Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

It is your problem to think that we don't care about violations of our human rights (!!!!) and that we simply talk about them for some other reasons, but you are wrong!.

If someone cares about only their loss of human rights, but is prepared to violate or allow the violation of others human rights I do not consider that a comittment to human rights, but the use of human rights as a means to and end. Is it not within the realms of possibility that some GC 'lectures' about human rights are actualy more about a convient means of securing what they themselves have lost and that if they regain that lost they will then have little or no interest in human rights? Is this concept so hard to understand? Am I saying that no GC expression re human rights are genuine. No I am not. Am I saying that GC loss of access to property and free travel and residency in all of Cyprus do not matter, because some GC expressions of human rights may not be genuine. No I am not. I really have enough of this whole discussion. I really have done my utmost to explain what I feel and why. If you still feel that such feelings are invalid or unreasonable then so be it. If you continue to want to interpret what I am saying in ways that do not realte to my intent then so be it.

Find me this "right" here:
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I can also say that I have the right of owning a Porsche and go steal one, but I will still be a thief, right?

from http://www.iwgia.org/sw228.asp

The right of self-determination
The right of self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle in international law. It is embodied in the Charter of the United Nations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Common Article 1, paragraph 1 of these Covenants provide that:

"All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

The right of self-determination has also been recognized in other international and regional human rights instruments such as Part VII of the Helsinki Final Act 1975 and Article 20 of the African Charter of Human and Peoples` Rights as well as the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories and Peoples. It has been endorsed by the International Court of Justice. Furthermore, the scope and content of the right of self- determination has been elaborated upon by the United Nations Human Rights Committee and Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as well as international jurists and human rights experts.

That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing.

see above for our 'right' to self determination?

But we never agreed that this self determination of yours should violate our basic human rights. Actually it is very possible to have your self determination, without violating at least our basic human rights. (we could even accept some violations of the not very basic ones!!!).

Yes I believe it is possible but it requires compromise and realism and more than just a blanket instance on just your (or our) human rights.

Instead of seeing how compromising we are, you keep asking for more and more, and now you even tell us that our human rights are just nothing but propaganda????
As I said in another threat we are ready for a decent compromise. Unfortunately it seems you want us to simply capitulate. (and such thing will never happen)

That is not what I am doing. I have been asking for nothing more in this discussion other than that you understand what I feel and why I feel it (in relation to the sincerity and constructiveness of blanket insitance on human rights). You are ready for a decent compromise and so am I. It will need to address mine (our) concerns and fears as well as yours.

[Piratis]

If someone cares about only their loss of human rights, but is prepared to violate or allow the violation of others human rights I do not consider that a comittment to human rights, but the use of human rights as a means to and end.

I don't want and I am not prepared to violate any human right of anybody!!! How did you came to such outrageous conclusion?

from http://www.iwgia.org/sw228.asp

Did you read the whole page??

The definition of self determination in that same page:

What is most widely implied in the term self-determination is the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.

Nobody dinied you this right!

And again from that same page:

Self-determination has thus been defined by the International Court of Justice (in the West-Saharan case) as: The need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples.
It is important to stress that for indigenous peoples the term self-determination does most often NOT imply secession from the state.

[erolz]

I don't want and I am not prepared to violate any human right of anybody!!! How did you came to such outrageous conclusion?

sheesh - calm down a bit! Where have I accused YOU of doing that? How did you come to such an outrageous conclusion that because I say it is possible that someone might do somthing it means I am accusing you of doing that thying?

Did you read the whole page??

Yes I did.

The definition of self determination in that same page:

What is most widely implied in the term self-determination is the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.

Nobody dinied you this right!

You stated that there was no human right that related to a right to self determination. I pointed out that there is such a right. You then move to 'we do not deny you this right'. We can discuss the details of what that right means and should mean in a Cypriot context if you wish but that was not the issue originaly. The original issue was if such a right even existed. Shall I remind you of your original assertion?

That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing.

I could also remind you that it is you and not me that is 'lecturing' on the absoloutism of human rights and their unqualifed primacy above and beyond all else and your personal commitment to them.

And again from that same page:

Self-determination has thus been defined by the International Court of Justice (in the West-Saharan case) as: The need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of peoples.
It is important to stress that for indigenous peoples the term self-determination does most often NOT imply secession from the state.

If you want to start a discussion about interpretation of what the right to self determination actualy means and should mean in the context of Cyprus, then I am happy to do so. However you would need to accept such a right exits in the first place, which previously you stated did not exist but was merely a compromised forced on GC from a position of weakness and a sign of their 'generousity'.

