Subject: Re: UN sets deadline for Cyprus deal
Date: Nov 12, 2002 @ 15:50
Author: L. A. Nadybal ("L. A. Nadybal" <lnadybal@...>)
Prev    Post in Topic    Next [All Posts]
Prev    Post in Time    Next


Would a unified Cyprus, where the northern half unites and would drag
the economic averages of the country down to the point where Cyprus
probably wouldn't qualify as a member, be able to join anytime soon?

I think the cleverest thing the English could have done was to put
into the treaty the word "sovereign" when describing the status of the
bases. There must have been reasons for making sure they were
anchored as areas over which Cyprus had no claim, and I think at least
one of them lies in the UK's desire to not have the embarrassment
beset them that were later to see the loss of Hong Kong.

Leased sovereignty is very tenuous, as we now see in the case of the
Czech Republic's leased exclave in the German harbor at Hamburg, and
as we may yet see in the case of Guantanamo. Even the case of Panama
and the US Canal Zone, which wasn't leased, was an exercize in "shared
sovereignty". The concept just doesn't work over the long haul. I
think the British saw that and went one sep beyond in the Cyprus
treaty, and now need only give up the bases voluntarily.

Regards

Len Nadybal
Washington DC




--- In BoundaryPoint@y..., "anton_zeilinger" <anton_zeilinger@h...> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,838155,00.html
>
> Nothing about the British sovereign bases. Do you think they will
> remain should there ever be a unified Cyprus?