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.
Posted: Fri Nov 24, 2006 9:35 pm
Should not forget though that around thanksgiving many turkeys are butchered so it is adding a bias to the result.