Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

Dear Forum members please read this paragraph and comment how can anyone agree anything with this mindset nothing has changed from 1960s the ideals and blindness is still the same thank god the GCs voted No to the Annan plan;

The GC side, in its own homeland, did not pursue any objectives that would have meant the destruction of the TC communities rights to some “agreed” “partnership” in their own homeland, but only to remove the excessive and disproportionate constitutional and “partnership” rights that the TC community in their own homeland had unfairly acquired, as a result of circumstantial and arbitrary “agreements” that were imposed on the people of Cyprus, in their own homeland. There was no planning nor envision on the part of the GC community to destroy the TC community nor the removal of those excessive and unfair constitutional rights would have let to such an outcome. I do not see why you would have not been allowed to call yourselves a TC community or whatever else you wished to call your selves, in the same way that The GCs would have continued to call them selves a Greek Cypriot community. I call my self a Cypriot and no one imposes to me any penalty, tax or fine to me for calling my self so. Enosis with either Turkey or Greece could have been a legitimate outcome, only as a result of the entire Cypriot people’s free exercising of their self-determination right and provided that no fundamental human rights of any Cypriot would have been affected! In such a case, I would personally have had no problem. No community by itself and alone had and has a separate self-determination right! Only the entire people of Cyprus have!

I really despair

[Kifeas]

Dear Forum members please read this paragraph and comment how can anyone agree anything with this mindset nothing has changed from 1960s the ideals and blindness is still the same thank god the GCs voted No to the Annan plan;

The GC side, in its own homeland, did not pursue any objectives that would have meant the destruction of the TC communities rights to some “agreed” “partnership” in their own homeland, but only to remove the excessive and disproportionate constitutional and “partnership” rights that the TC community in their own homeland had unfairly acquired, as a result of circumstantial and arbitrary “agreements” that were imposed on the people of Cyprus, in their own homeland. There was no planning nor envision on the part of the GC community to destroy the TC community nor the removal of those excessive and unfair constitutional rights would have let to such an outcome. I do not see why you would have not been allowed to call yourselves a TC community or whatever else you wished to call your selves, in the same way that The GCs would have continued to call them selves a Greek Cypriot community. I call my self a Cypriot and no one imposes to me any penalty, tax or fine to me for calling my self so. Enosis with either Turkey or Greece could have been a legitimate outcome, only as a result of the entire Cypriot people’s free exercising of their self-determination right and provided that no fundamental human rights of any Cypriot would have been affected! In such a case, I would personally have had no problem. No community by itself and alone had and has a separate self-determination right! Only the entire people of Cyprus have!

I really despair

Of course you despair!
Because this is contrary to what they have made you believe in school!

Of course you despair!
Because the truth is contrary to what you was made to believe and it also does not serve your partition thesis!

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas you do very well in serving mine and many other TCs partition thesis, keep it up great job..

[erolz]

Are you trying to just explain the Turkish stance or you are also trying to excuse it?

explain it from a TC perspective.

If you are just explaining it, then you are also accepting the illegality of this operation.

I have always accepted the illegality of the ultimate result of Turkish action in 74. The only caveats I talk about are the 'realites' of international law as opposed to national laws and the ide that we should concern ourselves only with these illgalites and ignore other previous ones.

The negotiations between the two communities did not fail, as you conveniently want to believe but to the contrary, there was a lot of progress and most critical issues had been resolved. The fact that a final agreement had not been signed is not because these negotiations were into constant deadlocks but purely due to some minor differences, which were a matter of more time to also become resolved.

This not my understanding but as ever I am willing to become more 'educated' and re evalute my perspective. My current perspective is that agreement had been all but reached by Klerides / Denktash but that Makraios was agsint these agreements and refused to sign them. It is also my perspective that overall and in balance these agreements were a reduction in the rights of the TC community in CYprus vs the original 1960 consitituion.

In any case, Turkey did not have a right to impose any solution by the use of force and the fact that it went this direction proves the unethical character of Turkish politics all along those years and which continues up to this date.

