Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

Deniz, you probably have to read the entire post, including No. 5!

Thanks for the reminder. When I read Ossetia and Kossovo I stopped. My apologies.

Though, you say sporadic and mainly ended in 1967, the threat of violence had always been present and the sporadic incidents (by then even more sporadic) were still ytaking place with the slogans of Enosis still abounding. We were always small in number and always felt threatened. Even you will understand that.

[Tim Drayton]

There are also some striking parallels.

An empire collapses under the weight of its own economic inefficiency. The former European territory of this empire, previously the centre of the most effective opposition to its rule, definitively breaks away and turns its eyes toward the West. The ruling elite of the former empire renounces the discredited old order and attempts to create a modern nation state in the remaining core territories. The aim is to create a Western-style pluralistic democracy; however, events show that a rocky road lies ahead before this ideal can be realised. The people display a preference for strong rule by one man whom they can idolise. Various power groups are able to consolidate their positions using extrajudicial means.
The former European territories of the old empire are given up as lost. The new state, nevertheless, is strong enough to exert regional influence, and it remains unclear whether all irredentist ambitions have been buried, especially in respect of territory once controlled by the empire. One such piece of territory, very much in its infancy as an internationally recognised independent state, flexes its muscles a little too much for the liking of its larger neighbour and the latter takes military action. Goliath easily defeats David and proceeds in de facto terms to annex a portion of the territory of this newly independent country. It justifies its actions with recourse to a separate right of self-determination for an ethnic group/groups living in that territory whose rights it claims it has a duty to protect – even though it appears that international law does not recognise the use of external military interference in order to secure the right of self-determination of another people. Since there is a cast-iron principle under international law to respect the territorial integrity of existing nation states – for some reason this did not apply to Yugoslavia – this de-facto annexation of territory receives no international recognition. The result is stalemate.

Do the above paragraphs describe Turkey and Cyprus, or Russia and Georgia?

[halil]

There are also some striking parallels.

An empire collapses under the weight of its own economic inefficiency. The former European territory of this empire, previously the centre of the most effective opposition to its rule, definitively breaks away and turns its eyes toward the West. The ruling elite of the former empire renounces the discredited old order and attempts to create a modern nation state in the remaining core territories. The aim is to create a Western-style pluralistic democracy; however, events show that a rocky road lies ahead before this ideal can be realised. The people display a preference for strong rule by one man whom they can idolise. Various power groups are able to consolidate their positions using extrajudicial means.
The former European territories of the old empire are given up as lost. The new state, nevertheless, is strong enough to exert regional influence, and it remains unclear whether all irredentist ambitions have been buried, especially in respect of territory once controlled by the empire. One such piece of territory, very much in its infancy as an internationally recognised independent state, flexes its muscles a little too much for the liking of its larger neighbour and the latter takes military action. Goliath easily defeats David and proceeds in de facto terms to annex a portion of the territory of this newly independent country. It justifies its actions with recourse to a separate right of self-determination for an ethnic group/groups living in that territory whose rights it claims it has a duty to protect – even though it appears that international law does not recognise the use of external military interference in order to secure the right of self-determination of another people. Since there is a cast-iron principle under international law to respect the territorial integrity of existing nation states – for some reason this did not apply to Yugoslavia – this de-facto annexation of territory receives no international recognition. The result is stalemate.
Do the above paragraphs describe Turkey and Cyprus, or Russia and Georgia?

[Kifeas]

Deniz, you probably have to read the entire post, including No. 5!

Thanks for the reminder. When I read Ossetia and Kossovo I stopped. My apologies.

Though, you say sporadic and mainly ended in 1967, the threat of violence had always been present and the sporadic incidents (by then even more sporadic) were still ytaking place with the slogans of Enosis still abounding. We were always small in number and always felt threatened. Even you will understand that.

Deniz, I agree with you, however, the same can be said about the GCs! We also were constantly under the threat of a (pre-planned since before the 1960's) Turkish invasion and partition. We also felt under a constant threat of a Turkish invasion, every time an excuse would be "offered," or a few bullets were shot in Cyprus, no matter from were they came, who were the perpetrators and how many were killed or wounded. Turkey attempted 3 times to invade Cyprus, since 1963, only to be stopped by outside forces with the justification that regardless of the perpetrators, (which in most cases were both GCs and TCs at the same time,) the magnitude of the conflict did not merit such a response. Turkey was always ready and waiting after an excuse, and there were TCs who were more than willing to offer it, not to say that there weren't GCs that were acting provocatively. It is true that the GC side was trying to maintain a condition of siege against the TCs, from 1963/4 and up until 1967/8, and a picture of a treat to their lives, but this only because it (the GC community) was also living under a similar permanent fear from Turkey, and tried to use the TCs as a kind of hostages for our own security. It was like we were telling Turkey that "we know what you plan and what you are prepared to do, but look, if you try to do so, we also hold the TCs under siege and we may also cause harm to them as a pre-emptive step or measure." It was like a chicken and an egg story or a situation, nevertheless, apart from verbal symbolic acts of intimidation against the TCs, and -with the excemption of non-formally adopted acts by some fanatics, there is absolutely no evidence that a genuine intent or an organised and formally adopted plan existed for the so-called annihilation of the TC community. The claim by the Turkish side that the so-called Akritas plan was evidence to the opposite, is just plain ridiculous to all those that got into the trouble of ever reading it. Unlike the above, Turkey indeed had plans for an invasion to Cyprus, and since the early sixties they were even exercising their troops back in Turkey on this very scenario, a fact that was well known to the GCs, hence the secret importation of some 10,000 troops from Greece in late 1964 -even though they left in late 1967.

[Kifeas]

There are also some striking parallels.

An empire collapses under the weight of its own economic inefficiency. The former European territory of this empire, previously the centre of the most effective opposition to its rule, definitively breaks away and turns its eyes toward the West. The ruling elite of the former empire renounces the discredited old order and attempts to create a modern nation state in the remaining core territories. The aim is to create a Western-style pluralistic democracy; however, events show that a rocky road lies ahead before this ideal can be realised. The people display a preference for strong rule by one man whom they can idolise. Various power groups are able to consolidate their positions using extrajudicial means.
The former European territories of the old empire are given up as lost. The new state, nevertheless, is strong enough to exert regional influence, and it remains unclear whether all irredentist ambitions have been buried, especially in respect of territory once controlled by the empire. One such piece of territory, very much in its infancy as an internationally recognised independent state, flexes its muscles a little too much for the liking of its larger neighbour and the latter takes military action. Goliath easily defeats David and proceeds in de facto terms to annex a portion of the territory of this newly independent country. It justifies its actions with recourse to a separate right of self-determination for an ethnic group/groups living in that territory whose rights it claims it has a duty to protect – even though it appears that international law does not recognise the use of external military interference in order to secure the right of self-determination of another people. Since there is a cast-iron principle under international law to respect the territorial integrity of existing nation states – for some reason this did not apply to Yugoslavia – this de-facto annexation of territory receives no international recognition. The result is stalemate.

Do the above paragraphs describe Turkey and Cyprus, or Russia and Georgia?

They do, that is why they are all unacceptable! However, why all the cry by the west, now that Russia did something like that against Georgia in Ossetia, but very little was done or even worst -there was facilitation, in the case of Turkey in Cyprus or Yugoslavia. At least, in the case of Ossetia, the Georgians were caught on the act of actually attacking and even annihilating the Ossetians (between 1,000-2,000 of them were killed within just one night, before Russia's invasion,) in the case of Cyprus however? There was a coup attempt against the elected leadership of the country, and before the issue was even begun to be examined, assessed or discussed by the UN SC upon a request of the GCs themselves (through their elected /overthrown leader,) and before a single TC was affected, Turkey was already invading and ethnically cleansing northern Cyprus.

[Tim Drayton]

There are also some striking parallels.

An empire collapses under the weight of its own economic inefficiency. The former European territory of this empire, previously the centre of the most effective opposition to its rule, definitively breaks away and turns its eyes toward the West. The ruling elite of the former empire renounces the discredited old order and attempts to create a modern nation state in the remaining core territories. The aim is to create a Western-style pluralistic democracy; however, events show that a rocky road lies ahead before this ideal can be realised. The people display a preference for strong rule by one man whom they can idolise. Various power groups are able to consolidate their positions using extrajudicial means.
The former European territories of the old empire are given up as lost. The new state, nevertheless, is strong enough to exert regional influence, and it remains unclear whether all irredentist ambitions have been buried, especially in respect of territory once controlled by the empire. One such piece of territory, very much in its infancy as an internationally recognised independent state, flexes its muscles a little too much for the liking of its larger neighbour and the latter takes military action. Goliath easily defeats David and proceeds in de facto terms to annex a portion of the territory of this newly independent country. It justifies its actions with recourse to a separate right of self-determination for an ethnic group/groups living in that territory whose rights it claims it has a duty to protect – even though it appears that international law does not recognise the use of external military interference in order to secure the right of self-determination of another people. Since there is a cast-iron principle under international law to respect the territorial integrity of existing nation states – for some reason this did not apply to Yugoslavia – this de-facto annexation of territory receives no international recognition. The result is stalemate.

Do the above paragraphs describe Turkey and Cyprus, or Russia and Georgia?

They do, that is why they are all unacceptable! However, why all the cry by the west, now that Russia did something like that against Georgia in Ossetia, but very little was done or even worst -there was facilitation, in the case of Turkey in Cyprus or Yugoslavia. At least, in the case of Ossetia, the Georgians were caught on the act of actually attacking and even annihilating the Ossetians (between 1,000-2,000 of them were killed within just one night, before Russia's invasion,) in the case of Cyprus however? There was a coup attempt against the elected leadership of the country, and before the issue was even begun to be examined, assessed or discussed by the UN SC upon a request of the GCs themselves (through their elected /overthrown leader,) and before a single TC was affected, Turkey was already invading and ethnically cleansing northern Cyprus.

Because ultimately the institution known as "international law" is a mechanism for justifying the actions of certain neo-imperialist powers. Hypocrisy is the name of the game.

[BC Numismatics]

Tim,
There's a huge world of difference between the legal independence of Kosovo & the illegal occupation of Abkhazia & South Ossetia (which are part of Georgia) & Transdniester (which is part of Moldova) by Russia.

Aidan.

[Nikitas]

Tims said:

"Because ultimately the institution known as "international law" is a mechanism for justifying the actions of certain neo-imperialist powers. Hypocrisy is the name of the game"

Professor Mazawi who taught me international law asked us to name the sources of international law, and the bookworms responded with the usual four categories- the UN charter, international treaties, custom and practice of civilised nations etc, and one voice at the back said "and the big guns". Even the professor laughed out loud nodding his head.

[Viewpoint]

If Russia (your buddies) and Turkey were to agree similtaneous recognition of the TRNC South Ossetia and Abkazia do you thin other nations would follow?

[utu]

If Russia (your buddies) and Turkey were to agree similtaneous recognition of the TRNC South Ossetia and Abkazia do you thin other nations would follow?

There is a fear that a few nations would do so. Mainly in the IOC, but recognition by even a few countries would effectively kill any chance of reunification. Pakistan and Azerbaijan would probably be the first. Also, given Venezuela's support of Russia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, President Chavez would probably follow suit. Paraguay had recently signaled a willingness to support recognition of the north, as well as Gambia.
Like it or not, there are covert supporters of the north of Cyprus, and Russian recognition would be the excuse they need to be more overt...