Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

World: CYPRUS: Who Is Right? Is Anyone?
Friday, May. 01, 1964

Last November, with the Greek government momentarily involved in a leadership crisis, President Makarios decided the time was ripe to "rebalance" the constitution. He submitted a 13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards. In a flash, Cyprus was up in arms. The Turkish Cypriots, backed by Ankara with its threats of invasion, cry for taksim—partition—or at least some form of cantonal federation. Greek Cypriot extremists, reviving the threat of enosis with Athens, have seriously suggested that all Turks be forcibly removed from the island and packed off to Turkey. Either solution appears unworkable. An outstanding Greek Cypriot leader might have avoided the current violence, which is killing Greeks as well as Turks, but Makarios is neither a great leader nor a notable humanitarian. He is a fairly skillful intriguer who deliberately unleashed forces he may no longer be able to control, even if he wanted to.

In sum, the Greeks have a sound point when they argue that the Turkish minority is blocking the democratic principle of majority rule. But the Turks are equally convincing when they contend that the Greeks under Makarios have abused their majority power, and are increasingly unwilling to let the Turks survive on the island. To a degree, the antagonists are victims of history. Yet the world, which these days demands—and gets—fairly rational behavior from the hostile big powers, has a right to ask a modicum of reason from both sides in this vicious little squabble.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... -3,00.html

[Piratis]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

[Viewpoint]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

All it was was so that you could gift Cyprus to Greece......time you realized that fact.

[Piratis]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

All it was was so that you could gift Cyprus to Greece......time you realized that fact.

By saying "gift" Cyprus, that would mean that we would give Cyprus to somebody else and we would leave from here. No, that is not the case. We would not "gift" Cyprus to anybody.

Just like we democratically choose to unite with EU, we had every right to unite with any other we choose.

How could it be OK for you to invade us and make Cyprus part of the Ottoman Empire against the will of the Cypriot people, (or for the British to make Cyprus part of their empire) but not OK for the Cypriot people to be liberated from foreign rulers and be part of a free Republic they choose to belong?

[Viewpoint]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

All it was was so that you could gift Cyprus to Greece......time you realized that fact.

By saying "gift" Cyprus, that would mean that we would give Cyprus to somebody else and we would leave from here. No, that is not the case. We would not "gift" Cyprus to anybody.

Just like we democratically choose to unite with EU, we had every right to unite with any other we choose.

How could it be OK for you to invade us and make Cyprus part of the Ottoman Empire against the will of the Cypriot people, (or for the British to make Cyprus part of their empire) but not OK for the Cypriot people to be liberated from foreign rulers and be part of a free Republic they choose to belong?

Joining the EU and uniting with Greece are two different things your constitution does not allow the later, did you know that? You knew full well that trying to force TCs to sign their own death warrant would not work, we fought for survival.

[Pax]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

An inherited constitution which is unilaterally changed by one party is not a democratic constitutional change. Whatever the problems with the 1960 constitution, whatever 'good intentions' Makarios may have had - of which, the kindest interpretation, there was much doubt - the unilateral moves had at least two effects : First, it removed Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights, and second it pushed Turkish Cypriots into a renewed sense of fear and persecution. To this day the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus has not been respected or restored. Maybe those constitutional changes were done for the best of reasons, with the best democratic hopes and with the equal interests at heart. But they were done unconstitutionally, illegitimately and undemocratically.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that constitutional crises cannot be settled by imposition but can only come about through negotiation between interested (domestic) parties.

[Viewpoint]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

An inherited constitution which is unilaterally changed by one party is not a democratic constitutional change. Whatever the problems with the 1960 constitution, whatever 'good intentions' Makarios may have had - of which, the kindest interpretation, there was much doubt - the unilateral moves had at least two effects : First, it removed Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights, and second it pushed Turkish Cypriots into a renewed sense of fear and persecution. To this day the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus has not been respected or restored. Maybe those constitutional changes were done for the best of reasons, with the best democratic hopes and with the equal interests at heart. But they were done unconstitutionally, illegitimately and undemocratically.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that constitutional crises cannot be settled by imposition but can only come about through negotiation between interested (domestic) parties.

Well said Pax.

[DT.]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

An inherited constitution which is unilaterally changed by one party is not a democratic constitutional change. Whatever the problems with the 1960 constitution, whatever 'good intentions' Makarios may have had - of which, the kindest interpretation, there was much doubt - the unilateral moves had at least two effects : First, it removed Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights, and second it pushed Turkish Cypriots into a renewed sense of fear and persecution. To this day the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus has not been respected or restored. Maybe those constitutional changes were done for the best of reasons, with the best democratic hopes and with the equal interests at heart. But they were done unconstitutionally, illegitimately and undemocratically.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that constitutional crises cannot be settled by imposition but can only come about through negotiation between interested (domestic) parties.

It was not an inherited constitution it was a newly designed and written consitution. The parties involved had firstly made an oath to serve the country of Cyprus and not their community. When one community identified in the constitution chooses to bring the entire country to a standstill and bankruptcy only to accomplish the first of many partitionist goals then you have a severe breach.

THe tax collection of the country was frozen and vetoed by the TC reps in order to blackmail the govt in granting separate municipalities.

Makarios titled his document Suggested Measures for Facilitating the Smooth Functioning of the State and for the Removal of Certain Causes of Intercommunal Friction,"

Kutchuk for your information was willing to discuss it (what it wasd meant for) but the Turkish govt rejected the entire proposal outright.

