Cyprus-Forum.com

[PEACE]

i'm sure that we will..bec after 1st of may they going to tell turkey that there invading land of EU..soz lets sit down and talk about that..who knows maybe another fare plan is on its way...just no one knows for now..

Verheugen said that ,after Greek Cypriots said NO to UN's plan , Turkey is at Cyprus cos Guarantee Agreement and its not occupying...

[FinalFantasy]

i'm sure that we will..bec after 1st of may they going to tell turkey that there invading land of EU..soz lets sit down and talk about that..who knows maybe another fare plan is on its way...just no one knows for now..

Verheugen said that ,after Greek Cypriots said NO to UN's plan , Turkey is at Cyprus cos Guarantee Agreement and its not occupying...

i thought those guarantee agreements expired long time ago..thats why we call invading..

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[-mikkie2-]

Turkey has violated the constitution because she has not brought constitutional order to Cyprus.

The facts are that the 1st intervention of Turkey was legal and had sympathy and support from the international community.

However, the 2nd intervention is the problem because this went ahead to partition the island, displace thousands of people, mass rapes and murders of civilans was occurring and was clearly against the constitution. Ever since then Turkey has attempted to destroy the constitution and bring in a new state of affairs that legalises her partition, occupation and ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus.

[PEACE]

-mikkie2-, i strongly agree with you about your whole messege content . [/quote]

[turkcyp]

deleted by the author...

[Alexandros Lordos]

Turkey has violated the constitution because she has not brought constitutional order to Cyprus.

The facts are that the 1st intervention of Turkey was legal and had sympathy and support from the international community.

However, the 2nd intervention is the problem because this went ahead to partition the island, displace thousands of people, mass rapes and murders of civilans was occurring and was clearly against the constitution. Ever since then Turkey has attempted to destroy the constitution and bring in a new state of affairs that legalises her partition, occupation and ethnic cleansing of northern Cyprus.

Mikkie2,

I like the distinction you are making ... I never heard it before but it makes sense.

The fact is, even though the first invasion was compelled by the coup, after the 21st July Turkey had two different options:

a) To insist on the reinstatement of order as per the 1960 constitution (GC president, TC vice president etc.), and then remain on the island until everything was back in order - in fact, invite newly democratic Greece also to bring in more troops in order to oversee the safe return to constitutional order. If Turkey had chosen that path, the legal path, perhaps we wouldn't have a Cyprus Problem today. Then she would have been a real guarantor power, and everyone would have respected the role she had to play.

b) To push ahead and partition the island, totally ignoring the need for a return to constitutional order. This is what Turkey actually did - and this is why no other country in the world accepts the invasion as legal, however much Turkey protests that she was acting according to the Treaty of Guarantee.

[Piratis]

The 1960 constitution is valid but due to the occupation some temporary measures had to be taken until the occupation is over. Thats how it is, if you have a problem with that, we have a problem too (with something else). We are ready to return to the legal situation at any time, it is up to you when you will allow it.
If you prefer to pretend to be the virgin maries that have only rights and no responsibility for what happened, you can do it, but you will not gain anything.

[metecyp]

We are ready to return to the legal situation at any time, it is up to you when you will allow it.

So you agree that the current situation in the south is not legal, then why do you claim that the RoC represents the TCs right now when that's not the case and there's no encouragement from your side to make it legal?

[erolz]

I like the distinction you are making ... I never heard it before but it makes sense.

You have not been here (in the forum) long enough then - it has been discussed in such terms many times before.

The fact is, even though the first invasion was compelled by the coup, after the 21st July Turkey had two different options:

a) To insist on the reinstatement of order as per the 1960 constitution (GC president, TC vice president etc.), and then remain on the island until everything was back in order - in fact, invite newly democratic Greece also to bring in more troops in order to oversee the safe return to constitutional order. If Turkey had chosen that path, the legal path, perhaps we wouldn't have a Cyprus Problem today. Then she would have been a real guarantor power, and everyone would have respected the role she had to play.

b) To push ahead and partition the island, totally ignoring the need for a return to constitutional order. This is what Turkey actually did - and this is why no other country in the world accepts the invasion as legal, however much Turkey protests that she was acting according to the Treaty of Guarantee.

It seems simple when written as above but I do not think it was quite as simple as you make out.

In pure military terms the position that the Turkish forces found themselves in after phase one of the action was not secure and not sustainable. It left large numbers of Turkish troops extremely vulnerable to counter attack. It was not a 'holdable' position.
You seem to think that if from this unsustainable position, and having been driven to the extreme measure in the first place by the preceding years, Turkey could simply have insisted on the return to a consitituion that had already failed and proved inable to protect TC and their rights that GC would have simply said 'yeah sure lets go back to a consitituion that did not work and we do not accept or like and tyou can be sure we will not do anything to harm the TC people or undermine their legal rights' and everything would have been rosy from there on in. The fact was by 74 there was no option for Turkey but to insist that a new order be established. A brief effort was made to do this without the need for futher military action - but this attempt ended in failure. What Turkey did then was unilateraly decide to impose through military means its own solution. I am not saying this was moraly right or legaly right. What I am saying is that it was not a simple clear choice between a 'legal route' that would have, without doubt, secured peace an harmony in Cyprus and the total protection of the TC community in Cyprus and the illeagl option of enforced partition. By 74 there was no simple easy legal option for Turkey that would guartantee the protection of TC people and their rights granted under the broken down consistution. To imply there was such a simple choice and yet they chose partition instead is just not a realistic interpretation of the situtation in my opinion.