www.talkcyprus.org

[depurple]

Yes Boys GUESS WHAT? There is a new country so they say! Kosovo!
Three cheers!
Better tell them to get there sporting TEAM ready for the Beijing Olympics and they better hurray they only have a few months!

So whats happening tomorrow? Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus recognition!
Why NOT! I agree BUT then I told you before I also support the Kurds, Palestinians, Ache, Bali, Hawaii, Taiwan, Tibet, Fawklin, Gilbralta, Alaska, Tamils, Kashmir, Scotland, Wales, Sicily, and many others who also want there own country!
cheers

[depurple]

Would you believe Turkey has recognized Kosovo? NO! I cant believe it!
My dear Turkey if you only new what is waiting for you in the future you would NOT recognize Kosovo!
You have just bitten off your own hand!
So you say 1 million Albanians living in Kosovo should have a country and 10 million Kurds living in Turkey shouldn't?
Is that what you are saying?
Maybe it is the small under 500,000 everyone wants to recognize?
That politics my friends!
cheers

[stavrizatz]

We are stupid if the only criterion for not recognising the independence of Kosovo is that we fear recognition of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Ok just like the declaration of independence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is violating international principles it doesn't mean that the cases are the same. Kosovo did not have a invasion by a foreign country and it is not occupied by that foreign power.

The EU and US bending towards recognition of the independence of Kosovo which is not one of the state that formed former Yugoslavia but a province of Serbia shows that the International society does not follow any laws of ethics and countries look at their own benefits first, above all international agreements and above the universal declaration of Human Rights.

Shame on EU and shame on the US, well said by Vladimir Putin and I hope that other countries respect the sovereighnity of Serbia

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: Kosovo did not have a invasion by a foreign country and it is not occupied by that foreign power.

I think if you ask Serbs they feel very much that their country was attacked and Kosovo invaded by a foreign force - namely NATO. That attacking and invading force was made up of more than one country and operating under a UN mandate ,rather than a treaty mandate does not I suspect make much difference to Serbs re the question of 'were they invaded' or not.

stavrizatz wrote: The EU and US bending towards recognition of the independence of Kosovo which is not one of the state that formed former Yugoslavia but a province of Serbia shows that the International society does not follow any laws of ethics and countries look at their own benefits first, above all international agreements and above the universal declaration of Human Rights.

From a Turkish Cypriot perspective this is something we have always known and understood to be true since 64, in that from our perspective the international recognition, gained by degrees, of an all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus government as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, was a function of powerful states putting their own self interest ahead of legality and morality.

Also let us not pretend that Russia or the Republic of Cyprus for that matter are doing any different in calling for International legality to rule supreme. They are doing so not because of a moral belief in it but simply because in their case that is what best suits their own self interest.

[stavrizatz]

Erolz wrote: Also let us not pretend that Russia or the Republic of Cyprus for that matter are doing any different in calling for International legality to rule supreme. They are doing so not because of a moral belief in it but simply because in their case that is what best suits their own self interest.

I did not say that Cyprus is doing that and that is why I wrote...

Quote: We are stupid if the only criterion for not recognising the independence of Kosovo is that we fear recognition of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

Erolz wrote: I think if you ask Serbs they feel very much that their country was attacked and Kosovo invaded by a foreign force - namely NATO. That attacking and invading force was made up of more than one country and operating under a UN mandate ,rather than a treaty mandate does not I suspect make much difference to Serbs re the question of 'were they invaded' or not.

It is true that the NATO furiously attacked Yugoslavia, over the dispute of Kosovo. No there is not much difference to the invasion of Turkey in Cyprus if we recall that in both cases there was a military intervention and invasion of a foreign state. The difference I was thinking was that in the case of Cyprus is that Turkey came over and seized a part of Cyprus where in Kosovo NATO went in I cannot quite understand the insentives and handed over the administration to the Albanians who were a majority 80% in the region. In contrast Turkish Cypriots were only 20-30% of the North of Cyprus. There are similarities but also many differences in the two cases, but none is has followed ethical principals.

Erolz wrote: From a Turkish Cypriot perspective this is something we have always known and understood to be true since 64, in that from our perspective the international recognition, gained by degrees, of an all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus government as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, was a function of powerful states putting their own self interest ahead of legality and morality.

That is not the Turkish Cypriot perspective that is your own perspective to justift whatever you want to justify. You know very well that Turkish Cypriots (with the assistance of Turkey) are much more powerful in Cyprus and have always been since the 16th century and that is why a 20% minority can determine the future of the island with its own terms.

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: There are similarities but also many differences in the two cases, but none is has followed ethical principals.

I agree there are both similarities and differences I just did not agree tha one of the differences was "Kosovo did not have a invasion by a foreign country". I do not really agree that "it [kosovo] is not occupied by that foreign power" either to be honest. Serbs almost certainly see it as being occupied first by NATO and now soon to be by EU force, foreign forces supporting a minority separatist ethnic group.

stavrizatz wrote:
Erolz wrote: From a Turkish Cypriot perspective this is something we have always known and understood to be true since 64, in that from our perspective the international recognition, gained by degrees, of an all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus government as the sole legitimate government of Cyprus, was a function of powerful states putting their own self interest ahead of legality and morality.

That is not the Turkish Cypriot perspective that is your own perspective to justift whatever you want to justify.

I think it is a common Turkish Cypriot perspective that the post 63 all Greek Cypriot run version of the Republic of Cyprus's legitimacy is a result of world power placing their own self interest ahead of legality or morality.

It is not hard to understand the basis for this perspective.

You may want to dismiss this perspective as just being wanting to justify anything but actually to do this is to imho make a serious mistake.

If you REALLY look at how an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus gained legitimacy , despite the clear contradictions this has with the legally binding agreements that formed the Republic of Cyprus in the first place, it is clear that this 'granting' of legitimacy was more a product of expediency to world powers self interest than concern for legality of morality. This to me is self evidently true.

Of course Greek Cypriot like yourself do not want to have to accept that THEIR legality and recognition was itself primarily gained through such self interest of world powers but that is the case - certainly post 63 pre 74.

stavrizatz wrote: You know very well that Turkish Cypriots (with the assistance of Turkey) are much more powerful in Cyprus and have always been since the 16th century and that is why a 20% minority can determine the future of the island with its own terms.

If you have two communities in cyprus with recognised political equality the fact is neither one can alone impose anything on the other. Alone they can force deadlock but not impose anything. That is the point of such political equality. The demand for no such political equality is in fact the REAL demand for a RIGHT of one community alone to impose its will on the other and alone determine the future of the island on its own terms with no regard for the other community.

