Cyprus problem from 1960-1974 and 2008 .....
The Turkish Cypriots, after severe inter-communal armed clashes, began moving from isolated rural areas and mixed villages into safe enclaves to save their lives, leaving behind all of their wealth, property, houses, memories and graveyards. In just a short time a substantial portion of the island's Turkish Cypriot population were crowded into the suburbs of the Turkish quarter of Lefkosa in tents and hastily constructed shacks. Slum conditions resulted from lack of money. All necessities and necessary utilities were sent by the Red Cross from mainland Turkey. The Greek Cypriot government took no notice of these harsh conditions or the refugees. Many Turkish Cypriots who had stayed in their homes in safe Turkish areas, shared their land, houses, food and water for the security and welfare of the refugees.
Spurred by the screams and non-stop calls for help of the Turkish Cypriots, Turkey decided to step in and do something.
Archbishop Makarios had not taken into consideration the protests and warnings coming from Turkey. He believed that Turkey would not attempt a military intervention and but would protest only. Accordingly, the assaults on Turkish Cypriots increased day by day and got bloodier.
In June 1964, İsmet İnönü, then-prime minister of Turkey, decided on a military intervention. US President Lyndon Johnson barely managed to stop the Turkish army, which had already sailed from the port of Mersin destined for Cyprus.
The diplomatic note sent by Johnson to İnönü demanding a stop to the expedition deeply damaged Turkish-American relations, which had been improving since 1950. But this brutal note put a stop to any improvements. Suddenly anti-American sentiment fell into the hearts of the Turkish people and numerous protest rallies were held in Turkey's major cities.
The Turkish Cypriot administration decided to establish a Turkish-controlled area on the northern shores of the island to bring in food, medicine, clothing, arms and other supplies from Turkey over the sea and officially asked for help from the Turkish government, which eventually volunteered its assistance.
The Turkish government, highly disappointed by Johnson's diplomatic note, decided to send Turkish Cypriot students pursuing undergraduate studies in Turkey to a beachhead at Erenköy (Kokkina) on the northern shore of the island, northwest of Güzelyurt Bay (Morfou Bay), rather than sending in professional Turkish troops.
The transportation of these students in groups of not more than 12, by small fishing boats, from Anamur to Erenköy, began on March 30, 1964 and ended after countless trips in early August. A total of 322 students were carried to the beachhead. A further 200 local Turkish Cypriot volunteers joined this group and the number of these amateur fighters rose to 522. They had very limited arms and ammunition, just enough to defend their entrenchments.
Meanwhile, Georgios Grivas used the popularity he gained in era of the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters to coerce Makarios and the Greek government into allowing him to return to Cyprus. He returned to Cyprus in June 1964 to take over the command of the Greek Cypriot forces organized under the National Guard as well as the Greek military division sent to Cyprus by the Greek government of George Papandreou to assist in the extermination of the Turkish Cypriots.
Grivas rapidly took over the Greek Cypriot National Guard and restored discipline. Noting that possession of the beachhead at Erenköy was enabling the Turkish Cypriots to bring in food, medicine, clothing, arms and students from Turkey, he decided to organize a heavy attack on Erenköy with an infantry of 5,000 on Aug. 6, 1964. His plan was to reach the shore within two hours and exterminate the Turkish Cypriot beachhead.
He felt so assured of victory that days before he invited civilians to the area for a joyful spectacle with a public invitation in the newspapers.
The result was a disaster. On Aug. 8, the mighty Greek Cypriot force had to retreat with countless wounded and dead, leaving behind most of their armory.
EOKA...
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:11 am
The Turkish Terrorist Organisation T.M.T.
The first inter-communal violence in the recent history of Cyprus was, in fact, caused by T.M.T. This was the result of a policy of hate cultivated by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and it aimed at persuading world public opinion that Turkish Cypriots could not co-exist with Greek Cypriots and, therefore, partition in one form or another was necessary. On 12 June 1958 eight innocent and unarmed Greek Cypriot civilians from Kondemenos village were murdered by T.M.T. terrorists near the Turkish populated village of Geunyeli. That was the first incident involving human lives. According to the findings of the "Commission of Inquiry into the Incidents at Geunyeli" (appointed by the British colonial administration), which were also included in the official report of Sir Paget Bourke, Chief Justice of Cyprus, "for some days prior to 12 June, in fact from 7 June, inter-communal feeling was running very high in the island and there had been many instances of attacks by Turks, particularly in Nicosia, upon members of the Greek community and upon Greek property". There is no reference to attacks on Turkish Cypriots as there were no such attacks. The T.M.T. terrorists attacked again in 1963. This is evidenced by the fact that they were found in possession of vast quantities of arms. Moreover, Turkish intentions were revealed in the "Deniz" incident when the Turkish ship full of arms was sent to Cyprus as early as 1959, after the conclusion of the Agreement on Cyprus.
And to quote "the New York Times" of 27.12.1963:
"Most of the fighting centered on a police station occupied by Turks in Nicosia, and on family apartments in the suburb of Omorphita. These were overrun and occupied by Turks who chased off Greek families. They were reported to have killed an unspecified number of women and children".
The first inter-communal violence in the recent history of Cyprus was, in fact, caused by T.M.T. This was the result of a policy of hate cultivated by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and it aimed at persuading world public opinion that Turkish Cypriots could not co-exist with Greek Cypriots and, therefore, partition in one form or another was necessary. On 12 June 1958 eight innocent and unarmed Greek Cypriot civilians from Kondemenos village were murdered by T.M.T. terrorists near the Turkish populated village of Geunyeli. That was the first incident involving human lives. According to the findings of the "Commission of Inquiry into the Incidents at Geunyeli" (appointed by the British colonial administration), which were also included in the official report of Sir Paget Bourke, Chief Justice of Cyprus, "for some days prior to 12 June, in fact from 7 June, inter-communal feeling was running very high in the island and there had been many instances of attacks by Turks, particularly in Nicosia, upon members of the Greek community and upon Greek property". There is no reference to attacks on Turkish Cypriots as there were no such attacks. The T.M.T. terrorists attacked again in 1963. This is evidenced by the fact that they were found in possession of vast quantities of arms. Moreover, Turkish intentions were revealed in the "Deniz" incident when the Turkish ship full of arms was sent to Cyprus as early as 1959, after the conclusion of the Agreement on Cyprus.
And to quote "the New York Times" of 27.12.1963:
"Most of the fighting centered on a police station occupied by Turks in Nicosia, and on family apartments in the suburb of Omorphita. These were overrun and occupied by Turks who chased off Greek families. They were reported to have killed an unspecified number of women and children".
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:12 am
London Conference
In January 1964, in view of the serious situation resulting from the fighting in Cyprus, the threats and acts of intervention and aggression from outside, and the forcible movement of population, the British Government convened a conference in London to deal with the problem. But a few days after the conference had started it became clear that its purpose was to persuade the Cyprus Government to agree a) to the dispatch to Cyprus of troops from various countries friendly and allied to Britain and Turkey for the ostensible purpose of maintaining law and order, and b) to the establishment of an intergovernment committee, with the participation of governments supplying contingents, to issue directives to the troops. Whatever might have been the motives and intentions of the various countries submitting that proposal, the representatives of Cyprus realised that acceptance of that proposal would inevitably result in the occupation of Cyprus by foreign troops and in the replacement of the authority of the Cyprus Government by that of the so-called intergovernmental committee, which would have made it easier for the Turks to pursue their plans for the geographical separation of the Turkish Cypriot minority. In fact, that was precisely what the Turkish representatives had demanded at the opening of the London Conference; but the representatives of Cyprus opposed that plan and all similar plans submitted to them, and the Cyprus Government finally brought the matter before the United Nations. To do so it had to resist pressure brought to bear from several quarters. At one point it had even been told that an appeal to the Security Council would be sufficient reason for Turkey to invade Cyprus. During the entire period the threat of a Turkish invasion was constant. Turkish military aircraft flew over Cyprus, and Turkish war equipment and trained officers clandestinely landed on the island. All this culminated in the bombing by Turkish jets of Cypriot villages and towns in August 1964. About 100 Greek Cypriots - mainly civilians - were killed and a large number were injured. Following Turkish threats to invade the island, the Cyprus Government brought the matter before the United Nations.
In January 1964, in view of the serious situation resulting from the fighting in Cyprus, the threats and acts of intervention and aggression from outside, and the forcible movement of population, the British Government convened a conference in London to deal with the problem. But a few days after the conference had started it became clear that its purpose was to persuade the Cyprus Government to agree a) to the dispatch to Cyprus of troops from various countries friendly and allied to Britain and Turkey for the ostensible purpose of maintaining law and order, and b) to the establishment of an intergovernment committee, with the participation of governments supplying contingents, to issue directives to the troops. Whatever might have been the motives and intentions of the various countries submitting that proposal, the representatives of Cyprus realised that acceptance of that proposal would inevitably result in the occupation of Cyprus by foreign troops and in the replacement of the authority of the Cyprus Government by that of the so-called intergovernmental committee, which would have made it easier for the Turks to pursue their plans for the geographical separation of the Turkish Cypriot minority. In fact, that was precisely what the Turkish representatives had demanded at the opening of the London Conference; but the representatives of Cyprus opposed that plan and all similar plans submitted to them, and the Cyprus Government finally brought the matter before the United Nations. To do so it had to resist pressure brought to bear from several quarters. At one point it had even been told that an appeal to the Security Council would be sufficient reason for Turkey to invade Cyprus. During the entire period the threat of a Turkish invasion was constant. Turkish military aircraft flew over Cyprus, and Turkish war equipment and trained officers clandestinely landed on the island. All this culminated in the bombing by Turkish jets of Cypriot villages and towns in August 1964. About 100 Greek Cypriots - mainly civilians - were killed and a large number were injured. Following Turkish threats to invade the island, the Cyprus Government brought the matter before the United Nations.
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:13 am
U.N. Mediation
The United Nations has been continuously involved in the Cyprus problem since 1964 both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. In March 1964, under Security Council resolution 186 (1964), a U.N. Peace-Keeping Force (UNFICYP) was sent to the island (originally for three months, but following separate extensions, it is still on the island), to help restore peace and normal conditions. A mediator, originally Mr. Tuomioya of Finland and later Dr. Galo Plaza of Ecuador, was appointed by the U.N. SecretaryGeneral in March 1965.
In his report, Dr. Galo Plaza stated that the problem of Cyprus could not be resolved by attempting to restore the situation which existed before December 1963, but that a new solution had to be found which would be consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. In particular, he concluded, inter alia, that the solution should satisfy the wishes of the majority of the population and at the same time provide for the adequate protection of the legitimate rights of all the people. (Doc. S/62555, para. 130) This report, which could have formed a reasonable basis for the solution of the problem, was rejected by Turkey and Dr. Plaza's mediation efforts came to an end.
The United Nations has been continuously involved in the Cyprus problem since 1964 both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly. In March 1964, under Security Council resolution 186 (1964), a U.N. Peace-Keeping Force (UNFICYP) was sent to the island (originally for three months, but following separate extensions, it is still on the island), to help restore peace and normal conditions. A mediator, originally Mr. Tuomioya of Finland and later Dr. Galo Plaza of Ecuador, was appointed by the U.N. SecretaryGeneral in March 1965.
