DXCC rules prohibit recognition of states that are in rebellion.
Those rules have denied DXCC accreditation to operations in
Karen State (Burma/Myanmar), by rebels in Cambodia (XU1SS),
rebels in Chechnya and many others over the years. TRNC is such
a "rebel" area - in this case one with a local government established
by action of the military of a foreign state in opposition to the
internationally recognized government of Cyprus. TRNC is, in effect
occupied territory. If TRNC had any legitimacy, ITU would issue a
callsign block as they have for other entities (Palestine, Vatican,
etc.).
Instead, TRNC receives as much status and legitimacy as a would
be given to "Little Havana" in Miami if the Castro regime in Cuba
were to declare it "independent of the United States."
As to some of the other "entities" questioned:
S0 Western Sahara is on the UN list of Self-Governing
Territories
1A SMOM is a "legacy" entity that was on the DXCC list
prior to the last rules update. Much like The Spratleys,
Scarborough Reef, Mt. Athos, etc. it would probably not be
eligible for "entity" status under the current rules
BV Taiwan, VR Hong Kong and XX Macau are all "legacy" entities
from the pre-2000 DXCC list. Hong Kong and Macau are both
on the US Department of State list of dependencies. Taiwan
is recognized on the Department of State "Independent States
in the World" list. Hong Kong and Macau both qualify under
current rules and it is debatable whether the "Independent
States of the World" list should be added to the DXCC rules
as another option for qualification.
Any entity that is created on the soil of and declared "independent"
from an internationally recognized government by the action of an
outside power as in the case of TRNC has no legitimacy in the
international community. For the Turkish government to promote
an "independent" TRNC while suppressing the legitimate desires of
the Kurds for self-determination is a crime against humanity.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> soyer ecesoy
> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2008 8:27 PM
> To: dx-chat@njdxa.org
> Subject: [DX-CHAT] Very well justify quote
>
>
> QUOTE
> FROM EI3IO,G3SDL
>
> I'd like to discuss a few additional issues in respect of some of the
> information already provided. Firstly the DXCC list itself is a
> political list; just look at the principal requirements for DXCC
> status; UN recognition, ITU call-sign series or inclusion in (a) the
> U.S. Department of State's list of "Dependencies and Areas of Special
> Sovereignty" as having a local "Administrative Center," or (b) the
> United Nations list of "Non-Self-Governing Territories. Now what
> constitutes inclusion on the State Department's List, as TRNC would
> seem to qualify? - the politics and foreign policy of a powerful,
> important and sovereign nation.
>
> Now lets look at this "illegal" call-sign prefix 1B. The ITU Radio
> Regulations (Article 19 and Appendix 42) do not provide for any
> call-sign which starts with the figure 0 or 1 or where a single letter
> followed by a figure forms the national identifier; in this case the
> second character is never 0 or 1. There is therefore a clear problem
> for 1B BUT now lets consider some call-signs which we know and love,
> which are also a problem but no one raises even a whisper of concern
> about them. 1A - a DXCC entity listed as an unofficial call-sign in
> the DXCC list - note in this case the word 'illegal' or 'unauthorised'
> call-sign is not used. Then there is S0 another disputed territory but
> not as disputed as TRNC; again it is not using a call-sign series
> conforming to the Radio Regulations of the ITU. S0 is also listed as
> an unofficial call-sign in the DXCC list. So are some of us not being
> just a little hypocritical when complaining about the use of 1B by
> TRNC as an illegal call-sign?
>
> In terms of problems of recognition TRNC has similar problems to
> Kosovo, Palestine, Taiwan and Western Sahara. In amateur circles we've
> already seen stirrings of discontent with the disputed (by some)
> independence of Kosovo in recent times. However in the case of TRNC,
> no one can dispute that the United Nations Security Council issued two
> resolutions (541 and 550) proclaiming that the Turkish Cypriot
> declaration of independence was illegal and requested that no other
> sovereign state should recognise the legality of the declaration and
> asked for its withdrawal.
>
> So once we get into the world of politics and human relations things
> get blurred. Let us accept there are always international political
> problems in the World, whether its the politicisation of Antartica,
> who owns the Falklands/Malvinas, whether Macedonia should have a new
> name or whether the British Isles should be called the Western
> European Isles.
>
> I for one wish the 1B licensees well - I understand that they are
> operating under difficult conditions but they are operating in
> accordance with the regulations of the State in which they live. I do
> not think that any person living in any of the disputed territories
> around the World should be denied the fun and enjoyment of operating
> an amateur radio station. I also understand the deep rooted problems
> between the two Cypriot communities but these need to be solved in an
> appropriate way through negotiation, NOT by invoking emotive
> statements in amateur radio news groups and email lists.
>
> Best 73s to all
> Dave EI3IO, G3SDL
>
>
> Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
> http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
>
> To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
>
> This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
> http://njdxa.org
>
Subscribe/unsubscribe, feedback, FAQ, problems
http://njdxa.org/dx-chat
To post a message, DX related items only, dx-chat@njdxa.org
This is the DX-CHAT reflector sponsored by the NJDXA
http://njdxa.org
