Talk:Cyprus problem/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Cyprus problem. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This page is an archive of discussion from Cyprus dispute

History Dispute

Please, people, if you do not agree with this version of the history, you are free to change it - but please try and keep a NPOV (Neutral Point Of View). Always try to distinguish hard facts from opinions and colored views! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snchduer (talk • contribs) 22:26, 15 October 2004 (UTC)

Edits violating NPOV

It seems my previous call for NPOV was not heeded by some anonymous editor... As we do not know who it was, but he seems to have a fixed IP (81.178.249.165) he used for several days, I would like to know if we should do anything else but re-editing the whole stuff (which I have done today, as far as I could - thanks to everybody who also tries to restore NPOV) [User:snchduer|-snchduer] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snchduer (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 April 2005 (UTC)

Unbalanced/Innacurate and pro Greek account

The whole explanation of the violence in the run up to 74 is completely pro Greek. Some examples:

"A bombing incident at the Turkish consulate in Thessaloniki, Greece, in June led to serious rioting in İstanbul and İzmir. It was later learned that the bombing had been carried out by a Turk, and that the riots had been prearranged by the government of Turkey to bring pressure on the Greeks and to show the world that Turks were keenly interested in Cyprus. Greece reacted by withdrawing its representatives from the NATO headquarters in Turkey, and relations between the two NATO partners became quite strained." (where is your source for this?)

Akritas plan: "Turkish Cypriot extremists presented them as proof that the Greek Cypriots were aiming for the extermination of the Turkish population on Cyprus" (It was not just extremists, every Turkish Cyprriot was aware of this)

Well, I guess that he meant the the extremists were using this as a proof. While this can be proven more or less, the fact whether the general public might or might not agree should be an empiric fact, and not an assumption. –snchduer

"In this politically charged atmosphere, violent unrest erupted, leading to the deaths of 350 Turkish Cypriot terrorists and 200 members of the Greek Cypriot security forces between 21 December 1963 to 9 August 1964" You try to portray the whole conflict between Turkish Cypriot terrorists and Greek Cypriot security forces. (You do not mention that the first casualty of this conflict erupted when Greek policemen opened fire on unarmed Turkish Cypriots in their car. Much of the conflict involved the killing of civilians by Greeks)

As seen earlier as well, careful with the use of the word "terrorist"! Terrorists mostly die during police raids or during armed guerilla attacks (or bombings), but not during public unrest –snchduer

"From the conflict to the Turkish Invasion The Turkish Cypriot leadership imposed an embargo on the Turkish Cypriots in the Turkish Cypriot enclaves.... ...The UN, however, managed to make them lift the sanctions. The living conditions in the enclaves were very poor, even though the Turkish government sent food and supplies. The Greek government of George Papandreou secretly sent an army division (about 10000 men) in Cyprus." (Your trying to portray the Turkish Cypriots as persecuting their own people)

"Seizing the opportunity of an island in turmoil, Turkey invaded on July 20, 1974," (You portray Turkey as an opportunist waiting to invade. Violence was occuring for over 10 years before Turkey came)

That is outrageous. Actually, you forgot to mention that Turkey did in fact have the right to invade the island under certain circumstances, and tried to convince one of the other guarantor forces, namely Britain, on its side. When, however, Britain hesitated, Turkey invaded the island, however seizing territory instead of reinstating the 1960 constitution (as was written in the gurantor contract) later on. –snchduer

"Tureky then lauched a second invasion on August 14, and proceeded to annex and brutally ethnically cleanse 37%" (Ethnically cleanse implies Turkey had a motive to eradicate Greek Cypriots, which it did not. Yet, you do not mention the mass graves found with Turkish Cypriots in them)

"Under leadership of the UN and most especially Kofi Annan, the plan was revised several times. It provided for a loose confederation of the two parts that looked nothing like the Swiss model it claimed to be based on, and included many constraints for the Greek Cypriots and serious permanent violations of their democratic and human rights, most significantly a limited right of return to the northern confederate state with no right to vote unless they spoke fluent Turkish" (These are your opinions and clearly not shared by the international community who was in favour of the plan)

As a result, the whole island joined the EU on May 1, 2004 with the EU acquis suspended in the occupied north (The whole island did not join the EU, the south did. You are trying to show Turkey as preventing North Cyprus from joining the EU, when it was the south)

Actually, he is right 'and' wrong. 'De juro', the whole island joined the EU (as the Republic of Cyprus is the only legal representant of the island), but 'de facto', only the southern part did (as the northern part is not under control of the government of the Republic of Cyprus). –snchduer

Aspects of the Cyprus Problem from The Republic of Cyprus Press and Information Office (http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/a_problem_en/a_problem_en?OpenDocument) The Cyprus Problem Homepage (http://www.kypros.org/Cyprus_Problem/) Lobby for Cyprus (http://www.lobbyforcyprus.org/) Action-Cyprus (http://www.greece.org/cyprus/) The Cyprus Conflict: an educational website (http://www.cyprus-conflict.net) Map by Le Monde Diplamatique:Ethnic cleansing in Cyprus (http://mondediplo.com/maps/cyprusmdv49)

(None of your links show the Turkish Cypriot point of view) --E.A 23:18, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you think this is bad? Have you seen Annan Plan for Cyprus? –Hajor 00:04, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article was quite decent-balanced before the anonymous editing done the last few days. See the version at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=12348414 . I wouldn't suggest reverting to that, maybe some of the additional information is useful but at least people should try and integrate their additions to already existing text and stick to the facts (NPOV). Mavros 23:33, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Editing War, NPOV

Ok, people - you did it! I have reverted the article to the last known relatively neutral version, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cyprus_dispute&oldid=12348414

Please refrain from editing the article until you have resolved your personal history dispute. Do NOT carry your differences out by editing the article - this is what the talk page is for! And please, try to put a bit of structure in your discussion so that this talk page does not get 10 miles long.

If I see that the pointless vandalism of this page is going on, I will request locking it totally for editing. This is an encyclopedia, and not a place for heavily biased history reports -- Snchduer 18:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I've no objection to locking the neutral page, seems like his just gone and reverted his version again... --E.A 18:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

how do you do this? -- Snchduer 18:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The page you have reverted to is not considered neutral. It is sourced from Turkish propaganda sites and that is why changes had to be made.