In his report, Dr. Galo Plaza stated that the problem of Cyprus could not be resolved by attempting to restore the situation which existed before December 1963, but that a new solution had to be found which would be consistent with the provisions of the United Nations Charter. In particular, he concluded, inter alia, that the solution should satisfy the wishes of the majority of the population and at the same time provide for the adequate protection of the legitimate rights of all the people. (Doc. S/62555, para. 130) This report, which could have formed a reasonable basis for the solution of the problem, was rejected by Turkey and Dr. Plaza's mediation efforts came to an end.
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
by halil » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:16 am
Cyprus 1960-1974 and 2008
This degrading retreat forced Gen. Georgio Grivas to abandon his dreams of taking the Erenköy beachhead from the Turkish Cypriots. The UN called for a cease-fire and it was agreed to by both parties.
The various statements made by Archbishop Makarios in 1964 clearly explain the cause of the conflict on the island and his dream of taking a seat in history as the "architect of enosis" (or union with mainland Greece). On March 25, 1964, in a statement to German daily Sudetendeutsche Zeitung, he said, "With regard to the solution of the Cyprus problem, the union of Cyprus with Greece is the wish of the Cypriot people and myself."
On Aug. 21, 1964 he declared to the Mahi newspaper: "My ambition is to accomplish the union of Cyprus with Greece. … I will unite integrally with Greece and then the bor¬ders of Greece will extend to the shores of North Africa."
On Sept. 20, 1964 he told The Washington Post: "I want something higher than being a temporary president of Cyprus. My ambition is to connect my name with history as the architect of enosis."
The basics of the "Megali Idea," or Great Idea, can easily be seen in his statements. It was only three years before that he had sworn officially and publicly to keep and cherish "the independence of Cyprus." But his real dream was to bury the Republic of Cyprus and realize Greece's dream of enosis.
Had the 1960 independence been believed in by the Greek Cypriots and accepted as an end in itself, there would be no Cyprus problem today.
Speaking at the Paralimni Church on Sept. 3, 1964, Makarios said: "What is our desire? We have proclaimed it many times: Our union with the motherland, eternal Greece. What will our reply be if such a solution is made difficult and if some think compromises are required or that something should be given in return? 'No,' is the reply, and the struggle will continue until full justification."
This is the main reason the Cyprus problem has still not been settled today, in the year 2008. Nothing will change until Greek Cypriot leaders and leading politicians change their minds and abandon the holy oath of Makarios given to the Orthodox Church of Cyprus in the year 1950.
The attacks in the year 1963 and 1964 were a combined effort of secret Greek Cypriot armies, the Greek Cypriot police and mainland Greek officers. Greece always took the side of Makarios, politically and militarily.
The onslaught on the Turkish Community was, according to Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreu, "no onslaught at all." The Greek side maintained, "It is not a cause for action under the Treaty of Guarantee for the Preservation of Independence."
Each time Turkey moved to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus, Greek representatives joined with the Greek Cypriot leadership in protesting against "outside interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus."
According to Greece, the elimination of Turks from Cyprus (under the false claim that the Turks had rebelled) was an internal affair for Makarios, and Turkey had no right, moral or otherwise, to come to the aid of the Turkish Cypriots. But Greece itself was already in Cyprus -- at the invitation of Maka¬rios -- with 15,000 Greek troops.
And at a luncheon party in honor of the visiting Greek defense minister on Oct. 27, 1964, Archbishop Makarios was quoted in the local press as follows: "Greece has become Cyprus and Cyprus is Greece. I firmly believe that the Pan-Hellenic struggle for the union of Cyprus with fatherland Greece will shortly be crowned with success, and its success will serve as the beginning of a new era of Greek grandeur and glory."
Turkey, fully aware of the complicity of the Greek Govern¬ment in this diabolical plan to unite Cyprus with Greece, raised its voice in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish officials stated: "If union with Greece was the aim, then the Turkish Cypriots should be left out of it. ... Turkish Cypriots, who owned 30 percent of the registered land and were one-fifth of the population of Cyprus, did not want to be colonized by Greece. They must cede to Turkey." The clear answer and reaction to enosis was a double-enosis.
