Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

You are one arrogant son of a gun, own up the enosis fight was not over even after 1960 but you still want to ignore this fact, taksim was a counter movement time you realized this and owned up to your share of the blame. Your eoka terrorists killed innocent GCs for wanting democracy and co existence what have you to say about that?

Yes, taksim was a counter-movement! That is why they killed TC activists who dared to resist their segregationist agenda. It was counter to Cypriot independence and co-existence. It was counter to democracy and it was counter to the interests of Cypriots.

And what were the GC killings of innocents that supported independence and co-existence? lets hear your biased opinion on this issue.

[Bananiot]

Go to sleep Sotos, waking up may damage your health.

Kikapu, surely you do not need me to tell you of Makarios's Byzantine manoeuvrings. These facts are well documented. In 1967 he officially declared that he moved from the desirable to the feasible, under pressure of course, due to the incidents at Kofinou. In 1973 he rejected (he was an one man orchestra, he was accountable to no one) the agreement that was reached between Klerides and Denktash and since the agreement was extremely good for the GC side, I would in this case not impose on you my thoughts, but let you draw your own conclusions as to the reasons Makarios did not want to hear about solution to the Cyprus issue, under favourable terms, I repeat.

Those that wanted to kill him ( they tried on several occasions as you know before 1974) accused him of being the "purjurer of Phaneromeni church" (that was the place where he took the oath for enosis) and probably they also had a personal agenda too, because Makarios denied them government posts which they consider justifiably theirs. Politically, those that tried to eliminate him, justified their action in terms of his stance on the "national issue" which at the time meant "enosis". They wanted enosis badly and fast, showing obvious signs of impatience. Makarios, who eventually understood that enosis was going out of his reach, looked for other tactical means to move towards his goal. Solution that consolidated an independent Cyprus was not his cup of tea. The agreements had no chance and of course he never asked the people. He took all decisions by himself, for himself and his priestly psyche.

[GreekIslandGirl]

If Makarios still harboured aspirations of Enosis with Greece (and so too the majority who voted him into power), then perhaps it was because he knew what our isolation would bring upon us, sooner or later.

[boulio]

the agreement in 1971-1973 bananoit may have given makarios his 13 points but would have basically legalized the enclaves thought the island in exchange better than what we today but far from ideal.

[Hermes]

the agreement in 1971-1973 bananoit may have given makarios his 13 points but would have basically legalized the enclaves thought the island in exchange better than what we today but far from ideal.

There wasn't consistent political support on either side. Apart from the intrinsic difficulty of institutionalizing the enclaves and the residue of bitterness, Clerides insisted that there must be some state administrative supervision, while the Turks said that such supervision should be minimal and could only be undertaken by the judiciary. Clerides eventually agreed this could be achieved by the Supreme Court. Clerides was personally very committed to an agreement; but he wasn't always supported by his own Government which itself was being undermined by Athens. Denktash also gave the impression he was being held in check by Ankara. The opportunity was missed. But by then it was too late; the domestic situation was too unstable.

[Hermes]

The constitution, despite its problems, worked and this was realised even by Papadopoulos, who admitted publicly in 2005 that it was "a blessing in disguise"...Now Hermes, can we really convince people that all along Turkey wanted the partition of Cyprus? Please tell me, are we legitimised to burden Turkey with all our short comings in the international arena?

On the issue of the constitution, in 1965, the UN Mediator's report considered the 1960 solution as 'a constitutional oddity' which could not in practice be maintained against the will of the majority. Further, the mediator did not detect unquestioned support for enosis among Greek Cypriots as a whole. After all, Cyprus had a higher standard of living and a higher wage level than Greece. So to end the "enosis" question the UN mediator suggested an island-wide referendum in which Cyprus should voluntarily undertake not to give up her independence. Cyprus would also be demilitarized.

The UN mediator rejected the Turkish case for federation because this would involve 'a compulsory movement of the people concerned contrary to all the enlightened principles of the present time'. He recommended a unitary constitutional system that embodied generous provision for minority rights, some of them of a transitional nature until Turks would have been more integrated into Cyprus. There would be a general amnesty, incorporation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights into the constitution and, for as long as necessary, a UN commissioner and staff on the island to enforce the peace.

The Turkish Cypriots rejected it instantly. It was the TC leadership and Turkey who had it in their power to allow Cyprus a vote that would confirm its independence and to end the enosis question. They chose not to. They chose the path of segregation and partition. They refused the very possibility of an independent democratic unified Cyprus. So any time you blame GC nationalism for segregation and partition just recall that the UN were willing to go for a vote to validate the island's independence under a balanced proposal. The GCs would likely have voted for Cyprus' independence in line with the UN proposals. It was the TCs and Turkey who refused to even contemplate that Cypriots should have a popular vote to decide the island's future. It was separation or nothing for them.

[Viewpoint]

The constitution, despite its problems, worked and this was realised even by Papadopoulos, who admitted publicly in 2005 that it was "a blessing in disguise"...Now Hermes, can we really convince people that all along Turkey wanted the partition of Cyprus? Please tell me, are we legitimised to burden Turkey with all our short comings in the international arena?

On the issue of the constitution, in 1965, the UN Mediator's report considered the 1960 solution as 'a constitutional oddity' which could not in practice be maintained against the will of the majority. Further, the mediator did not detect unquestioned support for enosis among Greek Cypriots as a whole. After all, Cyprus had a higher standard of living and a higher wage level than Greece. So to end the "enosis" question the UN mediator suggested an island-wide referendum in which Cyprus should voluntarily undertake not to give up her independence. Cyprus would also be demilitarized.

The UN mediator rejected the Turkish case for federation because this would involve 'a compulsory movement of the people concerned contrary to all the enlightened principles of the present time'. He recommended a unitary constitutional system that embodied generous provision for minority rights, some of them of a transitional nature until Turks would have been more integrated into Cyprus. There would be a general amnesty, incorporation of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights into the constitution and, for as long as necessary, a UN commissioner and staff on the island to enforce the peace.

The Turkish Cypriots rejected it instantly. It was the TC leadership and Turkey who had it in their power to allow Cyprus a vote that would confirm its independence and to end the enosis question. They chose not to. They chose the path of segregation and partition. They refused the very possibility of an independent democratic unified Cyprus. So any time you blame GC nationalism for segregation and partition just recall that the UN were willing to go for a vote to validate the island's independence under a balanced proposal. The GCs would likely have voted for Cyprus' independence in line with the UN proposals. It was the TCs and Turkey who refused to even contemplate that Cypriots should have a popular vote to decide the island's future. It was separation or nothing for them.

Hello the Taksim arrow hand left the bow...your enosis dream being the cause...no going back. Besides enosis never went away just underground the eruption of 1974 being proof enough to prove you totally wrong once again. Do you recall the pervert makariosus pledge to enosis?

[Bananiot]

We need to be totally honest here if what we are after is the truth and only the truth. Blaming only one side cannot possibly lead us to the truth. The TC nationalists and their TMT organisation undoubtedly were interested only in partition. Our side fostered aspirations for enosis and the economic parameter played no role here (the struggle was not about money). It will be very audacious to try to refute this.

In 1973 the two communities came very close to an agreement, which, had it been ratified would have saved Cyprus from the calamity that followed. The agreement was agreed by Klerides and Denktash and also Turkey, for Denktash to agree must have had the consent of Ecevit. The Turkish side agreed basically to an improvement of the 1960 constitution accepting a change, for example, of TC participation in government, from 30% to 20%. The TCs would now be able to have local self governance. Turkey, agreeing with the proposed solution, asked for an explicit statement within the agreement that both, enosis and partition are prohibited.

To an unbiased researcher, this indicates that the Turkish side genuinely was afraid of enosis and that it would not push for partition, had enosis been truly and forever excluded from the equation.

What did Makarios do now? He called Klerides and told him that he was not prepared to sign an agreement that precluded enosis. I signed an agreement in 1960, he told Klerides, which precluded enosis (for this he was accused for prejury) and I am not about to sign again anything that precludes enosis.

Again, to an unbiased researcher, what could this statement of Makarios mean? What were his real goals when he set about to change the constitution?

Klerides thought of a way out and he proposed that Greece and Turkey would agree between them that as quarantor powers they exclude partition and enosis. Turkey accepted, Greece rejected. The game that was played here involved semantics probably, for the party that would reject enosis stood to lose face and popularity among the masses. Had Makarios done it first, Greece would have followed suit, no doubt. The reverse holds sway too. Had Greece rejected enosis for ever, it would have been easier for Makarios to follow and of course lay the blame on Greece. All these have to be viewed under the conditions that prevailed at the time.

The above are historical facts which are very well documented in many books. The conclusions are yours.

[Lordo]

Makarios also made a speech in Limasol in 1973, after the bombing campaign on police stations by Grivas and accused his campaign of being the final nails in the coffin of Enosis.

Makarios never gave up the on Enosis till the day he died.

[Piratis]

The historical fact is that the Turks have used brute force and blackmail in order to prevent Cypriots from being free, from the very first day they set their foot on our island until today. Their reason was and continues to be the same: Expansionism. Their lame excuses vary depending on the era.

We shouldn't need the permission of Turkey or any small minority to decide what to do with our own island. If we want Cyprus as an independent country, that is what we should have. If we want to unite with Greece, or EU, or Australia that is only our business and the business of those we unite with, not the business of Turkey.

Those who do not respect the democratically expressed choices of the Cypriot people are our enemies and traitors (in case they are Cypriots) and should be treated accordingly.