Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

I think mete hit the nail right on the head.

[elias]

Alasay wrote:
I don`t see a link between recognizing the republic of Macedonia, which is the name rightly chosen by the people of that country, living in what historically used to be Macedonia to recognizing the TRNC.

I know that this is not a forum about Macedonia but i would like to defend my country's historical heritage. Macedonia is part of hellenic heritage (just like cyprus is) and since the modern day "Macedonians" are not ethnically hellenic (but slavic)why should it be called Macedonian republic. After all FYROM does not even posses 50% of the macedonian area!

The link between the two sides (Macedonia and TRNC) is that neither should be recognised since it is an insult to the hellenic heritage of cyprus.

I understand that the turkish people have lived in cyprus for 100 years or so but the Armenians and Arabs have lived there much longer than the Turks, why arent they asking for independence from the republic of cyprus?Maybe becuase they respect the history and the heritage of the land they live in and the people they live next to.

[erolz]

I know that this is not a forum about Macedonia but i would like to defend my country's historical heritage.

Is that country Cyprus or Greece? Would defending your 'hellenic heritage' include an isistance that Istambul be called Constantinopal and if so where does such a defence end? Is your 'heritage' so fragile that such labels threaten it in any way? As a bard once wrote ' a rose by any other name would smell as sweet' (or something like that).

I understand that the turkish people have lived in cyprus for 100 years or so but .......

well actually it is nearer 500 years than 100 years (which is longer than states like the USA have existed). Also was Cyprus ever a part of the ancient hellenic empire? I understand that Greeks have lived there for a very long time but as I understand it Cyprus was never ruled from Greece at any point in its history (but I may be wrong).

[elias]

erolz said:
Is your 'heritage' so fragile that such labels threaten it in any way?

It is not a matter of threat but of principle.I cannot stand there watching my country being robbed of its heritage by slavs or turks.

erolz said:
Is that country Cyprus or Greece?

You see Greece is a Hellenic State just like Cyprus should be. Greeks in cyprus should feel as much robbed as greeks in greece as we are all the same.

erolz said:
Cyprus was never ruled from Greece at any point in its history (but I may be wrong)

Well you are not wrong in saying that.Greece as a state has only existed since 1829 and cyprus has not had the chance to unify with the motherland.But then again cyprus in the ancient eras was an independent hellenic kingdom just like Sparta, Macedonia, Athens or the Byzantine Empire[/quote]

[Piratis]

Also was Cyprus ever a part of the ancient hellenic empire?

At that time what we had were city kingdoms. The term of "Empire" did not exist. In Cyprus we had several Greek Kingdoms (we also had Phoenician ones also later on)

[Alasya]

metecyp quote:

"Why do you think that recognition of the TRNC (which is very unlikely) would be a good thing for TCs? Many TCs are not happy about the structure in the north. You know what's the biggest problem of TCs? Not being able to govern themselves. If you solve that problem, then that would really be a good thing for TCs".

I don`t think there is a single T/C who deep in their heart wouldn`t want to see the recognition of the TRNC, even you metecyp. But you are right, it is very unlikely, so T/C spend less time thinking about it nowadays, compared to say, the 1980s and early 1990s. They have focused on reunification, mostly because of its economic benefits and because of the EU factor. Lets be honest.

However if recognition of our state was ever remotely possible, the benefits economical, and social etc would out-weigh any structural problems that could be dealt with in time. Doubtless other countries have or have had similar problems. But I`m not advocating separatism, I support the T/Cs biggest compromise, their acceptance of forming a federal bi-ethnic Cyprus republic-a reunited Cyprus. Whether a reunited Cyprus that we cannot even agree upon right now would be a better solution than North Cyprus` structural faults is debatable.

[pantelis]

Thank you Erol, for setting things in the right perspective.

As far as with the recognition of the "state", Turkey, even though everyone repeats that she is the only country that recognizes the "state", in reality is the only country that chokes its mere existence, not only as a "state" but as a community of free Turkish Cypriot citizens.

Cyprus, in particular, remains a major obstacle to a more far-reaching
rapprochement. Indeed, if anything, Turkish views on Cyprus
have hardened in recent years. Turkey has increasingly come to see
Cyprus as a wider strategic issue, going beyond the protection of
Turkish brethren on the island. This security dimension is likely to
continue to color Turkish views on Cyprus and make any settlement
of the issue difficult. With the EU’s decision to admit GreeK Cyprus
at its Copenhagen summit in December 2002 a near certainty, the
Cyprus problem could become a flashpoint in relations between
Ankara and Brussels.

from http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1 ... 12.ch1.pdf

We have discussed this numerous times before, the Turkish Cypriots are only the excuse for the occupation, not the reason. This is why I am pessimistic, when it comes to hope for a "united", even federated and bizoned Cyprus with real control over its future and interests. (The bigger the level of the division, the higher the level of manipulation).

Every proposed solution, since before 1960, always contained parts and clauses allowing for direct or indirect take-over and control of the entire island.
I have not seen any clear indication of change in Turkey's geopolitical role in the area - another Pakistan in disguise. Can Pakistan enter the EU?
The Turkish Cypriots will be able to free themselves, from Turkey's control, only when they become financially independent. Their dependency on Turkish funds is nothing different from the method the USSR kept tight control of East Germany and to a lesser extend the rest of the countries in the Eastern block. East Germans standard of living was maintained at a higher level than that of of the Russians. The same happens now with the TCs and the mainland Turks.
If Turkey wanted to set the Turkish Cypriots free, truly an independent state, the US, UK, Israel, Pakistan, Azerbaijan etc, would have recognized the "state" by now. What is stopping them, the R.of Cyprus and their powerful friends or their ethics?
It is all a big game and always the Cypriots are the sure losers. The only "power" we are allowed to have, is just barely enough to cause damage to our own people, nothing more.

I welcome your criticism and comments.

[insan]

Pantelis,

If it is just an excuse and not the reason for Turkey; don't you think that the interest of EU and Greece as a part of EU(Who led Cyprus to join EU) have the same excuse but not the reason just like Turkey?


You are trying to tell us "Don't trust Turkey because she wants to keep her control over Cyprus because of her own national interests not the interests of TCs neither GCs and EU. You should just trust GCs, Greece and EU because they are the only ones who care about two communities interests and nothing else..."


Please correct me Pantelis, if I misunderstood...

[pantelis]

You are trying to tell us "Don't trust Turkey because she wants to keep her control over Cyprus because of her own national interests not the interests of TCs neither GCs and EU. You should just trust GCs, Greece and EU because they are the only ones who care about two communities interests and nothing else..."

Insan,
You know very well what I said.
If we do not recognize our common interests, as Cypriots, and learn to trust each other first, before we give our "house keys" to any outsiders, we could never become independent, either as a united Cyprus, or as a partitioned one.

Can you think of scenario where the TCs are recognized as "state" member of the EU by the 25, free of Turkish troops and of government control? Who would object the most to such a scenario, Turkey or the EU?

[erolz]

Thank you Erol, for setting things in the right perspective.

Er I am not entirely sure where I did that but thanks fior the thanks anyway.

As far as with the recognition of the "state", Turkey, even though everyone repeats that she is the only country that recognizes the "state", in reality is the only country that chokes its mere existence, not only as a "state" but as a community of free Turkish Cypriot citizens.

I think there is a degree of 'accuracy' in what you say. I also think there is a degree of 'accuracy' in the idea that without the support of Turkey the TC community in Cyprus would have no effective say in the running and future of their own (shared or seperate) state.

We have discussed this numerous times before, the Turkish Cypriots are only the excuse for the occupation, not the reason. This is why I am pessimistic, when it comes to hope for a "united", even federated and bizoned Cyprus with real control over its future and interests. (The bigger the level of the division, the higher the level of manipulation).

I do not think it is an 'either / or' situation. I think Turkish 'interference' in Cyprus has been motivated by both a desire to help TC and a desire to futher Turkish percived national and security interests.
I do however think it is nieve to think that any country the size of Turkey would not have strategic interests in any island that lay on 40 miles of it's coast or that such interests can simply be ignored.