by wyoming cowboy » Mon Oct 24, 2011 9:19 pm
Makarios refuses the acceptance of his 13 points by Denktash:
The Junta Speaks, and Makarios Responds, to the Denktash Positions, June 1971
The Greek government, and especially the junta, were hardly a constructive force in the Cyprus imbroglio, but in viewing Denktash’s letter of April 1971, Athens urged Makarios to declare victory and withdraw - - i.e., Denktash and the Turkish Cypriots (and, by implication, Turkey itself) had accepted key pieces of the Greek Cypriot position and that Makarios should be able to live with the Turkish Cypriot insistence on local self-government. Here is commentary on Clerides' thinking at the time, sandwiched around Makarios’ response to the Greek colonels and, in effect, to Denktash. Then Clerides' official letter to Denktash follows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clerides, in his memoirs, acknowledges that “a major mistake was committed by Makarios” and the Government in not accepting the advice the letter contained.
The letter correctly stated, Clerides admits, that Denktash had accepted all the "13 points” forwarded by Makarios in 1963, and in the bargain the Greek Cypriots were to give was local government in a separate, communal structure. The Turkish negotiators were willing to live with Greek Cypriot proposals with respect to the powers and functions of municipal governance, and hence, Clerides writes, “we were wrong to refuse the Turkish proposal,” which would provide that local authorities would be placed jointly under supervision of the president and the vice president of the state.
“Generally speaking.” Clerides continues, “all the advice given in the Greek Note was sound.” It maintained the concept of a unitary state and did not introduce federalism. It would have dealt with all the constitutional issues that provoked Makarios’ 13 Points in 1963. “The inexperienced Greek Cypriot leadership,” Clerides says, “not only rejected . . . the more mature advice of the ‘mother,’ but also accused her of having conspired with Turkey, behind the ‘daughter's’ back, to sell her down the river.”
The letter from Makarios
Nicosia, 24th June 1971.
Dear Mr. President,
I forward, attached to this letter, the letter of Mr. Glafkos Clerides, as approved by the Council of Ministers, which replies to the letter of Mr. Denktash of 27th April 1971.
The tone and the content of the reply of Mr. Clerides leaves the door open for the continuation of the talks, as recommended by the Greek Government and in accordance with our own intentions. I am of the opinion that the reply to Mr. Denktash does not offer to the Turkish Cypriots a pretext to interrupt the dialogue, except of course, if its interruption has in any case been decided. In drafting the reply we had in mind the views and recommendations the Greek Government forwarded to us in the Note of 9th June 1971, as well as the letter addressed to me by your Excellency, dated 18th June 1971, which was brought by Ambassador Angelas Horafas.
I regret, because, due to differences of opinion on certain views of the Greek Government, the reply to Mr. Denktash has not been drafted in accordance with such views.
As your Excellency recollects, I held the view originally that we should not accept any discussion on the issue raised by the Turkish side on local government, because even the mere acceptance of discussion would create an issue, which is not even foreseen in the provisions of the 1960 constitution. We accepted, however, to discuss the issue because of the insistent advice of the Greek Government, in order to demonstrate a spirit of good will towards the Turkish Cypriots. it was agreed with the Greek Government that it would be possible, without risk to grant local government of the first degree having as basis the village level. Subsequently, in the course of the negotiations, we accepted local government of the second degree having as a basis groups of villages. Despite our original objections we accepted that the grouping of villages or the areas would be defined on the basis of racial criteria. Emphatically, however, it was stressed, both by the Greek and Greek Cypriot side that in no case ought the Turkish proposal regarding the creation of a central local government authority be accepted. I consider that it would constitute a serious change of position from the above if we were to accept, as recommended by the Greek Government, a Turkish Minister or Deputy Minister, who would have competence on matters of local government. In fact we would have accepted the central local government authority in the person of the Minister or the Deputy Minister.
In your letter addressed to me you express the view that the presence in the Council of Ministers of a Turkish Minister with competence on matters of local government in its entirety, not only does not weaken, but on the contrary underlines the unity of the state. I disagree with this view. The fixing of areas of local government on racial criteria breaks the unity of the state at its base, and this separatism continues upwards by appointing a Turkish Minister. The fact has to be taken under consideration that he would exercise power and supervision on already separated first and second degree level authorities of local government. He would both in form and in substance constitute the central local government authority. Placing, on the other hand, the matters of local government of the Greek Cypriots under a Turkish Minister, for the sake of apparent unity, I consider nationally unacceptable.
I could speak more extensively on this point, but I do not consider it necessary to expand on it. In view of the above it is not necessary to refer to the Turkish demand regarding separate Turkish local police. The Greek Government believes that with the sole exchange of satisfying, to a certain extent the Turkish Cypriots on the subject of local government the present enclaves would be dissolved, the Turkish Cypriots would accept practically all the "13 points" of my old proposals, and this would constitute an important gain.
But, by accepting local government, as proposed, the enclaves, are not dissolved. On the contrary, they are made permanent and are legitimised. It is true that most of the 13 points of my old proposals, which were formulated under different circumstances, are accepted. The exchange which is demanded, in any event is too large and its acceptance would present the Zurich and London Agreements as a better situation, despite the fact that we do not desire a return to them.
I have referred particularly to the subject of local government because this constitutes the greatest obstacle in the talks. On other points of disagreement the reply to Mr. Denktash speaks with argumentation and I do not consider it necessary to make reference to them in this letter. The line, which we have drawn, in common both on the constitution and the international aspect of the Cyprus problem and their interconnection, is the most appropriate. I believe that deviation from this line will lead to a solution which would be nationally harmful.
In your letter, Mr. President, you reject the circulating rumours, which allege that your proposals of the Greek Government have been accepted in advance by Turkey and that in close understanding with Turkey you plan a conspiracy against me. I wish to assure you that I have never wanted to be part of such rumours.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I refer to the last paragraph of your letter, which states that if the proposals of the Greek Government are not accepted the Greek Government would find itself faced by "hard necessity to take those measures, which national interest and the best interests of the Cypriot Hellenism demand, irrespective how bitter they might be".
The content of this paragraph creates the impression of a threat, though I find it difficult to accept this interpretation or impression as accurate. If, however, the said paragraph really constitutes a threat, I regret to say that an unacceptable situation is created, which as the person on whom Cypriot Hellenism has placed its trust, I cannot ignore. It would, consequently, be desirable that the necessary clarifications should be given, in order to be able to continue our harmonious co-operation for the benefit of the common national cause.
With heart-felt wishes,
Makarios
