Cyprus-Forum.com

[BirKibrisli]

May I post a lenghty quote from Diana Weston Markides' book entitled "Cyprus 1957-1963 From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis", published by the University of Minnesota (pp 167-8).

"Although military intervention to partition the island was threatened regularly in the following years, Turkish policy, which once more concentrated on political leverage over the status of Cyprus, was directed by the principles that had dictated inistence on municipal partition since 1958. The extended Turkish municipalities and other predominantly Turkish areas, such as the town and environs of Lefka, which as a result of the intercommunal fighting had become defended enclaves, were now the basis on which Turkey would in the following decade seek to establish a federal system in the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership, however, felt abandoned. The fact that Turkey failed to intervene, while at the same time insisting that the Turkish Cypriots remained isolated from the Greek Cypriot majority, had to some extent sacrificed the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots to the interests of the motherland. By keeping them as far as possible geographically and politically isolated from the Greek Cypriots, Ankara could, as long as the problem remained pending, rest assured that there would be no change in the status of the island. Furthermore, they could continue to argue for a federal solution and thus maintain a political foothold without disturbing Greek-Turkish relations. However, the policy inevitably entailed the Turkish Cypriots' isolation from the economic boom enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots between 1964 and 1974, and condemned them to a ghetto existence largely dependent on Turkish government subsidies. The Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy by subjecting the Turkish Cypriots to undue harassment. Heavy-handed treatment by the Greek Cypriot police, constant humiliating searches, and the confiscation of Turkish buses that had to run the gauntlet of Greek Cypriot roadblocks between their villages and the town centers, had destabilized the way of life of many Turkish Cypriots, who consequently gravitated towards the enclaves. The Turkish government made little effort to bring about a change in this situation. After the hostilities of 1963-64, Turkish Cypriot security was a factor in the need for geographical separatism, but a continuing factor rather than the chief motivating force."

The Turkish Republic has pursued a long-term policy ever since the 1950's to partition Cyprus and gain the maximum amount of control over the island. It has used the Turkish Cypriots as a pawn to this end. To a large extent, Turkey has bided its time, waited for the Greek Cypriots to make a mistake, then exploited this mistake to the full. I really wonder if some of those who claim that it is the TCs themselves who desire partition have ever once in their whole lives talked to a Turkish Cypriot. I do not believe that this claim is true. I believe that most Turkish Cypriots feel their identity to be under threat and long for a just solution.

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Thank you for posting this,Tim....My sentiments exactly...

[Jerry]

May I post a lenghty quote from Diana Weston Markides' book entitled "Cyprus 1957-1963 From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis", published by the University of Minnesota (pp 167-8).

"Although military intervention to partition the island was threatened regularly in the following years, Turkish policy, which once more concentrated on political leverage over the status of Cyprus, was directed by the principles that had dictated inistence on municipal partition since 1958. The extended Turkish municipalities and other predominantly Turkish areas, such as the town and environs of Lefka, which as a result of the intercommunal fighting had become defended enclaves, were now the basis on which Turkey would in the following decade seek to establish a federal system in the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership, however, felt abandoned. The fact that Turkey failed to intervene, while at the same time insisting that the Turkish Cypriots remained isolated from the Greek Cypriot majority, had to some extent sacrificed the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots to the interests of the motherland. By keeping them as far as possible geographically and politically isolated from the Greek Cypriots, Ankara could, as long as the problem remained pending, rest assured that there would be no change in the status of the island. Furthermore, they could continue to argue for a federal solution and thus maintain a political foothold without disturbing Greek-Turkish relations. However, the policy inevitably entailed the Turkish Cypriots' isolation from the economic boom enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots between 1964 and 1974, and condemned them to a ghetto existence largely dependent on Turkish government subsidies. The Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy by subjecting the Turkish Cypriots to undue harassment. Heavy-handed treatment by the Greek Cypriot police, constant humiliating searches, and the confiscation of Turkish buses that had to run the gauntlet of Greek Cypriot roadblocks between their villages and the town centers, had destabilized the way of life of many Turkish Cypriots, who consequently gravitated towards the enclaves. The Turkish government made little effort to bring about a change in this situation. After the hostilities of 1963-64, Turkish Cypriot security was a factor in the need for geographical separatism, but a continuing factor rather than the chief motivating force."

The Turkish Republic has pursued a long-term policy ever since the 1950's to partition Cyprus and gain the maximum amount of control over the island. It has used the Turkish Cypriots as a pawn to this end. To a large extent, Turkey has bided its time, waited for the Greek Cypriots to make a mistake, then exploited this mistake to the full. I really wonder if some of those who claim that it is the TCs themselves who desire partition have ever once in their whole lives talked to a Turkish Cypriot. I do not believe that this claim is true. I believe that most Turkish Cypriots feel their identity to be under threat and long for a just solution.

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Thank you for posting this,Tim....My sentiments exactly...

Yes except for the last paragraph. The TCs have not been driven into a small area, they have taken and exploited a large area at the expense of GCs. If the talks fail as, regretably, I think they will what is the alternative?

[Tim Drayton]

May I post a lenghty quote from Diana Weston Markides' book entitled "Cyprus 1957-1963 From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis", published by the University of Minnesota (pp 167-8).

"Although military intervention to partition the island was threatened regularly in the following years, Turkish policy, which once more concentrated on political leverage over the status of Cyprus, was directed by the principles that had dictated inistence on municipal partition since 1958. The extended Turkish municipalities and other predominantly Turkish areas, such as the town and environs of Lefka, which as a result of the intercommunal fighting had become defended enclaves, were now the basis on which Turkey would in the following decade seek to establish a federal system in the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership, however, felt abandoned. The fact that Turkey failed to intervene, while at the same time insisting that the Turkish Cypriots remained isolated from the Greek Cypriot majority, had to some extent sacrificed the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots to the interests of the motherland. By keeping them as far as possible geographically and politically isolated from the Greek Cypriots, Ankara could, as long as the problem remained pending, rest assured that there would be no change in the status of the island. Furthermore, they could continue to argue for a federal solution and thus maintain a political foothold without disturbing Greek-Turkish relations. However, the policy inevitably entailed the Turkish Cypriots' isolation from the economic boom enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots between 1964 and 1974, and condemned them to a ghetto existence largely dependent on Turkish government subsidies. The Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy by subjecting the Turkish Cypriots to undue harassment. Heavy-handed treatment by the Greek Cypriot police, constant humiliating searches, and the confiscation of Turkish buses that had to run the gauntlet of Greek Cypriot roadblocks between their villages and the town centers, had destabilized the way of life of many Turkish Cypriots, who consequently gravitated towards the enclaves. The Turkish government made little effort to bring about a change in this situation. After the hostilities of 1963-64, Turkish Cypriot security was a factor in the need for geographical separatism, but a continuing factor rather than the chief motivating force."

The Turkish Republic has pursued a long-term policy ever since the 1950's to partition Cyprus and gain the maximum amount of control over the island. It has used the Turkish Cypriots as a pawn to this end. To a large extent, Turkey has bided its time, waited for the Greek Cypriots to make a mistake, then exploited this mistake to the full. I really wonder if some of those who claim that it is the TCs themselves who desire partition have ever once in their whole lives talked to a Turkish Cypriot. I do not believe that this claim is true. I believe that most Turkish Cypriots feel their identity to be under threat and long for a just solution.

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Thank you for posting this,Tim....My sentiments exactly...

Yes except for the last paragraph. The TCs have not been driven into a small area, they have taken and exploited a large area at the expense of GCs. If the talks fail as, regretably, I think they will what is the alternative?

You have missed my point. I was summarising the thrust of the idea being expressed in this thread.