It was in fact translated from the German wikipedia in the first place. I would not call this a TR propaganda site. And I do warn you on editing the page again in order to add Greek Cypriot propaganda. It will have no effect (seeing that it will be put in order again by E.A and myself) except for the page becoming locked and evtl. action being taken against you by the wikipedia board.

It is in fact based on well known Turkish propganda and is not even in correct chronological order. I have not added any Greek Cypriot propaganda at all. My family were victims of Turkish ethnic cleansing in Cyprus and I know what happened beter than the German edition of wikipedia from credible sources. What are the sources for the German edition of wikipedia ?

These are the issues of contention.

1. The Akritas Plan

2. The TMT & EOKA

3. The events of 1964

4. The Annan Plan

5. Invalid references to the TRNC

This explains a lot. I am sorry for your family being victims of the terrible happenings in the past. However, you should understand that on the other side of the Green Line, there are TC families who have made the very same experience (killed by EOKA or intercommunal violence, that is). And you should try to understand that the history you were taught perhaps was a quite one-sided recount of the events, and start broadening your view a bit (I have read the version of history that the Rep. Cy. government is spreading, so i know what I am talking about). Referring to the webpage http://www.cyprus-conflict.net might be a good start - this page is generally viewed as balanced and neutral, and has a very extensive view on the whole situation.

I am not relying on history that I have been thought by the government of Cyprus. I have read books on the subject written by independent authors I have lived through the events of the past 30 years so I know what happened when it happened. My evidence on the subject has also been published by the British House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

My family too was affected, i have family who were shot and killed, family who received threats to leave Paphos. It is the reason i have come to live in Britain - Your views are extremely aggresive to Turkish Cypriots and i have read your argument to the foreign affairs committe in which you call for joint military operations with Britain against Turkey. Its this kind of blind nationalism which created this whole mess in the first place. --E.A 19:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Military action as a last resort as I demanded after a naval and air blockade is what ended the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait after it refused to comply with UN resolutions to leave and there are more UN Security Council resolutions demanding that Turkey end its occupation of Cyprus than there were against Iraq. 30 years of Turkish occupation is enough.

Strange thing to compare the two situations, as the basics of the two are so completely different. First of all, Iraq and Kuwait have never (in modern times) been a mixed community like Cyprus used to be. Also, in Cyprus, violence was mutual. But even though there are many UN resolutions to condemn the continuing presence of Turkish troops, there has never been an attempt (to my knowledge) to call for military action within the UN (even though I can imagine that either Greece or the Republic of Cyprus may have tried). Do not try to compare apples with pears here! - Snchduer 23:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Kuwait had a significant Iraqi population and that was used as an excuse by Saddam to invade. Before Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 there was no violence between members of either community either in that year nor after the coup against Makarios. Turkey did not even present the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots as its excuse to invade Cyprus until 1976. Turkey invaded Cyprus for the same reason as Saddam invaded Kuwait and that was for territorial gain and strategic advantage and the only reason why force was not used to remove Turkey from Cyprus is because Cyprus does not have any oil wells. That is the reason stated by former Labour party cabinet minister Tony Ben for the double standards employed by the US and UK.

Aren't you leaving out the minor detail that there indeed was violence against the TCs in the years before?! (Though I do not personally have any account of 1974 - if sb else could provide me with a source on this, it would be great) Turkey actually stated the Treaty of Guarantee as a reason to dispatch troops, and even asked Britain to join them. Indeed, Cyprus does not have oil wells; also because of this, the strategic advantage is I think a minor one for Turkey (in contrast to the UK). - Snchduer 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I've altered the terminology to make it more acceptable to both sides and removed any unfair bias.

Unacceptable lies

Here are just some of the unacceptable lies in the article E.A wants to reinstated.

"During the intercommunal talks following the invasion, three agreements between the negotiating parties could be achieved. The first one was the agreement on the exchange of population, which allowed 60,000 Turkish Cypriots to settle in the North. On the other side, only a small percentage of Greek Cypriots were allowed to move to the South. They were, however, offered help from the northern administration to continue to live in relative normal conditions, including the right to practice their religion. This population exchange marked the completion of the segregation of the island's population. "

First of all there was no agreement for a popultion exchange. 200,000 Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed and forced to flee from their homes and this has been proven to the European Court of Human Rights. To refer to this crime against humanity as a popultion exchange is propaganda.

There was a de facto population exchange agreement: The TCs in the south were granted the right to move to the north (which they requested to), and the GCs in the north were given the formal right to stay in the north. However, I can imagine that after the violence of the preceding years, life certainly was anything but easy for them, and that they were either forced to move or that they chose to do so because of their bad situation. Your statement however sounds like 200,000 GCs were ethnically cleansed in 1974, something which is not true - simply due to the fact that after August 74, there were only a few thousand GCs left in the north, most of them having fled either the years before or during the Turkish invasion. - Snchduer 23:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

There was no population exchange agreement whatsoever de facto or otherwise. The Greek Cypriots were ethnically cleansed. My grandparents were dragged out of their homes and beaten by the Turkish forces because they refused to leave. Then they were taken to concentration camps imprisoned and interrogated and then handed to the red cross. Read the Reports of the European Commission of Human Rights for a description of the savage brutality inflicted by the Turks on the Greek Cypriots. http://www.hr-action.org/chr/ECHR01.html

Also read the "Sunday Times" article on the judgement in the 23 January 1977 edition.

During the invasion, certainly a lot of people were chased out of their homes by the Turkish forces; yet, many people chose to leave in fear of being mistreated by the Turkish forces, as well. About after a ceasefire had been negotiated, I have the following: "Clerides and Denktash met again after the fighting (in August 1974) was over and by the following year had negotiated an agreement by which Turkish Cypriots, who had been attempting with great difficulty to leave for the north, were allowed to do so. In return the 10,000 or so Greek Cypriots who had stayed in the north were to be allowed to go on doing so and be joined by family members from the south with minority rights safeguarded or to leave if they genuinely wanted to. Oddly, the Turkish Cypriots subsequently termed this an 'Exchange of Populations Agreement'-- a phrase no doubt intended to stir echoes of the Lausanne Treaty (1923) and the permanent nature of its demographic decisions. But no such language was in the 1975 agreement. In fact, though, the Greek Cypriots in the north nearly all left in the next few years. Apart from specific claims of harassment, life, in the circumstances, was no doubt uncomfortable for them. So that there are now only 829 Greeks in the north--mainly in two villages in the Karpas. There are about 130 Turks in the south. " (taken from [1]) - Snchduer 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Secondly the 20,000 Greek Cypriots who stayed behind in the Karpass peninsula were not offered help by the occupation regime. Their human rights were systematically abused so that less than 600 now remain, and once more this was proven to the European Court of Human Rights in 2001. Cyprus v. Turkey (application no. 25781/94)

Hm, maybe you should also mention why in fact the TCs from the south did not want to stay there, and why only a few hundred are left there these days? This would be necessary to reinstate the balance in the article. - Snchduer 23:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Turkey threatened to bomb every village in the free areas unless the Turkish Cypriots were transferred to the occupied areas against their will by the UN and British Base Authorities.

