Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

Yes, it is collective. Thats why it is for all Cypriots. I didn't deny any right from anybody.

You seriously believe this? That there is no right to self determination for both GC and TC peoples in Cyprus but only a right for self determination of Cypriots as a single unifed people? Do you also believe that the EOKA struggle to achieve its right to self determination was carried out on behalf of this (fictional) single unifed cypriot people and not in fact just on behalf of the GC people? Do you really believe that the spirit of the declared right to self determination was designed to subject the TC people to the will of the GC people when those two peoples were so different in their desires and hopes for a Cypriot future, let alone their differences in culture, language and religion? Can you tell me what use a right to self determination is to a TC if it means we can decide our our future only with the consent and support of a numericaly dominant GC population that does not share the same culture, language, religion or (in the 60's at least) hope for the future of Cyprus? Can you really not see why what you 'offer' is merely a 'right' of the TC people to be dominated and enslaved by a GC majority? And you wonder why TC still have concerns and fears about living in a united Cyprus with GC?

Well, I claim they are not. But as I said already, even if we suppose that your claims are the correct ones and I am wrong, this doesn't change a thing and it is not an excuse for any human right violations.

Whty do you keep telling me that having a right to self determination is not the same as having a right to act illegaly? I have never said this. I have clearly and repeated denied this is so in response to your repeated 'accusations' that I have and am saying this. Would that you would be so clear and unequivacal as I am on the subject in regard to the illegal acts of EOKA (EOKA- A that is) in its pursuit of GC rights to self determination - but we will come to that further down.

Not just me. I just made a quick search in the Cyprus constitution and the word "peoples" or even "people" doesn't appear anywhere. On the other had the words "community" and "communities" appear 100s of times. Is there any official document in the RoC 1960 constitution or the UN that classifies Turkish Cypriots as "peoples". If there is, then give a link to see what exactly it says about it.

There is no mention of 'people(s)' in the 1960 consitution. No mention of either a single unifed Cypriot people or seperate GC and TC people. Yet you will use this absense to both dismiss any acceptance of seperate GC and TC peoples and 'prove' the concept of a single unifed people? The reason there is no specific mention of either seperate TC/GC people OR of a single unifed Cypriot people is that this document was a compromise, on both sides. The fact is the document neiter recognises a single unifed Cypriot people or two seperate TC/GC peoples but instead takes a middle ground and talks of communites. If this lack of mention of 'peoples' in the 1960 consitution is your 'evidence' that 'everyone' agreed with your view that there was and is only a single unifed Cyupriot people then it is imo poor 'eveidence' indeed.

If you look at the consitution itself it clearly is based on a recognition of the ideals of self determination of both communites, of political equality of the communities which is totaly consistent with the ideal of the seperate right to self determination of each community. Yet you use this document to prove that you are 'not alone' in your inistance that the TC are not a people and thus not entitlted to any right to self determination? If everyone had agreed that there was only a single unifed people in Cyprus (as you constantly assert) then why any 'consessions' to the TC numerical majority? Why not just a consitituion of the single unifed people - if its existance was so clear to all and the concept of two seperate peoples so unfounded? Or was this just an example of GC 'largesse' and 'benevolence' to the TC community and not in fact a recognition of bothe the reality of two seperate peoples in Cyprus?

What this document also clearly shows is a recognition by all (except yourself it would seem) that one groups human rights can and do impinge on another groups human rights and that in praticle terms compromise is necessary - absolute rights must give way to praticle compromise. As you seemed to have so much respect for the views and opinions of John Reddaway before here is so more of his writings

"Over the years since the principle of self-determination was embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, international jurists have had to grapple with the difficulties which are inherent in the application of such a right in cases like Cyprus where a single territory is the homeland of more than one people. As was no doubt to be expected, international legal opinion has moved away from interpreting the right in such cases as giving each people an absoloute power to decide their future without regard to the correpsonding right of the other people or peoples concerned. [snip] It now seems to be widely accepted that the right in such cases the right should be exercised by the peoples concerned only in such a manner and to such extent as not to prejudice the excersise of a corresponding right by the others concerned. That necessarily means that the right in such cases is not absolute, but limited and conditional."

The 1960 consitution is clear evidence of a widespread accpetance of both two seperate peoples in Cyprus and the concept of one groups rights clashing with those of another groups and the necessity for compromise, limits and conditions on thse rights. Both things that you not only disagree with but that you also are now trying to argue 'you are not alone' in disagreeing with!

Moving away from the 1960's constituion - lets look at some other times where this issue has been expressed and consider how 'alone' or not you are in your assertations that there is only one single Cypriot people and not two seperate peoples. In 1954 and in 1958 Greece went to the united nations to argue for self determination for Cyprus (as a single people). No resoloutions were obtained accepting this singular right of self determination of a singular Cypriot people. Indeed Averoff himself described his attempts at the UN 1958 to argue for a singluar right of self determination for cyprus vs Zorlus efforts to argue that self determination rights apply to each community seperatley in these terms "We had lost the case. Zorlu had won." I would like to see and be able to present the UN documents covering these discussions but online records from so far back do not exist as far as I can establish. They seem to only go back as far as 1983.

So moving to some UN documents that most certainly DO exist and can be viewed online - namely the Annan plan.

"The United Cyprus Republic is an independent state in the form of an
indissoluble partnership, with a federal government and two equal
constituent states, the Greek Cypriot State and the Turkish Cypriot
State."

Just to remind you of what you said

Is there any official document in the RoC 1960 constitution or the UN that classifies Turkish Cypriots as "peoples". If there is, then give a link to see what exactly it says about it.

The Annan plan is an offical UN document that clearly defines TC in cyprus as a seperate and equal state (peoples). It is a statment of the UN's current considered position. Yet you still claim that it is not just 'you' that insits that there is no such thing as the TC people?

Nobody wants to dominate you. But in democracy there are minorities and there are majorities. Turkish Cypriots are a minority, and there is nothing to do about it. It is a simple fact that doesn't change no matter how much you shout.

You do not want to dominate TC but yet you insist on the right of an unchanging ethinc based majority (GC) having the right to impose its will on an unchanging ethnic based minority (TC) and against the wishes of this unchanging ethinc minorty? In a 'normal' democracy there are minorites and majorites and people move from one to another on one issue or another issue. Sometimes a person will support the minorty view and sometimes the majority view - this is a functioning democracy. When the majority and minority are fixed and unchanging (especially on ethnic lines) you do not have a functioning democracy - you have dominace and tyranny of the majority. Thgis is what you insist on.
There is nothing to do about it? Oh yes there is. What can be done about it is for each party to accept the the rights of the other, accept that these rights can and do clash and thus cannot be absoloute, unconditional and subject to no compromise and seek to work in partnership. This is what the 1960 consitution tried to recognise and achieve and this is what the Annan plan recognised and tried to achieve. Yet neither of these attempts were good enough for GC.

Don't you excuse the occupation? You do this right here in these forums.

No I do not excuse the occupation. Neither do I seek to explain or understand it simply in terms of an isolated expansionist desire of Turkey to simply sieze what was not its when and where it could out of greed. I seek to place this event in the context of the events that led upto it. Not as an excuse for the actions but as a means of understanding them.

If you were asked to vote in a referendum the return to the 1960 constitution what would you do?

I would ask myself do I believe the GC accept 'in their hearts' the embedded principal in the 1960 consitution of political equality of the two peoples (GC and TC) or do I have reason to suspect that they are agreeing this merely as a means to another end that is not compatible with this acceptance of 'equality'. If I believed the former I would vote yes. If the later no. If I were to judge general GC attitudes based on my perception of your attitudes (which thankfully I do not) then I would have no choice but to decide that GC did not believe or accept the equality of the two peoples in Cyprus and that their seeming accpetance was in fact a sham and for them simply a means to an end whereby TC could at a later stage be denied this equality that is the basis of the 1960 constituion.

I repeat that I never avoided answering the core of the post, especially if it was specifically addressed to me. You do this often.

Well it looks like I got my answer on this question as to if you want to get into a childish and pointless tit for tat progression 'you did't answer this question - you avoided this point' or not. I have to admit to feeling a strong temptation to go back and highlight all the times I feel you avoided or ingored a point or a question and invite you to do the same in return. However as I say above this would not only be childish and pointless it would also be nothing to do with the Cyprus question and little more that 'self indulgence' on my part so I will decline to do so. If you want to insist that you 'never' avoid answering a question or addressing a point and I do this often - then so be it.

Well, with the same logic we should skip 2/3rds of what you say. Anyways, it is your right not to answer. Just remember that the answer is given to you.

2/3rds? Is that your idea of fair and approriate 'retaliation'? I made these comments about a single section in a single post of yours. Within the post the section I dismissed represented 25% of the words you wrote (or 23% of the letters) - not even 1/3rd. If you take this single dismissal against the background of not just the single post but all your posts I have repsonded too then the amount vanishes to near zero. Yet your 'logic' then says that because I dismissed (at most) 25% of your words and (at least) near 0% of your words you should 'skip 2/3rds of what I say'. Or maybe you mean that 2/3rds of what I write is nonsense? Who knows? If its the latter then obviously the majority of what I write must be nonsense and the minority of what you write is not nonsense - because you are you and I am me (and a TC to boot).

Are you talking about EOKA or EOKA-B here??

EOKA-B was a terrorist organization.

EOKA 55-59 was an organization against the colonialists like several other similar organizations around the world.

And this from the person that claims to have never avoided answering the core of a post!
I was referring to EOKA - not EOKA-b as you must surely have known?

EOKA - the original EOKA, was then in your opinion a justifed, legitimate and moral organisation - justifed by GC rights to self determination? That to seek to use armed struggle (ie _killing people_ ) was legal and justifed? Then you have the gall to lecture me on how the right to self determination does not give you the right to act illegaly. Is not killing someone the clearest, most black and white, non arguable, non debatable case of denying someones human rights? The gall to lecture me with statements like.

You are not the one who decides what is illegal and what is not, and you are not the one to decide what the correct mesures to be taken against something illegal are. This is the job of courts. If there was something illegal at that time, this gives you absolutely no excuse to act in an illegal way today.

EOKA was not a legitmate organisation that sought to obtain GC rights to self determination through legal means or through the courts. It was an organisation that sought to use illegal means of killing and guerilla terrorist acts to force concessions from the legal colonial power of the day. In this process it killed soliders and non soliders alike. Women and men alike. These acts were not and are not justifed by a legitimate GC desire for self determination or by the fact that there were 'several other similar organisations' around the world.

To to this "John Reddaway" that thinks that their slaves were having fun being slaves we just say to go fuck himself. We asked them to leave from the 30s but maybe he wanted as to wait not 30, but 300 years to "exhaust all peaceful means" and meanwhile serve him like slaves.

Talk about exteme rhetoric! The GC were slaves under British rule? If they were slaves then this is exactly the same kind of slavery you expect the TC to accept living under GC majority domination. Yes it is ture you would give us a right to vote and the British did not give that to GC then. Yet this right that you offer us would be no more use than if the British had responded to GC claims for self determination by saying - OK you can have your right to self determination but not as GC or Cypriots, but as a minority part of the single British people along with all the other British people in the UK. Would this have been acceptable to you then? Yet this is in essense what you insist should be acceptable to the TC (then and now). With such a right to vote and to equality with all other british people you would have been no less 'slaves' than you were without it. Which is exactly the senario you wish to impose on TC!

[Piratis]

Sorry that I will not quote and reply to everything, but you wrote a whole essay there. I doubt anybody else, especially from the non regulars, would sit to read such a huge posts (if there is, then please post to tell me I was wrong )

In any case you repeat a couple of things, which I gave answers already. You say that:

1)GC want to dominate TCs.
2)That TCs are separate people
3)That the British rule of Cyprus was not that bad for Cypriots.

I believe I have already answered several times to all of the above.

In summary:
1) GC do not want to dominate TCs. All we want is democracy and human rights. You can have your culture and religion and everything without any interference from us. Actually in these matters (religion, TC culture etc) I have absolutely no problem if TCs are the ones who decide by themselves on how they want to do things.

3)British were the colonialists. There was no democracy, and just the absence of that (without counting all the rest colonialist actions) is enough to classify the British rule as terrible.

3)
We disagree that TCs are separate people. Obviously the constitution can not enumerate all things that "are not" because in that case it would have to use almost all the words that exist in the dictionary. It simply says what the TC are, and this is a community and not "peoples".
The Annan plan is void and this is written in the plan itself:

Should the Foundation Agreement not be approved at the separate
simultaneous referenda, or any guarantor fail to sign into force the Treaty
on matters related to the new state of affairs in Cyprus by 29 April 2004,
it shall be null and void, and have no legal effect.

In any case, to move ahead and stop repeating ourselves, say theoretically I accept that you are "peoples". Then what? The right is called self determination. So obviously you have no right to determine alone what we will do with our properties and our country (which is the whole Cyprus, just like it is for you). So in fact this self determination by itself would give you much less than what we accepted already. (federation etc). So, can you be a bit more practical and explain to us how this right of yours will be used and not misused?
Remember though, that like you that you will fight for every right that you believe you have, we will too. (fair right?) So what you should propose should violate none of our rights. And remember that our rights are not just claims, but they are supported by all local and international laws as well as court rulings.
So, what do you propose?

[erolz]

Sorry that I will not quote and reply to everything,

and I will avoid the obvious response to that in light of your earlier assertations about you and accusations about me.

but you wrote a whole essay there. I doubt anybody else, especially from the non regulars, would sit to read such a huge posts

Well seems like I am dammed if I do and dammed if I dont. If I write short replies you accuse me of not addressing your points, if I write long and detailed response I am 'accused' for that also?

3)That the British rule of Cyprus was not that bad for Cypriots.

I did not say that. I quoted someone else who said that. You also totaly avoided my 'point' that this quote was designed to highlight - namely that of the illegality of EOKA and its acts.

In summary:
1) GC do not want to dominate TCs. All we want is democracy and human rights. You can have your culture and religion and everything without any interference from us. Actually in these matters (religion, TC culture etc) I have absolutely no problem if TCs are the ones who decide by themselves on how they want to do things.

You say you do not want to dominate TC yet you insist on a right for a GC numercial majority to be able to dominate a TC numercial minority. Can you really not understand this? If before 1960 the British had given Cypriots a vote and insisted their right to self determination was then met as part of a single British people - would that have been acceptable to you? If they replaced domination without a vote with domination with a vote - you would have been satisfied with this - or simply seen it as a new form of domination? This is exacxtly analogus to what you 'offer' TC as a people - domination with a vote (that is useless for any issue with regard to TC vs GC views). It would not have been acceptable to GC had it come from the British and is just as unacceptable to TC comming from GC. Why do you refuse to understand (let alone accept) this?

3)British were the colonialists. There was no democracy, and just the absence of that (without counting all the rest colonialist actions) is enough to classify the British rule as terrible.

So that justifies the illegal acts of EOKA (like killing people!) does it? You incosistancy and avodiance of this point is clear to me. You demand that I accept and state (which I have done repeatedly) that illegal acts in 74 are not and can not be justifed by any right to self determination (something that despite your repeated accusations I have never said). You have lectured me on how I can not decide what is legal or illegal and what actions are to be taken and the 'supremacy' of the courts etc. Yet when I ask for a similar acceptance that these things you demand of me re 74 (and I have given) also apply equaly to the acts of EOKA pre and post 60 you avoid the issue and simply repeat that 'British rule was terrible'. Well let me tell you that GC majority rule such that we had from 63-74 was 'terrible' for the TC and certainly worse than under the British.

3)
We disagree that TCs are separate people. Obviously the constitution can not enumerate all things that "are not" because in that case it would have to use almost all the words that exist in the dictionary. It simply says what the TC are, and this is a community and not "peoples".

So if the 1960 consitituion 'proves' you assertation that there is only one Cypriot people (as you claim) then why does it not ennumerate this 'positive' by saying that? Why is it so fundamentaly based in concept on an equlity of the two peoples/communities?

The Annan plan is void and this is written in the plan itself:

Look you asked me to show you an offical UN document that supported my assertation that the TC are a people. You did so in the context of 'proving' you are not 'alone' in insiting that there is only a single united Cypriot people. I showed you the Annan plan. The fact that it was not ratified is totaly irrelevant in this context. It is clearly the current and considered _position_ of the UN (ratifed or not) and was accepted by the whole world except 'you'. Yet you use the fact that 'you' did not agree to it to prove that 'you' are not alone in your insistance that there is only a single Cypriot people!

In any case, to move ahead and stop repeating ourselves, say theoretically I accept that you are "peoples".

Well simply saying you accept this (in theory or otherwise) is I am afriad not enough for me, given your previous statements as an indivdual and the previous actions of GC in the past. I need to feel you _believe_ it.

Then what? The right is called self determination. So obviously you have no right to determine alone what we will do with our properties and our country (which is the whole Cyprus, just like it is for you). So in fact this self determination by itself would give you much less than what we accepted already. (federation etc). So, can you be a bit more practical and explain to us how this right of yours will be used and not misused?

Once you accept that the TC are a people with the rights of a people exactly the same as the GC are and convince me this acceptance is genuine then we can get down to the practicalities. This would involve both sides accpeting that absolutism on rights must give way to compromise and limitation where those rights clash (somethig I have always argued is the reality but which so far you continue to refute). With will and these acceptances I believe a practilce solution is possible. It will not be easy but I believe that in this kind of environment it is possible. If you continue to deny the rights of TC as a people (by denying they are a people) then I believe a long term lasting solution based on a united Cyprus is impossible.

Remember though, that like you that you will fight for every right that you believe you have, we will too. (fair right?) So what you should propose should violate none of our rights. And remember that our rights are not just claims, but they are supported by all local and international laws as well as court rulings.
So, what do you propose?

What I am arguing for (not fighting for) is an acceptance of our rights as a people. I have consistenly pointed out that such rights, where they clash with others rights, need to be subject to limitations and compromise (on both sides) in the real and practicle world. What can not for me be subject to compromise is that we dont not have the right in the first place. In order to be able to accpet compromise and limitations on our rights to self determination (where they clash with yours) it first needs to be accepted that we have this right. It also needs to be accepted that rights are not always absolute and they need to balanced against others rights in the real world. You accept neither of these things.

[Piratis]

Well seems like I am dammed if I do and dammed if I dont. If I write short replies you accuse me of not addressing your points, if I write long and detailed response I am 'accused' for that also?

No need to make the same point several times in each post repeating the same things.

I did not say that. I quoted someone else who said that. You also totaly avoided my 'point' that this quote was designed to highlight - namely that of the illegality of EOKA and its acts.

Colonization is illegal according to the UN. There is nothing legitimate about the British occupation.

You say you do not want to dominate TC yet you insist on a right for a GC numercial majority to be able to dominate a TC numercial minority.

You confuse dominance with democracy. If it was like the way you say, all people that didn't vote the winner in elections would be dominated by the people that did. Papadopoulos got elected with 52%. Does this mean that the rest 48% of Greek Cypriots are now dominated? Sure, now Papadopoulos can put into action his policies, but this policies have to respect everybody and be legal. At the same time that 48% has to respect the fact that the majority elected Papadopoulos. This is how democracy works.

If before 1960 the British had given Cypriots a vote and insisted their right to self determination was then met as part of a single British people - would that have been acceptable to you? If they replaced domination without a vote with domination with a vote - you would have been satisfied with this - or simply seen it as a new form of domination? This is exacxtly analogus to what you 'offer' TC as a people - domination with a vote (that is useless for any issue with regard to TC vs GC views). It would not have been acceptable to GC had it come from the British and is just as unacceptable to TC comming from GC. Why do you refuse to understand (let alone accept) this?

The difference is that the British are foreigners in Cyprus. Cyprus belongs to Cypriots. This is why they shouldn't have any kind of jurisdiction over Cyprus.
On the other hand no part of the island belongs exclusively to Turkish Cypriots. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share this island, and it can not split.

So that justifies the illegal acts of EOKA (like killing people!) does it? You incosistancy and avodiance of this point is clear to me. You demand that I accept and state (which I have done repeatedly) that illegal acts in 74 are not and can not be justifed by any right to self determination (something that despite your repeated accusations I have never said). You have lectured me on how I can not decide what is legal or illegal and what actions are to be taken and the 'supremacy' of the courts etc. Yet when I ask for a similar acceptance that these things you demand of me re 74 (and I have given) also apply equaly to the acts of EOKA pre and post 60 you avoid the issue and simply repeat that 'British rule was terrible'. Well let me tell you that GC majority rule such that we had from 63-74 was 'terrible' for the TC and certainly worse than under the British.

The answer is given to you already: Colonization is illegal according to the UN, so there is nothing wrong with removing this illegal thing. If some other crimes have been committed that are not relevant to this cause I condemn them.
On the other hand the invasion and occupation of Cyprus is illegal by all local and international laws as well as court decisions.

So if the 1960 consitituion 'proves' you assertation that there is only one Cypriot people (as you claim) then why does it not ennumerate this 'positive' by saying that? Why is it so fundamentaly based in concept on an equlity of the two peoples/communities?

It is not. For example Greek Cypriots get the president and TCs the vice president etc. Thats not equal.

showed you the Annan plan. The fact that it was not ratified is totaly irrelevant in this context. It is clearly the current and considered _position_ of the UN (ratifed or not) and was accepted by the whole world except 'you'.

Nop, it didn't pass as a resolution from the UN and therefore it is not the "whole world" as you claim. This plan was made by the Anglo-Americans, and as it is said in it, it is now void and has no legal effect. This is unlike the UN resolutions that call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus.

Well simply saying you accept this (in theory or otherwise) is I am afriad not enough for me, given your previous statements as an indivdual and the previous actions of GC in the past. I need to feel you _believe_ it.

You believe it, not me. I was clear that TCs are not "peoples". I just asked you to see how this theories of yours could transform into practice.

But you didn't give me anything practical. Just theories again.

I will tell you what is practical in your mind: When you achieve this "people" status, then you will say that you have now the right to do whatever you feel like, and therefore partition will be finalized.
This is what you are trying to achieve.

Anyways, it is obvious that we will not agree on anything, so it is simply a waste of time to discuss it any further. I hope you can at least agree with me on this.

[erolz]

Colonization is illegal according to the UN. There is nothing legitimate about the British occupation.

Can you show me where it says in the UN colonisation is illegal? It does not it. It talks about the right of colonised people to self determination. It does not delcare colonisation illegal. It seems that you can decide what is legal and what is not!

You confuse dominance with democracy.

No you confuse democracy with domination

If it was like the way you say, all people that didn't vote the winner in elections would be dominated by the people that did. Papadopoulos got elected with 52%. Does this mean that the rest 48% of Greek Cypriots are now dominated? Sure, now Papadopoulos can put into action his policies, but this policies have to respect everybody and be legal. At the same time that 48% has to respect the fact that the majority elected Papadopoulos. This is how democracy works.

If the same constant people make up the 52% and 48% at every election without change then yes the 52% can easily be described as dominating the 48%.

On the other hand no part of the island belongs exclusively to Turkish Cypriots. Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots share this island, and it can not split.

It can be split and it is split - that is a fact. The only question remains is do we have the will to re unite it. As long as you insist that GC have the right to dominate TC through numerical superiority in a united cyprus it will remian split.

The answer is given to you already: Colonization is illegal according to the UN, so there is nothing wrong with removing this illegal thing. If some other crimes have been committed that are not relevant to this cause I condemn them.

Colonization was not illegal then or now. Even if it were illegal, which it is not (except in the court of Piratis!) does that 'illegality' then excuse the illegality of killing someone? How can you argue such a thing without apparent shame, after all you have lectured me on here?

It is not. For example Greek Cypriots get the president and TCs the vice president etc. Thats not equal.

That you can blandly deny that the original 1960 consistution was not fundamentaly based on a concept of equlity of the two communites/peoples is just yet more evidence in my mind that you will are prepared to say anything, believe anything to promote your cause regardless of reason,logic, sense or reality.

Nop, it didn't pass as a resolution from the UN and therefore it is not the "whole world" as you claim. This plan was made by the Anglo-Americans, and as it is said in it, it is now void and has no legal effect. This is unlike the UN resolutions that call for the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Cyprus.

So the annan plan is not then an offical UN document that states clearly the UN's consider position on weahter the TC and GC are seperate peoples or if there is a single unifed people?

You believe it, not me. I was clear that TCs are not "peoples".

You are clear that you deny we are a people despite all common sense that says otherwise. Despite every agreement or proposed agreement (except those from GC perhaps) from the original 1960's one to the Annan
plan clearly being based on the acceptance of this reality. You make this repeated claim without presenting a single reasoned argument for why the TC are not a people equal to GC. You continue to make this statement and hold this beleif despite the FACT that if you were right and anyone other than you recognised this in 1960 then the RoC would not EXIST - you would today be a COLONY of Greece!

I will tell you what is practical in your mind: When you achieve this "people" status, then you will say that you have now the right to do whatever you feel like, and therefore partition will be finalized.
This is what you are trying to achieve.

This is utter rubbish. I have said clearly that having a right to self determination does not justify illegal acts (you on the other hand say that EOKA killing people was justified because of the 'illegality' of British colonisation). I have also said that such a right will by necessity not be absoloute but will have to be limited and conditional and subject to compromise where it clashes with GC rights to self determantion (you on the other hand maintain an absolutism of human rights and deny that these rights can ever clash with others)

Anyways, it is obvious that we will not agree on anything, so it is simply a waste of time to discuss it any further. I hope you can at least agree with me on this.

I do not agree that having a discussion is pointless because we can not agree. It has served to reinforce my fears and concerns with regard to some GC and the genuiness of wanting a united Cyprus based on mutual respect and equality and not domination through numerical superiority. Reniforced my fears that for some GC nothing short of total capitulation (whether instantly or through a slow 'chipping' away of concessions originaly 'gifted' to the TC) of the TC people/community to GC numerical domination is acceptable to them, despite any 'fine words' they might espouse. Reniforced my fears that some GC remain extreem,absolutist and willing to maintain any 'fiction' that suits their needs whilst making every effort to present the opposite to the world.

I will agree that such discussions that we have been having are tiering, tedious, repetetive and depressing and for that reason I would be more than happy to stop having them with you.

[Piratis]

It has served to reinforce my fears and concerns with regard to some GC and the genuiness of wanting a united Cyprus based on mutual respect and equality and not domination through numerical superiority. Reniforced my fears that for some GC nothing short of total capitulation (whether instantly or through a slow 'chipping' away of concessions originaly 'gifted' to the TC) of the TC people/community to GC numerical domination is acceptable to them, despite any 'fine words' they might espouse. Reniforced my fears that some GC remain extreem,absolutist and willing to maintain any 'fiction' that suits their needs whilst making every effort to present the opposite to the world.

I will not waste more time with things that I have already replied to you several times.
One thing is true: Greek Cypriots today act by the letter of all international laws and the EU aquis.
On the other hand your side defies all international laws, UN resolutions, and international court rulings.

[erolz]

I will not waste more time with things that I have already replied to you several times.

Will you waste any time to answer points you have not addressed - like on what evidence you declare colonisation illegal or like if it is illegal does it then justify the illegal acts of EOKA?

Somehow I doubt it.

[MicAtCyp]

The Annan plan is an offical UN document that clearly defines TC in cyprus as a seperate and equal state (peoples).

LOL!! With your logic the GCs in the TC Federal State are TC "a people"!! Furthermoreb with our clear OXI the Anan Plan became a "non paper" like many other "non papers" of the UN are now in the dustbin.

If before 1960 the British had given Cypriots a vote and insisted their right to self determination was then met as part of a single British people - would that have been acceptable to you?

Yes if Cyprus would be treated "as part of a single British people".That is to say the same way as Manchester, and get proportionately the same development funds, and pay proportionately the same taxes.

It has served to reinforce my fears and concerns with regard to some GC and the genuiness of wanting a united Cyprus based on mutual respect and equality .......... If you continue to deny the rights of TC as a people (by denying they are a people) then I believe a long term lasting solution based on a united Cyprus is impossible.

Its about time you drop the mask Erol.You are just repeating what grandpa Denktashi told you. That the 18% should have equal Political rights with the 82% either through 2 completely separate states or through a confederation, that would just be decoratively named "United" Cyprus. For as long as you continue having these ideas a solution is not possible and in the meantime you will be paying for the cost of the division and all the illegalities that go with occupation.

[erolz]

LOL!! With your logic the GCs in the TC Federal State are TC "a people"!!

I do not understand what you are saying here?

Furthermoreb with our clear OXI the Anan Plan became a "non paper" like many other "non papers" of the UN are now in the dustbin.

The discussion was about if there is a single UN document that accepts the rpincipal that TC are an equal people within Cyprus. For me the Annan plan is such a document. That it was not ratifed does not change its status in regartds to an offical UN _position_ on this point.

Yes if Cyprus would be treated "as part of a single British people".That is to say the same way as Manchester, and get proportionately the same development funds, and pay proportionately the same taxes.

I am sorry but I find this impossible to beleieve. That GC and GC demands for self determination would have been satisfied with such an approach.

Its about time you drop the mask Erol.You are just repeating what grandpa Denktashi told you. That the 18% should have equal Political rights with the 82% either through 2 completely separate states or through a confederation, that would just be decoratively named "United" Cyprus. For as long as you continue having these ideas a solution is not possible and in the meantime you will be paying for the cost of the division and all the illegalities that go with occupation.

Well despite your taunts and insults I still maintain that I am expressing my views on the situtation. You believe no solution is possible unless the TC people agree to subjectage themselves to a GC majority. I believe there can be no solution unless GC can accept that there are two peoples in Cyprus and any agreement and unity has to be based on a degree of equality of these two seperate peoples. Depressing - but that seems to be the case. It would look like hopes for untiy remain remote if our views are typical of the views on both sides

[Piratis]

Will you waste any time to answer points you have not addressed - like on what evidence you declare colonisation illegal or like if it is illegal does it then justify the illegal acts of EOKA?

Somehow I doubt it.

I have already answered!!! Here it is even clearer:

The aspirations of the peoples of the Territories to achieve self-determination, and the international community's perception that United Nations Charter principles were being too slowly applied, led to the United Nations General Assembly's proclamation on 14 December 1960 of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - resolution 1514 (XV).


The Declaration states that "the subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the United Nations Charter, and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and cooperation, and that steps should be taken to transfer, unconditionally, all powers to the Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territoriesso that they might enjoy complete freedom and independence".

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

If you have a look at the "Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories" you will see Cyprus there. One Cyprus. Cyprus as a whole is "peoples".

Anyway, I am not telling you this to agree. We will never agree because your aim is the partition of our island. Discussing anything with you is really a waste of time.