Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

Viewpoint!
As from last night, Turkey has made a very historic compromise and a historic agreement. This compromise is the following: The Cyprus problem will be solved in line with the principles on which the European Union is founded.

Do you know which are these principles?

If you do not know, then you better go and find and memorise them, because they will be the basis on which the Cyprus problem will be solved.

In case you again need my help, I know you always do, I will take once more the pain to provide it to you, with the hope that it will be the last time, although I have my serious doubts whether this thing will ever happen.

A helping tip for you! The principle of Atatürk that “one Turk equals the whole world,” is not one of these EU principles, neither the ottoman principle of “Millet-devlet” is such.

[garbitsch]

Kifeas that principle was used to create a national identity in the minds of religious Turks in order to save the Turkish homeland from the invadors. It has no importance today.

[garbitsch]

growuptcs,

garbitsch, unlike viewpoint, is not a hardliner. He is simply annoyed that we are not willing to make additional compromises and he hardens his position as a reaction. I too can sound more hardline than what I really am when I get annoyed.

I always said I am for a gradual settlement, not a settlement that will come with a plan posed on us by the foreigners.

I too believe that this is necessary.
This is why I said many times that the first thing we have to agree are the main principles and what the end result should be. Then we will discuss the stages that will lead us better to this end result.

I believe that with people like garbitsch we can agree on the principles and the end result and our disagreement might be only on the implementation, which is something we can work on.

However with the hardliners, I believe it is impossible to agree on the principles and what the end result should be. This makes any discussion with them a waste of time.

Well, you are true Piratis. I am just scared of an implicit discrimination on Turkish Cypriots by the majority Greek Cypriots... In order for a kind of solution to work, both sides should be sincere to each other... We have been living seperately for 30 years. My generation has never had the chance to live with Greek Cypriots. That's why I have doubts and I do not really want to leave my country as a result of realisation of such concerns.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas you are doing real well with your respectful rehtoric didnt expect anything less for your goodself.

You appear to have a very optimistic air to you today, why would that be? are you pleased about Turkeys opening of accession talks or is it that you feel they are now oblidged to solve the Cyprus issue in the near future??or maybe the leverage papdop will now enjoy??
I wouldnt be so confident and I never under estimate Turkey, when its necessary they pull out all the stops and get what they want...so the optimisim i sense in your posting could well be stuck in your throat over the next 10 15 20 years....

Who knows what will develop if anything....

[garbitsch]

For many times I admitted that Annan plan was biased and if I were a G.C I would have voted No. Secondly, I always said I am for a gradual settlement, not a settlement that will come with a plan posed on us by the foreigners. Please just read what I write. I might be pissed off sometimes but I reject myself being categorised by the people who do not even know me.

Garbitsch, why do you think the A-plan turned out to be biased and essentially non-acceptable for the GC side? Why such an opportunity to solve the Cyprus problem was so unfortunately lost due to presenting and proposing such a non-acceptable plan for one of the two sides, namely the GC one? Can you share your sincere opinion and judgement on this issue?

I believe the A-plan turned out to be biased, because the Greek side had more important things to do, i.e. getting prepared for the EU membership and the UN thought that the Turkish side was the stubborn party and they didn't really take into consideration the Greek concerns. I do not want to contribute to the conspiracy debate.
I do not believe there was an opportunity. The plan either the first or the last one would have been rejected by any of the sides, since it wouldn't bring a win-win outcome for neither Turkish side nor the Greek side. I want to point the lack of dialogue between the two sides, mainly between Klerides and Denktas.

[bg_turk]

For many times I admitted that Annan plan was biased and if I were a G.C I would have voted No. Secondly, I always said I am for a gradual settlement, not a settlement that will come with a plan posed on us by the foreigners. Please just read what I write. I might be pissed off sometimes but I reject myself being categorised by the people who do not even know me.

Garbitsch, why do you think the A-plan turned out to be biased and essentially non-acceptable for the GC side? Why such an opportunity to solve the Cyprus problem was so unfortunately lost due to presenting and proposing such a non-acceptable plan for one of the two sides, namely the GC one? Can you share your sincere opinion and judgement on this issue?

