Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Conversations with Henry Kissinger

Between July and November 1974 Archbishop Makarios had three meetings with US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, during which they discussed US policy on Cyprus, US involvement in the coup and the invasion, and the initiatives which Makarios wanted the United States to undertake so that Turkey would withdraw from the island. )

PRESIDENT MAKARIOS was in New York on 20 July 1974, the day of the Turkish invasion. He had gone there to denounce before the UN Security Council the Greek junta for staging the coup of 15 July 1974. In Nicosia, Nikos Sampson, who became president after the coup, resigned and was replaced by House Speaker Glafcos Clerides as acting President.

A ceasefire was agreed on 22 July; by now Turkish forces had seized about 10 per cent of Cyprus’ territory, but continued to expand their territorial gains. At a conference of the guarantor powers (Greece, Britain and Turkey) taking place in Geneva from 26 to 30 July agreement was reached on establishing a security zone between the occupied areas and the territories under the control of the Republic of Cyprus. It was also agreed to hold another conference on 8 August, again in Geneva, with the participation of Clerides and Denktash, in order to discuss the new constitutional regime for Cyprus.

The US government secured the consensus of Greece (the junta had collapsed and Karamanlis was now in power) for Makarios to remain out of Cyprus and for Clerides to negotiate a federal solution. This effort, which lasted until November 1974, ended in failure.

On 29 July, while the first Geneva conference was in progress, Makarios met with US Secretary Ambassador Robert J. McCloskey, to whom he handed a memorandum outlining five conditions for a political solution on Cyprus. Makarios asked that the memorandum be forwarded to the Turkish government.

Kissinger sent the memorandum to the US ambassador in Ankara, with instructions to forward it to a low-level Turkish official and explain that he [Kissinger] was doing this simply because he had promised to. Makarios’ proposals effectively called for an immediate return to the Zurich-London agreements, which up until 1974 he had been striving to revoke, arguing that they were impossible to implement.

Kissinger sent a copy of Makarios’ proposals to Athens and to Nicosia, with instructions to US Ambassador Roger Davis to record any comments Clerides might make. Davis handed the document to Clerides who, having read it, remarked: “Makarios is dramatically out of touch with reality.”





‘Right now there are too many cooks’



29 July 1974, 5pm Washington DC

Participants: Cyprus - Archbishop Makarios (AM), Ambassador Dimitriou

US -The Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (HK) Ambassador Robert J. McCloskey





AM: I have been telling Henry Kissinger that the Soviets are trying to exploit the situation and that their interest in this problem is not genuine. Yesterday they asked for a Security Council meeting and we were greatly disappointed at what proved to be a waste of time. But, as I said, to some extent the United States is giving ground to the Soviets.

HK: We have three parties to consider and therefore our policy is more complex than for someone who backs only one of the parties.

AM: We don’t want to do that.

HK: We succeeded in bringing about the ceasefire. I don’t see any reason now to take an anti-Turkish position publicly because it will only aggravate the situation.

AM: I am not asking that. I am interested in results, I believe only the United States can influence Turkey - and Greece - and Cyprus. Greece and Turkey are both members of NATO and both receive military aid from the United States. The Cyprus problem is only a small one for the United States and it is not proper to say that the United States must do this or that. We are not in a position to say anything to you about pressure.

HK: We will not do anything under pressure, in no circumstance, and it is in our interest to make this clear. This is a fact of life, not a threat. You would do the same thing. I am not accusing you.

AM: We are not...

HK: You’re an able person. What do you see as a solution?
AM: I am not satisfied with the position of the United States. It is in your interest to stop the Turkish invasion. I don’t say you should exercise pressure and in the process develop anti-U.S. attitudes. I don’t know what you’ve conveyed to Turkey. But, despite this, Turkey is continuing its invasion without showing any respect for the Security Council Resolution.


HK: Turkey is not advancing any further.

AM: They are now seeking to impose themselves in Cyprus. Greece is weakened. I don’t know whether Karamanlis can survive. The Turkish demands are unreasonable.

HK: What?

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

HK: What concretely do you want us to do?

AM: Take a more decisive role. You are in a position to play this role. You can make certain proposals. Turkey will accept. When you sent Sisco to Athens and Ankara I have read that you used strong language. And now you are very cautious.

HK: You don’t know what we say privately. There was an improvement in the situation last week as a result of what we did.

