Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

"Right winged Turkish leadership formed TMT and began organizing TCs towards it's goal that was partition.

What alternatively could TC leadership or TC community do under the circumstances of late 50s and mid-60s? "

They could have asked for true independence for the island, as opposed to the oath of "Taksim or death" oath they took. If Enosis was a curse for the TCs why not realise that Taksim is its exact equal for the GCs? Why isolate Taksim as the ONLY possible option for the TC community?

Now that you have your Taksim, combined with Enosis, do you like it? Isn't that what Kavazoglu was warning against? How much effect did EOKA have in this policy of Taksim, was it really EOKA that was the driver or simply the excuse that Turkey wanted to lay its hands on Cyprus?

The neo partitionists of the forum are certain that the TCs and Turkey were simply reacting. I believe that Turkey was in fact the prime instigator of the events that led to partition, it had been proacive and not reactive all along.

Nikitas, under then the circumstances, independency of most of the countries was a so-called independency. Most of them were under control or heavy influence of 2 super powers.

Moreover, while there were 2 small communities in Cyprus comprise of abt 500.000 people had no chance for asking even a so-called independency in a geo-politically important island.

That's why both communities rationally decided take side with their closest interest partners and struggle for most feasible goals. The goal of GC community was uniting with Greece and get stronger and for TC community uniting with Turkey and get stronger to secure their own communal and national interests in Cyprus.

Under then the circumstance, there were too much difficulties both for Enosis and Taksim; so that a so-called independency was provided for 2 communities with London, Zurich agreements in a hope that 2 communities and 2 nations would sort their diffirences out in the course of time.

However, neither then the circumstances nor literacy and abilities of 2 communities and 2 nations were adequate to sort out their differences and genuinely unite around their common interests.

[Nikitas]

Insan,

If you do not know the events on the other side, then it is easy to believe that Turkey suddenly found itself facing a situation which was a total surprise. But it was not.

Makarios had been agitating for Enosis since the late 40s. Grivas was in Athens trying to convince the gvoernment of Papagos to help, which it did not do. It is hard to believe that a lone renegade army officer managed to spring a surprise on the Turkish foreign ministry and MIT.

It is more likely that MIT and the British realised that continued colonial occupation was not on the cards anymore and they would put their plans into action. Which they did. Bringing the fight to the cities, a major TMT tactic outflanked EOKA since it had neither the people nor the required freedom of movement to fight back.

Just look at the record of arrests and convictions by the British during the four years of the EOKA campaign and see that almost no TCs were arrested for arms possession. One man, sergeant Tuna who was arrested, magically managed to escape before his arraignment and ended up in Turkey.

Obviously there was a plan and a well laid out plan at that. It was t his plan that Kavazoglu saw and rightly considered that it had little to do with EOKA.

As for the title neo partitionists, it refers to those in here who keep flogging the dead horse of Enosis, the one that died on July 15 1974, to justify the continued occupation of Cyprus by foreign troops and the perpetual stationing of foreign troops after a so called "solution". Their views justify the title not as negative term but a realistic abbreviation of their vision for Cyprus- perpetually divided on ethnic lines with foreign troops permanently stationed there.

[insan]

Insan,

If you do not know the events on the other side, then it is easy to believe that Turkey suddenly found itself facing a situation which was a total surprise. But it was not.

Makarios had been agitating for Enosis since the late 40s. Grivas was in Athens trying to convince the gvoernment of Papagos to help, which it did not do. It is hard to believe that a lone renegade army officer managed to spring a surprise on the Turkish foreign ministry and MIT.

It is more likely that MIT and the British realised that continued colonial occupation was not on the cards anymore and they would put their plans into action. Which they did. Bringing the fight to the cities, a major TMT tactic outflanked EOKA since it had neither the people nor the required freedom of movement to fight back.

Just look at the record of arrests and convictions by the British during the four years of the EOKA campaign and see that almost no TCs were arrested for arms possession. One man, sergeant Tuna who was arrested, magically managed to escape before his arraignment and ended up in Turkey.

Obviously there was a plan and a well laid out plan at that.

