Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

The right to self determination applies to 'peoples' - look it up. Not countries, not nations, not geographical regions. It is the fundamental human right from which all others derive. With enosis GC said they were part of some other 'people' (the Greek people) and thus defined the TC as part of some other 'people' than the GC. It is that very definition that grants them a separate and equal right to self determination as a different people, regardless of them being smaller numerically. If GC had chosen to define themselves as part of a unitary Cypriot 'people' inclusive of TC then there would be not seperate right to self determination for TC. That is why enosis was such a 'fucked up' choice because enosis defined us as separate 'peoples'. That you also wanted to have your cake (define us as separate peoples) and also eat the cake (deny that TC had any right to self determination having already defined them as separate peoples) was just a fuck up on a fuck up. That is exactly the point I am making and that you will steadfastly refuse to see or accept.

Completely correct Erolz!

These rights are actually fundamental International Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

However, it still does not give Turkey the right to invade, control and colonize a fully independent and recognized member nation of the UN.

Absolutely. The right to self determination does NOT give an automatic right to peoples to secede or form their own nation or by use of military force take control of an area. I absolutely agree. The point I am making here was to point out how and why the pursuit of enosis (rather than independence) post British rule promoted and defined a TC right to self determination that is equal to that of the GC community regardless of its smaller size. I point this out in the context of why it is necessary today, if we are to ever achieve unification of Cyprus, for GC to understand and accept this role that the pursuit of enosis played. Just as TC need to understand why the pursuit of partition was a 'fuck up' so do GC need to understand why the pursuit of enosis (back then) was also a 'fuck up'. Whilst GC still believe there was nothing wrong with the way they tried, back then, to impose enosis on all Cypriots as an expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people even though enosis actually said there was not such thing as a unitary Cypriot people then for me as a TC one of the core causes of the Cyprus problem remains.

What is evident though is how so many forumers here can be so stupid to promote to separate peoples on our island. Sotos, Kurupetos, Yialousa and Oracle, you better lift your socks because you are all playing into Turkey's hands. Maybe Turkey should give you all a medal of service!

Indeed. Not only does it play into the hands of Turkey, it has a material effect on me as a TC in regards to my perception as to if there is a realistic hope for unification in the future.

[erolz66]

Get Real I still remember you as the person who tried to argue - vociferously and against all actual evidence and truth - that a document submitted TO the Un BY the RoC was a document written BY the UN about the RoC, so forgive me if I am sceptical about your ability to understand UN documents.

Is the “TRNC” a Turkish Cypriot right to self-determination?

Look the right to self determination does NOT automatically grant a peoples the right to a nation state or to secede, so no as far as the TC community is a separate people from the GC (as enosis defined and made them btw) it does not 'justify' the TRNC. I never said it did so maybe you should calm down a bit. What I have been saying is that the pursuit of enosis portrayed as a genuine expression of the right to self determination of a unitary Cypriot people was an is paradoxical because it denies the existence of the very people it claims to be the expression of self determination of and in the process promotes the TC community as having a separate and equal right as a separate peoples. It is not that hard an idea to understand really.

It’s important to note that the UN uses the word “peoples” which means the human beings of a particular nation or electorate,

No peoples does NOT necessarily mean the human beings of a particular nation or electorate. If the right to self determination applied to the individuals of a nation or an electorate then the UDHR would say it applied to such. There is a reason why they use the word 'peoples' and not nations. ONE means of defining a 'people' is a nation sate but it is not the only way to do so. In the case of Cyprus we are talking about the creation of a NEW nation state that did not exist. There is no doubt that Cypriots had a right self determination in the face of colonial British rule. The question is did they have that right as an expression of a single unitary Cypriot people or did they have it as an expression of the rights of two separate peoples within Cyprus. Enosis tried to claim it was the genuine expression of the right of a single unitary Cypriot people whilst at the same time saying there was in fact no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people but in fact just a majority who were part of the unitary Greek people and some 'others' that whilst being 'other' had no right themselves to self determination. That is exactly the point I am making. It is why the pursuit of enosis then was a 'fuck up' of monumental proportions and why it strengthened and reinforced the idea that TC were a separate people with a separate and equal right to self determination.

The right of self-determination is that of countries or “peoples” as the UN refers to them, but when it comes to the rights of ethnic groups such as the Turkish Cypriots, then the appropriate charter is that of the…

Again you fail in basic understanding of both the concepts and wording of the right to self determination. For an EXISTING nation state one means of defining a 'people' within the context of the right to self determination is the members of that nation. However how well 'peoples' match with 'country' has everything to do with how inclusive that country represents the wills and views and interests of those within it. For a nation state that is YET to be created (as was the case with Cyprus) it is nothing short of madness to claim that 'peoples' = 'all those in the yet to be created nation state' when a majority also actually say there is no nation state of Cyprus and no unitary Cypriot peoples - but we say this in the name of a unitary Cypriot people / nation that we also say does not exist. It is the very madness that played a major part in getting us to the mess we are in today and yet one that many GC refuse to see or accept even 50 years after the fact.

It’s obvious that Turkish Cypriots DO NOT have any right to self-determination, but rights as an ethnic minority!

No it is obvious that the pursuit of enosis (saying there was no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people or nation) at the very point of the ending of colonial rule in Cyprus is what made the TC in Cyprus more than just a minority. That is my point.

Conclusion:
We can clearly see now that the implementation of self-determination is bound by international law and only applies to nations,

It is absolutely NOT the case or true that the right of the right to self determination applies solely to nations. To say such and think such is a fundamental perversion of the rights as laid out. Yes nation states, having signed and agreed to the UDHR have a duty to implement the UDHR, but that is obvious. Just as if a nation sate signs a treaty it is the obligation of that nation to implement and abide by the treaty. What you try and do here is say because the nation state that signs and therefore has a duty to implement the right to self determination that therefore means the right applies only to the nation state. That attempt is nothing more than a perversion of the spirit and the text of the UDHR.

so the notion that Turkish Cypriots (a ethnic community) have a right to “self-determination” on Cypriot territory that they along with Turkey, had ethnically cleansed of any Greek Cypriots in July and August of 1974, has no legal standing whatsoever!

No one is saying that TC having a separate rights to self determination gave them a right to what happened in 74. Once more the point I am making and talking about is what the role the pursuit of enosis had (before 74) in the mess we are in today and how a failure to see and accept that undermines our ability to find a solution going forward.

[Sotos]

What the fuck is "unitary Cypriot people". There are those that ARE Cypriot people and those who AREN'T. Our leadership never claimed that the enosis aim represented the Turkish minority, only the native Cypriot people who are the MAJORITY. And nobody said that the Turkish minority should have no say. You don't need to be native to have a say. But your say should be as much as the say of anybody else. One person ONE vote. Why should your Turkish minority have more say than the majority?

The right to self determination applies to 'peoples' - look it up. Not countries, not nations, not geographical regions. It is the fundamental human right from which all others derive. With enosis GC said they were part of some other 'people' (the Greek people) and thus defined the TC as part of some other 'people' than the GC. It is that very definition that grants them a separate and equal right to self determination as a different people, regardless of them being smaller numerically. If GC had chosen to define themselves as part of a unitary Cypriot 'people' inclusive of TC then there would be not seperate right to self determination for TC. That is why enosis was such a 'fucked up' choice because enosis defined us as separate 'peoples'. That you also wanted to have your cake (define us as separate peoples) and also eat the cake (deny that TC had any right to self determination having already defined them as separate peoples) was just a fuck up on a fuck up. That is exactly the point I am making and that you will steadfastly refuse to see or accept.

The TURKISH people have their self-determination in the place where they are the MAJORITY. In Cyprus what we have is a Turkish MINORITY. By DEFINITION an ethnic minority is NOT the same "people" as the majority. If they were they wouldn't be called an ethnic minority. Is the Greek minority in Turkey the same people as the Turks? NO. Does the Greek minority in Turkey have a self-determination right that would entitle them to ethnically cleanse part of the country and claim it as their own? NO. So you are talking BULLSHIT. You have always been different "people" because you are an ethnic minority and ethnic minorities do NOT have any self-determination right.

Had you not been trying to screw us and respected DEMOCRACY and MAJORITY RULE then we would also respect your MINORITY RIGHTS.

You have to know that is not true. You only have to look at how ethnic minorities, especially those of Turkish origin have been treated in Greece between 1960 and today, to know that is not true. You only have to look at your own posts, where you repeatedly argue that TC are not 'true' Cypriots, but just left over invaders and colonisers to know that is not true.

Far better than Turkey treats its Greek minority. And my own posts say only the truth... how is the truth no respect for your minority rights? As far as I know there is no minority right to be called native!

You claimed if we had just shut up and let enosis be imposed on us in our own shared homeland against our will that 'our minority rights' would have been respected. You only have to look at the repeated violations by Greece of the minority rights of ethnic Turks who live in Greece to know that is not the case. I can quote countless credible documents that record the abuse of the minority rights of ethnic Turks living in Greece from the 1960 to present day - but you will still choose to believe that which is convenient for you to believe regardless.

Obviously I would also expect from Turkey to respect the rights of the Greek minority. What exactly do you want? The rights of the Turkish minority to be respected while the rights of the Greek minority not to be respected?

Everybody everywhere arrived as settlers at some point. But time is critical here. The English went to Britain 1500 years ago... thats enough to make them natives there by now. But they can not be called natives in the places they colonized the last few centuries... unless those places were uninhabited or something.

Are you serious ? When did Europeans settle in North America ? In Australia ? In South America ? In Africa ?

Google it. About the same time when the Turks colonized Cyprus.

Exactly. So according to your arbitrary definition above, Americans of European descent, Australians, South Americans, Africans etc etc - none of those can consider themselves native to the countries they live in today and their families have lived in for generations but are in fact just 'colonisers' and should have no say in the future of those countries as colonisers - nor will they get such 'status' for another 1000 years. Fuckwit.

Exactly. Most of them do not consider themselves as "native Americans" or "native Australians" or "Native Africans". They consider themselves "Americans", "Australians", "Africans"... but NOT native. I wouldn't give you the status of "colonizers" or "invaders" because of what you did some centuries ago... but you did it AGAIN 40 years ago and you keep doing it... bringing more Turks to Cyprus and soon after labeling them as "Cypriots"!!!

[Sotos]

No one is saying that TC having a separate rights to self determination gave them a right to what happened in 74.

Then why don't you tell us what rights do you think your ethnic minority had/has, always keeping in mind that the same things should apply to all other ethnic minorities e.g. the Greeks in Turkey.

[erolz66]

The TURKISH people have their self-determination in the place where they are the MAJORITY. In Cyprus what we have is a Turkish MINORITY. By DEFINITION an ethnic minority is NOT the same "people" as the majority. If they were they wouldn't be called an ethnic minority. Is the Greek minority in Turkey the same people as the Turks? NO. Does the Greek minority in Turkey have a self-determination right that would entitle them to ethnically cleanse part of the country and claim it as their own? NO. So you are talking BULLSHIT. You have always been different "people" because you are an ethnic minority and ethnic minorities do NOT have any self-determination right.

When the nation state of Turkey was formed as a nation state, it was formed as an inclusive nation state, that included all within its borders. Turkey did not define those within the geographical area of Turkey as a majority that were part of some other pre existing other nation and a minority 'others' that happened to live there and also had to also join this other pre existing nation whether they wanted to or not. All in Turkey were considered part of this new Turkish nation state, ethnic minorities included. By contrast the majority in Cyprus did not seek to create a Cypriot nation, that included TC. They said that they should be part of the pre existing nation of Greece, not just those that considered themselves Greek, but also all others that shared the geographical area as a homeland. If you can not see the difference then that is your problem. What made the TC a people with a separate and equal right to self determination (unlike the ethnic minorities in other nations, that either arrived in a pre existing nation or were included in the formation of the nation itself when it was formed) was the very fact that GC chose to not try and create a Cypriot nation that included the TC as an ethnic minority within it, but instead chose to try and force the union of the whole geographical area and all those who's homeland it was with a third external nation and in the NAME of a unitary Cypriot nation / people, that they said does not exist. ENOSIS was a fuck up. It was essentially unique in the formation of nation states following colonial rule - in that a majority of those ruled did not seek to rule themselves but sought to replace on external ruler with a different one. That 'uniqueness' , enosis and not independence, is why the status of the TC minority in Cyprus, at the point at which Cyprus was emerging from colonial rule is also 'unique'. This is the very point I have been making over and over and you deny over and over. It was a fuck up and you need to understand why it was a fuck if there is to be any chance we can create a new and better future for all Cypriots. Simply insisting over and over that it was not a fuck up has got us no where to date and will get us no where in the future.

[B25]

The TURKISH people have their self-determination in the place where they are the MAJORITY. In Cyprus what we have is a Turkish MINORITY. By DEFINITION an ethnic minority is NOT the same "people" as the majority. If they were they wouldn't be called an ethnic minority. Is the Greek minority in Turkey the same people as the Turks? NO. Does the Greek minority in Turkey have a self-determination right that would entitle them to ethnically cleanse part of the country and claim it as their own? NO. So you are talking BULLSHIT. You have always been different "people" because you are an ethnic minority and ethnic minorities do NOT have any self-determination right.

When the nation state of Turkey was formed as a nation state, it was formed as an inclusive nation state, that included all within its borders. Turkey did not define those within the geographical area of Turkey as a majority that were part of some other pre existing other nation and a minority 'others' that happened to live there and also had to also join this other pre existing nation whether they wanted to or not. All in Turkey were considered part of this new Turkish nation state, ethnic minorities included. By contrast the majority in Cyprus did not seek to create a Cypriot nation, that included TC. They said that they should be part of the pre existing nation of Greece, not just those that considered themselves Greek, but also all others that shared the geographical area as a homeland. If you can not see the difference then that is your problem. What made the TC a people with a separate and equal right to self determination (unlike the ethnic minorities in other nations, that either arrived in a pre existing nation or were included in the formation of the nation itself when it was formed) was the very fact that GC chose to not try and create a Cypriot nation that included the TC as an ethnic minority within it, but instead chose to try and force the union of the whole geographical area and all those who's homeland it was with a third external nation and in the NAME of a unitary Cypriot nation / people, that they said does not exist. ENOSIS was a fuck up. It was essentially unique in the formation of nation states following colonial rule - in that a majority of those ruled did not seek to rule themselves but sought to replace on external ruler with a different one. That 'uniqueness' , enosis and not independence, is why the status of the TC minority in Cyprus, at the point at which Cyprus was emerging from colonial rule is also 'unique'. This is the very point I have been making over and over and you deny over and over. It was a fuck up and you need to understand why it was a fuck if there is to be any chance we can create a new and better future for all Cypriots. Simply insisting over and over that it was not a fuck up has got us no where to date and will get us no where in the future.

The biggest pile of BS ever. Tell us what the population of Greeks were in Constantinople say 50 years ago, and tell us what they are today. You will see a vast reduction due to Turkish pogroms and ethic oppression against the Greek people. You have decimated this 'ethnic minority' almost to zero and you claim you are victims in Cyprus FFS.

And that's not even including all the other heavily Greek populated areas in the west of Turkey that you have completely taken over. Seems it is just a oneway street for the Turks, it is all take, take F take. Who's the fuckwit now a??

[erolz66]

No one is saying that TC having a separate rights to self determination gave them a right to what happened in 74.

Then why don't you tell us what rights do you think your ethnic minority had/has, always keeping in mind that the same things should apply to all other ethnic minorities e.g. the Greeks in Turkey.

What should have happened if the GC wanted to NOT create a Cypriot nation that included TC within it following the end of colonial rule, is they should have done it honestly - that is as an expression of the right to self determination of Greeks and the Greek people that lived in Cyprus and accepting as such that there were therefore others who were not part of the Greek people and thus must also have a separate and equal right to self determination as well. That however would have required some compromise on the side of the GC community - something they thought (wrongly as it turned out) they could for go and still achieve their aims without any need for compromise, that they could have all they wanted without the need for any consideration for the others that shared their homeland. As it turned out they were horribly wrong to their and our great cost.

You ask what rights I think TC as a group (call it community of peoples or whatever) have and should have. My answer is exactly the same as those that GC as a group should and do have. Namely the right to self determination - that is the right to have an effective say in their own futures and not have such defined and controlled by others (and people who explicitly chose to define themselves as 'others'). What could have and should have happened in Cyprus following colonial rule is that TC as a group should have been able to exercise this right as part of a Cypriot peoples and Cypriot nation, alongside GC. The problem was that GC said with enosis that there was no Cypriot people and Cypriot nation, through which the TC community could have exercised its right to self determination. That is why enosis was such a fuck up. It denied TC the right to exercise their self determination through the entity of an inclusive Cypriot nation and people and thus forced them to either give up such a right all together or accept that they never had or have such a right. This is what you want me to do today - accept that TC as a group have no such right. Well I am sorry that was not acceptable then and is not acceptable now either.

In its simplest form, we have a fundamental right to not be ruled in our own (shared) homeland by those that chose to define themselves as 'other' than us.

[erolz66]

The biggest pile of BS ever. Tell us what the population of Greeks were in Constantinople say 50 years ago, and tell us what they are today. You will see a vast reduction due to Turkish pogroms and ethic oppression against the Greek people. You have decimated this 'ethnic minority' almost to zero and you claim you are victims in Cyprus FFS.

B25 having a battle of wits with you feels so cruel and unfair, given how poorly armed you are for such a battle.

The point, which you have so completely and obviously missed, is not how well a nation has treated its ethnic minorities. The point was about the status of those ethnic minorities as such (rather than peoples) and why they have that status (and not those of separate peoples).

Seems it is just a oneway street for the Turks, it is all take, take F take. Who's the fuckwit now a??

Look if you have issues with the Turks - then take them up with the Turks. I am a Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot. You can accuse the Turks of all you like but such accusations do not apply to me because I am not a Turk, so go ahead, knock yourself out.

[B25]

The biggest pile of BS ever. Tell us what the population of Greeks were in Constantinople say 50 years ago, and tell us what they are today. You will see a vast reduction due to Turkish pogroms and ethic oppression against the Greek people. You have decimated this 'ethnic minority' almost to zero and you claim you are victims in Cyprus FFS.

B25 having a battle of wits with you feels so cruel and unfair, given how poorly armed you are for such a battle.

The point, which you have so completely and obviously missed, is not how well a nation has treated its ethnic minorities. The point was about the status of those ethnic minorities as such (rather than peoples) and why they have that status (and not those of separate peoples).

Seems it is just a oneway street for the Turks, it is all take, take F take. Who's the fuckwit now a??

Look if you have issues with the Turks - then take them up with the Turks. I am a Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot. You can accuse the Turks of all you like but such accusations do not apply to me because I am not a Turk, so go ahead, knock yourself out.

Same shit different name.

My example above is very relevant, your problem is you have no argument and as such just ignored it, but it will remain there for all to see. You are just plain hypocrites.

As a guest to Cyprus, you didn't have the right to any form of self determination, you made many assumptions about what may have occured and got your knickers in a twist and sold us out.

[erolz66]

Same shit different name.

Bit like eoka, the 'organisation' and eoka b then ?

As a guest to Cyprus, you didn't have the right to any form of self determination, .....

And there we have the Cyprus problem from a TC perspective, historically and today as far as such views are common place amongst GC still, in a nutshell. GC are the 'owners' of Cyprus, with full and sole rights of ownership and TC are just 'guests', with no right other than to shut up and accept whatever the 'owners' tell them they should accept. It is exactly such a view that empowered those within the TC community that sought and seek partition and allowed Turkey to take the actions it did in 74 and get away with it.