Cyprus-Forum.com

[Piratis]

Tim, what the ICG says is not what goes on behind the scenes. It is what they (ICG)wants to happen and they are trying to influence others to accept their view while at the same time trying to blackmail us.

Regarding the "long term", which in this case is several decades, anything can happen. The question is what we should do today in order have better chances in the future. Don't forget that in the long term many bad things can happen to Turkey as well.

[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.

Sorry forgot to refernce it, its in Annex IX

[Kifeas]

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.

DT, could you tell us from which part of the A-plan you quoted the above?

[DT.]

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.

DT, could you tell us from which part of the A-plan you quoted the above?

ANNEX IX: COMING INTO BEING OF THE NEW STATE OF AFFAIRS

[Tim Drayton]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

[DT.]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

[Tim Drayton]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Yes ... my point is that the way the vote was conducted in Annan Plan referendum has set a de facto precedent for the way the vote will be conducted in all future referenda, regardless of the wording of the plan itself.

[Kifeas]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

Tim, the above reflects only the views of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It does not bind the RoC or the GC community in whichever way, and does not constitute international law. As far as I am concerned, it does not worth the paper it was written on. Who are these people to decide what is right or wrong for my country?

Now, as DT quoted above, the "foundation agreement" becomes "null and void!" It was part (an ingredient) of the "foundation agreement" that (together with the rest of the annexes, appendices, side treaties, side laws, federal and constituent state constitutions, etc) it would have to be submitted to separate referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists in each side. Since the whole thing, including the fact of its submission to referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists, became "null and void," it has no legal effect.

[Tim Drayton]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

Tim, the above reflects only the views of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It does not bind the RoC or the GC community in whichever way, and does not constitute international law. As far as I am concerned, it does not worth the paper it was written on. Who are these people to decide what is right or wrong for my country?

Now, as DT quoted above, the foundation agreement becomes "null and void!" It was part (an ingredient) of the foundation agreement that (together with the rest of the annexes, appendices, side treaties, side laws, federal and constituent state constitutions, etc) it would have to be submitted to separate referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists in each side. Since the whole thing, including the fact of its submission to referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists, became "null and void," it has no legal effect.

All I am saying is that this reflects the way that certain influential players are thinking. Nothing more. The conclusions of the above report may not be binding on the RoC, but they offer an insight into the mindset of those who set international policy. I think that, if there is to be another dual referendum, it is very unlikely to be based on any other principle than, as the report says, participation by "all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus."

[Kifeas]

OK, but may I also direct your attention to the minutes of a meeting of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs dated Tuesday 1 February 2005, in which a draft report on Cyprus was discussed, focusing mainly on the aftermath of the Annan Plan referendum

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... /11310.htm

Paragraph 80 read, as follows:
After careful consideration, we conclude that it was right that all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus were able to participate in the referendum held in April 2004, and we recommend that the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem.

Motion made, and Question proposed, to leave out paragraph 80 and insert the following new paragraphs:

It was wholly wrong for people other than citizens of the Republic of Cyprus to have been permitted to participate in the referendum held in April 2004. No-one was able to produce for the Committee a breakdown of the proportion of those on the northern electoral roll who were citizens of the Republic of Cyprus and who ere citizens of the republic of Turkey, or nationals of other states.
As a consequence of including indiscriminately all those on the 'electoral roll', regardless of citizenship, and allowing them to participate in the referendum, means that the result was, to say the least, seriously flawed. The inclusion and participation of countless thousands of citizens of the Republic of Turkey in the referendum was contrary to western European norms and it reflects badly on the UN and on the governments who for expediency acquiesced in this.—(Andrew Mackinlay.)
Question put and negatived.
Paragraph agreed to.

Note that Andrew Mackinlay's motion was rejected and as far as UK official policy is concerned a precedent appears to have been set in April 2004 by means of the recommendation that "the same arrangements should apply in respect of any future referendum on a solution to the Cyprus problem."

Tim, the above reflects only the views of the UK Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. It does not bind the RoC or the GC community in whichever way, and does not constitute international law. As far as I am concerned, it does not worth the paper it was written on. Who are these people to decide what is right or wrong for my country?

Now, as DT quoted above, the foundation agreement becomes "null and void!" It was part (an ingredient) of the foundation agreement that (together with the rest of the annexes, appendices, side treaties, side laws, federal and constituent state constitutions, etc) it would have to be submitted to separate referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists in each side. Since the whole thing, including the fact of its submission to referenda on the basis of the particular electoral lists, became "null and void," it has no legal effect.

All I am saying is that this reflects the way that certain influential players are thinking. Nothing more. The conclusions of the above report may not be binding on the RoC, but they offer an insight into the mindset of those who set international policy. I think that, if there is to be another dual referendum, it is very unlikely to be based on any other principle than, as the report says, participation by "all those on the electoral roll in northern Cyprus."

There won't be another dual referendum on any agreement, if such an agreement will not foresee and provide for the removal of the majority of the settlers, and -if their participation in the TC community's referenda will not be entirely excluded, at least there will be an even more explicit closure that in no way they are recognized as legitimate members of the TC community in Cyprus. Such an agreement, without the above safety valves, will not be presented to the GCs in any referendum, simply because I expect Christofias or whoever else in his place not, to agree to such an eventuality.

As for the UK, not only I expect it to be the last country on this planet that will think of recognizing a separate entity in the north, under any circumstances, but it (UK) will also be obliged -both politically and legally, to do its outmost to prohibit it, be it in the UN or elsewhere. I question the country's political moral values, but on the other hand I do not consider them to be so stupid to shoot their own foot. They know that, doing otherwise, there are a number of steps the RoC will take in order to damage their interests, both in relation to their bases here but also in relation to their overall interests in the EU, including Turkey's own accession. They know they no longer will be able to count on Cyprus’s whatever “cooperation” in any matter that interests or concerns them in the EU. Furthermore, such an act on their behalf will be in violation of the RoC Treaty of Establishment and the EU Treaty of Accession, and being a member of the EU themselves will be dragged to the ICJ and the European Community Court.