Cyprus-Forum.com

[pantelis]

Brother,
I am sure you know the story, but here it is, for those who don't.....

http://www.jamboree.freedom-in-educatio ... olomon.htm

[sadik]

2:59am (UK)
I rephrase and ask my question again:

What do the Turkish Cypriots wish?
To become (remain) a part of Turkey, or become a part of the EU (by uniting the rest of Cyprus), if it becomes evident that that Turkey does not stand a chance to be part of the EU?

Pantelis, Turkish Cypriots in general do not want to be a part of Turkey. For most of us, Turkey is a special country where part of our cultural heritage comes from, but Cyprus is our home and country.

Mr. Sadik,

When you say Cyprus is your home country, do you mean the “TRNC” -what we GCs call the occupied north Cyprus, or Cyprus in general -from one end to the other, from Karpas to Pafos, from kyrenia to Limassol?

Kifeas, why are you so surprised? I mean the whole Cyprus, one and united Cyprus. We, in general, are not interested in a separate independent country. Turkey, in the end, will swallow such a small and weak country. The only way we can gain true political power as a community is if we become partners in a united Cyprus again. This is the best option that will make it possible for us to have a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship both with the Greek Cypriots and Turkey, and prevent our community to be dissolved and assimilated by either.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas, why are you so surprised? I mean the whole Cyprus, one and united Cyprus. We, in general, are not interested in a separate independent country. Turkey, in the end, will swallow such a small and weak country. The only way we can gain true political power as a community is if we become partners in a united Cyprus again. This is the best option that will make it possible for us to have a healthy and mutually beneficial relationship both with the Greek Cypriots and Turkey, and prevent our community to be dissolved and assimilated by either.

Okay sadik, I fully appreciate what you are saying.
I would like to make some further questions, in order to fully understand exactly how you envision the present and more importantly the future.

How do you understand or explain the notion “united Cyprus,” that you are referring to? Do you for example mean “united” in a political sense and mainly for external use, or united also in an everyday practical, social, economic and human sense? To make it more clear, would you for example like to feel in exactly the same way when you are in Pafos, as you would like to feel when you are in Kyrenia -that both towns belong to your country and consequently, you have a right and a duty to be concerned about them in the same, almost equal manner?

How do you understand or explain the notion “true political power as a community,” that you used above? Do you for example interpret the notion “true” to mean an absolute and exclusively separate political power?

“Partners in a united Cyprus” is another notion that I would like to understand how you interpret it.

For the average GC, the sense of belonging to a country (a united Cyprus for instance,) would rather mean to be an equal citizen, both in terms of rights and duties, with every other single individual citizen of the whole country -irrespective of whatever individual characteristics and religious or ideological preferences. In that respect, he would rather view himself as a shareholder of one single share out of the 810,000 shares that the entire Cyprus “corporation” is divided into. More or less like it means for a Turkish citizen to be a one equal citizen (“shareholder”) in terms of rights and duties, with every one of the remaining 70 million other Turkish citizens. This kind of partnership would be the ideal for the average GC.

For the average TC this idea is completely rejected because it is viewed as disguised way in which the GC members of the Cypriot population will control the country, enhance the “hellenisation” of the island, assimilate the TC community and dilute its right for a separate political voice.

For the average TC, the ideal partnership is the one that regards Cyprus to be composed of only two separate ethnic communities, each one of them having on its own one single and equal share, out of the only two shares that the Cyprus “corporation” is divided into. This is regardless of the fact that there is a substantial numerical imbalance between the two “separate” communities, regardless of the fact that there are also some other smaller such communities which might rightfully would like to see a similar treatment and also regardless of the fact that in any country there are multiple other ways in which to sub-group a population, besides religious or linguistic characteristics. This is the partnership notion that was envisioned in the 1960 constitution and also by the A-plan, although under a different set-up, that of a BBF.

