Cyprus-Forum.com

[Afroasiatis]

I have the feeling, a lot of these discussions go in the direction of blaming peoples (GCs, TCs) or countries (Greece, Turkey, UK, USA) for the Cyprus Problem. In my opinion, it would be a better approach to blame situations.

I think Cyprus is to be seen, first of all, as a part of the wider Eastern Question. If Cyprus hadn't been a british colony, the Cyprus problem would most probably get solved around at the same time, in the 1920s, and in the same way as the greek-turkish problems. Cyprus would either belong to Greece or to Turkey or it would be split between the two, with GCs and TCs falling under the regulations for the exchange of populations.

But, Cyprus being a british colony, this happened in a slightly different way some decades later, also being influenced from the new situation, i.e. colonialism and anti-colonial struggle, Cold War.

There isn't much point to speak about what is legitimate. We may say that Enosi was a fair goal, based on principle of self-determination. But in the same way, we could say that the formation of enclaves and a demand for autonomy or even union with Turkey, can also be an expression of self-determination since TCs were the majority there. However, the RoC-government didn't accept this.

The basic mistake was that we accepted the nationalism that came to us from outside, and the split of the Cypriot society into Greek and Turks, who both defended above all the interests of their respective nations. After this happened, it was most probable that the Cyprus Problem would be solved in a similar way as the greek-turkish problems earlier. The exact way would depend simply on balance of power - and as this leaned towards Turkey, we had a solution more favorable to the turkish interests.

This nationalism left no chances for a common anti-colonial fight with the goal of independence. And the colonialists could use this split for serving their own interests.

[Piratis]

The difference between 1920s and 1950s was that a World War happened in between and the UN was formed based on certain principles.

It is true that Turkey was formed basically by committing genocides and ethnic cleansing against Greeks and other Christian people, but that was in a different, pre - UN era. It is for this reason that the UN was formed in the first place. To prevent countries such as Turkey to abuse their military power and expand on the expense of the weak.

The claim that if we were fighting for independence instead of enosis that things would turn out differently is nothing but a myth. For the TCs it doesn't make a difference if they are going to be a minority within a Greek state or a minority within a Cypriot state. Once Ottoman style privileges were offered to them on our expense they would have been more than glad to accept them, regardless of what the aim of the struggle was. This is something proven by now since today enosis is out of the question, but the division is maintained since the foreign Imperialists continue to promise to TCs unfair privileges on our expense.

The TCs are not just an ethnic minority, they are also a linguistic minority and a religious minority. Therefore there are more than enough differences to be exploited.

[Afroasiatis]

I think this overestimation of the role of the UN was one of the basic mistakes of the GC policies.

I disagree on the reason the UN were formed. In my opinion, the real reason was for the winners of WW2 to keep the world under their control, in some sort of a balance between them. The selection of the permanent members of the Security Council shows this.

Among the first things the UN did, was to provide a legal basis for big-scale ethnic cleansing to take place in Palestine, and to recognize a state created through this, disregarding any principle of self-determination of the local population. I also don't know of UN doing anything to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Germans e.g. in Czechoslovakia. So, I think the UN made it clear from the beginning that it can accept ethnic cleansing in principle.

Also, most of the permanent member of SC were exactly countries who used and use their military power to attack weaker countries and bring them under their control, without of course being prevented by UN.

So, I don't think that there was such a big difference between 1920s and 1950s, and the results have shown this. The new reality in Cyprus was formed through ethnic cleansing, the same way the two "mother-countries", Greece and Turkey, were formed on the basis of mutual ethnic cleansing.




Now, a fight for an independence instead of Enosi wasn't a simple thing, you're right. The cypriot society was segregated even before colonialism, and to unite it for a common cause wouldn't be easy, for sure. But it was the only possibility to avoid confrontation. From the moment the GC elites picked Enosi, they also chose the confrontation with the TCs, with the results we all know.

For sure, for an anti-colonial independence movement to be successful, it would be needed to make sure that TCs wouldn't be treated as a minority in the new state. And for this to be avoided, nationalism shouldn't enter Cyprus in the first place, or better, some sort of an alternative Cypriot nationalism should be created to counter it. Very difficult goals in a post-Ottoman society with a long tradition of segregation, but still, the only possibility to avoid conflict. Of course this should also include an agreed special treatment of TCs for some period, to prevent discrimination and to improve their social position.

[Kikapu]

Among the first things the UN did, was to provide a legal basis for big-scale ethnic cleansing to take place in Palestine, and to recognize a state created through this, disregarding any principle of self-determination of the local population. I also don't know of UN doing anything to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Germans e.g. in Czechoslovakia. So, I think the UN made it clear from the beginning that it can accept ethnic cleansing in principle.

