Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

As a result of the increased nationalist feelings, the US efforts for a compromise between Greece and Turkey in the interest of NATO met a stern opposition. These feelings are typical for both the Greek bourgeoisie and the Armed Forces. Karamanlis government hopes that the US will exert considerable pressure so that Turkey changes its position on the Cyprus problem and the other disputes in the Aegean Sea. They see Carter’s election campaign declarations in support of Greece, as well as Turkey’s economic difficulties and Ecevit’s unstable political position, as prerequisites for reaching a favorable solution. Karamanlis understands Greece’s importance to the US after closing of the American bases in Iran, and the American need to control the implementation of the SALT-2 treaty from the territory of Greece and Turkey. Both government and opposition openly declare that the US pursues protection of Turkey, and this is the main reason for the setback in the Greco-American relations. After the failure of Waldheim’s initiatives on Cyprus and General Haig’s mission on the “special” statute of Greece in NATO, Karamanlis took up a tougher stance towards the US.

Even though the bilateral relations have deteriorated, the US still keeps its military presence in Greece. They have started silently, although in limited quantities, to transfer electronic and telecommunication devices from Iran to their bases on the island of Crete. Since the beginning of 1979 a reorganization of the American Intelligence Services in Greece has started. During his visit in Athens the US Assistant Secretary of State, Warren Christopher put the question for the extension of the American bases. Meanwhile Nelson Rockefeller, Carter’s personal envoy, insisted on the Greek government’s official agreement for transfer of the American military equipmenet from Iran to Greece. The Greek government continues to hold aloof because of the progressive and democratic internal opposition it is facing, and also because it is seeking to obtain economic benefits and political advantages with respect to Turkey by exploiting the increased American interest. Greece has also been looking into the legal consequences of the decision not to extend the use of the military bases.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?t ... 0Relations

[christos1]

I have urged the Cypriots to look at India, Burma and Ceylon, and to trust that the principles of the British Commonwealth, the principles which are its lifeblood, would triumph in the end. I have told them that self-determination would come more quickly if they trusted to persuasion instead of force. I have urged the dangers of the wounds now being inflicted upon Cyprus, which may take long years to heal.

What have they replied? That the British Government will not listen to reason, that nothing but force is any good. They say that for three long years they appealed to the Government to discuss it with them, and the Greek Government did the same. They got "No" and "No" and "Never" for an answer.

Does the Secretary of State remember the Prime Minister saying "There is no Cyprus question" in 1953 and again in 1954? Does he remember his predecessor saying in 1954 that he could imagine no more disastrous policy for Cyprus than to hand it over to an unstable Power like Greece? Deeply wounding words both 361 to the Cypriots and to the Greeks. Does he remember one Minister of State arguing at the General Assembly of the United Nations that Cyprus was a matter of purely British domestic jurisdiction with which no other country was concerned? Does he remember another Minister of State saying that ambiguous "Never "—now half withdrawn—which seemed then to close for them the hope that the principles of the Commonwealth would one day be applied? "No" and "Never" were the answer right up to April, 1955.

Then, alas, some of the Cypriot leaders changed their policy. They quote today some words written not long ago by a right hon. Member of this House : It is the primary right of men to die and to kill for the land they live in and to punish with exceptional severity all members of their own race who have warmed their hands at the invaders' hearth. That was published by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in May, 1956. That is a terrible doctrine for the century in which we live. But it is accepted. That is why when we speak of "terrorists," the Greeks speak of "patriots" and other nations call them "partisans."

E.O.K.A. claims that force has given results. In April, 1955, they began to shoot. Within four months the Government's doctrine of domestic jurisdiction had gone out of the window. There was an international conference in the Foreign Office to which the Greek and Turkish Governments were called. In the conference "Never" was changed to "Sometime," a notable victory for force. However, no agreement for action could be made, and so E.O.K.A.'s shooting still went on. After three more months of violence, negotiations between the Government and Makarios were begun. They led to the Secretary of State's visit to the island and his talks with the Archbishop. He had only one before he broke off the negotiations and came home.

There is nothing that undermines more the morale of the British Service man than to have a stupid pamphlet of this kind put in his hands, which persuades him that he is the servant of a Government which thinks like this. If we send people abroad in the execution of a policy of the Government, we want to make the policy look as intelligent as possible, though I admit that it is difficult in this case. What have we here? The pamphlet states that Turkey— …trusts the stability and loyalty of Great Britain as an ally and is happy to have her in Cyprus. She is doubtful of the stability of Greece, suspicious of her panhellenic ambitions, and is strongly opposed to letting Greece, which she fears may be a potentially 439 neutralist or even Communist country, take over an island only 40 miles from the south coast of Turkey and in a position to dominate the ports of Mersin and Iskenderun. Turkey has not yet forgotten Greek efforts, starting in the 19th century, to recreate the Byzantine Empire and to gain possession of the old Byzantine capital of Constantinople. I believe that it has been written by the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill). It is very much like his history.

In the next page we are told : Other reasons apart, there are, in fact, solid economic reasons for Cypriots to remain in the British Commonwealth rather than be annexed by Greece. Greece is neither a rich nor a stable country. This is the country which is to re-establish the old Byzantine Empire. Why should we undermine the morale of our people with a document like that? We have not only behaved unconstitutionally, but stupidly. If you are to spend money unlawfully, try to spend it intelligently. It is a monstrous piece of work.

This document also gives another piece of information which, of course, completely supports what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger) and which was contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend said that the reason why we want to stay in Cyprus and not make it a N.A.T.O. base is because what we want is activated by our own purposes, which are not necessarily the purposes of N.A.T.O. That was denied. Well, listen to this. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for this. I hope he is not, because it is not good enough, even for him. It says here : The next reason is that we have in the Middle East a number of important special obligations apart from our general N.A.T.O. obligations.

Hon. Members Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Bevan But the right hon. Gentleman has just denied that.

Let hon. Members face this ; that we have said, and Greece has said, that Greece is quite prepared to facilitate a N.A.T.O. base on the island. We could have it at any time we like and, so far as we can gather, for as long as we like. It has also been said by Archbishop Makarios that the Cypriots are prepared to agree to anything which may be necessary 440 to secure the security of the base. So that, so far as we are concerned, so far as concerns all our obligations, all our international obligations under the Charter, all our obligations under N.A.T.O. could be satisfied by a base on the island of Cyprus with the agreement of the Cypriots and of Greece.

§ Mr. H. Fraser What about the Tripartite Agreement?

§ Mr. Bevan When we talk about the Tripartite Agreement, we are discussing an act of aggression and the Charter is invoked, and we are in the position of invoking it at once, and N.A.T.O. and the United States and France would be immediately involved in a tripartite undertaking.

The whole point is that yesterday right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite found that it was not possible to "go it alone." Now they are insisting upon maintaining this situation in Cyprus in order to have a chance of doing what they could not do yesterday—" go it alone." If anybody is suggesting that, if we made an arrangement of that sort, we should have to meet with the active, armed hostility of Turkey, what are they saying when they say that? They are saying that the structure of N.A.T.O. is so flimsy, is such a ramshackle affair, and is so liable to fall apart at any moment, that even with a base on Cyprus, held by the United States and Great Britain, we would not be able to prevent Turkey from attacking it.

What a statement. Do hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches sincerely believe that Turkey would conduct an armed attack on the island of Cyprus, with Britain, the United States and other allied nations in possession of a base on the island? I have never heard such juvenile rubbish in all my life. Yet we have emphasised all the time, and we would wish that Government supporters would give their minds to it, that it is possible for us to obtain all we need from Cyprus with the consent of the Cyprus people.

It embraces the whole Christian world, and is called the Christian World. In its issue of 30th August, it admitted that in its previous number it had suggested that the Archbishop should be brought back, but in this article of 30th August, it said : Makarios was engaged in serious negotiations with the British Government to find a way of giving Cyprus self-government in an extremely complicated situation. It goes on : There was always hope of a peaceful and agreed settlement of the whole question of Cyprus. Yet while discussing these matters over the conference table, the Archbishop was secretly planning acts of violence and murder against the nationals of the Power which was treating him with respect and courtesy as a recognised plenipotentiary. It goes on further to say : No excuse is possible for this utterly uncivilised and wicked behaviour. Archbishop Makarios can no longer be regarded as a possible negotiator on the Cypriot side. The question has been raised as to whether the Archbishop should be brought to trial for his active participation in the activities of E.O.K.A. This is a comparatively small matter. It is enough for the present that this misguided ecclesiastic is under lock and key. But the Cypriot people have a duty—a duty to themselves—to find a negotiator who is not. like the Archbishop, unrepentantly guilty of treacherous bloodshed.

I should like to sum up. I cannot agree with the views of those who try to show that brutal murderers are patriots. To commit the sort of crimes that are constantly committed in Cyprus is nothing less than savage murder—the crime of a young fellow countryman being taken by a couple of thugs from his bed and shot in front of his wife ; or the shooting of a man in hospital by his own fellow countrymen when he has gone to see his new-born baby. For a small group of men to intimidate vast numbers of their compatriots and prevent them from ever saying what is in their minds also seems, to my way of thinking, to fail completely

450
§ to create an atmosphere in which political advancement can be achieved.

§ Therefore, E.O.K.A. must be destroyed. E.O.K.A. will be destroyed, despite the doubts which the right hon. Gentleman places on our ability or our will to rule. At the same time, we shall press ahead with the preparation of this new constitution. I am quite certain that the House has also listened to what my right hon. Friend reiterated about the principle of self-determination. That principle has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and it is only present conditions which are making it impossible for us to make any further progress in that direction. Much as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite disapprove of our policy, we are convinced that we are pursuing the right methods in order to achieve a peaceful solution in Cyprus.

§ I am asking the House this afternoon to support the Government, and by doing so to pay a tribute to Sir John Harding and to his troops, his administrators and his police who are working under him. In spite of the criticisms that have been made of our policy, these people are tireless in their efforts, and their efforts are the same as ours, which are to bring back peace and happiness to the people of Cyprus.

§ Question put, That this House do now adjourn :—

§ The House divided : Ayes 243, Noes 308.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/comm ... /14/cyprus

a lot more to read abt Cyprus from Brits perspective.

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/search/cyprus

So what?

Attacks on the Press 2000: Turkey

http://cpj.org/2001/03/attacks-on-the-p ... turkey.php

[christos1]

Turkey guilty

By Alex Efthyvoulos

Turkey was found guilty yet again yesterday by the European Court of Human Rights of violating the rights of Greek Cypriot refugees by denying them the right to return and to regain use of their homes in the occupied north of Cyprus.

The judgement dealt with the application of Famagusta refugee Myra Xenides-Aresti who fled her home at the time of the Turkish invasion in 1974 and has not been allowed to return, or to regain her property ever since.

The Court based its judgement on previous similar cases by Greek Cypriot refugees, like the one by Titina Loizidou.

But in what is regarded as a major development the Court, while reaffirming that Turkey “continued to exercise overall military control over northern Cyprus, added that “the fact that the Greek Cypriots rejected the Annan Plan did not have the legal consequence of bringing to an end the continuing violation of the displaced persons' rights,'' as claimed by Turkey.

The Court reserved sentencing Turkey for these violations giving it six months “to introduce a remedy, which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgement.''

Link

But in yet another major development the Court went on to link Turkey's compliance in the Xenides-Aresti case with all the 1,400 other similar applications by Greek Cypriot refugees pending before it.

The Court said it could not ignore the fact that there were already approximately 1,400 property cases pending before it, brought primarily by Greek-Cypriots against Turkey.

The Court considered that Turkey had to introduce a remedy which secured, in respect of the Convention violations identified in the judgment, genuinely effective redress for the applicant as well as in relation to all similar applications pending before the Court, in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in Article 8 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1. “Such a remedy should be available within three months and redress should occur three months after that.''

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that property rights could be settled through the intercommunal talks. It declared that “the inter-communal talks cannot be invoked in order to legitimate a violation of the Convention.''

