Cyprus-Forum.com

[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 differneces between what one could 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.

[Kifeas]

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.

What it wants to say here is that the right of self-determination is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights. Theoretically this approach has a lot of validity. You cannot guarantee the observance of individual human rights in a country that is under occupation or colonization. It doesn’t mean though that the mere non-exercising of self-determination by itself, renters the observance of individual fundamental human rights as totally inapplicable. Nor does it mean that the one set of rights cannot exist without the other. Nor does it mean that the right of self-determination precedes, in importance and value, the set of fundamental human rights. The opposite is true though!

For example, one may argue that during the British colonization of Cyprus, the right of self determination was non-existent, while the fundamental human rights such the right to ones life, right to property, home, non detention without trial, non torturing, non-discrimination, right to language, religion, etc, were all observed. Here, you have the respect of individual human rights, without the above “essential” condition of self-determination in place.

On the other hand, you may have a case in which the mere exercising of the right of self-determination of a people may violate at the same time the individual human rights of some of these people. For example, we may have a case in which the majority of the people in a particular country pass a law which banns the religion and authorizes the usurping of a certain group of people’s properties. The people of this country exercised their self-determination right to pass any laws they wish. At the same time though, they violated the human rights of a number of their own people. Which one of the two types of rights precedes the other? According to the ECHRs, the individual human rights of these affected people are more important than the self-determination right of the people of that country to pass any laws they wish.

[erolz]

You cannot guarantee the observance of individual human rights in a country that is under occupation or colonization.

Or in one where the will of the 'people' is totaly and exclusively split along communal, ethnic, cultural religious and language based lines and the diamtertical oppsed on these lines and hwere the (larger) community insists on imposing it's will on the (smaller) community - as I see it.

For example, one may argue that during the British colonization of Cyprus, the right of self determination was non-existent, while the fundamental human rights such the right to ones life, right to property, home, non detention without trial, non torturing, non-discrimination, right to language, religion, etc, were all observed. Here, you have the respect of individual human rights, without the above “essential” condition of self-determination in place.

So in such a senario are you saying that that it is irrevevant that GC as a community / people had no rights to SD provided they have full excersie of their indivdual rights? Somehow I do not think this is what you are saying. Also to me a thesis that it is wrong and unnaceptable for one group to deprive the other to any of their rights to SD if the first group are 'foregniers' but right and acceptable if the first group are 'natives' of the country in question is not supportable.

On the other hand, you may have a case in which the mere exercising of the right of self-determination of a people may violate at the same time the individual human rights of some of these people.

You can have a case where the full and unfettered excersie of one group/ peoples communites rights to SD can violate another groups same rights as a community and or their rights as indivduals. None of these senarios or combinations of them are to my mind acceptable. It is to me no more acceptable for one group to excersise its unfettered rights to SD at the exepnse of another groups rights to SD as it for one group to excersie it's rights to SD at the expense of the other groups indivdual rights.

For example, we may have a case in which the majority of the people in a particular country pass a law which banns the religion and authorizes the usurping of a certain group of people’s properties. The people of this country exercised their self-determination right to pass any laws they wish. At the same time though, they violated the human rights of a number of their own people. Which one of the two types of rights precedes the other? According to the ECHRs, the individual human rights of these affected people are more important than the self-determination right of the people of that country to pass any laws they wish.

This to me is a way too simplistic an appraoch. The reality is a lot less simple and clear cut or black and white. Does france and do the french people have a right to ban the wearing of headscarves in public schools, universities and for public empoyees? By your simplistic measure they clearly and without equivication do not have such a right as the right of the indivdual always takes precedence over that of the 'people'. However France has such laws (as I understand it) and if and when the issue goes to the ECHR and if that court decides in favour of the indivdual (a highly unlikely outcome given the precedent of European Court of Human Rights in the case of LEYLA ª AHIN V . TURKEY *) then France may stil decide to ignore such a ruling.

* http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:8mNq ... echr&hl=en

"The French government’s stance seems to have been bolstered by the recent landmark decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of LEYLA ª AHIN V . TURKEY. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) which was established on 3rdSeptember 1953 and islocated in Strasbourg has jurisdiction over all states that have opted to accept the Court's optional jurisdiction. In this case the applicant alleged that a ban on wearing the Islamic headscarf in higher-education institutions violated her rights and freedoms under Articles 8, 9, 10 and 14 of theConvention, and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. On 26 August 1997 the applicant, enrolled at the Cerrahpaºa Faculty of Medicine at the University of Istanbul. On 23 February 1998 the Vice-Chancellor of Istanbul University issued a circular preventing the wearing the Islamic headscarf.After being heard in various Turkish courts the case eventually found its way to the ECHR.The Judgment in case of LEYLA ª AHIN V. TURKEY (application no. 44774/98) was adopted on 8 June 2004. The Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights held that banning Muslim headscarves in state schools does not violate freedom of religion and is a valid way to counterIslamic fundamentalism. In it’s ruling, the court said:"Measures taken in universities to prevent certain fundamentalist religious movementsfrom pressuring students who do not practice the religion in question or those belonging to another religion can be justified.”The court further held that the bans issued in the name of the separation of church and state could therefore be considered "necessary in a democratic society.”

