Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

I speak for myself, idiot.

Then I am relieved you are the one and only .....

[denizaksulu]

No...I am not surprised that the GCs asked for ENOSIS. I too belive that it was a legitimate demand given the circumstances at the time...The mistake they made was not to realise it was an impossible dream...In fact it was a British trap into which they walked with sincere and innocent hearts...The moment they demanded Enosis with Greece they should have realised it would be like a red flag to a bull for the TCs...They should've realised the TC would also walk into the British trap with equal innocence,because they were made to belive that would be the end of them as a community...
And they believed it sincerely...

What you describe above is an example of British "Divide and Rule". We may very well have walked into their trap and the British were very clever in what they did. I sincerely blame the British for many things that have happened to Cyprus.

Now, I know nothing of a "Patriot plea" by Grivas...It is the first time I am hearing it...I would be very interested to see it in writing if you can provide me with any links...It would've fallen on deaf ears of course....The TCs were never going to trust Grivas...He was already been demonised by the British and the TMT soon after...So there was no chance in hell that the TCs would support the demand for Enosis...And I doubt very much that Grivas or Makarios believed they would get any support from the TCs...
I agree that things would've changed dramatically had they supported the push for Enosis,but as I said it was never on...

The "Patriot" plea from Grivas came about soon after the first inter communal violence on the island and the deployment of TC Auxiliary Police. Grivas was wise to the dangers of Britain's "Divide and Rule". Grivas then pleaded with the TC community as Patriots, and exercised some constraint by avoiding any reprisals against the TC community. When it became apparent that the TCs were still ignoring the plea, then he decided that he had no other choice but to try and defend the GCs.

I do not have a link, but I do remember hearing the plea on a documentary. I will try and find something for you, and I also request any help from other forumers who know more about this.

I also consider the TCs within their rights to object to ENOSIS. I did not say that TCs should succumb to the GC ENOSIS movement. What I was saying is that the TCs could have chosen not to side with the British, approached the GCs in a non belligerent manner, and make their opposition to ENOSIS known. If they also decided to morally join the GCs as countrymen and patriots, whilst making known their position on ENOSIS, then I do not see how it could be possible for the GCs to ignore it. In fact, I personally would have been touched by this show of union and would have respected it. We could have become "brothers and patriots", and the GCs would have, I would like to think, know choice but to abandon ENOSIS.

As I said earlier,the British and the TMT made sure that the TCs saw the demand for Enosis as a death sentence for them....Don't forget that both EOKA and the TMT killed more of their own than the other...Grivas was particularly brutal with the Communists who he saw as traitors. For the TMT anybody who opposed Taksim was a traitor...My information is that the EOKA killed some 200 GCs during 55-59 period...The TMT killed somewhat less TCs than that,but they did not have to...The TCs were totally intimidated by the fear of both the EOKA and the TMT...They fell into line pretty quickly...The seeds of the Sampson coup and the Turkish invasion was sown during the EOKA'a struggle for Enosis...And to make matters worse between the communities,there were the Auxillary police the British recruited from the TC community...One can safely say that without the existence of the EOKA,there would've been no need for the auxillaries...And on it goes...It is easy looking back now and think of what might've been had things been different...The truth of the matter is we the Cypriots stuffed up big time,largely assisted by the British,Turkey,Greece,the USA,the Soviets etc etc...And if we dont find it in our hearts now to admit our own mistakes,and keep blaming or demonising the other side,we would be leaving the playground to the warmongers,the fascists,the racists and the nationalists,who can easily make the guns speak again in Cyprus...

While talking about the killings both by EOKA and the TMT, I just remembered a new book published in Cyprus. It was called 'TMT'nin Kurbanlari',/ The Victims of the TMT. I went to two of the largest bookshops in the North, and asked for it. I was told in no uncertain terms that," we do not sell books like that". I also asked for Sevgul Uludag's opus on the victims of Cyprus, that was 'out of stock'. I am sure I will be able to obtain them from the RoC. I already have a willing volunteer to find them for me.

http://www.kibrisligazetesi.net/kibrisl ... e_id=14829

Regards

I can recommend Işık Kitabevi (in the old walled city of Nicosia) for critical literature. I think Sevgul Uludag's book genuinely is sold out.

Thanks Tim. I believe the Uludag book is sold out too. I was there only for two weeks so could not search for more outlets.

Thanks anyway.

Deniz , u can read her writings everyday from Yenidüzen Newspaper
just follow the below link.
http://www.yeniduzengazetesi.com/

today writind was about Köfinye .... link
http://www.yeniduzengazetesi.com/templa ... &zoneid=17

from this link u can see TÜM YAZILAR heading from this heading u can get her old articles .... free of charge
http://www.yeniduzengazetesi.com/arama_ ... cleid+desc

iyi seyirler !

Thanks Halil.

I have seen and gone through these links before when you first posted them. I have read quite a lot of her writings. Money is no object where we try to get the truth.

Thanks arkadasim

[denizaksulu]

I speak for myself, idiot.

Then I am relieved you are the one and only .....

....with a violin in the background playing a nocturne. How romantic. Imagine , O is in love.

[Kikapu]

I am not trying to make a point Kikapu and by the way I have no land in the north and no property whatsoever. I told you before, I was born a proletariat and Iy will die a proletariat.

You could be the average sailor who spends their life on their small boat sailing around the world by just living off the sea.!

That is one of the best ways of living one's life.!

You could be the next "The Old Man and The Sea" Bananiot.!

I'll be very happy to join you.!

[halil]

seconed part of Cyprus problem 1960-1974 and up to 2008

A first reaction to this document must be that for a nation of 556,000, this was a very elaborate and very rigid constitution. It runs to 199 articles and of these the 48 “basic” ones were to remain unalterable in perpetuity.
The remainder could in practice only be altered by mutual agreement of the two communities. Drafted with the help of a Swiss constitutional adviser, the constitution was of the consociational variety which gives the preservation of the ethnic balance higher priority than majority rule.
Moreover the constitution, thus heavily freighted, was screwed into the international system by the accompanying treaties. Under the Treaty of Guarantee with Britain, Greece and Turkey, the Republic of Cyprus undertakes to uphold its own independence and its own constitution; not to participate in any political or economic union with any state whatsoever; and to prohibit any domestic action likely to promote union with another state or partition. In return Britain, Greece and Turkey recognize and guarantee not only the independence, integrity and security of Cyprus but also “the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution.” They also will ban activity favoring “Enosis or Taksim” (union or division). In the event of a breach of the provisions of the treaty, the three guarantors “will consult together” about “measures necessary to ensure observance.” Then follows the most critical wording of the treaty, currently cited to support the Turkish position. If, says, Article IV, concerted action should not be possible, “each of the three guaranteeing powers reserves the right to take action with the sole aim of re-establishing the state of affairs created by this present Treaty.”
The Treaty of Alliance, which was between Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, thus not including Britain, was intended to reinforce the rationale of the whole series of arrangements: that Greco-Turkish friendship was in the last resort worth more than the strict arithmetic and practical convenience of Cypriot politics. A committee of the three foreign ministers was “the supreme political body” of the alliance. Under its authority there should be a tripartite headquarters established on the island, with military contingents of 950 Greeks and 650 Turks to provide for the defense of the new republic and to train the new Cypriot army
The extent to which this complex of arrangements, redolent of old-fashioned diplomacy, was legally valid in the light of the United Nations Charter has been the subject of much debate among international lawyers. The question was whether a constitution so rigid and unalterable was compatible with the equal sovereignty which was recognized in the charter and whether its unchangeable nature could validly be enforced under a treaty which permitted any one of the signatories individually to take action.
It is a complex argument which has not been resolved.
Certainly Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the German who was the first president of the Supreme Constitutional Court, was to say [in 1963]: “I consider it wrong to regard Cyprus under the present agreement and constitution as an independent state.” The guarantees, he added, “include also a right of actual intervention -- there can be no guarantee without the right of intervention.” Clearly the signatories, it may be presumed, thought they were signing valid documents. Archbishop Makarios subsequently claimed that the settlement was imposed on him by force majeure and that he did not feel morally bound by it.
Archbishop Makarios was elected the first president of Cyprus by the Greek voters in December 1959 and Dr. Fazil Küçük the first vice president by the Turks. The archbishop had critics both on the right from supporters of Grivas -- who left the island for a hero’s welcome in Athens and the rank of a retired general -- and on the left because the settlement had been brought under the aegis of NATO. He moved swiftly to consolidate his position -- by appointing EOKA people to key positions, most notably Polycarpos Yorgadjis as minister of the interior, and by launching a vigorous foreign policy of friendship with the non-aligned powers which served to disarm the potential opposition of the communists in AKEL who were given five unopposed members in the first House. But the same process of satisfying the political needs of the Greek Cypriot community straightaway led to a series of conflicts with the Turks, in which the feelings of the two communities about the constitution were made plain.
The Greek Cypriots’ feeling was that the constitutional privileges accorded the Turkish community were preposterous; the Turkish Cypriots’ that these were the bare minimum, to be exercised to the last ounce.
The disputes concerned:
(a) The 70:30 ratio in the public service: The Turkish Cypriots required that the proportion should be attained within five months of independence as had in fact been stipulated in a pre-independence agreement between the president-elect and the vice president-elect.
The Greek Cypriots in the Public Service Commission argued that they could not draw from 18 percent of the population which was poorly qualified suitable candidates to fill 30 percent of the jobs overnight. After three years the Greek Cypriots published figures to show that real progress had been made in all grades towards the objective. But the subject rankled and aroused resentment in both communities. At the end of 1963 there were 2,000 appeals outstanding in the Supreme Constitutional Court about public appointments.

[halil]

(b) Taxes: Since a majority vote of Turkish deputies in the House was needed to pass tax legislation, Turkish Cypriots sought to use this as leverage to force compliance over the 70:30 ratio, over legislation for separate municipalities and a more generous approach towards the grant of subsidies to the Turkish Communal Chamber.
As a result the colonial income tax law expired whereupon Makarios ordered that existing taxes should continue to be collected. In December 1961 the government at last came out with its own proposals, but whereas the Greeks wanted a permanent law, the Turks wanted it to be renewable annually, which would enable them to use their bargaining power each session. Since there was again deadlock, the personal income tax was abandoned by the House and the Greek Cypriots enacted it instead through the Greek Communal Chamber.
(c) The Cypriot army: The minister of defense, who was a Turkish Cypriot, proposed an army of five battalions, each composed of three companies. At the battalion level they should be mixed, but at the company level the units should be from one community or the other. The majority of the Cabinet decided that on the contrary the units should be mixed at every level. On this issue the vice president used his power of final veto. The president therefore decided not to have an army at all.
(d) Separate municipalities: Existing colonial laws had to be extended eight times while Greeks and Turks conducted a dialogue of the deaf about whether fresh legislation should establish separate municipalities as the constitution required and the Turks demanded. In December 1962 the Greek majority rejected further continuation of the status quo. The Turkish Cypriot Communal Chamber then purported to confirm the position of the Turkish municipalities while the Council of Ministers fell back on a pre-1959 colonial law to replace all the existing elected municipalities by appointed development boards. The president offered Turkish Cypriots compensation safeguards but made it quite clear that he had no intention of implementing the provisions of the constitution which he regarded as opening the way to partition.
(e) The status of the vice president: Dr. Fazil Küçük complained that since he had an absolute veto over foreign policy, he should be told what that policy was about. Spyros Kyprianou, the foreign minister, was not, he said, showing him the papers. He objected strongly to Makarios adopting on his own a policy of non-alignment and going to the Belgrade non-aligned summit without his approval.
The record of the first three years of the new republic could not therefore be described as an unqualified success. The necessary restraint on both sides if such a delicate mechanism of checks and balances is to work or, alternatively, if by informal arrangements it is to be short-circuited, was absent. Already by the end of 1961 the Turkish language press was calling for an intervention by Turkey, Greece and Britain and the resignation of Archbishop Makarios over the income tax issue.
The question of whether President Makarios ever meant the 1960 constitution to work or whether from the outset his acceptance of it was a maneuver first to obtain independence and then to clear the ground for union with Greece is still highly controversial. As an archbishop he was predisposed to see the whole island as Hellenic. In both his capacities he took part throughout the remainder of his career in what is called “verbal republicanism,” namely the celebration of anniversaries of heroic deaths during the war against the Britis with many references to his own fidelity to the cause for which they had died, specifically the cause of enosis. But to what extent and at what periods this sentiment was purely verbal it is rather difficult to say .
Certainly there are many Greek Cypriots who think that Makarios did for a time support the constitution until he concluded that, unless amended, it was unworkable. Turkish Cypriots rather naturally call attention to a confidential document called the Akritas Plan, which was later published in the Greek press. (Patris Newspaper, Feb. 7, 1967).
This, which is generally thought to have been circulated in great secrecy by Polycarpos Yorgadjis, the minister of the interior, lays down a scenario according to which the “negative elements” in the constitution should be stressed in public while lavish use should be made of such internationally acceptable concepts as “self-determination” and “minority rights” to describe the case for amending it. By this means Cyprus would win control over her own institutions and thus effectively nullify the Treaty of Guarantee since the constitution it was to guarantee would by then be no more.
The Turkish Cypriots had made some preparation for a breakdown since they were determined that independence should not mean, as Rauf Denktaş put it, “a change of colonial masters for the worse.” But many of the Turkish Cypriot political leaders counted on the constitution to settle down. They were encouraged in this by the first Turkish ambassador to Nicosia, Emin Dirvana, who was a philhellene and who tended to discount the warnings of Denktaş, the president of the Turkish Communal Chamber of the era, who claimed through intelligence sources to know better. According to Denktaş, who was political adviser to the Turkish Defense Organization (TMT), most of that organization had been stood down and there were only 40 active members in it when the fighting started.

[DT.]

I speak for myself, idiot.

Must be the only proletariat who wishes to place more ethnic boundaries and separate states between people than simply unite with them.

On a serious note, I am glad Bananiot has finally made it clear he only speaks for himself and the other 3 "elite" proletariat individuals in this country.

[Cem]

I never said the Problem started in 1960,Paphidis...

I am happy you say this. However, there are a few who conveniently disregard significant parts of our History because it suits their political views.

As far as I am concerned, you can look as far back as you like. But the Cyprus problem did not start in 1960. There were significant events which occurred before 1960, which contributed significantly to what we have today.

Technically we can take the origins of the present problem to 1571,but it will not help us much...Better to stick to more recent dates....a good place to start would be when the British suggested/implied/promised to give Cyprus to Greece if and when they depart...That was probably when the ENOSIS seed started to grow strongly withing the hearts and minds of the GCs...Then came the Church sponsored plebisite...The Turkish and Greek involvement...The British backflip...The EOKA campaign....The TMT campaign...The 1959 agreements....1960-63 period...64-74 period...and of course post 74 period....

You are more than welcome to take it as far back as 1571. This is however a little unrealistic.

Listing this was the easy part...The problem is to "objectively" analyse these events and agree on the truth of the matter...We have failed to do it so far...Which explains why we are where we are...

I am more than willing and capable of discussing the issues in an objective manner.

I want to ask you one question,Paphidis...If you are willing to try to be objective....If there was no demand for Enosis with Greece,do you think that might have changed the course of the events????

I firmly believe that GCs, who consisted 80% of the population, were well within their rights to demand and fight for ENOSIS. They demanded ENOSIS due to strong cultural ties with Greece and because they did not see independence as a viable option at the time.

We are talking about a people that have practically never had any form of self determination for centuries. In fact, I am totally amazed at the Cypriot spirit and our ability to maintain our own culture and nationality, considering the countless invasions and persecutions. So, I ask you, are you surprised that the GCs asked for ENOSIS?

If there was no demand for ENOSIS, then perhaps things would have been different.The same can be said about the TCs if they chose not to ignore the "Patriot" plea from Grivas. The TCs ignored the plea, and formed TMT. Can you imagine what would have happened if the TCs actually united with the GCs, or at least provided moral support? Do you think we would have been able to persist with ENOSIS? I firmly believe that the TCs also had a great opportunity to unite with the GCs and even voice their opposition to ENOSIS. This was the time to unite as one brotherhood. If you considered the GCs as your "patriots", then you should have reached out during these bad times. Friends and Patriots stick together, particularly during tough times. Now, it is sadly too late! The egg shell is broken and it can not be fixed.

And while you are there,do you think there would have been a TMT if not for EOKA????

No.

And please don't assume that I think I have the answers,because I don't...
I just want to know what you think...

I think it would take a brave person to state that they have all the answers. The politicians don't even have the answers.

We can only search for the truth, with open eyes and objectivity.

Please do not twist any of my words above. Whatever I say is purely opinion, particularly due to the nature of questions you ask.

And apologies about calling you an Ottoman Remnant. This is really not my true nature.

I can be as intelligent and objective as you like. I do in fact accept that mistakes were made from both sides. But the occupation continues, despite Turkey's responsibility to return the state of affairs back to the 1959 treaty, as a guarantor power. This has clearly not happened, even when the the GCs offered it during negotiations.

The thread did stoop to low levels, and we are all responsible for that.

You can throw my apology back in my face if you wish.

First, sorry for my late posting but this one above particularly struck me as being very odd.

Well Paphitis, if you say 80% GC s were right in their demand to ask for Enosis , then 20% TCs were also right in their opposition to Enosis.

When you fight for the independence of your country, it is only independence and independence ONLY, not union with a foreign country that SHOULD matter.

Regardless of whether the majority may have ethnic ties with that country..or not..

You are fighting for independence against colonial rule..fine, spilling a lot of blood even at the expense of killing your fellow GCs, let alone TCs and Britts....sad but fine ...(the end justifies the means after all) and all these sufferings and bloodshed ....for a union with a country which has a wonderful track record of mass-murdering each other in a civil war, just because at that time...independence per se was not viable..
WHY ???
If you go through all these hardships just to throw your country under the yoke of another country ??....
And what country ???? Greece...
What the hell you are talking about ??
Had it been for a mere joint struggle against britts, then TCs would have gladly helped you out ...
Just because some were enlisted as british cop does not qualify all as "traitors" to the cause..
If the TCs had given you at least the moral support then you are saying the GCs would have been sensitive to their rejection of Enosis ?????
I am afraid you are being too much a romantic, Paphidis..
Suppose the TCs had their demands accepted by the original EOKA at that time and Enosis went back to fridge.....temporarily...
What were the guarantees that GCs would have hold on to their commitments ?? Just a mere worldy promise by Grivas who later came back to resuscitate EOKA again ???
What were to keep them from being annihilated by the succeeding EOKA, namely EOKA-B...???
That EOKA-B which did not hesitate to overthrow the legal Cyprus government and attempt to assasinate its own president just for the sake of joining a country whic, at that time, was ruled by one of the most rabid and fascist regimes in the world.
I bet, even at that time, Greece was lagging much behind Cyprus in many areas, starting with democracy...
EOKA had lived up its time and should have gone defunct by 1960..
No need to resuscitate a zombie from its grave...
If Enosis was the wish of majority of cypriots, this would have come true over time by a common membership with a modern and democratic Greece in EU... as is now...

No need to go through all these bloody mess leading to 1974..
If you wake up a zombie, don't be surprised to find Baron Samedi on your way afterwards..

Sorry Paphidis, but I am afraid the seeds of the discord were already planted in EOKA..... and in the original version...that is EOKA was already pregnant and carrying the Greek infant in its womb at that time..

Objection of a negligeable and a dormant minority would have certainly gone unheeded..

Still, I can hear your objection...you might say "but, the TCs also themselves wanted to bring down the ROC in collaboration with Turkey"..

Then it is the duty of a legitimate government to bring down all kinds of insurgencies without discrimanation and with firmness ..be it TC-originated (TMT) or GC-originated (EOKA-B)...

If a newly created republic backed by 3 powerfull guarantors can not handle these, then that republic does not deserve to exist..

[zan]

Bravo be Cem....Well put!!!!!

[Bananiot]

Some bone-crushing remarks Cem, but as you probably know, we do not like the rubbing of salt into our wounds. By the way, are you speaking for yourself, or do you also represent your neighbour? Sorry to be asking this question but some forumers were totally surprised when I tols them that what I say represent .... my views.