Kikapu wrote:BirKibrisli wrote:Kikapu wrote:Kikapu wrote:BirKibrisli wrote:1...do you believe the core of the Cyprus problem was a desire by Turkey to expand her territories????
2...Do you think the TC climb into the enclaves in 1963 was simply to open the way for Turkish occupation??? They had no legitimate fears for their lives????
3...Would you consider the TC move into enclaves as "ethnic cleansing"?
Or does that only apply to the GC expulsion from the North???
Let us get your honest opinion on these points...You do not of course have to answer these questions....You can simply say it is none of my business...But ,please, don't side step them again and pretend to answer...
1. The last 36 years says "YES". Had they came and did what they were suppose to do and left, then the answer would be a "NO". While I was in Turkey last October, some Turks believed that Turkey should have taken all of Cyprus back in 1974. If it wasn't for expansion purposes, then there would not have been any need to expel GCs from the north if we were to overlook at her all other faulty. If the TCs were their major concerns to help them from the GCs, Turkey should have come in 1963 and to spared us the bad times from 1963-1974. I do not want to hear any excuses why Turkey did not come in 1963 because America did not let her, because then Turkey should have never become a Guarantor Power to Cyprus and particularly for the TCs, if she needed permission like a child needing a permission from her teacher to go to the bathroom. Turkey is part responsible for the sufferings of the TCs along with those seeking Enosis and Taksim. I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear, but that's what happened.
2. Yes, the TCs did fear for their lives and it was also a very ideal way to try and bring most TCs together for that eventuality for Taksim by their leaders. Naturally Turkey would have loved to take part of Cyprus once the British left. After all, they had it for 300 years at one point, so what better way to take it back, if not in full, but in part by coming in to save the TCs from the GCs. Many variables played part once the 1960 constitution was signed. From then on, the race was on as to who was going to achieve Enosis or Taksim first, or for much better outcome, by having a double Enosis-Taksim with as little blood shed as possible. It appears that the extremist from the Enosis felt they deserved 100% and was their aim, but in 1968, Makarios had already given up on the whole idea for Enosis, but Taksim kept on going.
3. YES, it was ethnic cleansing, speaking from experience that we went through in Küçük Kaymakli. We were uprooted at the point of a gun, shipped to imprisonment, and then dropped off someplace in Nicosia which was not where our home was. I don't know the exact stories on how all the other TCs ended up in enclaves, but I'm sure they had somewhat similar experience, if not at the point of the gun from the GCs, but at the point of a gun from the TMT.!BirKibrisli wrote:I think you got the meaning of my first question wrong,Kikapu...I was asking for your opinion of the "core" reason for the Cyprus problem...You gave me an analysis of your take on the events since 1974....I don't think you believe at the core of Cyprus conflict is Turkey's territorial ambitions...You might want to clarify your positon on that issue,or you might not..
Bir, let me make this reply very short and to the point to answer your question, which requires me to ask you a questions so that you can answer your own question.!
Now, the core problem for Cyprus crisis has to do with Enosis and Taksim, that much we can all agree with, I'm sure. Then comes the 1960 Constitution, then comes the interests of Greece, Turkey, Britain and couple of other countries in an indirect way. To find the answer to your own question, you will need to answer this following question as honestly as you can, which you will then get your answer. So, the question is;
"Could the TCs from 1958 on have been able to achieve Taksim on their own without the help of Turkey.????"
For my answer to the above, the answer would be a "NO", which then it means, "YES", Turkey did have territorial ambitions, otherwise they would have prevented Taksim movement to get too far from 1958. Even when Makarios in 1968 declared Enosis was no longer the goal, Taksim was still on going, and today, it is still on going, so Bir, if we are to connect the dots, it is obvious that partition today could not have happened without Turkey's help no matter what Denktash tried to get one without Turkey, he simply would not have been able to do. The 1960 constitution was the "vehicle" that would assist Turkey in wanting to take part of Cyprus going back as early as 1963 when the problems started, just because the 1960 constitution was designed for it not to be a workable constitution, but the US prevented them. The GCs really didn't need Greece to help them achieve Enosis with them militarily due to their numbers over the TCs, but the TCs most certainly needed the help of Turkey, and they got it in 1974, 11 years after 1963 when they first wanted to come to achieve what they achieved in 1974. If we needed further evidence of the above, look what has happened in 1974 and since. To me it is very clear once you connect the dots.!
But the trouble is,Kikapu,you are connecting the wrong dots...
Your starting dot is spot on...At the core of the Cyprus problem lies the double headed monster,ENOSIS and TAKSIM...We agree on that...
The next dot you should join is "Which one came first"???
