The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Did you know?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby insan » Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:29 pm

Hi europhile... welcome to the forum...

- we were as guilty in Cyprus of a policy of 'divide and rule' as in any other part of the former Empire, on the other hand we left behind on both sites of the line certain inheritances which are now shared between your communities, ranging from the wide-spread use of English, to shared legal and administrative traditions, to the fact that vehicles on both sides of the line drive on the left with considerably more prudence than mainland Greeks or Turks.


In the past we had discussed the Brits alleged "divide and rule" policy. Can you tell us what were the Brits divisive policies upon two comunities? According to what I read about the era of British Rule:

1- "When the British occupied Cyprus, first as administrators in accordance with the Anglo - Ottoman agreement, and later as colonisers with the island’s annexation during World War I and the formalisation of this action in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), they established a system specifically designed to provide for communal representation in a Legislative Council by which the official members of the Council in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriot representatives could always balance out the Greek representatives. The Governor had the casting vote. They thus perpetuated and institutionalised a system of communal division.[29] Indeed as L.S. Amery of the Colonial Office admitted, the Constitution of 1925 had purposely given a disproportionate leverage to the Moslem minority as a safeguard against the movement for enosis, an undemocratic system which re - assured the “Old Turkish Party”, the Turkish Cypriot ruling elite, the non - Moslem majority would not be able to impose its will on them.[30] The Turkish Cypriot leadership of the inter - war years described this system of government as a “bulwark against racial and religious oppression.[31]"


"Yet cooperation and peaceful coexistence between the two major communities, while possible, had their limitations. As Mehmet Rifat Effendi, the owner-editor of the Turkish newspaper Masum Millet (Innocent Nation) pointed out: “With the exception of their (the Greek Cypriots’) national aspiration, everything detrimental to us is also detrimental to them. From the present poverty of our country both brother elements are affected”.[32]"


Was that a divide and rule policy of Brits or granting both communities to govern themselves and protecting the Community less in numbers against the community outnumbered.


"In early 1900s; when, however, the Greek Cypriot representatives suggested constitutional changes that would have produced a responsible as well as a representative system with majority rule, the Turkish Cypriot representatives chose to side with the official members to block Greek Cypriot initiatives as was done also on a number of other issues such as supply.[36]"


This has been the core element of Cyprus problem for more than a hundred years. Let alone their national aspirations; the issue of "majority rule" has been sufficient for them to create conflict and clashes. Do you think that if their motherlands or other foreign countries hadn't involved with their dispute over "majority rule", they could be able to solve it themselves? How? TCs would obbey to majority rule? Don't TCs deserve to be one of the equal legislative partner of united Cyprus as one of the major communities which existed in Cyprus more than 400 years? If no, why?


"Turkish Cypriot ethnic consciousness was roused in the inter - war period by British manipulation, by reaction to the growth of Greek nationalism, and began to show signs of becoming nationalistic with the growth of mainland Turkish influence.[45] Turkish Cypriot leaders were growing increasingly concerned by the attempts of Greek Cypriots to whittle away Turkish Cypriot privileges. The British seemed more accommodating in defending the Turkish Cypriot position. Sir Ronald Storrs, the Governor in the late 1920’s early 1930’s, attempted to justify communal representation arguing that communal representation and segregation had long been established in Cyprus. A common electoral roll was unacceptable as the preponderance of Greeks would eliminate Turkish Cypriot representation or, if a proportion of seats were set aside for the Moslems, then the Greeks would decide which Turkish Cypriots would be elected. Either scenario, in Storrs’ eyes, was unacceptable and Moslem feelings would be permanently embittered and alienated.[46]"


I wonder what manipulations had been made by Brits while growth of Greek nationalism was adequate for TCs to react with Turkish nationalism.


