Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

The only difference is that the Bulgarians were not forced to make such a compomise. Everything else is exactly the same.

So there were Turks in Bulgria and another set of people who did not consider themselves Bugarians but part of another nation all togeather (which had a long history of antagonism with Turks) and these other non bulgarian people did not want bulgarian independence but acctual wanted to join with this other state.

That is your idea of _exactly_ the same? Come on Piratis!

In both (and many other) cases we are talking about Muslims/Turks that were left over after the end of the Ottoman empire. Cyprus is no different than any other country in this respect.

Cyprus contained two peoples who did not consider themesleves Cypriot but actualy part of two seperate nations to Cyprus. The numerical majority peoples did not want independence they wanted union of the whole isald and both peoples with their 'homeland' (which was not Cyprus). Cyprus was and is very different from 'any other country'. That is a fact.

About the EU we are talking about certain political equality between separate countries and not between groups within the same country. Your example is simply irrelevant.

It has nothing to do with my example (and there are examples of the same CONCEPT within EU countries as well). The point is that you argue TC must be a political minority in Cyprus SIMPLY BECAUSE they are a numerical minority - as if this is a fundamental CONCEPT. Yet clearly it is not a fundamental concept at all. At best it is a concept that applies in some circumstances and not in others.

No problem. You are the ones that keep those agreements from functioning, so you should tell this to your leaders.

To say that the TC (alone) keep the 1960 consitituion from functioning and that GC have no reposnsibility for it not functioning is so far from the historical FACTS that it seems clear that you will believe anything and say anything you want in yout pursuit of total GC control in Cyprus.

The point is that you never had the right of absoloute and total self determination. So how can you give up something that you never owned?

That is your view. That does not mean you are right. You believe that GC have that right (and claiming that cypriots have it but not GC or TC does not wash with me) but that TC do not. I believe otherwise.

[Piratis]

You forgot to say that Bulgarians speak bugarian and not greek and thats another reason why the cases are different.

The cases are exactly the same. The Bulgarians could and can do whatever they want with Bulgaria, the same way that Cypriots should have be allowed to do. If Bulgaria didn't want independence but union with say Romania, would that change anything? No, its just absolutely irrelevant, and you use these excuses because obviously you have no better ones.

Cyprus is made up of a one majority, and several minorities.

[erolz]

You forgot to say that Bulgarians speak bugarian and not greek and thats another reason why the cases are different.

The cases are exactly the same. The Bulgarians could and can do whatever they want with Bulgaria, the same way that Cypriots should have be allowed to do. If Bulgaria didn't want independence but union with say Romania, would that change anything? No, its just absolutely irrelevant, and you use these excuses because obviously you have no better ones.

They can not be exactly the same and also different. If in fact there was no one in Bulgaria that considered themselves Bulgarian but there was one group in Bulgaria that considered themesleves Romanain (spoke romainan, shared culture with romaina etc) and another group that consider themsleves Turkish and if when the state of bulgaria was being formed and these two groups wanted different things then either they would create two seperate states, or unify two parts of Bulgrais with their respective homelands or create a unitary state based on an agreed deal of political equality. If the Romainians in bulgaria as the larger numerical group tried to insit that there was only Bulgarians (before Bulgaria existed as a state) and that they (Bulgarians = Romainian numerical majprity) wanted to force all Bulgarians (including the Turkish there) to become part of Romainia then that would be an exact comparison to Cyprus.

Cyprus is made up of a one majority, and several minorities.

Cyprus is made up of two seperate groups of people, with different languages religions and cultural backgrounds. Either in a unitary state one group domiantes the other through numerical numbers or they work in partnership and a degree of equality. You want the former. I want the latter. I think the latter is obviously more 'fair and just' than the former.

[insan]

Cyprus is made up of two seperate groups of people, with different languages religions and cultural backgrounds. Either in a unitary state one group domiantes the other through numerical numbers or they work in partnership and a degree of equality. You want the former. I want the latter. I think the latter is obviously more 'fair and just' than the former.

And I too second the latter... Anyhow, even in the 60s constitution both communities should be politicaly equal on legislative body... I have no objections to participate in executive body proportionaly but in legislative body participation should be equal to make it work. Which issues can be blocked by TC senators in an equaly comprised Senate? The issues that don't serve TCs benefits of course. So isn't it normal for TCs to block any proposal that are not in favour of TCs? It is...

So what's your problem Piratis?

[Europhile]

MicAtCyp wrote:-

There are so many superficial statements in your post my friend that I don't know where to start from. You state that the administration at the Nortern part of Cyprus has the support of its inhabitants. First of all do you know who its inhabitants are? Are they the original ones or is it a recycling population? Or is the majority of them imported settlers and pop ins that are brought just prior to elections to secure what you call "support"? Secondly how can you claim it has the support of its inhabitants when the majority of the permanent inhabitants are today proved to be opposing Denktash?

Come off it !

I may not be a resident of either side of your Island but please credit me with some knowledge.

(1) I am talking about Turkish Cypriots, among who I count many friends, some of them going back to the days when Cyprus was still a colony and some of whom have part of their families here in the UK within this or the next borough, just as I also have friends and colleagues among the Greek Cypriot community both here and in Cyprus.

(2) And for what it is worth I last visited the North for a month last year and had long discussions with many Turkish Cypriots. And so there is further clarity of thought, no, I was not talking about the "foreign cabaret workers" aka "the Natashas", nor the immigrants brought in to pick fruit, nor the conscripts in the occupying army, nor anybody other than those who can be properly classified as permanent residents of the North.

(3) However, bear in mind that if you allow separation of an island into two and both sides have had immigration over a period of years, you cannot simply wind the clock back and ignore all those who have acquired the status of permanent residents over the years.

(4) I was very careful not to say that a majority of the inhabitants support Denktash. I used the expression "the administration" with some care. I believe that a majority of Turkish Cypriots support the concept of a separate administration until they are according cast iron constitutional guarantees under a new constitutional settlement.

(5) They at least approved the best hope for early reunificaiton - i.e. the Annan Plan, and I believe that Denktash has, perhaps permanently, lost the support of the younger part of the Turkish Cypriot population by reason of his opposition to Annan, while there are older members of the community who still support him - but I thought he was retiring anyway ?

MicAtCyp also wrote:-

A Turkish General gets in the port with all sorts of illegal goods. The honest customs employee says these are not allowed. He gets a punch in the nose and the shuts up. Every 2 - 3 days the same thing. The honest TC customs officer resigns from his government job and emmigrates to UK.

.

(6) I am not aware of the precise customs regulations applying to the Turkish Army in Northern Cyprus and I would be rather surprised if the basis was the same as for civilians - it was certainly never so for the UK forces, or, so far as I know, for the UN). But, that aside, I can perfectly well accept that there will be examples of bad governance in the TRNC administration. In the 30 plus years I have been practising law and working with correspondents in just about every member state of the EU - and much further afield - I have come across numerous instances of bent civil servants. Please don't try to tell me that the Government of Cyprus is immune from such things, or I might be tempted to look back through a few old files.

MicAt Cyp also wrote:-

But for your information the term puppet administration is not my invention. The ECHR (European Court of Human rights) described the administration at the Northern Part of Cyprus as a subbordinate and dependent (to Turkey ) administration. I am sure your English is better than mine to know that "subordinate and dependent"="puppet"

(7) With respect, if the ECHR had wished to use the derogatory expression "puppet", it would have done so. It didn't. And it seems to me that your English is quite qood enough for you to understand only too well that "subordinate" and "dependent" have quite different connotations from "puppet".

(8) Believe you me, I don't think you would find much support internationally for the proposition that the Turkish Invasion in 1974 was entirely unprovoked. I think most people who have any knowledge of matters would accept that the Government of Cyprus was at least very largely the author of its own misfortunes. That is not, repeat not, to say that I approve of the illegal use of force without UN authority as a means of settling international disputes. I unfortunately have to accept that some very powerful states may sometimes be allowed to get away with it, cf the unlawful invasion and occupation of Iraq by the USA aided and abetted by the UK.

