Cyprus-Forum.com

[Panicos UK]

Sorry, I replied before you posted the last section. Are you saying that the RoC didn't exist in 1974? Anyway the Turkish Cypriots may have walked out, but the UK, Greece and Turkey were still signatories to the treaty of Guarantee. That agreement was never legally nullified or superseded was it? Bulent Ecevit wanted to carry out a joint operation with the UK but the UK washed it's hands. Up to the ceasefire, I think Turkey acted reasonably within established legal parameters.

HOWEVER, the policy pursued at the negotiation table was for division and for the Turkish Cypriots to have their own administrative zone. In Clerides's memoirs he states that 'if the Turks had intervened (his word not mine) under the Treaty of Guarantee, they should have been satisfied with the re-establishment (again his word not mine) of the 1960 constitution...

Panikos, i think you are giving us a look into the future of how the next generation of Gc will most likely think and feel. I mean how many present day Gc can stomach saying what you are saying about the first Turk invasion being legally and politically justified especially if they had to live through it. Not many if i had to guess.

I think the whole situation is a mess cowboy. Morally, I don't think war is ever justifiable and I would never fight for any country. Legally though we signed the Treaty of Guarantee. Greece then staged a coup and tried to assasinate our President. We handed Cyprus to Turkey on a silver plate!

[Bananiot]

You need to remember Panikos that "patriotism is the last resort of a rascal"

[GreekIslandGirl]

Sorry, I replied before you posted the last section. Are you saying that the RoC didn't exist in 1974? Anyway the Turkish Cypriots may have walked out, but the UK, Greece and Turkey were still signatories to the treaty of Guarantee. That agreement was never legally nullified or superseded was it? Bulent Ecevit wanted to carry out a joint operation with the UK but the UK washed it's hands. Up to the ceasefire, I think Turkey acted reasonably within established legal parameters.

HOWEVER, the policy pursued at the negotiation table was for division and for the Turkish Cypriots to have their own administrative zone. In Clerides's memoirs he states that 'if the Turks had intervened (his word not mine) under the Treaty of Guarantee, they should have been satisfied with the re-establishment (again his word not mine) of the 1960 constitution...

Panikos, i think you are giving us a look into the future of how the next generation of Gc will most likely think and feel. I mean how many present day Gc can stomach saying what you are saying about the first Turk invasion being legally and politically justified especially if they had to live through it. Not many if i had to guess.

I think the whole situation is a mess cowboy. Morally, I don't think war is ever justifiable and I would never fight for any country. Legally though we signed the Treaty of Guarantee. Greece then staged a coup and tried to assasinate our President. We handed Cyprus to Turkey on a silver plate!

By 'we' do you mean Turkey? Because I have already pointed out to you that the LEGAL Government of Cyprus made this Treaty null and void, by 1964, and the mastermind Britain, did not object. So it was not in force when Turkey chose to invade.

The Treaty of Guarantee suited only Turkey.

[Panicos UK]

I agree, the Treaty of Guarantee suited Turkey, but it also suited those Turkish Cypriots who didn't want their country joined to Greece. Again we're back to the 'strategic minority' issue which the UK created. Sorry my mistake, I meant to say that the UK, Greece and Turkey were signatories to the Treaty of Guarantee. I'm not sure GIG, your point doesn't really sway me. The RoC was not a signatory to the ToG was it? Therefore it has no control over it. Your previous points about the UK wanting to pull out of the agreement suited the UK, not Cyprus - why would you defend that?

Also, the whole point of the ToG was that there was a constant 'check-mate' - ENOSIS was precluded but so was TAKSIM. The agreement IMO was flawed and was bound to destabilise very quickly, especially after the military junta took control in Greece in 1967. Can you just answer my question: if Turkey had intervened with the UK as per the ToG, removed the coupists (who Makarios described as invaders), restored constitutional order and then withdrawn, do you agree that this would have been legally and politically justifiable?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Since the legitimate Government of Cyprus removed the Treaties from its government, and it suited the British (so long as it didn't affect the Bases), there was no legal basis for Turkey to invade or even intervene in internal matters. The junta fell very quickly after the coup once the Greek people saw what they were aiming to do. Cyprus would have been free by now if Turkey had NOT invaded!

Besides, Makarios put in place UNFICYP for the protection of civilians. That should have been enough, if any foreign powers ever have a legal right to intervene. But they don't; so no one lifts a finger to help unless it suits them. Britain very quickly realized it would rather never defend Cyprus, and so they were more than happy to see the end of the Treaty of Guarantee - from 1964 onward. Turkey knew invasion, or even intervention, was not a legal recourse for many reasons and went ahead before it could be stopped on this basis - backed by Kissinger (who also had no legal recourse).

[supporttheunderdog]

The fact of the matter is that whatever the legalities of the situation Turkey was never going to allow the complete take over of Cyprus by Greece and probabaly since 1955 was going to invade to prevent Enosis, at least not without protecting the Southern Anatolian coast: at best the price of Enosis was partition. Now it appears the pro- Enosis supporters failed to recognise it then, and in some cases still do not recognise it now. However the Junta inspired and lead "coup", described as an invasion by Big Mak, gave them just the excuse they needed to invade. In that respect neither the Cypriot nor the British government could formally unilaterally revoke any part the various 1959 treaties and what flowed from them without the consent of all of the signatories, and thus even though Britain may have decided not to be bound, Turkey could probably argue that putting down the Coup legitimised their July invasion. What was never justified was their continued presence after the Coup collapsed and certainly not the second offensive starting in August 1974 in violation of ceasfires and above all the treaties.

As for Brtain do not forget that in the summer of 1974 Brtain was in political/economic crises with a minority government led by Wilson, who was probably rather more concerned with domestic matters, rathar than foreign affairs.

-

[Lordo]

When Turkey got Dengtash to accept the 13 ammendments and return to Governmet, only to be turned down by Makarios in 73 just before the intervention, do we really think Turkey had an eye on a piece of Cyprus. I think not.

Considering the suffering in isolated villages the TCs suffered before 74, do you think many would wish Turkey to return Makarios to being a President and everyone to their homes? It became apparent from very begining that Makarios and his cronies were never interested in RoC. Once the intervention took place it was impossible to do anything else other than BBF. In time perhaps in decades we may be able to return to what you are after but at this stage no chance.

[GreekIslandGirl]

When Turkey got Dengtash to accept the 13 ammendments and return to Governmet, only to be turned down by Makarios in 73 just before the intervention, do we really think Turkey had an eye on a piece of Cyprus. I think not.

Any chance of some information or evidence for this stuff you've said before but not validated?

[supporttheunderdog]

Turkey had been ready to invade in 64 and 68. In 1973 they probably could not justify an invasion but that they were so able to invade in July 74 just a few days after the Coup shows the true state of affairs.

My own understanding is that a lot of the suffering of the isolated villages after 1968 was caused by the TMT who banned the TSC from contact with the GSC and imposed penalties ony one who disobeyed them.

[Panicos UK]

The fact of the matter is that whatever the legalities of the situation Turkey was never going to allow the complete take over of Cyprus by Greece and probabaly since 1955 was going to invade to prevent Enosis, at least not without protecting the Southern Anatolian coast: at best the price of Enosis was partition. Now it appears the pro- Enosis supporters failed to recognise it then, and in some cases still do not recognise it now. However the Junta inspired and lead "coup", described as an invasion by Big Mak, gave them just the excuse they needed to invade. In that respect neither the Cypriot nor the British government could formally unilaterally revoke any part the various 1959 treaties and what flowed from them without the consent of all of the signatories, and thus even though Britain may have decided not to be bound, Turkey could probably argue that putting down the Coup legitimised their July invasion. What was never justified was their continued presence after the Coup collapsed and certainly not the second offensive starting in August 1974 in violation of ceasfires and above all the treaties.

Exactly my point.