Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

I read the above with interest. Lets say that there were no other ethnic minorities on the island, just the Greek speaking Cypriots; do you think that the colonial power would have left Cyprus alone? That's the implication of what you say. Yes, Suez was important then and is important now. The colonialists want there base and they will keep it with the TCs or without. In the absence of TCs they would have found another devious way to keep hold of what they have.IMO. (Gibraltar?)

[Afroasiatis]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

I read the above with interest. Lets say that there were no other ethnic minorities on the island, just the Greek speaking Cypriots; do you think that the colonial power would have left Cyprus alone? That's the implication of what you say. Yes, Suez was important then and is important now. The colonialists want there base and they will keep it with the TCs or without. In the absence of TCs they would have found another devious way to keep hold of what they have.IMO. (Gibraltar?)

No disagreement there. Let's imagine that Cyprus under British rule was populated to 100% by greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. The British would still try to find a way to divide the population in order to keep control of the island. And perhaps they would manage it. They would try e.g. to take use of antagonisms between regions, social groups etc.

The problem is, the situation in Cyprus and the general trends made it too easy for them. In Cyprus there were two big and distinct ethnic groups, which were already under the influence of greek and turkish nationalism. So, the Brits didn't need to do much: they just had to take care that this division remains and becomes stronger. And Cypriot people didn't do much to counter this.

My main point was, that an alternative all-Cypriot anti-colonial movement was in principle possible, even if difficult. It should be tried out, at least. This would make the life of British colonialists more difficult. Perhaps they would again succeed in keeping control of Cyprus, but at least the Cypriot people would make a serious effort against it.

[denizaksulu]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

I read the above with interest. Lets say that there were no other ethnic minorities on the island, just the Greek speaking Cypriots; do you think that the colonial power would have left Cyprus alone? That's the implication of what you say. Yes, Suez was important then and is important now. The colonialists want there base and they will keep it with the TCs or without. In the absence of TCs they would have found another devious way to keep hold of what they have.IMO. (Gibraltar?)

No disagreement there. Let's imagine that Cyprus under British rule was populated to 100% by greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. The British would still try to find a way to divide the population in order to keep control of the island. And perhaps they would manage it. They would try e.g. to take use of antagonisms between regions, social groups etc.

The problem is, the situation in Cyprus and the general trends made it too easy for them. In Cyprus there were two big and distinct ethnic groups, which were already under the influence of greek and turkish nationalism. So, the Brits didn't need to do much: they just had to take care that this division remains and becomes stronger. And Cypriot people didn't do much to counter this.

My main point was, that an alternative all-Cypriot anti-colonial movement was in principle possible, even if difficult. It should be tried out, at least. This would make the life of British colonialists more difficult. Perhaps they would again succeed in keeping control of Cyprus, but at least the Cypriot people would make a serious effort against it.

I agree. Please note that no muslim Indian will call himself Pakistani, but Indians.
Pity we did not be the same - just Cypriots. Now we pay for this 'nationalism'.

[BirKibrisli]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

I read the above with interest. Lets say that there were no other ethnic minorities on the island, just the Greek speaking Cypriots; do you think that the colonial power would have left Cyprus alone? That's the implication of what you say. Yes, Suez was important then and is important now. The colonialists want there base and they will keep it with the TCs or without. In the absence of TCs they would have found another devious way to keep hold of what they have.IMO. (Gibraltar?)

No disagreement there. Let's imagine that Cyprus under British rule was populated to 100% by greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. The British would still try to find a way to divide the population in order to keep control of the island. And perhaps they would manage it. They would try e.g. to take use of antagonisms between regions, social groups etc.

The problem is, the situation in Cyprus and the general trends made it too easy for them. In Cyprus there were two big and distinct ethnic groups, which were already under the influence of greek and turkish nationalism. So, the Brits didn't need to do much: they just had to take care that this division remains and becomes stronger. And Cypriot people didn't do much to counter this.

My main point was, that an alternative all-Cypriot anti-colonial movement was in principle possible, even if difficult. It should be tried out, at least. This would make the life of British colonialists more difficult. Perhaps they would again succeed in keeping control of Cyprus, but at least the Cypriot people would make a serious effort against it.

I think AKEL could have been the rallying point for all Cypriots had they not switched their alliance to Enosis at the last minute,in 1949...Funny how history repeats itself...AKEL also did a backflip on the referandum in 2004...

[DT.]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

I read the above with interest. Lets say that there were no other ethnic minorities on the island, just the Greek speaking Cypriots; do you think that the colonial power would have left Cyprus alone? That's the implication of what you say. Yes, Suez was important then and is important now. The colonialists want there base and they will keep it with the TCs or without. In the absence of TCs they would have found another devious way to keep hold of what they have.IMO. (Gibraltar?)

No disagreement there. Let's imagine that Cyprus under British rule was populated to 100% by greek-speaking Orthodox Christians. The British would still try to find a way to divide the population in order to keep control of the island. And perhaps they would manage it. They would try e.g. to take use of antagonisms between regions, social groups etc.

The problem is, the situation in Cyprus and the general trends made it too easy for them. In Cyprus there were two big and distinct ethnic groups, which were already under the influence of greek and turkish nationalism. So, the Brits didn't need to do much: they just had to take care that this division remains and becomes stronger. And Cypriot people didn't do much to counter this.

My main point was, that an alternative all-Cypriot anti-colonial movement was in principle possible, even if difficult. It should be tried out, at least. This would make the life of British colonialists more difficult. Perhaps they would again succeed in keeping control of Cyprus, but at least the Cypriot people would make a serious effort against it.

I think AKEL could have been the rallying point for all Cypriots had they not switched their alliance to Enosis at the last minute,in 1949...Funny how history repeats itself...AKEL also did a backflip on the referandum in 2004...

Akel usually only back plans that call for the annihilation of Cyprus within 20-30 years. The annan plan was just too quick even for them.

[Piratis]

A real independence could be an acceptable alternative. But Cyprus was never given a real independence. What was forced on us with the 1960 agreements was some pseudo independence with foreign troops, foreign bases, foreign judges of the supreme court, "guarantor powers" and Ottoman style privileges granted to an 18% minority on the expense of the rest of Cypriots.

A real independence is anyway impossible. Is there one country in the world that can call itself really independent, that doesn't depend at all on other countries?


What Cyprus could get was an independence similar to that which most other ex-British colonies got. Not perfect, but far better than the one it finally got.

And the reason for this very restricted independence, compared to the other colonies, was exactly the presence of two competing nationalisms in the island. Among GCs this was expressed as the ideology of Enosi. This is what gave the UK the power to keep officially much of its control over Cyprus, and the right of Greece and Turkey to intervene in the internal affairs of Cyprus.

If there was a single Cypriot nationalism instead, with the goal of a real independent Cyprus where ethnic identity wouldn't matter at all, the British imperialists would have it much more difficult. They would still try to divide the Cypriot people and keep control of Cyprus, but we made it far too easy for them.

By real independence I of course mean independence as it exists in all other normal countries.

The reason of this pseudo independence is that the British had strategic interests in Cyprus. If they didn't, then they wouldn't have bothered that much.

What made it easy for the British was that the Ottomans some time earlier had created a Muslim minority on our island. Even if we wanted we wouldn't be able to create some single nationalism with people who have different religion and speak a different language in a time when the British would be offering to the TCs incentives (gains on our expense) for staying separate.

The British had strategic interests in various parts of the world. They didn't manage to hold on them everywhere. I'd think e.g. that their strategic interests in Suez Canal were much bigger than in Cyprus.

By the 1950s, the Muslim community already had a history of some centuries in Cyprus, and it was so indigenous in Cyprus as the Christian communities. It was something that had to be taken into consideration as non-changing fact.

And Cyprus was in this no exception, but part of the rule. Almost in every country of our region there were different religious-ethnic groups (except where they had been cleansed, e.g. Turkey or Greece). And this was the same in almost all of the countries under british colonialism. In many of them the linguistic and religious diversity was far bigger than in Cyprus. The British tried to make use of this everywhere, but they weren't always 100% successful

So the strategic interests and the ethnic diversity in Cyprus were factors that made an independence of Cyprus difficult, but not impossible. it would be a hard struggle, but it could be tried out. The problem in Cyprus was that the people didn't even want to try it. With the exception of few personalities (I think, most of them TCs), our elites accepted the division as it was wanted by the British.

To create a single nationalism under the conditions of Cyprus was a very difficult thing, but the only chance to really challenge the British imperialism. There are also nationalisms based on people with different religious background (see e.g. Arab nationalism) or different linguistic background (e.g. Indian nationalism).

The Egyptians are 60 million people, not half a million like us. And there were no major differences in the population to divide them. If there were, then they would have tried it so they could keep Suez.

You say that to create a single nationalism was "very difficult". I say that given the linguistic/religious differences, history and incentives given to TCs to stay separate it would be impossible.

You should also consider that if we had tried it that way, then we wouldn't have Greece on our side, the balance of power would be even worst for us, and the result could be even worst. Don't forget that both Greece and Turkey were NATO members, and the AngloAmericans were trying to serve their own interests without dissatisfying any side too much. If there was no risk of alienating Greece from NATO, then the Imperialists could have been even more harsh with us and the result an even worst one.

[DTA]

Having Greece on your side hahhahahahaha are you serious, what has having Greece on your side actually done for Cyprus? Greece has had the biggest part in this mess and taken the least responsibility/pain than any other party in this sordid affair.

Greece on your side that was a good joke hahahahahahaha

[Piratis]

Having Greece on your side hahhahahahaha are you serious, what has having Greece on your side actually done for Cyprus? Greece has had the biggest part in this mess and taken the least responsibility/pain than any other party in this sordid affair.

Greece on your side that was a good joke hahahahahahaha

The biggest part in this mess belongs to the foreign invaders and to those who collaborate with them. I am not going to let you shift the blame elsewhere no matter how hard you are trying.

If we exclude the period that Greece was ruled by Junta, Greece has done what she could to help Cyprus. Even our EU accession happened because of Greece.

[DTA]

Greece was one of the foreign invaders was it not?

[Piratis]

Greece was one of the foreign invaders was it not?

Are you talking about the 5 day coup (like the many which happened in Turkey) which was done by the non democratically elected generals of the Athens junta (who soon after went to jail for life)?

Do you compare this with the Turkish invasion which ethnically cleansed 100s of thousands of people, with rapes of under age girls, murders of innocent unarmed people and with an illegal occupation which lasts for decades?

When you compare how much part each side has in this mess, you come to the conclusion that Greece has the most? Really?