 |
| Author |
Message |
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Thanks moose. I didnt mean to sound 'divisionist' as such....but do you see why i asked the question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5358
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Thanks moose. I didnt mean to sound 'divisionist' as such....but do you see why i asked the question? |
Certainly, it's a valid question re |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| So would it be fair to say that inasolution, that the definition of a Turkish Cypriot and Greek Cypriot would be defined by religion(but what about declared atheists?)? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
Dhavlos, as a general comment and with the hope that you will not take me wrong as I respect your right to participate and express your whatever views, I would kindly ask you, if and when you are not sure about something (and there is nothing wrong with it as I understand you are a young guy and who also haven’t lived in Cyprus,) to avoid resorting to self-synthesising, in your eager effort to answer other people’s posts and offer explanations to their queries, as you sometimes end up confusing such people even more.
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| but that is the way the british system has developed....in cyprus, many people would vote allong ethnic lines....ie, if they were Greek Cypriot, they would vote for a Greek Cypriot party. |
You say that many people would vote along ethnic lines. Under what scenario are you making this assumption? Are you referring to the time before “independence” or after? In both cases, before and after independence, the two communities were politically separated in an institutionalised fashion and not because of choice. The British, picking up and continuing from the time of the ottomans, kept the two communities politically separated. Ever since they took over and established the first colonial legislating council, they would appoint 9 Greek Cypriot members, 3 Turkish Cypriot members and 6 British members. It is obvious that the British tried to maintain the concept of “millet-devlet systemi” that the Ottomans had introduced and to build upon it, perfectly in line with their traditional policy of divide and rule, so that they would control the people of Cyprus. However, to their dismay, many times the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot members (“representatives”) have collaborated in order to take decisions that the British colonialists did not favour. This occurred in a few occasions before the 1930’s and before the October revolution of 1931. After those events, the British abolished the functioning of this council, but they continued to treat the two communities as two separate entities. The only case in which the two communities would vote together was during municipal elections, before the splitting of the major municipalities into Turkish and Greek Cypriot quarters in the mid -1950’s.
The continuation of the Ottoman concept of “millet-devlet” system, namely the political separation of the people of Cyprus based on their language and “ethnic” decent, did not end with the end of the British occupation but was cemented even further by becoming institutionalised through the donated constitution of 1960, as a result of Turkey’s insistence to it and the British blackmailing on the Greek Cypriots to accept it.
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Its too complicated to try to explain it to yu...maybe moose or bro may be better, but basically, the two communities in cyprus are co-founders of the state. |
Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? Such a notion or assumption does not exist either in the 1960 constitution or in the treaty of establishment! If one wants to speak about co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus, those are only Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom.
| Dhavlos wrote: |
It is kinda like a scot living in scotland thing, but the reason there is such a problem, is that historically, the Turkish Cypriots were not all situated in the north. infact, there were many more Greek Cypriots than Turkish Cypriots, so the problem with quotas is very controversial, especially due to the property issue.
The reason it matters, is because there is a very big issue, say for example, as to who would be the president/vice...a Turkish Cypriot or a Greek Cypriot? in the old constituition, a Greek Cypriot was president and a Turkish Cypriot was his vice-pres., now the problem thatarises issayif aGC who was a muslim came up for election...would he be a GCor a Turkish Cypriot? or if a Turkish Cypriot changed religion to marry...what would he be?
Its very complicated...sorry if i dont make sense |
Yes that’s true …you do not!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Quote: |
| Under what scenario are you making this assumption? Are you referring to the time before “independence” or after? |
I suppose i got this assumption from the fact that in many places, such as iraq, many people voted along ethnic lines. I meant it in the time of early independance, when the ideas of eoka and taksim were strong.
| Quote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? |
well, maybe i mean co-sharers of the state. As in, the communities are of equal political worth, neither is a minority.