(9) But to suggest that with the passage of time, even an illegal invasion will not result in a change in the status quo is stretching credulity. It has happened in Europe more than once in the last century. And yes, states can break up - I have already cited the break-up of Yugoslavia and the creation of the Czech Republic and Slovakia. East Timor also springs to mind. And there is a Scots nationalist party and a Welsh nationalist party who seek independence and a break up of the UK - they may one day command majority support among their people.

(10) Imagine a UN observed plebscite in the North in which a majority of the population voted to secede from the present state. Do you really think the UN and the EU could ignore such a vote ? Or that the international community would allow the Greek Cypriot government to restore its rule by force ? That is to live in cloud-cuckoo-land.

(11) For me, the concept of a single state with federal characteristics (which is still possible) is now living on borrowed time.

MicAtCyp also wrote:-

By the term European Solution we don't mean a solution that will come from the EU administrative bodies, but a solution based on the Acquis Communautaires

I wonder just what you think that expression means. Allow me to cite the definition from the SCADplus EU glossary:-

[quote] Community acquis

The Community acquis is the body of common rights and obligations which bind all the Member States together within the European Union. It is constantly evolving and comprises:

the content, principles and political objectives of the Treaties;
the legislation adopted in application of the treaties and the case law of the Court of Justice;

the declarations and resolutions adopted by the Union;

measures relating to the common foreign and security policy;

measures relating to justice and home affairs;

international agreements concluded by the Community and those concluded by the Member States between themselves in the field of the Union's activities.

Thus the Community acquis comprises not only Community law in the strict sense, but also all acts adopted under the second and third pillars of the European Union and the common objectives laid down in the Treaties.

The Union has committed itself to maintaining the Community acquis in its entirety and developing it further.

Applicant countries have to accept the Community acquis before they can join the Union. Derogations from the acquis are granted only in exceptional circumstances and are limited in scope. [/unquote].

Now how do you suggest that the Community Acquis might affect things ?

As far as I can see the following two issues might conceivably be relevant

(1) the principles of the Treaties involve that each member state accepts and applies effectively the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights

(2) the principle that Member States stick to their enagements to other member states (and this could conceivably be relevant to the way in which Papadopoulos went back on the enagements to the other states made by Clerides- but only doubtfully).

But it would be interesting if you could spell out for an ignoramus like me how the Community Aquis will otherwise enable a solution to the problems of your island.

Is it not simply the case that the two communities of the Island have to agree on a constitutional settlement which a minority on both sides find sufficiently satisfactory to ratify ?

Finally Turkey, Islam and Christianity. I have no hestitation is saying that there is a history of enmity between Christians (of both Latin and Orthodox persuasion) and Muslims - just as there was historically between Christians and Jews. There has been much of "the good" persecuting "the just" in the name of religion and I am sure you don't need me to cite you any more examples, either from history or from modern times. [And by the way, I am not Christian].

What I am trying to say, is that the only future for Europe is a multiethnic, multi-religious, SECULAR society and, I fear that there are those in Orthodoxy who do not accept that, just as the Vatican has been meddling trying to persuade Europe to "officialise" Christianity in the draft constitution - thus far, happily, unsucessfully.

On the Turkish accession negotiations - there seems to be an illusion of the effectiveness of the veto power. Cyprus could of course put in a veto at any appropriate point - the discussions then continue under the guise of enhancement of the present association agreement, under the Euromed scheme or otherwise so that progress can be made by QMV.

The EU bureaucracy is getting quite good at such fictions (such as the fiction relating to the status of the North of your Island) and there's far too much at stake.

[MicAtCyp]

While a lot of discussion goes on here about equality, don't be mistaken of what the TC leadership means by this term.An extract from Cuco Report on the matter of settlers.

Turkey had, however, come up with a further claim recently, that of the political equality of both communities, which would lead to the creation of two states in Cyprus with a clearly defined border. The Cypriot Government rejected this approach, as Cyprus was a single country consisting of two communities, within which citizens were on an equal footing. Any solution which sanctioned a separation of the two communities would be a sort of apartheid and a glaring infringement of human rights. It ought not to be forgotten that Turkey had installed Turkish settlers in the northern part of the island, to whom it had given property belonging to Greek Cypriots, in flagrant violation of the 4th Geneva Convention. The Cypriot Government had plenty of information about this colonisation.

Were Turks in Bulgaria present when the Bulgarian state was formed AND was it agreed when the Bulgarian state was formed that they would have some degree of political equality even though a numerical minority?

Were the Turkish settlers present when the Cypriot state was formed? So on what grounds should they have any equality at all?

[MicAtCyp]

I am talking about Turkish Cypriots.......

.....nor the immigrants brought in to pick fruit, nor the conscripts in the occupying army, nor anybody other than those who can be properly classified as permanent residents of the North.

Europhile as a lawyer that you are you do know that the administration that you refered to previously as been accepted gets elected.So the first question is who elects that administration, and how, and whether the result is representative of the will of the people it supposely represents.
If you still insist that yes it does then how do you explain the 80K people at the squares last year shouting "Denktash resign"
Notice also that the conscripts do vote.Another 500,000 mainland Turks who never ever step foot in Cyprus can and were partly imported in the past to just vote and return. Settlers were getting naturalised the very next day they were arriving and were voting too....

I was very careful not to say that a majority of the inhabitants support Denktash. I used the expression "the administration" with some care. I believe that a majority of Turkish Cypriots support the concept of a separate administration until they are according cast iron constitutional guarantees under a new constitutional settlement

However this is not what you originally said. You said

does not mean that the rest of the world does not accept that there is a de facto administration in the North of the Island and that it has support from its inhabitants.

The keyword that differentiates your position is "separate"

And it seems to me that your English is quite qood enough for you to understand only too well that "subordinate" and "dependent" have quite different connotations from "puppet".

No, my English is not good enough to see any difference.So what’s the difference in your opinion.

I am not aware of the precise customs regulations applying to the Turkish Army in Northern Cyprus

You should be aware though that the Army rules and that the Police is under the commands of the Army. The Police cannot go against the Army even when Army officers deal with illegal acts as for example the smaggling of goods and the physical attack on a customs employee.Or when a civilian car is found loaded full of explossives abandoned in a street and when investigated and reavealed to belong to the army the case was closed no further questions asked.And I repeat that was just a small example...

Now how do you suggest that the Community Acquis might affect things ?

Refer to 2nd paragraph last 6 lines of my post dd Sept 1 , 10:14 pm to get an insight.

And by the way if the solution you are suggesting us is to accept and sign the results of the Invasion be sure that will never happen. In the meantime we will make sure that those responsible for the division pay the maximum cost possible.You can also ask yourself how many of your original TC friends will remain in the occupied areas after say 20-30 years should the status quo continue.

Don't forget also the British bases. If the status quo will finally bring partition then we will have no reason to endure their presense anymore.Save the fact that with the Anan Plan(=Con-Federation with the settlers) we were supposed to grant the British Bases sea shell rights that been one of the reasons we said 300000 times OXI.

[Bananiot]

On July 25, President Papadopoulos said (in an interview to Philelepheros newspaper) that he has given a paper with the amendments the government wanted to the A plan to all the parties interested. He said this in an effort to bemuse allegations that papadopoulos and his government do not know what they want.

Its been almost 2 months since then and nobody has seen this paper. The EE, the USA, GB, even Greece and his partner Christofias have not seen this ghost of a document. In order to get out of nasty situations Papadopoulos now resorts to lies. He also told many lies to the arab language newspaper he recently gave an exclusive interview. Where is this man and his cronies leading our country?

[MicAtCyp]

Sorry for interrupting your work Bananiot.

On July 25, President Papadopoulos said (in an interview to Philelepheros newspaper) that he has given a paper with the amendments the government wanted to the A plan to all the parties interested.

What he actually said is that his paper was given to the appropriate ones who must know
You and your bosses are not included.

Continue your dancing ...

[Bananiot]

Absolutely, but people like you that offer the greatest cypriot nationalist of all times blind obedience, are not worried a bit with his lies. The truth is that such a document does not exist and if you still don't believe me you can ask Christofias. Remember, MicAt Cyp, patriotism is the last resort of scoundrels.