 |
| Author |
Message |
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
| Quote: |
| After enosis Cypriots alone would not decide what happens in and to Cyprus. Greeks would decide what happens in and too Cyprus. Yes Cypriots would be included in this set of people but as a small numerical minority. The fact is after enosis if Cypriots wanted something for the future of Cyprus that non Cypriots Greeks did not want , then Cypriot will would be overruled by Greek will - Cypriot self determination would no longer exists. |
So all other parts of Greece that allready achieved enosis where suppose to be independent countries. In the right for self determination independency is not the only oprion. If the will of the people was to integrate the territory with another state which clearly was the case for Cyprus, then that should be the result so self-determination and the rights sais that it is not necessary for everyone to agree as long as other rights of minorities are protected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Ahh yes, as for the compromise you suggest that Greek Cypriots should compromise even further!
Let me remind you the chronology of compromising:
1. from a fair demand for re-union of Cyprus with Greece, Greek Cypriots compromised for independence
2. After Indepence Greek Cypriots compromise from a unitary state to a BBF.
3. From BBF Greek Cypriots were required to compromise to a restricted BBF (ANAN plan)
Why didn't Turkish Cypriots compromised for Enosis in the first place?
|
sigh |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| So all other parts of Greece that allready achieved enosis where suppose to be independent countries. In the right for self determination independency is not the only oprion. If the will of the people was to integrate the territory with another state which clearly was the case for Cyprus, then that should be the result so self-determination and the rights sais that it is not necessary for everyone to agree as long as other rights of minorities are protected. |
What I am saying is that CYPRIOT self determination requires that CYPRIOTS decide the future of CYPRUS.
After enosis cypriots would no longer decide the future of Cyprus - Greeks would decide the future of Cyprus and thus CYPRIOT self determination would no longer exists.
That such is true is not something that can be sensibly disputed as far as I can see ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
| Quote: |
| What I am saying is that CYPRIOT self determination requires that CYPRIOTS decide the future of CYPRUS. |
Exactly and enosis what CYPRIOTS decided.
| Quote: |
| After enosis cypriots would no longer decide the future of Cyprus - Greeks would decide the future of Cyprus and thus CYPRIOT self determination would no longer exists. |
I understand where you are coming from but is not exactly the case, self-determination also sais that a territory can be separated from a state. Imaginary situation where Cyprus achieved enosis. So if in the future Cypriots were not satisfied with Enosis and they demanded separation from Greece then they had the right to do so.
My point is that the people of a territory may choose to be independent when they wish to do so, choose to be divided if they wish to do so and choose to unite with another country when they wish to do so (if the other country accepts them). All these provided that people stay within the legal framework |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
| Quote: |
| After enosis Cypriots alone would not decide what happens in and to Cyprus. Greeks would decide what happens in and too Cyprus. Yes Cypriots would be included in this set of people but as a small numerical minority. The fact is after enosis if Cypriots wanted something for the future of Cyprus that non Cypriots Greeks did not want , then Cypriot will would be overruled by Greek will - Cypriot self determination would no longer exists. |
So all other parts of Greece that allready achieved enosis where suppose to be independent countries. In the right for self determination independency is not the only oprion. If the will of the people was to integrate the territory with another state which clearly was the case for Cyprus, then that should be the result so self-determination and the rights sais that it is not necessary for everyone to agree as long as other rights of minorities are protected. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| I understand where you are coming from but is not exactly the case, self-determination also sais that a territory can be separated from a state. |
There is no legal charter or document re self determination of peoples that says self determination gives a people a RIGHT to a separate state should they demand it. Not do the rights of self determination apply to 'territories' - they apply to 'peoples'.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Imaginary situation where Cyprus achieved enosis. So if in the future Cypriots were not satisfied with Enosis and they demanded separation from Greece then they had the right to do so. |
And if the Greek state claims that the right to self determination only apply to 'peoples' and 'cypriots' is not a 'people' but just a region inhabited by some of the 'Greek people' that does not have a separate right to self determination - what then ? If they argue that only the whole Greek people have such a right and all that cypriots have is rights as individuals and rights as a geographical minority?
| stavrizatz wrote: |
My point is that the people of a territory may choose to be independent when they wish to do so, choose to be divided if they wish to do so and choose to unite with another country when they wish to do so (if the other country accepts them). All these provided that people stay within the legal framework |
No there is no 'automatic' right of groups within a territory / geographical area to declare a separate state should they chose to do so. There is no 'legal framework' for states breaking apart - historically all there is is violence, conflict, war and the politics of powers states that choose, according to their own perceived self interest, if they will recognise break away states or not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Exactly and enosis what CYPRIOTS decided.
|
There was never a CYPRIOT nation in Cyprus. Since 1571, there have been 2 distinct communities on the island and one of those communities wanted Enosis while the other community rejected it 100% for the right reasons. This is what happened and the fact that you're trying to ignore what Turkish Cypriots wanted at the time and present Enosis as "what Cypriots wanted" shows me that many Greek Cypriots have not learned from the mistakes of the past. What do you need to realize that you cannot ignore the desires of a significant portion of a population? Another military operation, more blood, more violence???
| stavrizatz wrote: |
it is not necessary for everyone to agree as long as other rights of minorities are protected.
|
Turkish Cypriots lived through the so called Cypriot independence of 1963-1974. They experienced first hand what "independence" within a hostile majority meant. Now, you want Turkish Cypriots to believe that after Enosis, their "minority rights" would be respected and they would live and prosper as Turkish Cypriots within Greece. Do you honestly expect us to believe in this after what happened in the past *without* Enosis? |
|
| 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 wrote: |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Exactly and enosis what CYPRIOTS decided.
|
There was never a CYPRIOT nation in Cyprus. Since 1571, there have been 2 distinct communities on the island and one of those communities wanted Enosis while the other community rejected it 100% for the right reasons. This is what happened and the fact that you're trying to ignore what Turkish Cypriots wanted at the time and present Enosis as "what Cypriots wanted" shows me that many Greek Cypriots have not learned from the mistakes of the past. What do you need to realize that you cannot ignore the desires of a significant portion of a population? Another military operation, more blood, more violence???
| stavrizatz wrote: |
it is not necessary for everyone to agree as long as other rights of minorities are protected.
|
Turkish Cypriots lived through the so called Cypriot independence of 1963-1974. They experienced first hand what "independence" within a hostile majority meant. Now, you want Turkish Cypriots to believe that after Enosis, their "minority rights" would be respected and they would live and prosper as Turkish Cypriots within Greece. Do you honestly expect us to believe in this after what happened in the past *without* Enosis? |
Indeed, since 1571, we observe the emergence of two distinct groups of people in Cyprus, the existing mainly Greek speaking Cypriot population; and the soldiers and rulers /administrators brought in by the occupying Ottoman Empire, on the basis of which the Turkish Cypriot community emerged. Nevertheless, this is not the issue, since we recognise the Turkish Cypriots as part of the Cypriot population.
Let's assume however that Cyprus was still under the Ottoman empire, and the Greek speaking part of the Cypriot population, the majority so to say, wanted to break free from the ottoman rule and have an independed country, but the Turkish speaking part of the population did not wish such a path and wanted to continue to be under the control of the ottoman empire or Turkey, since according to you it has a separate self-determination right. What should happen in this case? Should the Greek speaking majority bow to the wishes of the Turkish speaking part of the population, and suppress its wish to become independed, because there is a minority group that wishes differently?
Let’s assume the same scenario, should Britain as a colonial power had brought and established in Cyprus a British community of let’s say 50,000 people or about 10% of the then Cypriot population, which as part of its separate self-determination right would have wanted Cyprus to continue remaining as part of the British empire, regardless of the wish of the rest of the Cypriot population. What happens in this case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Get Real!
Warnings : 3
Senior Villager
Joined: 28 Dec 2006
Posts: 325
Location: Nicosia
|
|
Mete...
| Quote: |
| This is what happened and the fact that you're trying to ignore what Turkish Cypriots wanted at the time and present Enosis as "what Cypriots wanted" shows me that many Greek Cypriots have not learned from the mistakes of the past. What do you need to realize that you cannot ignore the desires of a significant portion of a population? |
You bring tears to my eyes… an 18% minority is not a "significant portion" in any given country and had it not been for Turkey constantly interfering in the NATURAL SELECTION PROCESS of Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriot community would have assimilated just fine by now and today there would be a contiguous Cyprus and all its citizens getting on with their lives instead of all this crap. If anything it is Turkey that’s prolonging your misery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Arcadia
Village guest
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 1
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
To me it is not a demand for 'democracy' but a demand for the right of the Greek Cypriot ethnic community to be able to impose purely ethnic desires on others against their will - not democracy but tyranny.
|
Erolz,
what are your thoughts on the following historical aspects of the Republic of Hatay 1938-1939 ?