For me in looking at these internationaly accepted definitions of the right to self determination a key word that appears constantly and through out them is 'peoples'. To me there is no doubt that TC represent a 'people', distinct and seperate from the GC people or the 'virtual' concpet of a unifed cypriot 'people'.

If you take the specific writtien UN expresion for this right

"All peoples have the rights of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

This for me is clearly a basis for the right of TC (as a clearly defined 'people') to need and have some degree of political equality within a unifed Cyprus. Without it our right to "freely determine our political status and freely pursue our economic, social and cultural development" is undermined as a minority 'people' in Cyprus, under the political control and domination of a different numerical greater 'people'. Our differnece then is not on if TC should have some degree of political equality - you agree they should as I understand it. Our difference is in that you see the granting as such as a 'favour' and opposed to basic prinicpals of 'ideal democracy' and a concession given under pressure of weakness of position and I see it as a right.

I also feel I have to raise a seperate more personal issue here as well. The _feeling_ I get from you Piratis is overwhealmingly one of 'aggression' and of 'self rightgeousness'. I admit and acknowledge that this is an 'emotional' repsonse from me, but it is real none the less. I also make no accusations about the cause. Maybe it is your fault. Maybe it is mine. Maybe it is the nature of the medium. Most likely it is a combination of all of these factors and more besides. For my part I am trying not to respond emotionaly to these feelings and not to personlise the issues being discussed. I may not be sucseeding but I am trying. I would reiterate that I am NOT metioning this because I wish to blame you for it or use it as an attack against you - i am more than willing to countenace the fact that is is MY style, MY posting that create this. I mention it because I feel that if we truely wish to find ways of using discussions such as these to increase understanding and mutual respect and not increase and solidfy division, then it is a dynamic that has to be both recongised and that we must attempt to understand and minimse and mitigate as much as is possible. So if there is anything you think I could do that would lessen this 'tension' (at least as I experience it) in our discussion then please tell me what those things are, so long as it does not require me to not say what I mean, not express what I feel and why openly and honestly. I am not interested in some kind of 'false courtesy' where neither party expresses their true feelings for fear of increasing tension. I am interesting in trying to discover if we can find a way of doing this (honestly express our views and feelings) whilst minimising the unessary confrontational and personal aspects of these discussion.
[/quote]

[Piratis]

You stated that there was no human right that related to a right to self determination.

If what you mean is the standard definition of "self determination" then sorry, I thought you meant something different ...

If you want to start a discussion about interpretation of what the right to self determination actually means and should mean in the context of Cyprus, then I am happy to do so.

... and after all it seems that you indeed mean something different, something that goes beyond "self determination" but you like to call it that way.

You might try to give this interpretation to what "self determination" means. But the fact remains that our human rights that you violate are crystal clear by any definition.

So lets forget what is "compromise" and what is "right" those things are just on paper. On reality we are willing to give you this "self determination" that you demand. So are you going to give us all our human rights now?
(now I say all with no exception, because if you play with definitions to squeeze every last drop out of your "rights" why shouldn't I do it too?)

The _feeling_ I get from you Piratis is overwhealmingly one of 'aggression' and of 'self rightgeousness'.

You confuse aggression with defense. For me there are some principles. In the end you either accept them or not. If you do, then we continue discussing on how those principles will be best applied. If you don't accept them there is simply nothing to discuss.
In my other threat "principles of a solution" I outline what I consider the principles. No discounts can be made on those, just minor adjustments.

[Bananiot]

Piratis is very depressive. He thinks that because someone is democratically elected everything he does is automatically correct. This simplistic attitude is spoiling all efforts for a meaningful discussion.

Had Makarios exhibited more vision in 1971 the Cyprob would have been solved right then and we would have been spared the agony of the invasion and partition. In Clerides's "My Deposition" one can find the letters exhanged between the junta and Makarios and anyone can see that the colonels tried in vein to pursuade Makarios to accept a deal that gave the TC a limited amount of self government.

By citing these facts I become a supporter of the junta, according to Piratis, and of EOKA B. That is absurd but absurdity is the trade mark of this simpleton and I am fast learning to accept nothing less.

Anyway, lets get back to the important issues. One may ask, why did Makarios refuse a deal that almost incorporated all 13 points he asked for in 1963? Some argue that he considered more important the abolision of the institution of vice presidency rather than the abolision of the veto rights.

Makarios was hard headed, he never listened to sound advise from Greece, even before the junta era. In 1963 on April 19, foreign minister Evangelos Averof sent a long letter to Makarios. In it he made it clear that Greece was dead against the effort to change the constitution. "Many dangers are discernible for dear Cyprus" cries Averof in an almost poetic manner, but Makarios is adamant. He did not even bother to answer the letter!

