Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

I repeat: The right of self-determination is what gave to people like us a right to our freedom after being oppressed by people such as yours. It did NOT give rights to the minorities of recent colonists (who are by definition not the same people as the natives) to refuse freedom and democracy to those whom they had previously oppressed.

The correct comparison would be if TC had demanded a right to not be CYPRIOT in the face of calls for a Cypriot nation. Why do you refuse to see this difference ?

"Cypriot" is not an ethnic group. The equivalent of "Cypriot" would be "Anatolian" i.e. somebody from a specific location who could belong to any of different ethnic groups. The equivalent of a Turk is a Greek... a specific ethnic group. The Turks demanded that places that they were the majority (and even some where they were not!) be part of a country called TURKEY. They didn't propose to all other ethnic groups the formation of "Republic of Anatolia" which would be a result of the will of a "unitary Anatolian people".... they FORCED a Turkish state and they also committed GENOCIDES against most others! And then you are here arguing about how nice and inclusive the Turks were! But your argument is false in a different lever as well. If there is X difference between Cypriots and mainland Greeks, there is 100X difference between the Greeks of the western coast of Anatolia and the Kurds of the east. And yet the Turks FORCED this very different territories and very different cultures to be part of a single country ruled by themselves WITHOUT the consent of the Greeks and most others. So Turkey was sort of mini-Ottoman empire. The equivalent of what you demand from Cyprus is if the western coast of Anatolia formed a separate independent country without being forced to be in the same country with territories and people who are foreign to them.

[repulsewarrior]

...indeed.

imagine 50 seats in an upper chamber that are reserved for Turkish Cypriot Representatives, 50 seats reserved for Greek Cypriot Representatives, (and five others: Maronite, Armenian, Rome). imagine a typical voter who votes for (2) Representatives for this Chamber, one Turkish, one Greek, (and possibly Maronite, etc); how fair is that? think about it, to win a Majority in this House, a President's Party must have attracted Candidates from both Constituencies, (all Constituencies), and it is virtually impossible for a President to wield any power, purely as a "Greek", or as a "Turk". and, if there was a third list of Candidates to choose from, and Independent would be found, for a Lower House, a voice for sober second thought, which votes by Consensus, these Representatives, a voice, by population. it is simple, do the math, and think, a demographic quite different, possibly, in the future, (although they may still find pleasure in this array of choices), why not a credibility as Human Beings, beyond an "ethnic" identity, held in high esteem, because Freedom we secure united as Individuals, (wanting our differences if you will), a Republic where for all of us, as Cypriots, we are its Citizens. and Liberty, being Bicommunal (and Bizonal) we secure as Persons, equals in sustaining these distinct Identities, as Cypriot Constituencies, regardless of size.

Sotos is against this.

...why not speak for yourself vp?

[erolz66]

I repeat: The right of self-determination is what gave to people like us a right to our freedom after being oppressed by people such as yours. It did NOT give rights to the minorities of recent colonists (who are by definition not the same people as the natives) to refuse freedom and democracy to those whom they had previously oppressed.

The same old arguments Sotos. You have rights in Cyprus because you are the real Cypriots, we do not have any such rights because we are 'recent colonists'. This is your argument and you really wonder why we have never found a solution ? Our cultural forebears arrived in Cyprus in the 1500's. By the 1960 we as an ethnic group did not rule Cyprus, did not control Cyprus, did not oppress Cyprus. But thank you for once again stating your TRUE reasons why you thought and still believe that your ethnic community alone is the only one to have any valid rights in our shared homeland.

