Kifeas wrote:Iceman, let me help you and the rest of the TCs from one very common misconception they have, that we all get to read quite often.
Essentially, the founding parties of the 1960 agreements that established the RoC are neither the GCs and the TCs, nor the people of Cyprus as such! This is unlike the case in every other democratic and independed state’s constitution, and unlike the 1948 universal declaration of human rights, the UN declaration of people’s self-determination and the UN Charter! That is why those agreements were essentially by-passed by the above universal (higher) treaties and the UN Charter (the highest treaty of all,) as soon as Cyprus was accepted as a member of the UN and signed the UN Charter; even though they (1960 agreements) were the cause of the initial coming into existence of the RoC!
The founding parties of the RoC, the inaugurators so to say, are the UK, Greece and Turkey! Not the people of Cyprus, either as a whole or as two separate communities! Nowhere does it explicitly say in these agreements that the founders or the founding partners or the founding members are the GC community and the TC community. It may be claimed by way of interpretation of the spirit of those agreements that, because the two communities were asked -the GC one essentially forced, in the end, to co-sign those agreements and /or treaties, that they are the founders or co-founders! I personally disagree with such an approach, and the above basis for such an interpretation is not sufficient!
For two to be called the founding partners, or the co-founders, first of all they have to be the ones doing the negotiating in their free will, they have to be the ones that conclude the agreement in their free will, besides the signing of it by them in their free will! Such a thing did not occur in the case of Cyprus! Secondly, besides the above, the agreement itself must stipulate in it that the case is one of a partnership between the two (stipulated) co-founders, something that is also missing from those agreements or from the constitution itself! Consequently, the issue is one of mere interpretation!
You ask me what the meaning of those articles in the constitution is, that refer to a GC president and a TC vice-president, etc. You would like to interpret them as an indication that the founders of the RoC were the GC and the TC communities! I on the other hand interpret them as a mere arrangement on how to manage the government or rule the country!
Congratulations and thank you! You have just signed your confession of the invalidity of your so-called government as she claims to abide and operate by those Agreements establishing the RoC which you have found unacceptable. We believe that those Agreements are no longer valid aswell (obviously for different reasons), hence, your claims of being RoC are illegal in law and untrue in reality.
I must add of course that the irrational reasoning in your conclusions are questionable in terms of universal ethics and void in legal terms. Let me explain why...
The U.N. charter did not by-pass the Agreements as Cyprus became a member in 1960 of U.N., as it would be devoid to do so because the RoC claimed she was operating on those terms. However, the Charter did bring about Resolution 2077 on December of 1965 after Turkey’s warning of intervention if constitutional order and the rights/security of the TCs were not restored in Cyprus. The most important aspect of this resolution that made it stand separate from any other was that it arguably undermined the Treaty of Guarantee (more specifically Article IV) and announced that it:
“Calls upon all States, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter, and in particular Article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4, to respect the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any intervention directed against it…”. After this, Turkey halted intervention; however, the GC side breached it by calling in/harboring the Greek Army on the island by the thousands. It is also extremely important to underline that although the GC leadership has always been quite passionate about removing the right of intervention in the Treaty of Guarantee, the so called president of the RoC tried to invoke the Treaty of Guarantee as late as 1983 (at the time of the declaration of TRCN statehood) and called on the British government to intervene under the terms of that Treaty's Article IV.
The Agreements being disputed bear the signature of the designated GC leader, period. The typical GC argument of “we signed them because it was the best option at the time, and our intention was to convert them into a format more favorable to our position despite the disapproval of other co-signatories” is ethically flawed to say the least and bears no binding value. You may argue the circumstances of how your leader signed it, but never the less he has signed them and was perfectly alright with occupying the seat of President in the 3 years that followed (and as so-called in the following 14 years) which was rewarded/guaranteed to him by those very Agreements.
Frankly, the nametag you wish to put for the relationship/affairs of the two communities according to the Agreements is both irrelevant and inconsequential. The bottom line is that according to these agreements the two communities were: (1) fully autonomous in their communal affairs (2) assigned reserved representation in the administration of the overall state affairs, and (3) the TC leadership had a reserved vice-president seat where he/she could veto the president as he/she saw fit, period. This is neither subject to your interpretation nor judgment. The GC leadership tried to breach these with the proposed 13 Articles and orchestrated armed hostilities against the other signatory on the island for refusing them and ENOSIS.
In conclusion, your side signed these agreements in front of the whole world and was responsible according to law; consequently:
1) If you had found these terms unacceptable than you should not have signed an agreement which you did not intend to honor in the first place.
2) If you signed an agreement with the intent of eventually dishonoring it, than you have no right to complain about the other community's most inalienable right to take matters into her hands in determining her own fate in the island (especially as victims of armed hostilities).
