metecyp wrote:Kifeas, Enosis was not a getaway...it was an ultimate goal of majority of GCs since 1930s and establishment of RoC was viewed as nothing but a stepping stone for Enosis.
You speak with such absolutism, as if you have done yourself an extensive research and studying of all the details of the GC psychological, social and political world of the last 100 years and thus you are in a position to master the absolute truth.
I am in the position to know the GC community much better than you do for a million reasons, and yet I did not touch the issue with such absolutism. If you read more carefully, I start my paragraph with a “Perhaps.” That means that I am not in a position to know for certain if those 1960 “agreements” were more balanced, things wouldn’t have been the same or would have been entirely different. My feeling, and to the extent of knowing the GC community (better than you do,) is that they would have been different. I believe that those who would have been willing to side with the sections of the political society that regarded Enosis as an end in itself, would have been considerably less.
Enosis was indeed an ultimate goal for many Greek Cypriots. Especially for the church and a large section of the right. However, for an equally large section of the GCs, Enosis was a getaway. A getaway from the British colonialism and ruling! Akel for example, which represented as much as 35%-40% of the people, sided during various phases of the last 60 years of Cyprus history with the idea of Enosis. It sided with this idea during the 50’s and during the 60’s. During all those years in Greece, there were always regimes that have been very hostile to the communist ideology.
Why Enosis with Greece as a getaway then, and not a desire for independence? Because Cypriots did not feel confident enough and did not believe that they would have been able to manage or could have been let free to run their own affairs completely alone. Reasons? Small population size and in relation to their security and defence as a completely independed country, lack of experience and knowledge to master alone their own affairs and destiny mainly due to many centuries of outside ruling, strategic location of Cyprus in relation to the troublesome region of Middle East and international politics, Greece’s alliance with Britain during WW II and subsequent British promises for Enosis, etc, etc. All these were factors that made the idea of Enosis looking the most convenient way out for many Cypriots, although for as many, as I said above, it was an end itself.
Why so much absolutism, especially when analysing historical events?
metecyp wrote:There was no willingess on the GC side to accept what was signed in 1959-1960. That's why there was a strong motive to ask for changes and then abolish the RoC altogether in order to declare Enosis. So please let's not fool ourselves here.
I did not say the opposite? I just said that this was due in parts to the unwillingness of some circles in the GC community to abandon the goal for Enosis -perceiving the end of the British colonial rule as a consequence of their Enosis straggle and which despite this straggle, remained unfulfilled; and in parts due to the fact that those 1960 agreements were not so fair and balanced towards the GC community.
I do not see anyone fooling someone else! What I wanted to say is that if those agreements were more balanced and fair, perhaps there would not have being such as strong desire to change them and /or abandon the independed state in favour of Enosis. Is this something totally irrational to say? I just do not see where your problem lies. What is it that you want to imply?
metecyp wrote:Secondly, if you still believe that the TC rights in the RoC were excessive, then how the hell can you talk about bizonal bicommunal republic?
I do believe so and I am not alone! Many international constitutionalists and political authors have said so. Many TCs also accept this fact. Many TCs that have lived through those events and I happened to have spoken to some of them, even ex-TMT members, who now view the past with a more critical eye, have said that the TC leadership could have been more reconciliatory when Makarios had proposed those 13-point changes, instead of rejecting them entirely and up front! At least they could have entered into a dialogue -not with the view of accepting them all and in the way Makarios had drafted and proposed them, but instead in a contractive “give and take” fashion. Instead, Turkey rejected Makarios proposals entirely and the TCs followed immediately afterwards. The intercommunal fights begun soon after and all the rest is history. Even in this forum, there are TCs who would admit that those agreements were not so balanced. I just quote Erol as the most recent example I can remember.
erolz wrote:I admit that the 60's agreements were too much in favour of the TC community in Cyprus at the expense of GC.
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-47458.html#47458
As for your above question, I do not see any direct relationship between critically analysing and interpreding historical events and circomstances and what is currently being negotiated and more importantly what can be agreed at present.
Today, there are a number of factors that constitute a totally different background. (a.) Turkish occupation and De facto Partition for 30 years, (b.) No enosis goal any more, (c.) EU membership.
Furthermore, the nature of the negotiated solution and the nature of the state of affairs under 1960 agreements are not identical. There are substantial differences between the two types of arrangements. The former was a unitary state with Veto power in the hands of one person, the TC vice president, for nearly all decisions. The later is a federation without a veto power in the hands of one person elected in the post exclusively by the TC community, but instead a separate majority of the members of the presidential council originating from each Constituent State -elected not exclusively by one community but through a single (common) list of candidates that are elected by the entire Senate (all GC and TC senators.) This is just one of the most Striking -quality wise- improvements, when comparing with the 1960 agreements. Of course, there are a number of other issues that are more disadvantageous to the GC community, when comparing them with the 1960 agreements, and this is why it has been rejected in the referendum.
metecyp wrote: Despite all of these "excessive" rights, TCs were excluded from RoC for 40 years! Obviously, we'll ask for something more concrete, something that won't stay on paper. If you cannot stomach the RoC, how can you even talk about something better something more concrete??
I do not see the relationship between the fact that you were “excluded” for 40 years and what you should now be asking and /or finally accept and /or what the GCs should be asking and /or finally accept!
First of all, the fact that you were excluded during all these 42 years is not entirely the responsibility of the GCs. During the last 31 years, this is mainly due to the TC community’s initiative, since they had chosen to move north and “create” their own separate state. During the last 4-5 years before the coup and the invasion, there were on-going serious negotiations in order to agree on a political settlement, which would have, among others, brought your community’s RoC participation back into effect. Lastly, the fact that you were “excluded” from the RoC after 1964 should not be attributed entirely to the GC community’s responsibility. I believe TCs should obtain an “a bit more critical attitude” towards the events and circumstances of those days.
I do not wish to play the blame game but, hadn’t been a TC plan analogous to the Akritas plan, as from 1962, which drafted all the steps to be taken in order to set up a separate shadow government, should the GCs attempt unilateral changes to the 1960 constitution? Where those Makarios 13-point proposals merely proposals or an actual unilateral change to the 1960 constitution? If they were so, as some TCs imply, then why the 1960 constitution remains intact -in paper, up to this date? Why did the TC community rushed to set up a separate shadow administration, as per drafted plans, shortly after the intercommunal fights erupted, and at the same time prohibited the TC ministers and MP’s to participate in the RoC institutions even after the main fighting settled down and the issue of security was not so immanent – 3-4 weeks afterwards? Of course later on in 1965, the TC community had asked to return back to institutions of the RoC. The GCs put a condition that they (TC MPs) accept and ratify whatever legislating work had been done during the previous years, something that the TC community did not accept.
The GC community bears a lot of the responsibility in the initiating and the handling of the situation during that period. However, to claim that the TC community was completely innocent or that it’s responsibility was only marginal, becasue it sounds convinient in order to justify what happened after 1974, is something I personally do not accept nor buy. I do not like the idea of victimising the other side in order to pass my agendas through, but at the same time I do not accept the idea of been victimised in order to yield to the other side's agendas.
I just heard in the TV news that Serdar Denktash promised to send 10,000 “TRNC” flags to the supporters of Trabzonspor, to be used in the stadium during Anorthosis game in Turkey on Wednesday. It just reminds me the history of the relationship between the two communities during the last 50-55 years. Wasn't it always “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?”
