The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

How can we solve it? (keep it civilized)

Postby Byron » Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:40 pm

Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Piratis wrote:
You are responsible for contirbuting to the division of this island and signing an agreement you had not intention of honouring.


And why do you think we signed something for which we had no intention to honour? The only answer can be: Because we were forced.

We are the 80% majority of this island, and still instead of being allowed to decide ourselves in a peaceful and democratic way what we want for our own island, we were forced to sign something which some foreigners made, and which would serve the interests of those foreigners along with the interests of some small minority that helped them achieve their aim, and not the interests of the Cypriot people as a whole.

We are not bound by any "agreements" which are forced on us by foreigners against our human and democratic rights. We are only bound by what is right and just, which is nothing else than freedom, democracy and human rights.


So Mr Pirate,

What is your proposal for a solution to the Cyprus Problem? I woul be interested in reading it.


Gunaydin Byron,

since you got your response from Piratis, I would now be very interested to see where you stand on the Cyprus Problem and what YOU deem to be a fair and viable solution.


What is Gunayadin ?


It is a Turkish Greeting. I was being polite. :D

Someone who fought in the war would have known this.

Will you know enlighten us with your views?


You are not Turkish, so why greet me with that word. You were just being sarcastic.


I was not being sarcastic. You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.


My view is quite simple. The vast majority of the GREEK Community wishes for a reunified Cyprus with a majority/minority rule similar to the ROC constitution or slightly modified without guarantor powers.

Unfortunately the TURKISH minority do not wish to be governed by a GREEK majority. Please refer to the comments posted on this topic within the Cyprus Forum.

When the majority of the other side does not wish to participate in a joint governorship because they either mistrust the GREEKS or because they have nothing in common : be it language or religion, then we should listen and perhaps adjust our proposals. However you and others on this site do not wish to listen but continue to provide the TURKISH side with more reasons why we should all live together happily ever after. When the other side says NO after 34 years, I believe we should adjust our game plan. Alternatively the EU and the rest of the world will sooner or later recognise the TRNC. The reason that it hasn't happened at the moment is because it has a very low priority. Within the next five years the EU will move to a majority voting and the Cyprus veto will mean nothing.

What we have at the moment is complete deadlock and "unofficial partition". Maybe we should be content with this, I do not know. Perhaps we should revisit the ANNAN plan and modify it to include precise and clear information regarding a) the return of turkish troops, b) return of the settlers and c) return of the refugees to their rightful homes or adequate compensation.

Whatever happens we need to continue to look for alternatives because the TURKS will not budge and have no intention of budging. That I have understood.
Byron
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:53 pm

Postby Oracle » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:11 pm

Byron

I will leave aside the fact that I now suspect you are another Turk, like Andros etc. who come here to put pressure on the Cypriots to cave in to Turkish demands ...

If the EU moves over to majority veto for new accessions, you can be sure it will make it easier for Cyprus, because Turkey will never be accepted by the majority of EU countries, simply because they do not want at its outer borders, more problems with Middle East countries (let alone a festering crypto-Islamic state like Turkey) and their trickles of illegal migrants etc.

What's more after the grumbles of Cyprus joining the EU, without resolution of the CyProb ... no way will the EU allow Turkey to join, without resolving the Kurdistan issue ....

As Piratis says, the sooner Turkey is told to stop bothering applying for EU-membership, the sooner we can use real pressure to remove them.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Postby Byron » Sun Dec 21, 2008 3:57 pm

Oracle wrote:Byron

I will leave aside the fact that I now suspect you are another Turk, like Andros etc. who come here to put pressure on the Cypriots to cave in to Turkish demands ...

If the EU moves over to majority veto for new accessions, you can be sure it will make it easier for Cyprus, because Turkey will never be accepted by the majority of EU countries, simply because they do not want at its outer borders, more problems with Middle East countries (let alone a festering crypto-Islamic state like Turkey) and their trickles of illegal migrants etc.

What's more after the grumbles of Cyprus joining the EU, without resolution of the CyProb ... no way will the EU allow Turkey to join, without resolving the Kurdistan issue ....

As Piratis says, the sooner Turkey is told to stop bothering applying for EU-membership, the sooner we can use real pressure to remove them.


ORACLE - I think you have misunderstood my comment and as usual moved the goal posts.

1) Firstly I am a GREEK and proud to be one so your supposed remark is totally out of order and demands an immediate apology.

2) I am not putting pressure on anybody to cave into Turkish demands. I mentioned that the other side is not prepared to accept a reunification of the island under a majority/minority rule despite continual insistence by the GC's.

3) I said PERHAPS we should revisit the ANNAN plan and make the appropriate modifications to turn it into a positive vote. Till now the majority of GC's have said that the reason we said no was because it did not satisfy the main points: a) the return of the Turkish troops, b) the return of the illegal settlers and c) the return of the refugees to their rightful homes.

3) On the issue of Europe. I agree that the vast majority of EU nations are against Turkey's accession. I did not say that. My point was that CYPRUS may soon find itself unable to use its veto, maybe this will turn out to be irrelevant in the given circumstances, I do not know.

4)If the political situation continues as it is sooner or later a EU state may decide to recognise the illegal TRNC. That is my fear and it should also be your fear too.

[/b]
Byron
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:53 pm

Postby Piratis » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:21 pm

Byron wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Paphitis wrote:
Byron wrote:
Piratis wrote:
You are responsible for contirbuting to the division of this island and signing an agreement you had not intention of honouring.


And why do you think we signed something for which we had no intention to honour? The only answer can be: Because we were forced.

We are the 80% majority of this island, and still instead of being allowed to decide ourselves in a peaceful and democratic way what we want for our own island, we were forced to sign something which some foreigners made, and which would serve the interests of those foreigners along with the interests of some small minority that helped them achieve their aim, and not the interests of the Cypriot people as a whole.

We are not bound by any "agreements" which are forced on us by foreigners against our human and democratic rights. We are only bound by what is right and just, which is nothing else than freedom, democracy and human rights.


So Mr Pirate,

What is your proposal for a solution to the Cyprus Problem? I woul be interested in reading it.


Gunaydin Byron,

since you got your response from Piratis, I would now be very interested to see where you stand on the Cyprus Problem and what YOU deem to be a fair and viable solution.


What is Gunayadin ?


It is a Turkish Greeting. I was being polite. :D

Someone who fought in the war would have known this.

Will you know enlighten us with your views?


You are not Turkish, so why greet me with that word. You were just being sarcastic.


I was not being sarcastic. You don't have to answer the question if you don't want to.


My view is quite simple. The vast majority of the GREEK Community wishes for a reunified Cyprus with a majority/minority rule similar to the ROC constitution or slightly modified without guarantor powers.

Unfortunately the TURKISH minority do not wish to be governed by a GREEK majority. Please refer to the comments posted on this topic within the Cyprus Forum.

When the majority of the other side does not wish to participate in a joint governorship because they either mistrust the GREEKS or because they have nothing in common : be it language or religion, then we should listen and perhaps adjust our proposals. However you and others on this site do not wish to listen but continue to provide the TURKISH side with more reasons why we should all live together happily ever after. When the other side says NO after 34 years, I believe we should adjust our game plan. Alternatively the EU and the rest of the world will sooner or later recognise the TRNC. The reason that it hasn't happened at the moment is because it has a very low priority. Within the next five years the EU will move to a majority voting and the Cyprus veto will mean nothing.

What we have at the moment is complete deadlock and "unofficial partition". Maybe we should be content with this, I do not know. Perhaps we should revisit the ANNAN plan and modify it to include precise and clear information regarding a) the return of turkish troops, b) return of the settlers and c) return of the refugees to their rightful homes or adequate compensation.

Whatever happens we need to continue to look for alternatives because the TURKS will not budge and have no intention of budging. That I have understood.


Byron,

You say that "Turks will not budge". So does that mean we should? If they know that we will budge if they don't, then of course they will be uncompromising. So just suggesting such thing is a wrong strategy right off the bat.

The pseudo state will not be recognized now or ever, not by the UN, EU, US, Russia, China, India or any important country. Maybe from some 3rd world irrelevant country buddy of Turkey, like Azerbaijan, but that wouldn't make a difference. If it was in their interests to recognize them then they would have done so already.

The only other alternative could be (and this is not something I propose) an 82%-18% partition. But the Turks do not accept this anyways, so there is no point of discussing it.

The fact that the whole of Cyprus belongs to the Republic of Cyprus is a very important thing that we should not give up. Today this alone might not be able to give us back our land, but it could prove invaluable under a different balance of power in the future.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby Byron » Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:47 pm

[/quote]

My view is quite simple. The vast majority of the GREEK Community wishes for a reunified Cyprus with a majority/minority rule similar to the ROC constitution or slightly modified without guarantor powers.

Unfortunately the TURKISH minority do not wish to be governed by a GREEK majority. Please refer to the comments posted on this topic within the Cyprus Forum.

When the majority of the other side does not wish to participate in a joint governorship because they either mistrust the GREEKS or because they have nothing in common : be it language or religion, then we should listen and perhaps adjust our proposals. However you and others on this site do not wish to listen but continue to provide the TURKISH side with more reasons why we should all live together happily ever after. When the other side says NO after 34 years, I believe we should adjust our game plan. Alternatively the EU and the rest of the world will sooner or later recognise the TRNC. The reason that it hasn't happened at the moment is because it has a very low priority. Within the next five years the EU will move to a majority voting and the Cyprus veto will mean nothing.

What we have at the moment is complete deadlock and "unofficial partition". Maybe we should be content with this, I do not know. Perhaps we should revisit the ANNAN plan and modify it to include precise and clear information regarding a) the return of turkish troops, b) return of the settlers and c) return of the refugees to their rightful homes or adequate compensation.

Whatever happens we need to continue to look for alternatives because the TURKS will not budge and have no intention of budging. That I have understood.[/quote]

Byron,

You say that "Turks will not budge". So does that mean we should? If they know that we will budge if they don't, then of course they will be uncompromising. So just suggesting such thing is a wrong strategy right off the bat.



The pseudo state will not be recognized now or ever, not by the UN, EU, US, Russia, China, India or any important country. Maybe from some 3rd world irrelevant country buddy of Turkey, like Azerbaijan, but that wouldn't make a difference. If it was in their interests to recognize them then they would have done so already.

The only other alternative could be (and this is not something I propose) an 82%-18% partition. But the Turks do not accept this anyways, so there is no point of discussing it.

The fact that the whole of Cyprus belongs to the Republic of Cyprus is a very important thing that we should not give up. Today this alone might not be able to give us back our land, but it could prove invaluable under a different balance of power in the future.[/quote]

Piratis,

Sooner or later someone has to budge. We can either wait for them to budge or we continue to wait for ever. We are used to long waits just like in 1821.

I agree with your comment that the UN, China, Russia, India or US will not recognise the illegal TRNC but I am not too sure about the EU. My view is that a EU state will sooner or later make the first step in recognition but that is my fear only.

I also do not believe in these " balance of power theories"; 34 years is a long time, Cyprus has become the 2nd Palestine and no solution has been found for Palestine since 1948.

The 82% - 18% proposal should I think be futher analysed and discussed and not just thrown out of the window. I know it is painful but we should at least look at it as an alternative proposal together with perhaps a modified ANNAN plan 2.
Byron
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 779
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 5:53 pm

Re: Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

Postby Oracle » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:03 pm

Get Real! wrote:Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

There are many reasons that render the "Treaty of Guarantee" invalid including the UN Charter as a result of Cyprus’ 1960 entry into the UN, but in this article we will take a look at what international law has to say regarding the termination of treaties themselves…

The link being used is...

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf

...and the relevant section begins from the end of page 18 of the PDF.


Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.

2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in
part or to terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character
that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party
with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.


3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against
persons protected by such treaties.


In July 1974, all three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus breached the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee in the following manner…

Greece, overthrew the legitimate government of Cyprus via a military coup violating Cyprus’ government and constitution.

Turkey militarily invaded and occupied a portion of Cyprus violating Cyprus’ territorial integrity and legitimate government.

Britain, having prior knowledge of the schemes of Greece and Turkey failed to take any form of measures to protect the Republic Cyprus.

In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties all three guarantor powers were in breech of the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee rendering it invalid.

Regards, GR.


Have just read something which suggests that because Makarios requested the security of UN forces in 1964, and they complied; the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee giving anyone else rights to intervene, was nullified.