I do not claim that Turkey had a (legal) right to impose a solution, just has pre 74 a GC numerical majority did not have a right to impose it's will on the TC with either force or deception.

Not maybe but for certain the results would have not been any better or any different. Perhaps a few less people would have been killed as a result of the military action, but in essence the results would have been exactly the same!

That is your view and prediction. Mine perspective and prediction is somewhat different.

I do not know where and how you read this, but most likely you are making a false interpretation.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c9 ... endocument

The right of self-determination is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights.

However, since you so often like to speak about this self-determination right, I would like to stress this. The Turkish Cypriot community, as well as any other community, did not and do not have a separate or exclusive self-determination right.

I agree totaly just as I agree the same is true for the GC community in Cyprus.

The Turkish Cypriot community doesn’t form a people,

Here I disagree. Certainly in comparsion to the thesis that there is a single Cypriot people and only a single cyptiot people - to me this is much less supportable in logic, reality, 'natural justice' and the spirit and intent of the UN charhters on the rights of peoples.

nor it historically possesses a separate and exclusive area of Cyprus in which it traditionally constitute the overwhelming majority, something which can rightfully be alleged about the Kurds and their historical Kurdish areas in southeast Turkey and north Iraq, or the Basques in Spain.

The ownersjip / control of an exclusive area is not the only determining factor in establishing the status of a group as a peoples.

In Cyprus, only the Cypriot people as a whole and irrespective of religious, cultural and linguistic differences, have such a self-determination right.

This to me is a blantant perversion of the ideas and intent of the rights of peoples to self determination. It is not based in notions of 'justice' and 'rights' but simply a notion maintained by GC simply and purely because it meets their (purely GC) desires for Cyprus. The basic intent of the right of self determiantion of a peoples is that one permanent and non changing group based on ethnicity, language, culture or race should dominate another and impose their wishes on the other against the will of the other.

Under no circumstances the TC community can claim to have a separate individual and exclusive self-determination right, in view of the fact that it was a numerical minority, spread evenly all around Cyprus. What you tried to say above is a complete fallacy.

I do not claim and never have claimed that the TC community has an exclusive right to self determination. Just as GC do not have this right either. In a situation such as in Cyprus both sides need to respect each others rights to not be dominated by the other and the necessity of compromise of the full exercise of the right to self determination based on the fact that we lived in a shared country. The impression I have is that even today many GC still refuse to accept this and insit that to all practical puproses only the GC community in Cyprus has a right to determine the future of Cyprus without effective let or hinderance and despite a history where GC persued purely GC desires for Cyprus.

First you wrongly assumed that the TC community has a separate self-determination right and secondly you again wrongly assumed that this right is paramount (super seats) to the fundamental human rights (you said these fundamental human rights derive for the SD right and that they are meaningless without it,) in order to rationalise and legitimise the expelling of CCs from their homes and properties (a violation of their fundamental human rights,) in favour of the “paramount” self determination “right” of the TC community.

I do not say that the right of SD of peoples has more importance or priority than other human rights. I say what it says in the UN charters re the right to SD. Namely - "The right of self-determination is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights."

As I understand your version of 'right and wrong' you see nothing wrong with a community based on a given language and religion and culture imposing it's will (purely as a community) on another community with a different language religion and culture and against their will. This appraoch to me is a total perversion of the ideals and intent of the declerations on the Rights of peoples.

I do not seek to legtimise the illegal acts of T and TC used to secure their rights to some form of SD in their own shared country (as many GC seek to legitimise the illegal acts of EOKA on this basis and despite the objectives of EOKA not being the will of Cypriots but of GC alone and exclusively). What I constantly feel compelled to point out is that it is not reasonable to exepect TC to address GC loss of rights whilst GC continue to deny TC rights (as a partner community) in Cyprus - a denial that both predates and post dates GC loss of rights.

The GC side, in its own homeland, did not pursue any objectives that would have meant the destruction of the TC communities rights to some “agreed” “partnership” in their own homeland, but only to remove the excessive and disproportionate constitutional and “partnership” rights that the TC community in their own homeland had unfairly acquired, as a result of circumstantial and arbitrary “agreements” that were imposed on the people of Cyprus, in their own homeland.

GC persued ENOSIS both before the 60's agreements and after. This objective was not the will of the mythical 'cypriot people' but in fact the will of the GC people/community and only and exclusively the GC community. If there had been no limit placed on this GC (only) will the effects on TC community would be that they would have lost all their rights as a partners community in Cyprus entirely and many of their indivdual rights as well.

Your claim that all GC wished to do was remove the 'excessive' rights of TC that they agreed to previosuly is to me not supportable by the evidence. Even if you ignore the Akritas plan (and all its sepcfics about the need to hide true GC intentions to illegal remove TC rights and to use swift and sudden violence to subdue the expected TC resitance to this theft), even if you ignore the fact that Makrios originaly announced the revision as unilateral changes and only revised this to 'proposals' after external pressure. Even ignoring these other factors you only have to look at the 'proposed' chages themsleves (made in an atmosphere of mistrust and increasing tension) to see what the objective of these 'proposals' was as far as I am concerend. Quite simply the 'proposals' were to remove EVERY right and protection that the TC community had secured in the 60's agreements and to totaly and fundamental revise the whole basis on which the agreements were made (ie of to partner communites in a united Cyprus).

I also have many 'problems' with the idea that the 60's agreements were forced on the GC people against their will and that this gave them a right to subsequently use any and all means legal and illegal violent and non violent to 'abbrogate' these agreements with consent or unilaterlay . Makarios chose to sign these agreements (and the fact he did so in my opinion with the specfic intent of not honouring them in the future is not relevant in this regard) and as the authors of the Akritas plan themsleves accpeted if this decsion by Makarios on behalf of the GC people in Cyprus had been put to the GC people at that time they would have overwhealmingly ratifed them. Yet still the claims that these agreements were imposed on the GC people against their will at this time come over and over again.

There was no planning nor envision on the part of the GC community to destroy the TC community nor the removal of those excessive and unfair constitutional rights would have let to such an outcome.

There was clearly a plan by GC to remove the TC rights as a partner community (and all or nearly all those rights) agreed to under the 60's consituion and if necessary unilateraly and illegaly and with violence. There is a written and specific plan but even in the absense of such these objectives are clearly shown in GC leaderships behaviour and actions (or lack of actions) and statements in this period.

I do not see why you would have not been allowed to call yourselves a TC community or whatever else you wished to call your selves, in the same way that The GCs would have continued to call them selves a Greek Cypriot community.

If we accept your thesis that TC had (and have) no rights to block purely GC desires in Cyprus and that the agreements signed by GC (Makarios but that would also have been ratifed by the GC people had they been given the chance) are meaningless as they were 'imposed' (though legaly recognised by GC, TC the RoC and the rest of the world) then the simple fact is that Cyprus would not exist as an indepoendent nation today. It would exist as a part of Greece and just as Turkish communites in the rest of Greece are banned from calling themsleves Turkish so to would the TC community (what remianed of it under such conditions by now) would be similalrly banned. The only thing that has pevented this senario form occuring has been TC rights to some degree of SD in Cyprus, the 60's agreements that recognised this right and the willingness of Turkey to take (illegal) acts to proctect these rights - rights that you claim we never had and do have today.

I call my self a Cypriot and no one imposes to me any penalty, tax or fine to me for calling my self so.

But this is not so for Turks living in Greece - even today.

No community by itself and alone had and has a separate self-determination right! Only the entire people of Cyprus have!

What you are saying is effectively that the GC community and the GC community alone had the right to determine the future of all Cypriots. The whole thesis that there was (or is) a single unified Cypriot people is to me totaly undermined by the reality that GC desires for all Cypriots were purely totaly and exclusively GC desires and exclusively not the desires of the TC community. As I mention above this instance by GC that there is only a single Cypriot people is to me clealry not supported by the reality or based on any sensible interpretation of the intent of the declerations on the rights of SD but purely and totaly based on a 'conviencne' that if accepted would have (and would) deliver control of all of Cyprus and all Cypriots into the hands of GC ALONE (and hence the exercise of the right to SD to GC alone).

I am curious to know how you measure the amount of responsibility that each side has. How do you quantify it? The TC side was not powerful enough but had enough power to secretly import weapons in Cyprus since 1958 and up until 1974, and also had enough power and resources to immediately and upon the events of December 1963, capture the Kyrenia Mountains and blockade the Kyrenia passage, in order to defend the trees, the rocks and the Lizards in St Hilarion castle, and the GC side which was the “more” powerful one, despite the 2 attempts it had made to take them out of the hands of the TMT, failed to do so. Coincidentally, the mere success of the Turkish invasion of 1974 owes most of its “successful” outcome due to these mountains.

We have had exactly this discussion before and this post has become too long for me to go into them yet again so you will just have to forgive me as I pas over this particular section of your own post.

The TCs did not concede many of their constitutional rights, as you wrongly believe, but only some that they were convinced were totally unfair and unreasonable, and in exchange they gained other rights, such as substantial autonomy in their regions, etc. And a formal and final agreement had almost completed, unlike what you say that this has not been the case. It is better if you read more into this period and see what has been agreed and what has been pending and then comment, because your evaluation is not that objective, in my opinion.

As above

"This not my understanding but as ever I am willing to become more 'educated' and re evalute my perspective. My current perspective is that agreement had been all but reached by Klerides / Denktash but that Makraios was agsint these agreements and refused to sign them. It is also my perspective that overall and in balance these agreements were a reduction in the rights of the TC community in CYprus vs the original 1960 consitituion."

I believe this preparedness of TC to forgoe ANY of their rights under the 60's constituion (something they had no legal obligation to accept at all) is clear evidence of firslty the balance of power in favour of GC in the period upto 74 (something you seem to deny) and secondly of the TC community to compromise and live in a united Cyprus provdided they felt they had some protection against the excesses of the GC numerical majority (and thus belies the notion that the Cyprus problem has it's roots in TC desires to steal from GC) - at least up till the balance of power was totaly changed by Turkish actions in 74.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas you do very well in serving mine and many other TCs partition thesis, keep it up great job..

Viewpoint, you obviously got negatively exited from my comments because all you want to hear is that everybody agrees with yours and the TC community’s thesis that the GC community pursuit the complete disenfranchisement of all your constitutional rights, and also that it pursuit your total destruction, annihilation and complete wiping out from the face of Cyprus and perhaps from the face of earth. You want everybody to believe and acknowledge so, because this is what serves your community’s entire partition thesis.

I am sorry but I will not agree with such a thesis because it is not true!

[Kifeas]

I have always accepted the illegality of the ultimate result of Turkish action in 74. The only caveats I talk about are the 'realites' of international law as opposed to national laws and the ide that we should concern ourselves only with these illgalites and ignore other previous ones.

I am not sure I can understand what exactly you want to say!

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas you do very well in serving mine and many other TCs partition thesis, keep it up great job..

Viewpoint, you obviously got negatively exited from my comments because all you want to hear is that everybody agrees with yours and the TC community’s thesis that the GC community pursuit the complete disenfranchisement of all your constitutional rights, and also that it pursuit your total destruction, annihilation and complete wiping out from the face of Cyprus and perhaps from the face of earth. You want everybody to believe and acknowledge so, because this is what serves your community’s entire partition thesis.

I am sorry but I will not agree with such a thesis because it is not true!

