Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

Continuing:

"The High Commissioner concludes that although enosis is in some way more attractive than the unitary state, Turkey's objections to it are so strong that it may not be a practicable solution at present. He suggests, therefore, that efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing UN safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home."

[Panicos UK]

Continuing:

"The High Commissioner concludes that although enosis is in some way more attractive than the unitary state, Turkey's objections to it are so strong that it may not be a practicable solution at present. He suggests, therefore, that efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing UN safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home."

So how and when was the Treaty of Guarantee nullified exactly?

[Me Ed]

Panicos,

You accuse the Greek Cypriots of hiding behind the RoC.

Why are you hiding behind a Greek name?

I'm not. Or at least I don't think I am. Why are you getting personal?

I've yet to meet someone called Panicos with a Turkish agenda since now.

Also, since the closure of a certain forum, there have been a number of imposters on this forum, claiming to have a Greek Cypriot heritage, pushing a Turkish agenda.

Now, what's your real name?

[GreekIslandGirl]

No the RoC existed the whole time. Why would it not? The changes to the Constitution and its smooth running didn't affect the RoC name.

So if the RoC had continued to exist, despite the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriots, why would the Treaty of Guarantee be null and void? Sorry I posted on the page before.

The RoC did not depend on the participation of any 'individual' members. There was a clause which was put in place (can't remember the details of what it's called - some legal term about necessity). So the Republic could be fully functioning without the TCs. But the Treaty of Guarantees were null and void which is why Britain did not intervene to stop the Turkish invasion.

Can you back this up? This is the first I have heard of this.

There are many documents recently published which demonstrate how these were nullified. Britain's arguments left it only with a 'moral' obligation to intervene because of Commonwealth commitments (even these it chose to ignore) . For now:


" (b) the United Kingdom would have no commitments to Cyprus in respect of the defence of Cyprus"

- Philip Rogers, Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet Office, 4th January 1966

[Panicos UK]

Panicos,

You accuse the Greek Cypriots of hiding behind the RoC.

Why are you hiding behind a Greek name?

I'm not. Or at least I don't think I am. Why are you getting personal?

I've yet to meet someone called Panicos with a Turkish agenda since now.

Also, since the closure of a certain forum, there have been a number of imposters on this forum, claiming to have a Greek Cypriot heritage, pushing a Turkish agenda.

Now, what's your real name?

.

Why do I have a Turkish agenda? This is a discussion forum is it not?

Secondly, my real name is at the bottom of page 2.

[Panicos UK]

No the RoC existed the whole time. Why would it not? The changes to the Constitution and its smooth running didn't affect the RoC name.

So if the RoC had continued to exist, despite the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriots, why would the Treaty of Guarantee be null and void? Sorry I posted on the page before.

The RoC did not depend on the participation of any 'individual' members. There was a clause which was put in place (can't remember the details of what it's called - some legal term about necessity). So the Republic could be fully functioning without the TCs. But the Treaty of Guarantees were null and void which is why Britain did not intervene to stop the Turkish invasion.

Can you back this up? This is the first I have heard of this.

There are many documents recently published which demonstrate how these were nullified. Britain's arguments left it only with a 'moral' obligation to intervene because of Commonwealth commitments (even these it chose to ignore) . For now:


" (b) the United Kingdom would have no commitments to Cyprus in respect of the defence of Cyprus"

- Philip Rogers, Deputy Secretary of the Cabinet Office, 4th January 1966

I think there would be fierce debate on this point, both from the UK parliament then and now and also from all signatories. Makarios himself claimed the UK had a legal right to intervene to restore the status quo as did the UK opposition at the time. Plus null and void in legal terms means that a document has no value - in most cases because is is never signed or never comes into effect - the Treaty of Guarantee was signed by the UK, Greece and Turkey. No legal document superseded it and it was used as a basis for a military intervention. Therefore it is definitely not 'null and void'.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Henry Steel, FCO writing to Southern European Department, 10th February 1971:

"Cyprus validity of 1960 Agreements.

... Since the constitutional breakdown of 1963 and the intervention of the UN in 1964, the Cyprus Government have taken the line that the Treaty of Guarantee is no longer valid ... "

~

Alan Goodison, Head of Western European department, 1973

" ... The Cyprus Constitution ceased to work properly at the end of 1963. The factual situation in Cyprus has for a number of years been out of accord with the constitution but we have not seen advantage in taking "action with the sole aim of our establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty (of Guarantee) ..."

Fuller extracts in Mallinson (see Kimon's thread on Empire Legacy).

[Me Ed]

Panicos,

You accuse the Greek Cypriots of hiding behind the RoC.

Why are you hiding behind a Greek name?

I'm not. Or at least I don't think I am. Why are you getting personal?

I've yet to meet someone called Panicos with a Turkish agenda since now.

Also, since the closure of a certain forum, there have been a number of imposters on this forum, claiming to have a Greek Cypriot heritage, pushing a Turkish agenda.

Now, what's your real name?

.

Why do I have a Turkish agenda? This is a discussion forum is it not?

Secondly, my real name is at the bottom of page 2.

Ok "Panicos"

In a normally functioning democracy, do you believe a minority should be able to veto the duly elected Government?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Ergo:

The Cyprus Government (legitimate and recognised internationally, even without TCs since 1963) declared the Treaty of Guarantee null and void and the British did not see any reason to take action to restore this.

[MR-from-NG]

Henry Steel, FCO writing to Southern European Department, 10th February 1971:

"Cyprus validity of 1960 Agreements.

... Since the constitutional breakdown of 1963 and the intervention of the UN in 1964, [b]the Cyprus Government have taken the line that the Treaty of Guarantee is no longer valid ... "[/b]

~

Alan Goodison, Head of Western European department, 1973

" ... The Cyprus Constitution ceased to work properly at the end of 1963. The factual situation in Cyprus has for a number of years been out of accord with the constitution but we have not seen advantage in taking "action with the sole aim of our establishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty (of Guarantee) ..."

Fuller extracts in Mallinson (see Kimon's thread on Empire Legacy).

The fact that this document was signed and sealed by all parties the GC's did so knowing it was not worth the paper it was written on. The document was always null and void but more importantly for them the TC's were NULL AND VOID. That's was how it was then that's how they see it now.