www.talkcyprus.org

[polis]

erolz wrote: polis wrote: On the other hand, supporters of the Greek national cause in Cyprus (and when we are talking about the 50's, 60's and 70's this refers to all Greek Cypriots) based their arguments in favour of self-determination on the UN Charter and principles of human rights and international law in full honesty and with the complete understanding that these also necessarily implied full respect of the minority rights of the Turkish population of Cyprus with respect to which they never raised the slightest objection or qualification. If you ask us why did we, as Greek Cypriots, wholeheartedly supported the cause of self-determination/union, the answer is because - among others - this also involve respect of the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a minority in Cyprus.

I am not sure what concerns me more, that you actually believe the above or you know it to be a gross distortion of reality yet still try and portray it as truth :(

Cut the idiotic statements, Erol. This is supposed to be the serious discussion forum as opposed to the other english speaking Cyprus forums. If you cannot follow your own rules and try to give a proper response then it's better if you don't respond at all.

[erolz]

polis wrote: Cut the idiotic statements, Erol. This is supposed to be the serious discussion forum as opposed to the other english speaking Cyprus forums. If you cannot follow your own rules and try to give a proper response then it's better if you don't respond at all.

My response was a serious and heartfelt one. How can we create a united Cyprus without creating a Cypriot understanding of the past (one that encompasses both communities perspectives) ? How can we reach unity of the communities by insisting on a one sided distorted biased and purely communal version of events? These are serious and important questions.

As to my implicit allegation that you are presenting a one side view in the section of your earlier post I will expand it for you line by line.

polis wrote: ...and when we are talking about the 50's, 60's and 70's this refers to all Greek Cypriots [supporting enosis].....

Not true. Whilst it is almost certainly true that a majority of Greek Cypriot supported enosis in the 50's by no means did all and do not forget that some that opposed it were murdered by Grivas/ EOKA back then. Certainly it is far from true that by the 70's ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis.

polis wrote: ....based their arguments in favour of self-determination on the UN Charter and principles of human rights and international law in full honesty...

The Greek Cypriot leadership based their arguments in favor of self-determination based on UN charters on a Greek Cypriot interpretation of what constitutes a 'people'. As long as the Greek Cypriot leadership could define the concept of a 'people' in the UN charters in such a way as to ensure their political dominance over Turkish Cypriot and thus impose enosis on them, they supported the UN charters. However if supporting the UN charters meant accepting that Turkish Cypriot were also a 'people' with the same rights to self determination as Greek Cypriot as a people then they did not support these rights and charters. In essence they supported them only as long as they ensured Greek Cypriot had these rights and Turkish Cypriot did not and no more.

polis wrote: ....in full honesty

In the full honesty of the Akritas plan.

polis wrote: If you ask us why did we, as Greek Cypriots, wholeheartedly supported the cause of self-determination/union, the answer is because - among others - this also involve respect of the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a minority in Cyprus.

Here you 'excell' yourself. So Greek Cypriot were determined to impose the destruction of the Cypriot state and its ceeding to Greece on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will, in part as a means of protecting the minority rights of Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus. So determined were they to protect these minority rights that Makarios appointed and allowed Yiorgardis to recruit and USE illegal aremd thugs to terrorise and murder innocent Turkish Cypriot - in order to force them to accept the 'protection' that enosis would have given them. This is the kind of madness you have us believe apparently.

My point remains the same. Such blatant one sided and biased accounts of history perpetuate and force division in Cyprus and are the enemies of efforts to truly unite Cyprus. I still am unsure which scares me more - that you believe these things as truth, or you know them not to be true but assert them none the less for I remain unsure which is more damaging and a greater block on our chances of uniting in the future - for certainly both are damaging and a block.

[polis]

erolz wrote: My response was a serious and heartfelt one. How can we create a united Cyprus without creating a Cypriot understanding of the past (one that encompasses both communities perspectives) ? How can we reach unity of the communities by insisting on a one sided distorted biased and purely communal version of events? These are serious and important questions.

No, your comment was just a load of hogwash just like the statement above.

erolz wrote: Not true. Whilst it is almost certainly true that a majority of Greek Cypriot supported enosis in the 50's by no means did all and do not forget that some that opposed it were murdered by Grivas/ EOKA back then. Certainly it is far from true that by the 70's ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis.

EOKA did not execute opponents of Enosis but British collaborators or traitors. The idea that there was any element in Cyprus in the late 50's which opposed Enosis is a myth just like it is a myth to claim that support for Enosis waned in the late sixties. Unless you have any specific evidence to the contrary let's leave it at that.

erolz wrote: The Greek Cypriot leadership based their arguments in favor of self-determination based on UN charters on a Greek Cypriot interpretation of what constitutes a 'people'. As long as the Greek Cypriot leadership could define the concept of a 'people' in the UN charters in such a way as to ensure their political dominance over Turkish Cypriot and thus impose enosis on them, they supported the UN charters. However if supporting the UN charters meant accepting that Turkish Cypriot were also a 'people' with the same rights to self determination as Greek Cypriot as a people then they did not support these rights and charters. In essence they supported them only as long as they ensured Greek Cypriot had these rights and Turkish Cypriot did not and no more.

The political dominance of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus was determined by their numbers, Erol, as well as the fact that even on a one to one basis, the Turks were socially, culturally and economically inferior to the Greeks. The only way to get round that is ethnic cleansing (a war crime) which is exactly what you are promoting by claiming that there is such a thing as a separate right of self determination of a minority and exactly what your leadership was promoting when they were clamouring for Taxim. I'd like to see you supporting your interpretation of the UN Charter with respect to the Kurds in Turkey, though.

The nationalist arguments were based just as much on the UN Charter as they were based on the universally accepted Human Rights standards and respect for the Rule of Law. In other words they didn't only want Cyprus and Greece to be part of the same state, they also promoted the concept of human rights and respect of the Rule or Law which they considered were the principles that legitimised and justified their struggle. This is exactly why they did not consider the Enosist movement to be a movement that was hostile to the Turks. It is the Turks who perceived the movement as hostile because it was in stark contrast to their own separatist national agenta which was opposed any idea o participation in a political unit dominated (numerically, politically, economically or culturally) by the Greeks. But in this world you cannot always have what we want to, unless, in this case, you are willing to kill, burn, steal, rape which is what Turks ended up doing to get their way.

erolz wrote: In the full honesty of the Akritas plan.

Which was exposed and derrogated in 1966 by the nationalist/enosist press, no less (Eleftheria).

erolz wrote: Here you 'excell' yourself.

