Cyprus-Forum.com

[Kifeas]

[Now, on your question above! The 80:20 was just one aspect of his proposals for constitutional changes. The other most important ones were the abolishment of separate majorities in the parliament and the abolishment of the veto rights of both the president and the vice-president. In view of them, no I do not believe he would have been satisfied with a mere reduction to of TC participation to 80:20 ratio. Nevertheless, regardless of the extensiveness and gravity of those 13 point proposals and the pre-mature timing that he had chosen to make them, they were mere proposals which the TC leadership could have chosen to negotiate them, not because it was obliged to do so but in order to diffuse the tension that was growing between the two communities. .

Kifeas,

As always you lay out your case very well, so here is the 64 Thousand Dollar question. As you know, there were 48 "unalterable" provisions (or articles if you preffer) in the Costitution. How many of the 13 points of proposals were within the 48 "unalterable" provisions, which the British,Greece and Turkey were part of signatory of guarantors to the Constitution, so really, was there a chance in hell, that any of the 13 points of proposals could have been changed, if any of them fell into the 48"unalterable" provisions. Some of the points you mentioned, were really major ones, so my guess is, they were in the "48". There would have been a very good reason to have put them amongst the 48 "unalterables", so to make sure neither side would attempt to change them, as to give the New Republic a chance to grow with both the communities at the helm. So Makarios had no where to turn, except to ignore the whole Constitution, and the 1963 crises ignited. He could have of course, chose to live with it as it would have been better than being under the British rule. So I don't know how much blame you can put on the TC's or even on Turkey, when infact, at the end of the day, Makarios had the last say, and unfortunetly, that was war, and the rest is history.

No kikapu, there were no unalterable provisions in the constitution, should we, the people of Cyprus, alone, in a referendum, would have decided so. No matter what the treaties implied, it became irrelevant from the moment Cyprus was accepted by the UN as one of its member states. From then on, what counts is what the UN charter says. In terms of international law, any treaties contravening the Charter -becasue of allowance of the right to any foreign country to have a say and a role in Cyprus's internal constitutional affairs, are subordinated to the provisions of the UN charter. The UN charter says that every member country has the right to sovereignly regulate its internal affairs, without any other country having the right to interfere and impose its will -with treaties or without treaties. As far as the particular issue is concerned, the treaties were essentially nullified, or better, buried under the UN Charter, which is the ultimate of international law.

Kifeas, please read the 7th paragraph regarding the 48 "unalterable" articles. www.cyprus-conflict.net/narrative-main-2.htm

Yes, I know all about it. Read also the following pragraph of the above link.

The read this one from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_charter

The United Nations Charter is the constitution of the United Nations. It was signed at the United Nations Conference on International Organization in San Francisco on June 26, 1945 by the 50 original member countries. It entered into force on October 24, 1945, after being ratified by the five founding members—the Republic of China, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States—and a majority of the other signatories.

As a Charter it is a constituent treaty, and all signatories are bound by its articles. Furthermore, it explicitly says that the Charter trumps all other treaty obligations. It was ratified by the United States on August 8, 1945, making that nation the third, after Nicaragua and El Salvador, to join the new international organization.

[Kifeas]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The Charter of the United Nations

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
………………………………………………………………….

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Greece, Turkey, UK and Cyprus are all equal sovereign and independed nations /countries /members of the UN, and they are all bound by the above treaty, (UN Charter,) as UN members having ratified it by default.

[Natty]

Hey, this is what the UN say's about the constitution, the amendments recomended, and the Turkish policy,

"21. Whilst establishing an independent and sovereign Republic, the Constitution of Cyprus, "unique in its tortuous complexity and in the multiplicity of the safeguards that it provides for the principal minority, ... stands alone among the constitutions of the world" (S.A de Smith, The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions, London, 1964, p. 296). Therefore, it was no surprise that, within less than three years, abuse of safeguards by the Turkish Cypriot leadership led to total unworkability of the Constitution which necessitated the proposals for constitutional amendments submitted by the President of the Republic and which were immediately rejected by the Turkish Government and subsequently by the Turkish Cypriot community.