If i ever get anything wrong...then just correct me...i will happily accept that i am wrong, if the evidence is given to me. I did it in the past, and will do so in the future...im not stubborn like most cypriots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? |
well, maybe i mean co-sharers of the state. As in, the communities are of equal political worth, neither is a minority.
|
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5358
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? Such a notion or assumption does not exist either in the 1960 constitution or in the treaty of establishment! If one wants to speak about co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus, those are only Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. |
Such a notion may not be explicitly stated, and we all know that essentially the 'independence' of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 hardly constitutes independence in its purest sense. However, on all of the original documents signed by the foreign powers, you will also find the signatures of Makarios and Kucuk. These signatures make the two communities co-founders, along with the foreign powers, of the Republic of Cyprus. You seem to be guiding us towards the well-versed Greek Cypriot position that the Republic of Cyprus was imposed upon both communities, with neither having a say in its make-up or proclamation. You know that this is wrong Kifeas. Yes, they were both subjected to enormous pressure to agree, but they were not forced to sign at gunpoint and were party to the positions forged by the Greek and Turkish governments. Portraying Cypriots as simply the victims of a foreign plot is to perpetuate an untruth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5358
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? |
well, maybe i mean co-sharers of the state. As in, the communities are of equal political worth, neither is a minority.
|
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
Kifeas, you're obviously leading us towards something. Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe. If the communities weren't co-founders, nor even 'co-sharers', what on earth were they? |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
What it actualy says is
| Quote: |
Part 1 General Provisions
Article 1 []
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided. |
Which is a bit different from what you say above.
I find your whole approach disengenuos myself. The clear fact is that the Republic of Cyprus was created as a state politicaly shared by the two main communites. That is the concept, the spirti, the detail of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. Of course the two communites are co-founders of the state. The state coould not have been founded without the other community - as much as you hated that fact in 1960 and still hate it today.
Of course the two communites are partners in the Republic of Cyprus as the orginganl consitution stands. It is written into the very fabric of the consitution (hence Greek Cypriot determination to unilateraly change it!). Politcal equality is enshrined in the equal powers of the president and vise president.
What do you think is the basis of the Republic of Cyprus consitituion if it is NOT one of a partnership of the two communites and equality of those communites? I would really like to know.
[/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Kifeas, you're obviously leading us towards something. |
I am not leading you anywhere, nor do I have such an ambition!
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe. |
This is a personal issue!
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| If the communities weren't co-founders, nor even 'co-sharers', what on earth were they? |
The two communities were /are communities. The two communities were /are the sum of the people belonging to them and of course Cypriot citizens.
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? Such a notion or assumption does not exist either in the 1960 constitution or in the treaty of establishment! If one wants to speak about co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus, those are only Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. |
Such a notion may not be explicitly stated, and we all know that essentially the 'independence' of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960 hardly constitutes independence in its purest sense. However, on all of the original documents signed by the foreign powers, you will also find the signatures of Makarios and Kucuk. These signatures make the two communities co-founders, along with the foreign powers, of the Republic of Cyprus. |
| Quote: |
This is the preamble of the treaty of Establishment:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Kingdom of Greece and the Republic of Turkey of the one part and the Republic of Cyprus of the other part;
Desiring to make provisions to give effect to the Declaration made by the Government of the United Kingdom on the 17th of February, 1959, during the Conference at London, in accordance with the subsequent Declarations made at the Conference by the Foreign Ministers of Greece and Turkey, by the Representative of the Greek Cypriot Community and by the Representative of the Turkish Cypriot Community;
Taking note of the terms of the Treaty of Guarantee signed to-day by the Parties to this Treaty;
Have agreed as follows:
This is the preamble of the constitution (article 1)
Article 1
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided.
This is the preamble of the treaty of guarantee:The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part,
I. Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest,
II. Desiring to co-operate to ensure respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution,
Have agreed as follows: |
Do you see anywhere saying that the two communities are co-founders of the Republic of Cyprus?
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| You seem to be guiding us towards the well-versed Greek Cypriot position that the Republic of Cyprus was imposed upon both communities, with neither having a say in its make-up or proclamation. You know that this is wrong Kifeas. Yes, they were both subjected to enormous pressure to agree, but they were not forced to sign at gunpoint and were party to the positions forged by the Greek and Turkish governments. Portraying Cypriots as simply the victims of a foreign plot is to perpetuate an untruth. |
The Greek Cypriot delegation that went to be present at the signing of these agreements was given an option between accepting and signing those agreements and partition. It was a “take it or live it” case and this is a well known fact. Some even claim that the British had earlier presented Makarios with a file containing the details and even maps of how this partition was going to be performed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
cannedmoose
Warnings : 4
Moderator
Joined: 12 Aug 2005
Posts: 5358
Location: National Forest, England
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe. |
This is a personal issue! |
What? So you are prompting others to say what they perceive to be the situation yet refuse to do so yourself... what then is the purpose of debating with you if you won't put your foot forward and say what you think? In the past I recall you pulling me up on being reticent to forward my position... pot... kettle... 
Last edited by cannedmoose on Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
Dhavlos
Warnings : 1
Site Admin
Joined: 13 Aug 2005
Posts: 4697
Location: Birmingham
|
|
| Quote: |
cannedmoose wrote:
Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe.
This is a personal issue! |
kifeas, if you are unwilling to give your view, or let us know what your position is, how can we have a constructive debate on the(or any) issue? |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| The Greek Cypriot delegation that went to be present at the signing of these agreements was given an option between accepting and signing those agreements and partition. It was a “take it or live it” case and this is a well known fact. Some even claim that the British had earlier presented Makarios with a file containing the details and even maps of how this partition was going to be performed. |
What is a well known fact is what the Akritas plan had to say about the consent of the Greek Cypriot people with regard to the 1960 agreements. Let me remind you
| Quote: |
| It has been an important trump in our hands that the solution brought by the Agreements was not submitted to the approval of the people; acting wisely in this respect, our leadership avoided holding a referandum. Otherwise, the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959 |
A wise 'trump' still being played by those Greek Cypriot who seek to create a Cyprus state where Turkish Cypriot community is reduced to a minority apparently.
So do you think this assesment by the authors of the Akritas plan is wrong? That the Greek Cypriot people would not have 'definately approved' the agreeemnts if they had been gvien a chance? Do you agree that it was a 'wise move' that your leaders avoided such ratifcation by the people so they can today continue to claim it was an agreement imposed on the Greek Cypriot people against their will? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
What it actualy says is
| Quote: |
Part 1 General Provisions
Article 1 []
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided. |
Which is a bit different from what you say above. |
Can you point to me the difference between what I said above and what you quoted, becasue I cannot see any difference and /or contadiction.
| erolz wrote: |
| I find your whole approach disengenuos myself. |
Why? What did I say that you find disinginuous?
| erolz wrote: |
| The clear fact is that the Republic of Cyprus was created as a state politicaly shared by the two main communites. That is the concept, the spirti, the detail of the agreements that created the Republic of Cyprus. Of course the two communites are co-founders of the state. |
Such a notion, as you described it above is not evident in the letter of any of the agreements. From then on, what the spirit of these agreements is, it is a matter of opinion and interpretation, but legally, such an approach is taken only whenever there is ambiguity in the interpretation of a sentence or a term of the letter of any law and consiquently the agreements. Where is the abiquity?
| erolz wrote: |
| The state coould not have been founded without the other community |
Why you say so? Is this the only way a state emerging from a colonial rule can be founded? So many states emerged as independed ones from a colonial past, where they all separated along communities based on "ethnic" elements, either before, during or after their establishment?
| erolz wrote: |
| Of course the two communites are partners in the Republic of Cyprus as the orginganl consitution stands. It is written into the very fabric of the consitution (hence Greek Cypriot determination to unilateraly change it!). Politcal equality is enshrined in the equal powers of the president and vise president. |
Where does it say in the very fabric of the constitution that the two communities are partners in the republic of Cyprus? Show me the line or the sentence.
| erolz wrote: |
| What do you think is the basis of the Republic of Cyprus consitituion if it is NOT one of a partnership of the two communites and equality of those communites? I would really like to know. |
What do you mean the basis of the Republic of Cyprus constitution? Again what you say it is the basis, it is not stipulated in the constitution it self, nor in the treaty of establishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe. |
This is a personal issue! |
What? So you are prompting others to say what they perceive to be the situation yet refuse to do so yourself... what then is the purpose of debating with you if you won't put your foot forward and say what you think? In the past I recall you pulling me up on being reticent to forward my position... pot... kettle... |
Moose, I only said what it isn't, based on what Dhavlos said it is in comparison to what the letter of it says! I did not ask anyone to tell me what it is! I did not ask you to tell me what it is either! What it is, is there for everyone to see it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
|
| Page 2 of 3 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
605118 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home