Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

GR's solution to the Cyprus Problem

The solution to the Cyprus Problem was AGREED UPON a very long time ago by the international community in the form of UN resolution 353 and if there's anybody out there who thinks that 353 is some old, irrelevant, and void document had better THINK AGAIN because if we're not going to respect this plan drawn up by the world's highest international authority then why should anyone respect anything else that comes along such as the AP because I for one do not!

If Turkey and the TC community can violate this plan and get away with it then how can they turn around in the future and complain if the RoC were to violate and/or ignore any other plan that comes along?

So at which point do we start abiding by international law? When the plan is finally in the interests of the invader?

I DON'T THINK SO!


Ladies & Gentlemen, I now present you with the REAL solution to the Cyprus Problem still waiting to be implemented 33 years on!

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

Regards, GR.

The International agreements you mention in Para (4), do these include the London and Zurich Agreements?

If so, thats a non-starter as these have been nul-and-void since 1963, when you are very well informed of what happened.

Back to the drawing board GR.

Use your head this time, and I dont mean 'banging it on the keyboard'.


Regards

[DT.]

GR's solution to the Cyprus Problem

The solution to the Cyprus Problem was AGREED UPON a very long time ago by the international community in the form of UN resolution 353 and if there's anybody out there who thinks that 353 is some old, irrelevant, and void document had better THINK AGAIN because if we're not going to respect this plan drawn up by the world's highest international authority then why should anyone respect anything else that comes along such as the AP because I for one do not!

If Turkey and the TC community can violate this plan and get away with it then how can they turn around in the future and complain if the RoC were to violate and/or ignore any other plan that comes along?

So at which point do we start abiding by international law? When the plan is finally in the interests of the invader?

I DON'T THINK SO!


Ladies & Gentlemen, I now present you with the REAL solution to the Cyprus Problem still waiting to be implemented 33 years on!

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

Regards, GR.

The International agreements you mention in Para (4), do these include the London and Zurich Agreements?

If so, thats a non-starter as these have been nul-and-void since 1963, when you are very well informed of what happened.

Back to the drawing board GR.

Use your head this time, and I dont mean 'banging it on the keyboard'.


Regards

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

[denizaksulu]

GR's solution to the Cyprus Problem

The solution to the Cyprus Problem was AGREED UPON a very long time ago by the international community in the form of UN resolution 353 and if there's anybody out there who thinks that 353 is some old, irrelevant, and void document had better THINK AGAIN because if we're not going to respect this plan drawn up by the world's highest international authority then why should anyone respect anything else that comes along such as the AP because I for one do not!

If Turkey and the TC community can violate this plan and get away with it then how can they turn around in the future and complain if the RoC were to violate and/or ignore any other plan that comes along?

So at which point do we start abiding by international law? When the plan is finally in the interests of the invader?

I DON'T THINK SO!


Ladies & Gentlemen, I now present you with the REAL solution to the Cyprus Problem still waiting to be implemented 33 years on!

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

Regards, GR.

The International agreements you mention in Para (4), do these include the London and Zurich Agreements?

If so, thats a non-starter as these have been nul-and-void since 1963, when you are very well informed of what happened.

Back to the drawing board GR.

Use your head this time, and I dont mean 'banging it on the keyboard'.


Regards

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

I, ofcourse was referring to the attempted amendments to the Constitution. But of course you know that. It was so engineered so as to make the TCs the 'rebellious' lot. Just like TCs policy now.

[Bananiot]

DT, are you saying that we should be aiming at a return to the 1960 agreements? Nikitas, I mean real big chunks, that is a fact.

[Nikitas]

Bananiot,

You got me looking at the maps annexed to the plan. I will post them later on tonight. I am not disputing your opinion, it is just that the maps do not show it, they show the bases fixed as they are today.

[zan]

GR's solution to the Cyprus Problem

The solution to the Cyprus Problem was AGREED UPON a very long time ago by the international community in the form of UN resolution 353 and if there's anybody out there who thinks that 353 is some old, irrelevant, and void document had better THINK AGAIN because if we're not going to respect this plan drawn up by the world's highest international authority then why should anyone respect anything else that comes along such as the AP because I for one do not!

If Turkey and the TC community can violate this plan and get away with it then how can they turn around in the future and complain if the RoC were to violate and/or ignore any other plan that comes along?

So at which point do we start abiding by international law? When the plan is finally in the interests of the invader?

I DON'T THINK SO!


Ladies & Gentlemen, I now present you with the REAL solution to the Cyprus Problem still waiting to be implemented 33 years on!

