Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Richard B wrote:

In addition, the Turkish Cypriot minority was given the right to veto decisions made by the majority of Greek Cypriots. Although this seems as a noble clause for the protection of minority rights, Turkey readily exploited it in vetoing many important decisions, creating problems even in the formation of a budget. This lead Makarios in December 1963 to propose 13 amendments to be added to the constitution, but Turkey insisted on its right to veto, technically a violation Article 2 of the UN Charter.

Richard B, plz enlighten us which "many important decisions" were vetoed by TCs and for what reasons... and what was the counter arguements of TCs regarding those vetoed issues. I'm sure u know all the details abt those issues as u claimed TCs were used as a tool by Turkey to make state of affairs of RoC unworkable for their ill-intentions.

Here we go Richard!

Stop playing the fool insan ( I hope you are playing it because surely no-one can really be so stupid)

It was obvious that the disproportionate number of legislators and ministers assigned to TCs could and would veto budgets and legislation to prevent the govt doing thier job ..and this they did vetoing budgets and the amalgamation of TC and Gc s into the same units in the Nat guard amongst many

I wont bother my arse about details or others you're really not open minded enough or worth it to bother with

Richard B, plz answer the questiones I asked above and stop foolishly repeating the general characteristics of those events that we all know! The RoC as a bi-communal state lasted 3 years.

What was the inntention(real) of GC leadership?
What was the role of Grivas and Grivasites behind-the-scenes?
What were the counter arguements of TC side regarding tax collection and budget?


Answer these questiones and stop hiding behind ur little fingers!

[insan]

And a little more light reading for you

Still another issue that provoked strong Greek Cypriot criticism was the right of the veto held by the Turkish Cypriot vice president and what amounted to final veto power held by the Turkish Cypriot representatives in the House of Representatives with respect to laws and decisions affecting the entire population. Turkish Cypriot representatives had exercised this veto power with respect to income tax legislation, seriously limiting government revenues.

In late 1963, after three years' experience of unsteady selfgovernment , Makarios declared that certain constitutional provisions "threatened to paralyze the State machinery." Revisions were necessary, he said, to remove obstacles that prevented Greek and Turkish Cypriots from "cooperating in the spirit of understanding and friendship." On November 30, 1963, Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to be considered immediately by the leaders of the Turkish Cypriot community.

These proposals, outlined in a presidential memorandum entitled "Suggested Measures for Facilitating the Smooth Functioning of the State and for the Removal of Certain Causes of Intercommunal Friction," reflected all the constitutional problems that had arisen. The president's action had far-reaching implications. Most important, it deeply eroded Turkish Cypriot confidence in the fragile power sharing arrangement. The proposals also automatically involved Greece, Turkey, and Britain, which as signatories to the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance had pledged to guarantee the status quo under the constitution.

The proposed amendments would have eliminated most of the special rights of Turkish Cypriots. For instance, they would have abolished many of the provisions for separate communal institutions, substituting an integrated state with limited guarantees for the minority community. The administration of justice was to be unified. Instead of the separate municipalities that the constitution had originally called for in the five largest towns, municipalities were to be unified. The veto powers of the president and vice president were to be abandoned, as were the provisions for separate parliamentary majorities in certain areas of legislation. Turkish Cypriot representation in the civil service was to be proportionate to the size of the community. By way of compensation, the Turkish Cypriot vice president was to be given the right to deputize for the Greek Cypriot president in case of his absence, and the vice president of the House of Representatives was to be acting president of the body during the temporary absence or incapacity of the president.

Küçük reportedly had agreed to consider these proposals. The Turkish government, however, rejected the entire list. In any case, intercommunal fighting erupted in December 1963, and in March 1964 the UN Security Council authorized the establishment of an international peace-keeping force to control the violence and act as a buffer between the two communities.

http://www.country-data.com/cgi-bin/query/r-3567.html

Yeah... Kuchuk was actually right... At least they should tactically consider discussing the 13 points of ammndments proposal. It was a tactical mistake by TC side.

However, in 1968 TCs and Turkey corrected their mistake and agreed to discuss those 13 points. What's happened?

One group of GCs insisted on only the minority status for TCs and other group of GCs in cooperation with Greece insisted on Enosis and only Enosis!

Plz answer my questions Richard B.!

[RichardB]

The real intention of the President of Cyprus? was to remove obstacles that prevented Greek and Turkish Cypriots from "cooperating in the spirit of understanding and friendship. As stated in the quoted thread

The role of Grivas and Grivasites behind the scenes? I would not know Insan . I try as much as posssible to use Credible and neutral sources to back up my posts. Their role would i imagine to be a matter of much conjecture depending from what side you wish to see the sun set .
If you would like my opinion then i would say that I imagine it would be pretty much the same as the former TMT on the TC side still wishing for taksim or Enosis .

The Tc did not have a counter argument for taxation and budget , they were not allowed one by Turkey as you highlighted in the thread Kuchuk had agrreed to condsider the proposals but as I highlighted The Turkish Govt rejected the entire list

I notice you also highlighted the sentence 'The proposed amendments would have eliminated most of the special rights of Turkish Cypriots' Please tell me why the TCs should have been given 'special rights ' in a country in which they were a minority . For goodness sake they were 18%of the population and had been given 40% of places in the civil service - What about GC rights?

The amendments incuded the unification of municipialities into proportional representation - what is unfair about that. Most if not all of the proposed amendments were to give equal rights pro rata to the two groups.

[CopperLine]

Mr. Purdey

The bodies of a few British servicemen who died during the Cyprus Emergency were repatriated to the UK, usually at their families' expense (I believe it cost about £150 - a considerable amount in the 50s).

Until not very long ago, it was the custom and practice of the British Military to bury its dead in the country where they fell. Hence, there are several WW2 graves in Wayne's Keep Cemetery of Cypriots and Empire citizens/subjects, as well as those who lost their lives in the run up to Cyprus independence.

A World War I cemetery exists in Famagusta and there are the graves of several other British soldiers in various parts of Cyprus, including the one in Kyrenia. Here lies the grave of Sgt McGaw, VC, the first British soldier to die on Cypriot soil when the British landed in summer 1878. His death was due to sunstroke.

As you will know, there are Commonwealth War Graves Cemeteries in many parts of the world - including Iraq, Afghanistan, India, Thailand and, of course, throughout western Europe. Nobody suggests that those buried in them should be returned to the UK. Yours is the first view that I've read which suggests those in Cyprus should be treated as the exception to the rule. Interesting.

Richard B

I didn't raise questions when I stated those facts, but responding to your comments:

(1) Whether Greece had the military capacity to join the Allies in WW1 is a matter of opinion and, frankly, I'm not qualified to add anything to it.

(2) Yes. Whether or not the proposals were 'inspiring', they could have been used as a way forward without opening the doors to violence.

(3) I was merely saying that the UK offered several steps to independence. Whether this person or that dotted the i's and crossed the t's of every proposal is irrelevant. Many other parts of empire, less riven with internal differences, had accepted total indepence by stages to avoid dramatic and instant change.

(4) I thought I had explained adequately why enosis could not have been granted, without the probability of war between Greece and Turkey and a bloodbath in Cyprus. That's why Athens and Ankara reached common accord in late 1958, when their foreign ministers first met informally at the UN in New York and later at a NATO gathering in Paris.

(5) May be. But the London agreements were the best available at the time. If Archbishop Makarios signed under duress. much of the pressure came from Athens. (See 4)

(6) I make no comment. I merely state the facts here. The rest leads to opinion and releases uncontrolled passions from one side or the other.

Finally, please don't be modest about your knowledge of the British occupation of Cyprus. You do yourself a disservice. Your comments have informed me and honed my opinions. Thank you.

I'll now be off this board for sometime as I have editorial deadlines to meet elsewhere and they are rushing towards me.

