Piratis wrote: I already answered this!! Have a look in the previous page!
I will repeat:
If by "self determination" you mean:
the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.
Then of course you have the right. I thought you meant something else, but if this is what you mean then most definitely you have the right of the above.
Is it clear now? Or you will ask me again in your next post?
I will ask again because I more interested in your view on this UN declaration on human rights (as I am sure you know!)
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
you say below
About the new links that you gave me I definitely agree with everything in the UN one.
yet previously you said
That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing
So once again I ask you does the UN decleration I refer to, in your opinion apply to TC or not? A simple yes or no will suffice, because so far you seem to want to say both yes and no. Do you still insit that TC have no right to self determination or not? If you think that the UN decleration that I have quoted does not apply to the TC people then say so!
So now you are going to answer to my question or what?
Still waiting for a straight answer from you first.
micatcyp wrote:And I disagree with you that there is a mid way concerning the human rights.Its like telling me there is a mid way between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant. No, there is no mid-way.There no woman who is "a little pregnant".Either she is or she is not.
I am not saying there is a mid-way point in individual rights. I said that human rights (issues) are not simple or black and white. The reason this is so is that one persons (or group of peoples) rights can and do impinge on another persons (or group of peoples) rights. This is a reality and is why the issue of (human) rights is complex.
It is the people of Cyprus as a whole that have self determination rights.(see the article you already posted).
There is no such reality as (a single unifed) Cypriot people. Here are some excerpts from the link I posted above and the 'views' of Robert McCorquodale - Fellow and Lecturer in Law, St John's College, University of Cambridge, to help your understanding of this complex issue.
``Who are the `peoples' to whom the right applies?'' This has been a constant question raised since the earliest discussions of the right of self-determination,50 as ``there is nothing within the confines of the self-determination formula itself to give guidance on the definition and concretisation of the self''.51 Many answers have been offered to this question, with the ``peoples'' approach being to set out some objective conditions or characteristics which have to be satisfied before a group is defined as being a ``people'' and so entitled to the the right of self-determination. Some of these conditions have included : common historical tradition ; racial or ethnic identity ; cultural homogeneity ; linguistic unity ; religious or ideological affinity ; territorial connection ; common economic life ; and being a certain number.52 Another ``peoples'' approach has been to limit the peoples entitled to the right to only ``the peoples of a State in their entirety'',53 which avoids the consideration of any other possible factors."
So comparing the the 'conditions' between my view that TC and GC represent seperate peoples and yours that there is just a single Cypriot people.
Do all cypriots have a common historical tradition or do TC and GC have different historical traditions?
Do all cypriots have a common racial or ethnic identity or do TC and GC have different racial and ethinc identites?
and so on.
There is also the other approach "the peoples of a State in their entirety" mentioned by this learned person. My view on this is that if the state existed before the seperate peoples did then it could be argued this is the appropriate approach. However there was NO cypriot state before 1960. The original cypriot state was _founded_ and _agreed_ on a prinicpal of 'two seperate peoples in Cyprus'. If GC are now to argue that there is in fact only one 'people' in Cyprus then I see little hope of any future progress. There are two peoples in Cyprus. This was understood and agreed in 1960 (before a cypriot state existed), it is understood today (by any sensible non extermist person in my view). It is clear that today TC are a 'people' and that Cypriots are not a single 'people' (unfortunate given the opportunites we had from 1960 onwards to make this a reality) in my view. This is clear to me becaue we have differnt cultural, historical, linguistic and religous backgrounds - and have had before any single state of Cyprus existed.
But yet you used that word "to a degree" to cloud your position as usual....
I used the words 'to a degree' because I believe that these issues are not simple or black and white. Beacuse I believe in fair compromise. Because I do not believe that absolutism is constructive or helpful. Because I do not seek to 'lecture' on human rights. Because I believe that there is a hope (no matter how small or seemingly impossible judging from these forums to date) that the two seperate peoples in cyprus today could one day truely become one people in one state in the future.
Piratis wrote:
So, (to make it clear for Erolz), when you bargain with me, you bargain with the "full price". The other "price" as described in the above link is either take it or leave it (just minor adjustments). So you can choose if you want to bargain with the "full" price, or simply accept the "minimum price".
And this for me clearly highlights how totaly different your (and micatcyp's) approach to a 'solution' to cyprus are from mine.
You seem to think that the 'reason' for a solution is on the GC side to regain that which they lost in 74 and on the TC side to exit from international exclusion. Micatcyp (from memory - appologies if my memory is wrong) has previously stated on another forum words to the effect that if the GC had no lost properties and the TC had no sanctions against them - then there would never be a united Cyprus. I think your view piratis is very similar to this? For me unity in Cyprus is not a means to an end (to either get back lost property / right to abode or end economic sanctions) but an end in itself. I do not want unity for the econmic benefits it could bring me (or other TC) - I want it because I believe unity is better than division. For you it seems, as shown by your very language, that this is some kind of economic barganing. GC want X. TC want Y. If and agreement can be found that gives GC their X and TC their Y that both agree to, then unity is achieved (but unity is not the primary goal which is X for GC and Y for TC). You seem to feel that force through loss (either properties/access or economic opportuintes) is the only motivation than can lead to unity on cyprus. I believe than any settlement based on such ideas can only fail ultimately. This is why I am more concerned with 'what is in peoples hearts'. For me a true and lasting united Cyprus can only be achieved when the desire for unity is stronger and more important to GC than their desire to regain what they lost and the desire of TC for unity is stronger and more important than their desire to be free of international embargoes. In my view until this desire for unity is stronger in a majority of cypriots from both sides than any other desires they have then any settlement, no matter how carefully bargined, no matter how based on declarations of human rights or not, or on international norms or not, is doomed to fail.