[Kifeas]

You cannot guarantee the observance of individual human rights in a country that is under occupation or colonization.

Or in one where the will of the 'people' is totaly and exclusively split along communal, ethnic, cultural religious and language based lines and the diamtertical oppsed on these lines and hwere the (larger) community insists on imposing it's will on the (smaller) community - as I see it.

If such a country functions under a democratic system, I do not see how cultural, religious and linguistic differences can be a reason why individual human rights cannot be guaranteed. I do not see why any larger community will have a reason to impose it’s will on any smaller community in a country that functions under a democratic system.

For example, one may argue that during the British colonization of Cyprus, the right of self determination was non-existent, while the fundamental human rights such the right to ones life, right to property, home, non detention without trial, non torturing, non-discrimination, right to language, religion, etc, were all observed. Here, you have the respect of individual human rights, without the above “essential” condition of self-determination in place.

So in such a senario are you saying that that it is irrevevant that GC as a community / people had no rights to SD provided they have full excersie of their indivdual rights? Somehow I do not think this is what you are saying. Also to me a thesis that it is wrong and unnaceptable for one group to deprive the other to any of their rights to SD if the first group are 'foregniers' but right and acceptable if the first group are 'natives' of the country in question is not supportable.

If you did not understand my position so far, then I will repeat it again. For me there is only one people in Cyprus, the Cypriots. There are no two or more people in Cyprus. This is matter of principle for me. Communities do not constitute separate people. I know you and the TCs have a different theory, which I personally do not subscribe into, and no matter how many volumes of pages you may write in order to convince me for the opposite, I simply cannot be convinced.

Now to your question! Did I say that because the individual human rights were hypothetically observed under the British rule, that the people (the only one people, i.e. the Cypriots as the only one people,) did not have the right to seek fulfillment of their self determination right? No I did not say so and I wonder why you thought differently!

There is no one group of Cypriots that should have the right to deprive the self-determination right of another group of Cypriots, because such a separate SD right of one group vs the other group of Cypriots, does not exist! You cannot deprive a right, which anyway does not exist! Individual groups that form communities within a people have only individual human rights and not separate self-determination rights, simply because such rights are immaterial. To exercise a self-determination right, you have to have a land basis that you and only you have the right to own. In the case of Cyprus, the only entity that can have such a land basis is the entire people of Cyprus. Unless you want to fragment the country into 50 smellers pieces, based on the cultural or religious demographics of each smaller area and then assume that the people of each separate area has a separate SD right (i.e. complete autonomy.) The SD right is not an abstract notion that can exist in the air. It requires a land basis!

On the other hand, you may have a case in which the mere exercising of the right of self-determination of a people may violate at the same time the individual human rights of some of these people.

You can have a case where the full and unfettered excersie of one group/ peoples communites rights to SD can violate another groups same rights as a community and or their rights as indivduals. None of these senarios or combinations of them are to my mind acceptable. It is to me no more acceptable for one group to excersise its unfettered rights to SD at the exepnse of another groups rights to SD as it for one group to excersie it's rights to SD at the expense of the other groups indivdual rights.

I repeat again, there are not separate SD rights of separate communities which exist within a context of a people (nation) and therefore there is no way that such rights can be either exercised or violated from being exercised. Only individual human rights of people can potentially be violated. I know where you want to lead the discussion. The TC community as a community, and the GC community as a community, do not have separate self-determination rights. Only the entire people of Cyprus have a SD right!

For example, we may have a case in which the majority of the people in a particular country pass a law which banns the religion and authorizes the usurping of a certain group of people’s properties. The people of this country exercised their self-determination right to pass any laws they wish. At the same time though, they violated the human rights of a number of their own people. Which one of the two types of rights precedes the other? According to the ECHRs, the individual human rights of these affected people are more important than the self-determination right of the people of that country to pass any laws they wish.

This to me is a way too simplistic an appraoch. The reality is a lot less simple and clear cut or black and white. Does france and do the french people have a right to ban the wearing of headscarves in public schools, universities and for public empoyees? By your simplistic measure they clearly and without equivication do not have such a right as the right of the indivdual always takes precedence over that of the 'people'. However France has such laws (as I understand it) and if and when the issue goes to the ECHR and if that court decides in favour of the indivdual (a highly unlikely outcome given the precedent of European Court of Human Rights in the case of LEYLA ª AHIN V . TURKEY *) then France may stil decide to ignore such a ruling.

What is way too simplistic? You did not read carefully what I said! First of all I did not speak about regulating the appearance of people in public establishments such as schools, universities, etc. One's religion may require him/her to wear headscarves, another’s religion may require him /her them to go around and appear in public, completely necked! The state has a right to regulate the appearance of people (dressing, behavior, etc.) There should be a certain control and certain limitations as to how religious believes and other preferences are expressed publicly.
I am talking about the complete banning and the complete illegalization of a certain religion from being practice. Such an act would constitute a violation of an individual's or a religious group’s individual member human rights! For me there is no doubt about it!

[Viewpoint]

Sorry to but in but Kifeas your arguement at this point revolves around Cypriots as a whole exercising SD not as communites then surely the question arises of who actually effects the laws/rules relating to SD, this is where the problem lies. GCs will dominate due to being numerically larger population and as past history dictates and laws/rules could be manipulated towards infringing on my individual human rights. What I feel we are unable to establish is that Cypriots will in fact act for the benefit of all Cypriots rather than one individual community thats why the 2 communites having their own SD rights will ensure that one does not infringe on the other and that is not open to manipulation.

[fi]

Hello there!! Sorry to butt in too, I'm new here and just read the account of events on the first page.

With respect to the initial post. It's good that the stories of the two communities are coming out.

From my part I was listening to the radio yesterday and heard the account of a GC soldier the first day of the Turkish invasion. The man was describing how he managed to escape the falling bombs, gun fire and artillery while seeing his fellow soldiers falling dead. He then managed to escape, hid in a burnt house with the bodies of a family next to him and then in a well until he was arrested. He was then taken in a truck. On their way the Turkish officer stopped the car and made him look at a dead GC soldier which was mangled by artillery fire, the dead mans body had completely lost it's shape. That dead GC was his friend. Although I only heard it on radio I can't get the image out of my head. War is a horrible thing!

[erolz]

If such a country functions under a democratic system, I do not see how cultural, religious and linguistic differences can be a reason why individual human rights cannot be guaranteed. I do not see why any larger community will have a reason to impose it’s will on any smaller community in a country that functions under a democratic system.

Are you seriously arguing that the larger GC community did not have any reason to and did not make any attempt to impose it's will on the smaller TC community in the democratic RoC of the 1960's agreements? Please tell me I have misunderstood you here! It is exactly because the larger GC community persued pirely GC desires and sought to impose them on TC that the 60's agreements containted protections for the TC community against this. Protections that the GC community then sought to remove purely as that communites wishes and to impose this removal on the smaller TC community. The you tell me 'I do not see why any larger community will have a reason to impose it’s will on any smaller community in a country that functions under a democratic system.'. I am frankly flabergasted at this and cling to the hope that there is some kind of serious misundertadning of what you are saying on part going on here?

If you can not see why a larger community would or might impose it's will against a smaller one in a 'democratic' country why do you apparently fear a smaller community imposing it's will on the larger in a 'democratic'?

If you did not understand my position so far, then I will repeat it again. For me there is only one people in Cyprus, the Cypriots. There are no two or more people in Cyprus.

I just do not see how you can say this. To say it is an ideal to be aimed for would be one thing. But to say it is a reality and has been since the 1960 agreements were brokered, when there were and are not only such clear differences as language culture and religion but more importantly such a history of diamtetricaly opposed political desires in Cyprus based SOLELY on GC and TC lines once again leaves me flabbergasted

This is matter of principle for me.

If you were to say it was a matter of an ideal goal I would be in total agreement with you. To say it is a matter of principal to you when it is a principal that means that the right to self determination effectively belongs to the GC community and the GC community alone. If you can not see this then I dispair at the chances of us ever reaching an acceptable agreement to both parties.

Communities do not constitute separate people. I know you and the TCs have a different theory, which I personally do not subscribe into, and no matter how many volumes of pages you may write in order to convince me for the opposite, I simply cannot be convinced.

With respect that to me sounds like absolutism.

There is no one group of Cypriots that should have the right to deprive the self-determination right of another group of Cypriots, because such a separate SD right of one group vs the other group of Cypriots, does not exist!

If you can not see why from a TC perspective the above is effectively the same as saying that the GC community alone has a right to self determination and a right to impose its will on TC as well , then again I dispair.

You cannot deprive a right, which anyway does not exist!

But if you are wrong about this right existing and the TC community does have some right to some degree of self determination in its own homeland - then all you are doing is denying we have such rights (whilst mainting them effectively for your community alone).

