Cyprus-Forum.com

[Jerry]

That may be so but other powers had their own vision for the future of Cyprus. Instead of banging heads together and facilitating cooperation between the communities they exploited the differences. The Constitution was the most complex ever devised by the departing colonial power, it was almost bound to fail. Makarios was told to sign or face partition; one has to ask why the same ultimatum wasn't made a few years earlier when home rule was on offer.

Oh those nasty cynical world powers. They were only able to exploit our differences because we CHOSE to place those differences ahead of our commonalities and kill each in the name of those differences . They are only able to keep exploiting our differences for their own ends because we CHOOSE to place them ahead of our commonalities. I think we have to take our share of blame, the lions share, for choosing to do this. We could of chosen a post colonial future for Cyprus that was not based on if you were GC or TC but regardless of that but we CHOSE not to do that. Having chosen not to do that, having killed those in our own communities who advocated doing that, having killed innocents of each other for no other reason than they were GC or TC, to now wail and bemoan and berate those 'others' who exploited our differences for their own ends and make out THEY are responsible for the state Cyprus is in today is to me a pathetic attempt to try and absolve us of OUR responsibility.

"that may be so" actually denotes some agreement. As for "We could of (?) chosen a post colonial future for Cyprus that was not based on if you were GC or TC but regardless of that but we CHOSE not to do that." That's my point - the Constitution identified and "empowered" TWO communities and according to one side gave the other too much power, it did nothing to encourage co-operation between the communities, it was naive of the colonial power to expect the antagonists to forgive and forget as soon as they became independent. Had the UK really cared about the Cypriots it would have forced home rule, with a view to full independence, on its colony rather than leave them with a poisoned chalice.

And yes of course the Cypriots must share in the blame.

[erolz66]

That's my point - the Constitution identified and "empowered" TWO communities and according to one side gave the other too much power, it did nothing to encourage co-operation between the communities, it was naive of the colonial power to expect the antagonists to forgive and forget as soon as they became independent. Had the UK really cared about the Cypriots it would have forced home rule, with a view to full independence, on its colony rather than leave them with a poisoned chalice.

The 60 constitution was a result of our failure to chose be Cypriots ahead of choosing to be Greeks or Turks, not a cause of it. It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests but will in fact base it's actions on 'caring' for Cypriots or what happens to them. The reality is that the British could not have made the two communities in Cyprus want a future that was not defined by their differences even if that had of been their sole objective and to some degree through the 50's they did try, not because they cared about Cypriots but because they perceived such efforts to suit their interest at that time. They tried and and we chose to reject such efforts.

[insan]

The aim of partition by concerned parties has never been a secret... since it was their last resort, they usually used it as a tool to scare Enosist and "majority rulists" to make them obbey the realities of existing circumstances; i.e, acknowledgeing the need of a model of consociational democracy that would provide political equality to two communities for stoping the political ill intentions on vital interests... A "Cypriot" nation composed by mainly 2 ethnic communities which consider themselves as Turks and Greeks, respectively and as long as they togetjer with their motherlands serve the mutual interests of the west; there would have been no problems in Cyprus other than left-right strife which occured almost everywhere in the world under then the circumstances... to my knowledge; Greek-Gc elite with far right and religious circles considered this reality as injustice towards themselves and exerted to get what they believed should be theirs, by no holds barred... then TCs-Turks followed the same mentality, amid calls for peacefull talks by the west...

[Jerry]

That's my point - the Constitution identified and "empowered" TWO communities and according to one side gave the other too much power, it did nothing to encourage co-operation between the communities, it was naive of the colonial power to expect the antagonists to forgive and forget as soon as they became independent. Had the UK really cared about the Cypriots it would have forced home rule, with a view to full independence, on its colony rather than leave them with a poisoned chalice.

The 60 constitution was a result of our failure to chose be Cypriots ahead of choosing to be Greeks or Turks, not a cause of it. It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests but will in fact base it's actions on 'caring' for Cypriots or what happens to them. The reality is that the British could not have made the two communities in Cyprus want a future that was not defined by their differences even if that had of been their sole objective and to some degree through the 50's they did try, not because they cared about Cypriots but because they perceived such efforts to suit their interest at that time. They tried and and we chose to reject such efforts.

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests" Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement. I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

[insan]

That's my point - the Constitution identified and "empowered" TWO communities and according to one side gave the other too much power, it did nothing to encourage co-operation between the communities, it was naive of the colonial power to expect the antagonists to forgive and forget as soon as they became independent. Had the UK really cared about the Cypriots it would have forced home rule, with a view to full independence, on its colony rather than leave them with a poisoned chalice.

The 60 constitution was a result of our failure to chose be Cypriots ahead of choosing to be Greeks or Turks, not a cause of it. It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests but will in fact base it's actions on 'caring' for Cypriots or what happens to them. The reality is that the British could not have made the two communities in Cyprus want a future that was not defined by their differences even if that had of been their sole objective and to some degree through the 50's they did try, not because they cared about Cypriots but because they perceived such efforts to suit their interest at that time. They tried and and we chose to reject such efforts.

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests" Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement. I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

Turkey's involvement with Cyprus in the 50s stems from being a member of NATO... and foundation of NATO has nothing to do with the Cyprus problem... imo, it's a natural consequence of Turkey's membership in NATO...

[erolz66]

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests"

Yes Greece and Turkey would have had their own agendas for Cyprus regardless of what Cypriots had chosen to seek following the end of British colonial rule. The point is however they were only able to exploit our differences as Cypriots to further their agendas because we chose to let them do that by choosing to be Greek and Turk more than Cypriots. That is what we we have to take responsibility for, not for the fact that Greece and Turkey had their own agendas.

Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement.I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so. Just what period do you imagine this 'forced' and 'supervised' home rule would have run from ? 1950 ? 1960? All efforts to introduce increased self rule by the British in Cyprus from the 40's onwards were rejected by Cypriots BECAUSE they required and established a precedent and principle of both GC and TC working together regardless of their differences to run Cyprus. Do you think if the British had declared an enforced home rule in 1955 that would have stopped the armed fight against British rule by EOKA ? How exactly can you force home rule when those who are supposed to take on the task refuse to do so and are in fact fighting a guerilla war against you and your presence ?

[DrCyprus]

All Cypriots (GC and TC) are like docile γαούρκα / eşekler tied with a rope to individual plastic chairs. Their supposed owners (Greece and Turkey) are playing τάβλι / tavla together inside a coffee shop nearby and don't give a shit about their donkeys who are thirsty in the sun and suffering.

Some of the donkeys from both sides eventually start realising they can just walk away and do so, but most think of the plastic chair they are tied to as a valueble anchor that keeps them 'safe'.

As some of the donkeys walk away in defiance of this stupid and fake 'safety' of the plastic chair, the rest neigh and complain and push around angrily in protest.

The Cyprus Problem
(I couldn't find the picture of a real donkey tied to a plastic chair)



The Emblem of a new Cyprus
A donkey who picks up the plastic chair and walks away proudly.

[erolz66]

Some of the donkeys even imagine they are the owners inside drinking coffee and playing backgammon, as they actually stand outside in the sun thirsty and tried to their plastic chair.

[Jerry]

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests"

Yes Greece and Turkey would have had their own agendas for Cyprus regardless of what Cypriots had chosen to seek following the end of British colonial rule. The point is however they were only able to exploit our differences as Cypriots to further their agendas because we chose to let them do that by choosing to be Greek and Turk more than Cypriots. That is what we we have to take responsibility for, not for the fact that Greece and Turkey had their own agendas.

Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement.I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so. Just what period do you imagine this 'forced' and 'supervised' home rule would have run from ? 1950 ? 1960? All efforts to introduce increased self rule by the British in Cyprus from the 40's onwards were rejected by Cypriots BECAUSE they required and established a precedent and principle of both GC and TC working together regardless of their differences to run Cyprus. Do you think if the British had declared an enforced home rule in 1955 that would have stopped the armed fight against British rule by EOKA ? How exactly can you force home rule when those who are supposed to take on the task refuse to do so and are in fact fighting a guerilla war against you and your presence ?

Sorry you don't make much sense. The Cypriot masses did not make the decisions, they did what their leaders told them to do. Had Makarios been told to accept home rule or face partition he would have chosen the former and his sheep would have followed, the forced option was never made. Faced with the threat of partition most Cypriots would have co-operated and eventually extremists would have been marginalised.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so.

Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs.

As the British later recognised:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.

Attempts to democratize the 1960 Constitution and remove the unfair advantages held by external TCs were found reasonable by the British:

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

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 proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.

Source: Mallinson


Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If in 1963 we had followed British advice for resettling 'those Turkish Cypriots' that continued their treasonous destruction of Cyprus, then we would never have had 1974!