Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Erol by the way I noticed that your break only lasted for one single day. And I noticed a very distinctive change after that. That in every single post of yours ever since, you use to call the Republic of Cyprus

a Greek Cypriot administration.

Well
In Cyprus there is only one officially recognised Government, the Republic of Cyprus which is a member of the EU on its entire geographical area. The Eu aquis is simply suspended at the occupied areas otherwise known as a pseudostate or puppet admininstration.

[erolz]

In Cyprus there is only one officially recognised Government, the Republic of Cyprus which is a member of the EU on its entire geographical area. The Eu aquis is simply suspended at the occupied areas otherwise known as a pseudostate or puppet admininstration.

and for a brief moment there I though we were actually making some progress

[Piratis]

and for a brief moment there I though we were actually making some progress

You didn't make any. Your pseudo state is as pseudo today as it has always been.

Progress will never come from dialog simply because you have illegal aims that we will never accept.

Progress will come only when you start obeying the laws, and this will be done only when you are forced to.

[MicAtCyp]

What progress bre Erol? Did we ever agree that the RoC is an administration? And in such a way that implies a forced comparison with an illegal and puppet administration ?
I dont like such terminologies. I dont even like the Terminology North and South Cyprus because they imply something like North and South Korea!
If absolutely necessary I would use the terms Nortern or Southern part of Cyprus to stress the meaning of one and only one Cyprus.

[MicAtCyp]

Welcome Europhile,
I just read your first post after I posted mine. I agree to most of it.
Especially on the part that actually the Cypriots have more things in common than each of us has with the mainlanders.This is a widespread observation by foreigners and the Cypriots themselves.
Drop in occassionally OK?

[erolz]

What progress bre Erol?

Well it seemed for a while there was an acceptance that the communites should be recogniesd as having more rights that a minority and less than total and absoloute rights of a people? Or did I imagine that?

Did we ever agree that the RoC is an administration?

No but you do accept that the RoC has an administration do you not? That it is GC (as opposed to TC or mixed GC and TC)?

And in such a way that implies a forced comparison with an illegal and puppet administration ?

That is your interpretation of the intent behind my choice of words. It was not my actual intent. My usage of GC administarion is the same as my use of American adminsitarion. The adminstarion is the governmental 'executive' of any state - legal or otherwise, puppet or otherwise.

I dont like such terminologies. I dont even like the Terminology North and South Cyprus because they imply something like North and South Korea!
If absolutely necessary I would use the terms Nortern or Southern part of Cyprus to stress the meaning of one and only one Cyprus.

If you are going to get so upset at 'terminology' (especially when you interpet a given usage as meaning something that was never intended) then what hope is there for the future? We could all spend the next 30 years on pointless 'name games' if you want but it will not brign a solution any closer. You object to my use of a term like 'GC adminstration' yet have no apparent problems with such emotive terms as 'aphartied' and 'traitor' and the such like?

[erolz]

You didn't make any. Your pseudo state is as pseudo today as it has always been.

Our state may be as pseudo as it has always been and it may be becomming less 'pseudo' in the eyes of the world following the Annan plan vote - time will tell. What is as true today is that we will not be robbed of a concept of and right to partnership and degree of equality as a component and seperate community within Cyprus that was agreed as the very basis of the state of RoC in 1960 and continues to be the basis accepted by all excpet the most extreme GC positions.

Progress will never come from dialog simply because you have illegal aims that we will never accept.

If you consider it an illegal aim to get you to realise and accept that TC in Cyprus as a group should have more RIGHTS than a mere minority then yes perhaps there is little to be gained from dialogue. If you insist that there is only interpretation on if this aim is illegal or not - namely YOUR interpretation that it is illegal - despite the orignal RoC consitituion, despite the Annan plan, despite EU acceptance of this concept as the basis for a settlement and despite any concept of 'fairness' and 'natural justice' then yes dialgue can probably do little to help change things. However even in such a depressing environment I would still try and continue dialogue for what is the alternative?

Progress will come only when you start obeying the laws, and this will be done only when you are forced to.

What makes you think force can get you what you want in Cyprus? Did force achieve GC aims in the period 63-74 or did it make it worse? Did force get you what you wanted in 74 or did it make things worse? Personaly (you understand the word personaly do you? so dont start telling me I used force please) I would always opt for dialogue over force. I would argue that even if dialogue is insufficent that force achieves nothing in the long run and would resort to 'passive resistance' but never force.

[Piratis]

Well it seemed for a while there was an acceptance that the communites should be recogniesd as having more rights that a minority and less than total and absoloute rights of a people? Or did I imagine that?

Ok, lets start from the basics. What is a "right"? In these forums we are discussing about 2 kind of rights: Human rights, and legal rights. Many times these two kinds of rights overlap, but not always.
For example as a Cypriot I have the right of free education including university level education. I don't think the right of free university level education is a human right though, right?

Minority rights are human rights. Nobody can be denied his human rights.
Turkish Cypriots are a minority, but that doesn't mean they can not have any other legal rights. When/if we agree for a solution, the constitution will define these other extra rights, which will include the use of Turkish language as official Cyprus language etc. The important thing is that such additional rights do not contradict with any human rights and therefore they are perfectly legal, and as good as any other rights.

Nobody wants to take away any right from you. And actually I believe that human rights can not clash. In the rare case that they do (since I know you will argue that this is the case) then the most basic human rights should take precedence. For example if I am dying and a helicopter needs to land near my house at 3am, it should be done, because my human right of life is more important that your right of "quietness at night".

The difference between human rights and legal rights in our discussion is that human rights are not negotiable. Everybody should have the 100% of his/hers human rights. The additional legal rights will be given, as long as they do not clash with more basic human rights.
For example the legal right of having Turkish as an official language is perfectly ok, because nobody has a human right of "not listening to Turkish" or anything like that.
Yet if a legal right is given that the TC state will be 29% and GCs that will be able to return will be only 20%, this is not ok, because it clashes with several basic human rights, like the right of ownership, or the right of free settlement.
If we agree for TCs to have such kind of rights, then we are actually talking about a compromise from our side.
We can do some such compromises, but when we do them then you should at least acknowledge that they are compromises, and respond with some compromises as well.

[erolz]

Well at least this a reasoned argument and not rehtoric, for which I thank you. However I do see some problems

For example the legal right of having Turkish as an official language is perfectly ok, because nobody has a human right of "not listening to Turkish" or anything like that.

But GC (or if you prefer Cypriots as a single people but dominated by a numerical GC majority) have a human right to self determination. If then the majority of 'Cypriots' decide that they do not want two seperate offical languages, because of cost or because of 'divisiveness' or for any other reason and can secure a 50%+1 of Cypriots that agree with this, then any legal right to block this is in direct conflict with the right to self determination and according to you subservient to it. Or for another example (that may not be relevant in terms of likelhood today but makes the point I am trying to make very clear imo) imagine a majority of Cypriots decide they want to join with and become a part of Greece. Any legal right of TC to block such a move is useless in the face of the human right to self determination of either GC or Cypriots as a whole (which is actualy the same thing because GC are numericaly superior). So actualy any 'legal right' you might agree now is worthless given that in your 'thesis' it can be removed at anytime a majority of Cypriots (so GC in effect) decide it should be removed. - because that is an expression of the human right to self determination and thus takes priority over any legal right granted. Do you understand this 'problem' with your proposal?

Nobody wants to take away any right from you. And actually I believe that human rights can not clash. In the rare case that they do (since I know you will argue that this is the case) then the most basic human rights should take precedence. For example if I am dying and a helicopter needs to land near my house at 3am, it should be done, because my human right of life is more important that your right of "quietness at night".

Well just imagine for one moment that you might be wrong (and I realise this is asking much) in your inistance that TCs as a group in Cyprus can not be considered a people in terms of human rights at all and to any degree what so ever. If you are wrong (and again just try and pretened just till the end of this paragraph that it is at least a possibility) - then in reality you are denying our human rights by denying we qualify as a people (at all to any degree what so ever). So the reality of if you are denying our human rights or not rests on if you are correct in YOUR assertion that we are not a people - at all in any degree - as far as Human rights go. If you are wrong then you deny our human rights. I do not think YOU should be the judge and jury in this matter. Does that sound unreasonable to you? (that you/GC should not determine if TC are a people or not - with either limited or absloute rights as a people)

The difference between human rights and legal rights in our discussion is that human rights are not negotiable. Everybody should have the 100% of his/hers human rights. The additional legal rights will be given, as long as they do not clash with more basic human rights.