I am sure you will agree that ENOSIS came first... Its inspiration was the Greek struggle for independence way back in 1820s...Taksim was a very late invention of the British,in order to divide and rule...The next dot is :"Did the TCs really have an alternative option to Taksim??? What could they possibly have done to counter the Enosis danger???" given the historical animosity between the Greeks and Turks,fueled by the Greek invasion of Anatolia in the 1920s I would say anbody who expected then TCs to just go along with Enosis was very deluded...Turkey had washed her hands of Cyprus,Kikapu when they officially signed it over to the British...It was not till late 50s that they were convinced by the British and the Americans that they ought to pay more attention to the events in Cyprus....To suggest that the 1960 agreements was specialy designed to pave the way for Turkey to invade Cyprus and achieve Taksim is fanciful to say the least... Makarios was still dreaming of Enosis when he signed those agreements,and The Akritas plan hatched during the first year of the Republic is proof that the GCs were hell bent on sidelining the TCs at all cost,to pave way for Enosis...And once the 63 troubles started,and the TCs were forced into their enclaves the scene was set,not by Turkey but by Makarios himself...
So sure the answer to your question enlarged above is NO...the TCs could not have achieved Taksim without Turkey...But this doesn't mean at the core of the Cyprus problem you find Turkey territorial ambitions...If you connect the dots I have outlined you ought to come to the conclusion that the GC demand for ENOSIS and the TC counter demand for Taksim lies at the core of the Cyprus problem...And without ENOSIS there would never have been TAKSIM... And without ENOSIS and TAKSIM there would never have been a Turkish intervention/invasion...Now what does that tell you??? Certainly NOT that at the core of the CP lies Turkey's territorial ambitions
Bir, there is no argument from anyone as to which came first, Enosis dream or the Taksim dream. It was Enosis. What you need to focus on however, which is what I did just because you have asked me to do so, was to focus on the period when the troubles started, which was in 1963. Your question was, if I understood it 100%, "was the CORE of the Cyprus problem was a desire by Turkey to expand her territories?", and since Enosis and Taksim were running neck n' neck in 1963, even if Taksim dream was a late starter in 1958 or even earlier, in 1963 they were "Dead Heat", so, at this point as to which came first is totally irrelevant. It is this period of 1963 and beyond we are talking about. But in order to get to 1963 troubles, there had to be a failure in the system in running the country to create the failure, and that "vehicle" was the unworkable 1960 Constitution to assist Greece and Turkey in getting double Enosis-Taksim while Britain sat back safely on her bases in Cyprus. But Bir, what you are saying in a round about way is, that since Enosis dream came first before Taksim, then it is a "YES", that Turkey did have territorial ambitions. This is what your above argument would lead someone to believe and accept.
Now, Bir, if Taksim was alive in 1958, and you agreed with me that Taksim could not have been achieved without Turkey, and knowing that getting Enosis and Taksim was going to be bloody, then is it not safe to surmise that in order for Turkey to assist Taksim to be realised, they would have had to take some territory, or else there is no Taksim. The only way you can excuse Turkey for not having territorial interests in Cyprus ever would have been in two ways,
1. Taksim was never the dream of the TCs, therefore Turkey was acting only as a Guarantor for the safety of all Cypriots and never had any territorial ambitions in Cyprus
or
2. Only Enosis was alive and Turkey had to come in to save the TCs from bloody mess in the event there was an attempt to have Enosis, then take some land for the TCs to be safe from Enosis.
But we all know, that Taksim was alive and well from 1958 and beyond, therefore, so was Turkey's territorial ambitions because they are one and the same. You can’t have one without the other. I gave you the article that Bananiot posted, stating that in 1968 Makarios was no longer was interested in Enosis, but Taksim kept on going. If Turkey was able to come in 1964 when Enosis was alive and well, then there could be some justification made to take some territory to safeguard the TCs, at least until they put the government back together again, but by 1974, Enosis was dead as a national cause for the GCs but Taksim was alive. It is these dots you need to connect, unless you are saying, that since Enosis dream started first, then from then on, Turkey cannot be blamed in taking part of Cyprus also regardless if Enosis dream ended way before 1974, in 1968. As long as Taksim was alive, as it is still today, it can still only be achieved with Turkey help, and that's exactly what has been happening since 1974. If Turkey withdrew today, the “trnc” won’t last more than 5 minutes, and if territory was not her intent, why keep Verosa locked up all these years, other than use it to make a partition deal.
One must be also careful when we use the term “Turkey” this and “Turkey” that as far as she having any territorial ambitions in Cyprus, because what we should really be saying is, the Turkish Military who had/has run it’s affairs without the control of the civilian government in Turkey for decades, specially in the 60’s and 70’s, whom have a much better relationship with Denktash than they had with their own civil government, which had very little power over the military in Turkey or even in Cyprus..!
Hi Kikapu;
As usual I enjoy reading a proper debate by the masters of debate on the TC side. (a very rare occurence, if I may say so).
One point I differ from you is that you say Enosis was dead by 1974. The coup failed only because of the Turkish Intervention/Invasion - FACT. What we will never know, without the Turkish Army, would the coup have succeeded and then ENOSIS occur? Whateever our GC frends say about this is irrelevant. What is relevant now is the presence of the Turkish Army as an occupying power. They have overstayed and misused their 'guarantor powers'. How can we expect our GC friends to trust Turkey ever again?