As I said, Erol. If you want to respect your own forum then it's better, if you have nothing constructive to say, to say nothing at all.

erolz wrote: So Greek Cypriot were determined to impose the destruction of the Cypriot state and its ceeding to Greece on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will, in part as a means of protecting the minority rights of Turkish Cypriot in Cyprus. So determined were they to protect these minority rights that Makarios appointed and allowed Yiorgardis to recruit and USE illegal aremd thugs to terrorise and murder innocent Turkish Cypriot - in order to force them to accept the 'protection' that enosis would have given them. This is the kind of madness you have us believe apparently.

Surely you are more intelligent than that. In Greek we say, "aporia psaltou vix" (when the chanter forgets his words he caughs). It's like: if you have no intelligent responce, talk about 1963. This is a discussion about the enosist movement which begins in the late 19th century you want to talk about 1963. No, Erol. I'm not going to start a discussion on the details of 1963 in this thread. If you want you can copy and paste the comment you made above in a new thread and we can discuss it as long as you want.

erolz wrote: My point remains the same. Such blatant one sided and biased accounts of history perpetuate and force division in Cyprus and are the enemies of efforts to truly unite Cyprus. I still am unsure which scares me more - that you believe these things as truth, or you know them not to be true but assert them none the less for I remain unsure which is more damaging and a greater block on our chances of uniting in the future - for certainly both are damaging and a block.

Your point is that if somebody makes an argument you don't like you will whine and scream and threaten to hold your breath until you suffocate, unless they take it back. Grow up, Erol!

[Khan]

polis wrote: on a one to one basis, the Turks were socially, culturally and economically inferior to the Greeks.

I think we have established your approach to the Cyprus problem well enough.

[Mete]

I'll respond you longer later but here're some quick replies.

polis wrote:
Is this what "people like you", to use your own phrasiology, understand as an objective comparison of the two situations?

I didn't put those two situations for an apple to apple comparison. They're just examples of how Turkey treated its Greek minority and Greece treated its Turkish minority up until recently and even now. I didn't mean to discuss these either as I don't have as deep understanding of these issues as I would like. They are meant to merely point out that minorities were/are treated badly in Turkey and Greece.
polis wrote:
If you ask us why did we, as Greek Cypriots, wholeheartedly supported the cause of self-determination/union, the answer is because - among others - this also involve respect of the rights of Turkish Cypriots as a minority in Cyprus.

This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. You could have said Greek Cypriot supported Enosis because that was natural for them to do at that time and they were the majority of the island, you could have said Greek Cypriots supported Enosis because they considered Enosis as a way of expressing their self determination....even though I don't agree with these, I could understand where you would be coming from but Greek Cypriots supported Enosis to respect minority rights of Turkish Cypriots?? Give me a break. How can we build a meaningful discussion around such a ridiculous claim?

[depurple]

Hi Polis can you answer me just 2 simple question?

1: How could Cyprus have ENOSIS with Greece when the Greek Government has NEVER said Cyprus is Greek!

2: How can Cyprus have ENOSIS with Greece when Greece did not have any money to pay Britain for the MILLIONS it spent on the infrastructure (Roads, Ports, Power, Water ect ect) in Cyprus!

To make it simple HOW can Australia get Independence from Britain IF Australia doesn't pay the money for the infrastructure LIKE Rambuka DID with FIJI!
Rambuka paid Britain is dues and was given the constitution:
While you are there Polis where is the Australian Constitution KEPT?
Have a guess!
cheers
PS Where did the infrastructure in Cyprus come from? Greece or Turkey OR GW BUSH?
AND remember every Cypriot who worked for the British always got paid!
They even got paid when they joined the British ARMY IN WW2 and some are still being paid today!

[polis]

Mete wrote: I didn't put those two situations for an apple to apple comparison. They're just examples of how Turkey treated its Greek minority and Greece treated its Turkish minority up until recently and even now. I didn't mean to discuss these either as I don't have as deep understanding of these issues as I would like. They are meant to merely point out that minorities were/are treated badly in Turkey and Greece.

No, you did put the two situations as an apple to apple comparison and you continue doing the same thing in the quote above. And then again, if you don't have a deep understanding of the issues involved then why did you choose to site them as a proof of your point in the first place and expect to be taken seriously?

Mete wrote: This is the most ridiculous statement I've ever read. You could have said Greek Cypriot supported Enosis because that was natural for them to do at that time and they were the majority of the island, you could have said Greek Cypriots supported Enosis because they considered Enosis as a way of expressing their self determination....even though I don't agree with these, I could understand where you would be coming from but Greek Cypriots supported Enosis to respect minority rights of Turkish Cypriots?? Give me a break. How can we build a meaningful discussion around such a ridiculous claim?

Mete, if you want to have a discussion then write down your arguments. I do not have the slightest intention of starting a flame war with you or any one else here. In any case, I cannot really follow you. You cannot find a claim ridiculous but then consider that it merits a detailed response. And generally, if you are in a discussion and think that what you've heard is ridiculous, most of the time is because you did not understand what was said in the first place so you ask for a clarification.

[polis]

depurple wrote: Hi Polis can you answer me just 2 simple question?

1: How could Cyprus have ENOSIS with Greece when the Greek Government has NEVER said Cyprus is Greek!

2: How can Cyprus have ENOSIS with Greece when Greece did not have any money to pay Britain for the MILLIONS it spent on the infrastructure (Roads, Ports, Power, Water ect ect) in Cyprus!

To make it simple HOW can Australia get Independence from Britain IF Australia doesn't pay the money for the infrastructure LIKE Rambuka DID with FIJI!
Rambuka paid Britain is dues and was given the constitution:
While you are there Polis where is the Australian Constitution KEPT?
Have a guess!
cheers
PS Where did the infrastructure in Cyprus come from? Greece or Turkey OR GW BUSH?
AND remember every Cypriot who worked for the British always got paid!
They even got paid when they joined the British ARMY IN WW2 and some are still being paid today!

Depurple, what medication are you on?

[erolz]

polis wrote: EOKA did not execute opponents of Enosis but British collaborators or traitors.

From Zenon Stavrinides' book 'The Cyprus Conflict' page 27

Quote: The test for true Greekness was definite and unequivocal support for 'enosis and only enosis'. (This point was finally established once a number of 'traitors', i.e. Greeks who failed to toe the nationalist line, were beaten up or assassinated by EOKA men.)

polis wrote: The idea that there was any element in Cyprus in the late 50's which opposed Enosis is a myth just like it is a myth to claim that support for Enosis was anyway in the late sixties. Unless you have any specific evidence to the contrary let's leave it at that.