Annan Plan, 2004, did give the Green Light for the UN to accept Ethnic Cleansing, Human Rights violation and a undemocratic system of government. Ironically, 24% of the GCs said "YES" to these violated principles, whereas, 35% of the TCs and settlers, said "NO".!!

[Bananiot]

Most of the nations of the Balkans were formed by ethnic cleansing. Greece is no exception. The victorious Greek army in 1913 eradicated whole Turkish and Bulgarian villages and small towns in its path to Salonika and beyond. The creation of homogeneous state nations was the goal at the time.

In 1922, had Cyprus still been under Turkish rule, would have come under the total control of Turkey, no doubt. Greece was not in a position to bargain for anything at the time. Greek Cypriots would have been considered as a minority of a greater Turkey, just like the Greeks of Smyrna.

Of course, we could not appreciate this and in 1955 we started an armed struggle against the British in order to unite Cyprus with Greece, despite the stern warnings of successive Greek governments since 1950. Basically, we thought, and we still foolishly think, that having justice on our side, legitimises us to ask for for maximum gains. This is not how the world is run even if we had justice 100% on our side. The world is a more complex place and interests along with political manoeuvring shape policies and determine outcomes.

What really crosses me is when people see only the the wrongs committed by others and close their eyes to their own wrong doings. Also, the sick notion that someone is our eternal enemy and that for as long as we live we should live to fight against him. This is especially true with neighbours and when we behave like this, applying methods of the past to settle accounts, we should not cry our hearts out when we lose out. At the end of a day, after a conflict, one always wins and the other loses. At least let us lose respectfully.

Please spare us from your every day rhetoric about human rights, democracy and values, for you have been tried and failed, miserably.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

I could agree with you , but.....

Having read part of Dauvtoglu's book on strategic depth, and seeing that the problem is not caused simply and solely by GC ambitions, but mostly by the entrenched and long term goals of others, It is obvioius that GCs are the lowest ranking causes of the problem.

Davutoglu is the one who said that even if there was not a single moslem (note, not a single Turk, but moslem) on the island Turkey should still seek a controlling hand in the island's affairs. When your neighbors behave like pezevenghides you cannot sit idly by and watch as they plan to control your fate.

Whether the reaction to foreign control is called nationalism, patriotism, fascism, or anything else, I hardly care. The paramount goal is to stop the foreign control. And no, I am not naive or silly to believe this is something to be won by exclusively military means. But it must be won. Which brings us back to Christofias red lines and the rest of his approach. They are fine, but I will add one more time: territory is fundamental both for the GCs and the TCs. THe only side that gains from an unjust territorial settlement is Turkey. The rest of us lose.

[Bananiot]

I could also agree with you, but Davutoglu was not around in 1922 and, we did everything in our power to accommodate the aspirations of Turks who think like Davutoglu. Turkey's involvement was not inevitable, at least not to this extend. Had we played our hand better, we could have avoided the worse. Even the 1960 Constitution was a blessing in disguise, but of course we put our heads down like a bull that charges at the sword of the killer matador.

[boulio]

THe 1960 Constitution was created to fail.With so many blocking mechanism it was designed to cause friction on a ethnic basis since thats how the state of affairs were created after zurich in 1959.If the majority cannot pass a simple budget then the country was doomed to fail.The seperate municipaties that was enshrined in the 1960 constitution and was the cause for the deadlock even though in the constitution were created to eventually form seperate turkish enclaves.

[Nikitas]

Our politial immaturity, inexperience and self righteousness of the 50s do not excuse the developments others want to foisti on us now.

There was no EU or Council of Europe in 1922 either. They are real now and provide a framework in which we can rely and insist not on our view being right, but what others, (presumably wiser and stronger than us), have said is the right way to do things.

It is realistic to accept BBF, it is total nonsense to accept the settlers as part of that deal. This is neither fascist nor nationalist, it is basic commonsense for future survival. Crumbling under pressure to be "realistic" or "reasonable" now would be a lot worse than what we did in the 50s. We do not have the excuse of immaturity or naivete today. We know the cost precisely.

As for Greek insistence on a homegenous population, when you see the use made of minotiries by Turkey (an arch adopter of homegeneity herself) you understand the thinking of the Greeks in the early 20the century. The Greeks could have done the same, but the Turks were wise enough to wipe out the Greek minorities since 1922 and are still doing today. Read the latest news from Imvros and Tenedos.

[boulio]

Nikitas what is your opinion on who gets to stay in the north?

if a turk is married t a t/c do there offspring be considered t/c?

or a turk born and raised in cyprus what do you consider him?