Cyprus-Forum.com

[Strahd]

We will deal with criminals like you as soon as possible. Whats that supposed to mean? I've never been in trouble in my life and always take people as I find them. I'm respected for being an honest kind person and I like it! Thankfully not too many people I know are arseholes like you?

feeling the earth moving under our feet now are we?

[Viewpoint]

Piratis / Alexis

OK let's start with the basics.

Have you ever heard of the Treaty of Guarantee 1960, and if so what do you think it contained - and why

Ok "So Easy," let's start with the basics!

We know precisely what the treaty of "Guarantee" contains! Do you? If you do, can you tell us here what it contains? Also, have you ever heard of the UN Charter? Do you know what the UN Charter is, and what it contains? If you do, can you also tell us about it?

I bet you know nothing about any one of them, that is why you are clueless! If you do, prove it! Tell us in a few words what the 1960 Treaty of "Guarantee" and the UN Charter are, and what they contain. C'mon, show us how clueless you are indeed! Show us how misguided and brainwashed you are by the Turkish propaganda! I challenge you!

Is the UN charter what you Greeks and GCs were adhering to during 1963 and 1974??

[zan]

Kifeas
Where was the bit in both those documents that your leader at the time, General Makarios Samson Grivas that said "THere is no room on Cyprus for Turkish Cypriots". In the smallprint maybe?

I am sure your sitting in your room with postits all around you with counter arguements for everything we say. If it does not have a postit about it there is one large poster right in front of you saying "Turn to abuse and violence". Hope your new blue berree has arrived.

[Alexis]

Piratis / Alexis

OK let's start with the basics.

Have you ever heard of the Treaty of Guarantee 1960, and if so what do you think it contained - and why

Yes I have. Here is an example of what was in the treaty which is re-iterated and in my view enshrines the spirit around which the constitution of the RoC was designed:


'ARTICLE II:
Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom, taking note of the undertakings of the Republic of Cyprus set out in Article I of the present Treaty, recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.
Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so
far as concern them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.'

And you say that an invasion, the product of which was the partition of the island into two states, was legal under this treaty? Let me guess, perhaps you are going to quote the following part of the treaty:

'In so far as common or concerted action may not prove possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of reestablishing the state of affairs created by the present Treaty.'

Again, how can an invasion (or intervention if you prefer) that not only does not re-establish the state of affairs required by the RoC constitution but actually goes further by violating another part of the treaty by partitioning the island be seen as legal under this treaty?

I'm not here to resurrect these matters for the sheer hell of it, both sides contributed to the mess in the 60s and 70s, that's clear and for me has become even more so after listening to arguments from my TC compatriots for the first time.
My point is simple, why did the UN security council criticise the intervention and then fail to recognise the TRNC in 1983? If the Turkish 'intervention' was legal why all the fuss and why not believe Turkey when she said that the Cyprus Problem was solved back in 1974?

[EUropean666]

Why don't you understand that Turkey intervened LEGALLY under the terms of the Treaty of Guarantee, and this move was approved by the UN Security Council.

It was approved by what? The Security Council? You are a joke my friend! You are a waste of time! Unless of course you made a mistake and instead you wanted to say that it was approved by the Turkish National Security Council.

Did also the UN approved the killings of 6000 civilians?

[perecles]

what an absolute load of bollocks you lot talk, and I mean yap yap yap yap yap...!! I wonder if the whole problem is solved when due to amount of construction going on North & South the whole bloody island sinks ........fight over which part of the ocean belongs to whom then....


P.S oh yeah, and women and children get first priority on the lifeboats or is that decided on whether your TRC or GOC? or who owns (or previously owned) the boats?, and if Im british and in a lifeboat am I stealing it?!!!!! Yes I know this is a ridiculous post, but It is no more ridiuculous than some of the crap that gets spouted on here!!!

[So Easy]

[url]http://www.tcn-cy.freeuk.com/Turkinterven1.htm

Read and learn.

Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom likewise undertake to prohibit, so
far as concern them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.'

Greece and Greek Cypriots attempted to achieve Enosis in 1974 via the coup, hence the intervention by Turkey under the terms of the Treaty.

The non-recognition issue is linked to the declaration of a separate state - also contrary to the Treaty.

Perecles, I loved your post - it got to the heart of the problem.

What is the big problem with people who can't find a way to live together, to live apart. It's like a marriage, if you can't find a way to accommodate each other, then separate. It's So Easy.

Come to a deal and have two states on Cyprus, why not?

[zan]

And you say that an invasion, the product of which was the partition of the island into two states, was legal under this treaty? Let me guess, perhaps you are going to quote the following part of the treaty:

By putting both of these two things into the same sentence is wrong. The intervention was legal. The partition was politically just for the time. It was not the TCs that tried to change the constitution illegally as Makarios did. It was not the TCs that tried to enosis the island illegally. Taksim was a direct response to both again illegally. I think these might be the mistakes that you are referring to later on in your post.

Again, how can an invasion (or intervention if you prefer) that not only does not re-establish the state of affairs required by the RoC constitution but actually goes further by violating another part of the treaty by partitioning the island be seen as legal under this treaty?

As above.

My point is simple, why did the UN security council criticise the intervention and then fail to recognise the TRNC in 1983? If the Turkish 'intervention' was legal why all the fuss and why not believe Turkey when she said that the Cyprus Problem was solved back in 1974?

Again adding a third factor to the intervention is wrong. The recognition of the TRNC was not legal under that treaty and so the UN had to refuse it. This takes nothing away from the intervention. It was needed. The problem of both sides having to adhere to a now defunct constitution was the only thing solved in 1974.

[Piratis]

Piratis / Alexis

OK let's start with the basics.

Have you ever heard of the Treaty of Guarantee 1960, and if so what do you think it contained - and why

So Easy, here we are talking with facts. What does it mean "what do you think it contained"? What is contained in that treaty is something very specific, not whatever you want to think.

Here is the whole treaty:

Treaty of Guarantee between the Republic of Cyprus and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey

The Republic of Cyprus of the one part, and Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey of the other part:-
I. Considering that the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as established and regulated by the basic articles of its Constitution, are in their common interest;
II. Desiring to co-operate to ensure that the provisions of the aforesaid Constitution shall be respected:
Have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE 1
The Republic of Cyprus undertakes to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, as well as respect for its Constitution. It undertakes not to participate, in whole or in part, in any political or economic union with any State whatsoever. With this intent it prohibits all activity tending to promote directly or indirectly either union or partition of the Island.

ARTICLE 2
Greece the United Kingdom and Turkey, taking note of the undertakings by the Republic of Cyprus embodied in Article 1, recognize and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, and also the provisions of the basic articles of its Constitution. They likewise undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State, or the partition of the Island.

ARTICLE 3
In the event of any breach of the provisions of the present Treaty, Greece, the United Kingdom, and Turkey undertake to consult together, with a view to making representations, or taking the necessary steps to ensure observance of those provisions. In so far as common or concerted action may prove impossible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty.

ARTICLE 4
The present Treaty shall enter into force on signature. The High Contracting Parties undertake to register the present Treaty at the earliest possible date with the Secretariat of the United Nations, in accordance with the provisions of Article 102 of the Chapter.

The treaty of guarantee was there to guarantee "the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus".

Greece violated the treaty for 5 days during the time that it was ruled by the CIA supported military junta. Turkey violates the above treaty for 32 years!

Greek Cypriots not only were not in agreement with the coup, but on the contrary the coup had tried to kill our president, who managed to escape abroad and condemned the coup at the UN. The coupists had also killed 100s of Greek Cypriots that resisted.

Turkey used the coup as an excuse to put into action their plans of partitioning Cyprus against the above treaty. It was nothing more than an excuse and only somebody that is blind can not see this. If another country was invading Turkey every time there was a coup in Turkey there would be no Turkey anymore.

The Turkish invasion itself was against that treaty since that treaty explicitly prohibited partition and any action by the Guarantors should have as a "sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs established by the present Treaty." This was obviously not the aim of the Turkish invasion.

[zan]

Greece violated the treaty for 5 days during the time that it was ruled by the CIA supported military junta. Turkey violates the above treaty for 32 years!

Or put another way five days of illegality begot thirty-two years of indifference to the treaty.

Greek Cypriots not only were not in agreement with the coup, but on the contrary the coup had tried to kill our president, who managed to escape abroad and condemned the coup at the UN. The coupists had also killed 100s of Greek Cypriots that resisted.

One day of regret and remorse from a president that started the ball rolling in the first place is like Pilate washing his hands of blame from Jesus. The link below might have been handy for our president.

http://www.newsobserver.com/150/story/485240.html