by lupusdiavoli » Mon Nov 20, 2006 7:16 pm
It was mentionned, that Cypriots consist one nation. This is the kind of argument which is based nowhere. It takes a lot to analyse the content of the meaning of a nation. What r the fundamental elemens of a nation etc. He who prefers this kind of unrealistic arguments has certainly every right to keep doing this.
The unified argument could find a better standing in the legal language or terminolgy, meaning that Cyprus, at least pursant with the Constitution og 1960 was or is supposed to be one State. The meaning of State from the meaning of Nation differs.
Nevertheless even the regime of 1960 and the following agreements speak and verify the existence of two -at least- different communities based on the ethnic origin. This is reality, both legal and otherwise.
Cetrainly the ideas of creating a new national identity are to be found to the leftish texts. Reasonable it was for states consisted primarily from people of different ethnic source to think that by inventing a new identity that supposively would dominate the old existing and usually cover with blood could lead to harmony.
Wishfull thinking, but a total failure as history and experience can show. Just think about Soviet Union and all the similar regimes.
Humanist,
Fine. Nevertheless have in mind that war, violence, death etc still exist. Philosophical views? Well originally it is the Greeks who speak for harmony, peace, a unified world and later the Europeans for the everlasting peace. It is just a dream, the utopia as I said from the start.
The reality proves to be the opposite. I call for verification of my argument centuries of bloody history.
The reality of Cyprus? Well given that the GC may accept their defeat a solution may arise. Some are willing to accept it, some not, some are full of fear for the unknown, some want to have the control of the new state and so on.
The TC? Well they have the advantage of Turkey, the reality on the ground, the factor of the time passing on their favour, the written agreements, the benefit of power because of Turkey etc. They could agree if a soluion could consider all these advantages and if these were reflected to the new regime.
That is exactly what the majority of the GC could not accept. So, like Piratis they are willing to wait the turn of the tide. It is an attitude. It is acceptable and risky. The one who is not ready to compromise refusing to see the reality will probably pay the price tomorrow.