His hard head led him o follow exactly the same course as in the early 50's when, despite the objections of the greek government he insisted on internalisation of the Cyprus issue leading to the disaster of the flourishing greek community in Instanbul and of course the eventual disaster of Cyprus.

Of course, what should be obvious and needing no explanation, is that its not enough to entertain a general belief in your solemn rights in order to pursue a course of action that will deliver whatever you are after. Even if the moral right is on your side 100% you are not going to succeed if you do not take into consideration all the factors which are involved in the issue. If you follow your heart instead of your brain you then become a real danger for your cause and your country. I think Makarios made grave mistakes and he tried to cover these in total intransparency litterary burying all his political opponents into political extinction. Sure enough he was democratically elected with a huge vote of consent that made totalitarian regimes appear innocent but I seem to recall bad things for those that dared to oppose him in elections.

[erolz]

If what you mean is the standard definition of "self determination" then sorry, I thought you meant something different ...

... and after all it seems that you indeed mean something different, something that goes beyond "self determination" but you like to call it that way.

You might try to give this interpretation to what "self determination" means. But the fact remains that our human rights that you violate are crystal clear by any definition.

So what are you saying Piratis? That there is an established human right to self determination but it does not apply to the TC in Cyprus? What is unclear about this human right? I talked about discussing what this right should mean in a Cyprus context and you then state

"because if you play with definitions to squeeze every last drop out of your "rights" why shouldn't I do it too?"

You constantly 'lecture' on human rights and their fundamental importance and primacy. When I point out that I have a _degree_ of skeptisim with regard to how genuine such expression might be you spend 4+ pages of the forum 'attacking' me for that statement. You then state that there is no right to self determination (for TC) and make out that your willingness to grant TC some degree of self determination is an indication of GC compromise. When I point out there is such right clearly within the UN charter you then state its not important if it is a right or not - we will give it to you. This from the 'champion' of human rights!

You have said here

That said, we agreed that you will have not a degree but a a lot of self determination. But we did this as a compromise because we are the week side, and not because you had any kind of right to demand such thing.

I ask you again then, as the champion of 'human rights' - do you stand by this statement that TC do not have 'any kind of right to demand such a thing'?

I would also remind you that in all previous discussion here and elsewhere I have not talked about the need for TC to have a degree of self determination in terms of Human Rights. As I have tried to explain I do not see such lecturing as constructive or useful in terms of actually finding a solution. You on the other hand have consistently lectured on 'human rights' here. Yet it seems that some human rights are more clear than others, or some more important than others and it just so happens that those that relate to GC are clear and important and those that relate to TC are not clear and 'deniable' (as you have denied them as _rights_ in your above posts)

So lets forget what is "compromise" and what is "right" those things are just on paper. On reality we are willing to give you this "self determination" that you demand. So are you going to give us all our human rights now?
(now I say all with no exception, because if you play with definitions to squeeze every last drop out of your "rights" why shouldn't I do it too?)

If you read what you have written above it clearly shows your 'true' commitment to human rights in my opinion. You start by saying lets forget human rights and talk about what the GC are willing to 'give' TC. You then ask if TC will in return grant you 'all your human rights' in return. So for TC we should forget about human rights and deal only with what is 'given' by the GC. Yet in reverse you do not say lets forget about GC human rights and deal only with what is to be 'given' by TC. And you have the gall to accuse me of trying to squeeze every last drop from our rights (which you even put in inverted commas!)!.

It would seem that your commitment to human rights is somewhat one sided then, and my skeptisim about such lectures from GC has some validity in your specific case as well as in general (something I have strenously avoided saying or implying so far despite your accusations that I have said it).

For me there are some principles. In the end you either accept them or not. If you do, then we continue discussing on how those principles will be best applied. If you don't accept them there is simply nothing to discuss.

and this is from someone who considers themselves the 'weaker party' in negotiations! Take it or leave it?

For you there are some principles and then there is another set of principles for a settlement. There is wide divergance and contradiction between your principals like 'ideal democracy', 'human rights' and 'a 'normal' cypriot state' and your 'principals of a settlement' where 'ideal democracy' becomes 'compromised democracy', 'human rights' becomes 'reluctant compromise from GC under pressure (in regard only to TC human rights) and 'a 'normal' cypriot state' becomes 'a cypriot state with unalterable sections of the consitituion'. These divergances and contradictions give serious cause for concern for me.

In my other threat "principles of a solution" I outline what I consider the principles. No discounts can be made on those, just minor adjustments.

