The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


AKEL-Denktas-Papadopoulos

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Piratis » Wed Apr 14, 2004 2:09 am

I do not believe that this use of a technicality can an be an excuse


You refer to the occupation as a "technicality"?

In your mind because the TC do not rebel against the turkish army we are simply an extension of it, is n't this true?


No, in my mind most T/C (I am not referring to anyone in here) are brainwashed. They made them believe that G/C and T/C can not live together again, that T/C deserve a separate state (not just federation), and that Turkish army is there to protect them and serve the T/C interests.

The TC preception is that this is just a continuation of the situation fermented in the 1960's where the turk element of the TC was very much in focus and the distinction between us and the turks of turkey was minimal if anything.


This is not true and it is not just my opinion. The separation in the educational system, when the politicians talk etc is clear.

The TC side simply wanted/wants the implementation of the rights that your side had agreed to earlier.


What we agreed is Republic of Cyprus first, and federation later. We are ready to implement with T/C any of those. But we didn’t agree about confederation, or the settlers etc. For example in Annan plan each state has its own citizenship, its own FIR etc. Things that go beyond federation and we have never, and will never, agree for.
This is a good example why we should not accept anything now with hope that it will change later. Because later you will come and tell us: "You agree for it, it is our right now".

Do you seriously believe that from 60-63 the human rights of GCs were curtailed? During 63-74 human rights ment nothing to your side, only when you suffered human rights violations did they suddenly become important.


Although I am sure you would agree RC gave a lot of extra privileges to T/C I do not think G/Cs human rights were violated by the state. This is again part of the human nature I was talking before. I made it clear that I didn’t mean that T/C are the bad guys and G/C are angels. This is why when we start something new we should make sure that this new thing will be democratic with respect to human rights. Now both sites know what violations of human rights mean, now we will be part of the EU, and we can look into a bright future without the mistakes and crimes of the past.

You imply again that in "Human nature" since the TC will gain more then they deserve and as such there could be no give-and-take in the future since the TC side would have taken everything.


Yes.

In this scenario the security concerns of the TC will no longer be of concern because trust would have been established and that for both GC and TC states the removal of one layer of government would mean lots of money would be saved resulting in either lower taxs (good) or better public services (also good).


If it was just a financial issue Cyprus problem would have been solved long time ago. There are other reasons more complicated starting from the leaders (look how Denctash fights to keep his Kingdom) to the factor called Turkey. In any case if you are so sure that this thing would happen, why not agree (and sign) from now when and how the transitions would happen? If you are honest in what you say, then such arrangement would take care of the concerns of both of us.

The reason I did the maths …


Again, if you do the same maths for both sides you will see that T/C get a lot more than G/C.

When voting for the Senates 48 seats (split 24-24) the GC and TC will vote throughout the island for either a GC or TC candidate respecting the political equality of the 1960 agreement. So in short no one is denied a vote.


I replied with that fact because you said that the G/C that will return under the T/C component state will reduce somehow the authority that the T/C state will have over that 29%. If G/C will always have to be a minority in the T/C state and each village separately and they will not have a vote in the T/C senate, then how exactly are the G/C that return reduce your authority over the whole 29% of your component state?

As I just mentioned major elements of what you propose is in the Annan V plan. Interestingly I have to point out there was a couple of occasions even during the 63-74 period that both the sides agreed on 99% but that 1% could n't be found.


This plan can be thought as a federal (instead of confederal) version of the Annan plan minus settlers minus foreign troops and dependencies. Thus creating an independent democratic state where human rights are respected and the T/C desire for some autonomy is taken care of. (and as I said a transitional period until all these happen could be agreed).

This is a win-win solution unlike the Annan plan. This can be seen when 80% of G/C vote “No” (even with all those threats) and 65% of T/C vote “yes” (even including the settlers!). Such plans will remain on paper. If we work on the plan I propose, I am sure we can get a minimum of 65% yes vote from both sides (not including settlers).

From what I have read the number is 30,000.


Well, 30.000 as a percentage of G/C is still much smaller compared to 100.000 compared with yours. But if your information is right then this is very worrying and I don’t like it at all.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Wed Apr 14, 2004 6:44 am

Pontian Greeks are not 100.000, they are a very small number compared to Turkish Settlers.

Please excuse my ignorance, but who are Pontian Greeks? I know there used to be Greeks in the north shores of Turkey, around Black Sea region, and they formed an independent Pontian Empire for a short time period before the Republic of Turkey was declared, I believe. So that's where I know the name Pontian, but I don't know exactly what distinguishes a Greek and a Pontian Greek, and where do these people normally reside today?
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:30 am

Most Pontian Greeks used to live in Turkey (around 700.000) but Turks killed about 300.000 of them along with the Armenians and the rest where forced to leave.

