Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/au ... rsurbiton/


A defeat for ethnic cleansing in Cyprus - and for the EU’s moral idiocy

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled against Linda and David Orams, a British couple that bought a property in northern Cyprus that had been confiscated from its Greek Cypriot owners following the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974. Meletis Apostolides, who was driven off his family’s property by the Turks, has been fighting a legal battle for its return since 2004. After winning his case in Nicosia, Apostolides sued in a British court to compel enforcement. Although he lost his case in Britain, the British appeals court referred it to the ECJ, which has ruled in his favour. The Oramses, who have built a luxury holiday villa on Apostolides’s property, must now demolish this villa, return the land to Apostolides and pay him rent. If they do not comply, the Oramses, who have been represented by Cherie Blair, could face the confiscation of their property in Britain.

The decision of the ECJ has negative implications for the thousands of foreigners, in particular Britons, who have bought property in Northern Cyprus that belonged to Greeks prior to the 1974 invasion, and for the Turkish Cypriots who are selling such properties to foreigners. It is, in effect, a blow to all those who, consciously or not, have sought or are seeking to profit from ethnic cleansing, and a victory for the victims of ethnic cleansing. As Paul Owen, chief executive of the Association of International Property Professionals (AIPP), said, ‘This is an extreme example in Northern Cyprus, because of the disputes over land ownership, but it serves as a timely reminder to anybody that, no matter where you’re buying, you really need to do your homework and get independent legal advice.’ In other words: don’t buy goods that may be stolen.

Turkey had every right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 to prevent the attempt by Greek fascists to annex the island to Greece. But Turkey had no right to dismember the island state, expel roughly 170,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, confiscate their properties and establish an ethnically pure Turkish statelet on the northern third of the island - where Greek Cypriots had previously constituted the majority. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Cyprus dispute, the dispossessed Greek Cypriots of northern Cyprus - like the roughly 50,000 Turkish Cypriots expelled and dispossessed by the Greeks in the south following the Turkish invasion - are innocent victims of the conflict who have every right to restitution.

Some Turkish analysts, viewing the case purely through nationalist spectacles, have condemned the ECJ’s judgement. According to Mensur Akgün, the head of the Istanbul-based Küresel Siyasal Eğilimler Merkezi, or Center for Global Political Trends, ‘We need to seek technical solutions that will make the court’s decision meaningless and find a way to push Greek Cypriots into a corner’. Yet every Turkish democrat should rejoice at this defeat for Turkish ethnic-cleansing and expansionism.

A similar utter disregard for the rights of the individual has apparently been shown by the European Commission, which is reported as expressing concerns that allowing the order to be enforced against the Oramses could upset the talks aimed at resolving the Cyprus conflict. As is so often the case, the EU has shown itself to be the institutional equivalent of a moral idiot, for which justice is always dispensable in the interest of a ‘negotiated settlement’, i.e. of political expediency. We can define this as follows:

The European Union Rule of ‘Negotiated Settlement’ (aka ‘Appeasement’)

1. Settlement to an international dispute can only come through negotiation.

2. Since the EU is generally unwilling to apply sufficient pressure on both parties to force an end to a dispute, a ‘negotiated settlement’ will invariably favour the stronger side.

3. Since stronger states are inevitably much more likely to victimise weaker states than vice versa, the stronger side is more likely to be the party that is in the wrong.

4. Ergo, the favoured EU policy in resolving international disputes is for the victimised party to make sufficient concessions to the victimiser until ‘compromise’ is achieved; i.e. to surrender.

5. From here, it is only a short step for the EU actually to apply diplomatic pressure to the victims of injustice to surrender, as the quickest way of achieving a ‘negotiated settlement’.

So it was in Bosnia in the 1990s. So it is in Greece vs Macedonia and Slovenia vs Croatia today.

In the case of Cyprus, it is not so much the Republic of Cyprus itself which is being pressurised to surrender, since with both Cyprus and Greece in the EU, Turkey is not straightforwardly the stronger side. Indeed, with the 2004 Annan Plan, international pressure favoured the Greek side; on that occasion, it was consequently Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots that strove for a compromise settlement and the Greek Cypriots that rejected it. Rather, it is the wretched individual victims of ethnic cleansing, like Meletis Apostolides, whose rights are apparently expendable in the quest for a ‘negotiated settlement’.

