Cyprus-Forum.com

[observer]

Kifeas wrote:

Which treaty poor dumb? The UN Charter which says that no unilateral invasion or intervention by any UN member country is allowed against another UN member state, and only the UN Security Council has such authority to order such intervention?

I’d have thought that you’d have realized by now that the UN is a primarily a political body, and only a legal body when it suits the politics of the major players. This is especially true when it comes to who intervenes and when.

I assume that you had no objection when Greece illegally intervened in Cypriot affairs to destroy the Constitution. When Turkey intervened you object.

From a narrow legal point of view, Turkey had no need to secure UN approval. Turkey acted under the authority of The Treaty of Guarantee, signed on 16th August 1960, between RoC, Greece, Turkey and UK, the Treaty being subsequently lodged with the UN Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

It can be argued that an intervention is illegal where no previous Treaty existed, although there have been lots of examples in recent history.

[DT.]

Kifeas wrote:

Which treaty poor dumb? The UN Charter which says that no unilateral invasion or intervention by any UN member country is allowed against another UN member state, and only the UN Security Council has such authority to order such intervention?

I’d have thought that you’d have realized by now that the UN is a primarily a political body, and only a legal body when it suits the politics of the major players. This is especially true when it comes to who intervenes and when.

I assume that you had no objection when Greece illegally intervened in Cypriot affairs to destroy the Constitution. When Turkey intervened you object.

From a narrow legal point of view, Turkey had no need to secure UN approval. Turkey acted under the authority of The Treaty of Guarantee, signed on 16th August 1960, between RoC, Greece, Turkey and UK, the Treaty being subsequently lodged with the UN Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

It can be argued that an intervention is illegal where no previous Treaty existed, although there have been lots of examples in recent history.

Mistake 1 you will not find many GC's who have no objection to Greece's actions in that period as you say.
Mistake 2 Please read the treaty of gaurantee in its entirety and what Turkeys obligations should have been had turkey decided to intervene. Please stop undermining everyones intelligence here.

[observer]

I'll have to accept what you call Mistake 1, though it was not apparent at the time.

As for what you call Mistake 2, I thought that I'd covered that earlier, where anyone can also find a direct link to the Treaty and read it for themselves. Here it is again though: http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty ... rantee.pdf

[DT.]

I'll have to accept what you call Mistake 1, though it was not apparent at the time.

As for what you call Mistake 2, I thought that I'd covered that earlier, where anyone can also find a direct link to the Treaty and read it for themselves. Here it is again though: http://teaching.law.cornell.edu/faculty ... rantee.pdf

Cyprus Treaty of Guarantee
Nicosia, 16 August 1960
The Republic of Cyprus on one part, and Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the other part.

I. Considering that the recognition and the 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 respect for the state of affairs created by that Constitution, Have agreed as follows:



Article I
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. It accordingly declares prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.



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.



Article III
The Republic of Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey undertake to respect the integrity of the areas retained under United Kingdom sovereignty at the time of the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus, and guarantee the use and enjoyment by the United Kingdom of the rights secured to it by the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with the Treaty concerning the Establishment of the Republic of Cyprus signed at Nicosia on today's date.

In witness whereof, the undersigned have signed the present Treaty.

Please point me to the part where it says that turkey can invade, occupy indefinitely, and step all over the soveregnty of the republic its meant to be gauranteeing. On top of that add a cherry of announcing to the world that on the land its meant to be gauranteeing...the reason it intervened...it has declared a new republic.

Yes but Turkey decided....no but turkey thought....yes but turkey had to.....no but turkey never meant to....thats the problem...all the justifications used by you and turkey are opinions gathered unilaterally by turkey. All our points are in black and white with the treaty of gaurantee which you have now decided that legalises turkeys actions.

[bigOz]

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.

Please point me to the part where it says that turkey can invade, occupy indefinitely, and step all over the sovereignty of the republic its meant to be guaranteeing. On top of that add a cherry of announcing to the world that on the land its meant to be guaranteeing...the reason it intervened...it has declared a new republic.

I have a problem with the above interpretation DT. Please allow me to explain:

Once EOKA-B backed by Greece (CUNTA or not - it was/is accepted as Greece by all) the very assurance and guarantee that bore their signature was broken! The original guarantee agreement having been broken unilaterally by one party, can anyone explain how on earth another party to these signatures who undertook to PROHIBIT the very thing that was going on in the island at the time was supposed to prohibit it?

Can you deny that the actions of the other guarantor power at the time were nothing less than an attack on "territorial integrity, and security of the Republic of Cyprus", and an "activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, union of Cyprus" (i.e. EOKA-B main aim and motto: ENOSIS).

The above being the case, there is no justification or legal point in saying the invasion was illegal! What can be argued of course is the maintenance of a military force in Cyprus after the invasion was over.

Having lived in TRNC with presence of the Turkish military, all I can say is they are not seen as an occupying force by the TCs. As far as TCs are concerned their presence have secured their safety and stopped any further bloodshed between the two communities. In the international arena they can be called "occupiers" (?) of a part of Cyprus, but that is a matter of an opinion rather than a fact. They occupy nothing except their barracks! They are seen by TCs as an effective "deterrent" to any ambitions of settling differences by war.

Do they have any influence on local politics? I have to say they probably do, and more so than they would in Turkey itself! But that is not the problem of GCs. At the end of the day, the parties that licked the arses of local commanders lost the election and the party that criticised / criticises any such involvement by the military came to power in a democratic election. Had there been any interference on the free will of the TCs, Talat would have never made it to be a president, and CTP would not be in power in a million years.

When discussing a solution to current Cyprus Problem any leader of TCs will confer with the leaders in Turkey because they are the ones giving them money, food and protection. They want to cover their own arses in case a wrong decision is made and they may have to depend on Turkey's help again. I am sure TP does have a lot of behind the scenes discussions with politicians in mainland Greece! So really it in not very different.

Considering the above, my question is: What is GCs problem with the current presence of Turkish Army? What is it exactly this army in Cyprus doing to prevent the GCs from negotiating? If someone can honestly answer the above, we may progress better.

Please let us cut the regular waffle about what happened in 1974 and/or before because it has no relevance to current issue raised. The answers to my questions would be very much appreciated and would be a good starting point, anything else I would see as a diversionary attempt to avoid any settlement...

[DT.]

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.

Please point me to the part where it says that turkey can invade, occupy indefinitely, and step all over the sovereignty of the republic its meant to be guaranteeing. On top of that add a cherry of announcing to the world that on the land its meant to be guaranteeing...the reason it intervened...it has declared a new republic.

I have a problem with the above interpretation DT. Please allow me to explain:

Once EOKA-B backed by Greece (CUNTA or not - it was/is accepted as Greece by all) the very assurance and guarantee that bore their signature was broken! The original guarantee agreement having been broken unilaterally by one party, can anyone explain how on earth another party to these signatures who undertook to PROHIBIT the very thing that was going on in the island at the time was supposed to prohibit it?

Can you deny that the actions of the other guarantor power at the time were nothing less than an attack on "territorial integrity, and security of the Republic of Cyprus", and an "activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, union of Cyprus" (i.e. EOKA-B main aim and motto: ENOSIS).

The above being the case, there is no justification or legal point in saying the invasion was illegal! What can be argued of course is the maintenance of a military force in Cyprus after the invasion was over.

Having lived in TRNC with presence of the Turkish military, all I can say is they are not seen as an occupying force by the TCs. As far as TCs are concerned their presence have secured their safety and stopped any further bloodshed between the two communities. In the international arena they can be called "occupiers" (?) of a part of Cyprus, but that is a matter of an opinion rather than a fact. They occupy nothing except their barracks! They are seen by TCs as an effective "deterrent" to any ambitions of settling differences by war.

Do they have any influence on local politics? I have to say they probably do, and more so than they would in Turkey itself! But that is not the problem of GCs. At the end of the day, the parties that licked the arses of local commanders lost the election and the party that criticised / criticises any such involvement by the military came to power in a democratic election. Had there been any interference on the free will of the TCs, Talat would have never made it to be a president, and CTP would not be in power in a million years.

When discussing a solution to current Cyprus Problem any leader of TCs will confer with the leaders in Turkey because they are the ones giving them money, food and protection. They want to cover their own arses in case a wrong decision is made and they may have to depend on Turkey's help again. I am sure TP does have a lot of behind the scenes discussions with politicians in mainland Greece! So really it in not very different.

Considering the above, my question is: What is GCs problem with the current presence of Turkish Army? What is it exactly this army in Cyprus doing to prevent the GCs from negotiating? If someone can honestly answer the above, we may progress better.

Please let us cut the regular waffle about what happened in 1974 and/or before because it has no relevance to current issue raised. The answers to my questions would be very much appreciated and would be a good starting point, anything else I would see as a diversionary attempt to avoid any settlement...

I'll answer your question BigOz but you have to answer mine at the end.

the Turkish army occupies the land, homes, villages etc of one of the 2 communities on this island, which happens to be the majority of the population on this island. Therefore they are occupiers. If you do not consider a foreign army maintaining an occupation over 200,000 homes and 37% of land an occupation army then we gotta start another thread here. The only difference technically between this and what happened in occupied Europe with the Germans was that the Europeans were allowed to stay in their homes (long as you weren't jewish) during the occupation whereas the GC's couldn't.

More specifically to your question of what this army does to prevent a settlement then its very simple. One of the biggest issues on the GC settlement list is the Turkish army. Take that away and you're more than half way to reaching a settlement as far as the GC's are concerned. As long as you got an offensively positioned army pointing their guns at you then you can't help but as a nation be a little on the paranoid side.

Now my question
BigOz does the treaty of gaurantee stand today? If not when did it stop?

[Get Real!]

From a narrow legal point of view, Turkey had no need to secure UN approval. Turkey acted under the authority of The Treaty of Guarantee, signed on 16th August 1960, between RoC, Greece, Turkey and UK, the Treaty being subsequently lodged with the UN Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Unfortunately for you, Turkey had officially signed away ALL CLAIMS TO CYPRUS, including the right of intervention, in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. (See articles 20 & 21)

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/treaty_of_lausanne.htm

Unfortunately, Britain dragged Turkey back into Cyprus ILLEGALLY out of spite against the GC's upon realizing that she was no longer welcome. (See October 1930 demonstrations)

Technically there is NOTHING Turkish about Cyprus because even her Turkish Cypriot minority that remained on Cyprus after the Treaty of Lausanne had signed away their Turkish nationality in exchange for British Nationality.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas wrote:

Which treaty poor dumb? The UN Charter which says that no unilateral invasion or intervention by any UN member country is allowed against another UN member state, and only the UN Security Council has such authority to order such intervention?

I’d have thought that you’d have realized by now that the UN is a primarily a political body, and only a legal body when it suits the politics of the major players. This is especially true when it comes to who intervenes and when.

I assume that you had no objection when Greece illegally intervened in Cypriot affairs to destroy the Constitution. When Turkey intervened you object.

From a narrow legal point of view, Turkey had no need to secure UN approval. Turkey acted under the authority of The Treaty of Guarantee, signed on 16th August 1960, between RoC, Greece, Turkey and UK, the Treaty being subsequently lodged with the UN Secretariat in accordance with Article 102 of the Charter of the United Nations.

It can be argued that an intervention is illegal where no previous Treaty existed, although there have been lots of examples in recent history.

I will not waste my time in arguing with you whether the UN (SC & GA) is a legal or a political body, as the issue is irrelevant. Whatever the UN is, it issues legally binding resolutions, within the framework and competencies given to it by the UN Charter. And the UN Charter is a perfectly legally binding legal document (treaty signed by all UN member countries,) which is designed to be on the top of all treaties and serves as the global (international) constitution of the world.

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.

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.

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


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law!

[Kifeas]

...

[Kifeas]

This is what the UN Charter says in CHAPTER XVI, article 103.

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.

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


It is clear from the above article of the UN Charter that the London and Zurich agreements of 1959-60, are placed under the UN Charter, and the provisions of the UN Charter prevail on those of the 1960 treaty of guarantee!

Therefore, the Turkish invasion (set aside the Turkish occupation) is illegal under the provisions of international law!