Cyprus-Forum.com

[zan]

So all we have to do is get Kifeas to attack us and we can give him a slap and then declare a new republic. Bring it on Kifeas




The point is that international laws change and we can sit back and wait for the next big change............

[Kifeas]

I know you are not saying, that you wished that the invasion by Turkey and the declaration of independence by the "TRNC" took place a decade later, would have made all the difference for the TC's as far as getting recognition for the "TRNC" and that it's too bad for the TC's being "ahead of their time". May I ask what logic you're using here. What has the cold war had to do with anything, had the TC declared independence yesterday. Why would that have brought recognition to the "TRNC" right away, as you put it.

I'll leave the Palestinian example aside if you don't mind : it is, to coin a phrase, a whole different minefield.

On TRNC and being a decade or so 'too early', I'm suggesting that there were significant and substantive changes in both the interpretation of international law and in introducing new instruments of law (an instrument is just a lawyer's way of saying 'piece of law') in the shadow of the Cold War. To cut a long story short, Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the going to war i,e, in international law from 1944/5 war is illegal except for reasons of self-defence. Another way of putting it is that wars of aggression are illegal. That's why, for example, NATO and the Warsaw Pacts were defensive military alliances.
However after the end of the Cold War, especially from the early days of the Yugoslav wars, the UN & US Somalia intervention, Haiti and several other crises, the idea that military interventions could be conducted for humanitarian purposes began to be argued in international law. A humanitarian purpose could be to prevent ethnic cleansing or to provide relief for an oppressed group - there was and continues to be massive debate around these questions (as the Iraq war is testimony). Thus by the mid 1990s something of a shift had occurred in international law, moving from outright prohibition on war to at least entertaining the possibility of something called the 'duty to protect' or 'duty to intervene (for humanitarian purposes).'

Back to Cyprus. Turkey had 1959 guarantor powers (rights and duties), it had, it claims, duties of protection to TCs. The basic argument is that Turkey fulfilled its legal obligations under the 1959 agreement and 1960 constitution. (I'm not asking you to agree with this : I'm just reporting what part of the legal argument was). If you translate Turkey's 1974 justification into 1990s legal developments what the RoC called an 'invasion' i,e, aggressive war, in 1974 was called by Turkey a 'peace operation' i.e, claiming to fulfil its guarantor duty, and would by the mid-1990s have been called 'duty to protect'. In other words 1974 was, for Turkey's argument, a humanitarian intervention which by the 1990s had become a legally defensible, or at least arguable, position in international law.

Of course I expect nothing but howls of protest at having written that. But consider this, today, the sovereign state of Iraq has been invaded for 'humanitarian reasons' we're told, many are calling for intervention following a duty to protect in Sudan (Darfur) and Zimbabwe. There's still an intervention in Kosovo for similar broad reasons. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Cyprus was like Iraq, but international law is written in terms of principles not the scale of an alleged humanitarian abuse. In the legal language of the mid 1990s onwards, Turkey, I suspect - I'm not saying anything stronger than that - would have been more easily been able to invoke the humanitarian principle and the duty to protect argument than in 1974. Needless to say, there are lots of good arguments against this interpretation.

On the specific matter of declaration of TRNC independence, following the Yugoslav wars in particular, the idea that following humanitarian intervention to protect (ha !) peoples from ethnic cleansing, the protected territory should be returned to their former oppressor was, of course, anathema. One of the first things that was done to effectively say to FRY (Belgrade) 'you've blown it, you've oppressed these people, you're not having them back' was to recognise those states as new sovereign states. This is what the interveners actively did - Germany took the lead, other EU states and the EU and US followed in recognising the sovereignty of the former Yugoslav entities.

Back to the case of Cyprus, NATO and EU states undertook military interventions and gave international recognition to states in the 1990s for reasons and arguments that Turkey has used in 1974. That's what I mean by a decade or two too early. Or too late. Or these are no justifications at all.

CopperLine, I suggest you read (study) and digest the UN Charter, the highest of all international treaties, and then put your above claims in a better perspective.

