 |
| Author |
Message |
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| I see your point,Erol.But it wasn't only the Greek Cypriots who were at fault in abandoning the 1960 constitution.With an eye on Partition the Turkish Cypriots did all they could to force the hand of the Greek Cypriots.At one stage they even vetoed a Tax Bill,so that Makarios could not collect the money necessary to run the country. If the Turkish Cypriots had stood their grounds or tried to negotiated a more balanced constitution (for it was obviously favouring the Turkish Cypriots) instead of sulking and going home to complain to Mummy,it wouldn't have been so easy for Makarios to lock them out of the Republic. |
As Magik has said (though to Kifeas when I think he meant you) the refusal to ratify the budget was an entirely legal and consitituional reaction to the refusal of Greek Cypriot parts of the admin to implement the very consitituio they had signed and agreed and then bemoned from day one and devised a written down secret plan to destroy.
You point out that this consitituion obviously favoured the Turkish Cypriot community, and I believe this was the view of Turkey and of the majority of the Turkish Cypriot community and the Greek Cypriot community for that matter. The 60's agreements were a 'victory' for the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey. You seem to accept all this but see no incongruity in your statement that the Turkish Cypriots did all they could to undermine the consitituion. As far as I am concerend the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey were happy with the consitituion but were not happy with the Greek Cypriot's simply ignoring those parts of it they agreed to and decided they did not like and the clear evidence that they were trying to undermine this agreed consitituion. The Turkish Cypriot community actions to 'protest' at this ignoring of the agreed consitituion and the supreme court rulings, refusing to ratify the budget and even withdrawing from government (and ignoring the fact that they also decided to withdraw becuase of plain personal saftey reasons) were entirely 'legal' and 'consitituional' responses. They were not however sucsessful in forcing a Greek Cypriot admin to honour the agreements it had made.
You seem to think that if the Turkish Cypriot community had said 'OK the 30% posts is unfair and unworkable - we agree to 20% and OK we agree to forgoe our rights agreed under the consitution re the municpalites issue', then the Greek Cypriot would not have continued to work to undermine the consitituion any fither of unilateraly force the removal of the protections and other rights the Turkish Cypriot community had under them. I just do not believe this is the case at all. The Greek Cypriot did not like the consitution not because of these articles but because of the principal that it gave some element of equality to each community and forbade enosis. I do not believe there is ANY concession the Turkish Cypriot community could have given on the consitituion that would have made the Greek Cypriot not work to undermine it, short of accepting Makarios entire 13 points that would have relegated the status of the Turkish Cypriot community from a partner founder of the republic to a polticial minority and allowed for a decleration of ENOSIS.
My point is in the context of your suggestion that a 'return to the 60's agreements' is the only sensible way forward, is that if Greek Cypriot felt these agreements were unfair and imposed on them in 1960 and this gave them a right to ignore these agreements and they still think this 'right to ignore the agreements' is valid today, then such a return is pointless. In addition to this the actual practicalites of a 'retunr to the 60's agreements' are massive. it sounds simple but the reality is it would anything but. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
| I see your point,Erol.But it wasn't only the Greek Cypriots who were at fault in abandoning the 1960 constitution.With an eye on Partition the Turkish Cypriots did all they could to force the hand of the Greek Cypriots.At one stage they even vetoed a Tax Bill,so that Makarios could not collect the money necessary to run the country. If the Turkish Cypriots had stood their grounds or tried to negotiated a more balanced constitution (for it was obviously favouring the Turkish Cypriots) instead of sulking and going home to complain to Mummy,it wouldn't have been so easy for Makarios to lock them out of the Republic. |
As Magik has said (though to Kifeas when I think he meant you) the refusal to ratify the budget was an entirely legal and consitituional reaction to the refusal of Greek Cypriot parts of the admin to implement the very consitituio they had signed and agreed and then bemoned from day one and devised a written down secret plan to destroy.
You point out that this consitituion obviously favoured the Turkish Cypriot community, and I believe this was the view of Turkey and of the majority of the Turkish Cypriot community and the Greek Cypriot community for that matter. The 60's agreements were a 'victory' for the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey. You seem to accept all this but see no incongruity in your statement that the Turkish Cypriots did all they could to undermine the consitituion. As far as I am concerend the Turkish Cypriot community and Turkey were happy with the consitituion but were not happy with the Greek Cypriot's simply ignoring those parts of it they agreed to and decided they did not like and the clear evidence that they were trying to undermine this agreed consitituion. The Turkish Cypriot community actions to 'protest' at this ignoring of the agreed consitituion and the supreme court rulings, refusing to ratify the budget and even withdrawing from government (and ignoring the fact that they also decided to withdraw becuase of plain personal saftey reasons) were entirely 'legal' and 'consitituional' responses. They were not however sucsessful in forcing a Greek Cypriot admin to honour the agreements it had made.
You seem to think that if the Turkish Cypriot community had said 'OK the 30% posts is unfair and unworkable - we agree to 20% and OK we agree to forgoe our rights agreed under the consitution re the municpalites issue', then the Greek Cypriot would not have continued to work to undermine the consitituion any fither of unilateraly force the removal of the protections and other rights the Turkish Cypriot community had under them. I just do not believe this is the case at all. The Greek Cypriot did not like the consitution not because of these articles but because of the principal that it gave some element of equality to each community and forbade enosis. I do not believe there is ANY concession the Turkish Cypriot community could have given on the consitituion that would have made the Greek Cypriot not work to undermine it, short of accepting Makarios entire 13 points that would have relegated the status of the Turkish Cypriot community from a partner founder of the republic to a polticial minority and allowed for a decleration of ENOSIS.
