Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said he had not seen Cyprus’s stars as “optimistically aligned” in his political lifetime
Mustafa Akıncı is set to tell the UN Secretary-General that he wants the division of Cyprus to end this year.
The Turkish Cypriot president, who is New York for talks at the United Nations, was scheduled to meet Ban Ki-moon on Wednesday.
David Burrowes, MP for Enfield Southgate
The meeting comes as the British Foreign Secretary told parliament that there were high hopes for a settlement.
“I do not think we have seen—certainly not in my political lifetime—the stars as optimistically aligned as they are now for Cyprus,” Philip Hammond said.
He continued: “We have a Turkish Cypriot community leader and a Greek Cypriot President who are committed to a settlement, a Government in Athens that are distracted by problems of their own, a President in Turkey who is also clearly amenable to the idea of a settlement, and an excellent UN-appointed intermediary who is making progress with the talks that are going on right now.
UK LAND PLAN
The foreign secretary was responding to a question by David Burrowes, the Enfield Southgate MP, whose constituency is home to large numbers of Turkish and Greek Cypriots.
Mr Hammond said he was planning to visit Cyprus “in the near future” and added that his country had already made a “very big and generous offer” to the two sides.
He said: “As part of a proper, comprehensive settlement, we will surrender a significant proportion of the land mass of the sovereign base area in Cyprus to allow the economic development of southern Cyprus.
MORE CROSSINGS
Mr Akıncı’s visit comes a week after he agreed with Republic of Cyprus president Nicos Anasatasiades, the Greek Cypriot leader, to open two new crossings linking their estranged communities.
The two crossings – in Lefka (Lefke in Turkish) in the west and Dherynia (Derinya) in the east – will open as soon as technical work, such as laying of new roads, is complete.
Speaking on Thursday, UN Special Adviser Espen Barth Eide told reporters confirmed the decision and added that the two leaders had agreed to hold further talks on opening a number of other proposed crossing points.
“Today, the Greek Cypriot leader, Mr. Nicos Anastasiades, and the Turkish Cypriot leader, Mr. Mustafa Akıncı, took the next steps towards fulfilling their joint vision for a united federal Cyprus,” Mr Eide said, hailing the progress.
Mustafa Akıncı is in New York this week
POWER AND PHONE SHARING
“Their constructive dialogue included a range of core issues that go to the very heart of the Cyprus question.”
The two leaders also agreed to start work on interconnecting their electricity grids and to arrange for mobile phone networks to become interoperable.
The two leaders are next expected to meet on 17 June.
Enfield Southgate MP David Burrowes said: “I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary responded so positively in support of a solution to the Cyprus problem and that he will visit Cyprus soon.
“I promised my constituents at the election that I would be a strong voice for Cyprus and I have taken the first opportunity of a new Parliament to keep my pledge.”
THERE IS ONLY PARTITION IN THE WORLD. THERE IS NO UNIFICATION IN THE WORLD.
Since 1990, 37 new countries became independent and recognized by the partition of federations, confederations, countries:
SOVIET UNION (FEDERATION) = 1 Armenia 2 Azerbaijan 3 Belarus 4 Estonia 5 Georgia 6 Kazakhstan 7 Kyrgyzstan 8 Latvia 9 Lithuania 10 Moldova 11 Russia 12 Tajikistan 13 Turkmenistan 14 Ukraine 15 Uzbekistan
YUGOSLAVIA (FEDERATION) = 16 Bosnia and Herzegovina 17 Croatia 18 Macedonia 19 Serbia and Montenegro 20 Slovenia
21 Namibia (South Africa)
22,23,24 Marshall Islands, Micronesia Caroline Islands, Palau (separated from USA (FEDERATION))
CZECHOSLOVAKIA (FEDERATION) = 25 Czech Republic 26 Slovakia
27 Eritrea (from Ethiopia)
28 East Timor Timor-Leste (from Indonesia)
THE SAME RACE, SAME RELIGION, SAME LANGUAGED PARTITIONED:
SERBIA-MONTENEGRO (FEDERATION) = 29 Montenegro 30 Serbia
31 Kosovo (from Serbia)
32,33 Abhasia, South Ossetia (from Georgia)
34 South Sudan (from Sudan)
35 Crimea (from Ukraine)
36,37 Donetsk PR, Luhansk PR (from Ukraine)
AND PARTITION OF FEDERATIONS, CONFEDERATIONS, COUNTRIES WILL GO ON….38,39,40,… Transnistria , Palestine, West Sahara, Somaliland, Putland, Greenland, Quebec, Wallonia, Flanders, Catalonia, Basque, Scotland, North Ireland, Padova,…
SINCE 1990, ALL OF THE 37 NEW COUNTRIES EXISTED BY THE PARTITION OF FEDERATIONS, CONFEDERATIONS, COUNTRIES (EVEN THE SAME RACED, SAME RELIGIONED, SAME LANGUAGED SERBIA-MONTENEGRO!) WITHOUT ANY COMPROMISE AND CONCESSION!
