Cyprus-Forum.com

[RichardB]

Following this with interest I have to say that I agree with the comments of Professor Corbett

Why on earth would the ROC govt accept the building of a memorial to the enemies (at the time) of the Cyprus people?

During the years of British occupation the people of Cyprus were fed many false promises (as GR has pointed out)

If I may refer to the Atlantic Charter of 1941

The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp

I know there are many more which can be found amongst the archives but i give this as an example.

This Later British Govt of the day was also party to the unfair constitution which was presented to 'de facto' Pres Makarios

Had the British govt kept thier promises then there would have been no need for an uprising in 1954

Yet the carpetbaggers of the Northern illegal state have the audacity to demand the right to honour the representatives (soldiers) of the enemies of the Cypriot people.

As has been pointed out would we , the British in 35 years time accept a memorial to the Taliban in the UK ( I think not)

Of course the Turkish Govt who represent the pseudo govt of the CRNT will be quite happy to let a memorial be built on there stolen land, these after all were the persons who got an unfair disproportional representation in the then new republic.

To them it is just a points scoring excercise

If the British would like to honour the 'war dead' from the 'Cyprus Conflict' (and I have no objection to this) then let them honour them

a) On the Uk bases (while they still have them)
or
b) In the UK

So they may do so without rubbing the salt into the wound of the Cypriot people.

[David Carter]

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

[Jimski999]

Hello Mr Carter
Thank you for that very informative post; it appears that the only two things that suffer in war is truth and the innocent of which there are many, many thousands on both sides of the divide.

[YFred]

Hello Mr Carter
Thank you for that very informative post; it appears that the only two things that suffer in war is truth and the innocent of which there are many, many thousands on both sides of the divide.

Especially when international community takes one side blindly for 35 years.

[RichardB]

Mr Carter thankyou for your reply

To answer the qusestions you put

Fact One Yes this is true but at the time Greece did not have the capability for a prolonged campaign

Fact Two I am presuming you mean the 1946 constitutional reforms which were proposed in 1948 , this draft constitutional proposal ony lent to a degree of iself government in a legistive assembly with a British led excecutive..hardly an inspiring chioice for the majority 82% majority

Fact Three The Macmillan plan of 1958 which in fact was really Reddaways plan and which again suggested that the colonial power should remain for another 15 years and that there would be an invitation for Greece and Turkey to become partners and the form of government offered was less than that of the Radcliffe constitutional reccomendations

Why you have mentioned this I do'nt really know because my opoint was that the UK govt had ample time before the uprising to leave cyprus with an independent governmaent

Fact Four We know that Britain rejected the Greek Cypriot sides calls for self deternmination and yes the Majority population at that time wanted enosis, Who are the British to reject the self determination aspirations of the vast majority..Would it have led to war an ambiguous question we will never know as the British chose to take the side of the minority Turkish against the wishes of the indigenous population

Fact Five The eventual constitution was drafted with no regard for the leadership of the GC leadership by the 3 powers UK , Turkey and Greece as I said it was a de facto plan which Makarios had no choice but to accept

Under the constitution it was deemed that those who were Muslim in faith were to be considered as Turkish Cypriots and the rest of the population mostly Christian Orthodox, were to be known as Greek Cypriots. Such a declaration was a clear separation of the populations ready to be exploited by foreign powers. 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.

* 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?

As you state these are questions to which we will get a myriad of answers from varios factions and both sides will produce many proofs one way or the other

My initial poast was to give my reasons why I believe that the British shpould not have a memorial on Cypriot ground and was not get embroiled in a dispute over British or any other policy in the matter of Cyprus ..That i leave to far more knowledgable person s than I

Good day to all

[purdey]

Why where these servicemen not returned to the UK ? We are not talking huge numbers here. From what I have read on forum and in the press there seems to be little or no respect for the dead or the monument (which I do understand).
As an ex serviceman I would but very upset if this monument and the graves are mis-treated or pissed upon. Bring them home and bury them where they can rest in peace, and put an end to this sorry state of affairs.

[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!

[RichardB]

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

[RichardB]

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

[David Carter]

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