Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

The interests of Turkey and the UK are best served by a divided and a partitioned Cyrpus. You do not get it, do you? Its either a solution based on the A plan or partition for ever. Of course, you have made your choice. You prefer partition and on top of this you are ready to struggle for this noble cause of yours.

The only thing, you and your likes have managed to fool the people in the referendum. you were not telling the truth, you and your likes told the people that it was between the A plan and a european, so called, solution. That is a horrible lie and those that "spread the word" are held accountable to the generations of Cypriots that will follow.

[MicAtCyp]

Bananiot said ".....Do not forget that he was the vice leader of the Akritas plan that proposed the wiping out of all TC,s in one night. ....."

The Akritas Plan was NOT proposing that, was NOT a one night course of action Plan, and above all was NOT a serious plan.

I wonder how many of you have read it. How many of you know how many pages it is. If it is a complicated or a straight forward Plan? How many alternative courses of action it proposes? And most importantly, what does it say in the end that makes it CHILDISH? Do read the Akritas Plan and you will clearly see a naive repeatition of the simple and straight forward "one line" Eoka orders.The difference is that this Plan was not "one line"....

In the end we all know that the Akritas Plan became a great propaganda tool for the TCs, not because it succeeded, but because what it proposed as course of action was what Denktash did towards his goal for taksim.Denktash applied some parts of the Akritas plan, even before its inspirators got the time to put their machinations in action!!

*******************************************
I would like to divert the discusion a bit.

We all seem to forget that what actually runs a country is NOT the Government but the private sector.Our system under ANY solution would still be Capitalistic. Does this explain why Anastasiades, Klerides Vasiliou, Ali Erel etc were, and still are fanatic supporters of just ANY solution?

In my opinion the major reason why the Anan Plan flanked, is because it did not consider the "capitalistic" feelings of the ordinary GC people as well. They did want their properties back either they were allowed to return or not. And no solution will ever pass unless the ordinary people do get ownership of their properties back. (right of ownership and and right of use are 2 different things and are not counter exclussive.There are are laws that regulate their co-existence according with human rights). The Anan Plan was granting the right of ownerhip momentarily, but the next second in time the Property committee would expropriate them all !!!! And that’s against human rights.

[Piratis]

The interests of Turkey and the UK are best served by a divided and a partitioned Cyrpus.

Of course, and this is why they proposed a partition plan. Or you really think they went against their interests??

you and your likes told the people that it was between the A plan and a european, so called, solution.

Oh really? I never said such thing my friend. What I always say, is what I said some posts ago and I will repeat it:

believe that the Annan plan is unacceptable. I believe that in the future the possibility exists that we will manage to achieve something better. Even if we don't, the current status and even a "standard" partition (with return of some land) is better than what the Annan plan proposes. We should never stop fighting for what is just and legal.

People voted no, because they have brains and they understood what is all about.

You on the other hand, voted "yes", because you would vote "yes" to just any plan, without using your brain first. Here is what you said:

Let me be clearer. Even if a solution is found where the GC's are considered a minority and the TC's a majority, I would suggest that this is better than the consolidation of the present status quo.

Another quote from you:

It's extremely hard to argue with someone who seriously thinks that if it were not for EOKA we would still be a british colony (come to think, I wish we still were).

It is obvious that for you ideals such as democracy, freedom, and Independence mean nothing. If most people were like you we wouldn't speak Greek on this island anymore (something that you probably wish also).

[Bananiot]

The Akritas plan is on line and everyone can read it. If Papadopoulos was the vice leader of a not so serious plan what does this make him? When critisising Papadopoulos I do not absolve the oposite side of the same coin, Denktash, it takes two to tango. Do not forget that Papadopoulos has rejected every single plan that proposed an agreed solution to the cyprob. This by itself is enough to gain a glimse of understanding as to the psyche of this man. And, he has been around for a long, long time. In fact, he is part of the problem. Take his latest antiques. He flatly refuses to reveal his inner thoughts to even his closest allies, the people that made him president. He is erratic and unpredictable. He has made many enemies internationally at a time when we can do with some sympathisers. He is leading our country astray. Probably, he wants the same thing as Denktash, they are so alike. One day this will become clear.

Regarding the so called capitalist factor, I am dead against looking at things through the personal perspective. It is extremely speculative and dangerous and very unfair for the protagonists. They can only be judged along political lines and of course the historian of the future will have a lot to say. To imply that people like Clerides and Vasiliou would accept ANY solution is also wrong and offensive and its easy to see why. Between them they ruled Cyprus for 15 years and if that was the case, the cyprob wouldn't exist now. It would have been solved one way or another. You can accuse them of being pragmatic politicians, but this is another story, isn't it?

[Piratis]

To imply that people like Clerides and Vasiliou would accept ANY solution is also wrong and offensive

For you it doesn't seem to be offensive:

Let me be clearer. Even if a solution is found where the GC's are considered a minority and the TC's a majority, I would suggest that this is better than the consolidation of the present status quo.

maybe they think like you.

Between them they ruled Cyprus for 15 years and if that was the case, the cyprob wouldn't exist now.

So you truly believe that one person even if thats the president can go against the will of the great majority of the population and sign a plan?
If they tried to do such thing they are the ones that wouldn't exist today.

In fact, he is part of the problem.

You say that Papadapoulos is part of the problem while you are at the same time defending Cleredes, the person who created a party to support the EOKA-B members.

[MicAtCyp]

"....The interests of Turkey and the UK are best served by a divided and a partitioned Cyrpus. ...."

Hmmm.... not exactly...
The Anglo -Americans DO NOT want a strong Turkey control on the island, nor a strong cotrol of the GCs on the free areas. They want a fragile system in which nobody- other than themselves- would be able to control. Something like the Anan Plan.

[MicAtCyp]

Bananiot is it a fact that Papadopoulos was the vice leader of Akritas Plan or a fact? If it is a fact can you provide some evidence?

[Piratis]

The Anglo -Americans DO NOT want a strong Turkey control on the island, nor a strong cotrol of the GCs on the free areas. They want a fragile system in which nobody- other than themselves- would be able to control. Something like the Anan Plan.

Yes, what the want is an "un-official" partition, something like what we have today, or something like the Annan plan.

If we recognized the "TRNC" the British would very upset. The same would happen if a true solution is found in Cyprus, where the two communities live in harmony. Basically they still apply their good old "divide and rule" policy.

[mehmet]

The Aktitas plan, those responsible included Yorgadjis, Papadopoulos and Klerides, was first published in Patris on April 21, 1966.

The first step was adoption of changes to the constitution. Quote from the plan 'if we show our strength to the Turks, immediately and forcefully then they will probably be brought to their senses and restrict their activities to insignificatn, isolated incidents.'

Later it says 'if we manage to become masters of the situation within a day or two outside intervention would not be possible, probable or justifiable'.

However should Turkish resistance become widespread an immediate declaration of enosis would be made.

What is clear is that this plan involved most of the major figures within Cyprus government of the time, including Makarios.

So yes, there is no mention of eliminating Turkish Cypriots in the plan but every intention of physically subduing Turkish Cypriots who resisted this attempt to change the constitution. Any study of the events of December 1963 will show that RoC followed plan to the letter but the plan failed due to level of Turkish Cypriot resistance and the international reaction to the RoC atcking Turkish Cypriots. If Turkey had a plan to occupy Cyprus they certainly help from the actions of RoC through this period.

[X-ite]

Yes but why did they want to change the constitution? Why do you think it was necessary? This is what an RoC website says:

From independence to 1963, it proved impossible to construct any basis of trust, and many areas of government were unable to function. The Cypriots found themselves in the position of not even being able to execute simple tax laws due to the way in which legislation was being used by the Turkish Cypriot leadership and their political mentors in Turkey. The Greek Cypriots claimed with some justification that the Turkish Cypriots were using partitionist and non co-operative tactics, which was made possible by the constitution itself.

It was against this background that the Akritas plan emerged as a political strategy to remove the restrictions imposed by the 1960 constitution, and to abrogate both the Treaty of Guarantee and the Treaty of Alliance, which allowed for armed intervention in Cyprus by Britain, Greece and Turkey, not unilateral intervention (but not by military action by any one state). President Makarios sought a way of breaking the deadlock in the administration and submitted for discussion, in accordance with the Akritas plan, 13 possible constitutional amendments. Copies of the proposed amendments were sent to Ankara for information purposes only since Turkey was a guarantor power. Yet even before the Turkish Cypriot leadership could reply, Ankara rejected the proposals as impossible, even as a basis for discussion, though the opinion of Turkish Cypriots had not been sought and this effectively ended the Akritas plan. Makarios had not referred to Athens before making his proposals, but was acting quite properly as the head of state of what was, after all, an independent state. Turkish Cypriot propagandists, however, cite the Akritas plan as proof of a Greek Cypriot plot to commit genocide against them, by somehow equating enosis, the subject of the plan, with genocide. This is clearly a nonsense; it was simply a constitutional framework devised to break a constituted social cohesion.

If you want to see the website this is it:
http://www.greece.org/cyprus/Takism2.htm
It says a lot of things which prove that it is not biased.