Cyprus-Forum.com

[gabaston]

jimmy thank you 2

[Kifeas]

your welcome gabaston. but for what?

magic, you said earlier that you know 4 reasons for which the RoC violates the treaty of guarantee. You must tell us the reasons. I think this is what Gabaston is asking.

[gabaston]

No Kifaes.

Im asking him to name them, weve been over them a million times.
Please read artcle 1 again from an independant viewpoint and you may see them too.

[gabaston]

sorry

i mean Kifeas

[Kifeas]

No Kifaes.

Im asking him to name them, weve been over them a million times.
Please read artcle 1 again from an independant viewpoint and you may see them too.

Tell us then, how do you analyse and explain article 1?
Is the European Union (E.U.) a state?
If according to you the E.U. is a State, then yes, the RoC violates the treaty.

What elese is in there that I do not see and you can only see?

[gabaston]

sorry kifeas

i mis wrote that it should have read

"im not asking him to name them".

magic says he sees them, and i take him at his word.
that is why i thanked him.

[magikthrill]

Article I
The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution.
It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.

1) GCs did not ensure the maintenance of the Republic's security
2) GCs did not ensure the respect of its Constitution


I am not sure if I can classify maintenance of independence since the blame on this is to be put on the Greek invasion/coup and certain GCs. I think many on this forum have agreed that in 1974 many Republic officials did NOT want union with Greece.

If this is considered a violation though then so is the GCs inability to ensure territorial integrity with the Turkish invasion.

In both cases, the RoC was incompetent but I don't think it can be classified as a violation of the treaty.

Also, let's not forget that the Treaty of Guarantee states "The Republic of Cyprus" and does not classify GCs between TCs. Therefore, both communities have violated this treaty.

[Alexandros Lordos]

The interesting one that happened after is

6) undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever………………………………………………..Eu???????????????

Gabaston,

I think the spirit underlying the treaty of guarantee was that, on the one hand, the GCs and Greece would be forbidden to promote Union of Cyprus with Greece, while the TCs and Turkey would be forbidden to partition the island. To convey this message, the appropriate legal language was used.

Ofcourse, the treaty of guarantee was violated by the governments of both Greece and Turkey in 1974, when the first tried to force union with Greece and the second enforced partition - and the irony of it is that both violator-guarantors used for their purposes the ... military contingents prescribed by the 1960 Treaty of Alliance!

You see, the Treaty of Guarantee did not say that "Turkey has the right to protect the TC community, even if this means separating them from the GCs. No! The Treaty obliges Turkey to safeguard the constitution and integrity of Cyprus, it mentions nothing of "keeping the TCs out of harm's way".

If Turkey really wanted to uphold the treaty, then after invading in 1974 she would have: A) imposed temporary martial law all over Cyprus, B) brought extremist GCs and TCs to justice, C) invited Greece and the UK to also assist in re-establishing order, D) set up an interim government, E) held free elections for all public offices as per the 1960 constitution, and finally F) she would have withdrawn her troops to the levels agreed by the 1960 Treaty of Alliance.

Of course, Turkey no longer cared about upholding the 1960 agreements, and neither did Greece, and neither did Britain, and neither did the GCs and TCs for that matter ... everyone had moved on, into their dreams and plans for enosis or partition. In fact, the Turkish Generals and the Greek Generals had made a verbal agreement, that Turkey would invade after the 15th July coup and take over 20% of Cyprus, which would become part of Turkey, while the other 80% would become part of Greece. Like all verbal agreements, it was "violated" by Turkey, which took "a little bit more" than agreed ...

All this brings us to a very interesting question: Is a Treaty still valid after it has been blatantly violated by all its signatories?

I repeat, the Treaty of Guarantee mentions nothing about Turkey protecting the TC community from GC aggression, at least not in the way it has been practiced since 1974. All that the treaty asks is that Turkey should uphold the 1960 constitution and the integrity of Cyprus. Everything that has been happening since 1974, may be a reflection of Turkey's desire to protect the TCs, but it has nothing to do with the Treaty of Guarantee whatsoever, which Treaty has been a dead letter at least since 1974.

P.S. By the way, I also agree with Kifeas' interpretation that EU accession was not covered by the Treaty of Guarantee prohibition. Presumably, the legal service of the EU - and of its member states - also agreed with Kifeas' interpretation, otherwise the RoC would not have been admitted.

[Main_Source]

I find it funny that Turkey, who are major violators of the treaty of guarantee, should look to sue Cyprus...as if they think the treaty of guarantee should still be valid.

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...