[stavrizatz]

Erolz wrote: I think it is a common Turkish Cypriot perspective that the post 63 all Greek Cypriot run version of the Republic of Cyprus's legitimacy is a result of world power placing their own self interest ahead of legality or morality.
It became an all Greek Cypriot version of Republic of Cyprus because Turkish Cypriots withdrew. It was functioning from 64 onwards because of necessity. What are trying to tells us now? When Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the governmet did it mean that the government wouldn't function because part of it rebelled against it. The Republic of Cyprus still exists by the 1960s constitution and from what I understand the extreme majority of Turkish Cypriots recognise this because they are citizens of Republic of Cyprus and still have their constitutional rights. Using the theory that the "legitimacy Republic of Cyprus is a result of world power placing their own self interest ahead of legality or morality" yes it is true the international community created the Republic of Cyprus constitution despite the fact that the majority of Cypriots wanted something else, the international community tolerated the partition of Cyprus but it is not willing to go all the way and recognise Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in fear to damage the relations with Greece. I said it many times, the international community does not operate with any laws of ethics. The universal declaration of humans rights are only there for decoration.

Erolz wrote: ...despite the clear contradictions this has with the legally binding agreements that formed the Republic of Cyprus in the first place, Do you want to talk about legally binding agreements? If requested to return back to those agreements will Turkish Cypriots accept that? Unfortunately you don't talk in that language anymore, you want bizonal bicommunal federation or recognition, am I right?

Quote: Of course Greek Cypriot like yourself do not want to have to accept that THEIR legality and recognition was itself primarily gained through such self interest of world powers but that is the case - certainly post 63 pre 74.

Of course I accept it, we had what the international community allowed us to have.
erolz wrote: If you have two communities in cyprus with recognised political equality the fact is neither one can alone impose anything on the other.
Recognised politically equality by who? I hope you accept that this time the Turkish Cypriot minority of 20% was granted rights unparralel to any other minority of that size only because it was in the interests of the world powers.



Erolz wrote: That is the point of such political equality. The demand for no such political equality is in fact the REAL demand for a RIGHT of one community alone to impose its will on the other and alone determine the future of the island on its own terms with no regard for the other community.
But what ever happened happened and the two communities were politically equal and neither Greek Cypriots were allowed to impose Enosis neither Turkish Cypriots were allowed to impose Taksim but post-independence both attmepted to do so with no regard on the other community. Turkish Cypriots happened to have more power and they imposed partition but Greek Cypriots did not achieved Enosis and ever since 1974 the Greek Cypriots community tried to maintain the legal status of Republic of Cyprus and welcomed the Turkish Cypriots to join them as partners in the a unified Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution. But no from the first phase of the military intervention of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot community all of a sudden forgot all of its obligations to the Republic of Cyprus!!!

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: It became an all Greek Cypriot version of Republic of Cyprus because Turkish Cypriots withdrew. It was functioning from 64 onwards because of necessity. What are trying to tells us now? When Turkish Cypriots withdrew from the governmet did it mean that the government wouldn't function because part of it rebelled against it.

Even if the Turkish Cypriot simply 'withdrew' from government at the end of 64, which itself is far from the truth or the complete truth, such a withdrawal was and is (as in many other countries) a valid legitimate and non violent means of protest, at a Greek Cypriot administration that had simply refused to implement parts of the 60's agreements that were legally valid that it unilaterally choose to not implement and that then unilaterally refused to to abide by the legal rulings of it's own constitutional court about.

You can argue that whilst the Turkish Cypriot withdrew (and it must be remembered that Turkish Cypriot were being killed from dec 63 by illegal armed ethnic militias being run out of the interior ministry and that even then many Turkish Cypriot remained in their positions in government such as Turkish Cypriot judges) the Greek Cypriot leadership, under the doctrine of necessity could continue to run the Republic of Cyprus without them. What you can NOT argue from any moral or legal position is that this then gave that Greek Cypriot administration the right to unilaterally strip the Turkish Cypriot community of their legal and constitutional rights, whilst execrising sole control under a 'doctrine of necessity'. Yet this is exactly what the Greek Cypriot administration did.

In 1965 the Turkish Cypriot made a formal request via the UN to re take their legal and legitimate position within the Republic of Cyprus government. This request and the response to it from the Greek Cypriot leadership , then in sole effective control of the Republic of Cyprus under the 'doctrine of necessity' are all documented by UN accounts. Having seized sole control of the Republic of Cyprus under the doctrine of necessity because the Turkish Cypriot had 'withdrawn' from government the Greek Cypriot leadership then made the return of the Turkish Cypriot members of government conditional on them accepting the illegal removal of their communities rights. This pre condition to Turkish Cypriot return to government was neither morally or legally justifiable on the basis of 'necessity' because Turkish Cypriot ahd 'withdrawn' from government - because they were trying to RETURN. Yet this is what the Greek Cypriot leadership did in 1965 - all documented by the UN. They did it from a perceived position of physical strength and political strength derived from the recognition implicit in the original 64 UN resolution.

What SHOULD have happened at this point is that the Turkish Cypriot rejoined the Republic of Cyprus government under the 60's agreements as they were written. TO claim that sole Republic of Cyprus rule by Greek Cypriot alone and international recognition of such AFTER this point was legally and morally justified under the 'doctrine of necessity' is just not true.

It is exactly because the world not only stood by and did nothing about this illegal and immoral theft of the Turkish Cypriot communities rights under the 60's agreements but actually then rewarded the Greek Cypriot leadership with increasing recognition , because it was in their self interest to do so regardless of morality or legality, that the subsequent events transpired.

As Turkish Cypriot we KNOW first hand that leaderships can act illegally, immorally and with violence and yet STILL be recognised as legitimate , if it is in world powers self interest to do such. We know because we suffered from just such. This is why lectures from an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus about how legality and morality must remain supreme and these things can never be allowed to be sacrificed to the political self interest of world powers carry no weight with us, unless there is a recognition of how the Republic of Cyprus as it exists today benefited itself from exactly these things to accompany it. On its own it is no more credible as a 'belief' in international law and morality by states than Russias claims today re Kososvo are on those terms.

stavrizatz wrote: The Republic of Cyprus still exists by the 1960s constitution ...

This is just not true in a practical sense. In 65 an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus 'government' changed laws that fundamentally undermined the constitutional order , and when the Turkish Cypriot leadership TRIED to return to government to legally block this they were told that unless they accepted the unilateral removal of their rights they could not return and if they tried 'their saftey could not be guaranteed'.

This is the version of the Republic of Cyprus that exists today and has existed since 1965 and if the offer is to return to this unilaterally changed Republic of Cyprus , then it is no more attractive today than it was in 1965.

stavrizatz wrote: and from what I understand the extreme majority of Turkish Cypriots recognise this because they are citizens of Republic of Cyprus and still have their constitutional rights.

That substantial numbers of of Turkish Cypriot have Republic of Cyprus id is not a true measure of how many Turkish Cypriot accept the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus as it exists today. A much truer measure would be how many Turkish Cypriot voted in the last elections. That number is around 400.

We do NOT have our constitutional rights under the 60's agreements and have not had them since 1965 when laws were passed by an all Greek Cypriot leadership, that refused Turkish Cypriot return to government, that fundamentally changed the constitutional order - removing the right of vice president veto, removing the status of the communal chambers and a whole series of other laws passed that undermine the constitution as it was written in 1960.

stavrizatz wrote: Using the theory that the "legitimacy Republic of Cyprus is a result of world power placing their own self interest ahead of legality or morality" yes it is true the international community created the Republic of Cyprus constitution despite the fact that the majority of Cypriots wanted something else, the international community tolerated the partition of Cyprus but it is not willing to go all the way and recognise Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in fear to damage the relations with Greece. I said it many times, the international community does not operate with any laws of ethics. The universal declaration of humans rights are only there for decoration.

No matter how bad or unfair the original 1960 constitution may have been it was the product of agreement , negotiated and signed. The version of the all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus that came to exist between 64-65 and that was subsequently recognised as 'legitimate' was not a product of agreement. It was the product of illegal abuse of the 'doctrine of necessity' in an atmosphere of illegal violence much run from withint the 'legitimate' government.

You may well recognise that in theory world powers will pursue self interest before morality and legality - but what you apparently refuse to recognize is the degree to which the post 63 all Greek Cypriot run version of the Republic of Cyprus legitimacy is a result of such things. This does not surprise me but it does depress me.

stavrizatz wrote: Of course I accept it, we had what the international community allowed us to have.

And if a time comes when the international community for its own self interest decides to grant increasing recognition to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus despite 74 and the results of it, you will have to accept that , just as we previously had to accept them legitimising a Republic of Cyprus government that never should have been.

stavrizatz wrote: Recognised politically equality by who? I hope you accept that this time the Turkish Cypriot minority of 20% was granted rights unparralel to any other minority of that size only because it was in the interests of the world powers.

I accept that the degree of political equality gained by the Turkish Cypriot ommunity via agreement in 1960 was unique. Then again so was the situation unique. I think it suited world powers to support such a degree of political equality to the Turkish Cypriot under the 60's agreements only so far as it headed direct clashes between NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. This was the overidding priority of USA UK and others in this period and it was this same self interest that made then willing to support a UN resolution that laid the foundation for the illegal and imoral recognistion of legtimacy of a Greek Cypriot only ruin version of the Republic of Cyprus post 65.

stavrizatz wrote: But what ever happened happened and the two communities were politically equal and neither Greek Cypriots were allowed to impose Enosis neither Turkish Cypriots were allowed to impose Taksim but post-independence both attmepted to do so with no regard on the other community.

Quite both communites to a degree worked to undermine the 60's agreements and constitution, but only one of them ended up with international recognition as legitimate , despite those very agreements and the constitution and the reason your community was the one that did so was because that was what was most expident at the time to world powers self interest.


stavrizatz wrote: Turkish Cypriots happened to have more power and they imposed partition but Greek Cypriots did not achieved Enosis

Turkish Cypriot finally had more physical power from 74 onwards in the shape of the Turkish military. Before that they did not have more power at all and it is the very abuses of the position of power that the Greek Cypriot leadership had pre 74, physical and political via the tacit recognition in the 64 UN resolution, that paved the way for the reversal in 74.

stavrizatz wrote: and ever since 1974 the Greek Cypriots community tried to maintain the legal status of Republic of Cyprus and welcomed the Turkish Cypriots to join them as partners in the a unified Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution.

This is just so not true. Ever since 64 the ONLY version of the Republic of Cyprus that Greek Cypriot have been willing to let Turkish Cypriot partipate in is one where Greek Cypriot alone had unilateraly changed the fundamental basis of the original agreements and Turkish Cypriot just had to accept , despite any legality let alone morality.

stavrizatz wrote: But no from the first phase of the military intervention of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot community all of a sudden forgot all of its obligations to the Republic of Cyprus!!!

We felt we no longer had a moral obligation to a version of the Republic of Cyprus where out rights had been stolen from us, whilst the world watched on and rewarded the theives with recongition, it is true but it is alos hardly surprising either. Thast version of the Republic of Cyprus not only cared nothing of it's obligations to our community sionce 63, when it had the power, but it actively removed our rights, acting illegaly and using state forces and illegal forces run by the state against us. Is it then surprising that when the power situation finally reversed we behaved as we did ?

[Mete]

stavrizatz wrote:
The difference I was thinking was that in the case of Cyprus is that Turkey came over and seized a part of Cyprus where in Kosovo NATO went in I cannot quite understand the insentives and handed over the administration to the Albanians who were a majority 80% in the region. In contrast Turkish Cypriots were only 20-30% of the North of Cyprus. There are similarities but also many differences in the two cases, but none is has followed ethical principals.

What ethical principle did NATO not follow by "attacking" Serbia over Kosovo? Would it have been better if NATO allowed ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to be ethnically cleansed by Serbs? Would that be ethical according to your standards?
stavrizatz wrote:
ever since 1974 the Greek Cypriots community tried to maintain the legal status of Republic of Cyprus and welcomed the Turkish Cypriots to join them as partners in the a unified Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution.

Sorry but this is hardly the case. You won't find a single Turkish Cypriot, even those most sympathetic to the Republic of Cyprus such as Sener Levent, that feel welcomed by Greek Cypriots to join to the Republic of Cyprus. I don't know if you know but 78 Turkish Cypriots recently tried to exercise their rights in the Republic of Cyprus but they were rejected. What kind of a welcome is that? Greek Cypriots embraced Republic of Cyprus after 1974 because they have an internationally recognized and legal government (on paper) without having the Turkish Cypriot minority as nuisance in the government. I don't blame Greek Cypriots for it, they are simply doing what's best for themselves and Turkish Cypriots are doing what's best for themselves.

[stavrizatz]

Erolz there is much truth to what you have written. There are no excuses for the immoral and unethical behaviour of the Greek Cypriot community pre 74. But think how this started, I wrote about the immoral and unethical creation of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and I believe in an attempt to justify the current situation in Cyprus, you mentioned 64. I mean this is a very frequent reply that I get from Turkish Cypriot. Well you have written some good point of which I would like to reply.

erolz wrote: Even if the Turkish Cypriot simply 'withdrew' from government at the end of 64, which itself is far from the truth or the complete truth, such a withdrawal was and is (as in many other countries) a valid legitimate and non violent means of protest

Yes not all Turkish Cypriots withdrew, and yes it is a valid mean of protest. What was not valid was the creation of a separate administration within the state which we all know what was aiming for and how it functioned.

Erolz wrote: at a Greek Cypriot administration that had simply refused to implement parts of the 60's agreements that were legally valid that it unilaterally choose to not implement and that then unilaterally refused to to abide by the legal rulings of it's own constitutional court about.
I believe you are refering to the ammendments proposed by Makarios.

Erolz wrote: You can argue that whilst the Turkish Cypriot withdrew (and it must be remembered that Turkish Cypriot were being killed from dec 63 by illegal armed ethnic militias being run out of the interior ministry and that even then many Turkish Cypriot remained in their positions in government such as Turkish Cypriot judges) the Greek Cypriot leadership
Most Greek Cypriots did not support Yorkadjis and his gangs, neither do I and I am ashamed for those black moments of our history. But why do you mention that? as if the Turkish Cypriots leadership did not organised and killed Greek Cypriots. There was bicommunal conflict, few people died but that shows that the nationalist minority existed in both communities.

Quote: under the doctrine of necessity could continue to run the Republic of Cyprus without them. What you can NOT argue from any moral or legal position is that this then gave that Greek Cypriot administration the right to unilaterally strip the Turkish Cypriot community of their legal and constitutional rights, whilst execrising sole control under a 'doctrine of necessity'. Yet this is exactly what the Greek Cypriot administration did.

I agree with you, even so the Greek Cypriot admin using the doctrine of necessity could continue functioning, the Greek Cypriot couldn't take away the constitutional rights of Turkish Cypriots. They did, then how were Turkish Cypriots suposed to claim their rights back?
Quote: In 1965 the Turkish Cypriot made a formal request via the UN to re take their legal and legitimate position within the Republic of Cyprus government. This request and the response to it from the Greek Cypriot leadership , then in sole effective control of the Republic of Cyprus under the 'doctrine of necessity' are all documented by UN accounts. Having seized sole control of the Republic of Cyprus under the doctrine of necessity because the Turkish Cypriot had 'withdrawn' from government the Greek Cypriot leadership then made the return of the Turkish Cypriot members of government conditional on them accepting the illegal removal of their communities rights. This pre condition to Turkish Cypriot return to government was neither morally or legally justifiable on the basis of 'necessity' because Turkish Cypriot ahd 'withdrawn' from government - because they were trying to RETURN.

Point taken, I agree with you even so I think the ammendments were good and made Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot more equal, I disagree with the way that Greek Cypriots persued those constitutional changes, imposing these changes on Turkish Cypriots.

Quote: It is exactly because the world not only stood by and did nothing about this illegal and immoral theft of the Turkish Cypriot communities rights under the 60's agreements but actually then rewarded the Greek Cypriot leadership with increasing recognition , because it was in their self interest to do so regardless of morality or legality, that the subsequent events transpired.

The world did not stand by, taking the opportunity they rewarded Greek Cypriots to piss off Turkish Cypriots and parallel they encouraged Turkish Cypriots to seek partition. They fueled separatist tendencies, why, because it was in their self interest to have two separate state meaning war, meaning bases meaning claims, meaning money...regardless of morality and legality.

Quote: As Turkish Cypriot we KNOW first hand that leaderships can act illegally, immorally and with violence and yet STILL be recognised as legitimate , if it is in world powers self interest to do such. We know because we suffered from just such.

Sure you suffered, and are you saying that it was moral to take revenge and make Greek Cypriots suffer even more?

Erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: The Republic of Cyprus still exists by the 1960s constitution ...

This is just not true in a practical sense. In 65 an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus 'government' changed laws that fundamentally undermined the constitutional order , and when the Turkish Cypriot leadership TRIED to return to government to legally block this they were told that unless they accepted the unilateral removal of their rights they could not return and if they tried 'their saftey could not be guaranteed'. The constitution remains the same at large extend. The seats of Turkish Cypriots MPs are still vacant to Turkish Cypriots who wish to return to their positions. Turkish Cypriots had the right to and went to the ECHR to claim their constitutional rights, so yes the Republic of Cyprus exists and as a Greek Cypriot I will support you in reclaiming your constitutional rights. I will be with you criticising OUR government but the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots from the North of Cyprus and the declaration of a separate state within the teritory of OUR country is not the answer to the immoral pratices of the Greek Cypriot community.

stavrizatz wrote: and from what I understand the extreme majority of Turkish Cypriots recognise this because they are citizens of Republic of Cyprus and still have their constitutional rights.
That substantial numbers of of Turkish Cypriot have Republic of Cyprus id is not a true measure of how many Turkish Cypriot accept the legitimacy of the Republic of Cyprus as it exists today. So it is ok to claim your rights but not to fulfil your obligations.

Quote: A much truer measure would be how many Turkish Cypriot voted in the last elections. That number is around 400.
The Republic of Cyprus gives you the choice.

Quote: We do NOT have our constitutional rights under the 60's agreements and have not had them since 1965 when laws were passed by an all Greek Cypriot leadership, that refused Turkish Cypriot return to government, that fundamentally changed the constitutional order - removing the right of vice president veto, removing the status of the communal chambers and a whole series of other laws passed that undermine the constitution as it was written in 1960.

You do not ask for your constitutional rights, if you ask I am 99.9% that you as a Turkish Cypriot community will get your rights back. But ever since 74 you don't talk that language anymore, you ask more than your constitutional rights because you have the 37% of the Cypriot land as a guarantee.

erolz wrote: No matter how bad or unfair the original 1960 constitution may have been it was the product of agreement , negotiated and signed. I agree with you and the only way to change an agreement is by agreing to that change something that both communities failed to do.

Quote: You may well recognise that in theory world powers will pursue self interest before morality and legality - but what you apparently refuse to recognize is the degree to which the post 63 all Greek Cypriot run version of the Republic of Cyprus legitimacy is a result of such things. This does not surprise me but it does depress me.
I don't think I refuse to recognise that but I don't accept it quite the way you put it. I feel like you swift all blame on Greek Cypriots at the time that from 1963-1974 the Turkish Cypriot community did exactly the same thing but in a different way.

Erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: Of course I accept it, we had what the international community allowed us to have.

And if a time comes when the international community for its own self interest decides to grant increasing recognition to the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus despite 74 and the results of it, you will have to accept that , just as we previously had to accept them legitimising a Republic of Cyprus government that never should have been.

Yes I will accept that and I will pursuade change towards a unified and multicultural Cyprus through peaceful means.

stavrizatz wrote: Recognised politically equality by who? I hope you accept that this time the Turkish Cypriot minority of 20% was granted rights unparralel to any other minority of that size only because it was in the interests of the world powers.

Erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: But what ever happened happened and the two communities were politically equal and neither Greek Cypriots were allowed to impose Enosis neither Turkish Cypriots were allowed to impose Taksim but post-independence both attmepted to do so with no regard on the other community.
Quite both communites to a degree worked to undermine the 60's agreements and constitution, but only one of them ended up with international recognition as legitimate , despite those very agreements and the constitution and the reason your community was the one that did so was because that was what was most expident at the time to world powers self interest.
Are you comparing the creation of a new state within a state on stolen territory to an existing state that failed to perform all its duties? What do you suggest?

Erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: and ever since 1974 the Greek Cypriots community tried to maintain the legal status of Republic of Cyprus and welcomed the Turkish Cypriots to join them as partners in the a unified Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution.

This is just so not true. Ok if you say so. Ask any Greek Cypriot politician and you will see that they will be more than willing to return to 1960s agreements.

Erolz wrote: stavrizatz wrote: But no from the first phase of the military intervention of Turkey, the Turkish Cypriot community all of a sudden forgot all of its obligations to the Republic of Cyprus!!!

We felt we no longer had a moral obligation to a version of the Republic of Cyprus where out rights had been stolen from us, whilst the world watched on and rewarded the theives with recongition, it is true but it is alos hardly surprising either. Thast version of the Republic of Cyprus not only cared nothing of it's obligations to our community sionce 63, when it had the power, but it actively removed our rights, acting illegaly and using state forces and illegal forces run by the state against us. Is it then surprising that when the power situation finally reversed we behaved as we did ? You did not show moral obligation ever since the formation of the republic. All I see is again, you playing victim to justify the current situation. Only once I want to see you Erol to critisice the bad doings of your own community and stop justifying the war crimes of 74.

[stavrizatz]

Mete wrote: stavrizatz wrote:
The difference I was thinking was that in the case of Cyprus is that Turkey came over and seized a part of Cyprus where in Kosovo NATO went in I cannot quite understand the insentives and handed over the administration to the Albanians who were a majority 80% in the region. In contrast Turkish Cypriots were only 20-30% of the North of Cyprus. There are similarities but also many differences in the two cases, but none is has followed ethical principals.

What ethical principle did NATO not follow by "attacking" Serbia over Kosovo? Would it have been better if NATO allowed ethnic Albanians in Kosovo to be ethnically cleansed by Serbs? Would that be ethical according to your standards?
No the answer was not military offensive against Serbs. There was conflict between Serbs and Albanians but it could of been resolved by peaceful means, not by bombing hospitals in Belgrade, not by harrasing Serbs of Kosovo, not by discriminating against them.

Mete wrote: stavrizatz wrote: ever since 1974 the Greek Cypriots community tried to maintain the legal status of Republic of Cyprus and welcomed the Turkish Cypriots to join them as partners in the a unified Cyprus according to the 1960 constitution.

Sorry but this is hardly the case. You won't find a single Turkish Cypriot, even those most sympathetic to the Republic of Cyprus such as Sener Levent, that feel welcomed by Greek Cypriots to join to the Republic of Cyprus. I don't know if you know but 78 Turkish Cypriots recently tried to exercise their rights in the Republic of Cyprus but they were rejected. What kind of a welcome is that? Greek Cypriots embraced Republic of Cyprus after 1974 because they have an internationally recognized and legal government (on paper) without having the Turkish Cypriot minority as nuisance in the government. I don't blame Greek Cypriots for it, they are simply doing what's best for themselves and Turkish Cypriots are doing what's best for themselves.

I do know of the case of the 78 Turkish Cypriots recently trying to exercise their right. But the wanted to exercise their right but at the same time they wanted to keep their right in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nese Yasin did claim her constitutional right and she got it. Others can do so too, simply you don't want to.

[Mete]

stavrizatz wrote:
No the answer was not military offensive against Serbs. There was conflict between Serbs and Albanians but it could of been resolved by peaceful means, not by bombing hospitals in Belgrade, not by harrasing Serbs of Kosovo, not by discriminating against them.

Do you remember the events that I think happened in 1999? I remember watching on TV how Albanians were leaving Kosovo in thousands because they were scared for their lives. Of course, a military offensive should be the last option but I don't think military offensive was inappropriate in this case. It was definetely not unethical because the goal of the operation was not to invade Kosovo or harass Serbs but simply restore peace in Kosovo and that did happen.
Quote:
I do know of the case of the 78 Turkish Cypriots recently trying to exercise their right. But the wanted to exercise their right but at the same time they wanted to keep their right in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nese Yasin did claim her constitutional right and she got it. Others can do so too, simply you don't want to.

Sorry but you are misinformed. Not all of those 78 people were elected representatives of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Actually most of them were probably willing to give up on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus altogether but they were rejected by the Greek Cypriot higher court for other reasons and not for the reason of keeping their rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

You're misinformed about the Neshe Yashin as well. She could not claim her constitutional right as a Turkish Cypriot. She did not run in the elections as a Turkish Cypriot (i.e. run in a seperate Turkish Cypriot list and get votes from Turkish Cypriots seperately from Greek Cypriots) but she was simply allowed to enlist in the Greek Cypriot list. As you can imagine, this is barely claiming Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights in the Republic of Cyprus, don't you agree?

[erolz]

stavrizatz wrote: Erolz there is much truth to what you have written. There are no excuses for the immoral and unethical behaviour of the Greek Cypriot community pre 74. But think how this started, I wrote about the immoral and unethical creation of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and I believe in an attempt to justify the current situation in Cyprus, you mentioned 64. I mean this is a very frequent reply that I get from Turkish Cypriot. Well you have written some good point of which I would like to reply.

