Cyprus-Forum.com

[repulsewarrior]

...both points are valid, and while there is (read: can be) no compromise of Universal Principals, some change can be (read: is) expected, because things by nature change, even rocks reform themselves, and, turn to dust.

Indeed, one should expect more Spaniards and Blacks in America to be more represented in positions of Power; women too.

Integration not de-segregation is what's needed; so says Martin Luther King: although Segregation is no more.

...and if you are a coin, it's two faces, are you not a coin in any case?

"This", must end. (so say The Elders, and by no coincidence while visiting Cyprus).

What was the lesson learned in the First World War? What does it mean "Lest we Forget"? And War, has it ended?

...no, I am not speaking plainly.

In Cyprus, acting as Cypriots and Free, all these points are relevant.

My words are crafted because i have nothing i like to do better; blame it on VP, i do. Precisely abstract perhaps.

...i don't know about you guys, i want to be Cypriot. I most certainly don't want to "be" Greek because i am Greek; i think most Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus will agree when i say to "Turks" asiktir, because i am Cypriot, Greek but no "Greek".

Are you "Greek", are you "Turkish", divided as you are, seems that way sometimes. Is there a rule book for "Turkishness", and/or "Greekness", i've missed ? In affect what makes you so different but "Turkishness" and "Greekness" as though somehow, "They" must be defended, in need of defense. Take back the word ENOSIS, i say; from "them", as Cypriots.

You must open your minds, the both of you. "Be" Cypriot, i suggest. Change the world.

[Sotos]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of self-determination. If it was as you suggest, Greek Cypriots in the UK or Greeks in Turkey (to give just a few examples) could demand separate municipalities just for themselves, to vote separately their representatives and have veto powers, to have 30% of government and 40% of the police positions in those countries etc. So clearly you are misunderstanding the whole concept.

And with sincere respect I think it is you that is choosing to understand these concepts in a way that supports the narrative you want to believe. The concept of the right to self determination of people, that is the fundamental protection of all other individual human rights, is both simple and complex. At the simple level it is the idea that people should not be forced against their will to live in their own homelands under the rule of those that are 'other' to them and the people they belong too. Where it gets complex is firstly in defining what the commonalities are that make a group a 'people' and in the mechanism by which they can exercise their right as that group.

Your comparison with GC in the UK is invalid because GC were not a people that had lived in the UK, itself under foreign rule, for centuries as a significant minority population and then when the prospect of self rule for the UK came along the majority population chose to want to exercise their self determination as a group that explicitly excluded GC by uniting the UK with some other existing foreign nation, like say Turkey.

The situation in Cyprus at the end of colonial rule was entirely different and unique because of the choice of GC to seek their right to self determination as part of the wider Greek people. I know you do not what to accept this and indeed may not be able to accept this but to me it remains clearly the case. I say thin not in terms of attributing 'blame' but merely in terms of understanding the past and how it has led us to where we are today. Both communities in Cyprus had lived under foreign rule for millennia. By the mid 1900's the world was turning and finally they both had the chance to no longer be ruled in their own homeland by those they considered 'other' than themselves. GC by choosing to seek to exercise their right to self determination as part of the existing Greek people by uniting Cyprus with the Greek state effectively closed off the possibility for TC to exercise their right to self determination as part of a unitary Cypriot people. For TC enosis would not have been the end of foreign colonial rule. It would have been to just replace one colonial ruler, the relatively benign British, with a different colonial ruler of Greece which was at that period far from 'benign' towards them as a people. Enosis would have required that TC people lost their right to self determination entirely, either by the mechanism of being part of a unitary Cypriot people that ruled themselves or by any other mechanism.

Erolz, the way you talk sounds like the whole principle of "self-determination" was made specifically to fit TCs and hardly anybody else. They had to previously be under foreign rule, for centuries, "significant" minority etc etc. Where does the UN set these exact specifications that conveniently fit TCs but not say the Greeks of Anatolia? The Greeks of Anatolia have been under foreign rule, they are a separate people who lived there for millennia, there are parts of Anatolia where they were a greater minority or even a majority (until the genocide) etc. So based on which UN specifications TCs should have all these privileges because of "self-determination" while Greeks of Anatolia get none?

There was nothing important which is unique about Cyprus in this case. The Ottomans conquered Cyprus in the same way they conquered nearly all Greek islands and mainland Greece, as well as many other Christian territories in the Balkans. During Ottoman rule, Muslim minorities, some of which Turkish speaking, were formed in these territories. After some centuries those territories were gradually liberated from the Ottomans, and non-Turkish nation states (Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbians etc) were formed. As more territories were liberated, those territories joined with the previously liberated lands to form bigger states. Some of those territories first passed through other Colonial powers (e.g. Rhodes island which belonged to the Italians until 1948). The Turks got their own state in Turkey, where they were mostly the majority. The Christian groups were recognized as minorities in Turkey and Muslims/ Turks were recognized as minorities in the predominately Christian nations.

