Cyprus-Forum.com

[utu]

I am surprised nobody has put you out of your misery yet,Utu.

In 1963 the EU was just a fledgling economic and cultural Union between Belgium,France,Germany,Italy,Luxemburg and the Netherlands. There was no internationally recognised EU Human Rights Court or anything else for that matter...

My misery... or yours? In any case, the mechanism exists now, so if you have a case, why not use it?

[BirKibrisli]

I am not trying to justify anything,Paphidis.
I have often stated my position on Turkey's actions.
I believe that the initial act of intervention was legal and justified.

Bir, legal and justified on what basis?

Legal would have been, had the issue which started been discussed in the UN SC on the evening of Friday the 19th July 74, and the resolution that would have been issued, did not produce any results, and consequently the SC would have authorised the undertaking of military action, always under its auspices. That is what would have been legal under international law, and not the way Turkey acted by invading unilaterally! You have to remember that the provisions of the UN Charter take binding priority over the provisions of any other international agreement (article 103 of the UN Charter.) In the same way that Greece acted illegally, by intervening through its officers in the Cypriot National Guard in order to overthrow Makarios; in exactly the same illegal way acted Turkey, by unilaterally invading Cyprus. They both illegally intervened /invaded into a sovereign UN member country, that only the UN SC has such power to authorise.

Justified? Justified would have been, had the coupists attacked the TCs or had shown intention to do so, and therefore their lives were by fact in an immanent thread. Such was not the case, and the coupist “government” not only did not show such an intent, but to the contrary it proclaimed that the TCs were not in danger and that the intercommunal negotiations would have continued where they had stopped previously, between Klerides and Denktash! Okay, I accept one can say that perhaps that was a trick on their behalf, perhaps to gain time. However, since the issue had begun to be discussed in the UN already by the evening of the 19th of July, Turkey could have waited for the outcome. The UN SC would have in all likelihood issued a resolution, in which it would have asked the coupists to immediately surrender power back to Makarios. Had they failed to do so, then Turkey could have asked the SC to allow or authorise its intervention. Turkey instead, sidestepped all legal diplomatic and political means, and rushed to invade before allowing time for a resolution to be obtained. It only consulted with Britain, which said to them to wait and allow diplomacy and other means of pressure to materialise, and then perhaps consider any other action.

It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas. And justified given that an internationaly known lunatic/murderer had taken control of the state power and declared himself President. Ecevit did try to get Britain to come in with him but failed ,as you know well...

It is easy now to talk about international law and the UN resolutions etc,but have you ever considered what could have happened had Turkey not intervened/invaded???? The Sampson coup failed only because Turkey stepped in..The Greek Junta fell only because Turkey stepped in...

Try to imagine both Sampson and the Junta in power for say even 6 months after June,74...What do you think would have happened to Cyprus and the Cypriot people???

Lets remember that the seeds of 74 were sown in 1963...The Constitution and the Agreements were breeched back then...Between 1964 and 74 Cyprus was run by GCs with little attention given to the plight of the TCs...
All 3 Guarantors should have stepped in then,and restored the constitutional integrity of the State. The human and constitutional rights of one of the partner communities were badly compromised...Turkey knew back then that Britain and Greece had no will or intention to do anything about the situation..And the only thing which stopped Turkey from intervening then was the fact that they were not militarily (or politically)prepared for any offensive action.. So one can arguably say that there were moral and historical grounds as well which justified the 74 action ...

The biggest obstacle to a solution today is the inability and unwillingness of most of the GCs to appreciate the sorry and dramatic saga the TCs had to go through during 63-74...But ignoring this crucial period will not make it go away...Without a true and comprehensive understanding of what happened in Cyprus during those 11 years we are condemned to argue with each other like this in meaningless and destructive terms...

I am getting rather sick of it to be honest...

[zan]

I am not trying to justify anything,Paphidis.
I have often stated my position on Turkey's actions.
I believe that the initial act of intervention was legal and justified.

Bir, legal and justified on what basis?

Legal would have been, had the issue which started been discussed in the UN SC on the evening of Friday the 19th July 74, and the resolution that would have been issued, did not produce any results, and consequently the SC would have authorised the undertaking of military action, always under its auspices. That is what would have been legal under international law, and not the way Turkey acted by invading unilaterally! You have to remember that the provisions of the UN Charter take binding priority over the provisions of any other international agreement (article 103 of the UN Charter.) In the same way that Greece acted illegally, by intervening through its officers in the Cypriot National Guard in order to overthrow Makarios; in exactly the same illegal way acted Turkey, by unilaterally invading Cyprus. They both illegally intervened /invaded into a sovereign UN member country, that only the UN SC has such power to authorise.