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

http://www.un.int/cyprus/scr353.htm

Regards, GR.

The International agreements you mention in Para (4), do these include the London and Zurich Agreements?

If so, thats a non-starter as these have been nul-and-void since 1963, when you are very well informed of what happened.

Back to the drawing board GR.

Use your head this time, and I dont mean 'banging it on the keyboard'.


Regards

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

Written evidence submitted by Dr Claire Palley, former UK Representative to the UN Sub-Commission

The Republic of Cyprus has a right to claim self-determination in relation to the residual Crown Colony territory still in Cyprus[45] The Treaty of Establishment 1960 is not determinative of this issue. It was one of a basket of three linked Treaties (the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Establishment—to both of which the UK, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus were parties—and the Treaty of Alliance—to which the UK was not party). The Government of the Republic disputed the validity of the Treaties in February 1964 at the Security Council on several legal bases, including the Treaty of Guarantee's conflict with a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the rule against the use of force, and all these Treaties on the basis of unequal status and duress attending their execution. This Cyprus view was rejected by Sir Patrick Dean at the Security Council on behalf of the UK[46]
Even if arguments that the Treaties were void are not upheld, especially since there has been practice of Cyprus co-operating with HMG in applying the Treaty of Establishment for 44 years, the events of 1974 when first Greece and then Turkey militarily intervened in Cyprus, Turkey's continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus and the UK's continuing failure to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution (as the UK undertook to do under Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee) entitle the Republic of Cyprus to terminate the Treaty



http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we21.htm

[Get Real!]

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

Written evidence submitted by Dr Claire Palley, former UK Representative to the UN Sub-Commission

The Republic of Cyprus has a right to claim self-determination in relation to the residual Crown Colony territory still in Cyprus[45] The Treaty of Establishment 1960 is not determinative of this issue. It was one of a basket of three linked Treaties (the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Establishment—to both of which the UK, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus were parties—and the Treaty of Alliance—to which the UK was not party). The Government of the Republic disputed the validity of the Treaties in February 1964 at the Security Council on several legal bases, including the Treaty of Guarantee's conflict with a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the rule against the use of force, and all these Treaties on the basis of unequal status and duress attending their execution. This Cyprus view was rejected by Sir Patrick Dean at the Security Council on behalf of the UK[46]
Even if arguments that the Treaties were void are not upheld, especially since there has been practice of Cyprus co-operating with HMG in applying the Treaty of Establishment for 44 years, the events of 1974 when first Greece and then Turkey militarily intervened in Cyprus, Turkey's continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus and the UK's continuing failure to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution (as the UK undertook to do under Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee) entitle the Republic of Cyprus to terminate the Treaty

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we21.htm

Excellent! Now post the evidence please that the Republic of Cyprus has officially terminated any part of the Treaties.

[zan]

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

Written evidence submitted by Dr Claire Palley, former UK Representative to the UN Sub-Commission

The Republic of Cyprus has a right to claim self-determination in relation to the residual Crown Colony territory still in Cyprus[45] The Treaty of Establishment 1960 is not determinative of this issue. It was one of a basket of three linked Treaties (the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Establishment—to both of which the UK, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus were parties—and the Treaty of Alliance—to which the UK was not party). The Government of the Republic disputed the validity of the Treaties in February 1964 at the Security Council on several legal bases, including the Treaty of Guarantee's conflict with a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the rule against the use of force, and all these Treaties on the basis of unequal status and duress attending their execution. This Cyprus view was rejected by Sir Patrick Dean at the Security Council on behalf of the UK[46]
Even if arguments that the Treaties were void are not upheld, especially since there has been practice of Cyprus co-operating with HMG in applying the Treaty of Establishment for 44 years, the events of 1974 when first Greece and then Turkey militarily intervened in Cyprus, Turkey's continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus and the UK's continuing failure to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution (as the UK undertook to do under Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee) entitle the Republic of Cyprus to terminate the Treaty

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we21.htm

Excellent! Now post the evidence please that the Republic of Cyprus has officially terminated any part of the Treaties.

Then please tell me if you are honouring it why you have changed the constitution without the other legal partner being there...Should you not be in limbo as well as us....You don't half talk rubbish GR...

[Get Real!]

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

Written evidence submitted by Dr Claire Palley, former UK Representative to the UN Sub-Commission

The Republic of Cyprus has a right to claim self-determination in relation to the residual Crown Colony territory still in Cyprus[45] The Treaty of Establishment 1960 is not determinative of this issue. It was one of a basket of three linked Treaties (the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Establishment—to both of which the UK, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus were parties—and the Treaty of Alliance—to which the UK was not party). The Government of the Republic disputed the validity of the Treaties in February 1964 at the Security Council on several legal bases, including the Treaty of Guarantee's conflict with a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the rule against the use of force, and all these Treaties on the basis of unequal status and duress attending their execution. This Cyprus view was rejected by Sir Patrick Dean at the Security Council on behalf of the UK[46]
Even if arguments that the Treaties were void are not upheld, especially since there has been practice of Cyprus co-operating with HMG in applying the Treaty of Establishment for 44 years, the events of 1974 when first Greece and then Turkey militarily intervened in Cyprus, Turkey's continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus and the UK's continuing failure to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution (as the UK undertook to do under Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee) entitle the Republic of Cyprus to terminate the Treaty
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we21.htm

Excellent! Now post the evidence please that the Republic of Cyprus has officially terminated any part of the Treaties.

Then please tell me if you are honouring it why you have changed the constitution without the other legal partner being there...Should you not be in limbo as well as us....You don't half talk rubbish GR...

You won't find any evidence of the RoC terminating anything Zan so don't waste your time.

As for the RoC changing the constitution, you need to read up on partnership law to find out what happens when one of the partners abandons the partnership. Does the partnership come to a complete standstill? I don't think so.

The big problem you’re going to have to swallow Zan is that the TC community screwed up big time by abandoning the agreements without first attempting to terminate them. This TC abandoning theme continued right up to Denktash’s own when there were talks about Cyprus’ entry into the EU and once again he walked out and you were left out in the cold. Your community had done it 3-4 times where it mattered most and it has cost you dearly.

[zan]

just because one party withdrew from govt does not make them null and void. They would be null and void if the international community did not recognise the ROC as the only legitimate govt on the island. They are only null and void as far as you are concerned.

Written evidence submitted by Dr Claire Palley, former UK Representative to the UN Sub-Commission

The Republic of Cyprus has a right to claim self-determination in relation to the residual Crown Colony territory still in Cyprus[45] The Treaty of Establishment 1960 is not determinative of this issue. It was one of a basket of three linked Treaties (the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Establishment—to both of which the UK, Turkey, Greece and Cyprus were parties—and the Treaty of Alliance—to which the UK was not party). The Government of the Republic disputed the validity of the Treaties in February 1964 at the Security Council on several legal bases, including the Treaty of Guarantee's conflict with a peremptory norm of international law, namely, the rule against the use of force, and all these Treaties on the basis of unequal status and duress attending their execution. This Cyprus view was rejected by Sir Patrick Dean at the Security Council on behalf of the UK[46]
Even if arguments that the Treaties were void are not upheld, especially since there has been practice of Cyprus co-operating with HMG in applying the Treaty of Establishment for 44 years, the events of 1974 when first Greece and then Turkey militarily intervened in Cyprus, Turkey's continuing military occupation of part of Cyprus and the UK's continuing failure to guarantee the territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution (as the UK undertook to do under Article II of the Treaty of Guarantee) entitle the Republic of Cyprus to terminate the Treaty
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 13we21.htm

Excellent! Now post the evidence please that the Republic of Cyprus has officially terminated any part of the Treaties.

Then please tell me if you are honouring it why you have changed the constitution without the other legal partner being there...Should you not be in limbo as well as us....You don't half talk rubbish GR...

You won't find any evidence of the RoC terminating anything Zan so don't waste your time.

As for the RoC changing the constitution, you need to read up on partnership law to find out what happens when one of the partners abandons the partnership. Does the partnership come to a complete standstill? I don't think so.

The big problem you’re going to have to swallow Zan is that the TC community screwed up big time by abandoning the agreements without first attempting to terminate them. This TC abandoning theme continued right up to Denktash’s own when there were talks about Cyprus’ entry into the EU and once again he walked out and you were left out in the cold. Your community had done it 3-4 times where it mattered most and it has cost you dearly.

Oh I have no doubt that we made a mistake but we did not walk out but were forced out by the gun......You were very clever and I will be the first to congratulate you but payback is a bitch...The Cyprus problem will not be solved by your crooked leader manipulating the law but by humanitarian rights and the will of the right thinking people of this world. Lifting the isolation and Embargoes will come first and if you do not see sense it will be a Taiwan on your doorstep. The choice is yours.....[/code]