The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Minority

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby insan » Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:05 pm

In Clerides's "My Deposition" one can find the letters exhanged between the junta and Makarios and anyone can see that the colonels tried in vein to pursuade Makarios to accept a deal that gave the TC a limited amount of self government.



Are you sure of that Bananiot?

Was the reson of EOKA-Bs violent actions for this purpose?

And this also can be interpreted as Juntas and EOKA-Bs aim wasn't ENOSIS.

In his interview which was made a few months after the events of 1974, Makarios said the oppsite of this...
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby insan » Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:42 pm

I accept ALL of the above, exactly the way they are.

Do you accept them too? YES OR NO?


Piratis, I accept them too... but as it happened in 1955, 1963, 1971 and 1974; just a small percentage of violaters would be more than enough to demolish the public order, there's no doubt when we take two communities extremists into consideration e.g Ex EOKA-Bs and TMTs political stance, existance of Grey Wolves and Chrissy Avgi their media companies Machi, Volkan, Simerini and Vatan; the future of unified Cyprus can be guessed clearly...

So... Although some restrictions on right to settlement, buying property and presence of foreign forces, guarantorship of foreign countries are contradictory to the principles of universal human rights; they are inevitably a must for Cyprus under these conditions.


We should take all circumstances into consideration if we really wish security and viability in an unified Cyprus. The cost which arise from Cypruses special circumstances can't be considered as violation of human rights.


But some day if we ever have managed to build a genuine partnership, colloboration; then we can easily remove all restrictions, foreign forces, guarantorships etc.

A chance to achieve this had given us in 1960 but both communities couldn't manage to see the realities and solve their problems peacefully on a political ground because they had been the prisoners of their national aspirations, fears, anger and hatred.
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby erolz » Sat Aug 14, 2004 3:48 pm

Piratis wrote:
Can you answer directly? Or you will try to avoid it again?


How about you driectly answer my question first and then I will consider your questions? Does that sound fair or not?

Do, in your opinion, TC have a right to a degree of self determination, or not? It's a simple question.

PS here is a link to help you answer this question.

http://www.eleves.ens.fr/home/blondeel/law.html
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/a_ccpr.htm
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby erolz » Sat Aug 14, 2004 4:12 pm

Piratis wrote: So demands for human rights is something that increases your concerns. Of course it is!! Since you stole our land, and your aim is to keep them for yourselves, right? Thats why human rights scare you so much!!


No yet again your ability to misunderstand or pervert what I said seems to know no bounds. What concerns me is insincerity, inconsitency, intransigence, an overbearing attitude of self rightgeousness, aggression, inabilty to be objective, inabilty to admit mistakes or errors and many more traits besides.
If my objective was to 'steal your land' then I would not be here discussing anything with you.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:58 pm

How about you driectly answer my question first and then I will consider your questions? Does that sound fair or not?

Do, in your opinion, TC have a right to a degree of self determination, or not? It's a simple question.


I already answered this!! Have a look in the previous page!
I will repeat:
If by "self determination" you mean:
the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.

Then of course you have the right. I thought you meant something else, but if this is what you mean then most definitely you have the right of the above.
Is it clear now? Or you will ask me again in your next post?

About the new links that you gave me I definitely agree with everything in the UN one. The other one I didn't read because it seems to me is just the interpretation of one person and not something universally accepted.

So now you are going to answer to my question or what?

Insan, as you saw in my thread http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=211 I accept as a compromise many things. I expect from you to do the same: compromise. If you don't do that, and you come like Erolz, and you claim that we should shift those ideas more toward you because of this right of yours, then I can also came with 10 rights of ours that say that it should be shifted in our direction.

So, if you want a "price that you can bargain with", this "price" includes ALL human rights and all international laws. If you want the minimum possible "price" then go here and read it again: http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=211 . But if you start from those positions, there is absolutely no bargain. Thats the lowest I can accept. (and I believe thats the lowest most GC can accept).

So, (to make it clear for Erolz), when you bargain with me, you bargain with the "full price". The other "price" as described in the above link is either take it or leave it (just minor adjustments). So you can choose if you want to bargain with the "full" price, or simply accept the "minimum price".
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:00 pm

If my objective was to 'steal your land' then I would not be here discussing anything with you.


And what is your objective?
Some have as an objective to legalize what they stole. You?
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Bananiot » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:07 pm

Dear Insan, I think you are absolutely right to be asking these questions. I will try to give some answers as I understand them.

