Cyprus-Forum.com

[Turker]

I look back to the history and see a dramatic fact. Our division was due to Enosis Dream... If nothing had happened, we would be living together with increasingly friendly relations. It's all that Fault, Enosis!!! Are there still any want that? Or Greek only want a peace to enable enosis with the whole of the island?

I'm now sure that :

The more Turks want a union with Cyprus, the more Greek want Enosis

Do u wanna add something or reject ?

[Piratis]

Unlike Turks that are still dreaming of partition and seem unwilling to accept anything less than a disguised partition, Greek Cypriots left behind them the idea of enosis long time ago. Especially for people of my generation and younger, the enosis idea is just part of history and nothing more.

[Bananiot]

I am not so sure. There are still people who dream about enosis and feel that enosis is a devine right of the GC majority. It was the struggle for enosis that funned the TC nationalist and through the TC community into the open arms of Turkey. There are many GC who still believe that since we are the majority we have the right the shape our destiny. This may sound reasonable but it does not take into account historical realities not only of Cyprus but the whole area.

[mehmet]

I could maybe understand Enosis sentiments when it was a British colony and there was a cold war. What is the attraction of it now? Is it just emotional and inspired by nationalism? What would be achieved today by union. I was under the impression that RoC has higher standard of living than in Greece, if that is the case there seems little economic advantage. Besides in the EU you are as united with Greece without political union as it is possible to be, and also you have the advantage of access to benefits of EU.

I don't believe there is much support for Enosis yet I wouldn't be surprised if some of those that are still in favour are keeping a diplomatic silence as the political climate would not favour openly advocating union whilst TRNC is still in existence.

what would help promote peace and reconciliation as well as all the bi-communal events is an honest examination of the role of Cypriots through the last 50 years. Politicians need to be involved with this as well as ordinary people. We need to have some agreement on our shared history otherwise we will always remember the events of the past to suit our Greek or Turkish points of view.

Makarios, Denktas, Grivas, the colonels, Ecevit, all of them and their actions need examining with a view to agreeing a shared history. The dream of a unitary state will only be realistic once we dismantle the past and teach our children the truth about the past. We also need to embrace Greece and Turkey in this analysis. There can be no reconciliation without including those two countries in the process.

We need partners in the Greek Cypriot community to achieve this. Anyone within this forum interested?

[Piratis]

There are still people who dream about enosis and feel that enosis is a devine right of the GC majority.

There are still people that dream about many things, like the days when people used donkeys instead of cars. The point is that those people are a very small minority, and even them know that such thing is nothing but a dream for them. They accepted that Cyprus will be an independent country. Personally I hear about enosis in this forum and nowhere else.

what would help promote peace and reconciliation as well as all the bi-communal events is an honest examination of the role of Cypriots through the last 50 years. Politicians need to be involved with this as well as ordinary people. We need to have some agreement on our shared history otherwise we will always remember the events of the past to suit our Greek or Turkish points of view.

On the events maybe we can agree. What will be very difficult is how we will judge those events. To take an example outside of Cyprus: A Palestinian that blows himself up killing some Israelis with him, is he a terrorist or a hero? We can all agree that the event happened, but can we all agree on how we will judge the event?

To agree on the judgment we have to first agree on some principles. For example if we don't agree that Cyprus should be united, independent, democratic with respect to human rights, then we will never come to an agreement. If we agree on the above principles and we all have as aim to achieve them, then there is hope.

With Denctash for example, we wasted so much time because he definetly didn't want a trully united and independent Cyprus, and he didn't care about the human and democratic rights of Cypriots as a whole. For him there are two "Cypruses", not one.

[Bananiot]

I agree with Mehmet 100%. Piratis is putting the cart in front of the horse. This is not the way to go about it. It also amazes me when he points to a moral dilemma in view of the Palestinian blowing up innocent bystanders. But, this is another story.

[mehmet]

Someone who blows themselves up on a bus is soneone who blows themselves up on a bus because

1) they believe it is the right thing to do (for political reasons)
2) they believe it is the right thing to do (for religious reasons). In any case this can lead to examination of the Koran. Many Muslims will argue that some muslims are perverting the Koran to suit a political purpose.
3) they are too young to know better and have been persuaded by others
4) they are not intelligent enough and have been persuaded by others.

possibly sometimes a person has more than one reason, possibly there are other reasons. Terms like terrorist and hero are subjective. As well they are emotive. Solutions wont arise from emotional responses only. If I say that EOKA is responsible for many deaths that is a fact. If I say that the deaths in themselves made the politics of Cyprus change that is also a fact. We can disagree about whether it was for the better or the worse. We need to avoid emotive terms if our intention is to agree a common history that could be understood by both Greek and Turkish Cypriotswithout offending either community. So my response is to say that I leave it as a private matter between you and your consciense if you regard individuals as heroes for the time being. Maybe at the end of the process we might all change our opinions about such issues anyway.

So let us agree some principles. United, independent, democratic and human rights are good basis for future, as I have said before. But they are principles for future solution which for me is not at the beginning of a process I am trying to achieve in determining common understanding of our history.

Some of us go to church, some go to mosques, many go to neither. What is beyond dispute is that for nearly all people in Cyprus our values owe something to the Bible and the Koran.

The first principle we should try to agree on is that it is wrong to kill someone. I believe this to be a Christian value, and although I am not an expert on Islam the values I learned form my family were to avoid
harming people. Allah is the only judge and will ensure justice. Is there common agreement on this before we go into details?

Democracy? Ok lets agree that what is democratic is to follow the wishes of the majority.

Human rights? Ok let's agree that nothing should occur (even if democratically agreed) that threatens the life of someone else. What other human rights are there.

1) the right to be able to support yourself and your family (for the state not to act in a way that affects that). Obviously if someone wishes to support his family by dealing heroin and cocaine on street corners we can agree that it is right for the state to intervene because it affects the most fundamental human right (to life).

2) the right to speak your own language

3) the right to be educated up to 16 and the opportunity to continue up to university level (all paid for from taxes)

4) the right to a universal free health care system (all paid for from taxes)

5) free speech. Obviously when this right is used in incite hatred and support taking other people's rights the state would need to intervene. Are we agreed on this?

I don't know if anyone would like some more principles to be here before we agree to start discussion on common history. Feel free to contribute.

[Piratis]

Mehmet, describing the events of the past objectively is a very dificult task. First of all we rely 100% on sources which many times can be conflicting. With one kind of sources you can create one kind of history, and with another kind of sources you can probably create a very different history. There are also many other obstacles:
Where in history do you begin? In 1974? in 1963? 1960? 1955? 1878? 1570? 3 millennia ago? Depending on where you start, the events can lead to different conclusions.
Also, are we going to be able to find all the parts of our history?

If some people aim is to create a history that suits their opinion, then they will start describing the history from the point that suits them, and then they will emphasize the parts of history that they want using the sources that they agree with.

At the end of the day I am afraid we will have another pointless discussion.

---------------------

The first principle we should try to agree on is that it is wrong to kill someone.

Yes, its wrong. The problem comes when this principle conflicts with other principles like democracy and human rights. Many people killed and died to defend those principles and I do not blame them. But definetely this should be the very very last thing you try when everything else fails.

Democracy? Ok lets agree that what is democratic is to follow the wishes of the majority.

Human rights? Ok let's agree that nothing should occur (even if democratically agreed) that threatens the life of someone else. What other human rights are there.

1) the right to be able to support yourself and your family (for the state not to act in a way that affects that). Obviously if someone wishes to support his family by dealing heroin and cocaine on street corners we can agree that it is right for the state to intervene because it affects the most fundamental human right (to life).

2) the right to speak your own language

3) the right to be educated up to 16 and the opportunity to continue up to university level (all paid for from taxes)

4) the right to a universal free health care system (all paid for from taxes)

5) free speech. Obviously when this right is used in incite hatred and support taking other people's rights the state would need to intervene. Are we agreed on this?

