Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

If only our political leaders would discuss as thoroughly as you two guys ...

Currently one of the people who inspire me to keep this good spirit is you, Alexandros. I'm happy to have a participant like you, here on this forum.

[insan]

Insan, I wasn't aware that CTP was formed so early on ...

I am wondering, on what sort of political platform was CTP formed? What did it aspire to? And in what way did its aspirations differ from TMT?

I think these are crucial questions, because I suspect that the TC political culture has developed along two parallel threads over the last 30-40 years: On the one hand, the TMT legacy leading to Denktash and the struggle for partition, and on the other hand the CTP legacy leading to Talat and the struggle for ... what? This is my question.

Hi Alexandros,

Here's the link of official CTP webite:


http://www.ctpkibris.org/English/history.htm


There you will find the brief history of CTP. There are also other pages available in English within their website.

[insan]

The one of the founder and first leader of CTP is Ahmet Mithat Berberoglu. It is said that when in 1963 the intercommunal violance outbroke, Berberoglu and his friends, against the all odds, several times attempted to cross the barricades in order to join the parliamentary sessions. Though they had failed, Klerides had given them a message via mass media: "Don't come, you'll be chucked out."


It is said that Ahmet Mithat Berberoglu and his friends exerted a great effort in struggle against both sides chauvinists.


The second leader of CTP is Ozker Ozgur. I think he is the most fiery communist of all times, in Cyprus. Though I don't know if there are any other who will be able to compete with him, in Akel.


The third leader of CTP is Talat. I'll put my interpretations about him later on. Now time for dinner.

[Othellos]

Erolz

Maybe he thought he could 'get away' with the claim there and that it would not be seen around the world via websites? I doubt he has numch idea of how much the internet has changed the way 'media' now works (if the UKs politicians are anything to go by).

For what is worth and for all I know, his Law firm does have a web site so he should at least have a fair idea of what the internet is about. As to whether he accesses it every day, I do not know.

If you give me his email address I will do it personaly and report back his 'explaination'.

Try these:
President’s office:
[email protected]

Government spokesman:
[email protected]

It would be interesting to see their reaction to your email, so if you go ahead and send them one please keep us informed.

……….As I recall (and it is hard to remeber this far back) the point I was making was that just because the situation was not totaly black and white (in 63-67) and just because there were undoubtedly 'evil' acts committed by TC it does not mean that saying the Cyprus problem is all down to TC being theives and greedy is propaganda - promoted by your statement "Maybe it is not all "propaganda" after all. "

My "maybe it is not all propaganda after all" comment was a reaction to a previous comment that was made by you and which I interpreted as an attempt on your behalf to deny any Turkish role in the events that took place between 1963-1974. I have written that one of the results of the Turkish invasion in 1974 was that thousands of GCs had their homes and properties taken from them at gunpoint and this amounts to stealing. The acquisition of material wealth and property that belongs to other people was not the strategic goal behind the invasion but it was undoubtedly one of its results. I have also explained what my position is on whether someone (GC or TC) who lives in a house that does not belong to him is a thief or not. But to ensure that there is absolutely no misunderstanding here, let me just say that I do not think that it is fair or reasonable to regard someone as a thief or as a rapist based on their nationality or their ethnic background alone.

Piratis' consistent claim that the cyprus problem (and its continuation today) is all down to TC being theives and not wanting to return that which they stole (because they are greedy theives) is not a 'denial policy' from a GC? It certainly seems so to me and it also seems to exist. I think that both sides 'offical' versions of history are little more than propaganda.

Piratis is just another forum member with his own views regarding Cyprus who also has his own way of expressing them. You and others may not agree with either of them (views or expression style), but then again I do not think that one can deduct safe conclusions about how GCs think based on the remarks of one person alone. So please let us not inflate this out of proportion, as peoples’ posts in this forum do not necessarily reflect any "official" policy.

… What does not reflect the truth is saying that TC left government and went to live in enclaves to achieve eventual partition of the island - without mentioning anything about GC, about GC violence against TC, about the realtive scale of that violence, about the realtive power and strnght of the tow communites, about the Akritas plan, about ENOSIS and any othe number of relevant things to understanding what occured then.

All I am saying is that the setup of the enclaves (which started before 1960, before any GC violence on TCs and before any Akritas plan) and the withdawal of the TCs in them was all part of a Turkish plan that aimed in partitioning Cyprus. No reasonable person can accept that the Turkish side could have achieved partition without some kind of a plan, as the one that is disclosed in the Clerides' book.

Actually I also think they had grounds to want some constitutional changes. However I also think that they wanted to much change (the removal of any level of political equality between the two communites) and that they beleived this was their 'right' as a numerical majority (and despite any previous agreements made) and that if they could not achieve this by 'fair' means they were justifed in using 'foul' means. That for me is the problem. Not that they wanted changes, but that they believed they had (a god given?) right to them and the means they chose to use to try and secure them.

