Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

What I mean is that by destroying a state for which you have a treaty to guarantee its constitutional order and its sovereignty and by ceasing to recognise this state any longer, you simultaneously destroy the treaty that gave you the right to intervene. As a consequence, the results of your action renter your action illegal. How can Turkey claim any more that its presence in Cyprus is legal if she doesn't recognise the state with and for which it signed the treaty that gave her the right to intervene. Something doesn't sound so logical in Turkeys’ argument.

[erolz]

What I mean is that by destroying a state for which you have a treaty to guarantee its constitutional order and its sovereignty and by ceasing to recognise this state any longer, you simultaneously destroy the treaty that gave you the right to intervene. As a consequence, the results of your action renter your action illegal. How can Turkey claim any more that its presence in Cyprus is legal if she doesn't recognise the state with for it signed the treaty that gave her the right to intervene. Something doesn't sound so logical in Turkeys’ argument.

There are many illogicalites in Cyprus from all sides.

I guess Turkey's position is that from 63 the RoC ceased to exist as an legal entity (with much logic to support such a claim imo). They would claim that the action in 74 was intended to restore the legal RoC and their continued presence is part of the same objective (harder to support imo).

[boulio]

when did turkey officially stop recognizing the roc?

[Kifeas]

There are many illogicalites in Cyprus from all sides.

I guess Turkey's position is that from 63 the RoC ceased to exist as an legal entity (with much logic to support such a claim imo). They would claim that the action in 74 was intended to restore the legal RoC and their continued presence is part of the same objective (harder to support imo).

I agree erolz, there many illogicalities in this country.
However GCs argue that there were discussions between the two communities, until just before the coup and Turkeys intervention, in order to solve the abnormalities created since 1963. After all, the 1974 coup was not carried by Greek Cypriots but in effect it was carried out by Greek Junta, against the majority of GCs and their elected president. A lot of GCs fought hard against the Greek officers who committed the coup and against their own children (National guard) who were under the orders of these officers, in order to prevent the coup to succeed. In a nutshell, Turkey in 1974 missed the opportunity to win the hearts of GCs and gain their co-operation.

[Kifeas]

Then how are you going to assure me that those rights would be given if Turkey leaves tomorrow, adn we as a whole decide to turn back to RoC. The whole experiment was designed to give TCs that assurance.

You see it is a catch 22. You say “we are not giving you those rights because you are not turning back to RoC and actively supporting partition and supporting the existence of Turkey” And I am saying that “We will not turn back to RoC until our rights are given. Because we do not trust you guys that you will give those righst back to us if Turkey leaves.”

So how do you propose we get rid of this dilemma?

Under such an eventuality, i.e. Turkey all of suddenly ending the occupation and people are free to return to their properties, then GCs will have no choice, particularly now that Cyprus is an E.U. member, to refuse to abide by and enforce the constitution of RoCy. Even if they (GCs) refuse, its takes only one TC to apply to the European Communities court, before it happens.

[garbitsch]

In a nutshell, Turkey in 1974 missed the opportunity to win the hearts of GCs and gain their co-operation.

It still bothers me whether the return of Makarios was a restoration of democracy in Cyprus or not. He was the one who wanted to take back the rights of the Turkish Cypriots and realise enosis in the long run. I might be misinformed, yet that's what I was taught... If Turkey had installed a transitional government and held new general elections, the democracy would have come in such way. In this sense, Turkey was wrong by dividing the island.

[insan]

However, under the treaty of guaranty, Turkey had an obligation to restore the constitutional order and not to commit ethnic cleansing of half of Cyprus, confiscate the properties of 200,000 GCs and uproot 50,000 TCs from the south and bring them to the north in the place of GCs. This is not restoring the constitutional order, as it was Turkey’s only obligation and duty.

Turkey tried every way to restore the constitutional order throughout 11 years from 1963-1974. It is also true that Turkey and TCs retaliated with same methods against every wrong, terrorist, oppressive action of GC-Greek duo.

After the eleven years lasted oppressions, terrorist actions, massacres, atrocities, bloodshed, thousands of deads; was it possible to restore constitutional order as a mixed unitary state? Do you know that even after the intervention of 1974 no one dared to touch any of the EOKA-B members and until early 1978 they kept threatining Makarios? Do you know that Makarios was obliged to forgive all of them in order to save himself from their threats?

This is committing a crime much bigger than what she came here to hypothetically prevent. By doing this, Turkey destroyed the RoCy with all the treaties that formulated it, together with very the very same treaty that gave it the right to intervene in the first place. Turkey’s action became automatically illegal because of the very results and consequences that it created.

turkey's action became a defacto situation after the ratification of 3rd Viena agreement. In this defacto situation all relevant parties agreed upon to restore the constitutional order by establishing a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. In 1977 Denktash and Makarios discussed the basic principles of bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. they discussed the territorial adjustment, land ownership and return of certain amount of GC refugees. In those years no one expected that resolving the Cyprus problem and establishing a bi-zonal, bi-communal federation would last more than 30 years. Unfortuanately nothing has changed from 1977 untill the present time.

It is said that GC leadership has never sincerely exert effort for a bi-communal, bi-zonal federation. they have never changed their political stance about "majority rule". They have never wished to embrace their TC brothers as an "politically equal" state partner.


Yes, my friend Kifeas. Recognized "RoC" and unrecognized "TRNC" are the fruits of 30 years of waste of time for establishing the so-called bi-communal, bi-zonal federation based on "political equality" of two major brother communities. TC community has been awaited just for nothing.

Ps: How old are you, Kifeas?


Hi compatriot Kifeas.

[Alexandros Lordos]

If Turkey had installed a transitional government and held new general elections, the democracy would have come in such way. In this sense, Turkey was wrong by dividing the island.

Yes! That's exactly what Turkey was supposed to do as a guarantor power - and the fact that it didn't do is the main reason why Greek Cypriots will never again accept having Turkey as the guarantor of Cyprus' constitutional order.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[garbitsch]

If Turkey had installed a transitional government and held new general elections, the democracy would have come in such way. In this sense, Turkey was wrong by dividing the island.

Yes! That's exactly what Turkey was supposed to do as a guarantor power - and the fact that it didn't do is the main reason why Greek Cypriots will never again accept having Turkey as the guarantor of Cyprus' constitutional order.

But Greece as a guarantor state of Cyprus had toppled down the President of Cyprus and aimed at annexing the island. Don't you think Greece deserves a bit of blame?