Why the negotiations will fail

[erol]

I ask again where would you draw the line?

The right to self determination of peoples does not grant a 'people' a right to a separate state. A separate state is one means by which the right to self determination of peoples can be effectively exercised. If you are asking me where does one draw the line in regards to if a separate state is a possible means by which a people can exercise their right to self determination then the line is, that people needs to be of sufficient size such and with sufficient territory such that it can function as a state in it's own right.

Barney replied:-
I can’t see the logic of the above but just so we can at least agree on something I’ll go along with you – if you will accept that with regard to Cyprus and its problems Turkey is 70 times to blame and Greece 11 times – fair enough?

The suggestion was for you to ask yourself why it is that you can so easily ascribe blame equally to both communities regardless of their different sizes, yet you struggle so much with ascribing a 'right to an effective voice in their own governance' equally to both communities regardless of their different sizes. If you can not see why I suggest this then so be it.

The Cypriots did not choose their “atypical” constitution, Greece and Turkey set the rules and the recipients were told take it or else.

Makarios signed the agreements. What is more the GC leadership of that period knew better than you what the result would have been had those agreements been put to the people of Cyprus in a referendum. They knew if they had of been the Cypriot people would have overwhelmingly voted for those agreements - just read the Akritas plan if you have any doubt about that. The 'atypical' constitution was a recognition that actually GC alone, despite their numerical size, wanting Cyprus to not be ruled by Cypriots, was not a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people expressing a right to self determination.

Either democracy means and requires, as fundamental universal principle, one person one vote. Or one person one vote is the most common means for achieving the aims of democracy in many cases but not the sole means or necessarily the right means in all situations. The fact that the EU or the UN does not weight a countries vote by the population of that country shows that one person one vote is not in fact a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy. It shows that actually some times 'one country one vote' regardless of population size is the more valid means to achieve the aim of democracy. As within countries sometimes one 'region' one vote is the better unit of democracy.

I am waiting for you to answer the question who is really the most 'intransigent' of the two of us here ? Me for insisting that it was and is invalid to try and claim that wanting Cyprus to NOT be ruled by Cypriots, wanting it to be ruled by Greeks and wanting that solely because you believed that you are Greek and Cyprus is Greek, is the valid democratic will and expression of the right to self determination of peoples of a unitary Cypriot people. Or you for continuing to insist it was and is such a valid democratic will and expression of the right to self determination of peoples of a unitary Cypriot people ?

This was the 'Cyprus problem'. As far as you continue to still insist it today, then that is just a continuation of the Cyprus problem as far as I am concerned. If we are to learn from our mistakes of the past in order to try and create a better future you need to understand why the desire and demand for enosis, pursued without any need or obligation to have to pay any regard to the wants of the TC community in their own shared homeland, was not and is not a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. Why it was and is a desire that in fact fundamentally undermines and denies the very concept, idea and ideal of a unitary Cypriot people.

[Barney]

Erol wrote,

The right to self determination of peoples does not grant a 'people' a right to a separate state. A separate state is one means by which the right to self determination of peoples can be effectively exercised. If you are asking me where does one draw the line in regards to if a separate state is a possible means by which a people can exercise their right to self determination then the line is, that people needs to be of sufficient size such and with sufficient territory such that it can function as a state in it's own right.

Barney wrote,
You misunderstood, I wasn’t asking you about separate States, I was asking at what percentage a minority should have equal community status that allowed it to block the majority. You completely fail to understand the traditional fear that Greek Cypriots had for any form of Turkish dominance or an equality that gave the minority disproportionate authority over the majority, the Greek Cypriots may have been the majority on the island but in terms of Greece and Turkey THEY were the oppressed minority. Incidentally, there are smaller States than the trnc that function quite well and without the massive handouts from the motherland that you enjoy.

Erol wrote,
The suggestion was for you to ask yourself why it is that you can so easily ascribe blame equally to both communities regardless of their different sizes, yet you struggle so much with ascribing a 'right to an effective voice in their own governance' equally to both communities regardless of their different sizes. If you can not see why I suggest this then so be it.

Barney wrote,
You can suggest all you like but I still can’t see the correlation, blame depends on the actions of the two sides, perhaps one did nothing and was blameless, it’s a variable but the size of the communities was fixed.

Erol wrote,
Makarios signed the agreements. What is more the GC leadership of that period knew better than you what the result would have been had those agreements been put to the people of Cyprus in a referendum. They knew if they had of been the Cypriot people would have overwhelmingly voted for those agreements - just read the Akritas plan if you have any doubt about that. The 'atypical' constitution was a recognition that actually GC alone, despite their numerical size, wanting Cyprus to not be ruled by Cypriots, was not a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people expressing a right to self determination.

Barney wrote,
Makarios reluctantly signed the Agreements because Greece told him to, he was also told the alternative was likely to be partition. Had the agreement been put to referendum the Greek Cypriots would have followed Makarios’s orders. It’s a well-known fact that the TCs were much happier with the agreement than the GCs. The atypical constitution you refer to was a consequence of Turkish clout resulting from its proximity to Cyprus, it had nothing to do with recognition of rights, important elements of it would never have been proposed or accepted if Cyprus was 40 miles from Greece and 300 miles from Turkey. It’s generally believed that many on both sides saw the Zurich Agreement only as an interim measure.

Erol wrote,
The fact that the EU or the UN does not weight a countries vote by the population of that country shows that one person one vote is not in fact a fundamental principle and requirement of democracy. It shows that actually some times 'one country one vote' regardless of population size is the more valid means to achieve the aim of democracy. As within countries sometimes one 'region' one vote is the better unit of democracy.

Barney wrote,
I’ve already told you members of the EU CHOOSE to join and in doing so accept the rules. The Cypriots did not choose their “atypical” constitution, Greece and Turkey set the rules and the recipients were told take it or else. Besides there are three bodies in the EU where authority lies with its Parliament and “surprise, surprise” the majority in that body has the right of veto. Furthermore comparing rights of the two unequal communities squaring up to each other, with the rights of twenty-eight unequal sovereign States where there are bound to be alliances, pressure groups and horse trading is, in my view, nonsense.

As far as intransigency is concerned, your inability or unwillingness to understand traditional Greek Cypriots fears of historic Ottoman and Turkish brutality; your apparently dismissive “Makarios signed the agreements”; and your unwillingness to differentiate between agreements freely signed between multiple States as opposed to agreements imposed on two communities says quite a lot about yourself. Suggesting I’m intransigent because I don’t agree with what I consider to be your flawed grasp of the realities is, in my opinion, rather arrogant.

[erol]

You completely fail to understand the traditional fear that Greek Cypriots had for any form of Turkish dominance or an equality that gave the minority disproportionate authority over the majority,

As you fail to 'understand' (accept would be a better word) that the need and the ability to get international support for some form of equality of the communities within Cyprus was because, and a direct result, of the desire of GC not to have a Cyprus ruled equally by Cypriots but to have a Cyprus ruled by Greece. Without that desire there would have been no need for any 'atypical' rights for the TC community nor would there have been any ability of the TC to secure such rights.

Had the agreement been put to referendum the Greek Cypriots would have followed Makarios’s orders.

Finally the problem was solved, in the eyes of many international circles, by the London and Zurich Agreements, which were shown as solving the problem following negotiations and agreements between the contending parties.

(a) Consequently our first aim has been to create the impression in the international field that the Cyprus problem has not been solved and that it has to be reviewed.

The creation of the following impressions has been accepted as the primary objective:

(i) that the solution which has been found is not satisfactory and just
(ii) that the agreement which has been reached is not the result of the free will of the contending parties.

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 referendum. Otherwise, the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959.

... is, in my view, nonsense.

Is it nonsense to claim that democracy requires one person one vote and anything that does not embody this principal is therefore by definition not democratic ?

