Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

It was the full quote pertaining to the matter in hand.

Your 'full quote' purposely did not say WHO had said this. It did not say that the person who had said it 'suggested' it. You purposely tried to create a false and untrue impression that this had been said BY the policy committee and that it therefore represented the official policy of 'the British'. Blatant and crude attempts to distort the truth to meet your propaganda objectives. It would best suit your propaganda needs if the section you quoted been said by the policy committee and thus could be said to represent the official policy view of 'the British', so you simply claim this despite the fact that it is plainly and obviously and clearly NOT true. This is what you do. It is what you always do and have always done. Truth is simply irrelevant to you.

[Sotos]

Such rights do NOT include a right to have a separate state on land where you are a minority,.....

Round and round we go. It really is VERY simple.

The right to self determination applies to PEOPLES. Not to nations, not to all those in a given area - but to PEOPLES and it applies to such, despite the difficulties and ambiguities around what constitutes a people for very good reason.

Nothing establishes that TC had a separate and equal right to self determination along side that of GC at the end of colonial rule than an insistence like yours that we were and are in fact two separate and different peoples. If we were two separate and different peoples then by definition we had separate rights to self determination of peoples.

The rights that minorities such as yours can have, no matter what LABEL ("people", "community", "ethnicity" etc) you give to them, do NOT include a right to ethnically cleanse the majority, neither a right to veto the choices of the majority. You are by DEFINITION an ethnic minority. That is what ethnic minorities are. Here is the definition again: ethnic minority: "a ​group of ​people of a ​particular ​race or ​nationality ​living in a ​country or ​area where most ​people are from a different ​race or ​nationality".

[GreekIslandGirl]

It was the full quote pertaining to the matter in hand.

Your 'full quote' purposely did not say WHO had said this.

All the quotes were attributed. Here they are again, in red:

Quote 1

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.
Source: Mallinson

Quote 2

"...the Treaty of Lausanne forbade Turkey from involvement in former Ottoman territories. The British government's motive, as we shall see from the documents*, was simply to divide Greece and Turkey, and Greek and Turkish Cypriots, to facilitate its continuing hold on Cyprus".

"Britain and Cyprus", W. Mallinson, p.5

Quote 3

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

Quote 4

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

And as I also said:

You can order the documents from the UK Ministry (National Archives of Great Britain) or they are catalogued by the former British Diplomat in : Mallinson, W., (2011) Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents Since World War II.

[erolz66]

The rights that minorities such as yours can have, no matter what LABEL ("people", "community", "ethnicity" etc) you give to them, do NOT include a right to ethnically cleanse the majority, neither a right to veto the choices of the majority. You are by DEFINITION an ethnic minority. That is what ethnic minorities are. Here is the definition again: ethnic minority: "a ​group of ​people of a ​particular ​race or ​nationality ​living in a ​country or ​area where most ​people are from a different ​race or ​nationality".

The label is the one YOU give them by your insistence that TC are a separate and different people to GC.

Then we have your straw man argument. No where have I ever said that TC having a separate right to self determination to GC, as is the only logical conclusion you can come to if you believe they are separate and different peoples, gives them a right to ethnically cleanse anyone. If they are separate peoples, as you insist they are, then they had by definition a separate right to self determination at the end of colonial rule in Cyprus. That does not confer a right to 'veto' choices of other peoples they share a homeland with it. It does give them an equal and seperate right to self determine their own futures in their own homeland as the other peoples have as well. You want it both ways Sotos. You want to claim we are separate peoples and you also want to claim that we are an ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people. You can not sensibly argue both, yet this is the madness you have backed yourself into.

[Sotos]

It is NOT implied that people who are not native should leave. That is like saying that almost all Americans should leave from the USA because they are not Native Americans or that all Whites should leave from South Africa. I will ask you the same question as I asked Erolz: Are the children, grandchildren etc of the Settlers "Cypriots"? In your case I will go a step further: Are they NATIVE Cypriots? I think the answer is clearly that they are NOT native Cypriots, so there is a cut-off point somewhere, otherwise everybody born in Cyprus would be "native Cypriot". The Turks came to Cyprus at about the same time that the English, Spanish, French etc were colonizing America, Africa, Australia, Asia etc... and those Europeans are clearly not considered native in those parts of the world. The native people could certainly have some additional rights in the cases that those people are now minorities... but in our case that we are the majority we don't need any additional rights other than the standard Human and Majority Rights.

That's how you come across Sotos, "they should not be here" - that being the case they should be elsewhere. I said earlier "I agree those that arrived after 1974 should not be here", however Human Rights legislation, I'm afraid, does give them, or their off spring, certain rights even though they came to the ROC illegally.

You appear to confuse majority rights with "native" rights. Turkish Cypriots who have been in Cyprus for generations should have exactly the same individual rights as Greek Cypriots even though they, according to you, are not "native". However how a minority community of 18% can be equated to the majority is beyond me.

Jerry I think you make too many assumptions. I never said that non-natives should have less individual rights. Turkey is responsible for the human rights of its own settlers, not us. The same way they brought them illegally to Cyprus they can take them back, and it is their responsibility to do it in a way that doesn't violate their human rights (they can offer them better housing in Turkey, compensate them etc)

[erolz66]

All the quotes were attributed. Here they are again, in red:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

Who said (suggested) that "efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home."

Was it

A - British Defence and Overseas Policy Committee

B - The High Commissioner

Yes you attribute the section you quoted - You attribute it to something (the British Defence and Overseas Policy committee) that did NOT say it and on purpose left out from your quote who DID say it exactly so you could create a distorted and untrue impression, to better suit your propaganda needs regardless of actual truth. This is what you did, its all there in plain sight. It is what you have always done.

[Sotos]

The rights that minorities such as yours can have, no matter what LABEL ("people", "community", "ethnicity" etc) you give to them, do NOT include a right to ethnically cleanse the majority, neither a right to veto the choices of the majority. You are by DEFINITION an ethnic minority. That is what ethnic minorities are. Here is the definition again: ethnic minority: "a ​group of ​people of a ​particular ​race or ​nationality ​living in a ​country or ​area where most ​people are from a different ​race or ​nationality".

The label is the one YOU give them by your insistence that TC are a separate and different people to GC.

Then we have your straw man argument. No where have I ever said that TC having a separate right to self determination to GC, as is the only logical conclusion you can come to if you believe they are separate and different peoples, gives them a right to ethnically cleanse anyone. If they are separate peoples, as you insist they are, then they had by definition a separate right to self determination at the end of colonial rule in Cyprus. That does not confer a right to 'veto' choices of other peoples they share a homeland with it. It does give them an equal and seperate right to self determine their own futures in their own homeland as the other peoples have as well. You want it both ways Sotos. You want to claim we are separate peoples and you also want to claim that we are an ethnic minority within a unitary Cypriot people. You can not sensibly argue both, yet this is the madness you have backed yourself into.

It doesn't matter who gives what label. What matters is that TCs are an ethnic minority: "a ​group of ​people of a ​particular ​race or ​nationality ​living in a ​country or ​area where most ​people are from a different ​race or ​nationality" and there is really nothing special about their case. Ethnic minorities exist in most countries and the rights you have as an ethnic minority are the same as theirs. You are trying to argue that us defined as something different from you somehow gives you more rights than you would otherwise have, but that is not the case. Us being different from you just means that you an ethnic minority. Read the definition again.

[erolz66]

Ethnic minorities exist in most countries and the rights you have as an ethnic minority are the same as theirs.

And in none of those countries (and in 59 Cyprus was not a country) does the ethnic majority say you are not part of the people of this country, your a separate and different people to the majority and native peoples of this country. Yet this is what you are saying to me. The paradox is as clear and glaring as your inability to face it.

[Jerry]

It is NOT implied that people who are not native should leave. That is like saying that almost all Americans should leave from the USA because they are not Native Americans or that all Whites should leave from South Africa. I will ask you the same question as I asked Erolz: Are the children, grandchildren etc of the Settlers "Cypriots"? In your case I will go a step further: Are they NATIVE Cypriots? I think the answer is clearly that they are NOT native Cypriots, so there is a cut-off point somewhere, otherwise everybody born in Cyprus would be "native Cypriot". The Turks came to Cyprus at about the same time that the English, Spanish, French etc were colonizing America, Africa, Australia, Asia etc... and those Europeans are clearly not considered native in those parts of the world. The native people could certainly have some additional rights in the cases that those people are now minorities... but in our case that we are the majority we don't need any additional rights other than the standard Human and Majority Rights.

That's how you come across Sotos, "they should not be here" - that being the case they should be elsewhere. I said earlier "I agree those that arrived after 1974 should not be here", however Human Rights legislation, I'm afraid, does give them, or their off spring, certain rights even though they came to the ROC illegally.

You appear to confuse majority rights with "native" rights. Turkish Cypriots who have been in Cyprus for generations should have exactly the same individual rights as Greek Cypriots even though they, according to you, are not "native". However how a minority community of 18% can be equated to the majority is beyond me.

Jerry I think you make too many assumptions. I never said that non-natives should have less individual rights. Turkey is responsible for the human rights of its own settlers, not us. The same way they brought them illegally to Cyprus they can take them back, and it is their responsibility to do it in a way that doesn't violate their human rights (they can offer them better housing in Turkey, compensate them etc)

Really? perhaps you can explain this "The native people could certainly have some additional rights in the cases that those people are now minorities... " As to the settlers rights, I believe that they may have acquired some simply by setting up a home in Cyprus, certainly their offspring's Human Rights will be infringed if they are made to move to Turkey against their will.

[GreekIslandGirl]

All the quotes were attributed. Here they are again, in red:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

Who said (suggested) that "efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home."

Was it

A - British Defence and Overseas Policy Committee

B - The High Commissioner

Yes you attribute the section you quoted - You attribute it to something (the British Defence and Overseas Policy committee) that did NOT say it and on purpose left out from your quote who DID say it exactly so you could create a distorted and untrue impression, to better suit your propaganda needs regardless of actual truth. This is what you did, its all there in plain sight. It is what you have always done.

Since I am forced to do a Ph. D. thesis in Politics, now - here is further information (unfortunately, as warned, you won't like this either

No one 'said' or 'suggested' anything, as you hoped!

It was a DOCUMENT prepared by the Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee !

That particular quote was from the document headed:

Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee, D.O. (0) (64) 26 Brief.

1. This paper has been prepared at Ministry of Defence instigation in order that co-ordinated advice may be given to Ministers before .......

I can't be bothered to type out the whole preamble (get the original yourself! *****)

Furthermore, the above particular quote was from the subsection:

"BRITISH AIMS FOR CYPRUS".

There were a number of British government officials that contributed to the whole document! (Probably, the High Commissioner is the most important in this context.) That is NORMALLY the case for preparing policy! Then ....... Ministers are briefed!

*****

You can order the documents from the UK Ministry (National Archives of Great Britain) or they are catalogued by the former British Diplomat in : Mallinson, W., (2011) Britain and Cyprus: Key Themes and Documents Since World War II.