Enois the right to the unite the island with Greece

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 04:08

The overwealmy majority of Greek Cypriots both in Cyprus and the world wanted to unite the island of Cyprus with Greece. From your opinion should they have been allowed to?



http://www.codelux.gr/alliwseis/kathreftis/ataturk.net/enosis2bh.jpg



Population ethnic map

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/europe/cyprus_ethnic_1973.jpg

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 07:02

It is my view that the GC community did not have (and do not have) the right to demand enosis in the name of a single unitary Cypriot people. They had in my view the right to demand it in the name of either GC people or GC community but not in the name of a single unitary Cypriot people.

waddo


Joined: 29/11/2008
Posts: 1966

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 09:01

But Greece is in the EU and so is the RoC, what more do you want?



Cypriots had the right to choose not just the Greek Cypriots enforcing their will upon all Cypriots.



How would the Greek Cypriots feel about the Turkish Cypriots being allowed to join Cyprus to Turkey?

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 10:09

IMO this absolutely theoretical question since all the issue of Enosis was strongly identified to the anti colonial movement. it has no relevance today.



But if you want to play again with the quiz what GCs/TCs should or shouldn't have done, I believe the GC community had the full right to demand the union, personally I don't see nothing wrong with this as an IDEA. But the way of implementation and protection of civil rights of minorities is another (important) question. After all you can never achieve 100% agreement. Erolz, how would you answer if the TC people were, let's say 5% of the population. Do you have any quantitative or other criteria?

ataturk


Joined: 09/09/2008
Posts: 712

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 12:17

They can do what they like with the south as long they don't interfere with the north.

ricky


Joined: 26/01/2009
Posts: 294

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 12:30

I read that cypriots are cypriots and not greek of turkish. Cypriots has own history and mentallity...?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 13:59

Magbs msg 4



"it has no relevance today."



Its relevance today is in the question does a numerically dominant community has the right to impose its communal will on a numericaly smaller one and if so under what conditions and via what means. This is a question that is relevant today not just in Cyprus but around the globe.



"But the way of implementation and protection of civil rights of minorities is another (important) question."



Enosis defined the TC community / people as more than 'just' a political minority within a single unitary Cypriot people. That is the point. Enosis said that there was no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people , or Cypriot nation. It said that there were Greeks, part of the Greek people who happened to live in Cyprus. This should have meant a recognising that in addtion to Greeks who happened to live in Cyprus there was also a sgnificant group who were NOT Greek and ALSO lived in Cyprus and thus had rights to 'self determination'



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 14:06

seperate from the Greek people of Cyprus, because they WERE seperate from these people / community.



"Erolz, how would you answer if the TC people were, let's say 5% of the population. Do you have any quantitative or other criteria? "



The lack of a quantative or other criteria for determining what constitues a 'people' is the biggest flaw in the international laws and agreements on the 'rights of self determination' enshrined in UN charters and elsewhere. These rights apply specificaly to 'peoples' and not to nation states - yet there is NO clear unambiguous definition of what consituties a people. This lack of a clear defnintion of what consituties a 'people' in terms of their right to self determination is a current and real problem reflected in long running conflicts around the globe today. In Cyprus the GC community by defining themselves as part of the Greek people implicitly then defined the TC community as NOT part of that same 'people'



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 14:15

The only way realistic way to impose enosis on the TC community / people against their will however was to do so in the name of a single unitary Cypriot people that neither existed and that was a contradiction to enosis at a fundamental level.



" Erolz, how would you answer if the TC people were, let's say 5% of the population."



If one looks at the ways 'peoples' can be defined (and thus how you determine WHO has rights to self determination) there are broadly two main ways of doing this. Simply saying 'everyone within a given nation state is a given people' is one approach. However this approach was not suitable to Cyprus when one is talking about the creation of a Cypriot nation state. The other approach is the 'criteria list' approach. In this appraoch numercial numbers, both absolute and in % terms is ONE of the 'check boxes' for defining if a group is a 'people' or not complete with a right to self determination.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 14:21

As to how many this has to be before the box can be 'checked' this is not a clear cut matter. I would usggest that a population of 5% for the TC would problably not meet this criteria (itself one of a range of criteria not the only one) but that 19% probably does. However there is no 'magic number' in this sense and it has to be viewed in the context of all the other 'criteria' as well and sensible judgments made.



