Expatkiwi wrote:Malapapa and Paphitis had - in an earlier thread - used some interesting comparisons with the Turkish Intervention of July 1974. Specifically, the Nazi German conquest of France, which kind of took me aback.
Malapapa used the Nazi conquest of France, and with your inadequate answer to his very valid analogy, I followed up with another similar analogy of a hypothetical Australian invasion of your beloved New Zealand, which you found rather confronting, causing your hasty retreat from the thread.
You retreated because you were unable to come to terms with your hypocrisy. Deep down, you realise that an Australian invasion of New Zealand would be highly immoral and illegal, just as Turkey's invasion and occupation of Cyprus is. You still insist on calling this invasion an intervention, despite many UN resolutions which contradict you, and despite the fact that not one single TC was harmed from 1967 to 20 Jul 09. You even insinuated that the TCs were being annihilated by the GCs despite the fact that not one single TC was harmed for 7 years prior to this so called "intervention".
Their rationale is that Turkey is an invader and conquerer of foreign soil (Republic of Cyprus), while the opposing view is that Turkey intervened to liberate Turkish Cypriots from Nikos Sampson's tender mercies.
Nikos Sampson did not harm one single TC between between 15 Jul 74 and 20 Jul 74. And since the coup attempt against Makarios had collapsed 5 days after, then Turkey should have done the right thing and withdraw her troops after restoring constitutional order. But that was not her objective. Turkey's objective was one of conquest against a sovereign nation, and is therefore deemed an illegal act outside the scope of its Treaty of Guarantee obligations.
have to admit that while I support the view that the 1974 Turkish Intervention was not only legal under the Treaty of Guarantee, but necessary (given EOKA-B's stated goals of enosis and the removal of the Turkish Cypriot presence from the island), the continuing presence of a large Turkish garrison in what is supposed to be a foreign country makes it look less of a protector power and more of an occupation power, and given my opposition towards annexation of TRNC by Turkey, it makes me rather uneasy.
Turkey's "intervention" in Cyprus could only be deemed legal only if it withdrew after the collapse of the Coup and the disintegration of EOKA B. If the stated objective of the Coup was Enosis, then why did the Junta install its own puppet Government in Cyprus for 5 days, and not annex the whole island?
Turkey could have abided by its Treaty of Guarantee obligation by restoring constitutional order, then withdrawing from Cyprus, but instead, it violated the Treaty terms by maintaining her troops on the island and violating the Republic's territorial integrity. Furthermore, the Treaty of Guarantee clearly stipulates that no Guarantor Power can unilaterally "intervene" in Cyprus. Therefore, this so called "intervention" is illegal since Turkey has violated every single Treaty of Guarantee Article. Greece's intervention within Cypriot affairs by instigating the Coup was also illegal.
I know that some folk in this forum (like Runaway) prefers annexation, but such a move would end up dissolving the Turkish Cypriot identity, which would be just as much a cultural disaster as what Sampson would have done had the coup prevailed.
The Turkish Cypriot identity is dissolving, and you need to realize this fact.
Anyway, being a student of both military history and politics, I have not come across in my research of any record of a 'status of forces agreement' between Turkey and TRNC (a SOF agreement is a military treaty between two sovereign powers that define the roles of a protective force on foreign soil), which is rather unusual, given Turkey's official position that the TRNC is a sovereign state, and that they are there solely to keep the sovereignty of TRNC intact. An existance of such an SOF Agreement or Mutual Assistance Pact means that Turkey is not longer an occupation power, but a protector with the full blessings of the host country.
Turkey does not even consider the "trnc" a sovereign state. In fact, in many ways, Turkey does not even recognize the "trnc". And no matter how you slice it, a SOF agreement will not indemnify Turkey from its occupation status, because the territory it occupies is still sovereign land of the RoC, and is still recognized as such by every single nation in the world, NATO, EU, Commonwealth and UN.
This means that if there is no such formal agreement between the TRNC and Turkey, then that means that in effect, the TRNC government has absolutely no say or power over the disposition of Turkish Forces in their country, and Turkey therefore is in every respect an occupier. I am saying this based on my stance that the TRNC is - and ought to be regarded as - sovereign (which I know a big number of forum folk here do not agree with). If Turkey does not actually treat the TRNC as sovereign, and merely as a puppet state under military rule, then I have to seriously reconsider my attitude towards the Cyprus Problem.
Therefore, my question (which is being addressed to the Turkish Cypriot members of the forum) is this: Is Turkey indeed a protector power, or is it really an occupation power? I'd like to know what you think, and if you can give me some information to support your viewpoint.
The TCs have never had a say in the "trnc", and they never will.