When the Ottomans conquered Cyprus they knew that the majority of the population was Greek. We were already Greek, and nobody forced the Turks to live among us (quite the contrary). Even the Ottomans called us "Rum", the way they called all other Greeks. So in this respect there is no significant difference between Cyprus and Crete, Rhodes, or Athens.

If we go by your rules, then no territory which previously belonged to the Ottomans would have the right to be liberated and unite with other territories to form a nation.

Furthermore, here we are not discussing the rights of TCs in the case of enosis, we are talking about unfair privileges granted to them in the case of independence. Your concerns regarding enosis were addressed by not having enosis and explicitly prohibiting it. Those privileges and the given constitution as a whole was unfair, divisive and institutionalized racism, and its aim was to serve the interests of the foreigners who made it instead of offering our new state a solid basis on which we could have a successful country.

In many ways and to significant degrees the 60's agreements were discriminatory in the ways you describe. I accept and understand that. However the idea that they were in no way what so ever connected with the 'conundrum' of trying to ensure all Cypriots could enjoy their fundamental right to self determination in a post colonial era in the face of a GC numerical majority choosing to want to exercise their right to self determination not as part of a unitary Cypriot people and state but as part of the Greek people and state, is to me disingenuous. I understand why you need to believe this as your entire narrative is based on this notion. I just do not think it 'stacks up'. You say that TC had already got their protection against enosis happening and thus needed no further protections against this. At some level you must be able to see how unrealistic this argument is. Constitutions can be changed. Legally. They can also be ignored on the basis they are 'unjust'. You talk about if TC as a community had not got the privileges it did under the 60's agreements, we could have had today a successful country. Yet surely you must be able to see that had TC not got those legal rights in the 60's agreements , then almost certainly Cyprus would not exist at all as a sovereign state and no Cypriots would be able to exercise their right to self determination port of a Cypriot people. If such had of led to us today having a successful stable country, then that county would be Greece.

With the 1960s agreement we agreed to forfeit union with Greece and to have an independent country instead. Union with Greece did not happen and was explicitly prohibited in the constitution. And I would have no problem if any change in the constitution would require the separate agreement of TCs, so from a legal / constitutional point of view that would cover you 100% when it comes to the possibility of enosis. But beyond that, how are all those provocative privileges related with enosis? If the argument is "because the constitution can be ignored", well the same can be the case with those privileges in that same constitution. So how is having provocative privileges on the expense of the majority make the chance of the constitution being ignored less likely?

On the contrary I would say that such privileges would make the possibility of the constitution being ignored much more likely, since they discriminated against the majority of the population. And if the constitution is ignored for those aspects, then it is more likely to be ignored for just one more thing.

In 1960 we did not have any "Cypriot nation". We had a majority of Greeks which existed in Cyprus for millennia, and Turkish minority formed during Ottoman rule. Much like any other Greek island, or Greek city, or Balkan city. Building a Cypriot Nation is something that could have gradually happened after 1960, but the 1960 agreements were not designed to kick start a future united Cypriot nation, but where instead designed by foreigners to serve their own interests, which required that Cypriots remained both isolated and divided so that those external powers can continue to manipulate us.

[erolz66]

Erolz, the way you talk sounds like the whole principle of "self-determination" was made specifically to fit TCs and hardly anybody else. They had to previously be under foreign rule, for centuries, "significant" minority etc etc. Where does the UN set these exact specifications that conveniently fit TCs but not say the Greeks of Anatolia? The Greeks of Anatolia have been under foreign rule, they are a separate people who lived there for millennia, there are parts of Anatolia where they were a greater minority or even a majority (until the genocide) etc. So based on which UN specifications TCs should have all these privileges because of "self-determination" while Greeks of Anatolia get none?

And you think the way you talk about the right to self determination of peoples is not one that fits your position ?

Are TC Greek ? How can their right to self determination as a people be respected if they are forced to accept they will be ruled by Greece against their will ?

There was nothing important which is unique about Cyprus in this case.

In every example you give as 'the same' as the Cyprus you ignore the obvious. In all the examples you give, including Turkey itself, those states were liberated by force or arms. By war and by treaty following war. None of them gained their Independence through the implementation of principal of the right to self determination of peoples. Their liberation pre dates the formation and existance of such rights in principal and in practice.

If we go by your rules, then no territory which previously belonged to the Ottomans would have the right to be liberated and unite with other territories to form a nation.

Nothing I am saying equates to what you right above.

With the 1960s agreement we agreed to forfeit union with Greece and to have an independent country instead.