So I have to prove my assertions but no such obligation is upon you apparently. Is that because of my inherent 'inferiority' to you because of my ethnic background I wonder ? In any case such evidence is easy to produce. Here are just some for you

From Zenon Stavrinides' book 'The Cyprus Conflict' page 21

Quote: .. and in 1947 AKEL sent its own delegation to ask for self-government. At a time when the British-backed Government in Greece was fighting against a communist insurrection, Greek Cypriot leftist were in no mood to become a part of the Greek State.

It is true that a couple of years later AKEL had switched from being pre self government to pro enosis. From Nancy Cranshaws book 'The Cyprus Revolt' - chapter 2.

Quote: In March 1949 AKEL's leaders publicly admitted that their support for self government was a serious error. The Central Committee, with one exception, resigned and a seven man group was appointed to run the Party until the next congress which was due the following August. Ezekiel Papaioannou, a Moscow trained Communist who had fought in Spain with the International Brigade, replaced Phifis Ioannou as Secretary General.

The control of AKEL had now passed irrevocably into the hands of the extremists.

Cypriot politics follow no logical pattern and the reasons for this sudden switch in AKEL's policy from self government to Enosis can only be surmised. The communist revolt in Greece was on the verge of collapse. A row within the Western alliance over the possession of Cyprus may well have acquired a greater importance in Soviet aims.

In Cyprus AKEL needed to recover lost ground by adopting the slogan most likely to capture votes in the municipal elections to be held in May 1949

Two years later in 1951 AKEL would again split, primarily over the policy of 'eonsis and only enosis'. Again from Nancy Cranshaws book chptr 2.

Quote: AKEL was by this time weakened by a major upheaval inside the Party leadership. Serious differences had existed for some time between the extremists and the moderates over the Party's sterile policy of 'Enosis and Nothing but Enosis'.

The crisis came to a head in the middle of August; prominent Akelists dismissed from the Central Committee two years earlier were now expelled from the Party. The leaders alleged that a group of dissidents, motivated by self interest, sought to destroy AKEL's unity and work for a constitution.

The latest 'purge' included George Cacoyannis, a Limassol lawyer, and Adamantos and Servas, former mayors with a strong popular following. Both men favoured AKEL's cooperation in a constitution as the only sensible course of action at this stage.

Adamantos said that AKEL should not take a definite stand on the Enosis question which would not progress so long as the monarcho fascists ruled Greece and he saw no prospect of change there for the next ten years. Servas advocated that the Cypriots should seize any opportunity, however limited, to extend their political rights and promote the cause.

From Zenon Stavrinides' book page 22-23 on the enosis plebisicte

Quote: Nevertheless, it is not easy to draw and definite conclusions from this event [1950 plebiscite] since the population was persistently urged by nationalists to 'vote', and the 'voting' took the form of signing one's name under a petition in public. If a Greek was to 'vote' on this issue at all, it was as embarrassing and risky for him to 'vote' against enosis as to declare in public that he was not 'a true Greek'.

(italics and inverted commas the authors own)

From Zenon Stavrinides' book page 63 onwards re support for enosis in 63-74 period

Quote: Let us now look at what happened in the Greek community of Cyprus from 1963 to 1974. This period exhibits two important trends that must be understood and accounted for: (a) the majority of Greek Cypriots gradually lost much of their fervour and concern for the struggle for enosis;

page 71

Quote: Indeed many Greek Cypriots would not want, under the circumstances [coup in Greece], enosis, even if it were offered to them (which does not mean would dare to say so in public).

I could continue on and on to provide evidence from countless sources that your assertion that ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis throughout the 50,60's and 70's (for which you have provided no evidence) is far from an accurate description of the real situation.

polis wrote:
The political dominance of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus was determined by their numbers, Erol, as well as the fact that even on a one to one basis, the Turks were socially, culturally and economically inferior to the Greeks.

I need to say nothing about the above - by your own words can you be known.

polis wrote:
The only way to get round that is ethnic cleansing (a war crime) which is exactly what you are promoting by claiming that there is such a thing as a separate right of self determination of a minority and exactly what your leadership was promoting when they were clamouring for Taxim.

Accepting that each of the communities has to a degree an equal and separate right to determine their own futures in no way requires ethnic cleansing or division in Cyprus all it requires is respect for each other as communities. What really promotes such things far more than the idea that if Greek Cypriot have a right to determine their own future then Turkish Cypriot also have the same right, is the idea that Turkish Cypriot are ethnically inferior to Greek Cypriot in all ways.

polis wrote: I'd like to see you supporting your interpretation of the UN Charter with respect to the Kurds in Turkey, though.

Saying that Turkish Cypriot should not and can not have any rights to determine their own future because Kurds in Turkey do not is not an argument it is an excuse and a weak one at that.
As for seeing me support my interpretation of the UN charter re Kurds just have a look here http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-3288.html&highlight=kurd%2A#3288

Quote: PS I would also add this same logic and reasoning is why I believe the Kurds should be recognised as a people and treated accordingly. They pre date the formation of the states in which they live - thus should be judged not on the 'single state' approach but on the 'criteria list' approach (which they clearly meet). I believe that for the same reasons that Turkey supports the rights of a Turkish Cypriot people in Cyprus they should also support the rights of a Kurdish people in Turkey (and elsewhere). I condem this incosistency in Turkish policy (just as I condem incosistnecy elsewhere).

So can YOU now show us where YOU support your view re the kurds in Turkey - arguing that they should NOT have any rights to self determination as a people within the Turkish state?

polis wrote:
The nationalist arguments were based just as much on the UN Charter as they were based on the universally accepted Human Rights standards and respect for the Rule of Law. In other words they didn't only want Cyprus and Greece to be part of the same state, they also promoted the concept of human rights and respect of the Rule or Law which they considered were the principles that legitimised and justified their struggle.

The Greek Cypriot leadership supported the concept of human rights in Cyprus as far the right to self determination could be interpreted as meaning an effectvie Greek Cypriot right ot impose enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will. Where these same rights could be used as a valid argument why such an imposition was counter to human rights the Greek Cypriot leadership ignore such. As for the Greek Cypriot leaderships comitment to the 'rule of law' actions speak much louder than words. Ignoring the Republic of Cyprus's own consitutional court rulings is not the action of a leadership comitted to the 'rule of law'. Setting up illegal armed militas and using them to terrorise and kill members of the smaller ethnic community is not the action of a leadership comitted to the 'rule of law'. Illegaly importing 10's of thousands of Greek troops into cyprus is not the action of a leadership comitted to the rule of law.

polis wrote: Which was exposed and derrogated in 1966 by the nationalist/enosist press, no less (Eleftheria).