You do understand that human rights have two basic 'units'. The rights of 'nations' or 'peoples' and the rights of individuals?
In reality I do not think there is such a distinction as you make between human rights and legal rights. In a country there are laws. Human rights as defined by the UN are not actualy 'laws' in that sense but an expression of ideals. Some counties also chose to enshrine some or all of these ideals into their laws and some do not. For me the real differences between 'UN expressions of ideals' and a countires laws are that the UN has no means or ability or mandate to enforce its 'laws' and a state does. In some exceptional cirucmstances the UN has tried to enforce its 'laws' (or resolutions) but these times are by far and away the exception and require the UN getting specific consent each and every time it wishes to do so. A goverment has no need to get 'consent' from its people each and very time it enforces a law. In reality the UN has been ignored countless times by contless countries (including the USA, Israel,Turkey and the RoC and many many others) However I accept your 'thesis' as a 'construct' aimed at 'moving things forward' even if it does not reflect reality. Even excepting this 'construct' (of rights by legislation in a coiuntry and human rights as defined by UN) the problem I mention above still remains for me.

If we agree for TCs to have such kind of rights, then we are actually talking about a compromise from our side.
We can do some such compromises, but when we do them then you should at least acknowledge that they are compromises, and respond with some compromises as well.

Well again this comes down to if the TC 'qualify' as a people or not in terms of human rights. If you are wrong about the TC qualifiying as a people then you are also wrong that these are compromises given only by one side. If in fact both GC and TC represent a people then they are compromises on both sides. On the GC side to toal free residency in Cyprus and on the TC side to total self determination (a spererate state).

Even if the TC are not a people, equal as a people in Cyprus to GC then these 'compromises' are worth nothing in effect. The reason they are worth nothing is that if in 1 year or 3 years or 50 years after they are given the majority of GC decide that they should be 'taken back' then by your logic they should be able to be taken back, because a right to self determination is a human right and the compromises are merely a legal right that can not take precedence over a human right. Again I have to ask if you can understand this 'problem' from my perspective as a TC?

Anyway I would like to thank you for this latest post regardless of the problems I have with concepts in it. I thank you because it does not include emotive terms and statments. I know that I am guilty of getting upset and sometimes being 'emotive' but we should all recognise that such responses are not helpful to anybody and do our best to avoid them. So I thank you for managing this so well in your post in the hope it will encourage you (and others myself included) to continue to do so as much as is humanly possible.

[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.

I'm happy to meet a person like you on this forum. I'd like to hear your personal experiences regarding the Brits "divide and rule" policy that is said that implemented in Cyprus.

It might be considered as divide and rule by the foreigners but for TCs they weren't... Why?

While Brits were using Cyprus as colony of Britain for their benefits;

1- Brits protected the TCs against GC domination; "majority rule". Was that a fault of Brits or TCs? What should they do? Should they let the GCs to dominate TCs?

2- TCs and Brits were against Enosis because of different reasons and interests. As a consequence of their common interests, they fought against Enosists. Normally this caused the tensions amongst two communities to raise... What should Brits and TCs do while a group of GCs evermore demanding union with Greece? The petition for Enosis in church which had been signed by %97 of the GCs had been the last and strongest stimulative event that made TCs to react with a massive protest demonstration.



The core of the Cyprus problem is that majority of GCs don't want TCs as the equal political partner of themselves.

Why?

1- Some of them consider TCs as the settlers(colonialists) of Ottoman era.

2- Some of them consider TCs as a minority not na equal political partner.

3- Some of them consider TCs both of the above.


If all of the other key issues(Settlers, presence of foreign troops and intervention right of foreign countries, properties, freedom of movement and settlement etc) were solved how GCs wish; they would still insist on making TCs a minority in Cyprus... And we all know that their extreme right wing have so much "democratic" methods to oppress TCs to sell everything they own and abandon Cyprus. That is their final goal. Hellenization of Cyprus. A few extreme rightists of both parties are sentenced to a few years of imprisonment, a few hundreds of Cypriots, mostly TCs are killed and 10 thousands of TCs flee other countries.... That's all... problem is solved... In 10 years time Cyprus becomes a pure Hellen island...