Open Forum North/South

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 01:50

Whilst not denying or belittling any of the events prior to 1974, could I get some contributions to some of the following questions?



At what stage did the Turkish invasion of 1974 become "illegal" internationally? Was the initial incursion in July considered "legal" under the "guarantor power" status, but the subsequent breakout in August considered "illegal"?





Why did the Greek Cypriot's reject the Annan Plan?





What is the difference between the Bizonal/Bicommunal solution lauded by the Greek Cypriot's since the talks in July 2006 and the Annan Plan?

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 10:17

Not only was the original incursion considered legal, but if you read the newspaper reports of the time, recieved world-wide support. Even after phase two, there was a lot of sympathy, but then the Greek propaganda machine went into full gear, and Turkey made the mistake of not countering the propaganda, hence the only "side" heard over the last 34 years has been one-sided.



Ian

dodger



Joined: 29/07/2007
Posts: 1895

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 10:21

Lincsman,

My opinion on the reason the greek Cyps rejected the plan was because the largest party opposed the plan that was put together by the u.n. security council.As they had not provided guarantees on post re-unification.



In other words they were worried about the continued presence of Turkish troops in the north.That should get the ball rolling,

Regards,

Paul.

Aslan


Joined: 23/06/2008
Posts: 757

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 10:22

What bugs me is the word "invasion" how can a country who has citizens being murdrered by an terrorist organisation be classed as invading to save its people and the aggressors prople opposed to the terrorist group.



Surely if it is the case that Turkey invaded Cyprus then surely the same can be said about the UK invading the Falkland Islands or were they both interventions??

dodger



Joined: 29/07/2007
Posts: 1895

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 10:47

Asian,

Massive point.The greek propaganda machine rolls on and on,

Paul.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 12:15

To Aslan you make a fair point. Obviously to the Turkish Cypriots it was a "rescue mission" rather than an invasion. So in future I will use "armed intervention"

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 12:19

To Dodger, Didn't the Annan Plan allow for only a limited number of Turkish troops to remain, some 900 ?

ukturk



Joined: 01/09/2007
Posts: 1974

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 12:41

hi guys

on eof the main reasons that 75 percent of the greek cypriots said no to the the referendum that the Annan Plan was unbalanced and pro turkish as it stated that one turkish cypriot's votes would be equal to two greek cypriot votes and it would not safeguard the greek cypriot rights in the north.



on turkish cypriot side, the plan was felt it was pro greek, but most turkish cypriots were willing to accept it because of the prolonged international isolation and exclusion from the european economy and because they were desperate, both political leaders of both sides campaigned for a no vote because of these reasons but like i said the reward for the south to say no was the prize of e.u membership!!! god knows how this happened

hope this helps

ukturk



p.s some more reasons why the south rejected the plan is because some points to do with turkey



Turkey would control security arrangements for the north



management of cyprus air space on the north would have to be consulted with turkey even military action in the event of any threat to aircraft passengers, airport or aviation facilities in Cyprus airspace.



turkey was granted the right of stationing Turkish troops on the island



Nearly all the Turkish settlers would be granted citizenship or residence rights leading to citizenship. those settlers opting to return to turkey would be compensated by cyprus

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 12:53

The newspapers of the time used the terms "intervension" and "invasion" interchangably, and to mean the same thing. Invasion was used in the same way as the allies invaded Normanday on D-Day. It's only as time went on that invasion was used in a negative way.



Ian

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 17:33

To Uk Turk Thanks for the info!

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 18:49

Hi Lincsman



This will tell you why the GC's rejected the plan



http://hellenicnews.com/readnews.html?newsid=3374&lang=US

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 21:06

MARK

ILLEGAL INVASION

my foot , british forces should have intervened along side turkish forces

to save innocent men ,women and children .what happened too the guaranties so called treaties between britain ,turkey and greece,nothing they left it up too

turkey, simple really .



regards

musin

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 21:24

Musin

British forces should have intervened. I think one of the problems was that we were probably a spent force. Britain lost it's power after the 2nd world war (actually, probably just before the 1st world war and this Great was was the nail in the coffin). Yes we thought in Korea and Suez but we were phasing out our empire. We had too many problems at home in the UK. The Americans reluctantly bailed us out financially after the 2nd world war and we only finished paying them back last year. Financially we probably didn't get going again until the 80's.

MUSIN M


Joined: 26/06/2008
Posts: 1352

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 21:42

ilc



i,m not blaming the british ,i just wish the world would stop blaming the turks

i love britain its my home but cyprus is my roots









regards

musin

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 21:53

I agree Musin

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
03/07/2008 22:23

Hi All,

Is it true that a big majority of turkish cypriots are in favour of partition.Is this still known as "takism".The supporters of this believe that partition is the only way forward to ensure that Cyprus would always have a turkish presence.If this is the case then wont president talat be seen by the turk cyp majority as someone who is going against what they believe,

Paul.