AM: The situation is worse now. People have been uprooted and a great number of refugees have been created.

HK: While the UK is negotiating with Greece and Turkey it is not proper for the United States to attempt to take over the negotiations.

AM: But, behind the scenes...

HK: It depends on what you want. You have addressed the important problem of the long term attitude of Turkey. From the point of view of the Geneva negotiations it is not necessarily decisive whether there are 20 or 23,000 troops there as far as this round of negotiations is concerned. It is important though whether agreement can be reached in a political context to reduce that number. Now, what we want is to settle this in terms of implementation of the ceasefire and thereby have that contribute to the further political negotiations.

AM: What disturbs me is that the Turks will not be in for settlement. As time passes they will be consolidating their position there. The talks will take months or years...

HK: I think they want a quick settlement, although it might have been their purpose to delay. Maybe we’re wrong.
AM: Have they accepted a UN corridor?

HK: (After checking by telephone.) Yes, they seem to have accepted that.

AM: I understand the Turks will not withdraw unless there is a final agreement.

HK: Yes.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

AM: Until a solution or forever?
HK: Between a solution and forever. But I’m not here as their lawyer.

AM: They invaded they say to restore order and safeguard the Constitution.
HK: During the first week we knew once they got there it would be difficult to get them out, but we didn’t want to sanctify Turkish invasion.

AM: Suppose Greece and the UK do the same?

HK: The result will be double enosis. I don’t believe this should be the permanent solution. It is not being supported by the United States. There should be no Greek troops or that would lead to permanent partition.
AM: What are the prospects for settlement?
HK: Right now there are too many cooks. Callaghan needs a quick success. The Soviets have their own motives. The Government in Greece has its problems. And, Ecevit... We have been encouraging a settlement. We have not been all-out active. We can’t be the only country to produce a settlement, but this may change. In this phase of the Geneva talks the prospects are good. In the next phase Turkey will have to change its position. There are still too many cooks.
AM: I prefer an American cook.

AM: Recently I read about military aid for Turkey announced in the New York Times.

HK: We explained that if Greece and Turkey had gone to war neither could count on U.S. military assistance continuing. Some thought was given to cutting aid to Greece under its military regime. This could be used against Sampson.

AM: What should I say my impressions are about our meeting today?

HK: I wouldn’t presume to tell you what to say.

AM: You will play a role?

HK: Certainly, we will play a constructive role.

AM: You can play a decisive role.

HK: It is a question of timing.

Ambassador Dimitriou: (Referring to conversations in the UN) All believe if you were more active you could bring about a settlement. I have talked to members of the British and other European delegations. They all believe this and therefore the Geneva talks would be successful.


HK: We can’t conduct those negotiations. We have someone there and in each crucial development we have been asked our view and we have given it. We have been helpful in a quiet way. We have made major efforts in Geneva but it isn’t our style to do it so vocally. Nobody has yet put all his cards on the table, either the Greeks or the Turks.

AM: We have no cards.

HK: We know your views and have studied your six points.2 Unless you have others, we will send them to Turkey tonight.

HK: You can say that I told you we will play an increasingly constructive role.

AM: Am I satisfied?

Ambassador Dimitriou: You’d be justified in saying that.

HK: If I say you’re not, I will be popular in Turkey. Frankly, it is better for me internationally if you’re not satisfied.

Ambassador Dimitriou: (To Makarios) Are you satisfied?

AM: I didn’t get a clear answer.

HK: Frankly, I can’t say. I had to study your 1960 Constitution. I didn’t know anything about it. Let me say we are in favour of independence. We are not in favour of partition. We are in favour of a solution agreeable to all three parties.





nThe minutes of these meetings, published by the US National Archives Administration, comprise a vivid description of US policy on the one hand, and of Makarios’ intentions vis-a-vis the Cyprus crisis on the other.

http://www.cyprus-mail.com/news/main.php?id=47255

[shahmaran]

Man this Makarios slimeball is a right down spineless ass licker!

Incredible! He literally licked Kissingers arse sparkling clean and got fuck all in return!

Sounds like a desperate person who has just realised that he fucked up big time!

But one thing I do not understand is this;

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

1) He keeps claiming that the Turks (or TC's?) also want changes in the 60's constitution, when as far as I know it was the GC's who were not happy with it, so what more changes could the TC's (Turkey?) possibly want if everything was already fair and square and both parties had already aggreed to it? We know that Makarios was not happy with it and fucked everything up by changing it, so how can he claim that "we both want changes" when it was only him who changed it anyways?