If by "foul means" you mean the Akritas plan (which imho has always been presented by the Turkish side as some kind of a total annihilation plan) then my opinion is that this came to an end after the proposal for discussing the 13 amendments was rejected by the Turkish side. Unfortunately the corresponding Turkish partition plan stayed in effect and eventually was materialized in full.

…….. Even if you take your analogy with an acceptance of 1 idiot from each group, I would say that each group bears part of the blame for not stopping their idiot form fighting, in their name. Again then the larger group can be argued to be more to blame because there were more of them that should have stopped their idiot than the smaller group.

I still disagree with this. People form groups because their members share common beliefs or characteristics like ethnic background, religion, language, preferences, interests etc. In the event of a disagreement or a conflict, groups tend to stick together. In other words, the most likely human reaction when 2 idiots start an argument or a fight is that everyone else will try to help their group. And unfortunately, when "all hell breaks loose", those voices of reason that are so much needed, remain isolated and therefore weak.

I think the TC side sincerely expressed it's view that the ammendments were designed to change fundamentaly the basis of the consitution and to reduce the TC numerical minroty ot a poltical one in Cyprus. I do not think the GC sincerely expressed their desire to reduce the TC community to ntohing more that a poltical minority in Cyprus. I think they specificaly hid their true motives as a matter of 'strategy' (and as laid out clearly in the Akritas plan).

On the other hand one can argue that the "GC desire to reduce the TC community to nothing more than a political minority" was an argument-excuse that the Turkish side used (sometimes unwisely) to safeguard their own interests regardless of what was fair or what was needed. Having said that I would also add that one must be cautious when using the word "sincerity" while referring to the leaders of either side back in those days as well as the motives behind their actions. I would also add that the attempt of Makarios to raise the issue of Constitutional amendments only 3 years after independence was a premature and therefore a politically clumsy thing to do.

No a loss of a loved one can not be adequately compensated with money. However some kind of monetary compenasation would be at least an attempt to offer some compensation but more importantly it would offer 'recognition' of the persons loss. Or do you think because you can not return a loved one, that no compenasation is due.

Fair enough. All GCs and TCs that suffered from 1963 (or even before) to the present because of a relative’s loss they should be compensated with money for their pain as this will constitute some form of recognition for what they have been though. To this date there are thousands of families in Cyprus with dead or missing relatives. So how do you think that this must be done?

Which is pretty much my point (area of sensitivity). It feels to me because one is easy we only talk of the easy one and because the other is difficult we simply forget it, which does not feel very fair. I suggest that if the ECHR thinks it can place a monetary value on how much Lozidou should get in compensation for not being able to use her property for 30 years then it should also be able to place a monetary value on how much my aunt should get for not having her husband or her children their father for 40 years - and it should be considerably greater than what it deems 'fair' for the loss of use of property. Courts do assign a monetary value to human lives in all sorts of cases.

I agree. And in Cyprus there are hundreds of thousands of people in the shoes of Loizidou and your aunt. So again, how is one to proceed about this? Who is to determine the level of compensations and who is to provide them?

I guess for me I do not see an 'equalness' in these two concepts (taksim and enosis). Enosis was specificaly a desire to untie the whole island with Greece - it absolutely and totaly rejected the idea of any seperation of Cyprus and thus was a desire for GC/Greek control over all of Cyprus (and thus all it's people). Taksim was a desire to have part of Cyprus exclusive to and under control of TC (or Turkey if you prefer). To me there is a difference there, though I guess I understand how you may refuse that there is. One is a desire for total control (inculding control of the other group) and the other is a desire for partial control (and no control over the other group).

I do not think that the concept of Enosis rose from a mere GC "desire" to control the TC population of the island. For the GCs Enosis was synonymous to their Freedom from British rule. Obviously you are justified to think that they never thought much about what this (Enosis) would mean to the TCs. On the other hand, taksim cannot be described as the desire to control only part of the island, because in order to achieve this, thousands of GCs and TCs would be forced to relocate (and this is what happened). If GCs and TCs had always lived in separate geographic regions on the island then partition and union of the respective parts with Greece or Turkey could have been possible options. But considering the situation in Cyprus, both concepts would violate the human rights of thousands of Cypriots (which btw remains the case as we speak).

…. For me the 'unit' of the rights of peoples is the group and irrespective of the groups size (provided they meet reasonable criterion of a 'people' - which is not clearly defined in the human rights charters but which there is much 'expert opinion' on) - just as with indidvduals the unit is the indivdual and bigger, fatter or taller indivduals do not have more rights than smaller ones.

"Group" rights not only they do not guarantee the implementation of rights at the individual level, but they can also be used as a cover for violating individuals rights. To me and for this reason, the “unit” remains the individual himself, as this is the only way that guarantees the respect of everyone’s individual rights.

Having said this I do not insist that the TC people have total equality on all issues and at every level. My personal view - as best I have been able to explain it, is that there should be straight equality of communites (on the democratic principal of one community one vote) on any decsion that materialy affects one community differently to the other ……

The phrase "any decision that materially affects one community differently to the other" is extremely vague and open to many different interpretations.

Actually I know a lot more about Makarios than I do Kucuk but I certainly agree with you re Makarios (and probably would re Kucuk if I knew as much about him)

Actually Dr. Fazil Kucuk was relatively moderate, especially when compared to R. Denktash who was also in the scene at that time.

O.

[Othellos]

If you read it as "ruling Hellen(ic) elite" that I've never written it as you suggested; I use the phrase in several forums which is not hard to understand what it means:

Hellen's ruling elite: All Greek descendant people who are in position to rule the Greek descendant people, either directly(majority of parliament) or indirectly(pressure groups, self-interest groups, lobbyists, factions). I hope I could have clarified it, Othellos.

Hello again Insan and thanks for the clarification. I wrote "Hellenic" because this is the correct word to use (and not Hellen). Is there a particular reason why you refer to them as “elite” and not simply as "leaders" or "leadership"? Just wondering.

After Akel abandoned the Enosis idea in mid-60s and started to struggle against Enosists and this followed by Makarios' public declaration which he stated Enosis was no longer viable; high ranked TMT leaders loosen the strings of leftists. In 1970 the leftist TCs organised and formed CTP(The first and only communist party of TCs). An equivelent of AKEL.

Another question: all these years AKEL supported reconciliation between the 2 sides and a solution. Yet they elected Papadopoulos and supported the rejection of the Annan plan. In your opinion, how is AKEL viewed among TCs these days, after the referendum?

……. The EU accession of RoC is a part of revised Akritas Plan, imo. By becoming a full member of EU, Cyprus politically was integrated with Greece and now it's time for achieving the second step: "majority rule"; i.e Hellen dominated Cyprus.

Hmm….politically integrated with Greece, and France, and Germany, and the UK, and Italy and Poland and and…….see my point? The world is changing and it is up to each one of us to see it or not. This is not the 1960's and we need to keep up with developments. If everyone stuck to the past then the entire world would be in flames every day and nothing would have ever been achieved.

It doesn't seem to me an anachronistic obsession about her security. If you look from a retrospective view point, there are so many visible threats around her which justify their stance regarding the issues of her security. Do a google search and see how many maps have been made and how she divided and shared on schemes by some of its hidden(Actually known) enemies.

Some say that division comes from within. Other than that, a power that can pose a real threat to a 70 million country like Turkey will not need Cyprus to do this. And Cyprus alone cannot be a threat to Turkey or any other nearby country for that matter, even if in the ancient times we had trade outposts in Syria . This is why I consider Turkish views on their security with respect to Cyprus as a total anachronism, and at the same time as nothing more than an excuse to “justify” the ongoing occupation in the north part of the island and the violation of the human rights of thousands of Cypriots.

Please don't forget that the Enosis wasn't the only issue which caused two communities to get into strife. There was one more major issue which I consider it as the core point of the Cyprus problem; "majority rule". Even If Hellen's ruling elite have never made an attempt for Enosis but solely insisted on "majority rule"; TCs would react with the same way as they did in the past.

But then again Insan, majority rule is an ingredient in the governing of every Democratic society. What I mean by this is that in any election the winner is always the majority. I therefore believe that your problem with "majority rule" in Cyprus has to do with the fact that the majority is Greek as well as your fears that in case they ruled alone then they could look after their own priorities and ignore the TCs. These fears are understandable, but at the same time I also think that GC concerns about abusing power that arises from "political equality" as this has been defined in past UN documents about Cyprus, should be equally addressed. In other words, one must seek to find a solution that it is fair and acceptable to both communities.

Majority rule in itself is not necessarily wrong. On the contrary, it is the only way a Democratic society can function. Suppose (and this is a totally hypothetical question) that there were common political parties in Cyprus in which both GCs and TCs were members. Do you think that Cypriots would still have a problem with the concept of "majority rule"? Just thinking…

I believe that after 1967, because of the reasons I mentioned above; he was seeking improvements in the 1960 agreements in a perspective which he was believeing would be the best possible under the circumstances of 1967-74. One of the aim of Makarios was to keep the unitary state as a whole. That's why he was against seperate municipalities.

There were also other practical reasons for objecting to the separate municipalities although this was agreed in 1960 (a very expensive provision for a small newborn state in 1960 if you ask me). One such problem was defining the jurisdiction boundaries of each municipality (I will look more into this and we can discuss it further if you want to). In any event, Makarios has been criticized for objecting to the immediate implementation of the provision for the separate municipalities, as this was an action that increased TC mistrust on the GC side. Of course, the same GC mistrust on the TC side existed too, as the separate municipalities were a provision that was regarded as "separatist". Oddly enough (and if I remember well) it was Makarios who insisted on the provision of having separate municipalities, and this against the advice that he was given by others including the Greek government. To many of us that may not make sense but then again if Cyprus had wiser leaders perhaps we would have never reached this point.

I still wonder what do majority of GCs think about the political status of TC community. I'm sure Papadopulos does not support "political equality of two communities". I'm not sure about Klerides and Anastasiades. A part of Akel supports "political equality of two communities". And also, I'm sure the split part of Desy does not support...

To be honest with you, I am not sure if many GCs understand what does being "politically equal" mean. There are GCs who think that the political equality of the TCs means that they will have the right to interfere or control every aspect of our daily lives and there are others who understand that like us, the also need to feel secure and therefore they will need certain political safeguards that will allow them to participate effectively in our country's administration. Others remain concerned as to whether "political equality" can result to a functional state. Finally many GCs are a lot more concerned about what Turkey’s role will be after a solution (which has nothing to do with the political equality of the TCs). The fact that people can be afraid of the unknown should not come as a surprise to us.

I would put my concerns about the demographics of the Cyprus and the properties of GCs then of course ask Denktash for strong written assurances to secure these. One of the articles of High Level Agreements of 1979 should be based upon Demographics of Cyprus and properties belong to GCs.

You honestly think that Denktash would respect such an agreement? If yes then why didn't he ever do the same with the 3rd Vienna Agreement that was signed in 1975 and when there were still 20,000 GCs in Karpasia?

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/0 ... enDocument

Thanks Othellos, it was a very good discussion in a very good spirit.

Always in good spirit and in good faith, Insan.

O.

P.S: Take care of that shoulder re

O.

[-mikkie2-]

O.

Very well argued and measured responses to Insan and Erol. I wish I had the time to be able to write in more depth but certainly many of the isuues you have raised do match my own thinking.

Regarding the municipality issue, I think that this was close to being solved in the early 70's and Denktas even was agreeing to the principle that municipalities would be weighted according to demographics. There were sensible discussions then but what we don't know of course is the sincerity of the TC side regarding the implemenation of such a scheme and in light of the constant readiness for Turkey to militarily intervene.

Majority rule in itself is not necessarily wrong. On the contrary, it is the only way a Democratic society can function. Suppose (and this is a totally hypothetical question) that there were common political parties in Cyprus in which both GCs and TCs were members. Do you think that Cypriots would still have a problem with the concept of "majority rule"? Just thinking…

This has been one of my arguments regarding majority rule. In fact I firmly believe that the TC's, being a sizable minority, can act as a moderator in Cyprus as they would in most cases hold the balance of power. Also, given a chance, I think TC and GC parties over time will find much common ground and policies will be formulated on a NATIONAL level as opposed to a COMMUNITY level. This is a major distinction and for Cyprus being such a small place, any type of government would gravitate to a more centralised form of governance. In the Annan plan we would have had three administrations (component states and federal state) which would not be able to trample on eachothers feet - in my view a recipie for disaster!

It has also been my view that economics would render any political solution meaningless within a very short space of time.

[insan]

editet-triple post

[insan]

Hello again Insan and thanks for the clarification. I wrote "Hellenic" because this is the correct word to use (and not Hellen). Is there a particular reason why you refer to them as “elite” and not simply as "leaders" or "leadership"? Just wondering.

Hello Othellos,

The other name of Greece is Hellas, isn't it? So, the other name of the Greek descendant people who live in Greese is Hellene. And the the Greek descendant political leaders, religious leaders, chairmen of lobby organisations, chairmen of NGOs, chairmen of national organisations all together compose the Hellene's Ruling elite, in my mind. Aren't they elite? If they are not an elite class, I can change my definition to Hellene's ruling class. But that's not the point I wanted to stress in the phrase "Hellen(e)'s Ruling Elite. The point in this phrase is, the dominant organizations and persons who have an important role in decision making mechanisms of Hellenes living all around the world. In this respect, there's only a small spelling error in this phrase and that is "e" at the end of Hellen. I shortly use "Hellene's ruling elite" instead of mentioning all of the organizations and persons within.

Another question: all these years AKEL supported reconciliation between the 2 sides and a solution. Yet they elected Papadopoulos and supported the rejection of the Annan plan. In your opinion, how is AKEL viewed among TCs these days, after the referendum?

My impression is, TCs are not aware of that there are two factions in AKEL. TCs consider AKEL as an hypocrite. Even I don't think that TCs have any idea why AKEL prefered to support Papadopulos instead of Klerides or other candidates.

Hmm….politically integrated with Greece, and France, and Germany, and the UK, and Italy and Poland and and…….see my point? The world is changing and it is up to each one of us to see it or not. This is not the 1960's and we need to keep up with developments. If everyone stuck to the past then the entire world would be in flames every day and nothing would have ever been achieved.

