Talk:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →


Contents

Claims of mono-ethnicity

Some claims were made that the geographical north and south of the island were monoethnicly Turkish and Greek respectively. This is not true at all. Both sides had their share of refugees following the 1974 invasion. The Greek number is 200,000, or about 1/3 of the total Greek Cypriot population at the time. The Turkish Cypriot number is around 20,000 if I'm not mistaken. Limassol had a big Turkish Cypriot population. Perhaps what the original claim was alluding to is that the municipalities had become monoethnic, a true statement, but these municipalities were evenly distributed all over Cyprus. At the time before the invasion and even before the establishment of the Cyprus Republic Greeks and Turks lived peacefully on the island. Turkey's plans though methodically put an end to that and created a situation which goes on since 1974.

It is a matter of fact that the Greeks tried to "capture" Cyprus what they called "enosis". The unification of Cyprus with Greece. The Turks living there was just a disturbing factor which had to be eliminated thanks to Ecevit the Greeks couldn´t realize their idea of "Enosis". I have been taking to eye witnesses and believe me the Greeks killed Turkish babies just because they were Turkish. The fact that the Greek part of Cyprus is a member of the EU is simply not compliant with international law. But this once again shows the role of being a Christian state versus a muslim state. I´m happy that we still have our soldiers based at the border. I´m happy that the Republic of Turkey has a military manpower of 1 million soldiers and I´m happy that our army is ready.

Cyprus will not be a second Creta.....

unseparate

The fact of the matter is, there is no such recognised entity. It exists as a defacto government, and is still in violation and contempt of several U.N. resolutions.

Listen, Sunshine: The entity exists. It has a government and all the trappings of a state, so recognized or not, the TRNC is in existance. If you think it doesn't exist, try walking directly from Southern Nicosia to Kyrenia.....

According to international law, it does not exist. But calling it by "TRNC" makes the reader assume that the state exists. Unfortunately buddy, it does not, only a defacto government. Be politically correct. Also Expatkiwi, more than 30 years of occupation the lack of a mixed population and the forced separation have altered the land. (UNFanatic)
Saying the TRNC does not exist is like telling me to my face that I don't exist and then trying to walk through me. What you want to believe is not necessarilly true. Internationally, TRNC is still officially regarded as an illegal entity (which I strongly disagree with), but it IS an entity nontheless. That's the point I'm trying to make.


However the fack is that it is an illegal and condemned entity by the U.N.

WE DO EXIST !!!!

Passports

I believe that TRNC issues passports, but that as only Turkey recognises TRNC, surely only Turkey will accept these passports. When TRNC "citizens" travel to other countries, under what documents to they travel? Do other countries accept TRNC documents as de-facto Cypriot passports, or does Turkey issue them with Turkish passports? I'm asking to help improve our passport article. - John Fader

  • Hi John. TRNC indeed issues passports, but the situation with the application is a bit complicated. I did a google search with sites in Turkish and came up with this:
    • TRNC citizens are allowed to get passports issued by Cyprus. AFAIK, they cannot get any Turkish passports since they have to be citizens of the Turkish Republic in order to do so. TRNC citizens can also get passports issued by TRNC.
    • AFAIK, TRNC passports are only valid in Turkey, TRNC and the UK. TRNC citizens with TRNC passports can travel to and from Turkey without visas. However, UK requires visas.
    • TRNC citizens with Cypriot passports can pass the border to the south with their TRNC IDs if they wish, fly anywhere with their Cypriot passports from Larnaca, but they have to return to TRNC in three days. Lately, there were rumours that Turkey restricted the travel of TRNC citizens from Turkey abroad with their Cypriot passports if they had entered Turkey with any other passport. The Turkish and the TRNC Ministries of Foreign Affairs deny such a "secret" regulation.
    • The sole TRNC Airline KTHY is allowed to fly those with TRNC passports only to Turkey. Also Cypriot passports are not valid with KTHY, although they are valid with Turkish Airlines.
    • TRNC Representative Office in London claims that more Turkish Cypriots living in the UK have issued TRNC passports in 2004 until now than in 2003 [1].
    • Restrictions on Cypriot and EU passport holders have been eased in passes from the south of the island to TRNC since May 2004. Individual passes are restricted to between 6 AM and midnight. Tours have no such restrictions.

