Cyprus-Forum.com

[GreekIslandGirl]

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'.

And there is the myth! The authors!

The average populace wanted the British out. The Agreements are not even barely comprehensible today to the average literate person let alone to the peasantry of the late 1950s.

The Cypriot people were taken advantage of by the Colonialist Brits who brought in Turkey to divide the island.

This is why Turkey has NO place in a modern democratic Cyprus. Never has and never will. Do you agree?

[Sotos]

However as far as I know no gun was held to Makarios head.

The "gun" was the threat of partition and our ethnic cleansing from half of Cyprus.

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.

Makarios did under the threat of partition and ethnic cleansing. If we assume that the people were able to understand what those agreements entailed AND the consequences of rejecting them, then it is quite possible that most GCs would also come to the same conclusion as Makarios did and approve the agreements. But if the threat wasn't there then neither Makarios nor the majority of GCs would have accepted that deal.

[erolz66]

Makarios did under the threat of partition and ethnic cleansing. If we assume that the people were able to understand what those agreements entailed AND the consequences of rejecting them, then it is quite possible that most GCs would also come to the same conclusion as Makarios did and approve the agreements. But if the threat wasn't there then neither Makarios nor the majority of GCs would have accepted that deal.

Exactly. That was the situation at the time. If the GC community were to refuse to accept the 60's agreements it was not only Britain and the USA threatening to support a solution based on the separation of communities in Cyprus, as had been done across what became Greece and Turkey in the 1924 Treaty of Lausanne and as was done in India in 1947, Greece was also making the same threats as well. That was the choice for the GC community at that time, accept the 60 agreements, as negotiated primarily by Turkey and Greece, or risk an internationally recognised partition of Cyprus. As the choice for the TC community was accept the 60's agreements, as negotiated primarily by Turkey and Greece, or risk an internationally recognised union of all of Cyprus with Greece. Given those choices Markarios choose to accept and as you (and the Akritas plan authors) say so would have the GC community had they been given the chance.

I understand from your perspective that the desire for the union of all of Cyprus and all Cypriots with Greece was something that the GC community had a right to, where as the desire of TC to not be ruled by Greece was not something the TC community had a right too. Yet the reality at that time was this was not a view shared by the TC community (of course) but also, rightly or wrongly, it was not a view shared by the international community either.

[B25]

where as the desire of TC to not be ruled by Greece was not something the TC community had a right too.

That's right, the TCs were a minority in another mans country and had NO right to demand anything. You make it sound like there were the F victims in all of this, forgetting their collusion with Turkey and the UK to partition the country even from the 50's, yet you cry crocodile tears like you were hard done by.

This is the Cyprob in a nut shell, the TCs want/demand 60:40 in their favour or they won't play ball. Assirktir.

[Sotos]

Turkey & UK do not equal "the international community". Maybe the British had enough influence to stop enosis, but I don't think they had enough to justify ethnic cleansing. The result of refusing that deal is unknown, which is why it wasn't an easy choice for Makarios. My personal view is that the British didn't want neither enosis nor official partition so regardless if TCs or GCs accepted or rejected that deal there would still be no enosis or official partition. What the British wanted (and continue to want) was a way to ensure that the two sides in Cyprus continue to be at odds with each other, so that nobody will dare bother their bases.

Also it is wrong to equate Greece with Turkey and UK in this case. Greece was not the one making the threats against us, they just made it clear to Makarios that they had no power to protect us from both UK-Turkey and this deal was the best they could achieve and that Makarios should therefore take it.

[erolz66]

That's right, the TCs were a minority in another mans country and had NO right to demand anything.

From the TC perspective they were a numerical minority in their own (shared) country. It could easily be argued imo that this idea that Cyprus was 'another persons country' for TC is also the cyprob in a nutshell.

This is the Cyprob in a nut shell, the TCs want/demand 60:40 in their favour or they won't play ball. Assirktir.

Not all of them demand this. Not me. What is frustrating to me is you seem unable to see the connection between your claim that Cyprus is not 'their' country for TC and them wanting 'protections' for their community in Cyprus.

For what it is worth my perspective is that to varying degrees at varying times all Cypriots have been victims of the mess that is the Cyprob as well as perpetrators.

[erolz66]

Turkey & UK do not equal "the international community". Maybe the British had enough influence to stop enosis, but I don't think they had enough to justify ethnic cleansing. The result of refusing that deal is unknown, which is why it wasn't an easy choice for Makarios.

Of course it is unknown if the UK and USA would have carried through their 'treats' in the event of Makarios refusing to accept the 60's agreements. All sorts of 'threats' were made in the run up to the Anan plan vote to both communities from all sorts of external actors. It is also not hard to imagine a scenario where by the calculation that Makarios made was that of the options available accepting the agreements with the specific intent to make sure they did not work and were abrogated as a result of this failure having accepted them was his best course of action.

My personal view is that the British didn't want neither enosis nor official partition so regardless if TCs or GCs accepted or rejected that deal there would still be no enosis or official partition. What the British wanted (and continue to want) was a way to ensure that the two sides in Cyprus continue to be at odds with each other, so that nobody will dare bother their bases.

I do not disagree with this. However I think we must not forget it was and is our actions, our choices, that have created this 'opportunity' for the British to achieve their objects with regards to Cyprus.

Also it is wrong to equate Greece with Turkey and UK in this case. Greece was not the one making the threats against us, they just made it clear to Makarios that they had no power to protect us from both UK-Turkey and this deal was the best they could achieve and that Makarios should therefore take it.

You may be right but this is not my understanding from the 'study' I have done about this period. My view is that Greece applied as much or more pressure on Makarios to accept these agreements, despite all their flaws, because they believed at that time that doing so was in their own best national interest.

[Sotos]

I do not disagree with this. However I think we must not forget it was and is our actions, our choices, that have created this 'opportunity' for the British to achieve their objects with regards to Cyprus.

I think the opportunity was there already when the British first came. A minority of the population speaking a different language, having a different religion, and having a history of enmity with the majority is not something which is particularly hard to exploit when you have the power.

You may be right but this is not my understanding from the 'study' I have done about this period. My view is that Greece applied as much or more pressure on Makarios to accept these agreements, despite all their flaws, because they believed at that time that doing so was in their own best national interest.

Avoiding the risk of going into conflict with Turkey & UK was obviously in their best interests as they obviously didn't have the power to go against both of them. Did you find any evidence that show that Greece could have achieved a better deal but they didn't because they were given something else instead? I wouldn't be totally surprised if that happened but I am not aware of such thing.

[erolz66]

I think the opportunity was there already when the British first came. A minority of the population speaking a different language, having a different religion, and having a history of enmity with the majority is not something which is particularly hard to exploit when you have the power.

Whilst the enmity between Turkey and Greece was real I am not so sure that there was huge enmity between the TC and GC populations before the question of what happens after British rule in Cyprus. Certainly some but it is not like there is hundreds of years of history of TC / GC clashes and violence against each. We did live imo for a considerable period of time, intermixed and intermingled within Cyprus in relative peace and harmony, whilst maintaining our differences from each other and also creating something uniquely Cypriot. There is a history of Cypriot peasantry made up of Greek speaking and Turkish speaking Cypriots revolting against an elite made up of Greek speaking and Turkish speaking Cypriots and foreigners. I think by choosing to pursue such radically opposed futures for Cyprus post British rule and with so little regard for the other communities sensitivities we did massively increase the ability of Britain to exploit this in the pursuit of her agenda in Cyprus. There were Cypriots from both communities that warned against this very danger and pretty much on both sides we chose to label such people 'traitors' and even murder them in the more extreme cases. We chose to do this, we were not forced to do it against our will and I believe we need to 'own' this reality and not try and deny or minimise it.

Avoiding the risk of going into conflict with Turkey & UK was obviously in their best interests as they obviously didn't have the power to go against both of them. Did you find any evidence that show that Greece could have achieved a better deal but they didn't because they were given something else instead? I wouldn't be totally surprised if that happened but I am not aware of such thing.

What I am saying is at that time Greece and specifically Karamanlis wanted Makarios to sign the agreements, despite all of the flaws in them because he believed that was what was best for Greece. He wanted it to a degree that he, as I understand it, threatened to 'end Greece's support for Cyprus'. Makarios may have been many things but he was not stupid. As you have pointed out the threat of the British imposing recognised partition on Cyprus via say the McMillan plan was not the same as it's ability to do so, and Makarios would have known this. For me it is easy to imagine that the 'threats' from Karamanlis played as big or even greater role in convincing Makarios to sign the agreements than those from Britain.

http://hellenicantidote.blogspot.com.cy ... n-who.html

[Sotos]

You say we were not forced, but the truth is that we were forced to be under British rule and the British denied to let us choose a post colonial future for our island in a democratic way.

What they did to Cyprus was a divide and rule practice that was not unique. One of the principles of this divide and rule technique is: "aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the sovereign". Germans did something similar in Rwanda: "Germany used the strategy of divide and conquer by placing members of the already dominant Tutsi minority in positions of power." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule

Even if there was never any Enosis or Taksim causes, the British could have achieved the same result by promising to the TCs greater powers if they cooperated with them. The TCs aren't interested just in excluding enosis, but they are also very much interested in having as much power as possible, and they don't mind cooperating with foreign powers in order to achieve this. So it is a classic case of divide and rule in my opinion.

What I am saying is at that time Greece and specifically Karamanlis wanted Makarios to sign the agreements, despite all of the flaws in them because he believed that was what was best for Greece. He wanted it to a degree that he, as I understand it, threatened to 'end Greece's support for Cyprus'. Makarios may have been many things but he was not stupid. As you have pointed out the threat of the British imposing recognised partition on Cyprus via say the McMillan plan was not the same as it's ability to do so, and Makarios would have known this. For me it is easy to imagine that the 'threats' from Karamanlis played as big or even greater role in convincing Makarios to sign the agreements than those from Britain.

Karamanlis was like our Cleredes, so pro-American that they thought that whatever the British and Americans advice was in our best interests. He is the one who said "Greece belongs to the West". Still, it is one thing to threaten "I will stop supporting you" and a whole another thing to threaten "I will ethnically cleanse you".