Cyprus-Forum.com

[Tim Drayton]

Tim, what's ur point?

It is Kavazoğlu's article not mine.

[Paphitis]

B. RECENT POLITICAL HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENTS.

1. The Republic of Cyprus was set up on 16 August 1960, with the coming into force of its Constitution and three main Treaties, which have their origin in the Zurich Agreement of 11 February 1959 between Greece and Turkey, and the United Kingdom. The Constitution of the Republic together with the three Treaties afforded the legal framework for the existence and functioning of the new State.

The three Treaties are:

2. The Treaty of Establishment. It was signed by Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom. It provides for the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and, inter alia, for the creation and operation of two sovereign British military bases in Cyprus; the co-operation of the Parties for the common defence of Cyprus; and the recognition and respect of human rights to everyone within the jurisdiction of the Republic, comparable to those set out in the European Convention of Human Rights (UN Treaty Series, vol. 382 (1960) no. 5476).

3. The Treaty of Guarantee. It was signed by Cyprus, the United Kingdom, Greece and Turkey, whereby the independence, territorial integrity and security of the Republic of Cyprus, as well as the state of affairs established by the Basic Articles of its Constitution, are recognized and guaranteed (UN Treaty Series, vol 382 (1960) no. 5475).

4. The Treaty of Alliance. It was signed by Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, aiming at protecting the Republic of Cyprus against any attack or aggression, direct or indirect, directed against its independence or its territorial integrity (UN Treaty Series, vol. 397 (1961) no. 5712).

5. The Constitution of Cyprus, whilst establishing an Independent and sovereign Republic, was, in the words of de Smith, an authority on Consitutional Law; "Unique in its tortuous complexity and in the multiplicity of the safeguards that it provides for the principal minority; the Constitution of Cyprus stands alone among the constitutions of the world" (S.A. de Smith, 'The New Commonwealth and its Constitutions", London, 1964, p.296).

6. Therefore, it was no surprise that, within less than three years, abuse of safeguards by the Turkish Cypriot leadership, led to total unworkability of the Constitution, which necessitated the submission of constitutional amendments submitted by the President of the Republic, and which were immediately rejected by the Turkish Government, and subsequently by the Turkish Cypriot community.

7. Turkey, in furtherance to its designs, based on territorial aggrandisement, instigated the Turkish Cypriot leadership to resort to insurrection against the state, thus forcing the Turkish Cypriot members of the executive, legislature, judiciary and the civil service to withdraw from their posts, and created military enclaves in Nicosia and other parts of the island.

8. As a result of the above, and the intercommunal violence that ensued, the Security Council of the United Nations was seized-of the situation, and by resolution 186 of 4 March 1964 a Peace Keeping Force (UNFICYP) was sent to Cyprus and a Mediator was appointed. In his Report (S/6253, A/6017, 26 Marach 1965), the Mediator, Dr Gala Plaza, criticized the 1960 legal framework, and proposed necessary amendements which were again forthwith rejected by Turkey, a fact which resulted in serious deterioration of the situation with constant threats by Turkey against the sovereignty and territorial intergrity of Cyprus, necessitating a series of UN Resolutions calling, inter alia, for respect of the sovereignty, independence and territorial intergrity of Cyprus.

9. The Secretary-General of the United Nations in 1965, described the policy of the Turkish Cypriot leaders in this way: "The Turkish Cypriot leaders have adhered to a rigid stand against any measures which might involve having members of the two communities live and work together, or which might place Turkish Cypriots in situations where they would have to acknowledge the authority of Government agents. Indeed, since the Turkish Cypriot leadership is committed to physical and geographical separation of the communities as a political goal, it is not likely to encourage activities by Turkish Cypriots which may be interpreted as demonstrating the merits of an alternative policy. The result has been a seemingly deliberate policy of self-segregation by the Turkish Cypriots" (Report S/6426 10.6.65).