I have to go now but I when I get the time I will come back with some referances to third party opinions on this subject of 'who consitutes a people' in terms of 'rights of self determination' that have informed my own opinions. It is a complex subject with no clear cut definative answers and one that is absolutely relevant to today and many long running conflicts around the globe.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 19:40

Erolz,



Thank you for your comprehensive answer.

When I said "no relevance" I only meant the anti colonial aspirations of GCs in these times.



"...who were NOT Greek and ALSO lived in Cyprus and thus had rights to 'self determination' "

As far as I know there is no clear definition of self determination rights under UN chapters. Moreover, self determination by no way automatically means the right for self government with all attributes of full independence.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:00

Magbs msg 11



"As far as I know there is no clear definition of self determination rights under UN chapters."



The rights are clearly defined. The 'who' is clearly defined as 'peoples'. What is not clearly defined is what the criteria are to be considered a 'people' as far as rights to self determination go.



"Moreover, self determination by no way automatically means the right for self government with all attributes of full independence. "



The right of peoples to self determination does not grant an automatic right to either secsession or self rule. These are means that the right to self determination can be met but they are not the only means.



My point is that enosis could not fairly be persued as an expression of self determination of a single unitary cypriot people (yet this IS how it was expressed as a means to deny TC their rights as a community). It is because enosis by definition denied the existance of a single unitary cypriot people and was the



[cont]

david161


Joined: 25/09/2008
Posts: 34

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:00

Then there was the Akritas plan-

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:04

the expression soley of the GC community alone that I claim



"the GC community did not have (and do not have) the right to demand enosis in the name of a single unitary Cypriot people."



This distinction is vital in that if enosis was not a valid expression of a single unitary cypriot people but only the GC community / people then the only logical conclusion is that the TC community were 'seperate' from this people or community and thus had seperate rights to self determination. Not a right to partition, or secsession or even self rule per se but a RIGHT to control their own destiny. It is the denial of this right of the TC community by GC by claming enosis as an expression of a single unitary cypriot people that is the problem.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:21

I think the Cyprus case is too unique to be compared with other conflicts. The 20th century trend was all about creating new states while probably only GCs had demanded unifiucation as a route to decolonization.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 20:38

"My point is that enosis could not fairly be persued as an expression of self determination of a single unitary cypriot people"



Absolutely! There were no unitary cypriot people. Let's not use the term enosis with its emotionally negative (for Turkish Cypriots) load but rather ask what was wrong to be a part of Greece while giving full cultural and local autonomy to the TCs?

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:10

magbs msg 16 , the greeks wanted to kill all the turks , is that easier for you to understand ??? why would they want to be part of greece ?? you sound like another idiot ?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:45

Magbs Msg 16



"but rather ask what was wrong to be a part of Greece while giving full cultural and local autonomy to the TCs?"



Firstly had enosis occured then there was no realistic chance or provision that TC community would have had 'full cultural and local autonomy'. Even today 50 years on from Cyprus' independance Greek citizens of turkish cutlural descent are prohibited in law from calling themselves and their organisations 'turkish' but instead are offical known as 'Greek muslims'. However this misses the point.



The point is that GC as GC community or people in Cyprus had a right to demand enosis for themselves. However that does not mean that the rights of the TC as a spererate community / people can just be ingored because there are more GC than TC or GC are 'real cypriots' and TC just 'invaders / immigrants'.



As to what is wrong with Cyprus being ruled not by Cypriots but by Athens I leave that to your own judgment.



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 21:52

Had this desire for union with Greece truely been an expression of the will of a unitary Cypriot people then nothing would have been 'wrong' with it. However as an expression of just one of the communites or peoples within Cyprus what was wrong with it is that it required that the rights of the TC community be ignored and removed to achieve it. This is what was 'wrong' with Cyprus becomming part of Greece following British rule. It required that the TC community, defined by union itself as 'sperate' from the GC community / people, had NO SAY at all in the most fundamental decisions affecting them as a community / people in their own (shared) homeland. No say on if their country would be ruled by Cypriots in CYprus or Greeks in Athens. No say in what their own nationality would be or even if they would be 'allowed' to call themselves 'turks' or 'turkish cypriots'. No say on if their homeland would even exist as an nation.

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 22:51

rowlo, msg 17



Calm down and please watch your language. If your have met too many idiots, blame yourself.

I asked erloz opinion, not yours. And I have got smart and intelligent answer.



To make it clear, I am by no means saying that TGs should have accepted enosis, as well as I am aware of the unfeasibility of enosis after the independence.

I was just trying to discuss the situation and TGs opinion BEFORE 1960.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 22:53

david161: "Then there was the Akritas plan"



Care to expand?

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 22:59

how about this scenario then / if greeks had not invaded , would life be all rosy , or would turks be compost under your lemon trees ??????? msg 20

Magbs


Joined: 26/02/2009
Posts: 278

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:34

msg 22



C'mon, don't drag me into what-ifs speculations. I doubt if anyone knows what would be. That was not my point.

Let's agree that life's never rosy. Good night.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
16/03/2009 23:39

the whole world is made up of what ifs ?? nite nite magbsxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 15:06

rowlo: "if greeks had not invaded"



Could you explain about this invasion?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 15:38

Dear Rowlo, re 22



let *me* help you



if the Greeks hadn't organised a coup - aided and encouraged by the CIA - I'm sure TR couldn't have invaded under the pretext of saving TCs.



The "pawns" made their moves as expected..

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 15:50

Few people on any side actually contest that Turkey did not have a legal right and just cause to intervene in Cyprus in 74, or for that matter in 1967, following the illegal importation of 20,000 + Greek mainland troops and much hardware all under the noses of the UN, or in 1964. In the previous two instances Turkey showed restraint ot was restrained by US / world powers. What is questionable is not the intervention in 74, or the near ones in 67 and 64 but what they did after that intervention. Maybe if the world powers had NOT restrained Turkey from intervening in 64, then the idea of 'restoring the consitutional order' might have been possible in ways that it was not in 74 having not existed by that point for 10 years ? Who knows. In any case the idea that Turkey was waiting for any 'pretext' to intevene is not born out by the fact that it had legal and moral just cause to intervene in 64 and 67 yet did not. If the Greek coup in 74 had not happend who knows if



[cont]

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 15:50

the GC by their own acts would have once again given Turkey just and legal cause to interven or not ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 15:57

EH ERolZ, re msg 27



"Few people on any side actually contest that Turkey did not have a legal right and just cause to intervene in Cyprus in 74, or for that matter in 1967, following the illegal importation of 20,000 + Greek mainland troops and much hardware all under the noses of the UN, or in 1964"



Neither TR or GR had any "right".. they had BOTH mandated the UN to be peace-keepers and BOTH undermined that mandate...



Would you not agree that the UN kept asking for the sovereignty of the RoC to be observed and to take their troops off the island?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 16:42

MM



The treaty of gurantee states



"In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty."



The 1964 UN resolution on Cyprus 186, rather than abbrogating the guarantors rights under the treaty of gurantee actually reaffirms them in that it specificaly recognises the special role the gurantors had re cyprus and cites the treaty of gurantee itself. No where does it say the rights under this legal internationaly recognised treaty were 'superceeded' by the UN resolution as you seem to imply.

david161


Joined: 25/09/2008
Posts: 34

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 17:10

macha- the akritas plan: the quickest reference to this is in Wikipedia- it relates to enosis. Not comfortable reading.

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 19:47

london cypriot......are you a greek cypriot?



The ideology of enosis is what lead to the death of thousands.

The fact that you mention such a thing is right proves how greek cypriots still have this ideology.

80% of GC's still, to this date, support enosis....



well.........let me telll you this, and it is VERY straightforward.......



KEEPING THE IDEOLOGY OF ENOSIS WILL NOT BRING THE ISLAND TO A UNIFIED STATE!

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 19:53

MMMMMM,



The zurich agreement stated that no guarantor should seek annexation.......but Greece did....so they have violated the agreement.

It also stated that guarantor powers have the right to save their populations if they were thought to be in danger. It also gave guarantors the right to intervene in such annexations.

Turkey met all of these criterea. Turkey obliged by the most important agreement..........they are in there clear, as far as i'm concerned!



The only problem that stands is turkey not getting permission from the U.N security council..............which i think is silly! Who asks permission to intervene in a situation, when the agreement states they have the right to do so?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 22:15

Dear ErolZ re msg 30



So how do YOU interpret this:



Having in mind the relevant provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and its Article 2, paragraph 4, which reads: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations."



and THIS:



Calls upon all Member States, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain from any action or threat of action to worsen the situation in the sovereign Republic of Cyprus, or to endanger international peace;



It reads to me SPECIFICALLY that the UN meant ANY UN Member....



Do YOU think the treaty of Guarantee superseded the UN Charter ? :0



BTW - I'm quoting from :

RESOLUTION 186 (1964)



Adopted by the Security Council at its 1102th meeting



on 4 March 1964

canyavuz


Joined: 22/02/2009
Posts: 363

Message Posted:
17/03/2009 23:56

mmmmm...give up your anti-turkish protest.



if you're so against the existance of the TRNC, and the Turkish people of that, then go and protest in london wiith greek cypriots in july (around the parliment), like they do every year.........



why are you on a TRNC based forum if you're so against it's existance!

andre 514


Joined: 31/03/2008
Posts: 1163

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 00:04

and mmmmmm why are you on a trnc forum if you live in limassol?

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 01:27

canvuyuz: "80% of GC's still, to this date, support enosis...."



Haven't I already told you this claim is nonsense? What is your source?

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
18/03/2009 01:50

MM msg 34



"Do YOU think the treaty of Guarantee superseded the UN Charter ?"



I think the treaty of gurantee gave the gurantor states the rights that it gave them undet the treaty, which was an internationaly accepted and recognised legal agreement between the parties that signed it.



If the treaty of guranteee was 'invalid' becuase it was not compatible with UN charters then all of the treaties and agreements that formed the RoC itself are alos invalid, in which case there is no legal basis for the RoC, or the sovreign bases. This is why the UN has never and will never declare that theses treaties are invalid. It has no mandate to do such a thing. The treaties either stand or fall togeather. You can not sign a treaty and then just ignore parts of it you do not like after the fact in any legal way. The treaties are either legal or they are not. If they are then the rights and obligations laid out in them are valid righs of the signatures.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:31

Dear ErolZ re msg 38



"I think the treaty of gurantee gave the gurantor states the rights that it gave them undet the treaty, which was an internationaly accepted and recognised legal agreement between the parties that signed it.

"



OK.. then explain this from 74... I'm not sure how you could "argue" the 64 resolution didn't make it CLEAR that members where to "bog off" ( GREECE or Turkey [ canyavuz/ Andre_514]), but this is CRYSTAL clear..



1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty,... territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal ..from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 00:33

You get the drift.. both GREECE and Turkey exceeded their "rights".. and hence your statement in msg 27 is HIGHLY questionable ...

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 01:06

I will try and explain once more.



THe 1964 resolution did NOT negate the treaty of Guarantee.



Under the treaty of gurantee each of the guarantor powers had the RIGHT to unilateral action , in so far as common action was not possible, to restore the consituional order as per the 1960 agreements.



Common action was not possible with Greece as they were staging the coup, that destroyed the constitutional order as per the 60 agreements (already destroyed in 64 anyway) and with Britian because she refused to act.



Turkey had a valid legal right to take action in 1974 (as she did in 64 and 67 as well). She did not have a legal right to impose a new consitutiuonal order, but she did have a valid legal right to act and act unilaterlay.



It really is that simple.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
19/03/2009 09:02

Sorry ErolZ, re msg 41



"It really is that simple."



If it is was THAT simple.. we wouldn't be having this discussion.. your "interpretation" that TR had the "valid legal right" in the first place is what I'm disputing.. and you don't answer my Q specifically..



To WHO is the UN addressing in it's resolutions? If you answer that - you'll realise THEY don't think TR or GR should have been on Cyprus, either... let alone the "afterwards" on which we both agree ;)



What is SIMPLE.. the UN were mandated to be the peace-keepers - both "tribes" were armed / supported by the "mother" ( and I mean that loosely) Countries.



I WELL understand the TR and GR perspectives, thanks - for those who might feel I need "educating" - I'm talking from the LEGAL aspect...



NEITHER TR or GR had any LEGAL right - IMHO.

erolz


Joined: 17/11/2008
Posts: 3456

Message Posted:
21/03/2009 00:03

MM msg 40



"To WHO is the UN addressing in it's resolutions? If you answer that - you'll realise THEY don't think TR or GR should have been on Cyprus, either... let alone the "afterwards" on which we both agree ;)"



The UN accepted and accepts the presence of British Troops on the sovreign bases in Cyprus as it accepted and accepts the presence of Greek and Turkish troops as per the numbers laid out in the 60's agreements. It accepts these because it accepts the 60's agreements as legaly valid. In those agreements each of the gurantor powers had a RIGHT to action to restore the consitutional order, combined or when combined was not possible alone.



You may believe that the UN resolution in 1964 negated the guarantors ststes rights under the treaty of gurantee. You are just wrong.

LondonCypriot


Joined: 15/12/2008
Posts: 426

Message Posted:
21/03/2009 03:49

Were there any UN resolutions for invading Iraq and hanging President Saddam Hussein? Did Tony Blair find his wepons of mass destruction?