"Cypriot" is not an ethnic group. The equivalent of "Cypriot" would be "Anatolian" i.e. somebody from a specific location who could belong to any of different ethnic groups. The equivalent of a Turk is a Greek... a specific ethnic group. The Turks demanded that places that they were the majority (and even some where they were not!) be part of a country called TURKEY. They didn't propose to all other ethnic groups the formation of "Republic of Anatolia" which would be a result of the will of a "unitary Anatolian people".... they FORCED a Turkish state and they also committed GENOCIDES against most others! And then you are here arguing about how nice and inclusive the Turks were! But your argument is false in a different lever as well. If there is X difference between Cypriots and mainland Greeks, there is 100X difference between the Greeks of the western coast of Anatolia and the Kurds of the east. And yet the Turks FORCED this very different territories and very different cultures to be part of a single country ruled by themselves WITHOUT the consent of the Greeks and most others. So Turkey was sort of mini-Ottoman empire. The equivalent of what you demand from Cyprus is if the western coast of Anatolia formed a separate independent country without being forced to be in the same country with territories and people who are foreign to them.

America is a nation state and a people despite the different backgrounds of the individuals that make up the American people ruled from America by Americans. France is a nation state and a people despite the different backgrounds of the individuals that make up the French people ruled from France by the French. Turkey is a nation state and a people despite the different backgrounds of the individuals that make up the Turkish people ruled from Turkey by Turks. Malta is a nation state and a people despite the different backgrounds of the individuals that make up the Maltese people ruled from Malta by Maltese.

Cyprus COULD have been a nation state and a people despite the different backgrounds of the of the individual people that make that people ruled from Cyprus by Cypriots - EXCEPT you did not want that.

The right to self determination belongs to PEOPLES. It explicitly does NOT belong to ethnic groups. You CHOSE to be a different people from us. Then having chosen to be a different people from us you sought to deny, remove or annul the rights that choice of yours gave us so you could impose your will on ours in our shared homeland without having to give ANY consideration for our wishes and you say this is 'just' because you are 'native' and we are not.

The failure of GC and TC to live together in Cyprus, their shared homeland, is rooted in the kind of beliefs you have Sotos. All the blood, the killing, the misery the suffering is rooted in the kind of beliefs you have Sotos. You believe Cyprus is Greek, always has been Greek and always will be Greek. Whilst you continue to believe this and only this with the kind of maniacal religious fervour that you do then Cyprus is fucked.

[Sotos]

I repeat: The right of self-determination is what gave to people like us a right to our freedom after being oppressed by people such as yours. It did NOT give rights to the minorities of recent colonists (who are by definition not the same people as the natives) to refuse freedom and democracy to those whom they had previously oppressed. We didn't "choose" to be different people from you in the 50s. You were different from the day you first invaded our island and you treated us differently (racist discriminations) for 300+ years.

You invaded Cyprus at about the same time when other empires colonized other parts of the world.



The self-determination right is meant to give freedom to people like us who were placed under foreign rule in exactly those times. The self-determination right has NOTHING to do with minorities created on the occupied lands by the above occupiers.

The Greeks of Anatolia are "Turkish people" in the same way that you would be "Greek people" after enosis. Hawaii is American in (at least) the same way that Cyprus would be Greek after enosis. This wordplay that Cyprus can't be Greek because is Cypriot is as stupid as claiming that Crete can't be Greek because is Cretan or that Sardinia can't be Italian because it is Sardinian. And of course Crete, Sardinia, Hawaii etc also COULD be nation states... but that is a decision they could make by democratic means on their own NOT something any outsiders or any minority could impose.

[erolz66]

I repeat: The right of self-determination is what gave to people like us a right to our freedom after being oppressed by people such as yours. It did NOT give rights to the minorities of recent colonists (who are by definition not the same people as the natives) to refuse freedom and democracy to those whom they had previously oppressed. We didn't "choose" to be different people from you in the 50s. You were different from the day you first invaded our island and you treated us differently (racist discriminations) for 300+ years.

