Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

According to Martin Packard on page 332 of his book Getting It Wrong, Tassos Papdopoulos came to visit him in Athens shortly after the former’s sudden removal from his peacekeeping job in Cyprus. Of course, we only have Packard’s word for it that such a meeting took place. Some of the comments which Packard alleges Papadopoulos made seem very interesting to me.

Tassos Papadopoulos came to Athens to meet me. […]

Then he talked about the current situation. As always, he was vigorously optimistic. Despite all the setbacks and difficulties he was confident that the Greek Cypriot cause would in the end prevail. He believed that the tide of world politics had turned inexorably towards the right of former colonies to achieve genuine self-determination, and that an overwhelming wish for it of the Greek Cypriot population made certain that enosis would eventually become possible. He added: “But will we still want it when it’s on offer? I and everyone else will have to decide then whether we’d rather be little fish in someone else’s big pond or big fish in our own little pond.” He suggested that the romance of the struggle had been more alluring than the outcome might be.

Papadopoulos said: “We shot ourselves in the foot by letting the Turkish Cypriots provoke us into a violent confrontation. It needn’t have been so, but now our future is going to hang on how the wind blows in Ankara. We should have realised from the beginning that we needed to keep the trust of the majority of the Turkish Cypriots. We should have been patient. Even Makarios kept running behind events rather than controlling them.”

He went on to say how much the present situation was complicated by misrepresentation. Ankara and London and Washington all wanted to see Cyprus under NATO control and Athens, whatever it was saying in public, now went along with that view. They all claimed that the Makarios government was unable to control Greek Cypriot extremists and ignored the fact that the motivating of those extremists came almost entirely from foreign intelligence services. Ankara, Athens, London and Washington all wanted to work out a future for the Cypriots, as they had tried to do so before, without Cypriots taking part in the discussion.

In which solution discussions the representatives of Cypriots didn't take part?

I think you will find that although both sides were at the pre 1960 discussions they had very little influence on the outcome. The Zurich agreement was imposed for the benefit of NATO, which meant in practice Britain and Turkey.

I consider all of the solution plans presented to us as a product of supposedly existing western alliance... In this respect all were satisfactory for moderates but not for ultra-nationalists and ultra-leftists.

The plans were not "presented" to us. Makarios was told to accept or face partition. The "moderates" you refer to was Turkey.

Ask yourself why Cyprus was the ONLY British colony not to gain majority rule. I'll save you the trouble, it's because divide and rule was an astounding success and Turkey was more important to NATO than Greece. The 1960 constitution was a poisoned chalice, so complicated and undemocratic that it was doomed from the start.

Were there any other colonies which had a demographic structure similar or same with Cyprus?

Had there been national antagonism between ethnic groups of in any of the ex-British colonies?

Was any of the ethnic groups in those colonies once the rulers of the British colony?

Different circumstances lead to different results. Cyprus have a unique demographic structure and an extra-ordinary historical background when compared to other ex-British colonies.

The circumstances of Cyprus require a solution that is satisfactory to all concerned parties of the same alliance. This is what ultra-nationalists and so-called ultra-leftists don't want to understand.

I think there are striking parallels with Sri Lanka and the conflict there between the Sinhalese and Tamils.

So, which regional power is behind this conflict? who have interests in Sri Lanka?

That is a good question. If you spoke to Sinhalese people at the time of the civil war, they would tell you that the Indian state of Tamil Nadu was giving covert support to the Tamils. It is clear that a group like the Tamil Tigers, which even had its own primitive navy and air force, could not have survived without support from somewhere. I would suspect involvement from one or more of the major neo-imperiliast world powers, but I don't really know. The ethnic conflict that tore Sri Lanka apart must surely in part be a legacy of the British policy of divide and rule.

The British colonial policy of divide and rule sowed the seeds of renewed tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities after independence.

Tamils, although well-educated, were given a disproportionate number of top jobs in the civil service by the British. Once the Sinhalese majority held sway, its politicians sought to redress the balance with populist but discriminatory policies against Tamils.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/514577.stm

I still can't understand how above mentioned Britis policy could be considered a part of so-called divide and rule policy... How can it be considered ethnic-discrimination?

The funny aspect is that it is claimed that British was dividing in order to rule but the consequence of the alleged policy had been the opposite in all ex-British colonies. A sort of, supposedly divide and prepare to leave in order not maintaining the British rule anymore.