As far as intransigency is concerned, your inability or unwillingness to understand traditional Greek Cypriots fears of historic Ottoman and Turkish brutality; your apparently dismissive “Makarios signed the agreements”; and your unwillingness to differentiate between agreements freely signed between multiple States as opposed to agreements imposed on two communities says quite a lot about yourself. Suggesting I’m intransigent because I don’t agree with what I consider to be your flawed grasp of the realities is, in my opinion, rather arrogant. [/i]

You either believe that GC alone had (and thus still have) the right to impose foreign colonial Greek rule on TC in their own homeland, without having to pay any regard for the TC communities wishes, as a valid expression of the free will of a unitary Cypriot people, or you do not. I maintain that this belief was and for some still is at the core of the Cyprus problem. It was this belief that created both the need for some degree of equality of the communities and the ability of TC to secure such. So do you still believe that GC operating in a belief that they were Greek and Cyprus was Greek, seeking that Cyprus should not be ruled by Cypriots but that it be ruled by Greece, were expressing the valid will of a unitary Cypriot people ? Can you still. after all that has passed, not accept the fundamental paradox of this belief ?

As for the desire for enosis simply being a rational reflection of GC fears of Turkey, this is imo a disingenuous partial truth that ignores and seeks to ignore the full reality. The desire for enosis was not simply a matter of rational assessment of what best secures Cypriot security. It was an ideology and quasi religious belief, embedded in notions of Greece irredentism that was the ideological foundation of the modern Greek state. The truth about ottoman rule in Cyprus from 1570 till at least 1800 was that the 'oppression' was from an elite that included and was upheld and supported by Greek speaking Cypriots working with Ottoman elites - the Greek orthodox Church leaders primary within this elite, against a dis empowered peasant population that included both Greek and Turkish speaking Cypriots. There are many documented accounts of revolts in Cyprus by both Greek and Turkish speaking Cypriots working together against the eiltes that ruled Cyprus in this period and included Greek speaking Cypriots. Imo the portrayal of Cyprus under ottoman rule as being one of 'Turkish brutality' against an (innocent) 'Greek Cypriot' population, is itself a distortion of this period of Cyprus' history designed to undermine the idea and ideal of a unitary Cypriot people and promote the idea's and ideals of Greek irredentism.

[Barney]

All I can say is that you don't know enough older Greek Cypriots to understand their traditional fears of Turkey. I don't know how old you are but I remember the feelings they had in the 50s and 60s, my grandfather was born under Ottoman rule. That the Christian elite were involved in the governance of Cyprus is irrelevant, the ultimate power came from Turkey, it was enforced the elite corps of Janissaries many of whom were Greeks taken from their family at a young age and forced to serve the Sultan. You really need to take a little more time to study the brutality experienced by Greeks and others, not only in Cyprus, but in the eastern Mediterranean during Ottoman rule to understand the deep rooted fear the majority of Cypriots had of Turkey.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/blogg ... 8371/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_m ... _in_Cyprus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyprianos_of_Cyprus
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/comment ... -european/
http://www.serfes.org/orthodox/memoryof.htm
As for your extract from the Akritas Plan, we will never know what would have happened had their been a referendum but I have little doubt that, as I said before, the voters would have done what the leadership told them to do, rather like the way Papadopoulos swayed opinion in the Annan Plan vote.

[tomsteel]

The Akritas Plan would have completed total, as opposed to the partial achieved, genocide of the minority Turkish Cypriots. Why will Greek Cypriots not acknowledge this unpalatable, but true, fact of their history?

[erol]

All I can say is that you don't know enough older Greek Cypriots to understand their traditional fears of Turkey. I don't know how old you are but I remember the feelings they had in the 50s and 60s, my grandfather was born under Ottoman rule. That the Christian elite were involved in the governance of Cyprus is irrelevant, the ultimate power came from Turkey, it was enforced the elite corps of Janissaries many of whom were Greeks taken from their family at a young age and forced to serve the Sultan.

What I object to is the idea that 'fear of Turkey' was the sole reason GC wanted enosis rather than independence of Cyprus following British rule. The reason I object to this assertion is because it is simply not true. To try and deny that enosis and the desire for it was also driven by the quasi religious ideology of Greek irredentism and nationalism is to deny the truth as far as I am concerned. Sure I understand why you wish to present the desire for enosis on the part of GC to solely be a function of a 'fear of Turkey' but that does not make this assertion any more true. The GC leadership of the 50 and 60's did not persecute and even murder GC who espoused a Cyprus based on true Cypriot unity regardless of the 'type of Cypriot' (as TC leaderships did to TC who espoused the same) because of 'fear of Turkey'. They persecuted and even murdered their own who espoused such things because they were pursuing an ideology that said Cyprus was Greek, always had been Greek and thus had to be united with Greece as part of a Greater Greek nation and such an ideology was threatened by the ideology that actually Cyprus was Cypriot, belonged not to Greece and Greeks but to all Cypriots, regardless of their ethnic back grounds.

You really need to take a little more time to study the brutality experienced by Greeks and others, not only in Cyprus, but in the eastern Mediterranean during Ottoman rule to understand the deep rooted fear the majority of Cypriots had of Turkey.

You need to take some time to study the whole period of Cyprus under ottoman rule (not just from 1800 onwards), free from the constraints of a purely Greek nationalist perspective. For a more balanced view you could start here.

http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/7.htm

Certainly if the objective is to create a Cyprus based on the difference between GC and TC, then a narrative that seeks to portray Cyprus' history under ottoman rule as being one plainly of Turks oppressing GC becomes useful and necessary. However if one has an objective of creating a Cyprus for all Cypriots regardless of our differences then there is plenty of history there, where ordinary Cypriots - both 'Greek' and 'Turk' (Greek orthodox and Muslim Ottoman) fought side by side as Cypriots against a controlling elite that comprised of Ottoman rulers at its ultimate head but also comprised of Greek Orthodox elites as an integral part of that system of oppression.

As for your extract from the Akritas Plan, we will never know what would have happened had their been a referendum but I have little doubt that, as I said before, the voters would have done what the leadership told them to do, rather like the way Papadopoulos swayed opinion in the Annan Plan vote.

The authors of the Akritas plan knew that the Zurich agreements were the result of "negotiations and agreements between the contending parties". Just as they knew they needed "create the impression" that this was not so to further their aims. The use of the word impression is not there by mistake. Just as they knew that "the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959." Sure I understand why now and today you wish to keep trying to "create the impression" that these agreements were forced on Makarios and Cypriots against their will and that the people would never have ratified them if given the chance, despite the authors of the Akritas plan saying exactly the opposite. I understand why you wish to try and make these things out but that does not make them true,

As I said the desire for Enosis on the part of GC, was understandable and was entirely their right to want and to seek. The problem was trying to seek it in the name of and as a valid expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people. It was not such an expression. The GC leadership only sought to make out (create an impression) it was such an expression in order to be able to ignore and have to pay no regard for the wishes of the TC community in their own homeland, who were NOT Greek. That was the Cyprus problem. That was WHY 'atypical' arrangements between the communities was necessary and achievable by the TC community. Sure I understand why you prefer a narrative that the Zurich agreements was 'atypical' because they were just 'unfair' and divorce from the equation the role the desire and pursuit of Enosis, rather than independence, played as if it had no relevance at all. I understand why but that does not mean I accept such is true.

As I have said before I as an individual and a TC have one single and simple requirement for me to be happy and wiling to accept living in a unitary Cypriot nation and state of one person one vote, one that you would regard as 'typical'. That requirement is that GC accept and agree that if they choose to seek a future in and for Cyprus that is defined NOT by them being Cypriot regardless of ethnic background, but is defined solely because they consider themselves to be Greek (and opposed by me solely because I do not consider myself Greek), that is defined solely by our differences and not regardless of them, then such is not in fact the genuine will of a unitary Cypriot people. That is it, that is all I want and require. Can you as an individual accept that ? If not I ask again who is really the intransigent party here between the two of us as individuals ?