2) More importantly, why does Kissenger seem not to be aware of the fact that the Turks want changes in the constitution, in reply to the claims of Makarios?

[YFred]

Man this Makarios slimeball is a right down spineless ass licker!

Incredible! He literally licked Kissingers arse sparkling clean and got fuck all in return!

Sounds like a desperate person who has just realised that he fucked up big time!

But one thing I do not understand is this;

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

1) He keeps claiming that the Turks (or TC's?) also want changes in the 60's constitution, when as far as I know it was the GC's who were not happy with it, so what more changes could the TC's (Turkey?) possibly want if everything was already fair and square and both parties had already aggreed to it? We know that Makarios was not happy with it and fucked everything up by changing it, so how can he claim that "we both want changes" when it was only him who changed it anyways?

2) More importantly, why does Kissenger seem not to be aware of the fact that the Turks want changes in the constitution, in reply to the claims of Makarios?

Thats a new one. The man lost it some time ago. I lived there at the time and don't remember anybody mentioning any TC demands for change other than the GC demands.

[insan]

Man this Makarios slimeball is a right down spineless ass licker!

Incredible! He literally licked Kissingers arse sparkling clean and got fuck all in return!

Sounds like a desperate person who has just realised that he fucked up big time!

But one thing I do not understand is this;

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

1) He keeps claiming that the Turks (or TC's?) also want changes in the 60's constitution, when as far as I know it was the GC's who were not happy with it, so what more changes could the TC's (Turkey?) possibly want if everything was already fair and square and both parties had already aggreed to it? We know that Makarios was not happy with it and fucked everything up by changing it, so how can he claim that "we both want changes" when it was only him who changed it anyways?

2) More importantly, why does Kissenger seem not to be aware of the fact that the Turks want changes in the constitution, in reply to the claims of Makarios?

Thats a new one. The man lost it some time ago. I lived there at the time and don't remember anybody mentioning any TC demands for change other than the GC demands.

Makarios refered the talks between Klerdies and Denktash during 1968-1974 period. In that period TC leadership in cooperation with Turkey made their counter proposals in return of what Makarios and his team proposed under pressure of Greek Junta and it's rign leaders in Cyprus.

[shahmaran]

The Junta was forcing Makarios to cut a deal with the Turks regarding the constitution?

I thought all they wanted was union with Greece, why would the details of the constitution matter?

[YFred]

Man this Makarios slimeball is a right down spineless ass licker!

Incredible! He literally licked Kissingers arse sparkling clean and got fuck all in return!

Sounds like a desperate person who has just realised that he fucked up big time!

But one thing I do not understand is this;

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

1) He keeps claiming that the Turks (or TC's?) also want changes in the 60's constitution, when as far as I know it was the GC's who were not happy with it, so what more changes could the TC's (Turkey?) possibly want if everything was already fair and square and both parties had already aggreed to it? We know that Makarios was not happy with it and fucked everything up by changing it, so how can he claim that "we both want changes" when it was only him who changed it anyways?

2) More importantly, why does Kissenger seem not to be aware of the fact that the Turks want changes in the constitution, in reply to the claims of Makarios?

Thats a new one. The man lost it some time ago. I lived there at the time and don't remember anybody mentioning any TC demands for change other than the GC demands.

Makarios refered the talks between Klerdies and Denktash during 1968-1974 period. In that period TC leadership in cooperation with Turkey made their counter proposals in return of what Makarios and his team proposed under pressure of Greek Junta and it's rign leaders in Cyprus.

Do you have any info on what those proposals were?

[insan]

The Junta was forcing Makarios to cut a deal with the Turks regarding the constitution?

I thought all they wanted was union with Greece, why would the details of the constitution matter?

Junta didn't know what they were doing... They were officially talking different to Turkey; as if they were wishing a just solution and an "endless love"(requirements and responsibilities of being in the same alliance) between Turks and Greeks.(The official telegrams between GOT, GOG and GOUSA might be read at state.gov).

Many times Grivas and his team, supposedly; behaved like they were independent from Junta... Events of 1964... 1967... Grivas "secretly" returned Cyprus and formed EOKA-B... etc... All details of these events might be found at US library website.

U know people have dreams and realities... Union was their dream which they unofficially exerted to make it true but realities of the world and our region never let them...

As I previously stated for many times... the game has always been based on a true Greek-Turkish friendship in our region... Since 1950, when they made the "new world order" plan...

[insan]

Man this Makarios slimeball is a right down spineless ass licker!

Incredible! He literally licked Kissingers arse sparkling clean and got fuck all in return!

Sounds like a desperate person who has just realised that he fucked up big time!

But one thing I do not understand is this;

AM: 1) They won’t go back to the lines called for in the Security Council Resolution. 2) They are calling for federation. 3) Ecevit is saying “our troops will stay.” This is blackmail! And the airport is under their control. Furthermore (in the inter-communal negotiations) they are demanding that the Vice President should have veto power.

HK: I thought you had agreed to the latter in the 1960 agreements.

AM: Yes, they want changes. We also want changes. Talks have been going on for years.

AM: If the talks are prolonged what will the situation be? Our people are suffering. They say they will accept the 1960 Constitution only with changes.

HK: They haven’t said this to me. My impression is they may want to keep troops there.

1) He keeps claiming that the Turks (or TC's?) also want changes in the 60's constitution, when as far as I know it was the GC's who were not happy with it, so what more changes could the TC's (Turkey?) possibly want if everything was already fair and square and both parties had already aggreed to it? We know that Makarios was not happy with it and fucked everything up by changing it, so how can he claim that "we both want changes" when it was only him who changed it anyways?

2) More importantly, why does Kissenger seem not to be aware of the fact that the Turks want changes in the constitution, in reply to the claims of Makarios?

Thats a new one. The man lost it some time ago. I lived there at the time and don't remember anybody mentioning any TC demands for change other than the GC demands.

Makarios refered the talks between Klerdies and Denktash during 1968-1974 period. In that period TC leadership in cooperation with Turkey made their counter proposals in return of what Makarios and his team proposed under pressure of Greek Junta and it's rign leaders in Cyprus.

Do you have any info on what those proposals were?

There were several letters exchanged between Klerides and Denktash. Those letters were published on cyprus-conflict.net website... but unfortuantely, that excellent website has been down for a long time... I'll check google if I can find Denktash/Klerides letters regarding the TC-Turkish proposals.

[insan]

In order to complete this review I would like to put on record, once again, the vital concessions which I have indicated willingness to make; concessions, for which, the Greek side seems determined not to give anything in return, thus raising the pertinent question whether the exercise of the local talks was merely for amending the 1960 Constitution in such a way as to make the Independent Republic of Cyprus a convenient spring-board for Enosis! My whole purpose in these talks has been to amend the Constitution in such a way as would satisfy your side's demands without diminishing in any way or form the juridic stat- us of the Turkish Community and without imperiling the ultimate safety of the independence of Cyprus:

Concessions which the Turkish side has shown willingness to make:

(a) Abolition of the provisions of the Constitution which necessitated the appointment of non-Cypriots to the posts of Presidents of the Supreme Constitutional Court and the High Court;

(b) The amalgamation of the Supreme Constitutional Court with the High Court;

(c) The amalgamation of the gendarmerie with the police;

(d) Reduction of Turkish participation from 30% to 20%;

(e) Abolition of the provision of the Constitution requiring majority vote of both Communities in the public commission;

(f) Abolition of the provision of the Constitution requiring separate majority votes in the House on legislation dealing with all taxation matters, elections, municipalities.

(g) Abolition of veto powers in Foreign Affairs, Defence and Internal Security;

(h) Reduction of Turkish participation in the Army from 40% to 20%;

(i) Making it optional, for litigants to resort to the protection of Article 159.

(j) Reduction of Turkish participation from 30% to 20% in Town Planning Affairs as per Article 176.

I hope the above will give us a new ground for tackling the problem anew in a spirit of give and take. So far the Turkish side has been on the giving end; I hope your side will find it possible to be a little generous and understanding so that we can reach agreement on all outstanding issues.

Yours sincerely,

Rauf R. Denktash
President, Turkish Communal Chamber

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus281.html

[shahmaran]

Sorry for my ignorance but I am no lawyer so maybe someone can explain to me what all this means?!

Is this better or worse?

What was the reason for them not to accept this and the reason for them to refuse the 60's constitution?

I just want to clarify the difference and the reason behind it and I am hoping to hear something more substantial than "Cyprus belongs to the indigenous" or "Cyprus is naturally Greek".

Thanks...