Do you have any credible source for this? This does sound very much like Greek Cypiot propaganda. - Snchduer 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

More unacceptable lies

"If these aims were realized, enosis would become possible. If Turkish Cypriots refused to accept these changes and attempted to block them by force, the plan foresaw their violent subjugation "in a day or two" before foreign powers could intervene. When the documents were leaked, many Turkish Cypriots saw them as proof that the Greek Cypriots were aiming for the extermination of the Turkish population on Cyprus."

Here is the full text of the Akritias plan. There is no mention of "subjugation" whatsoever and nothing in the plan would give any sane person the impression of "extermination" being its objective.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/akritas_plan.htm

This is what the plan actually says "Should clashes occur, they will be dealt with in the initial stages legally by the legally established security forces, in accordance with a plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form." "3. Before the right of unilateral amendments of the constitution is established, decisions and actions which require positive violent acts, such as, for example, the use of force to unify the separate municipalities, must be avoided." "b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible."

Hm, then how would you interpret b) except that the killing or subjugation of TCs was if not wished for then at least accepted as "collateral damage"? afaik the interpretation of the plan by TCs was exactly the one you dismissed above. - Snchduer 23:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsence. The plan specifically states that force should be avoided. Any military strategist knows that decisive action is the best way that civilian casualties could be avoided. The United States use precision bombing is one example of that strategy at work.

Well, we have heard of enough "collateral damage" also by the US precision bombing - I think that civilian casualties cannot be avoided, but they can be minimised. Apart from this, I think you left out some parts of the plan: a) In the event of instinctive violent Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate, we run the risk effacing panic in the Greeks in the towns and thus losing substantial vital areas, while, on the other hand, an immediate show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to sporadic insignificant acts, and b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible. c) In either of the above cases, effective use of force in dealing with the Turks will facilitate to a great extent our subsequent actions for further amendments. It would then be possible for unilateral amendments to be made, without any Turkish reaction, because they will now that their reaction will be weak or seriously harmful for their community (taken from the original document, at cyprus-conflict.net) - Snchduer 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

This sounds a lot like a plan to crush any TC resistance by force. And it was taken up by many people as exactly that when it was published. - Snchduer 14:01, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Its no wonder E.A wants the original text reinstated and locked because its blatant Turkish propaganda against the Greek Cypriots and can be found on every Turkish propaganda site on the internet.

The reinstatement of such blatant Turkish propaganda is unacceptable

It would be really really nice of you NOT to repeat this sentence every so often. I for once do not say anything similar, but rather try to discuss about things. - Snchduer 23:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

E.A does not discuss anything. He still has not said what he does not agree with in my contributions.

Sources added to updated article. --Argyrosargyrou 21:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

A few words on the history dispute

Dear whoever is quarreling here (it would be nice if you signed with your user ids for a change),

please

do not try to make it seem as if one ethnic group was the total victim or the absolute scapegoat for what happened between 1950 and 1974; both had their share

the page you reverted to did just that by misrepresenting the Akritas plan and falsely accusing the Greek Cypriots of violently suppressing the Turkish Cypriots. If you read the plan which is liked to it it says nothing of the kind therefore I have reverted the page back. False representations of the Akritas constitutional reform and anti-terrorism plan are standard Turkish propaganda.

I will not even try to mention all the pieces of GC propaganda you have on your version. We can try to include other points of view in this article - nothing against it. But the article version you seem to favour does not meet by far the NPOV policy of wikipedia.

I have not included any GC propaganda unless you call referring to Turkeys invasion and continuing occupation of Cyprus and its violation of the human rights of members of both communities, as illegal, and references to ECHR judgments propaganda. I have included differing GC and TC points of view and have included the death toll on both sides which was not in the original article.

While the original article only contained references to EOKA violence I balanced this with references to TMT violence and then people started editing this out.

While the original article made no mention of the restrictions and derogations of human and democratic rights the Annan plan imposed on the Greek Cypriot I put in references to show why it was rejected. For example the original article never pointed out that the Greek Cypriot out 90% of the land and property in the north (most of which would never be retuned and no compensation would ever be paid) so a causal reader would assume that the Greek Cypriots reader nothing to lose by voting in favour of the plan.

Well, the way you present the Annan Plan is heavily biased, I am sorry to say that. This might be also due to the fact that it was communicated in a very wrong way by the Papadopoulos to the public - I have also heard about No campaigners being supported by the government, while Yes campaigners were oppressed. You put in there a lot of assumptions and some propaganda, something wich is not acceptable for an encyclopedia article. - Snchduer 14:07, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

try to be realistic: it simply cannot be true that one group of persons attacked another, and the latter were just standing there like sheep, not reacting at all
try to be balanced: if you call the TMT terrorists, you should do the same with EOKA. If you talk about the Greek Cypriots killed, you should also mention the Turkish Cypriots who were killed at the same time.
try to stick to the facts, and this also means: do not leave out the ones that do not suit you!
try to use proper language suiting an NPOV. Read up the wikipedia howto's about this.

Proper language in the case of Cyprus is to refer to the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus as the occupied areas or the occupied north with a SMALL "n" not as North Cyprus with a capital "n" or the "TRNC" which the UN has declared "legally invalid" in resoutions 541(1983) and 550(1984). The Republic of Cyprus must be referred to as the Republic or just Cyprus not South Cyprus since no such political entry exists. Simlary Tassos Papadopoulos is the President of Cyprus and all of its territory and people not the "Greek Cypriot President". Talat and Denktash are recognised only as Turkish Cypriot leaders not "Presidents".

That is politically supercorrect language. TRNC is and will be mentioned where appropriate, but nobody refers to it as a state. This would be legally invalid. Papadopoulos is a GC president, being a GC - however, the term "president of the Republic of Cyprus" would be more fitting. Talat calls himself president, and indeed is elected by universal suffrage as such. However, as the state is not recognised, the same can be said for the elections. So, I would propose to use "President of the internationally not recognised TRNC" instead.

The UN and EU refer to him as the Turkish Cypriot leader.

Well, then TC leader it is. I know you are right on this one. However, "occupied north" is how it is called mostly by the GC authorities. I would prefer using "northern Cyprus" (geographically referring to the part of Cyprus north of the Green Line) and NOT "Northern Cyprus" here.

north with a small "n" and its derivatives is acceptable. No problem.

--snchduer

Hello just a note: EOKA was a heroic organization fighting for liberation from Great Britain (note Great Britain was the initial and major reason of the non develpoment economically of Turkish Cypriots). EOKA B' (unfortunate use of the same name by its leader) was acutally a terrorist organization condemned by president Makarios and with many succesfull attempts to arrest it's members. TMT was as well a terrorist organization with well documented action.

Also some further notes: 1) The US (mainly because of the geo-political role of Turkey) and Turkey were planning a division of the island for a long time. Many "plans" were given long before the Turkish invasion. Sever plans also included the union of Cyprus with Greece giving Turkey a large military base in Cyprus however which were rejected.

2) Britain plays a dirty role in Cyprus. Since it still has two military bases in the island, one being an Echelon listening post and the other a fully fledged air base, it is worried that if a working solution is found the people of Cyprus will soon turn against the bases. Thus promoting non-working solutions to the conflict.

3) It is unfortunate that in the island now remain few Turkish Cypriots and the majority are people brought both in past and today from Turkey illegally (condemned by the U.N. and is considered as a war crime in the U.N. charter) to change the demographics on the island.

4) Turkey is a large nation with powerfull allies, this makes Greek Cypriots very worried.

5) Cyprus is has had now a relatively long stable democratic history with an equal perfect record on legality and upholding of human rights it is a member of the E.U.. On this basis it should not be a problem for two people to live together in peace. Thanks

Unbalanced/Innacurate and pro Turkish account

The original article on this page came from pro-Turkish sources. For instance it originally stated that the Greek Cypriots who remained in the north were not abused by the Turks when is well documented by the European Commission and Court of Human Rights that the Greek Cypriots were systematically ethnically cleansed, raped, and trutured by the Turkish military and that no reciprocal acts were perpetrated against the Turkishs Cypriot by the Greek Cypriots. The references which were add later to the ECHR reports and judgments to correct this inaccuracy were subsequently removed on the grounds that this was a point of view where as these were legal judgments which document de facto genocide.

The original article falsely claimed that the Turkish Cypriots and Greek Cypriots agreed to a population exchange when there was no such agreement and in fact UN resolutions demand that all Greek Cypriots must be allowed to return to their homes in safety and freedom.

Other versions of this article refer to the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus as if they are a separate state whereas UN resolutions called the secessionist entity set up in the occupied areas as being "legally invalid" and declared that no action should be taken to assist this secessionist entity. The decisions of the UN Security Council are not a point of view but legally binding on all of its members.

On top of this earlier versions they refered to the Turkish invasion as an intervention despite legal rulings and UN resolutions that declare it to be an invasion in violation of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN charter. In other areas well known Turkish Cypriot opinions were given as fact concerning the Akritas Plan which if you have read it says nothing about exterminating the Turkish Cypriots at all. The Turkish Cypriot paramilitary attacks on users of the Larnaka to Limasol main highway and attempts by the Cypriot police to reopen it were falsely portrayed as Greek Cypriot provoctions. As well as this the violence that resulted from paramilitary action against the Cypriot police in 1963/4 was again falsely portrayed as a Greek Cypriot provocation when the rule of law dictates that the government authorities are perfectly entitled to take action against terorrists especially when they were subsequently given a UN mandate.

Other historical inaccuracies are illustrated in the omission of the fact that the US backed the military Junta ruling Greece and was complicit in plans to assassinate President Makarios. The coup against Makarios was not to unify Cyprus with Greece but to partition Cyprus in accidence with the Acheson plan.

Further more the view that was given regarding the Annan plan was that of the British and American representatives that were responsible for the final text Hannay and Weston. The plan was falsely presented as being reasonable and providing for reunification whereas the points that made it completely unacceptable to the Greek Cypriots because it grossly violates their basic human rights and creates a framework for the permanent partition of Cyprus through a system of all pervading apartheid while rewarding the Turkish invasion and occupation of Cyprus were left out. For example the fact that all of the 120,000 Turkish colonists who outnumber the Turkish Cypriots by 2:1 were given full citizenship.

This has become a propoganda page

This is reading like a Greek Cypriot political broadcast again. "so called president", "self styled TRNC", "Turkish colonists", "brutally ethnically cleansed" - you make no mention of Greek attrocities on Turks prior to the invasion. Can you honestly tell me Greek Cypriots acted in a lawful way and only fought 'Turkish paramlitaries'? Of course not, they killed Turkish men, women and children and this is mentioned nowhere - This whole article has become POV. --E.A 17:46, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense

Unlike you I am sticking to international norms of terminology and to the proven historical facts. No state except Turkey recognises the legally invalid "TRNC" as a state or its subordinate local administration, to use the phraseology of the UN Security Council and the European Court of Human Rights.

Are you denying that Turkey has violated Article 49 of the Geneva Convention: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies." when it brought Anatolian colonists into occupied Cyprus ? Or are you denying that the northern part of the Republic of Cyprus is even occupied territory which of course is contrary to over 100 Security Council resolutions which say it is.

The Turkish atrocities against the Greek Cypriots have all be proven to the satisfaction of the European Court and Commission of Human Rights and Turkey was found guilty of systematic organised crimes against humanity. If there were alleged Greek Cypriot atrocities against Turkish Cypriots they were not organised by the Cyprus government let alone been proven to a court of law.

The facts as they stand are that about 350 Turkish Cypriots and 200 Greek Cypriots were killed in organised attacks on the Cypriot security forces after violence followed the shooting of a Cypriot policeman on 21 December 1963 who stopped a car for a routine check in which a Turkish Cypriot was killed.

The question is why instead of supporting the Cypriot security forces did the Turkish army contingent attack and seize the Lefkosia to Kyrenia main highway and why did Turkey make matters even worse by parachuting in commandos to support terrorist actions ?

POV

So according to you, the mass graves found in North Cyprus in which Turkish bodies were exhumed warrant no mention in this article? Also according to you, Greek Cypriots committed no atrocities against Turks, despite historical, photographic and eyewitness accounts. You have focused much on post 74 and filled this article with UN resolutions and rulings. Yet you completely deny any Greek Cypriot attrocities on Turks, whether backed by the Cyprus government or not. This is why your article is POV. --E.A 21:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

TURKISH PROPAGANDA

There were no mass graves found in occupied Cyprus with any Turkish bodies in them that have been corroborated by the UN and by DNA testing unless of course you are referring to the fake pictures circulated to the Turkish media which are actually the bodies of Greek Cypriots who were Napalmed by Turkey in 1964. Tell me why these claims don't feature in the Galo Plaza UN report of 1965 ?

The only mass graves I am aware of are those of Greek Cypriots murdered in the Turkish invasion including US citizens. You tell me were the 1600 missing Greek Cypriots who were documented by the Red Cross as being held prisoner in Turkish concentration camps are. You tell me why the Turkish Cypriots refuse to cooperate with the UN in telling them where the bodies are whereas the Greek Cypriots have revealed the location of the bodies of Turkish Cypriot terrorists killed in the 1960's.

Insulting

Frankly, the way your able to dismiss what happened to the Turkish people as 'TURKISH PROPOGANDA' shows the true callousness of your mentality.

What am I dismissing

What am I dismissing ? 350 Turkish Cypriot terrorists were killed in the violence that was sponsored by the Turkish government like the Pogroms of Constantinople which saw the ethnic cleansing of over 200,000 Greeks who's families had lived in the city for over 3000 years, and 200 Greek Cypriots died as well. Those are the figures. Do you want me to include them on the page ?

Now you tell my why 200 Greek Cypriots had to die. Don't you think that was overwhelmingly disproportionate when they outnumbered the Turkish Cypriots by 4 to 1. Isn't disproportionate or asymmetric warfare called terrorism.

And who is being callous. Not me. Turkey refuses to recognise the mass slaughter of over 1.5 million Armenians in the early 20th century as genocide and pays academics to falsify history. That is the Turkish mentality. Over 4 million Greeks indigenous to Asia-Minor were exterminated at the same time and you talk to me about the deaths of 350 terrorists when the Turks raped over 1000 women when they invaded Cyprus, and killed over 6000 people and systematically tortured thousands more in their homes and villages and held them in concentration camps from which 1600 are still missing along with ethnically cleansing 200,000 Greek Cypriots who they have never allowed to return despite over 100 UN resolutions against Turkey (more than against Saddam Hussein) and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Don't you see a pattern ?

You tell me who the victims and the aggressors are. The people of Cyprus are the victims and Turkey is the aggressor.

Areas of contention

1. The Akritas Plan.

Turkish Cypriot contributors are seeking to distort this plan out of all proportion. The text of the plan is linked to in the article and anyone can read it. The Turkish Cypriot claims that it was constructed to bring about their destruction is completely ridiculous and not supported by the text of the plan itself which specifically states that it is nothing of the kind.

2. The TMT

Turkish Cypriot contributors are editing out references to the TMT and its acts of violence which were orchestrated by Turkey in a similar manner to the Pogroms against the Greek community of Constantinople in 1955.

3. The events of 1963/4

An unbiased description of the events that took place must first and foremost put emphasis on legality. It is clear from historical records that the violence erupted because the TMT started attacking the Cypriot security forces and then Greek Cypriot irregulars joined in, in retaliation. In today's world this is known as terrorism (not POV) and the Cypriot security forces which were given a mandate by the UN to stop the violence had every legal right to take action against the perpatrators. It is also clear that Turkeys actions against the Republic of Cyprus were in contravention of Article 2 Paragraph 4 of the UN charter and this is stated in numerous UN resolutions. Emphasis on legality and the legitimate actions of the security forces must prevail. If any actions were not legitimate, eg. terrorist actions, then these should be emphasised as well.

3. The Annan plan

Several people have attempted to sanitize this plan into something it is not on the grounds of being even handed. These people are not legal experts and know nothing about the plan. I suggest they try reading it before commenting on it.

The Anann plan was overwhelmingly rejected by the Cypriot people because it was completely one sided and full of human rights violations specifically directed at the Greek Cypriots. This is not a personal opinion but a legal opinion that has beed judged by the unanimous verdict of the European Court of Human Rights including its Turkish representative.

Again I will add that an unbiased description of the events that took place must first and foremost put emphasis on legality. The Annan plan violated the resolutions of the United Nations, the EU Acquis and every human rights norm in existence. Those are the facts.

4. Attempts to justify the existence of the legally invalid so-called "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus".

In accordence with UN Security Council resolutions which declare the self styled "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" ("TRNC") "legally invalid", the administration in the occupied part of Cyprus was termed by the European Court of Human Rights as a "subordinate local administration" of the occupying power, Turkey. References to this illegal entity as "Northern Cyprus" or the "TRNC" directly violate UN resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984) as does the support of direct trade with this illegal entity.

Again legality must prevail if this article is to have any credibility.

I hope this helps future editors.

In reply

1. Akritas Plan - It is not for you to judge whether it is ridicolous, we are here to show both sides of the conflict. The Akritas plan beared many similarities to real events, the creation of unrest, the annulment of the constitution and attempt of enois via a coup. Therefore we must include this whether you personally consider it ridicolous or not (as many Turkish Cypriots do not)

The Akritas plan accurately predicted exactly what the TMT terrorists would do, provoke clashes and try to blame them on the Greek Cypriots, and that's why it sought legal means to counter their actions. There is no mention of any coup whatsoever and no mention of destroying the Turkish Cypritos. Why did you remove my references to the Cyprus authorities doing everything legally and avoiding the use of force. It obvious you removed them in order to distort the facts and make the Greek Cypriots into villains. You are playing at politics.

2. The TMT - Show you sources for this, if you do not have any, then you have no credibility. EOKA was a terrorist group who carried out terrorist activities, and they DID kill civilians, which you are reluctant to admit. I actually have a source for this, i have read the Biography of Lt. Col Mitchell of the Argylls who served in Cyprus during the EOKA campaign. I quote "in 1956...81 Britons - civillians and servicemen - had been murdered that year, but no less than one 113 Greek Cypriots had been killed , mostly by their fellow-countrymen on suspicion of helping the Security Forces, or of giving only grudging help to EOKA" "Having Been A Soldier" page 96, Mayflower.

The TMT was a terrorist organisation and all sources state that. You originally claimed that 81 Britons and 113 Greek Cypriots were killed by EOKA. Now you reveal the actual quote which makes no mention of EOKA killing 113 Greek Cypriots. I put it to that you made the reference to EOKA up. They could have been killed by the British or by Turkish Cypriots. I accepted the number of Britsh dead and placed it in my ammendements. Why did you remove it. Why did you remove my references to the TMT's acts of terror.

Why does everything you write follow the pattern of the well known Turkish propaganda. Blame EOKA, blame the Akritas Plan, blame Grivas, blame Makarios, blame the Greek Cypriots, blame the Greeks, make out the Turks and Turkish Cypriots are saints etc.

3. The events of 1964 - Again unless you use a source, simply saying "it is clear from historical records" has no credibility. Show me these sources.

Read the UN resoultions, Read the Galo Plaza report and Christopher Hitchens "Hostage to History: Cyprus from the Ottomans to Kissinger", and Christopher Hitchens "The Trial of Henry Kissinger. Watch the ITN documentary `Cyprus, Britain’s Grim Legacy’. Read Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig's "The Cyprus Conspiracy: American Espionage and the Turkish Invasion. "

4. Annan Plan - Simply dismissing the Annan plan is a one sided view. The way you present your argument is extremely POV. I am not against implementing the statement by the Court of Human Rights, as i actually did. I am against you dismissing the whole plan as a violation of Greek Human Rights. You rely on the UN resolutions through the whole article, yet when the UN provides a plan that is backed internationally, you disregard it as a violation of Human right. Then i say this to you, you have yourself discredited all the UN resolutions you have placed in this article!

WRONG. The UN Security Council refused to endorse the Anann Plan because it violated UN resolutions and international law. China, Russia and France all vetoed Kofi Annans report on the plan for the same reasons. Loukis Loukaides the Cypriot judge on the European Court of Human Rights has stated that Anann plans basic philosophy violates fundamental human rights and the EU acquis. That is the international consensus. The only backers of the plan are the people that drafted it, the British, the Americans and the Turks.

5. TRNC - This is not a court of law, this is an encylopedia. Therefore once you state that the TRNC is self declared (as i did) there is no need to re-iterate it 100 times through the article. Also North Cyprus is a geographical expression, not a political one.

"North Cyprus" is not a geographical expression but "noth Cyprus" with a lower case "n" is. There are 4 Cypriot district under Turkish occupation and these are Kyrenia, Famagousta, Lefkosia and Larnaka. They have never been historically referred to as north Cyprus. There is no such legal entity as the "TRNC". The territory which is occupied by over 40,000 Turkish troops is part of the Republic of Cyprus therefore the correct way to refer to this territory is the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus or occupied Cyprus.

Ridicolous

First you claim the mass graves in the North, which i have personally visited, as propoganda, now you accuse me of making up references. It seems you will not acknowledge any proof of wrongdoing to Turks, it is pointless arguing with you.

You accuse ME of playing poltiics? You were the one who quoted Makarios of saying "there would be no Turkish paramilatries to save"! when it was "there would be no Turkish Cypriots to save".

You will not even refer to 'Constantinople' as Istanbul. A typical trait of a Greek nationalist. This whole article is a testament to Greek nationalism. --E.A 20:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't quote Makarios saying anything. What you claim he said is not correct anyway.

You made a claim about 113 Greek Cypriots killed by EOKA that you cannot substantiate and the evidence you provide does not even mention EOKA supporters or alleged supporters except as the victims.

You mention visiting alleged mass graves but since when have you been a forensics expert able to identify if the victims are Greek or Turkish Cypriots and when they were killed and in what circumstances and since when has their validity been proven anyway. I stated the total confirmed death toll on both sides from Turkish sources so why did you go and erase it ? Would it be because it was 200 Greek and 350 Turkish Cypriots and not 3500 Turkish Cypriots which is the false impression you were trying to infer. Would it be that you are denying that 200 Greek Cypriots were killed by the TMT ?

To you anyone one who doesn't accept the Turkish propaganda as fact is a Greek nationalist.

There was no conspiracy to destroy the Turkish Cypriots. That idiotic claim did not even emerge until after Turkey invaded Cyprus in 1974 and was found guilty of war crimes by the European Court of Human Rights in 1976.

One only has to look at the lines you removed form the text which I did not even write to see where you are coming from. For example "Overall, the constitution was a very complex legal document, and from the very beginning, its practical functionality was disputed." Why did you remove that line. It's pretty obvious. You wanted to conceal the justification for the Greek Cypriots wanting to reform the constitution. You wanted to falsely portray the constitution as a blessing from heaven so why should anyone want to change it. Then you remove another sentence I did not wirte. "The plan, published in fact by a Greek Cypriot newspaper, naturally called the attention of many Turkish Cypriots, and was used by the TMT to underline their point of view." Again you wanted to conceal that it was a Greek Cypriot paper that published the Akritas plan. Why did it publish it. Because the plan was harmless. You also wanted to conceal the fact that the TMT completely misrepresented them out of all proportion. You then rewrote the next paragraph in order to portray the Greek Cypriots as villains for daring to ask for their rights as a majority to be respected and completely misrepresented the plan following the TMT line. Then you rewrote my description of the massive human rights violations of the Annan plan by omitting them in order to poortary the plan as yet another gift from god so why should the Greek Cypriots want to reject such a divine arrangement. Then after that you went on to falsely accuse the Greek Cypriots of blocking $250 million of aid to the Turkish Cypriots when they have done no such thing and you know that perfectly well.

Everything that you added and removed was calculated to make the Greek Cypriots look like villains and the Turks and Turkish Cypriots look like angels.

Read the article

Firstly, I did not remove the death toll, i moved it to the bottom of the paragraph, go check. Secondly, why did you fail to mention the 20,000 Greek soliders sent to Cyprus until i included it?

The Greek garrison was metioned later on in the paragraph on 19g7

Becacause you knew it was illegal. Thirdly, Greek Cyprus IS blocking

The Greek garrison was invited to Cyprus by the legal government of the Republic of Cyprus in accordance with a UN mandate so was perfectly legal. What was illegal was Turkey smuggling in arms to the TMT and the presence of 10,000 trained TMT paramilitaries on the island.

the aid for North Cyprus, the idea that it is Britain is absurd,

No it is not. Cyprus voted for the aid to go to the TC's and Britiain used it veto to block it.

show your source for this.

Cyprus Press and Information Office 13:05:2005 "President Papadopoulos noted: “We talked about our demand for the release of the funds, worth 259 million euro, without any terms or conditions attached to the specific regulation and we intend to make a formal proposal on this. "

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument

Read this article from eubusiness.com : "European Commission proposals have been stonewalled by the Greek Cypriots, who fear they may be interpreted as de facto recognition of the TRNC" (http://www.eubusiness.com/afp/050413015531.4lz5671f/view).

Absolute nonsence. The British are the ones blocking the aid to the TC's. Cyprus is only blocking the Brisith demand for Direct Trade because it is is illegal.

As for the removal of the Akritas plan sentence, this was removed as you tried to insinuate the plan was harmless enough to be published when infact it was leaked. The plan clearly says "THE LOSS OF ANY DOCUMENT ON THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO TREASON AGAINST THE NATION" that is how serious it was.

The plan was totally harmless and anyone can read it and see, and all official government defence and security documents contain similar secrecy declaimers.

Finally: "Overall, the constitution was a very complex legal document, and from the very beginning, its practical functionality was disputed." This was removed as it was unncessary, it laid foundation for your argument that the plan was anti-greek.

Nonsense. The reason why the Akritas plan was devised was a result of the reasons given in that sentence and your removal of it was to make out that the divisive British imposed constitution was a blessing from heaven so why should the Greek Cyprus want to amend it.

I already state the compromises made by both sides.

The only side making compromises were the Greek Cypriot majority who the constitution treated as second class citizens. The Turkish Cypriots were give privelage upon privilege like being treated as 30% when the made up only 18% of the population and given a blanket right of veto. I'd like to see the day when Turkey gives its 25% Kurdish minority 50% of the positions in government and the civil serve and a blanket right of veto as well as the guaranteed position of vice president.

I have given up on this article. I cannot sit and revert and edit all day, its a crying shame that as Wikipedia becomes more popular, people like you who have the patience to fill it with nationalist tripe might actually gain credibility.

You are lying

http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/index_en/index_en?OpenDocument This source does not mention Britain ONCE!

This is from the Financial Times website (http://news.ft.com/cms/s/8a6a8d00-1f15-11d9-9015-00000e2511c8.html):

"Greek Cypriots block EU plan to help Turkish community By George Parker in Brussels and Vincent Boland in Ankara Published: October 16 2004 03:00 | Last updated: October 16 2004 03:00

A European Union bid to end the economic isolation of Turkish northern Cyprus has been scuppered, after the Greek Cypriot government won a protracted battle with its EU partners.

The Greek Cypriot authorities in Nicosia blocked a move by the European Commission to allow their Turkish counterparts to trade freely with the outside world.

The initiative has now been effectively shelved, after Britain, Germany and Sweden finally accepted they could not get the Greek Cypriots to move. The Greek Cypriot "No" has infuriated the Commission, which wanted to bring the Turkish community into the economic mainstream.

But it revealed the power wielded by the internationally recognised Greek Cypriot government, which joined the EU on May 1, and now effectively holds a veto over moves to help the 200,000 people of the north.

The issue was settled this month after six separate meetings between EU ambassadors in Brussels, which saw Britain leading the fight on behalf of the Turkish Cypriots.

Under the deal agreed in Brussels, to be endorsed by EU foreign ministers on November 22, the Commission will shelve its plan to allow northern Cyprus to trade directly with the outside world.

Although a new timetable for progress will be agreed, Nicosia can ultimately deploy a veto, because it says the trade package would bestow international recognition on the north, occupied by Turkish troops since 1974.

The shelving of the trade deal meant Greek Cypriots were able to endorse a separate Commission plan to pump €259m ($321m, £179m) of aid into northern Cyprus to modernise the impoverished enclave.

The money was made available by the EU as a reward to the Turkish Cypriots, who voted Yes to a United Nations plan to reunite the island in a referendum on April 24. The plan was rejected by Greek Cypriots, now full members of the European Union, by a margin of 3 to 1 leaving the Turkish occupied north in the international wilderness.

The Nicosia authorities have also insisted on conditions on where money can be spent in the north, so that EU aid can only go to territory not owned by Greeks before 1974. That means that only 15-20 per cent of the Turkish enclave can receive EU money, leaving the European Commission with a headache in how to distribute the cash. "It's going to be difficult," said one official. "But the Greek Cypriots have us over a barrel - they are in the EU now, and there is nothing we can do."

The Commission will now aim to fund projects not tied to land, such as training schemes and agricultural machinery grants.

Britain and the other supporters of the Turkish community backed off partly to avoid antagonising the Nicosia government.

The Greek Cypriots, like the other 24 EU members, have a veto when the union decides whether to start accession talks with Turkey at a summit on December 17. Nicosia has already made it clear that its support should not be taken for granted. Additional reporting by John O'Doherty"

--E.A 22:17, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You must be Joking

Do you seriously think that the Cyprus government is going to allow the illegal occupation regime and the illegal Turkish colonists to exploit and profit from the land and property of the 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees who are prevented form returning. You must be joking. Do you seriously think that it will allow the Turkish occupation regime to benefit from the ports in the occupied areas where the Cyprus authorities are denied access to by the presence of 40,000 illegal Turkish troops in violation of UN resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984). You must be joking. GET REAL !

Britain is blocking $250 million of aid going to the Turkish Cypriots by isiting it is linked to illegal direct trade and everyone knows it.