As I have repeated stated what matters more to me than the details of such proposals (or indeed lectures on human rights) is what is in peoples hearts, whether they have a will to make such agrements work. For me to be able to have any faith in an agreement I need to be able to trust the sincerity of those agreeing it. Yet just about every important point in your suggested 'principals of a solution' is at odds with your stated 'principals'. When I aksed what protection TC would have against unilateral changes to this agreement you stated that certain terms would be 'unalterable' without TC consent - yet you consistently argue that such 'non normal'(compared to other states) provisions are an anthema to you.

So you express a willingness to sign an agreement that would remove Turkish troops from the Island and remove any right to Turkish intervention. Yet that agreement is contradictory to your expressed 'principals' and even now you talk of 'agreeing it as the weaker party' and under 'duress'. Am I to have no fears and no concerns then that once such an agreement is signed and the only historical protection that proved any worth to TC in the past is removed, you may decide to start complaining that actualy the agreement was unfairly forced on you as a weaker party, that it violates fundamental principals of ideal democracy, violates your human rights and is not consistent with any 'norms' of other countries?

What matters to me, in the final analysis is my perception of how reasonable, how sincere, how trustworthy, how much will GC have to really make a united Cyprus work. So far in my discussions with you, you have done nothing to improve this perception for me. You have only increased my concern on these issues. With your dogmatic expression of ideals and lectures on human rights. With your contradictions between your 'principals of a solution' and your expressed 'principals' and in your general line that what GC offer is a compromise and what TC offer is just restoring human rights.

[insan]

Bananoit, I'd like to ask you a question concerning Klerides... Insofar as I comprehended, you consider Klerides a wise politician who honestly exert a great effort to solve Cyprus problem; "fairly" and honestly, by taking all aspects of the problem into consideration.


As a TC; I've always thought that, a politician like Klerides who took all ex-Eoka-B members under his parties(DESI) wings in 1976, is just a hypocrat who still trying to play some tricky games according to Akritas Plan.


Likewise his successor Anastasiades but the recent crisis in DESI revealed that there were two totally different core groups in DESI; at least they had different points of views regarding the solution of Cyprus Problem.


This situation seems to me that DESIs policy concerning the solution of Cyprus problem should be something that was accepted by ex-EOKA-B memebers of the party; from 1976 until prior to the crisis in DESI.


Thenceforth I started to think that if they were playing some tricky games according to Akritas Plan, in order to reach their ultimate goal in the end; Klerides, Anastasiades and the ones who backing them would convince the ex-EOKA-B memebers of party.


Now I can't comprehend the logic why Klerdies embraced all ex-EOKA-B memebers in 1976, kept on honouring Grivas and even Sampson, had tens of EOKA monuments built then they became the opposing forces within DESI.



Ps: It is said that EOKA-B maintained its presence officially until 1978 then dissolved. During their 3 years of presence afterwards 1974, it is said that they had kept threatining Makarios while he was negotiating with Denktash. Is it true?



-

[Piratis]

He thinks that because someone is democratically elected everything he does is automatically correct.

I don't think that! All I am saying is that you have to respect the will of the majority no matter what you believe. You have the right to criticize and express your opinion, but you don't have the right to work against what the majority believes is correct.

Had Makarios exhibited more vision in 1971 the Cyprob would have been solved right then and we would have been spared the agony of the invasion and partition.

How??? For the invasion the excuse was the coup. Had Makarios given those things to the TCs the coup wouldn't happen?
It would, and probably EOKA-B would have more supporters in that case, and this is why the generals had advised Makarios to do it (if they did).
Also, if Makarios had done that, the TCs today would have been stronger in their position of two separate states than they are today.
I am afraid your way of thinking is so simple you can not even think one step ahead. Don't try to play chess.

[Piratis]

Erolz, I accept every single human right that exists, the way it exists without any distortion.

Here:

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act toward one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

And here is the one you posted:

the right to participate in the democratic process of governance and to influence one’s future – politically, socially and culturally.

I accept ALL of the above, exactly the way they are.

Do you accept them too? YES OR NO?

Or you want to forget about some and manipulate and distort some others to fit your purpose?

Can you answer directly? Or you will try to avoid it again?

[Piratis]

What matters to me, in the final analysis is my perception of how reasonable, how sincere, how trustworthy, how much will GC have to really make a united Cyprus work. So far in my discussions with you, you have done nothing to improve this perception for me. You have only increased my concern on these issues.

So demands for human rights is something that increases your concerns. Of course it is!! Since you stole our land, and your aim is to keep them for yourselves, right? Thats why human rights scare you so much!!

I said it in another thread:
http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus374.html
The solution of the Cyprus problem is unfortunately a matter of balance of power.
Therefore it matters very little what you think of me and what I think of you.