My point is in the context of your suggestion that a 'return to the 60's agreements' is the only sensible way forward, is that if Greek Cypriot felt these agreements were unfair and imposed on them in 1960 and this gave them a right to ignore these agreements and they still think this 'right to ignore the agreements' is valid today, then such a return is pointless. In addition to this the actual practicalites of a 'retunr to the 60's agreements' are massive. it sounds simple but the reality is it would anything but. |
Erol,
An action that is legal and constitutional is not necessarily the right political move.If they thought Makarios was looking for an excuse to dissolve the partnership,why give him one?I just don't believe the Turkish Cypriots did everything possible to hang on to their rights under the constitution.
I am not an expert on the Constitution,but there must have been avenues open under that very tight treaty of guarantee.
In any case,history has proven that agreements which are not fair,which favour one side strongly will not survive.The reason why I want to return to it is because I hope that ALL THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CYPRIOTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH IN THE PAST 45 YEARS HAVE TOUGHT US SOME LESSONS.AND I HOPE ONE OF THE LESSONS IS THAT IF WE DONT SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS OTHERS WILL STEP IN AND SOLVE IT FOR US BUT WE MIGHT NOT LIKE THEIR SOLUTION.By temporarily returning to the Republic of Cyprus of 1960 two communities will get the chance to work together politically,and find a better system which will not make the majority want to tear their hair out.
Can we ,in your opinion, afford to keep the status quo in Cyprus for another 20-25 years?Because that is how long Turkey's EU negotiations will take.And since the Cyprus solution seems to be tied to that,that is what we are looking at.At this rate Turkish Cypriots will become extinct by then,and the Greek Cypriots will be fuming in the South about the forceful partitioning of the island.Is that the situation you want your children to inherit?Without a lasting solution another two generations of Cypriots will be forced into self-exile,and Cyprus will be irreparably damaged,culturally,environmentally,politically,humanly,you name it.
Can you think of any other way of uniting the island in the short term?I am all ears. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Birkibrisli
Deputy
Joined: 29 Aug 2005
Posts: 1404
Location: Australia
|
|
| magikthrill wrote: |
kifeas i believe the Turkish Cypriots vetoed a tax bill because Makarios refused to allow municipalities to run themselves (which i believe was enforced by the supreme court?)
when you talk like that you dont only embarass yourself but those whose ideas you support.
*In all fairness though I'm not 100% sure about the municpal thing but I know the tax veto was in resposne to something similar. |
Magiktrill,Merhaba
Kifeas and I are not the same person.He is a Greek Cypriot refugee from Lapta living in Paphos.I am a Turkish Cypriot refugee from Paphos living in Australia.That we might sound similar enough for you to confuse us is a very positive sign in my op.It proves not only our gene pool is very similar,but our minds can think alike as well.That can only be good for the future of Cyprus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
Erol,
An action that is legal and constitutional is not necessarily the right political move.If they thought Makarios was looking for an excuse to dissolve the partnership,why give him one?I just don't believe the Turkish Cypriots did everything possible to hang on to their rights under the constitution.
I am not an expert on the Constitution,but there must have been avenues open under that very tight treaty of guarantee. |
What actions do you think they could have and should have taken that would have stopped the Greek Cypriot desire and ability to remove thier rights with or without consent fo Turkish Cypriot community? I still firmly believe that there was no action they could have taken to prevent this short of just accepting Makarios' 13 points and abrogating every right they had secured under the 60's agreement. Further I believe they knew this by 63 and that this only increased the desire of people who otherwise would have support the consitituion to look towards partition as an asnwer. The same is not rue of the Greek Cypriot community however. There are many ways, in my belief, they could have acted other than the ways the chose to back then, that would have led to the continutation of the 60 consitution and the participation of the Turkish Cypriot community within it.
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
In any case,history has proven that agreements which are not fair,which favour one side strongly will not survive. |
You want to return to a constituion that you yourself think is not fair and thus can not survive (and had failed once already) ? I just do not see the logic in this.
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
The reason why I want to return to it is because I hope that ALL THE PAIN AND SUFFERING THAT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CYPRIOTS HAVE BEEN THROUGH IN THE PAST 45 YEARS HAVE TOUGHT US SOME LESSONS.AND I HOPE ONE OF THE LESSONS IS THAT IF WE DONT SOLVE OUR OWN PROBLEMS OTHERS WILL STEP IN AND SOLVE IT FOR US BUT WE MIGHT NOT LIKE THEIR SOLUTION.By temporarily returning to the Republic of Cyprus of 1960 two communities will get the chance to work together politically,and find a better system which will not make the majority want to tear their hair out. |
We have to agree a settlement. I do not care what it is based on myself if we can agree it and make it work. I just think this notion that there is an 'easy answer' and it is 'just return to 60's agreements' is unrealistic for a variety of reasons.
| Birkibrisli wrote: |
Can we ,in your opinion, afford to keep the status quo in Cyprus for another 20-25 years?Because that is how long Turkey's EU negotiations will take.And since the Cyprus solution seems to be tied to that,that is what we are looking at.At this rate Turkish Cypriots will become extinct by then,and the Greek Cypriots will be fuming in the South about the forceful partitioning of the island.Is that the situation you want your children to inherit?Without a lasting solution another two generations of Cypriots will be forced into self-exile,and Cyprus will be irreparably damaged,culturally,environmentally,politically,humanly,you name it.
Can you think of any other way of uniting the island in the short term?I am all ears. |
I want negotiations to start asap an I want an agreement to be reached asap and I want it to work. I do not think throwing out very effort towards these goals since 63 and simply saying 'let's return to 60's agreements' is the beast way of achieveing this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
|
| Page 4 of 4 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3205 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home