Cyprus-Forum.com

[Expatkiwi]

The recent postings here in this forum has made me wonder about a few things. As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence). A state was formed as a result of the UDI, yet is treated as a pariah by most of the world. The end result is that the TRNC utterly relies on Turkey for its existance, which of course makes it more a dependency of Turkey than a sovereign state.
The TRNC having its organs of governmental authority answerable to Ankara further erodes its independence. This makes me wonder if this is solely due to necessity, or is thinly disguised opportunism on behalf of the TRNC's protective power (Turkey).
A besieged nation-state needs protection in order to survive. Israel is a prime example of that type of nation. Still, when does protection from a powerful ally turn into a controlling country treating the host nation as a colony? As Turkey is the only sovereign county to recognize the TRNC's independence, and as Turkey is the only conduit for the TRNC to the outside world, it can be argued that such a high level of control is inevitable, at least until other countries recognize the TRNC. The idealist in me understands this logic, but the example of Hatay's absorbance into Turkey has established a precedence for the possibility of Turkey's annexing TRNC in a similar fashion. The influx of Anatolian migrants lends credence to this argument.
I'd like to think that Turkey would not annex the TRNC, but with the back-stabbing nature of realpolitik being ever-present, I am concerned at the eventual outcome. The choice - other than assured and respected independence and sovereignty for the TRNC - is either absorbion by Turkey, or absorbion by Southern Cyprus. Therefore, my idealism - like the TRNC - seems to lie between the rock and a hard place. I'm sure that a lot of you are having a good chuckle at that.

[Malapapa]

You support the independence of a rogue state, established on the forced expulsion and stolen land of many thousands of people, and you have the temerity to consider this as idealism? And then you wonder why your idealism, like your rogue state, is caught between a rock and a hard place?

I am indeed having a good chuckle.

[Piratis]

As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence).

Self-determination is when you determine the destiny of your own self and what belongs to you. Not when you take by force what belongs to others by over 80%, ethnically cleanse them, replace them with foreign settlers, and then declare some "state" on this stolen land.

If the Turkish minority want to be independent from the rest of the population of this island, the only way they can legally do it is to go back to where they came from. After all it was their choice to come to Cyprus and mix with us without even asking for our permission.

The TCs have absolutely no legal or moral basis to demand a separate state on land where we (and not them) have been the majority for 1000s of years.

This is why the pseudo state they created by means of invasion and ethnic cleansing of the majority of the population, is not recognized and will never be recognized.

[Oracle]

The recent postings here in this forum has made me wonder about a few things. As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence). A state was formed as a result of the UDI, yet is treated as a pariah by most of the world. The end result is that the TRNC utterly relies on Turkey for its existance, which of course makes it more a dependency of Turkey than a sovereign state.
The TRNC having its organs of governmental authority answerable to Ankara further erodes its independence. This makes me wonder if this is solely due to necessity, or is thinly disguised opportunism on behalf of the TRNC's protective power (Turkey).
A besieged nation-state needs protection in order to survive. Israel is a prime example of that type of nation. Still, when does protection from a powerful ally turn into a controlling country treating the host nation as a colony? As Turkey is the only sovereign county to recognize the TRNC's independence, and as Turkey is the only conduit for the TRNC to the outside world, it can be argued that such a high level of control is inevitable, at least until other countries recognize the TRNC. The idealist in me understands this logic, but the example of Hatay's absorbance into Turkey has established a precedence for the possibility of Turkey's annexing TRNC in a similar fashion. The influx of Anatolian migrants lends credence to this argument.
I'd like to think that Turkey would not annex the TRNC, but with the back-stabbing nature of realpolitik being ever-present, I am concerned at the eventual outcome. The choice - other than assured and respected independence and sovereignty for the TRNC - is either absorbion by Turkey, or absorbion by Southern Cyprus. Therefore, my idealism - like the TRNC - seems to lie between the rock and a hard place. I'm sure that a lot of you are having a good chuckle at that.

What other illegal enterprises do you also support, Expatkiwi?

You really strike me as an unwholesome character ...

[Expatkiwi]

The recent postings here in this forum has made me wonder about a few things. As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence). A state was formed as a result of the UDI, yet is treated as a pariah by most of the world. The end result is that the TRNC utterly relies on Turkey for its existance, which of course makes it more a dependency of Turkey than a sovereign state.
The TRNC having its organs of governmental authority answerable to Ankara further erodes its independence. This makes me wonder if this is solely due to necessity, or is thinly disguised opportunism on behalf of the TRNC's protective power (Turkey).
A besieged nation-state needs protection in order to survive. Israel is a prime example of that type of nation. Still, when does protection from a powerful ally turn into a controlling country treating the host nation as a colony? As Turkey is the only sovereign county to recognize the TRNC's independence, and as Turkey is the only conduit for the TRNC to the outside world, it can be argued that such a high level of control is inevitable, at least until other countries recognize the TRNC. The idealist in me understands this logic, but the example of Hatay's absorbance into Turkey has established a precedence for the possibility of Turkey's annexing TRNC in a similar fashion. The influx of Anatolian migrants lends credence to this argument.
I'd like to think that Turkey would not annex the TRNC, but with the back-stabbing nature of realpolitik being ever-present, I am concerned at the eventual outcome. The choice - other than assured and respected independence and sovereignty for the TRNC - is either absorbion by Turkey, or absorbion by Southern Cyprus. Therefore, my idealism - like the TRNC - seems to lie between the rock and a hard place. I'm sure that a lot of you are having a good chuckle at that.

What other illegal enterprises do you also support, Expatkiwi?

You really strike me as an unwholesome character ...

Oracle, I beleive that the Greek side was at fault with the intercommunal conflict in 1963. By that, the Turkish Cypriots deserve to have their own part of the island to live in and be safe. What the GC's did in 1963, culminating in the coup in 1974 was unwholesome. Just being Greek in origin doesn't make whatever you do right.

[Expatkiwi]

You support the independence of a rogue state, established on the forced expulsion and stolen land of many thousands of people, and you have the temerity to consider this as idealism? And then you wonder why your idealism, like your rogue state, is caught between a rock and a hard place?

I am indeed having a good chuckle.

Your side tried to wipe the Turkish Cypriot presence off the island on more than one occasion. You think that was morally right, let alone legal? By those actions, your side forfeited its moral authority to govern all of the island. Or do you go by the logic that Greek crimes are 'prudent' whilst Turkish countermeasures are 'barbaric'?

[Oracle]

The recent postings here in this forum has made me wonder about a few things. As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence). A state was formed as a result of the UDI, yet is treated as a pariah by most of the world. The end result is that the TRNC utterly relies on Turkey for its existance, which of course makes it more a dependency of Turkey than a sovereign state.
The TRNC having its organs of governmental authority answerable to Ankara further erodes its independence. This makes me wonder if this is solely due to necessity, or is thinly disguised opportunism on behalf of the TRNC's protective power (Turkey).
A besieged nation-state needs protection in order to survive. Israel is a prime example of that type of nation. Still, when does protection from a powerful ally turn into a controlling country treating the host nation as a colony? As Turkey is the only sovereign county to recognize the TRNC's independence, and as Turkey is the only conduit for the TRNC to the outside world, it can be argued that such a high level of control is inevitable, at least until other countries recognize the TRNC. The idealist in me understands this logic, but the example of Hatay's absorbance into Turkey has established a precedence for the possibility of Turkey's annexing TRNC in a similar fashion. The influx of Anatolian migrants lends credence to this argument.
I'd like to think that Turkey would not annex the TRNC, but with the back-stabbing nature of realpolitik being ever-present, I am concerned at the eventual outcome. The choice - other than assured and respected independence and sovereignty for the TRNC - is either absorbion by Turkey, or absorbion by Southern Cyprus. Therefore, my idealism - like the TRNC - seems to lie between the rock and a hard place. I'm sure that a lot of you are having a good chuckle at that.

What other illegal enterprises do you also support, Expatkiwi?

You really strike me as an unwholesome character ...

Oracle, I beleive that the Greek side was at fault with the intercommunal conflict in 1963. By that, the Turkish Cypriots deserve to have their own part of the island to live in and be safe. What the GC's did in 1963, culminating in the coup in 1974 was unwholesome. Just being Greek in origin doesn't make whatever you do right.

Do you realise how stupid you sound?

[YFred]

The recent postings here in this forum has made me wonder about a few things. As you all know, I support TRNC independence from the viewpoint of self-determination (as was stated in the text of the 1983 Unilateral Declaration of Independence). A state was formed as a result of the UDI, yet is treated as a pariah by most of the world. The end result is that the TRNC utterly relies on Turkey for its existance, which of course makes it more a dependency of Turkey than a sovereign state.
The TRNC having its organs of governmental authority answerable to Ankara further erodes its independence. This makes me wonder if this is solely due to necessity, or is thinly disguised opportunism on behalf of the TRNC's protective power (Turkey).
A besieged nation-state needs protection in order to survive. Israel is a prime example of that type of nation. Still, when does protection from a powerful ally turn into a controlling country treating the host nation as a colony? As Turkey is the only sovereign county to recognize the TRNC's independence, and as Turkey is the only conduit for the TRNC to the outside world, it can be argued that such a high level of control is inevitable, at least until other countries recognize the TRNC. The idealist in me understands this logic, but the example of Hatay's absorbance into Turkey has established a precedence for the possibility of Turkey's annexing TRNC in a similar fashion. The influx of Anatolian migrants lends credence to this argument.
I'd like to think that Turkey would not annex the TRNC, but with the back-stabbing nature of realpolitik being ever-present, I am concerned at the eventual outcome. The choice - other than assured and respected independence and sovereignty for the TRNC - is either absorbion by Turkey, or absorbion by Southern Cyprus. Therefore, my idealism - like the TRNC - seems to lie between the rock and a hard place. I'm sure that a lot of you are having a good chuckle at that.

What other illegal enterprises do you also support, Expatkiwi?

You really strike me as an unwholesome character ...

...and you sound to me like a bag of organic fertiliser. I am sure our Kiwi friend supports like all of us the same illegal enterprises that go on in the so called "roc" with the TC lands. Surely even a bag of organic fertiliser like you can appreciate the enterprisal instincts of your average TC business man.

[AmericanGC]

The inter communal violence was started by the TMT(Turks), EOKA responded to TMT but EOKA was not formed to fight the Turks. It was formed for the independence of Cyprus from British rule and the unification with Greece(enosis). There is nothing unjust or immoral about a community of a majority over 80 percent ethnic Greeks wanting independence and unification with Greece.

[Malapapa]

You support the independence of a rogue state, established on the forced expulsion and stolen land of many thousands of people, and you have the temerity to consider this as idealism? And then you wonder why your idealism, like your rogue state, is caught between a rock and a hard place?

I am indeed having a good chuckle.

Your side tried to wipe the Turkish Cypriot presence off the island on more than one occasion. You think that was morally right, let alone legal? By those actions, your side forfeited its moral authority to govern all of the island. Or do you go by the logic that Greek crimes are 'prudent' whilst Turkish countermeasures are 'barbaric'?

My side? This isn't a football match but a human tragedy. An "idealist" like you should appreciate the difference... or maybe not.