Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

With reference to this question of whether the Turkish Cypriots could have returned to the Republic in 1964 as İsmet İnönü advised them to do in his letter dated 9 March of that year, the experiences of the Turkish Cypriot judges, who apparently did this, appears to be instructive. According to the following source, this move ended in failure:

http://www.sam.gov.tr/perceptions/Volum ... zersay.pdf

Turkish-Cypriot judges continued to take part in
the judiciary, but this was an exceptional case. It was maintained that the
Turkish-Cypriot judges had resumed their functions in 1964, stayed in office until
1966 and abided by the Greek-Cypriot Supreme Court judgments in their own
decisions. According to the Greek-Cypriot authorities, such an attitude reflects the
recognition of the ‘lawful existence and functioning of the Government’.118
Nevertheless, it is understood from the statements of the Turkish-Cypriot judges
that they attended the courts because of their expectation that the violations of
constitutional provisions would be eliminated and the abnormal situation would be
ended.119 Moreover, on 2 June 1966, they were stopped at the checkpoint,
prevented from attending the courts and one of them ‘was removed from his
chambers at gun point and taken back to the checkpoint’.120 It should also be
emphasised that during the period 1963-1966, despite the participation of the
Turkish-Cypriot judges, some cases related to Turkish-Cypriot citizens were
brought before Greek-Cypriot judges in violation of the 1960 Constitution.121
Violations existed, because the presence of Turkish-Cypriot judges is mandatory for
cases involving a Turkish-Cypriot as a plaintiff or a defendant.122
This event proves the absence of ‘popular Cypriot support’ for the
Greek-Cypriot government and demonstrates the reluctance of the Greek-Cypriot
leaders to put an end to the abnormal situation on the Island, which was invoked as
an excuse to apply the doctrine of necessity. They refused to give a chance to acts
aiming at the application of constitutional provisions.

By the spring of 1964, the legislature was effectively a Greek Cypriot body. Turkish Cypriot representatives, like their counterparts in the civil service, feared for their safety in the Greek-dominated parts of Nicosia, and did not participate.

Turkish Cypriots have argued that what they considered their involuntary nonparticipation rendered any acts of that parliament unconstitutional. Greek Cypriots have maintained that the institutions continued to function under the constitution, despite Turkish Cypriot absence.

In 1964 the Greek Cypriot-controlled House of Representatives passed a number of important pieces of legislation, including laws providing for the establishment of an armed force, the National Guard, and for the restoration to the government of its rights to impose an income tax. Other laws altered the government structure and some of the bicommunal arrangements, including abolishing separate electoral rolls for Greek and Turkish Cypriots, abolishing the Greek Cypriot Communal Chamber, and amalgamating the Supreme Constitutional Court and the High Court of Justice into the Supreme Court.

Reaction of the Turkish Cypriot judiciary to this judicial change was apparently not unfavorable, since a Turkish Cypriot was named president of the Supreme Court. He assumed his post, and other Turkish Cypriot judges returned to the bench. For about two years, Turkish Cypriot judges participated in the revised court system, dealing with both Greek and Turkish Cypriots. In June 1966, however, the Turkish Cypriot judges withdrew from the system, claiming harassment. The Turkish Cypriot leadership directed its community not to use the courts of the republic, to which, however, they continued to be legally entitled, according to the Greek Cypriots. In turn, the judicial processes set up in the Turkish Cypriot community were considered by the Greek Cypriot government to be without legal foundation.

http://countrystudies.us/cyprus/54.htm

It is clearly being seen that GC leadership left 2 options for TC community; TCs will either accept minority status and join to so-called RoC or keep struggling for political equality on one hand, if not; struggle for Taksim on the other hand...

[lovernomore]

Hi Piratis,

We started to use properties of TCs in the free areas of Cyprus only after the 1974 Turkish invasion, and after the 18% of TCs took the 37% of land and we had to house close to 200.000 refugees in the part of Cyprus we were left with.

There you go again on the issue of 18%! Stop looking at the Turkish Cypriots as a percentage but rather as a Partner (50%). Plus, are you saying that two wrongs make a write with the sale of TCs properties in the south using the 1974 intervention of Turkey as a pretext? And with the continuation of the Isolation on our people. If we were to have believed that one day we could live together as one, your continued mocking of everything Turkish Cypriots does not, and has never, painted a pretty picture.