THE LAWS OF NORTHERN CYPRUS ARE ACCEPTED IN EUROPE:
(Northern Cyprus :=: Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus)
Not only the “TRNC Immovable Property Commission (and its related laws)” but also “ALL THE LAWS OF TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS” WAS ACCEPTED ON BEHALF OF EUROPE (European Court of Human Rights; ECtHR).
ECtHR Decision 02.07.2013, App. nos. 9130/09 and 9143/09; Pavlides v. Turkey; Georgakis v. Turkey
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“fulltext”:[“Pavlides”],”documentcollectionid2″:[“CASELAW”],”itemid”:[“001-122907”]}
ECtHR: “…notwithstanding the lack of international recognition of the regime in the northern area, a de facto recognition of its acts may be rendered necessary for practical purposes. Thus, THE ADOPTION BY THE AUTHORITIES OF THE “TRNC” OF CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE OR CRIMINAL LAW MEASURES, AND THEIR APPLICATION OR ENFORCEMENT WITHIN THAT TERRITORY, may be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention”.
Note: In the related ECtHR’s decision above, the case application of the Greek Cypriot was IMMEDIATELY REJECTED; i.e., his application was found INADMISSABLE.
That is to say, he was expelled by ECtHR just at the beginning; therefore, his case was not handled (no sessions were held) by ECtHR at all.
ECtHR’s 02.June.2015 Decision:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“fulltext”:[“Tsiakkourmas”],”documentcollectionid2″:[“CASELAW”],”itemid”:[“001-155000”]}
“..the court system in the “TRNC”, including both civil and criminal courts, reflected the judicial and common-law tradition of Cyprus in its functioning and procedures, and that the “TRNC” courts were thus to be considered as “established by law” with reference to the “constitutional and legal basis” on which they operated..
..the Court has already found that the court system set up in the “TRNC” was to be considered to have been “established by law” with reference to the “constitutional and legal basis” on which it operated, and it has NOT accepted the allegation that the “TRNC” courts as a whole lacked independence and/or impartiality..
..when an act of the “TRNC” authorities was in compliance with laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus, those acts should in principle be regarded as having a legal basis in domestic law for the purposes of the Convention..”
Note: Here, what ECtHR means by “laws in force within the territory of northern Cyprus” is the laws that TRNC published and put into implementation, as can be understood from ECtHR’s above 02.July.2013 decision.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS: “GREEK CYPRIOTS HAVE NO RIGHT TO RETURN BACK TO NORTHERN CYPRUS”
ECtHR: “The places from where Greek Cypriots migrated in Northern Cyprus are not their homes ANYMORE since the Greek Cypriots LIVED ALMOST ALL OF THEIR LIVES IN ANOTHER PLACES AND THEY HAVE NO CONCRETE AND PERSISTING LINKS TO THE PROPERTIES THEY CLAIMED. Furthermore, that’s why, the Greek Cypriots have no right to return back to Northern Cyprus.”
(Tasos Asproftas: [Application no. 16079/90] and Marianna Petrakidou [Application no. 16081/90]).
