Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alasya]

"You can not in my view fight or counter ideas like Greek or Turkish nationalism with 'force' and 'suppression'. You can only try to counter them with (superior) ideas. Any attempt to do otherwise is doomed to fail. Unity requires consent. Without consent there can be no unity (and here I agree with Piratis I think) and any 'enforcement' of unity is not actually unity but is in fact totalitarism"


If we accept a reunification package through a referenda, then we are consenting to unity.

However if we are not fully committed to the new state once it has been formed and we are still emotionally singing along to the Greek and Turkish national anthems with tears rolling down our cheeks, then that unity will never be given a chance to happen. It will become unity only in the theoretical sense, only on paper.

A state requires a leader (not a civil libertarian) who promotes that state and its multi-ethnic, bilingual character by using a little assertiveness if that is what it takes to get the message across. Educate people as Cypriots not as Greeks and Turks.

If we have new president who calls himself Greek, and cannot speak a word of Turkish, (or the other way round) because its his personal choice, how can he claim represent Cyprus as state abroad. Imagine a president of a sovereign state, refusing to call himself a citizen of that state!

We can fight Greek and Turkish nationalism with superior ideas. I disagree. Its a great idea in theory but not in practice. Cyprus needs a strong pan-cyprian leader with the right leadership skills. Maybe I m cynical, but Greek and Turkish Cypriots seem to be insecure in how they define themselves, partly because we have never had a pan-Cyprian leader, no pan-cyprian movement and outside elements have taken and still take full advantage of this.

If I was living a united federal Cyprus, and there was some tension brewing up between Greek and Turkish nationalists and my president tried to combat these dangerous and divisive forces of Greek and Turkish nationalism by thinking up "superior ideas" or by sitting down and trying to talk to the nationalists then I would leave the country out of fear. Its not suppression to guard the unity of the state, its what the people expect the state to do.

If we look at the Belgian model, actually the Belgian model is the best model to look at because Belgium is the only bi-ethnic federation in the EU, an organization that Cyprus is a member of. We can draw valuable lessons from Belgium, for example how it functions as state, but also how Belgium deals with parties that promote new ideas that threaten the states territorial integrity. Belgium is regarded as a liberal democracy but it has shown time and time again that it will not hesitate to close any political party down that promotes separatism or contrary ideas that threaten the existence of the Belgian state. There is nothing wrong with a state defending her territorial integrity. (I dont include the RoC in the 1960s as in my view this is a defacto G/C state, the enemy was within)

Even in the UK, changes are being made to the law to give newcomers citizenship lessons and to have them read an oath to the Britain before being naturalized. It appears the UK is following the US example. And we all know that the US is a very patriotic country. "God bless America...."

I am not asking anybody who calls themselves a Greek or Turkish Cypriot to change their nationality, rather I am referring to the people in Cyprus who believe they are more Greek than the Greeks of Athens and more Turkish than the Turks of Ankara.

The idea of being a "Cypriot" is something that will not just come naturally it needs a little push here and there. Other bi or multi-ethnic federations had to use force to at times to get the message across.

[Alasya]

There has always been absence of a Pan-Cyprian movement on the island. This absence allows the Greek and Turkish nationalists to operate on the island and influence politics with such success.

Those few Pan-Cyprians today are called "traitors" and their names are smeared by Greek and Turkish nationalists.

Under a new Cyprus, I would expect the pan-Cyprians to take a leading role in this new state.

I cannot imagine it would be a good thing if we had a coalition Cyprus federal government of Greek and Turkish nationalists. Nothing will ever be decided.

Pan-Cyprians would have to be a little more assertive in the new Cyprus for it to work

[metecyp]

I cannot imagine it would be a good thing if we had a coalition Cyprus federal government of Greek and Turkish nationalists. Nothing will ever be decided.

I agree with that. Cypriots that want peace, unity, justice for all Cypriots should be as assertive as nationalists who only care about their interests. One of the main reasons why the RoC failed is because it was founded and operated by nationalists with no intention of making it a success in the first place. We shouldn't let the same mistake happen again. Especially the young progessive Cypriots should grab the stage from the old narrow minded politicians of the past.

[erolz]

A state requires a leader (not a civil libertarian) who promotes that state and its multi-ethnic, bilingual character by using a little assertiveness if that is what it takes to get the message across. Educate people as Cypriots not as Greeks and Turks.

Why can a 'leader' not be both assertive and a civil libertarian? Mahatma Ghandi was a great leader (possibly the greates of the 20th Centuary) and civil libertarian. Not only did he unite his people (multi ethnic) but he also overthrew the British Empire - all without a resort to violence.

If I was living a united federal Cyprus, and there was some tension brewing up between Greek and Turkish nationalists and my president tried to combat these dangerous and divisive forces of Greek and Turkish nationalism by thinking up "superior ideas" or by sitting down and trying to talk to the nationalists then I would leave the country out of fear. Its not suppression to guard the unity of the state, its what the people expect the state to do.

It is not the states role to supress it's own people. Any of them. It is it's role to ensure their liberty, freedom of thought and right to expression.

Even in the UK, changes are being made to the law to give newcomers citizenship lessons and to have them read an oath to the Britain before being naturalized.

Which personaly I think is unessesary, devisive in it's own right and a backward step for the UK. If citizens needs lessons then they should be given to all citizens and not just immigrants. As for swearing an oath to Britian - pah!

It appears the UK is following the US example. And we all know that the US is a very patriotic country. "God bless America...."

Indeed the US is a very patriotic country. It is also an incredibly insular one where the belief that the US has a 'manifest destiny' to lead (control) the world is common. The ability of (many) Americans to believe that any action of the USA is right, simply because it is the action of America, is one that scares me and in my view makes the world a considerably more dangerous place.

The idea of being a "Cypriot" is something that will not just come naturally it needs a little push here and there. Other bi or multi-ethnic federations had to use force to at times to get the message across.

The use of force by the state against its own people is not acceptable to me.

[-mikkie2-]

I tend to agree with Erol on this one.

The rule of law is what should prevail and governments cannot go above the law.

[brother]

My wife will become a citizen of the U.K on 20th December but she has to attend a ceremony and swear an oath to britain and the queen, many people that i tell this either think i am mistaken or pulling their leg but it is the way it is now, like it or not.

[Alasya]

I believe that if you live in a country, are a citizen of that country, it is your duty to respect that country even if it means swearing an oath regardless of your political or religious beliefs. You may think this is unreasonable or anachronistic but it is the way most countries work.

Remember what J F Kenedy said "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country".

Although I am a Turkish Cypriot, I was born in Glasgow in the UK, if asked to put my hand up and swaer an oath to Britain-I would, because I respect Britain, its traditions, laws and its symbols as a state. My family live there, I was reared and educated there and my friends are British. All my family in Britain work in jobs where they contribute to society, we dont just take, we give. Similarly I would do the same in a United Cyprus Republic.

How can you form a "CYPRIOT" state if nobody can be bothered to call themselves a Cypriot? What kind of state is this going to be?

You can`t form a united Cyprus with just a desire to unite because its convenient for both communities. Have you ever thought about what will happen if a nationalist Greek and Turkish party win the federal elections on both sides, will you expect these two nationalists to work together to govern the country?

It doesn`t take a genius to predict dangerous problems here. Nationalist Parties will be lost in partisan and nationalist interests, and not the interest of the nation. In short the government will become unworkable, and the presence of paramilitaries (EOKA / TMT) will worsen matters. THis may lead to a intercinine civil war.

That is why you need a Cyprus govt that is committed to a set of pan-Cyprian principles. Civil liberties although important will do nothing to prevent past events or the indoctrination of our youth by Greek / Turkish nationalists. Educating people differently will also only have a limited effect, we need a strong executive with exceptional powers in a federal republic. The idea of two governments and a weak federal govt is fantasy. It is not functional.

I stick to what I said earlier. Without agreed Pan-Cyprian values and principles (and an opposition to any other form of nationalism-Greek-Turkish) a United Cyprus Republic will be short lived again.