GreekIslandGirl wrote:Jerry wrote:GreekIslandGirl wrote:
The document I refer to follows on from yours.
"... the British Government's role is indisputable. In a letter of 11th March 1971 from Seconde (Southern European Department, FCO), to Ramsbotham (High Commissioner in Cyprus), the former writes:
"We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable prospects; and that our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks"
Ramsbotham (HC, Cyprus) wrote later to Seconde:
“Makarios, ever the gentleman, took sole responsibility for the Thirteen Points” PRO FCO 9/1353-WSC 1/1"
ibid
Well we have conflicting reports then. It looks like Britain may have “framed and encouraged” but then probably “decided not to back”
“The full story remains obscure”
On 30 November 1963, President Makarios wrote to Vice- President Küçük proposing thirteen amendments to the constitution which, he said, would 'remove obstacles to the smooth functioning and development of the state'. He did so apparently with the knowledge and encouragement of the British High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Clarke, whether personally or officially is not clear: the full story of this remains obscure. The approach certainly had the qualities of comprehensiveness and candour
http://web.archive.org/web/200609051344 ... n-%203.htm
No, Jerry, we don't have 'conflicting' reports. The much later document I referred you to reveals what was going on that we were not privy to previously. We do not have the full story for sure - but if new documents shed more light we should be prepared to re-evaluate our history and not be dogmatic about the half-truths fed to us.
No, the much later report reveals nothing new, it's a comment that "tends to confirm" 1963 papers. Both the terms "tend to confirm" and "and indeed" suggest that what was revealed had been considered earlier.