Yes you keep telling me that the TC community has no right to self determination in Cyprus in any form, not as a separate 'peoples' or as part of a Cypriot 'people', because we are 'recent colonists' and 'oppressors'. You keep telling me that we are not Cypriots in that regard, but Turkish / Ottoman invaders of Cyprus and our rights to self determination (for even you can not say we have no such rights at all , unless you claim we are not people) can only be exercised as Turks in Turkey. You keep telling me this but I do not accept it. I do not accept that Cyprus is not our homeland, but Turkey is. I do not accept that we have no rights as a people for whom Cyprus (and not Turkey) is our homeland. In fact no one believes this except you Sotos.

You see me and my father and my uncles and my cousins and my fathers mother and father and their mothers and fathers before them not as Cypriots but as Turkish / Ottoman invaders and oppressors and seek to define what rights they have in Cyprus as a community based on such a definition of who you say they were and are. You refuse to accept they were and are in fact just normal people for who Cyprus was and is their homeland just as it is for you. My grandfather was not some 'Vizier' born in Turkey and sent to rule over Cyprus and Cypriots. He was a blacksmith who ruled over no one and oppressed no one. You believe that we are only here today because of Ottoman invasion and conquest in 1571 and that is true. You therefore seek to define my communities rights in Cyprus today not based on their 'sins', or the 'sins' of their fathers or the 'sins' of their father's father but actually based on the sins of their 'father's father 's father's father's father's father and this you call 'just' and 'fair'.

The Greeks of Anatolia are "Turkish people" in the same way that you would be "Greek people" after enosis.

And if Cyprus' status had been defined in the same way as that of Turkey or Crete or anywhere who's status was defined before there existed in international law a right to self determination of peoples, but by treaty following war whereby such status was defined regardless of the will and rights of the people living there but by the 'right' of 'spoils to the victor' , then you are right our status in Cyprus should it have been made part of Greece by such a means, would today be no different from those of the ethnic Greeks in Turkey. But Cyprus's status was NOT defined in such a way BEFORE there existed a right to self determination of peoples and as a result of treaty following war and on the basis of 'spoils to the victor'. Cyprus status was not defined in such a way but was defined in the era of and under the principal of the right to self determination of peoples. So we go back to your thesis that 'you are not a 'peoples' or part of a 'peoples' that can ever have a right to determine their own future in Cyprus as your homeland for Cyprus is NOT your homeland, Turkey is, you are NOT Cypriot but foreign invaders of Cyprus whose rights in Cyprus can only ever be defined on this basis.

So what real hope for the future of a united Cypriot state and peoples comprising of both communities is there, when you do not even believe that we are today Cypriots but are Turkish / Ottoman invaders ? Sure perhaps there could have been some kind of stable, peaceful united Cyprus , independent or under Greek rule, if we had just (or would just) accept your definition of us and our rights as not being based on us being Cypriot and Cyprus our homeland as well as it being yours but on an acceptance that all we are and all we represent in Cyprus today is Turkish / Ottoman foreign colonial invaders and oppressors. But do you REALLY think we can or ever would accept this definition of yours as to who we are and therefore what our rights in Cyprus should be? Do you REALLY think the rest of the world in forums like the UN would or do accept this definition of who we are and what therefore our rights should be ? That if you or Greece on your behalf previously were to seek a resolution in the UN saying the TC community can have no right to a say in the status of Cyprus as part of either a unitary Cypriot people or a separate people as far as the GC community chose to define them as such, because they are not Cypriots for who Cyprus is validly their homeland but are in fact Ottoman / Turk foreign invader and oppressor of Cyprus, do you REALLY think you could get support internationally for such a resolution ?

We are part of Cyprus. You can't throw us out. So accommodate us. Let us accommodate ourselves. We don't want much. But we don't want to be 'not wanted'. That is the difficulty. For years we have been told by words and by action that we are not wanted in Cyprus, that Cyprus is not ours.

