Cyprus-Forum.com

[donyork]

Which ‘Republic of Cyprus’ is to be recognised by Turkey before accession talks in October? There are at least three in the frame. The first, of course, is the one established by the London/Zurich agreements of 1960 and which is already recognised by Turkey. The second is the 1963 ‘Republic of Cyprus’ which by the terms of the 1960 settlement is illegal, and which was overthrown by the Greek-inspired coup of July 1974, itself also illegal. The third is the present-day government which is internationally recognised but which, since it is committed to reunification, is at best a caretaker government until the two-community ‘federal government’ intended to replace it comes into being (it is this commitment to such a solution which underpins international recognition).

A settlement of the Cyprus problem is, we are told in some quarters, essential before Turkey goes into the next round of talks in October. If in the event this is to be achieved, then the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ to be recognised will not be the present one, but the one which emerges as a result of the settlement deemed essential. As with the federal solution proposed by the Annan Plan this would have to be ratified by the three Guarantor Powers — Britain, Turkey and Greece — so that formally the new settlement legally replaces the old one of 1960.

But given the small chance of settlement by October, what is the position then? It is not an EU requirement that Turkey's recognition of the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ obliges it to renounce its existing recognition of the TRNC, or for that matter its recognition of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus — still the only legal government for the whole island until such time as it is replaced by an alternative and agreed successor.

If Turkey recognises both the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ while continuing to recognise, as it will, the TRNC, it is then recognising simultaneously two governments in Cyprus, and therefore the division of the island into two different states, with the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ as no more than the government of the south, whatever its pretensions to be more than that. At the same time, Turkey's 1960 recognition of the Republic of Cyprus remains in being, for it cannot be revoked until, as with Annan, a new settlement is ratified by all three Guarantor powers — and the other two have not revoked. The contradictions are obvious, and can be made sense of only if the two governments, north and south, are each seen as temporary and provisional administrations until such time as they are remerged into one.

Although the ‘Republic of Cyprus’ claims to represent the whole island in the EU, the north is not in the EU, and recognition by Turkey of the south will not change that fact. The present “Republic of Cyprus’ is not the government of Cyprus for in a settlement it would cease to exist, as would the TRNC. So without a settlement —there won't be one in the timescale — all that is required of Turkey is a gesture which in fact only confirms the reality of the status quo, and gives the south no more than it has now.

The TRNC will continue as before, a de facto state outside the EU. The ‘Republic of Cyprus’ will be such in name only until it is replaced by a federal government in the settlement it says it wants and in order to be part of what it says it already has. The 1960 Agreements will remain the only legal constitution of the island until superseded by a settlement ratified by the three Guarantors.

So Turkey, subject to all these caveats, signs. Seven days later, the world will have forgotten all about it. So why the fuss?

[turkcyp]

If Turkey is really forced to recognize the RoC, then she will recognize 1960 RoC, and at the same time put a time table of troop withdrawal from the island, where the last remnants of the troops are pulled out when the 1960 constitution is reinstated back again, with all of its provisions.

The present “Republic of Cyprus’ is not the government of Cyprus for in a settlement it would cease to exist, as would the TRNC.

That is exactly why the GC side keeps on insisting that any settlement should be viewwd as legal continuation of present day RoC. This can not be accepted by TCs as it is.

Because it means that in the event that new solution does not work, we basically accept that we are a part of present day RoC, which we deny.

The only thing TCs can accept as a leagl precedent for the solution is the 1960 RoC. Not the costitutional structure established in 1964, which basically stripc TCs from all of its rights in the 1960 RoC.

In any settlement, this should be clearly, explictyly mentioned that in the event of solution not working we can get back our rights from 1960 RoC, that is taken away from us in 1964. (and they are calling is thieves. Huh!)

[Saint Jimmy]

So Turkey, subject to all these caveats, signs. Seven days later, the world will have forgotten all about it. So why the fuss?

Hey don,

what you say does make sense, in theory, but i think it leaves one parameter unanswered... If your reasoning that Turkey's signing the Protocol essentially means nothing more than recognition of the status quo is valid, why did Turkey protest the initial Brussels' summit decision to initial the thing there and then? And why would they keep stressing that signing the Protocol does not mean (even de facto) recognition of the RoC, if no such issue exists?

My feeling is that Turkey will try to take advantage of the 'blur' in the EU summit conclusions' wording to actually change some of the provisions of the Protocol, so that it won't mean recognition of the RoC of any kind. Otherwise, I don't see why they would resist signing it, in the first place!

[boulio]

and iacovou the roc forwign minister today said that even changing a dot or period in the protocol will constitute the roc using the veto(have to see that to believe it)but thats what he said.

[boulio]

actually i believe the EU says that the roc is recognized as the official govt.which represents the entire island.turkey will recognize the govt.whih signed the ascesion agreement.

[brother]

Turkey has several times said it will be checking and wording the agreement so that it in no way recognises the ROC in any shape or form.
As for ROC foreign minister ivacou's statement, why do they insist on threatening, but if it makes them feel better good luck to him.

[Piratis]

it is this commitment to such a solution which underpins international recognition

This is what you say. RoC is the same RoC that was established in 1960, the only difference is that Turkey current occupies a part of it, and a part of the population (TCs) sided with the illegal "TRNC" (and therefore they are illegal themselves).

The RoC that Turkey will recognize is the one and only RoC, the one that joined the EU on May 1st 2004, which is the only legal state for the whole island of Cyprus.

[donyork]

I suppose there are many different arguments which might be put forward in respect of the status of the “Republic of Cyprus’, but I do not think they would include yours. May I recommend that on this topic a period of silence on your part might prove your best contlribution.

[Piratis]

I suppose there are many different arguments which might be put forward in respect of the status of the “Republic of Cyprus’, but I do not think they would include yours.

Either you like it or not (probably not, but it is about time to get over it) the one and only RoC, the only legal state in Cyprus, entered EU on May 1st. You can make as many different arguments as you want, it still wouldn't change a thing.

May I recommend that on this topic a period of silence on your part might prove your best contlribution.

Pray at night before you go to sleep, it might work better.

[donyork]

Piratis, I do not change facts, I simply state them. The RoC does not represent the EU in the north, which, for example, is why the EU is making grants directly to the north, and not through the south. Although North Cyprus is part of the European Community, European Laws (known as the ‘acquis communautaire’ are suspended there pursuant to Article 1 Protocol 10 of the Act of Accession 2003 by which Cyprus joined the EU and in prospect of the island being reunited by May 2004. The EU imposed this suspension firstly on the grounds that the south had vetoed reunification, and secondly because the south has no effective authority in the geographical area of the TRNC. In so doing it also tacitly recognises the north as an independent political entity, with its own governmental and legal system, as did Annan. That a political entity is not internationally recognised does not mean that its law and institutions will not be respected by the international community. This is in line with the international approach in relation to other such territories such as Taiwan, the Israeli controlled areas of the West Bank and Gaza and Pakistani-controlled Kashmir.