[Tim Drayton]

According to Martin Packard on page 332 of his book Getting It Wrong, Tassos Papdopoulos came to visit him in Athens shortly after the former’s sudden removal from his peacekeeping job in Cyprus. Of course, we only have Packard’s word for it that such a meeting took place. Some of the comments which Packard alleges Papadopoulos made seem very interesting to me.

Tassos Papadopoulos came to Athens to meet me. […]

Then he talked about the current situation. As always, he was vigorously optimistic. Despite all the setbacks and difficulties he was confident that the Greek Cypriot cause would in the end prevail. He believed that the tide of world politics had turned inexorably towards the right of former colonies to achieve genuine self-determination, and that an overwhelming wish for it of the Greek Cypriot population made certain that enosis would eventually become possible. He added: “But will we still want it when it’s on offer? I and everyone else will have to decide then whether we’d rather be little fish in someone else’s big pond or big fish in our own little pond.” He suggested that the romance of the struggle had been more alluring than the outcome might be.

Papadopoulos said: “We shot ourselves in the foot by letting the Turkish Cypriots provoke us into a violent confrontation. It needn’t have been so, but now our future is going to hang on how the wind blows in Ankara. We should have realised from the beginning that we needed to keep the trust of the majority of the Turkish Cypriots. We should have been patient. Even Makarios kept running behind events rather than controlling them.”

He went on to say how much the present situation was complicated by misrepresentation. Ankara and London and Washington all wanted to see Cyprus under NATO control and Athens, whatever it was saying in public, now went along with that view. They all claimed that the Makarios government was unable to control Greek Cypriot extremists and ignored the fact that the motivating of those extremists came almost entirely from foreign intelligence services. Ankara, Athens, London and Washington all wanted to work out a future for the Cypriots, as they had tried to do so before, without Cypriots taking part in the discussion.

In which solution discussions the representatives of Cypriots didn't take part?

I think you will find that although both sides were at the pre 1960 discussions they had very little influence on the outcome. The Zurich agreement was imposed for the benefit of NATO, which meant in practice Britain and Turkey.

I consider all of the solution plans presented to us as a product of supposedly existing western alliance... In this respect all were satisfactory for moderates but not for ultra-nationalists and ultra-leftists.

The plans were not "presented" to us. Makarios was told to accept or face partition. The "moderates" you refer to was Turkey.

Ask yourself why Cyprus was the ONLY British colony not to gain majority rule. I'll save you the trouble, it's because divide and rule was an astounding success and Turkey was more important to NATO than Greece. The 1960 constitution was a poisoned chalice, so complicated and undemocratic that it was doomed from the start.

Were there any other colonies which had a demographic structure similar or same with Cyprus?

Had there been national antagonism between ethnic groups of in any of the ex-British colonies?

Was any of the ethnic groups in those colonies once the rulers of the British colony?

Different circumstances lead to different results. Cyprus have a unique demographic structure and an extra-ordinary historical background when compared to other ex-British colonies.

The circumstances of Cyprus require a solution that is satisfactory to all concerned parties of the same alliance. This is what ultra-nationalists and so-called ultra-leftists don't want to understand.

I think there are striking parallels with Sri Lanka and the conflict there between the Sinhalese and Tamils.

So, which regional power is behind this conflict? who have interests in Sri Lanka?

That is a good question. If you spoke to Sinhalese people at the time of the civil war, they would tell you that the Indian state of Tamil Nadu was giving covert support to the Tamils. It is clear that a group like the Tamil Tigers, which even had its own primitive navy and air force, could not have survived without support from somewhere. I would suspect involvement from one or more of the major neo-imperiliast world powers, but I don't really know. The ethnic conflict that tore Sri Lanka apart must surely in part be a legacy of the British policy of divide and rule.

The British colonial policy of divide and rule sowed the seeds of renewed tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities after independence.

Tamils, although well-educated, were given a disproportionate number of top jobs in the civil service by the British. Once the Sinhalese majority held sway, its politicians sought to redress the balance with populist but discriminatory policies against Tamils.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/514577.stm

I still can't understand how above mentioned Britis policy could be considered a part of so-called divide and rule policy... How can it be considered ethnic-discrimination?

The funny aspect is that it is claimed that British was dividing in order to rule but the consequence of the alleged policy had been the opposite in all ex-British colonies. A sort of, supposedly divide and prepare to leave in order not maintaining the British rule anymore.

Tamils got a disproportionate share of good civil service jobs in the British colonial administration - and you don't see any 'divide and rule' tactic going on?

[insan]

According to Martin Packard on page 332 of his book Getting It Wrong, Tassos Papdopoulos came to visit him in Athens shortly after the former’s sudden removal from his peacekeeping job in Cyprus. Of course, we only have Packard’s word for it that such a meeting took place. Some of the comments which Packard alleges Papadopoulos made seem very interesting to me.

Tassos Papadopoulos came to Athens to meet me. […]

Then he talked about the current situation. As always, he was vigorously optimistic. Despite all the setbacks and difficulties he was confident that the Greek Cypriot cause would in the end prevail. He believed that the tide of world politics had turned inexorably towards the right of former colonies to achieve genuine self-determination, and that an overwhelming wish for it of the Greek Cypriot population made certain that enosis would eventually become possible. He added: “But will we still want it when it’s on offer? I and everyone else will have to decide then whether we’d rather be little fish in someone else’s big pond or big fish in our own little pond.” He suggested that the romance of the struggle had been more alluring than the outcome might be.

Papadopoulos said: “We shot ourselves in the foot by letting the Turkish Cypriots provoke us into a violent confrontation. It needn’t have been so, but now our future is going to hang on how the wind blows in Ankara. We should have realised from the beginning that we needed to keep the trust of the majority of the Turkish Cypriots. We should have been patient. Even Makarios kept running behind events rather than controlling them.”

He went on to say how much the present situation was complicated by misrepresentation. Ankara and London and Washington all wanted to see Cyprus under NATO control and Athens, whatever it was saying in public, now went along with that view. They all claimed that the Makarios government was unable to control Greek Cypriot extremists and ignored the fact that the motivating of those extremists came almost entirely from foreign intelligence services. Ankara, Athens, London and Washington all wanted to work out a future for the Cypriots, as they had tried to do so before, without Cypriots taking part in the discussion.

In which solution discussions the representatives of Cypriots didn't take part?

I think you will find that although both sides were at the pre 1960 discussions they had very little influence on the outcome. The Zurich agreement was imposed for the benefit of NATO, which meant in practice Britain and Turkey.

I consider all of the solution plans presented to us as a product of supposedly existing western alliance... In this respect all were satisfactory for moderates but not for ultra-nationalists and ultra-leftists.

The plans were not "presented" to us. Makarios was told to accept or face partition. The "moderates" you refer to was Turkey.

Ask yourself why Cyprus was the ONLY British colony not to gain majority rule. I'll save you the trouble, it's because divide and rule was an astounding success and Turkey was more important to NATO than Greece. The 1960 constitution was a poisoned chalice, so complicated and undemocratic that it was doomed from the start.

Were there any other colonies which had a demographic structure similar or same with Cyprus?

Had there been national antagonism between ethnic groups of in any of the ex-British colonies?

Was any of the ethnic groups in those colonies once the rulers of the British colony?

Different circumstances lead to different results. Cyprus have a unique demographic structure and an extra-ordinary historical background when compared to other ex-British colonies.

The circumstances of Cyprus require a solution that is satisfactory to all concerned parties of the same alliance. This is what ultra-nationalists and so-called ultra-leftists don't want to understand.

I think there are striking parallels with Sri Lanka and the conflict there between the Sinhalese and Tamils.

So, which regional power is behind this conflict? who have interests in Sri Lanka?

That is a good question. If you spoke to Sinhalese people at the time of the civil war, they would tell you that the Indian state of Tamil Nadu was giving covert support to the Tamils. It is clear that a group like the Tamil Tigers, which even had its own primitive navy and air force, could not have survived without support from somewhere. I would suspect involvement from one or more of the major neo-imperiliast world powers, but I don't really know. The ethnic conflict that tore Sri Lanka apart must surely in part be a legacy of the British policy of divide and rule.

The British colonial policy of divide and rule sowed the seeds of renewed tensions between the Sinhalese and Tamil communities after independence.

Tamils, although well-educated, were given a disproportionate number of top jobs in the civil service by the British. Once the Sinhalese majority held sway, its politicians sought to redress the balance with populist but discriminatory policies against Tamils.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/514577.stm

I still can't understand how above mentioned Britis policy could be considered a part of so-called divide and rule policy... How can it be considered ethnic-discrimination?

