Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

Copperline,

You paint a picture which Zan summed up accurately: "no victim no crime" and you of all people should know that this cannot be. Refer to the Nuremberg trials and the defences of superior orders which did not hold up. There is pesonal responsibility undr International Law otherwise it would not be law.

Any crime, including those that are committed by legal persons like states has human instruments. The criminal nature of the original act taints all those that benefit from it and affects their status if not their ultimate culpability.

Illegal immigrants also arrive in Cyprus voluntarily, often with the connivance of the TRNC operatives. They are sent back where they came from. The same holds true for settlers.

The other aspect you have totally ignored is the usurpation of property belonging to citizens of Cyprus by the incomers. This process is a joint act, carried out by the Turkey, the agents of the TRNC and the final recipient and occupier of the property, and there we have a whole range of decisions as to the relative rights and obligations from the ECHR. Obviously the judges do not share the view "no victim no crime".

In the final analysis, when faced with the kind of cynical approach you incorporate in your posts ie: "the settlers are here, you cannot do a thing about them, so you might as well accept them and shut your mouth and swallow your loss", leads to a resolve to return that cynicism twice over . This kind of mindset hardly leads to a resolution of the problem.

When this kind of attitude is flashed at people who have lost everything, you cannot then blame them for accepting the message that the only good Turk is a dead Turk.

Nikitas,
I don't think that Zan's 'no victim no crime' sums up my position at all. On the contrary there are lots of victims, but the legal questions are who broke the law, which law did they break, and how did they break the law.

I really don't see how the Nuremburg trial has any bearing on the issue of whether settlers should be expelled or not, or whether they have acted illegally or not. Perhaps you can explain further ?

I can only repeat what I said in another post : natural persons are not subjects of international law. Whilst I might agree with you about moral responsibility of individuals it does not change the fact that international law deals with a different kind of legal personality.

Do I think that a child born to settler parents should pay the price for his/her parents' alleged illegality ? No. Do I think that individuals of the Nth generation should be held to account for the crimes of their forefathers ? No. Liitle Mehmet no more chose to be born to Turkish settler parents than little Iannis chose to be born to an EOKA father. Since I believe that children are born innocent of crimes and are born with natural rights I do not think it permissible morally, and I don't think that it is pemissible legally to punish them by expulsion for the crimes of others.

Regarding property : I've said several times on this forum that property rights - along with other abused rights - should be addressed equitably and fairly. I hold no brief for the Republic of Turkey, for occupiers, for the TRNC, for the Republic of Cyprus or any other state or political power. The current Property Commission whilst a step in the right direction remains woefully inadequate.

Should Turkey have encouraged the movements of people to northern Cyprus ? No of course not. It is unquestionably a breach of occupation law. But the fact remains that this is historically what happened and, with the passage of time new lives have been lived in circumstances not of their choosing. I agree with you regarding the juxtaposition of the "kind of attitude is flashed at people who have lost everything" and the presence of 'settlers'. But I reject the words that you put into my mouth regarding a cynical approach and of the false suggestion that I either said or implied that one should "shut your mouth and swallow your loss". Nothing could be further from my position. My position is that because of the losses and the manner of the loss we cannot either engineer a simple reversal nor can we ignore the realities of how a just settlement will be paid for and by whom.

And no, there is no defence and no apologetics which can justify the sentiment of "the only good Turk is a dead Turk." Frankly I wouldn't give the time of day to somebody who dared express such a bigoted and irrational view. And I would blame the for holding such a view - an bigoted and irrational view however deeply held remains bigoted and irrational. No sympathy.

Sorry for the confusion but I just meant that the "Victims" are the only ones that can do anything about the legal issue....

[CopperLine]

Is Cyprus the only place where the question of 'illegal' settlers had to be resolved fairly as part of a general settlement ? Is Cyprus the only place where groups of people were displaced and dispossessed and, in due course, an equitable settlement had to be negotiated ? No of course not. Recent European history alone is littered with such (successful) cases of far greater complexity and far greater scale (numbers, value) than that of Cyprus. When we lift our heads out of the goldfish bowl of Cyprus and look at what has gone on in the wider world we mighy - just might - get a better perspective on our own problems.

