by zan » Sat Aug 04, 2007 12:59 am
Cyprus: Two Nations in One Island
BOW EDUCATIONAL BRIEFING No.5
PART II:
Greece Invades Cyprus
In 1967 there were further serious episodes of violence against Turkish-Cypriots, and in 1971 the EOKA leader General George Grivas returned to Cyprus and established the EOKA-B organisation committed, as was EOKA of the 1950s, to ENOSIS. According to a letter dated 2nd July 1974 from Makarios to the Greek Government, the Greek-Cypriot National Guard was from the outset the main supplier of men and materials to EOKA-B. Turkey did not respond to this violence except by way of sporadic air attacks.
However, events moved inevitably into a critical phase, and on 15th July 1974 a large force of Greek-Cypriot and Greek troops deposed Archbishop Makarios and the Greek-Cypriot administration, and killed many Greek-Cypriots in the process. One of the EOKA-B leaders, Nicos Sampson, was installed as President and EOKA-B began systematically to murder the Turkish-Cypriot people of the island, who fled as far as they could to the North. EOKA demonstrated the same brutality as they had employed against British soldiers and their families from 1955-1960. The intention was completely to Hellenise Cyprus and to declare ENOSIS.
Makarios himself fled, and eventually reached the United Nations where, on 19th July 1974 he declared in the Security Council (S.C.O.R. 1780th mtg.) that the coup was an invasion in violation of the independence of the Republic and that it was the work of Greek officers directed by the Military Government in Athens. The coup took place not because Makarios had abandoned ENOSIS but because he was no friend of the Greek military Government, and was not proceeding towards ENOSIS fast enough for their liking.
Turkey's Response, and the Treaty of Guarantee
Five days after the overthrow of Makarios, and one day after his speech to the UN, the Turkish Government (at that time a Social Democrat Government), acted against the Greek invasion, and landed troops in the North of the island. The Greeks and Greek-Cypriots argue that the Turkish military action and subsequent presence is illegal. The Turks and Turkish-Cypriots say it is legal.
By Article 1 on the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee the Republic of Cyprus had agreed:
(a) to ensure the maintenance of its independence, territorial integrity and security, (b) to ensure the maintenance of respect for its Constitution, and (c) not to participate in any political or economic union with any State. Further, the Republic declared prohibited any activity likely to promote, directly or indirectly, either union with any other State or partition of the Island.
By Article II it was agreed that the Guarantor powers would:
(a) recognise and guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic, (b) recognise and guarantee the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, and (c) prohibit, so far as concerned them, any activity aimed at promoting, directly or indirectly, either union of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the island.
Finally, by Article IV it was agreed that in the event of a breach of the provisions of the Treaty the Guarantor powers: (a) would consult together with respect to representations or measures necessary to ensure observance of those provisions, and (b) reserved the right, insofar as common or concerted action might not prove possible, to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty.
As at 20th July 1974 the "Republic of Cyprus" had quite clearly failed to maintain its independence, territorial integrity, or security, and had failed to maintain respect for its Constitution, as required by Article I of the Treaty. In particular it had failed to maintain respect for the Human Rights of its people recognised by and embodied in the Constitution. Further, Greece was itself in gross and obvious breach of Article II of the Treaty and accordingly, as required by Article IV, the United Kingdom and Turkey consulted together in London on 17th and 18th July. Greece was invited, but declined to attend.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus formed the view (HC 331 1975/76 para. 22), that during these consultations Turkey had proposed joint Anglo-Turkish action under the Treaty of Guarantee, and this was confirmed by Prime Minister Ecevit on 14th August 1974 (Daily Telegraph 15th August). However the Labour Government in Britain refused to take any effective action, even though they had troops and aircraft in the Sovereign Bases in Cyprus. They argued that Britain was under no duty to take military action, but Article II provided that Britain would guarantee the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic, which it manifestly failed to do. The Select Committee concluded that "Britain had a legal right to intervene, she had a moral obligation to intervene. She did not intervene for reasons which the Government refuses to give."
The responsibility therefore fell upon Turkey, as the only Guarantor willing to act, and on 20th July Turkish forces landed in Cyprus. The legal authority for their action rests not only upon the breaches of the Treaty identified here, but also upon the breaches committed before 1974 by the Republic of Cyprus at the instance of the Greek-Cypriots, and which have already been mentioned.
Violence Continues
After the Turkish landings it was argued by the Greek-Cypriots that even if the first landing was legal the extension of the area under Turkish control from 22nd July to 16th August 1974 was illegal since there was no longer and subsisting breach of the Treaty. However, the facts do not support this view, because large scale murders of Turkish-Cypriot families continued to take place, particularly in the villages of Aloa (Times, Guardian, 21st August), Zyyi, Sandallaris, Mari, Maratha, and Tokhni, and again despite the presence in Cyprus of UN troops. In Tokhni on 14th August 1974 all the Turkish-Cypriot men between the ages of 13 and 74, except for eighteen who managed to escape, were taken away and shot.
In Zyyi on the same day all the Turkish-Cypriot men aged between 19 and 28 were taken away by Greek-Cypriots and were never seen again. On the same day Greek-Cypriots opened fire in the Turkish-Cypriot neighbourhood of Paphos killing men, women and children indiscriminately. On 23rd July 1974 the Washington Post reported "In a Greek raid on a small Turkish village near Limassol 36 people out of a population of 200 were killed. The Greeks said that they had been given orders to kill the inhabitants of the Turkish villages before the Turkish forces arrived." (See also Times, Guardian, 23rd July).
On 24th July 1974 France Soir reported "The Greeks burned down Turkish mosques and set fire to Turkish homes in the villages around Famagusta. Defenseless Turkish villagers who have no weapons live in an atmosphere of terror and they evacuate their homes and go and live in tents in the forests. The Greeks' actions are a shame to humanity." On 28th July the New York Times reported that 14 Turkish-Cypriot men had been shot in Alaminos.
The "Republic had once again failed to maintain respect for the constitution.
On 22nd July Ecevit called upon the UN to "stop the genocide of Turkish-Cypriots" and declared "Turkey has accepted a cease-fire, but will not allow Turkish-Cypriots to be massacred." (Times 23rd July). On 29th July he was reported by the Daily Telegraph as follows: "Security on paper will not satisfy us. Every Turk in every corner of the island must feel at home. This we regard as an inalienable human right. So called security measures which have left Turkish-Cypriots in fear of attack and massacre are no good." The German newspaper Die Zeit wrote on 30th August 1974 "the massacre of Turks in Paphos and Famagusta is the proof of how justified the Turks were to undertake their second intervention".
In any event military action never really ceased between 20th July and 16th August. The Greeks and Greek-Cypriots continued to lay mines and construct strongpoints around the Turkish positions, and the Turks continued to reinforce their troops and to send out patrols.
In that position Turkish forces were not secure, and could certainly not protect the siege in Famagusta. On 8th August the Guardian reported that they had been under sustained mortar attack for 20 days, and on 17th August the Daily Telegraph reported that in the first three days of the siege an estimated 2,000 mortar bombs had fallen on them. Accordingly the Turkish army moved our of its bridgehead and advanced upon Famagusta with the object of rescuing the Turkish-Cypriot population of Famagusta and of securing a viable defensive position. The siege of Famagusta was lifted on 16th August.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus reported in 1976 "The second phase of military operations was inevitable in the view of your committee as the position reached by the Turkish forces at the time of the first cease-fire was untenable militarily and they needed tanks and armour to consolidate their position and secure Famagusta."
Since that military action, and following the residual exchange of population by agreement in 1975 between Archbishop Makarios and Rauf Denktas, who had by then become the Turkish-Cypriot leader, Greek-Cypriots have lived in peace in the Southern part of the island and Turkish Cypriots have lived in peace in the Northern part.
Very many innocent people of both communities were killed and went missing in the turmoil of 1974, and in the heat of battle there must have been excesses by individuals on both sides, but the responsibility for this must rest firmly upon the Greeks and the Greek-Cypriots for creating the conditions in which Turkey had no choice but to intervene by force. There is in any event a big difference between excesses or mistakes committed in war, and systematic massacres committed in cold blood.
The population exchanges themselves have also caused hardship to both Greek and Turkish-Cypriots, but people have over the past twelve years adjusted to their new circumstances. It nevertheless remains essential for people on both sides to be properly compensated as part of any overall settlement.
It is further argued that even if the 1974 landings were lawful the Treaty permitted Turkey to intervene with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by the Treaty, and that the continuing presence of Turkish forces is not to re-establish the 1960 state of affairs but with intent to annex Cyprus wholly or in part Turkey or to create two separate States. Again the facts do not support the argument, because if such had been Turkey's intention they would never have supported the framework for a new constitution for the whole island proposed by the UN Secretary-General in 1984, and again in 1986, and which excluded both annexation and two separate states.
Having regard to the events of 1960 and 1974 no serious section of Cypriot opinion, whether Greek or Turk, regards re-establishment of the 1960 Constitution itself as practical, and indeed on 12th February 1977 Makarios and Denktas agreed that thenceforth they were seeking a bi-communal federal Republic. This was reaffirmed by Kyprianou, successor to Makarios, in 1979, and was even the view of the British Foreign Secretary, who answered "yes" to the following question from the House of Commons Select Committee on Cyprus (HC. 331 1975/76, page 55 para, 141):
"Would the Foreign Secretary agree that we could hardly restore the 1960 Constitution, since at least two of the provisions which were enshrined in the Constitution, the separate municipalities and the Turkish (Cypriot) share of the police and civil service, were never in fact implemented?"
Although it is impossible to re-establish the 1960 Constitution itself it continues however to be practical to re-establish the 1960 state of affairs in substance, namely respect for the human rights of all Cypriots and respect for the existence of both communities as political entities, and in the meantime for the most basic right of all, namely the right to live in peace, to be guaranteed. It would be absurd to argue that by making it impossible the re-establish the 1960 state of affairs in its entirety, Greeks and Greek-Cypriots could deprive Turkey of its right to guarantee the survival of the Turkish-Cypriot community.
.