Till the next time
Good wishes to all
David

David Carter your posts have been a breath of fresh air in this fetid and corrupted thread. However, when considered historical record gets in the way of rank bigotry be prepared to be accused of every crime under the sun by certain forum members.

I particularly like your reference to memorial practices and monuments around the world showing, amongst other things, that the war dead from whatever origins and for whichever side they fought are commemorated in some form or other. To some on this thread the basic human decency of commemorating - not celebrating - the war dead must not be extended to erstwhile enemies. And to point out the civility and dignity of doing so is to invite a further round of opprobrium.

[Get Real!]

I particularly like your reference to memorial practices and monuments around the world showing, amongst other things, that the war dead from whatever origins and for whichever side they fought are commemorated in some form or other.

Erecting a memorial without the permission of the legal government of Cyprus is the issue here, and not the right to mourn one's dead!

[insan]

The real intention of the President of Cyprus? was to remove obstacles that prevented Greek and Turkish Cypriots from "cooperating in the spirit of understanding and friendship. As stated in the quoted thread

The role of Grivas and Grivasites behind the scenes? I would not know Insan . I try as much as posssible to use Credible and neutral sources to back up my posts. Their role would i imagine to be a matter of much conjecture depending from what side you wish to see the sun set .
If you would like my opinion then i would say that I imagine it would be pretty much the same as the former TMT on the TC side still wishing for taksim or Enosis .

The Tc did not have a counter argument for taxation and budget , they were not allowed one by Turkey as you highlighted in the thread Kuchuk had agrreed to condsider the proposals but as I highlighted The Turkish Govt rejected the entire list

I notice you also highlighted the sentence 'The proposed amendments would have eliminated most of the special rights of Turkish Cypriots' Please tell me why the TCs should have been given 'special rights ' in a country in which they were a minority . For goodness sake they were 18%of the population and had been given 40% of places in the civil service - What about GC rights?

The amendments incuded the unification of municipialities into proportional representation - what is unfair about that. Most if not all of the proposed amendments were to give equal rights pro rata to the two groups.

His rela intention was not what u said. His real intention was establishing a Greek-GC ruled RoC! ... and it was unacceptable to TCs and Turkey!

"teh special rights" is the interpretation of the author... u may agree with him but I don't agree that they were special rights. Those right which based poltical equality of 2 communities as 2 large ethnic components of the RoC cannot be considered as special rights.

As for disproportional distribuition of government posts, it was most probably determined by taking into account that in the begining of British rule the population of TC community constituted 1/3 of Cyprus' population.

Even though later in 1968-71 period TC side accepted 80/20 ratio in distribution of government posts, one political group of GCs still insisting on GC rule(minority rights for TCs) and other GC political group in cooperation with a Greek political group was insisting on Enosis.

These r all prove the real intentions of all concerned political groups of Cyprus problem.

[Piratis]

Dear B25

The Turkish side has made me no offers that haven't been made also by the Greek side. I don't know where you find I'm putting down Greek Cypriots. Read my posts carefully and you will see I try to stick to facts. Furthermore, I endevor to keep opinion and fact separate. How these are interpreted by others is up to them. Please enlighten as to how I am biased.

Richard B

Sticking to facts:

Has Mr Corbett provided factual evidence to prove he is a professor.

To keep the record straight, I am not one, merely a student of Cyprus history from 1878. But I take great comfort from the fact that my efforts to record the truth have received high praise from Athens-based Dr Panagiotis Dimitrakis, author of Military Intelligence in Cyprus.

FACT: The British Government offered to cede Cyprus to Greece at the start of 1914-1918 war, providing Greece joined the Allies, when Ottoman Turkey had sided with Germany. Greece declined the offer.

FACT: In 1948, Britain offered terms for the independence of Cyprus. They were rejected by the representatives of the Greek speaking population.

FACT: Between 1955-1959, the British presented further independence proposals. They were deemed unacceptable by either the Greek or Turkish sides. I mention The Macmillan Plan as one.

