Cyprus-Forum.com

[MelbGreko]

You should ask TC (even Turkish mainlander) interviewees the following political question.

<B>As a question of principle, what would the population percentage of GCs have to be, for enosis to have been acceptable to you ? 85%, 90%, 95%, 99.99% or not acceptable at all? </B>

For those that say "not acceptable at all" (i.e. even if that % of GCs was 100%)...
<B>Why ?
What principles/interests override the principle of self-determination for an island of 100% GCs?</B>

[Piratis]

Hello MelbGreko,

I already know the answer, so I will save Insan the trouble of replying.

The answer that was given to me some time ago is that while 5% or 10% is a minority, the 18% is somehow (no adequate explanation given) not a minority and thats why the GCs didn't have the right for enosis.

I believe that even the TCs themselves realize that this claim is obscure, but most of them seem to be very defensive about it.

Of course, we should not forget that most TCs of that time were indeed treated as second class citizens, and that many GCs fanatics existed that envisioned a "clean" Cyprus. So the TC fears were not unexcused at all, and some foreigners took advantage of these fears to promote their own interests.

"Enosis" is past, and I hope "taksim" will become past for TCs as well so we can move ahead together which is the only way to serve our common interests for our common country.

[MelbGreko]

Hi Piratis,

Piratis wrote...
I already know the answer, so I will save Insan the trouble of replying.


This is a very important question for a documentary to explore (but see my question to Insan below). You can't speak for TCs and Insan's opinion is but one and I doubt there is a uniform opinion amongst TCs. The rest of your post has motivated more good doco questions.


Insan, what is the goal of your documentary ?
1. To enable the two communities to understand each other.
2. To compile an accurate historical record
3. or ?

The answer to this affects the types of questions that should be asked.

[mehmet]

Hi MelbGreko, welcome to the forum.

I only speak for myself. Let us begin by acknowledging the history between Greeks and Turks up until the 1950s. We had coexisted for many hundreds of years in Cyprus and in Europe and Asia for even longer. This history was not always peaceful although there were periods of peace. From 1820s a Greek state was formed which had many conflicts with the Ottoman Empire. This resulted in Greek state expanding. The Greek state (with British backing) landed in Izmir and advance into Anatolia to take advantage of Ottoman Empire's weakness after World War 1. Therefore Greek state contributed indirectly to the foundation of the Turkish republic and the end of the Ottoman empire.

MelbGreko you answer a question. When EOKA came into being what did they do to reassure Turkish Cypiots that they would be safe in a Greek state?

[Bananiot]

I believe there is no point in asking that particular question. There is nothing constructive about it. Basically I agree with what Piratis had to say and we should now use our little gray cells to find a way forward and solve our problem in the best possible way. Our leaders decided that there can be one solution, that is, bizonal, bicommunal federation. A unitary state is out of the question as is enosis. On the table there is only one plan and that is the A plan. I am glad to say that at long last Karamanlis has put some sense into our intransigent president who yesterday acknowledged this fact. All that remains to be done now is for our side to list the changes to the plan that it wants without changing the philoshophy of the plan. Karamanlis has told Papadopoulos quite plainly to forget vetoing the efforts of Turkey to get a date in December and this has sparked a hail of abuse from the pro Papadopoulos supporters, especially for the Simerini newspaper group and radio Sigma. In a few days they will claim that Papadopoulos has betrayed the cause. Things seem to be moving in the right direction.

[metecyp]

We have the goal of bicommunal bizonal federation, the Republic of Cyprus recognized internationally in the south, the situation in the north, and recently the Annan plan. We should be talking about how to form an acceptable solution in the light of what I've just mentioned. Talking about enosis/taksim is waste of time.

[MelbGreko]

Mehmet wrote..
<I>MelbGreko you answer a question. When EOKA came into being what did they do to reassure Turkish Cypiots that they would be safe in a Greek state?</I>

I don't know the answer. My father's description of the EOKA leadership was "stupid and arrogant right-wingers". My guess would be that they ignored or possibly not even considered the concerns of TCs.

But more importantly..
I had nothing to do with the events that led to the current status in Cyprus. <B>This is not a question for me to answer. This is a question EOKA members of that period must answer.</B> Your question is a great one for the doco.

I can, however, contribute questions to this forum that I find important and interesting and should be explored in the doco with the major players and ordinary citizens <B>of those times</B>. The actual questions to be asked in the final product will be decided by Insan.

What would you like to ask ex-eoka, ex-tmt, brits etc ?

[pantelis]

Since you insist to talk about the conflicts of the past, I have some questions to both sides:

Who financed the EOKA and the TMT teams?

Do you know of any of your relatives, who sold their property or sold their wedding rings, to raise money to buy arms for the two sides? If you do, let me know.

In trying to understand the reasons of a conflict, new or old conflicts, it's always good to follow the money. Those who invest in death and unrest, usually are the ones who expect to profit from it. I need not to give examples from current events.

[pantelis]

http://groups.msn.com/CyprusTalks/gener ... 0039662158

[pantelis]

Dear Ba-Annan-iot,

You said:

"Our leaders decided that there can be one solution, that is, bizonal, bicommunal federation. A unitary state is out of the question as is enosis. On the table there is only one plan and that is the A plan."

A bizonal, bicommunal federation and the Annan-plan, are not the same fruit.

Only the fact that this plan has been promoted and devised by the our "guardians" and guarantors, the Brits, and the world "peace-makers" the yankies, makes me very suspicious and I should reject it, without even reading it.
History speaks for itself:
The Britts sytstematically changed the demographic character of north Ireland, creating an ongoing conflict to this day. While both Ireland and UK are members of the EU, the problem is not solved.

The great United States fought a very bloody costly civil war, in order to maintain the ever stronger federal government, that runs the multi-zonal federation we know today. (Today, both the North and the South are on the loosers' bench)
What is good for the goose, should be good for the gander, or not?