 |
| Author |
Message |
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| The Greek Cypriot delegation that went to be present at the signing of these agreements was given an option between accepting and signing those agreements and partition. It was a “take it or live it” case and this is a well known fact. Some even claim that the British had earlier presented Makarios with a file containing the details and even maps of how this partition was going to be performed. |
What is a well known fact is what the Akritas plan had to say about the consent of the Greek Cypriot people with regard to the 1960 agreements. Let me remind you
| Quote: |
| It has been an important trump in our hands that the solution brought by the Agreements was not submitted to the approval of the people; acting wisely in this respect, our leadership avoided holding a referandum. Otherwise, the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959 |
A wise 'trump' still being played by those Greek Cypriot who seek to create a Cyprus state where Turkish Cypriot community is reduced to a minority apparently.
So do you think this assesment by the authors of the Akritas plan is wrong? That the Greek Cypriot people would not have 'definately approved' the agreeemnts if they had been gvien a chance? Do you agree that it was a 'wise move' that your leaders avoided such ratifcation by the people so they can today continue to claim it was an agreement imposed on the Greek Cypriot people against their will? |
This is a purely hypothetical scenario and assumption and in fact, it does not alter or contradict what I said above, namely that Makarios was essentially blackmailed into signing it, with partition as the only alternative.
Furthermore, what you quoted from the Akritas plan is merely the opinion and /or assumption of the authors and nothing else. Of course, if the people of Cyprus were asked to approve it, knowing that the alternative was partition, as the demands of Turkey and the plans of the British were, I wouldn't be surprised if they had yielded into approving it in a referendum.
Lastly, the authors of the Akritas plan, at the time the plan was drafted were not my leaders but mere appointed ministers of the Republic of Cyprus (i.e. not elected leaders of the Greek Cypriot community.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
| erolz wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
What it actualy says is
| Quote: |
Part 1 General Provisions
Article 1 []
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided. |
Which is a bit different from what you say above. |
Can you point to me the difference between what I said above and what you quoted, becasue I cannot see any difference and /or contadiction. |
The bit missed out is the bit that states "The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime".
| Kifeas wrote: |
Why? What did I say that you find disinginuous? |
If find your attempts to try and make out that the 60 agreements were not based on the concept of the sharing of politcal power between the two communites disengenuous.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Such a notion, as you described it above is not evident in the letter of any of the agreements. From then on, what the spirit of these agreements is, it is a matter of opinion and interpretation, but legally, such an approach is taken only whenever there is ambiguity in the interpretation of a sentence or a term of the letter of any law and consiquently the agreements. Where is the abiquity? |
The basis, spirit and actuality of these agreements is not ambiguous. On all fronts it is clear that the Republic of Cyprus was based on the ide of a sharing of poltical powere between the two communites.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Why you say so? Is this the only way a state emerging from a colonial rule can be founded? So many states emerged as independed ones from a colonial past, where they all separated along communities based on "ethnic" elements, either before, during or after their establishment? |
I say so because it is reality. The Greek Cypriot did everything in their power to try and create a state not based on the concept of sharing of poltical power between the two communites and failed. They could not convince the rest of the worls of their arguments and they did not have the ability to impsoe such a solution militarily.
| Kifeas wrote: |
Where does it say in the very fabric of the constitution that the two communities are partners in the republic of Cyprus? Show me the line or the sentence.
What do you mean the basis of the Republic of Cyprus constitution? Again what you say it is the basis, it is not stipulated in the constitution it self, nor in the treaty of establishment. |
| Quote: |
| The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice-President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided. |
| Quote: |
Article 36 []
The President of the Republic is the Head of the State and takes precedence over all persons in the Republic. The Vice-President of the Republic is the Vice-Head of the State and takes precedence over all persons in the Republic next after the President of the Republic. Deputising for or replacing the President of the Republic in case of his temporary absence or temporary incapacity to perform his duties is made as provided in paragraph 2 of this Article.
In the event of a temporary absence or a temporary incapacity to perform the duties of the President or of the Vice-President of the Republic, the President or the Vice-President of the
House of Representatives and, in case of his absence or pending the filling of a vacancy in any such office, the Representative acting for him under Article 72 shall act for the President or the Vice-President of the Republic respectively during such temporary absence or temporary incapacity.
Article 37 []
The President of the Republic as Head of the State -
(a) represents the Republic in all its official functions;
(b) signs the credentials of diplomatic envoys appointed under Article 54 and receives the credentials of foreign diplomatic envoys who shall be accredited to him;
(c) signs -
(i) the credentials of delegates appointed under Article 54 for the negotiation of international treaties, conventions or other agreements, or for signing any such treaties, conventions or agreements already negotiated, in accordance with, and subject to, the provisions of this Constitution;
(ii) the letter relating to the transmission of the instruments of ratification of any international treaties, conventions or agreements approved as provided in this Constitution;
(d) confers the honours of the Republic.