For the average GC this idea is equally rejected, because it violates the sense of equality in terms of duties, rights and obligations of each individual citizen versus any other citizen and instead it groups the citizens into two unequal -in terms of size and overall potential contribution- communities, simply because they differ in language, “ethnic” background and perhaps religious preferences.

Personally -being a GC, I would most definately prefer the first option. However, being a realist and also seeing and understanding the rightfull concerns and arguments of the TCs, I have come to the conclusion that we have to compromise on this issue in some middle point. We perhaps need to compromise on a notion of “partnership” that will synthesise and accommodate the above two idealistic notions in a new functional platform, without completely disregarding and leveling out any one of the two “extreme” approaches. A partnership notion that will alleviate the concerns and dislikes of one community towards the “ideal” partnership notion of the other.

How do you personally understand the issue of “partnership” that you made a reference above? Do you favour the TC idealistic partnership notion or you are willing to examine and discuss a third road, along the lines that I described above?

[Leon]

It may sound strange to some of you but when someone says "Cypriots" I automatically think of Greek-speakers in Cyprus, not Turkish-speakers, they don't enter my head. I think it's because I am a Greek-speaker and my holidays have been in Greek-speaking Cyprus and that's how I think, although I can't help it.

I actually agree that the Turks of Cyprus consider Cyprus as their home-land -- northern Cyprus, which is legally part of Greek-speaking Cyprus! Although the initial invasion was about a half a millenium ago (therefore it is not the modern day Turks' faults), it still happened and we were treated awfully by the Turks. Yet their families moved hear and generations have been born here, making a much larger Turkish-speaking population, and consider Cyprus their home and feel that they are Cypriot. I understand that and I would feel the same way if I was a Turkish-speaker of Cyprus. After years both the Greek-originating and Turkish-originating people grew up to know Cypriots (and when I say Cypriots in this case I mean the Greek-speakers) as the population they have lived with for generations, and know no different, so they talk, get on and live side-by-side. But there was always that hatred of Greeks (from Greece and Greek-speakers of Cyprus) ever since the original invasion and cruelty continued for hundreds of years. This without a doubt provoked Greeks and Cypriots (Greek-speakers) to always want revenge on the Turks (main-land Turks and those residing in Cyprus for years) and it seems to me that what I call the rebellion of the Greeks was inevitable. It wasn't just any old invasion, because the cruelty and what may even be described as the 'minor' ethnic-cleansing of Greeks continuing for centuries, it obviously still had a huge enough effect on the Greeks of the 1960s for people to want rid of the Turkish-speakers altogether. I'm not saying this was the correct solution, but I can sympathise with the Greeks and their actions to get back what was theirs. Although the Turkish-speakers at that time were not responsible for the dispute (it was of course their ancestors centuries before them) the Greeks considered them to be illegally occupying land that was not theirs. This was understandably difficult to fully realise for the Turkish-speakers since all they had knew was that their great-grandparents, great-great-grandparents, great-great-great-grandparents and so on were born, brought up and lived in Cyprus, which felt to be their home-land and their country. I can understand why the Greek-speakers reacted the way they did, but was violence really the answer? Some could argue yes, since in the early 19th century Cyprus tried re-uniting with Greece but failing to do so, and to desperately try again or to get their land back was to react in violent ways. Both sides have and admitted to committing disgusting, bloody, heart-less and cruel crimes to each other, but this solves nothing. There are still so many different aspects to look at and maybe there is no full solution to The Cyprus Problem. It's quite possible that the main-land Turks that moved to Cyprus within the last 100 years or so has fuelled the Greek-speakers' hatred even further and they started to categorize them as the same as the Turkish-speakers that had lived there for centuries, at the same time making the hatred of the two populations equal.

_____________________________________________________________

To be honest I don't know how the two separate languages situation in Cyprus survived all these centuries! I would've imagine dthat living side-by-side all these years and changes to the island gradually would've eventually developed into the two races speaking one language (I would assume Greek, Turkish or another language (possibly English)).

_____________________________________________________________

Leon .

[sadik]

How do you personally understand the issue of “partnership” that you made a reference above? Do you favour the TC idealistic partnership notion or you are willing to examine and discuss a third road, along the lines that I described above?

I understand it as in a bicomunal, bizonal federation. I do believe it's possible to establish a workable solution under a BBF, safeguarding individual freedoms and eventually restoring property rights, etc. There are ways to make a federation acceptable to GCs by carefullly defining where political equality will be enforced (constitutional issues, for example) and where a simple majority will be enough. What makes you think that it's not possible to achieve what you call "a third road" through these kinds of adjustments in the parameters of a solution.

I would like to remind you that all the negotiations for the last 31 years have been based on a federation, and it has been accepted many times by GC leaders. As far as I know, all the major GC political parties are also supporting this. I don't think it's quite possible to just say "well, we've been kidding with the world for the last 31 years, lets go back to square one".

Why do you think it might not be possible to releive most of GC worries within a federation?

[Kifeas]

I understand it as in a bicomunal, bizonal federation. I do believe it's possible to establish a workable solution under a BBF, safeguarding individual freedoms and eventually restoring property rights, etc. There are ways to make a federation acceptable to GCs by carefullly defining where political equality will be enforced (constitutional issues, for example) and where a simple majority will be enough. What makes you think that it's not possible to achieve what you call "a third road" through these kinds of adjustments in the parameters of a solution.

I would like to remind you that all the negotiations for the last 31 years have been based on a federation, and it has been accepted many times by GC leaders. As far as I know, all the major GC political parties are also supporting this. I don't think it's quite possible to just say "well, we've been kidding with the world for the last 31 years, lets go back to square one".

Why do you think it might not be possible to releive most of GC worries within a federation?

I did not say that any bi-communal, bi-zonal federation structure couldn’t accommodate what I envisioned as a third road. My notion hypothesis was more of a philosophical nature, rather than of a specific one. It can be applicable both in the case of a unitary sate and in that of a federation.

As a matter of fact, I do not see the option of going back into a unitary state structure as a pragmatic one. The established structures of both sides during all these years, will simply prohibit it from a practical aspect. I was just shocked the other day to read that there are 24,000 TC civil servants in the north. If it is correct, then there are nearly as many as in the south!

I am glad you are willing to at least look and examine this possibility in the parameters that I described in my previous posting. In essence, what I was talking about is what you defined above as an “approach which will carefully define where political equality will be enforced and where simple majority will be enough.” In other words, a gradual and climaxing scale between the two “extreme” and "ideal" notions -that of simple majority and that of political equality of two communities.

However, the Annan plan, imo, did not take this approach but instead it was yielding substantially more towards the TC “ideal” approach, which is that of a strict and almost absolute political equality between the two communities. I do not say that there were no elements favouring the GC “ideal” approach of simple majority, but they were of a very minimum level. Furthermore, the TC leadership seems to be entrenched behind this issue and doesn’t give any signs of willingness to accommodate the GC concerns. That in my opinion constitutes one of biggest psychological barriers for the GC side and gears it towards a hardening position on other issues.

What do you think on this issue?

[demetriou_74]

if somebody asked me what i am i would say greek. but if i was to ask a Tc they would call themselves cypriot. dont know why this is

[Kifeas]

if somebody asked me what i am i would say greek. but if i was to ask a Tc they would call themselves cypriot. dont know why this is

Demetriou,
Are you a Greek Cypriot, born and living in London?

[cannedmoose]

if somebody asked me what i am i would say greek. but if i was to ask a Tc they would call themselves cypriot. dont know why this is

And therein lies the problem... until the day comes when all regard themselves as Cypriots, the problems will remain

[Viewpoint]

cannedmoose

And therein lies the problem... until the day comes when all regard themselves as Cypriots, the problems will remain

so true, but we are no closer to agreeing anything and time will cement partition forever, as I have always said this will be our only alternative in 3 4 5 years time.