The Best Cyprus Community

Skip to content


occupied cyprus

Propose and discuss specific solutions to aspects of the Cyprus Problem

Postby Piratis » Sun Nov 26, 2006 11:44 pm

Exactly. And at some point the balance of power changed.
User avatar
Piratis
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 12261
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 11:08 pm

Postby lupusdiavoli » Mon Nov 27, 2006 7:12 pm

Could you define your expectations regarding the elements of a possible change? Do you have in mind the military balance? Or the balance as it will be formed in the next 10 years btn Turkey and Greece? Or the change is based on hope. The one that supplied the myths about the "Great Idea"?

Someone could easily foresee the change of balance from the time of U.S involment in the war effort. However history would be otherwise, may be, if Adolf had followed a different route -that is via Egypt- or whether had he followed his generals tactic views.
lupusdiavoli
Member
Member
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:45 pm

Postby Kikapu » Mon Dec 04, 2006 6:44 pm

Kifeas wrote:
Kikapu wrote:
RichardB wrote:So So again I ask why take 40% of the Island Why take more than what is viable for you to use .


In 1974, Government of Greece, one of 3 Guarantors to the safe keeping of the Cypriot Constitution, (granted, under military rule, the Junta of 7 years) decided to take 100% of Cyprus with the help of the Greek Cypriot Nationalist. So, you can ask the same question, why did Greece wanted 100% of Cyprus, against the will of the Cypriot citizens. ???

One can argue, since Greece broke it's obligations to protect the Cypriot Constitution and decided to take 100% of Cyprus, Turkey could also, break it's own obligation to protect the Cypriot Constitution, and they did.
In essence, Greece failed to gain 100% of Cyprus, where as, Turkey gained 40% ( 37% actually), which was their objective %, had they acted first, before Greece, by not protecting the Cypriot Constitution.

At the end of the day, Greece walked away with nothing and Turkey stayed with the 37% of Cypriot land, and the Cypriot Constitution was no longer worth anything more than the paper it was written on.

I would also like to know, whether you would be questioning Greece today, had they managed to gain 100% of Cyprus back in 1974. I suppose, by some miracle, after the civilian Greek Government was restored at much later date and the "Junta" was no longer in power, Cyprus would have returned back to it's glory days of the 1960, and the Cypriot Constitution once again, would have been the "fabric" that would have kept the Cypriots living together. Of course, many would say, had Greece managed to gain 100% of Cyprus back in 1974, 100% of Cyprus would still be in the hands of Greece today. Perhaps, we should not be too surprised, that 37% of Cyprus is still in the hands of Turkey today.!!


Kikapu, the RoC has in numerous occasions in the past (after 1974) called upon Turkey to proceed together and have a hearing and a verdict by the International Court of Justice in Hague (ICJ,) on the issue of the legality /illegality of the Turkish invasion and legality /illegality of the Turkish occupation of Cyprus. Turkey had refused to do so!

If all that you have said above constituted valid grounds on which Turkey could build a credible defense, then Turkey would have not refused to have the matter taken to the ICJ. The fact of Turkey’s refusal to have the matter tried and judged by the only international court that exists, and is capable of judging international law disputes and crimes, a court that is founded under international treaties which Turkey signed and it is functioning under the umbrella of the UN Charter, proves that Turkey doesn’t have a real case.

I have in many occasions in this forum dealt with the above set of arguments that you have provided, and I have ridiculed them enough on their merits. I have no desire of doing so yet once, and repeat my self again, and later again and again. If they are valid, Turkey could have chosen to make use of them in the court. Not only it did not, but it even refuses to attend the court. Therefore, I believe you have no moral right to make use of them in the forums as valid legal arguments, when Turkey refuses to have them tested in a court of justice, unless you wish to make cheap propaganda like Turkey does.

PS: The ICJ requires that both parties in an international dispute must give their consent so that the court can admit, hear and judge upon it.


Kifeas,

Even though I read your post over a week ago, while "on the run", I did not have the time to respond to you, so I will do so now.

First of all, I'm not trying to make a legal or moral excuse, or propagandize for Turkeys intervention and invasion of Cyprus in 1974. I'm only stating what took place and who tried to gain what, and who actually ended up with, what they tried to gain.!!

We all know what Turkey gained, what Greece did not gain, and most of all, what the Cypriots lost. We, as Cypriots, lost more than just land to another country. We lost our sovereignty, our identity, our trust and respect within ourselves. This would have happened no matter who ended up taking part of Cyprus ( by Turkey) or whole of Cyprus ( by Greece ). We can blame Turkey, Greece and Britain to what has happened to Cyprus since 1960, but we must also blame ourselves ( Cypriots ) for not willing to rule ourselves with the "hand" ( Constitution ) that was dealt to us back in 1960, to which a time would have come, where we could have sought to change our "hand" through the UN, to make it a real Cypriot Constitution. Well, we did not do that, and Turkey came and took the part it wanted, after Greece fail to take all the parts she wanted.

Yes, I'm not surprised Turkey did not or has any intentions going to the International Court of Justice to defend her case regarding the legality of the occupation, because there is no justification for the occupation. Had Greece managed to "occupy" whole of Cyprus, they too would be in the same boat as Turkey, and would also not want to face the ICJ. I'm not condoning the occupation by Turkey, like some of my TC's do, just because Greece was the first one to start the whole chain of events in the first place. I would like to believe, there would be a lot of GC's today, who would not be condoning Greece either, had Greece managed to "occupy" 100% of Cyprus in 1974. It is a question that can not be honestly answered by the GC's, because those events did not take place, therefore, how would one know what to feel, after 32 years of Greece rule in Cyprus.!!!
User avatar
Kikapu
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 13540
Joined: Sun Apr 16, 2006 6:18 pm

Postby Nikitas » Sun Aug 12, 2007 11:18 am

Kikapu,

Some months after your coment, but we must all remember a salient fact here- Greek Cypriots fought against the attempt by Greece to take over the island. This is a very important FACT. It contradicts assertions that Greek Cypriots are all pro enosis and it leads to a lot of speculation of what would have happened had the coup succeded. If 200 EOKA fighters managed to kick out the British then a lot more would have made life hell for Greek troops.

Now, do you have any signs of resistance by Turkish Cypriots to the Turkish occupation? Any one at all? See the difference?

Some guys like me are still expecting some sign from the Turkish Cypriot community that it really does consider itself Cypriot first and then everything else. There is no such sign historically, at least as far as my research has turned up. As a Cypriot I believe I have the right to see such a sign before committing to the ida of reunification and all that dreamy stuff.

Nikitas
Nikitas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2007 2:49 pm

Postby zan » Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:07 pm

Kifeas had great pleasure in telling us that 93% voted for ENOSIS.


Also; Regardless of what you think about the Annan Plan, We voted yes to it . How much of a sign do you need. Also; the fact that after the Annan plan OXI by the GCS the ordinary TC that has no idea what the A Plan was, is getting more and more disillusioned of any settlement. The signs are there for all to see. The pound of flesh will not come.
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Kifeas » Sun Aug 12, 2007 2:56 pm

zan wrote:Kifeas had great pleasure in telling us that 93% voted for ENOSIS.


Also; Regardless of what you think about the Annan Plan, We voted yes to it . How much of a sign do you need. Also; the fact that after the Annan plan OXI by the GCS the ordinary TC that has no idea what the A Plan was, is getting more and more disillusioned of any settlement. The signs are there for all to see. The pound of flesh will not come.


I would like to ask you for a last time not to make reference to comments you think I made, without quoting the post in which it has been said, otherwise I will start reminding you that you had once admitted in the forums that you are a homosexual!
User avatar
Kifeas
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 4927
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Lapithos, Kyrenia, now Pafos; Cyprus.

Postby zan » Sun Aug 12, 2007 4:57 pm

Kifeas wrote:
zan wrote:Kifeas had great pleasure in telling us that 93% voted for ENOSIS.


Also; Regardless of what you think about the Annan Plan, We voted yes to it . How much of a sign do you need. Also; the fact that after the Annan plan OXI by the GCS the ordinary TC that has no idea what the A Plan was, is getting more and more disillusioned of any settlement. The signs are there for all to see. The pound of flesh will not come.


I would like to ask you for a last time not to make reference to comments you think I made, without quoting the post in which it has been said, otherwise I will start reminding you that you had once admitted in the forums that you are a homosexual!



I can appologise.....Go on I can do it...


Sorry mate but that's the way I remember it but it could have been someone else.....

What's the matter with being a homosexual...

:? :? :? :?
User avatar
zan
Leading Contributor
Leading Contributor
 
Posts: 16213
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:55 pm

Postby Andros » Wed Mar 05, 2008 12:37 pm

Let's look at it this way, if "Northern Cyprus", or the so-called "TRNC" as the Turkish Cypriot call it, is so secure and recognised in the eyes of Turkey and the Mehmet Talat government, then why are they bothering on dissolving it in a new UN initiative?

It clearly does not make sense. We, Greek Cypriots said "No" to the Annan Plan because it would "Dissolve" the Republic of Cyprus, which is unacceptable in our eyes. Clearly this does not reflect your outlook concerning your so-called "TRNC". If you are so passionate about the "Occupied Areas" as being a Turkish Cypriot Republic area, what is it that you and Turkey are doing?

You line of politics is truly confusing. You need to look deep within your own people and figure out what it is that you really want, in my opinion of course!
User avatar
Andros
Member
Member
 
Posts: 137
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:24 pm
Location: London

Postby humanist » Sat Mar 08, 2008 1:08 am

What's the matter with being a homosexual...


exactly my question? :)
User avatar
humanist
Main Contributor
Main Contributor
 
Posts: 6585
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 11:46 am

Previous

Return to Cyprus Problem Solution Proposals

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests