The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Did you know?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Cyprus and the EU

Postby Europhile » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:26 pm

Piratis,

Nobody but the citizens of the EU "owns" the EU. But a majority of them by their elected leaders have resolved to accept the candidacy of Turkey to the EU and, just as Cyprus had to go through a process of accession negotiations so will Turkey as and when the EU as a body has determined that internally Turkey is ready for that process.

And when the time comes and the accession negotiations have been completed, the peoples of Europe each in accordance with their respective constitutions will decide.

As for your remark:-

We will be here, like we've been for the last 3.500 years and nobody can take Cyprus away from us.


I agree. But whether you are welcome in the international community depends on the extent to which you play by its rules.
Europhile
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: London

Postby Piratis » Tue Aug 31, 2004 10:39 pm

agree. But whether you are welcome in the international community depends on the extent to which you play by its rules.


Whatever we do is in accordance with international laws, and whatever we ask for is again in accordance with international laws and human rights. Nothing more and nothing less. We are a law obeying democratic country, and comparing Cyprus of 2004 with the massacres and the other atrocities that took place in Yugoslavia is certainly a very bad example.

What rules we might not following very well are the "new order" rules set by the US and their friends. But those are not international rules. Those are simply the current balance of power, which inevitably is going to change sooner or later.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Tue Aug 31, 2004 11:41 pm

Piratis wrote:
Turks in Bulgaria are a minority but TCs in Cyprus are not a minority.


So apples in Bulgaria are apples, but in Cyprus apples are bananas just because you say so?


Were Turks in Bulgaria present when the Bulgarian state was formed AND was it agreed when the Bulgarian state was formed that they would have some degree of political equality even though a numerical minority? If not then the two examples are apples and bananas.

Piratis wrote: Insan, GCs consider TCs to be a minority because they are a minority.


And (once again) GC or RoC citizens if you prefer ARE a minority within the EU by the same LOGIC - yet you have no problem with the idea off political equality there.

Piratis wrote:You talk like you own EU. Are we equal EU citizens, or maybe you still consider us your slaves?


You could say very similar - juts replace EU with Cyprus and the 'us' with TC. Can you see no irony here?
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby mehmet » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:25 am

MicatCyp, as usual I found what you had to say thought provoking and like your comments about priests and bankers only time will tell how wise you are.

I recently have had reason through reading to become aware just how much effort Erdogan is putting into EU accession. Many laws have been changed although in some cases the officials on the ground haven't caught up with the changes. In the past I have had reason to doubt that EU will ever accept Turkey. We shall soon see what the politics will be.

Piratis, about this Turan thing. For sure there are some dreamers in Turkey, just like some people in Cyprus still believe in Enosis, just like some Greeks may want to recreate the Byzantine empire with Constantinople as its capital (priests not bankers). Don't get carried away with thinking there is more to it than that. It is not in Turkeys interests nor in the interests of those central Asian states.
mehmet
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 12:30 am
Location: hastings, UK (family from Komi Kebir & Lourijina)

Postby insan » Wed Sep 01, 2004 12:26 am

Well said erolz...

One more thing to remind Piratis:

You said that you accepted the federal solution as a compromise and the solution should be based on US federal model.

I ask you who will be your "Wyoming" like federal partner; you said me TCs are a minority like hispanic minorities of Wyoming state...

If So, I'm asking again who will be the GC communities "Wyoming" like politicaly equal federation partner?

Piratis, you are not aware of what you say and what you want....
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9037
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Piratis » Wed Sep 01, 2004 1:51 am

Were Turks in Bulgaria present when the Bulgarian state was formed


Yes, the Turks were present when the Bulgarian state was formed. Of course Bulgarians existed in the area of Bulgaria before the Ottomans, and they were either independent or under some empire, like the Roman or the Byzantine. But the Republic of Bulgaria was formed after the Ottomans, and Turks were present when it was formed.

This is exactly like Cyprus. We have been on this island for millennial. Some times we were under some empire, and some times we were independent or had independent city kingdoms.

AND was it agreed when the Bulgarian state was formed that they would have some degree of political equality even though a numerical minority? If not then the two examples are apples and bananas.


