Bourgeois democracy is a closed political system with definite limits and possibilities. Protecting the interests of capital is inscribed in the very logic of its operation and this can be seen in the constitutions of all states and more specifically in the supra state structure which goes under the name of European Union. The overthrow of bourgeois democracy remains and must remain as the goal of all those that take the socialist prospect seriously. In the Cypriot context however,the battle against bourgeois hegemony takes another form with its own autonomous rationale – overcoming the ethnic conflict and overthrowing the regime of partition which hinders the unfolding of the historical dynamics.
The struggle for socialism presupposes in the Cypriot context the struggle for reunification. (for the meaning of reunification see http://www.epanenosi.com/index.php/archives/466 ) And this immanent and multi-dimensional struggle for the reunification of the country and the socialist transformation depends on the intensity of the social antagonism on a local and global framework and its specific political and organisational practices. It is in other words a matter of continuous,imaginative and offensive mass social activism,and not only a ballot issue. We should not forget however that social mobilisations take place in given historical and political conditions that are affected by state authority and governmental policy. Hence the character of the political force which controls the state matters.
The comrades from YKP might object that this is a southern perspective where we have a proper bourgeois democracy in the form of an independent state while in the north there is occupation and that the Turkish Cypriots do not control the Turkish protectorate which goes by the name TRNC. And from there on they refuse to participate in the elections in an effort to avoid their legalisation. Although this positition is coherent in its inception and sound at a level of theoretical abstraction,it contradicts itself as soon as YKP attempts to act upon it at a concrete level. More importantly the political logic of this position is levelling (and therefore unable to understand the differences between the political parties both in the north and in the south) and its political implications are catastrophic. TRNC is indeed a suffocating political entity and the temptation of a frontal attack on it might be great. Such as attack however (in the form of a boycott) could have a logic only under certain conditions,say of a legitimation crisis provoked by a mass revolt or an open social upheaval. In fact it might have a had a logic in 2002-2003 when the stakes where higher. But after the defeat of that betrayed revolt and the aftermath of the referendum,there is a changed political framework in which we have to count our gains and our losses.
It is understandable to feel betrayed by the CTP leadership;both Talat and Soyer proved inadequate in expressing the interests of the forces which put them to power that is the organised left and the peace movement. CTP’s resistence to Turkish militarism and neo-liberalism remained more or less at a symbolic level. They did not open up to the Greek Cypriot community and did not take bold steps towards an agreement. They hided behind Papadopoulos’intransigence and engaged in a blame game abroad and a cold war locally. AKEL on the other hand did not do much better either. It promoted and covered Papadopoulos for 5 years contributing to the waste of historical time and the strengthening of the partitionist status quo. However the restarting of the negotiations in 2008 again has opened up a new possibility,the possibility of a solution led by the forces of the Left,simultaneously in power north and south. CTP and AKEL,despite their recent and current political deviations and opportunism,do represent the historical and structural basis for reunification and continue to have the historic mission to reunite the country which we should foreget has been divided by the Right.
The elections in the Turkish Cypriot community in 2010 are probably as important as the ones in the Greek Cypriot community in 2008. Their result will reflect on the current will of the Turkish Cypriots concerning the solution. The structure of the TRNC might be given and the coordinates determined by Turkey,yet there is an underlying local dimension of the Cyprus problem which is perhaps the most important. The enemies of peace are not only abroad. They are here amongst us,north and south. They should not be allowed to take again full control of the administration structures while protecting our theoretical and ideological purity. The streets are important,but the ballot has to be conquered as well. Let us not allow the most backward and nationalist political force spearheaded by Eroglou to dominate again. Let us put them where they belong:in the dustbin of history.
Loading ...
Gregoris
This is well argued and I think that it should trigger off a debate amonst our T/C friends,i.e. those T/Cs who want a solution and are on the Left who seem to be divided. the default line is between those who think that Talat must be given another chance,despite the failings of his and CTPs reign over the last years,precisely because of the reasons you state on the one hand and on the other those who consider that Talat represents all that is rotten oin the Left today (they cite the latest slogan of his campaaing which apparently promises that if elected he would integrate the TRNC into Turkey). Of course few on the Left beleive this slogan,nor do they think that Talat himself believes it [they see it as an opportunistic effort to win votes from the Right] but nonetheless they think that he has gone too far this time.