Compensation law

The Court also rejected Turkey's claim that the breakaway Turkish Cypriot state should be given the opportunity and the time to consider their compensation law for Greek Cypriot refugees, as well as the claim that a decision by the Rights Court for the payment of compensation to Greek Cypriot refugees “would seriously hamper and prejudice negotiations for an overall political settlement, including the complex property issue which it is hoped will be solved by diplomatic means.''

The Court ruled that Turkey, as the occupying power of north Cyprus, violated two articles of the European Convention of Human Right, Article 8, dealing with the right to respect for the applicant's home, and Article 1, dealing with the protection of property.

In connection with Article 8 the Court noted that since 1974 Xenides-Aresti “has been unable to gain access to, to use and enjoy her home.'' It consequently reaffirmed its earlier judgement in the case of Cyprus v Turkey, “that the complete denial of the right of Greek-Cypriot displaced persons to respect for their homes has no basis in law within the meaning of Article 8 of the Convention.''

Dealing with the violation of Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the Convention, which guarantees every person's right to the peaceful enjoyment of their property, by the Court rejected Turkey's claims that property rights should be settled as part of a comprehensive settlement of the Cyprus problem.

“The Court found no reason to depart from the conclusions which it had reached in previous cases, in particular the case Loizidou v. Turkey: As a consequence of the fact that the applicant has been refused access to the land since 1974, she has effectively lost all control over, as well as all possibilities to use and enjoy her property.

The continuous denial of access must therefore be regarded as an interference with her rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 [....] It has not [...] been explained how the need to rehouse displaced Turkish Cypriot refugees in the years following the Turkish intervention in the island in 1974 could justify the complete negation of the applicant’s property rights in the form of a total and continuous denial of access and a purported expropriation without compensation. Nor can the fact that property rights were the subject of inter-communal talks involving both communities in Cyprus provide a justification for this situation under the Convention.''

Accordingly, the Court concluded that there had been and continues to be a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 by virtue of the fact that the applicant is denied access to, control, use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference with her property rights.

The Court's judgement was reached with the dissenting opinion of one of the seven judges, Turkish judge R. Turmen.

[insan]

Comrade Zhivkov,

Tonight, at his request, I received comrade E. Papaioanu [Ezekias Papaioannou]. Regarding the issue, he raised (laid out in the memo), I suggest:

1. That we summon the Czechoslovak ambassador and inform him about Papaioannou’s opinion regarding the question of receiving weapons.
2. That we contact the CPSU CC [Central Committee of Communist Party of the Soviet Union] on Wednesday, in order to find out their opinion on the matter.
3. After that, instructions should be given to the press to carefully unmask the attempts at a coup d’état in Cyprus. If the Soviet comrades propose other measures (military, diplomatic), we will inform you in a timely manner.

19.III.1974
[19 March 1974]
Signature:
[K. Tellalov]

Makarios has promised to travel to Romania, but is asking for weapons from Czechoslovakia. Katsuridis has tried to explain to the Czechoslovak comrade that, most likely, Makarios will visit not only Romania, but also Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, and other socialist countries, and that it should not be required of him that he adhere to an entirely communist line. But the Czechoslovak comrades asked for a written request from Makarios, and [demanded] that the weaponry be formally sent.

http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?t ... Cold%20War

[christos1]

Incirli rejects accusations by Turkey


http://www.toplumpostasi.net/index.php/ ... me/English
Mr Incirli stated: “I believe they wish me dead, not that they want to kill me, thanks to the EU factor they can’t do that.”



By Alkan Chaglar



Turkish Cypriot journalist Serhat Incirli talks to Toplum Postası about his feelings regarding the recent case brought against him by Turkey and the reasons behind it. Mr Incirli who writes a daily column in Afrika newspaper, formerly known as Avrupa newspaper, was questioned because of an article he wrote in on the 15th and 17th of July 2004 about the Turkish Army and the status quo in Cyprus. Mr Incirli is accused of ‘insulting Turkish national values’.

Asked about what he said that offended the Turkish Armed Forces, Serhat said: “I believe what they (the Turkish government) are demanding in Cyprus is something they would never give to the Kurds in Turkey. But the columns that I wrote are not strictly about the Kurdish problem; it’s about Turkish racism. The Turkish constitution has racist undertones in its wording.”

Referring to the conduct of politicians in both Turkey and Cyprus, Mr Incirli said: “When you look from a European perspective, many politicians in Turkey and Cyprus like Süleyman Demirel, Bülent Ecevit, Rauf Denktaş and Devlet Bahçeli, the semantics of their speech is racist. I’m not saying that this is their intention, but they should be careful not to present that image.”

This is the first time Turkey is opening a case against a Turkish Cypriot, however, Mr Incirli has both Cypriot and British dual nationality. Commenting on the implications of the case against him on Turkish-EU aspirations, Mr Incirli stated: “I believe they wish me dead, not that they want to kill me, thanks to the EU factor, they can’t do that.” Referring to the importance of the EU factor in the improvement of human rights in Turkey, Mr Incirli said: “If they cannot reach EU standards on freedom of speech, nationalists or fascists will do some terrible things in both Turkey and Cyprus.”

[christos1]

Legitimising the war crime of ethnic cleansing

Ethnic cleansing and the consequent deliberate changing of the demographic status of a territory under foreign occupation through the introduction of settlers from the occupying power are both war crimes.

This is an undisputed fact of international law. In the case of Cyprus it is also undisputed that Turkey, as the power occupying north Cyprus, and as such responsible for everything that happens there, is guilty of these twin war crimes: the ethnic cleansing of the Greek Cypriot population of the north and its recplacement by settlers from Turkey.

In a move clearly designed to ``legitimise’’ the presence of the illegal settlers, Turkey and the illegal breakaway state staged a census there this week in which the settlers were counted as members of the Turkish Cypriot population of the region.

As expected, Mehmet Ali Talat defended this trickery saying it was wrong to claim this was designed to legitimise the settlers. The leader of the illegal state went as far as to declare that the census was perfectly legal, conducted on the basis of ``internationally recognised norms". ``There was nothing to hide’’ and ``no need to prove anything to anyone,’’ on the issue of the settlers, who are legitimate citizens of the breakaway state he said.

He further assured the settlers that they had nothing to fear as they were equal citizens to the Turkish Cypriots and that there was no attempt to distinguish them in any way.

Myths

Ferdi Sabit Soyer, the ``prime minister’’ of the breakaway state was even more forthright. He said the census would end what he referred to as ``the myths’’ about the north’s demography. ``We have no need to trick anyone,’’ he said.

What is even more astounding about this situation is that Talat, when he was in opposition, made the presence of the settlers one of the main points of criticism of Rauf Denktash, the then leader of the Turkish Cypriots. Talat attended public rallies then that demanded the withdrawal of the settlers, arguing that they were outnumbering the native Turkish Cypriots with whom they were unable to assimilate!

Following his election and his full dependence on Ankara for survival, Talat has now changed his tune completely, maintaining there is nothing wrong with the presence of the settlers.

But this wrong, or guilt, is fully attested by the numerous United Nations General Assembly and Security Council resolutions and judgements of the Human Rights Court of the Council of Europe. The resolutions and the judgements demand an end to this continuous war crime through the withdrawal of the illegal Turkish mainland settlers and the return of the ethnically cleansed Greek Cypriot refugees to their homes and properties that have been usurped by the settlers.

Eternal shame

Turkey contemptuously rejects both the UN resolutions and the Court judgements. What is most regrettable about this situation is that the international community, and more specifically the United States and the European Union, which are in a position to influence, even pressure, Turkey, to end this continuous war crime against Cyprus and the Greek Cypriot population by complying with the UN resolutions and the Court judgements, choose to do nothing, to their eternal shame.

Not only that, the EU is even considering Turkey as a prospective member of the Union without insisting that it should, at the very least, first become law-abiding by complying with the Court judgements and the UN resolutions. The United States at the same time are exerting as much pressure as they can on the EU to accept Turkey as a full member!

It is hardly surprising that Turkey has become so emboldened by this toleration of its continuing war crimes in Cyprus that it brazenly declares it has done nothing wrong.

No squeak

What is hard to understand about this situation is the lack of a dynamic reaction by the Cyprus government. One would have expected a major continuing campaign to inform the world, and to demand concrete action by the international community, about the continuing Turkish war crimes.

Such a campaign would be even more effective if the ethnic cleansing crime was linked to the equally hideous deliberate action by Turkey to wipe out the Hellenistic and Christian cultural heritage of the occupied north. Like the influx of the settlers, this is also continuing unabated through the deliberate desecration and desruction of Christian churces and ancient Greek sites in an attempt to create the impression that north Cyprus has no Greek or Christian links!

This truly abominable, deliberate uncivilised action by Turkey should prove more than enough for the European Union, which is so anxious about the protection of its cultural heritage, to tell Turkey bluntly it has no hope whatever of joining it, unless it acts in a civilised manner in Cyprus by correcting as soon as possible all the wrongs for which it is fully responsible.

[christos1]

Turkey riled over columnists criticism of double standards over Cyprus and the Kurds


Ankara is set to drag a Turkish Cypriot columnist before a Turkish court in unprecedented legal action that may signal a “dangerous” escalation in the persecution of dissenting voices in the occupied north.

No formal charges have yet been laid against London-based columnist Serhat Incirli, 38, who writes for independent daily Afrika.

But Turkish Cypriot police have questioned Incirli’s parents at their home in the north, seeking the columnist’s London address and telephone numbers.

Turkish Cypriot ‘prime minister’ Ferdi Sabit Soyer confirmed to reporters Turkey’s Attorney General is preparing a case against Incirli.

He said Ankara wants to file charges against Incirli for two of his articles published in Afrika that were deemed as a “direct insult” to the Republic of Turkey.

If the trial does go ahead, it would be the first time that a Turkish Cypriot journalist is tried in a Turkish court – a development Incirli said would mark a “dangerous” turn in how Ankara suppresses dissent in the north.

Numerous Turkish Cypriot journalists charged in the past with insulting the Turkish state have had their case tried in Turkish proxy courts in the north.

Incirli implied Turkey’s return to hardball tactics in stifling domestic dissent could embolden extremist elements both on the mainland and occupied Cyprus to revert to targeted killings.

“Turkish Cypriots could be targetted for assassination,” Incirli told The Cyprus Weekly from his London office.

The most infamous case of a Turkish Cypriot journalist assassinated for his political views was that of Yeni Duzen columnist Kutlu Adali who was gunned down in front of his house in occupied Nicosia on July 6, 1996.

Moreover, Incirli suggested a precedent-setting trial would make Turkish Cypriots easier scapegoats for Ankara to vent its mounting frustration over Turkey’s increasingly troubled EU entry bid as it reaches boiling point.

Incirli said the trial would also lay bare a burgeoning rift between Ankara and the Turkish Cypriot community over Turkish policy as regards Cyprus reunification efforts.

“I always believed that Turkey wants to opposite of what the Turkish Cypriots want…A trial would show that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriots have no common interests,” said Incirli.

Incirli said he “had no idea” why Ankara is preparing to sue him, but he suspects it pertains to his harsh criticism of Turkey’s double standards over Cyprus and its own long-standing Kurdish problem.

He said Ankara openly favours the partition of Cyprus, but it quashes any discussion over Kurdish demands for heightened autonomy within its own borders.

“Turkey wants the division of Cyprus - they like it. But it’s hypocritical to want that and not talk about the rights of Kurds,” said occupied Pentayia-born Incirli.

Ankara’s legal backlash is likely owed to a hard swing to the right by the embattled administration of Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan who’s under increasing pressure amid growing unrest among he country’s Kurdish minority and his Cyprus woes with the EU.

In a recent article, Newsweek International noted Erdogan’s “sharp lurch toward old-fashioned Turkish nationalism” in a bid to woo back young voters ahead of elections set for as early as this November.

The news magazine said Erdogan recently instructed senior officials from his Islamic Justice and Development Party (AKP) “to play up nationalism” to get back voters increasingly disaffected with what they perceive EU meddling in Turkish domestic affairs.

Incirli said: “Nationalism is the worst illness in the world.”

Incirli – who said he has been “harassed” by Turkish officials through his entire 15-year professional career as a journalist – said he has learned Ankara is upset over two of his articles, but doesn’t know exactly which ones.

He said he faces his trip to the north this week for professional reasons with plenty of trepidation because he doesn’t know how he’s going to be treated by Turkish Cypriot ‘police’.

Incirli, who holds a Republic of Cyprus passport, pondered the legal ramifications of Turkey trying a citizen of an EU-member country it doesn’t recognise.

In an editorial, Afrika Editor-in-Chief Sener Levent asked whether Turkey would treat Incirli the same as it did famed Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk who was sued for insulting the state.

The Cyprus Journalists’ Union has dispatched protest letters to international journalists’ organisations demanding action to thwart the legal action against Incirli.

Levent, long a magnet for official persecution over his writings, was arrested in 2001 for allegedly spying for Greek Cypriots. He was set free following a global outcry.

Extremists have also targeted Afrika, with the paper’s printing press having been bombed twice. No one has ever been charged in connection with those bombings.

The extremist paramilitary group “Grey Wolves” has in the past issued numerous death threats against the paper’s writers.

[insan]

Divided Cyprus Yazar: Yiannis Papadakis, Nicos Peristianis, Gisela Welz

The invasion by Turkey stopped the miniature civil war between the Greeks in Cyprus, and so it is impossible to say how long it would have gone on, and how many lives would have been lost in it. If the putschists had succeeded in destroying organised resistance quickly, there would undoubtedly have been torture and executions for many months afterwards. There were man) old scores to be settled; and the fighting of that first week had created many new ones. In the area between Paphos and Limassol, where there was strong resistance, the men of the coup are said to have buried some of Makarios' supporters alive, and to have put out the eyes of others.

There is one terrible image of what might have happened in Cyprus, which comes down to us from a much earlier period in Greek history. Thucydides describes the outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, in the year 431 BC. It started in the city-state of Corcyra, the present-day island of Corfu, or Kerkira. as it is called in modern Greek.

... the Corcyrans continued to massacre those of their own citizens they considered to be their enemies. Their victims were accused of conspiring to overthrow the democracy, but in fact men were often killed on grounds of personal hatred or else by their debtors because of the money that they owed. There was death in every shape and form.

And as usually happens in such situations people went to every extreme and beyond it. There were fathers who killed their sons; men were dragged from the temples or butchered on the very altars: and some were actually walled up in the temple of Dionysios and died there . . . To fit in with the change of events, words, too, had to change their usual meanings. What used to be described as a thoughtless act of aggression was now regarded as the courage one would expect to find in a party member: to think of the future and to wait was merely another way of saying one was a coward: any idea of moderation was just an attempt to disguise one's unmanly character: ability to understand a question from all sides meant that one was totally unfitted for action. Fanatical enthusiasm was the mark of a real man, and to plot against an enemy behind his back was perfectly legitimate self-defence. Anyone who held violent opinions could always be trusted, and anyone who objected to them became suspect.

From this, at least, most of the Greek Cypriots were spared. But the cost was very high: the invasion of Cyprus by Turkey, and the loss of many people and much territory in war.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From The Heart Grown Bitter (Cambridge University Press, 1981), chapter 4.

www.cyprus-conflict.net/coup-%20'74%20-loizos.htm

http://www.argaki.com/Downloads/The%20W ... 201974.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=wzPG7b ... &ct=result

[christos1]

I urger you all to read this story:

Board Members Resign to Protest Chair's Ousting
Leader in Georgetown-Based Agency Encouraged Scholars to Research Mass Killing of Armenians

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... _education
By Susan Kinzie
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 5, 2008; Page B05

The issue that has roiled U.S.-Turkish relations in recent months -- how to characterize the mass killing of Armenians in 1915 -- has set off a dispute over politics and academic freedom at an institute housed at Georgetown University.

[christos1]

See how Turkish diplomacy and bribes work:

Within weeks of writing about the matter in late 2006, Binghamton University professor Donald Quataert resigned from the board of governors, saying the Turkish ambassador to the United States told him he had angered some political leaders in Ankara and that they had threatened to revoke the institute's funding.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... _education