For a start, the letters exchanged between the junta and Makarios prior to 1971 can be found in the 3rd volume of "My Deposition" of Clerides. During that period the junta (under Papadopoulos) seemed to be following a moderate policy on the Greek-Turko relations.

Regarding Clerides, now. There is no doubt that Clerides is a pragmatic politician and a moderate one. In 1963 he disagreed with the endeavours of Makarios to change the constitution but eventual he drew them up because he was the sole voice of sanity and as he explained many times, any deviation from Makarios's line would have meant his political extinction. At the time even AKEL supported the changes, simply because Makarios said so. The extreme right wing welcomed the changes and if a referendum was held, Makarios would have made the 76% of Papadopoulos look like a dwarf. Clerides chickened out and wrote the document proposing the changes! The Greek government was against the move by Makarios and this was made obvious in a letter written by Foreign Minister Averof. Makarios threw it in the dustbin. It has been reported that Makarios at the time trusted a great deal the British Ambassador, Sir Arthur Clark, who reassured Makarios he was doing the right thing. He even made chances to the document before it was submitted. In other words, Makarios trusted the representative of a foreign power more than he trusted the democratically elected George Papandreou.

Clerides formed DISI in 1974 and it is quite correct that this party incorporated all shades of the right. The extreme right found shelter in DISI and this is in my opinion (if it counts at all) a weakness on behalf of Clerides. When asked to explain he said that in this way he could control them and eventually neutralise their profound nationalism. Ideally, the extreme right should have their own party but knowing that they would be isolated, they chose to hibernate in DISI. Thus, DISI became a non homogenious party which incorporated the unrependant coupists along with the "european rihgt" and Clerides tried to walk on a tight rope and balance things. He managed this in an admirable manner and by 1993 he won the presidential elections. Obviously the vote of the extreme right was instrumental for winning the elections. At this point I would like to point out that members and sympathisers of EOKA B found shelter in other parties, including DIKO and EDEK.

The recent events exposed the dual nature of DISI. The die-hard nationalist fanatics rejected the plea of Clerides to vote for Annan's plan and even voted against him in the elections that brought Papadopoulos to power. Papadopoulos won them over by promising that he would never agree to a federal solution. After the referendum, they officially left DISI and formed their own party.

Anastasiades has an easier task than Clerides. He can drug the party to the centre and pursue moderate policies to tackle the cyprob and social issues, without worrying of the backlash of the extreme rightists who are now safely caged in their brand new party and NEO. Let me give you one example in order to substantiate this point. At the recent memorial service in Paralimni for Isaak and Solomou, a group of "Chrisi Avgi" fanatics appeared shouting chauvinistic slogans of the type "I want to drink turkish blood". Well, nobody seemed to mind. AKEL said nothing, all kept their mouth shut. The only political leader that issued a strong worded announcement to condemn the fascists was Anastasiades! He actually labelled them fascist and I can understand your amazement. We are amazed too, the world seems to be turning on its head!

I think DISI has a chance to become a widely respected party now with the removal of the hard-core right from it. Many people in AKEL have already recognised this and pay lip service, at least, to the new DISI. They respect the stance of DISI in the referendum and say that Anastasiades has bigger ... cojoles than Christofias.

I think, if I read correctly your questions, you would like to know whether the TC community can trust DISI. At the moment, as things stand, they are the only GC party you can trust. DISI has taken over the traditional role of AKEL as the champion of rapproachment. This is quite sad as far as I am concerned, because DISI and AKEL could together perform miracles regarding the solution to our problem. Unfortunately Christofias is pursuing the path of Papadopoulos right now and he has no time for rapproachment any more.

Also, I have no info that Clerides was ever involved in the Akritas plan and that he built monuments for EOKA B. If you know different please tell me. Regarding Grivas, they say that they honour the man who led the struggle against the Brits only, but here even AKEL agreed that Grivas was a "worthy son of Cyprus".

I hope I have managed to shed some light on the issues you raised. I tried to be as impartial as possible in order to paint a clear and true picture.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby MicAtCyp » Sat Aug 14, 2004 10:20 pm

I wouldn’t expect any different type of answer from you Erol other than the usual one.And I continue to consider your answers very cloudy (thats what I meant when I said you don't give straight answers) and I apologise in advance if you still consider my view offensing after this clarification, but sorry this is what I honestly beleive.

Erol wrote: It is also my belief that human rights are not a simple or black and white issues.


And my beleif is that the whole Cyprus problem is a problem of violations of human rights.Starting from the very basic one that of human life and going to the second basic that of owneship.And I disagree with you that there is a mid way concerning the human rights.Its like telling me there is a mid way between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant. No, there is no mid-way.There no woman who is "a little pregnant".Either she is or she is not.

Erol wrote: we have on the one hand a valid basic right (imo) of TC to a degree of self determination and we have the equaly valid right of GC to freedom of travel and abode in Cyprus and to access and ownership of thier properties


The communities don't have self determination rights.It is the people of Cyprus as a whole that have self determination rights.(see the article you already posted). But yet you used that word "to a degree" to cloud your position as usual....
Woops you gave the correct answer inside another post later on, i.e
Erol wrote: We can discuss the details of what that right means and should mean in a Cypriot context if you wish

Yes I agree thats the context of self determination.The communities don't have it.

Erol wrote: If you still feel that such feelings are invalid or unreasonable then so be it.


They are not invalid in connection with human greedy nature.They are invalid as a legal framework that will safeguard our(both of us) proper type of living in a solution
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:11 pm

There is no doubt that Clerides is a pragmatic politician and a moderate one.

Talk for yourself.
he was the sole voice of sanity and as he explained many times, any deviation from Makarios's line would have meant his political extinction.

The extreme right found shelter in DISI and this is in my opinion (if it counts at all) a weakness on behalf of Clerides.


Come on! Cleredes always supported the actions of EOKA-B. The reason that he was not open about it, is because as you said he was a chicken, interested only for the chair, and he didn't want to admit such thing openly. EOKA-B ended up in DISI by coincidence ... yeah, right! :roll:

The recent events exposed the dual nature of DISI. The die-hard nationalist fanatics rejected the plea of Clerides to vote for Annan's plan and even voted against him in the elections that brought Papadopoulos to power. Papadopoulos won them over by promising that he would never agree to a federal solution. After the referendum, they officially left DISI and formed their own party.


You are lying
1) Papadopoulos never promised that would never agree to a federal solution.
2)EOKA-B members like Karras, are still in DISI and they didn't go to any other parties. The traitors remained in DISI. Those that left are those that didn't want to be traitors (again).

Anastasiades has an easier task than Clerides. He can drug the party to the centre and pursue moderate policies

Sure, he can drug his party anywhere, not just to the center, but even to the left. You forgot that he was promising Omirou of EDEK the presidency with only aim to brake the 3 party partnership in order to promote Cleredes? In the end though he got "my 3" :lol:

I think DISI has a chance to become a widely respected party now

Sure sure. Disi has so much respect now, they don't know where to store it. Last poll for politicians ratings I saw, Papadopoulos and Christofias were first with 8, and Anastasiades was last with ... 3! Thats definitely a very wide respect. :lol:
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Sat Aug 14, 2004 11:52 pm

Piratis wrote: I already answered this!! Have a look in the previous page!
I will repeat:
If by "self determination" you mean:
the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.

Then of course you have the right. I thought you meant something else, but if this is what you mean then most definitely you have the right of the above.
Is it clear now? Or you will ask me again in your next post?


I will ask again because I more interested in your view on this UN declaration on human rights (as I am sure you know!)

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.


you say below

About the new links that you gave me I definitely agree with everything in the UN one.


yet previously you said

That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing


So once again I ask you does the UN decleration I refer to, in your opinion apply to TC or not? A simple yes or no will suffice, because so far you seem to want to say both yes and no. Do you still insit that TC have no right to self determination or not? If you think that the UN decleration that I have quoted does not apply to the TC people then say so!

So now you are going to answer to my question or what?


Still waiting for a straight answer from you first.

micatcyp wrote:And I disagree with you that there is a mid way concerning the human rights.Its like telling me there is a mid way between a woman being pregnant and not being pregnant. No, there is no mid-way.There no woman who is "a little pregnant".Either she is or she is not.


I am not saying there is a mid-way point in individual rights. I said that human rights (issues) are not simple or black and white. The reason this is so is that one persons (or group of peoples) rights can and do impinge on another persons (or group of peoples) rights. This is a reality and is why the issue of (human) rights is complex.

It is the people of Cyprus as a whole that have self determination rights.(see the article you already posted).


There is no such reality as (a single unifed) Cypriot people. Here are some excerpts from the link I posted above and the 'views' of Robert McCorquodale - Fellow and Lecturer in Law, St John's College, University of Cambridge, to help your understanding of this complex issue.

``Who are the `peoples' to whom the right applies?'' This has been a constant question raised since the earliest discussions of the right of self-determination,50 as ``there is nothing within the confines of the self-determination formula itself to give guidance on the definition and concretisation of the self''.51 Many answers have been offered to this question, with the ``peoples'' approach being to set out some objective conditions or characteristics which have to be satisfied before a group is defined as being a ``people'' and so entitled to the the right of self-determination. Some of these conditions have included : common historical tradition ; racial or ethnic identity ; cultural homogeneity ; linguistic unity ; religious or ideological affinity ; territorial connection ; common economic life ; and being a certain number.52 Another ``peoples'' approach has been to limit the peoples entitled to the right to only ``the peoples of a State in their entirety'',53 which avoids the consideration of any other possible factors."


So comparing the the 'conditions' between my view that TC and GC represent seperate peoples and yours that there is just a single Cypriot people.

Do all cypriots have a common historical tradition or do TC and GC have different historical traditions?
Do all cypriots have a common racial or ethnic identity or do TC and GC have different racial and ethinc identites?
and so on.

There is also the other approach "the peoples of a State in their entirety" mentioned by this learned person. My view on this is that if the state existed before the seperate peoples did then it could be argued this is the appropriate approach. However there was NO cypriot state before 1960. The original cypriot state was _founded_ and _agreed_ on a prinicpal of 'two seperate peoples in Cyprus'. If GC are now to argue that there is in fact only one 'people' in Cyprus then I see little hope of any future progress. There are two peoples in Cyprus. This was understood and agreed in 1960 (before a cypriot state existed), it is understood today (by any sensible non extermist person in my view). It is clear that today TC are a 'people' and that Cypriots are not a single 'people' (unfortunate given the opportunites we had from 1960 onwards to make this a reality) in my view. This is clear to me becaue we have differnt cultural, historical, linguistic and religous backgrounds - and have had before any single state of Cyprus existed.

But yet you used that word "to a degree" to cloud your position as usual....


I used the words 'to a degree' because I believe that these issues are not simple or black and white. Beacuse I believe in fair compromise. Because I do not believe that absolutism is constructive or helpful. Because I do not seek to 'lecture' on human rights. Because I believe that there is a hope (no matter how small or seemingly impossible judging from these forums to date) that the two seperate peoples in cyprus today could one day truely become one people in one state in the future.

Piratis wrote:
So, (to make it clear for Erolz), when you bargain with me, you bargain with the "full price". The other "price" as described in the above link is either take it or leave it (just minor adjustments). So you can choose if you want to bargain with the "full" price, or simply accept the "minimum price".


And this for me clearly highlights how totaly different your (and micatcyp's) approach to a 'solution' to cyprus are from mine.

You seem to think that the 'reason' for a solution is on the GC side to regain that which they lost in 74 and on the TC side to exit from international exclusion. Micatcyp (from memory - appologies if my memory is wrong) has previously stated on another forum words to the effect that if the GC had no lost properties and the TC had no sanctions against them - then there would never be a united Cyprus. I think your view piratis is very similar to this? For me unity in Cyprus is not a means to an end (to either get back lost property / right to abode or end economic sanctions) but an end in itself. I do not want unity for the econmic benefits it could bring me (or other TC) - I want it because I believe unity is better than division. For you it seems, as shown by your very language, that this is some kind of economic barganing. GC want X. TC want Y. If and agreement can be found that gives GC their X and TC their Y that both agree to, then unity is achieved (but unity is not the primary goal which is X for GC and Y for TC). You seem to feel that force through loss (either properties/access or economic opportuintes) is the only motivation than can lead to unity on cyprus. I believe than any settlement based on such ideas can only fail ultimately. This is why I am more concerned with 'what is in peoples hearts'. For me a true and lasting united Cyprus can only be achieved when the desire for unity is stronger and more important to GC than their desire to regain what they lost and the desire of TC for unity is stronger and more important than their desire to be free of international embargoes. In my view until this desire for unity is stronger in a majority of cypriots from both sides than any other desires they have then any settlement, no matter how carefully bargined, no matter how based on declarations of human rights or not, or on international norms or not, is doomed to fail.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests