Cyprus-Forum.com

magikthrill wrote:Also, you mention no Cypriot history should be taught. Of course TCs not think it's beneficial since TC history starts about 2000 years after GC.

And what does that have to do with anything? I always hear this argument that "GCs have been on the island for 2000 years whereas TCs only since 1571". So what? Does that mean that TCs are less entitled to live in Cyprus? I don't think so. Don't bring up something and piss people off if it's irrelevant.

magikthrill wrote:turkcyp,

It was me who asked the questions of flag and history, not Mills.

Yes, if the school would be solely UN administered then a flag would not be required. Of course, the Cypriot flag was designed independently of any other flag, whereas the TC flag is a clear replica of the Turkish flag.

Also, you mention no Cypriot history should be taught. Of course TCs not think it's beneficial since TC history starts about 2000 years after GC.

As for your language concern, I believe that English should be the primary languge (actually I'd prefer if it were French so as both communities can distance themselves from the horrendous effect the UK has had on CYprus) but both Greek and Turkish should be mandatory for TCs and GCs respectively.

Dear magikthrill,

You are doing it again. Politicizing a very simple idea, to advance your political ideology. A very simple idea, with no strings attached, that can help us understand each other better, which will definetley help us to build the bridges between us that are burnt down.

All my proposals were related to decreasing the tension in the school between TCs and GCs. Nothing else, nothing more. Believe it or not, no political agenda was pursued.

All that is proposed were to remind us that we are first and formost human beings before we are Turkish or Greek. This is why I tried to reduce the exposure to those two elements. So that kids in that school would feel like the person in front of them is not either Turkish or Greek but a human being.

God knows they are getting enough of the others in their respective communities anyway.

Have a good day,

Hello Mills,

Your idea is a good one, and can help, but only up to a point.
The Cyprus problem is very different from the problem between White/Blacks in the USA.

The Cyprus problem is a problem of conflicting interests over an area with a great strategic location.

What we have are the Turks who want to become the regional power, and their allies: UK/US who want to be able to control the Middle East as closely as possible.

In order to achieve their strategic aims, Cyprus needs to be divided, and Cypriots suspicious of each other. Otherwise their presence on the island would be threatened, and this is the last thing they want.

Bi-communal schools would be great for creating a pan-Cyprian identity, but I am afraid your sponsors will never allow you to promote such thing. What they want to promote is a fragile cooperation between two separated communities with conflicting interests. This is what serves their interests better, and when they pay for something they expect their ROI.

Piratis wrote:In order to achieve their strategic aims, Cyprus needs to be divided, and Cypriots suspicious of each other. Otherwise their presence on the island would be threatened, and this is the last thing they want.

Surely if things were this simple then the 'powers' you site (the USA and UK) would simply have supported the division of the Cyprus. Do you really doubt that if their intention had been division of the Island they could not have achieved this with Turkey and on condition of the security of soveriegn bases? They could have create such a divided Island in 1960 or any time between. Why bother with such 'subterfuge' and 30 years of waiting to achieve these aims? Do you really think that when USA interests clash with international law, that international law wins out?

You analysis also seems fundamentaly flawed to me. Not in the sense that the USA or UK work in anything other than their own interests (clearly they do) but in the idea that promoting division is in their interests. The Cyprus problem has been a constant problem for these powers. It has undermined NATO and come close to starting a war between Greece and Turkey on more than one occasion. How can this be seen as being in the USA (or anybody elses) interest? The fact is that a stable Cyprus is in their interests, as long as the soverign bases remain secure. The idea that a stable united Cyprus would threaten these bases more than a divided and unstable Cyprus is just not valid in my view.

The people that have the primary responsibilty for the divisions in Cyprus are the Cypriots. I know this is an anaylsis that you do not like, prefering to blame 'outsiders' for every tradgedy that has befallen Cyprus to date. Whilst this may be a conforting belief for you it is not a refelction of the reality imo - which is that Cypriots first and foremost are responsible for the state of Cyprus today and the suffering of its people. Yes outside influences have added to the problems sometimes unkowingly and sometimes knowingly. However you cannot create division 'out of nothing'. You can not convince one community to use murder and violence on another unless there is a seed of such violence in the first place. We all as Cypriots have to stop blaming 'the rest of the world' for our woes and start accepting OUR responsibility for the tradgies that have befallen Cyprus if we are ever to create a better future here.

Maybe I was not very clear.

While for the interests of Turkey an official division would be much preferred, the interests of UK/US demand a fragile peace in Cyprus that will be under their total control.

Surely if things were this simple then the 'powers' you site (the USA and UK) would simply have supported the division of the Cyprus.

And this is exactly what they did. Isn't Cyprus divided now? Wasn't the plan they created a partition plan?

If they simply recognized "TRNC" then the agreements of 1960 would be over, and the British bases would be at risk. This is why they didn't do it, and this is why they will never do it.

What they want is a fragile peace. They want to keep communities separated with conflicting interests, so the can turn one community against the other to serve their own interests. They did this in Cyprus before, and they did it in several other parts of the world.

We all as Cypriots have to stop blaming 'the rest of the world' for our woes and start accepting OUR responsibility for the tradgies that have befallen Cyprus if we are ever to create a better future here.

oh ok. So Turkey is innocent for the 6.000 dead, 200.000 refugees and the occupation, and it is our fault.

And the UK is innocent. They really didn't want to keep bases here, and they did nothing in order to maintain their presence, its our fault that they are here. (I guess we forced them to stay)

yeah, whatever.

Piratis wrote: While for the interests of Turkey an official division would be much preferred, the interests of UK/US demand a fragile peace in Cyprus that will be under their total control.

The USA / UK interest in Cyprus are to maintain the bases. They do not need division on the Island (fragile or otherwise) to do this imo. A secondary interest is to not create unessary tensions between NATO members and allies.

Piratis wrote:
And this is exactly what they did. Isn't Cyprus divided now? Wasn't the plan they created a partition plan?

Cyprus is divided now that is plain but why would the USA and UK wait 14 years to achieve this, if it had always been their aim. They simply would have created a divided Island in 1960 and secured a legal basis for the bases then. You 'thesis' makes no sense to me?

Piratis wrote:
If they simply recognized "TRNC" then the agreements of 1960 would be over, and the British bases would be at risk. This is why they didn't do it, and this is why they will never do it.

and you think that Turkey and TC would not 'trade' sovreign bases of equal usefulness to USA / UK strategic interests for full recognition of the TRNC?
Why would the USA take the 'risk' that the 1960 consituion would not lead to a united Cypriot people? If their interests were so important why such a convoluted appraoch with inherent uncertainty? Do you really think that if the 1960 consitution had lead to a strong united Cyprus, that anything the Cypriots could have done would have been a serious threat to the bases? Or that they USA / UK really beleived the only way to secure those bases then or in the future is too keep GC and TC 'fighting' each other in Cyprus? This makes no sense to me?

Piratis wrote:
What they want is a fragile peace. They want to keep communities separated with conflicting interests, so the can turn one community against the other to serve their own interests. They did this in Cyprus before, and they did it in several other parts of the world.

I am sorry (with the usual respect) Piratis but I see your 'thesis' as little more than paranioa. How you can argue that a constant ongoing 'fragile peace' in Cyprus that causes wider instability in the region between allies and NATO members makes the British bases in Cyprus 'secure' is simply beyond me. I just do not 'buy it'.

Looong loooong posts....
What language will they be taught in that school?

Piratis,



The only thing US, UK and EU want is compatible partners... They don't care if the partner is united or divided... but if a problem in the partner country threats the compatibility of the "alliance" then they get involved into the issue and give effort to solve it... RoC and TRNC could be two seperate states but compatible with US, UK and EU; see, it doesn't make a difference... There's a cost of being in the alliances of the worlds super powers. Do you think that EU would ever attempt to remove the British Bases in South, whether in an unified or divided Cyprus? Perhaps they might just change the status of the bases but in the end it will serve the same purposes... UK joined this alliance long before the RoC... If a ongoing Cyprus problem still exists today; it is because for the sake of two important allies(Turkey and Greece) that the superpowers of alliance haven't hardly pressurized any of them to accept any solution plan.... but time has come... There are things to be done for the common interests of the alliance, in the region... the incompatible of the alliance will be pressurized to obbey the best possible for Cyprus problem(Actually to keep the alliance in good harmony) .. Otherwise the ones who can't keep up with the common interests of the alliance will be kicked out. T-Pap and the likes around him think that they defy to the super powers of the alliance but this won't last long... The days are numbered...

Piratis wrote:If they simply recognized "TRNC" then the agreements of 1960 would be over, and the British bases would be at risk. This is why they didn't do it, and this is why they will never do it.

If the bases were the only concern and if they really wanted division or a fragile peace, they could have recognized TRNC and in return they would ask for some land for new US/UK bases in the north. I'm sure Denktash would be more than happy to provide some land for recognition.

Piratis wrote:oh ok. So Turkey is innocent for the 6.000 dead, 200.000 refugees and the occupation, and it is our fault.

You have a problem of misinterpreting what you read. Erol did not say that Cypriots are guilty and everyone else is innocent. He simply pointed out that the ultimate guilt is on our shoulders. I agree with him totally.