I think the book below will help you find your answers both in regard to the question of the topic as well as in regard to the intentions of both Britain and Turkey and of how Makarios was trapped to offer them excuses.
The Bloody truth about Cyprus.
http://www.freedomjustice.com.cy/cmspag ... 72ea65e4c6English part
C6: “The 13 points” page 326 (abstract:
Sir Arthur Clark had calculated accurately, that the Turkish Cypriots would use the Makarios’s proposal for amendments
of the unworkable elements of the Constitution, as a pretext to proceed with their long organised plan for partition)
C6: “The 13 points”
Another Turkish contention is that “Makarios was to blame
for the 1963 events, because of his decision to modify the
constitution, hence his 13 point amendments”.
Sir Arthur Clark, the British High Commissioner in Cyprus in
1963, was directly involved with the modifications.
Archbishop Makarios wanted to modify the unworkable
Constitution and Sir Arthur Clark was ordered by London to
overlook these amendments, in order that they “would affect
as little as possible the Turkish interests”.
However, Sir Arthur Clark in different reports and discussions
in London regarded Archbishop Makarios’s decision to amend
the most unworkable points of the Constitution, as totally
logical and justified.
On 10 March 1971, Kieran Prendergast136, who was working
in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office at the time, was
asked to prepare the full story around Makarios’s 13-point
amendment proposal. This request came from the new British
High Commissioner in Nicosia Robert Humphrey Edmonds,
who was interested in knowing the real facts, after Archbishop
Makarios had told him that “he was guided in drafting them
by Sir Arthur Clark”.
Kieran Prendergast wrote:
“In Y.E.’s letter of 22 February to Mr. Seconde (Foreign
Office) below, Y.E. gave the Archbishop’s account of
Sir Arthur Clark’s involvement in the drafting of the
thirteen points.
You also said, that you would be interested to know
whether FCO records confirmed His Beatitude’s
version.
I have been through our records of the period. The
sequence of events is as follows:
a) In the Despatch dated 17 October 1963 to HIM,
the Ambassador at Ankara, the Foreign Secretary
said, that it had become clear that the Greek
Cypriot leadership were dissatisfied with some
of the basic Articles of the Cyprus constitution.
136. Later, Kieran Prendergast was made “Sir” and, during the Annan Plan
period, visited Cyprus as Acting Secretary General of the United Nations.
The Archbishop had hinted, that the Treaties of
Guarantee and Alliance should be denounced as
incompatible with the independent status of Cyprus.
Her Majesty’s Government was concerned about
the serious situation, which would follow failure
to settle present difficulties amicably. H.M. the
Ambassador at Ankara was instructed to persuade
the Turkish Government to agree, that reasonable
proposals for a modification of the more unworkable
points of the Constitution should be discussed.
Sir Arthur Clark was instructed to warn the Archbishop
about the dangers of unilateral action. He was to
urge him to proceed by means of discussion and
negotiation, and, as a first measure, to formulate
proposals in writing, of a kind which would offer the
prospect of constructive discussion with the Turks.
He was also to try to ensure that the resulting
proposals were reasonable and fair to Turkish
interests.
b) Sir Arthur Clark reported on 31 October 1963, that
the Archbishop had received his representations
constructively and had agreed ‘to formulate
proposals for presentation to Dr. Kutchuk’.
c) Sir Arthur Clark reported separately, that the
Archbishop had volunteered ‘that the Cyprus Foreign
Minister should discuss with him [Sir Arthur Clark]
proposals, during drafting to be put to the Turks.
This proposal was accepted by the Commonwealth
Office.
d) Sir Arthur Clark also put to the Commonwealth
Office his own ideas, about what constituted
‘reasonable proposals to remedy difficulties over
the application of the Constitution’.
There are ten of these, eight of which are broadly
comparable to proposals made by the Archbishop
in the thirteen points.
e) Sir Arthur Clark was offered the opportunity to
comment in writing on the thirteen points,
at two stages in their drafting.
On 14 November 1963 he replied to a letter by the
Archbishop dated 12 November 1963, enclosing
the thirteen points in skeletal form. Sir Arthur Clark
offered comments of substance on these points.
On 26 November Sir Arthur Clark sent Mr. Spyros
Kyprianou [the Cyprus Foreign Minister] a detailed
commentary on a full draft of the thirteen points.
Some of the suggested amendments were written
into the finalised version of the thirteen points.
It could, therefore, be argued that Sir Arthur Clark
(albeit on instructions from H.M. Government)
did indeed encourage the President [Archbishop
Makarios] to put forward proposals to the Vice-
President [Dr. Fazil Kutchuk] for the amendment
of the 1960 Constitution […].”
London’s deepest worry was the status of the British Bases
in Cyprus. Any attempt to alter the London and Zurich
agreements would automatically affect this status, a possibility
the British wanted to avoid, also because it would deprive
Turkey of its “right” to intervene [as planned] to impose its
partition plans. Sir Arthur Clark and the British Government were fully
aware of the Turkish plans and intentions (as revealed by
the captured document in Minister Plumer’s office137), long
before the December 1963 Turkish attacks.
Sir Arthur Clark had calculated accurately, that the Turkish
Cypriots would use the Makarios’s proposal for amendments
of the unworkable elements of the Constitution, as a pretext
to proceed with their long organised plan for partition.
) are the only ones who think otherwise. So how about the stuff you got your MA for? Surely more than 3? It can't be those you just found today:
