Cyprus-Forum.com

[Byron]

Are these proposals for a Cyprus solution...

No. Just proposals for getting round the guarantor issue, which is evidently a particular stumbling block.

In the future, the only guarantor Cyprus needs is the EU .

[The Cypriot]

Are these proposals for a Cyprus solution...

No. Just proposals for getting round the guarantor issue, which is evidently a particular stumbling block.

In the future, the only guarantor Cyprus needs is the EU .

Byron. You should join Christofias's negotiating team. With such insightful and eminently sensible input the Cyprus problem would be solved in no time.

[The Cypriot]

Being a guarantor means having obligations.

Here are some proposals mooted by third parties as to how guarantor arrangements could work in practice. I have been asked to post them here for comment.


The guarantors of the territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus remain Greece, Turkey and the UK, but with oversight by the UN Security Council.

Guarantors have no rights in relation to Cyprus or its component states, only obligations. These obligations extend to protecting the human rights of all Cypriots. A guarantor must treat Cypriots equally and must not act in favour of one community of Cypriots at the expense of another.

A guarantor cannot intervene in Cyprus without the prior sanction of the UN Security Council. Such sanction will only be given if the UN Security Council is satisfied that:

* there has been a serious, widespread and persistent breach of Cypriot human rights that the Cypriot authorities are unable to rectify;

* all guarantors have first consulted with each other, as well as with the federal state of Cyprus and both component states;

* every attempt has been made to achieve a consensus position among all concerned parties and to avoid unilateral action or conflict.

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.

Furthermore any guarantor judged by the UN Security Council to have acted outside the terms and spirit of its guarantee obligations will have economic and military sanctions imposed upon it for as long as it is in breach.

The guarantee arrangements will remain in place for a maximum of ten years and may be terminated earlier at Cyprus’s option if both component states agree.

Good ideas. As long as some members of UN security council don't plot or act in direction of their self-interests; such a treaty of guarantee would most probably work. In this wild capitalistic world order that world population grows more and more while resources getting less and less, on the other hand Turco-Phobia still exists and Islamo_phobia is on the rise; anything is possible in the future.

What would the TC leadership and (more importantly) Turkey make of such proposals, do you think?

[Byron]

Are these proposals for a Cyprus solution...

No. Just proposals for getting round the guarantor issue, which is evidently a particular stumbling block.

In the future, the only guarantor Cyprus needs is the EU .

Byron. You should join Christofias's negotiating team. With such insightful and eminently sensible input the Cyprus problem would be solved in no time.

VERY TRUE

[denizaksulu]

Being a guarantor means having obligations.

Here are some proposals mooted by third parties as to how guarantor arrangements could work in practice. I have been asked to post them here for comment.


The guarantors of the territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus remain Greece, Turkey and the UK, but with oversight by the UN Security Council.

Guarantors have no rights in relation to Cyprus or its component states, only obligations. These obligations extend to protecting the human rights of all Cypriots. A guarantor must treat Cypriots equally and must not act in favour of one community of Cypriots at the expense of another.

A guarantor cannot intervene in Cyprus without the prior sanction of the UN Security Council. Such sanction will only be given if the UN Security Council is satisfied that:

* there has been a serious, widespread and persistent breach of Cypriot human rights that the Cypriot authorities are unable to rectify;

* all guarantors have first consulted with each other, as well as with the federal state of Cyprus and both component states;

* every attempt has been made to achieve a consensus position among all concerned parties and to avoid unilateral action or conflict.

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.

Furthermore any guarantor judged by the UN Security Council to have acted outside the terms and spirit of its guarantee obligations will have economic and military sanctions imposed upon it for as long as it is in breach.

The guarantee arrangements will remain in place for a maximum of ten years and may be terminated earlier at Cyprus’s option if both component states agree.

A guarantor must treat Cypriots equally and must not act in favour of one community of Cypriots at the expense of another.

Where guarantors are needed to intervene, surely it does not mean only one of them will intervene. That no bias would would take place would be imposible to achieve.


If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.


The above would be a recipee for war.


Called away. I will comment further.