[Jerry]

It would be interesting to know what you think all these unacceptable demands that Talat is going to make are. So far as I am aware, all he has asked for to date is a bizonal, bicommunal federation, which I think every GC leader has said he wanted too, except for Makarios.

When the UN 'filled in the blanks' after the negotiations, the UN, the EU and most of the world community considered the resulting Plan fair and acceptable. So far as I know, neither Christofias or Papadopoulos have ever said in detail what they found unacceptable.

I hear lots of references to 'a virgin birth', but when it comes to details, the virgin birth of the new Cyprus remains as mysterious as the virgin birth of Christ.

They will want to keep troops on the island. They will want most of the settlers to stay. They will want a disproportionate share of the island and power. They will not allow most GCs to return home. They will not compensate GCs for what they did in 1974, shall I go on?

Talat may do the talking but he takes his orders fron Ankara.

I don't care what the world community thought of the Annan plan, they would not like the plan applied to themselves in their own countries.

Virgin birth; my views were posted on this thread previous page, Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:14 am

No need to go on. A complete failure to acknowledge the year is 2008 and that there is 50+ years of hostility as background.

Read that through my eyes as "I want everything that I tried to grab by force in 1963, by economic means between 1963 and 1974, and by force again in 1974, and I want to be compensated for failing."

And the Zurich argeement completely failed to acknowledge the hostility of the previous 5 years but it still forced the marriage because that is what outsiders wanted.

Read that through my eyes "I want the democracy that was denied me in 1960, you suffered because you abandoned the government between 1963 and 1974, I want compensation for what you did in 1974."

[Jerry]

May I post a lenghty quote from Diana Weston Markides' book entitled "Cyprus 1957-1963 From Colonial Conflict to Constitutional Crisis", published by the University of Minnesota (pp 167-8).

"Although military intervention to partition the island was threatened regularly in the following years, Turkish policy, which once more concentrated on political leverage over the status of Cyprus, was directed by the principles that had dictated inistence on municipal partition since 1958. The extended Turkish municipalities and other predominantly Turkish areas, such as the town and environs of Lefka, which as a result of the intercommunal fighting had become defended enclaves, were now the basis on which Turkey would in the following decade seek to establish a federal system in the Republic of Cyprus. The Turkish Cypriot leadership, however, felt abandoned. The fact that Turkey failed to intervene, while at the same time insisting that the Turkish Cypriots remained isolated from the Greek Cypriot majority, had to some extent sacrificed the welfare of the Turkish Cypriots to the interests of the motherland. By keeping them as far as possible geographically and politically isolated from the Greek Cypriots, Ankara could, as long as the problem remained pending, rest assured that there would be no change in the status of the island. Furthermore, they could continue to argue for a federal solution and thus maintain a political foothold without disturbing Greek-Turkish relations. However, the policy inevitably entailed the Turkish Cypriots' isolation from the economic boom enjoyed by the Greek Cypriots between 1964 and 1974, and condemned them to a ghetto existence largely dependent on Turkish government subsidies. The Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy by subjecting the Turkish Cypriots to undue harassment. Heavy-handed treatment by the Greek Cypriot police, constant humiliating searches, and the confiscation of Turkish buses that had to run the gauntlet of Greek Cypriot roadblocks between their villages and the town centers, had destabilized the way of life of many Turkish Cypriots, who consequently gravitated towards the enclaves. The Turkish government made little effort to bring about a change in this situation. After the hostilities of 1963-64, Turkish Cypriot security was a factor in the need for geographical separatism, but a continuing factor rather than the chief motivating force."

The Turkish Republic has pursued a long-term policy ever since the 1950's to partition Cyprus and gain the maximum amount of control over the island. It has used the Turkish Cypriots as a pawn to this end. To a large extent, Turkey has bided its time, waited for the Greek Cypriots to make a mistake, then exploited this mistake to the full. I really wonder if some of those who claim that it is the TCs themselves who desire partition have ever once in their whole lives talked to a Turkish Cypriot. I do not believe that this claim is true. I believe that most Turkish Cypriots feel their identity to be under threat and long for a just solution.

