Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

CYPRUS has proposed to Britain to file a joint recourse to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to resolve the differences between the two countries on the interpretation of the international law that derives from the Treaty of Establishment, which Britain signed as a guarantor power.

Speaking after his meeting with Archbishop of America Demetrios, Foreign Minister George Iacovou said the reasons which Cyprus proposed to Britain for the joint recourse to the Court were Britain’s obligations to the Republic of Cyprus as a guarantor power, the fact that it did not avert the Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the loss which the island suffered from the invasion, the Turkish settlement as well as the different interpretation of the Treaty of Establishment.

However, he said Britain would likely hide behind a reservation it had submitted to the Court, whereby it prohibits members and former members of the Commonwealth from recourse to The Hague against the former colonial power.

Already-strained relations between Cyprus and Britain hit a new low over the visit of British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw this week. The government objected to Straw meeting Talat in his office in northern Nicosia and Britain refused to back down. The British Minister was then snubbed by President Tassos Papadopoulos when he visited on Wednesday.

Iacovou said that when he himself met Straw on Wednesday, he had proposed the two countries resort together to the Court, in order to solve their differences.

He explained that the issue had been pending for many years now, since the Republic of Cyprus had the legal advice to proceed with a recourse but did not do so since it was hoping relations between the two countries would have improved.

“I told Mr Straw that the letter for Cyprus’ recourse was written by myself to the Attorney-general of the Republic 17 years ago in an effort to have better relations with Great Britain. We did not take any legal measures, in an effort to maintain a good standard in our relations, but I see our effort has failed on a number of times,” the Foreign Minister said.

According to Iacovou, the Treaty of Establishment includes a provision which obliges Britain to protect the population.

Iacovou said: “The issue came up again when we were discussing the status of the occupied areas and that of the Turkish Cypriot leadership,” he said, adding that there was a decision of the European Court of Human Rights saying that the occupied areas were under the complete control of the Turkish forces and other commands, which are subordinate to Ankara.

Iacovou said he had challenged his British counterpart to give his position on the issue and a debate began on disagreements regarding the interpretation of various issues.

“I am sure that Great Britain will hide behind the reservation it has on article 36/2 of the Charter of the International Court to refuse the proposal which Cyprus made,” he said.

The British High Commission said yesterday it had no comment on The Hague issue.

Considering Britain, as a guarantor power, did not defend Cyprus - has done nothing to ever help Cyprus, and was a big reason why the communities are divided today - why don't we put more pressure on them to remove (at least one) of their bases.

Britain offered to give us back one of the bases, if we accpeted the Annan Plan. So this shows that they don't need both of them. Furthermore, the bases are huge, when considering the size of Cyprus, and are completely sovereign. Surely, this situation must come to an end now Cyprus has joined the EU?

I do not know too much about the bases issue, so could someone please tell me why our Government is not doing more to get OUR land back from Britain? I know that we have signed legal agreements, recognising the bases belonging to Britain, but surely this should not be allowed to go on forever! And considering Turkey has already breached those legal agreements, as the other guarantor power, by creating an independent state in the north, why do we continue to recognise these agreements when it comes to the bases?

[cypezokyli]

some people argue that england did play a role in preventing an invasion in 1963. and if i am not mistaken makarios asked them to do so. therefore the "done nothing" is a typical gc answer.

it is true they are sovereign. the americans have them as separate states in their worldfactbook dekelia with capital akrotiri only the americans could have thought sth like that.

our goverment does not do sth to get them back, bc
1. we have bigger problems to solve at the time being
2. we are depended on england for tourism. that is, if we ever make a cost-benefit analysis before taking an action
3. the british bases are there with our signiture. all those believing in law and treaties out there, isnt it how it is supposed to be?

besides the ICJ story has absolutely no chance. the ICJ can only accept a case if and only if both countries are willing to accept its jurisdiction. as a concequence its just another patriotic propaganda for mass consumption. typical. kings did that for years.

again if i am not mistaken the british are supposed to pay rent, but stopped doing it since 1963. for obvious reasons

i agree that the british bases should leave, but right now it is really not the important issue in cyprus. on the other hand, who cares about reunification a?

[Simon]

Cypezokyli, Thanks for your answer. However, could I just raise the following: -

some people argue that england did play a role in preventing an invasion in 1963. and if i am not mistaken makarios asked them to do so. therefore the "done nothing" is a typical gc answer.

That's not much use if they didn't in 1974 is it? In fact, this could further show their guilt. They recognised in 1963, that any invasion does involve them and they must prevent it, but then went back on this in 1974. I know the TCs will say that the invasion was legal, I suppose this could be a reasonable argument, but the setting up of an independent state, certainly is not legal under the 1960 Agreements, and this is at the very least when Britain should have done something. Therefore, the 'done nothing' in my view is still correct. There is no point stopping it in 1963 if you're not going to in 1974.

it is true they are sovereign. the americans have them as separate states in their worldfactbook dekelia with capital akrotiri only the americans could have thought sth like that.

Yes, I have seen this. Just typical USA.

our goverment does not do sth to get them back, bc
1. we have bigger problems to solve at the time being
2. we are depended on england for tourism. that is, if we ever make a cost-benefit analysis before taking an action
3. the british bases are there with our signiture. all those believing in law and treaties out there, isnt it how it is supposed to be?

All this is fair enough, but again, surely Britain should not be allowed to hang on to these bases forever. The only reason we agreed to these legal agreements regarding the bases is because we would probably have not got independence otherwise. So you could say it was an agreement made under 'undue influence' and not total free will.

again if i am not mistaken the british are supposed to pay rent, but stopped doing it since 1963. for obvious reasons

Shouldn't they now start paying then? What excuse do they have now?

i agree that the british bases should leave, but right now it is really not the important issue in cyprus

I agree, but we must not lose sight of the fact that Cyprus is actually divided three ways. If we are talking about Cyprus being truly independent, then ALL foreign influences must leave.

[macketterry]

Simon, get real and wake up. The UK bankrolls this place with one million plus visitors per year. If it weren't for this income you would still be shepherding goats for a living. Also, Cyprus has NO bargaining power in the real world as it has no military or financial muscle whatsoever, with a combined population of a small European city it has zero currency to dictate anything.

The only way you could make yourselves heard would be to fight a guerrilla war against your 'oppressors'. If you did this you would come off much worse and still not achieve your objectives.

So I would say that Cyprus' best option would be to befriend Turkey and come to a reasonable compromise ( A-Plan) and acknowledge its position in the pecking order of world realities.

Then Cypriot people could get on with their lives without their perennial chip on their shoulder.

[cypezokyli]

That's not much use if they didn't in 1974 is it? In fact, this could further show their guilt. They recognised in 1963, that any invasion does involve them and they must prevent it, but then went back on this in 1974. I know the TCs will say that the invasion was legal, I suppose this could be a reasonable argument, but the setting up of an independent state, certainly is not legal under the 1960 Agreements, and this is at the very least when Britain should have done something. Therefore, the 'done nothing' in my view is still correct. There is no point stopping it in 1963 if you're not going to in 1974.

simon, why dont you for once get over the typical gc attitude : its everybodys fault , but not ours.

i am not trying to defend the English policy in cyprus.

you just have to realise that their actions are outside our control.
the only actions we can control its ours.

so what i would like for you to see is that, in the first bicommunal clashes turkey already showed a will to invade. what did we do from 63 till 74 to prevent more clashes?
why didnt we try to bring the tcs back to the goverment?
why was sampson - a well known tc killer allowed to run around free (only to become the coup president)?
why was the national guard was used in killing civilians (eg kofinou?)
what did we do to prevent the disaster simon?
its the easy way to accuse the others.
even if we admit that they had partition plans, what did we do the change them? what did we do to bring the two communities together and give turkey no excuse to invade ?

i cant understand why you expect the english to come to your help, when we couldnot see the signs that were clear from before.

[Simon]

Just hold on a minute, I think you both are jumping the gun quite a bit.

The UK bankrolls this place with one million plus visitors per year. If it weren't for this income you would still be shepherding goats for a living. Also, Cyprus has NO bargaining power in the real world as it has no military or financial muscle whatsoever, with a combined population of a small European city it has zero currency to dictate anything.

So are you telling me that it is thanks to the British government that we get British tourists? I must be on another planet from you, because there is me thinking that it is an individual's choice on whether they come to Cyprus or not. Does the UK forcibly send tourists here? What the hell are you on about? Cyprus has no military muscle and is small, so you are saying that these are legitimate reasons for foreigners to do whatever they like? Are you not civilised??? I tell you what, Cyprus is a bigger power than Malta, so lets bomb them and take their land shall we?

So I would say that Cyprus' best option would be to befriend Turkey and come to a reasonable compromise ( A-Plan) and acknowledge its position in the pecking order of world realities.

You mean surrender and legitimise ethnic cleansing etc. I think it is you that needs to get real. Justice will prevail eventually, and all you weak GCs who want to give in and give Turkey everything (like what the Annan plan did) SHAME ON YOU!

simon, why dont you for once get over the typical gc attitude : its everybodys fault , but not ours.

I haven't said that. I am talking about Britain's responsibilities. This particular instance is not about mistakes. It is about Britain having an obligation to re-instate the Treaty, not allowing Turkey to create their own state.

you just have to realise that their actions are outside our control.

So what!!! So are Turkey's. Does that mean we let everyone just do what they like? Your logic is incredible.

All I am talking about is Britain having an obligation to make sure the Treaty is being upheld. This is what they signed up to. So when the coup came - the Turkish troops came - fair enough. But this should have been to uphold the previous Treaty, not to keep forces their for over 30 years, creating their own state and kicking 200,000 people out of their homes. This was illegal and is why Britain should have done something. Why are you so weak and look to just blame the Greeks, without recognising the responsibility of others?

[Simon]

Just hold on a minute, I think you both are jumping the gun quite a bit.

The UK bankrolls this place with one million plus visitors per year. If it weren't for this income you would still be shepherding goats for a living. Also, Cyprus has NO bargaining power in the real world as it has no military or financial muscle whatsoever, with a combined population of a small European city it has zero currency to dictate anything.

So are you telling me that it is thanks to the British government that we get British tourists? I must be on another planet from you, because there is me thinking that it is an individual's choice on whether they come to Cyprus or not. Does the UK forcibly send tourists here? What the hell are you on about? Cyprus has no military muscle and is small, so you are saying that these are legitimate reasons for foreigners to do whatever they like? Are you not civilised??? I tell you what, Cyprus is a bigger power than Malta, so lets bomb them and take their land shall we?

So I would say that Cyprus' best option would be to befriend Turkey and come to a reasonable compromise ( A-Plan) and acknowledge its position in the pecking order of world realities.

You mean surrender and legitimise ethnic cleansing etc. I think it is you that needs to get real. Justice will prevail eventually, and all you weak GCs who want to give in and give Turkey everything (like what the Annan plan did) SHAME ON YOU!

simon, why dont you for once get over the typical gc attitude : its everybodys fault , but not ours.

I haven't said that. I am talking about Britain's responsibilities. This particular instance is not about mistakes. It is about Britain having an obligation to re-instate the Treaty, not allowing Turkey to create their own state.

you just have to realise that their actions are outside our control.

So what!!! So are Turkey's. Does that mean we let everyone just do what they like? Your logic is incredible.

All I am talking about is Britain having an obligation to make sure the Treaty is being upheld. This is what they signed up to. So when the coup came - the Turkish troops came - fair enough. But this should have been to uphold the previous Treaty, not to keep forces their for over 30 years, creating their own state and kicking 200,000 people out of their homes. This was illegal and is why Britain should have done something. Why are you so weak and look to just blame the Greeks, without recognising the responsibility of others?

[bg_turk]

Are you going to sue Greece too for failing to uphold its responsibilities according to the treaty?

[Simon]

Yes, Greece are also to blame for breaching the Treaty. But once the coup was prevented, the status quo should have been reaffirmed by the other guarantor powers. This is what they Treaty said must happen. What Turkey have done since is illegal.

[cypezokyli]

So are you telling me that it is thanks to the British government that we get British tourists? I must be on another planet from you, because there is me thinking that it is an individual's choice on whether they come to Cyprus or not. Does the UK forcibly send tourists here? What the hell are you on about? Cyprus has no military muscle and is small, so you are saying that these are legitimate reasons for foreigners to do whatever they like? Are you not civilised??? I tell you what, Cyprus is a bigger power than Malta, so lets bomb them and take their land shall we?

no simon, but it can come up with an annoucement of the type : we strictly warn all of our citizens, that there exists a severe anti-british climate in cyprus. as simple as that.

Quote:
you just have to realise that their actions are outside our control.


So what!!! So are Turkey's. Does that mean we let everyone just do what they like? Your logic is incredible.

simon are you reading what i am writing?

where did i say that let everyone do what they like??????!!!!!!
once again typical gc attitude.
what i said actually, that is if you read it, was exactly the opposite.
then you are calling my behavior a slave one.
expecting from britain to save our asses, and when they dont we just cry and complain...but see, you have signed those agreements. why didnt you keep your signiture?
and as bg_turk have said, i dont see you wanting to stop diplomatic relations with greece bc they didnot keep their part of the agreement.

Quote:
simon, why dont you for once get over the typical gc attitude : its everybodys fault , but not ours.


I haven't said that. I am talking about Britain's responsibilities. This particular instance is not about mistakes. It is about Britain having an obligation to re-instate the Treaty, not allowing Turkey to create their own state.

ok. britain is responsible for the partition.
britain did not keep its word.
britain did not fullfill its obligations.
we have an agreement.
how do we proceed?
what do WE do?

let me give you a small scenario.
lets assume we take the arms and we take the f****ing british out of cyprus. britain doesnot reply militarily, but instead starts direct trade with the north. as the past has shown they dont really give a shit about agreements. then ...suddenly....we got the land of the british bases back (where there are no refuggees) and we lost all the rest.
why the hell not?
i mean our target will be achieved. we are going to make those british pay.

...........
Simon, the organisation who represents international peace and security has send an invitation for starting negotiations. thats the important stuff on the cyprus problem. not the bases.
would you give me a comment on that?
should we accept?
or should we wait for the appearence of new and fairer international organization?