Cyprus-Forum.com

[Talisker]

The Brits receive a regular bashing on this forum, something which I wonder is a residual hangover from the UK role in the various constitutional issues regarding Cyprus, including Independence, and which contributed to the current divided state of the island. I wanted to find out what the UK was trying to achieve in the late 1950s which may, or may not, have resulted in the current situation. I found a Hansard record of a House of Lords debate from 8th July, 1958, and my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK. I've provided the opening speech for the debate by Lord Winster, previously Reginald Thomas Herbert Fletcher who was Governor of Cyprus from 1946 - 1949, but it is a lengthy debate with another 13 or 14 speakers. The complete record can be obtained from:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lord ... /08/cyprus

LORD WINSTER rose to call attention to the situation in Cyprus; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. It has stood there for a very long time, but I hope that I have correctly interpreted the feelings of the House in not moving it until to-day. It occurred to me this morning that we shall be debating this afternoon the fate of the last remnant of Disraeli's Empire-building which consisted of India, a predominant position in Egypt, and Cyprus. To-day, after less than 100 years, only Cyprus remains; and although it is only a small island I think it has caused us quite as much trouble as the other two, India and Egypt.

I feel that Cyprus offers a perfect example of a modern phenomenon—an easy-going, happy, moderately prosperous people, living happily in the sun in neighbourly peace and friendliness. And what happens? They are freed one day from the curse of malaria, only to become infected by the modern bug of what is known as "political consciousness." Greeks, Turks, Armenians, Maronites, were living side by side in Cyprus without any racial animosities, under an efficient, tolerant and thoroughly well-disposed Administration. Then, like the demon king in the pantomime, up comes the demon of political unrest, encouraged by political agitators of what is, unfortunately, a well-known type. The people are told that they are oppressed and down-trodden and exploited, and that under another form of Administration, they would be free, richer and happier. Men and women under the agitator's manipulation, cease to be Cypriots living as one race: they become Greeks and Turks encouraged to hate each other. They become divided into Democrats and Communists and, again, are taught to hate each other. To divide the people and teach them to hate is the agitator's technique.

The next thing is that revolvers make an appearance, and later come bombs. There are shootings and knifings. Reprisals followed such incidents; and those reprisals, of course, bring further reprisals. The Administration try to preserve order and to suppress the gunmen, and become represented as a tyranny. Tales are spread about tortures and other malpractices when the gunmen are imprisoned. The result of all this is that fear stalks the land, distrust is everywhere and hate is rife;,and the agitator rubs his hands, well pleased. The people have become politically conscious. What an ugly business! Yet that is precisely what has been happening in Cyprus.

This matter was debated recently in another place and Mr. Lennox Boyd said [OFFICIAL, REPORT (Commons) Vol. 590 (No. 129) Col. 616]: One day the whole story can be told. I agree that that day is not to-day. By coincidence, this is the eighth day of the month and in the Psalms for today your Lordships will find these words: I will keep my tongue as it were with a bridle: … held my tongue … I kept silence … but it was pain and grief to me. I must say that I found an echo in those words. But whether the plan be good or faulty, hopeful or hopeless, at any rate Her Majesty's Government are at last making a solid, serious effort to get a solution; and to my mind it would be an act of supreme irresponsibility to say anything which might hinder or impede that effort. I may point out, however, that I thought Mr. Lennox-Boyd was on pretty safe ground in making that statement; for if this effort comes off—as I sincerely hope it may—the story will be of only academic interest, and Parliament probably will not want to hear very much about it. Should this effort, unhappily, fail, then I believe I am safe in saying that this Government will have disappeared and again the story will be something in the nature of A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Already I feel that people are rather tired of the Cyprus tale, and if we get a settlement it will be a long time before anyone wants to hear about the island again.

When the plan was announced in your Lordships' House I said that it should have a fair run and therefore it is not my intention to use this Motion as a vehicle for a critical attack upon Her Majesty's Government. I want rather to address myself elsewhere: to the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers, to the leaders of the Greek and Turkish Cypriots, to Archbishop Makarios and to Colonel Grivas. They may be facing a last chance; let them face it as statesmen, and not in the capacity of agitators, as, to some extent, they have done heretofore. In the past they have all taken up attitudes; they have said "Never" or "Over my dead body" or have spoken of "The irreducible minimum demand"—all the dreary litany of unreasoning obstinacy.