Pontian Greeks have their own dialect and customs, so they are different from Greeks in Greece in a similar way that we are different.

The ones that came to Cyprus over the last decade came from areas of the Black sea that belongs to countries of the former USSR, mainly Georgia I think. After the fall of the USSR many of those people immigrated to Greece for a better life.

I guess that Greece having a lot of illegal immigrants coming mainly from Albania and other Balkan areas couldn’t cope, and asked from Cyprus to take part of these Pontians and our government accepted.

From what I see Pontians living in Cyprus speak both Greek and Russian, but unfortunately, most of them are uneducated and trouble makers. This is not of course because of who they are, but because of the bad conditions they lived for several decades.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby metecyp » Wed Apr 14, 2004 7:57 am

Most Pontian Greeks used to live in Turkey (around 700.000) but Turks killed about 300.000 of them along with the Armenians and the rest where forced to leave

As far as I know, when Republic of Turkey was formed, Turkey and Greece made an agreement regarding Greek minority living in Turkey, and Turkish minority living in Greece. According to the agreement, all Greeks living in Anatolia, except Greeks from Istanbul, were to migrate to Greece, and all Turks living in Greece were to migrate to Turkey (exception of Western Thrace, I think, I'm not sure). So did this "forced" leaving happen during this time, or were Pontians all gone before this agreement was implemented?
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby Piratis » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:39 am

According to this site:
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.c ... 20transfer

Prior to population transfer in 1922, during the interval from 1914 to 1922, Greeks suffered to Pontian Genocide following the model of the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Young Turk government several years earlier. Population transfer prevented further genocide of the Pontian Greeks.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby mehmet » Wed Apr 14, 2004 10:03 am

As a contribution to the discussion on Pontian Greeks, when I was in travelling from Trabzon to Istanbul some time ago I got talking to a man who after I introduce myself as a Cypriot described himself to me as og being of Greek ethnicity but living in Black Sea area of Turkey. As he spoke to me in Turkish my guess was that there must be others like him who are assimilated but who consider themselves ethnically Greek. This attitude also exists within Armenian, Arabic and Kurdish communities. You have to remember that apart from Istanbul Greeks, Turkish state deny existence of any ethnic minority within the state after population transfer agreed between Ataturk and Venizelos following establishment of Republic of Turkey.

Piratis, stop thinking we are brainwashed. It is patronising and saves you the effort of considering why Turkish Cypriots might even today be concerned about security within future state. Fact: Turkish Cypriots welcome Turkish army as liberaters in 1974. Even the ones living in the south choose to go north. That said it doesn't mean that all Turkish Cypriots think Greek Cypriots and they can't live together again. The problems were caused by a minority within your community who your community allowed to exercise power in excess of their numbers. As your textbooks described us in negative terms there was a kind of passive acceptance of actions against Turkish Cypriot community. What were AKEL doing in the spirit of internationalism during this period? As we saw from NAZI Germany you don't need to be in majority to gain power, many Germans ask themselves after the war how they let minority exert such power. I am not of course comparing EOKA with NAZI's but I am trying to explain to you why Turkish Cypriots are more anxious about security issue, not because we are less 'brave' than Greek Cypriots.
mehmet
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)

Re: AKEL-Denktas-Papadopoulos

Postby michalis5354 » Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:26 pm

metecyp wrote:
And, according to the author, UN and EU are furious about the secret plan. And a high-rank EU official said Greek side would pay if these are true. He supposedly said EU might confirm the two entities on the island by inviting Talat to join the 'Cyprus union with EU' ceremonies [if the Greek side really tried to stop an agreement]

I don't know if these are all true, but it was published in the biggest newspaper in the north by the mostly read author under the title [Cooperation of Turkish and Greek Cypriot status quo supporters].


I have read similar comments published by politis newspaper that If TCs says Yes and GCs say No Then the USA should consider very carefully their approach towards the North Part of the island .

Which means that a recognition of the North is very likely in the future given the above circumstances.
User avatar
michalis5354
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 10:48 am

Postby metecyp » Wed Apr 14, 2004 8:26 pm

As a contribution to the discussion on Pontian Greeks, when I was in travelling from Trabzon to Istanbul some time ago I got talking to a man who after I introduce myself as a Cypriot described himself to me as og being of Greek ethnicity but living in Black Sea area of Turkey

I also remember reading in a Turkish magazine that there are some distant villages in Karadeniz (Black Sea) region where people consider themselves Turkish, but they speak some dialect of Greek. I would like to go and visit that region in the future, I've heard it's the most beautiful part of Turkey.
User avatar
metecyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:53 pm
Location: Cyprus/USA

Postby rengarenk » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:08 am

You refer to the occupation as a "technicality"?