You did not agree to forfeit union with Greece. You were unable to secure such an objective by international legal agreement, or by force of arms, so you instead sought a form of independence that you believed would be 'a first step and only constitutes a stage towards the final and unalterable national objective'.

And I would have no problem if any change in the constitution would require the separate agreement of TCs, so from a legal / constitutional point of view that would cover you 100% when it comes to the possibility of enosis.

You as an individual 70 years after the fact can say you would have no problem with that. Do you really believe that the GC community and leadership 70 years ago had no problem with that ? That no arguments would be made that such was only agreed under duress and thus could be ignored at will after having been agreed ?

In 1960 we did not have any "Cypriot nation".

There were countless centuries old commonalities between the communities that called Cyprus their home that could have been the basis of of a Cypriot nation. We CHOSE to ignore these and instead sought futures that could only lead and did lead to conflict. That is a choice that many Cypriots still make today imo.

[Sotos]

And you think the way you talk about the right to self determination of peoples is not one that fits your position ?

Are TC Greek ? How can their right to self determination as a people be respected if they are forced to accept they will be ruled by Greece against their will ?

The way I talk about self-determination is the way that exists everywhere. You can't have self-determination over a territory which belongs mostly to others. The Scottish people can have their self-determination is Scotland where they are the native people and also the majority. Scottish people can't have self-determination over London, just because a minority of Scots lives there. The same is true for the Turkish people. They do have their self-determination over the territories where they are the majority. They can't demand additional self-determinations in every country they have a minority.

No, TCs aren't Greek. Just as Greeks who live in Anatolia aren't Turkish. Ethnic minorities exist everywhere and there is absolutely nothing unique about your case. It is not my fault that your ancestors conquered an island which had a majority Greek population. We didn't force on you Greek rule, but on the contrary it was Turkish rule that was forced on us. I understand that you don't like Greek rule, just as Greeks in Turkey don't like Turkish rule. But don't try to make it as if this is our fault or your case is somehow special.

In every example you give as 'the same' as the Cyprus you ignore the obvious. In all the examples you give, including Turkey itself, those states were liberated by force or arms. By war and by treaty following war. None of them gained their Independence through the implementation of principal of the right to self determination of peoples. Their liberation pre dates the formation and existance of such rights in principal and in practice.

There was a war in Cyprus as well, 100s of people where killed. And for one of the examples I gave, Rhodes in 1948, there wasn't a war and it was at about the same time. And of course we have countless examples since then. Self-determination of a territory is always linked to the majority of the population of that territory (e.g. Scotland), or at best a population which is native to a territory and had been the majority until relatively recently (e.g. Tibet). Do you have an example where self-determination over territory is given to a minority population?

And I repeat, I would have no problem with TCs claiming self-determination over other aspects, e.g. culture and language. But when it comes to things that are common, like territory, an ethnic minority only gets a proportional say, as a territory which mostly doesn't belong to them couldn't possibly fall under their self-determination.

You did not agree to forfeit union with Greece. You were unable to secure such an objective by international legal agreement, or by force of arms, so you instead sought a form of independence that you believed would be 'a first step and only constitutes a stage towards the final and unalterable national objective'.

We were unsuccessful in liberating our island from the Colonialists due to the obvious difference in power and the fact that Cyprus was strategically important to them. So we agreed to a compromise, and independence was in fact an idea of Makarios, not one of the British or TCs. The only reason that enosis remained theoretically, but not practically, an objective was because of the type of "independence" we were given, which in reality was no independence at all. Had it been a real independence then enosis would have been forgotten in just a few short years as it would offer no advantages over independence.

You as an individual 70 years after the fact can say you would have no problem with that. Do you really believe that the GC community and leadership 70 years ago had no problem with that ? That no arguments would be made that such was only agreed under duress and thus could be ignored at will after having been agreed ?

Our leadership accepted far worst things, so no, they would have no problem with something reasonable. What was ignored were the unjust and disproportionately large privileges given to the TCs. Our government had to choose between injustice, collapse and ignoring the constitution, and they choose the last option. If we had a proper, fair constitution to begin with then no such choice would ever need to be made.

There were countless centuries old commonalities between the communities that called Cyprus their home that could have been the basis of of a Cypriot nation. We CHOSE to ignore these and instead sought futures that could only lead and did lead to conflict. That is a choice that many Cypriots still make today imo.

Greeks and Turks lived together in what is now Greece and what is now Turkey, for many more centuries. They didn't unite to form "Gruks" or "Tureeks" and they didn't became "just Athenians" or "just Istanbulians" . There was an exchange of many cultural and other elements, some Greeks became Turks, some Turks became Greeks, but the two nations continued to exist separately. The same was true in Cyprus. It is not easy at all to form a nation out of people who speak different languages and have different religions. I will not say that it is impossible, but as history proves just living together, even for centuries, isn't enough.

Having our own separate and truly independent country could eventually create such a nation, but it would take some time. In 1960 we didn't have such thing and our constitution made no effort in establishing one.

[erolz66]

The way I talk about self-determination is the way that exists everywhere.

No it is not. You talk about self determination of groups of people in states that were formed BEFORE there was such a notion and framework in international law. There is a reason why you keep doing this.

You can't have self-determination over a territory which belongs mostly to others.

Who said anything about territory ? The simple reality , that you are unable to accept, is that in order for GC to have the form of self determination they wanted at the end of British rule, that of union with Greece, it required that TC who were not Greek, would lose their right to self determination as a people that were not Greek. You chose to seek a form of self determination that firstly defined yourselves as 'other' from TC and then sought to remove that right from the very people you defined as 'other' to yourselves. That is why the international community, in 1960, AFTER such rights had been defined and accepted in 'international law', would not sanction such. You simply refuse to accept this reality because it does not suit the narrative you have to believe.

Just as Greeks who live in Anatolia aren't Turkish.

Turkey was not formed as a state after the concept of self determination was established. It was formed before that as a result of failed attempts by multiple powers including Greece to take all of what is today the state of Turkey by force of arms.

But don't try to make it as if this is our fault or your case is somehow special.

You can continue to believe that the choice to pursue enosis after the end of colonial rule in Cyprus, that occurred after the right to self determination of peoples was established and accepted by the international community, was in no way 'atypical' and played no material part what so ever in what then occurred in Cyprus if you like. But doing so is just denial of plain reality for your convenience imo.

There was a war in Cyprus as well, 100s of people where killed.

Cyprus was not formed as a nation state as the result of armed conflict and conquest like Turkey was.

And for one of the examples I gave, Rhodes in 1948, there wasn't a war and it was at about the same time.

Rhodes was Italian as a result of war and conquest. It passed in to British control as a result of war (ww2) It was given to Greece not as a result of Britain recognising the right to self determination of the people of Rhodes. It was given to Greece for political reasons regardless of what the people of Rhodes may have wanted, who were never consulted and played no part what so ever in this change.

Do you have an example where self-determination over territory is given to a minority population?

You are the only one here talking about territory. I do not and have never claimed that the right to self determination gives any right to territory. That you equate the right to self determination with a right to territory just shows how little you actually understand such rights. When India was granted Independence, the minority muslim population WAS given territory as a means for them to be able to exercise their right to self determination and the results were tragic for 10's of millions of people. Just as the results of 74 were for 100,000s of people. That is why by 1960 partition was not regarded as a viable means of ensuring both GC and TC communities rights to self determination were protected.

And I repeat, I would have no problem with TCs claiming self-determination over other aspects, e.g. culture and language. But when it comes to things that are common, like territory, an ethnic minority only gets a proportional say, as a territory which mostly doesn't belong to them couldn't possibly fall under their self-determination.

In 1960 Turks that lived in the nation state of Greece were proscribed by law from even being able to call themselves Turkish, and many other human rights violations, something that continues even today (https://minorityrights.org/2019/10/23/t ... ew-report/) let alone in 1960. I am talking about understanding what went wrong in the past in Cyprus. You just keep talking about present day. They are two different things.

We were unsuccessful in liberating our island from the Colonialists due to the obvious difference in power and the fact that Cyprus was strategically important to them.

Yet except for the sovereign bases Cyprus was ruled by Cypriots by 1960. Cyprus was liberated from colonial rule.

So we agreed to a compromise, and independence was in fact an idea of Makarios, not one of the British or TCs. The only reason that enosis remained theoretically, but not practically, an objective was because of the type of "independence" we were given, which in reality was no independence at all. Had it been a real independence then enosis would have been forgotten in just a few short years as it would offer no advantages over independence.

That is just bollocks imo. There is no evidence for it imo. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary. GC fought GC in 74 not over the issue of if TC rights should be removed or not. GC fought GC over enosis. So let me get this right. Your position is that when Makrios signed the 1960 agreements, he genuinely and sincerely agreed to give up all pursuit of enosis but he was forced against his will to agree to the rights granted to the TC community. And that this was clear to everyone including the TC. So there was never any risk he would 'renege' on the enosis being proscribed but he was totally justified in illegally ignoring those part of the agreements that gave rights to the TC community and to use force and murder in pursuit of their removal. And that TC knew this all along and had no reason what so ever to fear enosis post 1960. Is this really what you expect me to accept ?

If we had a proper, fair constitution to begin with then no such choice would ever need to be made.

If you had had what you call a 'fair and proper' constitution in 1960, one where a simple majority could decide the fate of all the people and peoples in Cyprus without any let or hindrance from any other party, then you would have joined with Greece. You can believe otherwise if you must but to me that just shows the degree to which you are locked in to the same old myths and narratives that have led Cyprus to where it is today. If just is not credible. Not to me as a TC and I would wager not to anyone other than a GC of certain mind set.

Having our own separate and truly independent country could eventually create such a nation, but it would take some time. In 1960 we didn't have such thing and our constitution made no effort in establishing one.

Sure Sotos. Have it your way. The FACT that GC fought and killed and died against the British in the name of enosis, that GC fought and killed and died against GC in the name of enosis, played no part what so ever in the mess we are in today. Sure. Right. Got it. It was all the result of greedy Turks demanding more than was rightfully theirs, for no other reason that they were greedy Turks.

So I think it is now time for me to slope off for a while, as I periodically do. I can only stomach so much.

[repulsewarrior]

...and yet, here we are, seeking a BBF; i ask.

What is wrong with Cypriot Constituencies within a Cypriot State? A Turkish Constituency in Cyprus, to name one.

What is wrong, if as Individuals we choose to promote, and defend, the diversity of the Cypriot ethnosphere; if as Persons, there is representation for such distinct identities as well. And at this level of government, to collect Taxes, and to provide for the daily lives of its electorate as such, having in that recognition as a Majority within territorial jurisdictions the demonstration of their Goodwill, a respect for Minorities that live among them as equals, in holding the Agenda, (having the capacity), by providing these special needs as well.

I have said it before, the Problem is not a problem, between Greeks and Turks, or even "Greeks" and "Turks", in Cyprus, it is about "Greeks" and "Turks", against Greeks and Turks (read: Cypriots).

Indeed the Cyprus Problem is quite complex, but not complicated: it is a question of Identity.

https://cyprus-mail.com/2020/02/23/iden ... integrate/

...i started writing this here, it ended in the Mail. But really, it is a valid question despite the past, is this what Cypriots want now?

[erolz66]

Indeed the Cyprus Problem is quite complex, but not complicated: it is a question of Identity.

cyprus47285-30.html#p892997

[Sotos]

The way I talk about self-determination is the way that exists everywhere.

No it is not. You talk about self determination of groups of people in states that were formed BEFORE there was such a notion and framework in international law. There is a reason why you keep doing this.

You can't have self-determination over a territory which belongs mostly to others.

Who said anything about territory ? The simple reality , that you are unable to accept, is that in order for GC to have the form of self determination they wanted at the end of British rule, that of union with Greece, it required that TC who were not Greek, would lose their right to self determination as a people that were not Greek. You chose to seek a form of self determination that firstly defined yourselves as 'other' from TC and then sought to remove that right from the very people you defined as 'other' to yourselves. That is why the international community, in 1960, AFTER such rights had been defined and accepted in 'international law', would not sanction such. You simply refuse to accept this reality because it does not suit the narrative you have to believe.

Just as Greeks who live in Anatolia aren't Turkish.

Turkey was not formed as a state after the concept of self determination was established. It was formed before that as a result of failed attempts by multiple powers including Greece to take all of what is today the state of Turkey by force of arms.

But don't try to make it as if this is our fault or your case is somehow special.

You can continue to believe that the choice to pursue enosis after the end of colonial rule in Cyprus, that occurred after the right to self determination of peoples was established and accepted by the international community, was in no way 'atypical' and played no material part what so ever in what then occurred in Cyprus if you like. But doing so is just denial of plain reality for your convenience imo.

What does it matter when the self-determination rights of peoples was established? Once it was established it applied to all those who were eligible. It is like telling me that the abolishment of slavery would only apply to newly born people, and not to those already slaves for years or decades. You are just trying to find an excuse as to why your group of people deserves such right while others don't, i.e double standards. And even if the date of officially establishing the self-determination rights somehow mattered, I should inform you that this date was 14 December 1960, which is after the London-Zurich agreements for Cyprus.

Furthermore, you say that self-determination right isn't about territory. About what is it then? And how are all those privileges such as 30% government positions for an ethnic group of 18% associated with such right?

There was a war in Cyprus as well, 100s of people where killed.

Cyprus was not formed as a nation state as the result of armed conflict and conquest like Turkey was.

It was. There was an armed struggle against the British.

And for one of the examples I gave, Rhodes in 1948, there wasn't a war and it was at about the same time.

Rhodes was Italian as a result of war and conquest. It passed in to British control as a result of war (ww2) It was given to Greece not as a result of Britain recognising the right to self determination of the people of Rhodes. It was given to Greece for political reasons regardless of what the people of Rhodes may have wanted, who were never consulted and played no part what so ever in this change.

The will of the people of Rhodes was as well known as that of the people of Cyprus. In the case of Rhodes the will of the people was respected.

Do you have an example where self-determination over territory is given to a minority population?

You are the only one here talking about territory. I do not and have never claimed that the right to self determination gives any right to territory. That you equate the right to self determination with a right to territory just shows how little you actually understand such rights. When India was granted Independence, the minority muslim population WAS given territory as a means for them to be able to exercise their right to self determination and the results were tragic for 10's of millions of people. Just as the results of 74 were for 100,000s of people. That is why by 1960 partition was not regarded as a viable means of ensuring both GC and TC communities rights to self determination were protected.

Ok, so Pakistanis also had a right of self-determination in the 1940s, and yet Greeks in Anatolia 2 decades earlier didn't have any such right? Maybe you have to be Muslim to have such right?

And I repeat, I would have no problem with TCs claiming self-determination over other aspects, e.g. culture and language. But when it comes to things that are common, like territory, an ethnic minority only gets a proportional say, as a territory which mostly doesn't belong to them couldn't possibly fall under their self-determination.

In 1960 Turks that lived in the nation state of Greece were proscribed by law from even being able to call themselves Turkish, and many other human rights violations, something that continues even today (https://minorityrights.org/2019/10/23/t ... ew-report/) let alone in 1960. I am talking about understanding what went wrong in the past in Cyprus. You just keep talking about present day. They are two different things.

Again, what I don't like is double standards. I would be more than happy if both Greeks in Turkey and Turks in Greece where allowed to stay in their homes and had the same rights. What I don't accept is that Turks go on to make whole genocides and practically eliminate the Greeks from places in Anatolia where the Greeks lived, and had been the majority for millennia, and then complain about comparatively minor issues for their minority in Greece.

We were unsuccessful in liberating our island from the Colonialists due to the obvious difference in power and the fact that Cyprus was strategically important to them.

Yet except for the sovereign bases Cyprus was ruled by Cypriots by 1960. Cyprus was liberated from colonial rule.

Not really. How can you be liberated when foreigners write your constitution and impose it on you? Not to mention the foreign so called "guarantors", foreign judges of the Supreme court etc. The only way to get a bit of freedom was by ignoring those things.

So we agreed to a compromise, and independence was in fact an idea of Makarios, not one of the British or TCs. The only reason that enosis remained theoretically, but not practically, an objective was because of the type of "independence" we were given, which in reality was no independence at all. Had it been a real independence then enosis would have been forgotten in just a few short years as it would offer no advantages over independence.

That is just bollocks imo. There is no evidence for it imo. There is mountains of evidence to the contrary. GC fought GC in 74 not over the issue of if TC rights should be removed or not. GC fought GC over enosis. So let me get this right. Your position is that when Makrios signed the 1960 agreements, he genuinely and sincerely agreed to give up all pursuit of enosis but he was forced against his will to agree to the rights granted to the TC community. And that this was clear to everyone including the TC. So there was never any risk he would 'renege' on the enosis being proscribed but he was totally justified in illegally ignoring those part of the agreements that gave rights to the TC community and to use force and murder in pursuit of their removal. And that TC knew this all along and had no reason what so ever to fear enosis post 1960. Is this really what you expect me to accept ?

When Makarios signed the 1960 agreements he read them first. He knew they were crap, but he had no better option. Compared to such "independence", enosis was still a better option if it could be achieved. Things would be much different if it was a proper and fair independence, and this is especially true for Makarios and the politicians. Why would they want to be downgraded to community leaders once they got used in being Presidents and Ministers of a country? The only reason that enosis remained theoretically an objective after 1960 was that this "Independence" we were given was "Independence" in name only, and Greek Cypriots could be better of with enosis. And even with this screwed up "independence" the desire for enosis among Greek Cypriots gradually started to decline, especially after the Junta took over Greece. In 1974 only a minority of Greek Cypriots still wanted enosis, down from 90%+ in the 50s. Of course if the TCs had maintained their privileges and GCs silently accepted the racism against them, then union with Greece might have been seen as liberation by many more.

If we had a proper, fair constitution to begin with then no such choice would ever need to be made.

If you had had what you call a 'fair and proper' constitution in 1960, one where a simple majority could decide the fate of all the people and peoples in Cyprus without any let or hindrance from any other party, then you would have joined with Greece. You can believe otherwise if you must but to me that just shows the degree to which you are locked in to the same old myths and narratives that have led Cyprus to where it is today. If just is not credible. Not to me as a TC and I would wager not to anyone other than a GC of certain mind set.