This Turkish answer to enosis, which Greece was actively pur¬suing in Cyprus, was to be used over and over again both by Greece and Greek Cypriot leaders "as proof of the partitionist aims of Turkey"! And Makarios was to clearly come out with his objection to giving any rights to the Turks in Cyprus in November 1964.
On Nov. 21, 1964, Archbishop Makarios said to the Phileleftheros newspaper: "I am for enosis and shall always stand for it. But it must be genuine enosis without curbs or strings." Any right recognized for the Turks in Cyprus in return for agreeing to enosis would detract from the genuineness of enosis. On Nov. 24, 1964, he made his point even more clear. "I emphasized that the union of Cyprus with Greece must be a union of the whole island, including all areas."
This degrading retreat forced Gen. Georgio Grivas to abandon his dreams of taking the Erenköy beachhead from the Turkish Cypriots. The UN called for a cease-fire and it was agreed to by both parties.
The various statements made by Archbishop Makarios in 1964 clearly explain the cause of the conflict on the island and his dream of taking a seat in history as the "architect of enosis" (or union with mainland Greece). On March 25, 1964, in a statement to German daily Sudetendeutsche Zeitung, he said, "With regard to the solution of the Cyprus problem, the union of Cyprus with Greece is the wish of the Cypriot people and myself."
On Aug. 21, 1964 he declared to the Mahi newspaper: "My ambition is to accomplish the union of Cyprus with Greece. … I will unite integrally with Greece and then the bor¬ders of Greece will extend to the shores of North Africa."
On Sept. 20, 1964 he told The Washington Post: "I want something higher than being a temporary president of Cyprus. My ambition is to connect my name with history as the architect of enosis."
The basics of the "Megali Idea," or Great Idea, can easily be seen in his statements. It was only three years before that he had sworn officially and publicly to keep and cherish "the independence of Cyprus." But his real dream was to bury the Republic of Cyprus and realize Greece's dream of enosis.
Had the 1960 independence been believed in by the Greek Cypriots and accepted as an end in itself, there would be no Cyprus problem today.
Speaking at the Paralimni Church on Sept. 3, 1964, Makarios said: "What is our desire? We have proclaimed it many times: Our union with the motherland, eternal Greece. What will our reply be if such a solution is made difficult and if some think compromises are required or that something should be given in return? 'No,' is the reply, and the struggle will continue until full justification."
This is the main reason the Cyprus problem has still not been settled today, in the year 2008. Nothing will change until Greek Cypriot leaders and leading politicians change their minds and abandon the holy oath of Makarios given to the Orthodox Church of Cyprus in the year 1950.
The attacks in the year 1963 and 1964 were a combined effort of secret Greek Cypriot armies, the Greek Cypriot police and mainland Greek officers. Greece always took the side of Makarios, politically and militarily.
The onslaught on the Turkish Community was, according to Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreu, "no onslaught at all." The Greek side maintained, "It is not a cause for action under the Treaty of Guarantee for the Preservation of Independence."
Each time Turkey moved to prevent a bloodbath in Cyprus, Greek representatives joined with the Greek Cypriot leadership in protesting against "outside interference in the internal affairs of Cyprus."
According to Greece, the elimination of Turks from Cyprus (under the false claim that the Turks had rebelled) was an internal affair for Makarios, and Turkey had no right, moral or otherwise, to come to the aid of the Turkish Cypriots. But Greece itself was already in Cyprus -- at the invitation of Maka¬rios -- with 15,000 Greek troops.
And at a luncheon party in honor of the visiting Greek defense minister on Oct. 27, 1964, Archbishop Makarios was quoted in the local press as follows: "Greece has become Cyprus and Cyprus is Greece. I firmly believe that the Pan-Hellenic struggle for the union of Cyprus with fatherland Greece will shortly be crowned with success, and its success will serve as the beginning of a new era of Greek grandeur and glory."
Turkey, fully aware of the complicity of the Greek Govern¬ment in this diabolical plan to unite Cyprus with Greece, raised its voice in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriots. Turkish officials stated: "If union with Greece was the aim, then the Turkish Cypriots should be left out of it. ... Turkish Cypriots, who owned 30 percent of the registered land and were one-fifth of the population of Cyprus, did not want to be colonized by Greece. They must cede to Turkey." The clear answer and reaction to enosis was a double-enosis.
This Turkish answer to enosis, which Greece was actively pur¬suing in Cyprus, was to be used over and over again both by Greece and Greek Cypriot leaders "as proof of the partitionist aims of Turkey"! And Makarios was to clearly come out with his objection to giving any rights to the Turks in Cyprus in November 1964.
On Nov. 21, 1964, Archbishop Makarios said to the Phileleftheros newspaper: "I am for enosis and shall always stand for it. But it must be genuine enosis without curbs or strings." Any right recognized for the Turks in Cyprus in return for agreeing to enosis would detract from the genuineness of enosis. On Nov. 24, 1964, he made his point even more clear. "I emphasized that the union of Cyprus with Greece must be a union of the whole island, including all areas."
- halil
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
- Location: nicosia
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:20 am
Drawbacks of a Separatist System of Government
The T.M.T. leaders, at the instigation of Turkey, were all along trying to promote a "solution" to the problem aiming ultimately at the island's division. Proposals were put forward for direct partition or for federation envisaging removal of populations and the setting up of two distinct administrations for the purpose of creating separate national and racial areas.
The idea of federation in Cyprus was examined in 1956, when the island was still a British colony, by the eminent constitutional expert, Lord Radcliffe, who, in his "Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus", said the following on the subject: "It would be natural enough to accord to members of a federation equality of representation in the federal body, regardless of the numerical proportions of the populations of the territories they represent. But can Cyprus be organised as a federation in this way? I do not think so. There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communities and apart from other objections, federation of communities which does not involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficult constitutional form". The United Nations mediator, Dr. Galo Plaza, was of the same opinion. In his report he said:
"To my mind the objections raised (against federation) also on economic, social and moral grounds are in themselves serious obstacles to the proposition. It would seem to require a compulsory movement of the people concerned - many thousands on both sides - contrary to all enlightened principles of the present time, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human RightsÉ" (S/62555, para. 153). "It is essential to be clear what this proposal implies. To refer to it simply as Ôfederation' is to oversimplify the matter. What is involved is not merely to establish a federal form of government but also to secure the geographical separation of the two communities. The establishment of a federal regime requires a territorial basis and this basis does not exist. In an earlier part of this report I explained the island-wide intermingling in normal times of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot populations. The events since December 1963 have not basically altered this characteristic: even the enclaves where numbers of Turkish Cypriots concentrated following the troubles are widely scattered over the island, while thousands of other Turkish Cypriots have remained in mixed villages" (S/62555, para 150). Elsewhere in his report Dr. Plaza stated: "In fact the arguments for the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government have not convinced me that it would not inevitably lead to partitionÉ" (S/62555 para. 154).
"Again if the purpose of a settlement of the Cyprus question is to be the preservation rather than the destruction of the state and if it is to foster rather than to militate against the development of a peacefully united people, I cannot help wondering whether the physical division of the minority from the majority should not be considered a desperate step in the wrong direction. I am reluctant to believe, as the Turkish Cypriot leadership claims, in the Ôimpossibility' of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots learning to live together again in peace. In those parts of the country where movement controls have been relaxed and tensions reduced they are already proving otherwise" (S/62555, para. 155).
The T.M.T. leaders, at the instigation of Turkey, were all along trying to promote a "solution" to the problem aiming ultimately at the island's division. Proposals were put forward for direct partition or for federation envisaging removal of populations and the setting up of two distinct administrations for the purpose of creating separate national and racial areas.