"Brinkmanship" has become rather a discredited word, but the plan of Her Majesty's Government brings all the leaders I have mentioned to the brink. Let them look over into the abyss into which their obstinacy may plunge Cyprus, and then draw back, before it is too late. I have read their replies carefully. In the Levant the meaning often lies between the lines. All, in one form or another, have said "No"; but they have said it in such a way as to leave the door ajar. At any rate, they have not slammed the door. I beg them to remember that it is not their personal prestige which matters to-day but the simple happiness of the Cypriot people. Clearly some, in fact probably all of them, want to talk. Our Prime Minister has perceived this and has addressed letters to the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers, letters which are unmistakable evidence of his sincere desire to reach an impartial and fair solution. If he is not met in the same spirit it will be certain evidence that he has been addressing himself to lesser men than himself. Sir Hugh Foot, the Governor, has also addressed Archbishop Makarios and Colonel Grivas in similar terms of honest purpose and intent.

I have said that all these leaders have been brought to the brink, but I believe they are standing not only at the brink but also at the bar of history, for issues of peace and war are in the balance. It is a moment for all concerned to forget their "Nevers" and to make a new start. If, as I hope, as a result of the Prime Minister's efforts there are to be new negotiations, I trust that all who gather round the table will remember what I believe to be recognised as a sound principle in diplomacy: that it is a bad negotiation if one party gets all that he asks for; it is a good negotiation if all feel that their case has been fairly met and fairly dealt with. To have any hope of permanency a Cyprus solution must be a many-sided compromise, and if there are to be negotiations, as I trust there will be, we on our part must not say "The plan, the whole plan and nothing but the plan ". We must be flexible—but not so flexible as to create further difficulties by our flexibility. The position at which we had arrived in Cyprus was that without going far enough to satisfy the Greeks we had gone just far enough to alarm and alienate the Turks, and the result was deadlock.

Now we have this plan. Any plan will work given good will amongst those who have to work it. This plan is largely a mixture of old and new plans and proposals. It is extremely complicated. It will clearly be very difficult to work as it stands to-day; but, after all, that difficulty is inevitable with a "Captain Marryat triangular duel" of interests such as we have in Cyprus. The first question I ask myself is: Will the plan assuage the racial feelings which have been aroused? If it has certain unworkable features, as I believe it may have, at any rate it can be said of it that it certainly provides a basis upon which a workable plan could be hammered out.

It must be regarded as a plan for Cyprus and not as a plan for Britain or Greece or Turkey; it is a plan for the future of Cyprus. Greece and Turkey have been rivalling each other in efforts to impress Britain with the depth and violence of their emotions, but I feel that they are chasing after the shadow and ignoring the substance. Both countries have been, and really are to-day, our friends, in spite of these polemics. Each has the strongest possible reason for, preserving their friendship with us. If they have cause for disagreement with each other, they have in Britain the ideal arbitrator, with strong reasons for giving each friend a fair deal. Again, the two countries have the strongest reasons for bein good allies in N.A.T.O. and in the United Nations, since the Middle East is an exposed area where it is really impossible to-day to live except dangerously and where a country without reliable allies is likely to become lost and, in any case, lives only on sufferance. Greece and Turkey alike have the strongest interest in the strength of N.A.T.O., and M. Spaak is trying to act as a conciliator between them.

Turkey might well reflect that partition would involve the undying enmity of Greece and probably the drying up of American aid. I know that M. Zorlu is reported to have said that it was Government policy to achieve partition inside a year, but I have it on good authority that, on being told that partition is regarded as the worst possible solution, as indeed it is, M. Zorlu replied in these words: I quite agree with you; it is a bad solution, but it was the Greeks who invented it and now deny it, and, later on, Mr. Lennox-Boyd; we have simply adopted it. However, as we are losing confidence in British policy, and are afraid that Britain intends to disengage herself from Cyprus in favour of Greece; we prefer to take over our part.

(Talisker question - this seems important regarding the issue of partition - anyone care to elaborate?)

If those are, indeed, M. Zorlu's words, I do not think it should be beyond the powers of diplomacy to disabuse him on such very mistaken ideas, because if this plan is adopted the idea of Cyprus going to and being governed by one single country would be gone for ever. This should minimise Turkish fears of Enosis, because, as I see it, in the plan Enosis and partition are both out for good. I have seen the various replies from the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers and from the Archbishop. As I have already said, I think there are grounds for hope in them. I think the atmosphere in Athens seems a little calmer. The Turkish attitude is to-day not quite so rigid, and the attitude of N.A.T.O. and the United Nations has had some effect. In fact, my Lords, if the spirit which is being shown to-day had been shown some four or five years ago we should most certainly have got a settlement.

To come to the plan itself for a few moments, Mr. Lennox-Boyd said that the policy is based on two main foundations (these were his wards), "partnership and communal autonomy". I feel that perhaps a slight contradiction in words is involved here. It is certainly a very small island for a communal autonomy. And if, as he said, communal autonomy "is already widely practised in Cyprus"—it came with a certain amount of surprise to me—it has been done in the past and done without the slightest trace of racial feeling arising. But that cannot be the case in the future. Racialism has reared its ugly head in Cyprus and will be a force to be reckoned with for a long time to come. It will have to be reckoned with even if this plan emerges in some form or another. In my time, racial animosities simply did not exist: the two races lived and worked side by side—worked side by side in every department of the administration, in the forests, in the health service; the children of the two races played together; racial animosity was unknown. A new and such an ugly development has been the rapid and shocking deterioration in racial relations.

In all that I did I aimed at integration. This plan seems to aim at segregation. Sometimes I think of Little Rock as I read the terms of the plan. The Times has said that it is "virtually a system of non-territorial partition." I hope that the ultimate idea is unity and not partition. But we have seen elsewhere how very difficult it is to achieve integration after a long period of segregation; and it is proposed to enforce this segregation after centuries of peaceful integration. I had always envisaged a Legislative Assembly, to lead up to self-determination, but a period of a Legislative Assembly with portfolios and seats distributed according to the population, and Greeks and Turks learning the arts of government side by side—very difficult arts, of which to-day the Cypriots have really no understanding at all. I always dreamt of the two races learning the arts side by side. I am sure that that should be the right objective; and that the Greeks should, if they wished, at an election be able to vote for Turks, and Turks vote for Greeks, and not along racial lines, as they will be compelled to do in the future. What is proposed may, I fear, bring Athens and Ankara into the affairs of Cyprus. I want a united Cyprus to run its own affairs.

My Lords, how far is this "communal autonomy" to run? To what lengths will it go? Are we to find two fire brigades in a town, one Turkish and one Greek, and the Greek fire brigade not going to a Turkish fire and the Turkish fire brigade staying at home when there is a Greek fire? Again, communal affairs are of comparatively secondary importance in the administration of the island. Education, religion, social services—I do not minimise the importance of those things for one moment, but I say that they are of secondary importance compared with other matters. The big things—irrigation, communications, economic plans, and the day-to-day administration—are all outside communal administration. And what are to be the functions of the two Houses of Representatives?

The Government's Executive Council will deal with finance, with the budget, with expenditure, with allocations of capital, with legislation affecting health, labour and insurance—all those things will be the function of the Executive Council, and the Greek and Turkish commissioners will have full voting rights on all of them. And will those commissioners look at such questions from the Cypriot point of view or from the point of view of Athens or Ankara? Is there to be an appeal to the tribunal? That will introduce more external influences and will certainly limit our authority. After the Executive Council have done their work in these matters, what will be left for the two Houses of Representatives to do? And after the Executive Council and the Houses of Representatives have finished with their tasks, what will be left for the communal authorities to do under the heading of "communal autonomy."

The plan of Greek and Turkish Commissioners on the Governor's Executive Council is a great experiment—a daring experiment. After all, they will be responsible to Athens and Ankara, not to Cyprus or London, for what they do. Then there are dual nationalities and dual passports. All these things mean that the Island will be administered not as a unit from within but by men who will be looking East and West across the sea for their instructions and guidance. May I ask if such an idea has been tried out anywhere else, this idea which is now put forward for the administration of Cyprus? And, if so, has it worked smoothly? Does this duality involve any rights under international law of interference or intervention? Does liability for military service enter into this dual nationality? Will it be compulsory to have dual passports, and will such passports not give Athens and Ankara power to exert pressure on their new nationals? The Greek and Turkish Commissioners may refer any legislation which they feel discriminatory to an impartial tribunal. Will racial discrimination be the only ground on which they can make such an appeal? And what will be the constitution of this tribunal?

Again, this is to run for seven years and nobody is asked to renounce his principles while the seven years elapse; but what procedure is envisaged after the seven years? We know that in the Bible a period of seven years ended in marriage and great joy, but what is to happen at the end of this period of seven years? From my own experience in Cyprus, I feel certain that the chances of the acceptance of this plan will be greatly enhanced if the future procedure is clearly laid down. I feel sure that those concerned will want to know what is to happen at the end of these seven years. I feel that in putting this plan before another place Mr. Lennox-Boyd left these matters far too vague.