That it was anti Makarios enosits that exposed the akritas plan in 66 does nothing to lessen its impact as a refutation to your assertion that the Greek Cypriot leadership persued enosis 'in full honesty'.

polis wrote:
As I said, Erol. If you want to respect your own forum then it's better, if you have nothing constructive to say, to say nothing at all.

And you? Or is this a 'rule' only necessary for a culturaly inferior turk?

polis wrote:
Surely you are more intelligent than that. In Greek we say, "aporia psaltou vix" (when the chanter forgets his words he caughs). It's like: if you have no intelligent responce, talk about 1963. This is a discussion about the enosist movement which begins in the late 19th century you want to talk about 1963. No, Erol. I'm not going to start a discussion on the details of 1963 in this thread. If you want you can copy and paste the comment you made above in a new thread and we can discuss it as long as you want.

Of course you do not wish to talk about anything that undermines your assertions that Greek Cypriot leadership were comitted to the rule of law, that they were comitted to Turkish Cypriot rights and it was partly in persuit of securing these they persued enosis and other such nonsense.

polis wrote: Your point is that if somebody makes an argument you don't like you will whine and scream and threaten to hold your breath until you suffocate, unless they take it back. Grow up, Erol!

Well ignoring the inherent 'attack the poster not his arguments' approach of this statement, let me assure you that I am not holding my breath or threatening to do so (for surely your concern is for my well being as a Turkish Cypriot) nor am I whinning or sceaming. What I am doing is refuting your assertions that I consider to be inaccurate (backed up with evidence) and stating the obvious - namely that if you seek unity in Cyprus you are not serving such a goal by being able or willing to only present a Greek Cypriot viewpoint that is inaccurate and disotrted and by telling me that ethnically I am inferior to you. The only cause you serve with such an approach is one of division.

[The Cypriot]

Surely only inferior people believe they are superior. Surely only seriously inferior people would dream of articulating that belief in public.

Surely there must have been elements in the 50's wise enough to appreciate where the Enosis campaign would inevitably lead. Surely to claim these people's existence is a myth would be to deny that some Cypriots at least had the capacity for deep philosophical and analytical thought, as passed down by the ancients... Or are we also to believe that Cyprus's links to the wisdom of the ancients is also a myth?

Christ, it's enough to give one an inferiority complex - a serious one at that!

[Mete]

polis wrote:
No, you did put the two situations as an apple to apple comparison and you continue doing the same thing in the quote above. And then again, if you don't have a deep understanding of the issues involved then why did you choose to site them as a proof of your point in the first place and expect to be taken seriously?

Do you ever read what people write? I told you that I only pointed out the minorities of Turkey and Greece to show that both countries are bad at treating their minorities. Nothing more nothing less. Does this mean that the two situations are completely identical? No. Does it mean that Turkey is better than Greece in terms of respecting minorities or vice versa? No. All it's meant to show that is that the status of minorities in Turkey and Greece have not been and is not ideal. Note that I'm not discussing at all if the two situations are the same or if one is worse than the other. Am I clear now?
polis wrote:
Mete, if you want to have a discussion then write down your arguments. I do not have the slightest intention of starting a flame war with you or any one else here. In any case, I cannot really follow you. You cannot find a claim ridiculous but then consider that it merits a detailed response. And generally, if you are in a discussion and think that what you've heard is ridiculous, most of the time is because you did not understand what was said in the first place so you ask for a clarification.

I didn't have time in the morning (still I don't as I'm at work) to give you a detailed response but I will. In the meantime, why don't you enlighten us with your arguments? Why don't you put down your arguments for how one of the goals of Enosis was to respect minority rights of Turkish Cypriots? Let's see how you support what you say.

[polis]

I will take the issues one by one, Erol, just to make this message easier to follow.

Regarding the extend of support for the Enosis struggle in the 50's this are the quotes you have presented, the first coming from the book of Stavrinides and the second from Cranshaw:

From Zenon Stavrinides' 'The Cyprus Conflict' page 21:

Quote: .. and in 1947 AKEL sent its own delegation to ask for self-government. At a time when the British-backed Government in Greece was fighting against a communist insurrection, Greek Cypriot leftist were in no mood to become a part of the Greek State.

And the excerpt from Nancy Cranshaw's 'The Cyprus Revolt' - chapter 2:

Quote: In March 1949 AKEL's leaders publicly admitted that their support for self government was a serious error. The Central Committee, with one exception, resigned and a seven man group was appointed to run the Party until the next congress which was due the following August. Ezekiel Papaioannou, a Moscow trained Communist who had fought in Spain with the International Brigade, replaced Phifis Ioannou as Secretary General.

The control of AKEL had now passed irrevocably into the hands of the extremists.

Cypriot politics follow no logical pattern and the reasons for this sudden switch in AKEL's policy from self government to Enosis can only be surmised. The communist revolt in Greece was on the verge of collapse. A row within the Western alliance over the possession of Cyprus may well have acquired a greater importance in Soviet aims.

In Cyprus AKEL needed to recover lost ground by adopting the slogan most likely to capture votes in the municipal elections to be held in May 1949

The problem, is that neither of the two really know what they are talking about.

At the time (1947-49) AKEL was a wholehearted and unequevocal supporter of the cause of Enosis. The issue both writers are alluding to but fail to understand is the position taken by AKEL as against the proposals of the British for self rule.

Starting with what AKEL and the leftwind organisations themseves stated about Enosis: these are some of the hundreds of statements made by them in favour of Enosis during this period (the excerpts come from the book "Gia tin Ethniki Oloklirosi kai Autodiathesi - Enosi" "For National Fullfillment and Self-Determination - Enosis":

From a resolution of the party issued on the 9th August 1944 during a visit of an envoy of the British Minister of Colonies:

"Κυπριακέ Λαέ,

Η Κ.Ε. του Ανορθωτικού Κόμματος του Εργαζομένου Λαού καλεί κάθε οργανωμένο και ανοργάνωτο τμήμα του Ελληνικού Κυπριακού Λαού .... να ορθωθεί και με μια φωνή να απαιτήση από τον αντιπρόσωπο του υπουργού εκείνο που για τόσα τώρα χρόνια διψά και στερείτε - την Ένωση με την Ελλάδα. Εμπρός όλοι στο ιερό καθήκο για την Εθνική Αποκατάσταση."