According to who?? you Kifeas, TCs will evaluate what you have to say and decide one way or the other, thats their right just like it yours to spout 1960 70 80 thesis goalsand evaluations which are just as propaganda ridden and only serve to divide rather than unite. These were fed to you as well, your brain has been manipulated to a the same degree as the next man on this island, dont come the squeeky clean Cypriot to me it dont wash, where were your rightous ideas and brotherly love in the 60s? should have practiced what you preach now. You tend to sink rather than swim towards accepting what happened in the past happened we cannot undo it as I always state both sides fucked up badly you always want to aportion blame or try and explain events away like they had never happened or it was just TCs imagination. Draw that line and move on, you live in the past and regurgitating crap does no instill trust in anyone but your own community if that. I have always been open and frank I still feel we cannot unite because our differences cannot be bridged we are just to far apart and going in opposite directions, the best solution for me taking into account the current position and the past of both sides is agreed partition...

[Kifeas]

Not maybe but for certain the results would have not been any better or any different. Perhaps a few less people would have been killed as a result of the military action, but in essence the results would have been exactly the same!

That is your view and prediction. Mine perspective and prediction is somewhat different.

And what is your perspective and prediction? How this Turkish “proposal” could have been implemented on the ground, assuming that the GC side had agreed to it?

[erolz]

I have always accepted the illegality of the ultimate result of Turkish action in 74. The only caveats I talk about are the 'realites' of international law as opposed to national laws and the ide that we should concern ourselves only with these illgalites and ignore other previous ones.

I am not sure I can understand what exactly you want to say!

About what?

The result of the Turkish actions in 74 are illegal under international law.

International law is not the same conceptualy or in practice to national laws. There is no central legislative body in international law empowered by the people of the world directly or indirectly to draft laws. There is no means of enforcement of international law. Many many nations have and do ignore 'international law' with much impunity. So what I am saying is that if something is illegal under national laws there is both the 'authority' to make a judgement and the means to enforce it. In internatinal law the 'authority' to make a judgement is totaly less clear and no means to enforce the law. Thus to simply say 'x is illegal (under international law' as though that is the same in theory or practice as saying 'x is illegal (undert national laws)' is to ignore reality.

To concern oneself only with the breaches of 'international law' of one party whilst ignoring or dismissing the breaches of the same (and national laws as well btw) of your own group, is simply of no functional use except in a propaganda battle of 'my side is better / more right than your side' ans does nothing to help resolve conflict but much to continue it.

Is that any clearer?

[erolz]

And what is your perspective and prediction? How this Turkish “proposal” could have been implemented on the ground, assuming that the GC side had agreed to it?

As you yorself have pointed out such hypothetical speculation is probably of little value - but to indulge you here goes.

Firstly the 'discussion' as far as I am concerned is with the thesis that whether GC agreed to the principal of geographical federation in Cyprus as demanded by Turkey in the period in question or not there would have no material difference at all to the loss or pain or suffering of GC vs what they actualy suffered follwing their refusal to agree such and Turkeys subsequent actions.

Firstly you talk about GC loosing their homes and their possesions after 74. To me if a GF basis had been agreed by GC at this time I submit that even if the same number of GC had to lose their homes to implement it they would not have had to loose their posessions as well. Now I understand that this may have been 'scant difference' in the face of loosing ones homes and in your estimation not worth the 'price' of the legitimising of the situation your agreement would have meant, but it is a material differnces between would one can reasonably assume would have happened and what actually happened.

Secondly the thousands of GC that lost their lives in the subsequent Turkish actions of 74 would not have lost their lives.

Thirdly in my view it is perfectly within the realms of possibility and believeablity that in such a hypothetical senario that the geographical area that the TC would have gained in a GF based Cyrus would have been less than what was actualy taken after 74 - resulting in less GC being required to leave their homes.

Fourthly in a GF based solution GC would have had some say and control over the TC federal geographical area through whatever central federal insitituions were implemented as part of this solution vs the absolutley no control over the TRNC.

Now _please_ do not misunderstand me or the point I am trying to make here. I am NOT saying that any of these (hypothetical) material differences mean that GC should have acceded to Turkish demands follwing phase one of Turkish action in 74 or that they were worth the 'price' of your agreement. What I am saying is that in my view it is not correct to say (as I understand you are saying) there would have been NO differences to GC pain and suffering and loss at all had the acceded to Turkish demands in this period.