Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

But, we resisted, we put up a fight in 1974. We should have welcome the Turkish army as our saviour, with roses. Instead, unable to cope with the army of the Turks we turned against unarmed villagers at Aloa, Sandalaris and elsewhere, killing kids and old folk. I wish life was just as simple as some make it out to be.

Does anybody want more proof that Bananiot is a traitor? He welcomed the Turkish invasion! The Turks are the ones who turned FIRST against Cyprus and unarmed people killing children and old people ... they found many of them in mass graves recently and many more are missing. And that was not the first time. When they invaded our island the first time they murdered more than 20.000 Cypriots ... so it is not like we didn't know what Turkish invaders mean. And with Turks I also include TCs ... it was not just the Turkish army but also TCs who killed many unarmed people in 1974.

[kimon07]

But, we resisted, we put up a fight in 1974. We should have welcome the Turkish army as our saviour, with roses. Instead, unable to cope with the army of the Turks we turned against unarmed villagers at Aloa, Sandalaris and elsewhere, killing kids and old folk. I wish life was just as simple as some make it out to be.

Does anybody want more proof that Bananiot is a traitor? He welcomed the Turkish invasion!

I think the term below is more appropriate:

fifth column n.
A clandestine subversive organization working within a country to further an invading enemy's military and political aims

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fifth+column


A fifth column is a group of people who clandestinely undermine a larger group such as a nation from within. A fifth column can be a group of secret sympathizers of an enemy that are involved in sabotage within military defense lines, or a country's borders.[1] A key tactic of the fifth column is the secret introduction of supporters into the whole fabric of the entity under attack.[2] This clandestine infiltration is especially effective with positions concerning national policy and defense.[2] From influential positions like these (and like schools maybe?) , fifth-column tactics can be effectively utilized, from stoking fears through misinformation campaigns, to traditional techniques like espionage.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column

fifth column noun

Definition
a group of people who support the enemies of the country they live in and secretly help them

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... fth-column

[Panicos UK]

There has been some fierce debate on this issue. I always thought that it was, however some on this forum disagree. I'm interested to see what others think. All the best, Panicos

In simple terms, treaties are valid and binding only for as long as the parties which have signed them respect them and abide by their terms.

Usually, treaties (even private agreements) become null and void if one or more of the parties involved either denounce them or violate them intentionally, the violation is not instantaneous but continuous and the party having violated denies to correct (lift) the results of the violation. Usually, most treaties provide that in the event of such violations by one party, the others will be entitled to denounce them immediately or to set a term for correction and warn that they will denounce the treaty and withdraw from it if correction does not take place. However, it is not necessary for the other parties to set a term and to denounce the treaty in order for it to become null and void, in the event that the overall conditions of the violation and the overall behavior of the violator, makes it clear that the violation is intentional and permanent.

In the event of Cyprus the treaty was violated instantaneously by Greece because Greek Military aided the National Guard to stage the 1974 coup. However, this violation was lifted soon as the junta collapsed both in Greece and in Cyprus and thus the “Greek intervention” was lifted.

Further, the treaty was violated intentionally and permanently by Turkey which invaded (with the consent of Britain and the USA) not in order to restore the “status quo ante” of the RoC but with the intention to stay and to partition and to ethnically cleanse the North of the island. The denial of Turkey to withdraw and to restore the results of the invasion annulled the treaty for good. Here we must add the numerous other intentional violations of the treaty by Turkey such as the ethnic cleansing, the issue of the properties, the issue of the settlers, the killings of civilians and mainly THE NON RECOGNITION of the entity which Turkey supposedly came to “save”, i.e., the RoC. This latter behavior of Turkey is a clear indication that Turkey is not only insisting on the results of the violation but it has also, practically, DENOUNCED the treaty by declaring repeatedly that it does not recognize the RoC, which the treaty was supposed to be protecting. So, under the light of this latter point one can say that Turkey invaded in order NOT TO ENFORCE the treaty (which would mean protection of the RoC) but in order TO VIOLATE it, by demolishing the RoC.

The treaty was also violated and is still being intentionally and permanently violated by Britain which supported the Turkish invasion in 1974 although they knew that the Turks intended to stay and to partition the island. Additionally, Britain, keeps violating the treaty continuously since 1974 by supporting and promoting wholeheartedly the partition and ethnic cleansing practices and aims of the Turks on the island and even by supporting and promoting “solutions” (such as the Annan Plan) which will legitimize the partition, the illegal occupation and the ethnic cleansing results of the invasion (violation).

Conclusion:

Yes, according to my opinion, the treaty was valid till the day of the invasion. But it has been dead and buried ever since because Turkey and Britain, in practice, expressed their intention to permanently violate it and to not abide by its terms which is equal to withdrawal from it.

Great post. I agree.

[kurupetos]

... we turned against unarmed villagers at Aloa, Sandalaris and elsewhere, killing kids and old folk.

Bananiot, I didn't know you were an EOKA B member. I will use your testimony above as proof in the future.

[kurupetos]

Panicos UK, do you know why the Brits asked for SBAs only in the southern part of Cyprus in 1959?

[Panicos UK]

Panicos UK, do you know why the Brits asked for SBAs only in the southern part of Cyprus in 1959?

No I don't, although I can see what you're getting at. Don't forget though that Ecevit wanted to land Turkish troops through the bases.

[bill cobbett]

There has been some fierce debate on this issue. I always thought that it was, however some on this forum disagree. I'm interested to see what others think. All the best, Panicos

In simple terms, treaties are valid and binding only for as long as the parties which have signed them respect them and abide by their terms.

Usually, treaties (even private agreements) become null and void if one or more of the parties involved either denounce them or violate them intentionally, the violation is not instantaneous but continuous and the party having violated denies to correct (lift) the results of the violation. Usually, most treaties provide that in the event of such violations by one party, the others will be entitled to denounce them immediately or to set a term for correction and warn that they will denounce the treaty and withdraw from it if correction does not take place. However, it is not necessary for the other parties to set a term and to denounce the treaty in order for it to become null and void, in the event that the overall conditions of the violation and the overall behavior of the violator, makes it clear that the violation is intentional and permanent.

In the event of Cyprus the treaty was violated instantaneously by Greece because Greek Military aided the National Guard to stage the 1974 coup. However, this violation was lifted soon as the junta collapsed both in Greece and in Cyprus and thus the “Greek intervention” was lifted.

Further, the treaty was violated intentionally and permanently by Turkey which invaded (with the consent of Britain and the USA) not in order to restore the “status quo ante” of the RoC but with the intention to stay and to partition and to ethnically cleanse the North of the island. The denial of Turkey to withdraw and to restore the results of the invasion annulled the treaty for good. Here we must add the numerous other intentional violations of the treaty by Turkey such as the ethnic cleansing, the issue of the properties, the issue of the settlers, the killings of civilians and mainly THE NON RECOGNITION of the entity which Turkey supposedly came to “save”, i.e., the RoC. This latter behavior of Turkey is a clear indication that Turkey is not only insisting on the results of the violation but it has also, practically, DENOUNCED the treaty by declaring repeatedly that it does not recognize the RoC, which the treaty was supposed to be protecting. So, under the light of this latter point one can say that Turkey invaded in order NOT TO ENFORCE the treaty (which would mean protection of the RoC) but in order TO VIOLATE it, by demolishing the RoC.

The treaty was also violated and is still being intentionally and permanently violated by Britain which supported the Turkish invasion in 1974 although they knew that the Turks intended to stay and to partition the island. Additionally, Britain, keeps violating the treaty continuously since 1974 by supporting and promoting wholeheartedly the partition and ethnic cleansing practices and aims of the Turks on the island and even by supporting and promoting “solutions” (such as the Annan Plan) which will legitimize the partition, the illegal occupation and the ethnic cleansing results of the invasion (violation).

Conclusion:

Yes, according to my opinion, the treaty was valid till the day of the invasion. But it has been dead and buried ever since because Turkey and Britain, in practice, expressed their intention to permanently violate it and to not abide by its terms which is equal to withdrawal from it.

Great post. I agree.

Yes, excellent post Kimon.

... but as you rightly say Treaties can be made null and void by the actions of the parties to them, then shouldn't we go further back in time to the early '60s, prob 1963/64, when Turkey's actions, the public military acts as well as more discreet acts, were contrary to the Treaty...???

[Panicos UK]

You have a point here Bill. I suppose the reason there wasn't a formal protest or moves to cancel the Treaty was that the RoC still thought the Treaty could be used as form of defence - obviously it didn't turn out that way.

[kimon07]

There has been some fierce debate on this issue. I always thought that it was, however some on this forum disagree. I'm interested to see what others think. All the best, Panicos

In simple terms, treaties are valid and binding only for as long as the parties which have signed them respect them and abide by their terms.

Usually, treaties (even private agreements) become null and void if one or more of the parties involved either denounce them or violate them intentionally, the violation is not instantaneous but continuous and the party having violated denies to correct (lift) the results of the violation. Usually, most treaties provide that in the event of such violations by one party, the others will be entitled to denounce them immediately or to set a term for correction and warn that they will denounce the treaty and withdraw from it if correction does not take place. However, it is not necessary for the other parties to set a term and to denounce the treaty in order for it to become null and void, in the event that the overall conditions of the violation and the overall behavior of the violator, makes it clear that the violation is intentional and permanent.

In the event of Cyprus the treaty was violated instantaneously by Greece because Greek Military aided the National Guard to stage the 1974 coup. However, this violation was lifted soon as the junta collapsed both in Greece and in Cyprus and thus the “Greek intervention” was lifted.

Further, the treaty was violated intentionally and permanently by Turkey which invaded (with the consent of Britain and the USA) not in order to restore the “status quo ante” of the RoC but with the intention to stay and to partition and to ethnically cleanse the North of the island. The denial of Turkey to withdraw and to restore the results of the invasion annulled the treaty for good. Here we must add the numerous other intentional violations of the treaty by Turkey such as the ethnic cleansing, the issue of the properties, the issue of the settlers, the killings of civilians and mainly THE NON RECOGNITION of the entity which Turkey supposedly came to “save”, i.e., the RoC. This latter behavior of Turkey is a clear indication that Turkey is not only insisting on the results of the violation but it has also, practically, DENOUNCED the treaty by declaring repeatedly that it does not recognize the RoC, which the treaty was supposed to be protecting. So, under the light of this latter point one can say that Turkey invaded in order NOT TO ENFORCE the treaty (which would mean protection of the RoC) but in order TO VIOLATE it, by demolishing the RoC.

The treaty was also violated and is still being intentionally and permanently violated by Britain which supported the Turkish invasion in 1974 although they knew that the Turks intended to stay and to partition the island. Additionally, Britain, keeps violating the treaty continuously since 1974 by supporting and promoting wholeheartedly the partition and ethnic cleansing practices and aims of the Turks on the island and even by supporting and promoting “solutions” (such as the Annan Plan) which will legitimize the partition, the illegal occupation and the ethnic cleansing results of the invasion (violation).

Conclusion:

Yes, according to my opinion, the treaty was valid till the day of the invasion. But it has been dead and buried ever since because Turkey and Britain, in practice, expressed their intention to permanently violate it and to not abide by its terms which is equal to withdrawal from it.

Great post. I agree.

Yes, excellent post Kimon.

... but as you rightly say Treaties can be made null and void by the actions of the parties to them, then shouldn't we go further back in time to the early '60s, prob 1963/64, when Turkey's actions, the public military acts as well as more discreet acts, were contrary to the Treaty...???

Absolutely. But the question of Panicos was whether the treaty was valid in 1974. I believe that the previous violations could not be attributed so clearly to any of the parties and thus no one could claim then that any of the parties in fact violated with the intention of terminating the validity. Now, as for the facts prior to 1974, I think the book below will cover you.

The Bloody truth about Cyprus.
http://www.freedomjustice.com.cy/cmspag ... 72ea65e4c6

[kimon07]

You have a point here Bill. I suppose the reason there wasn't a formal protest or moves to cancel the Treaty was that the RoC still thought the Treaty could be used as form of defence - obviously it didn't turn out that way.

And additionally, if you go through the provisions of the treaty in the book "the Bloody Truth...." you will see that it did not allow unilateral intervention of any guarantor, plus, any intervention would have to have the prior approval of the UN. So, the RoC saw the treaty as a safeguard against a turkish unilateral intervention which the RoC knew since long (1957) that it was being prepared. What the RoC appears not to have known is that the preparations were made with the advise and the assistance of Britain as proved by the facts of the book above.