Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

Look I think you guys need a reality check.

Firstly, this is not a game. This is not about who has won and who lost. GROW UP! This is about an island (Cyprus) which is predominately GREEK. This is about an island, which in the 1950s 94% voted for enosis (union) with Greece. This is about an island which TURKEY RENOUNCED ALL CLAIMS TO! This is about an island where 200,000 people were refugees on their own island. This is about a country (Turkey) who wants to join the EU, when their Human Rights Record is pathetic. Just look at how the Kurds are being treated. This is about a country who continuousy violate United Nation Resolutions, by illegally keeping occupying troops in Northern Cyprus. THIS IS ABOUT A COUNTRY THAT TOOK 37% OF AN ISLAND WHEN THEIR POPULATION THERE WAS ONLY 18%!!! Does that sound like protection of their citizens, or colonisation to you. How can negotiations for the future of Cyprus be undertaken while the island is under illegal occupation?

Let me just clarify a few things, firstly, it seems to me that you disputed the fact that Turkish Muslims are being treated well in Greece. I have been there my friend, there is a massive Turkish community and they are treated as equals, no matter what propaganda the Turkish government comes out with. Secondly, I honestly believe that had Cyprus joined Greece, there would have been no problem between the two communities on the island, the problem came after the 1960 Treaty REMEMBER, not before it. Turkey enjoy bullying. They have the second largest army in NATO and they use this numerical advantage to contantly violate Greek airspace and waters, they seem to be trying to cause friction. Greece have offered to take the disputes in the Aegean to the International Court, but Turkey refuses.

Further, you people who say history is not law are very small minded. How can you say to me that unbroken Greek dominance of Cyprus (in population terms) from 2000 BC up until the present day, doesn't give that community a right to claim that land as its own. This is beyond me. 78% are Greek, now in my eyes, if 78% of any population want their island set free, then why should they be stopped? And please don't talk to me about the Annan plan, that was the most incredibly disproportionate, one-sided plan I have ever seen. Finally, to the person who said do something about it and don't just talk talk. You don't know me and if you did you wouldn't have said that.

[cypezokyli]

simon, there are a number of mistakes that we made leading to everything that happened. could you mention (assuming that you know) some events that our community didnot treat the tc as we should have?

the fact that the greeks were here before the turks is not a fact that is important in our negotiation. and it doesnt give us the right to claim the land as our own (and with that i dont mean the refuggees).

but above all, there is no way of lifting the illegal occupation BUT negotiating. if you expect first the termination of the occupation and then negotiations... i am afraid we are just satisfied with the current situation.

if cyprus has joined greece nobody knows what would have happened. tha fact is that it didnt. so do you have any proposals that could be accepted by BOTH communities regarding the future?

[zan]

I will just offer this one lesson of Cyprus history for your education as to the “Unbroken Greek dominance” of the island. The rest of your argument I will leave for others to judge with reference to how well you have researched this question.

Please pay particular attention to the words such as:
Khirokitians
Hittite
Assyrian
Egyptians
Persian
Roman
England
Frankish
Venetian
Ottoman
British

http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/index.html

[lysi]

maybe we cypriots can get the turks to leave cyprus by posting more bullshit and no action posts on this all talk and no action forum.
Hey simon what have you done then? have you phoned up the cyprus government and told them to get off there rich fat arses and do something to bring about a settlement ?

[lysi]

ZAN, YOU STOLE THE NORTH OF CYPRUS AND ONE DAY YOU AND YOUR OCCUPATION PALS WILL LOSE IT.
AND THATS NOT A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH YOU DONUT.

[zan]

ZAN, YOU STOLE THE NORTH OF CYPRUS AND ONE DAY YOU AND YOUR OCCUPATION PALS WILL LOSE IT.
AND THATS NOT A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH YOU DONUT.

It would be a Simsons sketch though if you had spelt it "DOH!NUT"

[Eric dayi]

ZAN, YOU STOLE THE NORTH OF CYPRUS AND ONE DAY YOU AND YOUR OCCUPATION PALS WILL LOSE IT.
AND THATS NOT A MONTY PYTHON SKETCH YOU DONUT.

It would be a Simsons sketch though if you had spelt it "DOH!NUT"

Maybe he doesn't watch Simpsons or doesn't know how to spell "DOH!NUT"

[Simon]

Look Zan, if you had read my message correctly, I said the Greeks had dominated Cyprus POPULATION WISE!!!! I know there has been numerous conquerers of Cyprus, but I'm talking about the civilian population, NOT SOLDIERS!

Further, Zan, you seem to just pick out one part of the message and conveniently leave out the rest. Why don't you explain why 37% of an island was taken for a population making up 18%. Why don't you explain why Turkey signed a Treay renouncing claims on any region, where the population is mostly Greek and later invade. Why don't you answer why Turkey ignores UN Resolutions ordering their troops to leave Cyprus, when Iraq gets invaded for such UN breaches, Syria gets threatened by them, as does Iran. Turkey, after the Second World War, never took part in ANY of the negotiations regarding Cyprus, until 1955 when they were invited by Britain to talks, which Greece were tricked into going to. This is fact my friend. A further fact: Britain during the First World War told Greece that if she joined on the side of the Allies, Britain would give Cyprus to Greece. Greece obliged, Britain did a U-turn. Fact: under the 1960 Treaty of Gurantee, Turkey was only allowed to invade Cyprus to restore the effect of the Treaty. However they didn't, they invaded to occupy the island, THIS IS A CLEAR BREACH OF THE TREATY! This is so clear to me, why isn't it to you?

Cypezokyli I totally disagree with you. I am not saying the mere fact that the Greeks were there first gives them a right to the land. I'm saying that the fact that the Greeks have been the dominant POPULATION in Cyprus for thousands of years and still are today gives them a right to the land. What other basis do you judge it by? How else do you judge a country's identity other than by its population? Should we allow Turkey to also take the Greek part of Thrace just because there is a Turkish minority there aswell? Further, negotiating under occupation to me is legalising the occupation. It should not happen.

Do you know what is stange Zan, you call my views old fashioned, but that is because it is the Greeks that have made all the concessions. You have a look and see how much the Turkish position has changed since 1960 and especially since 1974. Not one inch. The Greek side has had to go from union, to just independence, to now occupation. The Turkish side are in it just to take what they can. They would have invaded even further if the Americans never restricted them. Amazingly, the USA supported the coup and then supported the invasion! Talk about being stabbed in the back.

Well all I can say is you moderates can continue to give away Hellenic land to the Turks, but while there are some of us still seeing the truth, all is not lost.

As I have said, there are Turkish people living in Greece today peacefully. Therefore, in my opinion, if Cyprus would have joined Greece, the same would have happened there. That we now no longer happen because of all the hatred that has been generated ever since.

[TheCabbie]

A further fact: Britain during the First World War told Greece that if she joined on the side of the Allies, Britain would give Cyprus to Greece. Greece obliged, Britain did a U-turn.

Wrong!
It's very easy to continually blame the British for everything, the reality is somewhat different...

The Cyprus Convention of 1878 between Britain and Turkey provided that Cyprus, while remaining under Turkish sovereignty, should be administered by the British government. Britain's aim in occupying Cyprus was to secure a base in the eastern Mediterranean for possible operations in the Caucasus or Mesopotamia as part of the British guarantee to preserve the Sultan's Asian possessions from threat by Russia. In 1914, however, Britain and Turkey being at war, Britain proclaimed the island annexed; Turkish recognition was granted under the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) and the position was regularized in 1925 when Cyprus was declared a British crown colony.
British occupation was initially welcomed by the Greek population, who from the start expected the British to transfer Cyprus to Greece. The Greek Cypriots' demand for enosis and a corresponding hostility to it on the part of Turkish Cypriots constituted almost the sole division in politics; almost annual petitions demanding enosis were matched by counter-petitions and demonstrations from the Turkish Cypriots. An offer to transfer the island had been made in 1915, on condition that Greece fulfil its treaty obligations toward Serbia when attacked by Bulgaria. The Greek government refused and the offer was not renewed.
In 1947 the governor, in accordance with the British Labour Party's declaration on colonial policy, published proposals for greater self-government. They were rejected in favour of the slogan "enosis and only enosis."
The decisive step towards independence was taken by the Greek and Turkish governments, which in February 1959 reached agreement between themselves in Zurich. Later the same month, at a conference in London, the Greek-Turkish compromise was accepted by the British government and by representatives of the Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot communities, led by Makarios and Küçük, respectively. In 1960 it was ratified by treaties agreed to in Nicosia. Cyprus became an independent republic, with Britain retaining sovereignty over the two military bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia. According to the terms of the treaties, the new republic would not participate in a political or economic union with any other state, nor would it be subject to partition. Greece, Turkey, and Britain guaranteed the independence, integrity, and security of the republic, and Greece and Turkey undertook to respect the integrity of the areas remaining under British sovereignty.
On July 15, 1974, a detachment of the National Guard, led by officers from mainland Greece, launched a coup aimed at assassinating Makarios and establishing enosis. They laid the presidential palace in ruins, but Makarios narrowly escaped. A former EOKA member, Nikos Sampson, was proclaimed president of Cyprus. Five days later Turkish forces landed at Kyrenia with the expressed aim of overturning Sampson's government....the rest you do know about.

If the British had not come to Cyprus in the first place when do you think that the Greek Cypriots would have ever had any self government?

Before you answer that remember the Turks had ruled here since 1570, when 20,000 Muslims were brought to the island along with a military garrison of 3600. The fact that there were more Greeks here than Turks, and still are doesn't I'm afraid make much difference... If enough Albanians moved to Corfu, would the Greeks alow it to become independant, or part of Albania?

Greece itself had never tried to take Cyprus, it's geographical closeness to Turkey makes it almost impossible to attack, or defend, and the Turkish government could never accept Cyprus being under the control of anybody with hostile intentions towards Turkey, in the same way that Greece could never allow a potentialy hostile nation to control the Ionian Islands, or Britain the Isle of Wight.

As one of 3 Guarantor powers The British are guilty of doing nothing, Greece tried to get it by stealth, Turkey took what they wanted by force, but as a colonial power for just 35 years in the last millennium you lay too much blame at their door.

None of this shit by the way, will get a solution.

[Alexis]

Good points there Cabbie.
We have to stop blaming Britain for everything.
She did of couyrse have a role to play but I seriously doubt
Britain wanted to somehow 'create' a situation in Cyprus
in some elaborate plot.
Nevertheless, here are some comments on your comments:

In 1947 the governor, in accordance with the British Labour Party's declaration on colonial policy, published proposals for greater self-government. They were rejected in favour of the slogan "enosis and only enosis."

I think this is quite a harsh way to look at things. Let's be frank in today's world to maintain a colony against the people's wishes is considered plain wrong. It's one thing to promise plans for greater self-government, the question is, why did they not draw up plans for independence straight away? The polarising of the two communities that occured in the 1950s
through the EOKA struggle did a lot of damage to Cyprus' chances of lasting as an independent nation with Enosis and Taksim being re-enforced.
Of course an independent Cyprus might still have collapsed even if the British were not so against independence, we simply don't know.

If the British had not come to Cyprus in the first place when do you think that the Greek Cypriots would have ever had any self government?

Again we don't know either way. I've discussed this before in the forum.
Cyprus status would almost certainly (imo) have been in the balance alongside the rest of Greece and Turkey in 1923. Depending on what happened to Cyprus (which would have been a part of the Ottoman Empire) during the war between Greece and Turkey, Cyprus would probably either be fully Greek or fully Turkish. I believe it could well have gone the way of Crete (based simply on the numbers) in exchange for less Greeks being allowed to stay in the Istanbul region. There is a chance that exceptions would have been made under the treaty of Lausanne to exclude Cyprus (I doubt it though).

Greece itself had never tried to take Cyprus, it's geographical closeness to Turkey makes it almost impossible to attack, or defend, and the Turkish government could never accept Cyprus being under the control of anybody with hostile intentions towards Turkey, in the same way that Greece could never allow a potentialy hostile nation to control the Ionian Islands, or Britain the Isle of Wight.

I don't believe this would have been as large a factor as you say.
For a start look at a map the Turkish Aegean coast and you will see that Greece was given control of almost all the islands which are within sight of Turkey. Cyprus has a clear 90 miles of water between itself and Turkey. There is plenty of scope to speculate that Cyprus would have gone the way of Crete under the Treaty of Lausanne.

In conclusion, it's certainly not a dead cert that Britain somehow saved GCs from Turkish rule.
Don't take this the wrong way though. I agree that Britain cannot be blamed in the way many Cypriots blame her. I simply disagree that we (GC) somehow should be grateful to Britain for saving us from Turkey.
You are right: 'As one of 3 Guarantor powers The British are guilty of doing nothing', after independence Britain had effectively washed her hands of Cyprus except when dealing with the Sovereign Bases for which I believe she should be grateful.