"Turkish Cypriot nationalism in the inter-war years grew gradually in “reaction to the growth of Greek Cypriot nationalism”, but it remained essentially Islamic in this period. Moreover, there were signs in the 1930’s of the infiltration of Attaturk’s reformist-nationalist ideas, particularly through the activities of the Turkish Consul Assaf who pushed a more secular Kemalist line in opposition to the old order of Moslem leadership on Cyprus. A similar approach was adopted by Nejati Bey, elected to the Legislative Council in 1930. His election reflected the Turkish Cypriots’ sense that the British had not shown sufficient respect for Turkish national sentiment on Turkish Republic day.[47] However, the Islamic element was dominant and was to be reinforced by a less secular form of nationalism emanating from Turkey in the immediate post - war period.[48]"


Was that another "divide and rule" policy of Brits?



"Thus the system introduced by the British, which was founded on the assumption of persistent ethnic conflict, institutionalised ethnic divisions and prepared the way for a bi-national consciousness with the Moslems becoming Turks.[49] A “dialectic of intolerance [became ]... the major characteristic of local political culture”. This illiberal and intolerant temper in local politics stemmed from the British regime’s policies towards both the national aspirations of the two major groups and “the organisation of ethnic relations in a bi - national society”.[50] This latter was reflected in an expanded and segregated educational system with each community dependent for personnel and literature on Greece and Turkey and with each community having the freedom to fly Greek or Turkish flags. All this served only to exacerbate group differences.[51]"


What kind of system should had been introduced by Brits to prevent ethnic division and provide, enhance Cypriot identity? Majority rule?



"In the immediate Post - World War II period Greek nationalism on Cyprus “was reaching the height of its own militant intolerance and non - liberal orientation”.[52] Enosis in the 1940’s, the official ideology of the Church and the domestic bourgeoisie was clearly the dominant element of Greek Cypriot ethnic consciousness. Greekness was affirmed in opposition to “Turkishness”. Greek Orthodoxy was identified with nationhood. This Greek - Cypriot nationalism also had a strong anti - colonial, anti - British element expressed in a liberationist political ideal. It also crossed class boundaries.[53]

The enosis movement polarised even further the extant bi - nationalism, bi - communalism in Cyprus. The Turkish nationalist movement fostered by Turkish extremist elements was stimulated by the form of the enosis movement. Because of the nature of the enosis movement Turkish Cypriots were not incorporated into the National - Liberation struggle.[54] The “absence of a progressive social content” in the national - liberation struggle and “the emphasis on enosis precluded an alliance with the progressive elements of the Turkish Cypriot community which [ was deprived of the opportunity through ] a common anti - colonial alignment... to emancipate their own community from the grip of right wing extremists”.[55]

As a consequence Turkish nationalism on Cyprus was rapidly becoming “an exclusive political and cultural dogma” which, while not opposed to the legal and economic changes involved in modernisation was religiously conservative and increasingly intolerant. In reaction to enosis rose the Turkish cry of “Taksim” or partition.[56]"


Turkish nationalism as a consequence of Greek nationalism, had soon become Taksim as a consequence of Enosis. What should it had been? TCs should accept the majority rule and Enosis? Was Enosis something for the benefit of TCs? NO. So why would they accept to it? Because of the majority rule?



"
In December, 1949 about 15, 000 Turkish Cypriots marched through the Turkish quarter of Nicosia in opposition to enosis.[57] In January, 1950 the Greek Cypriots claimed that their “plebiscite” showed that 96 % of the people on the electoral role voted for enosis.[58] The scene was now set for the tragic confrontation of the two communities. The Greek Cypriots wanted “enosis and only enosis” while the Turkish Cypriots became increasingly averse to being forced into Greek nationality where they feared becoming second class citizens and members of an insignificant minority."


Weren't TCs fears of becoming second class citizens and members of an insignificant minority a rightful notion?


"In response to EOKA’s activities there emerged (1956) the Turkish Cypriot organisation TMT, the military arm of the “Cyprus is Turkish Association”.[59] By March, 1958 the TMT had mounted attacks against the lives and property of Greek Cypriots which provoked Greek Cypriot retaliation.[60] Despite the Emergency Act which made all demonstrations illegal the Turkish Cypriots, in the eyes of the Greek Cypriots, seemed to be enjoying a degree of immunity.[61] Rioting escalated in June 1958 when violence erupted in Nicosia and later in Larnaca. Violence and inter - communal conflict were increasingly becoming the norm. Turkish Cypriot extremists were supported by Turkish demonstrations in Istanbul and Ankara supporting Taksim.[62]
"


This is the first biggest mistake of a group of TCs(extremists). A community which democraticaly defended itself on political ground backwards 1958 shouldn't retaliate illegally... but those bunch of TC extremists can never represent whole TC community and their mistakes, illegal actions, crimes cannot be considered as the will of entire TC community.


Ps: The quotations has been taken from:

http://www.paseka.org/DocsSci/Cyprus-Th ... litics.htm
User avatar
insan
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 9044
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:33 pm
Location: Somewhere in ur network. ;]

Postby Europhile » Sat Aug 28, 2004 3:35 pm

While Europe of 500 million is overcoming the hatred of the past and gets united, they want to apply practices of apartheid on an island of less than a million people, that as you said share more things between them than with any other of our European partners.
.

Who, pray, is "they" ? Europe, by which I mean the 15 pre-new wave states, the commission, the Council and the ECJ most certainly did not wish to apply apartheid practices in Cyprus.

Like most of the rest of the world, they very much hoped the parties could sort themselves out without outside influence and if that proved impossible with the assistance of the UN.

Is there not something of a resemblance to the situation of Cuban exiles in Miami many of whom dream of a miracle by which everything that has happened in Cuba since the advent of Castro will be set aside and the status quo ante restored. It simply isn't going to happen.

Neither can there be a simple restoration of the status quo ante in Cyprus. Was it not Alexander the Great who said that one can never immerse one's hand twice in the same stream ?

Not an unwise observation
Europhile
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: London

Postby erolz » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:00 pm

Piratis wrote: The same principle could be applied to you and Bananiot. He several times said that Papadopoulos doesn't want a solution. Isn't this equivalent of calling him traitor? So my ways dear Erolz, are by no means worst, yet you only choose to criticize me, something that as I said already is no wonder.


Have I called anyone a traitor? Have I accused anyone of being in the pay of foregin powers? Have I branded EU politicans liars? I have stated that to me your behaviour 'scares' me (give me cause for concern as to your ability to be resonable to not be overly emotive to be able to accept differences of opinion etc etc). No one else has created as much fear for me in this regard as you have managed to do. If your view were in line with mine but your methods the same I would remain concerned about you nehviour and what implies about you.

Piratis wrote:The paradox of the story is that while Europe is getting more and more integrated, and even Turkey wants to join, in Cyprus such kind of integration is propagandized in the occupied areas as an attempted of Greek Cypriots to swallow and dominate Turkish Cypriots. While Europe of 500 million is overcoming the hatred of the past and gets united, they want to apply practices of apartheid on an island of less than a million people, that as you said share more things between them than with any other of our European partners.


Again this to me is just twisting and manipulation of the realites :( TC concerns have nothing to do with 'fears of integration' within the EU or within Cyprus itself. Thier concerns are on what the respective status of the two groups that will integrate are to be. Are they to be one of equality or not? These concerns predate both the EU itself and Cyprus' membership of it. If the EU was to insit on integration on the basis of a sinlge European peoples, where each ethinc community (member) within it were to have no rights beyond that of a minority within an EU state, then we (along with eveyone else including GC) would have concerns and fears of being 'subjectated'. The EU accpets compromise. It accepts the concept of political equality of groups of people, regardless of absolute numbers. It recognises a need for balance between the will of the EU peoples as a whole and the will of the indivdual memebers of that Union. It does not insist that all members subject themesleves to a straight majority of 50%+1 of all EU people. As such it creates a frame work in which intergration is possible over time. Within Cyprus you refused to accept any of these prinicpals.
You think an acceptance that in some reagrd and with some limits and compromises both the TC and GC communites in Cyprus should have equality as Apartheid?
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:09 pm

You think an acceptance that in some reagrd and with some limits and compromises both the TC and GC communites in Cyprus should have equality as Apartheid?


Isn't it true that the "solution" that you want will place restrictions on the way Cypriots can move, settle and own property based on weather those Cypriots are Greek or Turkish? Isn't this Apartheid?

There are many minoritites in all other EU states. Why don't those minorities demand political equality with the majority?

Have I called anyone a traitor? Have I accused anyone of being in the pay of foregin powers? Have I branded EU politicans liars? I have stated that to me your behaviour 'scares' me (give me cause for concern as to your ability to be resonable to not be overly emotive to be able to accept differences of opinion etc etc). No one else has created as much fear for me in this regard as you have managed to do. If your view were in line with mine but your methods the same I would remain concerned about you nehviour and what implies about you.


You are supporting the occupation of my country. What can be worst than that?
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:24 pm

By the way, Erolz, I know that your dream is that the land that you stole from us, and then ethnically cleansed it, will once be considered as just another separate state. This is, and will remain a dream my friend, because your barbaric actions will never be legalized.

Turkish Cypriots are a minority, who came to Cyprus during the Ottoman empire. Such minorities exist in many countries that the Ottoman empire ruled, like in Greece and Bulgaria for example.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:28 pm

Greece was under the Ottomans for centuries, more than Cyprus was. One day we will libarate our land, and justice will be applied.
We are afraid of nobody and we will fight for justice. Don't expect us to give up. We will not.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby erolz » Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:24 pm

Piratis wrote:
Isn't it true that the "solution" that you want will place restrictions on the way Cypriots can move, settle and own property based on weather those Cypriots are Greek or Turkish? Isn't this Apartheid?


I havent even got to a point where we can being to discuss the details of a settlement and what restrictions may or may not be necessary becuase of your inistance that TC have no rights beyond a minority. Actually if I beleieved that GC were prepared to accept that TC have the same rights as GC as two partner communites within Cyrus then I could and would consider all sorts of possibliltes and compromises including no restrictions on movement and residency.

Piratis wrote:
There are many minoritites in all other EU states. Why don't those minorities demand political equality with the majority?


Those states that had seperate communites when the state was founded accept a degree and level of partnership and equality of these two groups like belgium and switzerland. You on the other hand refuse to accept any such parity in the forming of the Cypriot state.

Piratis wrote:
You are supporting the occupation of my country. What can be worst than that?


The occupation of YOUR country of OUR country? Actualy I have condemed that occupation but I have also said that any settlement should be based on not just on this condemable situation but on ALL the condemable actions that occured in Cyprus since 1960. What could be worse than that is demanding that you give me everything I want and I give you nothing - which is essentialy your position (with a little obfusaction where you offer us some things that you also claim we have no right to and are therefore wothless offers). My (totaly innocent) uncle was killed in the name of Enosis and GC right to self determination. Is that 'worse' than losing some land?

Piratis wrote:
By the way, Erolz, I know that your dream is that the land that you stole from us, and then ethnically cleansed it, will once be considered as just another separate state. This is, and will remain a dream my friend, because your barbaric actions will never be legalized.


You know my dreams now? Sure you and your 'will' is a close to 'divine' as it possible to be it would seem. You know eveything. Can you tell me what exactly has been a 'barbaric act' that I have comitted? If your are talking of the peoples of Cyprus rather than me as an indivdual then I suggest to address your own communites 'barbaric acts' before lecturing others on theirs.

Piratis wrote: Greece was under the Ottomans for centuries, more than Cyprus was. One day we will libarate our land, and justice will be applied.
We are afraid of nobody and we will fight for justice. Don't expect us to give up. We will not.


What are you saying here. That Cyprus is Greek? That it used to Greek? That Greeks will fight until they regain the glorious Hellenic empire of antiquity (of which Cyprus was NEVER a part!)?

You really are a scary person. Give me us what we want and demand and what WE say is just or we will fight you for it - without fear. Scary stuff more in reasonace with the 1700's than 2000 imo and not very compatible with Europena ideals.
erolz
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2414
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: Girne / Kyrenia

More comment from outside

Postby Europhile » Sat Aug 28, 2004 5:49 pm

Thank you for your various welcomes to your forum.

Insan:-

I won't comment on your post save to say that I'm old enough to have been involved in the decolonisation process in a number of former British territories myself and I think everyone in any former British colony knows what I mean by policies of 'divide and rule'. It's not so much about formal steps which are recorded in official and other documents, but a way of doing things which uses tensions which naturally exist between enthicities and religions to the colonial purpose.

Piratis:-

I am sure you have enough knowledge of world affairs to know full well that nothing in any of the provisions of any of the settlement plans proposed for reunification in any way remotely resembles the abhorrent features of apartheid. I think the use of emotive terms like "apartheid", "the land you stole from us", "ethnic cleansing" or any other like terms are not of the slighest help.

Whether one is a Greek Cypriot who was displaced from Kyrenia and now lives in Limassol or a Turkish Cypriot displaced from Paphos who now lives in Guzelyurt, a wholesale return to the status quo ante in terms of land ownership is impossible. That was also the consequence of the adjustment to borders made in many other countries in the post WW-2 settlement in Europe.

It doesn't seem to me that it helps to whine "that's unjust". It may well be. But the causation of the injustice was the original conflict and displacement of the populations.

Ask any lawyer and he will tell you that the law is well accustomed to circumstances where restitution in integro has with the passage of time become unrealistic. In such cases, comepensation rather than restitution is the preferred solution.

Since perfect justice is an attribute of the Almighty, human justice is all too often imperfect.

And that is also true of constitutional arrangements, distribution of territory and so much else. The question is what a majority of people will accept - with all the imperfections which result from it being a settlement devised by humans. And no plan or constitution is incapable of being modified. For goodness sake, the French have managed to have 2 monarchies, three empires and five republics, all with different consistutional provisions, in the space of only a few hundred years.

Of course there will be some people who will never be satisfied with any solution.

Perhaps one has to be careful that matters do not again degenerate into the kind of dispute favoured by a certain variety of theologian: eg as between Orthodox and Latin Christians as to the procession of the Holy Ghost. What did it achieve other than the Great Schism ? To neither variety among the 57 or more varieties of Christians was the dispute of any practical day to day importance. What it most seems to demonstrate to those looking at the records from outside was an immense lack of charity on both sides.

The same may well be true for some people who feel strongly about various aspecfs of the Cyprus inter-communal disputes. As with the Northern Ireland peace process there has to be a willingness on both sides to forgive past sins and deal in charity with the other.
Europhile
New Member
New Member
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 12:29 pm
Location: London

Postby Piratis » Sat Aug 28, 2004 7:40 pm

Europhile,

We know that we lost a war, and we are ready for a decent compromise. But what we have been asked with the Annan plan was to capitulate.
Here: http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=211 I proposed what I believe is something that should be acceptable by both communities. Yet the 18% of Turkish Cypriots demand a political equality, which means an effective veto on everything.

One thing is "solving the Cyprus problem" and another thing is "closing the Cyprus problem". The Annan plan created more problems than it solved, and this is why the great majority of Greek Cypriots rejected it.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby MicAtCyp » Sat Aug 28, 2004 10:03 pm

Notice even the words Bananiot choses.
byzantine intriques
.
Everything in line with the propaganda of the foreigners against everything that has to do with a Greek aspect.

Bananiot wrote: the measurements of the public opinion trends at the time showed a clear indication that the "yes" vote would exceed 60%.


Prove it! The maximum score the "yes" choice ever managed to get was at the Ancielsen Co Ltd Poll paid up and published at Politis newspaper and it was only 43%.Do you want a copy?Within a week Sigma anounced a poll showing the yes down to 15% and the ANT1 at about 26%. Finally the closest to the truth was proved to be ANT1.

Bananiot wrote: He does not want a solution based on federation because any solution based on federation will reduce him to a mukhtar.

Muhtar(not mukhtar)= chief (in a village or a neighbourhood in a city). Go on tell us more jokes.

Bananiot wrote: Is Bananiot a traitor? Well, at least I am not alone. One hundred thousand people who voted "yes" are also traitors.
.
How can you dare insult 100K people like that? What makes one a traitor is not his yes or no at the referendum.You know very well what makes one a traitor, and I personally never called you a traitor, I just asked you to question yourself as to whether what you are doing is right or wrong. I even designed my question to automatically credit you with the merit of un-intentionality.All I hope is that you will not finally convince me of the opposite.That will be very sad.
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 1 guest