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“fulltext”:[“Asproftas”],”documentcollectionid2″:[“CASELAW”],”item”:[“001-98684”]}
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/Pages/search.aspx#{“fulltext”:[“Petrakidou”],”documentcollectionid2″:[“CASELAW”],”itemid”:[“001-98688”]}
(Greek Cypriots objected to the ECtHR’s no-return-back-for-Greek-Cypriots decision and take the case to the Grand Chamber; In 18.10.2010, the Referral Request of Greek Cypriots was rejected in ECtHR Grand Chamber as well, and hence, THE DECISON OF ECtHR THAT THE GREEK CYPRIOTS CANNOT RETURN BACK TO THE NORTH WAS FINALIZED:
ECtHR Grand Chamber rejected Greek Cypriots and kicked their backs (Case Law: Appeals Requests of Asproftas and Petrakidou)
http://www.mediafire.com/view/?izlctlan0vm7le9 (ECtHR APPEALS DECISONS)
Cases referred to the ECtHR Grand Chamber
Referrals accepted (page 1)
……………………………………………..
Requests for referral rejected (Those to whom ECtHR kicked their backs) (page 1)
……………………………………………..
Asproftas v. Turkey and Petrakidou v. Turkey (nos. 16079/90 and 16081/90); judgment of 27.05.2010 (page 3) http://www.mediafire.com/view/?izlctlan0vm7le9
TO SUM UP: THE FACT THAT GREEK CYPRIOTS DO NOT HAVE RIGHT TO RETURN TO THE NORTH BECAME CASE-LAW IN EUROPE (2010) AND IN AMERICA (2014).
That is to say, the Greek Cypriots who make an application about a property in Northern Cyprus will always be kicked to their backs not only in Europe but also in USA.
USA’s FEDERAL COURT: “NORTHERN CYPRUS IS A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC”
USA’s FEDERAL COURT and USA’s COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS
==1. USA’s FEDERAL COURT REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS: THE TOUMAZOU CASE-LAW==
“..Greek Cypriots CANNOT CLAIM that the government in control of Northern Cyprus gave their homes to Turkish Cypriots….
Although the United States does not recognize it as a state, the TRNC purportedly operates as a DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC with a president, prime minister, legislature and judiciary…
TRNC is NOT VULNERABLE to a lawsuit in Washington”
The news of the Court Decision (13.10.2014): http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/10/13/72392.htm
Page of the Court case: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002
Decision of the Court: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2009cv01967/139002/53
TOUMAZOU et al v. REPUBLIC OF TURKEY et al
Defendant: REPUBLIC OF TURKEY and TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS
Case Filed: 19.10.2009
Decision Date: 09.10.2014
==2. USA’s FEDERAL COURT REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS: LATCHFORD DECISION ==
LATCHFORD et al v. TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS et al
Defendant: TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS, HSBC HOLDINGS PLC and HSBC BANK USA, N.A.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012cv00846/154428
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012cv00846/154428/22
Case Filed: 24.05.2012
Decision Date: 31.10.2014
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2012cv00846/154428/22
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
On September 30, 2014, the Court dismissed Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Civil Action No. 09-1967, WITH PREJUDICE, WHICH IS A RELATED CASE “INDISTINGUISHABLE BY FACTS OR LAW”. See Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal at 1 n. 1, Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, No. 09-cv-1967 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2014), ECF No. 55. The Court therefore ORDERED PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE IN WRITING WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE TO THE COURT’S SEPTEMBER 30, 2014 Order and October 9, 2014 Opinion in Toumazou. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RESPOND. It is hereby ORDERED THAT THE COMPLAINT is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court SHALL REMOVE THIS CASE FROM THE DOCKET OF THIS COURT. This is a final appealable Order.
==3. USA’s FEDERAL COURT REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS: FIOURIS AND OTHER 96 GREEK CYPRIOTS DECISION ==
Fiouris v. Turkish Cypriot Community, Civil Action No. 2010-1225 (D.C. 2014)
Defendant: TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY, HSBC HOLDING, PLC ve HSBC BANK ABD, N.A.