You too, confirm that Cyprus politically integrated with Greece and all other EU members as well. So what indicated to you that I stuck to the past? Is the reasons of RoC's EU membership have the same meaning with the other EU members? For what purposes EU accepted Cyprus as a member and what purposes for the other countries? For what purposes RoC wanted to join EU and for what purposes the other countries wanted to join EU? There are substantial differences between Cyprus and the others...

Some say that division comes from within. Other than that, a power that can pose a real threat to a 70 million country like Turkey will not need Cyprus to do this. And Cyprus alone cannot be a threat to Turkey or any other nearby country for that matter, even if in the ancient times we had trade outposts in Syria . This is why I consider Turkish views on their security with respect to Cyprus as a total anachronism, and at the same time as nothing more than an excuse to “justify” the ongoing occupation in the north part of the island and the violation of the human rights of thousands of Cypriots.

Can you predict upon what would happen in next 10 or 15 years? If the Christian Democrat coalition becomes more powerful in EU(Highly probable), this means Turkey will never be let to join EU. This will cause intense tension between Turkey and EU. Do you think Hellene's ruling elite will let this opportunity to go? They will definitely use it to provoke EU under control of Christian Democrats in order to get what they dream about Cyprus. Even, curently the impression I'm getting is that the Hellene's ruling elite policy of delaying tactics is based upon the expectation of a strong Christian Democrat opposition against Turkey.

But then again Insan, majority rule is an ingredient in the governing of every Democratic society. What I mean by this is that in any election the winner is always the majority. I therefore believe that your problem with "majority rule" in Cyprus has to do with the fact that the majority is Greek as well as your fears that in case they ruled alone then they could look after their own priorities and ignore the TCs. These fears are understandable, but at the same time I also think that GC concerns about abusing power that arises from "political equality" as this has been defined in past UN documents about Cyprus, should be equally addressed. In other words, one must seek to find a solution that it is fair and acceptable to both communities.

If "political equality" and even absolute political equality has meant abuse of power, hypothetically speaking; two communities with almost the same population would never form a common state based upon absolute political equality. In my opinion, the reasons of GC groups who object the political equality of two communities related with some retrospective issues and conservatism.

Majority rule in itself is not necessarily wrong. On the contrary, it is the only way a Democratic society can function. Suppose (and this is a totally hypothetical question) that there were common political parties in Cyprus in which both GCs and TCs were members. Do you think that Cypriots would still have a problem with the concept of "majority rule"? Just thinking…

Yes. I agree with you at this point. If everything goes fairly good in a unified Cyprus. The internal social dynamics of two communities will create the enviroment of common interests, joint organizations and and a common Cypriot identity. Until then, we should focus on what feasible under the current particular circumstances.

There were also other practical reasons for objecting to the separate municipalities although this was agreed in 1960 (a very expensive provision for a small newborn state in 1960 if you ask me). One such problem was defining the jurisdiction boundaries of each municipality (I will look more into this and we can discuss it further if you want to). In any event, Makarios has been criticized for objecting to the immediate implementation of the provision for the separate municipalities, as this was an action that increased TC mistrust on the GC side. Of course, the same GC mistrust on the TC side existed too, as the separate municipalities were a provision that was regarded as "separatist". Oddly enough (and if I remember well) it was Makarios who insisted on the provision of having separate municipalities, and this against the advice that he was given by others including the Greek government.

I too have not got much knowledge about this issue. We discuss it next time.

To many of us that may not make sense but then again if Cyprus had wiser leaders perhaps we would have never reached this point.

Perhaps but under the circumstances of cold war era things were not that easy I assume; at least in compare with the circumstances of post cold war era...

To be honest with you, I am not sure if many GCs understand what does being "politically equal" mean. There are GCs who think that the political equality of the TCs means that they will have the right to interfere or control every aspect of our daily lives and there are others who understand that like us, the also need to feel secure and therefore they will need certain political safeguards that will allow them to participate effectively in our country's administration. Others remain concerned as to whether "political equality" can result to a functional state. Finally many GCs are a lot more concerned about what Turkey’s role will be after a solution (which has nothing to do with the political equality of the TCs). The fact that people can be afraid of the unknown should not come as a surprise to us.

Do you have any idea what's the percentage of those group of GCs who have different point of view on "political equality" issue? I strongly believe that if any intentional attempt does not arise from some self-interest groups of GCs against some groups of TCs, Turkey wouldn't meddle into Cyprus politics. The question here is what if some self-interest groups within TCs intentionally or unintentionally disturb/provoke some group of GCs?If those self-interst groups of TCs intentionally disturb or provoke the interests or sensitivenesses of some group of GCs in order to create impressions that some groups of GCs attacked to them; this most probably cause a chain reaction among other groups of Cypriots as well and this would lead us to a big confusion similar with the ones we faced in the past.

