Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

In hindsight, what the British should’ve done in the 1920s and 30s was to blockade all Greek shipping until Greece cut the crap in Cyprus.

There are people who have studied and written about the Cyprus problem who have concluded that the British allowing Greece to control the education of the GC community in Cyprus and Turkey the TC community, was, with hindsight, a massive mistake on the part of the British as colonial rulers of Cyprus.

[kurupetos]

In hindsight, what the British should’ve done in the 1920s and 30s was to blockade all Greek shipping until Greece cut the crap in Cyprus.

There are people who have studied and written about the Cyprus problem who have concluded that the British allowing Greece to control the education of the GC community in Cyprus and Turkey the TC community, was, with hindsight, a massive mistake on the part of the British as colonial rulers of Cyprus.

Not exactly... their purpose was good old divide and rule... nothing else.

[repulsewarrior]

definition of "Native",

noun
1.
a person born in a specified place or associated with a place by birth, whether subsequently resident there or not.
"a native of Nicosia"

adjective
1.
associated with the country, region, or circumstances of a person's birth.
"he's a native New Yorker"
synonyms: mother, vernacular, first
"her native tongue"
2.
(of a plant or animal) of indigenous origin or growth.
"these plants are native to North America"
synonyms: domestic, homegrown, homemade, local; indigenous
"native produce"

[Sotos]

Erolz, your argument was that Cyprus could not "belong and be ruled by a majority of people who have never even stepped on to it, lived here or worked this land", and I have shown your argument to be false. Now you you are trying to change it. I know very well what self determination means. According to the Merriam Webster dictionary:

Full Definition of self–determination: determination by the people of a territorial unit of their own future political status

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictiona ... ermination

The General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) defined:

free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government compliance with the principle of self-determination.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

So Enosis was one of the three legitimate options. The whole point of self-determination is to free nations such us ours from foreign rule, like that of the British and the Ottomans.

What makes a Mexican people distinct from the Canadian people and the Brazillian people, is the commonality that Mexicans share with each other that they do not share with other peoples in that same 'territory'.

Canada and Mexico are two very distinct territories. You take a map and say "here is Mexico, here is Canada". The people in Mexico democratically determine the choices of their territory, and the people in Canada determine the choices of their own. There are Mexicans living in Canada (and vice versa). It doesn't matter at all how distinct the Mexicans are from the majority of the population in Canada, Mexicans in Canada don't have a right to impose anything at all on the majority. Mexican can take decisions in territories where Mexicans are the majority. For the Mexicans that territory is Mexico, for the Turks that territory in Turkey. In Cyprus the Turks are not the majority and they have the same rights as the Mexicans have in Canada.

The ONLY commonality we had and have that can and could validly makes us a single people IS being Cypriot. That is why you choosing to NOT want to be Cypriot, but to be Greek, defined us as separate peoples and as such we have a separate and equal right to self determination to you as Greeks.

You are an ethnic minority in Cyprus. With Cyprus being part of Greece our commonality would be that we would all be Citizens of Greece. Just like the commonality of the Greek minority in what became "Turkey" with the Turks is that they are all Citizens of Turkey. If that is not good enough commonality for you, then why should it be good enough for the Greeks of Constantinople, Smyrna etc or for any other ethnic minority in other place for that matter (who, by definition, are different from the majority)

That is why all you end up left with is 'well we are the native people of Cyprus' so therefore we can alone decided what happens to all Cypriots, those that we define as a different people from us as well as those we define as the same people as us, because we are the 'real' Cypriots and they are not - so there is no need to care about their wants in Cyprus as a people separate from us, because they are not really Cypriot and we are.

We are the native people AND we are the vast majority of the population. Your ethnic minority can be equal Cypriots and each one of you can have the same say as each one of us. Your ethnic, religious identity should be protected and you may also have certain minority rights (e.g. control your own affairs in issues related to your culture, language etc). But you have no right to demand that your ethnic minority ALONE determines where our island should or shouldn't belong. Your (Erolz) say can not count more than mine (Sotos) say when we are choosing among legitimate options for the freedom of Cyprus. You might disagree with the choice of the majority (just like the 45% of Scottish people that voted for independence for Scotland) but you have no right to force your minority view!

[repulsewarrior]

...i have suggested a Bicameral Legislature at the Federal level, where in one of the Houses, the seats are equally split, for Turkish Representatives, and Greek Representatives.

Thus, when it came to voting, each and every Citizen would vote from three slates in the same way without further distinction or discrimination: for their Turkish Representative, their Greek Representative, and an Independent which sits in the other House.

Do the math, for a majority in such a House, what would Parties do? What does a President represent, to win, to lead? And beside the "Greeks", the "Turks" (and the other Cypriot Constituencies), what of representation by population; the other House.

...does it matter if the President is Turkish, or Greek, or Eritrean for that matter, provided that they are Native born, and that they can demonstrate a significant good, for Cyprus, where a majority of Cypriots will vote, for it?

Do the math, what does a million more, "Greeks" do to this Legislature, what does a million more "Turks", and what about a million more, not "Turks"/not "Greeks"?

There are choices, as kikapu has demonstrated, as well.

...i suggest that at another level of Government, Cypriot Constituencies may provide the Liberty we seek in representing ourselves and sustaining our distinct identities, as Persons. I suggest that our Freedom is only secured with a Republic where our willingness to defend each other is based on our respect and recognition of each other, as Individuals, whether we choose to reside as a majority or minority anywhere this distinction can be made. In any case there will be "minorities". A strong Federal Government is not anathema to strong Constituent representation either.

[GreekIslandGirl]

There are people who have studied and written about the Cyprus problem who have concluded that the British allowing Greece to control the education of the GC community in Cyprus and Turkey the TC community, was, with hindsight, a massive mistake on the part of the British as colonial rulers of Cyprus.

Who are "these people" of yours? And who cares?

The facts were that Britain DID control the education system in Cyprus and kids were even terrorised and hanged for trying to fly Greek flags in schools.

That they thought they were so above the Greeks that they could stifle their education system, which went hand-in-hand with the philosophy of Orthodoxy, was the beginning of the end of their rule. In fact, the opposite of what you/"these people" say!

[Lordo]

There are people who have studied and written about the Cyprus problem who have concluded that the British allowing Greece to control the education of the GC community in Cyprus and Turkey the TC community, was, with hindsight, a massive mistake on the part of the British as colonial rulers of Cyprus.

Who are "these people" of yours? And who cares?

The facts were that Britain DID control the education system in Cyprus and kids were even terrorised and hanged for trying to fly Greek flags in schools.

That they thought they were so above the Greeks that they could stifle their education system, which went hand-in-hand with the philosophy of Orthodoxy, was the beginning of the end of their rule. In fact, the opposite of what you/"these people" say!

you bullshitting again woman. people did not get hanged for flying a flag. they got hanged because there were caught with weapons or bullets or notes on them belonging to eoka. if you took part in any eoka activities and got found out - either you became an informer or you got a fair trial and then got hanged. it is only fair innit.

[erolz66]

Who are "these people" of yours?

One example would be Nancy Cranshaw.

Crawshaw placed a considerable amount of the blame on the British handling of Cyprus and in particular for its handling of education on the island. She noted in her writings that, “Education has helped to drive the communities apart.”8 She argued that as a result of the educational situation in Cyprus, elements of Greek nationalism and patriotism were fully assimilated by the Greeks of Cyprus through communal separation. After 1878 the British administrators, not unlike the Ottomans before them, adopted the policy of leaving matters pertaining to Greek Cypriot religion and education entirely in the hands of the Greek community’s leaders. While this must have seemed a sensible, even a humane, decision on the part of a colonial government, in effect it meant leaving the intellectual development of the Greek Cypriots largely in the hands of the Orthodox Church, and thus permitted Pan-nationalist sentiments, based directly on Greek mainland models, to grow unchecked. Primary education on the island, which was free and compulsory, was taken over by the British government in 1932. But rather than attempt to change the existing system in which most Greek secondary schools remained under the control of the Ministry of Education in Athens and bound by a rigid classical curriculum with a strong nationalist bias, Britain chose to leave the system in place. Additionally, the Greek government paid the teachers pensions. These Greek schools, which charged low fees and granted many scholarships, relied heavily on the Greek Orthodox Church for extra funds. However it was not just the Greek Cypriots that relied so heavily upon their motherlands. While the Turkish Cypriots for many years had less freedom under the British than the Greeks in the management of their schools, they eventually came to be influenced by trends in Turkey. As a result, relatively small numbers of Greeks and Turks were educated together at such prestigious institutions as the English School in Nicosia and the American Academy in Larnaca

http://alternativesjournal.net/article/ ... 5000143996

And who cares?

That you will just dismiss such evidence out of hand, simply because it does not fit you pr set notions and that you only 'care' for your self made assertions made without any supporting evidence, goes without saying. That is just what you do and what you ave always done here. Those with less closed minds may care. Certainly the views of Nancy Cranshaw as described above are very close to those espoused here by GetReal.

[Sotos]

Empires are the ones who suffered most from the rise of nationalism. The desire of nations to rule themselves instead of being subjects of foreign empires did not serve the interests of the Imperialists. The British were trying to keep a balance between oppressing the national identities of people and trying to not piss off the locals too much to avoid revolts. Either way these are Imperialist choices that the UK should not have needed to make in the first place. They should have let the people they occupied free, and mind their own business of how to keep in check their own nationalism and imperialism. Our nationalism was of the moral type, all we wanted was to free our own lands, while it is their own nationalism that went out of control and they were oppressing people all around the globe on lands that have nothing to do with Britain.

[erolz66]

Erolz, your argument was that Cyprus could not "belong and be ruled by a majority of people who have never even stepped on to it, lived here or worked this land", and I have shown your argument to be false. Now you you are trying to change it.

I am sorry Sotos but that was not ever my argument. If you sincerely believe it was my argument and that I am now trying to change it because you have proven it false, then I suggest you are just mistaken. If you read what I have actually wrote I think this is clear.

I know very well what self determination means.

Wikipedia is not really the best source for such things but ok even using your source, there are things to me in that source that are glaring by your omission of them. Here are a few of them

There is not yet a recognized legal definition of "peoples" in international law.

So whilst the definition of 'peoples' is not subject to a legal definition, I maintain that the desire of GC for enosis did and does define them as wanting to be a part of the 'Greek people' and thus TC are clearly were of that same people.

Other definitions offered are "peoples" being self-evident (from ethnicity, language, history, etc.), or defined by "ties of mutual affection or sentiment", i.e. "loyalty", or by mutual obligations among peoples.

Abulof suggests that self-determination entails the "moral double helix" of duality (personal right to align with a people, and the people's right to determine their politics) and mutuality (the right is as much the other's as the self’s). Thus, self-determination grants individuals the right to form "a people," which then has the right to establish an independent state, as long as they grant the same to all other individuals and peoples.

According to the Helsinki Final Act of 1975, the UN, ICJ and international law experts, there is no contradiction between the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity, with the latter taking precedence.

The point here is that 'territorial integrity' takes precedence but in the case of Cyprus enosis was all about defining what the 'territorial integrity' would be, that of Cyprus or that of Greece. That is in the name of a Cypriot people, defined on the basis of the territorial integrity of Cyprus, we declare that the territorial integrity should be that of Greece. This is the same paradox you refuse to address in the case of Cyprus. The same paradox that says it is in the name of SELF determination of a Cypriot people we seek that Cyprus should NOT be ruled by Cypriots.

Pavković explores how national self-determination, in the form of creation of a new state through secession, could override the principles of majority rule and of equal rights, which are primary liberal principles. This includes the question of how an unwanted state can be imposed upon a minority. He explores five contemporary theories of secession. In "anarcho-capitalist" theory only landowners have the right to secede. In communitarian theory, only those groups that desire direct or greater political participation have the right, including groups deprived of rights, per Allen Buchanan. In two nationalist theories, only national cultural groups have a right to secede. Australian professor Harry Beran's democratic theory endorses the equality of the right of secession to all types of groups.

My point was, is and always has been that the pursuit of enosis by GC as the staus of Cyprus after the ending of British Colonial rule, was not a valid expression of the right to self determination of a Cypriot people and thus could not be fairly and justly achieved simply by a majority vote of this Cypriot people. It was not a free choice amongst Cypriots regardless of ethnic differences. It was a desire defined by those ethnic differences.

Let me also be clear as to what I think this means then in practice. It does not mean because enosis was the desire of only GC, TC therefore had some kind of right to a separate state of their own or a right to partition of Cyprus or a right to special privileges within a unitary CYPRIOT state. What it does mean, I maintain, in an scenario where everyone is operating on the basis of true commitment to the meaning and intent of the right to self determination of peoples, is that GC would not have considered they could achieve any form of enosis they wanted without any regard for the wishes of the TC community, merely by 'majority vote'. In a sane world factors like these would and should have come into play (again from your source)

In order to accommodate demands for minority rights and avoid secession and the creation of a separate new state, many states decentralize or devolve greater decision-making power to new or existing subunits or autonomous areas. More limited measures might include restricting demands to the maintenance of national cultures or granting non-territorial autonomy in the form of national associations which would assume control over cultural matters. This would be available only to groups that abandoned secessionist demands and the territorial state would retain political and judicial control, but only if would remain with the territorially organized state.[44]

Such consideration is all that I have argued was 'due' to the TC community from the GC community as the ending of British colonial rule came and was what was not given.