[Get Real!]

Copperline’s gripe seems to be the TITLE of the thread which can be interpreted as blaming the violation of international laws quoted on the settlers themselves instead of Turkey and for this he is correct.

The title might have been better worded as:

“Is the importation of Turkish Settlers to the “TRNC” Illegal?

However, the settlers TOO are in violation of OTHER international laws but this we can explore in another thread and on another day…

Thanks Copperline...

[Get Real!]

Is Cyprus the only place where the question of 'illegal' settlers had to be resolved fairly as part of a general settlement ? Is Cyprus the only place where groups of people were displaced and dispossessed and, in due course, an equitable settlement had to be negotiated ? No of course not.

No sooner did I praise you that I will now do the opposite on this different issue...

The imported settlers are NOT "displaced and dispossessed" but the Cypriot refugees of the events of 1974, so let's not get confused about who is who...

The settlers are here as a result of Turkey's DELIBERATE attempt to alter the DEMOGRAPHICS of the island to suit her ulterior motives, and THAT is what I'm accusing her of with the various sections international law quoted.

[Kifeas]

Is Cyprus the only place where the question of 'illegal' settlers had to be resolved fairly as part of a general settlement ? Is Cyprus the only place where groups of people were displaced and dispossessed and, in due course, an equitable settlement had to be negotiated ? No of course not. Recent European history alone is littered with such (successful) cases of far greater complexity and far greater scale (numbers, value) than that of Cyprus. When we lift our heads out of the goldfish bowl of Cyprus and look at what has gone on in the wider world we mighy - just might - get a better perspective on our own problems.

Copper, one may only sympathize with your anguish to get the Greek Cypriots sucked in a solution, after 4,000 years of heritage and majority existence in all parts of Cyprus. "Shame" Turkey did not think in advance that one wise man called Copperline would have appeared on the scene and started rationalizing in favor of vindicating the illegal fait accomplices of her 1974 aggression. Had she thought of it, she would have occupied more territory in 1974, ethnically cleansed even more GCs and would have allowed 1 or 2 millions of her own citizens to colonize the north, and then have it later all legitimized and vindicated based on CopperLine's brilliant theories. What a shame Turkey did not think of it!

[Jerry]

GR and others can't quite make up their minds at whom to shoot their arrows. Are Turkish settlers 'illegal' because they're Turkish or because they're settlers ? GR cites international law as examples 'demonstrating' that they're 'illegal' but as any fule nose individual persons are not subjects of the international law which he cites. So, these individual Turks coming to Cyprus voluntarily have broken no international law.

If they've broken any law it is not international law but Republic of Cyprus immigration law and since the RoC admits to having no administrative control over northern Cyprus - in other words its jurisdiction is effectively limited - we all know what problems that raises. In this latter respect Turkish 'settlers' are in exactly the same position as Brits, Germans, Russians, Greeks, Israelis and any other person who has visited or 'settled' in northern Cyprus.

If, as some have speculated on this thread, that it is Turkey (not the 'settlers') which is in breach of international law then it would require a complainant to bring a case against Turkey in either public international law (meaning that it would have to be a state party and not, what lawyers call, a 'natural person') or in international human rights law. If the latter then it would require the Turkish settler themselves to take an action against the Turkish state. And if the latter the problem would not be with what happened to settlers on entering Cyprus but what the Turkish state did to them in making them move to Cyprus. All fairly implausible and unlikely.

Ergo....No victim, no crime!!!!! Nice one Copperline

For all practical purposes the legality of the settler issue is irrelevant since their fate will be decided and incorporated in a settlement of The Cyprus Problem.

Jerry, Not quite. If a negotiated settlement resulted in the expulsion of a person who had, say, settled in Cyprus twenty years ago - had a family, a livelihood, a home, etc - then notwithstanding the political settlement their human rights could be argued to have been breached and they could take a case through national (newly unified Cyprus) courts and ultimately to European or international human rights courts.

Copperline, whatever the outcome of the talks, territory will be traded for autonomy. Talat seems to want a weak central government (Cyprus Mail yesterday), the only way he will get this is by giving back more land. We will end up with a situation where the GCs see Talat's position as just one step away from partition. Annan proposed 29% for the northern State with return of some refugees. If they start haggling around the 22-23% mark I think the GCs would go for it and at an even lower figure partition may even be agreed. Settlers and would be offered financial inducements to leave the land returned to the ROC. Those that remained on GC property would, presumably, be open to action in the ROC Courts, as Orams. Forewarned with the consequences of staying I'm sure most settlers would leave. On the assumption that the northern State became fully autonomous I don't think too many in the south would care how many stayed there. How this would fit in with Turkey's EU application is anyone's guess, a thumbs up from the ROC for a bit more land perhaps?

[humanist]

Are Turkish Settlers in the “TRNC” Illegal?

Well depends on which side oif the fence you sit.

If you been kicked out of your home at gunpoint and not been allowed to return for 34 years then yes they are.

If you are international community looking down then you may say yes they are illegal but where's Cyprus?

and if you ask a Turk well they'll say hell no we are 70 00000 of us and we can trample all over you, depsite the fact we may be placing ourselves at disadvantage

and if you ask a TC they may say well we are screwed and will continue to screw ourselves because ur motherland Turkey will oppress us even more if we do otherwise

My take on the issue

[MrH]

Jerry Wrote:

Copperline, whatever the outcome of the talks, territory will be traded for autonomy. Talat seems to want a weak central government (Cyprus Mail yesterday), the only way he will get this is by giving back more land. We will end up with a situation where the GCs see Talat's position as just one step away from partition. Annan proposed 29% for the northern State with return of some refugees. If they start haggling around the 22-23% mark I think the GCs would go for it and at an even lower figure partition may even be agreed. Settlers and would be offered financial inducements to leave the land returned to the ROC. Those that remained on GC property would, presumably, be open to action in the ROC Courts, as Orams. Forewarned with the consequences of staying I'm sure most settlers would leave. On the assumption that the northern State became fully autonomous I don't think too many in the south would care how many stayed there. How this would fit in with Turkey's EU application is anyone's guess, a thumbs up from the ROC for a bit more land perhaps?

An interesting analysis Jerry. I'm not sure, however, how much territorial adjustment (reduction) the TCs would be willing accept, but I will agree with you on the strategy as I'm sure Christofias and Talat both know that their own (deep-rooted differing) views will ultimately mean partition of some sort. The TCs will obviously never agree to a Federal solution if it does not consist of an autonomous Federated TC State as part of a "very Loose" Central government, while the GCs, due to their majority population advantage, will again obviously "Never" accept anything short of a "very Strong" Central government, No-Constituent states and only a Bi-communal based federation and not a B-zonal.

As you've rightly discussed above, I also believe that the two leaders will soon it a deadlock and will have to sit down and talk within a serious and realistic, attainable and acceptable, resolution to the Cyprus problem.

How much will be given or taken, your guess is as good as mine.

[Nikitas]

Copperline,

I do not want to cut and paste your long reply, but here are my responses to some paraphrased remarks you made.

Are individuals subject to international law? Yes, and that is why at this moment there are ongoing trials for war crimes in former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and Liberia.

The Nuremberg itrials settled the issue of individuals invoking the defence of their acts emanating from state authority. A state crime can and does taint the acts of individuals and the deliberate movement of settlers IS A CRIME. State actions as all actions of legal persons are the result of individual decisions and acts.

There are new realities following the invasion and occupation of northern Cyprus. Surely those realities cannot be any stronger than the occupation of Ghaza by Israel from 1967 till four years ago. But the Israelis did vacate their settlements there and lots of little "Davids" born in Ghaza settlements were forced to return along with their settler parents to Israel.