We're not here to discuss the rights and wrongs, just the facts. Can you show me your source for the ECHR decision that "even the adoption of the plan would not have afforded immediate redress" of the Greek Cypriots property rights. I cannot seem to find it anywhere --E.A 22:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int////tkp197/viewhbkm.asp?action=open&table=285953B33D3AF94893DC49EF6600CEBD49&key=46883&sessionId=1970154&skin=hudoc-en&attachment=true

After having read the dispute, there are important sentences to note, namely:

"Therefore, it would be anomalous for the Court to take any account of, let alone involve itself in, the political background to the Annan Plan"

"The Court cannot adjudicate on the Annan Plan which is null and void and without legal effect. Nor can it adjudicate on the reasons for its failure"

and more importantly

"the Court notes that the Annan Plan would have been a significant development and break-through in inter-communal negotiations had it come into force"

The way you have you include the sentence "even the adoption of the plan would not have afforded immediate redress" of the Greek Cypriots property rights would to the uninitiated seem like a ruling on the Annan plan, which clearly the ECHR cannot do, as it looks purely at law, not political backgrounds. The sentence must be reworded. --E.A 12:17, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

In full context the court said it cannot adjudicate on refugees property rights on the basis of the conditions set by the Annan plan because those conditions are not valid because the plan was rejected and is null and void. That was sufficient enough to dismiss Turkish demands that property rights be adjudicated on the basis of the plan.

The Annan plan asked the court to throw out all pending cases pertaining to refugees property rights and to prevent new ones from being filed. The court ruled that had the plan been adopted the "plan would not have afforded immediate redress" therefore there was no basis to throw out all pending cases pertaining to refugees property rights and to prevent new ones from being filed, because had the Annan plan been adopted it would have violated the European Convention of Human Rights by not providing an immediate remedy. Thus another Turkish demand was rejected.

The courts ruling is crystal clear. The provisions of the Annan plan did not provide justice to the Greek Cypriot refugees and were illegal.

Cyprus government: ECHR decision answers legal issues on Cyprus issue

by Apostolis Zoupaniotis

United Nations, May 7.(CNA) Cyprus Permanent Representative to the United Nations Andreas Mavroyiannis, in a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on the European Court of Human Rights decision to declare admissible a case against Turkey, relating to Greek Cypriot property claims in Turkish occupied Cyprus, stresses that it provides answers to major legal questions inextricably linked with the substance of the Cyprus problem.

Mavroyiannis was referring to the unanimous decision of the ECHR of the 6th April, concerning preliminary objections Turkey had raised in the case of Greek Cypriot refugee Myra Xenides-Aresti.

To E.A. If you continue to publish downright lies and material that is insulting to Cypriots or violates UN resolutions or encourages people to violate the laws of the Republic Cyprus including Turkish propaganda aimed at perpetuating its crimes against humanity and the violation of the property rights of the Greek Cypriot refugees I will remove it. The Republic of Cyprus has not blocked EU efforts to end the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots which is caused by the illegal Turkish occupation of Cyprus.

The personal and wildly inaccurate political opinions of Financial Times journalists have no place in this article. The Republic of Cyprus did not block EU efforts to allow the Turkish Cypriots to trade with the outside world. The Green Line Regulation which has been approved by the EU allows them to do this legally through the recognised ports of the Republic. The reopening of the ports in the occupied areas of the Republic of Cyprus while it remains under illegal Turkish occupation violates EU laws and UN resolutions and has no support from the vast majority of the members of the European Union or its legal department.

Ok, so let me understand this: The mass graves in the North are propoganda, my references are made up, the Financial Times journalists are wildly innacurate and EU resolutions calling for an end to an isolation are irrelevant to this article.....

You are the archetypal (and believe me i have come across many) Greek Cypriot, anti-Turk nationalist. --E.A 22:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no credible evidence for the so called mass graves you allege. The Turks never made any such claims in 1963 or 64 and only started doing this after they invaded and ethnically cleansed Cyprus in 1974 and were found guilty of systematic war crimes by the ECHR in 1976.

The political opinion of the Financial Times (which is contrary to UN resolutions and international law) has no place in this article and the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as you very well know is caused by the Turkish occupation of Cyprus which is also preventing over 200,000 Greek Cypriot refugees from returning to their homes despise over 130,000 US Security Council resolutions and the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the resolutions of the EU demanding this end unconditionally. These resolutions and judgments are all still valid and cannot be revoked. The only way the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots will end is when the Turkish occupation of Cyprus ends as the resolutions and judgment demand.

If you want to justify the existence of the subordinate local administration of the Turkish military in occupied Cyprus in violation of UN resolutions and the European Convetion of Human Rights go and do it somewhere else.

When the Turkish Cypriots voted in favour of the Annan plan they didn't vote for the unification of Cyprus but voted to deprive the Greek Cypriots of their land and property without paying them a penny in compensation and to deprive them of all of their basic and fundamental human and democratic rights and to partition Cyprus forever under a system of all pervading apartheid as a protectorate of Turkey.

The Turkish Cypriots have proven their insincerity by continuing to illegally exploit the properties of the Greek Cypriot refugees at rate greater than ever before so as to prevent them from ever returning so why should they be rewarded. Turkey never intended to remove even one soldier from Cyprus soil as can clearly be seen by its transfer of even more weapons and reinforcements to the island.

There is no such thing as the "The European Union Parliamentary Assembly Resolution no. 1376 (2004)". The European Union titles its resolutions after the date they are approved. Resolution no. 1376 (2004)" is a Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly Resolution and is therefore not binding on the EU or the United Nations. The fact that you misslabbled the resolution shows that you have obtained this information from a Turkish propaganda site. Turkish propaganda is not permissible in this article nor are points of view especially when they contradict UN resolutions and ECHR judgments and call for the violation of human rights norms.

I actually got the document from where you seem to be getting a lot of your sources: http://www.moi.gov.cy/moi/pio/pio.nsf/0/6E40029A1F23151AC2256E86003C6DEF/$file/pace%20resolution.doc?OpenElement

Listen, while you continue to fill this page with hostile and aggresive anti-Turkish material, i will carry on to make a balanced argument. This is not a legal document, you have to take into account political, social and historical reasoning in your explanations, simply repeating ECHR, UN rulings and human rights violations is not the way encyclopedia articles are written. Take that to one of the many Greek sites on the internet where it belongs.