I don't know if anyone would like some more principles to be here before we agree to start discussion on common history. Feel free to contribute

I agree with those, here are some more:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

from: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

[mehmet]

Piratis, you are confusing two separate tasks. I am talking about agreeing the past between us and negotitating the future based on theat common understanding. I don't have problem with future Cyprus constitution being everything in UN charter that you pasted but that's not what I am talking about.

I will tell an anecdote to illustrate why I think you should put the donkey in front of the cart.

I used to work until last year ina project for the homeless. People were homeless for all sorts of reasons but mostly it was young men with a heroin and crack cocaine addiction. All the services (probation, police, health, social) were working to help these people get their lives back in order. We all thought they had a drugs problem.

Most (not all) saw their problem differently. Even though they were in and out of prison, courts, had no real friends left and few contacts with their family they saw their problem as financial. They didn't have enough money to continue to use drugs without committing crimes.

You can guess what our success rate was. Only with those who saw the problem the way we did were we able to have some success.

My point is that if we try to resolve future without agreeing why we have problem in the first place we will continue to see solutions which only suit our own view of history.

I have no doubt descring events of the past is very difficult, and it is one a united Cyprus (which we both want) has to address. Can't you see that?

Now we are not here on this forum to decide what education policy should be. My aim is much simpler (even though it is still difficult). My aim is to agree between those who wish to participate from this forum a common understanding of why we are in this situation.

Where in history do we begin? As the problems politically began in the 1950s I suggest then. My guess is that we would not find too much to disagree about before that time anyway. Besides it is recent enough and there is enough material around for us work out what happened. I can't begin to talk about conditions in Cyprus 300 or 3,000 years ago. 50 I candeal with, even if we are not old enough ourselves we know others who are.

I suggest we keep to two rules, we only deal with facts that are beyond dispute. If it has been repeatedly written that someone said something in 1963 or 1974 we have to consider that it is a fact. If we are going to dispute such things then we may as well deny that what we wrote yesterday wasn't true either. Let us deal with reality and not paranoia and conspiracy theories. If we can't find facts let us just acknowledge that this was what was believed by some people.

Secondly let us agree that to kill someone is wrong and there is no justification for it. We might say we understand the reasons why someone did something but let us take aclear moral stance against murder. If this is a problem for members of the forum I ask how can we talk about democracy and human rights if we can justify killing someone. Only self defence could in my view justify taking someone's life.

I'm not intersted in anyone's opinion and not interested in reviewing past to suit anyone's opinion. I say we should agree what happened and then form an opinion.

If this is agreed let us begin (those of us who are interested in forging common understanding. I don't want to waste time arguing with people who think only nationalist perspective is truth, I am participating in this forum to make common ground with internationalists.

[MicAtCyp]

I also agree 100% with Mehmets message of 7/7/04 at 11.12pm.

As for Enosis, we must first do a survey how many schizophrenics exist among the GCs.Someone (me included) may beleive that there is not even one in a thousand.And in the end get surpsised that it is 10 times as much i.e one in a hundred!And its not only those over 60 years old, there are young ones as well. The sad thing is that among the TCs the percentage of those who still beleive in Taksim or Union with Turkey is much much higher-approximately 15%??And thats VERY sad.....

Regarding an independent version of Cyprus histrory there is only one study so far made by professor Papadakis.His Internet site is been hacked (by whom I wonder) however you will be able to get the whole study as only the links are affected from the hacking.
PLEASE DO DOWNLOAD IT.
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main.htm

Re Mehmet you said "...The dream of a unitary state will only be realistic once we ...". Did the word "Unitary" slip through your keyboard or you really beleive it? If you beleive it, why you never supported me when I talked for a UNITARY BIREGIONAL state?

Regarding the human rights these are described in the UN charta.One of the most basic ones is the human right to own and enjoy your own property.
*******************************
Piratis have a look at your inbox.