Cyprus-Forum.com

[Alexandros Lordos]

Friends, the issue of Security has been baffling me recently ... from the surveys, it seems that it is the one issue on which GC and TC demands are most opposed.

Most TCs want a continuation of the Treaty of Guarantee, and also the permanent presence of at least some Turkish troops in Cyprus, whereas most GCs want the Treaty of Guarantee to be cancelled, and Cyprus to be either dimilitarized, or with a Cypriot army, or with a European army.

I am trying to see how this opposition can be reconciled, but so far I am left scratching my head. So I am asking you all, any ideas? What do you think are the subjective and objective Security Concerns of each side? How can they be best alleviated? How can a mutually satisfactory compromise be reached?

[Piratis]

Just a question: How many other countries have similar "Treaties of Guarantee"? Can anybody show some examples to examine them?

[Saint Jimmy]

How about keeping the Treaty of Guarantee (which still stands, anyway), only slightly modified? As in, getting rid of the contingents stationed here - zero, nada, zilch...
Sounds like a compromise to me...

[erolz]

A guarantee that Turkey can intervene only to secure the TC component (however that is defined) state from internal or external attack should satisfy both commuites should it not?

[Saint Jimmy]

A guarantee that Turkey can intervene only to secure the TC component (however that is defined) state from internal or external attack should satisfy both commuites should it not?

Yes, personally I would agree to that.
Do you think the TC side would accept a clause that provides for the reexamination of the issue of Guarantees some time in the future? Just to keep the possibility of ultimately getting rid of them alive...?

[erolz]

A guarantee that Turkey can intervene only to secure the TC component (however that is defined) state from internal or external attack should satisfy both commuites should it not?

Yes, personally I would agree to that.
Do you think the TC side would accept a clause that provides for the reexamination of the issue of Guarantees some time in the future? Just to keep the possibility of ultimately getting rid of them alive...?

Personally I do think such a restriction on Turkish rights to intervention in Cyprus would be acceptable to TC.

Personally I think the GC fear that Turkey will one day invade and annex the whole of Cyprus are no more founded that the TC fear that GC would declare enosis today. I personally do not beileve Turkey could, would or even wants to sieze the whole of Cyprus by force of arms.

[Saint Jimmy]

Personally I think the GC fear that Turkey will one day invade and annex the whole of Cyprus are no more founded that the TC fear that GC would declare enosis today. I personally do not beileve Turkey could, would or even wants to sieze the whole of Cyprus by force of arms.

Well, yeah, agreed, but I think the counter-argument against that, on this side of the line, is 'yeah, right now you might be right, but who knows what might happen in 30, 50 or 80 years' time, and whether Turkey's EU prospects will go down the drain in the end or not?', or something along those lines...

[insan]

I completely second the set of ideas Mr Norton presented in a conference, February 2004, Newyork. I'm not a military and security expert but his ideas regarding a comprehensive solution to the security concerns of all parties, impressed me a lot that could be the real solution.


http://www.westernpolicy.org/Conference ... tation.asp
Please click on "executive summary" link at right bottom to read more...

[Alexandros Lordos]

I think intervention rights are a relatively easy problem to solve - as the discussion of Saint Jimmy and Erol illustrates.

The big problem is troop presence. I am afraid TCs (i.e. the majority of TCs) would not tolerate total dimilitarization, while GCs (i.e. the majority of GCs) would not tolerate a permanent Turkish troop presence. That's the tough nut to crack.

[erolz]

Well, yeah, agreed, but I think the counter-argument against that, on this side of the line, is 'yeah, right now you might be right, but who knows what might happen in 30, 50 or 80 years' time, and whether Turkey's EU prospects will go down the drain in the end or not?', or something along those lines...

Ultimately if a country is determined to try and sieze land by force no 'piece of paper' will stop them . However I believe the issue here is about Turkey having _rights_ to intervene (ie bits of papaer saying they can). In that sense a right to intevene but only in the TC component state has to be better than the current 'piece of paper'?