The tearful depiction of little Mehmet who was born in Cyprus cus no ice with me. There are many indigenous people displaced by the little Mehmets who may be blameless but their innocence but cannot be allowed to displace the rightful inhabitants of the island. The same arguments you make re little Mehmet could have been made for the offspring of Nazi officers and their wives during the War. And can be answered by the same legal technicality, that settlers are the civilian component of an occupying army and therefore do not get any rights.

Little yannis and his EOKA dad is irrelevant. Little Yannis has patrial connections to Cyprus and his parents' acts do not change that vital connection to the island.

There are many ways to tackle the settler problem without resorting to the forced expulsion of people. Here are some: settlers and their descendants get temporary residence permits renewable on set times. Special financial incentives are offered for voluntary repatriation. Lawful settler residents have no political rights, ie voting, occupying government office.

The settler problem is a question of demographics for the GC comunity and property usurpation. For the TCs it is something deeper and more far reaching, as is revealed by posts of many TCs on this forum.

When you refer to settlers you must also ask yourself of the response of the Cypriots to the possibility of having a district officer, minister, member of parliament, or even president, born of parents from Turkey or Greece. When all of us here can answer that question honestly and sincerely then let us talk about the settler question and rights etc.

[CopperLine]

Nikitas
Here might not be the place to discuss the matter but Nuremburg did not "settle the issue of individuals invoking the defence of their acts emanating from state authority." First, this was a rare 'defence' at Nuremburg, and second of those who used that defence (people in less senior positions) received relatively light sentences (given the enormity of their crimes). The 'only obeying order' kind of defence is more usually associated with Eichmann (in Jerusalem, not Nuremburg) and let's face it, that was not a strong card to play ! In any case Jerusalem was a national court, not an international court. Nuremburg was a special, exceptional court, and neither a national court nor one established under clear international law.

A state crime, as you say can and does taint the acts of indviduals. But not any and all individuals. An individual citizen who undertakes what they believe to be a lawful action sanctioned by the state is not liable in the same way that a civil servant who undertakes an action which they believe to be lawful and is sanctioned by the state. That's one of the big differences between being a civil servant and not being a civil servant ; the civil servant in exercising his/her legal functions is doing so as a servant/instrument of the state. If you as a private citizen carry out an action eg settlement in another country that is your private look out. If you as a civil servant carry out a public action eg settlement in another country then you implicate the state.

Your reference to the Israel-Gaza settlers and withdrawal is interesting precisely because this was the subject of multiple court cases going as high as the Israeli Supreme Court regarding the nature of rights of settlers. Controversially, the Israeli state negotiated massive compensation with the forcibly returned settlers. I'm not defending (at all) this resolution, but do want to say that its is much more complicated than the picture you painted.

Regarding the 'little Mehmets' - it wasn't intended to be tearful. Nor did I argue that it should 'displace the rightful inhabitants'. But if their innocence cannot cannot be allowed to have an effect on their rights and status then it is difficult to see what one would basis anyone's rights on ? Isn't innocence of wrongdoing the bottom line of justice ? Or have we now 'allowed' guilt by association to determine how people are to be treated and whether their rights are to be respected ?

Settlers are not the civilian component of an occupying army. You won't find such a formulation in international law. An immigrant who settles down -i.e, settles in an other country is a civilian unless they are a member of the armed forces, in which case they're not, by definition, a civilian. Having the status of a civilian cannot be casually dismissed as a 'legal technicality.' The fact that there are tome upon tome of international law specifying the distinction between civilians and others is testament to this.

I agree there are many ways of dealing with settlers which does not require expulsion, although I'm not especially persuaded by your suggestions. Nevertheless there are many examples of relatively fair and just resolutions from around Europe and elsewhere from which we might usefully learn.

If some GCs are prepare to accept compensation (rather than return of property) and some settlers wish to remain then a mechanism for respecting the wishes of these two groups can be negotiated. If some GCs want the return of property then those settlers who are on GC property will have to move - a mechanism for return of property (a GC human right which should be upheld) and for the removal but not expulsion (a human right of settlers which should be upheld) can also be negotiated.