Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

To reach a solution both sides need to compromise. The Greek Cypriots are asked to compromise their legal rights, and even some of their basic human rights. On the other hand, all it is asked from Turkish Cypriots is to compromise some of their demands, most of which are illegal in the first place.

In another thread Metecyp said:

So to reach to a bicommunal bizonal federation, both sides need to compromise (GC give up "all refugees return back" and TCs accept as many refugees to return as possible).

So the compromise of the legal human rights of Greek Cypriots, is equivalent to some compromise of the TC illegal demand that GCs should not be allowed to return to their own homes!

Yes, we are the weaker side and we might be forced to make huge compromises in order to get something rather than nothing. However such kind of "solution" that is based on the humiliation of one side and to the benefit of the other is temporary, and the circle of blood will definitely continue with the next shift in balance of power.

[brother]

Piratis,
i do not believe in accepting the gc being humiliated or getting a deal they feel like they have lost, as to me you are our brothers and if you lose then i feel that i lose, this has to be managed in such a way that our communities do not have any bad blood left floating around so we can create a good future for our children etc.

The views of metecyp you qouted are the views of one person and should not be taken as gospel but as what it is a personal opinion.

[metecyp]

So the compromise of the legal human rights of Greek Cypriots, is equivalent to some compromise of the TC illegal demand that GCs should not be allowed to return to their own homes!

It's the same cycle of legality vs. reality but anyway. The fact is that we have a situation in the north. Now, if you're not ready to accept a huge percentage of TCs being refugees again to enable GCs to return back, then how can we even reach to an agreement? A TC will move out of a GC house to some other place, create a new life, a new environment for himself and go through all the hassle so the GC owner of the house can return back and enjoy his property and this is not compromise for you because it was illegal in the first place?

Well, what is a compromise then? Accepting Enosis sounds like a good compromise to you? Or maybe total control of Cyprus by GCs is a good compromise?

What you want from TCs is to accept to go back to before 1974 and not consider this as "true compromise" and then compromise even further from there. As if TCs are the only ones that caused the trouble. This is nonsense and go ahead and pull your legality arguments but it's not going to get you anywhere.

The views of metecyp you qouted are the views of one person and should not be taken as gospel but as what it is a personal opinion.

What are your views then, brother? Do you believe that accepting "as many refugees as possible to return back" is not a compromise on TCs part? Do you really believe that, as a community, TCs do not consider this as a compromise? I don't think so. This is a compromise and whether it's illegal or not doesn't change anything.

People compromise from realities and these are the realities of the today.

[boulio]

Well, what is a compromise then? Accepting Enosis sounds like a good compromise to you? Or maybe total control of Cyprus by GCs is a good compromise?

1)till this day i dont believe that t/c still speak of enosis of cyprus with greece.

2)concerning total control of cyprus,since 1977 the roc is commited to a bi-zonal federal model for cyprus,why do you keep saying the g/c want total control of cyprus?

[Saint Jimmy]

1)till this day i dont believe that t/c still speak of enosis of cyprus with greece.

2)concerning total control of cyprus,since 1977 the roc is commited to a bi-zonal federal model for cyprus,why do you keep saying the g/c want total control of cyprus?

1) This is correct. The idea of enosis died long ago, and this is not my opinion. I really think (some) TCs are the only people who speak of enosis as if it were something to be cautious of now. I just want to say that it's just unreasonable - enosis only exists in historical accounts of contemporary history, it is dead and buried.

2) Because the A-Plan was a form of bi-zonal federation (albeit with confederational elements), and not only did we not accept it, we trashed it. That, by some stretch of imagination, but not much, could be interpreted as us reluctantly voting for a clear federation, as if we still haven't accepted the compromise of federalization in reality, but only in words. This is my opinion.

[boulio]

i think jimmy that the annan plan was more towards a confederation than a federation,whoever there were many points to it that the g/c took to heart that certain things were not satisfied,there was not mention and this is my opinion of turkeys fault in this whole big mess for one,the legalization of the invasion was another the fact that the whole thing was deependent on turkeys goodwill was another,I think that many t/c must make the clear distinction that they want and believe they could live peacefully with the t/c however they will reject any plan that gives turkey so many rights in cyprus.the g/c anomosity and there projection of suffering is not towards the t/c community but towards turkey.

[insan]

1) This is correct. The idea of enosis died long ago, and this is not my opinion. I really think (some) TCs are the only people who speak of enosis as if it were something to be cautious of now. I just want to say that it's just unreasonable - enosis only exists in historical accounts of contemporary history, it is dead and buried. 2) Because the A-Plan was a form of bi-zonal federation (albeit with confederational elements), and not only did we not accept it, we trashed it. That, by some stretch of imagination, but not much, could be interpreted as us reluctantly voting for a clear federation, as if we still haven't accepted the compromise of federalization in reality, but only in words. This is my opinion.

What is the essentials of Enosis idea?

Political integration of whole Cyprus with Greece. Since the establishment of RoC and even before; GC leadership and Greece have a common policy from internal affairs to external affairs. But the problem is TC community and the areas under "occupation" of TCs. Enosis is still alive, until the whole of Cyprus has become under control of GC "nation".


GCs consider the "majority rule" as their self-determination right. According to their point of view, GC "nation" constitute a "people" but TCs are nothing more than a minority.

[Saint Jimmy]

What is the essentials of Enosis idea?

Political integration of whole Cyprus with Greece. Since the establishment of RoC and even before; GC leadership and Greece have a common policy from internal affairs to external affairs. But the problem is TC community and the areas under "occupation" of TCs. Enosis is still alive, until the whole of Cyprus has become under control of GC "nation".

You are right about the essentials of the idea. But political co-operation and union are two different things. When the enosis idea died (some time after 1974), GCs reverted to co-operation with Greece, as they clearly realized (as they ought to have done much earlier) that enosis was never going to materialize. Greece, on the other hand, has been extremely careful since the coup not to engage in (not even being perceived as engaging in) meddling in Cypriot affairs, because of its dirty past - its role in the coup. You must have noticed that Greece does not make decisions for, or try to impose its decisions, on the RoC. Look at what happened with the referendum. The newly elected Karamanlis government wouldn't take a stance as far as the plan went, until T-Pap stated he was against it. Then, Karamanlis came out and said, 'well, whatever the Cypriots want to do is fine with us' (and later, post-referendum, openly spoke for the need for a solution based on the plan), whereas the 7-year socialist government that had just stepped down was hell bent for the plan all the way.

GCs consider the "majority rule" as their self-determination right. According to their point of view, GC "nation" constitute a "people" but TCs are nothing more than a minority.

This is a tough one. I can't deny that many (not necessarily 'most of') GCs consider the GC people as a 'nation' and would very much like to have TCs as a mere minority. But that, even if it were true of the majority of GCs, does not mean that enosis is alive, does it?

[Saint Jimmy]

the legalization of the invasion

Boulio, the rest of your post is a difference of opinion, and it wouldn't make much sense to start such a conversation as to how much of a federation or confederation the plan was.
But the above quote has been going around a lot, and I honestly can't understand what it means and how it is argued for. Could you please elaborate?

[metecyp]

This thread was for discussing compromises and what constitutes a compromise and not, etc. I really want to make clear to our GC friends that accepting as many GC as possible to return to the north is a compromise on TC part and it shouldn't be dismissed as "it was illegal anyway, so you just return to legality, that's not compromise". So I urge people to stick with the topic and start new threads for other discussions.