"Cypriot people, the Central Committee of AKEL calls on every organised and not organised section of the Greek Cypriot People ... to rise up and with one voice to demand from the envoy of the British Minister that which for so many years it thirsts for and is denied - Union with Greece. Forward towards our holy duty for National Restitution [a reference to Enosis]"

In 1947, the AKEL's trade union PEO made the following resolution:

"Η Παγκύπρια Εργατική Ομοσπονδία και οι Έλληνες Εργάτες θα συνεχίσουν τον αγώνα με πίστιν μαζί με όλους τους άλλους πατριώτας της νήσου μας μέχρις ότου η Ένωσις της Κύπρου μετά της Ελλάδος γίνη πραγματικότης"

"PEO and the Greek Workers will continue the struggle with all the other patriots of our island until union of Cyprus with Greece becomes a reality".

In December 1947, the Communist leaders (including Fifis Ioannou) along with the Cypriots Mayors that were elected with the support of AKEL and other leftwind sympathysers formed EAS whose primary goal was:

"Α. ... ο Συντονισμός του διεξαγομένου αγώνος για την εθνικήν απελευθέρωση της Κύπρου, την ένωσιν αυτής μετά της μητρός Ελλάδος"

"A. ... the Coordination of the continuing struggle for national liberation of Cyprus, its union with mother Greece".


Dozens of other similar quotations from AKEL and it's pre Papaioannou era leadership, are published in Louka's Kakoulli's "i Aristera kai oi Tourkokyprioi" "The Left and the Turkish Cypriots".


What actually happened is this: In 1947, AKEL responded positively to a call by the British Colonial authority to participate in a constitutional process aimed at forming a constitution for Cypriot self rule.

AKEL, however, understood the process of self rule as the first step to the goal of Enosis, not as a substitute to Enosis. The change that Cranshaw is referring to in the excerpt's above is a change from this policy of self-governement - enosis to enosis and only enosis which took place after the constitutional process collapsed.

Ioannis Stefanidis in his book Isle of Discord, nationalism, imperialism and the making of the Cyprus Problem (whose extensive bibliography includes neither Stavrinides nor Cranshaw, but includes Fantis to whom I refer later on) at p. 5, describes the development as follows:

"In October 1948, Winster resigned a bitter man. Greek nationalist agitation intensified and, by January 1949, AKEL too reverted to unconditional support for Enosis. The line of self-government as a preliminary to full self-determination and the entire Central Committee [including the General Secretary of the Party Fifis Ioannou] was relieved of its post."

Andreas Fantis, member of the historical leadership of AKEL, had this to say about the matter in his book Κυπριακό 1950-1960 - ο ενταφιασμός (ενός "γλυκύτατου" ονείρου) της Ένωσης (The Cyprus problem 1950-60 - the destruction of (the "sweetest" of dreams) Enosis). The chapter is aptly called "Η Ένωση της Κύπρου με την Ελλάδα - Κοινός Στόχος και Καθολική Αξίωση" "Union of Cyprus to Greece - Common Goal and Unanimous Demand". From pages 14-15:

"ΤΟ ΑΚΕΛ ... και ενώ διακήρυττε την προσήλωση του στην ενωτική αξίωση αποδέχθηκε το 1947 να συμμετάσχει στη Διασκεπτική για επεξεργασία συντάγματος αυτοκυβέρνησης με βάση το οποίο να διακυβερνάται η Κύπρος μέχρι την εφαρμογή και για τον κυπριακό λαό της αρχής της αυτοδιάθεσης (όπως επεδίωκε το ΑΚΕΛ και οι σύμμαχοι του, και την ικανοποίηση του προαιώνιου πόθου για ένωση της Κύπρο με την Ελλάδα)...

[Τ]ο ναυάγιο της διασκεπτικής τροχιοδρόμησε νέες σημαντικές εξελίξεις στο χώρο του ΑΚΕΛ και γενικά της Αριστεράς. Αυτές οδήγησαν στην καταδίκη της γραμμής Αυτοκυβέρνηση - Ένωση και στη χάραξη νέας γραμμής, που εκφραζόταν με το Ένωση και μόνο Ένωση, χωρίς οποιοδήποτε ενδιάμεσο συνταγματικό σταθμό."

"AKEL... while declaring its adherance to the unionist demand, agreed in 1947 to participate in the consultative assembly for the drafting of a constitution for self rule under which Cyprus would be ruled until the application for the Cyprus people as well of the principle of self determination (which AKEL and its allies aimed at, and the satisfaction of the timeless desire for enosis of Cyprus to Greece)...

[T]he failure of the consultative assembly led to new importand developments in AKEL and generally the left. These led to the condemnation of the policy of self-rule - enosis and the drawing of a new line, which was expressed by Enosis and only Enosis, whithout any intermediate constitutional stop".

Finally, Loukas Kakoullis, a member of AKEL and PEO and a staunch supporter of reapprochment, in his book "I Aristera kai oi Tourkokyprioi" ("The Left and the Turkish Cypriots" had this to say on the issue:

"The line that was followed by the Left in the following years (from the second half of 1947) on the National Issue, was "self-rule - Enosis"

In other words both Stavrinides and Cranshaw are completely ignorant about the issue they are discussing. Akel never abandoned the goal of Enosis, it did however support for a brief period a policy in favour of self rule as a tactical step towards achieving the ultimate openly declared goal of the party which was Enosis.

So much for the credibility of your sources, Erol.


Going to the plebiscite issue:

From Zenon Stavrinides' book page 22-23 on the enosis plebisicte

Quote: Nevertheless, it is not easy to draw and definite conclusions from this event [1950 plebiscite] since the population was persistently urged by nationalists to 'vote', and the 'voting' took the form of signing one's name under a petition in public. If a Greek was to 'vote' on this issue at all, it was as embarrassing and risky for him to 'vote' against enosis as to declare in public that he was not 'a true Greek'.

True, the plebiscite was in actual fact a petition held on two consecutive Sundays on the 15th and 22nd January 1950, after the morning Mass. It is also true that all those who signed did so in public. On the other hand about 96% of all those eligible to participate did so and every single Greek Cypriot institution, including the Church, AKEL, the Greek Cypriot Right and the Trade Unions wholeheartedly backed the effort. The "nationalists" who according Stavrinides were persistently urging the population to vote were not a fringe element in Greek Cypriot society but were just about everyone who was anyone in Cypriot society belonging to every part of the Greek Cypriot political spectrum from the far left to the far right. In fact the idea for an "Enosist Referendum" belonged to AKEL which later abandoned it's attempt in order to back the referendum organised by the ethnarchy. Now, Stavrinides doesn't think that it is easy to draw a definite conclusion from this, but then again Stavrinides is not a source to be taken seriously.

