Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Did the Kurds ever rule the whole of Turkey?

Did the Kurds have a similar 1960 constitition like ours???

Should the Turks in Thrace have the same rights???

The Cyprus issue is original and shoudl not be confused with other international issue like the Kurds in Turkey.

[erolz]

You have to decide if the basis for your struggles is your inalienable human and cultural rights, or if instead it is some historical agreement signed at some point in the past.

What is the basis for human rights if not some historical agreement signed at some point in the past?

Human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well). Just the same as the 1960 agreements as I see it.

I am not sure I see your distinction here?

[Piratis]

What is the basis for human rights if not some historical agreement signed at some point in the past?

Human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments (and in national laws as well). Just the same as the 1960 agreements as I see it.

I am not sure I see your distinction here?

You are wrong. Treaties have nothing to do with human rights. The powerful can force to the weak an unfair treaty and countries can make laws that are against human rights. If you want examples let me know, there are plenty.

The human rights are universal, and can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[erolz]

You are wrong. Treaties have nothing to do with human rights.

from http://www.bayefsky.com/ (my empahsis)

The UN human rights treaties are at the core of the international system for the promotion and protection of human rights. Every UN member state is a party to one or more of the seven major human rights treaties. It is a universal human rights legal system which applies to virtually every child, woman or man in the world.

The powerful can force to the weak an unfair treaty and countries can make laws that are against human rights. If you want examples let me know, there are plenty.

The human rights are universal, and can be found here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

The law of gravity is universal (as far as we know / understand). Human rights laws are nothing more than a construct of humans - a set of laws and agreements and treaties between various groups that embody certain ideals about how humans should treat each other. As such they are little different in substance than other laws, agreements and treaties between groups of people.

This idea that human rights are different and of a 'higher order' from other forms of international and national agreements treaties and laws is to me a kind of GC pyschosis. If only GC had shown such 'comittment' to human rights when they had the 'balance of power' (63-74), instead of the total contempt they actualy showed towards the ideals of human rights, then we almost certainly would not be in the mess we are in today. If you can not see this and realise why in light of the total contempt shown by the 'RoC' for human rights in the period 63-74, such lectures and moralising today by GC on the 'universiality' and 'primacy' of human rights do nothing to help us find a solution, then there is little more to be said on the subject as far as I am concerned.

[gabaston]

Piratis

The powerful can force to the weak an unfair treaty and countries can make laws that are against human rights. If you want examples let me know, there are plenty.

This is what we've been saying since 63

[Piratis]

Human rights are enshrined in various treaties between governments

Erolz, I hope you understand the difference between the international human rights treaties of UN and the treaties between governments. The second has NOTHING to do with human rights.

It is just pathetic that you claim that the TCs should have more human rights than Kurds or Greek Cypriots. As you said in your own quote : "It is a universal human rights legal system which applies to virtually every child, woman or man in the world." Therefore how can you claim that the TCs can have more human rights than anybody else?

As Alexandros said earlier, if you bring up those 1960 treaties you have to be ready to accept them in full. Not just the parts that suit you.

[erolz]

Erolz, I hope you understand the difference between the international human rights treaties of UN and the treaties between governments. The second has NOTHING to do with human rights.

With respect you are just wrong. Again with respect try reading the following links

http://www.universalrights.net/main/histof.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/hrhistory.html

some brief extracts for you (my empahsis)

"The greatest 20th century statements of 'natural' or human rights can be dated to 1948, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This preceded a range of international Conventions, Covenants, Declarations and other treaties that have followed the tradition. Most came from the United Nations. But other groups have also adopted human rights standards. The European community, for example, has adopted a Convention on Human Rights. Many nations have incorporated rights into their national constitutions - acknowledging that the rights exist, not that they are created by their laws."

It is just pathetic that you claim that the TCs should have more human rights than Kurds or Greek Cypriots.

You are right it is absolutely pathetic to claim that TC should have more rights than anyone else. If I had ever done that you accusation might have been appropriate. Unfortunately (for your argument) I have never done this.

We have been round this topic so many times already, but once more. Human rights as defined by the UN charters apply to both indivduals and to 'peoples'. My view has been and remains that as indivduals we should be equal. As partner communites in a shared country we should be equal. I am not asking for extra rights - just the same rights I accpet thet GC community has as a community and GC indvduals have as indivduals. Nothin more.