Again, we have been told that the Government are prepared to go ahead with extensive administrative action to implement the plan in face of refusals, and will go ahead to the extent of setting up six separate Ministries. Who would man these Ministries, and in what form of Government are these Ministries to function? Because refusals, as things are, would leave the Governor with only his Executive Council? I realise that the Government cannot be expected to put forward a plan and at the same time a full alternative plan in case their first is rejected, but surely they must have contemplated the possibility of rejection in whole or in part and must have conceived of some ideas in that event.

I venture to put forward these considerations, as I have said, not in a spirit of completely hostile criticism but because I feel that they are points which genuinely require elucidation and upon which the Government may fairly be expected to put forward some of the ideas which must be passing through their minds. I come back to what I said earlier: that I most genuinely wish the Government success in the negotiations which will follow their putting forward of this plan. In everything that I have said, in all the considerations that enter into my mind, my main consideration is the people of Cyprus. That is what matters—the future, the happiness and the prosperity of Cyprus. Two old Cypriots, man and wife, whom I knew very well when I was in Cyprus, came here to see me the other day. They are two old people near the end of their days. Their son was murdered in the course of the troubles and they felt that they could not live in Cyprus any longer. In spite of their age, they have come to this country, where they have never been before, to try to make another start where these dreadful memories will not be so vividly with them. It is people like them who are constantly in my mind. I realise that at the back of this plan, which deals with such high matters and involves such high personages, are the people of Cyprus and, what I feel sure the Government is working for, a return of peace and security to that tormented Island.

Talisker comment - my point is that the UK politicians in the 1950s were wrestling with the legacies of colonialism, and this debate provides evidence that they understood some of problems that were occurring in Cyprus, and were seeking to reach sensible arrangements which were for the best for Cyprus and Cypriots, and without partition. Any lingering (and unwarranted) resentment against the Brits should take into account the issues faced by these politicians, and the fact that Greece, Turkey, and NATO, all also had interests in Cyprus, and the future once Independence was granted.

[Sotos]

my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

You mean like they invaded Iraq to save the Iraqis and bring democracy?

[Talisker]

my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

You mean like they invaded Iraq to save the Iraqis and bring democracy?

The citizens of the UK were provided false information by none less than our prime minister, Tony Blair, regarding reasons for the invasion of Iraq. I feel shame and guilt about our actions in Iraq - I believe Tony Blair should be brought to trial (although I know it won't happen). Hundreds of thousands of people in the UK demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq, and I wish now I'd been more involved, but at the time I believed our prime minister. He betrayed us. However, I don't feel any guilt or shame about UK decisions in the 1950s about Cyprus - I wasn't even born then, but I do want to understand them. As I said, those people were dealing with a colonial legacy i.e. the outcomes of policies of previous generations of politicians and civil servants, in the same way that Christofias and Talat are supposed to be finding a resolution to a situation which started many decades ago, and is a result of poor decisions made by all parties involved .

So, sorry Sotos, your response is PATHETIC! Clearly you have no wish or ability to understand why Cyprus is in its current position...........

[Talisker]

One of the key figures mentioned in the Hansard record is 'Zorlu'. I didn't know who he was, and it is difficult to find a reference to him in English, other than Wikipedia, on the web. This is the Wikipedia info:

Fatin Rüştü Zorlu (1910 – 1961) was a Turkish diplomat and politician. He was executed by hanging after the coup d'état in 1960 along with two other politicians.

Biography
He was born on April 20, 1910 in Istanbul to a family originating from the village of Zor, Artvin in northeastern Turkey. After finishing the high school at Galatasaray Lisesi, Zorlu was educated in political science at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, France and in Law at the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

Political career
Returning to Turkey, Zorlu began his career as a diplomat in 1932 in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 1938 on, he served at various posts in embassies and consulates in Bern (Switzerland), Paris (France), Moscow (USSR), Beirut (Lebanon) and at the ministry in Ankara as well. Following Turkey’s joining of NATO on February 18, 1952, he was appointed Ambassador to NATO at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe in Paris.

In 1954, Zorlu entered politics and was elected into the Turkish Grand National Assembly as the deputy of Çanakkale for the Democratic Party. He served as Deputy Prime Minister between 1954 and 1955, as Minister of State in 1955 and Minister for Foreign Affairs from 1957 until the Turkish Armed Forces staged a coup on May 27, 1960 and ousted the government of Prime Minister Adnan Menderes.

He was arrested along with some other party members, charged with violating the constitution, and put on trial on the island of Yassıada. He was sentenced to death and executed by hanging on the island of İmralı on September 16, 1961 along with Adnan Menderes and Hasan Polatkan. Many years after his death, he, along with Adnan Menderes and Hasan Polatkan, was posthumously pardoned and his grave was moved to a mausoleum in İstanbul on September 17, 1990 along with the graves of the two other cabinet members hanged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatin_R%C3 ... 3%BC_Zorlu

Wow, who'd be a Turkish politician or diplomat in the 50s?

[Oracle]

It sounds to me like the Colonialists are trying to make out the natives in grass skirts were happy before they left the Garden of Eden, of Enlightenment, and hence unrest and unwarranted desires for Freedom.

This is patronising and ill-informed and typical of Brits of yore, who went in ancient times, oblivious of the deep recesses of Greekdom pervading through the Cypriots, bubbling and festering for years, for the opportunity to rise up and claim their longed-for rights.

[Talisker]

It sounds to me like the Colonialists are trying to make out the natives in grass skirts were happy before they left the Garden of Eden, of Enlightenment, and hence unrest and unwarranted desires for Freedom.

This is patronising and ill-informed and typical of Brits of yore, who went in ancient times, oblivious of the deep recesses of Greekdom pervading through the Cypriots, bubbling and festering for years, for the opportunity to rise up and claim their longed-for rights.

Ah, now I understand..........thanks for your analysis........

[Get Real!]

I found a Hansard record of a House of Lords debate from 8th July, 1958, and my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

Being the world’s most colonialist empire, Britain was very much aware of what was coming up in the UN’s agenda, for in December 1960 colonialism was internationally outlawed…

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

…so I’m afraid I can’t give them any credit that they wanted what was best for Cypriots as they had to prepare the ground (read soften the blow) for relinquishing territories all over the world, so saving face was their priority and not the interests of the colonized.

Further, it’s unfortunate that my foolish compatriots at the time were either utterly clueless that this was coming up or just plain stupid having launched the EOKA struggle just five years earlier.

[Oracle]

I found a Hansard record of a House of Lords debate from 8th July, 1958, and my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

Being the world’s most colonialist empire, Britain was very much aware of what was coming up in the UN’s agenda, for in December 1960 colonialism was internationally outlawed…

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

…so I’m afraid I can’t give them any credit that they wanted what was best for Cypriots as they had to prepare the ground (read soften the blow) for relinquishing territories all over the world, so saving face was their priority and not the interests of the colonized.

Further, it’s unfortunate that my foolish compatriots at the time were either utterly clueless that this was coming up or just plain stupid having launched the EOKA struggle just five years earlier.

So with the combined benefit of hindsight, history, Internet and better communications you claim the audacious right to proclaim your "compatriots" as foolish for fighting for freedom?

[Talisker]

I found a Hansard record of a House of Lords debate from 8th July, 1958, and my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

Being the world’s most colonialist empire, Britain was very much aware of what was coming up in the UN’s agenda, for in December 1960 colonialism was internationally outlawed…

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

…so I’m afraid I can’t give them any credit that they wanted what was best for Cypriots as they had to prepare the ground (read soften the blow) for relinquishing territories all over the world, so saving face was their priority and not the interests of the colonized.

Further, it’s unfortunate that my foolish compatriots at the time were either utterly clueless that this was coming up or just plain stupid having launched the EOKA struggle just five years earlier.

I suppose I felt there was an acceptance that handover of power to end colonialism was not going as swimmingly as it should, but that ideally, as said in the transcribed debate, there should be unity, not partition, when independence was granted.

Was the EOKA struggle and the plebiscite REALLY for enosis, or, as some have said, to send a message to the Brits?

[Get Real!]

I found a Hansard record of a House of Lords debate from 8th July, 1958, and my impression of this debate was that the participants wanted what was best for Cypriots, and not necessarily what was best for the UK.

Being the world’s most colonialist empire, Britain was very much aware of what was coming up in the UN’s agenda, for in December 1960 colonialism was internationally outlawed…

http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

…so I’m afraid I can’t give them any credit that they wanted what was best for Cypriots as they had to prepare the ground (read soften the blow) for relinquishing territories all over the world, so saving face was their priority and not the interests of the colonized.

Further, it’s unfortunate that my foolish compatriots at the time were either utterly clueless that this was coming up or just plain stupid having launched the EOKA struggle just five years earlier.

So with the combined benefit of hindsight, history, Internet and better communications you claim the audacious right to proclaim your "compatriots" as foolish for fighting for freedom?

It was Makarios' duty as the president of this country to be fully up to date with what was coming up in the UN. I'm in disbelief that he either wasn't or ignored it.