Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

Bullshit!

Just in case you have any interest other than just believing what your 'narrative' requires and actually have an interest in something that might challenge the requirements of your narrative and force you to actually think here is a link for you

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/1.html

probably wasting my time.

[erolz66]

Take for example all those groups that seek self-determination...

Well why not stick with GiG's 'hypothetical example' it was after all the start of this current discussion

Let's say that the struggle to end apartheid was led not by a Nelson Mandela, but instead by a 'SA Nicos Sampson'. Lets say that under this leadership the native (black) SA population decide to define and struggle for a SA nation that explicitly excludes white SA and in GiG's version, further sought the forced expulsion of these white SA from their homeland. Are you saying that this choice by black SA's would in no way bestow on white SA a basis on which to claim (and struggle) that as they are exclude from being able to express their right to self determination through being a part of the SA nation and people (because black SA have chosen to say that they are not entitled to do so) they therefore have a separate right to self determination ? So if you are right and there is no basis what so ever on which white SA could claim a separate right to self determination, even in the face of explicitly being exclude from being able to be part of a wider SA nation, then what exactly should these white SA do in the face of such ? Pack up and go 'home' ?

[Sotos]

Bullshit!

Just in case you have any interest other than just believing what your 'narrative' requires and actually have an interest in something that might challenge the requirements of your narrative and force you to actually think here is a link for you

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MqLJ/2003/1.html

probably wasting my time.

I will read that tomorrow. I had a quick look and my initial impression is: (a) It is an opinion, not real world facts (b) it doesn't seem to support your views. Unless by "self-determination" for your minority you mean minority rights and the ability to decide for your own cultural matters. Beyond that it seems clear from the examples given that you need your own territory to exercise full self-determination.

[erolz66]

The truth is Sotos, there are no absolutes in terms of this issue. The whole concept of peoples. nations, right to self determination is a mass of grays and contradictions and ambiguities and example and counter example and what is more these notions continue to evolve today and into the future. This is actually the only 'truth' legally, morally and in practical reality to date.

That is why your continued insistence in trying to argue that these things are clear cut, universal and absolute is to me a clear example that you are driven solely by your narratives requirements and not any desire for understanding beyond that requirement.

You say to me GC had the right to impose enosis on TC at the end of British rule. I do not agree but I do accept there is a basis (legal and moral) from which that assertion is made. You on the other hand continue to tell me that as a TC told not that Cyprus will be ruled by Cypriots, something I consider includes me but instead told Cyprus is Greek and will be ruled by Greeks and that I can have no effective say in that decision, then go on to argue that in the face of that there is no possible basis what so ever on which I could then say 'well I am not Greek, not part of the Greek people, share no commonality with them that would make me so, so therefore I must be part of some other separate people'. That you are unable to even acknowledge such a 'simple' basis, even while disagreeing with it, is what marks you out to me as someone driven only by their narratives requirements.

[Sotos]

Take for example all those groups that seek self-determination...

Well why not stick with GiG's 'hypothetical example' it was after all the start of this current discussion

Let's say that the struggle to end apartheid was led not by a Nelson Mandela, but instead by a 'SA Nicos Sampson'. Lets say that under this leadership the native (black) SA population decide to define and struggle for a SA nation that explicitly excludes white SA and in GiG's version, further sought the forced expulsion of these white SA from their homeland. Are you saying that this choice by black SA's would in no way bestow on white SA a basis on which to claim (and struggle) that as they are exclude from being able to express their right to self determination through being a part of the SA nation and people (because black SA have chosen to say that they are not entitled to do so) they therefore have a separate right to self determination ? So if you are right and there is no basis what so ever on which white SA could claim a separate right to self determination, even in the face of explicitly being exclude from being able to be part of a wider SA nation, then what exactly should these white SA do in the face of such ? Pack up and go 'home' ?

There is no need for hypothetical examples because there are many real world examples. I already gave you the one of Zanzibar but there are lots. And even in SA a large portion of the population did pack up and went home... over 20% of them. And white people were expelled from other African countries and it was made clear to them that they no longer have a say. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is probably still doing it. If a minority is treated in that way it has the right to demand their human rights and an end to discrimination. Like what Luther King demanded for his community in the USA. But obviously they don't have a right to "self-determination" on land where they are a minority. That is ridiculous!

[erolz66]

There is no need for hypothetical examples because there are many real world examples.

The 'need' is that GiG said something. I said that if she was right it would lead to X. You then say X is 'impossible' - there is no basis for it, legal, moral or in real world example. The whole discussion grew out of GiG's 'hypothetical'. Yet you do not want to discuss on that basis. Why is that Sotos ? You were happy enough to do so when you said "Bullshit!". Why now refuse to continue to look at the hypothetical ? Why now do you seem to want to avoid my questions about the hypothetical ?

I already gave you the one of Zanzibar but there are lots. And even in SA a large portion of the population did pack up and went home... over 20% of them. And white people were expelled from other African countries and it was made clear to them that they no longer have a say. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is probably still doing it. If a minority is treated in that way it has the right to demand their human rights and an end to discrimination. Like what Luther King demanded for his community in the USA. But obviously they don't have a right to "self-determination" on land where they are a minority. That is ridiculous!

What is ridiculous Sotos is you appear to arguing that the expulsion and driving out of white Africans from their homeland is a 'natural consequence' both legally and morally of peoples right to self determination. Its absurd. This is exactly WHY you no longer want to deal with GiG's hypothetical that started this whole discussion, because in that its not a case of white SA demanding their minority rights and protections. In that example they are explicitly excluded from even being allowed to be a part of that nation, and yet EVEN THEN you refuse to accept there could be any possible basis on which they could seek to claim a separate right to self determination in the face of such. It's absurdity that imo can only be explained in terms of the overriding requirements of your narrative.

[Sotos]

The truth is Sotos, there are no absolutes in terms of this issue. The whole concept of peoples. nations, right to self determination is a mass of grays and contradictions and ambiguities and example and counter example and what is more these notions continue to evolve today and into the future. This is actually the only 'truth' legally, morally and in practical reality to date.

That is why your continued insistence in trying to argue that these things are clear cut, universal and absolute is to me a clear example that you are driven solely by your narratives requirements and not any desire for understanding beyond that requirement.

But things are quite clear cut and universal when it comes to self-determination... and that is why I keep giving you real world examples! A minority that doesn't have its own separate territory can not have a full self-determination. Maybe some scaled down self-determination on cultural issues etc, but full self-determination is impossible because you simply can't have two groups which have separate self-determinations over the exact same territory!! Unless you are talking about achieving such thing by ethnic cleansing and stealing of land... which in that case becomes physically possible because the minority would end up controlling a separate territory, but that is criminal and immoral and I doubt that even the document that you linked to earlier would allow for such thing under any circumstances.

You say to me GC had the right to impose enosis on TC at the end of British rule. I do not agree but I do accept there is a basis (legal and moral) from which that assertion is made. You on the other hand continue to tell me that as a TC told not that Cyprus will be ruled by Cypriots, something I consider includes me but instead told Cyprus is Greek and will be ruled by Greeks and that I can have no effective say in that decision, then go on to argue that in the face of that there is no possible basis what so ever on which I could then say 'well I am not Greek, not part of the Greek people, share no commonality with them that would make me so, so therefore I must be part of some other separate people'. That you are unable to even acknowledge such a 'simple' basis, even while disagreeing with it, is what marks you out to me as someone driven only by their narratives requirements.

I can understand why you didn't want enosis. But I don't accept that you had a right to use force to prevent it or that you had any separate self-determination. The whole of Greece was occupied by the Ottomans and Turkish minorities were created in many Greek places. Obviously non of those Turkish minorities wanted their town/ village/ island etc to be part of a Greek state but this doesn't mean that a minority of Turks had the right to prevent the formation of a Greek state that included all the lands that were inhabited by a majority of Greeks! Furthermore a Greek state is not just for Greek people, like France is not just for French and Germany is not just for Germans. There are many ethnic minorities which are equal citizens so you wouldn't be excluded. Again.... I am not saying you should be glad about it and I UNDERSTAND why you opposed it. I am just saying that starting a conflict over this trying to force your will against the desires of the majority was NOT your right.

[Sotos]

There is no need for hypothetical examples because there are many real world examples.

The 'need' is that GiG said something. I said that if she was right it would lead to X. You then say X is 'impossible' - there is no basis for it, legal, moral or in real world example. The whole discussion grew out of GiG's 'hypothetical'. Yet you do not want to discuss on that basis. Why is that Sotos ? You were happy enough to do so when you said "Bullshit!". Why now refuse to continue to look at the hypothetical ? Why now do you seem to want to avoid my questions about the hypothetical ?

I already gave you the one of Zanzibar but there are lots. And even in SA a large portion of the population did pack up and went home... over 20% of them. And white people were expelled from other African countries and it was made clear to them that they no longer have a say. Mugabe in Zimbabwe is probably still doing it. If a minority is treated in that way it has the right to demand their human rights and an end to discrimination. Like what Luther King demanded for his community in the USA. But obviously they don't have a right to "self-determination" on land where they are a minority. That is ridiculous!

What is ridiculous Sotos is you appear to arguing that the expulsion and driving out of white Africans from their homeland is a 'natural consequence' both legally and morally of peoples right to self determination. Its absurd. This is exactly WHY you no longer want to deal with GiG's hypothetical that started this whole discussion, because in that its not a case of white SA demanding their minority rights and protections. In that example they are explicitly excluded from even being allowed to be a part of that nation, and yet EVEN THEN you refuse to accept there could be any possible basis on which they could seek to claim a separate right to self determination in the face of such. It's absurdity that imo can only be explained in terms of the overriding requirements of your narrative.

But why discus hypothetical examples when there are so many real world cases?? Anybody can have any random hypothesis but real world examples are very specific. And I NEVER said that "the expulsion and driving out of white Africans from their homeland is a 'natural consequence' both legally and morally of peoples right to self determination"!!!!!!! If I say that the Jews don't have (and never had) a self-determination right in Germany does this mean that I approve of the Holocaust? I do NOT agree with what GiG said (expulsion of whites) and I also do not agree with what you said (that such thing would give them self-determination rights). If you INSIST on talking hypothetically, then if the blacks attempted to expel the whites then the UN should have send in a force to protect the whites and stay there protecting them until the blacks would accept that the whites can stay.

[erolz66]

But things are quite clear cut and universal when it comes to self-determination... and that is why I keep giving you real world examples!

No they are not. That is your 'narrative requirements' talking.

A minority that doesn't have its own separate territory can not have a full self-determination.

You are just confusing a right to self determination with a right to a sovereign state. A sovereign state is one means by which expression of a peoples right to self determination can be expressed but it is NOT the same thing nor does a right to self determination mean a right to a sovereign state. You can not, by definition, have a sovereign state without its own separate territory of sufficient size that it is viable as a nation state but that does not mean that it is impossible for a people to be able to express their right to self determination without its own separate state and territory.

If you came to me at the end of British rule and said we want to unite Cyprus with Greece, but I understand why that is an anathema to you, so let's talk about how you might still be able to express your right to self determination within a wider Greek state that includes Cyprus and the parts of it that you live in, then we can talk. When you come to me and say its simply impossible for you to have any right to self determination as a community within a Greek state at all and you will be made a part of that Greek state regardless , then talk gives way to resistance and struggle.

self-determination is impossible because you simply can't have two groups which have separate self-determinations over the exact same territory!!

and yes I have 'cut out' YOUR use of 'full' - for all that means actually is not 'self determination' but 'sovereign state' and that is NOT what we are discussing here. You assertion above is just not true. Or if it is then section 235. of the SA constitution is based on an impossibility according to you.

Self-determination
235. The right of the South African people as a whole to self-determination, as manifested in
this Constitution, does not preclude, within the framework of this right, recognition of the
notion of the right of self-determination of any community sharing a common cultural
and language heritage, within a territorial entity in the Republic or in any other way,
determined by national legislation.

This explicitly provides for the possibility for a community within the state of SA to have a separate (or additional if you prefer) right to self determination without those groups having separate territory.

I can understand why you didn't want enosis.

Well that is a start I guess, so thanks for that, little as it is.

Can you also understand this (from my previous linked document) ?

While the scope and nature of governing has indeed been a subject of continuing debate, it is the concept of the ‘self’ that does the governing that has been the key problem for any theory attempting to elucidate the notion of self-governance. What is the ‘self’ to which this principle refers? The common and no doubt correct answer that it is the nation that does the governing, raises more questions than it answers. For what constitutes a ‘nation’ has been continuously debated both in theory and in everyday political contexts since the time of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen.

and this (from my previous linked document)

In the first article in the collection, Robert Ewin finds the defining characteristics of a nation in the ties of mutual affection or sentiment, often defined as ‘loyalty’, that binds its members. This view of the nation as a group bonded together with the ties of sentiment has a long and distinguished ancestry. As early as 1861, in his Considerations on the Representative Government, John Stuart Mill offered a similar view: ‘A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others’.[1] A century later, Brian Barry also referred to ‘a sentiment of common nationality’ and a loyalty to one’s nation as the defining feature of the nation as opposed to other kinds of groups.[2] Similar views of the nation are expressed by thinkers as diverse as Ernest Renan, in his seminal pamphlet What is a Nation? (1882) and Bertrand Russell in his now almost forgotten Political Ideals (1917).

If you can, can you not then understand (from my previous linked document)

the defining characteristics of a nation in the ties of mutual affection or sentiment, often defined as ‘loyalty’, that binds its members. This view of the nation as a group bonded together with the ties of sentiment has a long and distinguished ancestry. As early as 1861, in his Considerations on the Representative Government, John Stuart Mill offered a similar view: ‘A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others’.[1] A century later, Brian Barry also referred to ‘a sentiment of common nationality’ and a loyalty to one’s nation as the defining feature of the nation as opposed to other kinds of groups.[2] Similar views of the nation are expressed by thinkers as diverse as Ernest Renan, in his seminal pamphlet What is a Nation? (1882) and Bertrand Russell in his now almost forgotten Political Ideals (1917).

If you can understand that, can you not then see how in those terms of what is a 'people' and what is a 'nation' , seeking Cypriot Independence vs seeking union with Greece, fundamentally changes if TC and GC are a single 'people' (or nation if you prefer) or two separate ones. How under such definitions it is impossible to say that the desire for enosis was the valid will of a Cypriot people exactly BECAUSE enosis sought to destroy the ONLY thing that could bind and unite TC and GC together with common sympathies, such that we represented the essence of what a people/nation IS.

[Sotos]

I read the whole article you posted earlier. First of all, the article is a collection of opinions by various individuals. It does not represent the real world and in some cases the arguments are unrealistic... at some points they even admit that their theories are utopian or that there is no evidence that what they suggest is actually achievable.

The article is mostly about sovereignty and secession rights and through the arguments and examples given... Croatia, Bosnia, Western Australia, Quebec or even "northern two-thirds of Quebec" it is made clear that it refers to groups of people as they relate to specific territories (i.e. they are the majority of those territories). At no point it is suggested that a minority which is not a majority of any territory can have sovereignty and secession rights (and I am glad you agree with this). The only arguments about self-determination that maybe could also apply to minorities without a territory such as the TCs are about minority rights and ability for protecting and promoting their cultures:

One might ask what such restricted or non-sovereign forms of self-determination would offer to national groups and their leaders? Territorial sovereignty still remains the central source of political power and the main locus of international recognition, while the diluted forms offer neither the recognition nor the power associated with territorial sovereignty.

For Porter a national minority is a non-dominant group in a state that shares cultural characteristics and wants to maintain its distinct identity independent of the majority group. In view of this, minority rights are the basic freedom of national minorities to retain their own culture and identity. This would require recognition, protection and promotion of their cultures. Following Karl Renner, an Austrian constitutional jurist, Porter believes that minority rights can be protected and promoted within a system that grants non-territorial autonomy to national minorities while maintaining the administrative unity of a multi-nation state. National groups would be organised as non-territorial national associations which would assume control over cultural matters. Political and judicial control would remain with the territorially organised state.

If that is what you mean with "self-determination" for TCs (which is possibly what SA constitution means), I have no problem with it! But it is more than obvious that what the Turkish side wants is not that kind of diluted self-determination but the kind of self-determination that arises from having your own territory ... and since they never had their own territory in Cyprus they are trying to achieve this by ethnic cleansing and stealing of our lands!

If you can understand that, can you not then see how in those terms of what is a 'people' and what is a 'nation' , seeking Cypriot Independence vs seeking union with Greece, fundamentally changes if TC and GC are a single 'people' (or nation if you prefer) or two separate ones. How under such definitions it is impossible to say that the desire for enosis was the valid will of a Cypriot people exactly BECAUSE enosis sought to destroy the ONLY thing that could bind and unite TC and GC together with common sympathies, such that we represented the essence of what a people/nation IS.

According to the article you posted: "people is still defined as the population of a territory". And lets take this argument: "A portion of mankind may be said to constitute a Nationality if they are united among themselves by common sympathies which do not exist between them and any others". So now lets take what was the actual case in Cyprus in the 50s... not about the sympathies that you "half English, half Cypriot, born and raised abroad" have ... but about the actual people of that time in Cyprus. The undeniable fact is that in Cyprus we had a native majority that saw themselves as being part of the Greek nation and a Turkish minority that saw themselves as part of the Turkish nation. The Turkish minority did NOT have any territory of its own. Therefore, even using the article that you posted, the self-determination as far as the territory is concerned (e.g. if the territory would belong somewhere) would be decided by the majority of the territory and any rights of the Turkish minority would be non-territorial and mostly about cultural matters. So EVEN if we say that the TCs are different "peoples" and belong a different nationality it STILL doesn't give to them any territorial rights over land which they are a minority. Matters that relate to territory are decided by the majority of that territory and not any minority. Of course it would be great if we could all agree on everything. But the answer here is about what takes precedence when we can't agree and when having it both ways at the same time is not physically possible.