Cyprus-Forum.com

[Hermes]

Confirmation of what we always knew:

British archive confirms Turkey’s objective was Cyprus division

Foreign Office documents, released on Thursday concerning ex-British colonies, confirm that Turkey’s objective in Cyprus has always been the island’s division.

The documents contain extensive references to British scenarios on how to achieve this objective.

UK Permanent Representative to the UN Pierson Dixon writes in a letter to the Foreign Office on June 21, 1957, that the UN would make it very difficult for London to apply partition.

Such a policy, he added, would face great difficulties without US support.

In another letter that was brought to light, Cyprus Deputy Governor George Sinclair writes to Governor John Harding on potential solutions on the island, prior to a May 1957 meeting at Governor’s House.

Sinclair refers to a Turkish proposal, providing for a majority of Greek Cypriots living under Turkish rule in a “Turkish sector” and a Turkish Cypriot minority living under Greek rule in a “Greek sector”.

It was noted that this arrangement, however, would allow 4/5 of the population, consisting of “hostile Greeks” to remain in an area of great military significance for Turkey.

If the island were divided right away between Greeks and Turks, leaving only some pockets of British sovereignty, the document continues, the relocation of the population would create problems. The difference in such an eventuality would be that Greece and Turkey would have the responsibility to find an arrangement. The UK’s responsibility in such a case would be to ensure that Athens and Ankara agree on the dividing lines.

Another document says that Turkish Cypriot leader Fazil Kucuk noted after a meeting with Turkey’s Foreign Minister on January 16, 1957, that the Turkish Cypriot community would not agree to anything but partition.

Moreover, Colonial Secretary John Reddaway confirms on June 29, 1957, that the Turkish government opposed a unitary state in Cyprus and expressed his belief that the British government shared, in principle, a partition-based solution.

http://famagusta-gazette.com/british-ar ... 212-69.htm

[Viewpoint]

And this was all a direct response to your enosis demand to give Cyprus to Greece.

[Hermes]

And this was all a direct response to your enosis demand to give Cyprus to Greece.

If that's what the majority wanted, Cypriots were entitled to fight for it. But it's not the case that the colonial struggle against the British was the same as a fight for union with Greece. There were many Cypriots who wanted self-determination and the majority of Cypriots were fighting first and foremost to rid the island of the British.

Of course Britain and Turkey had other ideas about preventing Cypriots determining their own future. And the TC leadership were, as far back as the mid 1950s, only interested in partition. They have never changed their tune. Of that we can be certain.

[Lordo]

majority my arse. will all you boys ever realise that in a twin society they both have choices. you wanted enosis you can have it but don't expect the tcs to join you.

just the same as if you were standing on a cliff top and wanted to jump over they would not join you either.

cut it out with this majority lark. makarios trying to reduce the tcs to minority caused mayhem for our country and there are fools on here who are still unable to see how wrong it was.

blooming heck you are all right charluis

[Hermes]

As U Thant the (UN) Secretary General argued in his annual report of 1964, there is the right of the unarmed majority of the Greek Cypriots to defend themselves from the armed Turkish Cypriot militias on the island and the ‘hideous British-Turkish diplomacy’ (as he called it) that incited the Turkish Cypriots to revolt and ‘impose a form of apartheid on the island...’

[Get Real!]

Confirmation of what we always knew:

Well let's hope you won't be posting any more confirmations of it.

[Hermes]

Confirmation of what we always knew:

Well let's hope you won't be posting any more confirmations of it.

What's the matter, GR? Getting sloppy in your old age? All newly published historical documents relating to the events of the past are worth noting. That's how history works. Giving us a better picture of the present. Even if they confirm what we know. Facts are very useful things. Except to a donkey of course which is only interested in grazing and filling its belly...

[Viewpoint]

herpees its simple which came first enosis or taksim???? let me help you one was a direct result of the other and a fight for survival.

[Hermes]

herpees its simple which came first enosis or taksim???? let me help you one was a direct result of the other and a fight for survival.

Partition was the stated goal of Turkey and the British as far back as the 1950s. The Cypriot struggle was for self-determination and to rid the island of British rule. Many in EOKA saw this as a struggle for enosis but many Cypriots saw themselves as fighting an anti-colonial campaign for self-determination. Enosis became the excuse to drag the TCs into fulfilling Turkish and British designs on the island. A role they continue to fulfil to this day, to their own detriment.

Everytime you raise the issue of 'enosis' whenever British/Turkish plans are discussed you remind us of how the TCs were so easily lulled into acting as anti-Cypriot stooges.

No doubt you will raise it again, like a stuck record, for that is your only purpose on this forum: to justify to yourself the colossal idiocy of TCs in doing Turkey's dirty work.

[Piratis]

herpees its simple which came first enosis or taksim???? let me help you one was a direct result of the other and a fight for survival.

The Cypriot people fought against the colonialists for the freedom and self-determination of Cyprus. Self-determination means that the Cypriot people would democratically decide what to do with their own island. If what the majority of Cypriots wanted was union with the rest of Greece then they had 100% the right for it.

This is the same as the right we had to unite with EU and we went ahead with it despite the Turkish threats. Neither Turkey, nor a small minority on its own have any right to decide where Cyprus should or shouldn't belong. This is something that can be decided only by the Cypriot people as a whole using democratic means (one person one vote without any racist or other discriminations)

How could it be fine for Cyprus to be part of the Ottoman or British empires against the will of the vast majority of Cypriots and with Cypriots being subjects of those empires, but not OK for Cyprus to be part of a free Greek state with Cypriots as equal citizens of this state, if this is what the vast majority of Cypriots wanted?

So Viewpoint, if Turkey had invaded Cyprus again in 2003 acting on its threats about our union with EU, would you come here to excuse your criminal actions by claiming that it was our fault because we pursued our right to unite our own island with whomever we want?

Union with Greece would not violate the human rights of TCs in any way. Just like we have been part of the Ottoman empire for 4 centuries, we would now be part of a Greek state. How can Cyprus being part of Ottoman empire be OK, and being part of a Greek state not OK when the vast majority of Cypriots did not wanted to be part of Ottoman empire but wanted to be part of the Greek state? The Cypriot people asked for nothing more than their rights, and there was no threat against TCs or any other minority.

On the other hand partition entails ethnic cleansing and therefore it is a direct violation of not only our democratic rights but also of our human rights.

Therefore your lame excuse for partition is rejected. By seeking partition you started an inter-communal conflict and later a war, and you (and those who remotely controlled you) are responsible for the victims and suffering that resulted from your partition aim.

You criminal actions were, are and will remain inexcusable.