10. Despite this policy, a certain degree of normality gradually returned to Cyprus and with the active encouragement of the Government, by 1974 a large proportion of Turkish Cypriots were living and working alongside with their Greek Cypriot fellow citizens.

11. Using as a pretext the coup d'etat of 15 July 1974, instigated by the then Greek military junta against the Cyprus Government, Turkey invaded the island on 20 July 1974. Forty thousand Turkish troops landed on the island, in violation of the Charter of the UN, the Treaties of Guarantee, Establishment and Alliance and the relevant principles and norms of international law.

12. As a result, approximately 37% of the territory of the Republic was and remains occupied. Many thousand of people amounting to 40% of the Greek Cypriot population, representing 82% of the total population of the occupied part of Cyprus, were forcibly expelled. Thousands of people, including civilians, were wounded, ill treated or killed. Moreover, the fate of hundreds of Greek Cypriote, including women and children and other civilians, many of whom were known to have been captured by the Turkish army, is still unknown.

13. The Turkish occupation authorities resorted to a policy of systematic destruction of the cultural and religious heritage of Cyprus.

14. Since the Turkish occupation army has assumed effective control of the northern part of the territory of Cyprus, Turkey has pursued a systematic state policy of colonization. To this extent. Turkey has allowed the settlement until the end of 1996 of about 109.000 of its citizens to the area under its military occupation.

15. The policy of the Turkish Government also led to the shrinking of the Turkish Cypriot population mainly through emigration, from 120.000 in 1974, to approximately 89.200 by the end of 1996 (pl. refer also to the report of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 'The demographic structure of Cypriot communities" of 27 April 1992 (Doc. 6589). The net emigration of Turkish Cypriote between 1974 - 1996 was, in accordance with Turkish Cypriot sources, approximately 48.600.

16. A series of United Nations General Assembly and Security Council Resolutions condemned the invasion of Cyprus, the continuing military occupation, its colonization, and the secessionist acts that followed and, demanded the return of the refugees to their homes in safety, as well as the tracing of missing person, they also urged the speedy withdrawal of all foreign troops, and called for respect of the human rights of the Cypriots (pl. see inter alia General Assembly res. 3212 (XXIX) 1 Nov. 1974; 3395 (XXX) 20 Nov. 1975; 31/12 (1976)12 Nov. 1976; 32/15 (1977) 9 Nov. 1977; 33/15 (1978) 9 Nov. 1978; 34/30 (1979) 20 Nov. 1979; 37/253 (1983)13 May 1983; - Security Council res. 353(1974) 20 July 1974; 354(1974) 23 July 1974; 355(1974) 1 August 1974; 357(1974) 14 August 1974; 358(1974) 15 August 1974; 359(1974) 15 August 1974; 360(1974) 16 August 1974; 36KI974) 30 August 1974; 364(1974) 13 Dec. 1974; 365(1974) 13 Dec. 1974; 367(1975) 12 March 1975; 370(1975) 13 June 1975; 414(1977) 15 Sept. 1977; 440(1978) 27 Nov 1978; 541(1983) 18 Nov. 1983; 550(1984) 11 May 1984; 649(1990) 12 March 1990; 716(1991) 11 Oct. 1991; 750(1992) 10 April 1992; 774(1992) 26 Aug 1992; 789(1992) 25 Nov. 1992; 939(1994) 29 July 1994; 969(1994) 21 Dec 1994; 1000(1995) 23 June 1995; 103211995) 19 Dec. 1995; 1062(1996) 28 June 1996; 1092(1996) 23 Dec. 1996; and 1117(1997) 27 June 1997).

17. Moreover, the European Commission of Human Rights found the Government of Turkey responsible for gross massive and continuing violations of human rights in Cyprus, including murders, rapes, expulsions and refusal to allow more than 180.000 Greek Cypriot refugees, almost one third of the entire population, to return to their homes and properties in the occupied part of Cyprus (pl. see Report of 10 July 1976 on Applications on Cyprus against Turkey No 6780/74 and 6950/75, and Report of 4 October 1983 on Application of Cyprus against Turkey No 8007/77 of the European Commission of Human Rights).

18. On 15 November 1983, in the middle of yet another United Nations initiative, the regime installed by Turkey in the part of Cyprus occupied by Turkish troops, issued a declaration by which it purported to create an independent state. Turkey immediately accorded recognition to the secessionist entity which, however, has not been recognized by any other state. Further secessionist acts followed. United Nations Security Council Resolutions 541(1983) and 550(1984), condemned the unilateral declaration and all subsequent secessionist acts, declared them illegal and invalid, and called for their immediate withdrawal. The Resolutions also called on all states not to recognize the purported state and not to facilitate or in any way assist it.

19. In its search for a peaceful solution, the Cyprus Government, despite the continuing illegal occupation, agreed to intercommunal talks being held in line with the aforesaid UN resolutions. No success was so far achieved, because of the Turkish intransigence and partitionist designs. In the words of the UN Secretary General: "For the present, the Security Council finds itself faced with an already familiar scenario; the absence of agreement due essentially to a lack of political will on the Turkish Cypriot side" (para 53, doc. S/1994/629 of 30 May 1994).

20. The Cyprus Government hopes that Turkey and the Turkish Cypriote will show the necessary commitment, goodwill and respect for international law, and will fully co-operate. The Cyprus Government aims at a just, viable, comprehensive and functional solution under a bizonal, bicommunal federal structure, that will guarantee the independence, territorial integrity, unity and sovereignty of Cyprus, free from the occupation troops and illegal settlers; a solution which would secure full respect of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all Cypriots, irrespective of ethnic origin or religion.

21. From the above, it is evident that the Government of the Republic of Cyprus is prevented by armed force from exercising authority and control and ensuring implementation and respect of human rights in the occupied area (pl. see inter alia European Commission of Human Rights Reports, Cyprus agains Turkey, op.sit. "The Commission concludes that Turkey's jurisdiction in the north of the Republic of Cyprus, existing by reason of the presence of her armed forces there which prevents exercise of jurisdiction by the applicant Government, cannot be excluded on the ground that jurisdiction in that area is allegedly exercised by the "Turkish Federated State of Cyprus"". pl. also see Judgement of European Court of Human Rights, "Case of Loizidou v. Turkey (Merits) (40/1993/435/514) Judgment, 18 December 1996.''

http://www.humanrights.coe.int/minoriti ... prus/B.htm

[insan]

Tim, what's ur point?

It is Kavazoğlu's article not mine.

Ok, but what's ur point? Plz evaluate it.

[zan]

Who was that issued by Paphitis???

[denizaksulu]

In connection with a discussion in another thread about the situation faced by the TCs in 1964, and purely in the interests of developing this discussion, I think the following lengthy extract from article by Derviş Ali Kavazoğlu which appeared in the Bulgarian Communist Party’s Turkish-language periodical Yeni Işık on 20 October 1964 is of interest because it challenges the conventional Turkish Cypriot view of events at that time. I think that this warrants a separate thread, so with your indulgence I am starting a fresh thread with it. (This is my translation of the extract. I found it in Ahmet An's book TMT'nin Kurbanları - TMT's Victims )

What a gem of truth was spoken about us by the Bulgarian Turk, 67-year-old grandfather Kadir Hüseyin.

From what I have heard, a group of five journalists from Turkey recently came to Bulgaria.

One particular gentleman from among this group of journalists apparently collared the 67-year-old Bulgarian Turkish grandfather Kadir Hüseyin and would not be satisfied until he had imposed his views on the old man:

- “Don’t you know, dad,” said the journalist, “The Greek Cypriot gavurs are slaughtering our Turkish brothers in Cyprus for no reason.” Grandfather Kadir Hüseyin had clearly seen and heard plenty of things like this in his 67 years and was ready with the reply:

-“For heaven’s sake, my good Sir, somebody must be putting them up to it [herhalde onları kestirenler var]”. The journalist, not expecting such a reply, lost his temper and reprimanded him with the words:

-“You seem to have lost your Turkishness, old man.”

Hold on, journalist, don’t be in such a hurry. Grandfather Kadir Hüseyin has not lost his Turkishness, or anything like that, he just has no time for charlatanism and demagogy. According to you, the grandfather’s entire fault is that he is this way inclined.

Anyhow, leave Bulgarian grandfather Kadir be and come and talk to me, a Turkish Cypriot; listen to me Mr journalist. Bulgarian Turks, lend an ear, too. Grandfather Kadir, you lend an ear as well.

Let me start by saying that thirty thousand of the nearly one hundred and ten thousand Turkish Cypriots have been driven into a life devoid of civilisation and humanity, living in cinemas and like nomads in tents on the open plain, away from hearth and home, far from the soil which they had tended with the sweat of their own brow and yearning for the places where they were born and grew up! But why?

For ten months the vast majority of the Turkish Cypriot community has been condemned to a life of unemployment, hunger, absence of medicine and wretchedness! But why?

According to Rauf Denktash’s group, having taken charge of the Turkish Cypriot community by coercion, armed force and fascist methods and with the support of the imperialists and, at the time, of the reactionaries grouped around Menderes, the blame for the Turkish Cypriot community’s current woes lies with them, fairly and squarely with the Greek Cypriots. However, I will attempt to demonstrate with evidence that this claim is nothing more than baseless demagogy and that the blame and guilt for the Turkish Cypriot’s current woeful situation rests in the final analysis with the imperialists and the fascist Denktash group that is their tool.

I shall examine Emin Dirvana’s article as the first piece of evidence. Emin Dirvana, who was appointed as ambassador to Cyprus by the National Unity Committee government which took charge in Turkey following the 27 May action and who gained the love and respect of the Turkish Cypriot community – with the exception of Denktash’s fascist group – during the two years in which he served as ambassador, wrote the following in a long article which was published in the Milliyet newspaper in may 1964:

“…For the time in which I was in Cyprus in the capacity of ambassador not a single Turkish Cypriot’s home was destroyed and burnt. Not a single Turk was shot at by Greek Cypriots; nobody at all rejected Turkish rights in Cyprus…”

Mr Emin Dirvana, having stated these facts, wrote the following, exposing the true face of Rauf Denktash, the head of the fascist group:

“Denktash needs to comprehend the responsibility that he has, as head of the Turkish Cypriot Community Assembly, to the Turkish Cypriots and to the Turkish government.” “I attempted in vain for months to caution Denktash to concentrate his efforts on matters concerning the Turkish community’s development. But Denktash preferred to quarrel with the Greek Cypriots, on several occasions without cause, over and above considering the Turkish community’s development.”

Did you hear, Mr journalist, who was the cause of quarrels and fights between the Greeks and Turks? Or, in your estimation, has Mr Emin Dirvana also lost his Turkishness? No, mate. I don’t think you’d go that far!

Now, let’s move on and hear from Denktash himself who was responsible for driving 30 thousand Turkish Cypriots from their homes and turning them into nomads. Denktash said precisely the following in an interview broadcast on the evening of 22 March 1964 on a programme entitled “Window on the World”:

“We wish to establish a federal administration in Cyprus. In order to achieve this, it is necessary to move a portion of the Turks from one place to another place and to concentrate our people in certain parts of the island.”

Are you listening Mr journalist? You who are determined to set out on a mission to stir up the Bulgarian Turks with the demagogy that “The Greek Cypriot gavurs are slaughtering our Turkish brothers in Cyprus for no reason.” Denktash in that interview himself admits that 30 thousand Turks were made homeless, not to escape slaughter at the hands of Greek Cypriots, but were forcibly uprooted from their homes by himself and like-minded people.

Denktash and those who think like him have lied to the Turkish Cypriots in order to satisfy their own racist political ambitions and to benefit their masters, the imperialists, and have uprooted 30 thousand of our brothers from their homes and villages by exploiting the Turkish Cypriot peoples’ decent national sentiments with demagogy about “mass murder” and driven the Turkish Cypriot community into its present woeful state!
Denktash and those who think like him have deceived a section of our population with talk of a “national struggle” and whipped them up into a frenzy; they have caused the deaths of hundreds of Turks and as many Greeks and caused them to kill one another.
A brief examination of the history of Cyprus over the past ten years easily reveals that the thing that Denktash calls the “national struggle” amounts to nothing more than serving the British and American imperialists.

Here I will try to give a few examples from this history.

The year was 1954. In the British parliament Mr Henry Hopkinson states that “The status quo on Cyprus will never change”, i.e. British imperialism will never grant Cyprus freedom and independence. Britain in the same year argued at a General Council meeting of the United Nations organisation that “the Cyprus problem is a domestic affair.”
In the same year, the “thesis” with the name “the Turkish thesis” that was defended by the imprudent Turkish leaders in Cyprus and the Menderes administration was absolutely identical to the British thesis. Such that at the General Council meeting of the United Nations a representative of the Democratic Party government defended, in common with the British representative, the thesis that “the Cyprus problem is Great Britain’s domestic affair, thus the United Nations has no right to interfere in member state’s domestic affairs.”

The year was 1955. September. Britain changes its policy and at the Tripartite London Conference offers Cyprus limited home rule. Turkey’s Foreign Minister, Fatin Rüştü Zorlu, who was participating at the same conference and at the time was representing the Deocratic Party government, announces that the limited home rule offered by Britian was accepted by the Turks and in passing mentions “equal representational rights”.

The year was 1956. December. The Greek Cypriot community having rejected the British offer of limited home rule, the British imperialists this time propose the Radcliffe constitution. On 20 December 1956 the Turkish prime-minister at the time Adnan Menderes announces that “the Radcliffe constitution is a reasonable basis for discussion.” The imprudent Turkish leaders in Cyprus also state that they accept the Radcliffe constitution. However, as is known, the Radcliffe constitution is not based on the “equal representational rights” to which Zorlu had referred in 1955. Thus, the so-called “Turkish thesis” kept step with British policy in line with the wishes of the imperialists.

Subsequently, the Greek Cypriot community having rejected the Radcliffe constitution that did not grant Cyprus full independence, the notion of “partitioning Cyprus” began to be floated around in the British parliament, purely with the aim of instilling fear and serving their own imperialist interests.

The Menderes administration and those who had been imposed by force on the Turkish Cypriot community as leaders accept the notion of “partitioning Cyprus” first floated by Britain, which wished to retain Cyprus as a springboard, a warship and an aircraft carrier so that it may protect its own imperialist interests in the Middle East, continue to steal petrol in this area and stifle the Arab people’s wars of national liberation, for these very purposes and present this divisive policy of the British imperialists as “Turkish policy”.

Henceforth, the Turkish Cypriot and Turkish people are whipped up with slogans of “partition or death” and the conditions are created for the first intercommunal conflict in Cyprus.

Subsequently the British imperialists come up with a new imperialistic plan for Cyprus named the “Macmillan Plan”. The same people who had sent the Turkish Cypriot community to its death with the slogan “partition or death” now immediately consented to the Macmillan Plan. However, this plan was not based on “Partition” or anything like it.

When the Greek Cypriot community also fail to accept this invention of imperialism known as the “Macmillan Plan”, the so-called Turkish Cypriot leaders and Menderes administrators fall in behind the British in the quest for other imperialist inventions and the Zurich-London agreements appear on the scene.

The Zurich and London agreements, which served no other purpose than to drive a wedge and sow the seeds of enmity between the Greek and Turkish communities that had lived in a spirit of peace and mutual assistance in Cyprus for over four hundred years, whip up nationalist hysteria and create separatism were imposed on both communities and these agreements were not submitted to a referendum.

From three years of experience it became abundantly clear that these agreements along with the constitution and state based on these agreements were incapable of working normally.