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv01225/143132/
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/district-of-columbia/dcdce/1:2010cv01225/143132/22/
Case Filed: 20.07.2010
Decision Date: 31.10.2014
On September 30, 2014, the Court dismissed Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Civil Action No. 09-1967, with prejudice, which is a related case “indistinguishable by facts or law.” See Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal at 1 n.1, Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, No. 09-cv-1967(D.D.C. Oct.29, 2014), ECF No. 55. The Court therefore ordered plaintiff to show cause in writing why this case should not be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the Court’s September 30,2014 Order and October 9, 2014 Opinion in Toumazou. Plaintiff failed to respond. It is hereby ORDERED that the complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall remove this case from the docket of this Court. This is a final appealable Order.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/District_Of_Columbia_District_Court/1–10-cv-01225/FIOURIS_et_al_v._TURKISH_CYPRIOT_COMMUNITY_et_al/22/
http://www.law360.com/cases/4db72cb6c0ce161243000002
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2747346/fiouris-v-turkish-cypriot-community/
One can see the list of 96 Greek Cypriots who lost their cases against TURKISH CYPRIOT COMMUNITY in the following link as well:
http://leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020141103575/FIOURIS%20v.%20TURKISH%20CYPRIOT%20COMMUNITY
== 4. USA’s COURT OF APPEALS REJECTED GREEK CYPRIOTS ==
USA APPEALS COURT: “The TOUMAZOU decision about NORTHERN CYPRUS is valid (a case-law) NOT ONLY in USA but also in ALL COUNTRIES”
USA Court of Appeals: Case 14-4449
Look at page 10 below:
http://blogs.reuters.com/alison-frankel/files/2014/12/sokolowvpa-pamotiontostay.pdf
Toumazou v. Turkish Republic of N. Cyprus, No. 09-cv-1967, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143535, at *11 (D.D.C. Oct. 9, 2014) (holding that the TURKISH REPUBLIC OF NORTHERN CYPRUS “IS ‘AT HOME’ IN NORTHERN CYPRUS, AS ITS NAME SUGGESTS, NOT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA”)
The same decision can be seen on page 17 below:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/PLOPAbrief.pdf
TURKISH CYPRIOTS ARE RIGHT IN THEIR CAUSE: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (2010) PERSPECTIVE
International Court of Justice (ICJ) Kosovo Decision, Paragraph 81:
Several participants have invoked resolutions of the Security Council condemning particular declarations of independence: see, inter alia, Security Council resolutions 216 (1965) and 217 (1965), concerning Southern Rhodesia; Security Council resolution 541 (1983), concerning northern Cyprus; and Security Council resolution 787 (1992), concerning the Republika Srpska.
The Court notes, however, that in all of those instances the Security Council was making a determination as regards the concrete situation existing at the time that those declarations of independence were made; the ILLEGALITY ATTACHED to the declarations of independence thus stemmed not from the unilateral character of these declarations as such, but from the fact that they were, or WOULD HAVE BEEN, connected with the unlawful use of force or other egregious violations of norms of general international law, in particular those of a peremptory character (jus cogens). In the context of Kosovo. the Security Council has never taken this position. The EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER of the resolutions enumerated above appears to the Court to confirm that NO GENERAL PROHIBITION against unilateral declarations of independence may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council. (end of paragraph 81) AF: “participants” in the above paragraph is participant countries that were questioned by ICJ in the proceedings before the Court, not the participant jury judges of the ICJ. See (P.15. Questions were put by Members of the Court to participants in the oral proceedings; P.80. Several participants in the proceedings before the Court)
Question1: Who attached “illegality” to Declaration of Independence (DOI) of Northern Cyprus? UN SC or ICJ?
Answer 1: UN Security Council, of course. ICJ only cites this attachment. ICJ does NOT make any decision or statement about a country’s legality or DOI unless it is requested to do so; as in the case of Kosovo: “Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?”. Inter alia:
Question 2: Was ICJ requested to give an advisory opinion on “declaration of independence of Northern Cyprus”?
Answer 2: No!
Question 3: In paragraph 81, ICJ is mentioning “WOULD HAVE BEEN” and “EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER”. By this, what does ICJ imply?
Answer 3: ICJ is implying that THE RESOLUTIONS OF UN SC on DOIs of ONLY SOME of the countries are TOTALLY ARBITRARY and TOTALLY DISCRETIONARY (i.e. DOES NOT DEPEND ON ANY INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Remember: The President of the Int’l Court of Justice (ICJ) Hisashi Owada, 2010: “International law contains “NO PROHIBITION” on declarations of independence.”).
(This “NO PROHIBITION” includes “UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory” as well!)
ICJ is emphasizing this DISCRETIONARY and SELF-ORDAINEDNESS of UN SC via phrase additions and humiliations like “EXCEPTIONAL CHARACTER”; and adding “WOULD HAVE BEEN” next to “they WERE, or would have been, connected with the unlawful use of force” to show that “UN SC’s CONNECTING to UNLAWFUL use of force” may even be TOTALLY BASELESS (ICJ did not pass only with “were connected” in the sentence!): By saying “TOTALLY BASELESS”, Remember (inter alia):
(1) The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) (29.07.1974, Resolution 573) “The Turkish military intervention was the exercise of a RIGHT EMANATING FROM AN INTERNATIONAL TREATY and the FULLFILMENT OF A LEGAL and moral OBLIGATION.
(2) Greece’s Athens Court of Appeals (21.03.1979; Case No: 2658/79): “The Turkish military INTERVENTION in Cyprus, which was carried out in accordance with the Zurich and London Accords, was LEGAL. Turkey, as one of the Guarantor Powers, had the right to fulfill her obligations. The real culprits . . . are the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup and prepared the conditions for this INTERVENTION”.
ICJ’s using of “UN SC’s restrictive conditions for the permanent status of a territory” does not mean “ICJ believes such a non-existence of a restrictive condition for the DOI of a country to be legal; BUT RATHER: it only means the objections of the countries towards “DOI of Kosovo” is BASELESS EVEN FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF OBJECTING COUNTRIES! Namely, such a condition is not in the perspective/framework of ICJ
(Because: President of ICJ Hisashi Owada, 2010: “International law contains “NO PROHIBITION” on declarations of independence.”).
This is the perspective of ICJ; and not solely peculiar to the head of ICJ; because, the tone of paragraph 81 is totally in this scope; read the whole paragraph 81; and its AFFIRMATIVE nature towards “NO VIOLATION” at the end. The meaning of P81 in fact is implicitly loaded with “NO PROHIBITION” as well!
Question 4: After the partnership government collapsed in 1963, the Greek Cypriot led administration was recognized as the legitimate government of the Republic of Cyprus at the stage of the debates in New York in February 1964 ( Cyprus-Mail, 09.03.2014 UNFICYP: a living fossil of the Cold War: http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/03/09/unficyp-a-living-fossil-of-the-cold-war ).
Does the UN SC have a right to:
– recognize the Flamans as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Flamans try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Wallons?
– recognize the Wallons as the sole representator of Belgium (a country founded in partnership of Flamans and Wallons) if Wallons try to capture all of Belgium and try to kill all Flamans?
– recognize the Czechs as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Czechs try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Slovaks?
– recognize the Slovaks as the sole representator of Czechoslovakia (a country founded in partnership of Czechs and Slovaks) if Slovaks try to capture all of Czechoslovakia and try to kill all Czechs?
– recognize the Greek Cypriots as the sole representator of Cyprus (a country founded in partnership of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots) if Greek Cypriots try to capture all of Cyprus and try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
Answer 4: Obviously No! UN SC has no right to remove a sovereignty of a people from the country that was founded in partnership with that people.
Question 5: What happened in Parliamentary Assembly of Council of Europe (PACE) after Greek Cypriots forcefully captured partnership government of 1960 in 1963?
Answer 5: Since Cyprus can be represented by only “mutual consensus” and “participation” of both of the Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, all the repsentation of Cyprus was expelled from PACE, and between 1965-1985, there were NO Cypriot representatives in PACE!
Question 6: Did Greek Cypriots try to kill all Turkish Cypriots?
Answer 6: Then–United Nations Secretary General, U Thant report (UN SG S/5950 Report 10 September 1964, paragraph 180): “UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances; it shows that in 109 villages, MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2,000 others have suffered damage from looting”
http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/Chapter-VII-S-5950.pdf
“MOST OF THEM TURKISH CYPRIOTS OR MIXED” means “NONE OF THE SOLELY GREEK CYPRIOTS VILLAGES were destroyed”.
Akritas Plan (Killing every Turkish Cypriots) was applied by Greek Cypriots during 1963 – 1974 and 2800 Turkish Cypriots (3% of then-Turkish Cypriot population) were brutally massacred. Also, Turkish Cypriots were squeezed to the enclaves (3% of total area of whole Cyprus).