I do not say or claim or ever have that what the Greek Cypriot did to the Turkish Cypriot from 63-74 JUSTIFIES what was done by Turkish Cypriot and Turkey to Greek Cypriot post 74. The point of bringing up pre 74 is that you can not properly UNDERSTAND post 74 outside of the context of what happend before. My objective is not justification of the status quo but understanding how this became the status quo and the requires understanding pre 74.

stavrizatz wrote: I believe you are refering to the ammendments proposed by Makarios.

Before Makarios made his 'proposed' amendments Makarios was refusing to implement parts of the 60's agreements he signed. Principally on the issue of setting up separate municipalities but also on quotas for government jobs. From 60-63 the Turkish Cypriot leadership tired and failed to get these agreed commitments met and they failed. They went to the constitutional court over the issue of municipalities and when Makarios was ruled against by this court he simply declared that he would not accept the courts judgment on the matter, which in turn led to the resignation of the neutral (non cypriot) head of the constitutional court leaving Cyprus without a functional constitutional court at a most vital period. The Turkish Cypriot leaderships response to this was to use their legal right to refuse to ratify the annual budget. Having tried for three years to get Makarios to implement what was already agreed and failed , having gone to the constitutional court and won a ruling only to have its ruling ignore by Makarios , there was little protest left to the Turkish Cypriot leadership but to legally force deadlock via its right to block the annual budget.

So having forced the Turkish Cypriot leadership into such an extreme measure by simply refusing to implement that already agreed and illegally then ignoring constitutional court rulings and in the process destroying the legitimate mechanism for settling constitutional deadlocks Makarios declared that the current consitution was unworkable and for it to be workable the very fundamental basis of it had to change from one of partnership of the communites as equals to , as agreed in 60 to one where all aspects of communal political equality were removed. So first he annouced his ammendments as unilateral changes and following swift intervention of the British Ambassador he changed them to 'proposed' ammendments. Soon after violence exploded.

No one can know what would have happened but it is imo valid to aks the questions , what id Makarios had not refused to implement that which was already agreed? Would the Turkish Cypriot leadership have still refused to vatify the annaul budget and if so under what pretext ? What would have happened if Makarios had respected the rulings of the consitutional court as all leglaity demanded he did so and the court remained as a viable functioning means of settleing communal consitutional disputes ?

stavrizatz wrote: Most Greek Cypriots did not support Yorkadjis and his gangs, neither do I and I am ashamed for those black moments of our history.

THat is probably true but Makarios DID support Yorjardis and empower him and Makarios was the supported leader of the Greek Cypriot community as well as president of the Republic of Cyprus sworn to uphold and protect its consitution and operation.

stavrizatz wrote: But why do you mention that? as if the Turkish Cypriots leadership did not organised and killed Greek Cypriots. There was bicommunal conflict, few people died but that shows that the nationalist minority existed in both communities.

I mention in the context of looking at the morality and legality of the world powers recognising such a leadership. Yes both sides were doing these things to a degree but only ONE side did these kind of things AND also gained international recongition as sole legitimate goverment of all Cypriots, despite doing such things and despite the clear contradictions with the consitution and both the letter and the spirit of the 60's agreements. It is a clear example of how much this legitimacy that the all Greek Cypriot version of the Republic of Cyprus gained was based on polticial expidency of world powers to their own self interest and NOT on morality or legality.

stavrizatz wrote: They did, then how were Turkish Cypriots suposed to claim their rights back?

How indeed given that Makarios had already ignore the constituional courts rulings an in the process destroyed the very organ of state that could have allowed for a non violent legal means by whihc the Turkish Cypriot claimed back their rights as a community.

stavrizatz wrote: Point taken, I agree with you even so I think the ammendments were good and made Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot more equal, I disagree with the way that Greek Cypriots persued those constitutional changes, imposing these changes on Turkish Cypriots.

More equal as indivduals or more equal as communites ? If you look at the ammendments they clearly change the whole fundamental basis on which the 60's agreements were made , and they were 'proposed' AFTER Makarios had already refused to implement aspect so the 60's agreements AND ignored consitutional court rulings. What were Turkish Cypriot supposed to think at this point ? That his proposed changes were really about improving the functioning of the satae and making it fairer for all, or an attempt to remove Turkish Cypriot communal rights ?

stavrizatz wrote: The world did not stand by, taking the opportunity they rewarded Greek Cypriots to piss off Turkish Cypriots and parallel they encouraged Turkish Cypriots to seek partition. They fueled separatist tendencies, why, because it was in their self interest to have two separate state meaning war, meaning bases meaning claims, meaning money...regardless of morality and legality.

I just do not accept this analysis though it is a common Cypriot one on both sides. In the period in question , the height of the cold war, western super powers primary interest in Cyprus was stopping it from becomming a reason for the NATO allies of Greece and Turkey to go to war. It is imo madness to suggest that it was in the self interest of western powers for Cyprus to be in intwernal conflict in this period. For the Soviet Union seeking to undermine NATO certainly - but their influence , despite some dangerous flirtations by Makarios with them, was limited in Cyprus. What the westrn super powers wanted in Cyprus in this period more than anything was stability not inter communal violence. They supported the complex and aytpical 60's agreements in this self interest. They accepted all Greek Cypriot Republic of Cyprus leadership in 64 resolution as legitimate in this interest , in order to get UN troops into to Cyprus to try and bring stability. In neither case did they care about legality or morality or the best interests of CYpriots per se, but only on their best chance of avoiding Greek Turkish conflict.


stavrizatz wrote: Sure you suffered, and are you saying that it was moral to take revenge and make Greek Cypriots suffer even more?

No not at all. My point is not that we suffered. Certainly not we suffered therefore we have a rioght to inflict suffering on you. The point is that what Turkish Cypriot have learnt from hard experience as a community is that leaderships can act illegally, immorally and with violence and yet STILL be recognised as legitimate , if it is in world powers self interest to do such despite legality and morality.

stavrizatz wrote: The constitution remains the same at large extend.

Yes it does but this is merely a facade in reality. Rather than change the constitution , articles of which were deemed unalterable, an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus simply enacted laws that rendered it useless or undermined parts of it in a 'de facto' manner , including amongst other things the consitutional court. There is ismply no need to ammend the consitutions provisions re a consitutional court if one simply ignores its rulings when made and this leads to the neutral head of such court - a fundamental basis of it resigning. The constitution was not changed per se but in effect the entire sections withint it about the role powers and functioning of the consituitional court were rendered invalid anyway. It was in this way that the consitution was effectively changed / made impotent / renderd meaingless, not in blatant direct changes to it.