The funny aspect is that it is claimed that British was dividing in order to rule but the consequence of the alleged policy had been the opposite in all ex-British colonies. A sort of, supposedly divide and prepare to leave in order not maintaining the British rule anymore.

Tamils got a disproportionate share of good civil service jobs in the British colonial administration - and you don't see any 'divide and rule' tactic going on?

Is this "divide and rule" something urging the larger ethnic group feel discriminated and prepare for kicking the colonist out as soon as possible?

If it is so; then Brits was preparing their end in ex-colonies while trying to "divide and rule".. they were actually "dividing" to get kicked by larger ethnic group.

[insan]

Explanations to this are focused around Sri Lanka’s colonial legacy which attributes blame to the colonisers for causing the ethnic divide from Sri Lanka’s early pre colonial times. I will therefore argue that the recent conflict in Sri Lanka does indeed have direct links to its colonial past but it cannot be reduced to that as the only factor in a simplistic sense as shall be explained. Identifying the misreading of history which has caused inaccurate answers to this question by colonialists with orientalist interpretations is important. Therefore I will point to authors who seek to address the forces underlying ethnic violence in Sri Lanka by placing it in the context of colonial and post colonial dynamics which will provide a more accurate account of Sri Lanka's recent emergence of ethnic violence.

http://www.hweb.org.uk/content/view/27/4/

A very well documented and factually analyzed review on ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

It seems to me that except the proportions of conflicting parties; there's nothing common with the ethnic conflict of Cyprus...

[Jerry]

Insan, divide and rule was a means of controlling a colony, it was not done with the future independence of the colony in mind nor for its benefit. Once a colony achieved its freedom the tensions between the divided communities were released, extremists in the oppressed group sought payback. Britain departed it's colonies for British reasons not for the welfare of its colonial citizens.

Cyprus was different because Britain wanted to keep a military presence on the island so it used the proximity and relationship of the island's minority with the regional NATO "superpower" to further its ambition. In an attempt to maintain its hold Britain encouraged Turkey to become involved in the future of Cyprus. It then compounded the problem by using the island's minority to police the majority who sought the protection of their traditional enemy and former masters by union with Greece. Greek Cypriots had very good reasons to believe that they were destined to join with Greece, after all Britain had, for its own reasons (and not for the benefit of Cypriots), offered Cyprus to Greece during WW1

[Tim Drayton]

Explanations to this are focused around Sri Lanka’s colonial legacy which attributes blame to the colonisers for causing the ethnic divide from Sri Lanka’s early pre colonial times. I will therefore argue that the recent conflict in Sri Lanka does indeed have direct links to its colonial past but it cannot be reduced to that as the only factor in a simplistic sense as shall be explained. Identifying the misreading of history which has caused inaccurate answers to this question by colonialists with orientalist interpretations is important. Therefore I will point to authors who seek to address the forces underlying ethnic violence in Sri Lanka by placing it in the context of colonial and post colonial dynamics which will provide a more accurate account of Sri Lanka's recent emergence of ethnic violence.

http://www.hweb.org.uk/content/view/27/4/

A very well documented and factually analyzed review on ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka.

It seems to me that except the proportions of conflicting parties; there's nothing common with the ethnic conflict of Cyprus...

It is simplistic to argue that the British policy of divide and rule was the only cause of the conflict in Sri Lanka, but it was certainly a contributory factor. I have taken an interest in Sri Lanka before and my investigations have shown me two things:

1 - For some reason, Christian missionaries specifically targeted the Jaffna peninsula, which happened to be a Tamil-speaking area, and set up schools there. These schools also offered students there the opportunity to learn English well. Many local people claimed that they had converted from Hinduism to Christianity, attended these schools and then, having learned good English, took the civil service entry exams which were in English. After they secured a civil service post, the re-converted to Hinduism! This is the historical root of Tamil over-representation in the British colonial administration. When Sri Lanka became independent, English was the official language until 1956 and by this time it had become traditional for the Jaffna Tamils to excel in English so that they were able to secure a disproportionate number of government jobs in the new independent state.

2- The Tamils living on the east coast of the island, unlike their cousins in the north, have never had this tradition of speaking good English and have always been the poorest people on the island, so it is not true that all Tamils on the island have been favoured just those living in the north.

The above facts do question whether there was a systematic British colonial policy of favouring the Tamils.