Birkibrisli, I agree with most of what you say.
But let me ask you something. Say those leaders instead of doing what they were doing behind closed doors, they were instead doing it in public and that (always theoretically) would cause a revolution of the great majority of the population against a constitution that was forced upon them by the colonialists, and demanding a constitution that would be chosen in a democratic way by Cypriots themselves.
Would a revolution demanding a democratically chosen constitution be considered a treason as well?
What was wrong with the "Akritas plan"
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
by BirKibrisli » Fri Feb 24, 2006 2:27 pm
Piratis wrote:Birkibrisli, I agree with most of what you say.
But let me ask you something. Say those leaders instead of doing what they were doing behind closed doors, they were instead doing it in public and that (always theoretically) would cause a revolution of the great majority of the population against a constitution that was forced upon them by the colonialists, and demanding a constitution that would be chosen in a democratic way by Cypriots themselves.
Would a revolution demanding a democratically chosen constitution be considered a treason as well?
No Piratis...As you say as well, that would've been a popular uprising and a revolution.The whole thing was probably never seen anywhere before or since.Usually those not in power secretly plot to overthrow the government and change the constitution.If they fail they are charged with treason and shot.If they win those previously in power are tried on some charge or other and also shot...This happened in Turkey in 1960 after the first coup,when the PM Menderes and a couple of his ministers were hanged for corruption and treason.The situation in Cyprus were complicated by the presence of two communities and the power of the guarantors which were essentially foreign countries.
-
BirKibrisli - Main Contributor
- Posts: 6162
- Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2005 4:28 pm
- Location: Australia
by faruk » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:41 pm
It is very unfortunate thing on behalf of you to ask which part of the Plan was wrong in the wake of the sample of the Akritas plan which I gave you in my previous post. Because this puts forwards two points; whether you miss the whole Picture that is in front of your eyes, or you share the same dangerous type of mind with your ancestors – one is still your leader – which they ignore one of two people and destroy a republic formed by two people that are equal. I do not think that a person could be that much naive who writes to this forum if you are claiming first point, but, the worse thing would be which I do not even want to think is that you have the same evil intention of your ancestors, for the latter point.
But still, I choose the first possibility from two options owing to fact that it does not consist the mind of evil. So I will try to tell the plan as reducing it to more basic ground.
Fistly, I should tell you about the recent history of the political and social ground of the island in order you to understand the Akritas Plan itself is the whole problem rather than it includes some failed parts.
There are two distinct peoples in Cyprus, namely the Turkish Cypriot People and the Greek Cypriot People, who are politically equal and enjoy seperate and inalienable rights over the destiny of thr island. The Turkish Cypriot People and the Greek Cypriot people negotiated and signed the international Cyprus Treaties of 1960 governing Cyprus, as two of five contracting parties(the other three being Turkey, the United Kingdom and Greece), agreeing to share the power on the basis of political equality.
The “state of affairs” created by the international Cyprus Treaties of 1960 was one of political equality and equal status of the two peoples. In addition to the internal balance established between two peoples of Cyprus, the Treaties established an external balance over Cyprus between respective motherlends, Turkey and Greece and the United Kingdom became guarantors of the 1960 “state of affairs” in Cyprus.
Hence, the Republic of Cyprus established by the 1959 – 1960 Agreements was not a unitary state, nor a national state. It was a partnership republic of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The leitimacy of the 1960 Republic lay in the joint precence and effective participation of both sides in all organs of the State. None of parties had the right to rule the other, nor could any of them assume the right to be the Government of the whole island in the absebce of the other.
So, the Greek Cypriot partner saw the republic as a contemporary setback remaining in front of the ENOSIS. Thus, the Akritas Plan comes into the stage and as you Express, this plan turned the Turkish Cypriots from people to minority. Furthermore, Greek Cypriot partner of the Republic saw this island as if it belongs only to Greeks but not Turkish Cypriots and also the self determination was shown as only the Right of Greeks as the owners of the island. So as to achive to this goal even the “extramination” of Turks were legitimate and just for the action. --And i will give you the associated parts of plan--
So Greek Cypriots started to apply the Akritas plan from the very beginning of the formation of the Republic of Cyprus and embarked on a policy to undermine the very foundations of the constitiution.
So, in the light of these informations we can ask this question to ourselves “ why the secrecy was that much important if it was not harmful?” and also i am giving you some parts from the plan.
• “the measures which are prescribed now constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and unalterable national objective” -ENOSIS-
• “(c)All the above which required very difficult effort, have been achieved to a satisfactory degree. Most of the diplomatic representatives are already convinced that the solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under pressure and without real negotiations and that it was imposed under various threats. The fact that the solution has not been ratified by the people, is a significant argument in this connection, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to give its official approval to the agreement by a plebiscite or otherwise, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have definitely approved. Generally, it has been established that the administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks was confined to a negative role and acted as a brake.” So that means on the one hand while they were signing the agreemnet on the other hand they were planning to dissolve it.
• “(e)Further, it is judged that we have greater possibilities of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand for exercising the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for Enosis” the main aim ENOSIS
• “It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any possibility of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed” the secrecy shows that the action was not legal
• “Tactics: Our actions for constitutional amendments will be open and we will always appear ready for peaceful talks. Our actions will not be of a provocative or violent nature. Any incidents that may take place will be met, at the beginning, in a legal fashion by the legal Security Forces, according to the plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.” Pretending to be
• “4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described above, without the Turks attempting to create or to stage violent clashes. Exactly for this reason, the existence and strengthening of our Organisation is imperative because:
a) In the event of spontaneous Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk of having panic created among Greeks, particularly in the towns, and thus we run the danger of losing substantial vital areas irreparably , while on the other hand an immediate and timely show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to insignificant, isolated acts, and
b) In the event of a planned or spurious attack of the Turks, staged or not, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation in one or two days, no outside intervention would be possible, probable or justifiable.
c) In all the above cases, the forceful and decisive confrontation of any Turkish effort will greatly facilitate our subsequent actions for further Constitutional amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will know that their reaction will be impossible or seriously harmful for their community, and
d) In the event of the clashes becoming widespread and general we must be ready to proceed immediately with the actions described in (a) to (d), including the immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to wait nor room for diplomatic action.” Gives the way to “extramination” and if you evaluate the (b) it only possible if there have been no turks remained alive this could have been possible.
As it can be easily understood the whole plan is the problem that was aiming at destroying both the RoC and the Turks together. And there is nothing to emphasize to protect the Turkish Cypriots and also I am saying it again “the Turkish Cypriots were not minority they were one of the founder elements of the destroyed Republic of Cyprus.” There are some passages that emphasizes what Greek Cypriots should pretend to act as peaceful party but not in real. It is obvious that the plan was prepared very wisely.
As it is clear that first you all should see the Turkish Cypriots as equal partner not as a minority in order to relaize that the plan was very wrong. It was wrong because it dissolved a republic by force and pointed one of the partner to be launched massacring campaigns.
But still, I choose the first possibility from two options owing to fact that it does not consist the mind of evil. So I will try to tell the plan as reducing it to more basic ground.
Fistly, I should tell you about the recent history of the political and social ground of the island in order you to understand the Akritas Plan itself is the whole problem rather than it includes some failed parts.
There are two distinct peoples in Cyprus, namely the Turkish Cypriot People and the Greek Cypriot People, who are politically equal and enjoy seperate and inalienable rights over the destiny of thr island. The Turkish Cypriot People and the Greek Cypriot people negotiated and signed the international Cyprus Treaties of 1960 governing Cyprus, as two of five contracting parties(the other three being Turkey, the United Kingdom and Greece), agreeing to share the power on the basis of political equality.
The “state of affairs” created by the international Cyprus Treaties of 1960 was one of political equality and equal status of the two peoples. In addition to the internal balance established between two peoples of Cyprus, the Treaties established an external balance over Cyprus between respective motherlends, Turkey and Greece and the United Kingdom became guarantors of the 1960 “state of affairs” in Cyprus.
Hence, the Republic of Cyprus established by the 1959 – 1960 Agreements was not a unitary state, nor a national state. It was a partnership republic of Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots. The leitimacy of the 1960 Republic lay in the joint precence and effective participation of both sides in all organs of the State. None of parties had the right to rule the other, nor could any of them assume the right to be the Government of the whole island in the absebce of the other.
