Cyprus-Forum.com

[-mikkie2-]

I'm glad Alex and Insan has put some sense into these two.

The UN has passed many resolutions demanding the withdrawl of troops from Cyprus. The UN has also demanded that people be able to return to their homes. I don't know where Erol gets his 'facts' from.

It does concern me however that he states that what was took from us was by the means of force and that we need to negotiate it back and effectively it is our tough luck that it is so!

With these comments I do have to question the sincerity of Erol, just in the same way he questions mine and every other GC!

[erolz]

Erol,

I prefer to think that all Cypriots form "one people" - the correct term with which to distinguish Turkish Cypriots is "community".

The problem with that is that it 'justifes' Piratis' claim that TC are simply a minority of the single Cypriot people and therefore have no rights above that.

If you were indeed a separate people, then by the UN Charter you would have the right to a separate state,

actually, as I understand it, they do not say this. In fact they explicitly state I believe that the right to self determianation is not the same as the right to a sovreign state. A sovreign state can be one means for a people to exersise their right ot self determination - but it is not the only one.

and the right to full self-determination (This is what Denktash has been arguing for). But you are not a separate people, you are a separate community.

I have always accepted the need to limit and compromise our rights as a people - because of the fact that we share an island with another people. I have never insited that we have to be able to exercise our rights as a people without limit or regard for GC rights as a people or indivduals. The problem (imo) is Piratis' refusal to do likewise.

"Community" is also to be distinguished from "Minority": Minorities do not usually have separate political rights, they just have another vote like everyone else plus some extra cultural rights. Communities, on the other hand, tend to be given a semblance of autonomy in many political systems, very often through Federal arrangements (e.g. Switzerland).

The problem with this appraoch comes when the likes of Piratis insist that a solution can only be based on human rights charters without exception. The unfortunate fact is that these charters do not currently have a framework of terminaology that recognises this 'in between' status of 'more than a minority and less than a people'. I have previously suggested that if there was such a framework and terminology in these charters then the issue would be a lot easier (and for many situations other than just Cyprus imo). I also suggested that this was something that we as Cypriots could ask the world / UN to help us with by incorporating this idea of 'more than a minority and less than a peoples' (ie a status of equal community in a shared state) into the charters on human rights. I have always accepted this status of 'more than a minority and less than a peoples'. However in the face of Piratis' insitance that there can only be a settlement based on existing human rights definitions I have little choice but to frame our rights in the terminology of 'peoples' - as this is all that currently exists in the human rights charters - even while ALWAYS accepting that these rights can not be total.

So, to impose this terminology on the discussion you have been having with Piratis, he has been saying that you are just a minority and you have been saying that you are actually a people. The truth is in the middle: You are a community, nothing more and nothing less.

I agree totaly with your 'truth' and have made exactly the same destinction myself in the past. However this was dismissed by Piratis as having no basis in the existing human rights charters - thus my reverting back to a terminology that does - whilst accepting there need to be limits on our absolute rights as a people.

[insan]

Alexandros Lordos wrote:
Erol,

I prefer to think that all Cypriots form "one people" - the correct term with which to distinguish Turkish Cypriots is "community".


erolz wrote:The problem with that is that it 'justifes' Piratis' claim that TC are simply a minority of the single Cypriot people and therefore have no rights above that.

erolz; I think Alexandros would agree that GCs also have a "community" status in this "one people" concept.

[erolz]

Just to follw up my previous post here is what I wrote in one of the MANY discussions we have had previously on this topic.

No what I mean by the 'legal basis' of the two communites is that there seems to be some agreement on the conecpt of a stsus of the communites that is 'more than a minority' and 'less than a people'. The problem is that the only 'legal' (defined and recognised by org like the UN) statuses that ecxist at the moment are either 'people' (which is not acceptable to you/GC) or 'minority' (which is not acceptable to me/TC). A solution of TC legaly (according to UN definaitions) as a minority but with some 'sepcial and extra' clauses in the Cypriot consitituion is not really sufficent to reassure me enough. Alternatively a solution of TC leagly recognised asd a 'people' (defined and recognised by an org like UN) but with some sepcial and extra clauses in the Cypriot consituion to limit these rights as people is probaly not sufficent to reassure you (and laomost certainly not Piratis form what I percieve as his position). If there was a 'third' category recgonised and defined by the UN of 'more than a minority' and 'less than a people' then this would not be a problem. Is that a bit clearer now?

from this thread
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=375

It is piratis that insists that the solution has to be framed in existing human rights charters. As the status of 'community' does not exist in these charters - only a status of 'minority' or 'people' then I have to 'chose' between eithe 'people' or 'minority'. In this regard I have no option but to chose 'people' (but always accepting a need to limit these absolute rights) or accept Piratis insitance on minority - which I can not do.

[erolz]

erolz; I think Alexandros would agree that GCs also have a "community" status in this "one people" concept.

I have no doubt about this and if the discussion (now and previously) had only been with Alexandros then this whole issue would not be relevant. Both he and I would accept this reality of 'communites' and their status and not be concerned that this status is not already defined in 'international agreements'. The problem comes when Piratis says you can not have a status of 'equal community' in Cyprus because no such status exists in the human rights charters and you must have the status of minority and anything that GC accept above this status of minority is a one sided compromise and gift from GC to TC and not based on any right of TC. That is the problem.

[erolz]

With these comments I do have to question the sincerity of Erol, just in the same way he questions mine and every other GC!

If I had made these comments then you would have better grounds to question my sincerity.

[Piratis]

Ok, can anybody give a convincing argument why Blacks in USA, Russians in Latvia (30% of the population), white people in south africa etc are all considered minorities and TCs are supposedly not?

Does any of you know of another community who is "numerically less" (TCs are less than 1/5th) that is given things like 50% power, or 30% land that does not belong to them?

We have our rights which are crystal clear, indisputable, and recorded in several UN resolutions.
Erolz and co, want us to compromise our rights, and in order to achieve this they create some imaginary rights for themselves so they can later come and tell us that they have supposedly compromised some of their "rights" too, while in fact they compromised NOTHING.

So Erolz, you rights as a community are not the self-determination rights you claim, but the rights that are recorded in the RoC constitution.
If you ask from us to compromise our human rights you should at least be willing to compromise some of your super privileges that you gained in 1960.

Otherwise if what we will compromise is not real rights, but imaginary crap, then I can also say that we own the universe, and because we accept to have just earth is a huge compromise for us!!

[magikthrill]

ok so if both GCs and TCs are a community, then by allowing TCs self-determination this is not only conflicting with the human right of the right to return but also with GCs community self-determination.

[erolz]

Sigh

and so we go round and round.

Ok, can anybody give a convincing argument why Blacks in USA, Russians in Latvia (30% of the population), white people in south africa etc are all considered minorities and TCs are supposedly not?

Do you mean an argument that would convince a reasonable person or an argument that would convince you? No argument will convince you because you are not interested in arguments. All you are interested in is denying the TC community / people thier rights. Also you should be asking can anybody give you an argument _again_ as we have had this conversation many times before.

Did the african americans exist in the continent of the USA as a single homegenous (free) people (same shared culture and language and religon etc) that was disticinct from the rest of the amercians with a different single shared language culture and relgion when America gained it's independance? Back then the African americans were slaves and they were (enforced) imigrants into america. Today African americans are no longer slaves and are as american as anybody else. They do not have a shared common language, cultural heritage, relgion etc to the rest of the non african americans. The simple point is that America was not made up of two seperate and clearly defined 'communites' at the point at which it became a nation state and thus the comparison is between apples and a dog and about as sensible.

Are the Russians living in Lativa russians imigrants living in Latvia or they Lativans with a destinct and seperate identity (different language, culture and religion) from the majority of Lativans (ie have russians been living in Latvia for the last 500 years or so)? If they are the later then I would support the idea that they should have a degree of equality and self determination in Lativa. If they had also been subjected to oppresion, murder and violence at the hands of the Lativan majority for many years then I would say the need for them to have a degree of political equality and self determination is greater. In 1500 Turks in Cyprus were were Turkish imigrants living in Cyprus. By 1800 they were no longer Turkish imigrants but Cypriots - with a different culture, relgion and language to the GC - but no less Cypriot.

Does any of you know of another community who is "numerically less" (TCs are less than 1/5th) that is given things like 50% power,

The minority ethnic communites that make up ethnic federal states like both Belgium and Switzerland have a degree of equality with the larger ethnic communites that make up their states - no more and no less than I expect for the TC community in Cyprus.

or 30% land that does not belong to them?

The issue of us having land that does not belong to us is seperate from the issue of what rights we TC should have in Cyprus as a community / people. Weahter we have such land or not does not change what our rights are. That we currently have land that used to be yours is because of your refusal to accept our rights - which is not the same as saying this justifies the current sistuation or our current control of this land. I WANT to give you back as much land as is practicle and compatible with a peaceful harmonious Cyprus that you owned before the events of 74 (and for us to get back ours from 1960) - but not at the cost of giving up our rights as a community / people in Cyprus. If the price of returning your lands is for TC community to accept your determination that they are no more than a minority in Cyprus then this is a price I will not pay. Accept our RIGHTS as a community and anything is negoitable upto and including the return of all property to pre 74 status. Refuse to accept our RIGHTS as a community and we can not even begin to negotiate what should and will be returned or not.

We have our rights which are crystal clear, indisputable, and recorded in several UN resolutions.

Your (and my) rights, as peoples and as indivduals are defined in the charters on human rights and not in resolutions per se.
Your rights as an indivdual are not disputed. Our rights as a people are what you deny. I do not deny the existance of your rights as you deny the existance of ours. I am saying that the ability for you to freely exercise your rights in Cyprus today is tied up with your ability (or inability) to accept ours - just as the reasons why you lost those rights in the first place is directly related to your refusal to accept the existance of our rights. Accept our rights as rights and we can talk about how we can solve your loss of rights. If you refuse to accept we have any rights as a community / people, as you do, do not be surprised if I am reluctant to worry about yours until such time as you do accept them.

Erolz and co, want us to compromise our rights, and in order to achieve this they create some imaginary rights for themselves so they can later come and tell us that they have supposedly compromised some of their "rights" too, while in fact they compromised NOTHING.

Here you go again - keeping the 'original' (pre 74) Cyprus problem alive and kicking by insisting that you have rights and we just have imgainary rights. If the rights of a community to a degree of self determination are 'imaginary' then the GC used imaginary rights as an excuse to kill British people. If those rights to self determianation only existied for Cypriots as a single unifed people (with a shared common language, relgion and culture) then you can not claim that they were real for GC and EOKA vs the British firstly because there was no such united siongle Cypriot people and secondly because the objective was not self determination of Cypriots but was in fact the denial of Cypriot rights to self determination through union with Greece.

You want it all ways Piratis. When it is convinent for you the right of the GC community to self determination is clear, indisputable and self evident - as it the case according to you in regards to the actions of EOKA terrorist in the 50s onwards. When however it is convient to you these EXACT SAME rights become imaginary unclear and disputable - as is the case when applied to the TC community vs GC.

So Erolz, you rights as a community are not the self-determination rights you claim, but the rights that are recorded in the RoC constitution.

If you ask from us to compromise our human rights you should at least be willing to compromise some of your super privileges that you gained in 1960.

Alexandros and Isan the above is exactly the reason why I become forced to cast our rights in terms of the rights of peoples and away from accepting the rights of communites. For Piratis (when convient) the rights of the TC commuity in Cyprus are not 'real' human rights - just a consequence of the 1960 agreements where as his rights are real human rights derived from the charters on human rights. Thus I am forced to go back to WHY we were given these (not real human rights) in the original 1960 consitution. The why is becuase there was an acceptance of our status AS A RIGHT and based on HUMAN RIGHTS of 'more than a minority and less than a people'. As long as Piratis insits that this status of 'more than a minority and less a people' is not real and is not based on human rights then I have little choice but to return to the source of these rights - namely the human rights declarations on the rights of peoples.

Otherwise if what we will compromise is not real rights, but imaginary crap, then I can also say that we own the universe, and because we accept to have just earth is a huge compromise for us!!

I understand totally that as long as you consider your rights absolute but our rights as 'imaginary fictions of conveince' then of course any compromise between these two seems like an unfair compromise to you. That is why until your are prepared to accept our rights as a community / people are as real and important as yours and just like your no less based on the charters on human rights we will continue to get nowhere - just as we have since 1960.

[Piratis]

It is clear that while TCs in 1960 gained a lot more than their minority deserved (veto power on everything, 30% position in government, 40% in police etc etc), today they are for once more using the tanks that stand behind them to gain even more on our loss.

They want to give NOTHING up from the 1960 agreements, and they expect us to give up our human rights to satisfy them.


This is how they see it:

Compromise for GCs = Giving up real legal rights that were supposed to have today but they don't due to the illegal occupation.

Compromise for TCs = Giving up some of their demands and NOTHING from what trully and legally is their right.


Maybe some other GCs want to maintain a friendly climate, but all of us know that the only reason that we are supposed to make such kind of compromises today is the current balance of power and not that TCs have the right to demand things like federation, political equality of communities, 30% of land etc. How many GCs disagree with this statement?