I believe the A-plan turned out to be biased, because the Greek side had more important things to do, i.e. getting prepared for the EU membership and the UN thought that the Turkish side was the stubborn party and they didn't really take into consideration the Greek concerns. I do not want to contribute to the conspiracy debate.
I do not believe there was an opportunity. The plan either the first or the last one would have been rejected by any of the sides, since it wouldn't bring a win-win outcome for neither Turkish side nor the Greek side. I want to point the lack of dialogue between the two sides, mainly between Klerides and Denktas.

garbitsch,

As far as I know the final version of the Annan Plan was very similar to its pervious version, which Clerides accepted but Denktash rejected. Why did Clerides accept such a biased plan in the first place?


Clearly Dentash thought the plan was biased as well. I do not think it will ever be possible to have a completely unbiased plan. A true comprehensive solution requires both sides to make compromises.

If you believe the Annan Plan was biased in favor of TCs, what would in your opinion be an ubiased solution?

[Kifeas]

Kifeas that principle was used to create a national identity in the minds of religious Turks in order to save the Turkish homeland from the invadors. It has no importance today.

No Garbitsch this is not the purpose of “millet-devlet systemi” which the ottomans were utilising, although what you said might have served that purpose too. The purpose of the millet-devlet concept was to mainly facilitate the ottoman ruling over the people of the various ottoman provinces and to also help the collection of Taxes. Under this concept, each religious community that was living under the territories of the Ottoman Empire was assumed to belong in one such millet. Each millet, according to it's characteristics, was classified and placed under a category according to which it had certain rights and /or privileges or it did not have. For example, the Christian or "Rum" millet in Cyprus would be obliged to pay 14% of Taxes while the Moslem or the Turkish millet would have to pay only 7%. Another privilege was that the ottoman administration service men in Cyprus would come out of the Moslem millet, or that the "Rum" millet was allowed to build houses of only one store while the Moslem millet two stores, etc, etc. Usually the religious leaders of each millet were appointed by the ottomans as the representatives of this millet when appearing in frond of the sultan and were also responsible for this millet's tax collection. Thanks to this millet-devlet concept was also the large power that the church gained in Cyprus as the representive of the "Rum" millet, which continued until recently.

Notice how the 1960 constitution of Cyprus was based on this "millet-devlet" philosophy, which Turkey tried and succeeded in passing into it. The people of Cyprus are not assumed to be one people and as such they did not exist. Instead, unlike any other 20th century modern country, it was assumed that in Cyprus there are two "millets" and their rights must be separated and exercised within the context of their corresponding millet.

In a nutshell, what we were given in the 1960 constitution was nothing more or less than a continuation of the ottoman “millet-devlet systemi,” whose continuity, unfortunately, the TCs want to perpetuation in Cyprus to eternity, even though we are a EU member country.

[garbitsch]

Notice how the 1960 constitution of Cyprus was based on this "millet-devlet" philosophy, which Turkey tried and succeeded in passing into it. The people of Cyprus are not assumed to be one people and as such they did not exist. Instead, unlike any other 20th century modern country, it was assumed that in Cyprus there are two "millets" and their rights must be separated and exercised within the context of their corresponding millet.

In a nutshell, what we were given in the 1960 constitution was nothing more or less than a continuation of the ottoman “millet-devlet systemi,” whose continuity, unfortunately, the TCs want to perpetuation in Cyprus to eternity, even though we are a EU member country.

I cannot agree with you in that one. Tell me what percent of Greek Cypriots used to think of themselves as "Cypriots" and what percent did as "Greeks" before 1960. Even under the British administration, there were two different communities. The Cypriots were never united in Cyprus. There were always Turks and Greeks in the island, not Cypriots. A distinct Cypriot identity became prominent after 1974 when the Greek Cypriots changed their policies by abandoning enosis. The independence of RoC was even celebrated after 1974. (I am quoting from the book Echoes from the Dead Zone by Papadakis). If the Cypriots had cooperated from the begining, then there won't be any problem at all. Even now the Greek Cypriots use "Cypriotness" but I am quite sure they still see Turkish Cypriots as different. This is not part of the millet-devlet sistemi unfortunately, and the existence of two millets (two communities in other words) in Cyprus was something the Greek Cypriots still admit.