Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Turkcyp,
We acknowledge our mistakes too. Were you are wrong is that it all started in 1963.
Before 1963, it was 1960 with the agreements that gave the 18% of TCs things like a veto power on everything, 30% of government positions, 40% of police and army etc. If go even further we reach a time when no Turk was on this island, and when the Turks came they had Greeks as slaves.

So don't play the "who started first" game, because history didn't start in 1963 and you know it very well.

In any case thats the past. Now we live in the present and the future is in front of us. So I hope you agree that only a fair sharing of the "cake" will bring a long term peace. Everything else will just be a temporary quick fix, that would brake down with the next shake of world power balance. So lets stop trying to get short term gains, and lets focus on something that can be as fair as possible so it will last for long long time. This is for the benefit of all of us.

[turkcyp]

why do you keep bringing up 1963, didn't the TURKISH CYPRIOT VP not except makarios thirteen points?hell even dektash excepted them in 1968

http://www.trncpresidency.org/history/i ... _talks.htm

I assume excepted=accepted...

No VP did not accept 13 point amendment....

After 5 years of intercommunal negotiation we have accepted to give up amny of our rights from 1960 because presumably you have found them unfair, but our concessions was not enough for your high priest so nothing had been signed. Just like Annan Plan, what we agree was not enough for you.

(Then one may asks if you have found them unfair, why sign in the first place in 1960? You may say that there was presures on us to sign, but we believe that you have signed it because you have never intended to abide by its rules anyway. And when I say you I mean your political leadership that was aiming Enosis back then)

turkcyp i mentioned autonomy in a previous post,do you have any feedback or is it unacceptable.

Haven't seen it. Let me check it and get back to you.

Take care,

[boulio]

about the vp i found a source(i would have to look for it,non-g/c) that said he ACCEPTED BUT they were rejected outright by turkey.

Then one may asks if you have found them unfair, why sign in the first place in 1960? You may say that there was presures on us to sign, but we believe that you have signed it because you have never intended to abide by its rules anyway. And when I say you I mean your political leadership that was aiming Enosis back then)

highly possible,but dont play the virgin marys,g/c wanted enosis,yt/c wanted partition,g/c not longer want enosis,do t/c truly want unity or did they vote yes to the annan plan,because it is a form of legalized partition?

[turkcyp]

Turkcyp,
We acknowledge our mistakes too. Were you are wrong is that it all started in 1963.
Before 1963, it was 1960 with the agreements that gave the 18% of TCs things like a veto power on everything, 30% of government positions, 40% of police and army etc. If go even further we reach a time when no Turk was on this island, and when the Turks came they had Greeks as slaves.

So don't play the "who started first" game, because history didn't start in 1963 and you know it very well.

No Piratis,

I am not palying who started first game. You are. With this post of yours you are going back to Ottoman Empire. But like everybody in this forum, you know as well that the current Cyprus Problem starts at 1963.

If GCs found the 1960 constitution unfair, they should not have signed it in the first place. Like you have refused Annan Plan. But once you have signed it you should obey with its rules.

But the belief in TCs is that, you have never thought that you will abide by its rules anyway. So you signed it. Once the constitutional changes you have requested were denied, then you start stealing our rights from the 1960 constitution. You could have keps on negotiating so that we could may be find a better solution than 1960 in 1964 but you decided to put pressure on us by keeping us out of RoC, so that in any negotiation you would have the upper hand. Do you really believe that we would agree to those changes in 1968 if we were as comfortable as in 1960, but not as uncomfortable as in 1968. But I guess even those changes were not enough for you guys because you have declined them again.

So please spare me and do not give me a who started lesson. If you start digging we go back English times, then Ottoman times, then Venetians, then back and back, till we reach who were the first people on the island. This kind of discussion will not take us anywhere.

So the starting point is when did this current mess started. And the answer is 1963. Ask yourself when did the UN forces first appeared on the island and why? And they are still here and the problem is still continuing.

I guess from your answer this is what I deduct. You never accept your mistakes but you somehow justify them, and which gives us a reason to justify our mistakes that we did later on 1974. So stop justifying, we should stop justifying as well. Two wrongs does not make it right.

In any case thats the past. Now we live in the present and the future is in front of us. So I hope you agree that only a fair sharing of the "cake" will bring a long term peace. Everything else will just be a temporary quick fix, that would brake down with the next shake of world power balance. So lets stop trying to get short term gains, and lets focus on something that can be as fair as possible so it will last for long long time. This is for the benefit of all of us.

I agree with this Piratis. I agree totally. The problem lies at the definition of what is fair. For me what is fair in a lasting solution may not be fair to you, and vice versa. For example you have rejected a solution last April on the grounds that it was not fair, while the whole world found it fair and backed it. What I am trying to say is "Fairness is a very relative term"

So the only way out in this situation is either to accept that we co-habit the same country by agreeing on minimalist demands so we both get the second best, instead of the first best.

OR we divide the country into two so we both get first best in our own side as a separate country.

Take care

[insan]

highly possible,but dont play the virgin marys,we wanted enosis,you wanted partition,g/c not longer want enosis,do t/c truly want unity or did they vote yes to the annan plan,because it is a form of legalized partition?

GCs want no longer Enosis because there's no need for Enosis under EU circumstances. On the other hand GCs still insists on "majority rule" which is something that caused intercommunal strife long before than 1960 or 1963. I many times emphisized that Enosis was not the only problem which pushed TCs to establish a partitionist stance. "Majority Rule" stance of GC ruling elite also played an equal role on TC nationalism and seperatism. Did GC ruling elite abandon the "majority rule" stance? No. When will they abandon this stance? Most probably untill the WWWIII has brokeout. Well, then we talk about it again.

[boulio]

how many times did the g/c ruling elite claim they want a funtional bi-zonal federation?what do the t/c ruling elite think of the second part of my question?have they abandined partition dreams or not?

[turkcyp]

highly possible,but dont play the virgin marys,we wanted enosis,you wanted partition,g/c not longer want enosis,do t/c truly want unity or did they vote yes to the annan plan,because it is a form of legalized partition?

Hey I am not playing innocent here. I have never denied that there were fractions of TC society that wanted the partition. But who acted on their stupid nationalistic aims. You did. And in acting on your aims, you have further pushed many of the moderate TCs into the arms of TC extremists.

If extreme GCs did not pust for Enosis, would the extreme TCs push for "Taksim" in thecoming years. Well I guess we will never found that out. You can speculate on the fact that they would and I would speculate and say tehy would not. But tehy all will be specualtions. But the fact that you have acted on 'Enosis' is not a speculation but a fact.

p.s. After you satretd the events of 1963, I agree with you that many TCs jumped to the bandwagon of 'taksim' because of fear.

[Piratis]

Turkcyp, you can continue to believe that the Cyprus problem started in 1963 and until then there was no problem, but I disagree with that for the reasons I said already.

I agree that 1963 was mainly our mistake and we should have tried harder to make what we had signed to work out. I also agree that we shouldn't have accepted the 1960 agreements. Unfortunately no referendum was held back then. If people were informed enough and were given the chance to vote about it I am not sure we would have come to any agreements in 1959.

So the only way out in this situation is either to accept that we co-habit the same country by agreeing on minimalist demands so we both get the second best, instead of the first best.

OR we divide the country into two so we both get first best in our own side as a separate country.

I agree with this and actually this is what I do. Some months ago I presented what I believe should be our minimal demands:

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=211

If thats rejected then we move to "solution" number two, which is an agreed partition with 18% of land to the TC state.

I strongly believe that a TC that rejects both, is somebody that wants the short term gains I was referring above by using the power of Turkey to enforce something unfair on us.

[turkcyp]

my point of view how things should be?i dont know but bi-zonality dosent seem to be getting anywere,full partion will probably cause more tensions in the future and probably wipe out the t/c in there new country due to turkish interfernce and settlers,i dont know how do countries work with area that are part of there country however have a full autonomy on all aspects of life including education,tourism,economy,argricutlure,infrastructure,local police force etc.

corsica,sardinia areas of spain and many other areas are autonomous how would ths apply to the "trnc" within a united cyprus.

I guess this was the post you have asked me to answer my dear friend. I have just seen it now that you have pointed out.

I did not answer what you are asking here Boulio. But we do not autonomy Boulio. At least my myselfy woyuld not accept it. Because autonomy is not a right, but rather it is a gift from the majority to minority to keep them quite.

And this gift is usually are very very limited. Let’s be clear. We do not want to live in anycountry with GCs or Greeks(as it would be if Enosis happened) in an majority and minority relationship.

We have seen what happened in Crete to Turks, and we are seeing what is currently happening in Thrace to Turks. So we do not want a relationship of political majority/minority. Numerical majority/minority is a fact and will not change unless TCs start f..king around and reproducing in huge numbers. But numerical majority does not entail you to political majority as well.

So we want to live in a country where we are yours equals on political terms. And I know that pure equality can never happen as well. Neither should it. Even in 1960 it was not pure equality. But we want a system where our rights are in the constitution and protected to some degree with some sort of quasi-equality (like 1960, Annan Plan, or either variations of these) at the federal level (or national level whatever you call it)

I guess everybody has to do a priority ranking in their brains in relations to what kind of solution they want in Cyprus. Ranking should involve three scenarios (there are other scenerios but they are highly highly unprobable, so I am not writing them). These three scenarios are. a) Paritition (tems to be negotiated) b) Unified Cyprus (something like 1960 agrrements or Annan Plan or a variation) c) a United Cyprus where there are political majority/minority (something like Greece and and her Turkish citizens)…

Everybody should do this kind of ranking in their brain. For me (c) is never going to be acceptable. And in the current world affairs, (a) and (b) ranks approximately the same.Why? (a) will give me more rights in my own country, with a an ever existing threat of a bigger hostile neighbor on the south of the border and (b) would take away some of my rights but will eliminate the foreign threat and replace it with s smaller internal threat.

GCs, TCs and everybody have to do this kind of soul searching too and vote accordingly to any proposed solution.

Take care and have a great day,

[insan]

how many times did the g/c ruling elite claim they want a funtional bi-zonal federation?what do the t/c ruling elite think of the second part of my question?have they abandined partition dreams or not?

Re bullikkamu

What is functional, bi-zonal and single communal for GC ruling elite is "majority rule" that is not acceptable for TCs under the current circumstances. GC ruling elite have to prove their sincerity regarding how much they want the wellbeing of TCs before they ask "one man one vote" aka "majority rule". Treat TCs good for at least 10 or 15 years; then ask them to accept one man one vote, moreover withdrawal of all foreign troops. Then I'm sure they will agree with you. But under the current circumstances, do know that what you are asking is an impossible dream as a natural consequence of human nature. Let the internal social dynamics of two communities create the climate and enviroment of genuine coexistence, partnership, brotherhood, common interests, joint political and public organizations. These are not the things that can be created by treaties or preaches. Only the good, genuine relations can create such common sense. These are the matters of evolution of the relations of two communities not the matters which can be dictated.