Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 7&cat_id=1

[erolz]

and another article here - not as 'controversial' as the above one perhaps but still pretty critical of TP.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.ph ... 8&cat_id=1

I have to say that the fact that the Cyprus Mail can publish such an article as the first one gives me hope for our future. I do not think they could have published it say 5 years ago.

[Saint Jimmy]

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=19447&cat_id=1

I don't see what is controversial about the article; it's pretty straight-forward and I would imagine that not many people would disagree with the author's characterizations of both the plan and those who devised it.

My only objection is that the author makes no mention of the possibility that the 1960 agreements were, in fact, signed under duress and excessive pressure. In my opinion, even if this were true, it still wouldn't justify the provisions of the Akritas Plan, but one would need to address the issue by offering a counter-argument to what was the ultimate choice of the GC leadership. In short, Mr. Charalambous would do well, in my opinion, to address the aforementioned possibility, but also state how he feels the issue should have been tackled, instead of what he condemns.

How else, for example, could the then leadership undo the wrongs that were done unto the GC community, if not by force (IF, in fact, the 1960 agreements were forced unto us)? If Mr. Charalambous has no alternative, then I fail to see how he or anyone can condemn a group of people who tried to fight the injustice (IF, I repeat, injustice was, in fact, made).

[erolz]

I don't see what is controversial about the article; it's pretty straight-forward and I would imagine that not many people would disagree with the author's characterizations of both the plan and those who devised it.

Try asking Piratis if he thinks the article is controversial or not Or any of the other GC here that have dismissed the Akritas plan as 'just a document' (and even fictional document I think from memory?) of no real significance or importance.

[michalis5354]

Equating R.Denktash with MTalat is quite extreme approach indeed! My own perception is that MATalat follows a rational approach on things which this was not the case with RDenktash who had followed an absolute and dogmatic approach on many aspects of the problem!

I do not know a lot about him anyway so I will not comment any further but that is my brief comment on this.

[insan]

How else, for example, could the then leadership undo the wrongs that were done unto the GC community, if not by force (IF, in fact, the 1960 agreements were forced unto us)? If Mr. Charalambous has no alternative, then I fail to see how he or anyone can condemn a group of people who tried to fight the injustice (IF, I repeat, injustice was, in fact, made).

Jimmy let's assume GC leadership wasn't forced to sign the 60s agreements and the concerned parties negotiated the 60s proposals until it had satisfied GC side. What would have been the result? A GC state with a TC minority or two politically equal communities?

[pantelis]

The Hen was granted an ass, and she shit all over us.........

[Bananiot]

Well, the aim of the EOKA struggle was to bring about enosis of Cyprus with Greece. It was never for independence. Thus, the London-Zurich agreements were a defeat, so to speak, for the struggle. At the time, the struggle had almost come to complete standstill and during the Lancaster House meetings, it was made clear to Makarios that the Brits even knew where Grivas hideout was and if the talks failed the army would move in and seize him. Karamanlis (senior) was instrumental in pursuading Makarios that there was no other way out but to sign the agreements. So he did and on his return to Cyprus he uttered the infamous "nenikikamen" meaning "we have won". Of course, like other EOKA members he had taken an oath to struggle till the last drop of his blood for enosis. Even when he later tended to forget this he was reminded by the die hard enosists. Makarios and Denktas never gave the yound Republic a chance. Both tried to use it as a stepping stone to achieve something else. Enosis for Makarios and Taksim for Denktas.

[Saint Jimmy]

Jimmy let's assume GC leadership wasn't forced to sign the 60s agreements and the concerned parties negotiated the 60s proposals until it had satisfied GC side. What would have been the result? A GC state with a TC minority or two politically equal communities?

Perhaps. But what is the implication? That the only way to come to agreement was to force the 1960 Consitution unto the GC leadership?

Seeing as how the excuse GCs found in the 60s to raise Constitutional issues was the excessive rights the TC community got in 1960, perhaps some provisions of the agreements could have not been as generous with TCs - for instance, the percentages of TCs in the Army and Police Force were not representative of the true numerical balance of the two communities. Also, the Vice President's veto rights were an issue.
If we assume that abolition of the veto rights would infringe on the 'political equality' issue and therefore constituted a 'red line' for TCs, perhaps the percentage issue could be a remedy to the problem GCs faced (that is, seeing the 1960 Agreements as unfair to them). Maybe bringing the representation percentages closer to the actual census percentages could have helped (obviously, maybe not...).

[erolz]

Seeing as how the excuse GCs found in the 60s to raise Constitutional issues was the excessive rights the TC community got in 1960, perhaps some provisions of the agreements could have not been as generous with TCs - for instance, the percentages of TCs in the Army and Police Force were not representative of the true numerical balance of the two communities. Also, the Vice President's veto rights were an issue.
If we assume that abolition of the veto rights would infringe on the 'political equality' issue and therefore constituted a 'red line' for TCs, perhaps the percentage issue could be a remedy to the problem GCs faced (that is, seeing the 1960 Agreements as unfair to them). Maybe bringing the representation percentages closer to the actual census percentages could have helped (obviously, maybe not...).

My personal view is St J that at that time any solutiuon that did not grant ENOSIS would have been considered a 'forced' solution by GC andd they would have treated it the same as they did the actual 60 agreements - because of the years of 'planting' the enosis idea in GC minds by Greek nationalist and the Greek church.