And finally, to the enosis support in the period 1963-74:

From Zenon Stavrinides' book page 63 onwards re support for enosis in 63-74 period

Quote: Let us now look at what happened in the Greek community of Cyprus from 1963 to 1974. This period exhibits two important trends that must be understood and accounted for: (a) the majority of Greek Cypriots gradually lost much of their fervour and concern for the struggle for enosis;

Great. Now if Stavrinides can show me something, other than a hunch, that can substantiate his claim I would be happy to accept it.

And then Stavrinides claims:

Quote: Indeed many Greek Cypriots would not want, under the circumstances [coup in Greece], enosis, even if it were offered to them (which does not mean would dare to say so in public).

Yeah right. Just like a few passages earlier he was claiming that AKEL did not want Cyprus to become part of the Greek state because of the civil war (despite the fact that the Cypriot communist newspapars at the time were announcing almost on a daily basis the imminent victory of the communist insurgents.)

What are we supposed to assume here. Greek Cypriot opponents of Enosis "would not dare say so in public", but apparently they told Stavrinides in private so he can write about it in such great confidence. Or then again, maybe not.

To be fair you can find similar claims in many books, all of them are of the same quality as that of Stavrinides and none of them are able to produce anything that could in anyway substantiate the claim.

Well, Vias Markidis, the president of the Committed for the Restoration of Democracy in Greece that was formed right after the coup in Greec in 1967, gave this response to these claims: the article was published in 1967 and is titled "Ας γίνει η Ένωσις και ας μας Συλλάβουν" "Let the Union take place and let us be arrested". He then goes on to say this, among others:

"Ας γίνει η Ένωσις και ας μας συλλάβουν. Και μέσα στην φυλακήν θα γιορτάζωμεν για την εθνική μας αποκατάστασιν. Θα γιορτάζωμεν, γιατί η Κϋπρος θα είναι ηνωμένη με την αιωνίας Ελλάδα κι' όχι με μίαν Κυβέρνησιν. Αι Κυβερνήσεις έρχονται και παρέρχονται, αλλά η Ελλάδα μένει...."

"Let Enosis take place and let us be arrested. Even in jail we shall celebrate for our national redemption. We shall celebrate because Cyprus will be united to eternal Greece and not to a government. The Governments come and go, but Greece stays on..."

On the 25th of June of 1967 (two months after the coup of the colonels in Athens), the Cypriot parliament unanimously passed a resolution stating the following: "Παρά τας οιασδήποτα αντιξόους περιστάσεις, δεν θα αναστείλει τον ... αγώνα ... μέχρις ότου ο αγών αυτός εθοδωθεί δια της άνευ ενδιαμέσουν τινός σταθμού ΕΝΟΣΕΩΣ ενιαίας και ολοκλήρου της Κύπρου μετά της Μητρός Πατρίδος" "Despite the difficulties, we shall not give up the ... struggle ... until the struggle achieves it goal, for the UNION of the whold of Cyprus with the Motherland without any intermediate stops".

Makarios in his electoral speech on the 8th February 1973 said the following:

"Ενωτικοί είναι όλοι οι Έλληνες Κύπριοι... Προς την Ελλάδα θα έχωμεν πάντοτε εστραμμένην την ψυχήν και την καρδιά μας... Και αν μη εξαρτώμενοι από ημάς παράγοντες και καταστάσεις δεν καθιστούν δυνατήν την Ένωσιν τούτο δεν σημαίνει ότι θα παύσωμεν να είμεθα Έλληνες."

"All Greek Cypriots are Unionists... It is towards Greece that we shall alwayw have our soul and heart turned... And even if factors and situations beyond our control do not make Enosis possible, this does not mean that we shall stop being Greeks."

The fact is, we do not have any indicator of the extend of Enosis sentiment in the late 60's and early 70's. All claims regarding the alleged lessening of Unionist feeling in Cyprus are without any substantiation, nothing more than hypothesys of those who make them. What we do know however was that there was never any expression of ane lessening of Unionist feeling in Cypurs and it is foolish to suppose that a goal which was so wholeheartedly deeply and unanimously embraced by the Greek Cypriot population simply faded away within a period of a handful of years.


And then you wrote:

erolz wrote: I could continue on and on to provide evidence from countless sources that your assertion that ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis throughout the 50,60's and 70's (for which you have provided no evidence) is far from an accurate description of the real situation.

No please, indulge me!

erolz wrote: polis wrote: The political dominance of the Greek Cypriots in Cyprus was determined by their numbers, Erol, as well as the fact that even on a one to one basis, the Turks were socially, culturally and economically inferior to the Greeks.

I need to say nothing about the above - by your own words can you be known.

Thank you. They were less advanced erol, like economically inferior in the sense of poorer or less developed or less advanced, not inherently inferior as human beings.

erolz wrote: Accepting that each of the communities has to a degree an equal and separate right to determine their own futures in no way requires ethnic cleansing or division in Cyprus all it requires is respect for each other as communities.

Ok. Now try to say something that is tangible and makes sense.

erolz wrote: What really promotes such things far more than the idea that if Greek Cypriot have a right to determine their own future then Turkish Cypriot also have the same right, is the idea that Turkish Cypriot are ethnically inferior to Greek Cypriot in all ways.

Yeah, right.

erolz wrote: polis wrote: I'd like to see you supporting your interpretation of the UN Charter with respect to the Kurds in Turkey, though.

Saying that Turkish Cypriot should not and can not have any rights to determine their own future because Kurds in Turkey do not is not an argument it is an excuse and a weak one at that.
As for seeing me support my interpretation of the UN charter re Kurds just have a look here http://www.cyprus-forum.com/post-3288.html&highlight=kurd%2A#3288

Quote: PS I would also add this same logic and reasoning is why I believe the Kurds should be recognised as a people and treated accordingly. They pre date the formation of the states in which they live - thus should be judged not on the 'single state' approach but on the 'criteria list' approach (which they clearly meet). I believe that for the same reasons that Turkey supports the rights of a Turkish Cypriot people in Cyprus they should also support the rights of a Kurdish people in Turkey (and elsewhere). I condem this incosistency in Turkish policy (just as I condem incosistnecy elsewhere).

You love that don't you? Pretending you are saying something profound but saying nothing. Can you try and say something that's tangible. Like, in your mind, what does recognising the Kurds as a people actuall entail in practical terms?

erolz wrote: So can YOU now show us where YOU support your view re the kurds in Turkey - arguing that they should NOT have any rights to self determination as a people within the Turkish state?

I don't think that the Kurds can have a right of self determination as a people within the Turkish state. I do think, however, that they should be free from discrimination, they should be free to express their culture and they should have have their minority rights respected. There!

erolz wrote: The Greek Cypriot leadership supported the concept of human rights in Cyprus as far the right to self determination could be interpreted as meaning an effectvie Greek Cypriot right ot impose enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will. Where these same rights could be used as a valid argument why such an imposition was counter to human rights the Greek Cypriot leadership ignore such.

What are you talking about!? Self determination is not a human right nor is it a minority right. Being free from discrimination, having ones property or family life respected, being free from torture or forced labour, not being expelled from ones homeland, not having ones right of movement restricted, being able to communicate in ones language, being free to marry or set up a family or freely express ones religion, these are minority or human rights.

Maybe you could try to locate an internationally accepted human rights treaty or norm, read it, understand it, and tell me in what way you think the Greek Cypriot demand for Enosis violated it.

erolz wrote: As for the Greek Cypriot leaderships comitment to the 'rule of law' actions speak much louder than words. Ignoring the Republic of Cyprus's own consitutional court rulings is not the action of a leadership comitted to the 'rule of law'. Setting up illegal armed militas and using them to terrorise and kill members of the smaller ethnic community is not the action of a leadership comitted to the 'rule of law'. Illegaly importing 10's of thousands of Greek troops into cyprus is not the action of a leadership comitted to the rule of law.
polis wrote: Which was exposed and derrogated in 1966 by the nationalist/enosist press, no less (Eleftheria).
That it was anti Makarios enosits that exposed the akritas plan in 66 does nothing to lessen its impact as a refutation to your assertion that the Greek Cypriot leadership persued enosis 'in full honesty'.


This thread is not about 1963, Erol.

[erolz]

polis wrote: I will take the issues one by one, Erol, just to make this message easier to follow.

You missed one.

polis wrote: Great. Now if Stavrinides can show me something, other than a hunch, that can substantiate his claim I would be happy to accept it.

And you are offering what to support your claim that ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis through the 50,60 and 70's ?

polis wrote:
What are we supposed to assume here. Greek Cypriot opponents of Enosis "would not dare say so in public", but apparently they told Stavrinides in private so he can write about it in such great confidence. Or then again, maybe not.

That there was a climate of fear amongst Greek Cypriot in that period is again well documented. Here is just once example for you

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=16072&archive=1

Quote: The realisation that the woman standing before .him was the widow of the murdered bank employee brought memories flooding back to 59-year-old Demetriou, formerly Director of Research and Publications at the House of Representatives in Nicosia.
"I remember, the murder was condemned by all the people in Famagusta at the time," Demetriou told the Sunday Mail. "And we couldn't go out and speak against it because we were truly afraid for our lives."

polis wrote: To be fair you can find similar claims in many books, all of them are of the same quality as that of Stavrinides and none of them are able to produce anything that could in anyway substantiate the claim.

And you are producing what to substantiate your claim ?

polis wrote: The fact is, we do not have any indicator of the extend of Enosis sentiment in the late 60's and early 70's. All claims regarding the alleged lessening of Unionist feeling in Cyprus are without any substantiation, nothing more than hypothesys of those who make them.

But claims such as yours re the total lack of any lessening do not need substantiation and are not just mere hypothesis on your part ?

polis wrote:
What we do know however was that there was never any expression of ane lessening of Unionist feeling in Cypurs and it is foolish to suppose that a goal which was so wholeheartedly deeply and unanimously embraced by the Greek Cypriot population simply faded away within a period of a handful of years.

But we do know there was a climate of fear.

So how many years did it take for this wholeheartedly deeply and unanimously embraced idea to start to fade away then? According to you it was still 100% during the 70's . What about the 80's the 90's and what about today ?

polis wrote:
No please, indulge me!

For now I have already indulged you more than enough.

polis wrote: Thank you. They were less advanced erol, like economically inferior in the sense of poorer or less developed or less advanced, not inherently inferior as human beings.

To me when I see a minority ethnic group that is economically poorer than the majority group I see discrimination, not cultural inferiority. Just what do you mean by culturally inferior ?

polis wrote:
erolz wrote: Accepting that each of the communities has to a degree an equal and separate right to determine their own futures in no way requires ethnic cleansing or division in Cyprus all it requires is respect for each other as communities.

Ok. Now try to say something that is tangible and makes sense.

Accepting that both communities in a civilized society should accept some need and willingness to compromise their communal desires to accommodate that of the other community makes a dam sight more sense to me than your thesis that either one capitulates to the other entirely or there can only be conflict war and ethnic cleansing.

polis wrote:
erolz wrote: What really promotes such things far more than the idea that if Greek Cypriot have a right to determine their own future then Turkish Cypriot also have the same right, is the idea that Turkish Cypriot are ethnically inferior to Greek Cypriot in all ways.

Yeah, right.

I am glad you agree with me. Perhaps there is some hope after all.

polis wrote: I'd like to see you supporting your interpretation of the UN Charter with respect to the Kurds in Turkey, though.

You ask and I showed you.

polis wrote: You love that don't you? Pretending you are saying something profound but saying nothing. Can you try and say something that's tangible. Like, in your mind, what does recognising the Kurds as a people actuall entail in practical terms?

It essence it means that things should not be imposed on Kurds communally that kurds do not communal want. Where there is difference in what people want that is entirely split along such ethnic lines then consideration of each groups wishes should be given and compromise by each given and received.

polis wrote:
What are you talking about!? Self determination is not a human right nor is it a minority right.

You had better let the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights know this then.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c99406d528f37fc12563ed004960b4?Opendocument

polis wrote:
Being free from discrimination, having ones property or family life respected, being free from torture or forced labour, not being expelled from ones homeland, not having ones right of movement restricted, being able to communicate in ones language, being free to marry or set up a family or freely express ones religion, these are minority or human rights.

These are rights that apply to individuals and to minorities. However as UN document above makes clear

Quote: The right of self-determination [of peoples] is of particular importance because its realization is an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance of individual human rights and for the promotion and strengthening of those rights. It is for that reason that States set forth the right of self-determination in a provision of positive law in both Covenants and placed this provision as article 1 apart from and before all of the other rights in the two Covenants.

polis wrote:
Maybe you could try to locate an internationally accepted human rights treaty or norm, read it, understand it, and tell me in what way you think the Greek Cypriot demand for Enosis violated it.

Essentially, the right to self-determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. Now you tell me how the imposition of enosis on Turkish Cypriots against their will could be considered a violation of this fundamental right that is 'an essential condition for the effective guarantee and observance' of all their other rights.

polis wrote:
This thread is not about 1963, Erol.

No this thread is about your claims - claims that Greek Cypriot leadership have always been committed to the 'rule of law' and that they pursued enosis 'in full honesty'. But of course any evidence that undermines such claims about said Greek Cypriot leaderships actual actions can all be dismissed out of hand 'because this thread is not about 63'.
A claim of a commitment to the 'rule of law' by a given leadership is not supportable when that leadership repeatedly ignored the rule of law in the pursuit of its aims, unless of course you just blank out all the examples where it ignored and violated the rule of law as if they never occurred. The same with your other claim.

[polis]

erolz wrote: And you are offering what to support your claim that ALL Greek Cypriot supported enosis through the 50,60 and 70's ?

The fact that all Greek Cypriot political groups and all Greek Cypriot associations or organisations that expressed political opinion in any form including the church, the trade unions, the agricultural associations and even the athletic associations were all open and unequivocal supporters of Enosis.

erolz wrote: That there was a climate of fear amongst Greek Cypriot in that period is again well documented. Here is just once example for you

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=16072&archive=1


In a state of total collapse of order, Demetriou was afraid to confront a gang of armed thugs that murdered in cold blood an innocent Turkish Cypriot in Famagust around, 1963. And you believe that this somehow advances your argument that in the 60's Greek Cypriots did not want enosis.

By the way, of course people spoke out against these murders and one of the main roles of Grivas when he arrived in Cyprus was to end the activities of these gangs. I mean really, if people didn't epxress their horror at this killing, how did Demetriou know that the killing in his own words "was condemned by all the people in Famagusta at the time".

erolz wrote: polis wrote: What we do know however was that there was never any expression of any lessening of Unionist feeling in Cypurs and it is foolish to suppose that a goal which was so wholeheartedly deeply and unanimously embraced by the Greek Cypriot population simply faded away within a period of a handful of years.

But we do know there was a climate of fear.

The more deeply rooted and widely accepted an idea is the more difficult it is for someone to come out in public and oppose it. True, anyone who came out in the 60's against enosis would be treated as heretic and ostracised but this is an indication of the extend of enosist feeling not of the contrary. If there indeed was widespread opposition to Enosis it would have found expression somewhere. It didn't. At the time, people who opposed Makarios were persecuted or treated as heretics but there was no lack of expression of this opposition.

erolz wrote: So how many years did it take for this wholeheartedly deeply and unanimously embraced idea to start to fade away then? According to you it was still 100% during the 70's . What about the 80's the 90's and what about today ?

The catastrophe of 1974 brought about a dramatic change on the one hand because people attributed the catastrophe to the insistence on enosis as a political goal and on the other hand because of the feeling of betrayal from Greece.

erolz wrote: polis wrote: Thank you. They were less advanced erol, like economically inferior in the sense of poorer or less developed or less advanced, not inherently inferior as human beings.

To me when I see a minority ethnic group that is economically poorer than the majority group I see discrimination, not cultural inferiority. Just what do you mean by culturally inferior ?

That the relevant institutions of the Turkish community, were less developed than those of the Greek community, not that Turkish Cypriots are inherently inferior. So, how do you think the Turkish Cypriots were discriminated against right through the first half of the 20th century that led them to be poorer than the Greek majority?

erolz wrote: Accepting that both communities in a civilized society should accept some need and willingness to compromise their communal desires to accommodate that of the other community makes a dam sight more sense to me than your thesis that either one capitulates to the other entirely or there can only be conflict war and ethnic cleansing.

But the communal desire of the Turkish Cypriot community was taxim, which unlike the Greek Communal desire for enosis, presupposed war and ethnic cleansing.

In any case, if indeed we can speak of a separate right of self determination for a section of the population then this cannot but have a specific, clearly definable content. It may be a right for the community to manage it's own cultural or religious affairs or a right of a certain degree of local autonomy in areas where the community is in the majority, not a general and arbritrary power to veto the wishes of the majority of the population.

The matter is simple, Erol, you either propose a separate right ot Turkish Cypriot self determination in the sense of a right to form their own state, in which you are a supporter of the Turkish Cypriot national demand for taxim, and therefore a proponent for division and ethnic cleansing or you are supporting respect for the right of the Turkish Cypriot minority to determine issues that relate to their own community like education, local self government or religion which were in no way contradicted or curtailed by the cause of Enosis. If the Turkish Cypriot minority was entitled to these rights then it was entitlted to this rights in exactly the same way, and this rights should be satisfied in exactly the same way, whether the Turkish Cypriots were citizents of the Greek state or of a Cyprus Republic.

erolz wrote: polis wrote: You love that don't you? Pretending you are saying something profound but saying nothing. Can you try and say something that's tangible. Like, in your mind, what does recognising the Kurds as a people actuall entail in practical terms?

It essence it means that things should not be imposed on Kurds communally that kurds do not communal want. Where there is difference in what people want that is entirely split along such ethnic lines then consideration of each groups wishes should be given and compromise by each given and received.

You are clearly avoiding to give an answer Erol, because you are hypocrytical. You pretend you are a supporter of a right of self determinatin of the Kurdish population of Turkey but then you refuse to give the particular right and practical meaning. That's just like denying the right in the first place. If indeed you want to be taken seriously about your claim to support a Kurdish right of self determination, then tell us what kind of changes you propose need to be made in the structure of the policies of the Turkish State in order to conform with the right of the Kurdish minority or community to self determination?

erolz wrote: polis wrote:
What are you talking about!? Self determination is not a human right nor is it a minority right.

You had better let the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights know this then.

http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/0/f3c99406d528f37fc12563ed004960b4?Opendocument


For what it's worh, the right to Self determination is a principle of international law rather than a human right.

[Mete]

polis wrote:
But the communal desire of the Turkish Cypriot community was taxim, which unlike the Greek Communal desire for enosis, presupposed war and ethnic cleansing.

You say this as if it's a scientific fact when it's very subjective. How can you guarantee that Turkish Cypriots would not have been ethnically cleansed after Enosis? How do you know that Taksim would definitely mean war and ethnic cleansing?Turkey could land on the island on 20th of July 1974 due to Enosis desires of your community members. 1974 war was brought by Enosis not Taksim. Turkish Cypriots did not seize land, declare Taksim and invited Turkey to invade. What happenned is that some Greek Cypriots staged a coup in order to secure Enosis. Despite all this known facts, you come here and tell us that Taksim meant war and Enosis didn't?

Secondly, I don't find the discussion of whether Enosis was or wasn't supported by majority of Greek Cypriots back in 1950s/60s/70s interesting. Enosis was a widely supported public opinion of Greek Cypriots until 1974. This is a fact. I don't know what else to discuss here. What's interesting though that there are Greek Cypriots like polis who claim that one of the goals of Enosis was to ensure minority rights of Turkish Cypriots even half of a century later. I'm yet to see some arguments around that.