I didn't say this. Obviously if Greek Cypriots were given the option for enosis in 1960 they would have gladly accepted it. What I am talking about is to still have union with Greece prohibited by the constitution, and still require TC agreement for the change of constitution. I recognize as valid the TC concerns in case of enosis, so I have no problem to accept that part, and I don't think that requiring TC agreement for the change of constitution would be something unfair (as long as the constitution was proper and fair to begin with), since there are many countries that require a lot more than a simple majority for the change of constitution.

Having our own separate and truly independent country could eventually create such a nation, but it would take some time. In 1960 we didn't have such thing and our constitution made no effort in establishing one.

Sure Sotos. Have it your way. The FACT that GC fought and killed and died against the British in the name of enosis, that GC fought and killed and died against GC in the name of enosis, played no part what so ever in the mess we are in today. Sure. Right. Got it. It was all the result of greedy Turks demanding more than was rightfully theirs, for no other reason that they were greedy Turks.

So I think it is now time for me to slope off for a while, as I periodically do. I can only stomach so much.

In the 50s (and as far back as 1821) enosis for Greek Cypriots meant liberation from foreign rule. As I said I recognize you had valid reasons to oppose it, so I don't blame you for the conflict in the 50s. But our side compromised to give up enosis, and although it would naturally take some time for GCs to forget enosis, the greed of your side was and continues to be the main issue. Obviously the coup (if you want to include that as an "enosis" thing) also played a part in the mess we are today, and our unrelated to enosis greed at certain points as well.

[repulsewarrior]

...very interesting and educational thoughts from the both of you; harder to read than my stuff but that's another story.

in a nutshell; Cyprus, its constitution needs reform.

Cypriots exist. The "Greeks" and "Turks" that live among them exist too. The future for Cypriots, one hopes is neither their assimilation or subjugation by either. And yet, it seems that in the negotiation of the Problem, it is as though such a notion as Cypriot will be created; with no chair for a Cypriot between "them", and no chance for a Cypriot (but at an election box) to even have their say.

...indeed, it is an issue of identity, and as "Greeks" and "Turks" agitate for their Agenda with more finality, i surmise, under the circumstances, so too those Cypriot (about half the population) will be compelled no longer to remain silent. In acts and demonstrations, they will signal their unity against "them" with a simple choice, under the Flag of Cyprus, because it is a powerful symbol which as yet has not been used specifically to expose those not Cypriot. (i shutter thinking, in Cyprus, how that could turn out; talking about Flags, and extremists' feelings about their own: but violence is not the only outcome.)

...what do Cypriots want, i ask; never mind the "Greeks"and the "Turks".

And if in a BBF Cypriots, as Individuals, (also an identity) represent themselves as Cypriots, what is wrong with Cypriot Constituencies representing them as Persons?

...intentions count; what as persons they do to demonstrate in a majority their Goodwill toward the minorities among them.

(how lucky i feel living in a BBF like Canada, how much i enjoy the same hope for Cypriots)

[erolz66]

What does it matter when the self-determination rights of peoples was established? Once it was established it applied to all those who were eligible.

All you are doing is conflating the right with how that right might be implemented in a given case. You want the right, for TC, to be implemented as if Cyprus had become a part of Greece before such rights were recognized. The reasons why you want the right implemented for TC in this way is obvious and it is nothing to do with the right itself and consistency or fairness and is everything to do with supporting your narrative imo.

It is like telling me that the abolishment of slavery would only apply to newly born people, and not to those already slaves for years or decades.

No it is more akin to you telling me that if the state introduces a right for free dental treatment, you want money back for treatment you had before that right was established because that suits you.

You are just trying to find an excuse as to why your group of people deserves such right while others don't, i.e double standards.

GC as a people who were not British had a right, once such rights were established and recognised, to not be ruled in their own homeland by the British against their will. TC as a people who were not Greek, once such rights were established, did not have the right to not be ruled in their own homeland by Greece against their will. This appears to me to be your position whilst you accuse me of double standards ?

And even if the date of officially establishing the self-determination rights somehow mattered, I should inform you that this date was 14 December 1960, which is after the London-Zurich agreements for Cyprus.

You are clutching at straws here. The entire struggle for the end of British rule in Cyprus be it to replace it with enosis or independence was based on the existance and recognition internationally of the right of peoples to self determination.

Furthermore, you say that self-determination right isn't about territory. About what is it then? And how are all those privileges such as 30% government positions for an ethnic group of 18% associated with such right?

It is about commonalities that make a group a "people" and the right to not be forced to be ruled by those who are "other" than yourself. Nor am I claiming that the rights granted to the TC community under the 60s agreements were a great solution without problems. However to claim that they were entirely unconnected with trying to find a balance between one peoples rights as a people, who had chosen to define themselves as "other" than TC, and TC as a people who shared the same homeland is, to me, a clear example of denying reality to suit a narrative.

The will of the people of Rhodes was as well known as that of the people of Cyprus. In the case of Rhodes the will of the people was respected.

You can not put in to effect the will of a people by powers other than that people deciding what it is those people want. You want to portray the transfer of Rhodes and the people of Rhodes from British rule to Greek rule as being driven by a recognition of the right to self determination of the people of Rhodes. It was not and could not have been because they were not consulted. They were never given any choice between independence or union with Greece. That if they had of been given they might well have chosen union over Independence does not change the reality that this transfer was not one based on the self determination of the people of Rhodes.

Ok, so Pakistanis also had a right of self-determination in the 1940s, and yet Greeks in Anatolia 2 decades earlier didn't have any such right? Maybe you have to be Muslim to have such right?

You first challenge me to give an example of a place that ended colonial rule after the principal of self determination of peoples was established that contained more than one "peoples" and where separate states for each was the means by which their rights were to be implemented, with the implication that such recognition of two peoples and separate states for each was totally atypical and unprecedented. When I give such an example, you just switch to your invalid historical comparisons and throw in a bit of Islamophobia to boot.

If TC existing as a minority community in a Greece state was a valid basis on which their right to self determination could be implemented, because Greeks existed in a Turkish state formed before such rights were recognized, then why would such not also be a valid for the GC community existing as a minority in the Turkish state ? And you accuse me of double standards to suit my narrative ?

Not really. How can you be liberated when foreigners write your constitution and impose it on you? Not to mention the foreign so called "guarantors", foreign judges of the Supreme court etc. The only way to get a bit of freedom was by ignoring those things.

How can you be liberated when foreigners proscribe you from uniting with another state should you wish to ? Why can that not be ignore ? In the interests of historical accuracy the bulk of the 60s agreements were created and drafted not by the British but in fact by Greece and Turkey together.

Why would they want to be downgraded to community leaders once they got used in being Presidents and Ministers of a country?

In a scenario where by enosis was achieved in 1960 you really think Makarios would have just retreated to a position of spiritual or community leader of GC and left politics and the power that brings ? That it is inconceivable that he would have presented himself as the great deliverer of Cyprus back in to the Hellenic fold and implementer of the Mengali ideal and used as that as a platform to seek even greater temporal politcal power in a Greek state that now included Cyprus ?

The only reason that enosis remained theoretically an objective after 1960 was that this "Independence" we were given was "Independence" in name only, and Greek Cypriots could be better of with enosis.

By 1965 TC had none of the rights granted to them under the constitution. A majority had fled their homes and were living in enclaves and a GC only run state had told them they could not take up their places in government unless they first accepted the amendments that state had made without them and against the legality of the constitution. Yet significant numbers of GC still sought enosis and went on to a launch a coup and declare enosis that might well have succeeded had it not been for the action of Turkey in response. Yet you want me to believe that there was no real reason for TC to fear enosis post 1960 ?

I recognize as valid the TC concerns in case of enosis, so I have no problem to accept that part, and I don't think that requiring TC agreement for the change of constitution would be something unfair (as long as the constitution was proper and fair to begin with), since there are many countries that require a lot more than a simple majority for the change of constitution.

Requiring more than 50% majority for constitutional change is not the same thing as requiring separate consent from different groups / communities. You say that you personally would not have any problem with TC having a right to veto constitutional change against the will of a GC majority because you personally do not see that as unfair. However that is not the point. The point is did the GC leadership or people believe such was fair and acceptable and make that clear to all and sundry ?

As I said I recognize you had valid reasons to oppose it, so I don't blame you for the conflict in the 50s. But our side compromised to give up enosis, and although it would naturally take some time for GCs to forget enosis, the greed of your side was and continues to be the main issue. Obviously the coup (if you want to include that as an "enosis" thing) also played a part in the mess we are today, and our unrelated to enosis greed at certain points as well.

Partition in India as a means of implementing the people's there right to self determination was a disaster. As was partition in Cyprus. As was the 60's constitution as drafted by Greece and Turkey. I accept all of this, What I do not accept is that the rights granted to the TC community in the 60s agreements were nothing at all to do with their right to self determination in the face of a GC population that chose to define them as other to them and seek to impose a future on them as such against their will. That it was simply about TC greed. That I do not accept.

If we can understand what went wrong in the past and why then we can find a future path that removes the causes of previous failures. If we, a majority of us, on both sides chose to define ourselves as Cypriot, as a single people despite differences in language and religion, then the problems of the past dissolve away.

I find such discussion so depressing and with you Sotos more than many others because I have in many ways and significant degrees much respect for you and your ability to think rationally. My antidote is to go and spend some time with Cypriots that ae not locked in to their respective 50 year old narratives. We have to stop using our intellect to defend narratives against reality and that we know have brought us nothing but disaster to date. I am doing my best to do this. Are you ?