Saturday, February 5, 2011

Who is to blame & who is to fix?

In the 1950s gCypriots decided on an action without consulting tCypriots. They are in essence to blame for what ensued. They lacked strategic vision to use contemporary jargon, although at the time such words probably were as foreign as sushi to Cyprus.

1960 is the very source of the problem. It led to unworkability of the Republic, to feelings of gross injustice, to an effort for a constitutuional amendment, to the 63-64 ethno-communal fighting, which in turn justified the self-segregation policies of tCypriot leaders, to the perfect pretext, and the "intervention" with all its known consequences.

To this day, tCypriots try to negotiate on the basis of 1960 and its ill-thought "equality". As such, gCypriots find proposals, which in essence perpetuate the inherent injustices of 1960 as well as some of the repercussions of the war, as unacceptable.

In order to overcome the conundrum we must all go back to 1960 and 1963. We must look at them again anew. Which clauses meant to divide and which to unite. Which must be abolished, which introduced. Which negotiated in good faith. Should foreigners have any say at all in Cypriot matters?

Cypriots, g's and t's, are much wiser. We are probably all worhty of honorary degrees in international relations and negotiation by now.

We start with a "workable" 1960 and with RoC already a member of the European Union. Let us revisit what the 1963 document said. Let us forget the messenger and his mistakes Let us instead heed the message. It is my honest opinion that it encompasses many just ideas promoting the unity of Cyprus and its people, while allowing each Cypriot to celebrate her Greekness or Turkishness to whatever degree she desires.

If we agree with the principle that in time (it can't happen overnight) all Cypriots are entitiled to their property and respect of their human rights, not least of which is safety, as well as the pursuit of happiness, to borrow a favorite phrase from the first modern democratic constitution, then we should not be debating a totally foreign federation document. Instead, we should be debating 1960. We should be debating 1963 which we never had an honest chance to do. Even if to reject it. We may end up with an agreed federation in the end, but it seems to me that in order to get there a much more logical place to start is 1960 and 1963.

It all starts with one side, tCypriots, agreeing to sit around a table and potentially negotiating away rights stemming from the "equality" of 1960. Traitors, they will shout. The wiser elders however willl know that it was the very injustice of 1960 which opened Pandora's box. And ofcourse 1960 was "necessary" because gCypriots had previously taken a major decision without even consulting their compatriots, at the very least setting their minds at ease that the next day would mean safety and prosperity for them.

Yes, gCypriots made a serious mistake. Yes, it is up to tCypriots to fix things by agreeing to give what perhaps should never have been given. Could it be that we still have a chance to be Cypriots.


All Time Popular Posts

Last 7 Days Popular Posts


Turkey's Kurds & Cyprus' tCypriots

As either unitary state or federation solutions are discussed as replacements to Cyprus' 1960 and Turkey's 1923 unworkable constitutions, should we abide by "if a right is a right too many for Turkey's Kurdish community (circa 23% of population) then that right is a right too many for Cyprus' tCypriot community too (circa 15%), and vice versa." Is the adoption of this fair logic the catalyst to securing just solutions for both UN countries.