Consequently, President Makarios proposed that the constitution be amended in order that the state may function normally and submitted a 13-point draft for discussion. This 13-point draft did not essentially infringe on the Turkish Cypriot community’s genuine and democratic rights. However, neither the so-called Turkish leaders in Cyprus or Turkey showed any inclination to discuss the draft. As a result of this the political atmosphere in Cyprus became electrified. Imperialism managed to exploit this electric atmosphere and on 23 December 1963 by means of its agents conflict began.

The conflict which has continued until today has claimed the lives of hundreds of Turkish and Greek Cypriots, destroyed families and turned women into widows and innocent children into orphans. For the sake of the interests of imperialism and its organs, Turkish Cypriots as a whole have been taken to the brink of disaster.

Had the parties sat down at a round table to negotiate the 13-point draft which President Makarios had submitted to make the constitution workable, the current disaster would not have hit the people of Cyprus and in particular the Turkish Cypriots.

How painful and instructive it is that those who refused to negotiate Makarios’ 13-point draft are now flirting with the 5-point Acheson plan of imperialist making whose first article begins with “Enosis”. They flirt in this manner because the Acheson Plan gives the Americans, British and Turkey, i.e. NATO, the right to establish a military base on Cyprus. We will not be in the least bit surprised if the Acheson Plan, whose first article begins with “Enosis”, i.e. the joining of Cyprus with Greece, will be presented to us - a phony moon and star having been placed on it - as a “Turkish thesis” or “Turkish plan”, just like we have seen above with the other imperialist plans, since it contains NATO bases.

“Mr journalist” who collared the 67-year-old Bulgarian grandfather Kadir, saying, “The Greek Cypriot gavurs are slaughtering our Turkish brothers in Cyprus for no reason,” are you unaware of all of these facts? Do you not see that Turkey is on course to become friendless like Franco’s Spain for acting as a lackey to imperialism in the Cyprus question? Have you never, as a journalist, compared Turkey at the time of Ataturk and Turkey’s current international situation? Have you never examined the way that Turkey, which under the leadership of Ataturk opened the banners of national salvation against imperialism for the first time in the Middle East, opposes peoples who are conducting wars of national liberation and the baleful consequences of this?

Mr journalist, if you really love your country and people, leave the Bulgarian Turkish grandfather alone and join the fight of Turkish patriots, progressives and true supporters of Ataturk who are struggling that Turkey may once more take its honourable place on the anti-imperialist front and to open the way to a happy future for the Turkish people. This is the only way you will serve the interests of the Turkish people and the Turkish Cypriots, in whom you purport to show so much interest.

Thanks for the above Tim.Last time I was in Cyprus, I searched for that book, 'TMT'nin Kurbanlari'. One response was , " we dont sell books like that"/ Biz oyle kitap satmayik". After I left. a friend e-mailed me the name of the bookshop, which later was attacked by arsonists.


Happy I am that I do not live there.

[zan]

Do you think that article is balanced Deniz???

[Paphitis]

Who was that issued by Paphitis???

Don't you have a counter argument? Have we hit a grey area?

[Tim Drayton]

Thanks for the above Tim.Last time I was in Cyprus, I searched for that book, 'TMT'nin Kurbanlari'. One response was , " we dont sell books like that"/ Biz oyle kitap satmayik". After I left. a friend e-mailed me the name of the bookshop, which later was attacked by arsonists.


Happy I am that I do not live there.

That is where I got my copy! I was one of their biggest customers.

[zan]

Who was that issued by Paphitis???

Don't you have a counter argument? Have we hit a grey area?

That is my counter argument.......Didn't need much more.....

[Paphitis]

Who was that issued by Paphitis???

Don't you have a counter argument? Have we hit a grey area?

That is my counter argument.......Didn't need much more.....

So you have nothing to say...You know full well hat the above is true, and from an unbiased source, and now you have nothing to say because you just can't counter a damn thing....