Article 38 []
1. The Vice-President of the Republic as Vice-Head of the State has the right to -
(a) be present in all official functions;
(b) be present at the presentation of the credentials of the foreign diplomatic envoys;
(c) recommend to the President of the Republic the conferment of honours of the Republic on members of the Turkish Community which recommendation the President shall accept unless there are grave reasons to the contrary. The honours so conferred will be presented to the recipient by the Vice-
President if he so desires.
2. For the purposes of sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph 1 of this Article, the necessary information shall be given to the Vice-President of the Republic in writing in sufficient time before any such event. |
| Quote: |
Article 46 []
The executive power is ensured by the President and the Vice-
President of the Republic. |
| Quote: |
Article 47 []
The executive power exercised by the President and the Vice-
President of the Republic conjointly consists of the following
|
| Quote: |
Article 49 []
The executive power exercised by the Vice-President of the Republic consists of the following matters, that is to say: -
(d) right of final veto on decisions of the Council of Ministers concerning foreign affairs, defence or security as in Article 57 provided;
(e) right of return of decisions of the Council of Ministers as in Article 57 provided;
(f) right of final veto on laws or decisions of the House of Representatives concerning foreign affairs, defence or security as in, Article 50 provided;
(g) right of return of laws or decisions of the House of Representatives or of the Budget as in Article 51 provided; |
| Quote: |
Article 50 []
1. The President and the Vice-President of the Republic, separately or conjointly, shall have the right of final veto on any law or decision of the House of Representatives or any part thereof concerning - |
And so I could go on and on through the consitution. The agreements are clearly based on the concept of partnership of the two communites. The equality of the two communites representatives of president and vise president are clear and continuous throughout the document. Yet you can say 'where in the consitituion does it say 'partnership' or 'equality' and then wonder why I find your approach disengenuous?
Again I ask, if as you appraently insist, the 60's agreements are not based on the concept of shared poltical power between the two communites and on equality of these communites what in your opinion IS it based on? On a unitary state? On a state of two communites with one community as a mjority community with majority poltical power and a minority community with minority poltical power? Come Kifeas tell us please? Share you view and opinion of what the agreements ARE and DO represent as well as your insitance as to what they are NOT and do NOT represent.
[/b][/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
This is a purely hypothetical scenario and assumption and in fact, it does not alter or contradict what I said above, namely that Makarios was essentially blackmailed into signing it, with partition as the only alternative.
Furthermore, what you quoted from the Akritas plan is merely the opinion and /or assumption of the authors and nothing else. Of course, if the people of Cyprus were asked to approve it, knowing that the alternative was partition, as the demands of Turkey and the plans of the British were, I wouldn't be surprised if they had yielded into approving it in a referendum. |
As a Greek Cypriot you wish to create the impression that the 60's agreements were imposed on the Greek Cypriot people aginst their will. That this is so blatantly not the case is clearly shown in the Akritas plan. If the Greek Cypriot people had been given an opportuntiy to express their wil directly, there is no doubt in anyones mind - not the plans authors mind, my mind or any other sane persons mind, that they would have definately given this consent. You know that is true (i suggest) and I know that is true. However it rather undermines the propaganda argument that the agreemtns were imposed against the will of the Greek Cypriot people (as cleary pointed out by the authors of the Akritas plan)
| Kifeas wrote: |
Lastly, the authors of the Akritas plan, at the time the plan was drafted were not my leaders but mere appointed ministers of the Republic of Cyprus (i.e. not elected leaders of the Greek Cypriot community.) |
So what. You wish to create an impression that the 60's agreements were imposed on the Greek Cypriot people against their will. This is just rubbish. The authors of the Akritas plan knew this to be rubbish and said so in their secret document. They also knew the power of being able to pretend in the future that this rubbish was actualy true to futher their aims of illegaly stealing the Turkish Cypriot communites rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
Erol, no matter how many times you repeat the same slogans over and over again and no matter how many times you call other people's arguments as rubbish and no matter how upset and angry you become, you do not convince anyone in this way, set aside me.
I said what I said, you said what you said, let people make and /or reach their own conclusions. The agreements and the constitution are all there for everyone to read. We two alone will not solve the issue, That is the most certain!
Have a good night! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4211
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
Erol, no matter how many times you repeat the same slogans over and over again and no matter how many times you call other people's arguments as rubbish and no matter how upset and angry you become, you do not convince anyone in this way, set aside me.
I said what I said, you said what you said, let people make and /or reach their own conclusions. The agreements and the constitution are all there for everyone to read. We two alone will not solve the issue, That is the most certain!
Have a good night! |
Where are my 'slogans'?
Again I ask you what you think the basis of the 1960 agreements is if it is not a basis of shared power of the communites and poltical equality of those communites?
You saying x and me saying y and others chosing is not disucssion. It is playing to the gallery. Is that what you seek to do here? It certainly makes your posts more understandable if that is your objective and intent in posting them. I seek to discuss. To explain why I think your view is wrong and mine is right and hear why you think the reverse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
| cannedmoose wrote: |
| Kifeas wrote: |
| Dhavlos wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Where did you find this notion that the two communities are co-founders of the Cypriot State? |
well, maybe i mean co-sharers of the state. As in, the communities are of equal political worth, neither is a minority.
|
Neither do such notions exist in the constitution and /or the treaty of establishment!
It doesn't say in the constitution that they are sharers or co-sharers of the state, nor partners or co-partners, set aside equal ones, poliitcally or otherwise.
It only says that the two communities exercise their political rights (elect and /or be elected) separately and that they elect the president (Greek Cypriots) and vice president (Turkish Cypriots,) separately. |
Kifeas, you're obviously leading us towards something. Can't you be more explicit and say what you actually believe. If the communities weren't co-founders, nor even 'co-sharers', what on earth were they? |
Moose, I believe this was the question that you feel I failed to answer directly.
Here is my answer.
Nowhere in the letter of those 1960 agreements, namely the treaty of establishment and the constitution, it says that the co-founders of this republic are the two communities, as such! Also, no where in the letter of those agreements is stipulated that the two communities, as such, are co-sharers of the state, set aside equal co-sharers.
You are asking me what on earth they were, meaning the two communities. I am sure you know the definition of the word community and therefore you do not want me to define the term. If your question is what were the two communities in relation to the Republic of Cyprus state, then this is also mentioned in the constitution. The members of the Turkish Cypriot community would elect the 30% of the MP's in separate elections and the members of the Greek Cypriot community would elect the rest. The members of the Greek Cypriot community would separately and exclusively elect the president of the republic, which in his absence would only be replaced by the Greek Cypriot president of the parliament, and the members of the Turkish Cypriot community would separately elect the Vice president and not the deputy president, who in his absence would be replaced by the Turkish Cypriot vice president of the parliament.
The president of the republic had a one set of duties and responsibilities and the vice president had another. The president had a one set of rights and the vice president another, although a number of those rights were common to both.
Furthermore, in as far as educational and cultural affairs are concerned; the members of each community would observe them through the so-called communal councils that each one would have maintained.
There were also a number of quotas in the areas of employment in the public sector.
Have I answered your question? I hope I did! |
|
| Back to top |
|
Bullika
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 29 Sep 2005
Posts: 3025
Location: World
|
|
| I have the answer: A turkısh cyprıots are descendants of Yoruk (Yuruk), some of whom were Alevİ, whıch explaıns the laxıty to Islam wıth a touch of Arab and Latın ınfluences by the ınclusıon of Maronıtes, and Latıns who converted to Islam. They also ınclude Palestınıans, Egyptıans and Sudanese who settled on the ısland. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
Nowhere in the letter of those 1960 agreements, namely the treaty of establishment and the constitution, it says that the co-founders of this republic are the two communities, as such! Also, no where in the letter of those agreements is stipulated that the two communities, as such, are co-sharers of the state, set aside equal co-sharers.
|
What you said in the later paragraphs of your previous post totally contradicts with what you just said in this quote. According to you, Turkish Cypriots are not co-founders or co-sharers of the state but they elect a vice-president and 30% of the MPs that directly control and share the state. Yeah, this makes perfect sense!?!
I don't even understand the point you're trying to make anyway. What are you trying to gain by "proving" that Turkish Cypriots are not co-founders of the state? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kifeas
Warnings : 6
Ministerial
Joined: 26 Aug 2005
Posts: 2733
Location: Location: Pafos-Cyprus, since 1974 ethnic cleansing. Originally, Lapithos, northern occupied Cyprus.
|
|
Mete, I do not think anything I said in the entire thread is in anyway contradictory.
If you read the entire thread more carefully (from the very beginning that this discussion begun,) I believe you will understand what I am trying to say, as well as why and how this discussion begun.
I did not say that the Turkish Cypriot community is not a co-founder or a co-partner (co-sharer) of the Republic of Cyprus. What I basically said is that none of the two communities (as such) are the co-founders and /or co-partners, simply because such notions are not directly or indirectly stipulated in any of the said agreements. This is not how partnership agreements are drafted. If you want to know how a co-founding, co-partnership agreement would /should have looked like, you may read the preamble and the initial articles of the Annan plan’s foundation agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
If you read the entire thread more carefully (from the very beginning that this discussion begun,) I believe you will understand what I am trying to say, as well as why and how this discussion begun.
|
Why don't you spare me the time and trouble of reading the whole thread and explain me in a sentence or two what you are trying to achieve by proving that Turkish Cypriots (or both communities) are not co-founders of the state?
| Kifeas wrote: |
What I basically said is that none of the two communities (as such) are the co-founders and /or co-partners, simply because such notions are not directly or indirectly stipulated in any of the said agreements.
|
This doesn't make sense to me. The Republic of Cyprus was formed by these agreements. In these agreements, the roles of the two communities in the new state are outlined very specifically. Whether it is said explicitly or not, it's clear that these agreements require power sharing and cooperation between the two communities. This clearly implies that the two communities are co-founders of the new state.
Again, I don't understand the point of this whole discussion anyway and I'm still waiting for you to tell me what you're trying to achieve by proving that Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots are not co-founders of the state in 1960. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
All times are GMT + 3 Hours
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3
|
| Page 3 of 3 |
| |
 
 
Link Partners
605118 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home