There are self-interest groups in every country. The self-interest groups have interest clashes in every country. The question here is that; in Cyprus, do interest clashes among various interest groups would result in as the likes in other countries happen. One of the most tricky issue concerning the future of the united Cyprus. It depends upon the impartiality of the security forces, secret services and judiciary of Untied RoC more than the maturity of majority of Cypriots, imo.

You honestly think that Denktash would respect such an agreement? If yes then why didn't he ever do the same with the 3rd Vienna Agreement that was signed in 1975 and when there were still 20,000 GCs in Karpasia?

I think he would have been obliged to respect such an agreement if he was asked such a specific assurance regarding the demographics and properties belongs to GCs. As we all know Denktash has a totally differnet point of view regarding the TCs, Turks, bi-zonality etc. According to him, those TCs who immigrated to other countries were Turks and the settlers who were brought to Cyprus were also Turks. The properties and land which were given to TCs in return of what they left in South is in the zonal percentage of the land which would belong to TCs after a solution, nevertheless he also considers that the properties and land which were given to settlers for free are in the zonal percentage of the land which would belong to TCs after a solution. In my opinion, his point of view regarding the demographics and property issues is totally nonesense but can't help. Noone could stop him implementing what he considered right to do. Makarios and Klerides knew Denktash very well and they meet many times to negotiate issues concerning the bi-zonality and bi-communality; I think they had countless opportunities to specifically ask Denktash to give strong written assurances about the protection of demographics of Cyprus and properties belongs to GCs.

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/0/9A6B0EFBA6455875C2256D6D0030D232?OpenDocument

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios ... ,%2077.htm

Always in good spirit and in good faith, Insan.

O.

Always

P.S: Take care of that shoulder re

O.

Have you any recommendations to soothe the pain in my shoulder, re Othellos.


Ps: This post edited only 3 times because of some spelling errors and some small additions. The others have arised from the internet connection problems. I failed to submit the changes for a while becuse of the connection problems. So please don't think that I continiously edit my post.

[erolz]

Try these:
President’s office:
[email protected]

Government spokesman:
[email protected]

It would be interesting to see their reaction to your email, so if you go ahead and send them one please keep us informed.

I will certainly do so and post any replies here. However I may not be able to do so until I return from my forthcomming trip - so please bear with me.

[snip] which I interpreted as an attempt on your behalf to deny any Turkish role in the events that took place between 1963-1974.

If I gave that impression I am sorry for having done so. I accept that there was both a Turkish and TC role in these events. However the degree of 'role' / responsibility is still an issue that matters to me.

The acquisition of material wealth and property that belongs to other people was not the strategic goal behind the invasion but it was undoubtedly one of its results.

Thank you. Just to have acceptance that it was not a strategic goal is 'progressive' in my view, given some of the recent postings here on this subject that have clearly stated and implied that it was the reason why the Island was divided (so TC could steal from GC). No one can deny that it was a result I think.

I have also explained what my position is on whether someone (GC or TC) who lives in a house that does not belong to him is a thief or not.

My personal view is that if label of 'thief' is to be used it should farily be used against the TC state (or psuedo state if you prefer) and not those who live in the houses. It was the TC state that decided it had a right to assign those properties and not those living in them. I accept that it is valid to claim that someone who knowingly buys or recievs stolen goods is a theif but for me there is still a distinction between someone who does the stealing and someone who recieves buys the stolen goods. Now morally there may not be much between them. However the Cyprus situation is not simple or clear cut and such simple or clear cut defintions that anyone living in property that was owned by a GC pre 74 and does not accept that they will have to return this property is a theif is to me not particluarly helpful. I can undestand the position, just as I can understand the position of someone who considers that a property given to them by a state they recognise in exchange for a property they lost, saying they are not a thief - that they lost and recieved and also understand them wishing to now remain in this property and consider it theirs. In summary I personaly think the label of theif is more accurately and fairly leveled at the TC state and using such label about indivduals is not helpful or construtive to finding a solution.

But to ensure that there is absolutely no misunderstanding here, let me just say that I do not think that it is fair or reasonable to regard someone as a thief or as a rapist based on their nationality or their ethnic background alone.

Neither do I and hopelfuly neither does a vast majority of the posters here or anywhere else.

Piratis is just another forum member with his own views regarding Cyprus who also has his own way of expressing them. You and others may not agree with either of them (views or expression style), but then again I do not think that one can deduct safe conclusions about how GCs think based on the remarks of one person alone. So please let us not inflate this out of proportion, as peoples’ posts in this forum do not necessarily reflect any "official" policy.

I do not think I have said it reflects either a majority view or an offical view of the GC community. I think however his views do represent a section of the GC community. None of us can know how large a section - I totaly accept that.
As to style I try not to respond to style but to content (though I am only human). I do not need to agree with other posters and indeed the forum would be of little value if we did all agree. However I did make a concious decsion to 'challenge' him on his clearly racists comments, after he made them a number of times and after some quite considered deliberation. I do not see these comments as being a matter of 'style' I am afraid.

No reasonable person can accept that the Turkish side could have achieved partition without some kind of a plan, as the one that is disclosed in the Clerides' book.

Can a reasonable person accept that no partion of the island would have been achievable, whatever the 'plan' had it not been also for the actions of GC community (and Greece to a degree) towards the TC at various points in time?

If by "foul means" you mean the Akritas plan (which imho has always been presented by the Turkish side as some kind of a total annihilation plan) then my opinion is that this came to an end after the proposal for discussing the 13 amendments was rejected by the Turkish side. Unfortunately the corresponding Turkish partition plan stayed in effect and eventually was materialized in full.

The Akritas plan was not a plan to anihilate the TC. It was a plan to remove the rights and priveledges that the TC comminty had gained in the 1960 consitituion and to reduce them to a political minority in Cyprus. In that sense the plans objectives have not changed - as far as GC still insist today that TC can not and should not be any more than a politcal minority in Cyprus. What has changed is the means. Today those that hope to achieve this hope that the EU will focre this to happen or RoC can force it to happen by being in the EU and threatening the blocking of Turkeys entry. The fact is the objectives of the Akritas plan were not as 'bad' as the means. The means were specificaly secret, to use violence and the creation of communal violence and portray it as something other than it really was to the rest of the world and to not disclose the 'real' objectives until prior stages had been achieved. It is this that makes the Akritas plan so incidious. If it had merely been a plan as how to achieve the removal of rights under the constituion from TC without the use of illeagl means (violence) and without the deception of what the violence was about or what the real obectives were it would not be so incidious. The objectives of the Akritas plan are as current today for some (many?) GC as they were when it was written - as I see things.

I still disagree with this. People form groups because their members share common beliefs or characteristics like ethnic background, religion, language, preferences, interests etc. In the event of a disagreement or a conflict, groups tend to stick together. In other words, the most likely human reaction when 2 idiots start an argument or a fight is that everyone else will try to help their group. And unfortunately, when "all hell breaks loose", those voices of reason that are so much needed, remain isolated and therefore weak.

The discussion was about the 'reponsibility' of groups and the relative responsibility of groups of different sizes and how consistent that is with views on the rights of groups of different sizes. I am afarid I still get a feeling much of the time that equlity of reposnibilty of groups (for bad things) is something that GC find easy to conceive, yet have much trouble accepting the equality of the rights of groups of different sizes.

On the other hand one can argue that the "GC desire to reduce the TC community to nothing more than a political minority" was an argument-excuse that the Turkish side used (sometimes unwisely) to safeguard their own interests regardless of what was fair or what was needed.

I accept that it may have been and was used an 'excuse' for certain actions - but the fact is the desire (of GC to reduce the TC community to a political minority) was very real (and still exists today), whether used an an excuse or not. In fact in the absense of this reality its use as an excuse would have been severly diminished.

I would also add that the attempt of Makarios to raise the issue of Constitutional amendments only 3 years after independence was a premature and therefore a politically clumsy thing to do.

Or a tacticaly / strategicaly calaulated thing to do if the objective was actualy to preciptate intercommunal violence? I am not saying it was calculate rather than clumsy - just pointing out that this is another posible interpretation.

Fair enough. All GCs and TCs that suffered from 1963 (or even before) to the present because of a relative’s loss they should be compensated with money for their pain as this will constitute some form of recognition for what they have been though. To this date there are thousands of families in Cyprus with dead or missing relatives. So how do you think that this must be done?

I agree. And in Cyprus there are hundreds of thousands of people in the shoes of Loizidou and your aunt. So again, how is one to proceed about this? Who is to determine the level of compensations and who is to provide them?

I guess I would just like to see as much talk of the loss of those that lost loved ones In Cyprus as there is of those that lost property. It's just at times it feels like all that 'matters' or causes pain and suffering to people is loosing their property. I have no idea how I personaly would go about assesing how much compensation those that lost property should get, let alone those that lost loved ones. I do often however feel like challenging those that DO assess and determine compensation for lost of property (or access to property for a period of time) to do so for loss of life.

I do not think that the concept of Enosis rose from a mere GC "desire" to control the TC population of the island. For the GCs Enosis was synonymous to their Freedom from British rule.

No like above I do not think domination fo the TC community was a strategic objective of ENOSIS - just an inevitiable result.

Obviously you are justified to think that they never thought much about what this (Enosis) would mean to the TCs. On the other hand, taksim cannot be described as the desire to control only part of the island, because in order to achieve this, thousands of GCs and TCs would be forced to relocate (and this is what happened). If GCs and TCs had always lived in separate geographic regions on the island then partition and union of the respective parts with Greece or Turkey could have been possible options. But considering the situation in Cyprus, both concepts would violate the human rights of thousands of Cypriots (which btw remains the case as we speak).

No I agree that both concepts had dire and inhumane consequences for the other community. The only difference is that with ENOSIS these consequences would have been ongoing in perpetuity (or until TC ceased to exist as TC) and in the other they would have been a 'single event' in time. To be honest I am not sure if this makes one of them worse than the other. I kind of feel it does to a small degree but can also understand arguments that deem them not to be so.

"Group" rights not only they do not guarantee the implementation of rights at the individual level, but they can also be used as a cover for violating individuals rights. To me and for this reason, the “unit” remains the individual himself, as this is the only way that guarantees the respect of everyone’s individual rights.

The fact is that the charters on human rights are very clear in the distinction between rights of indivduals and rights of peoples. In an imaginary situation in Cyprus where British rule continued and Cypriots were made full British citizens with exactly the saem rights as any other and with full protection of their rights as indivduals - there would still be a clear violation of the Cypriot peoples (or GC peoples and TC peoples) right to self determination. No violation of indivduals rights but still a violation of human rights (the right to self determination). To say there should only be indivduals rights is not sufficent - which is why the charters on human rights have rights of peoples and rights of indivduals. Neither has any automatic priority over the other. To deny the rights of a people to their rights as a people is no more or less a violation of human rights than to do so for an indidvual (and by extension denyiong that a people are a people is a denail of their human rights as a people by extension).

The phrase "any decision that materially affects one community differently to the other" is extremely vague and open to many different interpretations.

That may be so. I do not suggest it as a 'legal defintion'. I (try) and use it to explain what I think should be the 'intention' and 'extenet' of equality of the communites.

and sorry - just to 'but in' on yours and Insans discussion

But then again Insan, majority rule is an ingredient in the governing of every Democratic society. What I mean by this is that in any election the winner is always the majority.

Actualy that is not always so. In many democracies it is possible for the largest single minority to win the elction, as I understand it?

I therefore believe that your problem with "majority rule" in Cyprus has to do with the fact that the majority is Greek as well as your fears that in case they ruled alone then they could look after their own priorities and ignore the TCs.

My core problem is with the idea that anything that does not deliver all power (directly or indirectly) on all issues to a straight majority of the population is inherently and fundamentaly undemocratic. There are many many different systems of democracy and just as many 'discrepancies' to this 'simple' defintion of what a democracy is. From the differences of 'first past the post' electoral systems vs 'proprtional representation' systems, to the differnt population sizes of parliamnetary consituencies, to the fderal nature of systems like those in the USA and EU where sates off differing sizes have 'equal' rights in some areas. The fact is there are degrees of democracy and no country (or almost any insitution) has this 'simple' form of democracy - yet are still considered democratic. So when obviously intelligent GC present a view that democracy can only mean one thing - fundamentaly and in principal - that also 'happens' to give their community effective control over the whole of Cyprus and with total disregard for the 'degrees and complexity and discrepancies' of democracies as practiced the world over - I am afraid I get suspicous that their real aim is the control and not 'democracy'. An argument that anything less that straight majority of population is less democratic than such a 'simple' system I can accept. Arguments that anything less than this is undemocratic I can not.
Actually the core defintion of democracy is 'power in the hands of the people' and nothing to do with majorites per se. This defintion brings the whole subject into who and what are a people (and if there is only one of them or tow of them in Cyprus - or something in between). It seems to me that a more conciten argument can be made that a system that delivers power into the hands of one people when theri are two that exist is more undemocratic than one that fails to deliver power into the hands of 50.01% of a (combined) people.

These fears are understandable, but at the same time I also think that GC concerns about abusing power that arises from "political equality" as this has been defined in past UN documents about Cyprus, should be equally addressed. In other words, one must seek to find a solution that it is fair and acceptable to both communities.

Having said the above I accpet their are valid fears about both functionality and abuse of a federal system and these must also be addressed. 30+ years and counting and we are still looking (or have we / are we actually looking at all?)

(PS I almost always edit my posts after posting but that is only to correct my many mistakes / typos and to make my original meaning clearer - never to change my original meaning in light of subsequent posts)

[MicAtCyp]

For what purposes RoC wanted to join EU and for what purposes the other countries wanted to join EU? There are substantial differences between Cyprus and the others...

Economic of course! If 90% of your trade is with EU staying out is a suicide.You cannot sell. When you cannot sell you cannot buy. When you cannot buy you starve!
There are huge customs tarrifs in the EU that practically exclude everyone who is not an EU member.
To see the real impact look at the Japanese car industry.The European one is steadily rising, the Japanese is steadily declining. In the free areas most dealers of Japanese brand new cars are on their way to bankraptcy.No 1 on the list is Mazda.