So, the Greek Cypriot partner saw the republic as a contemporary setback remaining in front of the ENOSIS. Thus, the Akritas Plan comes into the stage and as you Express, this plan turned the Turkish Cypriots from people to minority. Furthermore, Greek Cypriot partner of the Republic saw this island as if it belongs only to Greeks but not Turkish Cypriots and also the self determination was shown as only the Right of Greeks as the owners of the island. So as to achive to this goal even the “extramination” of Turks were legitimate and just for the action. --And i will give you the associated parts of plan--
So Greek Cypriots started to apply the Akritas plan from the very beginning of the formation of the Republic of Cyprus and embarked on a policy to undermine the very foundations of the constitiution.
So, in the light of these informations we can ask this question to ourselves “ why the secrecy was that much important if it was not harmful?” and also i am giving you some parts from the plan.
• “the measures which are prescribed now constitute only the first step, one simple stage towards the final and unalterable national objective” -ENOSIS-
• “(c)All the above which required very difficult effort, have been achieved to a satisfactory degree. Most of the diplomatic representatives are already convinced that the solution given was neither fair nor satisfactory, that it was signed under pressure and without real negotiations and that it was imposed under various threats. The fact that the solution has not been ratified by the people, is a significant argument in this connection, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to give its official approval to the agreement by a plebiscite or otherwise, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have definitely approved. Generally, it has been established that the administration of Cyprus up to now has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks was confined to a negative role and acted as a brake.” So that means on the one hand while they were signing the agreemnet on the other hand they were planning to dissolve it.
• “(e)Further, it is judged that we have greater possibilities of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand for exercising the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for Enosis” the main aim ENOSIS
• “It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any possibility of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed” the secrecy shows that the action was not legal
• “Tactics: Our actions for constitutional amendments will be open and we will always appear ready for peaceful talks. Our actions will not be of a provocative or violent nature. Any incidents that may take place will be met, at the beginning, in a legal fashion by the legal Security Forces, according to the plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.” Pretending to be
• “4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is possible to proceed to substantive acts of amendment of the constitution, as a first step of our general plan, as has been described above, without the Turks attempting to create or to stage violent clashes. Exactly for this reason, the existence and strengthening of our Organisation is imperative because:
a) In the event of spontaneous Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk of having panic created among Greeks, particularly in the towns, and thus we run the danger of losing substantial vital areas irreparably , while on the other hand an immediate and timely show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to insignificant, isolated acts, and
b) In the event of a planned or spurious attack of the Turks, staged or not, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation in one or two days, no outside intervention would be possible, probable or justifiable.
c) In all the above cases, the forceful and decisive confrontation of any Turkish effort will greatly facilitate our subsequent actions for further Constitutional amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will know that their reaction will be impossible or seriously harmful for their community, and
d) In the event of the clashes becoming widespread and general we must be ready to proceed immediately with the actions described in (a) to (d), including the immediate declaration of Enosis, because then there would be no reason to wait nor room for diplomatic action.” Gives the way to “extramination” and if you evaluate the (b) it only possible if there have been no turks remained alive this could have been possible.
As it can be easily understood the whole plan is the problem that was aiming at destroying both the RoC and the Turks together. And there is nothing to emphasize to protect the Turkish Cypriots and also I am saying it again “the Turkish Cypriots were not minority they were one of the founder elements of the destroyed Republic of Cyprus.” There are some passages that emphasizes what Greek Cypriots should pretend to act as peaceful party but not in real. It is obvious that the plan was prepared very wisely.
As it is clear that first you all should see the Turkish Cypriots as equal partner not as a minority in order to relaize that the plan was very wrong. It was wrong because it dissolved a republic by force and pointed one of the partner to be launched massacring campaigns.
- faruk
- New Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:16 pm
by Piratis » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:58 pm
So I will try to tell the plan as reducing it to more basic ground.
Fistly, I should tell you about the recent history of the political and social ground of the island in order you to understand the Akritas Plan itself is the whole problem rather than it includes some failed parts.
Faruk, we are not stupid and we can read the plan itself. We don't need your "analysis".
As I posted already:
According to the resolution 1541 ( http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Ge ... ES/1541(XV)&Lang=E ) of the UN about decolonization, the areas liberated from colonialists should have these available options: 1)free association with an independent State, 2) integration into an independent State, 3) Independence
The choice among any of the 3 should be given to the people with democratic procedures.
The TCs are an 18% are a minority. This is a simply fact.
ethnic minority: A group of people who have a different culture, religion or language to the main one in the place or country they live.
If TCs are not a minority then why the Kurds in Turkey, the Turks in Bulgaria, the Blacks in USA, etc are? What is so special with TCs? That Turkey and UK have the power to screw Greek Cypriots?
If the minority could rule Cyprus for 300 years and Cyprus was part of the Ottoman empire for 300 years against the will of the great majority, then what is so wrong for Cypriots to be given the option in a democratic way (as per the UN resolution about decolonization) to unite with Greece if this was the wish of the great majority of the population?
The fact is that not only this option was not given to Cypriots, but the colonialists wrote and enforced on us a constitution that gave to an 18% minority a lot more than any other minority in the world.
This is why I say that the solution of the Cyprus problem will come only when Cyprus will become a normal country with democracy and human rights. The compromise for not uniting Cyprus with Greece has already been made and apart from a tiny minority nobody demands such thing today. But as long as "solutions" that are undemocratic and/or violate human rights are enforced on Cypriots against their will, then no real solution will be ever found.
There are 10s of democratic countries out there. And today we belong in EU with another 24 of them. Instead of making ridiculous claims of the kind "18% is not a minority if this 18% is Turks, because Turks are super-humans and each one of them counts as 4 Greek Cypriots", we should simply follow the example of successful democracies in the world.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by bg_turk » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:03 am
Faruk, thank you for a very informative post. I believe this should be a wake up call to the liberal TCs with what mindset they may be confronted accross the border.
Coming to the response by Piratis, while he constantly emphasizes that Greek Cypriots no longer want enosis, it is worrying how he tries to justify it. Piratis, what I am interested to know is not whether you want enosis, but whether you would be ready to condemnt it as wrong? With your behavior so far you have consistently shown that you cannot. Instead you are sympathetic to those that want enosis.
Coming to the minority status, TCs are not a minority, but the majority in their Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
Coming to the response by Piratis, while he constantly emphasizes that Greek Cypriots no longer want enosis, it is worrying how he tries to justify it. Piratis, what I am interested to know is not whether you want enosis, but whether you would be ready to condemnt it as wrong? With your behavior so far you have consistently shown that you cannot. Instead you are sympathetic to those that want enosis.
Coming to the minority status, TCs are not a minority, but the majority in their Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
-
bg_turk - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
- Location: Bulgaria
by Piratis » Sat Feb 25, 2006 4:16 am
A compromise is made when you give up something that you have the right for. This is exactly why giving up the enosis cause was a compromise. This is of course something that many Turks can not understand since for them "compromise" means to give back part of what you stole.
What exactly you want me to condemn? The right of Cypriots to decide their own destiny in a democratic way after the end of the colonial rule? As I wrote above, according to the decolonization resolution of the UN each previously colonized territory should have the right to decide about its own destiny in a democratic way and the option of " integration into an independent State" is one of the valid options.
What I always condemn are crimes, and I certainly condemn any crimes that have been committed in the name of enosis. However there is nothing to condemn in the enosis cause as such, since not only it was not a crime but it should have in fact been one of the valid options for Cypriots after the end of the colonial rule.
Personally I would have never voted for enosis, and today the great majority of Cypriots would reject this option even if it was given since it offers no real benefits.
I am not "pro enosis", exactly the opposite. But I am pro democracy and therefore I do not like the fact that the colonialists didn't allow us to decide our own destiny as it was our right, but they decided for us instead of us.
The modern Nazis of the Turkish military regime can name the areas they illegally occupy as they want. The fact that they have ethnically cleansed the majority of the population in order to artificially and illegally become the majority in the occupied areas is simply one more reason why this crime that the Turks have committed will never be legalized.
What exactly you want me to condemn? The right of Cypriots to decide their own destiny in a democratic way after the end of the colonial rule? As I wrote above, according to the decolonization resolution of the UN each previously colonized territory should have the right to decide about its own destiny in a democratic way and the option of " integration into an independent State" is one of the valid options.
What I always condemn are crimes, and I certainly condemn any crimes that have been committed in the name of enosis. However there is nothing to condemn in the enosis cause as such, since not only it was not a crime but it should have in fact been one of the valid options for Cypriots after the end of the colonial rule.
Personally I would have never voted for enosis, and today the great majority of Cypriots would reject this option even if it was given since it offers no real benefits.
I am not "pro enosis", exactly the opposite. But I am pro democracy and therefore I do not like the fact that the colonialists didn't allow us to decide our own destiny as it was our right, but they decided for us instead of us.
Coming to the minority status, TCs are not a minority, but the majority in their Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus
The modern Nazis of the Turkish military regime can name the areas they illegally occupy as they want. The fact that they have ethnically cleansed the majority of the population in order to artificially and illegally become the majority in the occupied areas is simply one more reason why this crime that the Turks have committed will never be legalized.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by faruk » Sat Feb 25, 2006 12:36 pm
Firstly, I want to mention that I wrote this post after Agios asked “ what part is problem”. So that post were written for Agios and I did not want to insult him as you did, saying stupid. Besides, what I understand from your post is that you do not deny this Akritas Plan aiming at uniting the island to Greece and made it Greeks’. In any case our main subject was what the plan was aiming at. So we have handled the main argument. Now let us see the others.
Your claim about “Unfortunately in Cyprus this didn't happen and we were given a constitution written by the colonialists that had several unfair parameters in it” does not reflect the idea of your ancestors. Because in the Akritas Plan, they said different than your claims “The fact that the solution has not been ratified by the people, is a significant argument in this connection, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to give its official approval to the agreement by a plebiscite or otherwise, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have definitely approved.”
You are saying that the Akritas Plan was a wrong attempt to change this situation and considered only the interests of the Greek Cypriots instead of all Cypriots as whole after you had turned 180 degrees from the previous paragraph that says “that had several unfair parameters in it (such as the 18% of TCs should have the 30% of governmental positions).” Then tell me who are these all Cypriots. What a great dilemma!!!
On 21 december 1963, the Greek Cypriot co-founder partner of the 1960 republic resorted to violence in line with its pre-conceived plan (the Akritas Plan) and by ejecting the Turkish Cypriot partner from all the organs of the government by force of arms, usurped the state machinery. That is to say that the Greek Cypriots put their plans actions not the Turks. Your ancestors destroyed the RoC and you are accusing the Turkish Cypriots. Good for you!!
Besides, you have some wrong informations on some subjects and you have some concept confusions. Because;
First of all kurds who live in Turkey are not minorities but they are one of founder element of Turkish Nation. You can see them in the Turkish Grand National Assembly as deputies or in Security Forces or in any official instutituon whatever you can think of. All of components of Turkish Nation have the same rigths in Turkiye without evaluating what their ethnicity is. You can see the common language, religion and culture as well. Furthermore blacks are not counted as minority as well. E.g. we all know that Mrs. Rice is a black and minister of affairs of the United States of Americe as well. And only Turks who are living in Bulgaria can counted as minority. But the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots were the founder partners of RoC, this is very different. ın addition Kurds which is a part of Turkish Nation became prime minister and also president in Turkiye as all others can be.
The part of your post have made me laugh more. That shows your comprehension of democracy which depends on force by arms “If the minority could rule Cyprus for 300 years and Cyprus was part of the Ottoman empire for 300 years against the will of the great majority, then what is so wrong for Cypriots to be given the option in a democratic way (as per the UN resolution about decolonization) to unite with Greece if this was the wish of the great majority of the population?” see 4th paragraph again... and we can talk about Roman Empire or Habsburgs or British Empire…it is called generation shovenism what you talked about the Otoman Empire.
“The compromise for not uniting Cyprus with Greece has already been made and apart from a tiny minority nobody demands such thing today”….the flags of Greece which were used instead of South Cyprus’ flags in the football competition between Trabzonspor and Anortosis Famagusto prove this sentence..also the medals which were given to 20000 EOKA militants.
Your claim about “Unfortunately in Cyprus this didn't happen and we were given a constitution written by the colonialists that had several unfair parameters in it” does not reflect the idea of your ancestors. Because in the Akritas Plan, they said different than your claims “The fact that the solution has not been ratified by the people, is a significant argument in this connection, because our leadership, acting wisely, avoided calling the people to give its official approval to the agreement by a plebiscite or otherwise, which the people, in the 1959 spirit, would have definitely approved.”
You are saying that the Akritas Plan was a wrong attempt to change this situation and considered only the interests of the Greek Cypriots instead of all Cypriots as whole after you had turned 180 degrees from the previous paragraph that says “that had several unfair parameters in it (such as the 18% of TCs should have the 30% of governmental positions).” Then tell me who are these all Cypriots. What a great dilemma!!!
On 21 december 1963, the Greek Cypriot co-founder partner of the 1960 republic resorted to violence in line with its pre-conceived plan (the Akritas Plan) and by ejecting the Turkish Cypriot partner from all the organs of the government by force of arms, usurped the state machinery. That is to say that the Greek Cypriots put their plans actions not the Turks. Your ancestors destroyed the RoC and you are accusing the Turkish Cypriots. Good for you!!
Besides, you have some wrong informations on some subjects and you have some concept confusions. Because;
First of all kurds who live in Turkey are not minorities but they are one of founder element of Turkish Nation. You can see them in the Turkish Grand National Assembly as deputies or in Security Forces or in any official instutituon whatever you can think of. All of components of Turkish Nation have the same rigths in Turkiye without evaluating what their ethnicity is. You can see the common language, religion and culture as well. Furthermore blacks are not counted as minority as well. E.g. we all know that Mrs. Rice is a black and minister of affairs of the United States of Americe as well. And only Turks who are living in Bulgaria can counted as minority. But the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots were the founder partners of RoC, this is very different. ın addition Kurds which is a part of Turkish Nation became prime minister and also president in Turkiye as all others can be.
The part of your post have made me laugh more. That shows your comprehension of democracy which depends on force by arms “If the minority could rule Cyprus for 300 years and Cyprus was part of the Ottoman empire for 300 years against the will of the great majority, then what is so wrong for Cypriots to be given the option in a democratic way (as per the UN resolution about decolonization) to unite with Greece if this was the wish of the great majority of the population?” see 4th paragraph again... and we can talk about Roman Empire or Habsburgs or British Empire…it is called generation shovenism what you talked about the Otoman Empire.
“The compromise for not uniting Cyprus with Greece has already been made and apart from a tiny minority nobody demands such thing today”….the flags of Greece which were used instead of South Cyprus’ flags in the football competition between Trabzonspor and Anortosis Famagusto prove this sentence..also the medals which were given to 20000 EOKA militants.
- faruk
- New Member
- Posts: 39
- Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:16 pm
by bg_turk » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:24 pm
faruk wrote:And only Turks who are living in Bulgaria can counted as minority.
In fact the Bulgarian constituion does not mention the existance of a minority, so officially we are not a minority either but part of the bulgarian nation.
-
bg_turk - Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1172
- Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 11:24 pm
- Location: Bulgaria
by Piratis » Sat Feb 25, 2006 2:52 pm
Faruk, you are just playing with words. The situation is clear: Cypriots were not given the chance to decide about their own destiny in a democratic way. Not even the chance to write their own constitution. Therefore while I do not approve any kind of "secret plans" I can understand why many people were not happy that we were not given the chance to design our own constitution and they wanted to change it.
Were exactly is the dilemma? Cypriots are all the legal and permanent residents of Cyprus, the citizens of Republic of Cyprus.
Makarios had proposed 13 points for the change of constitution. Turkey used this excuse to instruct TCs to boycott the government and the parliament, which was part of their partition plan. In fact Turkey had rejected those proposals even before TCs. (as always the decision for TCs come directly from Ankara). While part of the blame is with GCs, you can not deny the TCs part of blame who have also never believed in independence and they were still trying to find excuses to achieve partition as has always been their aim.
Oh dear faruk. It seems that you are very confused. I guess this is the result of brainwashing of 32 years telling you that the 18% of TCs is not a minority.
Who told you that people from minorities can not be ministers, presidents etc? People form an ethnic minority can be anything that people from a majority can be as long as they are selected/elected with democratic procedures. Obviously the Kurds that were elected in Turkey as presidents were the ones that were approved by the majority of Turkish citizens, not the ones chosen by Kurds alone. (otherwise Ocalan would be a president instead of being in jail)
In any case if you want to have the kind of status that the Kurds have in turkey, I personally have no problem. In fact I advocate that TCs should have a guaranteed representation of 18% in all governmental positions, and even higher than that in ministers. So TCs can have much more power than blacks have in USA or Kurds have in Turkey.
We are Greek Cypriots as you are Turkish Cypriots. According to the RoC constitution the Greek and Turkish flags were even supposed to fly above some public buildings (e.g schools).
I would personally fly a RoC flag, but in a democracy everybody is allowed to fly whatever flags he wants.
Then tell me who are these all Cypriots. What a great dilemma!!!
Were exactly is the dilemma? Cypriots are all the legal and permanent residents of Cyprus, the citizens of Republic of Cyprus.
On 21 december 1963, the Greek Cypriot co-founder partner of the 1960 republic resorted to violence in line with its pre-conceived plan (the Akritas Plan) and by ejecting the Turkish Cypriot partner from all the organs of the government by force of arms, usurped the state machinery. That is to say that the Greek Cypriots put their plans actions not the Turks. Your ancestors destroyed the RoC and you are accusing the Turkish Cypriots.
Makarios had proposed 13 points for the change of constitution. Turkey used this excuse to instruct TCs to boycott the government and the parliament, which was part of their partition plan. In fact Turkey had rejected those proposals even before TCs. (as always the decision for TCs come directly from Ankara). While part of the blame is with GCs, you can not deny the TCs part of blame who have also never believed in independence and they were still trying to find excuses to achieve partition as has always been their aim.
Besides, you have some wrong informations on some subjects and you have some concept confusions. Because;
First of all kurds who live in Turkey are not minorities but they are one of founder element of Turkish Nation. You can see them in the Turkish Grand National Assembly as deputies or in Security Forces or in any official instutituon whatever you can think of. All of components of Turkish Nation have the same rigths in Turkiye without evaluating what their ethnicity is. You can see the common language, religion and culture as well. Furthermore blacks are not counted as minority as well. E.g. we all know that Mrs. Rice is a black and minister of affairs of the United States of Americe as well. And only Turks who are living in Bulgaria can counted as minority. But the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots were the founder partners of RoC, this is very different. ın addition Kurds which is a part of Turkish Nation became prime minister and also president in Turkiye as all others can be.
Oh dear faruk. It seems that you are very confused. I guess this is the result of brainwashing of 32 years telling you that the 18% of TCs is not a minority.
Who told you that people from minorities can not be ministers, presidents etc? People form an ethnic minority can be anything that people from a majority can be as long as they are selected/elected with democratic procedures. Obviously the Kurds that were elected in Turkey as presidents were the ones that were approved by the majority of Turkish citizens, not the ones chosen by Kurds alone. (otherwise Ocalan would be a president instead of being in jail)
In any case if you want to have the kind of status that the Kurds have in turkey, I personally have no problem. In fact I advocate that TCs should have a guaranteed representation of 18% in all governmental positions, and even higher than that in ministers. So TCs can have much more power than blacks have in USA or Kurds have in Turkey.
the flags of Greece which were used instead of South Cyprus’ flags in the football competition between Trabzonspor and Anortosis Famagusto prove this sentence..also the medals which were given to 20000 EOKA militants.
We are Greek Cypriots as you are Turkish Cypriots. According to the RoC constitution the Greek and Turkish flags were even supposed to fly above some public buildings (e.g schools).
I would personally fly a RoC flag, but in a democracy everybody is allowed to fly whatever flags he wants.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
by Piratis » Sat Feb 25, 2006 3:00 pm
In fact the Bulgarian constituion does not mention the existance of a minority, so officially we are not a minority either but part of the bulgarian nation.
And you consider this better??? I have absolutely no problem to have the same in Cyprus if this is what TCs want.
However defining that there is a minority, this minority can have things like guaranteed representation in government, and laws that would protect their identity.
So if Turks of Bulgaria have 10, blanks in USA 15, and Kurds in Turkey 5, I would be more than glad if Turkish Cypriots had 30. Much more than any other minority, as long as they didn't violate our human and democratic rights. Unfortuantely TCs ask for 100, even if their demands would violate the human and democratic rights of the majority.
-
Piratis - Moderator
- Posts: 12261
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
