Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Sheepsking was a branch of the armed forces, with pretty much the same objective: to form a guerrilla cadre in case the country was invaded and taken over by the Warsaw Pact. The personnel were former special forces people.

There is nothing wrong in the planning for the evenutality of a hostile take over. But somehow the idea that such an organization was funded by a foreign government puts a different light on it. To appreciate how weird it sounds just think of it the other way round- a European nation funding a secret organization in the USA which stockpiles arms and has a paramilitary members just in case the USA is taken over by an enemy.

Now as to the other issue, whether TMT was a tool of survival for the TCs or subversion of the RoC we do not know enough to come to a sound conclusion. I too will use Packard as a source and cite his opinion, formed from first hand experience, that both Makarios and Kutchuk wanted an end to hostilities but could not control their paramilitaries. So the next question is who controlled and who armed these paramilitaries and who paid the salaries of those fully employed in running them. And now we have come full circle to organizations like the sheepskins and the special war departments with their secret funds and to that unforgettable reminder of acting secretary Ball addressing Packard- you have it all wrong here, the goal is partition.

But somehow these anglosaxon inspired plans never seem to work out as intended. It is ironic that they had never taken into account Europe, and how it has managed to incorporate the larger of the two commuities and most of the island's territory without resorting to any dirty tricks, in a move that rules out enosis forever, while the TCs got taxim and enosis with Turkey, and now that they got it they do not much like it.

The weird thing is that both organisations seem to have had the same paymaster!

Therefor, I don't think it was in interests of US to pay both organizations to cause destabilization of Nato! U began to getting it correct, Tim.

Sorry, my mind works differently. I can't help thinking that this points to a divide and rule strategy. What better way to secure the future of the sovereign British bases than to have the natives so busy fighting one another that they have no time to notice? Just a hypothesis.

[insan]

Sheepsking was a branch of the armed forces, with pretty much the same objective: to form a guerrilla cadre in case the country was invaded and taken over by the Warsaw Pact. The personnel were former special forces people.

There is nothing wrong in the planning for the evenutality of a hostile take over. But somehow the idea that such an organization was funded by a foreign government puts a different light on it. To appreciate how weird it sounds just think of it the other way round- a European nation funding a secret organization in the USA which stockpiles arms and has a paramilitary members just in case the USA is taken over by an enemy.

Now as to the other issue, whether TMT was a tool of survival for the TCs or subversion of the RoC we do not know enough to come to a sound conclusion. I too will use Packard as a source and cite his opinion, formed from first hand experience, that both Makarios and Kutchuk wanted an end to hostilities but could not control their paramilitaries. So the next question is who controlled and who armed these paramilitaries and who paid the salaries of those fully employed in running them. And now we have come full circle to organizations like the sheepskins and the special war departments with their secret funds and to that unforgettable reminder of acting secretary Ball addressing Packard- you have it all wrong here, the goal is partition.

But somehow these anglosaxon inspired plans never seem to work out as intended. It is ironic that they had never taken into account Europe, and how it has managed to incorporate the larger of the two commuities and most of the island's territory without resorting to any dirty tricks, in a move that rules out enosis forever, while the TCs got taxim and enosis with Turkey, and now that they got it they do not much like it.

The weird thing is that both organisations seem to have had the same paymaster!

Therefor, I don't think it was in interests of US to pay both organizations to cause destabilization of Nato! U began to getting it correct, Tim.

Sorry, my mind works differently. I can't help thinking that this points to a divide and rule strategy. What better way to secure the future of the sovereign British bases than to have the natives so busy fighting one another that they have no time to notice? Just a hypothesis.

Imo, such a political stance wouldn't bring the desired results to permemenantly keep the British sovereign bases on Cyprus and protect the fragile Nato stability in the region.

Be it either a united Cyprus or partitioned Cyprus all concerned parties who had/have interests in Cyprus would exert on the table to protect their own interests.

By taking into consideration that all concerned parties were in same alliance and supposedly have common interests; the ultmate goal was reconciliation of Greeks/Turks/Brits/TCs/GCs and find a solution that would be satisfactory to all.

The 60s agreements were satisfactory to all even for the then GOG but was not satisfactory for ultra-nationalist Greeks and GCs... They couldn't digest Ottoman "remnants", "relics" having politically equal status with "noble" Greeks of Cyprus while Ottoman "remnants", "relics"; "Barbarian Turks" was still "occupying" ancestral lands(Asia Minor) of Greeks.

[Tim Drayton]

Martin Packard, who as a serving British officer would have had an inkling of what British intelligence was thinking at the time, suggests in a couple of places in the book Getting It Wrong that thinking was along the lines that a strong, unitary Cypriot state would threaten the long-term existence of the Sovereign British Bases.

Page 199

Having seen the strength of anti-British feeling among Greek Cypriots, it was easy to assume that in a unitary Cyprus there would be pressure for reversion of the SBAs to Cypriot sovereignty. The British army and intelligence services, contrary to most political commentators in London, continued to claim that the SBAs were essential for the fulfilment of the country's regional mission. Their argument for this was strengthened by a magnification of the threats posed by the strength of the left and by inter-communal fractions.

Page 244

The general view at JFHQ [Joint Force Headquarters] was that US and UK intelligence assessments were now supporting the thesis that communal separation was the outcome that would best suit NATO interests.

[Nikitas]

The assertion that SBAs would somehow be threatened by Cyprus of 1963 with its 1200 strong army and cadres of irregulars is funny. Especially if you consider the power that the UK managed to project as far as the Falklands, 9000 miles distant, when it decided to protect its south Atlantic base and 1800 sheep farmers.

Yesterday, 20 September, the BBC had an interesting coverage on the reunification of Germany and how Mrs Thatcher, in pursuit of national interest as she understood it, asked Gorbatchev, of all people, to do something to prevent the reunification of Germany!!!! The BBC had an interview with Gorbatchev who confirmed the story.

This shows the perverted view of national interest that dominates the thinking of some British officials. It is the same notion that led them to spy on their partners in the European commission and to strike an "anglosaxons only" partnership like the Echelon network. which spies on everyone else for the benefit of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. It also spies on commercial transactions, which makes it even more threatenting than if it were solely military.

[insan]

Martin Packard, who as a serving British officer would have had an inkling of what British intelligence was thinking at the time, suggests in a couple of places in the book Getting It Wrong that thinking was along the lines that a strong, unitary Cypriot state would threaten the long-term existence of the Sovereign British Bases.

Page 199

Having seen the strength of anti-British feeling among Greek Cypriots, it was easy to assume that in a unitary Cyprus there would be pressure for reversion of the SBAs to Cypriot sovereignty. The British army and intelligence services, contrary to most political commentators in London, continued to claim that the SBAs were essential for the fulfilment of the country's regional mission. Their argument for this was strengthened by a magnification of the threats posed by the strength of the left and by inter-communal fractions.

Page 244

The general view at JFHQ [Joint Force Headquarters] was that US and UK intelligence assessments were now supporting the thesis that communal separation was the outcome that would best suit NATO interests.

Tim, following the foundation of RoC; Makarios, in one of his interviews told he would exert to contribute the development of people of Cyprus besides friendly relations between Greece and Turkey. I made a google search but couldn't find it but it must be among my thousands of favorite bookmarks.

Maybe he genuinely meant it or it was just one of his double faced speeches to create an adorable impression in minds of other concerned parties.

In my opinion he was not genuine, he was just trying to create an adorable impression in minds of other concerned parties and continue pursuing his Enosis policy behind the scenes.

In fact, in 1963 he made clear his intentions. 13 points of constitutional ammendments he proposed can be sumed up as "making of TC community a minority in Cyprus."

After a bloody intercommunal violence that lasted 2-3 years before the foundation of RoC; I don't think there was a peaceful environment, social raproachment on communal level(bi-communal events) etc. We don't have mch records on communal and political life regarding the goings on 1960-1963.(We need some journalists and reserchers exploring the written GC and TC media of 1960-1963 period)

Anyway... Since the RadCliff proposal all solution plans were based on satisfying all concerned parties(GCs,TCs,Turkey,Greece,Britain and thus US as an NATO ally).

Partition option was not something new appeared in 1964. Partition put on agenda against the intasigency of Greek/GC sides accepting the proposals, satisfactory to all concerned parties.

Infact, in 1964; after Makarios unilaterally declared the treaty of guarantee as null, passed a law for the formation of GC national guard and unilaterally ammended the constitution of RoC, beside the intensifying inter communal clashes; urged Britain and US to make a partition plan(Acheson Plan) to protect their interests in Cyprus; under then the circumstances.

What were their interests in Cyprus? For Brits, the SBAs besides the stability of NATO; for US, the stability of NATO besides the SBAs of Britain.

Why would a strong unitary state be against the interests of Brits and US as long as all concerned parties respected the rights and interests of all concerned parties? Only the leftists and USSR could have been disturbed of a strong unitary state where right wingers of all concerned parties have respect to each others rights and interests.

Now another question spring to our minds... Could it be the USSR behind the inter-communal clashes in order to destabilize NATO?