1974, Invasion of Cyprus

[Dromikaites]

Split from: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...sion-2/page203
Garb.

I'm sure I would be talking about international law, but that wouldn't change anything if the West decided to side with Turkey. International law is interpreted and enforced by whoever is powerful enough to do so.

In any case, the West includes the Third Reich, and considering the West both dragged us into WWI and WWII and then basically caused our Civil War, I'll take the blood sacrifice with a grain of salt.

Let's say Russia didn't invade Cyprus, but Turkey, as it happened. Where's your vaunted international law then? Where was your international law when Britain agreed to break apart Czechoslovakia so that British people wouldn't have to die, or when they backed out of their agreements to post-war Poland? International law is meaningless.

In Cyprus the Greek Cypriots brought it on themselves. Twice: once 1974 and the second time in 2004. So your point is?

WW1 happened 100 years ago.

WW2 happened 70 years ago.

There's a different West now: united and dominating the rest of the world both economically and militarily. The time is just right to use this domination to bring civilization to the rest of the world.

[Stavroforos]

In Cyprus the Greek Cypriots brought it on themselves. Twice: once 1974 and the second time in 2004. So your point is?

WW1 happened 100 years ago.

WW2 happened 70 years ago.

There's a different West now: united and dominating the rest of the world both economically and militarily. The time is just right to use this domination to bring civilization to the rest of the world.

They brought an illegal invasion condemned by the world on themselves?

In any case those other examples I brought up specifically because Simon did.

[Dromikaites]

They brought an illegal invasion condemned by the world on themselves?

In any case those other examples I brought up specifically because Simon did.

Yes. They started by trying to assassinate their own president, they trampled the constitution and the treaty which made Cyprus independent and then they were "surprised" that pissing in the wind got them wet.

Then in 2004 they screwed the EU.

[clone]

In Cyprus the Greek Cypriots brought it on themselves. Twice: once 1974 and the second time in 2004. So your point is?

even if i find your logic a disgrace to the same western vallues you people preach,ukraine brought it on itsself

[Stavroforos]

Yes. They started by trying to assassinate their own president, they trampled the constitution and the treaty which made Cyprus independent and then they were "surprised" that pissing in the wind got them wet.

Then in 2004 they screwed the EU.

So, do I have to expose to you the irony of you ignoring the Turkish violation of international law simply because it benefits your point?

[Dromikaites]

even if i find your logic a disgrace to the same western vallues you people preach,ukraine brought it on itsself

So, do I have to expose to you the irony of you ignoring the Turkish violation of international law simply because it benefits your point?

Nothing happened in Ukraine remotely close to what was happening in Cyprus in 1974.

Also it is worth remembering what kind of country Greece was back in 1974. The failure of the putsch in Cyprus brought down the military junta ruling over Greece. Had the junta managed to unite Cyprus with Greece back then, they might have clung to power well into the '80s or the '90s like it happened in Brazil or Chile.

So in a way the Turkish invasion of Northern Cyprus helped Greece more than Turkey abstaining to act.

[Stavroforos]

Nothing happened in Ukraine remotely close to what was happening in Cyprus in 1974.

Also it is worth remembering what kind of country Greece was back in 1974. The failure of the putsch in Cyprus brought down the military junta ruling over Greece. Had the junta managed to unite Cyprus with Greece back then, they might have clung to power well into the '80s or the '90s like it happened in Brazil or Chile.

So in a way the Turkish invasion of Northern Cyprus helped Greece more than Turkey abstaining to act.

The regime was close to collapse, which is why it collapsed so easily within a few days. In any case, I still enjoy the fact that your posts are becoming a living embodiment of the hypocrisy involved when talking about international law.

[clone]

Yes. They started by trying to assassinate their own president, they trampled the constitution and the treaty which made Cyprus independent and then they were "surprised" that pissing in the wind got them wet.

so if a random country tries to assassinate its own presidents(in reality the assassination wasnt common people doing rather a small extremist clique)
tramples their constitution, your englightent nation going to invade them?

[Dromikaites]

so if a random country tries to assassinate its own presidents(in reality the assassination wasnt common people doing rather a small extremist clique)
tramples their constitution, your englightent nation going to invade them?

The invasion happened after the treaty signed with Great Britain and Turkey was infringed by the Greek military junta and their Cypriot puppets, not before.

It was monumentally stupid on the part of Greece and Greek Cypriots to attempt to "right" the 16th century "wrong" of the Ottoman invasion, when the Turkish military power dwarfed the Greek one.

Just like it is monumentally stupid for Russia to challenge the West when outgunned and "out-GDPed".

When people piss against the hurricane they bring it on themselves.

[Stavroforos]

The invasion happened after the treaty signed with Great Britain and Turkey was infringed by the Greek military junta and their Cypriot puppets, not before.

It was monumentally stupid on the part of Greece and Greek Cypriots to attempt to "right" the 16th century "wrong" of the Ottoman invasion, when the Turkish military power dwarfed the Greek one.

Just like it is monumentally stupid for Russia to challenge the West when outgunned and "out-GDPed".

When people piss against the hurricane they bring it on themselves.

So what you're saying is that the illegal invasion of Cyprus by Turkey was justified?

[Emperor Arcturus Mengsk]

Judging one nation by the deeds of a group of said nation is kinda bad Dromi.

For example if I judged the entire British nation from the deeds of British people in Malia in Crete every summer, let's just say that wouldn't be a good judgement at all.

[nemgod]

Then in 2004 they screwed the EU.

By voting no on a treaty that was basically " you Greeks, give the turkish side 50% say, no right of return and other needs you have are denied."?

[Manuel I Komnenos]

The invasion happened after the treaty signed with Great Britain and Turkey was infringed by the Greek military junta and their Cypriot puppets, not before.

It was monumentally stupid on the part of Greece and Greek Cypriots to attempt to "right" the 16th century "wrong" of the Ottoman invasion, when the Turkish military power dwarfed the Greek one.

Just like it is monumentally stupid for Russia to challenge the West when outgunned and "out-GDPed".

When people piss against the hurricane they bring it on themselves.

Whatever wrong the Greeks did, Turkey was a guarantor of the Cypriot state, a large proportion of which it currently occupies against international law. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Two wrongs do not make a right.

[Dromikaites]

The OP was brought here from another thread, in which Stavroforos was trying to equate the Turkish invasion of Cyprus to the Russian invasion of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and to blame the West for allegedly applying double standards.

My original point was the Ukrainians had done nothing similar to what has happened in Cyprus prior to the Turkish invasion. 1) They did not try to unite with an independent Crimea or an Independent Eastern Ukraine because those regions were already united with Ukraine;

2) They didn't engage in ethic cleansing;

3) They were not breaching any international treaties regarding the status of Crimea or Eastern Ukraine.

The Greek Cypriots on the other hand were doing all that and more (attempting to assassinate Makarios) in blissful disregard of the power balance of the time. They were not pissing against the wind, they were pissing against a hurricane.

There is no better term in English than "they brought it on themselves".

Now if you ask my opinion about wether Greece should unite with Cyprus, including Northern Cyprus, my answer would be a qualified yes. Meaning Greece should do that at the time Turkey would be weaker than Greece.

Doing it in 1974 or 2014 would be an idiocy, and whatever bad would happen to Greece or Cyprus as a result of a Turkish military retaliation would be well deserved. Just because something is right doesn't mean that thing can happen no matter what the circumstances.

It was right for Greece to be free from Ottoman oppression but it took 300 years and the right international context for that to happen. The circumstances for uniting with Cyprus didn't exist back in 1974 and don't exist now.

That brings me to the second point of the OP: the Cypriots screwing up for the second time, on the occasion of the referendum.

The referendum, if approved, would have practically eliminated the Turkish army from Northern Cyprus in less than 20 years.

A lot of things can happen in 20 years, but the most likely trend is a much closely integrated EU. So once the Turkish army is gone, a second invasion becomes impossible even if Cyprus unites with Greece then.

If the Greeks want to see how matters of this nature should be handled they need to look at how Romania and the Republic of Moldova go about reuniting.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

I'm not going to get into the equation argument, but concerning the referendum, I've repeatedly argued that it would give enormous power to the Turkish Cypriots. Nowadays, I've come to the conclusion that the best solution is a no solution. The Greek Cypriots can reap the benefits of the EU, of being internationally recognized as the only authority on the island and of exploiting the island's resources. They are under no pressure to reunite the island. The Turkish Cypriots are those who lose those benefits, by keeping a hard stance in negotiations and by preferring to remain under the control of the Turkish state. Whenever they feel tired of this situation, they can ask for reunification, in return for democratic (meaning *representative* of their numbers) rights within the Cypriot government.

