Cyprus-Forum.com

[Eric dayi]

Firstly, the only thing that came out of the U.N. with a number 186 in its title about Cyprus in 1964 was Resolution 186, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 4 March 1964. This resolution was abopted unanimously by the 11 members of the council (5 of whom were permanent):

1) Bolivia 2) Brazil 3) China — Permanent Member 4) Czechoslovakia 5)France — Permanent Member 6) Ivory Coast 7) Morocco 8 ) Norway 9) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — Permanent Member 10) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Permanent Member 11) United States of America — Permanent Member

Turkey was NOT a member. So, contrary to your accusation above, not only did the Turkish government NOT sign this resolution, in fact, it COULD NOT sign it because she was not a member.

Secondly, in that Resolution, reference was made to the ‘Government of Cyprus’ against the protestations of the Turkish side. That government had become non-existent because of the GC side’s destruction of the 1960 Constitution and its armed onslaught on the TCs. However, this mattered very little to the West, which was more interested in maintaining stability in the Cold War era, than protecting TC rights and the rule of law. The UN was used merely as an instrument to get international approval for this policy. It should also be noted that what was then regarded as stability in the short term, proved to be instability in the mid- and long-term.

Thank you for that information,Murataga...
I am happy to concede that my information might have been wrong...
I read it in Afrika's online edition some time ago. From memory the journalist's name was Ulker Fahri...

Since you didn't contest it,I take it that the rest of the information (About Turkey's agreements in 1995,99,and 2003 for Cyprus to join the EU) was correct...I took it from the same article...Do you have comments on Turkey's motivations regarding those agreements????

oooops, hang on, let me have another read........yes, I did read it right...you said you read in "Africa online edition"....that explains everything.

[BirKibrisli]

Firstly, the only thing that came out of the U.N. with a number 186 in its title about Cyprus in 1964 was Resolution 186, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 4 March 1964. This resolution was abopted unanimously by the 11 members of the council (5 of whom were permanent):

1) Bolivia 2) Brazil 3) China — Permanent Member 4) Czechoslovakia 5)France — Permanent Member 6) Ivory Coast 7) Morocco 8 ) Norway 9) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — Permanent Member 10) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Permanent Member 11) United States of America — Permanent Member

Turkey was NOT a member. So, contrary to your accusation above, not only did the Turkish government NOT sign this resolution, in fact, it COULD NOT sign it because she was not a member.

Secondly, in that Resolution, reference was made to the ‘Government of Cyprus’ against the protestations of the Turkish side. That government had become non-existent because of the GC side’s destruction of the 1960 Constitution and its armed onslaught on the TCs. However, this mattered very little to the West, which was more interested in maintaining stability in the Cold War era, than protecting TC rights and the rule of law. The UN was used merely as an instrument to get international approval for this policy. It should also be noted that what was then regarded as stability in the short term, proved to be instability in the mid- and long-term.

Thank you for that information,Murataga...
I am happy to concede that my information might have been wrong...
I read it in Afrika's online edition some time ago. From memory the journalist's name was Ulker Fahri...

Since you didn't contest it,I take it that the rest of the information (About Turkey's agreements in 1995,99,and 2003 for Cyprus to join the EU) was correct...I took it from the same article...Do you have comments on Turkey's motivations regarding those agreements????

oooops, hang on, let me have another read........yes, I did read it right...you said you read in "Africa online edition"....that explains everything.

You can't just dismiss Afrika like that,Eric...
They are doing a fine job providing the only opposition to what is going on in the trnc...I might need to double check some of the information they give out though..

[Murataga]

Firstly, the only thing that came out of the U.N. with a number 186 in its title about Cyprus in 1964 was Resolution 186, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 4 March 1964. This resolution was abopted unanimously by the 11 members of the council (5 of whom were permanent):

1) Bolivia 2) Brazil 3) China — Permanent Member 4) Czechoslovakia 5)France — Permanent Member 6) Ivory Coast 7) Morocco 8 ) Norway 9) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — Permanent Member 10) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Permanent Member 11) United States of America — Permanent Member

Turkey was NOT a member. So, contrary to your accusation above, not only did the Turkish government NOT sign this resolution, in fact, it COULD NOT sign it because she was not a member.

Secondly, in that Resolution, reference was made to the ‘Government of Cyprus’ against the protestations of the Turkish side. That government had become non-existent because of the GC side’s destruction of the 1960 Constitution and its armed onslaught on the TCs. However, this mattered very little to the West, which was more interested in maintaining stability in the Cold War era, than protecting TC rights and the rule of law. The UN was used merely as an instrument to get international approval for this policy. It should also be noted that what was then regarded as stability in the short term, proved to be instability in the mid- and long-term.

Thank you for that information,Murataga...
I am happy to concede that my information might have been wrong...
I read it in Afrika's online edition some time ago. From memory the journalist's name was Ulker Fahri...

Since you didn't contest it,I take it that the rest of the information (About Turkey's agreements in 1995,99,and 2003 for Cyprus to join the EU) was correct...I took it from the same article...Do you have comments on Turkey's motivations regarding those agreements????

You are welcome. And thank you, for it takes a brave man to admit he is wrong. I am quite certain that I had warned you earlier not to swallow everything you read from everyone - especially when it comes to politically premeditated writers.

I am afraid the rest of the information you provided, as with the one that I contested, is either incorrect or misrepresented as well. I did not contest them because I do not have the time to prepare documentation as above for each accusation since the week has started and I have to attend business. I am going to kindly ask that you further investigate the issue and reassert your stance on this matter.

[zan]

Firstly, the only thing that came out of the U.N. with a number 186 in its title about Cyprus in 1964 was Resolution 186, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 4 March 1964. This resolution was abopted unanimously by the 11 members of the council (5 of whom were permanent):

1) Bolivia 2) Brazil 3) China — Permanent Member 4) Czechoslovakia 5)France — Permanent Member 6) Ivory Coast 7) Morocco 8 ) Norway 9) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics — Permanent Member 10) United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland — Permanent Member 11) United States of America — Permanent Member

Turkey was NOT a member. So, contrary to your accusation above, not only did the Turkish government NOT sign this resolution, in fact, it COULD NOT sign it because she was not a member.

Secondly, in that Resolution, reference was made to the ‘Government of Cyprus’ against the protestations of the Turkish side. That government had become non-existent because of the GC side’s destruction of the 1960 Constitution and its armed onslaught on the TCs. However, this mattered very little to the West, which was more interested in maintaining stability in the Cold War era, than protecting TC rights and the rule of law. The UN was used merely as an instrument to get international approval for this policy. It should also be noted that what was then regarded as stability in the short term, proved to be instability in the mid- and long-term.

Thank you for that information,Murataga...
I am happy to concede that my information might have been wrong...
I read it in Afrika's online edition some time ago. From memory the journalist's name was Ulker Fahri...

Since you didn't contest it,I take it that the rest of the information (About Turkey's agreements in 1995,99,and 2003 for Cyprus to join the EU) was correct...I took it from the same article...Do you have comments on Turkey's motivations regarding those agreements????

oooops, hang on, let me have another read........yes, I did read it right...you said you read in "Africa online edition"....that explains everything.

You can't just dismiss Afrika like that,Eric...
They are doing a fine job providing the only opposition to what is going on in the trnc...I might need to double check some of the information they give out though..

A couple of them where at the meeting we had with a couple of MPs...They scoffed at everything that was said positively about the TRNC...I think they are way too one sided.