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 00:58

newlad,



Partition happened in 1974.

dy1259


Joined: 10/08/2007
Posts: 357

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 01:00

Partition in Cyprus: and hasn't there been peace and safety for TCs (from murderous GCs) since then? May it continue.

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 01:03

dy1259,



What about the murderous Martians? You never know when they may strike. Just as likely a scenario, after all...

dy1259


Joined: 10/08/2007
Posts: 357

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 01:12

Pike,

You are naive if you believe the GCs won't start up against the TCs once again (murdering them, undermining them politically, treating them as 2nd class citizens) if partition ends and the Turkish military leave the TRNC.

dodger



Joined: 29/07/2007
Posts: 1895

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 10:41

Pikey,

I realise partition happened in 74.What i am trying to say is the majority of turk cyps are quite happy with the way things are at the moment,but talat seems to be going against what the majority of his people want,

Regards,

Paul.

PtePike



Joined: 20/05/2008
Posts: 2334

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 13:44

dodger,



I'm sure Talat's being led by the nose as well but if it brings the barriers down then great for all Cypriots (but maybe not for foreigners).

Stubs


Joined: 01/07/2008
Posts: 641

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 13:56

Lincsman



The Turkish "intervention" became an "invasion" when they failed under the Treaty of Gaurantee 1960 to restore the soverignity of the Republic of Cyprus as per the ROC constitution.

Lincsman



Joined: 02/04/2008
Posts: 117

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 16:38

Thanks Guy's for all the information. What does everyone think is the best way of moving things forward? I understand a lot of the issues involved but the TRNC/KKTC can't stay isolated for ever or can it?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 20:11

Lincs,

I find it hard to see how it would work as one country.To much history.Keep the north and the south seperated but lift the embargos from t.r.n.c. and allow direct flights into the country.Basically give the north a fair crack of the whip instead of the short straw that they have drawn for many,many years.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 20:12

Hi Paul (Dodger)



How do you know that the majority of TC's are happy with the way things are at the moment? I am not neccesarily disputing that, I was just curious as to your reference.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 20:40

Hi Mark,

Hope you are in fine fettle.Various opinion polls have ben conducted regarding the feelings of the turk cypriot community.And the results show that a healthy majority would be in favour of keeping things as they are.This is the only evidence that i have to go on.But evidence that i am prepared to go with,



Have a great week-end,

Paul.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
04/07/2008 21:39

I am good Paul. Hope you are in tip top condition as well.

That's really interesting mate. Are any of these polls on the net?



I am presuming that any proposed solution put forward by Talat/Christofias will go to the people to be voted for/against?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 00:52

Mark,

Sounds like you are talking referendum here, cant see that happening,

Paul.

fire starter


Joined: 19/06/2008
Posts: 3401

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 06:08

i think the anan plan failed because the gc's didn't want to give the tc's a equal vote. they think because the tc's are a minority they should not be able to power share equally in cyprus. property is also a big issue for them.

phylray



Joined: 21/09/2007
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 22:15

I have a quote from a professor friend of mine from Istanbul

"It is our island, and we can take it again if we want"

I was shocked, but there it is. They took it in 15th Century - right of conquest in those days.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 22:25

RE phylray : (...) They took it in 15th Century (...)



Just for the record: 1571 = 16th century.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 22:40

It seems to have all started in The 15th Century!



Do we really need this guys,or are we going to look forward, and move on!



(or should I be saying Heil Ceasar!) Or heil The House of Mountbatten! sorry Windsor!!



Grow up!!



wyn

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
05/07/2008 22:52

Very interesting post, wynyardman. What do you mean?!

phylray



Joined: 21/09/2007
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
06/07/2008 00:52

He means(I think) we have a royal family foisted on us from Germany

because the government at the time wanted a Protestant accession. They

conveniently bipassed their tradition of male supremacy & chose the female

line throught Elizabeth of Palatinate. The Stuart line (from Queen Anne, the last of the Stuarts) was Charles Edward Stuart (the Bonny Prince) equal claim

but his stand, though initially successful, was defeated by 'Butcher' Cumberland

It was a complicated war, the last fought on British soil. Culloden. The clans were sujected to humuliating punishments, (not to mention h.d. & q) forbidden to wear tartan, play pipes, dance, etc. & many had to change their Highland names. So we got boring old Georges.

wynyardman



Joined: 15/12/2007
Posts: 4580

Message Posted:
06/07/2008 01:03

Quite,



What I meant was if we look back in history, one cannot determine what land belonged to



whom! To do so you have to select a moment in time This is nonesense!



To find a way forward, one has to acknowledge the past. Pay restitution to the dispossed



and work forward on a mutually agreed basis.



That is what Mr Talat and Mr Christophias are doing, Trying to find a mutually agreed basis



to move forward, within a framework of International acceptance. Once agreed, and only



then will you have a true basis for peace! God willing!



wyn

phylray



Joined: 21/09/2007
Posts: 1727

Message Posted:
06/07/2008 01:14

Inshallah!