Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

Well that will be down to us I think, all of us as Cypriots, whatever the actual form of a settlement turns out to be. It will be down to all of us to choose and decide if we want a future where we choose to define ourselves (and what we want) by our differences or by our commonalities. I think that has actually always been down to us.

I believe the environment and the situation we will find ourselves in is what will determine the result. You can't put people in a state that promotes discrimination, separation and rivalry between two sides and then expect a positive outcome.

Here I again disagree. For me, I KNOW the devil I know is a devil. Absolutely without any doubt. Where as I do not know that about the devil I do not know. The devil I do not know may end up being a devil no different to the one I know or it might be even worse that the one I know, but there is also a CHANCE that it will not be as bad a devil as the one I know or even not a devil at all. I personally will always lean towards choosing a chance of 'better' over a certainty of 'continuing bad'.

Yes... I guess it is an risk vs reward situation. If the risk is relatively low and the possible rewards great, then I would agree with you. But I don't think it will be like that for our side.

[Sotos]

The wider 'commonality' that is required for a majority within the wider group to be able to be said to be a legitimate democratic wish of that whole wider group, can not be that of 'they all just inhabit a given geographical land mass'. In the case of Cyprus at the end of British rule, GC and TC did not have a commonality of 'language' or 'religion'. The choice by the GC community to pursue Enosis rather than independence removed the potential commonality of us being Cypriot citizens regardless of other differences, so what possible commonality was there left that could have made the 'democratic' choice of GC anything other than an 'empty name' ? That was and is my point.

Erolz, that is something that exists in nearly every country. What is the commonality between a Greek of Constantinople, a Turk of Ankara and a Kurd of Diyarbakir? Those are different ethnic groups which just found themselves part of the same state. They don't have any greater commonality between them than the one you would have with a Greek of Athens if Cyprus was part of Greece. The same really goes for every ethnic minority in every other country. The only way to increase the commonality is through assimilation.

[erolz66]

Erolz, that is something that exists in nearly every country. What is the commonality between a Greek of Constantinople, a Turk of Ankara and a Kurd of Diyarbakir? Those are different ethnic groups which just found themselves part of the same state. They don't have any greater commonality between them than the one you would have with a Greek of Athens if Cyprus was part of Greece. The same really goes for every ethnic minority in every other country. The only way to increase the commonality is through assimilation.

There is a difference between ' just finding yourself' in a such a state and choosing what state you and others will be. The commonality they should have is that of all being Turkish regardless of their ethnic differences. As far the decisions that control their lives are made within that wider group regardless of the ethnic differences, then they have that commonality. As far as the decisions that control their lives are shaped by sub groups (feudalities) within the wider group BECAUSE of those differences , and with no consideration given for thier wishes, then I support the need for and calls for some degree of separate and equal representation for them.

[Sotos]

No Greeks ever choose to be part of Turkey. It was something imposed on them and their wishes were never considered. Today they might be citizens of Turkey but they are not Turkish. Would you be Greek if Cyprus was part of Greece?

As far the decisions that control their lives are made within that wider group regardless of the ethnic differences, then they have that commonality. As far as the decisions that control their lives are shaped by sub groups (feudalities) within the wider group BECAUSE of those differences , and with no consideration given for thier wishes, then I support the need for and calls for some degree of separate and equal representation for them.

And what do you think is the case in reality, the first or the second?

[erolz66]

No Greeks ever choose to be part of Turkey. It was something imposed on them and their wishes were never considered. Today they might be citizens of Turkey but they are not Turkish. Would you be Greek if Cyprus was part of Greece?

It was imposed on them by the signature of the Greek State on the Treaty of Lausanne, just as such imposed on ethnic Turks in Greece that they would be Greek citizens. How and when what is today Turkey came into existence as a nation state is not the same as how and when Cyprus did. If Cyprus had of been part of the territories covered by the Treaty of Lausanne we would not be having this discussion now. The other glaring difference is the ethnic Turks living in Turkey did not say , in the name of all those people who live in Turkey, as a valid expression of their democratic right, we declare that all those that live in Turkey will not be ruled by those that live in Turkey, but as a part of some much larger group that does NOT live in Turkey and that there shall be no nation or State of Turkey. In short what you struggle with is how enosis rather than independence 'changed everything'. You may have missed where I said earlier

"Just to be clear that for me this would not have been true imo if you had chosen to want and pursue independence of Cyprus - that WOULD have been for me a valid expression of the democratic will of 'Cypriots' , even if you had 95% supported it and 95% of TC had wanted something different, because it would not have sought to destroy the one thing in which such a majority could have been said to have been valid IN."

It seems to me that you still struggle to see the prardox at the core of the pursuit of enosis (rather than independence) in the NAME of a CYPRIOT people (or legitimate Cypriot polity if you prefer).

And what do you think is the case in reality, the first or the second?

I am not sure what you would have me say to be honest ? Do I think Turkeys record with regard to ethnic minorities make up part of the Turkish nation, like Kurdish Turks, is 'good'. No it is not in my opinion. I think there has been 'progress' and there has been 'falling back'. I think it needs to be 'much better'. I also think that there is not the kind of unanimity within the group that is Kurdish Turks for say succession as there was amongst GC for enosis or TC against it.

[Jerry]

Well we appear to be going back to the start again. For me the need for GC community to have to consider the wishes of the TC community at the end of British rule in the face of their desire for enosis was and is not something that was and is a 'gift' of 'generosity' but actually an obligation founded in a right of the TC community for such consideration to be given. Just to be clear that for me this would not have been true imo if you had chosen to want and pursue independence of Cyprus - that WOULD have been for me a valid expression of the democratic will of 'Cypriots' , even if you had 95% supported it and 95% of TC had wanted something different, because it would not have sought to destroy the one thing in which such a majority could have been said to have been valid IN.
In terms of the practically of Cyprus and Cypriots having to live and deal with a reality that the island is 50km off the coast of Turkey and is and will always be of strategic concern to Turkey, I think then as now, strong arguments can be made that the best way of dealing with that is actually through the TC community and its valid and willing integration and participation within a Cypriot state

Erol, we appear to be going around in circles and confusing two separate arguments. I don't know how old you are but I remember the mood in Cyprus during the 1950s. Denktash was successfully prosecuting members of Eoka, the TC auxiliary police were persecuting, and according to some reports torturing, GCs, and TCs were marching in London demanding partition. The last thing the Greek Cypriots felt was any sort of consideration for the rights of other side. They saw the local minority as Turkey's foot in the door - and events have proved them right.

Today, I believe a different mood exists and yes the communal desires of the Turkish Cypriots should be taken into account but the Greek Cypriots will find it hard to accept a solution whereby the minority makes gains because of what Turkey has achieved for them by force of arms. Furthermore I do not subscribe to this "equal community" nonsense nor to the right of Turkey to deny Cypriots absolute sovereignty by its so-called guarantees.

[Sotos]

Erolz, it is your position which is paradoxical. The time we are talking about is BEFORE the Republic of Turkey was declared. WHO decided that such state should be declared and that homelands of Greeks (western and northern Asia Minor) should be part of this new country called Turkey? Wasn't it the Turks ALONE that decided this?

I am not sure what you would have me say to be honest ? Do I think Turkeys record with regard to ethnic minorities make up part of the Turkish nation, like Kurdish Turks, is 'good'. No it is not in my opinion. I think there has been 'progress' and there has been 'falling back'. I think it needs to be 'much better'. I also think that there is not the kind of unanimity within the group that is Kurdish Turks for say succession as there was amongst GC for enosis or TC against it.

So given the past and the present in Turkey you do not "support the need for and calls for some degree of separate and equal representation for them" (the non Turks in Turkey)? What I am trying to get at is some principles that should apply to all without trying to intentionally shape those principles in a way that "coincidentally" suit just one side.

[erolz66]

I don't know how old you ....

I was born in 1966 in the UK and lived in the UK until about 12 years ago when I moved to live in Cyprus.

are but I remember the mood in Cyprus during the 1950s. Denktash was successfully prosecuting members of Eoka, the TC auxiliary police were persecuting, and according to some reports torturing, GCs, and TCs were marching in London demanding partition. The last thing the Greek Cypriots felt was any sort of consideration for the rights of other side. They saw the local minority as Turkey's foot in the door - and events have proved them right.

Yes by that time things were already polarised, position entrenched at the extremes, moderates and moderate voices intimidated and marginalised (by their own communities). What role had the choice by GC to pursue enosis rather than independence played in creating that polarisation ? If the GC had of sought independence or enosis but with an explicit recognition that they could not seek enosis without consideration for the TC communities wishes, would Denktash have been prosecuting EOKA members, would TC had sided with the British and acted as their agents in the aux police , would TC have been marching in London for partition ? I am not saying they certainly would not have but it is also ludicrous to suggest that it would have made no difference either.

