I really do not want to have a long drawn out dispute for you on this one, there is little point. Before 64 the RoC government was legitimate in the sense that it reflected the constitution of the RoC and the treaties that had created the RoC as a sovereign state. You may be of the view that powers like the UK chose to accept as legitimate a RoC government that had no representation from TC within it, that was in clear contradiction to both the RoC constitution and the treaties that had created it a mere three years earlier, that was a rump government that had itself refused to accept ruling of its own constitutional court against all norms of legality and contained within it ministers who were involved in the organising and commanding illegal ethnic based militia forces, because it made some kind of moral judgement and that such a rump RoC government was in fact more democratic than that stipulated by the treaties of three years earlier and out of a recognition that those treaties were racist and unfair. I am of the view that powers like the UK accepted that a GC only run RoC government was legitimate simply because doing so was expedient to their self interests and wants at that time despite the clear discrepancies around that legitimacy and regardless of and with little concern about what such conferring of legitimacy would mean for Cypriots in the future.
What is written in a constitution is not necessarily the "ultimate good". Many countries have constitutions that are not created to serve the people but instead a small minority of elites and/or include many racist, sexist etc parameters. The TCs refused to accept a better constitution and choose conflict instead. You can't put the whole blame on the government for this. Foreign countries do not care if another country obeys its own constitution since in fact NOT obeying a bad constitution is often better than obeying it. The UK recognizes almost all governments, including the governments of Russia, North Korea etc... recognizing a government is just the "default" option, they didn't treat Cyprus in any special way regarding this.
Really ? You really believe that GC and TC wanting the same thing in Cyprus after colonial rule would not have made it harder to any significant degree for word powers to try and use our differences to server their own self interest than a scenario where GC and TC want totaly different and mutually incompatible futures for Cyprus post colonial rule ? If you say you really believe that then so be it but I find such a belief hard to fathom myself. To me it seems obvious to the point of not even having to say it that its easier to a significant degree to use two groups differences against each other for your own ends when those two groups themselves want diametrically opposed things that are mutually incompatible than if both groups want the same thing.
What I am saying is that we would NOT want the same thing anyway, regardless of enosis. With independence what we would want would be a unitary, democratic state, one person one vote, no kind of segregation etc. UK and Turkey would remind the TCs of our bloody history, inform them of the risks of being a religious and linguistic minority, and "advice" them that they should be an equal community, that they should have veto powers, separate municipalities, privileges etc ... and that if GCs do not comply then TCs should have their own separate state in Cyprus. And of course UK and Turkey would tell to the TCs that they will fully back them politically and militarily to achieve those aims. And the result would again be the same. GCs not asking for enosis would not make any significant difference.
I am not saying the GC desire for enosis was unreasonable. But to say the desire to want enosis or not want it was NOT defined by if your were GC or TC (our differences) is to me bizarre. About as bizarre as saying that whether you wanted taksim in Cyprus at the end of colonial rule in Cyprus was not defined by if you were TC or GC. Just as you could make the same claims about taksim that you made about enosis. That TC did not choose to want Taksim because they sat down and said 'what is the most opposite thing we could say we wanted to GC' but actually because they sought their freedom (freedom from being ruled by Greece for example) and wanted to preserve their language and religion and culture in a place where they were surrounded and outnumbered by Christians who made it clear they did not think they had a right to be there and would have preferred it if they all just fucked off. To me it is irrelevant how reasonable or explainable or justified the desire for enosis by GC or TC for taksim was or was not then. I still maintain that from the hindsight of now if we say now what we want for the future is a unified Cyprus with TC and GC in where it does not matter if you ar GC or TC just that you are Cypriot, then we need to accept that choosing to put Greekness and Turkishness ahead of our common Cypriotness was a collective failure on our part and one that we need to change if we want a future that is different from what we have achieved to date.
Taksim could have been reasonable if the TCs were historically the majority of a specific part of Cyprus and they wanted that part to be their own separate country. But to want to have a separate Turkish state by way of ethnic cleansing of land where the great majority, then and for 1000s of years, had been GCs is NOT reasonable at all. This was some really extreme position invented by UK and Turkey in order to blackmail the majority of the Cypriot population and force us to accept their terms. The rest I already answered in my previous paragraph.... what TCs and GCs are is something shaped over the centuries, not something that could be suddenly changed at that time (any change would require at least many decades if not centuries). The fact is that the Ottoman Turks introduced to Cyprus a foreign to us population which they kept separate during their rule, and they did this EXACTLY because they wanted to extend and solidify their control over territories they conquered. They know for a fact that this method works, which is why they brought even more settlers in Cyprus after 1974. If the people they were bringing to Cyprus would forget their Turkishness and want the exact same thing as the natives then why would they bring them to Cyprus to begin with?
:- but you are no match in a political debate with GIG.