We must try to see the elections in the north not as purely T/C affair:I think that we need a holistic approach:I think that we can dig up Niyazi’s term ‘holistic Cyprus’but mostly go beyond that. Now,I would like to ask our friends a set of questions which will illuminate the significance of the coming election in the north:
1.The last opinion survey by KADEM shows that Eroglu will win outright majority [or certainly if there is a second round];the CTP supporters criticise the survey as biased,inaccurate and misleading and playing in the hands of the Turkish-Cypriot right who want appear as hegemonic and unstoppable. In fact,CTP supporters claim that the tendency in fact is the opposite and that Talat is catching up. What do our T/C friends think about this?
2.The current election in the north is often depicted as crucial for the continuing of the negotiation process for the solution of the Cyprus problem as the election of Christofias and Talat as the leaders of the historic Left in Cyprus as the final effort to agree on a federation;in fact they have agreed on 95% on power-sharing and their agreement will for the first time allow for cross voting,albeit in weighted manner which marks a historic progress for Cyprus. Don’t our friends agree that (a) the conjunctures in Turkey and the world are pushing towards a settlement and (b) if Talat wins there is an agreement that will transform politics and enhance the forces of progress in Cyprus?
3.It is argued that an election of Eroglu is depicted as a hardening of the position of the Turkish-Cypriot side [and Turkey] and this will be a final nail in the coffin of the solution to the Cyprus problem. The Greek-Cypriot nationalist/chauvinist camp is happy with Eroglu’s prospect of winning as it will not allow for progress to continue and the Greek-Cypriot Right will be happy to oppose Christofias. What is your response?
4.What is the role of Turkish-Cypriots in the shaping of policy on a solution to the Cyprus problem? To what extent is there scope for ‘relative autonomy’ from Ankara in the current conjuncture? Isn’t there a difference between Talat and Eroglu? Doesn’t it make a difference who wins in the search for solution? Is there any real Left alternative to Talat?
5.What is your assessment of Turkey’s position on the Cyprus problem today? Does Erdogan/AKP faction of the bourgeoisie have the upper hand over the militarist/Kemalist section when it comes to the Cyprus issue? Do they want a solution in the next 2 years or not? If Eroglu does win,do you think that there will be a solution and what solution,given that he is opposed to the basis of the solution (bizonal,bicommunal federation with single sovereignty,international personality ,citizenship and political equality)?
Ahmet answers in italics Trim’s questions (Part 1):
Sorry for the long response,but the questions are not few. I shall try to answer in two parts:
“In fact,CTP supporters claim that the tendency in fact is the opposite and that Talat is catching up. What do our T/C friends think about this?”
- M. Faiz,director of the KADEM,stated that the results of the opinion pool were published without any manipulation and that the allegations of Yeniduzen were not true. The two candidates have a 10% difference,Eroglu being the possible winner. There are rumours,originating from Turkey that Talat could be appointed as negotiator in order to finalize any possible agreement if Eroglu wins the Presidency.
“Don’t our friends agree that (a) the conjunctures in Turkey and the world are pushing towards a settlement and (b) if Talat wins there is an agreement that will transform politics and enhance the forces of progress in Cyprus?”
- (a) I do not see any sincere action from Turkey,pushing towards a settlement. Why does Turkey not open Varosha to the original owners as a gesture to show its will for a solution? Why does Turkey not withdraw some thousands of the occupying troops in order to support the hopes for a solution? -(b) if Talat wins and Eroglou loses,do you think that the right wing will accept and implement the transformed politics,which will be in contradiction with the interests of the Turkish civil and military mafia in the North. From my point of view,unless the struggle between the civil and the military ongoing in Turkey is settled,there will be no transformation of Turkish politics in Cyprus,because Cyprus is still in the sphere of influence of the Army/SuperNATO.
“The Greek-Cypriot nationalist/chauvinist camp is happy with Eroglu’s prospect of winning as it will not allow for progress to continue and the Greek-Cypriot Right will be happy to oppose Christofias. What is your response?”
- Can we not put the question like this? Will Christophias not be happy to have Eroglu elected in order to keep him free from the accusations of “you have given the North to the Turks” and to secure his second term of office in the Palace? On the Turkish-Cypriot Right,if Eroglu wins,the TRNC will be in the hands of the original owners,who created it. They will declare that they won despite the intrigues of the Americans/Europeans,pushing the nationalist feelings further. (A crisis within his party (UBP) will wait for the new Chairman/PM after Eroglu will sit in the Palace. This will be postponed to be solved maybe after the local elections in June 2010. Ertugruloglu will be forming his own party in order to weaken the UBP according to the orders of the AKP.)
On the other hand,Eroglu is not independent enough to implement his own policy of “not a gobble-stone will be returned”. He,too,will receive orders/agenda from the FM of Turkey for the negotiations as Talat received. Otherwise the monthly financial support from Turkey for the salaries budget will not be sent,in order to put him in a difficult situation,as it was the case for al the previous governments,which hesitated to obey the orders. If the so-called “conjunctures in Turkey and world” will be pushing for a solution,I would prefer Eroglu in power,so that the right-wing will be forced to implement the solution formula,the neo-liberal CTP and Talat,supporting it from outside!
(Part 2 will follow)
Ahmet answers in italics Trim’s questions (Part 2):
“What is the role of Turkish-Cypriots in the shaping of policy on a solution to the Cyprus problem? To what extent is there scope for ‘relative autonomy’ from Ankara in the current conjuncture?”
The answer can be found in the above explanation,related with the financial dependency. The 5 years of CTP in power was a real mismanagement also in the local matters. They were not even able to offer us clean cities! Did Turkey prevent them to put the things in order at home? The so-called economic boom after the rejection of the Annan Plan left 25.000 newly built villas on the G/C properties,15.000 of them half-built,without any infrastructure or any planning. Where is the wealth earned from this economic activity gone? No tax reform,no health reform,no review of the insufficient legislation,no control of the incoming “tourist” criminals from Turkey,etc. All the ministers were participating in the radio or TV talk shows every day,instead of producing any change in the existing disorder.
“Isn’t there a difference between Talat and Eroglu?”
In terms of defending the TRNC and the settlers,there is no difference. I still remember vividly Talat during the days of Annan Plan,saying that he would put the TRNC into the EU. The only difference is that Talat was acting better for the interests of the Turkish Foreign Policy with better rhetoric. He and his party were chosen and supported in order to divert the anti-occupation feelings of the opposition into anti-Denktash movement,by replacing Mr.No,who was outdated for the new epoch. The “Cumhuriyetçi” TP did not believe in the RoC,although it kept in its name “Republican”,which was later proved to be for the “TRepublicNC”. The CTP’s federation policy was designed in 1970 when the Party was founded after Inonu’s/Ecevit’s federation definition:“We do not say partition. We say federation just to be within the existing legislation of the Cyprus Constitution.” This continued with Özker Özgür and later with Talat as Chairman of the CTP. Now they possessed this separatist statelet as their own. Eroglu has been the Chairman of the UBP,the original founder and the supporter of the TRNC. So the people who thought that the CTP can offer something different in the internal and external policies and who are disappointed,will vote now for the original,not the fake supporter!
“Doesn’t it make a difference who wins in the search for solution?”
No big difference. In practical terms,solution,if there will be any,will be implemented with the orders coming from outside. The problem is,what have the pro-solution forces done in both parts in order to prepare the masses for a solution? If the AKEL has published a leaflet on federation 33 years after the acceptance of the BBF in 1977,it is still a progress,but how many citizens are ready to implement a “real” federal solution? What will be the class structure of such a state and what kind of ideology will the federal state represent in order to solve the possible implementing problems? But this is another discussion subject.
“Is there any real Left alternative to Talat?”
Unfortunately no. But Talat is not Left,he is ex-Left and a neo-Liberal. The whole anti-establishment hopes were being disappointed (see above). The YKP (New Cyprus Party) stayed as a small club since its foundation. The coming of the Ozker Ozgur Group,expelled from the CTP could not create any step further,when they changed the name YKP into YBH (Patriotic Union Movement). Ozgur was obliged to leave with his pro-AKEL faction to form the BKP (United Cyprus Party),İzcan being the Secretary-General. Now YKP boycott again the elections (but in contrary,they plan to participate again in the local elections in some towns in June 2010) BKP supports Talat together with the social-democrat TDP (Communal Democracy Party) of Cakici. The KSP (Cyprus Socialist Party),with its outdated Stalinist ideology,is calling everyone for an anti-imperialist united front government.
