British Bases/1974

Crash Test Dummy · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:36 pm Post subject: British Bases/1974

Was one of the agreements of the British having bases on the island that they would protect the island from invasion?

If so why did they let Turkey walk staright in? And why when they saw the Turkish Warships on radar did they not war anybody?

Kifeas · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:50 pm Post subject: Re: British Bases/1974

AQMessiah · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:12 pm Post subject:

I was told that they(by they I mean the Brits) were to pay an annual "rent fee" for occupying the space they do yet have paid nothing. Would anyone know if this is correct and WHY nothing has been collected?

cannedmoose · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:15 pm Post subject:

Dummy, nothing in the 1960 treaties legally established a link between the SBAs and the defence of the island of Cyprus. As guarantor, Britain was required to intervene in the event of external invasion or internal strife to restore order and return to the 1960 arrangements, in this the SBAs were obviously key facilities allowing Britain to do this. In this respect, in 1974, she fell down on her obligations.

Addressing the 'let Turkey walk in' section of your question, the answer is less clear-cut, at least if you take a rational view of the situation rather than emotive. Turkey argued that the intervention in July was carried out under the auspices of her rights to guarantee the 1960 constitution, either unilaterally, or in concert with the other guarantors. Turkey requested to the UK that her intervention be allowed to land via the SBAs, but the UK would not permit this to take place, therefore the assault took place on the north coast.

Both the British and the Americans located the Turkish fleet on their radar well before it arrived off the coast of Cyprus. This message was conducted to the Greek authorities in Athens, who decided to send a flotilla of their own, but backed down on this plan once they realised the magnitude of the task facing their forces, in other words, it would have been a suicide mission. As for the Cypriot authorities, no messages were sent to them regarding the fleet because in effect, no-one was in command in Cyprus, unless you consider Nicos Sampson to have been a recognised president of the Republic of Cyprus. Junta forces and pro-Makarios forces were too busy fighting each other to plan for the landing of Turkish forces...

Moving on, I would say that Britain abjectly failed in her role as guarantor when it became clear that the Turkish position was not to facilitate the return to the 1960 constitutional arrangements, but to establish a separate Turkish Cypriot state. She also failed when she should have intervened when the anti-Makarios putsch took place, British forces should have moved immediately to suppress the uprising and restore Makarios to power, pending discussions between all interested parties. Britain also failed when she did not act to prevent the second phase of the Turkish operation which was a simple land-grab.

cannedmoose · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:18 pm Post subject:

Crash Test Dummy · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:24 pm Post subject:

In the constitution Cyprus was returned in this sort of shape. http://artpad.art.com/?ivluiu1i1abo

As moose said they still own the land they use, its just utilitis. For this you can thank Mr Makarios

cannedmoose · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:26 pm Post subject:

This is useful for more info on the bases...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia

Crash Test Dummy · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:27 pm Post subject:

Thanks moose

depurple · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:29 pm Post subject:

The British will not pay anything because:
1: the Republic of Cyprus owes money to Britain for all the Infrastructure they spent in Cyprus: Power Station, Roads, Ports, Dams ect ect ect........:
2: There was an agreement with the Republic of Cyprus about the bases when Britain gave Independence to Cyprus: All this rent is a waste of time:Britain will not pay anything BECAUSE Republic of Cyprus owe Britain:
Just like Australia still owes Britain: BUT with Australia Britain get oil, gas and minerals for free:
CDT As for the Bases protecting Cyprus IF Turkey would of taken Nicosia the British would of used those bases to grind Turkey up: BUT unfortunately Turkey was too smart to be fooled: Like it has done with Pumka, Mastakis and The Cartoons:
Jews are smart business men and Turkey a great Politician thanks to Ataturk:He was one of the greatest politicians and ideologist of the world:

Crash Test Dummy · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:30 pm Post subject:

You mistake power and good politics

Kifeas · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:33 pm Post subject:

depurple · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:41 pm Post subject:

Kifeas they belong to Britain and will always remain British UNTIL Britain decides that is has no use for them:
I told you I read that Britain gets paid by the Israelis because they use parts of the facilities as well:
1:Britain will always have the bases firstly for the money the Republic of Cyprus owes them:
2: To keep an eye out on the Suez Canal:
3: Because it still wants to be part of Cyprus as a guarantor:
And the best thing the Cypriots can do is work in the bases and get paid OR Hope the British turn them over to the EU or NATO:
BUT NOW after 9/11 theses bases are worth GOLD to Britain, The USA and Israel:

cannedmoose · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:49 pm Post subject:

It appears that some members wish to cherry-pick which sections of the 1960 constitution remain in force... If that is the case, then perhaps other members might wish to claim that the 1960 constitutional arrangements are wholly invalid and therefore the present government of the Republic of Cyprus does not represent the same entity created in 1960... interesting...

Given that the Republic of Cyprus's own government site links to the 1960 constitution, and the Republic of Cyprus's entire claim to be government of the whole island harks back to the constitutional arrangements of that time, it's interesting that some members might wish to question the validity and legality of some articles of the Constitution (of which the Treaty of Establishment was one component).

It's also interesting that some members wish to contradict the written agreement of both Makarios and Kucuk to this section...

depurple · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:55 pm Post subject:

CM I already told you this without reading the Constitution:
Britain owns the Bases like I own the land in Lapithos: Full Stop:

cannedmoose · Posted: Sat Mar 04, 2006 4:57 pm Post subject: