“Addressing the EU Affairs”: The Admission of Turkey

05.22.15

“Addressing the EU Affairs”: The Admission of Turkey

05.22.15
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan/FacebookRecep Tayyip Erdoğan/Facebook

The European Union has been able to sustain itself for decades because of its long term commitment to peace and international stability. The willingness of member nations to come together on a single platform and cooperate for the greater good has strengthened the organization extensively. The EU has been extremely cautious, more or less, when it comes to adding new members as it does not want to risk losing cooperation and balance, which it has worked hard to maintain. Turkey’s application for membership to the EU poses a great concern for the EU as it exposes questions on its current membership policies, questions to which none of the member nations will respond. The EU has been quite clear about its membership policies, however, when it comes to the admission of Turkey, the path becomes murkier.

Turkey had acquired an Associate Membership in the EU since the Association Agreement which came into effect on 1st December 1964. Formally, Turkey applied for EU membership on 14th April 1987. During the time of the application, Turkey was undergoing a political and economical transitional phase, which included issues between Turkey and Cyprus. During the summit of Helsinki European Council in 1999 problems between Turkey and Cyprus were overlooked and Turkey was found fit as a candidate due to its improved conditions with other member nations.

The fate of Turkey’s admission was brought up again in the Copenhagen European Council in 2002. Member nations, although not a majority, found Turkey to be stable enough to take the discussion forward. On October 3, 2005, EU leaders decided to reopen the topic of Turkey’s admission. However, the talks were again hindered due to Turkey’s internal political tensions and continued tensions with Cyprus. The talks were haulted on December 2006.

Today, Turkey is struggling to overcome the hurdles that are preventing its ability to satisfy the EU of its stability. According to a source, the chapters that are a part of the negotiations have been filled, but still out of thirty-five chapters many still remain unfilled. As a matter of fact, out of the thirty-five chapters, six chapters were blocked by Cyprus. This action shows the disintergrating relationship between Turkey and Cyprus and contributes to a bigger picture as to why the EU and its member states struggle to fully proceed with the negotiations and for Turkey to become a full member of the European Union.

International Involvement

There are member nations in the EU who strongly oppose Turkey’s admission to the EU. Involvement of the UN amid tensions between Cyprus and EU highlights this. In the past, several disputes have occurred between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. Additionally, actions taken by the EU and the UN are in northern Cyprus. Due to its complicated nature, the conflict has been “frozen.”

Thus, in spite of being tackled globally, no concrete agreement has been reached. Within Turkey censorship and the use of violence such as torture of the Kurdish minority has worsened an already deteriorating situation. Many nations have questioned the admission of Turkey as “unethical” due to repeated human rights violations. Issues such as this have sparked heated arguments between the leaders of Turkey and the EU. Turkey is a part of EU; however in its connection to the organization, it has failed to abide by the Ankara agreement. This recently has escalated into a large problem and has led to the EU questioning the decision of allowing Turkey to become part of the Union.

Possible Solution

The primary reason why few nations have expressed negative opinions with respect to Turkey’s stand is due to “small independent lobbies” within the EU. If one nation opposes it, many nations will follow suit. “The Ankara agreement was broken,” hence this issue has brought stress on EU leaders. Experts propose that talks should be held to propose a solution; compromises are a must, hence both sides should compromise in order to reach a mutual solution. But in diplomacy no one is ready to compromise. Due to the lack of compliance, many sanctions have been placed on Turkey. This has complicated the issue even more. This step could have been used as an incentive to convince Turkey to set aside certain controversial policies in order to achieve economic growth and expansion.

7 comments
5 comments
alexyflemming
alexyflemming

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).

alexyflemming
alexyflemming

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.

alexyflemming
alexyflemming

EUROPEAN GREEKS OCCUPIED AND INVADED ASIAN CYPRUS ISLAND!

Greeks are not the first race in Cyprus island. There were ASIANS (Egyptians, Persians etc.) in the island before Greeks:

The history of human civilization in Cyprus island goes back to 9000 BC.

Hellenistic (Greek) Period in Cyprus island started only at 325 BC. 

Throughout nearly 9000 years, there were no Helen (Greek) in Cyprus island. 


PERIOD ............................. DURATION

Late Paleolithic Period            9000—7000 BC

Neolithic Period                   7000—3800 BC

Chalcolithic Period                3900—2500 BC

Early Bronze Age                   2500—1900 BC

Middle Bronze Age                  1900—1650 BC

Late Bronze Age                    1650—1050 BC

Geometric Period                   1050—750 BC

Archaic Period                      750—475 BC

Classical Period                    475—325 BC

.............................................................................

START OF HELENISTIC (GREEK) PERIOD:

Hellenistic Period (GREEK)          325—50 BC

.............................................................................

Roman Period                         50 BC—395 AD

Byzantine Period (GREEK)              395—1185

Frankish Rule                        1191—1489

Venetian Rule                        1489—1571

Ottoman Rule (TURK)                  1571—1878

British Colonial Rule (ENGLISH)      1878—1960

Rep. of Cyprus (GREEK, TURK) w RoL   1960—1963

Rep. of Cyprus (GREEK) w/out RoL     1963—...

Cyprus War (btw. GREEK and TURK)     1974

Northern Cyprus (TURK)               1983—...

alexyflemming
alexyflemming

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.

alexyflemming
alexyflemming

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.

  • Reuters
    Reuters

    Obama’s ISIS Strategy Needs to Change

  • Raqqa Media Center
    Raqqa Media Center

    Erasing the Past: ISIS, Palmyra and Doomed History

  • Jonathan Snyder/USAF
    Jonathan Snyder/USAF

    U.S. Bombers to Australia: Washington’s Deployments in the Pacific

  • Reuters
    Reuters

    Curious Turnaround: The British Election 2015

  • New York Times
    New York Times

    Lies, Lies, and The Death of Bin Laden

  • Reuters
    Reuters

    Yemen Re-Draws Middle East Alliances

  • Associated Press
    Associated Press

    Violence in Kumanovo: Macedonia and the Virtues of Corruption

  • Reuters
    Reuters

    The Case for Castro: Why the Embargo Needs to End in 2015

    05.08.15
  • Alexis Tsipras/Facebook
    Alexis Tsipras/Facebook

    Greece’s Tussle with Turkey, Key to Athens’ Economic Comeback?

    05.07.15