On the other hand, for anyone who believes that justice should take precedence over political expediency, and that a ‘negotiated settlement’ should accommodate itself to the demands of justice rather than vice versa, Apostolides’s victory is to be celebrated.

Marko Attila Hoare
-------------------------000000000000000000000-------------------------

I don't agree that what Turkey did was an intentional ethnic cleansing. Under the circumstances of 1974, in a such hostile environment where irregulars of EOKA-B was still active and there were many other people on both sides of the island looking for taking revenge of the past issues; Turkey did the best possible and secure the lives of all Cypriots. This does not mean we r not aware of the big pain and sufferings of becoming a refugee in their own country. 1/3 of each communities became refugees between the years 1963 until 1978 but I consider it far better then being under the circumstances of 1963-1974...

Had Greks and Turks/GCs and TCs managed to reconcile, they could solve all their problems easily and build a regional sub-alliance in their region. Unfortunately, we neither have the literacy nor the wisdom to peacefully and easily overcome our problems. 2x2=4

[Hermes]

http://greatersurbiton.wordpress.com/author/greatersurbiton/


A defeat for ethnic cleansing in Cyprus - and for the EU’s moral idiocy

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has ruled against Linda and David Orams, a British couple that bought a property in northern Cyprus that had been confiscated from its Greek Cypriot owners following the Turkish invasion of the island in 1974. Meletis Apostolides, who was driven off his family’s property by the Turks, has been fighting a legal battle for its return since 2004. After winning his case in Nicosia, Apostolides sued in a British court to compel enforcement. Although he lost his case in Britain, the British appeals court referred it to the ECJ, which has ruled in his favour. The Oramses, who have built a luxury holiday villa on Apostolides’s property, must now demolish this villa, return the land to Apostolides and pay him rent. If they do not comply, the Oramses, who have been represented by Cherie Blair, could face the confiscation of their property in Britain.

The decision of the ECJ has negative implications for the thousands of foreigners, in particular Britons, who have bought property in Northern Cyprus that belonged to Greeks prior to the 1974 invasion, and for the Turkish Cypriots who are selling such properties to foreigners. It is, in effect, a blow to all those who, consciously or not, have sought or are seeking to profit from ethnic cleansing, and a victory for the victims of ethnic cleansing. As Paul Owen, chief executive of the Association of International Property Professionals (AIPP), said, ‘This is an extreme example in Northern Cyprus, because of the disputes over land ownership, but it serves as a timely reminder to anybody that, no matter where you’re buying, you really need to do your homework and get independent legal advice.’ In other words: don’t buy goods that may be stolen.

Turkey had every right to intervene in Cyprus in 1974 to prevent the attempt by Greek fascists to annex the island to Greece. But Turkey had no right to dismember the island state, expel roughly 170,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, confiscate their properties and establish an ethnically pure Turkish statelet on the northern third of the island - where Greek Cypriots had previously constituted the majority. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Cyprus dispute, the dispossessed Greek Cypriots of northern Cyprus - like the roughly 50,000 Turkish Cypriots expelled and dispossessed by the Greeks in the south following the Turkish invasion - are innocent victims of the conflict who have every right to restitution.

Some Turkish analysts, viewing the case purely through nationalist spectacles, have condemned the ECJ’s judgement. According to Mensur Akgün, the head of the Istanbul-based Küresel Siyasal Eğilimler Merkezi, or Center for Global Political Trends, ‘We need to seek technical solutions that will make the court’s decision meaningless and find a way to push Greek Cypriots into a corner’. Yet every Turkish democrat should rejoice at this defeat for Turkish ethnic-cleansing and expansionism.

A similar utter disregard for the rights of the individual has apparently been shown by the European Commission, which is reported as expressing concerns that allowing the order to be enforced against the Oramses could upset the talks aimed at resolving the Cyprus conflict. As is so often the case, the EU has shown itself to be the institutional equivalent of a moral idiot, for which justice is always dispensable in the interest of a ‘negotiated settlement’, i.e. of political expediency. We can define this as follows:

The European Union Rule of ‘Negotiated Settlement’ (aka ‘Appeasement’)

1. Settlement to an international dispute can only come through negotiation.

2. Since the EU is generally unwilling to apply sufficient pressure on both parties to force an end to a dispute, a ‘negotiated settlement’ will invariably favour the stronger side.

3. Since stronger states are inevitably much more likely to victimise weaker states than vice versa, the stronger side is more likely to be the party that is in the wrong.

4. Ergo, the favoured EU policy in resolving international disputes is for the victimised party to make sufficient concessions to the victimiser until ‘compromise’ is achieved; i.e. to surrender.

5. From here, it is only a short step for the EU actually to apply diplomatic pressure to the victims of injustice to surrender, as the quickest way of achieving a ‘negotiated settlement’.

So it was in Bosnia in the 1990s. So it is in Greece vs Macedonia and Slovenia vs Croatia today.

In the case of Cyprus, it is not so much the Republic of Cyprus itself which is being pressurised to surrender, since with both Cyprus and Greece in the EU, Turkey is not straightforwardly the stronger side. Indeed, with the 2004 Annan Plan, international pressure favoured the Greek side; on that occasion, it was consequently Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots that strove for a compromise settlement and the Greek Cypriots that rejected it. Rather, it is the wretched individual victims of ethnic cleansing, like Meletis Apostolides, whose rights are apparently expendable in the quest for a ‘negotiated settlement’.

On the other hand, for anyone who believes that justice should take precedence over political expediency, and that a ‘negotiated settlement’ should accommodate itself to the demands of justice rather than vice versa, Apostolides’s victory is to be celebrated.

Marko Attila Hoare

Insan(e),

What are you doing posting pro-Greek Cypriot articles on here? Have you been "flipped"? And why has your favourite writer Attila the Whore now changed his mind and is now arguing that the Greek Cypriots are showing Europe the way to a moral future? What is going on? Are you all coming to your senses?

[insan]

U like to comprehend the issues how it suits u but plz get aware of it that it's ur problem not mine.

[Hermes]

U like to comprehend the issues how it suits u but plz get aware of it that it's ur problem not mine.

Dear Insan, have you actually read this article you have posted? It's called A defeat for Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus and the EU's moral idiocy. I noticed you left out the first part in the title of your post.

Have you only just seen the "moral idiocy" bit and thought it's an attack on the ECJ decision? Because it's not. It's praising the ECJ judgement against the Orams as a great victory for justice. It criticises any attempt by the European Commission to dilute the impact of the judgement as part of a solution.

It's arguing that "justice should take precedence over political expediency" which is precisely the Greek Cypriot position - and actually describes any attempt by the EU Commission to appease the Turks on Cyprus as "moral idiocy". It's about as pro-Greek Cypriot an article as I've read on the Orams' case.

So I thank you for posting this and I take back what I said in another thread about the writer, M. Attila Hoare. He has clearly had a moral conversion along the way. It seems in this case it's okay for the Greek tail to be wagging the European dog.

As for you, insan, I think you are ready to come and live in the South now. You have finally seen the light.

[insan]

U like to comprehend the issues how it suits u but plz get aware of it that it's ur problem not mine.

Dear Insan, have you actually read this article you have posted? It's called A defeat for Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus and the EU's moral idiocy. Have you only just seen the "moral idiocy" bit and thought it's an attack on the ECJ decision? Because it's not. It's praising the ECJ judgement against the Orams and criticising any attempt that might be made by the European Commission to dilute the impact of the judgement as part of a solution.

It's arguing that "justice should take precedence over political expediency" which is precisely the Greek Cypriot position - and actually describes any attempt by the EU Commission to appease the Turks on Cyprus as "moral idiocy".

I thank you for posting this and take back what I said about Mr. Hoare. He has clearly had a moral conversion along the way. As for you, insan, I think you are ready to come and live in the South now. You have finally seen the light.

I've read it, Hermes... and I've made my point as:

I don't agree that what Turkey did was an intentional ethnic cleansing. Under the circumstances of 1974, in a such hostile environment where irregulars of EOKA-B was still active and there were many other people on both sides of the island looking for taking revenge of the past issues; Turkey did the best possible and secure the lives of all Cypriots. This does not mean we r not aware of the big pain and sufferings of becoming a refugee in their own country. 1/3 of each communities became refugees between the years 1963 until 1978 but I consider it far better then being under the circumstances of 1963-1974...

Had Greks and Turks/GCs and TCs managed to reconcile, they could solve all their problems easily and build a regional sub-alliance in their region. Unfortunately, we neither have the literacy nor the wisdom to peacefully and easily overcome our problems. 2x2=4

"Ethnic Cleansing" was not malevolent but inevitable under the then circumstances...

This means, I don't agree with what the author argue in his article...

[Hermes]

U like to comprehend the issues how it suits u but plz get aware of it that it's ur problem not mine.

Dear Insan, have you actually read this article you have posted? It's called A defeat for Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus and the EU's moral idiocy. Have you only just seen the "moral idiocy" bit and thought it's an attack on the ECJ decision? Because it's not. It's praising the ECJ judgement against the Orams and criticising any attempt that might be made by the European Commission to dilute the impact of the judgement as part of a solution.

It's arguing that "justice should take precedence over political expediency" which is precisely the Greek Cypriot position - and actually describes any attempt by the EU Commission to appease the Turks on Cyprus as "moral idiocy".

I thank you for posting this and take back what I said about Mr. Hoare. He has clearly had a moral conversion along the way. As for you, insan, I think you are ready to come and live in the South now. You have finally seen the light.

I've read it, Hermes... and I've made my point as:

I don't agree that what Turkey did was an intentional ethnic cleansing. Under the circumstances of 1974, in a such hostile environment where irregulars of EOKA-B was still active and there were many other people on both sides of the island looking for taking revenge of the past issues; Turkey did the best possible and secure the lives of all Cypriots. This does not mean we r not aware of the big pain and sufferings of becoming a refugee in their own country. 1/3 of each communities became refugees between the years 1963 until 1978 but I consider it far better then being under the circumstances of 1963-1974...

Had Greks and Turks/GCs and TCs managed to reconcile, they could solve all their problems easily and build a regional sub-alliance in their region. Unfortunately, we neither have the literacy nor the wisdom to peacefully and easily overcome our problems. 2x2=4

"Ethnic Cleansing" was not malevolent but inevitable under the then circumstances...

This means, I don't agree with what the author argue in his article...

Insan,

With all due respect this article argues that Turkey is guilty of ethnic cleansing and that "Turkey had no right to dismember the island state, expel roughly 170,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, confiscate their properties and establish an ethnically pure Turkish statelet on the northern third of the island - where Greek Cypriots had previously constituted the majority."

Moreover the dispossessed of Cyprus "are innocent victims of the conflict who have every right to restitution."

As a result, Apostolides' victory is a victory for justice and should be celebrated. The writer goes on to argue that it would be "moral idiocy" for the EU Commission to consider allowing Greek Cypriots to compromise their principles and make any concessions to Turkey concerning their right to retake possession of their homes.

Like I said, it's as pro-Greek Cypriot an article as I've read on the Orams' case and I compliment you for posting it. Even though I'm not convinced you fully get it.

[insan]

U like to comprehend the issues how it suits u but plz get aware of it that it's ur problem not mine.

Dear Insan, have you actually read this article you have posted? It's called A defeat for Ethnic Cleansing in Cyprus and the EU's moral idiocy. Have you only just seen the "moral idiocy" bit and thought it's an attack on the ECJ decision? Because it's not. It's praising the ECJ judgement against the Orams and criticising any attempt that might be made by the European Commission to dilute the impact of the judgement as part of a solution.

It's arguing that "justice should take precedence over political expediency" which is precisely the Greek Cypriot position - and actually describes any attempt by the EU Commission to appease the Turks on Cyprus as "moral idiocy".

I thank you for posting this and take back what I said about Mr. Hoare. He has clearly had a moral conversion along the way. As for you, insan, I think you are ready to come and live in the South now. You have finally seen the light.

I've read it, Hermes... and I've made my point as:

I don't agree that what Turkey did was an intentional ethnic cleansing. Under the circumstances of 1974, in a such hostile environment where irregulars of EOKA-B was still active and there were many other people on both sides of the island looking for taking revenge of the past issues; Turkey did the best possible and secure the lives of all Cypriots. This does not mean we r not aware of the big pain and sufferings of becoming a refugee in their own country. 1/3 of each communities became refugees between the years 1963 until 1978 but I consider it far better then being under the circumstances of 1963-1974...

Had Greks and Turks/GCs and TCs managed to reconcile, they could solve all their problems easily and build a regional sub-alliance in their region. Unfortunately, we neither have the literacy nor the wisdom to peacefully and easily overcome our problems. 2x2=4

"Ethnic Cleansing" was not malevolent but inevitable under the then circumstances...

This means, I don't agree with what the author argue in his article...

Insan,

With all due respect this article argues that Turkey is guilty of ethnic cleansing and that "Turkey had no right to dismember the island state, expel roughly 170,000 Greek Cypriots from their homes, confiscate their properties and establish an ethnically pure Turkish statelet on the northern third of the island - where Greek Cypriots had previously constituted the majority."