Similar was done with the bill that promoted the Turkish Cypriot leaderships attempts to return to government in 65. It was not a change to the consitution but it was ab ill that in effect changed the whole basis if the consitution. From UN report S/6426 10 June 1965

Quote: The Council of Ministers also approved a bill continuing in force the electoral law of the Republic "subject to certain legislative measures which became necessary by force of the pressing situation in Cyprus until such time as the people of Cyprus may express their views thereon". The Government stated that for this purpose interim provisions had been included in the bill in regard to the preparation and holding of elections for the presidency of the Republic and membership of the House.The bill made no mention of separate Greek and Turkish registers of electors, registrars of electors, returning officers, presiding officers, constituencies, electors,candidates or members. In all such cases the communal distinction was written off.­

So the constituion was not changed, but this bill passed by a Greek Cypriot only run Republic of Cyprus government simply ignored the consitution, as it it did not exist at all. The only body that could legitimately deal with this abuse of the consitution, the consitutional court, was laready ingored by Makarios and renderd useless follwing such.

So the Turkish Cypriot leadership realising the danger of this was prompted to take up it's valid position in government to stop such a bill. The response to this request to return was met with

Quote: The Special Representative [of UN] conveyed this position [Turkish Cypriot desire to return to goverment and be provided copies of the pending bills] to Mr. Clerides, the President of the House of Representatives, who stated the Turkish Cypriot members could attend provided agreement were reached beforehand on the
following points:­

....

(d) It must be understood that the provision in article
78 of the constitution concerning separate majorities had been
abolished and every member of the House would have one vote for
all decisions.­

....

Finally,
Mr.Clerides stated that unless the Turkish Cypriot members
accepted the conditions laid down by him, he found it pointless
to supply to them copies of the pending bills.­



So no need to actually change the consitution. Just demand that it is understood that it has been unilateraly changed.

Quote: Mr.Clerides also stated that the constitutional provisions concerning promulgation of the laws by the President and the Vice-President were no longer applicable. He subsequently stated that in his opinion the Turkish Cypriot members had no legal standing any more in the House.­

Again no need to change the constitution , when one side can just unilaterlay delared aspects of it 'no longer applicable'.

So these were and are the ways that Turkish Cypriot ommunal consitutional rights were removed. Not with formal changes to the consitution directly but through de facto ignoring of the constitution and the passing of bills by a Greek Cypriot only house of represtatives that just ignored the consitution - all in the absense of a functioning consitutional court.

So yes the consititution remains largely unchaged but it also remains as largley ignored and renderedusless as it was in 1965. Now as then our return would be consitional on accepting this de facto undermining of the constitution.


stavrizatz wrote: The seats of Turkish Cypriots MPs are still vacant to Turkish Cypriots who wish to return to their positions. Turkish Cypriots had the right to and went to the ECHR to claim their constitutional rights, so yes the Republic of Cyprus exists and as a Greek Cypriot I will support you in reclaiming your constitutional rights.

Yopu will support our reclaiming of our communal rioghts to seperate electrol roles, vice president veto and all the other consititional rights that were renderd ineffective, useless or meaingless in the light of bills passed by a Greek Cypriot only Republic of Cyprus ?

stavrizatz wrote: I will be with you criticising OUR government but the ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots from the North of Cyprus and the declaration of a separate state within the teritory of OUR country is not the answer to the immoral pratices of the Greek Cypriot community.

I totaly agree that enforced partition by force of arms is not a vaild solution. My point is that if we want to find a different , fairer and better solution we HAVE to understand the realitiers of what lead to the current situation. To me from a Turkish Cypriot perspective the idea that we could of and still can simply return to the consitution of the 1960's is indicative of not understanding the realities. Whilst the bulk of the constitution exits unchanged on paper the reality is that it no more exists today as it did in 65 when Cleriders was declaring whole swathes of it 'no longer applicable'.

If we are to find a better solution that the current status quo we have to imo understand this.

stavrizatz wrote: The Republic of Cyprus gives you the choice.

The all run Republic of Cyprus gives what it HAS to give in order to maintin that which it gained from 64, international recognition as the sole legitimate goverment of Cyprus. I however you are looking for the real numbers of Turkish Cypriot that also recognise this legitimacy , then taking the number of Turkish Cypriot that have Republic of Cyprus ID is not to me an indicative number vs the number that voted in this last electionin the Republic of Cyprus, whihc is much more indicative fo how many Turkish Cypriot accept the Republic of Cyprus legitimacy.

stavrizatz wrote: You do not ask for your constitutional rights, if you ask I am 99.9% that you as a Turkish Cypriot community will get your rights back. But ever since 74 you don't talk that language anymore, you ask more than your constitutional rights because you have the 37% of the Cypriot land as a guarantee.

Certainly we now ask for more from a position of grerater strength. But we ask for more / different not ONLY because we can from a position of de facto strength post 74 but ALSO because there is nothing to return to but the runins of a constitution renderd meaingless from 65 onwards.

By the way I do not know of any statement by any Greek Cypriot leadership post 64 that has formally said the Turkish Cypriot community can reclaim its place in the Republic of Cyprus with all the rights under the original 60's consitution. It is easy to say as an indivdual you are 99.9% sure such would be accpeted by Greek Cypriot leaderships, but they have never OFFERED it.

stavrizatz wrote: I don't think I refuse to recognise that but I don't accept it quite the way you put it. I feel like you swift all blame on Greek Cypriots at the time that from 1963-1974 the Turkish Cypriot community did exactly the same thing but in a different way.

If the impression I am creating is that of trying to push all the blame on Greek Cypriot then I am abject failing in my true objective.

The point I am trying to make here is totaly and absolutley NOT that Greek Cypriot did bad things to us therefore we were justifed in doing waht we did in 74 onwards.

The point I am trying to make is that this idea that Turkish Cypriot could and always could have simply returned to the Republic of Cyprus under the original 1960 consitution but chose not to pre 74 and post it because they thought they could get more / better by not doing so is not an accurate picture. At the very least even if we could agree the principle of returning to the 60's consitution as it was originally written we now laos have to deal with how it was rendered ineffective in the 60's for that to have any meaning and that requires recongising that it WAS rendered ineffective and how.

stavrizatz wrote: Are you comparing the creation of a new state within a state on stolen territory to an existing state that failed to perform all its duties? What do you suggest?

I am not making a comparrison. I am making the point that even though both communites actly 'equally badly' pre 74 one community alone was rewarded by international recongnition and the other punished by lack of it. I suggest that if we are to find a way forward we have to recognise that this happened and that it laid the seeds for what then happened in 74. That if we truely seek to correct thes things we have to recognise all of them - the injustice of the pre 74 recongition of a purely Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus AS WELL as the injstice of parition imposed by force of arms. Recognising only one will not allow to go forward and in fact stops us from doing so.


Erolz wrote: Ok if you say so. Ask any Greek Cypriot politician and you will see that they will be more than willing to return to 1960s agreements.

You mean go back to a constitution that can be and now has been ignored and rendered useless and pointless in practice as far as Turkish Cypriot communal rights under it ? I am sorry but I just do not believe or accept that say Tassos Papadopolus is any more prepared today to give up the Republic of Cyprus as it exists today for one where Turkish Cypriot community have their full communal rights as they were written in 60's and before they were rendered ineffective than he was in 1965. I want to believe ti but I simply can not. If they were to SAY this directly and clearly , accepting that historically those rights were rendred ineffective and usless and such would not be the case again, then this might help convince me. But no such decleration has ever come from a Greek Cypriot politician that I know of.


stavrizatz wrote: You did not show moral obligation ever since the formation of the republic.

If we did not then certainly neither did you. So no one has ever shown moral obligation to the Republic of Cyprus in ANY form, yet you think post 74 we should have suddenly started to ?


stavrizatz wrote: All I see is again, you playing victim to justify the current situation. Only once I want to see you Erol to critisice the bad doings of your own community and stop justifying the war crimes of 74.

Is this really all you see or is it all you want to see ?

Let me state yet again. I am not talking about pre 74 as a means of justifing post 74 and using an argument that you did bad things to us so we were justifed in doing bad things to you and the status quo is the end of it.

I have never justifed the events of 74 on such a basis.

Enforced partition by force of arms was not a valid solution then or now. The events of 74 and since have inflicted immense pain and suffering on huge numbers of innocent Cypriots and most especially Greek Cypriot. This pain and suffering can never be justifed by any prior suffering of ours at your hands.

We MUST try and rectify this situaton and build a better and differnet future for ourselves and future Cypriots. However I truely and absolutley believe that we can not do this by only looking at the events of 74 onwards or having un realisitc notions of what the problems are or how they can be solved. Returning to our place within the Republic of Cyprus under the original 60's consitution , whihc we could always ahve done at any point, is to me just such an unrealiic notion of a solution and that is why I have gone into so much detail about events pre 74 here - in an ttempt to explain why Ithink it is an unrealistic notion.

[stavrizatz]

erolz wrote: Let me state yet again. I am not talking about pre 74 as a means of justifing post 74 and using an argument that you did bad things to us so we were justifed in doing bad things to you and the status quo is the end of it.

Then why the hell do you mention the pre 74 events it when there is a comparison of Kosovo with Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus??? We somewhat agree in many things, I also say that in 74 it was the obligation of Turkey to intervene and re-establish constitutional order, but it failed to do so. Therefore the declaration of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is violating internationally agreed principles.

Why your reply was, "but you did this in 64"? So what, the legality of Republic of Cyprus is a separate issue and we are discussing it because you refused to accept the illegal status of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.

It is ok to understand why we have the status quo, but that doesn't make the occupation of the North of Cyprus legitimate.

And by the way it is not an all Greek Cypriot run Republic of Cyprus as you claim, there are other minorities in the government. The leader of DIKO the third largest political party, Mr Karoyian is not Greek and soon he might even become the president of parliament.

Can we discuss the legality of Republic of Cyprus in a different thread? I think there is allready one. [/quote]

[stavrizatz]

Mete wrote: stavrizatz wrote:
No the answer was not military offensive against Serbs. There was conflict between Serbs and Albanians but it could of been resolved by peaceful means, not by bombing hospitals in Belgrade, not by harrasing Serbs of Kosovo, not by discriminating against them.

Do you remember the events that I think happened in 1999? I remember watching on TV how Albanians were leaving Kosovo in thousands because they were scared for their lives. Of course, a military offensive should be the last option but I don't think military offensive was inappropriate in this case. It was definetely not unethical because the goal of the operation was not to invade Kosovo or harass Serbs but simply restore peace in Kosovo and that did happen.

Yes Mete, I remember...I am not saying that the Albanians of Kosovo didn't suffer. There was ethnic conflict but NATO did not give a damn about Albanians and they did not go in Kosovo to restore peace. They went for the same reason America went to Kuwait, now they went to Iraq, someone will be next. Since 1999 there is no peace there has been even more violence but the other way round.

Mete wrote:
I do know of the case of the 78 Turkish Cypriots recently trying to exercise their right. But the wanted to exercise their right but at the same time they wanted to keep their right in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Nese Yasin did claim her constitutional right and she got it. Others can do so too, simply you don't want to.

Sorry but you are misinformed. Not all of those 78 people were elected representatives of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Actually most of them were probably willing to give up on Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus altogether but they were rejected by the Greek Cypriot higher court for other reasons and not for the reason of keeping their rights in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.
I am not misinformed, but I am not very informed either. From what I understand is the Turkish Cypriots claimed their constitutional rights but they wanted to live in the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus controlled areas and from what I understand, Turkish Cypriots can become members of the government only if they live in the Republic of Cyprus controlled areas. Is that true? Why it is so, there are reasons why. Personally I support unconditional the return of Turkish Cypriots to the government but some people think differently.

Mete wrote: You're misinformed about the Neshe Yashin as well. She could not claim her constitutional right as a Turkish Cypriot. She did not run in the elections as a Turkish Cypriot (i.e. run in a seperate Turkish Cypriot list and get votes from Turkish Cypriots seperately from Greek Cypriots) but she was simply allowed to enlist in the Greek Cypriot list. As you can imagine, this is barely claiming Turkish Cypriot constitutional rights in the Republic of Cyprus, don't you agree?

yes i agree, i did not know that. Well why did she choose to do that? Why was she allowed? I think it shows that the Republic of Cyprus has nothing against Turkish Cypriots being part of the government but at the same time it is concerned handing back to Turkish Cypriots their constitutional rights unconditionally while there is still the presence of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus.