Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

So, have you heard of the Attila plan?

You seem to be confusing me with someone stupid enough to try and have an adult conversation with someone who claims that they have never heard of the Akritas plan and suggests it is therefore imaginary.

OK, we’ll just wait for one of your imaginary friends to come in and discuss it with you… should be one hell of a debate!

[Get Real!]

Well, well, well... what have we got here? Looks like a plan to me!

AtaturkPlan.png

What have you gotta say for yourself Erol, eh?

Naughty… naughty!

[Get Real!]

Of course, I could've paid some desperate schmuck €10 from across the roadblock to write it up for me in "TC Turkish", to make it more convincing.

And what could you possibly do Erol… criticize that I forged this plan? I could claim the same about yours because what’s good for the goose is good for the gander…

You see that’s the difference between me and Piratis… he would foolishly indulge you in 5 years of going around in circles making you look good, while I prefer to just destroy your hopes in one post.

Ta-ta

[Pyrpolizer]

Time for Turkish 102
Akritas plan=T.Papasi Inshallahu
Attita Plan=Koca bombarda
Erolz+GIG = Ah vah

[erolz66]

If you want to believe that the Akritas plan was a made up fiction and forgery GR you go right ahead.

[Get Real!]

If you want to believe that the Akritas plan was a made up fiction and forgery GR you go right ahead.

Hey, you dug up a plan and I dug up a plan so I guess we’re now even.

Next topic please!

[Sotos]

The Akritas plan basically said that we were blackmailed to accept the 1959 agreements (which is true), that those agreements were not fair (which is true) and outlined some actions to be taken in order to undo the injustice. The Turkish propaganda tries to make this to be some "genocide" plan, which it clearly isn't and this is obvious by reading the plan itself and even more clear when you read the "omitted" by the Turks parts of the document. According to the plan the GC side would not initiate any violence but they should be prepared to quickly respond and suppress any violence actions by the Turkish side.

Note that this was supposed to be a secret document not intended for the public, so you can't expect it to be politically correct. When the Turks since the 50s have been openly talking about partition i.e ethnic cleansing (something which they executed in 1974) you can imagine the kind of secret plans they have for us! Just because the secret plans of Turkey for Cyprus are not published this doesn't mean they don't exist.

[erolz66]

For me if we are to have any chance as Cypriots of building a better future for Cyprus than what we have achieved to date then we must challenge the many myths that are embedded in the standard narratives of each community.

So indeed one of the classic myths of the standard TC community narrative is that the Akritas plan itself represents a genocidal plan. I, as a TC and a Cypriot who sincerely wants us to find ways of creating a better future, have never accepted this myth as true and have always challenged it and will continue to do so. The Akritas plan is not a genocide plan.

The Akritas plan was written as a secret document and not intended to be publicly viewed and this means not only does it not pander to political correctness (whatever that means) it also has a degree of honesty about it that would not normaly be found in a non private document.

One thing (there are many) that is clear, to me at least, from it, is that the authors of it sincerely believed that had the 1960's agreements been put to the people of Cyprus in a referendum then the people at that time would have 'definitely approved the Agreements'. Despite the fact that they were forced on them, despite the fact that they were inherently unfair in favour of the TC community in many ways. The authors of the Akritas plan knew that even despite all of this had they been put to the people at that time the people would have approved them. They knew this and they also knew that by not offering the people the chance to approve or reject them, it allowed a GC community to more effectively create the impression (a word used multiple times in the plan and one I find relevant) that the the people were always against the plan from the moment it was signed and never approved it or would have approved of it. Something that is as much a myth in the standard GC narrative as the plan being a genocide plan is part of the standard TC narrative. I reject both myths because neither is true and not rejecting them is to my mind not compatible with seeking a better future.

Was Makarios 'forced' in to accepting these agreements ? Undoubtedly yes he was. Any agreement between opposed parties involves some degree of 'force'. Unless one or both parties get everything they wanted exactly as they wanted (in which case there is little or no need for an agreement at all) then agreement by definition involves compromise and compromise involves the 'force' of not agreeing potentially being worse than agreeing to the compromise. So there is only the degree and nature of the force used. So for me the argument that an agreement is 'void' simply because any degree or type of 'force' was used that led to the parties signing it is not a valid one. It is to me an argument that pretty much no agreement is ever valid. The question for me is was the degree and nature of the force used to push Makrios to sign the 60's agreements such that it invalided the very agreements themselves, either morally or in terms of international law. This is not in my personal view an easy question to answer and will ultimately always be down to opinion. Maybe it was and maybe it was not. One more thing I think should not be forgotten about the 'force' used to push Makarios to sign and approve of these agreements, is that one of the external parties that was exerting such 'force' on Makarios to accept them, and possible the single party that had the most influence on the decision Makarios subsequently made, was in fact Greece. Would Makarios have signed the agreements if at that time Greece had said to him, we do not think you should sign them and if you do not we will do everything in power to try and minimise the negative impacts on you and the Greek Cypriot community such a rejection might cause ? We will never know because at that time Greece told Makarios he should sign them and if he did not Greece would not support him and Cyprus from the consequences of not signing them.

I believe we (Cypriots) have to stop all the BS. We have to stop lying, to ourselves, to each other and to the world. We have to challenge the myths and most importantly those of the standard narratives of our own community as well as generally. Such effort is to my mind a duty for those Cypriots who truly believe in the potential of a better and genuine Cypriot nation that includes Cypriots from many ethnic backgrounds. Needless to say, for me, just denying that the Akritas plan is 'real' is to me a gross dereliction of this duty.

[Sotos]

People would have approved the agreements because publicly Makarios presented them as good and in those times most people would blindly follow what Makarios said. If Makarios wanted the agreements rejected in a referendum then he could have very easily achieved that. But what would be the point of him accepting the agreements only to later ask the people to reject them? The point the authors of the Akritas plan are trying to make is not that the people liked those agreements, but that those agreements were not "validated" with a referendum and they believed that this made it easier to be changed.

Regarding "force" vs "compromise"... sure you can put it that way in theory. If I put a gun on your head and I ask you to give me $1000, if you do then I can say that you compromised to give me a $1000 and I compromised not to kill you. Similarly in this case we gave up rights we should normally have, and in return we got a promise that the threads against us (partition and ethnic cleansing) would not be carried out. The TCs didn't compromise on anything they had a right for, they only gained. Similarly the British didn't compromise anything they had right for, on the contrary they kept two parts of Cyprus. So if you call it a "compromise" then it was certainly a one way compromise and not a fair one.

[erolz66]

People would have approved the agreements because publicly Makarios presented them as good and in those times most people would blindly follow what Makarios said. If Makarios wanted the agreements rejected in a referendum then he could have very easily achieved that. But what would be the point of him accepting the agreements only to later ask the people to reject them? The point the authors of the Akritas plan are trying to make is not that the people liked those agreements, but that those agreements were not "validated" with a referendum and they believed that this made it easier to be changed.

Well my personal view is less sophisticated than yours I guess Sotos. My view is that if the agreements had been put to the people at the time they were signed then the people would have approved them. If they had been put to the people at that time Makarios would not have been able to call on the people to reject a deal he had signed. He could have said nothing, in which case they would imo have been approaved but he could not realistically have signed the deal himself and then called on others to reject it. No one is suggesting that the GC community 'liked' the deal. I do however suggest, as the authors of the Akritas plan also sis (in private amongst themselves) that despite them being less than perfect they would have been approved.

Regarding "force" vs "compromise"... sure you can put it that way in theory. If I put a gun on your head and I ask you to give me $1000, if you do then I can say that you compromised to give me a $1000 and I compromised not to kill you.

You misunderstand me. I am not saying that it is not possible for an agreement to be invalid because of force. Your example above would imo and I believe in any legal jurisdiction indeed been considered invalid. However as far as I know no gun was held to Makarios head. There are rumours that the British threatened to reveal compromising photos and other evidence of alleged misdeeds by Makarios if he did not fail and this if true would in my view be a degree of force such that the signature of Makarios was invalid but these are just rumors with credible evidence that I am aware of. If the 'force' used to persuade Makarios to sign was Greece saying we will not support you if you do not and the UK and USA saying we might or even will support partition in Cyprus if you do not sign the agreements, then that to me is much more ambiguous as to if this represented 'undue force' (and in reality pressure would be a better term imo) sufficient to invalidate the agreements (morally or legally). Even more so if the statements bu the UK and USA were actually true, that they would have supported partition if Makarios had not signed.

Similarly in this case we gave up rights we should normally have, and in return we got a promise that the threads against us (partition and ethnic cleansing) would not be carried out. The TCs didn't compromise on anything they had a right for, they only gained. Similarly the British didn't compromise anything they had right for, on the contrary they kept two parts of Cyprus. So if you call it a "compromise" then it was certainly a one way compromise and not a fair one.

Again my argument is not that the agreements were fair. All I am saying is that I and the authors of the Akritas plan believe, when speaking in private amongst themselves, that despite this, had they been put to the people at the time they were signed the people would have approved them.

I really do not want to get in to a whole, 'your side' 'my side' discussion. There is much much more that could be said about the Akritas plan than this point alone but I am not interested in discussing that either. I am interested in challenging the myths in the standard narratives , TC and GC alike. For me the standard GC narrative is that the 1960's agreements were so egregious and so unfair that the GC community would never have approved of them had they ever been the chance to have a say, even though Makarios did. To me at least this is a myth similar in kind if not quite in degree to the claim the Akritas plan represented a genocide plan.