Now you tell me. The TC VP of Cyprus wants to discuss proposed amendments to the CYPRIOT constitution but TURKEY rejects the talks. Who breached what?

Why was Turkey allowed to dictate what would be discussed in Cyprus and what not?

[insan]

13-point amendment that effectively stripped the Turkish Cypriots of their safeguards.

To give 30% of civil servant positions to an 18% minority is a "safeguard"?

The foreign Imperialists who wrote the constitution of Cyprus granted Ottoman style privileges (not "safeguards") to the Turkish minority on our island, as a reward for the help that this minority gave to the foreign Imperialists to maintain troops and control over our island.

If there is a minority that needs safeguards that is the Greek minority in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give such "safeguards" to them?

The reforms Makarios proposed would simply make Cyprus more democratic and bring the Cyprus constitution in line with the constitutions of all other democracies. Nothing that Makarios proposed would make the TC minority to have any less rights than any other minority in any other country.

An inherited constitution which is unilaterally changed by one party is not a democratic constitutional change. Whatever the problems with the 1960 constitution, whatever 'good intentions' Makarios may have had - of which, the kindest interpretation, there was much doubt - the unilateral moves had at least two effects : First, it removed Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights, and second it pushed Turkish Cypriots into a renewed sense of fear and persecution. To this day the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus has not been respected or restored. Maybe those constitutional changes were done for the best of reasons, with the best democratic hopes and with the equal interests at heart. But they were done unconstitutionally, illegitimately and undemocratically.

Evidence from around the world demonstrates that constitutional crises cannot be settled by imposition but can only come about through negotiation between interested (domestic) parties.

It was not an inherited constitution it was a newly designed and written consitution. The parties involved had firstly made an oath to serve the country of Cyprus and not their community. When one community identified in the constitution chooses to bring the entire country to a standstill and bankruptcy only to accomplish the first of many partitionist goals then you have a severe breach.

THe tax collection of the country was frozen and vetoed by the TC reps in order to blackmail the govt in granting separate municipalities.

Makarios titled his document Suggested Measures for Facilitating the Smooth Functioning of the State and for the Removal of Certain Causes of Intercommunal Friction,"

Kutchuk for your information was willing to discuss it (what it wasd meant for) but the Turkish govt rejected the entire proposal outright.

Now you tell me. The TC VP of Cyprus wants to discuss proposed amendments to the CYPRIOT constitution but TURKEY rejects the talks. Who breached what?

Why was Turkey allowed to dictate what would be discussed in Cyprus and what not?

Actually, it was a diplomatic and strategic mistake by Turkey to immediately reject discussion of 13 points. What's happened then? Bloodshed, human losses, population movements, uneasiness, fears and tears followed. Then in 1967 with mediation of US and UN, ceasefire signed and talks between two communities initiated. Nevertheless, during the 7 years lasted talks the problem still couldn't be solved.

In order to complete this review I would like to put on record, once again, the vital concessions which I have indicated willingness to make; concessions, for which, the Greek side seems determined not to give anything in return, thus raising the pertinent question whether the exercise of the local talks was merely for amending the 1960 Constitution in such a way as to make the Independent Republic of Cyprus a convenient spring-board for Enosis! My whole purpose in these talks has been to amend the Constitution in such a way as would satisfy your side's demands without diminishing in any way or form the juridic stat- us of the Turkish Community and without imperiling the ultimate safety of the independence of Cyprus:

Concessions which the Turkish side has shown willingness to make:

(a) Abolition of the provisions of the Constitution which necessitated the appointment of non-Cypriots to the posts of Presidents of the Supreme Constitutional Court and the High Court;

(b) The amalgamation of the Supreme Constitutional Court with the High Court;

(c) The amalgamation of the gendarmerie with the police;

(d) Reduction of Turkish participation from 30% to 20%;

(e) Abolition of the provision of the Constitution requiring majority vote of both Communities in the public commission;

(f) Abolition of the provision of the Constitution requiring separate majority votes in the House on legislation dealing with all taxation matters, elections, municipalities.

(g) Abolition of veto powers in Foreign Affairs, Defence and Internal Security;

(h) Reduction of Turkish participation in the Army from 40% to 20%;

(i) Making it optional, for litigants to resort to the protection of Article 159.

(j) Reduction of Turkish participation from 30% to 20% in Town Planning Affairs as per Article 176.

I hope the above will give us a new ground for tackling the problem anew in a spirit of give and take. So far the Turkish side has been on the giving end; I hope your side will find it possible to be a little generous and understanding so that we can reach agreement on all outstanding issues.

Yours sincerely,

Rauf R. Denktash
President, Turkish Communal Chamber

If i'm not mistaken this proposal was made by TC side in 1973...
Can u please tell me what was absent in TC proposals and GC/Greek side didn't accept?

[Piratis]

It should actually be called a forced constitution since it was written by the foreign imperialists benefiting themselves and the TC minority (which helped them to defeat the revolution of the Cypriot people), and not by the Cypriot people, as it was our right.

If we were allowed to write our own constitution, as it was our right, we would make a fair workable constitution, in line with constitutions of all other democratic countries, and it would work perfectly. The same holds true today. Nothing imposed by foreigners by means of blackmail will work.