Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

So did the Brits. They encouraged the proposed changes 'before the ink was dry'.

For some reason, the Brits changed their minds once they saw the TCs 'in operation' and wanted enosis for Cyprus with Greece, instead.

(Mind you, this was what they initially wanted, before the USA intervened ... but we are going over old stuff again and it's kalinhta time ... )

[MR-from-NG]

So did the Brits. They encouraged the proposed changes 'before the ink was dry'.

For some reason, the Brits changed their minds once they saw the TCs 'in operation' and wanted enosis for Cyprus with Greece, instead.

(Mind you, this was what they initially wanted, before the USA intervened ... but we are going over old stuff again and it's kalinhta time ... )

Those were the good old days and the GC's should have found a way of getting itself rid of its "thorn on the side" TC's. You messed up your one and only opportunity and rest assured its going to cost you.

The TC's are not the people that were back in the sixties. We have learnt a great deal since then and it is imperative you come to terms with our legal presence on the island. Get the idea "Cyprus is Greek" shit out of your heads. I have as much right to Cyprus as you do. The 1960 constitution was workable but the GC's never had any intentions to honour its obligations. The GC's never ever did or plan anything with the best intentions of the TC's, all they ever wanted was to screw us any which way possible. It's 2012 now and its no longer possible for you to repeat your tricks of the past and I think the rest of world are also aware of this, so in short YOUR NUMBERS UP.

[wyoming cowboy]

Sorry, I replied before you posted the last section. Are you saying that the RoC didn't exist in 1974? Anyway the Turkish Cypriots may have walked out, but the UK, Greece and Turkey were still signatories to the treaty of Guarantee. That agreement was never legally nullified or superseded was it? Bulent Ecevit wanted to carry out a joint operation with the UK but the UK washed it's hands. Up to the ceasefire, I think Turkey acted reasonably within established legal parameters.

HOWEVER, the policy pursued at the negotiation table was for division and for the Turkish Cypriots to have their own administrative zone. In Clerides's memoirs he states that 'if the Turks had intervened (his word not mine) under the Treaty of Guarantee, they should have been satisfied with the re-establishment (again his word not mine) of the 1960 constitution...

Panikos, i think you are giving us a look into the future of how the next generation of Gc will most likely think and feel. I mean how many present day Gc can stomach saying what you are saying about the first Turk invasion being legally and politically justified especially if they had to live through it. Not many if i had to guess.

[Bananiot]

To an impartial, observer from the outside, the invasion of Turkey on July 1974, was justified. The UN and all international institutions called it "intervention" and not invasion. Turkey was given the right to intervene in the agreements we signed for the creation of the RoC. The Turkish army, to an impartial observer, had no right to stay in Cyprus. If we are looking at the strictly legal aspects of this, Turkey should have restored the constitutional order and departed. If we believe that the 1959 agreements did us wrong, this is another matter. The fact is, we signed them and we should have honoured them, to take away any pretext Turkey or anybody else needed to intervene.

[Sotos]

Nothing in the UN Resolution on the day of the invasion justifies the invasion. It was an illegal foreign invasion. Nothing less. No valid excuse!

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

[Bananiot]

Where is the word "invasion" mentioned in the resolution? We, you sotos, talk about invasion, yet the resolution refers to foreign intervention. I am afraid you need to read between the lines too. In a similar manner, as you interprete things, Greece invaded Cyprus in 1964, by sending a force of 10 000 soldiers, while we created a natioanal guard, contrary to the provisions of the Treaty of Establishment of the RoC.

[Sotos]

The resolution demands the end of the Turkish invasion/intervention/murder party ... call it whatever you want. It doesn't say that Turkey has any right to use military force to achieve anything in Cyprus.

[Bananiot]

The last word was yours ...

[GreekIslandGirl]

Just because no one wrote down Turkey was carrying out a full scale invasion (because, that is EXACTLY what it was) on the day or the days following the INVASION, that does not mean it was not an invasion. It is a reflection of reporting things as seen, before the FULL picture emerges. No law-abiding, self-respecting nation has since denied what emerged was indeed a Turkish Invasion, and now continued occupation.

And no amount of clandestine Turks coming here with Greek names, to swerve all discussions towards repeating how 'justified' Turkey was to "intervene", is going to change the facts!

The final word; whether or not, on the day it happened anyone was aware Turkey was invading - they have ZERO doubts now that the Turks HAD prepared for an INVASION, and indeed were prepared for such an invasion for decades!

[Panicos UK]

[quote="Bananiot"]To an impartial, observer from the outside, the invasion of Turkey on July 1974, was justified. The UN and all international institutions called it "intervention" and not invasion. Turkey was given the right to intervene in the agreements we signed for the creation of the RoC. The Turkish army, to an impartial observer, had no right to stay in Cyprus. If we are looking at the strictly legal aspects of this, Turkey should have restored the constitutional order and departed. If we believe that the 1959 agreements did us wrong, this is another matter. The fact is, we signed them and we should have honoured them, to take away any pretext Turkey or anybody else needed to intervene.[/quote]

EXACTLY! This is what I'm trying to say. Of course we know now that Turkey really did want a chunk of Cyprus. My whole point is that because of the Treaty of Guarantee the door was legally open for Turkey to intervene (not invade). If Turkey had assisted in re-establishing the 1959 agreements and then withdrawn, what would have been wrong with that? Unfortunately some of the 'true Greeks' on this forum are so one-sided they probably can only walk in right-handed circles. Also I love the way that supposedly 'civilised' and 'intelligent' contributors get agitated and resort to personal attacks when they lose an argument.

IT'S SHEER ARROGANCE! I must be Turkish because I don't conform to the 'Greek Cypriot' view. Some of the 'true Greeks' on this forum need to wake up and smell the tahini. Unfortunately boys and girls I'm not Turkish nor of Turkish descent. Sorry to burst your little bubble.