Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

I did not see any TCs demonstrating against RoC's application and acceptance in the EU.

Well I guess you see what you want to see. Most TC (I believe) and certainly the elcected representatives of the TC community were unamiously opposed to the RoC entry without an agreed settlement first. This is simply 'fact' as far as I am concerned.

I saw them demonstrating against your leaders, who are still in power, and for a united Cyprus.

These demonstrations were after the EU made it clear that they would not put a pre condition on an agreed settlement on the RoC entry. To claim that once this had happened that the popular TC support for the Annan plan equates to TC consent to the RoC entry in the EU without a settlement, is simply a gross distortion of the reality. I assume you attempt this distortion because you know that at a 'childish simplistic' level that the current consitituion of the RoC clearly states that entry of the RoC into the EU required the consent of both communites, so you seek (I am assuming) to argue that such consent was in fact given. It was not given. That battalions of sophisicated legal experts from the EU determined such consent was not actually needed, is niether here nor there, at this level. Consent of both communites was explicitly required by the RoC consitution, at a simplisitc level - thus you seek to manufacture an argument that says consent was actually given, when it was not.

As to our 'leaders' still being in power, we have a democratic system here. In the parliamentary elections just prior to the Annan plan vote the people (by the slimest of margins) decided to vote out of power the 'old parties' and vote in new more 'progressive' leaders. They repeated this defiance of the old political power base again and in larger numbers in the Annan Plan vote. The fact is that the 'old power' (of Denktash senior) was at odds with the new Turkish mainland government. Denktash opposed a yes vote to the Annan plan and strongly so - the Turkish mainland leadership support a yes vote and strongly so. You (try to) paint a picture of a non democratic North control either by Turkey of by 'old power' in Cyprus (which in turn is a puppet of Turkey). Such a picture is not supported by the evidence of the recent elections here or the yes vote on the Annan Plan. Here the wishes of Turkey were opposed to the 'old power' in Cyprus (undermining the idea that this old Cypriot power base is in fact a Turkish puppet) and the people voted as they wished.

The Annan plan was dictated by Turkey, not the TCs. That is what Turkey was willing to accept, that's what they voted.

That is your view, which you are entitled to. However the Annan plan was not a plan dictated by Turkey. The fact was the Annan plan first tried to seek agreement between the two Cypriot communites If that failed it then tried to seek agreement between the two motherlands. Failing that it allowed for the UN to determine the details of the Plan. The Annan plan was a UN brokered plan that eventualy had elements in it that were determined by the UN itself. It was an effort by the international community to create an acceptable solution and it failed.

The TCs are willing to enjoy the benefits of being part of the EU, as members of the interanationally accepted RoC, but cannot swallow the reality of the existence of the RoC.

We do not deny the existance of the RoC. What we deny is it's legitimacy to call itself the sole legal representative government for the whole of Cyprus. It is today a solely GC run adminstration and we deny its right to dictate and determine out future. Do you believe in a reality that the solely GC run RoC has a RIGHT to be the reprsentative government for the whole of Cyprus?
Certainly the majority of TC would like to be in the EU but NOT at the expense of being made a political minority in their own country and giving up all the rights they were granted as a community in the 1960 agreements (and have suffer much pain and loss to try and defend). We showed a willingness for EU entry at the expense of giving up some land and property and return of some settlers and the removal of Turkish troops etc. We will not accept that EU entry is worht giving up our rights as a community to some form of political equality in Cyprus. That is clear. The fact is that any TC that is willing to sacrafice this for EU entry can so today. Than can freely choose to go and live in the South as a TC and an EU citizen and accepting their community will have no more rights politicaly than a minority (actually today they have less rights as they can not vote in RoC elections). Very few choose to do so. Why is this?

The Cyprus problem was created with the 1960 treaties. Turkey and the TCs did not accept anything for 44 years, except proposed partition plans.

With respect this is rubbish and plainly so imo. The 1960 agreements represented a massive political victory for the TC community and for Turkey. They both AGREED to these treaties. Unlike the GC administration (Makarios) they did not do so 'reluctantly'. They did not from day one of agreeing them start to publicaly talk of them being 'bastions from which the aspiartions of the TC community could moved forward to greater goals (ie partition)' which Makarios did. They did not express any desire to alter the agreements, as Makarios did. They did not create a 'secret' plan to undermine and alter fundamaentaly these agreements through a stage progression of violence and misdirection of the international community as the GC adminstration did (the Akritas paln). To blame TC and Turkey alone for the colapse of the 1960 consitituion in Cyprus solely on a desire of TC and Turkey to devide the island is just 'old school' GC propaganda of the worst sort to my mind.

The RoC, this small patch of dirt that amounts to nothing, has as much power as the UK. Isn't this how you interpret the right to be "equal", in an RoC partnership, to have the power of a veto?

I am not the one that insists that such 'equality' is inhernetly unjust and anti democratic and that it can only lead to disaster. That is 'your' hypocrasy not mine.
What I have said is that the use of such veto powers has consequences for both those doing the vetoing and those they veto. Wether in Cyprus or withint the EU. The RoC has every right to use it veto should it choose to do so - but doing so creates consequences. That is the point I have stressed. To my mind the EU agreed to RoC entry with ot wothout a settlement because it believed the GC propaganda that the only thing standing in the way of a settlement was TC intransigence. They therefore agreed to use unconditional entry of the RoC as a means of overcomming theis (percieved) TC intrasigence and on a assumption / understadning that the GC adminsitration would support such a settlement. I believe that many power bases in the EU were extremely disapointed when the GC adminstration decided to campaign for a no vote. That whilst accepting the right of GC to decide they felt a degree of betrayal at these actions. It is in this background then that the GC administration will decide wether to use its veto or not and such use will undoubtedly have many consequences. You can be (and are now)an equal member of the club. However if you consistantly use this memebership to defy the will of the other memebers of the club there will be consequences. That is what I say.

Like your leaders speak about "realities" in the north of the mine-fields, there are realities in the south and beyond the coasts of Cyprus. What are these realities about the RoC?

My 'realites' with regard to the RoC is that it ceased to be (morally and legaly) the sole representative government of the whole of Cyprus in 1963. My reality is that at that time the international community (including Turkey) accepted it as such not because it had a legal or moral right but as an expediency because there were much more pressing problems than what was (mistakenly) then seen as a 'technicality'. At that time many innocent people were being slaughtered (my uncle amongst them) and terrorised and driven from their homes. The pressing immediate need back then was to get a UN peac keeping force into Cyprus to try and limit these tradgic events. To do this it was necessary to 'accept' that the sole GC administration was the 'legal' government of the whole of Cyprus. That GC have subsequently used this 'acceptance through humanitarian necessity' to try and impose a solution on TC that is both unfair and unacceptable to them is my 'reality'. That they are continung to use this today in their insistance that unless Turkey now accepts the RoC as the sole legitimate represntative government for the whole of Cyprus (and thus to gain their maximal aims that they could not in 60 through negotiation and agreements or in 63-74 through force and terror) is my 'reality'.

-The RoC was not dissolved before entering the EU, it will never be dissolved.

Dissolved or not it does not have in my view a (moral) right to claim to be the sole legitimate represntative government for the whole of Cyprus.

-The RoC is a full member of the EU and the UN.

As far as the UN goes - this to me is a historical annomoly that the rest of the world accepts as such as a 'reality'. If they did not there would be no need for 'settlement' or any question that Turkey should recognise it as such without any compromise.

-All Cypriots who carry an RoC passport are not only citizens of the RoC, but citizens of the EU.

True but currently any TC that wishes to exercise their rights as an EU citizen can only do so by accepting their (communites) status as nothing but a minority in Cyprus - despite what was agreed in 1960. That is just 'blackmail'. That so few TC have chosen this route should be a clear indication that the 'core issue' remains of the utmost importance to TC (namely that of some form of equality for their community in their own shared homeland).

-The RoC is represented and participates in the EU and internationally through the funding of the taxpayer citizens of the RoC.

and through massive external aid. After 74 the RoC (south only) received massive external aid to help rebuild it's ecconomy. At one point it was the most 'subsidised' region in the world. That the RoC now seeks to stop any aid being given to the North, unless again is is given 'through them' and implicitly forces an acceptance of its status as the sole legitimate represntative government for the whole of Cyprus is just another indication that the GC administration still today seeks to force an imposed solution on TC that meets its maximal demands.

-The RoC is a contributor member of the EU. (Erol, you do not expect the RoC taxpayers to send money to help the economy of a country that does not have the decency to recognize the existence of her benefactors, do you?)

Let's be clear here. No one is suggesting that Turkey can actualy acceed to the EU without recognising the RoC. What is being discussed if if they will be allowed to _start_ that process before recognising the RoC and before any comprehensive agreed settlement in Cyprus. To my mind if the RoC was acting in 'good faith' and not seeking to gain its maximal aims through blackmail (of both the EU and Turkey) they would accept recognition by Turkey of the RoC as a legitimate government of PART of Cyprus and that is representative of PART of its people. Such a route would then allow for the start of Turkish accesion to proceed and which is ultimately the best chance for an agreed compromised and lasting solution in Cyprus. That they absolutely refuse such an approach and isnsit on total recognition of the RoC as the sole legitimate government of the whole of Cyprus is to me an indication of 'bad faith' on their part and an indication of their beleief that still after 40+ years of paind suffering and strife of the Cypriot people they can achieve their maximal aims and force TC into acceptance.

The human right abuses of Turkey and their racist ways, within the country as well outside the country, are very well known to all. Propaganda is what Turkey does right now, by passing laws and reforms without implementing them.

Are you trying to tell me that the RoC concerns about Turkish entry to the EU are based on a suspicion that Turkey's reforms (which have substantial and fundamental and are ongoing) are mere 'propaganda' and rooted in a desire of the RoC to try and use it new status as a member of the EU to gain it's maximal aims in Cyprus? What sort of fool do you take me for?

What is important, is to understand that they always act in their best interests.

Of course they do. It was in their best interests for their to be an agreed comprehensive solution to the Cyprus problem. They tried to create an environment for this to happen by agreeing the RoC entry would not be conditional on a Cyprus settlement and their hopes were dashed because of the GC adminstration and the GC people. Many EU countires believe it is in their best interests to start accession talks with Turkey. If again this best interest is dashed by GC then there will undoubtedly be repercussions.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Moral lectures for me now?

The Turkish occupation force, is like a cancerous tumor on the body of Cyprus. It needs to go, so the mind can think clearly. Things cannot change overnight, but they can.

The Turkish postion has been clear since 74. If and when an agreed solution is found then the troops will go. Continued GC aspirations to gain their maximal wants without compromise (and that they have failed to get in the intervening period by any methods legal and illegal) are what keep this 'tumour' in place.

The people of Cyprus can live and prosper together, in peace, because they are not stupid. Yes there are fanatics on both sides, but these kind of groups exist in every country.

History clearly shows otherwise. We had our chance to live togeather in peace. We blew it. We were stupid. Why should I believe things will be different today, when it is clear that (the current) GC administration is still trying to impose a maximal solution in Cyprus at the expense of TC (all be one that this tiome does not involve the murder and terrorising of the TC community - most probably because such a route is no longer possible since the 'cancerous tumour' of the Turkish armies presence in 74).

I proposed a "plan", in a different forum, long before the annan plan was finalized, before the opening of the gates.
My plan was to create a third zone (county), part of the RoC, say in Famagusta and Karpasia; to create jobs and invite in all progressive people, of both sides, to live and work together, and thus become the nucleus of the future Cypriot Society. The rest will follow.

I think such a proposal has many merits. How will such areas be run though? Will they accept any degree of staus and rights for TC in these areas that is more than that of a minority or not?

[metecyp]

Did I say my idea in the Greek language..... Metecyp?

What do you mean? I know what you said, I suggested a slightly different version of it that might appeal to more people (the zone being in the middle, not having ties with the RoC or the TRNC).

[magikthrill]

erolz,

im sorry i can use quotations because your post was large. i understand why though.

you claim that the GC community is the only representative of the RoC. This is because the TC community has abandoned the RoC and is illegally occupying the northern part of Cyprus. Unlike the TCs that forced the GCs to be removed illegally, no body forced the TCs to leave.

You also claim that TCs refuse to enter the EU as a political minority. The matter of the fact is that TCs are a minority. Although this does entitle them to the same benefits as every other citizen, it does not give them a right to create their own breakaway state. This is a violation of international law, n'est-ce pas???

[erolz]

you claim that the GC community is the only representative of the RoC. This is because the TC community has abandoned the RoC and is illegally occupying the northern part of Cyprus. Unlike the TCs that forced the GCs to be removed illegally, no body forced the TCs to leave.

This is an area of much contention. However I do not believe it is an accurate represntation of what happend in 63 to say that no body forced the TC from participating in the RoC adminsitration. Yes there were forces on both sides that _wanted_ a break down of the 1960 consitution. However there were forces that also did not want such. There can be little doubt for me that on the whole the desire for changes (agreed or not, via legal means or otherwise) to the consitituion were greater on the part of the GC. It was GC that fundamentaly believed it to be unfair and to favour the TC community (and to be an unacceptable block on valid GC aspirations). To me the refusal of Makarios to implement the agreements made in 1960 re municipalites and to then refuse the supreme courts ruling on this were designed to force a breakdown of the consititional order (and a form of 'forcing' the TC to object and withdraw their participation). Much more sinister were the attempts to use force to intimidate the TC community. I really do not know how anyone can read the Akritas plan and decide that there was no (illegal) attempt made in 63 by GC to force TC to relinquish their rights. Yes there were TC nationalistic elements who welcomed such attempts as ameans of progressing their desire for partition - but there is no way it can be (fairly) claimed that TC simply withdrew from the RoC government as an attempt to acheieve partition and without any 'force' (political or not, legal or not) from GC to do so.

You make it sound like the series of events were TC choose to withdraw from the RoC and then they went and siezed a 1/3 of the island and declared independance. This is not what happened. There was 11 years of pain and suffering for TC between their absensce from RoC government in 63 and the eventual de facto partition in 74. Throughout this time attmepts were made to try and negotiate a settlement. The failure of these attempts can not be laid at any one communites door, but much of the failure revolved around the same issues of what rights and status the TC community should have in Cyprus as a community.

You also claim that TCs refuse to enter the EU as a political minority. The matter of the fact is that TCs are a minority. Although this does entitle them to the same benefits as every other citizen, it does not give them a right to create their own breakaway state. This is a violation of international law, n'est-ce pas???

This is the same old ground. We are a numerical minority in Cyprus. This does not mean that we should have no right to any degree of politcal equality in Cyprus (just as the fact that CYprus is numericaly smaller than other EU member states mean it should have no right to some degree of equality with these other members). I have never claimed that the TC community should have right to create a breakaway state. I do think however if the GC community is unwilling to work in partnetship and with some degree of equality in a united Cyprus, then a seperate recognised state is a possible solution. For me our rights are to a _degree_ od autonomy and self determination in Cyprus (which in turn requires a degree of equality of the two communites). I accept that these rights have to be limited by the reality that we share the island with the GC community - and thus I do not go as far as claimg a RIGHT to a seperate state for TC. Hopefully that makes my position a little clearer?

[pantelis]

Erol,
As a lazy response to the many and long tiring discussions of ours (which I truly enjoy), I give you the following article, as a teaser ;

Netherlands Churches Urge Conditions on Turkey's EU Membership

The Council of Churches in the Netherlands said Turkey must recognize religious minorities within its borders before entering the European Union (EU)

Friday, Dec. 10, 2004 Posted: 8:45:22PM EST


The Council of Churches in the Netherlands said Turkey must recognize religious minorities within its borders before entering the European Union (EU), news agencies reported Friday. In an open letter to the Netherlands Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende the council said the fact that Turkey is a predominantly Muslim nation was no bar from membership, but stressed the EU should insist it recognize Syrian, Orthodox and other religious minorities.

"It is important that all religious minorities gain the right to build and maintain buildings such as churches and monasteries, to set up theological training, to speak and teach in their own language, and to be free in carrying out diaconal and other church-related activities," the council, which comprises Protestant, Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches. Currently, Turkey still does not formally recognize the Syrian Orthodox minority living within its borders.

The council of churches also said in their letter that it would be a "confidence-building sign" by the Turkish authorities if it publicly admitted the genocide of Armenians in 1915 by its predecessor, the Ottoman Empire. According to sources, books about the massacre are banned in Turkey.

Turkey, which has waited 40 years to become a part of Europe, has made EU membership its top priority. As the European Union decides whether to open membership talks with Ankara, Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a devout Muslim, is reportedly keen to project a positive image of the country's treatment of minorities.

In a bid to showcase Turkey as a country that respects religion, Erdogan inaugurated a church, a synagogue, and a mosque on Wednesday. The inauguration was made possible only after Turkey changed laws that restricted the opening of houses of worship other than mosques to boost its chances of EU membership.

Most recently, the European Commission voiced support for Turkey's bid to join the EU and expressed hope for a "positive outcome" at a summit next week, but warned that recognition of Cyprus is crucial to Ankara's hopes, AFP reported Friday.

Currently, Turkey recognizes only the Turkish Cypriot enclave in north Cyprus, while the rest of the world views the Greek Cypriot government in the south, which joined the EU in May, as the sole legitimate representative of the whole island.

In order to escape from our usual, never ending arguments, I would like state the following:
I do not see a viable solution for a united Cyprus anytime soon; unless all sides can agree on a truly equal treatment of all legal residents of the island, regardless of their sex, ethnicity or religion.
EU citizens, who permanently reside in Cyprus, should enjoy all political rights and freedoms that any Greek, Turkish, Armenian or Maronite Cypriot enjoys.
By applying different political rights to different ethnic or racial groups in a community, all you succeed is to create conflict and division.

I would like your opinion on the following plausible scenario.

Two very pretty Russian (or any other non-EU citizens) ladies, marry two Cypriot men, a TC and a GC. The women move to Cyprus with their husbands, and automatically become Cypriot Citizens, after a certain period time. The two ladies, who are now called Natalia Papadopoulos and Natasha Saffet, would like to apply for a government position that requires knowledge of the Russian language. Should they be considered for hiring, based on their credentials, or based on their ethnic surnames?

[pantelis]

Watching at first hand
I will try to summarize our impressions from a visit to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) at the Eurasia Strategic Research Center (ASAM) that took place between Dec. 6 and 8.
The decision taken unanimously at the KKTC Parliament on Dec. 2 is a first in the state’s history. The decision asks Turkey not to recognize Greek Cypriots as the “Republic of Cyprus.” This was underlined at a meeting held between Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül with their counterparts from the KKTC on Dec. 3, and at the Çankaya summit on Dec. 8.

From this, it appears the Turkish side is formulating a common stance against the veto threat utilized by Greek Cypriots. In other words, on this fundamental matter there are no differences of opinion among the KKTC political elite. There is also a general consensus with Turkey. When one considers the dangerous division before the referenda, this is an important development.
Some groups in the KKTC, remembering how Turkey resisted paying compensation for the Loizidou trial and eventually caved in, how it backtracked from signing a customs union with the KKTC and how it showed intent on doing so with Greek Cypriots, call on the government to do something soon for a resolution, because Turkey will eventually recognize the Greek Cypriots. That’s why they are calling for a new round of negotiations based on the Annan plan. In order to strengthen the hand of those who want peace in the south, they believe certain guarantees could be given about the implementation of the Annan plan or even some Turkish troops being withdrawn.

On the other hand, it seems the European Union supports Greek Cypriot demand for recognition. However, recognition is not an isolated matter and entails many other consequences. Recognition is just a first step for a Greek Cyprus “solution” to dominate the entire island. Then comes the withdrawal of Turkish troops and the settlers from Turkey, restoring former properties of Greek Cypriots to their former owners and eventually comes the dissolution of the KKTC. This way, the only thing remaining from the 1960 system will be a return to the carnage that occurred between 1963 and 1974.
Greek Cypriots want to achieve this objective by using their veto right, which was accorded to them with their EU membership.
Can the start of the negotiations “based” on the Annan plan lead to a different outcome? Cannot Greek Cypriots who use their veto power to be recognized, use similar threats to extract what they want and legitimize the 1963-74 era?
That’s why the Turkish side needs to follow an alternative route. As in U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan’s final report, the Annan plan favors the Greek Cypriots. However, what happened happened and Turkish Cypriots approved the plan. Within the EU, there are many instances of a document rejected at a referendum being approved in a second referendum. Greek Cypriots may hold another referendum and approve the plan. However, there are certain current problems about the implementation of any such plan.

Just like Turkey and the EU, Turkish Cypriots feel cheated because of the Greek Cypriot rejection. Greek Cypriot leader Tasos Papadopoulos’s insistence on recognition and his efforts to dominate the entire island has destroyed the last vestiges of trust Turks had for Greek Cypriots. Turkish Cypriots also don’t trust the EU that failed to lift the sanctions on the KKTC as it promised.
At the 1999 Helsinki summit, the EU had promised to treat us the same as other candidates once we fulfill the Copenhagen criteria and start membership negotiations. However, now it links our membership to conditions very hard to satisfy. Such an attitude makes it very hard for us to trust the EU.

At a time when Turkey’s membership is uncertain and Greek Cypriots efforts are directed at dominating the entire island, the only safe route to follow seems like the postponement of the implementation of the Annan plan until after Turkey is an EU member.
During the negotiations on the Annan plan, we gave the Greek Cypriots the impression that there was nothing we wouldn’t do to become an EU member. That’s why Greek Cypriots believed they could get even more by using their veto threat. If it goes on like this, they will start demanding things that we shall never give. Then, neither shall we become an EU member, nor will the Cyprus problem be resolved. This way all sides lose, including the Greek Cypriots.


NOTE: This article appears in daily Radikal and, after being translated by the Turkish Daily News staff, in the Turkish Daily News on the same day.

[email protected]

At a time when Turkey’s membership is uncertain and Greek Cypriots efforts are directed at dominating the entire island, the only safe route to follow seems like the postponement of the implementation of the Annan plan until after Turkey is an EU member. ????????

I don't understand this one thing, from the above "opinion" article. How are things going to change in Cyprus, after Turkey becomes a member of the EU? Are the EU laws and norms going to be different then? Are the Greek Cypriots going to stop demanding

restoring former properties of Greek Cypriots to their former owners

, as Gunduz Aktan puts it?

Can you help Erol?
Anybody?

[erolz]

In order to escape from our usual, never ending arguments, I would like state the following:
I do not see a viable solution for a united Cyprus anytime soon; unless all sides can agree on a truly equal treatment of all legal residents of the island, regardless of their sex, ethnicity or religion.

No one disagrees that the rights of individuals should be the same for all legal residents. It is what the rights of the communites should be that is the issue.

EU citizens, who permanently reside in Cyprus, should enjoy all political rights and freedoms that any Greek, Turkish, Armenian or Maronite Cypriot enjoys.

Including the right to vote in local and national elections? Should they also be subject to the same obligations of citizenship as well, like military service?

By applying different political rights to different ethnic or racial groups in a community, all you succeed is to create conflict and division.

Nobody is saying that TC as a group should have any rights as a group that GC do not have as a group. As individuals we are equal. As communites we should also have a degree of equality too.
If you are saying that a smaller community like the TC should not have any political equality as a group with other larger groups (like the GC) because this will lead to conflict and division - then I disagree. Let's face it the 'desire of the GC people' in 1960 was for ENOSIS (with 90+% according to the plebesite organised by Makarios). Even in your 'ideal' state where there was no equality for the TC community such a desire was fundamentaly devisive and led to conflict. The need for a degree of political equality for the two communites was not the cause of division and conflict (in fact it was an attempt at a remedy for such). What was the cause for division and conflict was two different and seperate communites desires and wishes (for their own homeland) being diametricaly opposed to each others and a willingness of the larger group to persue its objectives without any consideration for the wishes of the other community. That is what caused conflict and division AND the necessity for some degree of political equality for the two communites.

I would like your opinion on the following plausible scenario.

Two very pretty Russian (or any other non-EU citizens) ladies, marry two Cypriot men, a TC and a GC. The women move to Cyprus with their husbands, and automatically become Cypriot Citizens, after a certain period time. The two ladies, who are now called Natalia Papadopoulos and Natasha Saffet, would like to apply for a government position that requires knowledge of the Russian language. Should they be considered for hiring, based on their credentials, or based on their ethnic surnames?

Well if they are that pretty you hire them both of course

To be honest I am not sure what you are asking here? Do I support the idea of 'positive descrimination' as a means of overcomming historic prejudice and inequality? Yes personaly I do. I support initatives in the UK for example that seek to increase recruitment of ethnic minorites into the police force (where they are under represented). I support initatives to recruit more female MP's to try and bring the balance in parliament closer to a 50/50 ratio. This may seem unfair to qualifed male applicants but it is a response to 100s of years of previous inequality and discrimination in the favour of men. So in Cyprus I would support such forms of 'positive descrimination'. Yes there are problems with positive descrimination. Yes such policies can be unfair to individuals. Yes such polices can be devisive but personaly on balance I think they are valid and justified in the right circumstances.

[insan]

you claim that the GC community is the only representative of the RoC. This is because the TC community has abandoned the RoC and is illegally occupying the northern part of Cyprus. Unlike the TCs that forced the GCs to be removed illegally, no body forced the TCs to leave.

www.cyprus-conflict. net quote from Galo Plaza's 1965 report:

"The demand of the Greek-Cypriot community for the right of self-determination requires certain clarifications. Its leaders have indicated that the exercise of the right of self-determination should be taken in the sense that, once fully independent, it will be for the Cypriot people alone to decide their political status and enter into relationships with any other State or States. It has usually been taken for granted that this will mean, in practical terms, a choice by the Cypriot people, by such means as a referendum, between continued independence and union with Greece, (Enosis) and past discussions have proceeded on that basis. But the leaders of the Greek-Cypriot community have remained vague both as regards the timing of the proposed referendum and the form of Enosis. On the timing of the referendum. Archbishop Makarios has indicated that it is a decision for the people of Cyprus to take and that the proposed referendum could, for example, take place either immediately, or in a year, or in five years. On the form of Enosis, Archbishop Makarios has merely said that this would be decided by the Government of Cyprus in agreement with Greece before the Cypriot people are consulted on the subject. He has also left it to be understood that in the event that Enosis is chosen, any arrangements to be made after it has taken place would fall under the exclusive responsibility of Greece"


As it is obviously seen, the sole aim of the leading and ruling elites of Hellen side was Enosis which based upon the self-determination right of peoples. On the other hand Turkish side was rightfully against Enosis. Simply, Enosis didn't serve the interests of Turkish side...


"116. The people of this young State are still living, as they have for more than a year, in an atmosphere of constant uncertainty, recurring tensions, and at the level at any rate of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot leadership, continuing hostility and distrust, overshadowed by the danger or the hope, as the case may be, of possible intervention from the outside. They are still pointing guns at each other in a number of localities in the island. Barricades are still in position between the communities: in many places life looks "normal" behind the barricades, but everywhere it is fraught with fears of what may happen next. And for many thousands of Turkish-Cypriots displaced by force or fear from their farms, jobs and homes, life does not bear even the superficial appearances of normality."



"117. The Government of the Republic, except for a part of the judicial system, is exclusively in the hands of the Greek-Cypriot majority community. And this community, through the Government, has at its disposal, both for the defence of the Republic and for the maintenance of internal authority, substantial armed forces. These forces are not purely Cypriot. They have been reinforced by military elements from Greece, as well as armaments and equipment from a variety of outside sources."



"The Greek-Cypriot leadership has repeatedly stated to me, and up to very recent times has affirmed this in public, that it is prepared only to discuss with the other side the question of minority rights within the framework of a unitary state. The Turkish-Cypriot leadership, in turn, insisted through my last meeting with them that any discussion with the other side could only be within the context of a return to the 1960 Constitution and in the framework, in particular, of the mixed Council of Ministers established by that Constitution. The result has been that as long as such preconditions have kept them from meeting, the two sides have also been unwilling to modify significantly their separate conceptions of the methods by which the principles at issue should be applied."




"All through this period there were two kinds of "green line" in Cyprus, and few people dared to cross either kind. There were firstly the physical barriers, constructed out of road-blocks, strongpoints, fortified houses, sand-bagged walls and trenches. These were the barriers which at many places in the island kept the two communities apart either by force or by the fear of arrest, abduction or gunfire. They prevented the normal flow of traffic for purposes of both business and pleasure, and became indeed part of the machinery of what came to be regarded as an economic blockade by the Greek-Cypriots against the Turkish-Cypriots. They curtailed the functioning of government services and development activities. They prolonged the abandonment by many people of their houses, farms, businesses or jobs on one side or the other. And especially in Nicosia, the capital, the "green line" added a physical dimension to the breaking down of the Constitution: it barred, even if political motives alone might not have done so, the Turkish Vice- President and the Turkish Ministers from their offices and from meetings of the Cabinet, the elected Turkish parliamentarians from the sessions of the House of Representatives, and both Turkish-Cypriot and Greek-Cypriot public servants from their duties on the other side of the line."



Under the circumstances that TCs even couldn't step out of the door because of the state provoked terror; you claim that TCs withdrew from the RoC.


Just ROFL

[pantelis]

Erol and Insan,
Without responding directly to every single point you have made, I would like say that we are not too far apart. In fact, we are getting closer and closer every day.

The recognition issue and Turkey's EU road are two parallel issues that do cross each other.
I have mentioned before, that it is in the interest of all Cypriots and Turkish mainlanders to see Turkey a full member of the EU. The "recognition game" is only a smoke screen IMO. There are EU countries who would like to see Cyprus use the veto against Turkey. If they are 100% that Cyprus will do their dirty work for them, they will sit back and do nothing. Papadopoulos knows that the Cyprus problem cannot be solved without Turkey coming closer to Europe and away from the control of the "deep state" and the military. If he is the last one, of the 25, that has to give his OK to Turkey or use the veto, he will let it pass.
I don't see a veto from Cyprus, although there is a shortage of "tons of bricks", in the booming construction industry.

[brother]

'tons of bricks'