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Thank you for posting this,Tim....My sentiments exactly...

Yes except for the last paragraph. The TCs have not been driven into a small area, they have taken and exploited a large area at the expense of GCs. If the talks fail as, regretably, I think they will what is the alternative?

You have missed my point. I was summarising the thrust of the idea being expressed in this thread.

Don't wish to appear pedantic Tim but I was disagreeing with this key part of the last paragraph "If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them"

[Kifeas]

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Tim, because I am the one that talked about a wall etc, let me comment on this! You didn't seem to understand what I was talking about! What I meant was simple! Because the kind of re-unification solution that the TCs seem to be going after, is one based on the maxim "ours is ours, and yours is ours too," or in other words "they want their cake, and eat it too," I suggested that we GCs are not interested in such a kind of deal, and we are ready to give them their separate partitioned territory, as it was their leadership's and their motherland's perennial dream, provided this will be based on a fair allocation of territory, and not the twice as big chunk they have illegally grabbed in 1974 with an act of aggression! In such a case, it will be their own separate country, and we are not interested in what they will do with it, i.e. if they will become more attached to Turkey than they currently are, or if they will try to run it independably! It will be their business what they will do!

I said we will build a wall in-between, because since 2004 all they are doing is to import illegal immigrants from the Middle East and let them pass through the green line into the south, in order to cause to us demographic and social problems. The wall is needed also because their "brothers" from Turkey will continue flooding their part of the island and at some stage, when they will become one million or more, they will start trying to infiltrate and flood the GC part as well! That is why the wall will be need, plus electric wires on top, so that no one will be able to pass either direction! In this way, it will also protect them from us, the "murderous GCs," whose only aim was, is and will continue to be "how to annihilate them," just like we have been "doing" from 1963 until 1974, when their "motherland" came and "saved" them! We take our corner of the island according to our population and property ownership, i.e. 82% of the island, and they take their corner of the island according to the same measures, i.e. 18% of it! In other words, it will be the final solution of the problem, instead of the one sided opportunistic “reunification” they seem to be preaching nowadays!

If you haven’t realized it, what they are interested now is a kind of disguised partition which will be labeled as “re-unification,” in which we will grand them with our signatures the ethnic ownership of 30% of Cyprus, plus a 50:50 partnership of the international personality of the “country” (in essence it will be two countries,) and all these under a “virgin-birth” conception with unilateral intervention rights of their “motherland,” in order to perennially safeguard what they want to unfairly accomplish with our signature! Well, we are not interested in such a kind of “re-unification,” and instead we propose a more clean solution, based on a straight forward 82:18 partition!

[Jerry]

Jerry:
"Virgin birth; my views were posted on this thread previous page, Sun Apr 27, 2008 11:14 am"

I have read it and re-read it, and the main detail seems to be "we should start with a blank sheet of paper and apply the universally accepted principles of democracy".

Not terribly helpful. It's difficult to get people to vote for blank pieces of paper.

No, read it again - If you want a real "virgin birth" you should start with a blank sheet of paper and apply the universally accepted principles of democracy

Or in simple terms , take a blank sheet of paper (don't vote yet), apply the universally accepted principles of democracy and vote now.

[Jerry]

Markides makes the observation that "the Greek Cypriots once again assisted Ankara in this strategy". Surely the political lessons need to be learned from such mistakes. Yet, in this thread I see a desire to repeat these mistakes. The argument is: "Let's drive the TCs into as little territory as is possible, build a huge wall and to Hell with them!" Can't you see that such a policy is bound to drive the TCs into the hands of Turkey? If you were to push the TCs into a small area and totally isolate them, this community would then inevitably become totally dependent on Turkey. The last time the Greek Cypriots adopted a policy of driving the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves and saying to Hell with them, this policy came back to haunt them in 1974. The way to halt Turkish expansion is not to drive the Turkish Cypriot community into Turkey's hands.