1. Threats of violence
From Wiki...
"At one time the late President Kamal Atatürk backed up his demands by massing troops along the Syrian border."
Again from Time magazine, (July 11, 1938)
"In Ankara, Turkey's capital, bespectacled, chubby, methodical Premier Jelal Bayar shouted to the one-party Grand National Assembly that Hatay—the name for the Sanjak affected by the Turks after the Hittite regime that ruled there over 3,000 years ago—'must be Turkish-ruled'."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,849082,00.html
2. Voting Fraud
From Wiki again ....
“Hatay is a melting pot of Arabs, Kurds, Armenians, Alaouites, Greeks, Circassians and Turks. Of these, the Turks are most numerous, constituting 40% of the population. Taking a leaf from Führer Hitler's book and even improving on his methods, the Turks first asked for (and got) minority rights for their nationals in Hatay, next autonomy for the region, next ‘independence,’ with Turkish and French troops jointly ‘keeping order.’ At one time the late President Kamal Atatürk backed up his demands by massing troops along the Syrian border. At another time a League of Nations plebiscite was to be held in the district, but when most of the non-Turks banded together and it became obvious that the Turks could not win, the obliging French invited the League Commission to leave.”
Robert Fisk alleged in a 2001 article for The Independent that “The Turks trucked tens of thousands of people into the sanjak for the referendum and, of course, the ‘people’ voted to be part of Turkey”.
"Since Turks number no more than 40% of the population, since many Sanjak Turks dislike Dictator Kamal Atatürk's regime, France found it impossible to deliver the votes to Turkey against a united anti-Turkish majority of mixed nationalities while an honest international commission was watching. With the commission gone, say anti-Turks, the elections can now be managed so as not to offend Kamal Atatürk's troops"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,849082,00.html?promoid=googlep
4. Annexation
From Wiki...
The following year a referendum was held in Hatay about joining to Turkey, and the majority (40-60% ??) of Hatay people voted for joining. On June 29, 1939, the Republic Hatay was annexed by Turkey as Turkish troops crossed the border, and has to this day been a province of Turkey.
3. Exodus
"The mass exodus of Armenians (along with Arabs and other groups) out of the sandjak of Alexandrette (1921-1938).... "
http://www.hist.net/kieser/bs04/forum/pekesen
"From July 1-23, 1939, 30,000 Armenians, in addition to 20,000 other Alexandrettans, began a mass exodus from their homes to Syria and Lebanon".
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Anjar
"We will also not count the 60,000 or so mainly Christian and Alawi refugees from the Hatay, or Alexandretta, who fled their homes for refuge in Syria, when that province was annexed to Turkey in 1938"
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2006/05/syria-gets-a-on-security.htm
What do you have to say to these people who did not want their republic to become part of Turkey ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Kifeas wrote: |
Let’s assume the same scenario, should Britain as a colonial power had brought and established in Cyprus a British community of let’s say 50,000 people or about 10% of the then Cypriot population, which as part of its separate self-determination right would have wanted Cyprus to continue remaining as part of the British empire, regardless of the wish of the rest of the Cypriot population. What happens in this case?
|
Kifeas, I don't see things black and white as you do and as such, I don't think that the two communities on the island have 100% separate and distinct self determination rights. These self-determination related issues are all up in the air anyway and in my opinion, there's no right answer (one can argue both ways quite successfully).
However, I do believe that there two distinct entities on the island and when it comes to decisions that can affect the whole island, one entity cannot and should not ignore the desires of the other entity.
I'm trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and move forward. You can go ahead and consider Enosis as self-determination right of Cypriots that was blocked by "the minority" but this won't get you anywhere and you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past. This is all I'm saying. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Evagoras
Senior Villager
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 118
|
|
| erolz if greek cypriots where in favor of independence do you believe Turkish Cypriot where going to support it ??? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| Quote: |
erolz if greek cypriots where in favor of independence do you believe Turkish Cypriot where going to support it ???
|
Why wouldn't they if it was a genuine independence movement? |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 924
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Mete wrote:
| Quote: |
| I'm trying to avoid the mistakes of the past and move forward. You can go ahead and consider Enosis as self-determination right of Cypriots that was blocked by "the minority" but this won't get you anywhere and you're doomed to repeat the same mistakes of the past. This is all I'm saying. |
I don't think this whole argument refers to today, it refers to the 50s, 60s I assume. Today people changed significantly and for many enosis is outdated, and has little or no value. There are obviously many mistakes in the past but imo whatever happened Turkey was going to invade and divide the island eventually because that is what they wanted and that is also what ritish wanted so Cypriots were powerless in preventing it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
OK I haven't been around for a few days and am aware that I have been asked several questions by various people - I will try and catch up here (in reverse order).
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| I don't think this whole argument refers to today, it refers to the 50s, 60s I assume. Today people changed significantly and for many enosis is outdated, and has little or no value. |
To me it is relevant today in the sense of the principal of matter. Should in principal one ethnic group be able to enforce on another in their shared homeland such fundamental issues as if their state is to exists as a state at all, which 'outseide' state will own and control it politically, what ones nationality will be etc etc - when these desire are purely ethnic based ? It would seem stavrizatz that you do not think such enforcement of one ethnic groups desires on the other on such fundamental issues is a problem or even an imposition of will. I do not share this view.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
There are obviously many mistakes in the past but imo whatever happened Turkey was going to invade and divide the island eventually because that is what they wanted and that is also what ritish wanted so Cypriots were powerless in preventing it. |
I can not say I agree with this either. I do not think by the late 50's the British wanted anything Cyprus other than to secure bases and get out in such a way that would not lead to open conflict between Greece and Turkey. I also think that if Cypriots had actually had the desire and found a way to build a true Cypriot nation after 1960 and found ways of uniting Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot in common Cypriot goals and objectives Turkey would not have had the the desire or ability to divide Cyprus.
| Evagoras wrote: |
erolz if greek cypriots where in favor of independence do you believe Turkish Cypriot where going to support it ??? |
If they were in favor of building an inclusive Cypriot nation from independence then yes I think the majority of the Turkish Cypriot community would have been in favor of independence. No doubt some would have preferred Cyprus reverting back to Turkish control after the end of colonialism - but I think these would have been a relatively small section of the Turkish Cypriot community - if there was a genuine offer and chance of building a Cypriot nation that included Turkish Cypriot along with Greek Cypriot struggling for common goals.
| arcadia wrote: |
Erolz,
what are your thoughts on the following historical aspects of the Republic of Hatay 1938-1939 ? |
I am not really sure what you are asking me. I also admit to not knowing very much about this subject. Having said the above here are some of my thoughts from what little I have found out.
This all occurred before WW2 and to me that was a very different time to post WW2. To me the end of colonialism is a post WW2 phenomenon.
I personally do not think there was a 'Hatay' nation in the sense that there was a Cypriot nation. Party because of geography, partly because of the lack of uniqueness of a 'hatay people' or even Turkish Hatay people and 'other' Hatay people. It seems that the creation of an independent republic was totally an external artifice - but I may be wrong here.
I think the issue was would Hatay be part of Syria or would it be part of Turkey.
I think in contemporary terms 'asking the people of Hatay' is a valid approach in principal. If the people of Hatay's desires were split and split purely on ethnic based lines then some kind of attempt at agreement should have been sough such that a majority of all the main ethnic groups could find a way forward that whilst not necessarily their 'first choice' was still acceptable to them. Any manipulation of a 'referendum' by 'importing people' should be condemned and stopped - as well as any 'show of force' whilst and agreement is reached. In short the people of Hatay should have the biggest say in what happens to them, but they have to have this say in a framework of what is possible and in regard to wider issues of regional stability - and if the people of Hatay are in fact several different peoples with different desires bases on such ethnic lines then agreement must be sought and reach between these groups on their common future. To me just saying the largest single group or any group over 50% can just decide without regard for any of the other groups they share Hatay with is a recipe for disaster imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
 
 
Link Partners
3205 Attacks blocked
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home