Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

You are not arguing about what rights the respective communities should have. You are arguing about what rights we had in the 1950s, trying to shift the blame on us and excuse your actions.

Look either the TC community had the rights I describe above in the circumstances I describe above then AND now or they did not. You maintain they did not have them then or now and what is more you also claim that the denial that we had such rights then has nothing to do with how we got in the mess we are in today and the denial we have them today nothing to do with solving the mess we are in today.

[Sotos]

At NO point in history the Turks wanted a truly independent Cyprus. They had Cyprus under their rule for centuries and they had all the power to make Cyprus independent but they didn't. Neither Turkey nor TCs proposed independence in the 1950s or earlier. Erolz is trying to blame our side for choosing "Greek Rule" for an island where the native majority is Greek, when their choice was either "British Rule", "Turkish Rule" or "Partition"!

[Nikitas]

I would rather focus on today and statements and actions that point to Turkey's policies and plans NOW.

Davutoglu, the supposed wizard of Turkish foreign policy, has stated and written that Turkey will have interests in Cyprus even if there was not a single moslem there. Interesting that he defines the religion and not the ethnicity as a foundation of interest. Then we have Ecevit, shortly before he died, in an interview on Greek TV he said Turkey does not want double union because that would make Greece a Middle Eastern power. Then we get Erdoghan with his outright racism, but I will pick his statement at Birkenstock when he said "we got what we wanted without returning an inch of land or removing a single soldier". From the above it is clear that Turkey is in a bit of a fluff, none of the possible solutions seem to fit with its plans, not even outright partition. It is reasonable to infer that Turkey's long term plan is a takeover of the whole island. This has nothing to do with Ottomans etc, it is a problem we face NOW.

Greece on the other hand managed to weasel out of the Cyprus problem altogether since 1974 taking the "they decide we support" stance. Now with the oil and gas finds it seems to be changing.

As for Enosis, that bird died on July 15 1974. The TCs do not realise the radical change that happened to the GC community that day. The illusions were shattered. But the propaganda re Enosis persists and it seems to be working among TCs. Yet they fail to see that the situation that has come about since 1974 is Taksim, which is just as negative for the GCs as Enosis is to the TCs.

Christopher Hitchens had framed the problem in terms of Crete or the Hatay. If we opt for independence, vocally and clearly, as in a referendum by both communities in unison, not separately, we can rule out both of these options. Then we can figure out the details. during the build up to such a referendum we will be able to see who and with what support want something other than independence. My guess it will be very few from each community.

My fear is that the BBF is simply a preamble to the final push for either a Crete or Hatay kind of solution.

[Sotos]

You are not arguing about what rights the respective communities should have. You are arguing about what rights we had in the 1950s, trying to shift the blame on us and excuse your actions.

Look either the TC community had the rights I describe above in the circumstances I describe above then AND now or they did not. You maintain they did not have them then or now and what is more you also claim that the denial that we had such rights then has nothing to do with how we got in the mess we are in today and the denial we have them today nothing to do with solving the mess we are in today.

The mess we are today is a result of your CRIMINAL ACTIONS and nothing can excuse you. You tried to do the same when we joined the EU... your side claiming that Cypriots can not have that choice without your approval and Turkey threatening us with another invasion. Had Turkey invaded Cyprus again to prevent us from exercising our RIGHT would you then say that the ADDITIONAL mess created by YOUR ACTIONS was our fault because we exercised our democratic right to choose where Cyprus should belong? Turkey is trying the same tactics again claiming that we don't have a right to our EEZ. If Turkey acts on its threats and causes more destruction to Cyprus would you then say that it was our fault because we didn't obey your orders of what rights you allow us to have? You don't get to define what RIGHTS are, and you are not a fucking judge or policeman with a right to use force punish us just because YOU believe we don't have a right for something.

[erolz66]

At NO point in history the Turks wanted a truly independent Cyprus.

I am a TC and I want an independent Cyprus.

They had Cyprus under their rule for centuries and they had all the power to make Cyprus independent but they didn't.

Another entirely specious argument. No colonial power in the period Cyprus was under ottoman rule gave colonies independence. Some colonies FOUGHT for their independence towards the end of this period but no colonial power, not the Ottomans, not the French, Dutch, Spanish, British or any other was going around making their colonies independent.

Neither Turkey nor TCs proposed independence in the 1950s or earlier. Erolz is trying to blame our side for choosing "Greek Rule" for an island where the native majority is Greek, when their choice was either "British Rule", "Turkish Rule" or "Partition"!

Turkish rule and partition were responses to the demand for enosis. If you had of chosen instead true independence for Cyprus, then TC would have had and have no right to resist such an imposition on them in their shared homeland, even if they had of had the desire to resist such and that is the whole point I am trying to make and you refuse to accept. We did in the end negotiate and agree INDPENDANCE for Cyprus under the 60's agreements and it was you having agreed this who then unilaterally and illegally chose to change those agreements because they were 'unfair' - that is they did not allow for you to pursue a purely Greek future for all of Cyprus and all Cypriots without any regard for the wishes of the TC community that was Cypriot and NOT Greek.

