Cyprus-Forum.com

[Agios Amvrosios]

The sides are too far apart to resolve the matter informally. It is my prediction that the Greek Cypriot court actions against Turkey and Foreign nationals exploiting refugee property ,will be allowed to run their course. The courts are asked to deal with very obvious violations and breaches of the law, and accordingly this has meant that refugee has lost a case on a question of law at the ECHR.

This may take 30 years.

However there is no other option if the Greek Cypriots want a system of government based on principals of law, EU norms and democracy. Turkey wants to maintain a foothold in Cyprus to facilitate future concquests and expansion, using the Turkish Cypriots as pawns.

The bad news for Turkey and the occupied areas is that without a Cyprus solution there is no chance that Turkey will allowed into the EU.

My question to the Turkish Cypriots, is what authority in law allows you to object to Greek litigation against Turkey and Foreign nationals exploiting refugee property? You can wait 30 years to enjoy EU benefits(your much desired hand outs), or you can agree to a system of government based on principals of law, EU norms and democracy which will allow all citizens irrespective of their race or religion to live in peace and democracy all over our island.

You may say that Greek Cypriots are dreaming but a 30 year dream of a peaceful, democratic and just Cyprus is a dream worth having. Some Turkish Cypriots are dreaming of EU financed Apartheid- is that a valid dream?

[gabaston]

Turkey wants to maintain a foothold in Cyprus to facilitate future concquests and expansion, using the Turkish Cypriots as pawns.

Amigos can you please tell us more about this.

[gabaston]

oops my apolgoies

i mean

Amios

[gabaston]

not again

sorry

Agios

[Viewpoint]

Agios Amvrosios

This may take 30 years.

My question to the Turkish Cypriots, is what authority in law allows you to object to Greek litigation against Turkey and Foreign nationals exploiting refugee property? You can wait 30 years to enjoy EU benefits

You are so far off the mark its unblievable, we are willing to wait 1000 years, Turkey provides more aid to the north than the EU would ever see fit, this would also be tinged with GC interference and control supriority complex that would make any financial aid to the north worthless.
1000 or 2000 years would mean a continuation of partition, all be it unrecognized but the development would not stop, does this serve your purpose???
Your (GC administration) current attitude towards the north is well noted in the EU I only hope you continue with this line of action and attitude as in time it wil pay dividends for the TRNC. If the opposite was shown and Talats bluff was called then the south might just succeed in turning the tide of mistrust and negativity of the international community towards your administration.

[erolz]

My question to the Turkish Cypriots, is what authority in law allows you to object to Greek litigation against Turkey and Foreign nationals exploiting refugee property?

The fact is that much of this current explosions of attempted litigation (aimed not just at Turkey or Foreign residents but also at TC) is based on bad law and those persuing it know this. The objective imo is not to get a a ruling but to try and create as much fear and confusion as possible for as long as possible.

Example 1. The orams case.

It is extremely unlilkey for what I understand that the UK government will seize assests in the UK held by the Orams to meet the ruling made against them in the RoC. Certainly it is not impossible but the chances of 'sucsess' of this case in this regard are tiny from my understanding. It's persuit I believe is not intended to secure a legal victory (a long shot at best) but to discourage potential buyers in the mean time.

Example 2. Issuing of european arrerst warrants

I think it is even less likely that these cases will ever lead to the arrest of 'offenders' in EU countries (other than RoC) than the chances of 'sucsess' in the orams case. The legal weaknesses of such a use of these instruments is again to my understanding very shaky indeed. Again my perception is that the intnent behind them is to try and cause fear and uncertainty until such time as a definitive ruling is made in these cases.

So in answer to you question AA the TC objections (and Oli Rhen's as well) to the persuit of actions like these is not based on a law. We need no law to permit us to object to them what ever their mertis are. Our objections is not to the seeking of justice but to the use / abuse of laws for political ends in the absense of sincere political negpotiations to secure a political settlement ot a political problem.

You can wait 30 years to enjoy EU benefits(your much desired hand outs), or you can agree to a system of government based on principals of law, EU norms and democracy which will allow all citizens irrespective of their race or religion to live in peace and democracy all over our island.

As has already been pointed out the money that would flow into North Cyprus after a settlement would be a mere fraction of that which Turkey already gives. We already agreed to this decrease in foreign aid for a settlement in our yes vote to the annan plan.

We already have a a system of government based on the principals of law and democracy. What we do not have is unity with the south or full recognition of the north. We are willing to negotiate a settlement to achieve these but not at the prices of losing our rights to a degree of political equality as a community.

You may say that Greek Cypriots are dreaming but a 30 year dream of a peaceful, democratic and just Cyprus is a dream worth having. Some Turkish Cypriots are dreaming of EU financed Apartheid- is that a valid dream?

If only GC had dreamed of (and worked towards) a peaceful democratic and just Cyprus in 1960 and onwards then we would not be in this mess today. When exactly did this GC passion for justice, equality, human rights, independent Cypriot nation, rule of law and all the rest begin? Only after you lost the balance of power in Cyprus in 74?

[Kifeas]

If only GC had dreamed of (and worked towards) a peaceful democratic and just Cyprus in 1960 and onwards then we would not be in this mess today. When exactly did this GC passion for justice, equality, human rights, independent Cypriot nation, rule of law and all the rest begin? Only after you lost the balance of power in Cyprus in 74?

Erol,
What should really matter is the fact that it did change and it does exist today, and not when, how and why.

The same can be said about the TCs demonstrations and their newly (since 2002) manifested willingness to work for a solution after 30 years. One can say that it is the E.U. accession prospect that was the real motive and not their desire to live in a re-united Cyprus. Isn't it the same?

[-mikkie2-]

We already have a a system of government based on the principals of law and democracy. What we do not have is unity with the south or full recognition of the north. We are willing to negotiate a settlement to achieve these but not at the prices of losing our rights to a degree of political equality as a community.

...

If only GC had dreamed of (and worked towards) a peaceful democratic and just Cyprus in 1960 and onwards then we would not be in this mess today. When exactly did this GC passion for justice, equality, human rights, independent Cypriot nation, rule of law and all the rest begin? Only after you lost the balance of power in Cyprus in 74?

Erol,

You say you don't want to loose you rights for a degree of political equality! And what is it you are demanding from the Greek Cypriots? To loose some of their rights at the expense of keeping yours? Is this your jolly idea of a compromise?

The bone of contention for the TC's for many years was political equality. Now, after the land grab it has bocome political equality and keeping pretty much what you took from us as well.

Oli Rhen has said that he expects both sides to enter into the spirit of being European and to compromise and reach a solution and not to base that solution on PAST fears. What are the TC's compromising? You have to compromise your demands for restricting freedom of movement in Cyprus. If that is what you want, then you should be prepared to hand back more land to the GC's and if you are not prepared to give back more land then you should be prepared to allow GC's to have unrestricted freedom of movement and settlement. And this is just one example of many where compromises can be reached.

[erolz]

Erol,
What should really matter is the fact that it did change and it does exist today, and not when, how and why.

I guess my point is that when you profess such ideals only when they suit your agenda then there remains a fear that as soon as they no longer are necessary rehtoric to gain back what you lost in 74 you may once again show as much comitment to these ideals as you did before you lost land and property in 74. I am not saying that this is the case or it is definately so. What I am trying to get across is how much of this rehtoric of such noble ideals appears to TC (and others with a detailed knowledge of Cyprus and its history I suspect). There are basically two ways to see the (vociferous and constant from some GC) lectures on things like Cyptiot sovreignty, rule of law, humand rights, indivdual equality, democracy and others. They could be genuine expressesions of heartfelt ideals of GC that believe in these things above all else and will fight and die to achieve and protect them OR they could be useful slogans for GC that cared nothing about these things in the past and have no real beleif in them as ideals into the futre but find them useful tools in an objective of gaining back what they lost in 74. Either is a possible reading imo and the reality is almost certainly that both alternatives are true to some degree.

The same can be said about the TCs demonstrations and their newly (since 2002) manifested willingness to work for a solution after 30 years. One can say that it is the E.U. accession prospect that was the real motive and not their desire to live in a re-united Cyprus. Isn't it the same?

I am not really sure about your comparrsion. The point I was trying to make was that 'lecturing' TC on such ideals, especially given the history of Cypriots failure in the past to aplly and live up to these ideas when we lived togeather is not really all that useful. This 'holier than thou' approach is dead end imo and I would like to see all of us break out of it if possible.

Anyway on another topic entirely - is it not time we had another beer togeather in the name of peace and co operaation ?

I am due to be out of Cyprus from 8th Jue to 2nd July but would be happy to try and meet up before that - either side of the divide. What do you think? Maybe we could get some other Cyprus Forum 'degenerates' to come along as well?

[pantelis]

Erol,

Two Wrongs Make a Right is a fallacy in which a person "justifies" an action against a person by asserting that the person would do the same thing to him/her, when the action is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A. This fallacy has the following pattern of "reasoning":


It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A's doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because an action that is wrong is wrong even if another person would also do it.

It should be noted that it can be the case that it is not wrong for A to do X to B if X is done to prevent B from doing X to A or if X is done in justified retribution. For example, if Sally is running in the park and Biff tries to attack her, Sally would eb jsutified in attacking Biff to defend herself. As another example, if country A is planning to invade country B in order to enslave the people, then country B would be justified in launching a pre-emptive strike to prevent the invasion.

Examples of Two Wrongs Make a Right

Bill has borrowed Jane's expensive pen, but found he didn't return it. He tell's himself that it is okay to keep it, since she would have taken his.

Jane: "Did you hear about those terrorists killing those poor people? That sort of killing is just wrong."
Sue: "Those terrorists are justified. After all, their land was taken from them. It is morally right for them to do what they do."
Jane: "Even when they blow up busloads of children?"
Sue: "Yes."

After leaving a store, Jill notices that she has underpaid by $10. She decides not to return the money to the store because if she had overpaid, they would not have returned the money.

Jill is horrified by the way the state uses capital punishment. Bill says that capital punishment is fine, since those the state kill don't have any qualms about killing others.

We all know these lessons. The problem is that no side wants to be the first to abide by them.......