Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

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.

I said we were not forced as Cypriots to brand other Cypriots, those in our own respective communities, as traitors and even murder such people simply because they warned of the dangers of pursuing community exclusive agendas and advocated a pan Cyprian approach to what happened after British rule. We did this.

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

I am not denying that the British used divide and rule tactics in Cyprus. I am saying that those against whom such tactics are used can control the degree to which such tactics are effective by their own actions. This is as true today as it was then. A united Cyprus would have more ability to challenge and remove the British SBA's from Cyprus than a divided one.

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.

No I am sorry but I just do not buy this at all. Without the ideologies of enosis and taksim in Cyprus, even if the objective of the TC community was the partition of Cyprus there would have been no means by which they could have achieved this. If nothing else (and there is much else) then without enosis there would have been no coup in Cyprus in 74 and all that followed from that. However what I do not buy even more is the inherent implantation in the above claims that your average TC was inherently more greedy, evil, uncivilised or reasonable than the average GC, simply because they were TC and not GC. Just as I do not buy the same in reverse either.

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".

Sorry but I think you are just trying to believe 'Greece was not making threats against Makarios' in the same way Britain was, not because of actual evidence but despite it. Greece used the threat that was most credible and in many ways one that was more credible than those the British were using. Greece did not threaten to impose partition in Cyprus because such a threat had no credibility. Threatening to withdraw it support for Cyprus, in the face of British threats to impose recognised partition in Cyprus was a threat to 'allow others to ethnic cleanse you and we will stand by and do nothing' to put it in your own emotive terms.

[Sotos]

I said we were not forced as Cypriots to brand other Cypriots, those in our own respective communities, as traitors and even murder such people simply because they warned of the dangers of pursuing community exclusive agendas and advocated a pan Cyprian approach to what happened after British rule. We did this.

From what I know traitors in those times were branded those who collaborated with the British. Those who were murdered were either such collaborators, communists, or members of the other community. Very few people were murdered because they "advocated a pan Cyprian approach", at least among GCs. (maybe some of those where also communists and they were murdered because of that)

I am not denying that the British used divide and rule tactics in Cyprus. I am saying that those against whom such tactics are used can control the degree to which such tactics are effective by their own actions. This is as true today as it was then. A united Cyprus would have more ability to challenge and remove the British SBA's from Cyprus than a divided one.

Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice like that. If the TCs were convinced that they have more to gain by collaborating with Britain & Turkey why wouldn't they do it?

No I am sorry but I just do not buy this at all. Without the ideologies of enosis and taksim in Cyprus, even if the objective of the TC community was the partition of Cyprus there would have been no means by which they could have achieved this. If nothing else (and there is much else) then without enosis there would have been no coup in Cyprus in 74 and all that followed from that. However what I do not buy even more is the inherent implantation in the above claims that your average TC was inherently more greedy, evil, uncivilised or reasonable than the average GC, simply because they were TC and not GC. Just as I do not buy the same in reverse either.

Starting from the last, I did not imply that the TCs are any worst than GCs. If the situation was reversed we would do what you did, and you would do what we did. Most humans are greedy and they can be quite evil. This is why there are laws and penalties to keep those tendencies under some control. But in our case the authorities (the British) encouraged this greed as part of their divide and rule tactics. It is clear that the TCs didn't want just "not enosis" but a lot more which was a result of their greed being fueled by UK and Turkey.

Sorry but I think you are just trying to believe 'Greece was not making threats against Makarios' in the same way Britain was, not because of actual evidence but despite it. Greece used the threat that was most credible and in many ways one that was more credible than those the British were using. Greece did not threaten to impose partition in Cyprus because such a threat had no credibility. Threatening to withdraw it support for Cyprus, in the face of British threats to impose recognised partition in Cyprus was a threat to 'allow others to ethnic cleanse you and we will stand by and do nothing' to put it in your own emotive terms.

So if somebody attacks you and beats you up and another person next to you does nothing to help you are both the attacker and the bystander equally responsible? Clearly not. Then the question is: Did that bystander had the power to help you but he didn't because he wanted you to get beaten or was it a case that the bystander simply didn't have the power to help you and if he got involved he would end up being beaten up as well? Again, there is a difference. In this case the "threat" from Greece was not that "we can protect you but we will not just to punish you because you didn't listen to us", but more like "this is the best we can do for you and if you choose something else we will not be able to help you". Greece simply didn't have the power to disallow anything to UK & Turkey. The most they could do is political support, e.g. if ethnic cleansing happened then Greece could have prevented the result from being internationally recognized. But they didn't have the power to prevent the ethnic cleansing if Turkey and UK decided to do it.

[Pyrpolizer]

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.

I totally agree.
Even today you can find TCs at their 20s -30s who speak Cypriot Greek, meaning it's the only language their parents knew.
You won't learn a language if you are hostile to someone for the mere reason you won't even speak to him.

[erolz66]

From what I know traitors in those times were branded those who collaborated with the British. Those who were murdered were either such collaborators, communists, or members of the other community. Very few people were murdered because they "advocated a pan Cyprian approach", at least among GCs. (maybe some of those where also communists and they were murdered because of that)

My view and belief is that there was use of intimidation and violence by both TMT and EOKA against elements in their own communities against those that opposed the respective causes of enosis and taksim. 'Communist' (as well as non communists) that supported the respective 'national' causes of taksim or enosis was not subject to the same levels of intimidation and violence (and even murder) as those 'communists' that spoke openly of the dangers, for Cyprus and all Cypriots, of the respective communities 'national' causes. In the case of murder of such people the numbers were indeed 'very few' but not zero.

Unfortunately that doesn't work in practice like that. If the TCs were convinced that they have more to gain by collaborating with Britain & Turkey why wouldn't they do it?

I am not sure I understand what your argument is ? Are you asking why would a a TC (or GC) support and argue that we should not pursue community based agendas as it became clear that British rule was going to end sooner or later to get as much for their community as possible from that change ? If you are then my answer would be because they were wise enough to understand that doing so would only allow foreign interest to use the tactics of 'divide and rule' to secure their interests at the ultimate costs of all Cypriots, which is exactly what happened. And there were such Cypriots, not many but some, who were wise enough to understand this before the fact. And they were persecuted, almost exclusively by elements in their own communities, that were not so wise.

Starting from the last, I did not imply that the TCs are any worst than GCs. If the situation was reversed we would do what you did, and you would do what we did.

Glad to hear that and thank you for clarifying it.

It is clear that the TCs didn't want just "not enosis" but a lot more which was a result of their greed being fueled by UK and Turkey.

I am not sure this is clear to me. I think most ordinary TC did not want to be worse off post British rule than they were under it. Nor is it a case that under British rule the TC were on average some kind of 'upper class' or 'elite' in Cypriot society. On average in the years leading up to 1960 (and after it) a TC was much more likely to be working in a hotel than own it. On average the TC community per head was poorer than the GC one by a significant margin. Their biggest fear was enosis replacing British rule because they feared that under such a system they would be significantly worse off. This might not have been the reality but it is not hard to understand why this was widely believed by TC at that time. I accept that in the theoretical absence of enosis the TC community would still have had fears that in a unitary state they could also be worse off than under British rule and would still have 'negotiated' for some 'protections' but it is my sincere belief that in such an environment they simply would not have been able to secure the same level of 'advantages' even with the support of Turkey than those they gained under the 60's agreements. The whole structure of the 60's agreements was about creating an 'independent' Cypriot state in which enosis could not implemented by a numerically dominant GC population after independence. For me it is not hard to believe that the primary objective of the average TC post British rule was more about 'not being worse off' than about 'being better off' - even though they did in the end secure very large and significant advantages.

In this case the "threat" from Greece was not that "we can protect you but we will not just to punish you because you didn't listen to us", but more like "this is the best we can do for you and if you choose something else we will not be able to help you". Greece simply didn't have the power to disallow anything to UK & Turkey. The most they could do is political support, e.g. if ethnic cleansing happened then Greece could have prevented the result from being internationally recognized. But they didn't have the power to prevent the ethnic cleansing if Turkey and UK decided to do it.

I do I think understand what you are saying and I do not really disagree with it (I think?). My point however is different (I think ?). It is true that leading up to the agreements Greece had supported and promoted the GC cause of enosis, using all the power and influence it had available to it. This at a time when Greece itself still had many large domestic problems and challenges following the devastation of WW2 (far worse in Greece than anything experienced by Cypriots) and the prolonged wars and fighting that continued in Greece after such has ceased everywhere else in Europe. They did work 'hand in hand' with the GC leadership to promote the cause of ending British rule in Cyprus and replacing it with enosis and worked hard, raising the issue over and over in the UN on the GC communities behalf and challenging British interests and rights in Cyprus by all means they had. It was largely as a result of these efforts on the part of Greece that the tri party negotiations that led to the 60's agreements were called. I think it is absolutely the case that Karamanlis was of the opinion that the agreements proposed by the tri party conferences was the 'best that could be realistically achieved' and that Greece had done all that it could as one of the three parties involved in negotiating the deal. He believed it was the best deal possible and when Makarios threatened to refuse to sign it he sought to make Makarios believe that signing it was a 'lesser evil' than not signing it. He threatened to stop supporting the GC community and their cause , as Greece had done so staunchly up until that point, with the specific intent of making Makrios believe that he had 'no choice' but to sign. In that sense to my mind it was undoubtedly a 'threat' in the purest meaning of the word. What is more I think it is highly probable that of all the external pressure being brought to bear on Makarios to sign the agreements, this was the one that may well have had the greatest impact on him. If this threat from Greece had not been made, and understanding that Greece could not oppose Britain and / or Turkey militarily and their ability to block Britain from imposing recognised partition politicaly was limited, I think the chance that Makrios would have not signed was far greater.

[Sotos]

I will not agree that all the TCs wanted was merely not to be worst off compared to being British colonial subjects. Obviously they wanted more (and rightfully so) but the problem is that their expectations went way beyond what could be justified for a community of 18%. The expectations of TCs were inflated by Turkey and UK as part of their divide and rule policy. True, the "average TC" would probably be satisfied with the a lot a less, but when a lot more was offered to them they didn't say "no".

The same (and even worst) happens today, when the possibility of enosis doesn't exist. The expectations of TCs for the solution have been raised to an unreasonable level and this is because Turkey (and UK in the background) convinced them that their expectations are both reasonable and achievable. The divide and rule by Turkey / UK continues as we speak. Our side has also made the mistake to negotiate such terms, something which re-enforced the belief among TCs that their expectations are reasonable and achievable, even though our side was (wrongly) negotiating in such a way just to give the impression abroad that we are ultra-compromising when in reality there is no possibility that such "solution" will ever be accepted by GCs.

In that sense to my mind it was undoubtedly a 'threat' in the purest meaning of the word. What is more I think it is highly probable that of all the external pressure being brought to bear on Makarios to sign the agreements, this was the one that may well have had the greatest impact on him. If this threat from Greece had not been made, and understanding that Greece could not oppose Britain and / or Turkey militarily and their ability to block Britain from imposing recognised partition politicaly was limited, I think the chance that Makrios would have not signed was far greater.

But was this a threat or were they being realists? Take the alternative scenario where Greece didn't make such "threat", Makarios rejected those agreements, the fighting in Cyprus got worst and at some point 1-2 years later Turkey invaded and partitioned Cyprus. Would that be any better? We would be in the same situation we are today, but much earlier. I think that given the threat of partition and ethnic cleansing, and considering the balance of power between Greece VS UK & Turkey, accepting those deals was the right thing to do. As it was right to gradually try to reform those deals to something better. I do not agree with everything that Makarios did in the 60s, but if it wasn't for the Greek Junta and some GC traitors in Cyprus Makarios could have actually achieved the objective of reforming the 1960 deals in something more fair and functional.

[erolz66]

I will not agree that all the TCs wanted was merely not to be worst off compared to being British colonial subjects. Obviously they wanted more (and rightfully so) but the problem is that their expectations went way beyond what could be justified for a community of 18%. The expectations of TCs were inflated by Turkey and UK as part of their divide and rule policy. True, the "average TC" would probably be satisfied with the a lot a less, but when a lot more was offered to them they didn't say "no".

Again I do not really disagree with the above. I do think that part of the 'role' enosis (rather than Independence) played was to help give justification for the need for such extreme 'protections' as were in the 60s agreements. If all the TC community could claim to fear and need protections from was unfair treatment and persecution in a unitary independent Cypriot state then I do not think they would have been able to secure the same degree of 'protections' as they did manage to secure.

The same (and even worst) happens today, when the possibility of enosis doesn't exist. The expectations of TCs for the solution have been raised to an unreasonable level and this is because Turkey (and UK in the background) convinced them that their expectations are both reasonable and achievable. The divide and rule by Turkey / UK continues as we speak. Our side has also made the mistake to negotiate such terms, something which re-enforced the belief among TCs that their expectations are reasonable and achievable, even though our side was (wrongly) negotiating in such a way just to give the impression abroad that we are ultra-compromising when in reality there is no possibility that such "solution" will ever be accepted by GCs.

Again I do not really disagree with the above. My onwn personal views on the Cyprob have evolved and changed radically over the 16 years or so I lived lived here in Cyprus and continue to do so. Some things remain constant, like the belief that we need to communicate and interact and where possible work together across communal divisions and that we need to make conscious effort to look for and focus on those things that are common and unique to us as Cypriots and not those things that differentiate us as GC and TC and in placing love and loyalty for Cyprus, the concept of a Cypriot nation that contains Cypriots of a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, above and beyond any love and loyalties for nations and nationalities other than Cyprus and Cypriot. These beliefs have remained pretty much constant for me throughout the last 16 years or so. But my beliefs about 'means' - about how we can realistically and actually get from where we are now to some place that is better for all Cypriots and Cyprus have changed dramatically. I do today believe that the route to a 'better Cyprus' is not via a BBF based agreement and that is a relatively new belief for me personally. The reasons for this change are many but one of the factors that has influenced this change is the fact that any arguments that a move to a BBF could realistically be a 'stage' on the way to a Cyprus where it really did not matter at any level what kind of Cypriot you were as much as it mattered that you were just Cypriot, are not supportable in the face of how the TC community has tried to hold on to 'advantages' gained in the 60's agreements essentially outside of the context of actual 'necessity'. We have as a community imo tried to 'hold on' to everything gained simply because we had gained it at one point and without acknowledging that any and all such privileges should always and constantly be justified and supportable by real actual necessity. Doing so has for me at least played a major part in convincing me that arguments that BBF could be a 'stage' to something else and better are not convincing.

For what it worth I today do believe that continuing to try and reach agreement based on BBF is a dead end and that actually such efforts are more destructive to the chance of us ever finding a way out of the mess we are in than constructive. For me as a TC that wants and has always wanted a 'better' Cyprus than the current one I do today think my 'job' within my own community is to support the idea of an agreement based on a direct move from where we are today to a unitary state. To make the arguments for such, to address concerns and the like. The 'job' for GC imo is to do what they can to demonstrate that in a untied Cyprus TC would be treated no differently and would be protected not just by their own community and 'written' protection but by a majority of ordinary GC against any extremist elements or discrimination or persecution.

In the past I had said that I personally would be willing to accept a solution with no bizonality and no bi communality and with the provision that only decision that were determined overwhelming as a result of which community you belonged to would require separate consent of each community, or at least a minimum consent of 25-30% from each as well as over all majority. Today I do not just accept no bi zonality or communality but advocate for such specifically as a preferred option to BBF based solution with no provision other than perhaps that 'Cyprus will be ruled by Cypriots' and that any abrogation to this and this alone would require separate consent. As far as joining the EU represents Cyprus not being ruled by Cypriots, I would say the TC should give such consent 'retro actively'.

This then is where I am personally today.

But was this a threat or were they being realists?

Well we are getting in to semantics i think. Greece said if Maklarios did X (did not sign) then they would do Y (not support the GC community any more) and Y was definitely both a negative thing and a credible possibility and Greece said did with the specific intention of influencing Makarios to do what they wanted him to do. I (and quite a few others as well) maintain this was a threat and one that could well have had a bigger impact on Makarios making the decision he did than the threats from other external parties, even though their Y's were more extreme than Greece's. Makarios was pushed, pressured and threatened to sign the 60 agreements and one of the external parties that played a part in applying such to him was Greece.

[Sotos]

I am glad that now we agree on this! Personally I am not anti-BBF... it will definitely not be ideal and a unitary state is certainly way better, but with the right content it could be workable. What I am against are "solutions" which are clearly not good, with the verbal promise (hope / wishful thinking) that they are merely a stage for something better to come in the future. Those that gain from any agreement will not want to give up what they gained, those who accepted a deal with the assumption that it is just a "stage" will later get aggravated when the changes they were hoping for do not happen... it is a recipe for disaster in my opinion.

I also change my views as I get older. What I want from my country now is to progress to the standards of north-western Europe*. Democracy, freedom of speech and freedom of press, better healthcare, better justice system, less corruption, less red tape, better protection and restoration of the environment, adoption of latest technologies (e.g. better e-government), better education, more secular etc. Ideally such progress will happen in a united Cyprus, but if the "solution" will inhibit such progress then personally I am not willing to accept it, especially if it is just a skin deep unification that will not last. If it was a real unification then I would certainly be willing to take more risks and make sacrifices, but not for something which would be a "solution" and a "unification" just in the name.

*And with that I don't mean that north-western Europe is perfect. For example it is the 21st century and many of them still have Kings and Queens! They might not actually rule, but they do have some influence, and people there seem to care deeply about them. Even in Cyprus the last days it become main news the wedding of some prince. Why the fuck should we care?

[B25]

BBF. No F way.
This is disguised partition with Turkeys full control.
Are you crazy man????

[Pyrpolizer]

What a high level discussion from two intellectuals, congrats guys!
It's pity that it got hidden within such a silly topic.

In any case I am convinced that if we ever have a solution things will get better gradually.
Unfortunately though I don't see it coming and I personally gave up from any hope.

btw the only thing that impressed me with the Royal wedding is the fact that eventually they got bastardized with black blood.
Who knows it may one day start happening in Cyprus as well, after which time attaching any other word to Cypriot would be nonsense

[GreekIslandGirl]

What a high level discussion from two intellectuals, congrats guys!

I have to disagree. I'll go as far as to say you are patronizing erolz.

From what I have read (excuse me, but not detailed), it seems Sotos is reasoning from logic and facts and erolz is waffling with words and attempts at rewriting facts with his own warped opinions.

In other words, Sotos is speaking from experience and learning and erolz is speaking form second hand news and .... well .... a desire to change things for the better for Turks.