As for the title neo partitionists, it refers to those in here who keep flogging the dead horse of Enosis, the one that died on July 15 1974, to justify the continued occupation of Cyprus by foreign troops and the perpetual stationing of foreign troops after a so called "solution". Their views justify the title not as negative term but a realistic abbreviation of their vision for Cyprus- perpetually divided on ethnic lines with foreign troops permanently stationed there.

Nikitas, I have enough knowledge abt everything happened in Cyprus throughout it's whole history. Nothing was surprise for Turkey since 40s because Turkish leadership was informing then the Turkish officials either with letters or visiting personally.

Don't forget that after 1950; Britain, Turkey and Greece were all in same alliance. The 2 communities in Cyprus were also considered in same alliance and all of the solution plans that were presented to 2 communities, Greece and Turkey envisaged to satisfy all concerned parties that were NATO members.

However, Greek and GC leadership have never felt satisfied with any of the presented solution plans because none of them envisaged to make their self-interests come true.

Any solution plan that wouldn't kick Turks and Brits out; make sole rulers of Cyprus Greek and GCs was very far from being satisfactory for themselves. This is crystal clear to me.

Only 2 Greek Prime ministers Konstantin Karamanlis and George Papandreu were wise and intelligent enough to get the meaning of being in NATO alliance and acting accordingly in order to contribute developing good, multi-lateral relations with all countries in the same alliance; NATO.

The political lives of these wise, intelligent, respectable politicians didn't last long unfortunately.

Two NATO allies at the threshold of war: Cyprus, a firsthand account of crisis management

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=Yu7 ... ce&f=false

As ambassador to Turkey during the Cyprus crisis (1965-1968), Parker T. Hart provides an insider's view of the management of that crisis in NATO and Greek-Turkish relations. Greece and most Greek Cypriots favored "enosis" (union with Greece), but Turkey and the Turk Cypriots were prepared to go to war to prevent such an annexation. A massacre of Turk Cypriot villagers in November 1967 focused the anger of Turkey, which was prepared to send troops to Cyprus to equalize the preponderance of forces led by General George Grivas. The determined mediation of special presidential envoy Cyrus R. Vance prevented the initiation of all-out hostilities. Vance engineered a withdrawal of mainland Greek forces in excess of existing treaty levels in exchange for a standdown of Turkish forces. The Vance mission diffused the crisis and salvaged the integrity of NATO, and a Greek-Turkish agreement to sponsor and encourage intercommunal negotiations followed.
Hart has relied on his own papers from the period, as well as on United Nations sources from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, and on the papers of the other key participants in the Crisis, Ambassador to Greece Phillips Talbot, Ambassador to Cyprus Taylor G. Belcher, and Cyrus Vance, to provide a rare play-by-play analysis of the crisis and its resolution

Ps: We will question the red highlighted part of ur reply, Nikitas. You will be surprised when u will learn that tones of arms lay underneath mediterrenean sea... there was an article abt this issue that Tim would translate it into English.

[Piratis]

Insan you have not shown even a single argument to support that Enosis was not the right of the Cypriot people in the 1950s. On the contrary I have shown that it was indeed a 100% legitimate option, which has been denied to us by force.

Do you think that whenever you disagree with something you have the right to commit crimes in order to prevent a 100% legitimate thing from happening? You certainly do not have such right.

So once again: Enosis was a 100% legitimate option.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

Taksim was and continues to be a CRIME which requires the ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the native Cypriot people from their homeland in order to artificially create some Turkish State on territory stolen from us.

So cut the crap trying to equate the two things. By talking about " geo-politically important island" you basically admit your guild. What we want on the other hand has nothing to do with any geo-political interests of foreigners and everything to do with the freedom and self-determination of our island which we are 100% entitled to it regardless of how populous and in what location our island is.

[insan]

Insan you have not shown even a single argument to support that Enosis was not the right of the Cypriot people in the 1950s. On the contrary I have shown that it was indeed a 100% legitimate option, which has been denied to us by force.

Do you think that whenever you disagree with something you have the right to commit crimes in order to prevent a 100% legitimate thing from happening? You certainly do not have such right.

So once again: Enosis was a 100% legitimate option.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

Taksim was and continues to be a CRIME which requires the ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the native Cypriot people from their homeland in order to artificially create some Turkish State on territory stolen from us.

So cut the crap trying to equate the two things. By talking about " geo-politically important island" you basically admit your guild. What we want on the other hand has nothing to do with any geo-political interests of foreigners and everything to do with the freedom and self-determination of our island which we are 100% entitled to it regardless of how populous and in what location our island is.

Since we never believed that TCs r a minority in Cyprus and this is documented by the relevant UN resolutions; in case GC community granted a self-determination right, TCs should also have been granted a self-determination right.

[Piratis]

Any solution plan that wouldn't kick Turks and Brits out; make sole rulers of Cyprus Greek and GCs was very far from being satisfactory for themselves. This is crystal clear to me.

Bollocks. We had no problem with the Turkish ethnic minority to remain on our island in the same way that Turkish minorities exist in Greek mainland or Bulgaria, and in the same way that Greek minorities exist in Turkey.

But of course you wanted a lot more for your minority in Cyprus than what you give to our minorities in Turkey, didn't you?

And the reason is what you said in your post earlier: "geo-political interests" of UK and Turkey. So don't try to justify your demands and actions.

What we asked for was 100% legitimate, and you used brute force and blackmail in order to deprive us from our rights so that UK and Turkey could serve their geo-political interests and your minority could get gains on our expense as a reward for the help you gave to the Imperialists to keep our island enslaved.

[insan]

Any solution plan that wouldn't kick Turks and Brits out; make sole rulers of Cyprus Greek and GCs was very far from being satisfactory for themselves. This is crystal clear to me.

Bollocks. We had no problem with the Turkish ethnic minority to remain on our island in the same way that Turkish minorities exist in Greek mainland or Bulgaria, and in the same way that Greek minorities exist in Turkey.

But of course you wanted a lot more for your minority in Cyprus than what you give to our minorities in Turkey, didn't you?

And the reason is what you said in your post earlier: "geo-political interests" of UK and Turkey. So don't try to justify your demands and actions.

What we asked for was 100% legitimate, and you used brute force and blackmail in order to deprive us from our rights so that UK and Turkey could serve their geo-political interests and your minority could get gains on our expense as a reward for the help you gave to the Imperialists to keep our island enslaved.

UN resolutions don't refer TC community as a minority living in Cyprus. Get used with it Piratis or keep bumbling nonsense.

[Piratis]

Insan you have not shown even a single argument to support that Enosis was not the right of the Cypriot people in the 1950s. On the contrary I have shown that it was indeed a 100% legitimate option, which has been denied to us by force.

Do you think that whenever you disagree with something you have the right to commit crimes in order to prevent a 100% legitimate thing from happening? You certainly do not have such right.

So once again: Enosis was a 100% legitimate option.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

Taksim was and continues to be a CRIME which requires the ethnic cleansing of the vast majority of the native Cypriot people from their homeland in order to artificially create some Turkish State on territory stolen from us.

So cut the crap trying to equate the two things. By talking about " geo-politically important island" you basically admit your guild. What we want on the other hand has nothing to do with any geo-political interests of foreigners and everything to do with the freedom and self-determination of our island which we are 100% entitled to it regardless of how populous and in what location our island is.

Since we never believed that TCs r a minority in Cyprus and this is documented by the relevant UN resolutions; in case GC community granted a self-determination right, TCs should also have been granted a self-determination right.

Of course you are an ethnic minority of 18%. And yes, in the 1950s you collaborated with Imperialists and it is them who created a constitution which they imposed on the Cypriot people which upgraded your small minority to a "community". This is exactly what I am talking about.

The self-determination right is for the Cypriot people as a whole.
Even the Greeks in Turkey don't have a separate self-determination. So why should you?

We will never accept any Ottoman overlords again. You are either Cypriot citizens like all the rest, with your one vote each like all the rest, or you are simply foreign invaders and you will be treated by us as such.

[Piratis]

Any solution plan that wouldn't kick Turks and Brits out; make sole rulers of Cyprus Greek and GCs was very far from being satisfactory for themselves. This is crystal clear to me.

Bollocks. We had no problem with the Turkish ethnic minority to remain on our island in the same way that Turkish minorities exist in Greek mainland or Bulgaria, and in the same way that Greek minorities exist in Turkey.

But of course you wanted a lot more for your minority in Cyprus than what you give to our minorities in Turkey, didn't you?

And the reason is what you said in your post earlier: "geo-political interests" of UK and Turkey. So don't try to justify your demands and actions.

What we asked for was 100% legitimate, and you used brute force and blackmail in order to deprive us from our rights so that UK and Turkey could serve their geo-political interests and your minority could get gains on our expense as a reward for the help you gave to the Imperialists to keep our island enslaved.

UN resolutions don't refer TC community as a minority living in Cyprus. Get used with it Piratis or keep bumbling nonsense.

So you accept UN resolutions?

[Piratis]

RESOLUTION 353 (1974)

Adopted by the Security Council at its 1771st meeting,
on 20 July 1974



The Security Council,

Having considered the report of the Secretary-General, at its 1779th meeting, about the recent developments in Cyprus,

Having heard the statement of the President of the Republic of Cyprus and the statements of the representatives of Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and other Member States,

Noting also from the report the conditions prevailing in the island,

Deeply deploring the outbreak of violence and the continuing bloodshed,

Gravely concerned about the situation which has led to a serious threat to international peace and security, and which has created a most explosive situation in the whole Eastern Mediterranean area,

Equally concerned about the necessity to restore the constitutional structure of the Republic of Cyprus, established and guaranteed by international agreements,

Conscious of its primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security in accordance with Article 24 of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus.

2.Calls upon all parties to the present fighting as a first step to cease all firing and requests all States to exercise the utmost restraint and to refrain from any action which might further aggravate the situation;

3.Demands an immediate end to foreign military intervention in the Republic of Cyprus that is in contravention of the provisions of paragraph 1 above;

4. Requests the withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements, including those whose withdrawal was requested by the President of the Republic of Cyprus, Archbishop Makarios, in his letter of 2 July 1974;

5. Calls upon Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to enter into negotiations without delay for the restoration of peace in the area and constitutional government of Cyprus and to keep the Secretary-General informed;

6. Calls upon all parties to co-operate fully with the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus to enable it to carry out its mandate;

7. Decides to keep the situation under constant review and asks the Secretary-General to report as appropriate with a view to adopting further measures in order to ensure that peaceful conditions are restored as soon as possible.

Adopted unanimously at the 1781st meeting.

RESOLUTION 541 (1983)

Adopted by the Security Council
on 18 November 1983



The Security Council,

Having heard the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Government of the Republic of Cyprus,

Concerned at the declaration by the Turkish Cypriot authorities issued on 15 November 1983 which purports to create an independent state in northern Cyprus,

Considering that this declaration is incompatible with the 1960 Treaty concerning the establishment of the Republic of Cyprus and the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee,

Considering therefore that the attempt to create a "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus", is invalid, and will contribute to a worsening of the situation in Cyprus,

Reaffirming its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975),

Aware of the need for a solution of the Cyprus problem, based on the mission of good offices undertaken by the Secretary-General,

Affirming its continuing support for the United Nations Peace-Keeping Force in Cyprus,

Taking note of the Secretary-General's statement of 17 November 1983,

1. Deplores the declaration of the Turkish Cypriot authorities of the purported secession of part of the Republic of Cyprus;

2. Considers the declaration referred to above as legally invalid and calls for its withdrawal;

3. Calls for the urgent and effective implementation of its resolutions 365(1974) and 367(1975);

4. Requests the Secretary-General to pursue his mission of good offices in order to achieve the earliest possible progress towards a just and lasting settlement in Cyprus;

5. Calls upon the parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary-General in his mission of good offices;

6. Calls upon all States to respect the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and non-alignment of the Republic of Cyprus;

7. Calls upon all States not to recognise any Cypriot state other than the Republic of Cyprus;

8. Calls upon all States and the two communities in Cyprus to refrain from any action which might exacerbate the situation;

9. Requests the Secretary-General to keep the Security Council fully informed.

Adopted at the 2500th meeting by 13 votes to 1 against (Pakistan) with 1 abstention (Jordan).