Will check this out further when I have time ... unless someone else can do the honours meanwhile.
User avatar
Oracle
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 23507
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 11:13 am
Location: Anywhere but...

Re: Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

Postby EPSILON » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:13 pm

BirKibrisli wrote:
Get Real! wrote:Is the 1959 "Treaty of Guarantee" valid?

There are many reasons that render the "Treaty of Guarantee" invalid including the UN Charter as a result of Cyprus’ 1960 entry into the UN, but in this article we will take a look at what international law has to say regarding the termination of treaties themselves…

The link being used is...

http://www.worldtradelaw.net/misc/viennaconvention.pdf

...and the relevant section begins from the end of page 18 of the PDF.


Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

Article 60: Termination or suspension of the operation of a treaty as a consequence of its breach

1. A material breach of a bilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles the other to invoke the breach as a ground for terminating the treaty or suspending its operation in whole or in part.
2. A material breach of a multilateral treaty by one of the parties entitles:
(a) the other parties by unanimous agreement to suspend the operation of the treaty in whole or in
part or to terminate it either:
(i) in the relations between themselves and the defaulting State, or

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

(ii) as between all the parties;
(b) a party specially affected by the breach to invoke it as a ground for suspending the operation
of the treaty in whole or in part in the relations between itself and the defaulting State;
(c) any party other than the defaulting State to invoke the breach as a ground for suspending the
operation of the treaty in whole or in part with respect to itself if the treaty is of such a character
that a material breach of its provisions by one party radically changes the position of every party
with respect to the further performance of its obligations under the treaty.


3. A material breach of a treaty, for the purposes of this article, consists in:
(a) a repudiation of the treaty not sanctioned by the present Convention; or
(b) the violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty.

4. The foregoing paragraphs are without prejudice to any provision in the treaty applicable in the event of a breach.

5. Paragraphs 1 to 3 do not apply to provisions relating to the protection of the human person contained in treaties of a humanitarian character, in particular to provisions prohibiting any form of reprisals against
persons protected by such treaties.


In July 1974, all three guarantor powers of the Republic of Cyprus breached the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee in the following manner…

Greece, overthrew the legitimate government of Cyprus via a military coup violating Cyprus’ government and constitution.

Turkey militarily invaded and occupied a portion of Cyprus violating Cyprus’ territorial integrity and legitimate government.

Britain, having prior knowledge of the schemes of Greece and Turkey failed to take any form of measures to protect the Republic Cyprus.

In accordance with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties all three guarantor powers were in breech of the 1959 Treaty of Guarantee rendering it invalid.

Regards, GR.


Did the RoC use this as a ground to terminating the treaty??? When and where??? And since the 1960 agreements were breached by Makarios,by excluding the TCs or not inviting them back,back in 1963,the ROC would have been an illegal entity in 74,so they couldn't invoke anything to terminate any international treaties....Don't you think????

GR! Please tell me your take on what happened in 1963/64...Do you consider a partnership agreement without one of the partners involved in exercising power still legitimate??? Why???


just ask Denkdash he knows all the replies
User avatar
EPSILON
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor
 
Posts: 2851
Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: ATHENS

Postby Tony-4497 » Tue Jan 05, 2010 3:46 pm

The 82% - 18% proposal should I think be futher analysed and discussed and not just thrown out of the window. I know it is painful but we should at least look at it as an alternative proposal together with perhaps a modified ANNAN plan 2.


A modified, improved Annan plan 2 that might be acceptable to GCs is precisely what Christofias is striving to achieve through the talks as we speak. Unfortunately, he has gone about this in completely the wrong way and messed it up.

To achieve this he should have set such red lines that would have indeed rendered the plan acceptable to GCs and then applied pressure on Turkey through its EU process and building alliances with countries like France and Germany to ensure those red lines were not crossed.

Instead, he gave away so much already that the final plan cannot be acceptable by GCs, and got sod-all in return, de-criminalised Turkey and kept her out of everything through his naive "solution by the Cypriots" approach, as recommended by Britain, and isolated Cyprus in Europe, allowing Turkey to proceed at zero cost.

Unless a new strategy is put in place, partition (at least de facto) will be the only outcome.
Tony-4497
Contributor
Contributor
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:09 pm
Location: Limassol

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests