Tim Drayton wrote:The Cypriot wrote:Tim Drayton wrote:In a report by the International Crisis Group, quoted from an article in the Cyprus Weekly
http://www.cyprusweekly.com.cy/default. ... 6&heading=in the event that another settlement plan is rejected in referenda
"the two communities could then be granted the option of separate self-determination by the international community."
Bear in mind that according to the United Nations Resolution from which I quoted above, the right of self-determination may be implemented by means of
"the free association or integration with an independent State."
In other words, the recognition of two separate rights of self-determination brings with it the danger of annexation of the north of Cyprus to Turkey, especially given that in another decade or two there will no longer exist an identifiable Turkish Cypriot community on the island, but rather a community largely composed of migrants from Turkey and their descendants. This is a danger that cannot be ignored.
I was intrigued by this post Tim (but was sidelined and had to discipline an unruly schoolboy that really oughtn't to be polluting this part of the CF with his mindless stupidity).
However, please can you shed light on the above if you can.
As I understand it, after the failed Annan Plan, the island of Cyprus, as a whole, acceded to the European Union, with the acquis communautaire suspended for areas under the control of Turkey's military – until such time as such forces are removed and the government of Cyprus (or its successor) has effective control again.
I can't see therefore how this area can be annexed by Turkey when it is already EU territory. And I can't see how any EU country, or any EU ally could ever recognise such an annexation.
Obviously this is very much a hypothetical argument at the moment. No, Turkey cannot annex a piece of EU territory by hostile act. However, I believe that this could be achieved by stealth. There is surely no rule that any people whose right of self determination is recognised under international law must remain within the EU if they express a wish not to do so.
There are two stages to this plan. The first was, in my view, accomplished when not Turkish Cypriots, but all holders of TRNC nationality got to vote in the Annan Plan referendum. A precedent has now been set whereby the votes of all those who hold a TRNC identity card are deemed to represent the political will of the Turkish Cypriots. I think it is virtually impossible now to return from that precedent. The number of new citizenships granted under CTP rule was limited; now that the nationalist UBP are back in power it is not hard to gues that we will see another huge influx of migrants from Turkey most of whom will eventually get nationality. The end of the Turkish Cypriots as a distinct community is nigh. Henceforth there will be a population of Turkish speakers on the island most of whom migrated from Turkey or at least one of whose parents did so; the remaining people of Turkish Cypriot descent will become assimilated to an Anatolian culture that retains a few quaint remants of Cypriot heritage. As such, Turkey will be able, by sleight of hand, to present to the world the will of what will mainly be its own people as the legitmate right of self-dermination of the Turkish Cypriots.
Of course, international law does not currently recognise the existence of a separate Turkish Cypriot right of self-determination. However, following the failure of the Annan Plan, I would suggest that at a maximum world public opinion can tolerate two more UN plans that fail to be passed in dual referenda before giving up on the notion of a single Cypriot right of self-determination and instead moves towards a solution based on separate rights of self-determination. Then the scenario that I have outlined could become reality. I am not saying that it is inevitable, nor that it is desirable. Just that it needs to be recognised as a danger.
I see the point your trying to make but apart from the suspicious and biased background which has already been presented here of the ICC, there are realities that no one can get around.
1) The government of the island of Cyprus joined the EU with the entire island as its territory. The legal entity that joined has as its territory the entire island of Cyprus and only a Cypriot parliament can amend that.
2) The same applies for its membership in the UN, Australia Group,CN, CE, CFSP, EBRD, EIB, EU, FAO, IAEA, IBRD, ICAO, ICC, ICCt, ITUC, IDA, IFAD, IFC, IHO,ILO, IMF, IMO, Interpol, IOC, IOM, IPU, ITU, MIGA, NAM, NSG, OPCW, OSCE, PCA, UNCTAD, UNESCO, UNHCR, UNIDO, UPU, WCL, WCO, WFTU, WHO, WIPO, WMO, WToO, WTO
3) Self determination on land that is not yours is unheard off. Unless the property issue is cleared out, even without the above there would still be an issue. Basically the entity requesting self determination would have to settle 200,000 law suits first.
As the former President once said, the only way for 2 states in Cyprus is if a GC President signs for it....and thats not about to happen.