Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

But to date all we have read from you are policies to reduce the TC community and ill put it in your own famous words "just another minority" with rights accordingly.

I always say that every Cypriot citizen should have EXACTLY the same rights regardless of his race, language or ethnic background. Therefore the righs of people that belong in an ethnic minority would be EXACTLY the same with any other citizen. Therefore there will be no more rights for people belonging in a majority, and in the same way there will be no more rights for people that belong in a minority.

Have we not agreed in 1975 and which your current leader quotes today a BBF, this is whats on the table Piratis, any unification solution will be based on this ideology unless both sides agree to anything different which is very unlikely at this rate.

BBF is not an "ideology" but something very vague that you interpret to mean whatever you want it to be (which in your case is partition)

What is well defined is federation, as it exists in countries like USA, Russia etc.
Therefore a system based on BBF is not a partition system as you want to believe, but a federation (of two states) were in one state there is a TC majority and in the other a GC majority.

Here is the definition of democracy (again) taken from a country who has the federal system (USA):

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

Therefore having a federation does not mean that we have the partition that you want, were TCs run their own business and GCs their own separately. We will still have ONE country and the principles that apply to all democratic countries will aply to Cyprus as well, including majority rule.

This was unity means. What you are always asking for is partition, and labeling it as "unification" does not change the essence.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

[Piratis]

stuballstu, Papadopoulos was NOT a member of EOKA-B. Papadopoulos has been a politician since early age and he was not involved in any paramilitary organization.

Piratis very interesting that you mention democracy. Correct me if I am wrong ( I have no doubts you will anyway). Was it not Makarios who wanted to change the constitution of Cyprus? By democracy the TC's said no which in turn led to no TC representative in the parliament.

And since when is proposing changes to the constitution undemocratic? What was undemocratic was the way we got that constitution, since the Cypriot people were not even asked to approve it, let alone to be allowed to form their own constitution in a democratic way.

What i would like to know in the opinion of you and Sotos is what exactly has your president done about solving the Cyprob? What has he offered to the TC community? What is his plan to integrate TC's and GC's into a truely "Cypriot" society?

There are 40.000 troops in the occupied areas that do not want to move. Since they don't want to move the only way to move them is to force them out. The balance of power for the time being favors Turkey so Papadopoulos doesn't have anything magical to force the Turkish troops out. However he is working in the right direction within EU.

Why couldn't your president say to the UN this is what we think is wrong with the Annan plan, change this and we will put it to the people?

Because the Annan plan is VERY wrong and can not return just by changing "this" or "that". If negotiations would have any results we would have seen them during the last 32 years. Unfortunately the Turks accept nothing short of partition.
It is clear that the Cyprus problem will not be solved with negociations. It will be solved when the balance of power will change and it will became very difficult for Turkey to keep enforcing her illegalities in Cyprus.

[observer]

Piratis wrote:

Unfortunately the Turks accept nothing short of partition.

How quickly you forget that in 2004 it was the Turkish-Cypriots who voted for unification, the Greek Cypriots who voted against.

Only a fool would believe that Turkey would not have breathed a huge sigh of relief at 'problem solved' and got on with its EU negotiations.

[Viewpoint]

But to date all we have read from you are policies to reduce the TC community and ill put it in your own famous words "just another minority" with rights accordingly.

I always say that every Cypriot citizen should have EXACTLY the same rights regardless of his race, language or ethnic background. Therefore the righs of people that belong in an ethnic minority would be EXACTLY the same with any other citizen. Therefore there will be no more rights for people belonging in a majority, and in the same way there will be no more rights for people that belong in a minority.

Have we not agreed in 1975 and which your current leader quotes today a BBF, this is whats on the table Piratis, any unification solution will be based on this ideology unless both sides agree to anything different which is very unlikely at this rate.

BBF is not an "ideology" but something very vague that you interpret to mean whatever you want it to be (which in your case is partition)

What is well defined is federation, as it exists in countries like USA, Russia etc.
Therefore a system based on BBF is not a partition system as you want to believe, but a federation (of two states) were in one state there is a TC majority and in the other a GC majority.

Here is the definition of democracy (again) taken from a country who has the federal system (USA):

These elements define the fundamental elements of all modern democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, and economy. Despite their enormous differences as nations and societies, the essential elements of constitutional government--majority rule coupled with individual and minority rights, and the rule of law--can be found in Canada and Costa Rica, France and Botswana, Japan and India.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

Therefore having a federation does not mean that we have the partition that you want, were TCs run their own business and GCs their own separately. We will still have ONE country and the principles that apply to all democratic countries will aply to Cyprus as well, including majority rule.

This was unity means. What you are always asking for is partition, and labeling it as "unification" does not change the essence.

THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY

* Sovereignty of the people.
* Government based upon consent of the governed.
* Majority rule.
* Minority rights.
* Guarantee of basic human rights.
* Free and fair elections.
* Equality before the law.
* Due process of law.
* Constitutional limits on government.
* Social, economic, and political pluralism.
* Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/w ... hatdm2.htm

Looks ho so good on paper but who will administer it all? the majority being of course the GCs which convenienty works in your favor? and we have no hope in hell of controlling our own future. The majority could decide to unite with for arguements sake Russia this time, what do we do then???

[stuballstu]

Piratis wrote

stuballstu, Papadopoulos was NOT a member of EOKA-B. Papadopoulos has been a politician since early age and he was not involved in any paramilitary organization.

Are you sure??


I'll ask this question again then as you clearly ommitted it in your response. Was this the same politician?

Was it not Mr Papadopolous himself who delivered a message to the American Embassy in Nicosia that if Turkey came near Cyprus they could inhialate Turkish Cypriots in 45 mins?

Piratis wrote

And since when is proposing changes to the constitution undemocratic? What was undemocratic was the way we got that constitution, since the Cypriot people were not even asked to approve it, let alone to be allowed to form their own constitution in a democratic way

.

We have been through this before Piratis. You got a constitution which was negotiated between the UK, Greece, Turkey, GC's and TC's. If you didn't like it the democratically elected representatives should have refused it. Instead it was accepted with a view to changing it at a later date. I never said proposing constitutional change was un-democratic. What i said was given their democratic rights, which you say is a fundamental right for all Cypriots, the TC's did not want to make the proposed changes. That was their democratic right. The result of which has been no TC representation within the parliament.

Quote:

What i would like to know in the opinion of you and Sotos is what exactly has your president done about solving the Cyprob? What has he offered to the TC community? What is his plan to integrate TC's and GC's into a truely "Cypriot" society?

There are 40.000 troops in the occupied areas that do not want to move. Since they don't want to move the only way to move them is to force them out. The balance of power for the time being favors Turkey so Papadopoulos doesn't have anything magical to force the Turkish troops out. However he is working in the right direction within EU.

You havn't answered the question Piratis. What has Papadopolous done about solving the Cyprus problem? What has he offered the TC community? What is his plan to integrate TC's and GC's to a truely Cypriot society?

Has he done anything to warrant trust from Turkish Cypriots?

Quote:
Why couldn't your president say to the UN this is what we think is wrong with the Annan plan, change this and we will put it to the people?


Because the Annan plan is VERY wrong and can not return just by changing "this" or "that". If negotiations would have any results we would have seen them during the last 32 years. Unfortunately the Turks accept nothing short of partition.
It is clear that the Cyprus problem will not be solved with negociations. It will be solved when the balance of power will change and it will became very difficult for Turkey to keep enforcing her illegalities in Cyprus.

So why even bother with a referendum then if it was never going to be accepted by the GC community? why waste time, money and give false hope to Cypriots if it was never going to be accepted? Why not say to Annan during negotations that it was never going to work and therefore not worth putting to referendum? Not everything in the plan was bad was it?

[Piratis]

Piratis wrote:

Unfortunately the Turks accept nothing short of partition.

How quickly you forget that in 2004 it was the Turkish-Cypriots who voted for unification, the Greek Cypriots who voted against.

Only a fool would believe that Turkey would not have breathed a huge sigh of relief at 'problem solved' and got on with its EU negotiations.

Turkish Cypriots voted for the Annan partition plan, not for unification. Here is what one of the most popular Turkish journalists wrote some time ago:

Mehmet Ali Birand

Before the vote on the Annan plan, I personally believed the Turkish Cypriots were faced with a historic opportunity and did everything I could to ensure that the plan was a success. I believed that, with the plan, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (KKTC) would be able to stand on its own two feet. The KKTC would enter the European Union with Greek Cyprus and consequently, the Cyprus issue would no longer be an obstacle to Turkey's EU aspirations. I am still of the same opinion.

The Annan plan was invented to solve the problem of Turkey (EU accession) days before Cyprus entered the EU, and not to unify Cyprus.

[mehmet]

Stuballstu,

Papadopoulos has no plan to negotiate with Turkish Cypriot's, that should be obvious by the way he has conducted himself. Since he sees us as pawns he has no intention of legitimising our community by recognising we have political representatives. He is hoping that by isolating Turkish Cypriots economicaly they will become dependant on the RoC. Piratis knows this and agrees with this strategy hence a few crumbs can be offered to the Turkish Cypriots who are employed in south, and use services there. Turkey knows this as well which is why they are stubborn about recognising RoC and trading.

The only purpose for some on this site is not to reach out toTurkish Cypriots with the hand of friendship but to try and divide us so they can weaken us. The stupidity of those who try to back Turkey onto a corner seems to have no limits. Let Papadopoulos see what Turkey will do if it gives up on EU, it will say fuck you to RoC, may close border again and no doubt cause Turkey to go through another phase of nationalism.

[Piratis]

Looks ho so good on paper but who will administer it all? the majority being of course the GCs which convenienty works in your favor? and we have no hope in hell of controlling our own future. The majority could decide to unite with for arguements sake Russia this time, what do we do then???

Viewpoint, in ONE country there is ONE future. You can not control just your future separately. You will participate in the control of Cyprus, just like all other Cypriot citizens.

If we will start with theories about what could happen then we will never end. What if GCs will want union with Russia, what if Turkey will want to invade Cyprus again, what if your child turns to a murderer, what if...

You can not limit the human and democratic rights of people and commit crimes against them just with theories like that. You have no right to do that. Furthermore if there is 1 chance of something going wrong in a democratic Cyprus member of EU, there are 100 things that can go wrong when the war continues, the human rights of people are violated and the conflict remains.

[Piratis]

stuballstu, there is no question about Papadopoulos being an EOKA-B member as he was in the exact opposite camp, of Makarios (EOKA-B hated Makarios and tried to kill him).

I am not aware of this message to the Americans that you talk about. Can you give your source please? If such thing existed it would be in the lines of "if they attack us, then we will attack them". Still that was just theoretical, as in practice the ethnic cleansings were committed by the Turks against us. However for some reason what matters for you is some "message" than the criminal actions.

We have been through this before Piratis. You got a constitution which was negotiated between the UK, Greece, Turkey, GC's and TC's.

Yes we have been through this, and I showed you that in fact Cypriots did not participate in any negotiations. Makarios was just presented with it and was asked to either sign it as it is or leave it (and leave it = Cyprus to remain under British rule). Therefore no good option was given and Makarios choose the least bad.

I never said proposing constitutional change was un-democratic. What i said was given their democratic rights, which you say is a fundamental right for all Cypriots, the TC's did not want to make the proposed changes. That was their democratic right. The result of which has been no TC representation within the parliament.

Those changes, which were very fair by the way, were never implemented! So nobody overwrote the right of TCs to block those changes. So whats your point?

You havn't answered the question Piratis. What has Papadopolous done about solving the Cyprus problem? What has he offered the TC community? What is his plan to integrate TC's and GC's to a truely Cypriot society?

Has he done anything to warrant trust from Turkish Cypriots?

stuballstu, the Cyprus problem is not new. If the Cyprus problem was going to be solved by having the GC leader making offers and acting super friendly, then the Cyprus problem would have been solved when Vasiliou was a president. Unfortunately TCs instead of making similar moves they kept asking for more and more.

Therefore Papadopulos has (correctly) abandoned the "good boy" polcies that led us nowhere, and he is now concentrating on things that matter. Either mehmet likes it or not, the unfortunate truth is that Turkey is taking the decisions and not the TCs. The TC leadership is nothing more than Ankaras puppets. Therefore Papadopoulos policy is to make the occupation of Cyprus as costly to Turkey as possible and at the same time limit any benefits Turkey or the TCs can have from illegaly occupying our land.

Just think of it: When is everybody rushing to solve the Cyprus problem? When GCs were nice making ofers and accepting almost anything that was asked from them? Or when the occupation of Cyprus becomes an obstacle and a huge problem for Turkey?

[Viewpoint]

Looks ho so good on paper but who will administer it all? the majority being of course the GCs which convenienty works in your favor? and we have no hope in hell of controlling our own future. The majority could decide to unite with for arguements sake Russia this time, what do we do then???

Viewpoint, in ONE country there is ONE future. You can not control just your future separately. You will participate in the control of Cyprus, just like all other Cypriot citizens.

If we will start with theories about what could happen then we will never end. What if GCs will want union with Russia, what if Turkey will want to invade Cyprus again, what if your child turns to a murderer, what if...

You can not limit the human and democratic rights of people and commit crimes against them just with theories like that. You have no right to do that. Furthermore if there is 1 chance of something going wrong in a democratic Cyprus member of EU, there are 100 things that can go wrong when the war continues, the human rights of people are violated and the conflict remains.

Piratis you are purposefully tip toeing around my question and avoiding answering. The above picture you paint of democracy and human rights harmony in a united Cyprus is all well and good but the important issue is how will we run the show? If we go by majority rule then the Tcs with a ratio of 20 to 80 will have minimal to no chance of entering the government or it will be left to chance with no representation for us. History tells us that GC domination of the whole island does not produce the democratic country you seem to think it will. This is to big a risk for TCs to take as it would mean that you could administer these universal principles like Russia or Switzerland, do you see the difference? both supposedly democratic but really at opposite ends of the scale when is come to administering human rights and democracy. This risk is to high and no more than jumping into a black hole for many TCs including myself thus committing political suicide and being to the mercy of the GC majority in a united Cyprus. Its this balance that has to be addressed ensuring both states cannot hinder or impose its will on the other. Why is this so difficult to understand?