The idea of federation in Cyprus was examined in 1956, when the island was still a British colony, by the eminent constitutional expert, Lord Radcliffe, who, in his "Constitutional Proposals for Cyprus", said the following on the subject: "It would be natural enough to accord to members of a federation equality of representation in the federal body, regardless of the numerical proportions of the populations of the territories they represent. But can Cyprus be organised as a federation in this way? I do not think so. There is no pattern of territorial separation between the two communities and apart from other objections, federation of communities which does not involve also federation of territories seems to me a very difficult constitutional form". The United Nations mediator, Dr. Galo Plaza, was of the same opinion. In his report he said:
"To my mind the objections raised (against federation) also on economic, social and moral grounds are in themselves serious obstacles to the proposition. It would seem to require a compulsory movement of the people concerned - many thousands on both sides - contrary to all enlightened principles of the present time, including those set forth in the Universal Declaration of Human RightsÉ" (S/62555, para. 153). "It is essential to be clear what this proposal implies. To refer to it simply as Ôfederation' is to oversimplify the matter. What is involved is not merely to establish a federal form of government but also to secure the geographical separation of the two communities. The establishment of a federal regime requires a territorial basis and this basis does not exist. In an earlier part of this report I explained the island-wide intermingling in normal times of the Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot populations. The events since December 1963 have not basically altered this characteristic: even the enclaves where numbers of Turkish Cypriots concentrated following the troubles are widely scattered over the island, while thousands of other Turkish Cypriots have remained in mixed villages" (S/62555, para 150). Elsewhere in his report Dr. Plaza stated: "In fact the arguments for the geographical separation of the two communities under a federal system of government have not convinced me that it would not inevitably lead to partitionÉ" (S/62555 para. 154).
"Again if the purpose of a settlement of the Cyprus question is to be the preservation rather than the destruction of the state and if it is to foster rather than to militate against the development of a peacefully united people, I cannot help wondering whether the physical division of the minority from the majority should not be considered a desperate step in the wrong direction. I am reluctant to believe, as the Turkish Cypriot leadership claims, in the Ôimpossibility' of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots learning to live together again in peace. In those parts of the country where movement controls have been relaxed and tensions reduced they are already proving otherwise" (S/62555, para. 155).
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
by halil » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:20 am
DT. wrote:more to come after you've digested these.
no problem for me let the peoples to face what is the their versions of the history than they can discuss. no this wasn't like this or that it was like that ..... I always read others as well ..... and try to find truth and compare the past .
- halil
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 8804
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:21 pm
- Location: nicosia
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:24 am
halil wrote:DT. wrote:more to come after you've digested these.
no problem for me let the peoples to face what is the their versions of the history than they can discuss. no this wasn't like this or that it was like that ..... I always read others as well ..... and try to find truth and compare the past .
agreed Halil.
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
by DT. » Thu Sep 25, 2008 10:29 am
Cyprus at the United Nations
The United Nations, being directly involved in the Cyprus problem and concerned about the Turkish threat to Cyprus' sovereignty and independence, passed a resolution on 18 December 1965 which, inter alia, said:
The General Assembly:
Takes cognizance of the fact that the Republic of Cyprus, as an equal member of the United Nations, is, in accordance with the Charter, entitled to and should enjoy full sovereignty and complete independence without any foreign intervention or interference; Calls upon all states, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter, and in particular article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4, to respect the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any intervention directed against it;
Recommends to the Security Council the continuation of the United Nations mediation work in conformity with Council resolution 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964. In June 1968, following recommendations by the U.N. Secretary-General, talks started between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, but as the Turkish aim was the promotion of the island's partition no progress was achieved. The holding of the talks had become possible on account mainly of the unilateral normalisation measures taken by the Government in 1968 in spite of the fact that innocent Greek Cypriots (including 4 monks) had been murdered by T.M.T. terrorists in 1967, and that a so-called Turkish Cypriot provisional administration had been set up that year in order to promote partition or the creation of a separate state. The Government lifted all restrictions and abolished all checkpoints, which had been set up following the 1963/1964 clashes. In this way the Turkish Cypriots were completely free to circulate in all parts of the island. But the T.M.T. leadership did not respond to these measures. Moreover, Greek Cypriots were prohibited from entering certain areas and obstacles were continuously created in the way of cooperation between the whole population of Cyprus.
Meanwhile the inter-communal talks continued on the understanding that the two sides would try to find a settlement based on a unitary, independent and sovereign state. This was also stressed by the U.N. Secretary - General and it was repeatedly declared at U.N. sessions.
The sequence of events, however, proved that while at the beginning Turkey seemed to agree to the principle of an independent, sovereign and unitary state, she had all the time been working and preparing plans for the partition of the island and was waiting for the opportune moment.
Turkey's intentions came into the open in February 1974, when following a long Government crisis after the general elections in the autumn, the Turkish Coalition Government of the Republican People's Party with the National Salvation Party, under Premier Bulent Ecevit, signed a protocol in which it declared that only federation could be accepted in Cyprus. Following this official statement, which ruined all prospects for a settlement in accordance with previously accepted principles, Turkey set the invasion machine in motion.
The United Nations, being directly involved in the Cyprus problem and concerned about the Turkish threat to Cyprus' sovereignty and independence, passed a resolution on 18 December 1965 which, inter alia, said:
The General Assembly:
Takes cognizance of the fact that the Republic of Cyprus, as an equal member of the United Nations, is, in accordance with the Charter, entitled to and should enjoy full sovereignty and complete independence without any foreign intervention or interference; Calls upon all states, in conformity with their obligations under the Charter, and in particular article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4, to respect the sovereignty, unity, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any intervention directed against it;
Recommends to the Security Council the continuation of the United Nations mediation work in conformity with Council resolution 186 (1964) of 4 March 1964. In June 1968, following recommendations by the U.N. Secretary-General, talks started between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots to find a solution to the Cyprus problem, but as the Turkish aim was the promotion of the island's partition no progress was achieved. The holding of the talks had become possible on account mainly of the unilateral normalisation measures taken by the Government in 1968 in spite of the fact that innocent Greek Cypriots (including 4 monks) had been murdered by T.M.T. terrorists in 1967, and that a so-called Turkish Cypriot provisional administration had been set up that year in order to promote partition or the creation of a separate state. The Government lifted all restrictions and abolished all checkpoints, which had been set up following the 1963/1964 clashes. In this way the Turkish Cypriots were completely free to circulate in all parts of the island. But the T.M.T. leadership did not respond to these measures. Moreover, Greek Cypriots were prohibited from entering certain areas and obstacles were continuously created in the way of cooperation between the whole population of Cyprus.
Meanwhile the inter-communal talks continued on the understanding that the two sides would try to find a settlement based on a unitary, independent and sovereign state. This was also stressed by the U.N. Secretary - General and it was repeatedly declared at U.N. sessions.
The sequence of events, however, proved that while at the beginning Turkey seemed to agree to the principle of an independent, sovereign and unitary state, she had all the time been working and preparing plans for the partition of the island and was waiting for the opportune moment.
Turkey's intentions came into the open in February 1974, when following a long Government crisis after the general elections in the autumn, the Turkish Coalition Government of the Republican People's Party with the National Salvation Party, under Premier Bulent Ecevit, signed a protocol in which it declared that only federation could be accepted in Cyprus. Following this official statement, which ruined all prospects for a settlement in accordance with previously accepted principles, Turkey set the invasion machine in motion.
-
DT. - Leading Contributor
- Posts: 12684
- Joined: Sun Nov 12, 2006 8:34 pm
- Location: Lefkosia
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
