Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

I am hours away from my impending miltary 'ddom' so I will have to breif and ruthless in my choice of which points I address and do not. Appologies.

The "annihilation" thesis is not mine but one crafted by Turkish propagandists.

Your thesis was that a plan that sought to remove from TC community their rights under 1960 agreements without their consent was the same as a plan for annihilation of TC in Cyprus - which I disagreed with. The Akritas plan was clearly a plan to remove TC communites rights under 1960 consitution against their will and thus by your own thesis was an annilahtion plan.

I can see how your claims for "unilaterally changing" the Constitution can match your agenda, but the fact remains that Makarios proposed those amendments.

Actually my understanding is he first anounced them as a fait acompli and then under pressure from Duncan Sandys withdre that and presented them as 'proposals'. However whether they were presented as proposals or not is not the relenat point. What is relevant is the degree to which Makrios and GC admin sought to impose changes illegal and against the will of the TC. The documentary ecidence supporting a thesis that this was their objective along with the actions of Makarios and GC admin at the time, to me form compelling (all be it cirumstantial) eveidence that this was indeed the agenda and it was persued.

Back to Cyprus, you still haven't told me if the so-called "trnc" was "founded" on stolen land or not?

The TRNC is partly founded on land taken by force (stolen if you prefer the term) from GC.

It is true that after 02/64 there was on and off violence untill August 1964. Nevertheless this violence was never one way or almost one way.

I have never claimed it was all one way. What I dispute is that it was not overwhealmingly one way - in direct numerical terms or in proportion to the populations of the two communites. I am not alone in this assesment. I wish I had time to copy some of the many independent journalistic accounts of the time that support this view. Unfortunately I do not. I will however paste the following link once again and with respect suggest you read it.

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/Patrick-chp%203.htm

As far as I understand the above areas remained the main theatres of conflict in the specified period. The population numbers in the above areas alone however, indicate clearly that the relocation of 19,000 + TCs could have not been the result of direct fighting in those areas.

Can you also understand and that the fear of attack can motive someone to leave their home and seek a safre place as well as actual attack?

At the same time it is known that on several occasions TCs were forced by TMT fighters to either abandon their homes by leaving them or by not returning to them. In November 1964 for example, a group of TCs from Axylou (Paphos district) tried to stop another TC group of temporarily displaced TCs who wanted to return to their village that was nearby (Pittarkou) and which was under RoC control. The incident resulted in a shoot out between the 2 TC groups (see United Nations, S/6102, Annex III, pp. 6-7). Turkey was clearly implementing its taksim policy in Cyprus, step by step and with total disregard to the cost that the TC community would bare for it.

again from same source as above

The author's investigations reveal that the overwhelming majority of Turk-Cypriot refugees moved only after Turk-Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harrassed by Greek-Cypriots within their village, quarter, or in the local vicinity.

Although it appears unlikely that there was any centralized co-ordination of the Turk-Cypriot refugee exodus, there is ample proof that Turk-Cypriot political and military leaders controlled the return of refugees to their former homes. It is known that in late 1964 some local Fighter commanders resorted to armed threats and even murder to prevent some refugees from moving into government controlled areas,[69] but it is not known to what extent such actions were directed or condoned by leaders in Nicosia. However, such coercion should be put in perspective. The government was prepared to encourage the return of Turk-Cypriot refugees provided that they accepted government authority and that they did not return to 'sensitive' areas. Such areas included locations adjacent to Turkish-Cypriot enclaves or National Guard positions, and also mixed villages in which returned Turk-Cypriots would outnumber Greek-Cypriots. In addition, known Fighter leaders were specifically prohibited from returning. The acceptance of such pre-conditions would have won for the government the victory that it had failed to achieve by its armed offensive. In addition, the hostility of many local Greek-Cypriots was such that Turk-Cypriots did not believe that the government could fulfill its guarantees that returning refugees would not be molested. In any case, by August 1964, the abandoned homes were looted and often burned-out ruins. Neither community had the resources to rebuild the houses, to purchase new farming equipment or to provide resettlement grants. The side that undertook such indemnities would also be tacitly admitting to a degree of responsibility in the creation of the refugee problem, and that neither community was prepared to do.

But as far as I understand Turkey and the TC leadership have always been very candid about partitioning the island. Am I incorrect?

Turkey and TC had always been very candid that in the face of demands for enosis by GC in Cyprus then partition was their demand. As far as them being candid about forcing partition, illegaly and through use of force if necessary, after the 1960 agreements then there were certainly a lot less candid that GC leaders were about their desire to overthrow the very basis of the 1960 agreements and create a state politicvaly controlled by GC alone that could then 'democraticaly' declare enosis. Just look at the many many statements of Makarios and others from the very day the Cypriot nation was inaugarted onwards. Look at the Akritas plan.

By the same logic there must have been a plan by GC to force TC to withdraw from government because TC did withdraw from government (never mind that there was a plan and it was written down)

Yes there was a plan – a Turkish one that was found in Fazil Plumer’s office, signed by both Denktash and Kucuk (more information about this plan in "My Deposition", Vol. 1, pp. 218-222 by Glafkos Clerides). In it, the withdrawal from the RoC and the set up of a TC separatist administration was one of the measures indicated in it.

You avoid my point entirely here. By mistake or intent I do not know. You logic was that there must have been a T/TC plan to divide the Island because the Island ended up divided. I was just pointing out that this same 'logic' can be used as 'proof' that there was a plan by GC to gain sole control of the government because this is what happened.

Okay…let me ask you this: do you think that TC violence played ANY role at all in forcing ordinary TCs out of their homes or not?

Yes it played a role. That is not in any dispute as far as I am concerned. What is in dispute is to what degree this was the cause and what degree GC violence against TC was the cause.

The same source states: "…though the Famagusta kidnapping was one of the largest incidents in the 1964 troubles, it was a relatively isolated one." For what is worth, the authors clearly disagree with your assessment that this incident was part of "Systematic GC violence".

I could just as easily highlight the 'realtivly' part of that quote as you do the 'isolated' part. As far as my use of 'systematic' we are now down to symantics. From dictionary.com for systematic

1. Of, characterized by, based on, or constituting a system.
2. Carried on using step-by-step procedures.
3. Purposefully regular; methodical.

We could (nad no doubt will) argue about this indefinately. However if it can be avoided by my accepting differnt term to systematic then let's try that. How about 'intentful GC violence' or 'planned GC violence' or 'organised GC violence'? My point being that these were not on the main sporadic incidents that flared up. Many if not most, were planned and organised and had a definate motive or intent (true of violence on both sides).

My uncle was one of the 32 -35 innocent TC murder by GC irregular forces in a massively (order of magnitude) dispropotionate act of violent retribution by a community you alledge had no significant greater force in Cyprus and incited by GC state fallicous and inciting reporting of the incdent. The message was clear. A greek or GC dies at the hands of a TC - regardless of the situtaion and 10 times more innocent TC will die. This is the reality of your 'equal' intercommunal violence.

While no one can change the past, at the same time I cannot see what good it does to ignore or deny or play down the wrong doings of side A over side B like you try to do.

This is not what I am trying to do , whether you belive it or not. In fact it is what I am trying to counter. It is depressing that we can both be so convinced of this in such a mutualy exclusive way To me insisting that the effets of violence was not 'equal' but actualy realised more by the TC community at this time than the GC is to me all about trying to stop 'denying,ignoring and playing down' of one sides actions against the other and the effects on one side or the other.

You try to convince the international community of the justness of your desires prior to 60 agreements and you failed. Thus having failed to 'convince' you planed to use deception.

Since when has the international community started making decisions solely based on what is just?

More word games as I see it. Change 'justness' to 'merits' if you prefer. My point remains the same (which you 'bypassed')

I do not think that the signing of the 1960 agreements by the GCs was the result of willing and voluntary acceptance.

Clearly you do not. However the authors of the Akritas plan would not have talked about the need to create the impression that the agreements were unfair and not the result of voulantary acceptance if they shared your view and that is my point. Neither would they have needed to point out how wise it was that the GC leadership did not put them to the people at that time, beacuse if they had there was no dount (in the authors view) that the people would have overwhelmingly supported them and thus creating the impression that they were not willingly and voluntarily accept by GC community would have been near impossible.

Other than that the Akritas plan (already discussed) was not the reason behind the inter-communal conflict but rather another GC scenario on how to deal with the reasons behind the conflict at that given moment: to amend certain parts of the agreements that they considered one sided and unfair.

I have not stated the reason behind the inter communal violence (a term in itself that imples 'equality' of violence and effect of violence) was the Akritas plan. I have state that it is what it is. A specific step by step plan to unilateraly take from TC their rights under the 1960 consitution that itself recognised would inevitably and invariably lead to violence.

The extend over the Akritas plan was implemented has already been questioned. If you prefer to remain attached on the myth that certain events that affected the TCs (like Ankara’s direction to withdrawal from the RoC) were the result of this plan then be my guest.

My point is that wheather implement exactly, partialy or not at all it represnts a clear desciption of GC aims (those that wrote it and also were in charge of GC commuinty - politicaly and through force of arms in 'irregular' bands) and the kind of means they were wiling to consider - namely illegal and deceptive.

Furthermore and based on your earlier quotes it becomes evident that the plan’s authors were seeking legally justifiable ways to achieve any revisions of the agreements (already discussed).

Well here we must be reading different plans. There is simply no legal way the consitution could be changed without the consent of the TC commuity. This is clearly recognised in the Akritas plan. Hence the need for a 'stage by stage' approach, the need to 'cloth' acts in an 'impression' of legality and necessity the constan talk of unilateral ammendments and much more besides. For me this view that the Akritas plan authors were merely seeking legal and justifyable ways to achieve ammedments to the consitituion is the clearest evidence that you are either not capable or willing to accept facts and reality,when needed in the denial of GC culpability - something you accuse me of (in reverse).

Clearly, there can be no comparison between what happened in Cyprus during the 1960's and anything "overwhelming".

And who made such comparsion? Not me to me recollection. What I did was use this passage of the Akritas plan to counter your argument that GC in 63 (though not by mid 64 according to you) had neither the means or the will to use overwhealming force against TC when they invetiably responded (also recognised in the plan) to attempts to tkae their rights away. My logic being how could the authors talk of subduing any TC resitance in '2-3 days' if they had neither the miltary means or the will - as you maintain?

Probably? Are you telling us that you are not 100% sure?

Not I am not absolutely sure. Certainly there are deviances from the Akritas plan and what actually happened (as well as many 'compatibilites'). I do not no why these divances exist I can only consider possibilites and the likelhood of these possibilites. They range from - the plan was written but then immiediately abandonded with not effort made at implementing it in any way to there were efforts to implement the plan exactly but these were thwarted by a lack of control over some elements of GC extemists that had been given too much power. Like I say absolutism is simply not in my nature. There is almost nothing I am absolute about in any terms.

Huh???

The point is we can argue about if the pan was implemented, if the TC left under orders from Turkey, about if they tried to return and who stopped that return. What I do not think we can argue about (though undoubtedly will) is that the removal of TC from goverment of RoC was one of the key steps / stages in the Akritas plan. It was necessary for poiltical power to be in GC hands alone for if it was not then TC could block GC desire and ambitions (ENOSIS and the relegation of TC community to that of poliitcal minority).

Hmm - that was supposed to be "breif and ruthless in my choice of which points I address and do not. " - oh well.

[LANDJO]

The discussion has gotten ahead a bit. But here is a quote addressed to me:

'So tell me Landjo do you consider a system that is based on stealing the homes and lands of 200,000 GCs a model?Do you consider a system that forced almost half the TCs to emmigrate and replaced them by mainland settlers to whom it donated the properties of the GCs a model? Do you consider a system that cannot survive even one week without the economic packs coming from Turkey a model? Do you consider a system in which for every 4 citizens there is one soldier a model?
Yes or No?'

This response is obviously meant more as a provocation than as a serious addition to the discussion. It also illustrates to me, as an outsider who, prior to his arrival in Cyprus had taken a relatively strong Anti-Turkish view, in line with international opinion until very recently, why the Cyprus problem is such a hard nut to crack: the inability to see the other side's point of view.

But leave that aside for the moment. The author of the above lines, who also seriously questions my ability to judge, refuses to separate the question 'Was the invasion/intervention and the ensuing division justified and necessary?' from the question 'How well do the TRNC 'authorities' function?' Other reactions are in the same vein. Is it then really impossible to consider these issues separately? Do every consideration have to end up in a rhetorical quagmire? Do people not realize how these kinds of polarizations will make a solution impossible for a long, long time?

[erolz]

Do people not realize how these kinds of polarizations will make a solution impossible for a long, long time?

I certainly do realise this. What I struggle with and have not found a solution to is how you can counter a polarised view without yourself being polarised? It seems and feels like a vicious circle and one I do not know how to break out off (unilateraly). If you have any ideas or suggestions I would welcome them.

[MicAtCyp]

The TRNC is partly founded on land taken by force (stolen if you prefer the term) from GC.

When you say partly do you mean by 84% perhaps?



*****************************
Erol
Have a good time at the army.Patience! 15 days will pass quickly.

[gabaston]

Erolz i mean no disresepct, simply put, we are not wealthy,and few peope require these churches. In istanbul where there are Christians there are beutifully maintained Churches, simply because there is a functional need.

I dare say that if the attendances at Mosques fell, we would also find other uses for them, just as Britain is finding for Churches with smaller attendancies in Britain, where many have been turned away altogether from The Almighty and into luxury offices, and small homes.....

it just sort of makes economic common sense........

[gabaston]

erolz my apologies,,,,,,,i meant othelos

apologies to both of you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,must be late ,

[brother]

Come on you guys it is religion that causes most problems on the planet any way, so a few are made into offices or are left to rot, so what its better than some religious fanatic preaching 'jihad' or the likes in one of these holy warrior recruitment centres, i say sell them all off for private use except a few for the holy shcmolly's that need to be sheep and have a preacher.

[gabaston]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but the messages I get from my friends and relatives who visit their left homes in the south, are all basically the same.
Apparently most of these homes are in a state of decay. Many are in a state of rubble, and many just couldn’t even recognize where their homes stood.

I retain the decency to believe what I hear from trusted friends and relations over and above what has been referred to as “Turkish propaganda”.

I can also understand how neglect of these properties fits into the gc logic, of “Im not fixing it, because it isn’t mine”. An understandable ploy, and one that ups the ante, in any lasting settlement.

I respect your right to take this view, and you are free neglect whatever you wish in the south. TCs rights were left to vegitate for years, why should their vacated properties be treated differently?

I find it hard to believe that within such logic, there is room or even budgets for the maintenance of mosques except for a few token gestures, for the purpose of gaining a few diplomatic brownie points.

The cost of a peaceful resolution increases with every passing day. We are doing our best with the upkeep of all buildings in the north, and the popular consensus amongst our people is that many of the homes we ran away from in the south are now in a state of decay. I also find it hard that any gc’s would want to live in decaying buildings too, so we have another counter logic. Is there any political, or social stigma, associated with repairing a home, which was vacated by turks. I mean, would any gc be labeled a kind social traitor, for restoring a building left by a tc?

A gc gentleman and friend of mine is willing to purchase my land in Larnaca, the reason he claims he can not is that he says he will be considered a traitor if he buys land from a turk.

Whilst on the topic of land, and visits to the other side. Another tc friend of mine recently returned to her village and land in the south, and guess what she saw…

On her fields there were no citrus or olive trees, but instead a housing complex of 400 dwellings and a supermarket. She has handed the case over to a gc solicitor to go down the same path as the trials relating to homes in the north. I seriously doubt that this case will ever come to court, in our life-time, but I guess that’s another story, leaving the gc courts in an embarrassing political situation, which they would prefer to legally avoid.

I hope I’m wrong and stand to be corrected.

[Othellos]

I never had the chance to reply in full to Erolz's post, but it does not matter anyway because he is away for the moment. Besides, I would be repeating myslef just like he did in his posts.

The one thing I would kindly ask him to clarify (if he ever gets to see this) is the following:

The TRNC is partly founded on land taken by force (stolen if you prefer the term) from GC.

Which part of the "trnc" is in his opinion "founded" on non-stolen land? And also, is this part more "legal" than the rest?

O.

[cannedmoose]

Keep a light finger on the trigger Erolz!