[Nikitas]

Erol, re your specific question on the right of self determination of each community. Yes they do, and as these options materialised in the 1950s they were mutually exclusive, the GCs wanted Enosis, the TCs Taksim, and the two obviously could not happen. Independence back then looked like a consolation prize for both.

We come to now. Independence now is not a consolation prize. It is a preferable choice to all other possible solutions. No sane Cypriot wants to see the whole or part of the island relegated to the status of a province of any other country with externally appointed unelected prefects and regional governors.

I will add a personal observation here, looking at Cyprus from afar, having lived as an expat since the 70s. The GC community after 1974 has matured politically. There is none of the obstinate bravado in words or actions that was the hallmark of the 50s and 60s. And it realised that post 1974 it is essentially alone. Again as a personal observation, I will say that the same does not hold for the TC community. It seems that the TC community has chosen to remain in the shadow of Turkey and not assert its rights, not even in the area it considers its own "state".

Above all I am puzzled by the TC insistence on foreign troops being permanently stationed on the island post a solution. Troops mean officer corps, and that means contingency plans and preparations. This is what soldiers do. In our case it means a replay of the 60s, but this time with more firepower, from clearly defined areas against clear objectives. Why anyone in the TC community does not see it is a mystery.

[Sotos]

At NO point in history the Turks wanted a truly independent Cyprus.

I am a TC and I want an independent Cyprus.

They had Cyprus under their rule for centuries and they had all the power to make Cyprus independent but they didn't.

Another entirely specious argument. No colonial power in the period Cyprus was under ottoman rule gave colonies independence. Some colonies FOUGHT for their independence towards the end of this period but no colonial power, not the Ottomans, not the French, Dutch, Spanish, British or any other was going around making their colonies independent.

Neither Turkey nor TCs proposed independence in the 1950s or earlier. Erolz is trying to blame our side for choosing "Greek Rule" for an island where the native majority is Greek, when their choice was either "British Rule", "Turkish Rule" or "Partition"!

Turkish rule and partition were responses to the demand for enosis. If you had of chosen instead true independence for Cyprus, then TC would have had and have no right to resist such an imposition on them in their shared homeland, even if they had of had the desire to resist such and that is the whole point I am trying to make and you refuse to accept. We did in the end negotiate and agree INDPENDANCE for Cyprus under the 60's agreements and it was you having agreed this who then unilaterally and illegally chose to change those agreements because they were 'unfair' - that is they did not allow for you to pursue a purely Greek future for all of Cyprus and all Cypriots without any regard for the wishes of the TC community that was Cypriot and NOT Greek.

Enosis was a response to foreign oppression. If you had a better idea of how to end our oppression then why you NEVER proposed it? Because you were satisfied with having foreigners oppressing Cyprus and for you nothing needed to change! And even after we made the perfectly logical choice that an island were the native majority is 80%+ Greek should be ruled by Greeks you STILL didn't propose independence or any other valid alternative that could be acceptable to Cypriots but your choice was instead the criminal Partition that could be achieved only by Ethnic Cleansing. The pseudo independence you forced on Cyprus in 1960 was crap made by foreigners to serve their own interests. It was undemocratic and it discriminated against the native people. This is the ONLY reason why some felt that enosis would be better if independence could not be fixed and be made as the Cypriots wanted it to be!

[erolz66]

As for Enosis, that bird died on July 15 1974. The TCs do not realise the radical change that happened to the GC community that day. The illusions were shattered. But the propaganda re Enosis persists and it seems to be working among TCs. Yet they fail to see that the situation that has come about since 1974 is Taksim, which is just as negative for the GCs as Enosis is to the TCs.

The enosis bird may have died (though to paraphrase monty python maybe it is just 'resting'). What concerns me and more so in light of discussions with the likes of Sotos, is that the principal that under laid the GC attempt to achieve enosis pre 74 namely that GC alone, acting as Greeks had (and still have should they wish to in the future) the RIGHT to decide my homeland will be ruled from Athens by Greeks and that I have no right to any effective say in that decision at all, would seem to be very much alive today , at least in some like Sotos. That is I am afraid a concern to me today.

[erolz66]

Erol, re your specific question on the right of self determination of each community. Yes they do, .....

And for me personally with that one simple acceptance, I believe you and I could create an acceptable and fair framework for a future unified Cyprus. What I am trying to get Sotos to understand is that without such acceptance I could not create any sort of future plan for a unified Cyprus but only try and negotiate an agreed separation.

[Sotos]

What about joining the European "Christian" EU? What if EU integration progresses to that of a state? Do you have a "right" to stop Cyprus?