human rights argument...But why do you,Kikapu ,feel the same way...??? Why do you not give the TCs the benefit of the doubt,and think they are truly fearful of GC intentions,given the past experiences???
We are now in the EU, therefore there is no way the GCs are going to accept any non Democratic settlement that does not include the EU Principles, nor will the EU accept it, so what is the point in wanting something that cannot be in what the TCs want. If the TCs (Turkey) does not want to permanently partition Cyprus by having some disguised plans in the form of a AP, then why not have a True Federation with all their concerns discussed and protected. To make sure of their security, we can have NATO in Cyprus until a time comes where they will not be needed. The GCs are giving into BBF with rotating presidency and a majority TCs in the north state which is a major benefit to the TCs from the 1960's, but the TCs will also need to give back in what they had in the 1960's. At the moment all I see is, the TCs want all that was in the 1960's agreement, and a BBF in the form of a Confederation which is no assurance to the GCs that the island will not be partitioned anyway, so they would rather keep the status quo than give into the TCs and Turkey in what they demand. It’s not going to happen.!
BirKibrisli wrote:I know that the TCs are too traumatised by the past events to trust anyone else but Turkey in the short term...Asking that they give up this protection altogether you are making the same mistake as the GCs...You are asking the impossible and hoping that international pressure will bring it about,despite the genuine TC fears...You too are disregarding the TC concerns...It does not matter if these concerns are real or imaginary....But they must be taken into account...That is the reality,Kikapu...Frustrating as it might be...
Then tell me Bir, what is it that the GCs should do to accommodate the TCs concerns, because lets face it, it is not the TCs who are in control of their own destiny, but Turkey. Don't you think the TCs living in the north state as they are now will have security in numbers.? They will run their own state with the laws generated in that state as long as it does not violate the Federal Laws. Having NATO forces to act as security, which will also include Turkish soldiers. Is having a rotating presidency and equal number of upper house seats in the senate, providing they give 50% of the north back to the GCs to become part of the south state.? Are these not enough.? At some point the TCs will need to trust the GCs as the GCs will need to trust the TCs, specially the RoC being in the EU, but if there are some that will not, then it is only fair to ask that they re-settle in Turkey with the settlers until a time comes where they can see a working system in Cyprus with the remaining TCs in Cyprus where they can come back when they are feeling secure. What else needs to be done, other than violating the rights of the majority once again as it was done with the 1960 constitution, the 2004 Annan Plan.? Why is it that TCs can only feel secure if they can only violate others rights, but when it comes to their rights, they must be above everyone else’s.? Is this a logical way to have peace, I ask.!
