Cyprus-Forum.com

[Andros]

Nikitas,

Good point Nikitas. I believe that Turkey will not, and can not be forced into nothing, as it's securing two very fundamental parameters. One, being its economy for the future, thus does it really need the EU? And two, being the status quo of the Cyprus situation - or should I say, northern Cyprus being eventually included, as it has with the Britain and Turkey agreement, as a part of the Republic of Turkey in all newly signed agreements between Turkey and other countries.

It's this reality that makes me believe that it is us who will loose in the end if we do not force an agreement soon. Forget about a unified, partition or confederal Cyprus - we may actually end up being known - as an island - as Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus. It all depends on Turkey's economic and political position in years from now. Where, according to the amount of economic investment in Turkey, its growing populations, its influence in northern Iraq and the former soviet states and its unconditional presence in northern Cyprus, including northern Cyprus being known as the Turkish Cypriot State by the OIC, I have a strong feeling that this may just be our last chance to clinch a Cyprus deal ever.

I know I may seem to sound like a TC at times with my extreme comments and analysis, I admitt, but that's only because I know Turkey doesn't really give any priority to the Cyprus situation in any way. Where, if it did, I know that the Cyprus situation would have been solved many moons ago. In other words, who will stop Turkey doing what it wants in Cyprus? As we have only seen an upgrade of northern Cyprus since the invasion of 1974, never the other way round. Even the UN Resolutions are said to not be legally binding - what kind of BS is that. If any GC believes that the Cyprus situation will be solved by the EU, I would suggest looking deeper into EU's control policies where we may be shocked to realise that the EU haven't even got the power to stop a football match due to its economic mess let alone stopping Turkey over Cyprus. All I am asking for the people of this forum is to look at the Cyprus situation from a birds eye view, look at what's really been happening on the island of Cyprus and not the Cyprus Republic alone. Get Real may sound very convincing in trying to make other look stupid, but he's unfortunately missing the real Cyprus issues.

Solve the Cyprus problem now, before it's too late - you've probably realised that I am not a Tassos Papadopoulos lover!

[Nikitas]

I am not a Pap lover either. But judging from the fundamentals, and in our case the fundamental point is our survival on the island, he did OK, he did not let us enter into an agreement that did not guarantee our survival on the island.

The problem with the EU or any international body is that we fail miserably in our communications approach. We assume that foreigners will understand our dialectic and side with us. The truth is that foreigners have a short attention span and do not consider us important enough to read our long dissertations no matter how right we may be. We stand a better chance of success by putting across short and sweet points, borrowing advertising techniques that foreigners can understand, or to put it another way present them with predigested food.

So we could easily make the point that 18 per cent of the population cannot fairly be granted 30 per cent of the island. That we are the multicultural part of the island, the north is monocultural thus reinforcing the territorial card. And so on. In the end these arguments will give us a better deal in this partition plan which masquearades under many names. The bottom line is that Bizonal equals partition.

Cypriot politician do not seem to attach much importance to the territorial aspect of the solution, but it is vitally important. The fairer the initial territorial settlement the stronger will be the final agreement since it minimizes property challenges in the future. And also good fences make good neighbors.

I agree with you that time is critical. But rather than enter into a disguised takeover plan for the whole island it is better to stay as we are.

[Andros]

Nikitas,

Thank you for your reply. I will have to re-read your posting again as I would like to add a few points to it. I agree with all you have said, and believe that we may be on to something here. At 66 years old, my eyes start to burn when looking at my screen at this time for too long. I will write a response to your posting tomorrow if that's okay.

Thanks and Kind rgds,
Andros

[Get Real!]

Do you not agree that a new UN plan will dissolve the Republic of Cyprus to form a “United” Cyprus republic?

I cannot see any other Anglo-American plan ever seeing the light of day in Cyprus because you know what they say… once bitten twice shy!

How easily people forget though that the 1960s “agreements” were such a plan and it failed miserably because it was not based on democracy so anything short of a modern democracy is EVIDENTLY inappropriate for Cyprus so I see no reason why we should waste any more time.

Do you not agree that any introduced UN plan will be based on the “Annan Plan”, thus once again forcing our people to reject it in an attempt to ultimately recognise the so-called TRNC once and for all?

If the need arises the RoC can and will use every option available to protect its interests so if any country attempts to recognize the “TRNC” the RoC can immediately take them to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)…

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php? ... aaa571630a

…and would win hands down as there are COUNTLESS UN resolutions in the RoC’s favor. This would also serve as a deterrent to any other country contemplating anything similar.

Do you not agree that, if the Cyprus problem is left alone until the nearing of Turkey’s eventual EU full membership in 2019 – or so, northern Cyprus could be known as a separate country by default, instead of the island being united - by DEFAULT?

Turkey’s EU journey is already finished and she’ll be lucky to remain intact as a nation by then. Where have you been?

Do you seriously believe that we can sustain another few years of ignoring the Cyprus issue without something happening to somehow legalise northern Cyprus as a separate entity? How long do you think we can hold off this isolation issue, especially considering Turkey's influence in Northern Iraq, oil and etc?

Turkey’s influence on the US is nearing its end. The US is already looking for alternative bases/methods and it won’t be long before she gets somewhere else and not to mention that the Iraq war is almost over… new change in power in the US will be decisive.

[CopperLine]

Get Real,
How many times do we need to go over this ? How many times do you need to be told that this is not how international law and the ICJ works ?

If the need arises the RoC can and will use every option available to protect its interests so if any country attempts to recognize the “TRNC” the RoC can immediately take them to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)…

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php? ... aaa571630a

…and would win hands down as there are COUNTLESS UN resolutions in the RoC’s favor. This would also serve as a deterrent to any other country contemplating anything similar.

It is NOT against international law for state X to recognise state Z. That X recognises Z does NOT in turn oblige state Y to recognise state Z. If state X did recognise state Z what on earth would be the international legal objection of state X to that recognition ? Equally on what basis would the ICJ have jurisdiction to consider such a case ? This is the equivalent of the objection that 'we don't like your choice of friends' - there may be strong moral grounds for objection but these do not constitute legal grounds for objecting and prohibiting your choice of friends.

And before you repeat the "but the Security Council said so" claim, be reminded that the SC is NOT a legislative nor judicial body. To condemn is one thing, which the SC has done numerous times (eg the Turkish occupation) but to legislate is something completely different. You, Get Real, have not understood the difference and the meaning and process of state recognition.


Let me add that non-recognition of TRNC is not because of the purported illegality of extending recognition (it is not, as I say, illegal to recognise TRNC or any other state. Recognition is a matter of internal and sovereign politics). Non-recognition of TRNC is the result of basic political and power reasons i.e, most states, even all states, with the exception of Turkey are not prepared to pay the political/diplomatic price for that recognition, and especially none is prepared to pay the price of being first-mover. That is why the latest 'deal' between UK and Turkey is so worrying for those opposed to TRNC recognition : what if the UK was the first mover, was prepared to pay the initial price, then to be sure other hitherto reluctant states would follow. It is vital for RoC to hold the line. To mix the metaphor, if the even the smallest crack appears in the dam then the danger is that all the waters will flood through.

[Nikitas]

Re this recognition thing,

I often think of a fantastic scenario whre the RoC unilaterally announces that it cedes 18 per cent of its territory to the TRNC and officially recognises the new state. It calls Mr Talat or whoever and congratulates him on his becoming the first president of the new nation. Such a recogntion would be the most valid and legally incontrovertible to be had anywhere. Then all other nations would be left holding the baby. They would recognise the new state and the territory ceded to it by the RoC, not the total territory held by the Turkish army.

Practically no investor would want to be anywhere in the disputed areas, everyone would want to buy in the officially designated part etc etc. And the south would be rid of the problem, the north would be faced with the age old quandary of those that wish something very badly: "now that you got it what are you going to do with it!"

They say that foxes caught in traps will often gnaw the limb that is caught so they can regain their freedom. Better three legged and free than four legged and dead, I guess.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas,
A very interesting speculation, legally and politically. And an apt analogue.

(The only bit - and its a big bit - that's problematic with the scenario is that recognising a portion of the geographical claim of another wannabe state is practically not possible. It's a bit like saying that "Helena is a bit pregnant" - she either is or she isn't, she can't be a 'bit pregnant'. That is why states frequently insist and repeat the idea of a "single indivisible and sovereign state" thereby disallowing slightly less sovereign zones or sectors. Although there are many examples of less-than-sovereign fields of law, I don't know of any examples where this extends to the partial ceding or exemption of territory (maybe Guantanamo ?). Even in cases of foreign military bases the terms of treaties usually say how the ceded (or leased) territory is to be dealt with, that is to say under which jurisdiction it will fall.

But I agree with your scenario in which investment would flow to the newly legitimate areas and, at least in the short term, evacuate the still-contested zone. However given your scenario, what incentive would there be for the TRNC to give up its de jure claim to the remaining 19% over which it still had de facto control ? And what incentive for Turkey to allow such a move ? I'm not saying that this might not be possible, I'm just curious as to what the impediments would be in this admittedly fantastical scenario.

[Nikitas]

Copperline

Interesting reply to my fantastic scenario.

The incentives would come from the responses of the international community. I am betting on the so called fair play instincts of the international community, which will be able to perceive the fairness of distributing territory on population percentages. Additionally there would be the factor of no more property disputes as the RoC will undertake to compensate its citizens who lost land in the ceded part, so there would be one less headache for the international community to deal with. The pressure then would be on Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots to accept the deal as fair as it fulfills more than their demands to date except for the territorial aspect which as stated is within the the fair play assumptions of others.

Overall I cannot see how Turkey can refuse such an offer- it goes with all the stated assertions of two peoples, two religions, two nationalities etc. Unless ofcourse Turkey does not want an independent TRNC and that is another problem.

[Get Real!]

Get Real,
How many times do we need to go over this ? How many times do you need to be told that this is not how international law and the ICJ works ?

If the need arises the RoC can and will use every option available to protect its interests so if any country attempts to recognize the “TRNC” the RoC can immediately take them to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)…

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php? ... aaa571630a

…and would win hands down as there are COUNTLESS UN resolutions in the RoC’s favor. This would also serve as a deterrent to any other country contemplating anything similar.

It is NOT against international law for state X to recognise state Z. That X recognises Z does NOT in turn oblige state Y to recognise state Z. If state X did recognise state Z what on earth would be the international legal objection of state X to that recognition ? Equally on what basis would the ICJ have jurisdiction to consider such a case ? This is the equivalent of the objection that 'we don't like your choice of friends' - there may be strong moral grounds for objection but these do not constitute legal grounds for objecting and prohibiting your choice of friends.

And before you repeat the "but the Security Council said so" claim, be reminded that the SC is NOT a legislative nor judicial body. To condemn is one thing, which the SC has done numerous times (eg the Turkish occupation) but to legislate is something completely different. You, Get Real, have not understood the difference and the meaning and process of state recognition.


Let me add that non-recognition of TRNC is not because of the purported illegality of extending recognition (it is not, as I say, illegal to recognise TRNC or any other state. Recognition is a matter of internal and sovereign politics). Non-recognition of TRNC is the result of basic political and power reasons i.e, most states, even all states, with the exception of Turkey are not prepared to pay the political/diplomatic price for that recognition, and especially none is prepared to pay the price of being first-mover. That is why the latest 'deal' between UK and Turkey is so worrying for those opposed to TRNC recognition : what if the UK was the first mover, was prepared to pay the initial price, then to be sure other hitherto reluctant states would follow. It is vital for RoC to hold the line. To mix the metaphor, if the even the smallest crack appears in the dam then the danger is that all the waters will flood through.

I simply did not bother to define the word “recognize” because I thought there wouldn’t be a need for it but seeing that you need it here goes…

To “recognize” another entity resembling a state means a whole heap of things including conducting direct flights there, your ships anchoring there, perhaps setting up an embassy/consulate there, establishing a formal import/export program, and many other things for which I’m sure you get the drift.

However, although a country may desire to “recognize” the “TRNC” the tricky part is IMPLEMENTING that recognition and as we recently saw Britain fell flat on her face in such an attempt because it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a “normal” relationship with an entity like the “TRNC” without BREAKING THE LAW be it Civil Aviation, Maritime, Trade related, etc… take your pick.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) link I posted…

http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php? ... aaa571630a

…clearly explains its role:

“The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies.”

If this institution cannot help the RoC find justice in international disputes if the need arises, as in the case of countries ATTEMPTING to recognize the “TRNC” in one or more ways explained above, I don’t know what will.

Regards, GR.

[CopperLine]

Get Real,

If this institution cannot help the RoC find justice in international disputes if the need arises, as in the case of countries ATTEMPTING to recognize the “TRNC” in one or more ways explained above, I don’t know what will.

Fair enough : I agree with you then, nothing will. The ICJ has no jurisdiction in this kind of case (the legal issue of recognition) and if, following your logic, one can't take this to the ICJ as the highest international court then there is indeed no where else to take it in law.

Let's just suppose for a moment that another state, say Syria (just so as not to give an EU example which complicates things much more), recognised TRNC. And let's suppose we're just dealing with the question of airline flights to/from TRNC. So long as Syria complied with international air traffic treaty law, air passenger law (all of which Syria is a contracting party), and other international conventions on air travel and aircraft control etc, then there is no barrier - that is, no illegality - to Syria establishing routes with TRNC. What Syria might fear is not that it finds itself on the wrong side of the law but that other states might/would impose a range of sanctions against Syria for the breach of a UN SC policy. The continued non-recognition or non-engagement with TRNC has relied upon the credibility and comprehensiveness of the threat of sanctions against would-be recognisers, and not upon its purported illegality.

A indirect comparison could be the US-Cuba relationship. It is illegal, according to US domestic/federal law, for US citizens and companies to trade or engage in other commerce with Cuba. In principle non-US entities operating in or from the US who trade with Cuba are subject to sanctions. imposed by US courts. That being the case why is it that UK businesses operating in and from the US still engage with Cuba eg Virgin Atlantic ? Basically whilst the Cuba trade is illegal in the US but not outside, these non-US entities don't think that the US legal threat is credible and is certainly not comprehensive.