Tim, because I am the one that talked about a wall etc, let me comment on this! You didn't seem to understand what I was talking about! What I meant was simple! Because the kind of re-unification solution that the TCs seem to be going after, is one based on the maxim "ours is ours, and yours is ours too," or in other words "they want their cake, and eat it too," I suggested that we GCs are not interested in such a kind of deal, and we are ready to give them their separate partitioned territory, as it was their leadership's and their motherland's perennial dream, provided this will be based on a fair allocation of territory, and not the twice as big chunk they have illegally grabbed in 1974 with an act of aggression! In such a case, it will be their own separate country, and we are not interested in what they will do with it, i.e. if they will become more attached to Turkey than they currently are, or if they will try to run it independably! It will be their business what they will do!

I said we will build a wall in-between, because since 2004 all they are doing is to import illegal immigrants from the Middle East and let them pass through the green line into the south, in order to cause to us demographic and social problems. The wall is needed also because their "brothers" from Turkey will continue flooding their part of the island and at some stage, when they will become one million or more, they will start trying to infiltrate and flood the GC part as well! That is why the wall will be need, plus electric wires on top, so that no one will be able to pass either direction! In this way, it will also protect them from us, the "murderous GCs," whose only aim was, is and will continue to be "how to annihilate them," just like we have been "doing" from 1963 until 1974, when their "motherland" came and "saved" them! We take our corner of the island according to our population and property ownership, i.e. 82% of the island, and they take their corner of the island according to the same measures, i.e. 18% of it! In other words, it will be the final solution of the problem, instead of the one sided opportunistic “reunification” they seem to be preaching nowadays!

If you haven’t realized it, what they are interested now is a kind of disguised partition which will be labeled as “re-unification,” in which we will grand them with our signatures the ethnic ownership of 30% of Cyprus, plus a 50:50 partnership of the international personality of the “country” (in essence it will be two countries,) and all these under a “virgin-birth” conception with unilateral intervention rights of their “motherland,” in order to perennially safeguard what they want to unfairly accomplish with our signature! Well, we are not interested in such a kind of “re-unification,” and instead we propose a more clean solution, based on a straight forward 82:18 partition!

Kifeas is right and unfortunately, in my view, more and more Greek Cypriots are thinking along the same lines. The biggest problem with negotiating partition in this manner is how Turkey's application to join the EU would fit in. If we had an 82:18 split and Turkey joined the EU we would have an open border with that country. Would Turkey forsake its membership of the EU in order to gain legal partition of Cyprus, somehow I don't think so.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas is right and unfortunately, in my view, more and more Greek Cypriots are thinking along the same lines. The biggest problem with negotiating partition in this manner is how Turkey's application to join the EU would fit in. If we had an 82:18 split and Turkey joined the EU we would have an open border with that country. Would Turkey forsake its membership of the EU in order to gain legal partition of Cyprus, somehow I don't think so.

Do not worry about this issue Jerry, it will be sorted out easily. Cyprus, as an existing member of the EU, will put a condition that Citizens of EU member Turkey will not have the right to buy property or permanently settle in Cyprus, due to the population size of Turkey and its proximity to Cyprus. Malta did the same, and it was accepted as a primary law!

[Jerry]

Kifeas is right and unfortunately, in my view, more and more Greek Cypriots are thinking along the same lines. The biggest problem with negotiating partition in this manner is how Turkey's application to join the EU would fit in. If we had an 82:18 split and Turkey joined the EU we would have an open border with that country. Would Turkey forsake its membership of the EU in order to gain legal partition of Cyprus, somehow I don't think so.

Do not worry about this issue Jerry, it will be sorted out easily. Cyprus, as an existing member of the EU, will put a condition that Citizens of EU member Turkey will not have the right to buy property or permanently settle in Cyprus, due to the population size of Turkey and its proximity to Cyprus. Malta did the same, and it was accepted as a primary law!

Are you sure? My understanding is that the EU will not allow permanent derogations.