The remaining non-organized left supports the Jasmine Movement,which is not organized as a party,but a group around the newspaper Afrika. They put as candidate for the Presidency an academician,Zeki Besiktepeli,who was a member of the BKP and resigned recently in protest of the party’s support for Talat. He is the only candidate,who supports the reunification of the island under the RoC.
“ What is your assessment of Turkey’s position on the Cyprus problem today? Does Erdogan/AKP faction of the bourgeoisie have the upper hand over the militarist/Kemalist section when it comes to the Cyprus issue? Do they want a solution in the next 2 years or not? If Eroglu does win,do you think that there will be a solution and what solution,given that he is opposed to the basis of the solution (bizonal,bicommunal federation with single sovereignty,international personality,citizenship and political equality)?”
I have already answered these questions in my answers given to the previous questions. Thanks for giving me the chance to express my views.
Gregoris,really enjoyed reading your article. Thank you Nicos for raising these questions and enabling us to discuss these issues with our Greek Cypriot colleagues. I will provide different answers from Ahmet An although I should say we agree on many points. This will be interesting as it sheds light on the fault lines that is dividing the Turkish Cypriot Left today.
Joint answer to question 2 and 5:
I do think that the conjuncture in Turkey and the world is supportive of a settlement. The EU project became the new hegemonic project in Turkey and that’s how the AKP government managed to acquire the support of different societal groups including the big bourgeoisie,Anatolian bourgeoisie and Kurds. Different groups are aligning themselves with the EU project because they are either seeking economic or political liberalism. Especially after Helsinki Summit of 1998 which granted Turkey the candidate status of the EU paved the way to the rise of a powerful pro-EU coalition. The pro-EU coalition was led by business-based civil society organizations and it also included labour union confederations,some other civil society organizations,parties on the right such as ANAP and AKP. If you take a look at TUSİAD,which represents the big conglomerates in Turkey,they are very much outspoken about the Cyprus problem and constantly mention the need for a settlement. Of course this is because they are at pains to join the EU and they tend to see Cyprus as a stumbling block in Turkey’s path to EU membership. In fact right after the new president of TUSİAD was elected they came to Cyprus emphasizing the need for a settlement. I think it is this group that is informing AKP’s policies and therefore Turkey’s position on Cyprus despite the nationalistic reactions of some other groups/parties/institutions including the military regarding the Cyprus problem.
I do hope that if Talat wins there can be an agreement that can fundamentally transform the structure in Cyprus. Of course this depends on all parties,yet I do believe that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots will do their best to achieve a settlement. The system in the North is not sustainable anymore either in economic or political terms. Turkey hopelessly wants to join the EU and she knows she can only do so through a settlement in Cyprus. So there is motive for a solution.
3.It is argued that an election of Eroglu is depicted as a hardening of the position of the Turkish-Cypriot side [and Turkey] and this will be a final nail in the coffin of the solution to the Cyprus problem.
I do agree. He is very inconsistent. In fact he is trying to adopt an impossible position. On the one hand he expressed that he supports Turkish Cypriots’ membership of the EU and joining forces with Turkey that explicitly declared her support for the settlement process along the UN principles. On the other hand,he announced that he will take part in the negotiation process by retaining his allegiance to the T.R.N.C. Rauf Denktas is also joining forces with Eroglu in the name of “our state and sovereignity”. Therefore I don’t think he will be a good negotiating partner for Christofias. You can’t also expect people to act as the puppets of Turkey and if Turkey really insists he will do as told. There are subtle ways of undermining an ongoing peace process. I don’t think he will wage a frontal attack on the process,probably he will do whatever he can rather silently. He will take part in negotiations but will be so unwilling to compromise.
4. What is the role of Turkish-Cypriots in the shaping of policy on a solution to the Cyprus problem? To what extent is there scope for ‘relative autonomy’ from Ankara in the current conjuncture? Isn’t there a difference between Talat and Eroglu? Doesn’t it make a difference who wins in the search for solution? Is there any real Left alternative to Talat?
Aha. I love this question. I think it is very problematic not to attribute any agency to the Turkish Cypriot actors and merely treat them as the puppets of Ankara. First of all this is not true and this holds for every other situation. We might be operating in a structure but we always have room for maneuver as the agents. We can make this choice rather than the other for example and this is room for maneuver. When we look at examples from the Cyprus case what come to my mind is the Copenhagen Summit of 2002. The external actors made so much effort for both parties to sign the Annan Plan before Republic of Cyprus joined the EU. Turkey was not opposed to this process and it was Foreign Minister Tahsin Ertugruloglu,representing Denktaş who refused to sign it. I don’t think Eroglu would openly clash with Turkey but still as I said above he can subtly undermine the process.
I do think there is a difference between Talat and Eroglu. And let me say from the beginning that I am one of those who have been disillusioned with CTP and I find them very neoliberal and like a bad copy of populist,partisan UBP. Yet,despite this,I still think that Talat is different for the simple fact that he is sticking to the UN parameters,and carrying out the negotiations. In that sense it will make a hell lot of a difference if Talat wins as he is committed to a settlement whereas Eroglu is not.
Unfortunately,there is no real Left alternative to Talat. There is a problem with the Turkish Cypriot Left,they are either neoliberal like CTP and TDP or very ineffective. I also think that the Left that is harshly opposing Talat today has no conception of a strategy. Everybody knows that the TRNC is a satellite state and that Talat as the President of the TRNC is trying to play the game accordingly,by being rather pragmatic about say his relations with Turkey. I don’t think he is sincere,he is just trying to win the elections. Maybe he went too far with the statement “I will link you up with Turkey” for the sake of getting the votes for the Turkish settlers. Yet what kind of a way forward are the Jasmine movement and the YKP putting forward? We know that the regime in the North is controlled by Turkey,we also know that we don’t have much say,so where does this lead us? In my view,it leads to a complete paralysis. If you say that there is no difference between Talat and Eroglu and they are both the puppets of Ankara and we don’t control the process then we might as well completely abandon politics and sit comfortably in our homes. I do think we have room for maneuver even in a heavily determined system like this and I find the rhetoric of the Jasmine movement and YKP self-defeating.
It seems that you live in a parallel universe or you have lost touch with reality ,I cannot otherwise explain your writings. I’m not talking so much about the Cyprus problem and its solution but for your “socialist” dreams. I’m wondering,haven’t you heard what happened 20 years ago in Berlin…You didn’t see the misery that socialism brought to so many people in eastern Europe and beyond.
You might rightfully ask if I cannot see the current economic crisis…of course I it,but proposing to go back to tested and miserably failed solutions is not the answer.
The answer is a system which respects individual liberties (the right to privacy,property rights,etc.) with limited government powers.
The solution for the Cyprus problem and for a prosperous future is Libertarianism and Cyprus is in a unique position to become a libertarian state.
Ahmet comments on what Umut wrote:“Yet,despite this,I still think that Talat is different for the simple fact that he is sticking to the UN parameters,and carrying out the negotiations. In that sense it will make a hell lot of a difference if Talat wins as he is committed to a settlement whereas Eroglu is not.”
What did the Turkish State Minister for EU membership,Egemen Bagis,said on 1 April 2010:“Whoever will be elected on 18 April in the TRNC,Turkey will do whatever she can,so that the negotiations will continue within the accepted UN parameters. Turkey’s support will continue. Turkey will continue to be one step ahead as our PM said.”
So do not worry and think of hell,if Eroglu is elected. He already said that he will be committed not to leave the negotiation table,in order to be one step ahead than the G/C side!!
On the other hand,I do not agree with Umut’s view that Talat is sticking to the UN parameters. We have followed the press reports about the 71 meetings in the last two years. For those who wants to see,it is clear that the Turkish side does not aim a real federal state for the solution of the Cyprus problem.
From Talat’s press conference that I have read on 2. April 2010,I did not see any clue that Talat has a vision of a federal state within the UN parameters and within the principles of international law. What else,on the main issues of the status quo,which affects the democratic decision-making processes of the T/C,there is no agreement:Withdrawal of the occupying Turkish Army and of the mainland Turkish colonizers.
According to the reports of the Press Conference,the Turkish side wants to have equal representation in all the institutions,e.g. equal number of policemen in the Federal Police. No limit to the number of the Turkish settlers is accepted. If the new citizenships,given by the RoC,are accepted,the new citizenships of the TRNC must be accepted too! On the territorial issue,only the views were exchanged. T/C side does not trust any guarantee other than Turkey’s. Talat insists that e.g. the health issues will be the responsibility of the constituent states,not of the federal state. Property issue of the G/C must be settled only by the decisions of the T/C Immoveable Property Commission,not through the three options:Exchange,Compensation and Restitution.
Years ago Denktas had accepted 98% of all the G/C proposals,handed over by Kyprianou in New York ,but not the main idea of federalism. So is there any difference in the set of mind? Everything depends on the decision of the occupying power…
To Ahmet An:I think federal state according to UN principles is a compromise for both parties. GC official position is pushing for a more unitary state like structure whereas the TC official position is pushing for a more confederation like structure. Yet confederation is impossible because it will never be accepted by the UN and the international community. And I think Talat,together with Europe oriented groups in Turkey is much more aware of this than Eroglu. Eroglu has deep links with the groups in Turkey that has always taken a very hawkish attitude on Cyprus and let’s not forget that in May 2001 the National Security Council in Turkey (comprises the Chief of Staff,select members of the Council of Ministers,and the President of the Republic) declared that an integration process will be initiated between the T.R.N.C and Turkey as a reaction to the accession of the South Cyprus to the EU. So after years of intransigent regimes in Cyprus and Turkey when the danger of integration to Turkey was an imminent possibility we have two more moderate regimes that have a motivation to work on a settlement. And I think this can create a significant opening.
On withdrawal of the Turkish troops:No government in Turkey can dare to give the decision to unilaterally withdraw the army from Cyprus. It will be political suicide. It is not realistic and Turkey can only do so as part of an overall settlement.
In terms of the settlers,I think the exact number of Turkish settlers is around the same number that the Greek Cypriot party accepted can stay. There was an exaggeration of figures in the G/C side.
Of course I totally understand where you are coming from and respect this. This process is also to an extent legitimizing the colonizer and Turkey is not held accountable for the destruction it caused after 1974. I totally understand this but I think with this balance of powers the best we can get is a federal solution. This solution will not be despite Turkey,it will be by allying yourself with certain groups in Turkey that are desperate to get rid of Cyprus problem so that they can get on with their journey to the EU.
To Umut:
I am well aware of the definitions of federation and confederation my dear Umut. Do not forget that I was the T/C coordinator of the bi-communal Movement for an Independent and Federal Cyprus,founded way back in 1989. I have published extensively in the local T/C press articles about the real federal solution and about the fake federation Turkish side has been talking.
I am aware that basically,Eroglu is for a confederal and Talat for a federal solution (Pls read again my previous post,where I criticized the official Turkish understanding of federation). What I wanted to stress was that Talat is not sincere in his proposals,which aim to upgrade the TRNC,proclaimed contrary to the international law,with the RoC. Although Talat does not look like a hawk and want to pose as a pigeon (!),his concrete proposals during the negotiations were for a 50:50 equation of his statelet,founded with the help of Turkish military intervention,with the RoC.
On the withdrawal of the Turkish troops:This is not a matter of daring,it is only respect to the Resolutions of the UN Security Council and the European Council. Why does Turkey insist on keeping 35.000 soldiers on the territory of the RoC,if the status quo before the coup of Summer1974 was restored after the return of the President of the Republic? Do you also want to have Turkish soldiers for your security like Ozker Ozgur,ex-Chairman of the CTP,who could not tell how many soldiers would be enough for that purpose?! Why does Turkey not withdraw according to a calendar its occupation troops from the RoC as a step towards an overall settlement? Is it so difficult to send one or two F-14 fighters in case of an attack on the T/C community?!
In terms of the Turkish settlers,there is no exaggeration of the numbers,unless you defend the fake numbers put by the TRNC authorities or you follow PRIO Reports. According to my calculation (and my previous publications (*),where I used the statistics of the incoming and outgoing persons),there were 196.587 persons with the citizenship of a third country,staying in the occupied areas at the end of 2008. If you count 30.000 foreign students and others,at least 150.000 Turkish “tourists” are living in the North illegally. The Turkish settlers,who are given the TRNC citizenship and no one knows their exact numbers,are not included in this category. In the coming Presidential elections,164.000 persons will vote and according to some resources,only 62.000 are original T/C voters. Is this acceptable for you,that “others” will determine your fate in your own country? Do you support Talat’s latest slogan “If there is Talat,you can count me too. Because he unites/connects me with Turkey”? I do not want to be united with Turkey. I want to remain as a citizen of the RoC!
No one wants to reach to a “federal solution despite Turkey”. However,even “those certain groups in Turkey that are desperate to get rid of Cyprus problem” should learn to respect the basic principles of the international law and the fundamental human rights,“so that they can get on with their journey to the EU.”
(*) See my “Written Evidence” Paragraph 1.9. (March 2004) in “The Turkish Cypriot Political Regime and the Role of Turkey”,prepared by the “Select Committee on Foreign Affairs of the UK Parliament”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/113/113we33.htm)
Dear Ahmet An,
“I do not want to be united with Turkey. I want to remain as a citizen of the RoC!”. In this case I do not think it matters if Talat or Eroglu will be in power because neither of them can negotiate on the basis of TCs returning to the RoC. Still though what I am struggling to understand is why opt for Eroglu rather than Talat (because not supporting Talat will automatically lead to him being in power)? Isn’t Eroglu responsible of the Turkish settlers problem that you are criticizing? Didn’t Turkey manipulate the votes of the Turkish settlers for years so that they support UBP or DP? How would Eroglu’s coming to power lead to Turkey withdrawing its troops from Cyprus? If Talat is a hawk,then what is Eroglu? And if there is no difference between them,they are both the puppets of Turkey why go for the leader who has been the architect of this corrupt regime in Cyprus and have consistently violated the basic principles of the international law and the fundamental human rights of the Greek Cypriots? This is something I fail to understand.
P.S:I could not access the document you sent at the end (it says page not found). How can I get hold of it?
Dear Umut,
Don’t try to convince me to make a choice between Talat and Eroglu,who are both proven to be servants of the Turkish Establishment. What else Talat resisted to cooperate with the pro-solution forces. If you ask my choice in the presidential election,it is for the academician Zeki Besiktepeli with some reservations.
You are talking about Eroglu’s responsibility of the Turkish settlers,the manipulation of their votes etc. Did I write anything contrary to this? Both leaders approved these policies,dictated by the occupier. As a principle,I would not accept intervention from outside,if it is in favour of Talat or Eroglu. Why should I support Turkey’s manipulation of the settlers’ votes,so that Talat will win in order to finalize the solution? If they decided to finish the problem,any leader can do it,according to the orders! It will be even better to have Eroglu in power to sign and implement the reunification. My main concern is about the day after a solution!
What I am trying to stress here is that if the outside powers have decided to solve the problem and end the partition of our island,the so-called hawks or “pigeons” in Cyprus do not matter,because they are the instruments of those internal and external forces that benefited from the partition. This is my important point that you should not fail to understand!
PS:I shall be able to respond only after next Monday and the full address for the document is:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/
/cm200405/cmselect/cmfaff/133/133we33.htm
This is truly a great debate! It is illuminating og the debte on the T/C side about the bitter contest within the ranks of reunification movement. I am sorry that some people cannot even undertand the processes and that in T/C politics it is essentially a debate within the Left which is crucial here.
Ahmet,I must say that I personally see a difference between Eroglu and Talat,even if there is disappointment about some of Talat’s policies an approaches. I agree with Umut. Please:
1. THe fact that momuntum will be lost and people will be discouraged;we have suffered so much disappointment over the last years;we need no more.
2. Don’t ignore the signals the election of Eroglu will send to the world and the G/Cs.
3. No matter what you think about Talat,at least he can talk to Christofias;he is a Cypriot interlocator;can yopu say the same about Eroglu? I don’t think so.
4. It may be that Ankara will want o press on for solution no matter what,but the imposition from Turkey will come at cost. we do not know that cost yet…