Today, I believe a different mood exists and yes the communal desires of the Turkish Cypriots should be taken into account ...

Yet you have still not answered my question ? Do you believe TC wishes should be taken into account today, because such is an obligation placed on the GC community by some degree of right that TC community has, or because you have no other choice ? That is, if you had an option of trying to get what you wanted whilst ignoring the TC communities wishes entirely, would you choose not to take that option ?

...but the Greek Cypriots will find it hard to accept a solution whereby the minority makes gains because of what Turkey has achieved for them by force of arms.

I understand this.

Furthermore I do not subscribe to this "equal community" nonsense

Do you sincerely believe you would not subscribe to it if the positions were reversed ?

nor to the right of Turkey to deny Cypriots absolute sovereignty by its so-called guarantees.

What about a right to deny Greeks and Greece absolute, sole, sovereignty over all of Cyprus and all Cypriots ?

[erolz66]

The time we are talking about is BEFORE the Republic of Turkey was declared. WHO decided that such state should be declared and that homelands of Greeks (western and northern Asia Minor) should be part of this new country called Turkey? Wasn't it the Turks ALONE that decided this?

Turkey was formed in an age when force of arms was the principal means of creating nations. Following the end of the 1st world war, the treaty of Sevres sought to divide up what is now the nation state of Turkey amongst themselves with portions going to France, Britain, Italy, Greece and Armenia. Ethnic Turks, led by Mustapha Kemal fought a war of independence against those powers that had sought to divide Turkey up amongst themselves and won. The territorial boundaries of what is now the nation state of Turkey were defined and agreed in the treaty of Lausanne a treaty that Greece put it's signature to along with Britain, France, Italy, Japan and Romania.

Turkey was founded as a nation state not by any will of the people but by the power of other nation states and the ability of an ethnic group within it to resit that power bf force of arms, as was normal in that period of humanities history. The status of Cyprus following the end of British rule was to be decided, if not solely, at least partially by the will of the people who lived there. However then you are into the question of what makes a 'legitimate polity' or 'polities' within which such a will can be considered.

So given the past and the present in Turkey you do not "support the need for and calls for some degree of separate and equal representation for them" (the non Turks in Turkey)?

Yes I do and in exact degree to the degree to which their rights as a community that is not 'ethnically Turkish' within the state of Turkey are considered or not considered. The more a numerical majority seek to impose things on the numerical minority BECAUSE of their ethnic differences and not regardless of them, with no consideration given to that minorities wishes, the more I recognise and support the need for that minority to have some form of separate representation.

What I am trying to get at is some principles that should apply to all without trying to intentionally shape those principles in a way that "coincidentally" suit just one side.

I believe that my principals are entirely consistent. What is more I also believe that the classic GC assertion that it is a fundamental principal of democracy that there is and can only ever be one sole means of achieving it, one person one vote, without any recognition of what makes up that 'polity' within which one person one vote takes place - that is to me exactly what you describe above - seeking to intentionally shape a principal that 'suits one side'. As I think the insistence that any kind of federal solution based on ethnic differences is and has to be by principal 'divisive' rather than 'unifying' and is 'institutionalise apartheid' by 'principal'.

[Jerry]

What role had the choice by GC to pursue enosis rather than independence played in creating that polarisation ?

Their choice was based on the belief that they were, bearing in mind the historic enmity between Greeks and Turks, safer as part of Greece. Obviously the minority on Cyprus were concerned but with Turkey's record of intimidation and expulsions of ethnic Greeks it's a bit naive to think they would get much sympathy from the Greek Cypriots. In some respects I suppose the Lausanne Treaty bolstered the GC belief that enosis was achievable.

Do you believe TC wishes should be taken into account today, because such is an obligation placed on the GC community by some degree of right that TC community has, or because you have no other choice ?

Both.

Do you sincerely believe you would not subscribe to it if the positions were reversed ?

Yes

What about a right to deny Greeks and Greece absolute, sole, sovereignty over all of Cyprus and all Cypriots ?

Oh, come on! We have moved on from there or do you like to argue/debate just for the hell of it.

NO MORE ENOSIS, NO MORE GUARANTEES