No I never I said that. What I said was it is a technicality to use the presence of the army of the republic of turkey as an excuse for the demonisation of an entire ethnic group. Since ethnic turks are the eternal enemy of the greeks, I too must be your enemy as would be any turk of bulgaria, greece, azerbaijan, iran or some central asian country you never heard.

This is not true and it is not just my opinion. The separation in the educational system, when the politicians talk etc is clear.


Politicians of course do not, but both sides textbooks and teaching of history will definitely be altered after an examined by the Reconcillation Commision in the Annan Plan. Peace campaginers on both sides acknowledge that this is one of the biggest problems.

No, in my mind most T/C (I am not referring to anyone in here) are brainwashed.


This is a very silly thing to say. Either you as are saying that in general T/C people are easily brainwashed, which would be racist remark or you think that people who do not see things the same way as you have been brainwashed which is not a very good argument.

They made them believe that G/C and T/C can not live together again


No they did n't, you need to understand between the words can and want. Most T/C believe they can live together with G/C but alot of T/C don't want to after 63-74 events.

I'ill give you for example of my parents who are from what was a mixed village in the karpaz area. As T/C from karpaz we are (supposedly) meant to be the most friendly towards G/C for some reason. My parents families never had any problems with their G/C neighbours, infact after the army came my late grandfather would buy food (flour, eggs, etc) for them since it became very hard for G/C to do so.

Now both my parents say they can live with G/C but would prefer (ie want) not to. My father has a business degree, he is an educated man, has he been brainwashed?

that T/C deserve a separate state (not just federation)


This is too simplistic and mainly wrong, I was born in the late 70's I have ID document that is for the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus". Negotiations where always based on federation, in 1983 TRNC constitution has an artical that says it may after agreement with G/C to become part of a federation. After G/C applied to EU that artical was removed and confederation was the solution sought.

and that Turkish army is there to protect them and serve the T/C interests.


T/C people are not as stupid as you may think, they all know that the army is there to serve Turkey otherwise they would n't have come. However T/C also know that if they did n't come, greece would have annexed cyprus and we would be a new "muslim minority" along with the turks of western thrace. If the coup did n't happen and the army did n't come the 63-74 period would have continued until the T/C simply had to submit to all your demands, can't you see that?

It's all very well for you to go on and on about the turkish army, but from 64-73 you had 20,000 soldiers from greece in cyprus with full G/C consent.

What we agreed is Republic of Cyprus first, and federation later.
We are ready to implement with T/C any of those. But we didn’t agree about confederation, or the settlers etc. For example in Annan plan each state has its own citizenship, its own FIR etc. Things that go beyond federation and we have never, and will never, agree for.


Firstly like I said before, the ROC is the basis for any federal arrangement. All UN resolutions call for a bi-zonal, bi-communical, federation (BBF) and not a "pure" federation which you would like to believe. The Annan plan reflects this, it is not a confederation but also not a "pure" federation.

Also please tell me if you have actually read the Annan plan, because you are wrong again on FIR. Footnote 10 on page 24 in the english version states FIR falls under the federal government.

As for citizenship, if you take the EU to be a de-facto federation (and probably will be formally once a constitution is in place) you have an EU citizenship (with an EU passport) and citizenship of your member state. The state citizenship in the Annan plan is the same as this arrangement.

As for settlers, well you have lots of foreigners in cyprus which the T/C did n't agree too, we're not asking them to leave.

This is a good example why we should not accept anything now with hope that it will change later. Because later you will come and tell us: "You agree for it, it is our right now".


The Annan plan does n't ask for any changes in the future, if you agree you agree and there is no going back. Once you agree to something and sign you can't suddenly change your mind and then try to punish us until we agree to changes like after 1963.

Although I am sure you would agree RC gave a lot of extra privileges to T/C I do not think G/Cs human rights were violated by the state. This is again part of the human nature I was talking before.


What you call an "extra priviledge" I call a safeguard. These safeguards in the 1960 constitution did n't mean that the ROC was n't democratic nor did it mean that there was no human rights. In fact even the 1960 consitition passes the EU democracy and human rights test because it's the one the G/C side will join the EU with for the whole island.

I made it clear that I didn’t mean that T/C are the bad guys and G/C are angels. This is why when we start something new we should make sure that this new thing will be democratic with respect to human rights. Now both sites know what violations of human rights mean, now we will be part of the EU, and we can look into a bright future without the mistakes and crimes of the past.