Oh, so now you want the 50% for your 18% minority? And there was no TC property sales, and therefore no "two wrongs". The wrong was done only by you. We only temporarily use those properties to house our refugess because you keep them out of their own homes.

Still no title deeds were given to the refugees to those properties

.

I'm not sure if that is true Piratis, as I personally know that many re-issued title deeds from the Hijacked GC-ROC were originally Turkish Cypriot owned in 1963 (and were not sold but abandoned due to inter-communal fighting).

You don't know anything. You are just making up things.

Beyond that a proportionate portion of TCs properties could have been expropriated for building roads, hospitals, schools etc, just like they expropriate property from GCs to do so.

I guess that makes it okay, does it? So if we used so-called GC owned properties in the North for Hospitals and etc would that make it legal? Would me be able to take the builders of that particular Hospital to the ECHR or would the GC-ROC provide compensation via an EU-Sponsored Property Commission like in North Cyprus? Your cases to the ECHR are typical of the Double standards were expected from the GC-Controlled ROC.

Expropriation for public facilities is done by the state, and this is something done by all states. In Cyprus there is only one state, the Republic of Cyprus. So don't compare your criminal gang with the state.

On the other hand, the occupation regime issues fake title deeds to our properties and gives them not only to TCs, but to foreigners as well.

The "Occupation Regime", I'm sorry but it's called the TRNC. Like how we Do NOT recognise the GC-ROC (but do not rudely refer to it as the "Hijacked Regime"), we at least expected you (GCs) to perhaps refer to us as the "unrecognised TRNC" instead? The "Occupation Regime" you are referring to is not a Positive reflection of a state we voted for under our rights to self determination after years of failed UN Sponsored talks between 1974-1983 (How long did you expect us to wait! We even prior to the TRNC declaration, referred to our state as the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus", in the view of perhaps reaching a Federal solution!). On the one hand you Want us to ALL live under one umbrella, trusting your people once again, only to continually criticise our state and position beyond any repair in Federal-relations. You don't see China calling Taiwan the "Occupied Regime" do you? I'm Sorry Piratis, but Talat and Christofias are not only going for a miracle with these talks, but for a the 8th Wonder of the world!

I am talking with facts. If you want to change the labels of things then I really don't care. In Cyprus there is only one state, the Republic of Cyprus, and 1/3rd of Republic of Cyprus is illegally occupied by Turkish troops. These are the facts.

_________________

The Turkish army ethnically cleansed the majority of Cypriots from north Cyprus, replaced them with Turkish settlers, and declared the "TRNC" on our land

And for this one, the Turkish Army actually stopped the Greek Coupists from Greece in 1974 from killing more of your people.

You mean like you saved us from the Venetians in 1571? Interesting way of helping us. Invade us, kill 1000s, violate our human rights, steal our lands, and then import Turkish settlers and give to them the lands stolen from us. Thank you for being so generous

Cyprus would have been so much better without your "help" and I really hope you will soon stop "helping".

ROBOT AT WORK. One more rubish post

[Tim Drayton]

I am surprised that there is so little material about the Turkish Cypriot judges who returned to their posts in the RoC in 1964 and continued to serve there until 1966.

I have found an undated report (in Turkish) of a RoC High Court ruling which stated that Turkish Cypriot judge Ülfet Emin was removed from his post by armed force in June 1966, and was thus entitled to press for back pay and pension entitlements.

http://dialog.di.ohost.de/index.php?opt ... ew&id=1570

Apparently this same judge made a detailed statement on 13 January 1978 in which he outlined the reasons for the Turkish Cypriot judges returning to their posts and claimed that they were prevented from performing their duties in accordance with the constitution. Does anybody know where one can find the text of this statement?

This seems to be a litmus test of whether it would have been possible for the Turkish Cypriots to return to the Republic in 1964, as İnönü urged them to do in his letter to the Turkish Cypriot leadership dated 9 March of that year. On the face of it, this test appears to prove İnönü wrong.

[Kifeas]

I am surprised that there is so little material about the Turkish Cypriot judges who returned to their posts in the RoC in 1964 and continued to serve there until 1966.

I have found an undated report (in Turkish) of a RoC High Court ruling which stated that Turkish Cypriot judge Ülfet Emin was removed from his post by armed force in June 1966, and was thus entitled to press for back pay and pension entitlements.

http://dialog.di.ohost.de/index.php?opt ... ew&id=1570

Apparently this same judge made a detailed statement on 13 January 1978 in which he outlined the reasons for the Turkish Cypriot judges returning to their posts and claimed that they were prevented from performing their duties in accordance with the constitution. Does anybody know where one can find the text of this statement?

This seems to be a litmus test of whether it would have been possible for the Turkish Cypriots to return to the Republic in 1964, as İnönü urged them to do in his letter to the Turkish Cypriot leadership dated 9 March of that year. On the face of it, this test appears to prove İnönü wrong.

Tim, to say that it was entirely possible or easy at all -for either of the two sides, for a complete reversal back to the 1960-1963 state of affairs, after all that had taken place in late 1963 and 1964, is a grossly exaggerated and unrealistic assumption or belief. I personally believe it was not possible, without the two leaderships addressing the causes of the problem and without willingness to back down from their two, equally zero sum political convictions and objectives. Neither it is easy for two political elites and mechanisms (not the ordinary people) that fought, despised and resented each other almost to death, to merged back together and cooperate, from one to day to the next. It would have needed time for this to materialize, gradually, and if Ismet Inonou’s suggestion was towards this direction, I am afraid it was a bit simplistic.

Despite all, the ingredients among the societies of the two communities were still there and promising, and one may conclude this by just reading the various UN SG reports - with particular emphasis to the longest and most detailed one, that of UN special representative Galo Plaza; or Martin Packard's recent book. However, this was not enough. Without willingness on the part of the TC leadership to acknowledge that there were problematic and grossly unfair provisions in the 1960 constitution, and readiness to discuss and negotiate them with the GC leadership; and without willingness from the part of the GC leadership to stop seen the TC community as a mere minority without the need or the right for any special status, above and beyond that of a minority; it was not possible for the two to find common ground that would have allowed the re-integration of the TCs back into the RoC. It simply wouldn't function. Signs for such a change did emerge, from both sides, after 1968, when they decided to water down their maximalist claims. By 1973, this common ground was found, but for some minor and unimportant issues from both sides, an agreement to such an end was not concluded, until the events of summer 1974 emerged.

One of the few unimportant issues which did not allow the agreement between Denktash and Klerides to conclude, was the insistence of Turkey and thus also the TC leadership to re-affirm in the new agreement, the prohibition of Enosis (union) and /or Partition. Makarios was not willing to agree to that, claiming that since the new agreement was based on the 1960 state of affairs, i.e. it would have resulted to an amendment of the 1960 constitution only to the provisions and points that were renegotiated and would have been re-agreed, and since the issue of the prohibition of enosis /partition was not one of the contested issues and thus the 1960 prohibiting provision would still be valid, there was no need to re-agree or re-sign anything on that. Of course, the reason Turkey insisted on such an addition was deliberate. Knowing that Makarios argument was valid, but also knowing that Makarios was not able to readdress this issue -not because he had enosis in the back of his mind but due to the internal instability among the GC society, Turkey had chosen to exploit Makarios weakness and insisted on this, so that an agreement would be delayed and /or postponed. Due to the minority but strongly vocal enosis movement within the GC society, and the fact that Greek Junta was threatening Makarios with a coup, citing the burial of enosis, Makarios did not want to give them further ammunition and "arguments" to undermine him, for having buried the issue of Enosis once more, and the Turkish deep state, which was also dead against any new agreement due to its own invasion and partition aspirations, knew well of Makarios difficulties resigning such an (essentially unneeded) provision. In other words, we defeated the lions (i.e. addressed and agreed on the most difficult part,) but were devoured by the mosquitoes (i.e. were unable to agree on the least important and most insignificant part.)

[Tim Drayton]

I am surprised that there is so little material about the Turkish Cypriot judges who returned to their posts in the RoC in 1964 and continued to serve there until 1966.

I have found an undated report (in Turkish) of a RoC High Court ruling which stated that Turkish Cypriot judge Ülfet Emin was removed from his post by armed force in June 1966, and was thus entitled to press for back pay and pension entitlements.

http://dialog.di.ohost.de/index.php?opt ... ew&id=1570

Apparently this same judge made a detailed statement on 13 January 1978 in which he outlined the reasons for the Turkish Cypriot judges returning to their posts and claimed that they were prevented from performing their duties in accordance with the constitution. Does anybody know where one can find the text of this statement?

This seems to be a litmus test of whether it would have been possible for the Turkish Cypriots to return to the Republic in 1964, as İnönü urged them to do in his letter to the Turkish Cypriot leadership dated 9 March of that year. On the face of it, this test appears to prove İnönü wrong.

Tim, to say that it was entirely possible or easy at all -for either of the two sides, for a complete reversal back to the 1960-1963 state of affairs, after all that had taken place in late 1963 and 1964, is a grossly exaggerated and unrealistic assumption or belief. I personally believe it was not possible, without the two leaderships addressing the causes of the problem and without willingness to back down from their two, equally zero sum political convictions and objectives. Neither it is easy for two political elites and mechanisms (not the ordinary people) that fought, despised and resented each other almost to death, to merged back together and cooperate, from one to day to the next. It would have needed time for this to materialize, gradually, and if Ismet Inonou’s suggestion was towards this direction, I am afraid it was a bit simplistic.

Despite all, the ingredients among the societies of the two communities were still there and promising, and one may conclude this by just reading the various UN SG reports - with particular emphasis to the longest and most detailed one, that of UN special representative Galo Plaza; or Martin Packard's recent book. However, this was not enough. Without willingness on the part of the TC leadership to acknowledge that there were problematic and grossly unfair provisions in the 1960 constitution, and readiness to discuss and negotiate them with the GC leadership; and without willingness from the part of the GC leadership to stop seen the TC community as a mere minority without the need or the right for any special status, above and beyond that of a minority; it was not possible for the two to find common ground that would have allowed the re-integration of the TCs back into the RoC. It simply wouldn't function. Signs for such a change did emerge, from both sides, after 1968, when they decided to water down their maximalist claims. By 1973, this common ground was found, but for some minor and unimportant issues from both sides, an agreement to such an end was not concluded, until the events of summer 1974 emerged.

One of the few unimportant issues which did not allow the agreement between Denktash and Klerides to conclude, was the insistence of Turkey and thus also the TC leadership to re-affirm in the new agreement, the prohibition of Enosis (union) and /or Partition. Makarios was not willing to agree to that, claiming that since the new agreement was based on the 1960 state of affairs, i.e. it would have resulted to an amendment of the 1960 constitution only to the provisions and points that were renegotiated and would have been re-agreed, and since the issue of the prohibition of enosis /partition was not one of the contested issues and thus the 1960 prohibiting provision would still be valid, there was no need to re-agree or re-sign anything on that. Of course, the reason Turkey insisted on such an addition was deliberate. Knowing that Makarios argument was valid, but also knowing that Makarios was not able to readdress this issue -not because he had enosis in the back of his mind but due to the internal instability among the GC society, Turkey had chosen to exploit Makarios weakness and insisted on this, so that an agreement would be delayed and /or postponed. Due to the minority but strongly vocal enosis movement within the GC society, and the fact that Greek Junta was threatening Makarios with a coup, citing the burial of enosis, Makarios did not want to give them further ammunition and "arguments" to undermine him, for having buried the issue of Enosis once more, and the Turkish deep state, which was also dead against any new agreement due to its own invasion and partition aspirations, knew well of Makarios difficulties resigning such an (essentially unneeded) provision. In other words, we defeated the lions (i.e. addressed and agreed on the most difficult part,) but were devoured by the mosquitoes (i.e. were unable to agree on the least important and most insignificant part.)

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I will give them careful consideration.

[insan]

I am surprised that there is so little material about the Turkish Cypriot judges who returned to their posts in the RoC in 1964 and continued to serve there until 1966.

I have found an undated report (in Turkish) of a RoC High Court ruling which stated that Turkish Cypriot judge Ülfet Emin was removed from his post by armed force in June 1966, and was thus entitled to press for back pay and pension entitlements.

http://dialog.di.ohost.de/index.php?opt ... ew&id=1570

Apparently this same judge made a detailed statement on 13 January 1978 in which he outlined the reasons for the Turkish Cypriot judges returning to their posts and claimed that they were prevented from performing their duties in accordance with the constitution. Does anybody know where one can find the text of this statement?

This seems to be a litmus test of whether it would have been possible for the Turkish Cypriots to return to the Republic in 1964, as İnönü urged them to do in his letter to the Turkish Cypriot leadership dated 9 March of that year. On the face of it, this test appears to prove İnönü wrong.

Tim, to say that it was entirely possible or easy at all -for either of the two sides, for a complete reversal back to the 1960-1963 state of affairs, after all that had taken place in late 1963 and 1964, is a grossly exaggerated and unrealistic assumption or belief. I personally believe it was not possible, without the two leaderships addressing the causes of the problem and without willingness to back down from their two, equally zero sum political convictions and objectives. Neither it is easy for two political elites and mechanisms (not the ordinary people) that fought, despised and resented each other almost to death, to merged back together and cooperate, from one to day to the next. It would have needed time for this to materialize, gradually, and if Ismet Inonou’s suggestion was towards this direction, I am afraid it was a bit simplistic.

Despite all, the ingredients among the societies of the two communities were still there and promising, and one may conclude this by just reading the various UN SG reports - with particular emphasis to the longest and most detailed one, that of UN special representative Galo Plaza; or Martin Packard's recent book. However, this was not enough. Without willingness on the part of the TC leadership to acknowledge that there were problematic and grossly unfair provisions in the 1960 constitution, and readiness to discuss and negotiate them with the GC leadership; and without willingness from the part of the GC leadership to stop seen the TC community as a mere minority without the need or the right for any special status, above and beyond that of a minority; it was not possible for the two to find common ground that would have allowed the re-integration of the TCs back into the RoC. It simply wouldn't function. Signs for such a change did emerge, from both sides, after 1968, when they decided to water down their maximalist claims. By 1973, this common ground was found, but for some minor and unimportant issues from both sides, an agreement to such an end was not concluded, until the events of summer 1974 emerged.

One of the few unimportant issues which did not allow the agreement between Denktash and Klerides to conclude, was the insistence of Turkey and thus also the TC leadership to re-affirm in the new agreement, the prohibition of Enosis (union) and /or Partition. Makarios was not willing to agree to that, claiming that since the new agreement was based on the 1960 state of affairs, i.e. it would have resulted to an amendment of the 1960 constitution only to the provisions and points that were renegotiated and would have been re-agreed, and since the issue of the prohibition of enosis /partition was not one of the contested issues and thus the 1960 prohibiting provision would still be valid, there was no need to re-agree or re-sign anything on that. Of course, the reason Turkey insisted on such an addition was deliberate. Knowing that Makarios argument was valid, but also knowing that Makarios was not able to readdress this issue -not because he had enosis in the back of his mind but due to the internal instability among the GC society, Turkey had chosen to exploit Makarios weakness and insisted on this, so that an agreement would be delayed and /or postponed. Due to the minority but strongly vocal enosis movement within the GC society, and the fact that Greek Junta was threatening Makarios with a coup, citing the burial of enosis, Makarios did not want to give them further ammunition and "arguments" to undermine him, for having buried the issue of Enosis once more, and the Turkish deep state, which was also dead against any new agreement due to its own invasion and partition aspirations, knew well of Makarios difficulties resigning such an (essentially unneeded) provision. In other words, we defeated the lions (i.e. addressed and agreed on the most difficult part,) but were devoured by the mosquitoes (i.e. were unable to agree on the least important and most insignificant part.)

Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I will give them careful consideration.

Kifeas' evaluation of the events, worths a careful consideration indeed. Nevertheless, I'd like Kifeas to broaden his point of view - i strongly believe he has this ability- a lot more in correlation with at least 50 years backwards(from early 60s) of Turk-Hellene affairs and the internal affairs of both parties respectively. Another issue, should be taken into consideration is that the US initiated globalization project. The Anglo-American involvement on Cyprus and Turk-Hellen relations should be considered in this concept, in my opinion... Then arrived the anti-globalists, left wing- right wing clashes... the cold war era... by taking all of these actors and elements(with their actions and movements) into consideration, we can see the complete picture of the events and thus we can summarize all what's been happening as clash of the major, medium and minor interest groups of the globalizing world. Although it is natural to condemn, consider, interprete etc... this or that as "right" or "wrong" based on one's political ideology, nationality, ethnic-origin, belief, point of view etc...; does not mean much for others bcz each individual belongs it's own interest groups so that reflects, struggles, exerts, imposes etc... own political ideology, nationality, ethnic-origin, belief, point of view etc... As a person i considering myself of seeing the whole picture and having the ability to analyze it at least peacefully; I can comfortably say that everything goes in destination of the struggle of diferent interest groups that exist in every state, union, institute, society etc.. as a hierarchic order. The current situation of the world and as a part of it Cyprus; is the inevitable consequence of this struggle in light of a macro vision.

Despite anti-globalist and nationalist element within Turks and Hellenes the dominant international policy of both governments have always been pro-globalism in its own parameters. Another well known fact is that there is an anti-Turkish sentiment especially in some interest groups of Europe, fed by some interest groups of Hellenes, Kurds and Armenians that directly and negatively affects all kinds of positive developments in Turkey thus in Cyprus. I consider this as a destructive bahavior against the essence of globalization.

Conclusion: If the different interest groups of Turks and Hellenes have not the ability to sort things out in basic parameters of globalization one way or other they will be forced to do so... The future of Cyprus lays within a consociational government system,democrasy based on the distinct and common interests of 2 main ethnic-groups of Cyprus. I strongly believe that reconciliation and a common consensus are needed to a great extend, between at least vast mjority of Turkish and Hellenic interest groups. Then we can expect an embraced solution that would satisfy at least vast majority of Hellenes and Turks.

[insan]

I am surprised that there is so little material about the Turkish Cypriot judges who returned to their posts in the RoC in 1964 and continued to serve there until 1966.

I have found an undated report (in Turkish) of a RoC High Court ruling which stated that Turkish Cypriot judge Ülfet Emin was removed from his post by armed force in June 1966, and was thus entitled to press for back pay and pension entitlements.

http://dialog.di.ohost.de/index.php?opt ... ew&id=1570

Apparently this same judge made a detailed statement on 13 January 1978 in which he outlined the reasons for the Turkish Cypriot judges returning to their posts and claimed that they were prevented from performing their duties in accordance with the constitution. Does anybody know where one can find the text of this statement?

This seems to be a litmus test of whether it would have been possible for the Turkish Cypriots to return to the Republic in 1964, as İnönü urged them to do in his letter to the Turkish Cypriot leadership dated 9 March of that year. On the face of it, this test appears to prove İnönü wrong.

Tim, check the below links plz.

http://www.uniset.ca/other/cs2/1964CLR195.html
http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 4&cat_id=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=CBHZcV ... t#PPA63,M1

[Tim Drayton]

Thank you for the above links.

[samarkeolog]

Theft of Turkish Cypriot Properties in GC-Controlled ROC since 1963!

More lies from MrH

We started to use properties of TCs in the free areas of Cyprus only after the 1974 Turkish invasion, and after the 18% of TCs took the 37% of land and we had to house close to 200.000 refugees in the part of Cyprus we were left with.

I don't know how common it was, but it was a Greek Cypriot who told me that when her village's Turkish Cypriots left (in 1964), she/her family had bought some of their homes very cheaply (70 lira). She didn't think I could understand, so she said it to me over and over again, to be clear.

[Piratis]

Theft of Turkish Cypriot Properties in GC-Controlled ROC since 1963!

More lies from MrH

We started to use properties of TCs in the free areas of Cyprus only after the 1974 Turkish invasion, and after the 18% of TCs took the 37% of land and we had to house close to 200.000 refugees in the part of Cyprus we were left with.

I don't know how common it was, but it was a Greek Cypriot who told me that when her village's Turkish Cypriots left (in 1964), she/her family had bought some of their homes very cheaply (70 lira). She didn't think I could understand, so she said it to me over and over again, to be clear.

1) So he bought it, didn't steal it.
2) 70 pounds was a lot more money back then
3) You are talking about the case of one individual.
4) We can not even know for sure if he was telling the truth.

The Turks stole the properties of hundreds of thousands of people.