22. Turkey, in furtherance of its designs based on territorial aggrandizement, instigated the Turkish Cypriot leadership's resort to insurrection against the State, forced the Turkish Cypriot members of the executive, legislature, judiciary and civil service to withdraw from their posts and created military enclaves in Nicosia and other parts of the island. As a result of the foregoing and the intercommunal violence that ensued the Security Council of the United Nations was seized with the situation and by resolution 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964 a peacekeeping force was sent to Cyprus and a mediator appointed. In his report (S/6253-A/6017) the Mediator, Dr. Galo Plaza, criticized the 1960 legal framework and proposed necessary amendments which were again immediately rejected by Turkey, a fact which resulted in serious deterioration of the situation with constant threats by Turkey against the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Cyprus which necessitated a series of United Nations resolutions calling, inter alia, for respect of the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.
23. The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1965 described the policy of the Turkish Cypriot leaders in this way:


"The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to a rigid stand against any measures which might involve having members of the two communities live and work together, or which might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots" (S/6426).


Despite this policy, a certain degree of normality gradually returned to Cyprus and by 1974, with the active encouragement of the Government, a large proportion of Turkish Cypriots were living and working alongside their Greek Cypriot fellow citizens.

"Küçük reportedly had agreed to consider these proposals. The Turkish government, however, rejected the entire list. In any case, intercommunal fighting erupted in December 1963, and in March 1964 the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of an international peace-keeping force to control the violence and act as a buffer between the two communities"

I also found the above quote, which I thought was interesting.



I also read somewhere, a while ago, that apparently England and maybe I believe America, although I could be wrong, encouraged the Vice President to consider at least some of the amendments, although I can't find the page....hopefully I will soon...however again I could be wrong..



Peace!:)

[Kikapu]

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/

The Charter of the United Nations

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:
1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.


Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.
1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.
………………………………………………………………….

Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.

Greece, Turkey, UK and Cyprus are all equal sovereign and independed nations /countries /members of the UN, and they are all bound by the above treaty, (UN Charter,) as UN members having ratified it by default.

I'm sorry Kifeas, but I fail to see the connection between the UN charter you have provided and what we were talking about, which was the 48 "unalterable" articles of the 191 articles in the Cypriot Constitution that was agreed between TC's and GC's. Even if the Guarantors could not interfere, the TC's were within their right to refuse any changes.

[Bananiot]

It is typical of all little fascists to try to character assasinate anyone who disagrees with their views by calling "traitor" and "paid agent". You might like to know Kikapu that me and Kifeas met face to face. We had dinner together and a beer. I have not shied away from forum meetings, both forums, this one and **.org, yet he claims that I make accusations hiding behind a pseudonym. I have given my real name to everyone that has sent me a private message, even the place I come from in the north.

Furthermore, I find it exceedingly boring and a total waste of time to go through documents, like the Akritas Plan or the Constitution and see only the legalistic messages contained while completely ignoring the huge political impact of these documents. It reminds me of the talk about rusfet, when a governemnt supporter was asked on Tv he said, "but the President does not allow rusfet" thus it cannot take place!

Today, I will press on with events in 1964 and 1967, to show the kind of man Papadopoulos was and see if he really acted within the letter and the spirit of the legal documents.

1. In August 1964, terrible things were taking place in Cyprus and turkey was on the verge of invading. Papadopoulos sent a message to the Americans saying that "if the Turkish armada enters to within 12 miles of Cyprus waters, this will be considered as the begining of the invasion. This will give us 75 minutes to rid Cyprus of the Turkish Cypriots so that we can defend our country. We have the Plan and the Means to do this".

2. In November 1967 the Greek National Guard attacked the Turkish Cypriot enclave at Kophinou. The National Guard was headed by the notorious Gregorious Bonanos (Head of Staff during the junta period in Greece). Again, Turkey threatened to intervene. On November 15, there was a meeting at the Presidential Palace of the political and army leadership. According to Bonanos, Papadopoulos suggested that if Turkey sent in the airforce or tried to land forces, all the Turkish Cypriots would be exterminated, throughout Cyprus.

The above show what kind of man Papadopoulos is and the role he played during those turbulent years. It also shows what kind of people ruled Cyprus then, basically all the scum that later became the "saviours" of Greece. Bonanos, Ioannides, Papadopoulos played leading roles in Cyprus and no doubt, together with their Greek Cypriot collaborators are solely responsible for our misfortunes.

The only way we could have saved Cyprus was to embrace the moderate Turkish Cypriots, who at the time were the vast majority and not try to sideline them because we had a secret agenda. Had we done this the bigots in their community would find no ground under their feet. Basically we sung to the tune the Turkish partitionists played and we got what we deserved. This is tough, but it is a tough world and looking at the truth straight in the eyes has not hurt anyone. If we do not want to make the same mistakes we need to accept the mistakes of the past, but, can you teach an old dog new tricks?

[Kifeas]

I'm sorry Kifeas, but I fail to see the connection between the UN charter you have provided and what we were talking about, which was the 48 "unalterable" articles of the 191 articles in the Cypriot Constitution that was agreed between TC's and GC's. Even if the Guarantors could not interfere, the TC's were within their right to refuse any changes.

Kikapu, I am sorry but so far I had the impression that you, along and together with Bananiot, was trying to tell me that Turkey indeed had a right to a say and the right to interfere then in 1963 against Makarios 13-point proposals, and that the constitution was “unalterable” (by us Cypriots alone,) because of the rights the 3 guarantors had as signatories of the 1960 treaties, something which would have required their approval as well. I was trying to explain to you that this was not the case in 1963, and that Turkey did not have such a right, because such a right would have been against the UN charter, and that should we the people of Cyprus -G/Cs and T/Cs, wanted to do so, we had every right to go along with any constitutional amendment we would have agreed among ourselves, without having to discuss this with any other country, be it one of the signatory guarantors or not. Turkey’s public rejection in 1963, before the TCs, and instead of the T/Cs, was an illegitimate interference within our internal affairs. This is what I was trying to say.

[Kikapu]

Bananiot,

I always enjoy reading your posts, since you do not shy away from the truth as you see it to be, despite going against the will of the majority GC members on this forum, who do not want to or unable to face the realities of the past. Perhaps, most were born after 60's and early 70's and were given different version of events, and it's hard to look beyond what they were told, and there're those who want to know the whole truth despite, how much it may pain them. This of course goes to both sides. It is very often, when a majority in any country feel the need sometimes, that somehow they should impose their will on the minority. Who knows all the reasons really. Perhaps it has to do with pride, or a "gang mentality" to push the little guy around a bit. I only wish that the Constitution that was agreed and signed in 1960, could have been allowed to take it's own course. Despite the certain unfairness to the GC's as far as the 70%-30% went, at the end of the day, the total came to 100% Cypriot in charge of their country. How would have Cyprus looked today.? Is anyone willing to make a guess.!!

[Kikapu]

I'm sorry Kifeas, but I fail to see the connection between the UN charter you have provided and what we were talking about, which was the 48 "unalterable" articles of the 191 articles in the Cypriot Constitution that was agreed between TC's and GC's. Even if the Guarantors could not interfere, the TC's were within their right to refuse any changes.

Kikapu, I am sorry but so far I had the impression that you, along and together with Bananiot, was trying to tell me that Turkey indeed had a right to a say and the right to interfere then in 1963 against Makarios 13-point proposals, and that the constitution was “unalterable” (by us Cypriots alone,) because of the rights the 3 guarantors had as signatories of the 1960 treaties, something which would have required their approval as well. I was trying to explain to you that this was not the case in 1963, and that Turkey did not have such a right, because such a right would have been against the UN charter, and that should we the people of Cyprus -G/Cs and T/Cs, wanted to do so, we had every right to go along with any constitutional amendment we would have agreed among ourselves, without having to discuss this with any other country, be it one of the signatory guarantors or not. Turkey’s public rejection in 1963, before the TCs, and instead of the T/Cs, was an illegitimate interference within our internal affairs. This is what I was trying to say.

As I said, lets ignore all the guarantors for the moment, so that it is in compliance with the UN charter, it still leaves the TC's with a veto power in the Constitution to refuse any changes to be made to the Constitution. Even if the TC's wanted to make some changes, then the question becomes, how do you change the "unalterable" articles that was in perpetuity (for ever). No, Makarios should have left things alone and work with what both sides had.

[miltiades]

In one of my previous posts I apologised to my T/C compatriots for the actions of a minority , albeit a powerful one , the indiscriminate killings that took place and were committed by G/Cs are a stain in the history of Cyprus. Like wise the killings committed by T/Cs .The majority of all Cypriots are peaceful people with a civilised culture and with respect for the other mans human rights. Extreme minorities exist in every nation , but the voices of reason the moderates of Cyprus have to unite and focus on the real issue today , not on which side committed more murders in the 50s , 60s and 70s . Its time to look ahead and shake hands with our adversaries . Unite for a United Cyprus free from foreign interventions and troops.

[Kifeas]

It is typical of all little fascists to try to character assasinate anyone who disagrees with their views by calling "traitor" and "paid agent". You might like to know Kikapu that me and Kifeas met face to face. We had dinner together and a beer. I have not shied away from forum meetings, both forums, this one and **.org, yet he claims that I make accusations hiding behind a pseudonym. I have given my real name to everyone that has sent me a private message, even the place I come from in the north.

The fact that I know who you are doesn't mean that everybody else reading your messages in this forum knows who you are in real life. It only shows that you rightfully trust I will not use the fact that I know you in anyway against you. You and I know very well that what you are saying in the forums, and more importantly the way you are saying them, could potentially create many problems for you, since they un-doubly cross the boarders of slander and direct backstabbing and undermining of every single legitimate premise the GC community has retained all along, so that and in order to defend and safeguard its legitimate rights and cause in this country, which is nothing else other than to achieve a fair, just and workable solution to the Cyprus issue that will also re-establish the violated by Turkey human rights of its people. I am sure you know that it is not the best thing for someone who is also a public servant, to unfairly and wrongfully present the elected president of this country as a more or less common criminal, murderer, untrustworthy person, a liar and a vagabond. The fact that you keep doing so in such a provocative manner shows only that you (rightfully) trust I will not move against you in any such way. However, I have every right to confront you in the forums for what you say and in the way you say it, and in the same manner and way by which you attack the elected leadership of our side, and I have the right to tell you what I find such approach to amounts to. Whether you like it or not, you are a member of the G/C community and you have a minimum duty to show the minimum respect for its democratically elected leader, and a minimum duty to show the minimum respect for your community's public sentiment, and not to act in such a cruelly provocative and insulting manner by adopting and promoting the views of the ill-indented Turkish anti-GC propaganda, almost in their letter but certainly in their full spirit.

To systematically and deliberately misrepresent, misinterpret and manipulate mere speculations and assumptions in such a way as to make them appear in the eyes of the unaware to be more or less facts and evidence, for the sole aim of unjustly victimizing and incriminating the G/C community and it’s past and present elected leadership, may to some extent be regarded as a mere matter of opinion that can be classed under the right for freedom of speech. However, if it evidently amounts to pure anti-GC or pro-Turkish propaganda aiming to backstab and undermine the G/C side, I have the same right to call it for what I find it to be, and if it indeed amounts to treason, then in the same way you feel you have the right imply that Makarios and Papadopoulos were /are bloodthirsty murderers and common crooks and vagabonds –along and similar to the way Rauf Denktash used to brand them, I also feel I have the same right to brand you a mouthpiece of Denktash's views and a traitor.