I've never said you never acknowledged the 63-74 period. There were bad T/C in that period too. Like I said the 1960 constition is not anti-democratic or against human rights it was just that one side did n't stick to the agreement. Now as for Annan plan, if it was not democratic or against human rights the EU would not endorse it like it has.

If it was just a financial issue Cyprus problem would have been solved long time ago. There are other reasons more complicated starting from the leaders (look how Denctash fights to keep his Kingdom) to the factor called Turkey. In any case if you are so sure that this thing would happen, why not agree (and sign) from now when and how the transitions would happen? If you are honest in what you say, then such arrangement would take care of the concerns of both of us.


That was an example of give and take, because you said the T/C would never give anything. I said this was a measure that could be done once the T/C side fully trusts the G/C. To use your "human nature" argument once someone betrays your trust it takes time to rebuild it, trust is hard to gain and easily lost.

How long it would take I dont know, there's no scientific way of working out how long it takes to build trust. What I suggested was you could negotiate changes you want every 10 years and then put them to referendum or some similar arrangement. Besides, neither side has put anything like this forward and as far as I am aware this is just a chat board and not real negotiations so I'm sorry I cannot sign on behalf of the entire T/C's.

Again, if you do the same maths for both sides you will see that T/C get a lot more than G/C.


I replied with that fact because you said that the G/C that will return under the T/C component state will reduce somehow the authority that the T/C state will have over that 29%. If G/C will always have to be a minority in the T/C state and each village separately and they will not have a vote in the T/C senate, then how exactly are the G/C that return reduce your authority over the whole 29% of your component state?


Firstly, there is no such thing as the T/C Senate, there is the federal senate which can approve or handback laws from the chamber of deputies, it is simply a safeguard. G/C in the T/C state will be able to vote for senate members towards one of the 24 G/C senators. Let me repeat myself one last time no G/C will be denied any vote

Secondly, since G/C residing in the T/C state will have T/C state citizenship they will legally have exactly the same rights as a T/C residing in the T/C state. It is not about the the T/C state losing authority, any states authority stems from it's citizens so it's G/C citizens will share authority in that 29% as a percentage of the total population.

What it sounds like to me is that you are saying that as the majority, the T/C side will de-facto have authority of the whole 29%. If this is the case then bravo, you've just argued that being a T/C minority in a cyprus unitry state would effectively mean that our 18% would de-facto count for 0%, I applaud you sir.

This plan can be thought as a federal (instead of confederal) version of the Annan plan minus settlers minus foreign troops and dependencies. Thus creating an independent democratic state where human rights are respected and the T/C desire for some autonomy is taken care of. (and as I said a transitional period until all these happen could be agreed).


Like I said, Annan plan is neither federal or confederal but implements a BBF based on the 1960 ROC and it is n't against democracy or human rights otherwise the EU would not have endorsed it.

This is a win-win solution unlike the Annan plan. This can be seen when 80% of G/C vote “No” (even with all those threats) and 65% of T/C vote “yes” (even including the settlers!). Such plans will remain on paper. If we work on the plan I propose, I am sure we can get a minimum of 65% yes vote from both sides (not including settlers).


Unless you've done some kind of proper opinion polling over atleast around 1000 from each side how can you even come up with these numbers?

Well, 30.000 as a percentage of G/C is still much smaller compared to 100.000 compared with yours. But if your information is right then this is very worrying and I don’t like it at all.


Trust me this is n't a competition. It seems that the news got around and suddenly everyone from the ex USSR was pontian greek, I think there is some kind of interview now but I'm not sure.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

Postby rengarenk » Thu Apr 15, 2004 8:50 am

A quick few words about the 1923 population exchange, when it happened the criteria for the exchange was religion as religion in those days was more important in terms of identity.

So you had alot of greek speaking muslims going from greece to turkey and turkish speaking christians going in the other direction.

The most interesting of the latter is the people from karaman, they spoke their own turkish dialect (karamanli) and wrote it using the greek alphabet. Most (not all) of them were descendents of the first turkish tribes that arrived in anatolia who were alied with with byzantines before even the seljuks empire existed. They converted from shamanism (original turkish religion) to become christians and even converted the bible into karamanli. Since the Ottomans did n't force conversion to islam they stayed christians until the population exchange. So bizarely they ended up with some of the original 1000 year old ethnic turkish population of anatolia begin sent to greece.

Another interesting fact is that the bouzuki arrived in greece with the population exchange and that's why its name is based on a turkish word bozuk.
rengarenk
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 9:26 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests