Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

Your problem Erol, is that you can never stick to one issue at a time but jump around like a rabbit on heat… that’s why you always end up tired and frustrated!

Have a look at how your argument started and where you ended up… two totally irrelevant things!

The most important thing in serious debate is CLOSURE! If there is no conclusion you haven’t achieved anything.

[Piratis]

Cyprus (and Greece and many other countries) have recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ as Compulsory.

From 1960 to 2002 the RoC accepted the Jursidiction of the ICJ on a case by case basis, as Turkey does.

In 2002 they chose to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ on any case PROVIDED the other party State ALSO does so. I believe they made this change as a requirment for EU accession.

They could also choose, but have not doen so to accept the ICJ jurisdiction on any case REGARDLESS of the way the other party state treats such cases. They have not chosen to do this.

Cyprus accepted the jurisdiction of ICJ as compulsory in the same way that the other countries did. It didn't choose anything less than that, as you imply.

The States parties to the Statute of the Court may "at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court" (Art 36, para. 2 of the Statute).

Each State which has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has in principle the right to bring any one or more other State which has accepted the same obligation before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court, and, conversely, it has undertaken to appear before the Court should proceedings be instituted against it by one or more such other States.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3

Turkey did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

Turkey chooses to accept ICJ jurisdiction on a case by case bais, as it is is sovreign right to do so and in the same way the RoC used to until 2002 when it changed it position as an EU accession requirment.

They would not accept to take the Cyprus case in the ICJ because they know they have no chance of winning this case because they know very well they are the guilty party.

Just as the RoC would never had accpted its jurisdiction pre 74 on the issue of the illegal removal of the TC communal rights.

If you think that your rights were taken illegally away in 1965 then why don't you sue RoC now? Until 2002 maybe you had the excuse, but why didn't you sue after that?

You just accuse RoC of illegalites, but the fact is that the illegalities are proven to be from your side. You don't even dare to sue RoC.

On the other hand, Cyprus who is acting legally and has nothing to fear, accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

To be precise it has accepted its jusridiction on any matter only if the other party state has also done this.

Ignoring the Consitutional courts rulings was not legal.
Removing or ammending unilaterly the TC communities rights under the 60's agreements was not legal.

RoC never removed any of your rights. You keep repeating lies, but you are afraid to put your lies to the test of a court because you always lose in such cases.

All Turkey has to do is to also accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory (like we did) and then it can take Cyprus to the court on any issue she wants (and similarly we can take Turkey to the court for any issue we want).

From 2002 this has been possible. From 1965 when the RoC formaly and illegaly stole the TC communites rights to 2002 this was not possible.

Everything RoC did was 100% legal. If you disagree then sue RoC. You can do it now very easily, ans your excuses of why you didn't do it before are not valid anymore.

You can lie and convince some people like the Orams in order to cheat them from their money and have profits from the sale of the properties you stole from us, but when it comes to real courts, your lies and excuses can not win for you any case. This is why you are so afraid of courts and you peed your pants when you realized that justice can get you even when you are hiding behind the Turkish tanks.

And you can continue to call me a lier and anything else you wish as I will continue to try and present my views an opinions in a clear and reason way as when I see fit.

My fear is not from court actions. My fear is what the consequences of the possibility that GC decide to abandon the pursuit of an negotiated comphrehensive settlement of comproimise from both sides that both people can vote yes to in favour of sustained and persistent indivdual legal actions, following this latest ECJ ruling. A fear shared by more than just myself. In short I fear not for myself but for Cyprus as a whole.

There was never a question about us abandoning the negotiations because of this ruling.

What you fear is that this ruling will change the "balance" in the negotiations. Until yesterday you were with the impression that you had us in the corner and that either we would capitulate to you soon and accept a loose Confederation (some on your side even put a deadline by the the end of the year) or else you would soon become a "Kosovo", a "Taiwan" or even officially recognized.

You thought that every next year would be better than the last year for you, that you didn't need to compromise to find a solution, and that time was working against us and not against you. You thought that EU and everybody else would put pressure on us to accept your unfair demands.

Since yesterday you woke up to the fact that not only things will not become better for you, but they could become much worst. 1/3rd of our island might be hostage to you, but in many ways you are our hostages as well. Therefore you need an agreed solution as much as we do. So it is time for you to drop the "we are the winners of the war" mentality and negotiate a solution that will be acceptable to most Cypriots.

[Piratis]

Erolz, lets clear the ICJ debate.

Cyprus (and Greece and many other countries) have recognized the jurisdiction of the ICJ as Compulsory.

Turkey did not recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory.

It is free as any other party to the ICJ is to choose weather to submit itself to ICJ jurisdiction or not on a particular issue. It has in the past chosen to accept the Jurisdiction of this court in certain disputes.

Turkey has not recognized the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory, and it accepts this jurisdiction only in cases that she believes it has some chance of winning. They would not accept to take the Cyprus case in the ICJ because they know they have no chance of winning this case because they know very well they are the guilty party.

On the other hand, Cyprus who is acting legally and has nothing to fear, accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

Therefore you are wrong when you say:

As far as Turkey taking the RoC to the ICJ on this issue the court only has jurisdiction if the RoC were to agree to this, and we both know , as well as Turkey knew and knows, that the RoC would and will never submit itself to such jurisdiction of this court on this issue.

All Turkey has to do is to also accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ as compulsory (like we did) and then it can take Cyprus to the court on any issue she wants (and similarly we can take Turkey to the court for any issue we want).

Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus.

You can lie and convince some people like the Orams in order to cheat them from their money and have profits from the sale of the properties you stole from us, but when it comes to real courts, your lies and excuses can not win for you any case. This is why you are so afraid of courts and you peed your pants when you realized that justice can get you even when you are hiding behind the Turkish tanks.

http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/ind ... &p2=1&p3=3

Piratis,
A question for you : when did Cyprus take an action against Turkey in the ICJ ? Let's follow your logic for a moment that "Turkey doesn't do this because they know very well that they would lose this and every other case with Cyprus." If what you say is correct - it is certainly plausible - then surely one would expect the Republic of Cyprus to have initiated proceedings through the ICJ, yes ? If it is such an open and shut case in your view, then it should be dead easy to identify when Republic of Cyprus did indeed initiate such a course of action. Maybe it has done but I for one don't know when this happened and would like to know. Can you provide the details ?

Papadopoulos gave the answer, publicly challenging Turkey, on September 14 2007:

"Our view is well-known, the presence of the Turkish occupational forces and the Turkish invasion cannot be legally based on the Treaty of Guarantee and their presence in Cyprus, is, in any case, illegal. We said that if Turkey believes otherwise, then it can appeal or agree to appeal to the International Court of Justice in The Hague."

Cyprus, accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory so if anybody things we are doing something illegal, then they can also accept the ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory and sue us (instead of just producing propaganda with lies, like Turks do).

There are UN resolutions that declare the pseudo state as legally invalid, and clearly state that Republic of Cyprus is the one and only state on the island and every other state (including Turkey) should respect the sovereignty of Republic of Cyprus. Rulings by the ECHR and the ECJ confirm this fact.

The fact is that we have legality 100% on our side, while what you have is 40.000 Troops illegally occupying territory of our country.

That is a daft reply. Most of it simply doesn't refer to the question under discussion. The rest of it - that Papadopolous made a public statement in 2007 - doesn't even touch first base in a legal process. When did RoC submit, petition, formally prepare an application to the ICJ against Turkey ? As far I am aware it never has made such a submission, and as far as you have shown so far, that remains the case. If there's evidence to the contrary let's be made aware.

Copperline, you are totally ignorant my friend.

Cyprus could not submit an application to the ICJ against Turkey without the consent of Turkey because the only way to do so would be if Turkey accepted ICJ jurisdiction as compulsory. And it did not

The only other way to go to the ICJ is if Cyprus and Turkey agree to go to the ICJ and sumbit the case jointly. Papadopolous has challenged Turkey to do so, and Turkey refused.

5. Why are some disputes between States not considered by the Court?

The Court can only hear a dispute when requested to do so by one or more States. It cannot deal with a dispute of its own motion. It is not permitted, under its Statute, to investigate and rule on acts of sovereign States as it chooses.

The States concerned must also have access to the Court and have accepted its jurisdiction, in other words they must consent to the Court’s considering the dispute in question. This is a fundamental principle governing the settlement of international disputes, States being sovereign and free to choose the methods of resolving their disputes.

A State may manifest its consent in three ways:

- A special agreement: two or more States in a dispute on a specific issue may agree to submit it jointly to the Court and conclude an agreement for this purpose;

- A clause in a treaty: over 300 treaties contain clauses (known as compromissory clauses) by which a State party undertakes in advance to accept the jurisdiction of the Court should a dispute arise on the interpretation or application of the treaty with another State party;

- A unilateral declaration: the States parties to the Statute of the Court may opt to make a unilateral declaration recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as binding with respect to any other State also accepting it as binding. This optional clause system, as it is called, has led to the creation of a group of States each having given the Court jurisdiction to settle any dispute that might arise between them in future. In principle, any State in this group is entitled to bring one or more other States in the group before the Court. Declarations may contain reservations limiting their duration or excluding certain categories of dispute. They are deposited by States with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

http://www.icj-cij.org/information/inde ... 1=7&p2=2#2

Does this answer your question Copperline?

Look Piratis I can't be bothered with this any more. If you think that simply going to a FAQ page is going to resolve specific problems of international law then there's nothing I nor any other international lawyer can say to you. (FFS if it is so bloody simple Piratis as you pretend international law to be then why not dump the courts and the lawyers and the whole works and just have a FAQ page for any dumb schmuck to look up The Answer)

I real lawyer would know much more beyond the FAQ. But not you. You don't even know the basics, let alone anything more than that.

[Get Real!]

For everyone’s reference…

How the (ICJ) International Court of Justice works…
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

How the (ECJ) Court of Justice of the European Communities works…
http://curia.europa.eu/en/instit/presen ... ex_cje.htm

How the (ICC) International Criminal Court works…
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/

How the (ECHR) European Court of Human Rights works…
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/ ... questions/

Now, when everyone has read that come back and argue!

[Piratis]

And so the futility goes on. Do not worry Piratis I will soon fade away agian and leave you to your inane ranting here once more.

You will fade away from here, just like all other foreign invaders of our island eventually fade away. We will relentlessly continue to pursue democracy, freedom and our self-determination in our own island.

Yet again you want to pass your own one sided opinion as the law. With the Orams case we knew we were right and we proved it.

You proved in a RoC court that the orams had comitted an offence.

Not just in a RoC court, but also in the ECHR and the ECJ. Also there are UN Resolutions that declare your pseudo state as legally invalid and demand the respect of the sovergnity of Republic of Cyprus, the one and only State on the island.

As far as courts of law that have founde users of disputed property in the North to be guilty , the RoC courts remain the only courts to have found this.

There is nothing disputed in any property. The Land Registry of Cyprus has exact records of what belongs to whom. The ECHR rulings have put this issue beyond any doubt.

Beyond that Cyprus will protect its citizens from criminals just like any other state would do. If you illegal use land that belongs to somebody else then you will eventually be prosecuted and convicted.

This is also documented in UN documents:

That is in the report by the UN apointed agent. However it in no way provides a legal basis for the unilateral removing and ammendment of the TC communites consitutional rights by GC. Nor for that matter does it leglaise Makarios' decision to simply ignore the rulings of the RoC consitutional court.

There was never any removal of any rights. You showed me one report and I showed you another. What you don't like?

I am talking about UN Resolutions, and rulings by the highest courts, and you are trying to counter this with some report? As you can see from the above quote we can find anything in UN reports. Why aren't there any UN Resolutions supporting your position? Because to make a UN resolution they would add the information from all reports, and not just the ones you selectively choose to reproduce for your propaganda.

This is weak even by your standards Piratis. You claim was that the TC withdrew from government and the implaction being this legitimised the unilateral removal and ammendment of their communal rights by the GC leadership.

The UN document I have provided clearly shows that this assertion by you is not ture. Even if the TC had never requested to take up their legal and valid places in the RoC government, which clearly they did and were met by illegal preconditions and threats from the GC leadership when they did, it STILL would not provide a legal basis for the GC leadership to unilaterlay permanently remove and ammend the TC communities rights.

GCs never removed any of your rights. Until today you are free to end your illegalities (which are real illegalities for which you are convicted by courts and UN resolutions), and take the 100% of your rights in the RoC.
You are also free to sue RoC in any court you like if you think we did something illegal.

You do neither of the above, and you instead choose to say lies.

You are saying lies, and TCs did withdrew from government in order to peruse partition.

Once more Piratis.

Withdrawing from governement , for whatever reason, is a non violent and legal means of protest.

Such a withdrawal provides no legal basis for the unilateral and permanent removal and ammendment of the TC communites consitutional rights, yet this is what the GC leadership did anyway.

After the TC partialy withdrew from their government positions in 64, following first the illegal refusal of Makarios to abide by consitutional court rulings leading to the destruction of the consitutional court and then the outbreak of violence in dec 63, they subsequently in 65 officaly request via the UN to return. The results of this requerst and the illegal response to it by the GC leadership is clearly documented in the UN document I have provided.

Nothing illegal was done by us. What you say remind me of you Turks insisting that the "trnc" is legal while Republic of Cyprus is illegal, and a ton of other lies. You think that by saying something it makes it true?

The inter-communal conflict was in fact started by the TCs long before that, when in the late 50s they collaborated with the colonialists and attacked the Greek Cypriots.

And so we descend into the endless and pointless 'you did this' , 'no you did this' arguments. Well sorry Piratis I do not wish to play this stupid game with yourslef. The futility of it has been shown over and over.

The idea that any one side is entirely to blame and the other entirely innocent is the argument of a foolish child. Find someone else to play with.

The Cypriot people never ventured out of their island to harm any Turks or anybody else. You are the ones who keep invading Cyprus and insist to deny to the Cypriot people their human and democratic rights and their self-determination. We simply fight back the invaders and Imperialists. Nothing more.

With the 1960 agreements there was no "political equality" of any kind.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

Of course it is. In fact the Constitution talks about "All persons are equal before the law" and "All religions are equal before the law." Nothing about Communities being equal.

With Annan plan you got a ton more than the 1960 agreements and gave up nothing.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

Glad we agreed.

The fact is that partition had been your aim since the 50s and continues to be the same today.

Sure Piratis if you say so it must be true.

I didn't think you would dare to dispute this one.

How was it fine for Cyprus to be part of the Ottoman or British empires against the will of the Cypriot people and Cypriots being subjects of these foreign powers, ...?

It was not alright for Cyrus to be ruled by Britain, which is exactly why British rule and colonialism in general ended.

Same for Ottoman colonialism. The reason you are on this island. It was not right either.

Yet more nonsense. Rhodes also has a Turkish minority and united with Greece in 1947 exercising their right for self-determination. Minorities don't have a separate right for self-determination - nowhere.

Exactly the point minorites do not have seperate rights to self determination. That right vests with 'peoples'. When GC said there is no such thing as a unitary Cypriot people or nation, just Greeks who live in Cyprus that should be part of the Greek nation, they defined those in CYprus who were not Greek not as a minority within a single unitary Cypriot people, but as a SEPERATE people with a SEPERATE and EQUALL right to self determination.

That is what makes the pursuit of ENOSIS by GC so different from the pursuit of Cypriot independance. ENOSIS by definition defined TC as not part of the same people as GC where as independance of Cyprus does not do this.

You wish to beleive that the GC people failed to achieve ENOSIS because Britain and Turkey ganged up on them to deny them their legal rights. The reality is a lot simpler. GC failed to achieve enosis because they tried to do it whilst ignoring that there were a significant number of non Greeks in Cyprus who ALSO had rights and in the belief that their rights were more important than this other groups.

3 paragraphs and you avoided answering. Rhodes also has a Turkish minority and yet it united with Greece in 1947. Same for many other Greek island and territories before that. The Ottomans ruled all Greek territories and island so Muslim minorities were created in most of them. If we go by your theory, all this Greek islands and territories did not have the right to unite together and form the Greek Republic because the former rulers didn't agree for it.

Can you make an excuse more lame than that?

Cyprus is no different than Rhodes, Crete or any other Greek island or territory. The only difference is that the self-determination of the Cypriot people have been denied by the combined attack of Turks and British to oppress the Cypriot revolution of 1955.

And who ever told you that the Greeks of Asia Minor wanted to be in some Turkish Nation which the Turks created? The same way you didn't want to live in a Greek Nation, the Greeks of Smyrna, Constantinouple and Asia Minor in general didn't want to be in a Turkish Nation. Where do you see the difference? Did the Turks asked the Greeks if they wanted to be part of a "Turkish Nation"?

Your missing the point entirely. The point is that Turkey could claim to express the view of a single Turkish nation and people, including its ethnic minorites, because it was establishing exactly that unitary Turkish nation. What it could not do is say in the name of a single unitary Turkish nation and people we declare there is no such things as a Turkish antion and Turkish people.

And in the same way Greece could claim to express the view of a single Greek nation and people, including its ethnic minorities, because it was establishing exactly that Greek nation. You would belong in the Greek nation just like we would and just like the other non Greek minorities in Greece are. So what is the difference between say Smyrna or Constantinople becoming part of the Turkish Nation and Cyprus or Rhodes becoming part of the Greek nation?

That is the difference. GC tried to claim, in the name of a single unitary cypriot people, that there was no cypriot nation or Cypriot people, just the Greek nation and a Greek people and some 'others'. The very notion is absurd but they chose to try and do it anyway because it was the a way the beleived (mistakenly as it turned out) that they could impose and force their will on the TC community that they shared their homeland with.

Just like the Turks forced the "Turkish Nation" on the Greeks of Asia Minor. In fact we wanted to force nothing to you, except from finally accepting our freedom. It is you who invaded our island (and all other Greek islands and territories) with the aim to oppress and exploit us. We didn't force you to come here.

We can define ourselves as we wish.

You certainly can Piratis. The problems arise however when you try impose your will on a people you first define as not the same people as you in order to deny them of thier rights as a people and then try to do so in the name of a single unitary people you previous deny exists.

We never tried to impose anything on you. You are the ones who invaded, occupied and oppressed us. We only wanted our freedom from foreign rulers and our self-determination.

If you didn't like us for what we are then you shouldn't have come to our island in the first place.

And so we get to the nub. We were here first. Either submit yourself to our will whatever we wish to impose on you, accept you have no rights and say in the future of your homeland or fook off. Cyprus is ours.

Kinda of sums up the problem really.

No, that is how you treated us for the 300+ years you ruled Cyprus against the will of Cypriots.

What we ask for is democracy, equality of all Cypriots without racist discriminations, with human rights for all.

Problem is that instead of accepting democracy, human rights, and the self-determination of the Cypriot people (and each one of you will get its one vote, like each one of us), you continue to want gains and privilages on our expense like those you were graded during the Ottoman rule.

You had treated us slaves for long enough. We forgive you for the past, but we are not willing to accept to be mistreated again and have some others have privileges on our expense.

Minorities do not get a separate self-determination, especially minorities created as a result of Colonial rule.

Minorites do not. If GC had persued indpendance they could have reasonably done so in the name of a single unitary people, of which the TC were a minority. By deciding instead to pursue enosis they defined TC not as a minority within a single unitary Cypriot people, but as not Greeks that alos happened to live in Cyprus along with Greeks.

No. The TCs were defined as a minority just like they were in Rhodes, Trace and any other Greek territory that had a minority of Muslims in it.

It is the pursuit of Enosis that made it clear beyond any doubt that TC were, in the terms of enosis, a different people from GC, for enosis defined GC as part of the Greek people and clearly TC were not part of that.

Do you get it yet?

The TCs were part of Greek people as much as your minority in Rhodes or Thrace is part of Greek people, or as much as the Greeks of Smyrna or Constantinople are part of the Turkish people. No difference at all.

What are the "consequences" of seeking justice, tell us.

I have already outlined what my fears are, why I have them clearly and plainly.

Feel free to rant on and on as you like. I will only continue to play this silly game for so much longer.

I am not playing any games, but if you are then better stop wasting our time.

[CopperLine]

For everyone’s reference…

How the (ICJ) International Court of Justice works…
http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6

How the (ECJ) Court of Justice of the European Communities works…
http://curia.europa.eu/en/instit/presen ... ex_cje.htm

How the (ICC) International Criminal Court works…
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/

How the (ECHR) European Court of Human Rights works…
http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/ ... questions/

Now, when everyone has read that come back and argue!

Cutting and pasting links. My that's quite a skill you have Get Real ! Now you've got the hang of that, concentrate on making links to other FAQ pages - perhaps ECHR or ECJ - and then Piratis will employ your services as an experienced lawyer soon after.

[Kifeas]

It is obvious that had Turkey wanted to secure the TC community’s status under the 1960 constitution, at any time after 1964, could have easily called upon the RoC (which by the way ceased from recognizing after January 1964 and since this day) and the international community (UN, Nato, etc) to have a binding arbitration by the ICJ on the premise that the RoC “violated(s)” the 1960 “treaty of guarantee” of which both states are co-signatories (together with Greece and the UK.) Turkey had all the political power and means on its side to “force” the RoC to follow the ICJ road, however it (Turkey) did not bother examining this option, simply because this is not what the ruling nationalist forces in both Turkey and the TC community wanted (i.e. return back under the RoC constitutional order.) Their mind was only on how to create or exploit the circumstances to invade and partition Cyprus, just as they did in 1974, and not to make the RoC function as a bi-communal unitary state.

Erol and Copper, no matter how much you will both twist and spin your arguments, and especially you Erol, how much will fragment each post in single lines and try in this way to distort the meaning of what is being said, or disorient the readers of what is the issue at stake (under discussion,) a trick you have the habit of playing very well in the forums since I have known you, the facts remain clear and plain. Turkey did not want to play by the law, neither the leadership of the TC community, because they had other ideas and plans in their mind. As simple as that.

[erolz3]

Cyprus accepted the jurisdiction of ICJ as compulsory in the same way that the other countries did. It didn't choose anything less than that, as you imply.

From 1960- 2002 Cyprus chose to accept ICJ jusrisdiction on a case base case basis. From 2002 it changed that to an any case basis with parties that do likewise, as an EU entry requirment I believe. It could also choose to do it on an any case basis regardless of the status of the other states.

Some states choose option 1 , some choose option 2 and some choose option 3.

If you think that your rights were taken illegally away in 1965 then why don't you sue RoC now? Until 2002 maybe you had the excuse, but why didn't you sue after that?

I do not think the TC communities rights were illegal removed from them by the GC community, I know it to be a fact. Even after 2002 I have no ability to bring a case against the RoC. Turkey could, if it were to change its decision in what way it deals with ICJ jusrisdiction, in theory bring a case over 40 years after the fact, but it knows it is too late for that.

None of which changes the reality of the illegal theft of the TC communities rights under the 60s agreements and RoC consitution by GC leadership.

You just accuse RoC of illegalites, but the fact is that the illegalities are proven to be from your side. You don't even dare to sue RoC.

I have never denied illegalites comitted by Turkey and TC leaderships. You are the one that wishes to promote the absurd 7 year old argument that 'we are totaly innocent and ahve done nothing wrong or illegal and you are totaly guilty and the only ones to have behaved illegaly.

On the other hand, Cyprus who is acting legally and has nothing to fear, accepted the jurisdiction of the court as compulsory.

Yes 37 years after it comitted its illegalites and got away with them for that period and because doing so was a requirment of EU accession.

RoC never removed any of your rights. You keep repeating lies, but you are afraid to put your lies to the test of a court because you always lose in such cases.

Yes it did. From 64 to 74 the TC community was denied its legal rights under the consitution and the 60's agreements by the GC leadership. We had a right to return to government in 65, this was denied to us by the GC leadership. We had a right to vice presidential veto, this was denied to us by GC leadership. We had a right to ratify or not annual budgets, this was denied to us by GC leadership. We had a right to notification and veto on foriegn policy and foriegn relations, this was denied to us by a GC leadership. We had a right to seperate municplaities, this was denied to us by a GC leadership. The only court at this time that we could bring such issue to, the RoC consitutional court, we did bring issues to and when it found in our favour the GC leadership declared they would ignore its rulings, which they did, leading to its colapse as the only court at that time able to decide such matters.

I tell no lies. We took issues to court at the time. A legal court with jurisdiction. It found in our favour. The GC leadership ignored its rulings.

I realise these facts are upsetting to you and your need to maintain your 7 year old perspective that your side are and have always been total innocents only ever behaving in legal ways and thus it is easier for you to ignore them and call them lies but they remain true none the less.

Everything RoC did was 100% legal.

Yeah right because ignoring RoC consitutional court rulings is totaly legal, provided you are Greek and the ruling is against you, for it is your island and you can do as you please.

As is allowing your interior minister to set up and arm and run ethnic based para military squads to intimidate and kill TC 100% legal, if your are Greek that is for Cyprus is your island and you can do as you like.

If you disagree then sue RoC.

We DID sue in the RoC consitutional court. It found in our favour. The GC leadership ignored the ruling. The court collapsed in the face of this. All 100% legal on the part of the GC leaderhip no doubt in the cloud cuckooo land you appear to live in.

You can do it now very easily,

Yes very easily, if I happened to be the supreme ruler of Turkey that is and was stupid enough to think that I could bring a case so far after the fact and after so many changes in the situation since then. Very easy indeed.

ans your excuses of why you didn't do it before are not valid anymore.

We DID DO IT BEFORE, on the issue of seperate municipalties in the consitutional court of the republic of cyprus. We went to court and so did you. We argued our case, that such municplaites were defined in the 60's agreements and you argued yours that they were not practical to set up and the court found in our favour. Makrios then , presumably 100%legaly simply announced that he would not abide by this court ruling.

What you fear is that this ruling will change the "balance" in the negotiations.

Correct. So much so that I fear GC may loose any real desire to negotiate at all. I hope I am wrong about this but I fear it still.

Until yesterday you were with the impression that you had us in the corner and that either we would capitulate to you soon and accept a loose Confederation (some on your side even put a deadline by the the end of the year) or else you would soon become a "Kosovo", a "Taiwan" or even officially recognized.

Until yesterday I recongised that ever since you managed to steal our communal rights in the 60's AND be rewarded for this by the international community with recognition as the sole legitimate government in Cyprus, we have been in the weaker position and this was only balanced by your over confidence in the strength of your position finally leading to Turkey using force despite legality on our behalf. Despite this I had hopes that we could still yet reach a settlement that both parties could accept. That hope is severly diminished now.

Since yesterday you woke up to the fact that not only things will not become better for you, but they could become much worst. 1/3rd of our island might be hostage to you, but in many ways you are our hostages as well. Therefore you need an agreed solution as much as we do. So it is time for you to drop the "we are the winners of the war" mentality and negotiate a solution that will be acceptable to most Cypriots.

If you are right that this decision leads to a balance of power between the various parties that allows to reach a fair settlement that both communites can and do accept then no one will be happier than me. Howerver my fear is that it will not lead to this but actualy a worsening of relations between the communites that makes reaching an agreement harder not easier. I hope my fears are unfounded. Time will, as ever tell. The fear that this decision may worseing things re a settlement and not improve them is shared by others than me, the EU comission included, which is why they made the submissions they did to the ECJ. I hope we are all wrong and you are right but I fear otherwise.

[DT.]

Here you are mate...will the letter do?

Taking this non primary source are accurate, which I am happy to doi it shows that Turkey was encouraging Kutchuk to retake their poitions in the government.

I do not see the evidence that Kutchuks reply was

"he's rather emigrate back to Turkey"

?

Erolz the source is not electronic but here it is

Arif Hasan Tahsin
Yakın geçmişimizin bir özeti
2008 Nicosia
ISBN 978-9963-9580-0-9

İnönü's letter dated 9 March 1964 is on pages 204-207, and Kutchuk's letter of reply dated 10 march 1964 on pages 207-212.

Thanks to Tim for the reference.

Just in case you missed it Erolz and wanted to get the book, you'll find Inonu's letter and Kutchuk's response in this book.

[erolz3]

There is nothing disputed in any property.

Again Piratis you seem to fail to understand how language works. I suspect that this is because for you languauge is not seen by you as a means fo passing meaning and understanding between parties but just a propaganda tool.

Disputed means some group, however large or authorative, says one thing and another group says something different. Using the word disputed says nothing about which group is right or which wrong.

For land in the north to not be accurately described as disputed both TRNC and Turkey would have to accept the same view as everyone else in the world and they do not.

There was never any removal of any rights. You showed me one report and I showed you another.

No of course not Piratis because as a non Greek for whom Cyprus is their homeland I never had any rights. Cyprus belongs to Greeks and they are the only ones who can have rights as a group concerning Cyprus, despite small technical details like legal agreements and consitutions.

GCs never removed any of your rights.

See my pst above.

and take the 100% of your rights in the RoC.

I am not free to take up my rights within the RoC either as an indivdual or as a community and have not been so since 1965 when as a community we tried to do that and we were told that we could only do son on the condition that we accepted as a fait acompli the unilateral removal and ammendments of most of them by GC. That is the simple truth.

You do neither of the above, and you instead choose to say lies.

Liar liar pants on fire ! That is how you sound to me Piratis.

Nothing illegal was done by us.

Simply deciding to not abide by a consitutional court ruling on a case you lost is not illegal ?

Setting up armed ethnic based paramilitary forces and using them against another community is not illegal ?

Of course it is. In fact the Constitution talks about "All persons are equal before the law" and "All religions are equal before the law." Nothing about Communities being equal.

ARTICLE 1
The State of Cyprus is an independent and sovereign Republic with a presidential regime, the President being Greek and the Vice­President being Turk elected by the Greek and the Turkish Communities of Cyprus respectively as hereinafter in this Constitution provided.

No hint of equality between communites there then.

ARTICLE 3
1. The official languages of the Republic are Greek and Turkish.

Or there

1. The Republic shall have its own flag of neutral design and colour, chosen jointly by the President and the Vice­President of the Republic.

Or there

and I could go on and on and on.

The fact is that the whole basis of the 60's agreements and the subsequent constitution of the RoC is based on an underlying premise of degrees of equality between the two main communites as communites.

Arguments that such was unfair and unbalanced I can understand. Claims that the 60 consitution contains 'nothing about the communites being equal' are the rantings of a lunatic.

I didn't think you would dare to dispute this one.

I could and in the past have disputed that such a statement represents a whole or complete truth. However when you can claim such black and white nonses like there is no equality between the communites enshrined in the consitution and the the GC leadership has never done anything illegal, trying to argue with you about the finer points of partial truths would be a kinda of self flagellation I am not currently into.

Same for Ottoman colonialism. The reason you are on this island. It was not right either.

Again Piratis you show your true colors. I as a decendant of Ottomans, cultural or genetic, have no right to even be in Cyprus, let alone dare to consider it my homeland as much as it is yourts and as such have no rights to any say about its future.

If we go by your theory, all this Greek islands and territories did not have the right to unite together and form the Greek Republic because the former rulers didn't agree for it.

You STILL do not get it do you ?

Forming a GREEK nation in the NAME of a unitary GREEK people is not problematic. Joining the GREEK nation in the NAME of a single unitary CYPRIOT people was and is problematic.

In fact we wanted to force nothing to you, except from finally accepting our freedom.

Yeah right you did not want to force my nation CYPRUS to not exist as a nation on me, nor did you want to force GREEK nationality on me. You were going to achieve enosis of all of CYprus and all Cypriots without destorying the existance of Cyprus as a nation and without forcing me to be Greek by nationality and not Cypriot. How you were goning to do this you must have failed to explain to me very clearly.

We didn't force you to come here.

No but you sure played your part in trying to force us to go away.

We never tried to impose anything on you.

This is comical now. I am cypriot, I live in Cyprus yet I am NOT greek. Colonial rule is about to end. You say it must be and will be repalced by Greek rule and that my country will not exist as a nation in the future but merely as a region of Greece and that my nationality will become Greek, even though I am not greek and do not even speak Greek and that I will have no effective say on such matters as a Cypriot who is not Greek.

Yet doing this is not imposing anything on me at all is it ?

And why not ? Because you are saying Cyprus does not and will noit exist as a state or people in the name of a unitary Cpriot people, that you say does not and will not exist.

Welcome to the looking glass.

The TCs were part of Greek people as much as your minority in Rhodes or Thrace is part of Greek people, or as much as the Greeks of Smyrna or Constantinople are part of the Turkish people. No difference at all.

And once more. The difference is in what name you claim to be exersising a right to self determination. You can not in any sensible fashion claim a right to self determination in the name of one single unitary people when the thing you want to 'self determine' is that the unitary single people you are making the claim in the name of does not exist.

Yet this is exactly what GC tried and failed to do and the reason they tried this madness was that it was to them a way of forcing their COMMUNAL will on the TC community with whom they sahred Cyprus as a homeland.