Cyprus-Forum.com

[Sotos]

What is "We (the world)"? The UN? The EU can tell to Turkey that EU can take at most an X number of refugees. How to stop them... in the same way that they would stop their own citizens. If tomorrow 10 million Turks decide that they would rather live permanently in Germany does this mean that they can't be stopped? If Turkey had nothing to do with the Syrian crisis and they just had the bad luck of being their neighbor then I would agree that sharing the refugees proportionally would be the right thing... but not just in EU but the whole world... especially other Arab and Muslim states. The Saudis also have a share of responsibility for the problems in Syria and they hardly took any refugees!

[erolz66]

What is "We (the world)"? The UN?

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

There are international (as well as regional and national) laws and 'norms' that define how a nation state should act with regards to providing asylum to those fleeing war, persecution, famine etc. The laws (international, regional, national) do not currently have any mechanism along the lines of 'if country X contributes to a 'problem' that creates refugees needing asylum, then its obligations to refugees are different than if it did not. That is all I was pointing out. We can discuss as much as you like if the current 'norms' and 'laws' are 'wrong' and should be changed if you like but it should imo be done so within the context of what the existing norms / laws are.

The EU can tell to Turkey that EU can take at most an X number of refugees. How to stop them... in the same way that they would stop their own citizens. If tomorrow 10 million Turks decide that they would rather live permanently in Germany does this mean that they can't be stopped?

I was not asking how they could do so - I was asking if that is what you want Turkey to do and think that is what the EU should demand Turkey do - use repressive physical force against any migrants currently in Turkey that try to leave Turkey to enter Europe ?

If Turkey had nothing to do with the Syrian crisis and they just had the bad luck of being their neighbor then I would agree that sharing the refugees proportionally would be the right thing... but not just in EU but the whole world... especially other Arab and Muslim states. The Saudis also have a share of responsibility for the problems in Syria and they hardly took any refugees!

I understand what you are saying. Can you understand that such action based on 'doing the right thing' is just not how a nations treatment of those seeking asylum is currently defined in terms of international 'norms' or specific treaties and agreements between nations or within national laws even - anywhere.

[repulsewarrior]

...we, as in we want to help, i want to help and there are others who have the same intention.

Canada has a sponsorship program, it works; does Europe?

[Maximus]

Sufficient laws are there, it is the implementation of these laws or the adherence to them that is the problem,

My point in reply to Soto's was that these laws have no provision within them for saying - country X caused y % of the problem therefore it must take y% of the refugees created by that problem.

If I understand you correctly,

Basically what you are saying is that there should be laws that prevents nation states from being militarily aggressive against other nation states and if they are; there should be other laws to determine that?

Or are you saying, that military aggression is OK as long as the aggressor state takes in all displaced people provided that you can prove that the aggressor state was in fact the aggressor otherwise its someone else's problem?

what if said state does not recognize these laws adopted by us, who are the rest of the world?

Dont such laws already exist to "prohibit" sh!t from happening in the first place and if it does, a judgement can be made by observing the law vs what happened?

[Sotos]

You mean like the international laws that Turkey violates by occupying Cyprus? We know first hand that those "laws" do not matter that much in practice. What matters most are the interests of countries and how much power they have to get what they want. Otherwise all countries would simply be applying the law and there would be no need for any negotiations.

I was not asking how they could do so - I was asking if that is what you want Turkey to do and think that is what the EU should demand Turkey do - use repressive physical force against any migrants currently in Turkey that try to leave Turkey to enter Europe ?

Isn't this the way it works for everything? If I stop my car in the middle of the road and I refuse to move blocking all traffic wouldn't they have to use physical force to remove me? It is not a human right to do whatever the fuck you want. There are limits. And if you try to cross those limits then force will be applied to prevent you from doing what you are not allowed to do.

I understand what you are saying. Can you understand that such action based on 'doing the right thing' is just not how a nations treatment of those seeking asylum is currently defined in terms of international 'norms' or specific treaties and agreements between nations or within national laws even - anywhere.

There are no international 'norms' for such case because this is not a usual case for which there is a norm. The number of people and distance they travel is unprecedented for the modern era. The EU takes a lot of asylum seekers... but this is an extra ordinary situation and those "norms" were not created for such situations.

[repulsewarrior]

...seriously, is there a way for the people of Europe, in Europe, if they choose to, to help directly?

If someone in Europe was willing to house and to support a Syrian refugee for two years, could they? Is their desire to help, realised, because they as a collective are organised so that they as Individuals have guidance, and form, toward that end? Refugees, mass refugee movements still have to be treated one by one. Not only that, this one is not the last one, or the only one. When a town welcomes 20, and a church welcomes one family or two, it is not so hard to imagine that homes are found for many, where the treatment they receive is likely to have a benefit to them, and to the country they have chosen as their own. It does not prevent the State to act with Charity. In Canada, in effect, (and by its Grace) it obliges the Government as the representation of a State to demonstrate its convictions in kind.

...does Europe have a Sponsorship Program?

[B25]

Turkey is using this problem she created to blackmail the EU and the EU is to stupid and corrupt to say no. Pure and simple.

Who is the EU ? Are you part of the EU ? is the RoC ? Is Greece ? According to your thesis WE are too stupid and too corrupt to know how to deal with this issue. Personally if my choice as to who makes these kinds of decisions is between those who currently do and say you, I think I'll stick with the current bunch, as bad as they are, for the other option imo would only lead to things being even more bad than they are now. Being more serious I would like to see massive changes in how such decisions get made in the EU, more transparency, more democratic accountability and such like, but that is for me a different subject entirely.

No, the EU are a law unto themselves, I neither voted for them nor want them. The are there for their own interests and I detest when they allow criminal states like Turkey to dictate to them, since even though I never put them in power they still tax the ass off me to pay for their privileges.

So, If I were the one making the decision on behalf of the 500 million that never voted for them, I would do a better job and be financially better off by not paying blackmailing terrorist states like Turkey.

You Turk supporting efforts are second to none I admire the way you can turn anything about Turkey into something nice about them. Keep spinning your BS, everyone can see you for what you are. You remind me of thugs I met in my life; He says, who you looking at? I say, nothing, he says so I am nothing now am I?? You make something out of nothing.

Turkey and legal/laws cannot be used in the same sentence. Turkey has proven this by 'not accepting the decision by the constitutional court, offs', by jailing opposition journalist and taking over their paper, by illegal occupation of Cyprus by by by, hundred more, yet to you thats ok because you expect all other countries to obey international laws and norms but Turkey doesn't have to.

Sotos is totally correct and a very large stick needs to be applied to Turkey, alas there is no one with the balls to do it as they are all to busy sucking on the Turkish knob to be concerned. I hate them all.

The UK would do well to ditch this corrupt entity they would do much better on their own.

[erolz66]

You mean like the international laws that Turkey violates by occupying Cyprus? We know first hand that those "laws" do not matter that much in practice. What matters most are the interests of countries and how much power they have to get what they want. Otherwise all countries would simply be applying the law and there would be no need for any negotiations.

What is know as international law and its relationship to the notion of sovereignty is complex. However a country 'signing up' to the UN does not require it to pledge to observe and comply with any past or future UN resolutions passed, at least as I understand it. A country signing up to something like The 1951 Refugee Convention does place on it specific obligations that it agrees to abide by. Of course any country can sign such and then not abide by the terms but the point I am making is the violation of Turkey in regards to Cyprus as laid out in UN resolutions is not the same as Turkey signing and agreeing to the terms of something like The 1951 Refugee Convention and then just ignoring those terms. In any case outside of if Turkey does or does not 'follow the rules' my point still remains, there currently are and never have been any rules anywhere to do with refugees that has had a basis that connects a states obligations to refugees with to what degree that state can be said to have caused the person becoming a refugee. Really if you think about it the reason why this is so is pretty obvious I think.

Isn't this the way it works for everything? If I stop my car in the middle of the road and I refuse to move blocking all traffic wouldn't they have to use physical force to remove me? It is not a human right to do whatever the fuck you want. There are limits. And if you try to cross those limits then force will be applied to prevent you from doing what you are not allowed to do.

Of course there are limits. Using physical force to prevent someone (citizen or non citizen) leaving a country, would, I would argue be generally seen as 'repressive'. Like the prevention of letting East Germans leave east Germany was repressive. If you want Turkey to be forced into using repressive measure on millions of migrants for the benefit of the EU and for the EU to MAKE Turkey do this with the harshest 'sticks' that it can use to make Turkey do this, then so be it. Personally that is not what I would want the EU to do in my name.

There are no international 'norms' for such case because this is not a usual case for which there is a norm. The number of people and distance they travel is unprecedented for the modern era. The EU takes a lot of asylum seekers... but this is an extra ordinary situation and those "norms" were not created for such situations.

The 1951 Refugee Convention does exist and it's provisions are binding on those who are signatories to it. http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.html

The realities of conflict, violence and persecution continue to cause displacement. Refugee protection remains urgently needed by those forced to leave their countries.The 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol are the only global legal instruments explicitly covering the most important aspects of a refugee’s life.

The 1951 Convention also recognizes the international scope of the refugee problem and the importance of international solidarity and cooperation in trying to resolve them.

Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection?-

The principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of a refugee to a territory where his or her life or freedom is threatened, is considered a rule of customary international law. As such it is binding an all States, regardless of whether they have acceded to the 1951 Convention or 1967 Protocol. A refugee seeking protection must not be prevented from entering a country as this would amount to refoulement.

[erolz66]

No, the EU are a law unto themselves,

If given the choice via a referendum you would vote for Rocixt then ?

You Turk supporting efforts are second to none I admire the way you can turn anything about Turkey into something nice about them. Keep spinning your BS, everyone can see you for what you are. You remind me of thugs I met in my life; He says, who you looking at? I say, nothing, he says so I am nothing now am I?? You make something out of nothing.

I can not control your perspective. If you want to believe that I am making out 'nice things about Turkey' here, then so be it. Actually I think I am the one who is probably being most rational here, who is divorcing this issue from prior pre notions about Turkey. Stating that the EU has little choice but to deal with Turkey with regards to this issue, is not to me pro Turkish BS / spin. It is actually just pointing out the blindingly obvious. Pointing out that if Turkey either says or proves to be incapable of respecting the rights of refugees within Turkey or any more such within Turkey, then no EU country would be able to legally return refugees to Turkey, is not pro Turkey. Its pro reality (at least as I understand such).

Turkey and legal/laws cannot be used in the same sentence. Turkey has proven this by 'not accepting the decision by the constitutional court, offs', by jailing opposition journalist and taking over their paper, by illegal occupation of Cyprus by by by, hundred more, yet to you thats ok because you expect all other countries to obey international laws and norms but Turkey doesn't have to.

There is so much tangled up and confused stuff in the above that I think i'll just leave it tbh. I do understand your general point that any talk of 'law' in regards to Turkey is meaningless, as I understand why you have this perspective (though why you assume the rest of the EU or world must therefore have the same perspective and to the same degree as you I understand less). Even taking that as 'read' that does not, to me at least, mean that the EU can therefore disregard laws with regards to it's obligations to refugees on the basis that 'Turkey does not either - so we can do anything to these refugees. In fact it seem to me that the opposite is true. That if the EU really does believe Turkey has no respect for law at all of any kind, then that becomes the very reason why it legally (let alone morally) can not just force migrants in general and refugees in particular back to Turkey - leaving it (and especially Greece) in a very very difficult position.

Sotos is totally correct and a very large stick needs to be applied to Turkey, alas there is no one with the balls to do it as they are all to busy sucking on the Turkish knob to be concerned. I hate them all.

It could be that no one has the 'balls' to take a stick to Turkey. Then again it could be that those who have such sticks currently consider it is actually in their best interests not to wield such sticks, all things considered in a rational way. I suspect the latter is more likely and that your belief in the former is more down to what you want and need to believe than what is most likely the actual case. Just my own personal opinion.

[Sotos]

The 4th Geneva Convention which was signed by Turkey states: "States may not deport or transfer parts of their own civilian population into a territory they occupy." What you claim regarding Conventions is just the theory... the reality is very different.

Of course there are limits. Using physical force to prevent someone (citizen or non citizen) leaving a country, would, I would argue be generally seen as 'repressive'.

They can leave Turkey, but this doesn't mean they have the right to settle in any country they wish. I don't have such right either. The essence of the issue is that the refugees should be protected but they don't have the right to settle wherever they want. The EU should take as many as it can and then it should force Turkey to keep the rest and treat them right. Turkey deserves to have a cost because it has a share of the responsibility for creating the problem... they can spend less for their army that creates problems and use that money to alleviate the problems of the refugees.