As you said in your own quote : "It is a universal human rights legal system which applies to virtually every child, woman or man in the world." Therefore how can you claim that the TCs can have more human rights than anybody else?

Again if I had said this then you might have a point. I have not and you do not.

As Alexandros said earlier, if you bring up those 1960 treaties you have to be ready to accept them in full. Not just the parts that suit you.

If GC had been ready and willing to implement the 1960 treaties in full and not just the parts that suited GC from 1960 onwards we would not be in this mess today. The TC community would have 'bitten their own arms off' to have had a return to the 1960 treaties in full from 63 onwards - but before we had the guns of Turkey GC showed little interest in such.

[detailer]

how many TC president you had?

We had one!
Dr Kutchuk from 1960 until 1963!

You might not know it but the Cypriot government (RoC) was a bicephalous (double-headed,) one. It was a diarchy system with two presidents, a TC and a GC. The one was “navigating” the steering wheel of the car and the other was “holding” the brakes, according to Dr. Kutchuk’s famous assertion after the “independence.” Of course it is inevitable that such a car riding will only have one faith, to crash in the first turn or dive into the next cliff.

Well, Kifeas, you are simply justifiying partition by your comments

[Kifeas]

how many TC president you had?

We had one!
Dr Kutchuk from 1960 until 1963!

You might not know it but the Cypriot government (RoC) was a bicephalous (double-headed,) one. It was a diarchy system with two presidents, a TC and a GC. The one was “navigating” the steering wheel of the car and the other was “holding” the brakes, according to Dr. Kutchuk’s famous assertion after the “independence.” Of course it is inevitable that such a car riding will only have one faith, to crash in the first turn or dive into the next cliff.

Well, Kifeas, you are simply justifiying partition by your comments

Why?

This was Dr. Kutchuk's famous assertion, not mine! I just added my comments to it in a humorous way (I hope!)

He said, "Makarios will be holding the steering wheel and I will be holding the brake pedal."

[detailer]

Detailer, I am not sure about the strength of the argument you have used ... there is such a thing as universal rights, so if it is right for TCs to enjoy partnership and equality within a United Cyprus - or, failing that, their own state - then it is also right for Kurds to enjoy partnership and equality within a United Turkey - or, failing that, their own state.

I think I couldnt explain my point. In the end of the day, the right of bizonality, federation or partition for different communities can change for how you look at it ( I am not talking about the basic human rights).

You can bring some arguments that Kurds in Turkey need bizonality as much TC in Cyprus, and I can bring some arguments against it. Kurds and Turkish are both muslims for example, they fought against russians, french and armenians in 20ies where I dont think this is the case for TC and GC.

You have to decide if the basis for your struggles is your inalienable human and cultural rights, or if instead it is some historical agreement signed at some point in the past. If you opt the second, i.e. the legal precedent approach - then you should also be prepared to accept a full return to the 1960 constitution, a full return of all property to those who hold the original title for it, no bizonality whatsoever, etc.

I don't agree. GC or greeks(whoever) started a war because they didnt like the agreement and lost the war. Then as the winner, Turkey has the right of forcing its terms (with respecting basic GC human rights of course) to find the "equivalent" of 1960 agreements which will survive this time. I am sorry to repeat this everytime, but when you start a war and lose it, you should be ready that winner is going to adjust the valid agreement based on her needs.

If instead you opt for the human/cultural rights approach, then you are entitled to ask for whatever you think your TC culture needs in order to survive historically - including bizonality, power sharing on an equal footing and other such things - but you also have to be willing to grant the exact same rights to others who find themselves in a similar position - namely the Kurds in Turkey. If I tell you that Turkey should evolve into a Bizonal Bicommunal Federation, with 60 million ethnic Turks controlling the one zone, and 20 million ethnic Kurds controlling the other zone, and both these constituent states sharing power equally on the Federal Level, (or if the ethnic Turks don't want to concede that, then the Kurds should be entitled to their own state), what possible argument could you, as a Turkish Cypriot, have against this?

As I said, this argument is subjective and getting partition or whatsoever depends on military/economic/political pwer of the relevant parties whether we like it or not. Again to make myself clear, I am not talking about the basic human rights which everyone deserves.