[PointOfViewGun]

Some facts:
Greece, Turkey and UK were guarantor states to Cyprus under Treaty of Guarantee (1960).
Turkey asked UK to intervene. UK refused to do so.
Turkey intervened twice in 1974 as the first operation failed to cease the hostilities.
Council of Europe recognized Turkey's right to intervene after the first intervention.


The Cypriot government in 1960s under Makarios was in fact a lot more illegal than the intervention. UN, of course, failed to recognize that. In reality there was a civil coup in Cyprus in 1960s.

Written evidence submitted by Michael Stephen

Michael Stephen LL.M. is a Barrister and international lawyer and was a member of the UK Parliament 1992-97. He held a Harkness Fellowship in International Law at Stanford and Harvard, and was Assistant Legal Adviser to the UK Ambassador to the UN for the 25th General Assembly. He is the author of "The Cyprus Question."

In a speech on 4 September 1962, at Panayia, Makarios said "Until this Turkish community forming part of the Turkish race which has been the terrible enemy of Hellenism is expelled, the duty of the heroes of EOKA[113] can never be considered as terminated." It would be difficult to imagine a more vindictive, racist, policy than this. It is also a Greek expansionist policy—the very charge which the Greek Cypriots laid against Turkey when Turkey intervened twelve years later to put an end to it.

Article 173 of the Cyprus Constitution provided for separate municipalities for Turkish Cypriots in the five main towns. The Greek Cypriots refused to obey this mandatory provision and in order to encourage them to do so the Turkish Cypriots said they would not vote for some of the Government's taxation proposals. The Greek Cypriots remained intransigent, so the Turkish Cypriots took the matter to the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus. The court comprised one Greek Cypriot judge, one Turkish Cypriot judge, and a neutral President.

In February 1963 Archbishop Makarios declared on behalf of the Greek Cypriots that if the Court ruled against them they would ignore it[115] On 25 April 1963 the Court did rule against them[116] and they did ignore it. The President of the Court (a German citizen) resigned and the rule of law in Cyprus collapsed.

In November 1963 the Greek Cypriots went further, and demanded the abolition of eight of the basic articles which had been included in the 1960 Agreement for the protection of the Turkish Cypriots. The aim was to reduce the Turkish Cypriot people to the status of a mere minority, wholly subject to the control of the Greek Cypriots, pending their ultimate expulsion from the island. The Greek Cypriots had prepared a written plan for this purpose, called the Akritas Plan.

Greek Cypriots claim that constitutional amendments were inevitable because the Turkish Cypriots abused their veto power, but according to Clerides: "The veto powers were not used either by the President or the Vice President on any law or decision of the House of Representatives . . .

Clerides continued: "If the Turkish Cypriots resist "unilateral amendments of the Constitution" where their rights would be abrogated, the forces of the Minister of Interior will use force to "put down the uprising". Lt General George Karayiannis (the mainland Greek Army Officer then in command of the Cyprus Army) told Ethnikos Kiryx, an Athens Daily, on 13 June 1965 that "President Makarios decided (a) to proceed to organise the Greek Cypriots for battle and arm them, and (b) to proceed with the revision of the Constitution, including the cancellation of the [Turkish Cypriot] Vice-President's Veto."

"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963"—(Lt Gen Karayiannis)[117] The General is referring to the "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.

The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs reviewed the Cyprus question in 1987[121] and reported unanimously that, "Although the Cyprus Government now claims to have been seeking to "operate the 1960 Constitution modified to the extent dictated by the necessities of the situation" this claim ignores the fact that both before and after the events of December 1963 the Makarios Government continued to advocate the cause of ENOSIS [annexation to Greece] and actively pursued the amendment of the Constitution and the related treaties to facilitate this ultimate objective".

The UK Commons Select Committee[141] found that "When in July 1965 the Turkish Cypriot members of the House of Representatives had sought to resume their seats they were told that they could do so only if they accepted the legislative changes to the operation of the Constitution enacted in their absence" (ie. if they agreed to fundamental constitutional changes to the great disadvantage of their community, imposed upon them by force of arms). The Select Committee continued: "In February 1966 Makarios declared that the 1960 Agreements had been abrogated and buried."

As you might guess, much of this goes against the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960 and the constitution of Cyprus.

[Manuel I Komnenos]

Don't equate Turkey's right to intervene with what happened afterwards. The occupation is internationally recognized as illegal. Turkey has openly violated the sovereignty of the Cypriot Republic, instead of securing it.

[Akrotatos]

@ Setekh

Your problem is that nearly all Greek posters have aknowledged that that Greek side committed some crimes. If the Turkish army had not cleansed half the island of Greeks or had simply kept forces as peace keepers, your side would indeed have the moral upper hand.

Instead, Turkey invaded, created an enclave totally dependent on it to survive and has kept its forces and current illegal borders for decades after any danger for the Turkish minority has passed. I know you will now try to justify this violation of the international law by saying that armed Greeks wait only for the Turkish army to leave to fall upon the helpless Turkish minority but seriouly, ayone with a brain can see there is no danger for that. Especially with a peacekeping force remaining on the island for a few years after the unification, as most Greeks again propose.

[PointOfViewGun]

Don't equate Turkey's right to intervene with what happened afterwards. The occupation is internationally recognized as illegal. Turkey has openly violated the sovereignty of the Cypriot Republic, instead of securing it.

@ Setekh

Your problem is that nearly all Greek posters have aknowledged that that Greek side committed some crimes. If the Turkish army had not cleansed half the island of Greeks or had simply kept forces as peace keepers, your side would indeed have the moral upper hand.

Instead, Turkey invaded, created an enclave totally dependent on it to survive and has kept its forces and current illegal borders for decades after any danger for the Turkish minority has passed. I know you will now try to justify this violation of the international law by saying that armed Greeks wait only for the Turkish army to leave to fall upon the helpless Turkish minority but seriouly, ayone with a brain can see there is no danger for that. Especially with a peacekeping force remaining on the island for a few years after the unification, as most Greeks again propose.

You can't intervene without some sort of occupation. The occupation is dependent on a peace settlement. If they couldn't settle the issue so far the occupation remains. Blaming the occupation or it's physical effects is merely a deflection from the real issue. Yes, most people acknowledge the atrocities that caused the intervention but then they proceed to ignore them when they talk about the issue. It's the go to position of many people to treat the intervention and subsequent occupation as if it happened out of the blue for no reason. Some even explicitly claimed that. Your arguments are an example of that too. You probably know very well that a large portion of the ethnic cleansing of island was done under the population exchange agreement that was signed on August 2, 1974, which resulted in 196 thousand Greek Cypriots moving south and 42 thousand Turkish Cypriots moving north.

There have been a UN peacekeeping force in Cyprus since 1964. That didn't stop any hostilities from happening. From the link I provided earlier:

Some people argue that having defeated the Sampson coup, and Makarios having returned to the Presidential Palace, Turkey should have withdrawn and left the Turkish Cypriots again at the mercy of Makarios, the man who had been responsible for the earlier massacres. That proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to be appreciated. It must be remembered that UN troops had been in Cyprus since March 1964 and had failed to protect the Turkish Cypriots. The Turkish Cypriots were later to see what happened to the Moslem people of Srebrenica under international protection.

I'm not sure how a unification will result for Turkish Cypriots. Anyone with a brain may think that there is no such danger in your opinion, but we're not dealing with people with brains:

Former Turkish Cypriot President Mehmet Ali Talat was attacked March 26 by a far-right nationalist group in Greek Cyprus as he attended a conference over the solution process on the island.

Hundreds of members of the National Popular Front (ELAM), a movement that promotes Greek nationalism and opposes Turkish Cypriots and immigration to the island, raided the conference room in Limassol while the speeches were continuing, throwing eggs, oranges and flammable materials at Talat. A mêlée erupted between the group and the audience before police dispersed the group.

This doesn't mean armed Greeks justify Turkish forces on the island. In reality, this is a non-issue. What caused the current partition of the island and the ethnic cleansing of both sides is the lack of a quick and final peace settlement. The Turkish army is not stopping the peace talks.

[Hobbes]

Yes, I'm sure that ELAM, an organisation that only got 0,8% of the votes in the latest election is a great threat to the stability of the island.