Good luck with your article... leandros 16:35, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

    • Hi! TRNC passports are accepted by Turkey, UK and USA. USA and UK can be issued for the TRNC passports but they are not stamped over the passports but are sticked on a seperate paper. People holding TRNC passports with UK visas can travel to Switzerland. I heard some accounts from people who went to Azerbaijan and even to China with TRNC passports. I hope this helps.

===>U.S. I called the State Department today. The U.S. does not recognize the TRNC (of course), but will accept passports of both "government representatives" and private citizens. Anyone with a TRNC passport is issued a second document by the U.S. government, though. Justin (koavf) 17:19, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Hi people. Look, i believe that using the term "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" is completely wrong not to say stupid. Even if passports are issued the name is extremely false since only Turkey, a country which continiously violates human right both at home and abroad, and Azerbaijan i think recognise. Probably the term "Occupational State" would be more appropriate and of course more accurate. I want to request from wikipedia to change this name since it is not internationaly recognised and is a result from turkish occupation. Some may say that Turkey had this right to intervene with the use of force but this gives turkey no right to keep a hold on the island for almost 31 years. Thank you. Demetris

Demetris said, "I want to request from wikipedia to change this name since it is not internationaly recognised and is a result from turkish occupation.".....So much for the freedom of speech. HUH. And no wonder Turkish Cypriots has doubts about integrating. Soon you will start claiming that there are no Turkish Cypriots but rather, Muslim Greeks, (like they do claim in Greece) and start censoring the words of "Turkish Cypriot". -Turkcyp

===>Excuse me? What Demetris said may not have been articulated as diplomatically as possible, but this has nothing to do with free speech. He is not an oppressive government (like, say, the government of Turkey), but a private citizen making a request. Unless I'm mistaken, polite requests are actually a part of "free speech." Justin (koavf) 02:12, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

An oppresive government like Turkey? Tell me would an oppresive government allow Kurds to be Prime Ministers, women to be Prime Ministers, give women the vote before many western countries, have a secular democratic country the likes of which most middle east countries cannot even imagine? Is Turkey bulldozing homes like Mugabe is doing in Zimbabwe right now (a true oppresive government)? Dont make sweeping statements unless you can tell us why. --E.A 10:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===>Turkey Just because there are more oppressive governments in the world, that hardly makes Turkey free. Kurds have been oppressed there for decades, and the Armenian genocide is the responsibility of Turkey, at least in as much as it is the successor state to the Ottoman Empire. The reform that has happened in the past few years (the opening of the two Kurdish schools, the sudden approval for a reunification plan in Cyprus) is disigenuous, and motivated entirely by a desire to join the EU. Turkey is paramount to a colonizing power for the military's role in the 1974 invasion, and the gross theft of property and murder of innocent civilians that ensued. Turkey hasn't even addressed some of these issues. See Human rights in Turkey, and Accession of Turkey to the European Union. Justin (koavf) 22:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Turkey is by no means perfect, it has its problems likes many other countries. But i abhor coming onto Wikipedia and seeing statements by people like yourself who portray Turkey as nothing more than an oppresive, human right infringeing, genocide commiting, imperialist people. There are certain people who will not acknowledge Turkey as anything else and this is a shame, what do you achieve by making statements like these? This anti-Turkish sentiment is rife on Wikipedia, perhaps if you took time to look beyond the sensationalist statements and actually went to Turkey you may get a different view. --E.A 22:36, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
===>You're right, Turkey isn't perfect How did I portray Turkey as nothing more than "an oppresive, human right infringeing [sic], genocide commiting, imperialist people"? I said nothing about the Turks as a people - all the Turks I've ever met were pretty reasonable and nice individuals. What I was doing was defending my earlier statements, which is exactly what you asked me to do. I was only talking about the government of Ankara, and I can make the distinction between that government and the ethnic group that makes up much of their population. There is no need for knee-jerk assumptions, E.A. Show me a sensationalistic statement that is anti-Turkish. Statements like "the TRNC is an illegitimate state", "Turkey refuses to acknowledge that the Armenian genocide occured", and "Turkey's human rights record is far worse than most EU members" are accurate descriptions of fact. Turkcyp is apparently a Turkish Cypriot, and he is much more level-headed about the discussion. Furthermore, there is much more Turkish reprsentation than (Greek) Cypriot on Wikipedia. Justin (koavf) 02:15, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Koavf said"......but this has nothing to do with free speech.....but a private citizen making a request. Unless I'm mistaken, polite requests are actually a part of "free speech."--- Of course, his ideas, desires and wishes are protected under the “free speech”. I was just trying to draw the attention to a mentality. Mentality which uses “freedom of speech” to call for elimination of “freedom of speech” who does not think like you do. It’s is not his “freedom of speech” I am against at. For all I care he can ask whatever he wants, and at the same time talk and think whatever he wants. I just do not like the above stated mentality of censorship and wanted to point that out. Censorship on what we can say on internet. He apparently supports this censorship, by saying “I want to request from wikipedia to change this name since it…” Censorship on the usage on the name of TRNC. If he did not say that sentence, I would totally not criticise him on using “freedom of speech”, but using freedom of speech to advocate for censorship deserves criticism, I guess.-Turkcyp

History of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus:biased?

Turkey had always an eye on Cyprus and was planning an invasion years ago with the help of the USA and UK. After the Republic of Cyprus was established Turkey set plans so as to proceed to an ivasion. From the Turkey side the invasion was named (and still is what Turkey supports) a "Liberation Military Operation" so as to free Turkish Cypriots. This thought was just an excuse to invade and illegally (under International Law) capture the North part of Cyprus. After the invasion a goverment and a state was established, the so called "Republic of Northern Cyprus". This so called state is not recognised by any Goverment or Nation in the world except Turkey (understandably why...) and very few Islamic Nations. It is worth saying that this so called North Cyprus goverment exploits resources and assets which belong to the Greek Cypriots (another fact which under International Law is illegal). But because of the support of USA and UK this situation goes on now for 31 years.

So the TC's can't do that? Then why is TC assets and land in the South exploited by the GC's with impunity then?

Listen Expatkiwi. I think you should visit the free south and see for yourself. Why are ALL of the Mosques still in their original shape, not touched by sacrilage. The opposite happened in the north. Most Churches had icons destroyed holy books burned and urinated on. It is sad to see how people fail to see both sides. Brother, go to both sides of Cyprus for a visit. I recommend it.(UNFanatic)

Some things to remember

It is useful sometimes to remember how the invasion took place and how many people died in Cyprus while Turks did not show mercy at all. If one can imagine this slaughter, then it would much more easy to have his own conclusions. From my point of view there is no TRNC. It is only recognised by Turkey and it will not be recognised by anyone forever. The only thing that may happen is the reunification of the island. This is quite fair because it was Turks that invade it a country which was constitutionally recognised by UN. No one has the right, nowadays and forever, to invade a nation and kill thousands of people. Please keep in mind that the most important thing in life is life itself and noone has the right to deprive this right from anyone. Another important thing to know is that as a result of the 1974 Turkish invasion in Cyprus, 1619* Greek-Cypriots were reported as missing. Most of them were soldiers or reservists, captured during the battles by the Turkish invasion force. Among them, however, were many civilians, women and children, arrested by the Turkish invasion troops and Turkish-Cypriot paramilitary groups, within the area controlled by the Turkish army after the cease of the battles and far away from the military front. Although motion pictures and photographs showing these people either being arrested or being transferred to and imprisoned in Turkey do exist, none of them has ever returned. For more inforamtion on this humanitarian issue please visit the following link: http://www.missing-cy.org/


  • The number of the missing has been recently reduced to 1587 after the discovery of the remains of some missing persons, using DNA identification methods.

In reply to above

Yes that is right, no one has the right to take human lives, if only Turkey cherished this value this page would not have been existed. And just a thought for further thinking; How can Turkey be accepted in the European Union when it has invaded another country, does not respect human rights both in Turkey and towards other countries and acts with no respect to international treaties or law?

Blame on both sides

If the enosis with Greece had succeeded in 1974, does anyone honestly expect that the Turkish Cypriot population would be treated with respect by the Greek Cypriots? Forced assimilation, expulsion, or other - more drastic - forms of ethnic cleansing would have been imposed upon them. So in one respect, the 1974 Turkish Intervention (or 'Peace Operation', depending on your point of view) did stop that possibility from happening. Still, I also accept the fact that the Turks then did their level best to push out the Greeks who remained in the north did taint their justification for the intervention (I understand that the enclaved Greeks do exist under a lot of restrictions), but given what the Turkish Cypriots themselves had suffered at the hands of the Greek Cypriots between 1963 and 1974, my sympathies lie more with the North than the South. The basic problem is that both communities do not think of themselves as Cypriot, but either Turkish or Greek first.

Some facts

Firstly the idea that Turks and Greeks lived in peace before 1974 is pure fantasy, Greek Cypriots were hellbent on enosis and Turks were persecuted for over a decade before. Secondly as for no country having the right to invade another country, tell that to Greece, they were the ones who sent 20,000 troops to Cyprus (and im sure they werent there to promote equality among Turks). Thirdly you omit the mass graves that are in North Cyprus, the pits still viewable today backed up by photographic evidence. Fourthly, the Greek cypriots had no problems in forcing thousands of Turkish Cypriots to flee their villages for the mountains, the only place they could get respite from constant violence and abuse from the Greek Cypriots. The idea that barbarian Turks came and invaded some sort of Utopia is an image Greece and Greek Cyprus has been pushing for 30 years, anyone who has the incentive to dig beneath this thin facade will find a much more factual account of what happened. Also, the very fact that you come on to these discussion pages and delete and overwrite everything before shows no useful dialogue can be held you with you.

Anonymous expositions of the Greek or Turkish nationalist points of view on Cyprus (which are already well-known) contribute nothing to this article and will be ignored. Adam 12:06, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have edited nothing in the article, i was merely responding to the fact that previous discussions on the subject were deleted and edited to show one point of view. This is after all a discussion page and i am therefore free to create a balanced argument.

Also let's talk about Turkish Getthos in Cyprus where Turkish Cypriots were forced to live in, due to security concerns. Perhaps this would explain the Turkish Invasion a bit. As long as the greeks behave like the Island was a paradise until Turkish military action, I do not belive that they can convince Turkish Cypriots that they are really for peace. Reconciliation is a two way street here!

what has resulted from all of this

Despite the unsatisfactory political situation caused by Northern Cyprus' UDI, at least the inter-communal warfare had by-and-large ceased because of the seperation of both communities on each side of the Green Line. If peaceful co-existance cannot be acheived, then segregation is the only realistic alternative to continual violence, which between 1963 and 1974 had taken a lot of lives. Any attempt at forcing both communities together without reconciliation would be doomed to failure and would result in more bloodshed.

Recognition from the Gambia?

===>Sources This is the first I've heard of the Gambia's willingness to recognize the TRNC. Can someone give a source for this information? What is the justification and rational for this decision? Justin (koavf) 14:26, May 29, 2005 (UTC)


Justin (koavf), The news article can be read here: ===>http://www.turks.us/article.php?story=20050526074336550&mode=print


===>Thanks It would be nice to get the story from a third-party source, if anyone has a reference. Justin (koavf) 05:29, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

===>the actual article from TAK news agency

Greeks Cypriots and Turk Cypriots

The two communities lived in peace for nearly a thousand years while the Turk muslims remained a minority and didnt force their opinions on the majority. When they started to protest against the majority they put themselves in a difficult situation. The idea of Enosis was simple. Instead of having the island taken over by Turkey and suffering economically along with Turkey Greece and Europe were far more practical.

Also we weren't stupid! we knew the UK would be giving the island on a silver platter to Turkey. The only way Greeks in Cyprus would not be dealt with in the same way the Greeks of Constantinople were handled when UK and Allies simply gave the city to the Turks under the Treaty of Luseanne (sp?) was to kick up enough internation fuss to draw political attention to the almost insignificant Med island. The Greek Cypriots achieved a victory by atleast keeping 2/3 of the island. It was that or nothing. Enosis was a bluff if it worked fine, if it didnt then we had the worlds attention enough to stop Turkey or UK, USA from doing anymore damage.

The Cyprus problem did not start in 1974

The Cyprus problem did not start in 1974, and it is not a problem of invasion. Turkish army presence in the Cyprus (what is called invasion by Greek Cypriots) is a result of the suffering of Turkish Cypriots on the island since 1963, when the Republic of Cyprus is brought down as a bicommunal republic by Greek Cypriots. After 1963 Republic of Cyprus can not be seen as bicommunal because many of the human rights (including the right to vote, travel, right to life, right to property, freedom of expression) of Turkish Cypriots had been toppled by the Greek Cypriots.

It is very sad to see many Greek Cypriots to think Cyprus problem as only a problem of invasion which starts in 1974. If this mentality does not change there can not be a solution to Cyprus problem. When Greek Cypriots start seeing Turkish Cypriots as the equal at the community level, and start giving our rights back from 1960 constitution, then the Cyprus Problem will be solved peacefully.-Turkcyp

Don't hold your breath, Turkcyp. With the current mentality of persons like Papadopoulos, there is next to no hope of sincere reconciliation. -Expatkiwi

As far as my research concludes, Cyprus for last 2 thousand years, has always been host to foreign occupants. There were Turkish soldiers on the island in 60s, there will always be Turkish soldiers on the island. Cyprus is a vessel island. Greek and Turkish Cypriots better get used to this. As we speak, the island hosts Turkish, Greek (from Greece), British and the US soldiers. -Trk

Sources

Any source on that last addition. News report or something. I can find something the contrary because there was a press leak despite the intent of the meetings to be secret.(UNFanatic)

NPOV

The page contains obvious bias and is missing vital information, such as why the UN doesn't recognize the TRNC. Wikipedia is not the place to fight political battles, it's supposed to be an unbiased source of factual information. Please focus on facts which can be agreed by all parties.

What do you mean? It specifically says that only Turkey recognize TRNC as sovereign goverment, and all the others recognize Republic of Cyprus. As to WHY? Now that would have created POV in my opinion. The question WHY will almost always result in POV and biased article. If you can find me a written security council resolution that says 'Why the TRNC should not be recognized?' rather then security resolution of simply calling not to recognize TRNC then I guess you can add here. (or better start an article in wikisource and direct the why to there) But in the absence of an answer to question 'Why ?' directly from UN, all we write down would be biased as the reasons for why that one person would come up with would be different than the others.
We should just stick to facts not interpretations.

New Turkish Lira

Dose anyone use it? Or do they use the Cypriot pound? Zntrip 04:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

TL or New TL is almost exclusively used in everewhere in the north. The second most common currency after TL is British pound. There were talks about using Euro at one point as officiol tender (during the high inflation times of TL) but now that inflation is contained in Turkey and actualy TL is overvalued nobody is complaining.

NEVER AGAIN

Turkish Cypriots tried co-existence with Greek Cypriots...they gave it their best shot under the Makarios/Kucuk government, and it failed miserably. What followed next were eleven years of enduring Greek Cypriot terror, and living as refugees in small enclaves. Then to add insult to injury a terrorist President by the name of Nikos Sampson, trying to ethnically cleanse Cyprus and unite it with Greek. Of course let us not forget the presence of Greek army officers from mainland Greece in violation of the Treaty of Guarantee, and the cry for ENOSIS, in violation of the Treaty of Guarantee. Turkey waited a whole decade, pleading with the U.S., as well as Great Britain, a Guarantor of Cyprus' independence to intervene. The U.S. did not wish to take sides between two NATO allies, Greece and Turkey, and along with Great Britain and the U.N., watched as Greek Cypriots slaughtered and massacred Turkish Cypriots. This Holocaust of Turkish Cypriots will NEVER AGAIN be repeated, thanks to Turkey's military presence in Northern Cyprus. Greek Cypriots have made their intentions very clear by first rejecting the Annan Plan, and then by electing a former EOKA member, Tassos Pappadopoulos as President. Sorry, Turkish Cypriots cannot be expected to make the same costly mistake in trusting Greek Cypriots ever again. I have been to the Greek South, and the hatred is not just directed at Turkey, but TURKS in general...according to Greek Cypriots, all Turks, Cypriot or Anatolian or whatever, are "barbaric Mongols"...a term they use quite frequently. Turkish Cypriots can and will not live with Greek Cypriots ever again. The TRNC is a permanent entity. Get over it dear Greek Cypriots.