We have never agreed that Turkish Cypriots have any kind of political equality. What we had agreed for is that Turkish Cypriots will have some extra privileges. (as a compromise)

The cases of Bulgaria and Cyprus are extremely similar.
The same goes for Turks in Greece. Not to mention the Greeks in Turkey. Why doesn't Turkey give to the Greeks that live in Turkey political equality?

Just admit that you are using the power of Turkey to force us to accept something outrageous. Everything else you say is cheap excuses.

About EU I told you before, EU is not a country. But I guess thats kind of difficult for you to understand.

You said that you accepted the federal solution as a compromise and the solution should be based on US federal model.


Do you think we should make compromises? in 1960 we compromised that TCs will have some super privileges, and Erolz is using them now to tell us that TCs are not a minority just like in Bulgaria, but they are "peoples".
So why should we compromise? Apparently all our compromises are used by you as stepping stones to your aim: partition. So why should we provide you with these stepping stones?

Once I am convinced that you have as an aim a truly united, independent and democratic Cyprus, and you are ready to make some compromises to achieve this aim, then I will be as compromising as possible (and I believe I have proved that I can be very compromising).
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Wed Sep 01, 2004 4:09 am

Piratis wrote: But the Republic of Bulgaria was formed after the Ottomans, and Turks were present when it was formed.

This is exactly like Cyprus.


Exactly like cyprus? So the original Bulgarian consitituion talks about two commuites does it? Neither of which are bulgarian? Not quite the same as Cyprus is it?

Piratis wrote:We have never agreed that Turkish Cypriots have any kind of political equality. What we had agreed for is that Turkish Cypriots will have some extra privileges. (as a compromise)


Thats to me seems totaly unsupportable if you look at the 1960 consitution and the negotiations that led up to it. For me it is simply ridiculous to claim that there has never been any GC acceptance of any kind of political equality (between the two communites). The consitituion, the desciption of two seperate communites and the provisions of joint veto rights of the seperately elected president and vice president , seperate communal chamber and many other aspects clearly represent some kind of equality between the two communites - to me at least and I suspect to most 'reasonable' people.

Piratis wrote:Just admit that you are using the power of Turkey to force us to accept something outrageous. Everything else you say is cheap excuses.


I may as well ask you to accept that if Turkish force had not intervened in Cyprus then TC would have continued to live as a persecuted minority in their own land having been robbed of their consitutional rights by a GC majority.

Piratis wrote:About EU I told you before, EU is not a country. But I guess thats kind of difficult for you to understand.


Are the GC in the EU a minority or not? Yes of course they are. Do they have a degree of 'equality' despite their numerical minority. Yes they do. You argue that in Cyprus the CONCEPT is that a numerical minority is a numerical minority and it can never fairly ask or expect any degree of political eqaulity. You do not argue that in some case a numerical minority can and should have political equality but that between the communites in Cyprus this is not one of those cases. You argue simply that a numerical minority can not ask for and excpect political equality at all and that the very CONCEPT is wrong. This simple argument is totaly destoryed by the EU example. If you could accept that in _some cases_ political equality of numerical minorites is acceptable, fair and right then we could have a sensible discussion (in theory anyway) about what those case should be - but you want to argue the absolute in reagrds to Cyprus internaly and ignore the blatant contradiction of this as far as Cyprus in the EU goes (or any other example of numerical minorites with a degree of political equality).

Piratis wrote:Do you think we should make compromises? in 1960 we compromised that TCs will have some super privileges, and Erolz is using them now to tell us that TCs are not a minority just like in Bulgaria, but they are "peoples".
So why should we compromise? Apparently all our compromises are used by you as stepping stones to your aim: partition. So why should we provide you with these stepping stones?


I think it was agreed by all in 1960 that TC should have a _degree_ of political equality. In 1963 despite having agreed this the GC administration of the time then tried to remove all the aspects of the agreed constituion that represented this degree of equality for the TC community and represented the TC fundamental protections from dominance by a GC majority. I want no stepping stones. I simply want what was agreed in 1960 - which is a degree of political equality and protections for TC from total GC dominace. However having experienced how reliable 'unalterable consitutional protections' were for the TC in 1963 I am relcutant to rely on such protections alone again.

Again I may just as well accuse you of using this compromise (accpeting less than a people and more than a minority) is to you but a stepping stone to your objective - a Cyprus were TC are totaly dominated by a numerical GC majority.

Piratis wrote:Once I am convinced that you have as an aim a truly united, independent and democratic Cyprus, and you are ready to make some compromises to achieve this aim, then I will be as compromising as possible (and I believe I have proved that I can be very compromising).


As far as I am concerned 'we' have compromised. We have compromised from the position of absoloute and total right to self determination. Accepting a status of 'less than a peoples' and 'more than a minority' is to me a compromise. We made that compromise in 1960. We still make it today. Accepting a status of minority - as you insit we must do is to me not compromise but capitulation.

It is amazing to me what you can believe and how closely these beliefs match what is best for you in your own mind.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Bananiot » Wed Sep 01, 2004 6:20 am

I think things are quite simple. In the late 70's Makarios and then Kyprianou reached summit agreements with the TC community that the solution will be based on bizonal, bicommunal federation. Nobody has questioned this except a very small party called NEO (headed by Koutsou) which has called for a return to the 1960 constitution. Thus, if we agree on bizonal, bicommunal federation then total political equality for the two states or zones is a must. One of them cannot be more equal than the other.
User avatar
Bananiot
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6397
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:51 pm
Location: Nicosia

Postby Piratis » Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:43 am

Bulgarian consitituion talks about two commuites does it? Neither of which are bulgarian? Not quite the same as Cyprus is it?


The only difference is that the Bulgarians were not forced to make such a compomise. Everything else is exactly the same.

In both (and many other) cases we are talking about Muslims/Turks that were left over after the end of the Ottoman empire. Cyprus is no different than any other country in this respect.

About the EU we are talking about certain political equality between separate countries and not between groups within the same country. Your example is simply irrelevant.

. I simply want what was agreed in 1960


No problem. You are the ones that keep those agreements from functioning, so you should tell this to your leaders.

As far as I am concerned 'we' have compromised. We have compromised from the position of absoloute and total right to self determination.


I see. So if I demand that the whole world is given to me, and then I accept to have just half of it, this means I compromised according to you?

The point is that you never had the right of absoloute and total self determination. So how can you give up something that you never owned?


Thus, if we agree on bizonal, bicommunal federation then total political equality for the two states or zones is a must. One of them cannot be more equal than the other.

What are you talking about? Do the states in the US have equal political power in everything? Do they have rotating presidencies and crap like that?
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby MicAtCyp » Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:04 pm

Europhile wrote: It is correct to say that only the Republic of Turkey recognises the TRNC administration. But an absence of diplomatic recognition does not mean that the rest of the world does not accept that there is a de facto administration in the North of the Island and that it has support from its inhabitants. Therefore I expect most people outside Cyprus would have problems with inflammatory expressions such as "pseudostate" or "puppet administration".


There are so many superficial statements in your post my friend that I don't know where to start from. You state that the administration at the Nortern part of Cyprus has the support of its inhabitants. First of all do you know who its inhabitants are? Are they the original ones or is it a recycling population? Or is the majority of them imported settlers and pop ins that are brought just prior to elections to secure what you call "support"? Secondly how can you claim it has the support of its inhabitants when the majority of the permanent inhabitants are today proved to be opposing Denktash? Third do you know how many times that administration was a minority and how many times the majority was kicked out of the "government" through directions from Ankara? Do you know how many times the electoral so called "law" was changed to keep a specific ruling cast in its place? Fourth do you know that almost half the TCs have abandoned the place for various reasons one of the main ones being the corruption that exists at all levels and the lessening of human dignity? I can mention you a few examples . An honest TC working at the customs. A Turkish General gets in the port with all sorts of illegal goods. The honest customs employee says these are not allowed. He gets a punch in the nose and the shuts up. Every 2 - 3 days the same thing. The honest TC customs officer resigns from his government job and emmigrates to UK. A history teacher writes an article in a newspaper saying that Ayse (=Turkish Army) should finally go home. She loses her job.(Denktash says we cannot have such people teaching at our schools). The president of the settlers Dr Nuri Cevigel an accademic at the University of Famagusta. Before the referendum he urged the settlers to vote for the Anan plan. Denktash fired him. These Europhile are everyday practices. . . .

Then you say that I used inflamatory terms like puppet administration. I already explained than when provoked I will use those terms as a reaction. But for your information the term puppet administration is not my invention. The ECHR (European Court of Human rights) described the administration at the Northern Part of Cyprus as a subbordinate and dependent (to Turkey ) administration. I am sure your English is better than mine to know that "subordinate and dependent"="puppet"

Europhile wrote: There is general acceptance in the international institutions of the world that the present unitary constitution of Cyprus is unworkable which now has to be modified in a way that makes it accepatable to a majority of both communities.


The constitution (as modified prior to our EU accession) works fine and it is with that constitution we entered the EU. Whether that will change to make possible the re - unification of the island is a separate issue mostly linked with the dead ends the 1974 Invasion and upto present day illegal occupation brought about, than its functionality as such. See previous posts of Insan describing the complete agreement betweeen Clerides and Denktash in 1972 for a unitary state.

Europhile wrote: Diplomatic recognition of the TRNC was with - held as a means of putting pressure on the de facto leadership in the North to negotiate.


Wrong! Diplomatic recognition is and will remain impossible for ever. It was not with - held! It is not because you love us, or because you want to put pressure that the pseudostate was not recognised.(pseudostate - - > as a reaction to your repeatitive and provoking use of the so called "Trnc" title). You know why? Firstly because it is the a result of an illegal invasion, continuing occupation, and systematic colonisation. Second because all its administrative structure is based on constitutional laws unprecedented in degree of fascism, racism and descrimination-all of course against the "evil" GCs. Third because it would create an extremely dangerous precedent in which the present 250 Countries in the world would become 5250! Fourth because that precedent would disintegrate your own country sooner or later.

Europhile wrote: Bananiot writes that the present administration has spoken of a "European" solution. I doubt there really is any "European" solution. Europe can "advise, encourage and warn" to adopt a reference to the constitutional role of the UK monarchy, but it cannot impose on member states solutions to internal problems except insofar as a national government acts in breach of EU law.


By the term European Solution we don't mean a solution that will come from the EU administrative bodies, but a solution based on the Acquis Communautaires.

Europhile wrote: It may well be true that this may be a vision of some of the more benighted sons of Orthodox Christianity. Those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of the demise of Byzantium.


It is obvious that me and Piratis disagree on the matter of Turkeys EU road. However on what grounds do you refer to Orthodoxy in your reply? Is the majority of the Christians in the EU Orthodox? Do you really beleive that if finally Turkey is vetoed in 17 December that would come from the "Orthodox camp" or would it come from France,Austria,Sweden, Germany and many other countries? And since you seem to attribute the demise of Byzantium only on matters relating to Orthodoxy, can you compare the contribution of Byzantium to civilisation to that of your own Christian dogma during the same period (dark ages) , and tell us what you conclude?

Europhile wrote: But Piratis and perhaps others had better get real about how far Cyprus will have any decisive role in Turkish accession negotiations.


Our point of discussion was not whether Cyprus will have any decissive role on Turkish accession negotiations. Our point was whether Cyprus should veto Turkey to start those negotiations or not.
On the other hand, if and when, Turkey enters those negotiations, don't rest assured that Cyprus will not have a decissive say on matters of her specific concern regarding the illegal occupation of its northern part. On most other matters I agree, Cyprus will not even bother what the big boys in Europe will talk with Turkey.

Europhile wrote: So the interests of Europe are for Turkey to accede - and as soon as practicable.


Nope! The interests of Europe are to have Turkey half in - half out. This is my opinion and I can support it if you wish. I am not saying this because I want Turkey out, in fact I want the oposite. But this unfortunately is the reality.

***************************************************************
Insan you can refer to the discussions I had with Erol at around 23 August in this thread.I think we repeated the same things in the "self determination" and "key issues" threads- not sure though as I got lost in the so many posts.
****************************************************************
User avatar
MicAtCyp
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 1579
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:10 am

PreviousNext

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests