- we were as guilty in Cyprus of a policy of 'divide and rule' as in any other part of the former Empire, on the other hand we left behind on both sites of the line certain inheritances which are now shared between your communities, ranging from the wide-spread use of English, to shared legal and administrative traditions, to the fact that vehicles on both sides of the line drive on the left with considerably more prudence than mainland Greeks or Turks.
In the past we had discussed the Brits alleged "divide and rule" policy. Can you tell us what were the Brits divisive policies upon two comunities? According to what I read about the era of British Rule:
1- "When the British occupied Cyprus, first as administrators in accordance with the Anglo - Ottoman agreement, and later as colonisers with the island’s annexation during World War I and the formalisation of this action in the Treaty of Lausanne (1923), they established a system specifically designed to provide for communal representation in a Legislative Council by which the official members of the Council in conjunction with the Turkish Cypriot representatives could always balance out the Greek representatives. The Governor had the casting vote. They thus perpetuated and institutionalised a system of communal division.[29] Indeed as L.S. Amery of the Colonial Office admitted, the Constitution of 1925 had purposely given a disproportionate leverage to the Moslem minority as a safeguard against the movement for enosis, an undemocratic system which re - assured the “Old Turkish Party”, the Turkish Cypriot ruling elite, the non - Moslem majority would not be able to impose its will on them.[30] The Turkish Cypriot leadership of the inter - war years described this system of government as a “bulwark against racial and religious oppression.[31]"
"Yet cooperation and peaceful coexistence between the two major communities, while possible, had their limitations. As Mehmet Rifat Effendi, the owner-editor of the Turkish newspaper Masum Millet (Innocent Nation) pointed out: “With the exception of their (the Greek Cypriots’) national aspiration, everything detrimental to us is also detrimental to them. From the present poverty of our country both brother elements are affected”.[32]"
Was that a divide and rule policy of Brits or granting both communities to govern themselves and protecting the Community less in numbers against the community outnumbered.
"In early 1900s; when, however, the Greek Cypriot representatives suggested constitutional changes that would have produced a responsible as well as a representative system with majority rule, the Turkish Cypriot representatives chose to side with the official members to block Greek Cypriot initiatives as was done also on a number of other issues such as supply.[36]"
This has been the core element of Cyprus problem for more than a hundred years. Let alone their national aspirations; the issue of "majority rule" has been sufficient for them to create conflict and clashes. Do you think that if their motherlands or other foreign countries hadn't involved with their dispute over "majority rule", they could be able to solve it themselves? How? TCs would obbey to majority rule? Don't TCs deserve to be one of the equal legislative partner of united Cyprus as one of the major communities which existed in Cyprus more than 400 years? If no, why?
"Turkish Cypriot ethnic consciousness was roused in the inter - war period by British manipulation, by reaction to the growth of Greek nationalism, and began to show signs of becoming nationalistic with the growth of mainland Turkish influence.[45] Turkish Cypriot leaders were growing increasingly concerned by the attempts of Greek Cypriots to whittle away Turkish Cypriot privileges. The British seemed more accommodating in defending the Turkish Cypriot position. Sir Ronald Storrs, the Governor in the late 1920’s early 1930’s, attempted to justify communal representation arguing that communal representation and segregation had long been established in Cyprus. A common electoral roll was unacceptable as the preponderance of Greeks would eliminate Turkish Cypriot representation or, if a proportion of seats were set aside for the Moslems, then the Greeks would decide which Turkish Cypriots would be elected. Either scenario, in Storrs’ eyes, was unacceptable and Moslem feelings would be permanently embittered and alienated.[46]"
I wonder what manipulations had been made by Brits while growth of Greek nationalism was adequate for TCs to react with Turkish nationalism.
"Turkish Cypriot nationalism in the inter-war years grew gradually in “reaction to the growth of Greek Cypriot nationalism”, but it remained essentially Islamic in this period. Moreover, there were signs in the 1930’s of the infiltration of Attaturk’s reformist-nationalist ideas, particularly through the activities of the Turkish Consul Assaf who pushed a more secular Kemalist line in opposition to the old order of Moslem leadership on Cyprus. A similar approach was adopted by Nejati Bey, elected to the Legislative Council in 1930. His election reflected the Turkish Cypriots’ sense that the British had not shown sufficient respect for Turkish national sentiment on Turkish Republic day.[47] However, the Islamic element was dominant and was to be reinforced by a less secular form of nationalism emanating from Turkey in the immediate post - war period.[48]"
Was that another "divide and rule" policy of Brits?
"Thus the system introduced by the British, which was founded on the assumption of persistent ethnic conflict, institutionalised ethnic divisions and prepared the way for a bi-national consciousness with the Moslems becoming Turks.[49] A “dialectic of intolerance [became ]... the major characteristic of local political culture”. This illiberal and intolerant temper in local politics stemmed from the British regime’s policies towards both the national aspirations of the two major groups and “the organisation of ethnic relations in a bi - national society”.[50] This latter was reflected in an expanded and segregated educational system with each community dependent for personnel and literature on Greece and Turkey and with each community having the freedom to fly Greek or Turkish flags. All this served only to exacerbate group differences.[51]"
What kind of system should had been introduced by Brits to prevent ethnic division and provide, enhance Cypriot identity? Majority rule?
"In the immediate Post - World War II period Greek nationalism on Cyprus “was reaching the height of its own militant intolerance and non - liberal orientation”.[52] Enosis in the 1940’s, the official ideology of the Church and the domestic bourgeoisie was clearly the dominant element of Greek Cypriot ethnic consciousness. Greekness was affirmed in opposition to “Turkishness”. Greek Orthodoxy was identified with nationhood. This Greek - Cypriot nationalism also had a strong anti - colonial, anti - British element expressed in a liberationist political ideal. It also crossed class boundaries.[53]
The enosis movement polarised even further the extant bi - nationalism, bi - communalism in Cyprus. The Turkish nationalist movement fostered by Turkish extremist elements was stimulated by the form of the enosis movement. Because of the nature of the enosis movement Turkish Cypriots were not incorporated into the National - Liberation struggle.[54] The “absence of a progressive social content” in the national - liberation struggle and “the emphasis on enosis precluded an alliance with the progressive elements of the Turkish Cypriot community which [ was deprived of the opportunity through ] a common anti - colonial alignment... to emancipate their own community from the grip of right wing extremists”.[55]
As a consequence Turkish nationalism on Cyprus was rapidly becoming “an exclusive political and cultural dogma” which, while not opposed to the legal and economic changes involved in modernisation was religiously conservative and increasingly intolerant. In reaction to enosis rose the Turkish cry of “Taksim” or partition.[56]"
Turkish nationalism as a consequence of Greek nationalism, had soon become Taksim as a consequence of Enosis. What should it had been? TCs should accept the majority rule and Enosis? Was Enosis something for the benefit of TCs? NO. So why would they accept to it? Because of the majority rule?
"
In December, 1949 about 15, 000 Turkish Cypriots marched through the Turkish quarter of Nicosia in opposition to enosis.[57] In January, 1950 the Greek Cypriots claimed that their “plebiscite” showed that 96 % of the people on the electoral role voted for enosis.[58] The scene was now set for the tragic confrontation of the two communities. The Greek Cypriots wanted “enosis and only enosis” while the Turkish Cypriots became increasingly averse to being forced into Greek nationality where they feared becoming second class citizens and members of an insignificant minority."
Weren't TCs fears of becoming second class citizens and members of an insignificant minority a rightful notion?
"In response to EOKA’s activities there emerged (1956) the Turkish Cypriot organisation TMT, the military arm of the “Cyprus is Turkish Association”.[59] By March, 1958 the TMT had mounted attacks against the lives and property of Greek Cypriots which provoked Greek Cypriot retaliation.[60] Despite the Emergency Act which made all demonstrations illegal the Turkish Cypriots, in the eyes of the Greek Cypriots, seemed to be enjoying a degree of immunity.[61] Rioting escalated in June 1958 when violence erupted in Nicosia and later in Larnaca. Violence and inter - communal conflict were increasingly becoming the norm. Turkish Cypriot extremists were supported by Turkish demonstrations in Istanbul and Ankara supporting Taksim.[62]
"
This is the first biggest mistake of a group of TCs(extremists). A community which democraticaly defended itself on political ground backwards 1958 shouldn't retaliate illegally... but those bunch of TC extremists can never represent whole TC community and their mistakes, illegal actions, crimes cannot be considered as the will of entire TC community.
Ps: The quotations has been taken from:
http://www.paseka.org/DocsSci/Cyprus-Th ... litics.htm
TC concerns have nothing to do with 'fears of integration' within the EU or within Cyprus itself. Thier concerns are on what the respective status of the two groups that will integrate are to be. Are they to be one of equality or not? These concerns predate both the EU itself and Cyprus' membership of it. If the EU was to insit on integration on the basis of a sinlge European peoples, where each ethinc community (member) within it were to have no rights beyond that of a minority within an EU state, then we (along with eveyone else including GC) would have concerns and fears of being 'subjectated'. The EU accpets compromise. It accepts the concept of political equality of groups of people, regardless of absolute numbers. It recognises a need for balance between the will of the EU peoples as a whole and the will of the indivdual memebers of that Union. It does not insist that all members subject themesleves to a straight majority of 50%+1 of all EU people. As such it creates a frame work in which intergration is possible over time. Within Cyprus you refused to accept any of these prinicpals.