[Sotos]

I never said that Cyprus can not be your homeland. What I said is that you are not native... something that is true for all colonists of relatively recent times. Your rights are defined by the fact that you are a MINORITY. This means you can have the 100% of your human rights and even some minority rights... MORE rights than minorities have in Turkey!! What you can NOT have is a right to decide where Cyprus should or shouldn't belong because that is our right as the Majority because in a democracy MAJORITY RULES, as opposed to how it used to be in the pre-WWII era who those who ruled where those who had the power to impose their rule. You ruled Cyprus for 300+ years in a brutal and undemocratic way. Enough is Enough. So I repeat: The right of self-determination is what gave to people like us a right to our freedom after being oppressed by people such as yours. It did NOT give rights to the minorities of recent colonists (who are by definition not the same people as the natives) to refuse freedom and democracy to those whom they had previously oppressed.

The ONLY reason that in the 50s we couldn't get exactly what we wanted from the UN was that the British Colonialists are members of the UN security council and they would use their veto for anything that went against them. So we were FORCED by British and the Turks to accept their terms... So yes you can have certain LEGAL rights but that is ONLY after you managed to FORCE us into signing things. But we will resist your blackmails and we will not make any more unfair agreements with you. If you want feel free to to demand a return to the 1960 agreements which is the ONLY thing you can legally demand. Otherwise your actions will remain ILLEGAL and the world has no problem at all recognizing as the legal government of the whole of Cyprus a government elected democratically by the Cypriot people even with ZERO participation from your minority.

[erolz66]

I never said that Cyprus can not be your homeland. What I said is that you are not native... something that is true for all colonists of relatively recent times.

So Cyprus can be our homeland but just not as much as at it is yours , because you were here before us or as you absurdly claim you are 'native.

Your rights are defined by the fact that you are a MINORITY.

A minority within WHAT ? That is the WHOLE point, that is WHY the pursuit of enosis and not independence is the defining difference. If you had of said my rights are those of a ethnic minority within CYPRUS, shared by and with other ethnic groups within CYPRUS then fine we would not have had the problems we have had in Cyprus. However when you say because we are an ethnic minority in CYPRUS we have no right to any say in you deciding that actually we will be an ethnic minority within a tiny peripheral part of GREECE, it did and does change everything. It changes where and how we can exercise our rights as a people in our own homeland. You just absolutely refuse to see or accept this reality, falling back when pushed to 'you do not have such rights because you are not Cypriot but are in fact Turkish / Ottoman foreign invaders and oppressors'.

What you can NOT have is a right to decide where Cyprus should or shouldn't belong because that is our right as the Majority because in a democracy MAJORITY RULES, as opposed to how it used to be in the pre-WWII era who those who ruled where those who had the power to impose their rule.

This is absolutely NOT how the right to self determination is written or works or it's intent. If the right belongs only to ethnic MAJORITES in a region then that is what the right would SAY. It would be written as 'the right of self determination of majorities'. No such right exists. All there is is the right to self determination of PEOPLES. If you rule out your arbitrary unilateral re writing of international law in your own favour, as surely we must, then the only options are

1. We are an ethnic minority within a CYPRIOT peoples
2. We are a separate and different peoples from the GC community for who Cyprus is our homeland with a separate and equal right to self determination.

These are the ONLY options if you believe in the 'rule of law' as it is written.

The ONLY reason that in the 50s we couldn't get exactly what we wanted from the UN was that the British Colonialists are members of the UN security council and they would use their veto for anything that went against them.

This is self delusion and historical revisionism on a monumental scale. You could have sought from the UN a resolution passed by the UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY, which could not be vetoed by members of the security council permanent or not. In fact this is exactly what Greece tried to do on behalf of the GC community in the 50's. It failed consistently to get a resolution passed in the UN GENRAL ASSMEMBLY that said the ethnic majority in Cyprus must be allowed to determine the status of Cyprus following the end of British rule without the need for any consideration for the minority TC community and its failure had NOTHING to do with British or any other countries right to veto Security Council resolutions. The reason why Greece failed to get such a resolution passed by the UN General Assembly was NOTHING to do with 'veto' and everything to do with the fact you simply could not get a majority of countries represented in the UN General Assembly to accept this argument. That is historical fact I am afraid. If you want I will dig out the links to the debates and resolutions that WERE passed by the UN General Assembly in regards to Cyprus prior to 1960 none of which supported the argument that GC as an ethnic majority in Cyprus (or as 'native' Cypriots) must be free to determine the status of Cyprus without having to give any regard for the wishes of the TC community.

So we were FORCED by British and the Turks to accept their terms... So yes you can have certain LEGAL rights but that is ONLY after you managed to FORCE us into signing things. But we will resist your blackmails and we will not make any more unfair agreements with you.

No you were forced by the FACT that you could NOT gain sufficient international support for the idea that your majority ethnic community alone must have the right to decide that Cyprus' future will be union with Greece and without any need for considering the rights or wishes of those other ethnic communities for whom Cyprus was their homeland and who were NOT Greek, forced to accept instead independence with protections for the TC community against future attempts to achieve enosis without any regard for the TC community. So you accepted impendence, because that was the ONLY thing you could get sufficient international support for, agreed to protections for the TC community that recognised that you previously had sought enosis without the need for any regards to the TC communities wishes and then within a few years you unilaterally and against all legality changed those agreements so you could declare enosis without having to pay any regard for the wishes of the TC community in their own shared homeland.

If you want feel free to to demand a return to the 1960 agreements which is the ONLY thing you can legally demand.

Once again. We DID demand a return to our legal rights under the 1960's agreements in 1965. You REFUSED to give them to us, against all legality. If you had not first illegally removed then and then refused to return them when we demanded them we would not be in the mess we are today.

Otherwise your actions will remain ILLEGAL and the world has no problem at all recognizing as the legal government of the whole of Cyprus a government elected democratically by the Cypriot people even with ZERO participation from your minority.

None of the above legitimises what happened in 74 , I have never said it does and nor does the rest of the world and that is not what any of this discussion is about. It is about understanding WHY and HOW we got into this mess in Cyprus and what we can do differently in the future to that which we did in the past. You say the only way we can do differently in the future is for me and my community to accept as 'just' that which you could not gain sufficient international support for in the 50's , agreed to give up in the 1960's agreements and then sought again 5 years later by illegally and unilaterally changing the constitution.

[Sotos]

Lets see the resolution of the General Assembly that says that your non-native minority has a self-determination right in Cyprus What you are is a TURKISH minority in Cyprus and you already have your self-determination where you are the majority... it is called TURKEY. The General Assembly never took a decision on this issue due to backstage diplomacy by UK/USA.

Here is when YOU became a problem for Cyprus:

In the summer of 1570, the Turks struck again, but this time with a full-scale invasion rather than a raid. About 60,000 troops, including cavalry and artillery, under the command of Lala Mustafa Pasha landed unopposed near Limassol on July 2, 1570, and laid siege to Nicosia. In an orgy of victory on the day that the city fell--September 9, 1570--20,000 Nicosians were put to death, and every church, public building, and palace was looted. Word of the massacre spread, and a few days later Mustafa took Kyrenia without having to fire a shot. Famagusta, however, resisted and put up a heroic defense that lasted from September 1570 until August 1571.

Here is how you ensured that the problem would continue and Cyprus would not be freed:

During the Greek War of Independence in 1821, the Ottoman authorities feared that Greek Cypriots would rebel again. Archbishop Kyprianos, a powerful leader who worked to improve the education of Greek Cypriot children, was accused of plotting against the government. Kyprianos, his bishops, and hundreds of priests and important laymen were arrested and summarily hanged or decapitated on July 9, 1821.

In the 1950s you collaborated with the British colonialists to deny our freedom again. The laws you FORCED on us were as just and moral as the slavery laws a few centuries ago. Now you are just trying to blame the natives for the problems which you clearly caused to Cyprus by repeatedly invading us.

[erolz66]

Lets see the resolution of the General Assembly that says that your non-native minority has a self-determination right in Cyprus

I never said such a resolution existed. What I did say was in response to YOUR claim (your original emphasis)

The ONLY reason that in the 50s we couldn't get exactly what we wanted from the UN was that the British Colonialists are members of the UN security council and they would use their veto for anything that went against them.

I said that this was , like so many of your previous claims (like GC never tried to present enosis as a valid expression of the right to self determination of a CYPRIOT people and GC did not unilaterally change the 60's agreements but only 'proposed' such changes), factually incorrect - and I say this because you claim IS factually incorrect.I said that Greece on your behalf had in fact asked the General Assembly of the UN to pass a resolution that 'gave you exactly what you wanted'. I said this because it is TRUE. I said that Greece failed to get enough support from enough members of the UIN General Assembly to get such a resolution passed. I said this because is it TRUE. I said such failure to get said resolution passed was NOT because of British veto (as per YOUR claim). I said this because it is TRUE. In short what I have said is based on historical fact where as your claim has no basis in historical fact what so ever.

What you are is a TURKISH minority in Cyprus and you already have your self-determination where you are the majority... it is called TURKEY.

I know YOU think I am Turkish and thus can only express my right to self determination in Turkey. However I do NOT think I am Turkish, never have and never will. I am CYPRIOT and what is more the rest of the world accepts that I am Cypriot. It is only YOU that insists I am TURKISH and that was an still is (for you and those like you) at the core of the Cyprus problem.

The General Assembly never took a decision on this issue due to backstage diplomacy by UK/USA.

Again just factually incorrect. The UN General Assembly passed two resolutions on "THE QUESTION OF CYPRUS" before 1960. Resolution 1013 (XI) on 26 February 1957 and Resolution 1287 (XIII) om 5 December 1958. In both of these cases Greece submitted draft resolutions that would have given you 'exactly what you wanted' and both times these drafts were NOT passed because Greece could not gather enough support from them from the members of the UN General Assembly. This is just all historical fact.

I do not know if your 'opinions' are genuine ignorance Sotos or distortion of historical fact with intent to do so but either way your claim is just plain wrong, like a succession of such claims you have made during the course of this thread.

Here is when YOU became a problem for Cyprus:

I know that YOU wish define what rights the TC community should have had in Cyprus at the point at which British colonial rule was ending, not based on what the TC community actually was at that time but based on what the Ottomans had done in Cyprus hundreds of years ago. I know that is what you want but it is simply not the way the world worked in 1960 nor is it the way it works now nor should it be.

The laws you FORCED on us were as just and moral as the slavery laws a few centuries ago.

The 60 agreements as far as they were forced on you were forced on you as much or more by Greece as they were by Britain, Turkey or any other party. That is another historical fact you seem unaware of.

Now you are just trying to blame the natives for the problems which you clearly caused to Cyprus by repeatedly invading us.

Given this obsession of yours with blame one might be forgiven for thinking you have some kind of guilty conscience ?

[Sotos]

I've read the resolutions you refer to and say NOTHING of what you claim. They just maintain a neutral position obviously because most countries at the time wouldn't dare to go directly against the AngloAmericans and their interests. They still talk about a democratic solution and nothing about your minority having a separate self-determination right requiring something "atypical" or ANYTHING else justifying your claims.

The core of the Cyprus problem is that you keep invading us and refusing our freedom. It is not just what you did 100s of years ago. If you had invaded us once a couple of centuries ago and then never bother us again then we wouldn't have a problem today. But you never stopped attacking and oppressing us since then! And don't try to separate yourself from the other Turks when in all 400 years all you Turks have been one and the same when attacking us. The pseudo state you declared is called "Turkish Republic..." and then you bring new Settlers from Turkey to Cyprus and after a few years you label them "Cypriot". You can play with labels all you want. It doesn't change who you are and the damage you are doing to our island.