FACT: Britain, as the colonial power, rejected Greek demands for 'self-determination', which would have meant enosis - union with Greece - something the Turkish Cypriot population was prepared to fight against, with support from the 'motherland'. Consider what might have followed: open war between Turkey and Greece, both NATO partners, allowing more Soviet expansion at the height of the Cold War, not counting the bloodshed in Cyprus.

FACT: Frustrated British ministers eventually suggested that if the Greeks were allowed enosis, then the Turks were entitled to taksim - partition. Archbishop Makarios then dropped his demands for enosis and indicated he'd settle for independence, much to the annoyance of Colonel Grivas, the military leader of EOKA.

FACT: The Zurich agreement between Greece and Turkey in early 1959 found Britain sidelined. The agreement, however, opened the way for the independence agreements signed in London on 19 February 1959 by Archbishop Makarios, Dr Kutchuk for the Turkish Cypriots, the ministers of Turkey and Greece and the United Kingdom.

FACT: Drafting the Constitution of the new independent Republic of Cyprus and formation of a Cyprus government took many months and much haggling by all concerned. Because of this, independence day did not take place until 16 August 1960. (By the way, why does the RoC now celebrate on a different date?)

FACT: Late in 1963, President Makarios demanded that the Constitution should be amended by 13 clauses, which were not acceptable to the Turkish Cypriot partners in government.

From December 1963 to the present day, there are thousands of facts that can be quoted about what happened next and why, but, sadly, these are scattered selectively to support one side or the other. For example, the answers to the following questions remain blurred and contentious:

* Did the Turks walk out from government or were they thrown out?

* Was there a plot - the Akritas Plan - to ethnically-cleanse Cyprus of the Turkish Cypriots?

* Did the Turks run from 100 plus villages for fear of Greek attack or were they ordered to pack their bags to leave by the TMT?

* Could UNFICYP have done more to prevent outbreaks by this or that side between 1964-1970?

* Was EOKA-B created to block possible settlements, which looked promising around 1968-1972, between the two sides?

* Was the 15 July Coup of 1974 supported by the CIA?

There are endless questions, which can be answered in a variety of ways, but rarely do they come up with the unvarnished truth. I, therefore, try to be very careful in what I write, bearing in mind that I have no professional or personal interests which tie me to defending Turk, Greek, Brit or American over Cyprus.

The amount of opinion passed on in these debates, I fear, outweighs the facts many times over, which is why, I think, 'the Cyprus problem' remains intractable.

As I said earlier, I will not be drawn into the Memorial controversy, which is why I don't touch on your other points, Mr Richard B.

Regards
David

FACT Cyprus belongs to the Cypriot people, not to the British. The British had no right to "offer" or make bargains with what belongs to us and not them.

FACT It is the British who choose to collaborate with the Turks in order to use the TC minority on the island as an excuse to deny from Cypriots their freedom and self-determination rights. Rhodes island which also has a Turkish minority and which is 18 kilometers from the Turkish shore, united with Greece in 1948 without any problems.

FACT The only ones that should be concerned with the constitution of Cyprus are the Cypriot people, not any foreign Imperialists. But we were not allowed to write our own constitution or even contribute to it. It was created by foreigners (mostly the British), serving the interests of those foreigners who wrote it (e.g. bases) and not the interests of the Cypriot people, and it was imposed on the Cypriot people, since an option to freely and democratically choose the destiny of our own island was not allowed to us.

[Get Real!]

FACT: The British Government offered to cede Cyprus to Greece at the start of 1914-1918 war, providing Greece joined the Allies, when Ottoman Turkey had sided with Germany. Greece declined the offer.

FACT: In 1948, Britain offered terms for the independence of Cyprus. They were rejected by the representatives of the Greek speaking population.

FACT: Between 1955-1959, the British presented further independence proposals. They were deemed unacceptable by either the Greek or Turkish sides. I mention The Macmillan Plan as one.

FACT: Britain, as the colonial power, rejected Greek demands for 'self-determination', which would have meant enosis - union with Greece - something the Turkish Cypriot population was prepared to fight against, with support from the 'motherland'. Consider what might have followed: open war between Turkey and Greece, both NATO partners, allowing more Soviet expansion at the height of the Cold War, not counting the bloodshed in Cyprus.

FACT: Frustrated British ministers eventually suggested that if the Greeks were allowed enosis, then the Turks were entitled to taksim - partition. Archbishop Makarios then dropped his demands for enosis and indicated he'd settle for independence, much to the annoyance of Colonel Grivas, the military leader of EOKA.

FACT: The Zurich agreement between Greece and Turkey in early 1959 found Britain sidelined. The agreement, however, opened the way for the independence agreements signed in London on 19 February 1959 by Archbishop Makarios, Dr Kutchuk for the Turkish Cypriots, the ministers of Turkey and Greece and the United Kingdom.

FACT: Drafting the Constitution of the new independent Republic of Cyprus and formation of a Cyprus government took many months and much haggling by all concerned. Because of this, independence day did not take place until 16 August 1960. (By the way, why does the RoC now celebrate on a different date?)

FACT: Late in 1963, President Makarios demanded that the Constitution should be amended by 13 clauses, which were not acceptable to the Turkish Cypriot partners in government.

So which of your above alleged "facts" justifies your controversial erection of a memorial in the occupied territory of Cyprus without the RoC’s permission?

[Get Real!]

The so-called memorial of British colonialist terrorists in the occupied territory of Cyprus is a repugnant and offensive symbol to all Greek Cypriots and it is illegal because it was erected without planning permission.

[RichardB]

The real intention of the President of Cyprus? was to remove obstacles that prevented Greek and Turkish Cypriots from "cooperating in the spirit of understanding and friendship. As stated in the quoted thread

The role of Grivas and Grivasites behind the scenes? I would not know Insan . I try as much as posssible to use Credible and neutral sources to back up my posts. Their role would i imagine to be a matter of much conjecture depending from what side you wish to see the sun set .
If you would like my opinion then i would say that I imagine it would be pretty much the same as the former TMT on the TC side still wishing for taksim or Enosis .

The Tc did not have a counter argument for taxation and budget , they were not allowed one by Turkey as you highlighted in the thread Kuchuk had agrreed to condsider the proposals but as I highlighted The Turkish Govt rejected the entire list

I notice you also highlighted the sentence 'The proposed amendments would have eliminated most of the special rights of Turkish Cypriots' Please tell me why the TCs should have been given 'special rights ' in a country in which they were a minority . For goodness sake they were 18%of the population and had been given 40% of places in the civil service - What about GC rights?

The amendments incuded the unification of municipialities into proportional representation - what is unfair about that. Most if not all of the proposed amendments were to give equal rights pro rata to the two groups.

1. His rela intention was not what u said. His real intention was establishing a Greek-GC ruled RoC! ... and it was unacceptable to TCs and Turkey!
"teh special rights" is the interpretation of the author... u may agree with him but I don't agree that they were special rights. 2 Those right which based poltical equality of 2 communities as 2 large ethnic components of the RoC cannot be considered as special rights.
As for disproportional distribuition of government posts, it was most probably determined by taking into account 3 that in the begining of British rule the population of TC community constituted 1/3 of Cyprus' population.Even though later in 1968-71 period TC side accepted 80/20 ratio in distribution of government posts, one political group of GCs still insisting on GC rule(minority rights for TCs) and other GC political group in cooperation with a Greek political group was insisting on Enosis.

4 These r all prove the real intentions of all concerned political groups of Cyprus problem.

1. please give evidence of this

2. It is a special right when the miority 20% population are given 30% of seats in government and 40% of civil service posts

3. according to the North Cyprus Tourist sit the population at the time of the British takeover was approx 1/5 the same as today
http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history ... index.html

4. Without any credible evidence all you have posted is hearsay