[denizaksulu]

Being a guarantor means having obligations.

Here are some proposals mooted by third parties as to how guarantor arrangements could work in practice. I have been asked to post them here for comment.


The guarantors of the territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus remain Greece, Turkey and the UK, but with oversight by the UN Security Council.

Guarantors have no rights in relation to Cyprus or its component states, only obligations. These obligations extend to protecting the human rights of all Cypriots. A guarantor must treat Cypriots equally and must not act in favour of one community of Cypriots at the expense of another.

A guarantor cannot intervene in Cyprus without the prior sanction of the UN Security Council. Such sanction will only be given if the UN Security Council is satisfied that:

* there has been a serious, widespread and persistent breach of Cypriot human rights that the Cypriot authorities are unable to rectify;

* all guarantors have first consulted with each other, as well as with the federal state of Cyprus and both component states;

* every attempt has been made to achieve a consensus position among all concerned parties and to avoid unilateral action or conflict.

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.

Furthermore any guarantor judged by the UN Security Council to have acted outside the terms and spirit of its guarantee obligations will have economic and military sanctions imposed upon it for as long as it is in breach.

The guarantee arrangements will remain in place for a maximum of ten years and may be terminated earlier at Cyprus’s option if both component states agree.

Are we assuming that the guarantors are the original three? Or will there be an U component too?

[The Cypriot]

Are we assuming that the guarantors are the original three? Or will there be an U component too?

The guarantors of the territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus remain Greece, Turkey and the UK, but with oversight by the UN Security Council.

But for Greece you could read EU I supposed (if 'U' means 'EU'). What would Turkey make of this, do you think?

[denizaksulu]

Being a guarantor means having obligations.

Here are some proposals mooted by third parties as to how guarantor arrangements could work in practice. I have been asked to post them here for comment.


The guarantors of the territorial integrity and constitution of Cyprus remain Greece, Turkey and the UK, but with oversight by the UN Security Council.

Guarantors have no rights in relation to Cyprus or its component states, only obligations. These obligations extend to protecting the human rights of all Cypriots. A guarantor must treat Cypriots equally and must not act in favour of one community of Cypriots at the expense of another.

A guarantor cannot intervene in Cyprus without the prior sanction of the UN Security Council. Such sanction will only be given if the UN Security Council is satisfied that:

* there has been a serious, widespread and persistent breach of Cypriot human rights that the Cypriot authorities are unable to rectify;

* all guarantors have first consulted with each other, as well as with the federal state of Cyprus and both component states;

* every attempt has been made to achieve a consensus position among all concerned parties and to avoid unilateral action or conflict.

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.

Furthermore any guarantor judged by the UN Security Council to have acted outside the terms and spirit of its guarantee obligations will have economic and military sanctions imposed upon it for as long as it is in breach.

The guarantee arrangements will remain in place for a maximum of ten years and may be terminated earlier at Cyprus’s option if both component states agree.

Are we assuming that the guarantors are the original three? Or will there be an U component too?

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.


The above statement does not make sense. The unilaterally acting guarantor has either withdrwn or not withdrawn. The last sentence of the red para is meaningless. Or is this a trick question?

[The Cypriot]

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.


The above statement does not make sense. The unilaterally acting guarantor has either withdrwn or not withdrawn. The last sentence of the red para is meaningless. Or is this a trick question?

I think it means...

a guarantor can only intervene unilaterally to restore human rights and must then withdraw immediately - otherwise the other two guarantors must intervene to force the withdrawal.

[denizaksulu]

If a guarantor acts unilaterally with an intent other than to restore human rights followed by the guarantor’s immediate withdrawal, then the other guarantors are compelled to act militarily to force such withdrawal.


The above statement does not make sense. The unilaterally acting guarantor has either withdrwn or not withdrawn. The last sentence of the red para is meaningless. Or is this a trick question?

I think it means...

a guarantor can only intervene unilaterally to restore human rights and must then withdraw immediately - otherwise the other two guarantors must intervene to force the withdrawal.

I thought so; politicians gobbledegook. Why dont they say so in plain English.

I will finish analysing it tomorrow. Brain kaput.