Since when one state decides alone that it has the right to become a prosecutor, then a judge to administer law and justice, and then a police to execute? What is the role of the UN and other international organisations, if each and every country, alone, claims it has the "right" and the "duty" to invade and occupy another, whenever it invents a pretext? Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

As for your 1960 treaty, it doesn’t count because it is invalidated by the UN charter, by default! Read article 103 of the Charter!

As for Yugoslavia, have the invading forces, under a UN mandate, ethnically cleansed any Serbian population, before establishing Croatia; or the area was already (historically) inhabited primarily by Croats who wanted to break apart from the Yugoslav federation?

I think you are stepping into very dangerous waters, with your above arbitrary and acrobatic analysis!

[Pyrpolizer]

Pyropolizer

1)Lupusdiavoli that kifeas referred to is/was another forum member writing in exactly the same style like you. To be honest I also suspected you were Lupus...
2)Imo you are getting lost in too deep thoughts and analyses. It seems to me you are an academic?
3)I really wonder what your purpose in this fo

rum is. Are you targeting a specific audience, and if yes who are they?

1. No idea what this is, nor why it should be important.
2. Don't like superficial, lazy, throwaway comments which cause more trouble and division, such as racism. If you think that's 'deep thought', so be it. Keep guessing - though why this should be important to you is a mystery to me.
3. No idea what this is, nor why it should be important. Which is your preferred answer - 'I am in a Cyprus Forum because I'm interested in Timbuktoo' OR 'I am in a Cyprus Forum because I'm interested in Cyprus.' You pick.

Imo you are targeting an audience that is just using the forum to get ideas, mainly foreign ambassadors, UN diplomats and the like.
The vast majority of forum members don't even understand what the hell you are talking about, and the few that can recognize the traps you continually set up, are just that.Few.
Through a seemingly "logical" analysis, and taking advantage of the fact that your targeted audience often lacks deep knowledge of important details regarding Cyprob, your aim is to penetrate your ideas for recognition of the "trnc" from high level "shooting position".

We will be watching you.

[zan]

Sorry to say Copperline that anything that makes sense does not sit well with certain people here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bigOz]

I know you are not saying, that you wished that the invasion by Turkey and the declaration of independence by the "TRNC" took place a decade later, would have made all the difference for the TC's as far as getting recognition for the "TRNC" and that it's too bad for the TC's being "ahead of their time". May I ask what logic you're using here. What has the cold war had to do with anything, had the TC declared independence yesterday. Why would that have brought recognition to the "TRNC" right away, as you put it.

I'll leave the Palestinian example aside if you don't mind : it is, to coin a phrase, a whole different minefield.

On TRNC and being a decade or so 'too early', I'm suggesting that there were significant and substantive changes in both the interpretation of international law and in introducing new instruments of law (an instrument is just a lawyer's way of saying 'piece of law') in the shadow of the Cold War. To cut a long story short, Article 2 of the UN Charter prohibits the going to war i,e, in international law from 1944/5 war is illegal except for reasons of self-defence. Another way of putting it is that wars of aggression are illegal. That's why, for example, NATO and the Warsaw Pacts were defensive military alliances.
However after the end of the Cold War, especially from the early days of the Yugoslav wars, the UN & US Somalia intervention, Haiti and several other crises, the idea that military interventions could be conducted for humanitarian purposes began to be argued in international law. A humanitarian purpose could be to prevent ethnic cleansing or to provide relief for an oppressed group - there was and continues to be massive debate around these questions (as the Iraq war is testimony). Thus by the mid 1990s something of a shift had occurred in international law, moving from outright prohibition on war to at least entertaining the possibility of something called the 'duty to protect' or 'duty to intervene (for humanitarian purposes).'

Back to Cyprus. Turkey had 1959 guarantor powers (rights and duties), it had, it claims, duties of protection to TCs. The basic argument is that Turkey fulfilled its legal obligations under the 1959 agreement and 1960 constitution. (I'm not asking you to agree with this : I'm just reporting what part of the legal argument was). If you translate Turkey's 1974 justification into 1990s legal developments what the RoC called an 'invasion' i,e, aggressive war, in 1974 was called by Turkey a 'peace operation' i.e, claiming to fulfil its guarantor duty, and would by the mid-1990s have been called 'duty to protect'. In other words 1974 was, for Turkey's argument, a humanitarian intervention which by the 1990s had become a legally defensible, or at least arguable, position in international law.

Of course I expect nothing but howls of protest at having written that. But consider this, today, the sovereign state of Iraq has been invaded for 'humanitarian reasons' we're told, many are calling for intervention following a duty to protect in Sudan (Darfur) and Zimbabwe. There's still an intervention in Kosovo for similar broad reasons. I'm not suggesting for one minute that Cyprus was like Iraq, but international law is written in terms of principles not the scale of an alleged humanitarian abuse. In the legal language of the mid 1990s onwards, Turkey, I suspect - I'm not saying anything stronger than that - would have been more easily been able to invoke the humanitarian principle and the duty to protect argument than in 1974. Needless to say, there are lots of good arguments against this interpretation.

On the specific matter of declaration of TRNC independence, following the Yugoslav wars in particular, the idea that following humanitarian intervention to protect (ha !) peoples from ethnic cleansing, the protected territory should be returned to their former oppressor was, of course, anathema. One of the first things that was done to effectively say to FRY (Belgrade) 'you've blown it, you've oppressed these people, you're not having them back' was to recognise those states as new sovereign states. This is what the interveners actively did - Germany took the lead, other EU states and the EU and US followed in recognising the sovereignty of the former Yugoslav entities.

Back to the case of Cyprus, NATO and EU states undertook military interventions and gave international recognition to states in the 1990s for reasons and arguments that Turkey has used in 1974. That's what I mean by a decade or two too early. Or too late. Or these are no justifications at all.

CopperLine, I suggest you read (study) and digest the UN Charter, the highest of all international treaties, and then put your above claims in a better perspective.

Since when one state decides alone that it has the right to become a prosecutor, then a judge to administer law and justice, and then a police to execute? What is the role of the UN and other international organisations, if each and every country, alone, claims it has the "right" and the "duty" to invade and occupy another, whenever it invents a pretext? Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

As for your 1960 treaty, it doesn’t count because it is invalidated by the UN charter, by default! Read article 103 of the Charter!

As for Yugoslavia, have the invading forces, under a UN mandate, ethnically cleansed any Serbian population, before establishing Croatia; or the area was already (historically) inhabited primarily by Croats who wanted to break apart from the Yugoslav federation?

I think you are stepping into very dangerous waters, with your above arbitrary and acrobatic analysis!

Political history of the World tells me, the only "dangerous waters" to step into are the shallow ones provided by the Western Christian founded and dictated UN!

My question tp all these UN praisers is: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME UN STOPPED ANY WARS??? Fuck the UN charters - we all know they are to be used only when it suits the West.

As for the question: "Since when one state decides alone that it has the right to become a prosecutor, then a judge to administer law and justice, and then a police to execute?" - I suggest you go and read more of the recent history! Where have you been for the past 100 years?

Turkey's "mistreated citizens" as you put it, is not any GCs problem! The same countries that invaded Greece and many other Blakan countries that mistreated or mistreats their citizens will also invade Turkey!

This is what I think of UN and its time wasting no good for nothing Charters:

[CopperLine]

Dear Kifeas,
Point taken, and I disagree with you. I've been reading and digesting the UN Charter for the best part of thirty years and there is nothing inconsistent between 1959 guarantor obligations and Art. 103 of the UN Charter. The very fact that the 1959 agreement, together with the 1960 constitution were deposited with the UN, as required by law, suggests that the UN itself didn't find anything inconsistent here either. That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

In principle one state alone can't be judge, jury, prosecutor and enforcer (unless assigned to do so by the UN, but I can't think of a single example where this has happened). The Charter provides for a careful - if not always effective - division of responsibilities amongst different institutions. In practice one state in particular does take all these roles in certain cases i.e, the USA. The implication of what you wrote is that you think in the Cyprus case, Turkey acted in all these roles - yes ? Each and every country doesn't claim a right and duty to invade another country - I've got to throw the Charter back at you and say read it. The Charter says exactly the opposite and all the states we're interested in are Charter signatories.

Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

I'd be the first to say that there are all sorts of problems and weaknesses in international law, BUT the whole point of the Charter and modern international order was precisely to prevent the logic unfolding of what you've just suggested. In many cases the Charter has been successful, in some cases it hasn't. How would you answer your own question ? And if the criteria you chose - say killing of X thousand Kurds - were to be the justification for intervention in Turkey, and therefore for other interventions wouldn't this just lead to generalised war around the world ?


Pyropolizer,
Why do you have this immediate reaction of fantasy and conspiracy ? If someone said their interested in cars and just looked at the outside of a car, and said "engines, transmission, brakes, that's just too deep; don't know what you're talking about" you'd be entitled to say 'well they might like the look of a car but they've no idea how it works'. I'm interested in how they work.

In my opinion yours is a really depressing response. Your basically saying to me on these questions, don't dig down, don't investigate, don't try to understand, don' try to explain, don't dare suggest anything outside conventional and inherited prejudices, just be satisfied with the superficial and complacent.

If you want to know why stuff has happened to/in Cyprus then it is not enough to look just at Cyprus. Looking at the UN Charter, for example, goes a long way to explaining what would otherwise appear to be peculiar or bizarre twists and turns.

In fact a couple of people have already said the equivalent of 'shut up we don't like it, we don't want to have to think too hard'. That you'll be 'watching me' isn't of the slightest interest, though I understand the Orwellian intent behind your surveillance. If you read my posts seriously, as I read your posts seriously - the purpose of a Forum after all - then I'd be happy.

Finally, Pyropolizer, not everything in this world is reducible to the Cyprus problem and not everything has a sly subtext of getting the TRNC recognised. The Cyprus problem, on a world scale, is a spit in the ocean. There are more killings, beatings, expropriations, property battles, blood feuds, and all manners of social harms in your typical medium sized European or American city than in the whole of Cyprus. Please do get a proper sense of perspective and proportion.

[bigOz]

Dear Kifeas,
Point taken, and I disagree with you. I've been reading and digesting the UN Charter for the best part of thirty years and there is nothing inconsistent between 1959 guarantor obligations and Art. 103 of the UN Charter. The very fact that the 1959 agreement, together with the 1960 constitution were deposited with the UN, as required by law, suggests that the UN itself didn't find anything inconsistent here either. That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

In principle one state alone can't be judge, jury, prosecutor and enforcer (unless assigned to do so by the UN, but I can't think of a single example where this has happened). The Charter provides for a careful - if not always effective - division of responsibilities amongst different institutions. In practice one state in particular does take all these roles in certain cases i.e, the USA. The implication of what you wrote is that you think in the Cyprus case, Turkey acted in all these roles - yes ? Each and every country doesn't claim a right and duty to invade another country - I've got to throw the Charter back at you and say read it. The Charter says exactly the opposite and all the states we're interested in are Charter signatories.

Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

I'd be the first to say that there are all sorts of problems and weaknesses in international law, BUT the whole point of the Charter and modern international order was precisely to prevent the logic unfolding of what you've just suggested. In many cases the Charter has been successful, in some cases it hasn't. How would you answer your own question ? And if the criteria you chose - say killing of X thousand Kurds - were to be the justification for intervention in Turkey, and therefore for other interventions wouldn't this just lead to generalised war around the world ?


Pyropolizer,
Why do you have this immediate reaction of fantasy and conspiracy ? If someone said their interested in cars and just looked at the outside of a car, and said "engines, transmission, brakes, that's just too deep; don't know what you're talking about" you'd be entitled to say 'well they might like the look of a car but they've no idea how it works'. I'm interested in how they work.

In my opinion yours is a really depressing response. Your basically saying to me on these questions, don't dig down, don't investigate, don't try to understand, don' try to explain, don't dare suggest anything outside conventional and inherited prejudices, just be satisfied with the superficial and complacent.

If you want to know why stuff has happened to/in Cyprus then it is not enough to look just at Cyprus. Looking at the UN Charter, for example, goes a long way to explaining what would otherwise appear to be peculiar or bizarre twists and turns.

In fact a couple of people have already said the equivalent of 'shut up we don't like it, we don't want to have to think too hard'. That you'll be 'watching me' isn't of the slightest interest, though I understand the Orwellian intent behind your surveillance. If you read my posts seriously, as I read your posts seriously - the purpose of a Forum after all - then I'd be happy.

Finally, Pyropolizer, not everything in this world is reducible to the Cyprus problem and not everything has a sly subtext of getting the TRNC recognised. The Cyprus problem, on a world scale, is a spit in the ocean. There are more killings, beatings, expropriations, property battles, blood feuds, and all manners of social harms in your typical medium sized European or American city than in the whole of Cyprus. Please do get a proper sense of perspective and proportion.

COpperline - the issue of UN charters and the Guarantor powers given to Turkiye, Britain and Greece had been explained in some detail to everyone in another thread more than a month ago! Although proven clearly that the Turkish invasion was not an "illegal act" or against any UN charter, the same subject keeps coming up time and again. That is because they know of nothing better.

The simple truth is, if the Turkish invasion and current presence of the Turkish army in the North was illegal, UN would call for sanctions against Turkiye. Not only that, but UN is actively taking part in a negotiation process that is calling for the progressive withdrawal of the "Turkish military" from Cyprus as a part and parcel of an agreed settlement between the two sides. So anything else called for during some UN meeting is nothing but political "belly dancing" to keep sides happy...

[Kifeas]

Dear Kifeas,
Point taken, and I disagree with you. I've been reading and digesting the UN Charter for the best part of thirty years and there is nothing inconsistent between 1959 guarantor obligations and Art. 103 of the UN Charter. The very fact that the 1959 agreement, together with the 1960 constitution were deposited with the UN, as required by law, suggests that the UN itself didn't find anything inconsistent here either. That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

In principle one state alone can't be judge, jury, prosecutor and enforcer (unless assigned to do so by the UN, but I can't think of a single example where this has happened). The Charter provides for a careful - if not always effective - division of responsibilities amongst different institutions. In practice one state in particular does take all these roles in certain cases i.e, the USA. The implication of what you wrote is that you think in the Cyprus case, Turkey acted in all these roles - yes ? Each and every country doesn't claim a right and duty to invade another country - I've got to throw the Charter back at you and say read it. The Charter says exactly the opposite and all the states we're interested in are Charter signatories.

No CopperLine, you are totally wrong! The fact that the 1959-1960 set of agreements were deposited with the UN, doesn't validate or legalise their content, if and when they are found to be in conflict with the UN Charter! The depositing of those (any international) agreements with the UN, is simply made in order to mark and register their existence! If they are in conflict with the UN Charter, then the provisions of the Charter overrule! This is crystal clear from article 103 of the Charter. Not all provisions in all the 1959-60 agreements were in breach or in conflict with the UN Charter!

As for my question as to "who will invade Turkey," it was simply a rhetorical one. It was made so that I indicate the fallacy of the claim that Turkey ever had the right to unilaterally invade Cyprus, for the reasons (any reasons) it cited! I did not imply that anyone country should have the right to invade Turkey, alone!

[Kifeas]

Dear Kifeas,
Point taken, and I disagree with you. I've been reading and digesting the UN Charter for the best part of thirty years and there is nothing inconsistent between 1959 guarantor obligations and Art. 103 of the UN Charter. The very fact that the 1959 agreement, together with the 1960 constitution were deposited with the UN, as required by law, suggests that the UN itself didn't find anything inconsistent here either. That one state should come to the aid of another state when triggered by specifically named circumstances is pretty standard stuff in international agreements.

In principle one state alone can't be judge, jury, prosecutor and enforcer (unless assigned to do so by the UN, but I can't think of a single example where this has happened). The Charter provides for a careful - if not always effective - division of responsibilities amongst different institutions. In practice one state in particular does take all these roles in certain cases i.e, the USA. The implication of what you wrote is that you think in the Cyprus case, Turkey acted in all these roles - yes ? Each and every country doesn't claim a right and duty to invade another country - I've got to throw the Charter back at you and say read it. The Charter says exactly the opposite and all the states we're interested in are Charter signatories.

Who will invade Turkey in order to save the truly mistreated majority of its citizens?

I'd be the first to say that there are all sorts of problems and weaknesses in international law, BUT the whole point of the Charter and modern international order was precisely to prevent the logic unfolding of what you've just suggested. In many cases the Charter has been successful, in some cases it hasn't. How would you answer your own question ? And if the criteria you chose - say killing of X thousand Kurds - were to be the justification for intervention in Turkey, and therefore for other interventions wouldn't this just lead to generalised war around the world ?


Pyropolizer,
Why do you have this immediate reaction of fantasy and conspiracy ? If someone said their interested in cars and just looked at the outside of a car, and said "engines, transmission, brakes, that's just too deep; don't know what you're talking about" you'd be entitled to say 'well they might like the look of a car but they've no idea how it works'. I'm interested in how they work.

In my opinion yours is a really depressing response. Your basically saying to me on these questions, don't dig down, don't investigate, don't try to understand, don' try to explain, don't dare suggest anything outside conventional and inherited prejudices, just be satisfied with the superficial and complacent.

If you want to know why stuff has happened to/in Cyprus then it is not enough to look just at Cyprus. Looking at the UN Charter, for example, goes a long way to explaining what would otherwise appear to be peculiar or bizarre twists and turns.

In fact a couple of people have already said the equivalent of 'shut up we don't like it, we don't want to have to think too hard'. That you'll be 'watching me' isn't of the slightest interest, though I understand the Orwellian intent behind your surveillance. If you read my posts seriously, as I read your posts seriously - the purpose of a Forum after all - then I'd be happy.

Finally, Pyropolizer, not everything in this world is reducible to the Cyprus problem and not everything has a sly subtext of getting the TRNC recognised. The Cyprus problem, on a world scale, is a spit in the ocean. There are more killings, beatings, expropriations, property battles, blood feuds, and all manners of social harms in your typical medium sized European or American city than in the whole of Cyprus. Please do get a proper sense of perspective and proportion.

COpperline - the issue of UN charters and the Guarantor powers given to Turkiye, Britain and Greece had been explained in some detail to everyone in another thread more than a month ago! Although proven clearly that the Turkish invasion was not an "illegal act" or against any UN charter, the same subject keeps coming up time and again. That is because they know of nothing better.

The simple truth is, if the Turkish invasion and current presence of the Turkish army in the North was illegal, UN would call for sanctions against Turkiye. Not only that, but UN is actively taking part in a negotiation process that is calling for the progressive withdrawal of the "Turkish military" from Cyprus as a part and parcel of an agreed settlement between the two sides. So anything else called for during some UN meeting is nothing but political "belly dancing" to keep sides happy...

bigOz, before start farting in the forum, it would have been wise if you knew what you were trying to talk about! So little you seem to know what you are trying to talk about, that you even think there are many (more than one) UN "charters!" Learn first, poor bigOz, that there is only ONE UN Charter, and then try to fart-out your interpretations!

[Pyrpolizer]

Your basically saying to me on these questions, don't dig down, don't investigate, don't try to understand, don' try to explain, don't dare suggest anything outside conventional and inherited prejudices, just be satisfied with the superficial and complacent.

If you want to know why stuff has happened to/in Cyprus then it is not enough to look just at Cyprus. Looking at the UN Charter, for example, goes a long way to explaining what would otherwise appear to be peculiar or bizarre twists and turns.

In fact a couple of people have already said the equivalent of 'shut up we don't like it, we don't want to have to think too hard'. That you'll be 'watching me' isn't of the slightest interest, though I understand the Orwellian intent behind your surveillance. If you read my posts seriously, as I read your posts seriously - the purpose of a Forum after all - then I'd be happy.

Finally, Pyropolizer, not everything in this world is reducible to the Cyprus problem and not everything has a sly subtext of getting the TRNC recognised. The Cyprus problem, on a world scale, is a spit in the ocean. There are more killings, beatings, expropriations, property battles, blood feuds, and all manners of social harms in your typical medium sized European or American city than in the whole of Cyprus. Please do get a proper sense of perspective and proportion.

Well you are free to dig as deep as you like my friend. My whole point/questioning/suspicion comes from the fact that this is a discussion forum among plain people (some not so plain anyway)- not a conference of rocket scientists.

Therefore I will continue having my suspicions in you. So far I am not convinced your only purpose is a simple personal interest for Cyprob.