Justified? Justified would have been, had the coupists attacked the TCs or had shown intention to do so, and therefore their lives were by fact in an immanent thread. Such was not the case, and the coupist “government” not only did not show such an intent, but to the contrary it proclaimed that the TCs were not in danger and that the intercommunal negotiations would have continued where they had stopped previously, between Klerides and Denktash! Okay, I accept one can say that perhaps that was a trick on their behalf, perhaps to gain time. However, since the issue had begun to be discussed in the UN already by the evening of the 19th of July, Turkey could have waited for the outcome. The UN SC would have in all likelihood issued a resolution, in which it would have asked the coupists to immediately surrender power back to Makarios. Had they failed to do so, then Turkey could have asked the SC to allow or authorise its intervention. Turkey instead, sidestepped all legal diplomatic and political means, and rushed to invade before allowing time for a resolution to be obtained. It only consulted with Britain, which said to them to wait and allow diplomacy and other means of pressure to materialise, and then perhaps consider any other action.

It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas. And justified given that an internationaly known lunatic/murderer had taken control of the state power and declared himself President. Ecevit did try to get Britain to come in with him but failed ,as you know well...

It is easy now to talk about international law and the UN resolutions etc,but have you ever considered what could have happened had Turkey not intervened/invaded???? The Sampson coup failed only because Turkey stepped in..The Greek Junta fell only because Turkey stepped in...

Try to imagine both Sampson and the Junta in power for say even 6 months after June,74...What do you think would have happened to Cyprus and the Cypriot people???

Lets remember that the seeds of 74 were sown in 1963...The Constitution and the Agreements were breeched back then...Between 1964 and 74 Cyprus was run by GCs with little attention given to the plight of the TCs...
All 3 Guarantors should have stepped in then,and restored the constitutional integrity of the State. The human and constitutional rights of one of the partner communities were badly compromised...Turkey knew back then that Britain and Greece had no will or intention to do anything about the situation..And the only thing which stopped Turkey from intervening then was the fact that they were not militarily (or politically)prepared for any offensive action.. So one can arguably say that there were moral and historical grounds as well which justified the 74 action ...

The biggest obstacle to a solution today is the inability and unwillingness of most of the GCs to appreciate the sorry and dramatic saga the TCs had to go through during 63-74...But ignoring this crucial period will not make it go away...Without a true and comprehensive understanding of what happened in Cyprus during those 11 years we are condemned to argue with each other like this in meaningless and destructive terms...

I am getting rather sick of it to be honest...

Thank you Bir.

[denizaksulu]

You know, after reading various posts on this forum - as well as recent posts on the ATCA forum, perhaps the question should be: Are TC's willing to live in a TC state as a minority? That seems to be what is happening in the north. The administration there is certainly not acting independently. It just follows the line from Ankara since economically and militarilly, Turkey holds a knife to the throat of the Turkish Cypriot entity. The policy of settling all of those Anatolians while Turkish Cypriots are forced to emigrate has further eroded the north's claims to be an independent and sovereign state. The north is - in effect - a Turkish colony. There's no 'independence' about it.
Those Turkish Cypriots on this forum claiming that their administration is a sovereign government may take issue with that comment, but let me ask you this: yes, Turkey is protecting you and providing an economic lifeline for your administration, but who's interest's are coming first: yours, or Ankara's? Blindly trusting Turkey - I think - is not going to help you in the long run...

You are spot on,Utu...And by negotiating a solution now ,Christofias is falling into the Turkish trap....The only solution Turkey will accept is one that is at least as good as the status quo ,or better for Turkey...Anything else defies logic....If Christofias wants to avoid partition he should stop negotiating and invite all the TCs in the North and in the diaspora to return to the ROC under the 1960 agreements....With the understanding that when a minumum,specified number of TCs return a more workable agreement will be negotiated amongst Cypriots...Then it will be Cypriots vs an occupier an her collaborators in the North....Turkey will have little moral ground to stand on...But this is just too outside the square for any politician in the south to seriously consider....But it is the only answer to our predicament...Everything else will lead to partition,on Turkey's terms..

BK,
I have just began to read this thread. Did you not forget to include the GC from the diaspora in your equation of returnees?

[Tim Drayton]

Utu, just a quick note, but in your thinking you need to make a distinction between private property ownership by individuals and the territory of sovereign states.

[denizaksulu]

Given that the TCs can move south and get full EU membership benefits, passports, free health care etc but only some 2000 have done so I guess the answer is No.

More and more TCs are choosing to permanently reside in the RoC each year. They are treated as equal citizens to everyone else. So this destroys any angle that VP is attempting to push by posting this thread.

. They are the ones that have formed an illegal entity founded on discriminatory principles which do not allow the indigenous peoples to return to their rightful homes.

Do you have any independent data or are you just guessing?

VP, the evidence for the above is written in the 'so called' ''constitution'' of the Northern Administration. Have you ever read this 'constitution'? Especially the parts where it states that all Previously Greek owned property belongs to the Northern Administration (using a different title of course).

[zan]

Given that the TCs can move south and get full EU membership benefits, passports, free health care etc but only some 2000 have done so I guess the answer is No.

More and more TCs are choosing to permanently reside in the RoC each year. They are treated as equal citizens to everyone else. So this destroys any angle that VP is attempting to push by posting this thread.

. They are the ones that have formed an illegal entity founded on discriminatory principles which do not allow the indigenous peoples to return to their rightful homes.

Do you have any independent data or are you just guessing?

VP, the evidence for the above is written in the 'so called' ''constitution'' of the Northern Administration. Have you ever read this 'constitution'? Especially the parts where it states that all Previously Greek owned property belongs to the Northern Administration (using a different title of course).

We are always up front Deniz......The "RoC" use other means to build on TC land.

[Kifeas]

Bir, I do not have time to argue endlessly on this issue, but I will give it another try and hopefully you will understand what I am talking about.

You said:
“It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas.”

The 1960 treaty of guarantee was an international agreement which indeed gave the so-called guarantor powers, including Turkey, the right to unilateral intervention, for the purpose of establishing the constitutional order. However, international legality does not depend on any one agreement, (just like national legality on just one law,) but instead it is a system of laws, treaties and agreements. The highest international law treaty is the UN Charter. The UN Charter, by virtue of article 103, nullifies the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee -not the entire treaty but only the particular provision- that allows for unilateral intervention. It nullifies it because it is in conflict with other articles of the UN Charter that prohibit unilateral military action of one UN member country into the territory of another country, for any reason, prior and /or without UN SC explicit approval or authorization. Therefore, under international law, 1974 Turkish invasion was not legal.

If it was legal, resolution 354 of the UN SC, on the 20th of July 74, would not have demanded the immediate end of military action and the withdrawal of Turkish and any other (all) troops from the soil of Cyprus, outside those explicitly provided by international agreements. If it was legal, Turkey would not have consistently refused the calls of the RoC to have the issue examined by the ICJ of The Hague.

I am willing to discuss the issue of it being objectively justified or not, (and I have arguments in this direction to prove it was not objectively justified,) however, on the issue of it been legal or not, as far as I am concerned (but also according to many international law experts I happened to have come across their opinions,) it is as clear as a Mediterranean sunny day. It was not legal! It was not legal under international law, the only legal system or basis on which it is possible to examine its legality. The 1960 treaty of guarantee is an international agreement, and not an intra-national one, and as such it falls under international law system.

[zan]

Bir, I do not have time to argue endlessly on this issue, but I will give it another try and hopefully you will understand what I am talking about.

You said:
“It was legal under the Treaty of the Guarantee,Kifeas.”

The 1960 treaty of guarantee was an international agreement which indeed gave the so-called guarantor powers, including Turkey, the right to unilateral intervention, for the purpose of establishing the constitutional order. However, international legality does not depend on any one agreement, (just like national legality on just one law,) but instead it is a system of laws, treaties and agreements. The highest international law treaty is the UN Charter. The UN Charter, by virtue of article 103, nullifies the provision of the 1960 treaty of guarantee -not the entire treaty but only the particular provision- that allows for unilateral intervention. It nullifies it because it is in conflict with other articles of the UN Charter that prohibit unilateral military action of one UN member country into the territory of another country, for any reason, prior and /or without UN SC explicit approval or authorization. Therefore, under international law, 1974 Turkish invasion was not legal.

If it was legal, resolution 354 of the UN SC, on the 20th of July 74, would not have demanded the immediate end of military action and the withdrawal of Turkish and any other (all) troops from the soil of Cyprus, outside those explicitly provided by international agreements. If it was legal, Turkey would not have consistently refused the calls of the RoC to have the issue examined by the ICJ of The Hague.

I am willing to discuss the issue of it being objectively justified or not, (and I have arguments in this direction to prove it was not objectively justified,) however, on the issue of it been legal or not, as far as I am concerned (but also according to many international law experts I happened to have come across their opinions,) it is as clear as a Mediterranean sunny day. It was not legal! It was not legal under international law, the only legal system or basis on which it is possible to examine its legality. The 1960 treaty of guarantee is an international agreement, and not an intra-national one, and as such it falls under international law system.

[denizaksulu]

Given that the TCs can move south and get full EU membership benefits, passports, free health care etc but only some 2000 have done so I guess the answer is No.

More and more TCs are choosing to permanently reside in the RoC each year. They are treated as equal citizens to everyone else. So this destroys any angle that VP is attempting to push by posting this thread.

. They are the ones that have formed an illegal entity founded on discriminatory principles which do not allow the indigenous peoples to return to their rightful homes.

Do you have any independent data or are you just guessing?

VP, the evidence for the above is written in the 'so called' ''constitution'' of the Northern Administration. Have you ever read this 'constitution'? Especially the parts where it states that all Previously Greek owned property belongs to the Northern Administration (using a different title of course).

We are always up front Deniz......The "RoC" use other means to build on TC land.

I would have put my own house in order first though. Or two wrongs do not make a right.