Sotos wrote: Constantinople (and other territories with significant Greek minorities) went from being part of Ottoman empire to being part of Turkey and the permission of the Greek minorities was never taken for this. Not to mention that the Greeks of Anatolia have been there long before the Turks and they have been oppressed by the Turks for centuries. You take a line from a resolution.... that didn't even exist in 1960, and then you interpret it in any way you see fit. What you wrote above is just your own self-centered interpretation which you made up to claim rights for yourselves while at the same time excluding from the same rights other minorities.
This is facile Sotos and to be honest I tire of your stubborn ignorance but one more and possibly final time
The modern state of Turkey today was NOT formed from a transition from colonial rule to some new status as an expression of the right to self determination of the people who lived there. Fundamental difference number one. Even if it had of been formed in such a way, which it was not and could not have been at the time it was formed because no such right existed at that time under international law, there would STILL be fundamental difference number two. The majority in Turkey did not say 'we do not believe we are Turkish, we do not believe there is such a thing as a Turkish people or should be a Turkish state which all who live here can be part of but actually we believe we are Syrians and part of the Syrian people (or you can replace Syria with any other country) and we choose that not just for those of us who live in Turkey who think they are Syrian but we also say we have the right to impose it on all those in Turkey who are NOT Syrian as well because there are more of us. These differences are not 'cosmetic' or minor they are BOTH fundamental to why the situation was and is different in Cyprus yet you continue to pretend there is no such difference.
You argument that 'the right to self determination of people' was not enshrined in international law till 1965 is as fatuous as it is historically incorrect. It shows either an ignorance of historical fact or a wilful intent to distort it. If you want the dates in which this right became enshrined in international law they are as follows.
In 1941 Allies of World War II signed the Atlantic Charter and accepted the principle of self-determination. In January 1942 twenty-six states signed the Declaration by United Nations, which accepted those principles. The ratification of the United Nations Charter in 1945 at the end of World War II placed the right of self-determination into the framework of international law and diplomacy.
Chapter 1, Article 1, part 2 states that purpose of the UN Charter is: "To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace."
Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)[22] and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)[23] reads: "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."
To try and make out that the end of Colonial rule in Cyprus was achieved outside of and before an international legal framework existed for the right to self determination of peoples is simply preposterous. Just as it is preposterous to suggest that Turkey was formed as a nation state inside of and after an international legal framework existed for the right to self determination of peoples. It is just absolute historical FACT that Cyprus sought and achieved the end of British Colonial rule "by means of the application of the principle of self-determination." and that this is totally different from how Turkey was formed as a modern nation state.
So can we at least once and for all put away this absurd notion that the ending of Colonial rule in Cyprus was not achieved "by means of the application of the principle of self-determination." It was - that it was is historical fact not opinion , just as it is historical fact that when Turkey was formed as a modern nation state there existed NO such international legal framework for the right to self determination of peoples.
So British rule was ended in Cyprus "by means of the application of the principle of self-determination." The right to self determination, for as long as it has had international legal stature (since 1941) has ALWAYS attached that right to 'peoples'. Not 'states', not 'nations', not 'regions' but always to peoples. The only questions then that remain are how to define 'peoples' and by what means can self determination be achieved. Taking the second last, the means by which self determination can be achieved. It can be achieved by independence as a nations state, by union with an existing state, by federalisation or local 'self rule' within a states. All are valid means for delivering to a 'peoples' their right to self determination. Which means you choose has a profound and fundamental effect on how 'peoples' can be defined. If the choice is Independence of all within Cyprus regardless of ethnic background, then peoples can and indeed should be defined as the (unitary) Cypriot people regardless of ethnic back ground and there is no problem or issue. We are all Cypriots and the TC represent and ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people, with no more (or less) rights than any other ethic minority anywhere else. However when the GC choose instead not independence but union with Greece BECAUSE they are different from us as TC, then they can no longer validly do so in the name of a unitary Cypriot people BECAUSE such a choice explicitly says we do not believe there is or should be a unitary Cypriot people with a state of its own through which all Cypriots regardless of ethnic back ground express their right to self determination. You say that there is "us - a part of the Greek people" and some "others" and in doing so your MAKE the TC community some other peoples as far as the definition of the right to determination of PEOPLES is concerned, in both the spirit of the right and in the letter of it as it is written. This is WHY you seeking enosis and not independence as an expression of the right to self determination made the situation in Cyprus 'not normal' and changed the status of the TC community from one of a potential ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people regardless of ethnic background (with no more rights than ethnic minorities anywhere) to something more than just that, to a people separate from you and thus with an equal and separate right to self determination. There is simply no moral or ethical or legal basis on which you can claim the desire on your part for union with Greece was a valid expression of a unitary Cypriot people, given that the very act of union defines you as NOT part of a unitary Cypriot people but part of a unitary Greek people. The pursuit of Enosis and not independence as an expression of the right to self determination of peoples defined us as different people. Enosis as an expression of the right to self determination of peoples made the TC community more than just an ethnic minority. The pursuit of Enosis and not independence as an expression of the right to self determination of peoples made the situation in Cyprus 'not normal' and in doing so required 'atypical' solutions. Having first MADE us a different peoples from you, by choosing enosis and not independence, you then sought to deny us our valid natural and written rights as a people in Cyprus made different and separate to you (by your OWN choice) and you personally STILL seek to deny us that right as a right.
Sotos wrote:My point is that in Cyprus the native people are also the majority. If you as a minority were the native people and we as the majority were the more recent Colonists THEN maybe you would have rights which are more than minority rights... like the native Americans in USA have certain rights which the black, Asian etc minorities do not have. But when you are a minority AND not a native one... then you really can't demand more rights than all other minorities!
Greek culture and GC are NOT 'native' to Cyprus, the very concept is absurd, but I have till now ignored it and will continue to ignore it for now. Even accepting such an absurd notion you still fail to understand my point or your own inconsistencies. It really is very simple. Either TC have as much right to consider Cyprus their homeland as GC do , or they do not. Nothing to do with minority, majority or rights, just that - can TC consider Cyprus their homeland the same as GC do. If they can then all this talk of 'native' or not is irrelevant. If they can not (according to you) then you have to deal with the inconsistency with regard to if European Americans can consider America their homeland the same as a native American can.
Sotos wrote:Now, talking about the FUTURE... you need to give us the details about how exactly what you want would work. If it is something that doesn't violate democratic principles and it is limited and protected against abuse then I have no reason not to accept it as just and fair... but not just for you. The Greek minority in Turkey and all minorities should also have something that is just and fair and which in any case would be used ONLY if the majority tries to do something wrong.
What is the point Sotos ? You STILL refuse to accept that the TC community had a right to resist the imposition of enosis on them in their own homeland against their will and with no consideration for their wishes, a right we had NOT because we were an ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people but a right we had because enosis defined and made us as NOT part of a unitary Cypriot people, but defined you as Greeks and part of the Greek people and us as some 'other' people. Whilst you refuse to even understand this there is little point in getting into details.
Similarly we didn't say "we do not believe we are Greek". YOU say you are not Greek, just like the Greeks of Anatolia say that they are not Turkish. If you have the right to refuse to be part of a Greek state because you are not Greek then the exact same right should apply for a Greek minority refusing to be part of a Turkish state.
