Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Because we came later, It wont means we didnt build cities too.

Can you tell us about the cities in Cyprus that Turks founded?

[Murtaza]

Mr Alexandros Lordos

Do you have any idea where is middle asia?
Because we came later, It wont means we didnt build cities too.
Your knowledge is too limited.
And with this small knowledge you comment about all race.
How childish.

Mr. Murtaza,

what are the 2 most developed cities in Turkey?

Im assuming they are nowhere near central asia.

what are the poorest areas in Turkey?

Im assuming they are IN central asia.

Istanbul and Ankara.
What I mean is that, You know nothing about Turks.
When Turks comes to anatolia, There was already people and civilization who live in anatolia.(Not just Greeks)

So the city Turks populated also this cities. This mean we cant build cities and just steal them?

Do you know Taj Mahal made by Turks magic?
Or do you know how many Turks live in world?
You take all the reputation comes from all greek civilization.
but We should just take ottomans?
Do you know how much Istanbul changed?
Do you thing we get city from greeks. And just use them?
Didnt build anything new?

[Murtaza]

Because we came later, It wont means we didnt build cities too.

Can you tell us about the cities in Cyprus that Turks founded?

do you have some problem with your mind ?
did I say Turks build any city in cyprus?
but you said Turks build no cities?
oh wait a little.
cities in middle asia also build by Greeks?
than we steal them?

[Kifeas]

The time that Greeks first came to Cyprus the concept of country did not exist (in our area at least). The population of the whole Cyprus was just some thousand people living in various separate settlements spread around the island.

Not only the concept of country, but the very concept of history as we know and understand it today, did not exist. It was a prehistoric period. It was before writing was discovered, apart from stone inscriptions in hieroglyphic style, and certainly no documentation of any historical events existed either. We can only guess what was the situation of Cyprus before the Greek colonisation and this only based on excavations in archaeological sites with stone age settlements like Hirokitia, etc.

[erolz]

I think that no one will seriously deny that the Cyprus Problem has a political dimension,

Well you have not been reading some of the posts here then. Posts saying essentialy - we (GC) do not have to compromise or negotiate anything - all we have to do is insist that 'legality' be restored.

but, since you seem to acknowledge that there is also a legal dimension, what do you accept as "pure illegality"?

To throw the gauntlet into the arena, I would say that the following three issues are the most glaring illegalities that the TC leadership - under Denktash - instituted:

My point is that pretending that international law is the same as national laws is to ignore reality and live in a dream world.

a. The declaration of the TRNC. That was a totally gratuitous move, since the two sides had already agreed to negotiate a BBF. Creating an interim Turkish Cypriot authority could have been justified by the principle of necessity, declaring the TRNC not so.

Are you saying the declaration was gartuiyous or 'illegal'. If you say illegal then under what law exactly is it illegal. Who made this law. Who granted the body it's power and jusrisdiction to make such laws. When was the due process of thislaw follwed and a trial convened and defense and prosecuion arguments made and who were the judges? As far as the delceration of independent states goes the reality is their is no international law, no due process, no judge and jury. All there is, is (political) acceptance or not from other states of this newly declared state. I would be more than happy if their was such international law, with a legislative body with jurisdiction and an enforcment body to uphold these laws but the plain and simplr fact is that there is no such law or body.

b. The giving away of GC properties to TCs, in exchange for their own properties in the south. We must make a distinction here between allowing use of GC properties, and transferring ownership of GC properties. Allowing use can be excused under the principle of necessity, transferring ownership not so.

Then by your standards the granting of deeds by the United states to land (previously owned by native americans) are all 'illegal', for this land was 'illegaly' taken by force from the original owners and the newly declared states had no legal right or ability to issue deeds at all? Or was this legal then but illegal now?
Let me be clear here I am not saying I like the decisions the TRNC has taken on property, or that I support them or that I would have done the same. What I am saying is that a state - recognised or not has the ability to implement whatever policies it wishes in the lands uder it's jurisdiction (physical control). Soverignty exists for a state as long as it can control the area it is sovreign over. Would I prefer there to be a body of law that has jurisducation and rights to overide the decisions of sovreign nations and enforce it's rules on the? Sure I would but such a body does not exist.

c. The giving away of GC properties to Settlers. This is even worse than b above, because international law explicitly prohibits occupying powers to demographically alter areas that are under their military control.

Again I am not happy with what happened in this regard. However to claim it is 'illegal' is your opinion. You are not a judge and jury. Yes there are internatinal agreements that prohibit occupying powers to demographically change areas under their control. There is also an argument that the TRNC is not under occupation but since it's creation has invited Turkey to help maintain it's physical integretiy and that the TRNC as a sovreign state can let in who ever it wishes to the TRNC. Even if I accpet that the TRNC is under occupation (which I do not - part of the RoC may be under occupation but that is not the same thing) the _reality_ is that these international laws are unenforceable by legal means and enforcable only via poltical means as been shown time and again the world over. These are just realites and simply saying 'illegal, illegal' does not move us forward one iota.

Other than the above issues, the fact that we currently have a geographical and political separation in Cyprus is a political matter, that needs to be resolved via negotiations but without violating the principles of international law.

Within the framework of polticial negotiations to find a settlement then certainly let's talk about legailty. What I am objecting too is the use of 'psudeo' legality as an excuse to NOT negotiate.

By the way just what are these principals of international law? Is it a principal of international law a state can not be created through force of arms? Is it a principal of international law that a people can not declare their independance?

[erolz]

you say int'l and "normal" law are different but that is not necessarily true. as kifeas noted it all depends on how people wish to apply int'l law.

don't forget milosevic was in violation of int'l law and he went to trial just like normal laws. the saem with sadam who. now we await for sharon and kissinger to step foot in Europe for this to happen as well...

These examples you give do not show that international law exists in the same way and form that national law does. In fact they show exactly the opposite. They show that actually international 'law' is something used by the victorious and powerful only against the conquered and weak and not something applied to all eqaully by an indpendent body with jurisdiction. Under what international (or national for that matter) law is Saddam Hussein being held for ove two years now without even being chraged with a crime yet? The international law of 'strenght' is the answer and this is not 'law' as we understand it in the sense of national laws.

I don't like the fact that their is no real international law and that the international level there is only power and politics. I do however accept this reality. Ignoring reality does not help you solve problems like the Cyprus issue imo.

[magikthrill]

so what you are trying to say erol is that international laws mean absolutely nothing, since this is the only way a turkish cypriot state can be justified.

so im guessing even if the trnc were invited to participate in the UN then they would refuse because such organizations have no point.

[Murtaza]

so what you are trying to say erol is that international laws mean absolutely nothing, since this is the only way a turkish cypriot state can be justified.

so im guessing even if the trnc were invited to participate in the UN then they would refuse because such organizations have no point.

If UN accept TRNC, So will ROC also accept it?
Or at that point, Problem becomes more politic?

[magikthrill]

so what you are trying to say erol is that international laws mean absolutely nothing, since this is the only way a turkish cypriot state can be justified.

so im guessing even if the trnc were invited to participate in the UN then they would refuse because such organizations have no point.

If UN accept TRNC, So will ROC also accept it?
Or at that point, Problem becomes more politic?

it wont matter by that point what the RoC wants.

the UN could never accept TRNC as it is right now because its bilateral declaration violates the UN charter. something which erol claims is of no importance.

[Murtaza]

so what you are trying to say erol is that international laws mean absolutely nothing, since this is the only way a turkish cypriot state can be justified.

so im guessing even if the trnc were invited to participate in the UN then they would refuse because such organizations have no point.

If UN accept TRNC, So will ROC also accept it?
Or at that point, Problem becomes more politic?

it wont matter by that point what the RoC wants.

the UN could never accept TRNC as it is right now because its bilateral declaration violates the UN charter. something which erol claims is of no importance.

UN is a court? (How he can decide about the legality or not)
Or a political institution.

I think What Erolz want to say is this.
Legality comes with the political institution.(And If USA or some big country recognise TRNC. Illegality most probably will finish.)
So main problem with TRNC is still political and ROC dont have to wait, TRNC say "I am illegal" so I should destroy myself.