BirKibrisli wrote:Piratis wrote:B25, Bir is not the same as VP. Unfortunately he lost the ability to see objectively recently.
I excuse him because I believe his aim is to get any kind of "solution" that would stop TCs from being swallowed by Turkey. I also believe him when he says that he would personally accept a true democracy with human rights for all. So he is nothing like VP.
What he does not understand is that the price he is asking from us to pay in order to save his community is way too high. Human rights and democracy are extremely valuable things and we are not going to sacrifice what is most important to save TCs from their self-destruction.
He also accepts the excuses of people like VP and he thinks that we can have a bad "solution" right now, and that this bad "solution" can help to improve the climate between Cypriots (it will actually worsen it) and that after some time it will become possible to change to something better. Probably he missed what VP (the average TC) keeps saying: "If you didn't like it you shouldn't have signed it".
Human rights and democracy
are extremely valuable,dear Piratis,but they shouldn't be an end in themselves...That is my whole point...It is too big a step for the TCs to jump from where we are today to a fully functioning democracy with human rights...You keep saying the 1960 agreements didnt work because they were imposed on the GCs...Why should a new agreement work if it is imposed on the TCs,democratic of otherwise..??? If we open a parathesis here,there are many countries who are supposedly democratic,like Turkey,Greece,Russia,Romania,Albania,Serbia,Croatia,Bosnia etc etc...Go and ask the minorities in those countries if they are happy with their lot...Any system,including democracy,is only as good as the people who run it...I am not trying to run down the virtues of democracy..Just trying to bring some reality into the situation...One of the two sides in the Cyprus conflict wants more than the implied protections of a democratic system...They cannot bring themselves to trust the other side to play the game by the rules...So what is the point of insisting on your uncompromising position if you know it wont be acceptable??? I would like to get a logical explanation on this one,Piratis,as i am truly puzzled...
You see Bir we have a fundamental difference in the way we view things here. For me a true democracy is extremely important and Human rights
are in fact an end in themselves. (if you disagree with me then you have to explain me what other end the human rights serve).
We are all part of some minority in some occasion or another and very often we all find ourselves in disagreement and unhappy with the decisions of a democratically elected government. This is how it is in
all democracies, not just the ones you mentioned.
The point of a democracy is not to have
everybody in agreement. Such thing is
impossible. The point is to take decisions with the largest possible consent, while at the same time respecting the human rights of
all people.
As I said many times I am all for a solution that will make the TCs feel more secure. Proportional representation at all levels, veto on constitutional changes, demilitarization, international force etc. Such things will make the TCs more secure not only when compared to "democracies" like Turkey (they just banned the Kurdish party again), but even when compared with other good democracies.
But to put an argument of the kind: "Lets violate the human rights of GCs in order to remove the possibility that the human rights of TCs will be violated" is an argument that doesn't make sense at all. I hope you will agree with me!!
I insist on what is
fundamental, such as human rights and democracy because without these fundamental elements there can not be a
solution. If those elements are not acceptable by the TCs that means a solution is not acceptable by them. Am I supposed to accept something which is not a solution, but will create even more problems for us, just so the TCs will get what they want and have even more gains on our expense?