Moreover the dispossessed of Cyprus - "are innocent victims of the conflict who have every right to restitution."

As a result, Apostolides victory is a victory for justice. The writer goes on to argue that it would be "moral idiocy" for the EU to pressure Greek Cypriots to compromise their principles and make concessions to Turkey.

Like I said, it's as pro-Greek Cypriot an article I've read on the Orams' case and I compliment you for posting it. Even though I'm not convinced you fully get it.

I've fully got it, Hermes. I posted it for discussion and put forward my opinions abt the so-called ethnic cleansing.

If I really believed that the "ethnic cleansing" made by Turkey, accepted by UN and Greek/GC leadership was malevolent; I would agree with the author of this article.

Moreover, If I really believed/convinced that the return of all refugees or restitution of the properties of all GC refugees is something realistic and feasible; I would agree with Marko Attila Hoare.

The court verdict regardin Oram's case revealed that all UN parameters that negotiated and mutually agreed by relevant parties r null and void.

In such a case continuing the negotiations in frame of so-called UN parameters is meaningless... Asking TC refugees to demolish all their investments they have made on GC land and properties in the last 35 years is meaningless, too. What else remained us to talk? Partition and inevitable exchange of properties, reduction of TRNC land, 2 seperate states.

[Hermes]

I've fully got it, Hermes. I posted it for discussion and put forward my opinions abt the so-called ethnic cleansing.

If I really believed that the "ethnic cleansing" made by Turkey, accepted by UN and Greek/GC leadership was malevolent; I would agree with the author of this article.

Moreover, If I really believed/convinced that the return of all refugees or restitution of the properties of all GC refugees is something realistic and feasible; I would agree with Marko Attila Hoare.

The court verdict regardin Oram's case revealed that all UN parameters that negotiated and mutually agreed by relevant parties r null and void.

In such a case continuing the negotiations in frame of so-called UN parameters is meaningless... Asking TC refugees to demolish all their investments they have made on GC land and properties in the last 35 years is meaningless, too. What else remained us to talk? Partition and inevitable exchange of properties, reduction of TRNC land, 2 seperate states.

Insan,

You disappoint me. So you are a "moral idiot" then? You are prepared to appease ethnic cleansing? Because that is what expelling 170,000 people from their ancestral homes is. It is unjustifiable and you do yourself no credit in trying to justify it. So what if Turks invested and built on the land? It was never theirs to build on in the first place.

If you can't see that it is a moral duty to return stolen land and property to their rightful owners, then you and your people will find yourselves judged by history accordingly. Is that how you want the Turks to be seen? As thieves, killers and racists? Is it not time for the Turks to do the right thing for once and join the civilised nations in turning its back on barbarism?

[insan]

I've fully got it, Hermes. I posted it for discussion and put forward my opinions abt the so-called ethnic cleansing.

If I really believed that the "ethnic cleansing" made by Turkey, accepted by UN and Greek/GC leadership was malevolent; I would agree with the author of this article.

Moreover, If I really believed/convinced that the return of all refugees or restitution of the properties of all GC refugees is something realistic and feasible; I would agree with Marko Attila Hoare.

The court verdict regardin Oram's case revealed that all UN parameters that negotiated and mutually agreed by relevant parties r null and void.

In such a case continuing the negotiations in frame of so-called UN parameters is meaningless... Asking TC refugees to demolish all their investments they have made on GC land and properties in the last 35 years is meaningless, too. What else remained us to talk? Partition and inevitable exchange of properties, reduction of TRNC land, 2 seperate states.

Insan,

You disappoint me. So you are a "moral idiot" then? You are prepared to appease ethnic cleansing? Because that is what expelling 170,000 people from their ancestral homes is. It is unjustifiable and you do yourself no credit in trying to justify it. So what if Turks invested and built on the land? It was never theirs to build on in the first place.

If you can't see that it is a moral duty to return stolen land and property to their rightful owners, then you and your people will find yourselves judged by history accordingly. Is that how you want the Turks to be seen? As thieves, killers and racists? Is it not time for the Turks to do the right thing for once and join the civilised nations in turning its back on barbarism?

In my opinion Turks did everything they r able to do to reconcile with Greeks but it seems too difficult as long as they "occupy" Asia Minor and a part of Cyprus.

[CBBB]

Is this a private arguement or can anyone join in?