From: varnavas@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (varnavas constantine)
Subject: Re: Some netters (was: Re: MIRacles No. 13)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:33:33 GMT

cla04@seq1.keele.ac.uk (A.T. Fear) writes in reply to my questions:

>From article <Bw0rz8.BwD@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, by varnavas@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (varnavas constantine):
>> Mr. Fear:
>> 
>> Can you explain how the Turkish invasion of Cyprus was justified?
>> On what principle of international law can one country invade another one
>> and occupy 37% of its territory?  And why do the U.N and all other
>> international organizations disagree with you on that?
>> 
>> Anxiously waiting for your response

>This isn't very difficult. Turkey's actions were precipitated by a
>fascist coup which was abetted by the Greek junta of the day. It is
>clear what would have happened next - annexation of Cyprus to Greece no
>doubt accompanied by a massive pogrom against the Turkish population in
>Cyprus. Turkish action stopped this and I believed saved innumerable
>lives and a great deal of suffering by doing so. As to the views of the
>United Nations these are not an index of the justice of any action and
>are simply dictated by the interests of the most influential members of
>that organisation as they perceive them at some point in time - a look
>at the contradictory string of resolutions on the Middle East is enough
>to prove that. Turkish action stopped the establishment of a fascist
>regime in Cyprus and indirectly put an end to one in Greece, perhaps
>Greeks ought to feel grateful about this.

>Andy

Mr. Fear:

You response can only demonstrate your unique way of analysis of political
situations.  I would stop short of calling you biased and prejudiced only
because I don't believe in labeling people.

It is true that "Turkey's actions were precipitated by a fascist coup".  Does
that give the right to Turkey to unilaterally invade Cyprus and occupy 37%
of her territory more than 18 years after constitutional order has been
re-established.  Turkey (along with your homeland) is a guarantor of the
INTEGRITY and SOVEREIGNTY of Cyprus.  Go back and read the Treaty of Guarantees
that Brittain handed to us in 1960 telling us "take it or leave it".  And
once we are at it, why did Britain not fulfill her obligations as a guarantor
in 1974?  I can send you a copy of the pertinent articles of the Treaty of
Guarantees if you want me to.

You say that Turkey "saved innumerable lives and a great deal of suffering by
doing so" I refer you to the report of the 'European Commission of Human Rights
on Turkey's Invasion in Cyprus and Aftermath'.  Do you call the death of 10,000
people, the uprooting of 200,000 more, the rapes and the vandalisms, the
1,617 people missing "saving of suffering"?  To put it in pespective, do you
call uprooting 20 million British people "saving of suffering"?  And we should
be greatful to Turkey for that?

You also say that "the views of the United Nations these are not an index of
the justice of any action".  Then what is it?  However imperfect the U.N are,
at least they are the only universal yardstick with which we can measure
injustice.  It is so easy for you to dismiss the U.N. resolutions when they
don't agree with the argument.  I simply do not understand why.

It seems that I am not going to convince you with whatever arguments I make
here.  Hell, you don't even take U.N. resolutions seriously - what
effect would my arguments have?  Hence, this is the end of the discussion as
far as I am concerned.  I would be happy though to send you the Articles of
the Treaty of Guarantees and the European Commission Report if you ask me to.
-- 
Constantinos Varnavas
University of Illinois
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek