an interesting letter ?
The many years of isolation of the Turkish Cypriot population of North Cyprus is scant reward for a nation of people who have cast off a despotic government and replaced it with a true democracy.
They are a tolerant and peaceful people wishing only to live and trade in peace with the brotherhood of man, This is shown by the results of the vote on the famous Anan plan when the Turkish Cypriot people voted to accept the plan and the greek Cypriots refused,
In the period between 1960 and 1974 they were subjected to the most abhorrent cruelties and depravations in their own country, and in the latter years a systematic plan of annihilation started with the removal of Turkish Cypriot representatives in government and police. The indigenous Turkish Cypriot population found themselves in their own country subjected to the status of an obstacle to the countries Absorbs ion by a foreign power Greece, This plan of enosis by Greece was totally in opposition to the 1960 agreement of independence when Britain handed over control of the island to all the people of Cyprus,
The 1960 agreement also allowed for unilateral action by the countries of Turkey Greece or Britain to maintain the Independence of the Cypriot people,
The years where the Turkish Cypriot population were deprived of representation in the government of their own country left them in the position where their status began to be regarded as unwanted illegal immigrants on their own land where for generations they had been born,
Turkey repeatedly protested to the international community to use its power to stop the flagrant abuse of international law in the years between 1960 and 1974 and at the time of the failed Coup of 1974 Turkey again appealed for the worlds community to act so Turkey would not have to invoke the 1960 clause where Turkey would be bound to act and stop the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriot population.
No action was taken by the world’s powers and with the Turkish Cypriot refugee population compressed into a strip of land on the north coast like a Mediterranean Dunkirque the Turkish nation invoked the 1960 agreement clause of unilateral intervention and landed forces to protect the Turkish Cypriot population.
With Turkey and Greece facing the possibility of all out war the United Nations acted, but by this time the Turkish forces had advanced and occupied a large part of the north of the island.
The rest as they say is History.
The years since 1974 have produce two versions of History, The Greek version refuses to forget the year of 1974 when turkish forces landed and refuses to remember the years preceding 1974 when a large portion of Cypriots were denied justice and humanity in their own land Governed by a puppet greek regime that hated and despised them. The period of years leading up to 1974 saw enclaves of Turkish Cypriots cut off from each other and isolated from the outside world, a population on the island of their birth controlled within ghettoes, and prepared for annihilation.
Only the intervention of the Turkish forces prevented the Turkish Cypriot population disappearing into a new history book where their previous existence would have been eradicated,
Today the Infant Turkish Cypriot nation struggles to bring a new government to the worlds markets, Though they are denied even a voice as an independent people they maintain an astonishingly hospitable culture that should be Hostile to the people who tried to wipe them out but isn’t, They still seek a peaceful future in partnership with a neighbour that seems to insist on political domination of the whole island,
Even now the people of North Cyprus actively seek agreement with a nation that blocks progress at every negotiating table,
The one thing the Turkish Cypriots will not accept is political domination by a Greek government, they tried that once and faced oblivion because of it,
The Southern Cyprus Greek government refuses to allow recognition of the Turkish Cypriot republic and lays claim as the only voice to be heard on the world stage that should speak for the population of the Whole Island,
Today in the new millennia nothing has changed, the southern Greek dominated Cypriots achieved accession to the European Union while the people of the north were left isolated yet again. Despite the promises made by many member states and world powers to end this isolation, the Turkish Cypriot people still wait patiently gagged and bound by a 30 year international embargo inspired by the very people who sought to annihilate them. And yet astonishingly they still seek a peaceful settlement
A new generation of Turkish Cypriots are being born into a world that denies their very existence The Turkish Nation for 33 years vilified as an aggressor, their lawful and humanitarian intervention to prevent a new holocaust in 1974 made illegal only by the constant denial of the historical fact of the years that provoked and made inevitable that very intervention,
The time has come for the world to end this injustice to the Turkish Cypriots and to encourage this infant democracy by international recognition, Those people in the future who will write today’s history, will no doubt judge the isolation of the Turkish Cypriots as immoral and illegal and those who instigated and supported that isolation for so long criminals on an international scale.
Veritas
homebuyers pressure group
by MR-from-NG » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:25 pm
Piratis, it is common knowledge that the kids at school are taught history of Cyprus that begins in 1974. There is no mention of the events in 1963, how on earth do you expect a lasting and meaningful settlement in Cyprus when you are keeping the truth from your own kids. Thank god the truth is now being printed and is out in the open. Dont forget YOU CAN FOOL SOME OF THE PEOPLE SOME OF THE TIME BUT CAN'T FOOL ALL OF THE PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. You certainly haven't fooled ICG see below.
NICOSIA, Cyprus -- An international think tank has blamed Greek Cypriots for the impasse on the island in a stinging report, prompting dark muttering from politicians in Nicosia that they are the victims of an "Anglo-American conspiracy."
The report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) coincides with U.S. efforts to establish trade links with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) after decades of isolation -- a move that Greek Cypriots see as tantamount to diplomatic recognition of a territory now recognized only by Turkey.
The ICG report singled out Greek-Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos as a major culprit, saying he "does not seem to have any inclination, or coherent strategy on how to get unification back on track, and the prospects look bleak."
The Greek-Cypriot government promptly rejected the report as lacking credibility, while politicians claimed that Cyprus was "a victim of the Anglo-American conspiracy." Marios Matsakis, a Greek-Cypriot parliamentarian, said the ICG was an "Anglo-American propaganda tool" that serves the political interests of the United States and Britain.
Both countries have been increasingly critical of the economic blockade of Northern Cyprus, which was instigated by Greece and the Greek Cypriots and has been honored by the European Union.
The Bush administration now feels that trade would ease the barriers and promote unification efforts, paralyzed by the Greek-Cypriot rejection, in last year's referendum, of the latest U.N. proposal for a bi-communal state.
The ICG describes itself as a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization with staff on five continents. It is funded in part by the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Claiming that the Greek Cypriots "have lost their moral high ground in the Cyprus issue" by their stubborn opposition to cooperate with their Turkish compatriots, the report said, "The Greek Cypriots are now regarded as the intransigent side and can no longer rely on international sympathy for the events of 1974."
A Greek coup in that year prompted an effort to link Cyprus with Greece. Turkey responded by sending troops to occupy the north of the island and establish a separate Turkish-Cypriot state.
In an analysis considered to be accurate by a number of diplomats and observers on the island, the 40-page report made the following key points:
•Over the years, the Greek Cypriots have been persuaded by their politicians, educational system and the media "of the legal and moral superiority of their cause."
•"The political class has rarely argued the need of a genuine power-sharing solution."
•The Turkish Cypriots have no means of making their case heard in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union.
•By blockading the north economically, the Greek Cypriots seek to systematically weaken it and eliminate any prospect for power-sharing as proposed by the international community.
NICOSIA, Cyprus -- An international think tank has blamed Greek Cypriots for the impasse on the island in a stinging report, prompting dark muttering from politicians in Nicosia that they are the victims of an "Anglo-American conspiracy."
The report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) coincides with U.S. efforts to establish trade links with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC) after decades of isolation -- a move that Greek Cypriots see as tantamount to diplomatic recognition of a territory now recognized only by Turkey.
The ICG report singled out Greek-Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos as a major culprit, saying he "does not seem to have any inclination, or coherent strategy on how to get unification back on track, and the prospects look bleak."
The Greek-Cypriot government promptly rejected the report as lacking credibility, while politicians claimed that Cyprus was "a victim of the Anglo-American conspiracy." Marios Matsakis, a Greek-Cypriot parliamentarian, said the ICG was an "Anglo-American propaganda tool" that serves the political interests of the United States and Britain.
Both countries have been increasingly critical of the economic blockade of Northern Cyprus, which was instigated by Greece and the Greek Cypriots and has been honored by the European Union.
The Bush administration now feels that trade would ease the barriers and promote unification efforts, paralyzed by the Greek-Cypriot rejection, in last year's referendum, of the latest U.N. proposal for a bi-communal state.
The ICG describes itself as a nonprofit, nongovernmental organization with staff on five continents. It is funded in part by the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Endowment, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Claiming that the Greek Cypriots "have lost their moral high ground in the Cyprus issue" by their stubborn opposition to cooperate with their Turkish compatriots, the report said, "The Greek Cypriots are now regarded as the intransigent side and can no longer rely on international sympathy for the events of 1974."
A Greek coup in that year prompted an effort to link Cyprus with Greece. Turkey responded by sending troops to occupy the north of the island and establish a separate Turkish-Cypriot state.
In an analysis considered to be accurate by a number of diplomats and observers on the island, the 40-page report made the following key points:
•Over the years, the Greek Cypriots have been persuaded by their politicians, educational system and the media "of the legal and moral superiority of their cause."
•"The political class has rarely argued the need of a genuine power-sharing solution."
•The Turkish Cypriots have no means of making their case heard in Brussels, the headquarters of the European Union.
•By blockading the north economically, the Greek Cypriots seek to systematically weaken it and eliminate any prospect for power-sharing as proposed by the international community.
- MR-from-NG
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 3440
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:58 pm
by bakala » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:39 pm
Mrfromng
i read the report with interest and it is obvious that the Greek Cypriot puppets have shown thier true colors,
But i do not refer to the true Greek Cypriot people who i know to be a warm and hospitable friendly people
i refer to the power hungry blind men brought up on untrue and biased propogandad.
Mrfromng please forgive those in he south who speak for a cause that has brainwashed them from birth with an altered version of historical fact. and their own reluctance to admit the truth is understandable if you think about it
How would you feel if someone insisted that your forefathers had conspired in a Holocaust designed to wipe out the Turkish Cypriots.
of course you would deny it. you wouldnt want to believe its true , you would consider any alternative because its too unbelieveable, You would clutch at anything to divert attention from the real cause of the troubles even stressing at all times that the people who rescued and prevented the holocaust reaching its final conclusion were agressive invaders
its funny though how always the truth eventualy comes out
i read the report with interest and it is obvious that the Greek Cypriot puppets have shown thier true colors,
But i do not refer to the true Greek Cypriot people who i know to be a warm and hospitable friendly people
i refer to the power hungry blind men brought up on untrue and biased propogandad.
Mrfromng please forgive those in he south who speak for a cause that has brainwashed them from birth with an altered version of historical fact. and their own reluctance to admit the truth is understandable if you think about it
How would you feel if someone insisted that your forefathers had conspired in a Holocaust designed to wipe out the Turkish Cypriots.
of course you would deny it. you wouldnt want to believe its true , you would consider any alternative because its too unbelieveable, You would clutch at anything to divert attention from the real cause of the troubles even stressing at all times that the people who rescued and prevented the holocaust reaching its final conclusion were agressive invaders
its funny though how always the truth eventualy comes out
-
bakala - Contributor
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:19 pm
- Location: uk
by growuptcs » Mon Mar 13, 2006 7:51 pm
All the ICG group is, is a few people with a hell of a lot of money. Donate right , and they'll say the sun will fall 10 years from now, if thats what your looking from them. Till now Turkey keeps turning to the rich groups or countries pampering them with money or potential money to be made in the future. While Turks read this bullshit and go on it, now you know why their so gullible. I'm not surprised that they never got the POPE to agree to fling propaganda, because we know that will never happen.
Turkey, stop trying to grease everyone and just face the truth, you cant keep our properites, so stop filling TC's heads that the TRNC will be valid.
Turkey, stop trying to grease everyone and just face the truth, you cant keep our properites, so stop filling TC's heads that the TRNC will be valid.
- growuptcs
- Regular Contributor
- Posts: 1088
- Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 6:40 pm
by Alexis » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:35 pm
Mrfromng please forgive those in he south who speak for a cause that has brainwashed them from birth with an altered version of historical fact. and their own reluctance to admit the truth is understandable if you think about it
How would you feel if someone insisted that your forefathers had conspired in a Holocaust designed to wipe out the Turkish Cypriots.
of course you would deny it. you wouldnt want to believe its true , you would consider any alternative because its too unbelieveable, You would clutch at anything to divert attention from the real cause of the troubles even stressing at all times that the people who rescued and prevented the holocaust reaching its final conclusion were agressive invaders
its funny though how always the truth eventualy comes out
I'm sorry, but to claim this you must come up with some evidence.
To you events in 1963-1974 might seem like a holocaust, but there is no evidence to back this up. The world historian will describe this period of Cyprus History as an inter-communal conflict. what does this tell you?
The same historian will also make it clear that the Turkish Cypriot side came out much worse. In my opinion, this is what GCs should realise, that as a numerical minority TCs were always going to feel threatened and we should have done all that was possible to allay their fears. The allegation that GCs as a community had a plan to eliminate TCs from the island is a very serious one which needs to be backed up with serious evidence. The GCs had 14 years to eliminate the TCs, yet this never happened. TCs lived in enclaves, sure and I won't deny this, but as many historians will tell you this was not purely the result of EOKA violence and intimidation, it was also the plan of the TC administration that TCs should consolidate their resources in certain areas to push for partition, and this theory is backed up by the fact that GCs as well as TCs were displaced in 1964. What you need to prove is that there were serious plans in place to implement a holocaust. Simply quoting Samson won't do here either. even now I'm sure we could find extremists from either side who would advocate the elimination of the other side through violent means.
You have to prove that the GC administration's goal was to annihilate the TCs. So to conclude, bear in mind that you are free to make such an allegation but that the onus is on you to prove to the world that this was indeed the case.
PS: I have not written this post to play down the violence perpetrated against TCs in the period 1963-1974. I am simply responding to the opinion that the GC administration's aim at this time was 'to wipe out the TCs'. I do not believe this to be true. I view the violence in Cyprus in the 1960s to be more akin to that in Northern Ireland in which violence was perpetrated by both sides resulting in much suffering particularly to the TC side which was numerically smaller and therefore at a disadvantage. I also acknowledge that the numerically superior side should have been the one to take the initiative to allay the fears of the numerically inferior side and regret that we did not do this. Having said this, I also believe the TC side should have made more attempts to clarify that their aim was not partition of the island instead of using their numerical inferiority to push for partition against the wishes of the majority.
- Alexis
- Contributor
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
- Location: UK
by MR-from-NG » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:51 pm
Alexis, what are you talking about? Why the hell would I need historians to tell mewhat happened back in the days the Greeks tried to eliminate the TC's. Are you serious? I am not some teenager mate, I am 53 years old, I remember the attacks on villages and the slaughter of man, women and children, innocent unarmed people.
Please don't insult the intelligence of fellow members and visitors to the forum.
EVIDENCE ISTERMIS, YEDIGI BOKA BAK.
Please don't insult the intelligence of fellow members and visitors to the forum.
EVIDENCE ISTERMIS, YEDIGI BOKA BAK.
- MR-from-NG
- Main Contributor
- Posts: 3440
- Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:58 pm
by bakala » Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:54 pm
Alexis
at last a voice of Reason and intelligence
if we dont agree on some items at least you are a person who can sensibly debate a very important part of the history of these troubled people
with more people like you alexis there is hope for both sides
i will be back to post the evidence i have gatherd from different official sources so we can debate the truth. if the facts that i base my opinion on are proven to be lies then of course i will admit that my previous opinion was wrong
i hope that if we all follow the truth no matter how unpleasant that truth is that a solution is there to be found
I was only 26 years old and living in England when the events of 1974 unfolded
the first hand accounts of those days i have are from a relative who served in Cyprus in the British armed forces from 1968 to 1974 and the people i have talked to while on holiday north and south of the border. my other information from internet resourses
keep looking i will be back
at last a voice of Reason and intelligence
if we dont agree on some items at least you are a person who can sensibly debate a very important part of the history of these troubled people
with more people like you alexis there is hope for both sides
i will be back to post the evidence i have gatherd from different official sources so we can debate the truth. if the facts that i base my opinion on are proven to be lies then of course i will admit that my previous opinion was wrong
i hope that if we all follow the truth no matter how unpleasant that truth is that a solution is there to be found
I was only 26 years old and living in England when the events of 1974 unfolded
the first hand accounts of those days i have are from a relative who served in Cyprus in the British armed forces from 1968 to 1974 and the people i have talked to while on holiday north and south of the border. my other information from internet resourses
keep looking i will be back
-
bakala - Contributor
- Posts: 319
- Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 1:19 pm
- Location: uk
by Alexis » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:13 pm
I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. My main point is simply that allegations of holocaust are very serious indeed and should be backed up by evidence that shows that this was the administration's intention.
I do not accuse the Turkish Army of perpetrating a holocaust in 1974, and neither do I insist that any GC deaths in the 1960s were part of a TC lead plan to eliminate GCs from a part of the island to facilitate partition, yet I could quite easily take that stance and it would be based on similar facts to which you base your allegations.
I respect your age, and acknowledge that I was not even born in the sixties but my parents were in their early twenties at the time and my father fought against turkish militants backed by the THK (Turkish Airforce) in 1963 and he too has seen the kind of events you describe. This is a part of our history I did not fully understand until I was in my late teens, and I was shocked to discover the extent of the brutality of that era. Accusing the entire GC community of conspiring to eliminate the TCs is not fair in my opinion. Even if the allegation only includes the Makarios administration and does not hold the GC community complicit, I still have yet to see definitive evidence that it was their intention to eliminate TCs from the island.
I do not accuse the Turkish Army of perpetrating a holocaust in 1974, and neither do I insist that any GC deaths in the 1960s were part of a TC lead plan to eliminate GCs from a part of the island to facilitate partition, yet I could quite easily take that stance and it would be based on similar facts to which you base your allegations.
I respect your age, and acknowledge that I was not even born in the sixties but my parents were in their early twenties at the time and my father fought against turkish militants backed by the THK (Turkish Airforce) in 1963 and he too has seen the kind of events you describe. This is a part of our history I did not fully understand until I was in my late teens, and I was shocked to discover the extent of the brutality of that era. Accusing the entire GC community of conspiring to eliminate the TCs is not fair in my opinion. Even if the allegation only includes the Makarios administration and does not hold the GC community complicit, I still have yet to see definitive evidence that it was their intention to eliminate TCs from the island.
- Alexis
- Contributor
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
- Location: UK
by Alexis » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:40 pm
i will be back to post the evidence i have gatherd from different official sources so we can debate the truth. if the facts that i base my opinion on are proven to be lies then of course i will admit that my previous opinion was wrong
i hope that if we all follow the truth no matter how unpleasant that truth is that a solution is there to be found
Hi bakala,
Of course, if evidence does exist that the GC administration did intend to eliminate TCs that this should be investigated properly. However, even if an administration is found to have had that intention it is still harsh to tarnish the entire community for the crimes of a few people. I too agree that we should search for the truth, but I also believe in the case of Cyprus that the story is more complex than the two sides try to make out and that the only way to reconciliation is to understand the realities from the other sides' vantage point. On this forum, and in Cyprus you will hear many stories that usually only highlight one community's version of events. I believe that if you attempt to take a look at the Cyprus problem from an external vantage point you will start to undertand it all the better.
- Alexis
- Contributor
- Posts: 405
- Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:36 pm
- Location: UK
by rawk » Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:56 pm
Hi Alexis
There was a plan of elimination, exposed by a GC "Patris" newspaper in 1966, it was named the Akritas Plan drafted by Polycarpos Georgadjis (alternative spelling Yorgadjis), the Interior Minister of the time.
There are quite a few links to this the Akritas Plan on the net. Some give quite graphic detail as to the finer details, such as a curfew on Greek Cypriot women and children to being confined indoors whilst their menfolk were to be dragooned by EOKA into murder squads.
Makarios and his team drew up the document, which was signed ''The Chief, Akritas'' and distributed it amongst the ranks of EOKA as a top secret circular several months prior to December 1963 when the Greek and Greek Cypriot forces launched an all out attack on the Turkish Cypriot population.
The organisation was to be led by the Interior Minister, the chief of EOKA, Policarpos Yorgadjis, whose code name was AKRITAS. The Minister of Labor Thassos Papadopoulos was appointed deputy chief. The leader of the House of Representatives Glafcos Clerides was given the position of Chief of Operations, his code name was Hiperides.
rawk
Here's the main text: -
The Akritas Plan - Top Secret Headquarters
Recent public statements by Archbishop Makarios have shown the course which our national problem will take in near future. As we have stressed in the past, national struggles cannot be concluded overnight; nor is it possible to fix definite chronological limits for the conclusion of the various stages of development in national causes. Our national problem must be viewed in the light of developments which take place and conditions that arise from time to time, and measures to be taken, as well as their implementation and timing, must be in keeping with the internal and external political conditions.
The whole process is difficult and must go through various stages because factors which will affect the final conclusion are numerous and different. It is sufficient for everyone to know, however, that every step taken constitutes the result of a study and that at the same time it forms the basis of future measures. Also, it is sufficient to know that every measure now contemplated is a first step and only constitutes a stage towards the final and unalterable national objective which is the full and unconditional application of the right of self-determination. As the final objective remains unchanged, what must be dwelt upon is the method to be employed towards attaining that objective. This must, of necessity, be divided into internal and external (international) tactics because the methods of the presentation and handling of our cause within and outside the country are different.
A. Method to be used Outside
In the closing stages of the (EOKA) struggle, the Cyprus problem had been presented to the world public opinion and to diplomatic circles as a demand of the people of Cyprus to exercise the right of self-determination. But the question of Turkish minority had been introduced in circumstances that are known, inter-communal clashes had taken place and it had been tried to make it accepted that it was impossible for the two communities to live together under a united administration. Finally the problem was solved, in the eyes of many international circles, by the London and Zurich Agreements, which were shown as solving the problem following negotiations and agreements between the contending parties.
(a) Consequently our first aim has been to create the impression in the international field that the Cyprus problem has not been solved and that it has to be reviewed.
(b) The creation of the following impressions has been accepted as the primary objective:
(i) that the solution which has been found is not satisfactory and just
(ii) that the agreement which has been reached is not the result of the free will of the contending parties.
(iii) that the demand for the revision for the agreements is not because of any desire on the part of the Greeks to dishonour their signature, but an imperative necessity of survival of them.
(iv) that the co-existence of the two communities is possible, and
(v) that the Greek majority, and not the Turks, constitute the strong elements on which foreigners must rely.
(c) Although it was most difficult to attain the above objectives, satisfactory results have been achieved. Many diplomatic missions have already come to believe strongly that the Agreements are neither just nor satisfactory, that they were signed as a result of pressures and intimidations without real negotiations, and that they were imposed after many threats. It has been an important trump in our hands that the solution brought by the Agreements was not submitted to the approval of the people; acting wisely in this respect, our leadership avoided holding a referendum. Otherwise, the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959. Generally speaking, it has been shown that so far the administration of Cyprus has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks played only a negative part acting as a brake.
(d) Having completed the first stage of our activities and objectives we must materialise the second stage on an international level. Our objective in this second stage is to show:
(i) that the aim of the Greeks is not to oppress the Turks but only to remove unreasonable and unjust provisions of the administrative mechanism;
(ii) that it is necessary to remove these provisions right away because tomorrow may be too late;
(iii) Omitted
(iv) that this question of revision is a domestic issue for Cypriots and does not therefore give the right of intervention to anyone by force or otherwise;
(v) that the proposed amendments are reasonable and just and safeguard the reasonable rights of the minority.
(e) Generally speaking, it is obvious that today the international opinion is against any form of oppression, and especially against oppression of minorities. The Turks have so far been able to convince world public opinion that the union of Cyprus with Greece will amount to their enslavement. Under these circumstances we stand a good chance of success in influencing world public opinion if we base our struggle not on ENOSIS but on self- determination. But in order to be able to exercise the right of self-determination fully and without hindrance, we must first get rid of the Agreements (e.g. the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance etc) and of those provisions in the Constitution which will inhibit the free and unbridled expression of the will of people and which they carry dangers of external intervention. For this reason, our first target has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which is the first Agreement to be cited as not being recognised by the Greek Cypriots. When the Treaty of Guarantee is removed no legal or moral force will remain to obstruct us in determining our future through a plebiscite. It will be understood from the above explanations that it is necessary to follow a chain of efforts and developments in order to ensure the success of our Plan. If these efforts and developments failed to materialise, our future actions would be legally unjustified and politically unattainable and we would be exposing Cyprus and its people to grave consequences.
Actions to be taken are as follows:
(a) The amendment of the negative elements of the Agreements and the consequent de facto nullification of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is essential because the necessity of amending the negative aspects of any Agreement is generally acceptable internationally and is considered reasonable (passage omitted) whereas an external intervention to prevent the amendment of such negative provisions is held unjustified and inapplicable.
(b) Once this is achieved the Treaty of Guarantee (the right of intervention) will become legally and substantially inapplicable.
(c) Once those provisions of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance which restrict the exercise of the right of self-determination are removed, the people of Cyprus will be able, freely, to express and apply its will.
(d) It will be possible for the Force of the State (the Police Force) and in addition, friendly military Forces, to resist legitimately any intervention internally or from outside, because we will then be completely independent. It will be seen that it is necessary for actions from (a) to (d) to be carried out in the order indicated. It is consequently evident that if we ever hope to have any chance of success in the international field, we cannot and should not reveal or proclaim any stage of the struggle before the previous stage is completed. For instance, it is accepted that the above four stages constitute the necessary course to be taken, then it is obvious that it would be senseless for us to speak of amendment (a) if stage (d) is revealed, because it would then be ridiculous for us to seek the amendment of the negative points with the excuse that these amendments are necessary for the functioning of the State and of the Agreements. The above are the points regarding our targets and aims, and the procedure to be followed in the international field.
The Internal Aspect
Our activities in the internal field will be regulated according to their repercussions and to interpretations to be given to them in the world and according to the effect of our actions on our national cause.
1. The only danger that can be described as insurmountable is the possibility of a forceful intervention. This danger, which could be met partly or wholly by our forces is important because of the political damage that it could do rather than the material losses that it could entail. If intervention took place before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally tenable at least, if not entirely justifiable. This would be very much against us both internationally and at the United Nations. The history of many similar incidents in recent times shows us that in no case of intervention, even if legally excusable, has the attacker been removed by either the United Nations or the other powers without significant concessions to the detriment of the attacked party. Even in the case of the attack on Suez Canal by Israel, which was condemned by almost all members of the United Nations and for which Russia threatened intervention, the Israelis were removed but, as a concession, they continued to keep the port of Eliat in the Red Sea. There are, however, more serious dangers in the case of Cyprus. If we do our work well and justify the attempt we shall make under stage (a) above, we will see, on the one hand, that intervention will not be justified and, on the other hand, we will have every support since, by the Treaty of Guarantee, intervention cannot take place before negotiations take place between the Guarantor Powers, that is, Britain, Greece, and Turkey. It is at this stage, i.e. at the stage of contacts (before intervention) that we shall need international support. We shall obtain this support if the amendments proposed by us seem reasonable and justified. Therefore, we have to be extremely careful in selecting the amendments that we shall propose. The first step, therefore, would be to get rid of intervention by proposing amendments in the first stage. Tactic to be followed: (Omitted)
2. It is evident that for intervention to be justified there must be a more serious reason and a more immediate danger than simple Constitutional amendments. Such reasons can be: (a) The declaration of ENOSIS before actions (a) to (c) (b) Serious inter-communal unrest which may be shown as a massacre of Turks. The first reason is removed as a result of the Plan drawn up for the first stage and consequently what remains, is the danger of inter-communal strife. We do not intend to engage, without provocation, in massacre or attack against the Turks. Therefore, (section omitted) the Turks can react strongly and incite incidents and strife, or falsely stage massacres, clashes or bomb explosions in order to create the impression that the Greeks attacked the Turks and that intervention is imperative for their protection. Tactic to be employed: Our actions for amending the Constitution will not be secret; we would always appear to be ready for peaceful talks and our actions would not take any provocative and violent form. Any incidents that may take place will be met, at the beginning, in a legal fashion by the legal Security Forces, according to a plan. Our actions will have a legal form.
3. (Omitted)
4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is impossible for us to proceed to substantial actions for amending the Constitution, as a first step towards our more general Plan as described above, without expecting the Turks to create or stage incidents and clashes. For this reason, the existence and the strengthening of our Organisation is imperative because:
(a) if, in case of spontaneous resistance by the Turks, our counter attack is not immediate, we run the risk of having a panic created among the Greeks, in towns particular. We will then be in danger of losing vast areas of vital importance to the Turks, while if we show our strength to the Turks immediately and forcefully, then they will probably be brought to their senses and restrict their activities to insignificant, isolated incidents.
(b) In case of a planned or unplanned attack by the Turks, whether this be staged or not it is necessary to suppress this forcefully in the shortest possible time, since, if we manage to become masters of the situation within a day or two, outside intervention would not be possible, probable or justifiable.
(c) The forceful and decisive suppressing of any Turkish effort will greatly facilitate our subsequent actions for further Constitutional amendments, and it should then be possible to apply these without the Turks being able to show any reaction. Because they will learn that it is impossible for them to show any reaction without serious consequences for their Community.
(d) In case of the clashes becoming widespread, we must be ready to proceed immediately through actions (a) to (d), including the immediate declaration of ENOSIS, because, then, there will be no need to wait or to engage in diplomatic activity.
5. In all these stages we must not overlook the factor of enlightening, and of facing the propaganda of those who do not know or cannot be expected to know our plans, as well as of the reactionary elements. It has been shown that our struggle must go through at least four stages and that we are obliged not to reveal our plans and intentions prematurely. It is therefore more than a national duty for everyone to observe full secrecy in the matter. Secrecy is vitally essential for our success and survival. This, however, does not prevent the reactionaries and irresponsible demagogues from indulging in false patriotic manifestations and provocations. Our Plan would provide them with the possibility of putting forward accusations to the effect that the aims of our leadership are not national and that only the amendment of the Constitution is envisaged. The need for carrying out Constitutional amendments in stages and in accordance with the prevailing conditions, makes our job even more difficult. All this must no however, be allowed to drag us to irresponsible demagogy, street politics and a race of nationalism. Our deeds will be our undeniable justification. In any case owing to the fact that, for well-known reasons, the above Plan must have been carried out and borne fruit long before the next elections, we must distinguish ourselves with self-restraint and moderation in the short time that we have. Parallel with this, we should not only maintain but reinforce the present unity and discipline of our patriotic forces. We can succeed in this only by properly enlightening our members so that they in turn enlighten the public. Before anything else we must expose the true identity of the reactionaries. These are petty and irresponsible demagogues and opportunists. Their recent history shows this. They are unsuccessful, negative and anti-progressive elements who attack our leadership like mad dogs but who are unable to put forward any substantive and practical solution of their own. In order to succeed in all our activities we need a strong and stable government, up to the last minute. They are known as clamorous slogan-creators who are good for nothing but speech-making. When it comes to taking definite actions or making sacrifices they are soon shown to be unwilling weaklings. A typical example of this is that even at the present stage they have no better proposal to make than to suggest that we should have recourse to the United Nations. It is therefore necessary that they should be isolated and kept at a distance. We must enlighten our members about our plans and objectives ONLY VERBALLY.
Meetings must be held at the sub-headquarters of the Organisation to enlighten leaders and members so that they are properly equipped to enlighten others. NO WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF ANY SORT IS ALLOWED.
LOSS OR LEAKAGE OF ANY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE IS EQUIVALENT TO HIGH TREASON. There can be no action that would inflict a heavier blow to our struggle than any revealing of the contents of the present document or the publication of this by the opposition. Outside the verbal enlightenment of our members, all our activities, and our publications in the press in particular, must be most restrained and must not divulge any of the above. Only responsible persons will be allowed to make public speeches and statements and will refer to this Plan only generally under their personal responsibility and under the personal responsibility of the Chief of sub-headquarters concerned. Also, any reference to the written Plan should be done only after the formal approval of the Chief of the sub-headquarters who will control the speech or statement. But in any case such speech or statement MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION.
The tactic to be followed: Great effort must be made to enlighten our members and the public VERBALLY. Every effort must be made to show ourselves as moderates. Any reference to our plans in writing, or any reference in the press or in any document is strictly prohibited. Responsible officials and other responsible persons will continue to enlighten the public and to increase its morale and fighting spirit without ever divulging any of our plans through the press or otherwise.
Note: The present document should be destroyed by burning under the personal responsibilities of the Chief of the sub-headquarters and in the presence of all members of the staff within 10 days of its being received. It is strictly prohibited to make copies of the whole or any part of this document. Staff members of sub-headquarters may have it in their possession only under the personal responsibility of the Chief of sub-headquarters, but in no case is anyone allowed to take it out of the office of sub-headquarters.
The Chief AKRITAS
There was a plan of elimination, exposed by a GC "Patris" newspaper in 1966, it was named the Akritas Plan drafted by Polycarpos Georgadjis (alternative spelling Yorgadjis), the Interior Minister of the time.
There are quite a few links to this the Akritas Plan on the net. Some give quite graphic detail as to the finer details, such as a curfew on Greek Cypriot women and children to being confined indoors whilst their menfolk were to be dragooned by EOKA into murder squads.
Makarios and his team drew up the document, which was signed ''The Chief, Akritas'' and distributed it amongst the ranks of EOKA as a top secret circular several months prior to December 1963 when the Greek and Greek Cypriot forces launched an all out attack on the Turkish Cypriot population.
The organisation was to be led by the Interior Minister, the chief of EOKA, Policarpos Yorgadjis, whose code name was AKRITAS. The Minister of Labor Thassos Papadopoulos was appointed deputy chief. The leader of the House of Representatives Glafcos Clerides was given the position of Chief of Operations, his code name was Hiperides.
rawk
Here's the main text: -
The Akritas Plan - Top Secret Headquarters
Recent public statements by Archbishop Makarios have shown the course which our national problem will take in near future. As we have stressed in the past, national struggles cannot be concluded overnight; nor is it possible to fix definite chronological limits for the conclusion of the various stages of development in national causes. Our national problem must be viewed in the light of developments which take place and conditions that arise from time to time, and measures to be taken, as well as their implementation and timing, must be in keeping with the internal and external political conditions.
The whole process is difficult and must go through various stages because factors which will affect the final conclusion are numerous and different. It is sufficient for everyone to know, however, that every step taken constitutes the result of a study and that at the same time it forms the basis of future measures. Also, it is sufficient to know that every measure now contemplated is a first step and only constitutes a stage towards the final and unalterable national objective which is the full and unconditional application of the right of self-determination. As the final objective remains unchanged, what must be dwelt upon is the method to be employed towards attaining that objective. This must, of necessity, be divided into internal and external (international) tactics because the methods of the presentation and handling of our cause within and outside the country are different.
A. Method to be used Outside
In the closing stages of the (EOKA) struggle, the Cyprus problem had been presented to the world public opinion and to diplomatic circles as a demand of the people of Cyprus to exercise the right of self-determination. But the question of Turkish minority had been introduced in circumstances that are known, inter-communal clashes had taken place and it had been tried to make it accepted that it was impossible for the two communities to live together under a united administration. Finally the problem was solved, in the eyes of many international circles, by the London and Zurich Agreements, which were shown as solving the problem following negotiations and agreements between the contending parties.
(a) Consequently our first aim has been to create the impression in the international field that the Cyprus problem has not been solved and that it has to be reviewed.
(b) The creation of the following impressions has been accepted as the primary objective:
(i) that the solution which has been found is not satisfactory and just
(ii) that the agreement which has been reached is not the result of the free will of the contending parties.
(iii) that the demand for the revision for the agreements is not because of any desire on the part of the Greeks to dishonour their signature, but an imperative necessity of survival of them.
(iv) that the co-existence of the two communities is possible, and
(v) that the Greek majority, and not the Turks, constitute the strong elements on which foreigners must rely.
(c) Although it was most difficult to attain the above objectives, satisfactory results have been achieved. Many diplomatic missions have already come to believe strongly that the Agreements are neither just nor satisfactory, that they were signed as a result of pressures and intimidations without real negotiations, and that they were imposed after many threats. It has been an important trump in our hands that the solution brought by the Agreements was not submitted to the approval of the people; acting wisely in this respect, our leadership avoided holding a referendum. Otherwise, the people would have definitely approved the Agreements in the atmosphere that prevailed in 1959. Generally speaking, it has been shown that so far the administration of Cyprus has been carried out by the Greeks and that the Turks played only a negative part acting as a brake.
(d) Having completed the first stage of our activities and objectives we must materialise the second stage on an international level. Our objective in this second stage is to show:
(i) that the aim of the Greeks is not to oppress the Turks but only to remove unreasonable and unjust provisions of the administrative mechanism;
(ii) that it is necessary to remove these provisions right away because tomorrow may be too late;
(iii) Omitted
(iv) that this question of revision is a domestic issue for Cypriots and does not therefore give the right of intervention to anyone by force or otherwise;
(v) that the proposed amendments are reasonable and just and safeguard the reasonable rights of the minority.
(e) Generally speaking, it is obvious that today the international opinion is against any form of oppression, and especially against oppression of minorities. The Turks have so far been able to convince world public opinion that the union of Cyprus with Greece will amount to their enslavement. Under these circumstances we stand a good chance of success in influencing world public opinion if we base our struggle not on ENOSIS but on self- determination. But in order to be able to exercise the right of self-determination fully and without hindrance, we must first get rid of the Agreements (e.g. the Treaty of Guarantee, the Treaty of Alliance etc) and of those provisions in the Constitution which will inhibit the free and unbridled expression of the will of people and which they carry dangers of external intervention. For this reason, our first target has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which is the first Agreement to be cited as not being recognised by the Greek Cypriots. When the Treaty of Guarantee is removed no legal or moral force will remain to obstruct us in determining our future through a plebiscite. It will be understood from the above explanations that it is necessary to follow a chain of efforts and developments in order to ensure the success of our Plan. If these efforts and developments failed to materialise, our future actions would be legally unjustified and politically unattainable and we would be exposing Cyprus and its people to grave consequences.
Actions to be taken are as follows:
(a) The amendment of the negative elements of the Agreements and the consequent de facto nullification of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance. This step is essential because the necessity of amending the negative aspects of any Agreement is generally acceptable internationally and is considered reasonable (passage omitted) whereas an external intervention to prevent the amendment of such negative provisions is held unjustified and inapplicable.
(b) Once this is achieved the Treaty of Guarantee (the right of intervention) will become legally and substantially inapplicable.
(c) Once those provisions of the Treaties of Guarantee and Alliance which restrict the exercise of the right of self-determination are removed, the people of Cyprus will be able, freely, to express and apply its will.
(d) It will be possible for the Force of the State (the Police Force) and in addition, friendly military Forces, to resist legitimately any intervention internally or from outside, because we will then be completely independent. It will be seen that it is necessary for actions from (a) to (d) to be carried out in the order indicated. It is consequently evident that if we ever hope to have any chance of success in the international field, we cannot and should not reveal or proclaim any stage of the struggle before the previous stage is completed. For instance, it is accepted that the above four stages constitute the necessary course to be taken, then it is obvious that it would be senseless for us to speak of amendment (a) if stage (d) is revealed, because it would then be ridiculous for us to seek the amendment of the negative points with the excuse that these amendments are necessary for the functioning of the State and of the Agreements. The above are the points regarding our targets and aims, and the procedure to be followed in the international field.
The Internal Aspect
Our activities in the internal field will be regulated according to their repercussions and to interpretations to be given to them in the world and according to the effect of our actions on our national cause.
1. The only danger that can be described as insurmountable is the possibility of a forceful intervention. This danger, which could be met partly or wholly by our forces is important because of the political damage that it could do rather than the material losses that it could entail. If intervention took place before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally tenable at least, if not entirely justifiable. This would be very much against us both internationally and at the United Nations. The history of many similar incidents in recent times shows us that in no case of intervention, even if legally excusable, has the attacker been removed by either the United Nations or the other powers without significant concessions to the detriment of the attacked party. Even in the case of the attack on Suez Canal by Israel, which was condemned by almost all members of the United Nations and for which Russia threatened intervention, the Israelis were removed but, as a concession, they continued to keep the port of Eliat in the Red Sea. There are, however, more serious dangers in the case of Cyprus. If we do our work well and justify the attempt we shall make under stage (a) above, we will see, on the one hand, that intervention will not be justified and, on the other hand, we will have every support since, by the Treaty of Guarantee, intervention cannot take place before negotiations take place between the Guarantor Powers, that is, Britain, Greece, and Turkey. It is at this stage, i.e. at the stage of contacts (before intervention) that we shall need international support. We shall obtain this support if the amendments proposed by us seem reasonable and justified. Therefore, we have to be extremely careful in selecting the amendments that we shall propose. The first step, therefore, would be to get rid of intervention by proposing amendments in the first stage. Tactic to be followed: (Omitted)
2. It is evident that for intervention to be justified there must be a more serious reason and a more immediate danger than simple Constitutional amendments. Such reasons can be: (a) The declaration of ENOSIS before actions (a) to (c) (b) Serious inter-communal unrest which may be shown as a massacre of Turks. The first reason is removed as a result of the Plan drawn up for the first stage and consequently what remains, is the danger of inter-communal strife. We do not intend to engage, without provocation, in massacre or attack against the Turks. Therefore, (section omitted) the Turks can react strongly and incite incidents and strife, or falsely stage massacres, clashes or bomb explosions in order to create the impression that the Greeks attacked the Turks and that intervention is imperative for their protection. Tactic to be employed: Our actions for amending the Constitution will not be secret; we would always appear to be ready for peaceful talks and our actions would not take any provocative and violent form. Any incidents that may take place will be met, at the beginning, in a legal fashion by the legal Security Forces, according to a plan. Our actions will have a legal form.
3. (Omitted)
4. It is, however, naive to believe that it is impossible for us to proceed to substantial actions for amending the Constitution, as a first step towards our more general Plan as described above, without expecting the Turks to create or stage incidents and clashes. For this reason, the existence and the strengthening of our Organisation is imperative because:
(a) if, in case of spontaneous resistance by the Turks, our counter attack is not immediate, we run the risk of having a panic created among the Greeks, in towns particular. We will then be in danger of losing vast areas of vital importance to the Turks, while if we show our strength to the Turks immediately and forcefully, then they will probably be brought to their senses and restrict their activities to insignificant, isolated incidents.
(b) In case of a planned or unplanned attack by the Turks, whether this be staged or not it is necessary to suppress this forcefully in the shortest possible time, since, if we manage to become masters of the situation within a day or two, outside intervention would not be possible, probable or justifiable.
(c) The forceful and decisive suppressing of any Turkish effort will greatly facilitate our subsequent actions for further Constitutional amendments, and it should then be possible to apply these without the Turks being able to show any reaction. Because they will learn that it is impossible for them to show any reaction without serious consequences for their Community.
(d) In case of the clashes becoming widespread, we must be ready to proceed immediately through actions (a) to (d), including the immediate declaration of ENOSIS, because, then, there will be no need to wait or to engage in diplomatic activity.
5. In all these stages we must not overlook the factor of enlightening, and of facing the propaganda of those who do not know or cannot be expected to know our plans, as well as of the reactionary elements. It has been shown that our struggle must go through at least four stages and that we are obliged not to reveal our plans and intentions prematurely. It is therefore more than a national duty for everyone to observe full secrecy in the matter. Secrecy is vitally essential for our success and survival. This, however, does not prevent the reactionaries and irresponsible demagogues from indulging in false patriotic manifestations and provocations. Our Plan would provide them with the possibility of putting forward accusations to the effect that the aims of our leadership are not national and that only the amendment of the Constitution is envisaged. The need for carrying out Constitutional amendments in stages and in accordance with the prevailing conditions, makes our job even more difficult. All this must no however, be allowed to drag us to irresponsible demagogy, street politics and a race of nationalism. Our deeds will be our undeniable justification. In any case owing to the fact that, for well-known reasons, the above Plan must have been carried out and borne fruit long before the next elections, we must distinguish ourselves with self-restraint and moderation in the short time that we have. Parallel with this, we should not only maintain but reinforce the present unity and discipline of our patriotic forces. We can succeed in this only by properly enlightening our members so that they in turn enlighten the public. Before anything else we must expose the true identity of the reactionaries. These are petty and irresponsible demagogues and opportunists. Their recent history shows this. They are unsuccessful, negative and anti-progressive elements who attack our leadership like mad dogs but who are unable to put forward any substantive and practical solution of their own. In order to succeed in all our activities we need a strong and stable government, up to the last minute. They are known as clamorous slogan-creators who are good for nothing but speech-making. When it comes to taking definite actions or making sacrifices they are soon shown to be unwilling weaklings. A typical example of this is that even at the present stage they have no better proposal to make than to suggest that we should have recourse to the United Nations. It is therefore necessary that they should be isolated and kept at a distance. We must enlighten our members about our plans and objectives ONLY VERBALLY.
Meetings must be held at the sub-headquarters of the Organisation to enlighten leaders and members so that they are properly equipped to enlighten others. NO WRITTEN EXPLANATION OF ANY SORT IS ALLOWED.
LOSS OR LEAKAGE OF ANY DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO THE ABOVE IS EQUIVALENT TO HIGH TREASON. There can be no action that would inflict a heavier blow to our struggle than any revealing of the contents of the present document or the publication of this by the opposition. Outside the verbal enlightenment of our members, all our activities, and our publications in the press in particular, must be most restrained and must not divulge any of the above. Only responsible persons will be allowed to make public speeches and statements and will refer to this Plan only generally under their personal responsibility and under the personal responsibility of the Chief of sub-headquarters concerned. Also, any reference to the written Plan should be done only after the formal approval of the Chief of the sub-headquarters who will control the speech or statement. But in any case such speech or statement MUST NEVER BE ALLOWED TO APPEAR IN THE PRESS OR ANY OTHER PUBLICATION.
The tactic to be followed: Great effort must be made to enlighten our members and the public VERBALLY. Every effort must be made to show ourselves as moderates. Any reference to our plans in writing, or any reference in the press or in any document is strictly prohibited. Responsible officials and other responsible persons will continue to enlighten the public and to increase its morale and fighting spirit without ever divulging any of our plans through the press or otherwise.
Note: The present document should be destroyed by burning under the personal responsibilities of the Chief of the sub-headquarters and in the presence of all members of the staff within 10 days of its being received. It is strictly prohibited to make copies of the whole or any part of this document. Staff members of sub-headquarters may have it in their possession only under the personal responsibility of the Chief of sub-headquarters, but in no case is anyone allowed to take it out of the office of sub-headquarters.
The Chief AKRITAS
Last edited by rawk on Mon Mar 13, 2006 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
rawk - Contributor
- Posts: 648
- Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:03 pm
- Location: Larnaca on Sea, Cyprus
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
© 2002 - 2015 Cyprus-Forum.com