To exercise a self-determination right, you have to have a land basis that you and only you have the right to own.

This is simply not true. The issues of what consititues a people is a complex ones with some precedent in various international agreements and rulings. However what is beyond doubt is that there is not a simple clear cut definition and that is based on 'if you own your contigous area of land you are a people and if you do not you are not'.

It requires a land basis!

This is simply not the case (in the simplistic way you suggest) in practice. It is even more absurd a notion if you consider the intent and purpose of the right to SD. To say that right to rule your own affairs and not have anothers will imposed on you against you wishes applies if you have a single contigous piece of land but not if you are spread out, is as I say an absurd notion (to me at least). Certainly in such a case the excersie of these rights to SD, without let and without any impact on the rights of others is easier to implement - but to say the whole moral basis and principle behind the right to SD itself changes on this criteria - well again absurd is the only description I can give to such an idea.

I would also point out that even if TC had lived in one geogrpahical are of Cyprus I do not believe that the GC in 1960 would have been any more prepared to accept two sovreign states after the end of colonial rule. The whole point of ENOSIS and the mengali idea that shaped and drove it was based on the notion that ALL of Cyprus was Greek and that ALL of Cyprus should be 'returned' to the gloroius hellenic empire. I do not believe that if we had been concerntrated in one area of Cyprus this would have made any material difference to GC and their desires for Cyprus - based as they were on such notions.

What is way too simplistic? You did not read carefully what I said!

I understood that your view was that an indivduals rights (in this case to _practice_ their religion) always and clearly took priority over a 'societies' right to pass any laws it wishes. I pointed out that this assertion is no where near as clear cut and definate as you suggest. I also find your example of the pratice of someones religion requiring them to go naked and unrealistic one beacuse I know of no such religion that is recognised as a religion that requires this. A slightly better example would be a rastafarian right to smoke cannabis as part of the practice of their religion vs 'societies' right to make the smoking of cannabis illegal. Even this to me is a materialy different example to the one of headscarves in the extent that Islam is universaly accepted as a religion and rastafrianism is not.

[fi]

Hello erolz,

As a first point the GCs did not try to enforce any changes on the 60s consitution. Makarios prepared the thirteen points at Britains encouragment and gave them to Turkey, Greece and UK for review and approval. A very legal approach which.

As I posted in another topic earlier, what is there to be afraid in a democratic european country? Democracy in Cyprus is far superior to the other countries I lived (Spain and UK which have a very aristrocratic and inhuman approach to democracy). What is wrong with majority rules. What are you fears that GC will do? Do you think that GC will try to get something unjustly? I think that GC are very honest people and I'm pretty sure TC are the same.

I think a democratic government will do it's best for all its people. People in a country are not at the mercy of the majority the can have their say. Don't forget that human rights of all citizens are guaranteed by the constitution, by the EU and by the UN.

[erolz]

Hello erolz,

As a first point the GCs did not try to enforce any changes on the 60s consitution. Makarios prepared the thirteen points at Britains encouragment and gave them to Turkey, Greece and UK for review and approval. A very legal approach which.

Hi again fi. I would refer you to the cyprus conflict site - widelt recognised as the best attempt at a 'balanced' history of the cyprus problem on the web.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/13_points.htm

I would also asked (as VP has already) if you have read the Akritas plan (it can be found here http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/akritas_plan.htm) and ask if you think it is the work of GC that would would never seek to harm TC (physicaly or by removing their rights)

As I posted in another topic earlier, what is there to be afraid in a democratic european country?

Answerd (briefly - its late) in the other thread.

I think a democratic government will do it's best for all its people.

I would like to think this is the case also but I recognise that it was not the case historicaly and 'once bitten twice shy' and given the suffering of the TC people in Cyprus prior to 74 I can not simply rely on 'faith' that this will be the case in the future. I need some protections for the TC community against potential abuses of the TC numerical minortiy at the hands of a GC numerical majority. If after a period of time and with these protections it becomes clear that what happened in the past is no longer a realistic concern then these protections can be removed and we can progress to the end goal.

[fi]

I am aware of the 13 points, which however no one tried to impose as I said again. They were a proposal that was given out by Makarios, as such they were no threat.

As for the Akritas plan, it is an extremist plan which I am sure that there were extremist plans from the TC side at that time too. There are evidence that there were plans for a Turkish invasion from the begining s of the Republic.

Didn't the invasion make the worst violation of GC rights? Should we trust TC? But we must trust each other.

Also as I said we live in a totally different world now, so we can't make comparisons with the past. Anyway I just hope we can find a solution that we'll get us all in a better position and I don't mind if that solution means helping the TC financially in getting their feet back up as long as we get a fair, funcional state.