Cyprus-Forum.com

[Lit]

In my village alone (Gypsou) the EOKA thugs .

Arent you the one that still believes Cyprus should till this day remain a British colony?

Fool, gone are the days when Brits knocked natives "into shape" and anglicized them.

You dont like it, you can go back to your home land England. You were a slave made to bow to a foreign Queen. Now why dont you thank my family who has given you freedom and liberty you filthy twit.

Why dont you try your insults on me Plonker , Bananiot is too much of a gentleman to deal with yobbos such as you. I'm not boy I will fucking tell you where to go you stupid Plonker .

Fine, are you of the mind that Cyprus should have to this very day remained a British Colony? Because if your not than STFU.

What do you have to say?

Cyprus had every right to demand and to fight for her independence from Britain just as ALL other colonies did . With hindsight we can safely say that our primary goal of ENOSIS was ill conceived , a struggle that involved all Cypriots fighting for a free and independent Cyprus would have had a far better chance of achieving the ultimate. A free and independent Cyprus where all citizens were part of the majority .

Milti, I know that you want to stick up for your fellow British Cypriot. But i asked you a simple question. You didnt answer me. That tells me that you do not believe that the RoC should be a British Colony and a lot of Brits do not wish it either. So, why is this so called Cypriot, Bana, acting more British than a Brit?

You know fuck all about Bananiot so stop being so bloody stupid .
May I also say that had I known what would have happened to Cyprus in 1974 I would also have wished that the British were still ruling Cyprus instead of 37% of our island under the occupation of a third world country. Now Mr you tell me what would you opt for , 100% of Cyprus under the Brits today or 37% under the Turks.
Tell me son what would you rather have .

How dare you ask me this. I stand by the RoC, period.

[Get Real!]

How dare you ask me this. I stand by the RoC, period.

A half-bake is a half-bake…

[Oracle]

This is the problem with the Miltiades' and the Bananiots' ... they do not really understand Freedom.

It's either rule under Brits, or rule under Turks! ... They have not grasped self-determination!

[miltiades]

This is the problem with the Miltiades' and the Bananiots' ... they do not really understand Freedom.

It's either rule under Brits, or rule under Turks! ... They have not grasped self-determination!

As always ready to put her mark of approval on any crap posted on the forum . it says volumes about your coherence of the political spectrum surrounding Cyprus.

[Tim Drayton]

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.

[DT.]

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.

[Piratis]

Self determination on land that is not yours is unheard off.

Not only it is unheard of, it is actually an oxymoron.

The whole point of self-determination is to give the right to the native people of a territory to decide the destiny of their own territory in a democratic way, instead of having some foreign ruler (and their local collaborators) taking the decisions by force.

And the ICG is run by a former ambassador to Turkey and what they say is totally worthless. You might as well read the announcements of the Turkish government.

[Tim Drayton]

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.

Your points are all valid. However, like the ICC or not, if it raises a point you can be sure that this is more than idle speculation. It reflects thinking that is going on somewhere behind the scenes of the corridors of power. I somehow do not see a settlement to the Cyprus problem emerging any time soon. As such, I think we need to look at scenarios which will come into play not in a few years, but in several decades time, premised on the continuation of the status quo. As I have said before, I believe that the institution known as 'international law' basically serves the interests of the dominant powers in the world. New doctrines will thus develop as new players emerge to prominence on the world stage. The scenario that I have outlined is simply a danger, but one that has to be taken seriously. I think that the slightly complacent Greek Cypriot attitude that since they hold all the trump cards the status quo can continue indefinitely for all they care could well prove to be reckless in the long term.

[Kifeas]

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.

Tim, I do not have the excact wording readily available but the Annan plan itself had a closure in the introductory stage of the foundation agreement, which said that in the event of its rejection by anyone of the two sides in the referendums, it becomes null and void and neither any part of its content nor any act in relation to its drafting, implimentation or submission to referenda may have legal effect or constitute a legal precedence.

[DT.]

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.

Tim, I do not have the excact wording readily available but the Annan plan itself had a closure in the introductory stage of the foundation agreement, which said that in the event of its rejection by anyone of the two sides in the referendums, it becomes null and void and neither any part of its content nor any act in relation to its drafting, implimentation or submission to referenda may have legal effect or constitute a legal precedence.

The Annan plan is my bread and butter

Should the Foundation Agreement not be approved at the separate simultaneous referenda, or any guarantor fail to sign the Treaty on matters related to the new state of affairs in Cyprus by 29 April 2004, it shall be null and void, and have no legal effect.